(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Kidushin 34

KIDUSHIN 32-35 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) Succah, Lulav and Shofar all fall under the category of 'Mitzvos Asei she'ha'Z'man Geramah'. The Tana also lists - Tzitzis and Tefilin.

(b) Tefilin is considered 'Z'man Geramah' - 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 Asei she'Lo ha'Z'man Geramah'; Mezuzah, Ma'akeh (placing a parapet around one's roof), Hashavas Aveidah - and Shilu'ach ha'Ken.

(a) We query the above principle (cited in our Mishnah replete with exceptions) from ...
1. ... Matzah, Simchah and Hakhel - which are also 'Z'man Geramah', yet women are obligated.
2. ... Talmud Torah, Piryah ve'Rivyah and Pidyon ha'Ben - which are not 'Z'man Geramah', yet women are exempt. Why were these exceptions 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'ei (from which we extrapolate that whoever is obligated in the one is obligated in the other).
2. ... exempt from Piryah ve'Rivyah (even though it is *not*) - because the Torah inserts "ve'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 'P'ru u'Revu'.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan extrapolates from all this - that one cannot learn from principles, even if the Tana specifically lists exceptions (i.e. one must assume that there may be more exceptions that the Tana omitted).
(a) The Mishnah in Eruvin says - 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).

(a) We learn that women are Patur from Mitzvos Asei she'ha'Z'man Geramah from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Tefilin - which in turn, we learn from Talmud-Torah, to which Tefilin is compared (in the Sh'ma).

(b) In spite of the principle that when there is a Hekesh le'Chumra and a Hekesh le'Kula, we always Darshen le'Chumra, we do not rather compare Tefilin to Mezuzah (in the first Parshah of the Sh'ma, where they are juxtaposed) - because Tefilin is juxtaposed with Talmud-Torah in both Parshiyos of the Sh'ma, but next to Mezuzah only in the first.

(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 Sh'ma) - because the Torah continues "Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem", and women need life just as much as men do.

(d) The problem with the D'rashah "ha'Ezrach", from which we learn that women are Patur from sitting in a Sucah 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 Sucah? Why are they not Patur anyway?

(a) In reply to the previous Kashya, Abaye explains that if not for "ha'Ezrach", we would have obligated women to sit in a Sucah, because the Torah writes in Emor "ba'Sukos Teishvu" - implying that one is obligated to live in the Sucah 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 Sucah 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 Sucah on Succos.




(a) The Mitzvah of 'Re'iyah' comprises appearing before Hashem on each of the Shalosh Regalim with an Olas Re'iyah.

(b) In spite of the fact that it is 'Z'man Geramah', 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 Hakheil.

(c) We learn the exemption of women from time-related Mitzvos Asei, 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'ei "ve'ha'Ger ve'ha'Yasom ve'ha'Almanah".

(a) We cannot learn from the Mitzvah of Hakheil (where the Torah specifically incorporates women in the Mitzvah) that women should be obligated to fulfill 'Mitzvos Asei she'ha'Z'man Geramah' - because Matzah and Hakheil are 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'.

(b) Tefilin and Re'iyah, we explain, are not considered 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'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 Hakheil (which would have obligated them).
2. ... Tefilin with a 'Mah Matzinu' from Re'iyah - because we would have compared Tefilin to Mezuzah (to obligate them).
(c) Had the Torah obligated women in the Mitzvah of Hakheil, 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 Succos that they are exempt from it.

(d) Nevertheless, Matzah and Hakheil are considered 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad' - because even though Hakheil needs Matzah, Matzah does not need Hakheil, and once one of the two Pesukim is superfluous, it is considered 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad' even though the other one is needed).

(a) The principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'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 Asei she'Lo ha'Z'man Gerama from Mora, meaning - Mora Av va'Eim.

(c) We do not rather learn from Talmud-Torah that women are Patur from such Mitzvos, because Talmud-Torah and P'ru u'Revu are considered 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad'. This will not work however, according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah - who learns from the Pasuk in Bereishis "Vayevarech Osam Elokim, Vayomer Lahem Elokim P'ru u'Revu" - that women are obligated in this mitzvah just like men. In that case, back comes the Kashya, why do we not learn from Talmud-Torah that women are Patur from all Mitzvos Asei she'Lo ha'Z'man Geramah'?

(d) We conclude therefore, that Talmud-Torah combines with the Mitzvah of Pidyon ha'Ben to make it 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,