Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE MITZVOS OF WOMEN

(a) (Mishnah): Any Mitzvah that only applies at certain times...
(b) (Beraisa): The following Mitzvos only apply at certain times: Sukah, Lulav, shofar, Tzitzis and Tefilin.

1. These Mitzvos apply at all times: building a railing around the roof, returning a lost object, sending the mother bird.

(c) Question: The Mishnah's law is not always true!

1. Simchah (on Yom Tov) and assembly (of all people in the Temple to hear the Torah read on Sukos) are Mitzvos that only apply at certain times, and women are obligated!
2. Also - learning Torah, having children, and redemption of a firstborn son are Mitzvos that apply at all times, and women are exempt!

(d) Answer (R. Yochanan): We do not learn from general rules, even when the rule lists exceptions.

1. (Mishnah): Any food may be used for an Eruv (of courtyards) or a partnership (of alleyways) except for water and salt.
2. But also mushrooms cannot be used! This shows that one cannot rely on general rules, even when the rule gives the exceptions.

(a) (Mishnah): Mitzvos that only apply at certain times, women are exempt.
(b) Question: From where do we know this?
(c) Answer: We learn from Tefilin.

1. Just as women are exempt from Tefilin, so the are exempt from all Mitzvos that only apply at certain times
2. We learn Tefilin form the Mitzvah of learning Torah: just as women are exempt from learning Torah, also from Tefilin.
3. Suggestion: We should rather equate Tefilin to Mezuzah!
4. Rejection: Tefilin is written next to learning Torah in the first 2 paragraphs of Shema Yisrael, it is written next to Mezuzah only in the first paragraph.
5. Suggestion: We should equate Mezuzah to learning Torah!
6. Rejection: The Torah says, we should fulfill the Mitzvah of Mezuzah "in order that your days be lengthened" - women also need this!

(d) Question: Sukah is a Mitzvah that only applies at certain times; "the resident" teaches that women are exempt - if not for the verse, they would be obligated!

1. The general rule says that they should be exempt!

(e) Answer #1 (Abaye): If not for the verse, we would have said that they are obligated because it says "You will dwell" - as you live, with your wife.

(f) Answer #2 (Rava): If not for the verse, we would have said that they are obligated because of a Gezeirah Shavah (Chamesh-Esreh-Chamesh-Esreh) from Pesach.

1. Just as women are commanded to eat Matzo on Pesach, they must dwell in Sukos - "the resident" teaches, this is not so.

(g) Question: Re'iyah (the Mitzvah of entering the Mikdash on the festivals and bringing a sacrifice) only applies at certain times; "your males" teaches that women are exempt - if not for the verse, they would be obligated!
(h) Answer: The verse is needed - without a verse, we would have learned a Gezeirah Shavah "Re'iyah-Re'iyah" from assembly.
(i) Question: Why do we learn from Tefilin that women are exempt - let us learn from the Mitzvah of Simchah (on Yom Tov) that they are obligated!
(j) Answer (Abaye): A woman is not obligated in Simchah herself, rather it is incumbent on her husband.
(k) Question: A widow has no husband - the Mitzvah must be on her herself!
(l) Answer: It is incumbent on the man she lives near.

(a) Suggestion: Let us learn from assembly that women are obligated!
(b) Answer: The Mitzvos of Matzo and assembly are two verses (obligating women), one of which could have been learned from the other (so we do not learn out to other places).

1. Question: Tefilin and Re'iyah are two verses exempting women, one of which could have been learned from the other - we should not learn to other places!
2. Answer: No, neither could have been learned from the other.

i. Had the Torah only taught (that women are exempt from) Tefilin - one might have thought, women are obligated in Re'iyah from the Gezeirah Shavah from assembly;
ii. Had the Torah only taught Re'iyah - one might have thought, women are obligated in Tefilin because this is written next to Mezuzah.

3. Question: Similarly, we could not have learned Matzo or assembly, one from the other!
4. Answer: Granted, we could not have learned Matzo from assembly - one might have thought, the Gezeirah Shavah "Chamesh-Esreh-Chamesh-Esreh" from Sukos exempts women from Matzo;

i. But the Torah could have only written Matzo, and we would have known assembly!
ii. Even infants are obligated in assembly, all the more so women!
iii. Therefore, these are judged as two verses, one of which could have been learned from the other, so we cannot learn to other places.

(c) This answer is as the opinion that two verses, one of which could have been learned from the other, do not teach about other laws.
(d) Question #1: According to the opinion that two verses, one of which is extra, do teach about other laws, how can we answer? (This question will be asked again, and answered, on 35A.)
(e) Question #2: How do we know that women are obligated in Mitzvos Aseh that apply at all times?
(f) Answer (To question 2): We learn from fear of parents.
(g) Question: Why not learn from learning Torah that women are exempt?
(h) Answer: Learning Torah and having children are two verses, one of which could have been learned from the other, that women are exempt, so we do not learn from them.
(i) Question: R. Yochanan ben Berokah says, "Hash-m said 'Be fruitful and multiply'" was also said to women (they are also commanded to have children) - how can he answer?
(j) Answer: Learning Torah and redemption of a firstborn son are two verses, one of which could have been learned from the other, that women are exempt, so we do not learn from them.
(k) Question: According to R. Yochanan ben Berokah, fear of parents and having children are two verses, one of which could have been learned from the other, that women are obligated, we should not learn from them!
(l) Answer: It was necessary to write both.

1. Had the Torah only written fear - one might have thought, since the Torah wrote (by having children) "v'Kivshu'ah (and he will conquer (the land))", it is the way of a man to conquer, so only he is commanded to have children;
2. Had the Torah only written having children - one might have thought, since a man is able to honor his parents (but not a woman, for she must fear her husband), only he is commanded to fear his parents.