## Kiddushin Daf 34b

###### Kiddushin 34b:1
[Kiddushin 34b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/34b:1)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: נֵילַף ״חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ ״חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ מֵחַג הַמַּצּוֹת, מָה לְהַלָּן נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת – אַף כָּאן נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is **necessary** to state this verse for another reason, as **it might enter your mind to say: Derive** a verbal analogy with regard to *Sukkot*, where the verse states: “On the **fifteenth** day of this seventh month is the festival of *Sukkot*” (Leviticus 23:34), **from** Passover, where the verse states: “And on the **fifteenth** day of the same month is the **festival of Passover”** (Leviticus 23:6). One would then say that **just as there women are obligated** to eat *matza* on the first night of Passover, despite the fact that it is a time-bound mitzva, **so too here,** with regard to the mitzva of residing in the *sukka*, **women are obligated.** Therefore it **was necessary** for the verse to use the term “the homeborn” to exclude women from the obligation to reside in a *sukka*.


###### Kiddushin 34b:2
[Kiddushin 34b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/34b:2)

וַהֲרֵי רְאִיָּה, דְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ, וְטַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״זְכוּרְךָ״ – לְהוֹצִיא הַנָּשִׁים, הָא לָאו הָכִי נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **But there is** the mitzva of **appearance,** i.e., the obligation to bring a burnt-offering on pilgrimage Festivals, **which is a positive, time-bound mitzva. And the reason** women are exempt from this obligation is **that the Merciful One writes,** with regard to this mitzva: “Three times in the year all of **your males** shall appear before the Lord God” (Exodus 23:17), which serves **to exclude women.** It may be derived from here that **if that were not so, women** would be **obligated.** This indicates that women are not necessarily exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva.


###### Kiddushin 34b:3
[Kiddushin 34b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/34b:3)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: נֵילַף ״רְאִיָּה״ ״רְאִיָּה״ מֵהַקְהֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It **was necessary** for the verse to teach the *halakha* in this case as well, as **it might enter your mind to say: Derive** a verbal analogy with regard to **appearance,** where the verse states: Three times in the year all of your males shall appear,” **from** the **appearance** stated with regard to the mitzva of **assembly,** about which the verse states: “When all of Israel come to appear before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 31:11). One would then say that just as women are obligated in the mitzva of assembly, so too they should be obligated to appear on a pilgrimage Festival. It is therefore necessary for the Torah to state explicitly that women are exempt from the mitzva of appearance on a pilgrimage Festival.


###### Kiddushin 34b:4
[Kiddushin 34b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/34b:4)

וְאַדְּיָלְפִינַן מִתְּפִילִּין לִפְטוּרָא, נֵילַף מִשִּׂמְחָה לְחִיּוּבָא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִשָּׁה בַּעֲלָהּ מְשַׂמְּחָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the primary proof for the principle that women are exempt from positive, time-bound mitzvot, the Gemara asks: **But before deriving** the *halakha* **from phylacteries, to exempt** women from all positive, time-bound mitzvot, **derive** it **from** the mitzva of **rejoicing** on a Festival, in which women are obligated, **to obligate** women in all these mitzvot. **Abaye said:** The mitzva of rejoicing does not apply directly to women. Rather, **a woman is rendered joyful by her husband,** i.e., the mitzva is for him to gladden her on a Festival.


###### Kiddushin 34b:5
[Kiddushin 34b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/34b:5)

אַלְמָנָה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? בִּשְׁרוּיָה אֶצְלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What can be said** with regard to **a widow,** who no longer has a husband but is nevertheless obligated to be joyful on a Festival, as it is written: “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God, you…and the widow” (Deuteronomy 16:11)? The Gemara answers that the mitzva does not apply directly to a widow; rather, it applies **to** the men **with whom she is present,** i.e., they have an obligation to ensure that widows rejoice on the Festivals.


###### Kiddushin 34b:6
[Kiddushin 34b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/34b:6)

וְנֵילַף מֵהַקְהֵל! מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה מַצָּה וְהַקְהֵל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד – אֵין מְלַמְּדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** why not **derive** that women are obligated in all positive, time-bound mitzvot **from** the mitzva of **assembly,** in which women are explicitly obligated despite the fact that it is a time-bound mitzva. The Gemara answers: One cannot derive in this manner, **because** the verses concerning ***matza* and assembly are two verses that come as one,** i.e., to teach the same matter, that women are obligated in these mitzvot despite the fact that these are positive, time-bound mitzvot. **And** there is a principle that **any two verses that come as one do not teach** a precedent that applies to other cases. Rather, the two instances are considered exceptions.


