Women and Grace

Home Forums Bais Medrash Women and Grace

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #614985
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    The Shulchan Aruch paskens (Orach Chaim 186:1) that it is a safek whether a woman’s obligation in Birkas Hamazon is a d’oraisa or a d’rabanan:

    ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?????

    ??? ??????

    This is following in the path of a bunch of rishonim, most notably the Rambam (Hilchos Berachos 5:1) and the Rosh (Berachos 3:13).

    There are a couple of Rishonim such as the Raavad (Berachos 12a b’dafei haRif) and the Rashba who hold that it is a d’oraisa.

    Rabbeinu Yonah (Berachos 12a b’dafei haRif) holds that it’s a d’rabanan.

    Lichora, there is a clear proof from the Gemara that Rabbeinu Yonah’s position is correct. The Gemara in Berachos 20b says:

    ?”? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? (?????) ???????? ??? ???????? ????? ???????? (??? ??) ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???

    The Ravina posed to Rava this very question of what the status of a woman’s chiyuv is. A braisa is then quoted in order to answer the query:

    ?”? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ???????? ????? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????????

    The braisa says that a woman can be motzi her husband. Obviously, then, her chiyuv must be d’oraisa because otherwise she wouldn’t be able to be motzi her husband whose chiyuv is d’oraisa.

    The proof is then rejected:

    ??????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????

    Since the braisa also says that a katan can be motzi his father, and a katan certainly does not have a d’oraisa chiyuv, it must be that the case of the braisa is one in which the father only ate a shiur d’rabanan.

    So ends the Gemara. Those who hold that a woman’s chiyuv is a safek, base it on the fact that this Gemara left the query unresolved.

    However, it would seem that this braisa is a proof that the chiyuv of women is only d’rabanan. If the chiyuv was d’oraisa, the braisa doesn’t make any sense. It can’t be telling us that a woman can be motzi her husband’s d’oraisa chiyuv, because then it would also be telling us that a katan can be motzi his father’s d’oraisa chiyuv, which is untenable. If the point of the braisa is to tell us that even a katan can be motzi

    a gadol when the gadol’s chiyuv is only d’rabanan, then there would be a good parallel in saying that a woman can also be motzi a man when his chiyuv is only d’rabanan. But if a woman’s (general) chiyuv is d’oraisa then saying that she can be motzi a man when his chiyuv is only d’rabanan makes no sense, because she can be motzi him even if his chiyuv is d’oraisa! The only way to coherently read the braisa is if the chiyuv of women is only d’rabanan.

    Two dochek possibilities:

    1) ?? ?????? ??? ?????? – the braisa is talking about two different cases and is teaching us two different halachos

    2) Sometimes the Tannaic style is to lump eved, katan, and isha together even when the halacha is not the same

    I think that both of these possibilities are dochek enough that if the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, et al were relying on them, someone should have pointed it out.

    #1061740
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    A third possibility: the ikkar chiddush is the ??? ???? ?????.

    Welcome back.

    #1061741
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    That might be true, but even if it is, you still need to use one of my docheks (or come up with another answer) to explain the parallel between isha and katan.

    Welcome back

    From where?

    #1061742
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    I think it makes your two possibilities, especially the first, not dochek.

    You tell me; I don’t know where you’ve been, only where you haven’t been.

    #1061743
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    My understanding of the reason why it’s ??? ???? is that the guy is a clown for not knowing how to say Birchas Hamazon. If that is the reason, and the braisa’s goal was to tell us this then the braisa should have just said “??? ???? on someone who isn’t able to bentch himself. Do you have a different understanding of ??? ?????

    #1061744
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    ??”? ???? ?”?. ??”? ???? ?? ?????: ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????

    #1061745
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????

    I thought I had seen such a pshat but I didn’t remember where.

    I can see how using this pshat would make it less dochek. But I still think it’s dochek.

    Also, see Tosafos there.

    #1061746
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    What do you want from ‘????

    #1061747
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    If by “What do you want from ‘????” you mean what am I using Tosafos for then I will specify that I am drawing an implication from the words

    “????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????” and the words

    “???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???”

    #1061748
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Tosafos is going on Hallel, not Birchas Hamazon.

    #1061749
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I know. But his explanation of why it’s a bizayon is that a woman is not chayev. So by Birchas Hamazon, it would only be a bizayon if women are not obligated. Which would the prove that women’s Birchas Hamazon is only d’rabanan.

    #1061750
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    But by Birchas Hamazon she obviously is chayev; she’s being motzi him. Ma she’ein kein Hallel. So the bizayon which applies there (Tosofos say Rashi should have said it there) can’t be precisely the same. (I think it might mean their fewer chiyuvim in general, which is different than koton.)

    #1061751
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Exactly. So who says that it’s a bizayon to have a woman be motzi a man?

    #1061752
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Rashi

    #1061753
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Rashi doesn’t say it by Birchas Hamazon.

    #1061754
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    See Tosafos.

    #1061755
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Rashi writes:

    ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??????

    Thus Rashi’s understanding of the braisa is that a woman’s chiyuv of Birchas Hamazon is d’rabanan. We’re supposed to be attempting to read the braisa according to the opinion that a woman’s chiyuv is d’oraisa (or a safek). Rashi’s understanding of “??? ????” by Birchas Hamazon is assuming that women are only d’rabanan.

    #1061756
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    That’s what the gemara did to avoid the hechrech that she’s chayav d’Oraisa, and because of koton. The question is does that give a hechrech that her chiyuv is only d’rabbonon, but I don’t think you’ve proven that.

    #1061757
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Let’s backtrack a bit. Let’s assume that a woman’s chiyuv is d’oraisa. Why then is it “??? ????”? She is just as chayev as he is. Ella mai, the “??? ????” is like the first half of Rashi – there is a tayna on the guy for not learning how to bentch. But what about Tosafos who explains and wants to apply Rashi’s second half to the braisa of Birchas Hamazon? So I would say that Tosafos understood that Rashi was explaining the braisa in accordance with the view that a woman’s chiyuv is only d’rabanan. Thus, I would ask my question that if the braisa’s goal was to tell us that a man should know how to bentch, it should have done so without misleadingly paralleling a woman to a katan.

    Alternatively, you could explain Rashi’s second half differently from how Tosafos does and say that it’s simply inherently “demeaning” for a woman/katan to be motzi a man, and then combine this with your suggestion that the braisa’s goal is to tell us this.

    #1061758
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Even if a woman’s chiyuv is d’rabbanan, we must then be dealing with less than k’dei s’via, so she’s l’maaseh a bas chiyuva for this din. So where’s the bizayon? Ela mai, she’s not a bas chiyuva for a k’dei s’via – once you’ve put her in in a different category (hence the bizayon) because of a different case, we might as well already say she’s in a different category for other cases, d’haynu, mitvos aseh shehazman grama in general.

    #1061759
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    The bizayon would be like the first half of Rashi – the guy’s an utter failure for not knowing/learning how to bentch.

    Your pshat about “mitvos aseh shehazman grama in general” might conceptually be able (to combine with your original suggestion as to the purpose of the braisa) to alleviate (some of) the dochekness pointed out in my original question, but I definitely don’t think that that’s what either Rashi or Tosafos is saying. And also, it would then have nothing to do with Birchas Hamazon. It would simply be that it’s always less than desirable for a woman to be motzi a man by any mitzvah, even when they have the same chiyuv. And why should it be true that having fewer chiyuvim has any relevance?

    #1061760
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Again, see Tosafos. The relevant quote:

    ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??’ ?????’ ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??

    Tosofos is clearly saying that Rashi’s pshat is relevant to Birchas Hamazon.

    #1061761
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I agree to that. But it’s because Rashi is learning the braisa in accordance with the view that a woman’s chiyuv is only d’rabanan.

    #1061762
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    But the case is is a d’rabbonon, so she’s a bas chiyuva. Yet, Tosafos applies bizayon to it.

    #1061763
    🐵 ⌨ Gamanit
    Participant

    As I’m a woman, I’m not familiar with the gemarah. However, I don’t see how it’s possible for a woman’s chiyuv not to be d’oyraysa. The mitzvah of birchas hamazon is not a shehazman grama. It’s when you eat a meal, whenever that may be. The busha I can think of for a man to me yotzei by a woman is simple. Since birchas hamazon is mentioned straight out in the torah it’s a busha that he wouldn’t know it. He has a chiyuv of limud torah while a woman does not.

    #1061764
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    DaasYochid:

    The bizayon is that a man is commanded by God to say Birchas Hamazaon (even though in this specific case he is only obligated as a d’rabanan) while a woman is not.

    Gamanit:

    There are several possible reasons given why the cyiyuv would not be d’oraisa, among them that there are parts of Birchas Hamazon which talk about things which don’t apply to women, such as inheritance of Israel, bris, and Torah.

    #1061765
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    He has a chiyuv of limud torah while a woman does not.

    Without getting into the gemara, I just want to point out if women are chayav, wouldn’t it be a busha for her not to know it?

    #1061766
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    As far as the gemara is concerned, suffice it to say that mitzvos aseh shehaz’man g’rama are not the only cases we find that women are patur from.

    #1061767
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    PAA, the bizayon is that a woman is not commanded in succah, even though this specific case happens not to be succah.

    The reason to patter is the pasuk of the chiyuv itself. The same ???? which says ????? says ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??.

    #1061768
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    There’s a difference. Succah has nothing to do with Birchas Hamazon. Why would it be a bizayon for someone who is patur from Succah to be motzi you in Birchas Hamazon? What I’m saying is that it’s a bizayon for someone whom the Torah does not include in a mitzvah to be motzi someone in that very mitzvah. Even in a specific situation where the man’s chiyuv is only d’rabanan. Because we look at the overall mitzvah.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 30 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.