Commentary for Kiddushin 68:8
ואי כתב רחמנא ראיה ולא כתב תפילין הוה אמינא אקיש תפילין למזוזה צריכא
If so, phylacteries and pilgrimage are also two verses with one purpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both teaching that women are exempt.');"><sup>13</sup></span> and cannot illumine [other precepts]? - They are both necessary: for had the Divine Law stated phylacteries but not pilgrimage, I would have thought, let us deduce the meaning of 'appearance' from 'assembling'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as the 'assembling' includes women, so does pilgrimage.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The Talmud now explains that we actually needed the Torah to exempt women in both the case of tefillin and pilgrimage. Had the Torah stated the rule with regard to one, I would not have been able to derive the other.
Had we not learned that women are exempt from pilgrimage (at all three festivals) I would have thought that just as they are obligated in “assembling” (at the end of seven years) so too they are obligated in pilgrimage.
And had I not learned that they were exempt from tefillin, I would have compared them to mezuzah, for they are right next to the mitzvah of mezuzah in the Shema.
Since we need both verses, this is not considered a case of “two verses that come as one.”
Had we not learned that women are exempt from pilgrimage (at all three festivals) I would have thought that just as they are obligated in “assembling” (at the end of seven years) so too they are obligated in pilgrimage.
And had I not learned that they were exempt from tefillin, I would have compared them to mezuzah, for they are right next to the mitzvah of mezuzah in the Shema.
Since we need both verses, this is not considered a case of “two verses that come as one.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy