The Behag brought in tosafos holds that women cannot be motzi men in the reading of the megillah. The Behag expresses this by saying that the nature of the chiyuv on men is "kriah" whereas the nature of the chiyuv of women is "shmiah". Although it is clear that he is trying to say that men have a higher level chiyuv than women and therefore from the perspective of a man, a women is considered an "eino mechuyav b'davar"; the hagdara of the behag is stinn unclear. What does he mean that women are chayuv in only "shmiah" - it must mean more than just a lower level chiyuv? (i have some thoughts but i am interested in some comments).
6 comments:
It could be that since their chiyuv is because of af hen hayu banes that that creates a diffrent chiyuv on women then men so men have a chiyuv keriya and af hen hayu only a chiyuv shimiya for women.
the ikkar takana of the anshei knesses hagedola was only on men and their chiyuv is therefore m'divrei kabalah. Women, who are only chayav because of "af hein" are only chayav m'drabanan (see next Tosafos) so their chiyuv is not an independent chiyuv, but tags on to the existing chiyuv of the men. Thus, men are chayav to read (and hear) while women are chayav only to hear. The question is if according to Tosafos when a man is unavailable to read should a woman read for a man so that at least he can fulfill his mitzvas shemia, or do we assume that his chiyuv is qualitatively different and therefore he accomplishes nothing by listening to her.
but where do we find such a mitzva where one is only passive not active???
how can the rosh say that women cant even read for themselves??
yossie
zvi - i agree, but my question is why is the hagdara "shmiah" and "kriah".
aryeh - you are saying the sevara of the turei even to explain the behag. but that explanation is not how tos. explains the behag. it can be a chiyuv "kriah" both by men and women, just that men are chayev midivrei kabbala and women midrabonon. why does tos. have to make the nature of the chiyuv different (the nature of the chiyuv is clearly different acc. to tos.) also, acc. to the way you explain is the terms "shmiah" and "kriah" have no real meaning, they are just ways of expressing 2 different chiyuvim.
to me it seems that tosafos is borrowing the idea from the mitzvah of hakhel - i have a mehalech but too long to elaborate.
Nice comparison to hakel nashim bain lishmoa
Here is the link to the article i wrote about it (i also posted it on the main page of the sight).
here
Post a Comment