(a)Sukah, Lulav and Shofar all fall under the category of 'Mitzvos Aseh she'ha'Zman Gerama. Which other two Mitzvos does the Tana list?
(b)On what basis is Tefilin considered 'Zman Gerama'?
(c)The Tana lists four 'Mitzvos Aseh she'Lo ha'Zman Gerama'. Three of them are Mezuzah, Ma'akeh (placing a parapet around one's roof) and Hashavas Aveidah. What is the fourth?
1)
(a)Sukah, Lulav and Shofar all fall under the category of 'Mitzvos Aseh she'ha'Zman Gerama'. The Tana also lists Tzitzis and Tefilin.
(b)Tefilin is considered 'Zman Gerama' either because one is Patur from Tefilin at night-time, or because one is Patur on Shabbos and Yom Tov.
(c)The Tana lists four 'Mitzvos Aseh she'Lo ha'Zman Gerama'; Mezuzah, Ma'akeh (placing a parapet around one's roof), Hashavas Aveidah and Shilu'ach ha'Ken.
2)
(a)What Kashya do we ask from ...
1. ... Matzah, Simchah and Hakhel?
2. ... Talmud Torah, Piryah v'Rivyah and Pidyon ha'Ben?
(b)From where do we learn that women are ...
1. ... obligated to eat Matzah on Pesach (even though it is time-related)?
2. ... exempt from Piryah v'Rivyah (even though it is not)?
(c)What important principle does Rebbi Yochanan extrapolate from all this?
2)
(a)We query the above principle (cited in our Mishnah replete with exceptions) from ...
1. ... Matzah, Simchah and Hakhel which are also 'Zman Gerama', yet women are obligated.
2. ... Talmud Torah, Piryah v'Rivyah and Pidyon ha'Ben which are not 'Zman Gerama', yet women are exempt. The problem is why these exceptions are not listed in our Mishnah together with those that the Tana does mention.
(b)We learn that women are ...
1. ... obligated to eat Matzah on Pesach (even though it is time-related) from the juxtaposition of eating Matzah to the prohibition of eating Chametz in Parshas Re'eh (from which we extrapolate that whoever is obligated in the one is obligated in the other).
2. ... exempt from Piryah v'Rivyah (even though it is not) because the Torah inserts "v'Chivshuhah" ('and capture the land') in the same Pasuk, from which we extrapolate that whoever does not normally participate in capturing land is exempt from 'Peru u'Rvu'.
(c)Rebbi Yochanan extrapolates from all this that one cannot learn from principles, even there where the Tana specifically lists exceptions (i.e. one must assume that there may be more exceptions that the Tana omitted).
3)
(a)What does the Mishnah in Eruvin (in connection with Eruv Chatzeiros) say about water and salt?
(b)Which other two foods do we know to be not eligible?
(c)What do all these foods have in common that invalidates them from being used as an Eruv?
(d)So what have we now proved from the Sugya in Eruvin?
3)
(a)The Mishnah in Eruvin rules that all foods are eligible for Eruv Chatzeiros except for water and salt.
(b)The other two foods that we know to be not eligible are Kemeihin and Pitriyos (two species of mushrooms).
(c)What all these foods have in common that invalidates them from being used as an Eruv is the fact that the purpose of Eruv Techumin is to serve as a base where one eats, and the food that is placed there must comprise a satisfying meal, which these four foods do not.
(d)From the Sugya in Eruvin, we have another support for Rebbi Yochanan's principle (that one cannot learn from principles, even if exceptions are listed).
4)
(a)We learn that women are Patur from Mitzvos Aseh she'ha'Zman Gerama from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Tefilin. And from where do we learn that they are Patur from Tefilin?
(b)Based on the principle that when there is a Hekesh l'Chumra and a Hekesh l'Kula, we always Darshen l'Chumra, why do we not rather compare Tefilin to Mezuzah (in the first Parshah of the Shema, where they are juxtaposed)?
(c)Seeing as the Torah does not specifically obligate women to put up Mezuzos, why do we not exempt them on account of their being compared to Talmud-Torah (in the second Parshah of the Shema)?
(d)What problem do we have with the Derashah "ha'Ezrach", from which we learn that women are Patur from sitting in a Sukah?
4)
(a)We learn that women are Patur from Mitzvos Aseh she'ha'Zman Gerama from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Tefilin which in turn, we learn from Talmud-Torah, to which Tefilin is compared (in the Shema).
(b)In spite of the principle that when there is a Hekesh l'Chumra and a Hekesh l'Kula, we always Darshen l'Chumra, we do not rather compare Tefilin to Mezuzah (in the first Parshah of the Shema, where they are juxtaposed) because Tefilin appears next to Talmud-Torah in both Parshiyos of the Shema, but next to Mezuzah only in the first one.
(c)Despite the fact that the Torah does not specifically obligate women to put up a Mezuzah, we do not exempt them on account of their being compared to Talmud-Torah (in the second Parshah of the Shema) due to the continuation of the Pasuk "Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem", and women need life just as much as men do.
(d)The problem with the Derashah "ha'Ezrach", from which we learn that women are Patur from sitting in a Sukah is that bearing in mind that the Mitzvah is time-related, why does the Torah need to write "ha'Ezrach" in order to exempt women from sitting in a Sukah? Why are they not Patur anyway?
5)
(a)In reply to the previous Kashya, Abaye explains that if not for "ha'Ezrach", we would have obligated women to sit in a Sukah, because the Torah writes in Emor "ba'Sukos Teishvu". What would we have learned from there?
(b)According to Rava, we would have obligated women to sit in the Sukah from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'. Which 'Gezeirah-Shavah'?
