Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Commentary for Kiddushin 67:11

ורבא אמר

But let us [rather] compare phylacteries to mezuzah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is obligatory upon women.');"><sup>13</sup></span> - phylacteries are assimilated to the study of the Torah in both the first section and the second;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first section is Deut. VI, 4-9; the second: XI, 13-21; so-called because these are the first two of the four Pentateuchal passages contained in the phylacteries, and the only two written in the mezuzah. In the first section, Deut. VI, 7f: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children . . and thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand. In the second section, XI. 18f: and ye shall bind them . . and ye shall teach them etc.');"><sup>14</sup></span> whereas they are not assimilated to mezuzah in the second section.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Phylacteries are mentioned in v. 18, and mezuzah in v. 20, so that v. 19, which treats of study, breaks the connection.');"><sup>15</sup></span> Then let mezuzah be assimilated to the study of the Torah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as women are exempt from the latter, so from the former too. - Study and mezuzah are stated consecutively, viz., in vv. 19 and 20.');"><sup>16</sup></span> - You cannot think so, because it is written, [And thou shalt write them upon the mezuzah of thine house.] That your days may be multiplied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid, 21.');"><sup>17</sup></span> do then men only need life, and not women! But what of sukkah, which is an affirmative precept limited to time, as it is written, ye shall dwell in booths seven days,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 42.');"><sup>18</sup></span> yet the reason [of woman's exemption] is that Scripture wrote ha-ezrah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R.V. 'homeborn'.');"><sup>19</sup></span> to exclude women,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Suk. 28a.');"><sup>20</sup></span> but otherwise women would be liable? - Said Abaye, It is necessary: I would have thought, since it is written: 'ye shall dwell in booths seven days', 'ye shall dwell' [meaning] even as ye [normally] dwell [in a house]: just as [normal] dwelling [implies] a husband and wife [together], so must the sukkah be [inhabited by] husband and wife!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence ha-ezrah teaches otherwise.');"><sup>21</sup></span> - But Raba said,

Daf Shevui to Kiddushin

Rava points out another reason we might have thought women were liable for the sukkah—it falls on the fifteenth of the month, as does Pesah. Since women are obligated to eat matzah on Pesah which falls on the fifteenth of the month, so too they would be liable for sukkah which falls on the fifteenth of the month. This is why we need the midrash to teach that they are exempt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse