Monday, April 23, 2007

Chagiga 16b - Time Bound Positive Mitzvos for Women

Tosafos in R"H 33a proves from this gemara that acc. to R' Yossi that Semicha for women is a "reshus", we see that there is a kiyum mitzvah for woman to perform time bound positive mitzvos. The difficulty is that R' Yossi himself is really just coming to say that it is "mutar" to the exclusion of the tana kama who says assur, but we don't find that R' Yossi holds that there is an actual kiyum mitzvah. Furthermore, he seems to say that it is only for the sake of "nachas ruach l'nashim", which indicates that there is not necessarily even a kiyum mitzvah, rather it is purely a d'var hareshus?
It seems to me that the proof is actually from the shakla v'taria of the gemara. The gemara originally wants to prove that semicha does not have to be done with all your strength, bec. if it would have to be done b'chol kocho, then we could not allow women to do it and violate avodah b'kodshim. The gemara is then madcheh that perhaps it does have to be done b'chol kocho, and we would instruct women to do it in a way where they are not really doing semicha at all. It seems from the dichuy that according to the approach that semicha does not need kol kocho, women would actually be accomplishing something with their semicha and they would at least be performing a mitzvah. This seems to be the proof of Tosafos that there is a kiyum mitzvah to which tosafos adds (there and here) that they can even make a beracha on it.


Anonymous said...

the prove is that she is not violate Bal Tosif (acc to Rashi Eiruvin 96 b) see Tosfos there D"H Michal at the end

Best regards

Avi Lebowitz said...

I am not sure who i am speaking to - so i don't know who to send regards to!
I think that you are right that Tosafos simply really just uses our gemara to prove that we pasken like r' yossi that it is a reshus and it is "mutar" for women to do time bound mitzvos.
But my assumption was based on the following: Tosafos takes a jump to allow them to even make brachos, which clearly assumes that there is a kiyum mitzvah. The question is, where does this jump come from? Maybe it is a pure reshus - no mitzvah and no aveira and there is no point in them doing it? Even those who argue with tosafos and hold that no bracha can be made, all agree that there is at least a kiyum mitzvah - where does that come from? It seems to me that Tosafos holds that the proofs they cite from michal bas shaul and our gemara are not only indications that women are allowed to do it, but also indicate that there is a purpose in doing it. By michal bas shaul the proof is simply, why else would she waste her time putting on tefillin if there was no mitzvah at all. But from our gemara the language indicates that there is in fact no mitzvah and the sole purpose is to make women happy. I tried to show from our gemara that there is also an indication that they are only happy bec. there is a kiyum mitzvah in their actions.

Anonymous said...

The proofe is that if Smiche had not be a Keyum, It would be Asur bec, of Bal Tosif, and acc. to Tosfos even Hakafas Yad Would look like Avodah Bekadshim.
P.S. See Aigros Moshe Orach Chaim B Simen b

Yossie Schonkopf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yossie Schonkopf said...

tosfos proof is as follows: סמיכה even not בכל כוחו is still אסור מדרבנן and therefor would not be permitted if it is not a מצוה קיומית similarly תוספות in eruvin says this concept regarding תפילין that it would be אסור for women since the need גוף נקי.

see also the ראב"ן which the גהש"ס in the story of הלני המלכה sends you too. He says openly that there is an איסור דרבנן to do סמיכה not בכל כחו.
I will email a copy to reb avi.