ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 34
KIDUSHIN 32-35 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) Succah, Lulav and Shofar all fall under the category of 'Mitzvos Asei
she'ha'Z'man Geramah'. The Tana also lists - Tzitzis and Tefilin.
(b) Tefilin is considered 'Z'man Geramah' - either because one is Patur from
Tefilin at night-time, or because one is Patur on Shabbos and Yom-Tov.
(c) The Tana lists four 'Mitzvos Asei she'Lo ha'Z'man Geramah'; Mezuzah,
Ma'akeh (placing a parapet around one's roof), Hashavas Aveidah - and
(a) We query the above principle (cited in our Mishnah replete with
exceptions) from ...
1. ... Matzah, Simchah and Hakhel - which are also 'Z'man Geramah', yet
women are obligated.
(b) We learn that women are ...
2. ... Talmud Torah, Piryah ve'Rivyah and Pidyon ha'Ben - which are not
'Z'man Geramah', yet women are exempt. Why were these exceptions not listed
in our Mishnah together with those that the Tana does mention?
1. ... obligated to eat Matzah on Pesach (even though *it is
time-related*) - from the juxtaposition of eating Matzah to the prohibition
of eating Chametz in Parshas Re'ei (from which we extrapolate that whoever
is obligated in the one is obligated in the other).
(c) Rebbi Yochanan extrapolates from all this - that one cannot learn from
principles, even if the Tana specifically lists exceptions (i.e. one must
assume that there may be more exceptions that the Tana omitted).
2. ... exempt from Piryah ve'Rivyah (even though it is *not*) - because the
Torah inserts "ve'Chivshuhah" ('and capture the land') in the same Pasuk,
from which we extrapolate that whoever does not normally participate in
capturing land is exempt from 'P'ru u'Revu'.
(a) The Mishnah in Eruvin says - that all foods are eligible for Eruv
Chatzeiros except for water and salt.
(b) The other two foods that we know to be not eligible are - Kemeihin and
Pitriyos (two species of mushrooms).
(c) What all these foods have in common that invalidates them from being
used as an Eruv is - the fact that the purpose of Eruv Techumin is to serve
as a base where one eats, and the food that is placed there must comprise a
satisfying meal, which these four foods do not.
(d) From the Sugya in Eruvin, we have - another support for Rebbi Yochanan's
principle (that one cannot learn from principles, even if exceptions are
(a) We learn that women are Patur from Mitzvos Asei she'ha'Z'man Geramah
from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Tefilin - which in turn, we learn from
Talmud-Torah, to which Tefilin is compared (in the Sh'ma).
(b) In spite of the principle that when there is a Hekesh le'Chumra and a
Hekesh le'Kula, we always Darshen le'Chumra, we do not rather compare
Tefilin to Mezuzah (in the first Parshah of the Sh'ma, where they are
juxtaposed) - because Tefilin is juxtaposed with Talmud-Torah in both
Parshiyos of the Sh'ma, but next to Mezuzah only in the first.
(c) Despite the fact that the Torah does not specifically obligate women to
put up a Mezuzah, we do not exempt them on account of their being compared
to Talmud-Torah (in the second Parshah of the Sh'ma) - because the Torah
continues "Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem", and women need life just as much as men
(d) The problem with the D'rashah "ha'Ezrach", from which we learn that
women are Patur from sitting in a Sucah is - that bearing in mind that the
Mitzvah is time-related, why does the Torah need to write "ha'Ezrach" in
order to exempt women from sitting in a Sucah? Why are they not Patur
(a) In reply to the previous Kashya, Abaye explains that if not for
"ha'Ezrach", we would have obligated women to sit in a Sucah, because the
Torah writes in Emor "ba'Sukos Teishvu" - implying that one is obligated to
live in the Sucah together with one's wife, just as one lives in the house
('Teishvu Ke'ein Taduru').
(b) According to Rava, we would have obligated women to sit in the Sucah
from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - "Chamishah-Asar" "Chamishah-Asar" from Chag
ha'Matzos, from which we would have extrapolated that just as women are
obligated to eat Matzah on Pesach, so too are they obligated to sit in the
Sucah on Succos.
(a) The Mitzvah of 'Re'iyah' comprises appearing before Hashem on each of
the Shalosh Regalim with an Olas Re'iyah.
(b) In spite of the fact that it is 'Z'man Geramah', we nevertheless need
the Pasuk "Zechurcha" to exempt women from performing it - because we would
otherwise obligate them from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Re'iyah" "Re'iyah" from
(c) We learn the exemption of women from time-related Mitzvos Asei, from
Tefilin. Abaye explains that we should not rather obligate them, from the
Mitzvah of Simchah - because it is not they who are obligated to perform it,
but their husbands who are obligated to make them happy (with Shalmei
Simchah or with new clothes - see Tosfos DH 'Ishah').
(d) According to Abaye - whoever the widow is staying with is obligated to
make sure that she too, rejoices on Yom-Tov. The source of a widow's
obligation is the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'ha'Ger ve'ha'Yasom ve'ha'Almanah".
(a) We cannot learn from the Mitzvah of Hakheil (where the Torah
specifically incorporates women in the Mitzvah) that women should be
obligated to fulfill 'Mitzvos Asei she'ha'Z'man Geramah' - because Matzah
and Hakheil are 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'.
(b) Tefilin and Re'iyah, we explain, are not considered 'Sh'nei Kesuvim
ha'Ba'im ke'Echad', because both Pesukim are needed. We would not have
exempted women from ...
1. ... Re'iyah with a 'Mah Matzinu' from Tefilin - because of the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Re'iyah" "Re'iyah" from Hakheil (which would have
(c) Had the Torah obligated women in the Mitzvah of Hakheil, we would not
have been able to extrapolate that they are also obligated in the Mitzvah of
Matzah - because we would have learned from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
"Chamishah-Asar" "Chamishah-Asar" from Succos that they are exempt from it.
2. ... Tefilin with a 'Mah Matzinu' from Re'iyah - because we would have
compared Tefilin to Mezuzah (to obligate them).
(d) Nevertheless, Matzah and Hakheil are considered 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im
ke'Echad' - because even though Hakheil needs Matzah, Matzah does not need
Hakheil, and once one of the two Pesukim is superfluous, it is considered
'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad' even though the other one is needed).
(a) The principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Ein Melamdin - is not
unanimous. There are those who hold that one can learn a 'Mah Matzinu' from
two Pesukim (though even they will agree that 'Sheloshah Kesuvim Melamdin').
(b) We learn women's obligation in Mitzvos Asei she'Lo ha'Z'man Gerama from
Mora, meaning - Mora Av va'Eim.
(c) We do not rather learn from Talmud-Torah that women are Patur from such
Mitzvos, because Talmud-Torah and P'ru u'Revu are considered 'Sh'nei Kesuvim
ha'Ba'in ke'Echad'. This will not work however, according to Rebbi Yochanan
ben Berokah - who learns from the Pasuk in Bereishis "Vayevarech Osam
Elokim, Vayomer Lahem Elokim P'ru u'Revu" - that women are obligated in this
mitzvah just like men. In that case, back comes the Kashya, why do we not
learn from Talmud-Torah that women are Patur from all Mitzvos Asei she'Lo
(d) We conclude therefore, that Talmud-Torah combines with the Mitzvah of
Pidyon ha'Ben to make it 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'.