###### Kiddushin 34b:7
[Kiddushin 34b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/34b:7)

אִי הָכִי, תְּפִילִּין וּרְאִיָּה נָמֵי שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד – וְאֵין מְלַמְּדִים! צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא תְּפִילִּין וְלָא כְּתַב רְאִיָּה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: נֵילַף רְאִיָּה רְאִיָּה מֵהַקְהֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** the verses concerning **phylacteries and appearance** are **also two verses that come as one,** as they both indicate that women are exempt from positive, time-bound mitzvot, **and** therefore the verses do **not teach** a precedent. The Gemara answers: These are not considered as two verses that come as one, as both **are necessary,** each for its own reason. **As, if the Merciful One had written** that women are exempt from donning **phylacteries and had not written** that they are exempt from the mitzva of **appearance, I would say: Derive** a verbal analogy to obligate women from the verse stated with regard to **appearance from** the **appearance** stated with regard to the mitzva of **assembly.** Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to teach that women are exempt from the mitzva of appearance.


###### Kiddushin 34b:8
[Kiddushin 34b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/34b:8)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא רְאִיָּה וְלָא כְּתַב תְּפִילִּין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אַקֵּישׁ תְּפִילִּין לִמְזוּזָה, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if the Merciful One had written** that women are exempt from **appearance, and had not written** that they are exempt from donning **phylacteries, I would say: I will compare phylacteries to *mezuza*,** which would mean that women are obligated in the mitzva of phylacteries. Therefore, it is **necessary** to state this *halakha* for both phylacteries and appearance, and they are not two verses that come as one.


###### Kiddushin 34b:9
[Kiddushin 34b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/34b:9)

אִי הָכִי, מַצָּה וְהַקְהֵל נָמֵי צְרִיכִי! לְמַאי צְרִיכִי? בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא הַקְהֵל וְלָא כְּתַב מַצָּה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: נֵילַף ״חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ ״חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ מֵחַג הַסּוּכּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** the verses concerning ***matza* and assembly** are **also necessary,** each for its own reason, and they are not two verses that come as one either. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **For what** purpose are both of them **necessary? Granted, if the Merciful One had written** that women are obligated in the mitzva of **assembly but had not written** that they are obligated in eating ***matza*, I would say: Derive** a verbal analogy with regard to Passover, where the verse states: “And on the **fifteenth** day of the same month is the festival of Passover” (Leviticus 23:6), from *Sukkot*, where the verse states: “On the **fifteenth** day of this seventh month is the festival of *Sukkot*” (Leviticus 23:34), teaching that women are exempt from eating *matza*, just as they are exempt from residing in a *sukka*. Therefore, it is necessary for a verse to teach that women are obligated in eating *matza*.


###### Kiddushin 34b:10
[Kiddushin 34b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/34b:10)

אֶלָּא נִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא מַצָּה, וְלָא בָּעֵי הַקְהֵל, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: טְפָלִים חַיָּיבִים, נָשִׁים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?! הִילְכָּךְ, הָוֵה לְהוּ שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְאֵין מְלַמְּדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But let the Merciful One write** that women are obligated in eating ***matza*, and it** would **not** be **necessary** to state the same *halakha* with regard to **assembly, and I** would **say** on my own: If **children are obligated** in assembly, as is stated explicitly in the verse “Assemble the people, the men and the women and the children” (Deuteronomy 31:12), are **women not all the more so** obligated? **Therefore,** as it is explicitly stated that women are obligated in assembly, the verses concerning *matza* and assembly are **two verses that come as one, and** consequently do **not teach** a precedent.


###### Kiddushin 34b:11
[Kiddushin 34b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/34b:11)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** as a principle that two verses that come as one **do not teach** a precedent. **But according to the one who says** that two verses that come as one **do teach** a precedent, **what can be said?**


###### Kiddushin 34b:12
[Kiddushin 34b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/34b:12)

וְתוּ: מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת מְנָלַן? דְּיָלֵיף מִמּוֹרָא, מָה מוֹרָא נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת – אַף כׇּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** one can ask: **From where do we** derive that **women are obligated in positive mitzvot that are not time bound?** The Gemara answers **that** one **derives** this **from** the mitzva of **fearing** one’s mother and father: **Just as women are obligated** in the mitzva of **fear** (Leviticus 19:3), **so too, women are obligated in every positive mitzva that is not time bound.**


###### Kiddushin 34b:13
[Kiddushin 34b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/34b:13)

וְנֵילַף מִתַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה! – מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה וּפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְכֹל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** why not **derive** the opposite **from Torah study:** Just as women are exempt from Torah study, so too they should be exempt from all positive mitzvot that are not time bound. The Gemara answers: One cannot derive an exemption for women from their exemption from Torah study, **because Torah study and procreation are two verses that come as one,** as in both cases women are exempt, despite the fact that these are not time-bound mitzvot. **And any two verses that come as one do not teach** a precedent.