There are two mitzvos d’rabbanan on Chanukah; lighting candles and reciting Hallel. The Gemara in Shabbos 23a says that women are obligated in the mitzvah of lighting candles because af ha’eim hayu b’osah haness – they too were involved in the miracle.
It is implicit from the Rambam, in Hilchos Chanukah 3:14, that women are exempt from the mitzvah of saying Hallel on Chanukah. Many Acharonim were bothered by this ruling. After all as we mentioned the Gemara says that women are obligated in the mitzvah of lighting candles on Chanukah as a result of af ha’eim hayu b’osah haness. Why then should they not be obligated in the mitzvah of reciting Hallel for the same reason?
To make the question stronger, some Acharonim point to Tosfos in Sukkah 38a (d”h Me) that says that women are obligated in the mitzvah of reciting Hallel on Pesach because of the rule of af ha’eim hayu b’osah haness. Why then should they be exempt from the mitzvah of reciting Hallel on Chanukah?
Some Achronim suggest that the hallel that is recited on Chanukah is not said as a result of the miracles that occurred; rather the Rabanan established Chanukah as a Yom Tov, and on Yom Tov we recite hallel. This hallel would fall under the category of a mitzvas assay she hazman grama as it is part of the halachos of Yom Tov of which women are exempt.
However Rashi in Pesachim 119a says that the hallel that we recite on Chanukah is in fact a result of the miracles that were performed to save the binai Yisroel. According to this opinion the question remains that we should apply the rule of af ha’eim hayu b’osah haness.
Tosfos in numerous places inquires why women are not obligated in several different mitzvos as a result of the rule of af ha’eim hayu b’osah haness. In Megillah 4a, for example, Tosfos asks why the Gemara needs to find a drasha to obligate women in eating matzah on Pesach, when they could have been obligated from the rule of af ha’eim hayu b’osah haness? Tosfos in Pesachim (108b) asks why women are exempt from the mitzvah of sukkah when the pasuk in Vayikra 23:43 says that we have the mitzvah of sukkah as a result of the miracle of making sukkos for us in the desert. They should be obligated as a result of the same rule of af ha’eim hayu b’osah haness.
The Sefer Harirai Kedem quotes an amazing explanation from Reb Moshe Soloveitchik zt”l that answers all of these questions, including the original one regarding Hallel on Chanukah. He explains that there is a difference between when the essence of a mitzvah is to publicize the miracle and when the reason why we are obligated in the mitzvah is to remember a miracle. There are only three times when the Gemara says that women are obligated in mitzvos as a result of the rule of af ha’eim hayu b’osah haness: lighting candles on Chanukah, reading the Megillah on Purim, and drinking four cups of wine on Pesach. All three of these mitzvos’ essence is to publicize the miracle associated with that holiday. The mitzvos of sukkah and matzah are all connected to miracles; however, they are merely a remembrance of the miracles. The essence of these mitzvos is not to publicize the miracle (pirsumei nissa). The only time that the rule of af ha’eim hayu b’osah haness can obligate one in a mitzvah is when the essence of the mitzvah is to publicize the miracle. Since the essence of the mitzvos of sukkah and matzah are not pirsumei nissa, the rule of af ha’eim hayu b’osah haness cannot obligate women in those mitzvos.
The mitzvah to recite Hallel that Chazal instituted regarding Chanukah was in fact a direct result of the miracle of Chanukah; however, its essence is not to publicize the miracle but rather to give thanks for the miracle. On the other hand, the mitzvah of lighting candles was instituted in order to publicize the miracle. Therefore we can apply the rule of af ha’eim hayu b’osah haness – thereby obligating women in the mitzvah of lighting candles but not in the mitzvah of saying Hallel on Chanukah.
I was bothered by this answer because the Gemara in Brachos 14a asks whether one can interrupt saying Hallel under certain circumstances. The Gemara says that perhaps since saying Hallel is m’D’Rabanan one can surely interrupt, or perhaps since Hallel has the component of persumai nisa one may not interrupt. Evidently Hallel is to accomplish persumai nisa as well.
I called the michaber, my Rebby Rav Michel Shurkin shlit”a, and he immediately answered me that the Gemara is not referring to the same persumai nisa as is usually intended. He said that the proof is that we do not mention any nais in specific. How can reciting Hallel be persumai nisa when there lacks any mention of any specific nais. Rather, the Gemara is referring to a general praise of Hashem.
I wanted to suggest that perhaps this can be explained in the Gemara’s answer there. The Gemara answers “posek v’ain bekach klum”- interrupt and there is nothing to it. Rabbenu Yona is bothered by the seemingly superfluous wording of the Gemara: “and there is nothing to it.”
Perhaps we can explain that the Gemara is answering that the persumai nisa that is associated with Hallel is not the same as the general persumai nisa.