5)
(a)In reply to the previous Kashya, Abaye explains that if not for "ha'Ezrach", we would have obligated women to sit in a Sukah, because the Torah writes in Emor "ba'Sukos Teishvu" implying that one is obligated to live in the Sukah together with one's wife, just as one lives in the house ('Teishvu Ke'ein Taduru').
(b)According to Rava, we would have obligated women to sit in the Sukah from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chamishah-Asar" "Chamishah-Asar" from Chag ha'Matzos, from which we would have extrapolated that just as women are obligated to eat Matzah on Pesach, so too are they obligated to sit in the Sukah on Sukos.
34b----------------------------------------34b
6)
(a)What does the Mitzvah of 'Re'iyah' comprise?
(b)Seeing as it is time-related, why do we need the Pasuk "Zechurcha" (in Ki Sisa) to exempt women from performing it?
(c)We learn the exemption of women from time-related Mitzvos Aseh, from Tefilin. How does Abaye refute the Kashya that we should rather obligate them, from the Mitzvah of Simchah?
(d)How will Abaye explain the fact that a widow is also obligated in the Mitzvah of Simchah? What is the source for this?
6)
(a)The Mitzvah of 'Re'iyah' comprises appearing before Hash-m on each of the Shalosh Regalim with an Olas Re'iyah.
(b)In spite of the fact that it is time-related, we nevertheless need the Pasuk "Zechurcha" to exempt women from performing it because we would otherwise obligate them from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Re'iyah" "Re'iyah" from Hakhel.
(c)We learn the exemption of women from time-related Mitzvos Aseh, from Tefilin. Abaye explains that we should not rather obligate them, from the Mitzvah of Simchah because it is not they who are obligated to perform it, but their husbands who are obligated to make them happy (with Shalmei Simchah or with new clothes see Tosfos DH 'Ishah').
(d)According to Abaye whoever the widow is staying with is obligated to make sure that she too, rejoices on Yom Tov. The source of a widow's obligation is the Pasuk in Re'eh "v'ha'Ger v'ha'Yasom v'ha'Almanah".
7)
(a)Why can we not learn from the Mitzvah of Hakhel (where the Torah specifically incorporates women in the Mitzvah) that women should be obligated to fulfill 'Mitzvos Aseh she'ha'Zman Gerama'?
(b)Tefilin and Re'iyah, we explain, are not considered 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad', because both Pesukim are needed. Why would we not have exempted women from ...
1. ... Re'iyah with a 'Mah Matzinu' from Tefilin?
2. ... Tefilin with a 'Mah Matzinu' from Re'iyah?
(c)Had the Torah obligated women to perform the Mitzvah of Hakhel, why would we not have been able to extrapolate that they are also obligated in the Mitzvah of Matzah?
(d)Then why are Matzah and Hakhel considered 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad'? Let us say there too, that both Pesukim are necessary.
7)
(a)We cannot learn from the Mitzvah of Hakhel (where the Torah specifically incorporates women in the Mitzvah) that women should be obligated to fulfill 'Mitzvos Aseh she'ha'Zman Gerama' because Matzah and Hakhel are 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad'.
(b)Tefilin and Re'iyah, we explain, are not considered 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad', because both Pesukim are needed. We would not have exempted women from ...
1. ... Re'iyah with a 'Mah Matzinu' from Tefilin because of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Re'iyah" "Re'iyah" from Hakhel (which would have obligated them).
2. ... Tefilin with a 'Mah Matzinu' from Re'iyah because we would rather have compared Tefilin to Mezuzah (to obligate them).
(c)Had the Torah obligated women to perform the Mitzvah of Hakhel, we would not have been able to extrapolate that they are also obligated in the Mitzvah of Matzah because we would have learned from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chamishah-Asar" "Chamishah-Asar" from Sukos that they are exempt from it.
(d)Nevertheless, Matzah and Hakhel are considered 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad' because even though Hakhel needs Matzah, Matzah does not need Hakhel, and once one of the two Pesukim is superfluous, it is considered 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad' even though the other one is needed).
8)
(a)Is the principle 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad Ein Melamdin' unanimous?
(b)We learn women's obligation in Mitzvos Aseh she'Lo ha'Zman Gerama from Mora (see Tosfos DH 'Nashim Chayavos'). What is Mora?
(c)We do not rather learn from Talmud-Torah that women are Patur from such Mitzvos, because Talmud-Torah and Peru u'Rvu are considered 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in k'Echad', though not according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah. Why not? What does Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah say?
(d)With which Mitzvah then, will Talmud-Torah finally combine to render it 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad'?
8)
(a)The principle 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad Ein Melamdin is not unanimous. There are those who hold that one can learn a 'Mah Matzinu' from two Pesukim (though even they will agree that 'Sheloshah Kesuvim Melamdin').
(b)We learn women's obligation in Mitzvos Aseh she'Lo ha'Zman Gerama from 'Mora' (i.e. Mora Av va'Eim).
(c)We do not rather learn from Talmud-Torah that women are Patur from such Mitzvos, because Talmud-Torah and Peru u'Rvu are considered 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in k'Echad', though not according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah who learns from the Pasuk in Bereishis "Vayevarech Osam Elokim, Vayomer la'Hem Elokim Peru u'Rvu" that women are obligated to perform this mitzvah just like men, in which case, the Kashya, why do we not learn from Talmud-Torah that women are Patur from all Mitzvos Aseh she'Lo ha'Zman Gerama', returns?
(d)We conclude therefore, that Talmud-Torah combines with the Mitzvah of Pidyon ha'Ben to render it 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad'.
