## Kiddushin Daf 35a

###### Kiddushin 35a:1
[Kiddushin 35a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35a:1)

וּלְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא, דְּאָמַר: עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ״ מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְכֹל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who says** that **with regard to both of them,** men and women, the verse **states: “And God blessed them,** and God said to them: **Be fruitful and multiply,** replenish the earth and conquer it” (Genesis 1:28), **what can be said?** According to his opinion, women are exempt from only one positive mitzva that is not time bound, Torah study; why not derive other mitzvot from this case? The Gemara answers: The reason this is not a difficulty is **because Torah study and the redemption of the firstborn son,** from which women are also exempt, **are two verses that come as one, and any two verses that come as one do not teach** a precedent.


###### Kiddushin 35a:2
[Kiddushin 35a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35a:2)

וּלְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא נָמֵי, נִיהְווֹ פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה וּמוֹרָא שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד וְאֵין מְלַמְּדִין! צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא מוֹרָא, וְלָא כְּתַב פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: ״וְכִבְשֻׁהָ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא – אִישׁ דְּדַרְכּוֹ לְכַבֵּשׁ – אִין, אִשָּׁה דְּאֵין דַּרְכָּהּ לְכַבֵּשׁ – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka as well, let procreation,** which he maintains applies to women, **and fear** of one’s mother and father **be** considered **two verses that come as one and** they should **not teach** a precedent. The Gemara answers: Both cases **are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written** only that women are obligated in **fear** of their parents, **and had not written** that they are obligated in **procreation, I would say** that as **the Merciful One states:** “Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth **and conquer it”** (Genesis 1:28), this leads to the conclusion that women are exempt from procreation, by the following reasoning: **As** it is **the manner of a man** to go to war and **to conquer, yes,** he is obligated in procreation, but **as it is not the manner of a woman to conquer,** she is **not** obligated in procreation.


###### Kiddushin 35a:3
[Kiddushin 35a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35a:3)

וְאִי כְּתַב פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה וְלֹא כְּתַב מוֹרָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אִישׁ דְּסִיפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת – אִין, אִשָּׁה דְּאֵין סִיפֵּק בְּיָדָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹת – לָא, וְכֵיוָן דְּאֵין סִיפֵּק בְּיָדָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹת לֹא תִּתְחַיֵּיב כְּלָל, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the Merciful One **had written** only that women are obligated in the mitzva of **procreation, and had not written** that they are obligated to **fear** their parents, **I would say:** With regard to **a man, as** it is **in his power to perform** this mitzva, **yes,** he is obligated to fear his mother and father, but with regard to **a woman, as** it is **not in her power to perform** this mitzva when she is married, since her obligations to her husband may prevent her from doing so, she is **not** obligated. **And as** it is **not in her power to perform** this mitzva when she is married, perhaps women **should not be obligated at all** and there should be no difference between a married and an unmarried woman. Therefore, it is **necessary** for the Torah to state that women are obligated in both procreation and the fear of parents, and these are not considered two verses that come as one.


###### Kiddushin 35a:4
[Kiddushin 35a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35a:4)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רָבָא: פַּפּוּנָאֵי יָדְעִי לַהּ לְטַעְמָא דְּהָא מִילְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that the earlier question remains difficult: **This works out well according to the one who says** 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?** According to this opinion it can be derived that women are obligated in positive, time-bound mitzvot from *matza* and assembly, and that they are exempt from positive mitzvot that are not time bound, from Torah study and the redemption of the firstborn son. **Rava said:** The Sages **of Pafunya know the reason for this matter.**


###### Kiddushin 35a:5
[Kiddushin 35a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35a:5)

וּמַנּוּ – רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל יָדְךָ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת ה׳ בְּפִיךָ״ – הוּקְּשָׁה כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ לִתְפִילִּין, מָה תְּפִילִּין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ, וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת – אַף כׇּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וּמִדְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת, מִכְּלָל דְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And who is** the scholar called by the nickname: The Sages of Pafunya? It is **Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov,** who said as follows: **The verse states** with regard to phylacteries: **“And it shall be a sign for you on your arm and for a memorial between your eyes, that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth”** (Exodus 13:9). In this manner **the entire Torah is juxtaposed to phylacteries: Just as** donning **phylacteries is a positive, time-bound mitzva and women are exempt** from it, **so too are women exempt** from **every positive, time-bound mitzva** in the Torah. **And from the fact** that **women are exempt from** every **positive, time-bound mitzva,** one can learn **by inference** that **women are obligated in** every **positive mitzva that is not time bound.**


