Kiddushin, Daf Lammed Heh, Part 1

 

Introduction

This week s daf continues where we left off last week, discussing the derivation of women s exemption from positive time-bound commandments. The rule we learned was that two verses that come as one do not teach about a third issue. Meaning that the rule applies only to these issues and cannot be extended further.

 

הניחא למאן דאמר אין מלמדין אלא למאן דאמר מלמדין מאי איכא למימר

ותו מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא נשים חייבות מנלן

 

Now, that goes well according to the one who holds that they do not teach, but on the view that they do, what may be said?

Furthermore, how do we know that women are exempt from positive non-time-bound commandments?

 

The Talmud asks two difficulties first of all, there are some sages who hold that we can learn from two verses that teach the same thing. If so, just as women are obligated in matzah and gathering, so too they are obligated in all positive time-bound commandments. The Talmud will return to this difficulty below.

The other question is the source for the opposite rule that they are obligated in positive non-time bound commandments.

דיליף ממורא מה מורא נשים חייבות אף כל מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא נשים חייבות

 

Because we learn from fear: just as fear is binding upon women, so too women are obligated in all positive non-time bound commandments.

 

Women are obligated to fear their parents, as we learned above. Just as they are obligated in this commandment, so too they are obligated in all positive non-time bound commandments (below I will write PNTB).

 

ונילף מתלמוד תורה משום דהוה ליה תלמוד תורה ופריה ורביה שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדים

 

But let us [rather] learn from the study of the Torah? Because the study of the Torah and procreation are two verses which come as one, and wherever two verses come as one they do not teach.

 

Women are exempt from Talmud Torah, despite its being a PNTB commandment. So why shouldn t they be exempt from all such commandments?

The answer–because they are exempt from two PNTB commandments Torah study and procreation.

 

ולרבי יוחנן בן ברוקא דאמר על שניהם הוא אומר (בראשית א, כח) ויברך אותם אלהים פרו ורבו מאי איכא למימר

משום דהוה ת"ת ופדיון הבן שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין

 

But according to R. Yohanan b. Beroka, who holds, Concerning both [Adam and Eve] it is said: And God blessed them: and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, (Genesis 1:28) what can be said?

Because the study of the Torah and redemption of the firstborn are two verses that come as one and all two verses that come as one do not teach.

 

R. Yohanan b. Beroka holds that women are obligated in the mitzvah of procreation. This leaves them exempt only from Talmud Torah so why not use that as a paradigm and make them exempt from PNTB commandments?

The answer there is another PNTB commandment for which they are exempt redeeming the first born. Only the father is obligated to redeem his first born.

 

ולרבי יוחנן בן ברוקא נמי ניהוו פריה ורביה ומורא שני כתובים הבאים כאחד ואין מלמדין

 

But according to R. Yohanan b. Beroka too, let procreation and fear be regarded as two verses that come as one, which do not teach?

 

R. Yohanan b. Beroka holds that women are obligated to procreate and to fear their parents so we now have a situation of two verses that come as one, and therefore we should not have a rule that women are obligated in PNTB commandments.

צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא מורא ולא כתב פריה ורביה הוה אמינא וכבשוה אמר רחמנא איש דדרכו לכבש אין אשה דאין דרכה לכבש לא

 

Both are necessary. For if the Torah had written fear and not procreation, I would say, The Torah said, [ Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,] and conquer it : only a man, whose nature it is to conquer, but not a woman, as it is not her nature to conquer.

 

The Talmud now will explain why both verses are necessary and therefore are not really a case of two verses that come as one. The Torah had to explicitly obligate a woman in procreation (according to R. Yohanan b. Beroka) for otherwise I would have thought that she is exempt because the Torah instructs humankind to conquer and women s nature is not to conquer (this can be certainly be disputed, but there are people who might agree that men have a greater tendency towards war).

 

ואי כתב פריה ורביה ולא כתב מורא ה"א איש דסיפק בידו לעשות אין אשה דאין סיפק בידה לעשות לא וכיון דאין סיפק בידה לעשות לא תתחייב כלל צריכא

 

And if the Torah had written procreation and not fear, I would reason: A man, who has the opportunity to do this [to show to his parents] is obligated, but not a woman, for she does not have the opportunity to do this; and since she does not have the opportunity, she has no obligation at all. Thus both are necessary.

 

If the Torah had not taught that women are obligated to fear their parents I might have thought that they are exempt because women often do not have the opportunity to fear their parents because they are with their husband (we learned this above). Therefore, the Torah had to teach that they are obligated.

Since both verses are necessary this is not a case of two verses that come as one.