Mesorat%20hashas for Yevamot 169:2

לא דגמרינן מלא יקחו

it would have been assumed that women also come under the same obligation. What is the reason? Obviously<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not?' ');">⁵</span> because of the deduction Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews that even a prohibition which is not applicable to all would be assumed to be applicable to women by deduction from Rab's text! ');">⁶</span> — No; this might have been deduced from They shall not take.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 7, from which it has been deduced (supra 84b, end) that women are subject to the same prohibitions as men even where the prohibitions are not applicable to all. Hence the necessity for the text of Lev. XXI, 1, which excludes women. From Num. v, 6, however, it may still be maintained, deduction could be made only in respect of a prohibition that is applicable to all. ');">⁷</span> Others Say:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the equality of men and women in respect of prohibitions could be deduced from the text cited by Rab Judah in the name of Rab. ');">⁸</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Yevamot 169:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.