###### Kiddushin 35a:6
[Kiddushin 35a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35a:6)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תְּפִילִּין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תְּפִילִּין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר תְּפִילִּין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְסָבַר לַהּ שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְכֹל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** that the mitzva of donning **phylacteries** is **a positive, time-bound mitzva. But according to the one who says** that donning **phylacteries** is **a positive mitzva that is not time bound,** as it is applicable the entire year, day and night, **what can be said?** The Gemara answers: **Who did you hear who said** that donning **phylacteries** is **a positive mitzva that is not time bound?** It is **Rabbi Meir, and he holds** that *matza* and assembly are **verses that come as one, and** he further maintains that **any two verses that come as one do not teach** a precedent.


###### Kiddushin 35a:7
[Kiddushin 35a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35a:7)

וּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד מְלַמְּדִין, וּתְפִילִּין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵאי מַצָּה, שִׂמְחָה, וְהַקְהֵל שְׁלֹשָׁה כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says** that **two verses that come as one do teach** a precedent, **and** who also says that donning **phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound, what can be said?** The Gemara answers: It is not derived from here that women are obligated in positive, time-bound mitzvot **because** the verses that mention ***matza*, rejoicing, and assembly are three verses that come as one, and** everyone agrees **three verses that come as one do not teach** a precedent.


###### Kiddushin 35a:8
[Kiddushin 35a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35a:8)

וְכׇל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יַעֲשׂוּ מִכׇּל חַטֹּאת הָאָדָם״ – הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל עוֹנָשִׁים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further teaches: **And** with regard to **all prohibitions,** whether or not they are time bound, both men and women are obligated to observe them. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says, and likewise the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states** with regard to a guilt-offering: **“When a man or woman shall commit any sin that a person commits”** (Numbers 5:6). **The verse equates a woman to a man with regard to all punishments in the Torah,** as a woman is also required to bring an offering for atonement.


###### Kiddushin 35a:9
[Kiddushin 35a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35a:9)

דְּבֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר תָּנָא: אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם״ – הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל דִּינִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה תָּנָא: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה״ – הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל מִיתוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The school of Rabbi Eliezer taught** as follows. **The verse states:** “Now these are the ordinances **which you shall set before them”** (Exodus 21:1), stating “them” in the plural. This **verse equates a woman to a man** with regard **to all judgments in the Torah,** i.e., monetary cases and damages. **The school of Ḥizkiyya taught: The verse states,** with regard to the ransom one pays if his animal killed a person: **“And killed a man or woman”** (Exodus 21:29). Here too, **the verse equates a woman to a man,** with regard **to all deaths in the Torah,** i.e., the same *halakha* applies to an animal that kills either a man or a woman.


###### Kiddushin 35a:10
[Kiddushin 35a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35a:10)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא, מִשּׁוּם כַּפָּרָה חָס רַחֲמָנָא עֲלַהּ, אֲבָל דִּינִין, אֵימָא: אִישׁ, דְּבַר מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן – אִין, אִשָּׁה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** it is **necessary** to state all three of these verses. **As, if** the Torah **had taught us** only **this first** case, with regard to a woman’s obligation to sacrifice guilt-offerings, I would say that **the Merciful One has pity on her due to atonement,** i.e., God gave her the possibility to atone for her sin through an offering. **But** with regard to monetary **judgments, I** would **say** that with regard to **a man, who** generally **conducts** business **negotiations, yes,** these *halakhot* apply to him, but in the case of **a woman,** who generally does not conduct business negotiations, **no,** the *halakhot* of monetary judgments do not apply to her.


###### Kiddushin 35a:11
[Kiddushin 35a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/35a:11)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְועִינַן הָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּחַיּוּתַהּ הִיא, אֲבָל כּוֹפֶר אֵימָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** similarly **if** the Torah **had taught us** only **this** case of monetary judgments, I would say that these judgments apply to a woman, **because** there are circumstances where engaging in business **is her livelihood. But** with regard to the **ransom** that is paid when one’s animal killed someone, **I** would **say:**