Kiddushin 68

איצטריך סד"א נילף חמשה עשר חמשה עשר מחג המצות מה להלן נשים חייבות אף כאן נשים חייבות צריכא

It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deduction from ha-ezrah.');">¹</span> is necessary [for another reason]: I might have thought, we derive [identity of law from the employment of] 'fifteen' here and in connection with the Feast of unleavened bread:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here, Lev. XXIII, 39: on the fifteenth day of the seventh month; Passover, ibid. 6: and on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord.');">²</span>

והרי ראיה דמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא וטעמא דכתב רחמנא (שמות כג, יז) זכורך להוציא הנשים הא לאו הכי נשים חייבות

just as there, women are liable, so here too. Hence it is necessary.

איצטריך סד"א נילף ראיה ראיה מהקהל

But what of pilgrimage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'appearance' - before the Lord on Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles.');">³</span> which is an affirmative command limited to time, yet the reason [of woman's exemption] is that Scripture wrote, [Three times in the year all] thy males [shall appear before the Lord thy God],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII, 17.');">⁴</span>

ואדילפינן מתפילין לפטורא נילף משמחה לחיובא אמר אביי אשה בעלה משמחה

thus excluding women; but otherwise women would be liable? - It is necessary: I would have thought, we learn the meaning of 'appearance' from 'assembling'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Appearance' is mentioned in both cases. Pilgrimage, as quoted in last note; assembling, Deut. XXXI, 11f: when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God. . assemble the people, men and women, etc.');">⁵</span> Now, instead of deriving an exemption from phylacteries, let us deduce an obligation from [the precept of] rejoicing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That too is occasioned by the Season, yet is obligatory upon women; v. Deut. XVI, 14.');">⁶</span>

אלמנה מאי איכא למימר בשרויה אצלו

Said Abaye: As for a woman, her husband must make her rejoice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the duty lies not on the woman herself, but on her husband, to make her rejoice.');">⁷</span> Then what can be said of a widow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is explicitly mentioned in the same verse, q.v.');">⁸</span>

ונילף מהקהל משום דהוה מצה והקהל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאין כאחד אין מלמדים

It refers to her host.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the one with whom she dwells'. I.e., the master of the house where she lives must make her rejoice.');">⁹</span> Now, let us learn [liability] from [the precept of] 'assembling'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as that is an affirmative precept limited to time and yet incumbent upon women, so are all etc.');">¹⁰</span>

אי הכי תפילין וראיה נמי שני כתובים הבאים כאחד ואין מלמדים צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא תפילין ולא כתב ראיה הוה אמינא נילף ראיה ראיה מהקהל

Because unleavened bread and 'assembling' are two verses [i.e., precepts] with the same purpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that come as one,' i.e., both are affirmative precepts occasioned by the season, and in both it is stated that they include woman.');">¹¹</span> and wherever two verses have the same purpose, they cannot throw light [upon other precepts].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 7.');">¹²</span>

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.');">¹³</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.');">¹⁴</span>

אי הכי מצה והקהל נמי צריכי למאי צריכי בשלמא אי כתב רחמנא הקהל ולא כתב מצה ה"א נילף חמשה עשר חמשה עשר מחג הסוכות

While had the Divine Law written pilgrimage but not phylacteries, I would have reasoned, Let phylacteries be assimilated to mezuzah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they are written together, and so women are liable to the former as to the latter.');">¹⁵</span> Thus both are necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason why two verses which teach the same thing cannot illumine other precepts is that if they were meant to do so one only would be sufficient, for the second could be deduced; and similarly all other precepts. But this obviously does not hold good when each is necessary in itself; in that case, therefore, both together throw light upon other cases.');">¹⁶</span>

אלא ניכתוב רחמנא מצה ולא בעי הקהל ואנא אמינא טפלים חייבים נשים לא כל שכן הילכך הוה להו ב' כתובים הבאים כאחד ואין מלמדים

If so, unleavened bread and 'assembling' are also necessary? - For what are they necessary? Now, if the Divine Law stated 'assembling' but not unleavened bread, it were well:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the latter would be unnecessary.');">¹⁷</span>

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

for I would argue, let us deduce 'fifteen', 'fifteen', from the feast of Tabernacles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus shewing that women are exempt from eating unleavened bread; v. supra.');">¹⁸</span> But let the Divine Law write unleavened bread, and 'assembling' is unnecessary, for I can reason, If it is incumbent upon children,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXXI, 12, 'and the children'.');">¹⁹</span>

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

how much more so upon women! Hence it is a case of two verses with the same purpose, and they cannot throw light [upon other precepts]. Now, that is well on the view that they do not illumine [other cases].

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

But on the view that they do, what may be said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Let us deduce liability of women in regard to all affirmative precepts limited to time.');">²⁰</span> Furthermore, [that] affirmative precepts not limited to time are binding upon women; how do we know it? Because we learn from fear:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the precept to fear one's parents, Lev. XIX, 3, which, as deduced supra 29a, applies to both sexes.');">²¹</span> just as fear is binding upon women, so are all affirmative precepts not limited to time incumbent upon women. But let us [rather] learn from the study of the Torah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is occasioned by time and yet not obligatory upon women.');">²²</span> - Because the study of the Torah and procreation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Likewise not limited in time and not incumbent upon women.');">²³</span> are two verses which teach the same thing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that women are exempt.');">²⁴</span> and wherever two verses teach the same thing, they do not illumine [others].