February 5, 2014 7:45 pm at 7:45 pm #612055
According to the Rabbanan, of course. According to R’ Yehudah, she did.
Sure, she wasn’t mechuyeves, but she would still have gotten schar as an einah metzuvah v’osah.
And, her sons’ sukkah was 20 amos or below, and her sukkah was above 20 amos, and they were connected, so it seems like it was b’davka.February 5, 2014 8:06 pm at 8:06 pm #1002410
Maybe there was a feminist movement and she was reacting against it?February 5, 2014 8:22 pm at 8:22 pm #1002412
No, I think the feminist movement is an expression of the yetzer hora to be like the nations.
I don’t assume that there was a feminist movement in the non Jewish society in the times of the Tannaim, so I don’t see why there would be one in Jewish society.February 5, 2014 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm #1002413
Yes, but because she was so powerful and was a woman, she was very machmir on anti-feminism to avoid becoming an icon.February 5, 2014 9:10 pm at 9:10 pm #1002414
So you’re suggesting that she, or the Chachomim whom she loyally followed, foresaw today’s “ism”, so had her sit in a possul sukkah?February 5, 2014 9:29 pm at 9:29 pm #1002415
Either that, or the science of the time told them about it.February 5, 2014 9:44 pm at 9:44 pm #1002416
Ok, so what’s pshat in R’ Yehuda?February 5, 2014 10:08 pm at 10:08 pm #1002417
he just said that so that slifkin would have someone to hold like.February 5, 2014 10:48 pm at 10:48 pm #1002418
Anyhow, I made a mistake. The whole sukkah was higher than 20, the kosher part was wide enough to be good anyhow. So it wasn’t b’davka, but I think it’s still a fair question, why wouldn’t she have it built at 20 or below to be yotzei in her section.
To add a bit to the question, there’s a machlokes whether or not a mother is mechuyeves in chinuch. If she’s not, then the expectation that the sukkah would be kosher for her sons is based on the assumption that she would even keep mitzvos that she wasn’t obligated to keep. (see P’nei Yehoshua).February 6, 2014 1:24 am at 1:24 am #1002419
Perhaps she was a Tzanser.February 6, 2014 1:35 am at 1:35 am #1002420
HaLeiVi, please explain.February 6, 2014 4:05 am at 4:05 am #1002421
The Minhag in Sanz is that the women don’t sit in the Succah. Anyhow, to better answer your question, she didn’t know better. The proof in the Gemara is from the Chachamim and the fact that they didn’t correct her.February 6, 2014 4:53 am at 4:53 am #1002422
That does work, but it’s surprising that someone who
?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? wouldn’t ask how to make it ???.February 6, 2014 5:37 am at 5:37 am #1002423
DY: R’ Akiva Eiger asks about women being Pattur from Chinuch and leaves off with TZI”G, I think.
To answer the original question, maybe the author of this Braisa held like Rashi (R”H 33a, I think) that women cannot volunteer Mitzvos Asei Shehazman Grama and that it would be Bal Tosif.
Or maybe because she was so important that she was concerned that if she did the Mitzvah, others would think that women are Mechuyavos (similar to the answer given by many about why Tevi didn’t sit in a Sukkah in a Kosher fashion).February 6, 2014 12:21 pm at 12:21 pm #1002424
1) He does bleib TZI”G (on the page in GH”S), but the P’nei Yehoshua does address it.
2) I’ll bl”n look for it.
3) That’s a serious version of popa’s p’shat. Interesting. OTOH, it’s the opposite of what HaLeiVi said; you’d think she’d use a more obvious p’sul, or sit in the house altogether.February 6, 2014 3:26 pm at 3:26 pm #1002425
See also Eruvin 96a Tosfos D.H. Michal Bas Kushi who gives the same answer as I did (Bal Tosif) but rejects it (because he disagrees with Rashi’s Bal Tosif D’rabannan here) without really offering an alternative to why Hilni did it.February 6, 2014 3:56 pm at 3:56 pm #1002426
She needed a private spot to put on her t’filin.February 6, 2014 4:00 pm at 4:00 pm #1002427
I actually came on now to post that Tos.
I’m not sure what you mean that they don’t say why she did it.February 6, 2014 7:40 pm at 7:40 pm #1002428
Question I’ve had for quite sometime; popa’s responses had me cracking up.February 6, 2014 10:24 pm at 10:24 pm #1002429
there is no one feminist movement.February 7, 2014 6:55 am at 6:55 am #1002430
DY: According to their D’chiya of Rashi that each individual Mitzvah has a different explanation as to why a Shittah would Assur women volunteering as an Eino Metzuvah V’oseh, they don’t give an alternative explanation why a woman couldn’t volunteer Sukkah.February 7, 2014 7:36 am at 7:36 am #1002431
According to Tosafos they clearly could volunteer Sukkah. That’s the poshtus in our B’raisa, that according to R’ Yehuda, she did volunteer the mitzvah.February 7, 2014 7:56 am at 7:56 am #1002432
DY: Right. Tosfos doesn’t give an explanation as to why according the Chachamim she didn’t/couldn’t.February 7, 2014 2:00 pm at 2:00 pm #1002433
?????? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ???February 7, 2014 3:10 pm at 3:10 pm #1002434
doneFebruary 7, 2014 3:58 pm at 3:58 pm #1002435
if the gemara isnt concerned with her ruchniyus, why are you. she made a decision not to perform a mitzvah she wasnt obligated in, the gemara doesnt question why, why is everyone else. the gemara is focused on her sons who do have a chiyuv, at least midirabanan, and as the rishonim and achronim discuss he chiyuv of chinuch vis a vis her sons, but as far as she is concerned, the gemara doesnt care. why does everyone else?February 7, 2014 5:42 pm at 5:42 pm #1002436
I’m asking why the gemara doesn’t care, and if there’s something to learn from it. L’moshol, maybe it’s a shtickle raya to Rashi on nireh k’mosif.February 7, 2014 7:19 pm at 7:19 pm #1002437
Don’t you see that the Gemara doesn’t assume she knew better? Rebbe Yehuda mentions the fact that the Chachamim didn’t correct her, which means that it is assumed that she didn’t know on her own. She was not Bruria and we are not learning from her.February 9, 2014 12:57 am at 12:57 am #1002438
I’m maskim that you can’t bring a raya.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.