21 Feb WOMEN AND MISHLO’ACH MANOS

On Purim, we send
gifts of food to friends,
in fulfillment of the verse
“U-mishlo’ach manos
ish le-rei’ehu, and of
sending portions a man
to his fellow” (Esther
9:22). Mishlo’ach
manos is one of the
mitzvos of Purim. We fulfill it by sending two
different food items to one person, although
it is common to send to many more people.
How should families handle this obligation?
Within a married couple, is each spouse
required to give their own separate mishlo’ach
manos? Before we address that question, we
have to ask whether a woman is obligated at
all. Mishlo’ach manos has become a mitzvah
that women in particular embrace, yet there is
a debate whether they are even obligated in it.
I. Positive Time-Bound Mitzvos
Rav Moshe Isserles (Rema, 16th cen.,
Poland; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim
695:4) Mahari Brin who writes that women
are obligated in mishlo’ach manos but does
not explain why. Normally, women are
exempt from time-bound positive mitzvos. I
am not sure who Mahari Brin is. I doubt it is
Rav Yisrael of Bruna (15th cen., Germany)
because I did not find anything resembling
this ruling in the responsa.
Rav Ya’akov de Castro (16th cen., Egypt;

Eirech Lechem, ad loc.) disagrees with Rema,
pointing out that no major halachic authority
prior to Rema followed this practice. Because
he was misquoted by later authorities, I quote
here his precise words: “It does not seem
like that to me from the words of the Talmud
and also none of the famous authorities did

not practice this way (kol ha-posekim ha-
mefursamim gam lo nahagu kein.” Rav

Chizkiyahu de Silva (17th cen., Israel; Pri
Chadash, ad loc.) proves that women are
not obligated in mishlo’ach manos from the
verse itself, which says that a man sends it to
his fellow (“ish le-rei’ehu”). The verse could
have used a term that is gender neutral but
instead says “man” to imply that women are
exempt from this mitzvah.
II. Part of the Miracle
Rav Ya’akov Reischer (18th cen., Germany;
Responsa Shevus Ya’akov 1:41) responds to
these criticisms to defend Rema’s view. He
says that women are obligated in mishloa’ach
manos for the same reason they are obligated
to hear megillah — they were part of the
miraculous salvation (Megillah 4a). Just like
women are obligated in the four cups of the
Pesach seder and Chanukah lights because
they were part of the miracle (Pesachim
108a; Shabbos 22a), so too they are obligated
in reading megillah and performing the other
mitzvos of Purim.
About all of this, the Bible says “the Jews

took on themselves to do” (Esther 9:23, 27).
“The Jews” includes both men and women.
If so, why does the verse specify a man? Rav
Reischer compares it honoring your parents.
The Torah says, “Ish imo ve-aviv tira’u, You
shall fear every man his mother and father”
(Lev. 19:3). The Gemara (Kiddushin 30b)
explains that both a man and a woman are
obligated to honor and fear their parents.
However, the Torah specifies a man because
usually a woman does not always have the
ability do so. Sometimes she does not have the
financial means to honor her parents because
communal funds of the family typically are
under the husband’s control. Here, too, argues
Rav Reischer, a woman is not specified with
regard to mishlo’ach manos because her
husband controls the money but nevertheless,
she is still obligated.
III. Men and Women
Rav Ya’akov Emden (She’eilas Ya’avetz
1:120, 2:68:2) points out that the word ish
does not necessarily exclude women. For
example, regarding the preparation of the

ashes of the red heifer, the Bible says “ve-
asaf ish tahor, and a man that is clean shall

gather [the ashes]” (Num. 19:9). The Gemara
(Yoma 43a) learns from the word ish that
even someone who is not a kohen can gather
the ashes and from the word tahor that even
a woman can do it. Very often we find the
word ish understood as excluding a minor,
i.e. requiring an adult, whether male or
female.
Additionally, the verse says not just that
the Jews accepted Purim on themselves
but also on their descendants (zaram,
literally their seed). This includes all
descendants, male and female. With this,
Rav Reischer and Rav Emden defend
Rema’s ruling that women are obligated
in mishlo’ach manos against the criticisms
of Rav de Castro (Maharikash) and Rav de
Silva (Pri Chadash).
IV. Women’s Ability to Give
Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai (Chida,
18th cen., Israel; Birkei Yosef, Orach
Chaim 695:8) responds on behalf of Rav
Castro and Rav de Silva. When it says that
“the Jews” accepted on themselves the day
of Purim, Chida says that this only refers
to observing the day as a holiday. We can
see this from the fact that the Gemara
had to learn that women are obligated to
hear the megillah from the fact that they
were part of the miracle. Why doesn’t the
Gemara just say that women are part of
“the Jews” who accepted the mitzvah?
When it says that the Torah specifies
a man regarding honoring and fearing
parents because a woman is not always
able to do so, the Gemara is not referring
to control of money. Tosafos (Kiddushin
30b s.v. she-yeish) explain that a woman
lives with her husband and might not be
anywhere near her parents. Tosafos say
that the rule about communal money
being under the husband’s control (as the

default in a marriage unless they arrange to
the contrary) is a rabbinic decree to prevent
marital strife and could not be the reason for a
biblical law. Similar, argues Chida, the usage
of the word ish in the book of Esther could not
have been due to the rabbinic decree unless
you assume that the rabbinic decree predates
Mordechai, which is a big assumption.
However, Rav Moshe Sofer (19th cen.,
Hungary; Responsa Chasam Sofer, Orach
Chaim, no. 196) explains that a husband
is biblically obligated to provide food for
his wife (see Ramban, Ex. 21:9). A woman
may not have food to give away because
she is supported regarding food by her
husband. Therefore, the verse says ish about
mishlo’ach manos. However, really a woman
is obligated in the mitzvah, as explained by
Rav Reischer above.
V. Conclusion
It would seem from the above that
Ashkenazim hold that women are obligated
to give mishloa’ach manos, following the
Rema and all his Ashkenazim defenders.
Likewise, Sephardim hold that women are
exempt from the mitzvah, following the
Sephardic sages Maharikash, Pri Chadash
and Chida. However, the Vilna Gaon (18th
cen., Lithuania; Commentary to Shulchan
Aruch, ad loc.) rules like Pri Chadash that
women are exempt. Rav Ovadiah Yosef (21st
cen., Israel; Chazon Ovadiah, Purim, Dinei
Mishlo’ach Manos, par. 14) rules like Rema
and in a footnote defends at length the view
that women are obligated to give mishloa’ach
manos. Exactly how women should give,
whether giving together with their husband
suffices, requires more discussion that I hope
to address in the near future.