Kiddushin, Daf Lammed Daled, Part 6
Introduction
Today s section continues where we left off yesterday if two verses state the same rule, but both are necessary, then we can say that they teach a general rule. Such a case is not considered two verses that come as one.
אי הכי מצה והקהל נמי צריכי
למאי צריכי בשלמא אי כתב רחמנא הקהל ולא כתב מצה ה"א נילף חמשה עשר חמשה עשר מחג הסוכות
אלא ניכתוב רחמנא מצה ולא בעי הקהל ואנא אמינא טפלים חייבים נשים לא כל שכן הילכך הוה להו ב’ כתובים הבאים כאחד ואין מלמדים
If so, matzah and assembling are also necessary?
For what are they necessary? Now, it would make sense if the Torah had stated assembling but not matzah: for I would argue, let us deduce fifteen fifteen from Sukkot.
But let the Torah write matzah, and assembling would not be necessary, for I would reason, if children are obligated, how much more so women!
Hence it is a case of two verses that come as one, and they do not teach.
Women are obligated in both assembling and in eating matzah. So why not say that they both are necessary and that we could use these two to create a general rule (as we did for tefillin and pilgrimage).
Now stating that women are obligated in matzah is actually necessary, for if the Torah did not, I would have thought that just as they are exempt from sitting in the Sukkah which falls on the fifteenth, so too they are exempt from matzah, which also falls on the fifteenth.
But we do not really need the Torah to teach us that women are obligated to assemble. If children are obligated to assemble, as the Torah explicitly states, then obviously adult women are. Therefore, this verse is really not necessary.
And since it is not necessary, these two verses truly are two verses that come as one. The Torah could have stated the rule with regard to matzah and said nothing about assembling, and we would have known that women are obligated. And two verses that come as one do not aid in forming a general rule.