Sukkah, Daf Kaf Het, Part 4
Introduction
Today’s section deals with the traditional exemption of women from the obligation of sukkah.
גמרא. מנא הני מילי? – דתנו רבנן: אזרח – זה אזרח +ויקרא כג+ האזרח – להוציא את הנשים. כל – לרבות את הקטנים.
Gemara. From where do we know this? For our Rabbis taught: [If Scripture had said] "Homeborn" [it would have included] every homeborn [Jew], [but since it says] "the homeborn" it excludes women. "Every" includes minors.
This midrash derives from an "extra" letter in the Torah the exclusion of women and minors from being obligated to observe the mitzvah of sukkah. We should note that in these situations we should not expect the midrash to be a "simple" reading of the Torah. The midrashim are creative, deriving meaning from the Torah in places that a regular reader would not find it.
The exclusion of women is derived from the letter "heh" , the word "the," that precedes the word "homeborn" in Leviticus 23:42. Had the word just been "homeborn" women would have been included (so the sugya says), but the extra heh comes to exclude them. The word "every" includes minors in the obligation to sit in a sukkah. Below, the Talmud will ponder this after all the Mishnah says that minors are not obligated to sit in the sukkah.
אמר מר: האזרח – להוציא את הנשים. למימרא דאזרח בין נשים בין גברי משמע? והתניא: האזרח לרבות את הנשים האזרחיות שחייבות בעינוי, אלמא אזרח גברי משמע! – אמר רבה: הלכתא נינהו, ואסמכינהו רבנן אקראי
.
The Master has said: The homeborn excludes women. That is to say "homeborn" implies both men and women? But has it not been taught: "The homeborn" includes the homeborn women that they must afflict themselves [on Yom Kippur], which shows that [only] "homeborn" implies men [only]?
Rabbah answered: They are traditions but the Rabbis applied a Scriptural verse to them.
The problem with "the homeborn" excluding women from being obligated for the sukkah is that the same word is used in the context of Yom Kippur in Leviticus 16:29, and the rabbis use the word to include women in the Yom Kippur obligation. So which is it does "the homeborn" include women (as in the case of Yom Kippur) or does it exclude women (as in the case of Sukkah)?
Rabbah answers that one of these sets of midrashim is only there to bolster the traditions. In other words, the rabbis did not derive these laws from the midrash. Rather, they had a tradition and in order to support it, they created a midrash. Only one of the two cases is actually a midrash that generated a halakhah.
הי קרא והי הלכתא ותו, קרא למה לי, הלכתא למה לי? הא סוכה מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות! יום הכפורים – מדרב יהודה אמר רב נפקא, דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב, וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל: אמר קרא +במדבר ה+ איש או אשה – השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש לכל עונשין שבתורה.
Which is based on a Scriptural verse and which on a tradition? And, moreover, what is the necessity for a Scriptural verse or for a traditional law? Is not a Sukkah a positive time-bound commandment and women are exempt from all positive commandments which have a set time? As to Yom Kippur [also] it is derived from [the statement] of Rav Judah made in the name of Rav, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav and so the school of R. Ishmael taught: Scripture says, "Man or woman" (Numbers 5:6) the verse [thereby] makes man and woman equal as regards all punishable acts in the Torah?
The main problem alluded to here is that we don t really need a verse to exempt women from the sukkah or to obligate them for Yom Kippur. There is a rabbinic rule that women are exempt from positive time-bound commandments. Sukkah is a positive commandment (you have to do something, namely sit in a sukkah) and it is time-bound (you can fulfill the mitzvah during Sukkot only). So why would we need a verse to know that which we already know.
Second, Rav Judah already said that when it comes to negative commandments which are punishable, they all apply to men and women equally. Yom Kippur is a negative commandment (you are prohibited from doing things) and therefore women are just as liable for it as men.
So to return to our main question if we already knew from general principles that women were liable for Yom Kippur and exempt from sukkah, what are these midrashim doing?
