Af Hen: Inclusion in the Miracle

As a rule, women are exempt from positive time-bound commandments. However, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi states that women are obligated in three specific mitzvot, based on the principle of “Af hen hayu be-oto ha-nes,” “they, indeed/too, were part of that miracle.”

Each of these mitzvot commemorates and publicizes a miracle:

• The four cups of wine at the Pesach seder commemorate the exodus from Egypt.
• Megilla reading on Purim commemorates the defeat of Haman and his genocidal plan.
• The Chanuka candles commemorate the victory over Antiochus, the Seleucid Greeks, and their harsh decrees, and the rededication of Beit Ha-mikdash.

What does it mean to be part of a miracle? Two perspectives emerge from early rabbinic authorities:

I. A Central Part: Rashi in Pesachim ¹ (as well as his grandson, Rashbam²) points to the active role women played in the miraculous redemptions that these mitzvot commemorate:

Rashi cites the central role Esther played in the Purim miracle. He quotes a midrash that credits the “righteous women of that generation” with the redemption from Egypt,³ and, regarding women’s role in the Chanuka miracle, he points us to another of his comments:

Rashi hints at a story, without providing details.

II. Part of the People Tosafot disagree with Rashi’s reading, and offer an alternative explanation:

The word “af” usually means “even” or “too,” which indicates that women are not the primary actors. Rather, women and men all experienced the same miraculous salvation. Tosafot bolster their argument by referring to the Jerusalem Talmud, which focuses on the threat rather than the miracle:

Bar Kappara rules that megilla must be read for women since “they, too, were subject to the uncertainty” of Haman’s threat of annihilation.⁴ He asserts that women were fully part of the miraculous deliverance, with halachic consequences.

The question of the role of women in these miracles is more than a linguistic dispute; it is an attempt to understand why inclusion in these miracles should obligate women in time-bound positive mitzvot from which women would normally be exempt.

Rashi asserts that women’s active role in bringing these specific miracles about leads to an obligation for women to commemorate them, while Tosafot maintains that women’s obligation is to convey gratitude for benefitting from God’s miraculous intervention.

These three mitzvot are not the only commandments to commemorate miracles. On Tosafot’s view that the principle of inclusion does not relate to the specifics the role of women in the Purim, Chanuka, or Pesach narratives, it is unclear why only these mitzvot are singled out.

Can this principle apply to other mitzvot? Let’s turn our attention to different attempts made to define the scope of inclusion in the miracle.

Torah and Rabbinic Level Mitzvot

Tosafot ask why inclusion in the miracle does not obligate women in the mitzva of dwelling in a sukka, which commemorates the miracle of the Exodus:

Tosafot suggest that “inclusion in the miracle” may only obligate women in rabbinic obligations. The three mitzvot that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi lists are widely understood as rabbinic. Since sukka is a Torah commandment, inclusion in the miracle cannot form the basis for obligation.

This claim is complicated by another comment of Tosafot, which seems to suggest that inclusion in the miracle could establish a rabbinic -level obligation for women to fulfill a Torah -level positive time-bound commandment.

Both comments by Tosafot seem to agree that inclusion in the miracle cannot obligate a woman on a Torah level. Why should this be the case? Rav Yosef Engel presents one possible explanation, and sides with the view that inclusion in the miracle can only obligate women in rabbinic-level mitzvot:⁵

When enacting new rabbinic decrees, the sages can decide whom to obligate and whom to exempt, based on rationales such as inclusion in the miracle. But the Torah itself decrees who is and is not obligated in Torah-level mitzvot. Our sages cannot alter the Torah’s legislation by invoking a rationale, like inclusion in the miracle, to create any sort of obligation in a Torah-level mitzva.

Widening the Scope

Even setting aside Torah-level mitzvot, there is room to apply inclusion in the miracle to mitzvot other than the three Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi mentions. Indeed, it is widely accepted that women are obligated in commandments that closely relate to the original three miracles. For example, Tosafot rule that women are obligated to recite hallel on seder night, since “they, too, were part of that miracle.”

Inclusion in the miracle may also obligate women in hallel on Chanuka.⁶ Women are obligated in other mitzvot of Purim, not just megilla, because of inclusion in the miracle as well.⁷ Maharil suggests that women are obligated in ta’anit bechorot, the fast of the firstborn on Pesach eve, in recognition of the salvation during the final plague in Egypt.⁸

Rabbeinu Tam takes the principle of inclusion in the mitzva beyond Chanuka, Pesach, and Purim. He suggests that on Shabbat women are obligated to eat a third meal, and to recite ha-motzi over two loaves of bread, because of women’s inclusion in the miracle of Manna.

Narrowing the Scope

In a move that more precisely defines the scope of inclusion in the miracle, Maharam of Rothenburg rejects Rabbeinu Tam’s suggestions about Shabbat. Recalling the Jerusalem Talmud’s mention of existential uncertainty, Maharam explains that “inclusion in the miracle” only applies to miracles that saved the Jewish People from an imminent threat:

In a parallel effort to define the scope of inclusion in the miracle, Rav Yosef B. Soloveitchik limits it to commandments enacted to “publicize the miracle.”

Rav Soloveitchik distinguishes commandments that include commemoration of a miracle, such as kiddush and matza, from commandments whose very fulfillment involves publicizing the miracle, such as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s three. As proof for this distinction he notes that we recite unique berachot before the fulfillment of mitzvot that publicize a miracle: she-asa nissim for Chanuka candles and megilla reading, and asher ga’alanu over the wine on Pesach.

When a mitzva commemorates a miracle, that commemoration can still be peripheral to its fulfillment, so not everyone included in the miracle is obligated. In contrast, when publicizing a miracle is central to fulfillment of a mitzva, anyone included in the miracle must take part in publicizing it further.

Does “inclusion in the miracle” obligate women in the same way as men?

We can view inclusion in the miracle as a principle that establishes women’s full obligation in these mitzvot, exactly on par with men’s. Alternatively, one could argue that inclusion in the miracle creates a new type of obligation, perhaps lesser than men’s.

This question is important, because discharging another’s obligation depends on having an equivalent or higher level of obligation. If women’s obligations resulting from inclusion in the miracle are lesser than men’s obligations, a woman would be unable to discharge a man’s obligation in this category of mitzvot.

Chavot Yair makes this claim, assuming that violating a straightforward rabbinic prohibition is also a violation of the Torah-level prohibition of straying from the teachings of our sages:⁹

According to Chavot Yair, a woman’s obligation rooted in inclusion in the miracle is lesser than a man’s, and this can explain why women do not discharge men’s obligation in megilla.

Others disagree. Ritva, for example, maintains that women are obligated in the same way as men in both megilla and Chanuka candles, and thus can discharge men’s obligations. (No one can drink the four cups on anyone else’s behalf.)

In general, halachic authorities do not view the principle of inclusion in the miracle as creating different levels of obligation for men and women. Although there are significant opinions that a woman cannot read megilla for men, most of these are based upon other considerations.¹⁰

Jewish tradition is rich in stories of women’s involvement in miraculous redemption. Rashi tells us that the women playing timbrels at the song of the sea came prepared with instruments because they had faith that God would redeem them:

The principle of inclusion in the miracle is an example of how our traditions and history become embedded in Halacha. In this case, Halacha reflects the crucial role of Jewish women through the generations, maintaining faith in times of darkness and striving to lead our people to the light of redemption. Rabbanit Ora Rivka Weingort suggests what this can mean to us spiritually today:¹¹

The consciousness that we all have benefited from miracles, and that faith and action can sometimes help bring them about, shapes our identity as a people.