Kiddushin 69

ולרבי יוחנן בן ברוקא דאמר על שניהם הוא אומר (בראשית א, כב) ויברך אותם אלהים פרו ורבו מאי איכא למימר משום דהוה ת"ת ופדיון הבן שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין

But according to R'Johanan B'Beroka, who maintained, Concerning both [Adam and Eve] it is said: And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. I, 28; this is the command of procreation.');">¹</span> what can be said? - Because the study of the Torah and redemption of the firstborn are two verses with one purpose, and such do not illumine [others]. But according to R'Johanan B'Beroka too, let procreation and fear be regarded as two verses with one purpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., both are affirmative precepts not occasioned by time and both are incumbent upon women.');">²</span>

ולרבי יוחנן בן ברוקא נמי ניהוו פריה ורביה ומורא שני כתובים הבאים כאחד ואין מלמדין צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא מורא ולא כתב פריה ורביה הוה אמינא וכבשוה אמר רחמנא איש דדרכו לכבש אין אשה דאין דרכה לכבש לא

which do not illumine [other cases]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that on the contrary only these are obligatory, but not others.');">³</span> - Both are necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote fear and not procreation, I would argue, The Divine Law stated, [Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,] and conquer it: only a man, whose nature It is to conquer, but not a woman, as it is not her nature to conquer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as this is stated together with procreation, the same ruling governs both.');">⁴</span>

ואי כתב פריה ורביה ולא כתב מורא ה"א איש דסיפק בידו לעשות אין אשה דאין סיפק בידה לעשות לא וכיון דאין סיפק בידה לעשות לא תתחייב כלל צריכא

And if Scripture wrote procreation and not fear, I would reason: A man, who has the means to do this [sc. to shew fear to his parents] is referred to, but not a woman, seeing that she lacks the means to fulfil this;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 148. n. 5.');">⁵</span> and that being so, she has no obligation at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even when she can fulfil it. e.g., if she is unmarried.');">⁶</span> Thus both are necessary.

הניחא למ"ד שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין אלא למ"ד מלמדין מאי איכא למימר אמר רבא פפונאי ידעי לה לטעמא דהא מילתא

Now, that is well on the view that two verses with the same teaching do not illumine [others]: but on the view that they do, what can be said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the conclusion of the objection introduced by 'furthermore', supra 34b.');">⁷</span> - Said Raba, The Papunians<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., scholars of Papunia, between Bagdad and Pumbeditha, possibly on the River Papa, whence the name; Obermeyer, p. 242.');">⁸</span> know the reason of this thing, and who is it?

ומנו רב אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא (שמות יג, ט) והיה לך לאות על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך הוקשה כל התורה כולה לתפילין מה תפילין מ"ע שהזמן גרמא ונשים פטורות אף כל מ"ע שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות ומדמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות מכלל דמ"ע שלא הזמן גרמא נשים חייבות

R'Aha B'Jacob. Scripture saith, And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Torah of the Lord may be in thy mouth:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 9. The 'sign' and 'memorial' refer to the phylacteries.');">⁹</span> hence the whole Torah is compared to phylacteries: just as phylacteries are an affirmative command limited to time, and women are exempt, so are they exempt from all positive commands limited to time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, a direct comparison of this nature, in which the 'Torah of the Lord' is practically identified with the 'sign' and the 'memorial,' is stronger than a mere analogy of the type hitherto discussed, and so outweighs any opposite conclusions arrived at by analogy.');">¹⁰</span>

הניחא למ"ד תפילין מ"ע שהזמן גרמא אלא למ"ד תפילין מ"ע שלא הזמן גרמא מאי איכא למימר מאן שמעת ליה דאמר תפילין מ"ע שלא הזמן גרמא ר' מאיר וסבר לה שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין

And since women are exempt from affirmative precepts limited to time, it follows that they are subject to those not limited to time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise, this comparison should be written in connection with the latter, e.g., study of the Torah, whence I would deduce that woman are exempt from all such precepts (and from precepts limited to time too, a fortiori) .');">¹¹</span> Now, that is well on the view that phylacteries are a positive command limited to time; but what can be said on the view that they are not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This question is disputed in Shab. 61a.');">¹²</span> - Whom do you know to maintain that phylacteries are an affirmative precept not limited to time?

ולר' יהודה דאמר שני כתובים הבאים כאחד מלמדין ותפילין מ"ע שלא הזמן גרמא מא"ל משום דהואי מצה שמחה והקהל שלשה כתובים הבאים כאחד ושלשה כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין

R'Meir. But he holds that there are two verses with the same teaching, and such do not illumine [others].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e, he does not employ the comparison, but deduces by analogy from pilgrimage, as above. Unleavened bread and 'assembling' do not furnish any opposite conclusion, for they are two verses with the same teaching.');">¹³</span> But according to R'Judah, who maintains that two verses with the same teaching illumine [others], and [also] that phylacteries are a positive command limited to time, what can be said? - Because unleavened bread, rejoicing [on Festivals], and 'assembling' are three verses with the same teaching,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are three positive commands limited to time and binding upon women.');">¹⁴</span>

וכל מצות לא תעשה וכו' מנהני מילי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב וכן תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל אמר קרא (במדבר ה, ו) איש או אשה כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש לכל עונשים שבתורה

and such do not illumine [others].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is admitted by all. According to this, Abaye's contention that the precept of rejoicing relates to a woman's husband or her host (supra 34b) is rejected.');">¹⁵</span> AND ALL NEGATIVE PRECEPTS etc. Whence do we know it? - Said Rab Judah in Rab's name, and the School of R'Ishmael taught likewise, Scripture saith, When a man or a woman shall commit any sin that men commit [. then that soul shall be guilty]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 6.');">¹⁶</span>

דבי רבי אליעזר תנא אמר קרא (שמות כא, א) אשר תשים לפניהם השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש לכל דינים שבתורה דבי חזקיה תנא אמר קרא (שמות כא, כט) והמית איש או אשה השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש לכל מיתות שבתורה

thus the Writ equalised woman and man in respect of all penalties [decreed] in the Torah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Negative precepts involve flagellation.');">¹⁷</span> The School of R'Eliezer taught: Scripture saith, [Now these are the judgments] which thou shalt set before them:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 1.');">¹⁸</span> The Writ equalised woman and man in respect of all civil laws in Scripture.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is not adduced as a source of the Mishnah, since it deals with a different subject, but as a parallel to the last statement.');">¹⁹</span>

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הך קמייתא משום כפרה חס רחמנא עלה אבל דינין אימא איש דבר משא ומתן אין אשה לא

The School of Hezekiah taught: Scripture saith, [but if the ox were wont to gore.] and he kill a man or woman [the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 29.');">²⁰</span> the Writ placed woman on a par with man in respect of all death sentences [decreed] in Scripture. Now, it is necessary [that all three should be intimated].

ואי אשמועינן הא משום דחיותה היא אבל כופר אימא

For if the first [only] were stated, [l would say] that the All-Merciful had compassion upon her [woman], for the sake of atonement;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first refers to sacrifice for sin, and the woman is given the same opportunity of atoning as man.');">²¹</span> but as for civil law, I might argue that it applie only to man, who engages in commerce, but not to woman, who does not. While if the second [alone] were iintimated, that is because oneðs livelihood depends thereon;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., on the protection afforded by civil law.');">²²</span> but as for ransom ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The last law quoted treats of the ransom paid by the owner of the ox; vv.29H');">²³</span> I might argue,