אמר אביי: לעולם סוכה הלכתא, ואיצטריך: סלקא דעתך אמינא תשבו כעין תדורו, מה דירה – איש ואשתו, אף סוכה – איש ואשתו, קמשמע לן.
Abaye answered: Indeed Sukkah is a tradition, but [the midrash] is still necessary, Lest I would have said, since "You shall dwell" implies that you should dwell in the same manner as you ordinarily dwell; just as one’s permanent home is for husband and wife, so too the Sukkah must be for husband and wife, therefore he informs us that it is not so.
Abaye says that without the midrash we might have thought that despite sukkah being a positive time-bound commandment, women are still liable. One is supposed to dwell in the sukkah as one does at home. Since at home, husband and wife live in the same building, so too in the sukkah we might think that both a husband and wife should be there together. To combat this notion the midrash tells us that women are exempt.
רבא אמר: איצטריך, סלקא דעתך אמינא יליף חמישה עשר, חמשה עשר מחג המצות, מה להלן נשים חייבות – אף כאן נשים חייבות, קמשמע לן.
Rava said: It is necessary, since I might have said, derive [the law from a similar case] of the fifteenth, from the fifteenth of the Festival of Matzot: just as there women are obligated, so too here women are bound. Therefore he taught that [women are exempt].
Rava offers another reason why we might have thought that women are liable for the mitzvah of sukkah, despite it being a positive time-bound commandment. Women are liable for the mitzvot of Pesah, including the mitzvah to eat matzah. This is true even though this is a positive time-bound commandment. Sukkot and Pesah both begin on the fifteenth day of the month. So we might have thought that just as women are liable for the commandments applicable to Pesah, so too they are liable for the commandments applicable to Sukkot. Therefore the baraita had to teach that women are exempt from sukkah.
והשתא דאמרת סוכה הלכתא, קרא למה לי? – לרבות את הגרים. סלקא דעתך אמינא: +ויקרא כג+ האזרח בישראל אמר רחמנא ולא את הגרים, קמשמע לן.
And now that you say that Sukkah is a traditional law, what is the verse for? To include converts. Lest I would have said "the homeborn in Israel," the Torah said, but not converts, therefore it informs us that it is not so.
Above we saw that we don’t really need the midrash to teach us that women are excluded from sukkah. So, the Talmud now asks, why do we need the extra "heh" in front of the word "homeborn." What does the "heh" teach? The answer is that it includes converts. Note that this is closer to the original context of the verse. The word "homeborn" probably originally was intended to exclude the resident alien (ger toshav). Only an Israelite, according to the verse, is liable for the mitzvah of sukkah. The rabbis, however, use the extra "heh" to say that the convert is liable, even though he wasn’t born into Judaism.
יום הכפורים מדרב יהודה אמר רב נפקא!
לא נצרכא אלא לתוספת עינוי. סלקא דעתך אמינא: הואיל ומיעט רחמנא לתוספת עינוי מעונש ומאזהרה, לא נתחייבו נשים כלל, קמשמע לן.
[That women must fast on] Yom Kippur is deduced from [the statement of] Rav Judah in the name of Rav?
[The verse] is necessary [to include] the additional affliction. Lest I would have said that, since the Torah excluded the additional affliction from punishment and warning, women are entirely exempt from it, therefore he teaches us [that they are obligated].
The word "homeborn" was used in the midrash alluded to above to teach that women are liable to "afflict themselves" (fast) on Yom Kippur. However, we don’t need a special midrash for that. It could have been derived from Rav Judah’s statement that women are liable for all negative commandments.
The answer is that without the midrash I might have thought that they are not obligated for the extra affliction, the hour or so we add on to the fast on Yom Kippur. This extra fasting is not punishable (although it is mandated). Since it is not punishable I might have thought that women are not liable for it they are, after all, liable only for things that are punishable. The midrash comes to teach that they are liable even for this extra amount of fasting.