Today's שיעור will be מסכת קידושין דף ל״ד, but we will start two lines from the bottom of עמוד ב׳ of דף ל״ג. The גמרא here quotes the משנה. The משנה says, כל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה וכולי, any מצוה that is dependent on time, that has a time limit, women are exempt, women are פטור. The גמרא then brings a ברייתא, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, איזו היא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה, what would be considered a מצות עשה, a positive מצוה that is dependent on time? The גמרא says, for example, סוכה, that is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה, because you only eat in the סוכה during the seven days of סוכות. So that is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה that women are פטור. Or לולב, the מצוה of לולב, of taking the four מינים, the four kinds which we only do during the יום טוב of סוכות, and מדאורייתא, you only would do it on the first day of סוכות. So this is a מצות עשה which is dependent on time. שופר, the מצוה of שופר is only on ראש השנה. ציצית, or the מצוה of ציצית, because the הלכה is that לילה לאו זמן ציצית, that at night, there is no obligation for the מצוה of ציצית. So since there is a time when you are פטור from the מצוה of ציצית, therefore it's considered a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה. תפילין, or the מצוה of תפילין, so רש״י says because or we hold that לילה לאו זמן תפילין, that at night you don't have to put on תפילין, so therefore it is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה. Or רש״י says because שבת and יום טוב are לאו זמן תפילין, is not a time to put on תפילין. And as תוספות says that concerning the night, we טאקע פסקן that מדאורייתא לילה זמן תפילין, at night is a time of תפילין, and the reason it's called a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה is because of שבת and יום טוב, and on שבת and יום טוב, we don't have to put on תפילין. The reason for that is because תפילין are considered an אות, considered a sign between the יידן and השם. And שבת and יום טוב, we don't need a sign because שבת and יום טוב themselves are a sign. So therefore, you are פטור from תפילין on שבת and יום טוב. So since there is a time when you are פטור from תפילין, it is considered a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה, and therefore women are פטור. The

גמרא continues, ואיזו היא מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמה, what would be considered a positive מצוה which is not dependent on time? The גמרא gives an example of מזוזה, the מצוה of putting מזוזות on the doors, that you always have to do, there is no time when you are פטור, and therefore it's considered a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמה. It is a positive מצוה, but it is not dependent on time. Or מעקה, the מצוה that you have to make a fence around your roof, so that is a מצוה that has no time limit. You always must put on that fence on your roof, and therefore women are חייב. אבידה, the מצוה that if you find a lost object of another ייד, you must return it. And that is a מצוה constantly, so it is a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמה. Or שילוח הקן, the מצוה that when you find a nest of birds with its mother, so the דין is שלח תשלח את האם ואת הבנים תקח לך, you must send away the mother, then you could take the children. And this is a מצוה that has no time limit. Then the גמרא asks, וכללא הוא, is it a rule? The משנה gives a rule that every מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה women are פטור, any מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמה women are חייב. So it

seems as if this is a rule that there is no מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה that women would be חייב, and there is no מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמה that women are פטור. So the גמרא asks, הרי מצה, don't we have the מצוה of מצה? The fact that we must eat מצה פסח at night, the first night of פסח, is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה. It has a time limit. You only have to do it during פסח. And nevertheless, we know women are חייב. As רש״י brings from the גמרא in פסחים, that there the גמרא learns out from the פסוק that women are חייב in the מצוה of מצה. The גמרא learns that out as follows: the פסוק says, לא תאכל עליו חמץ שבעת ימים תאכל עליו מצות, do not eat חמץ, for seven days you have to eat מצה. So the תורה puts the two מצוות together, the negative מצוה, the מצות לא תעשה of not eating חמץ together with the מצות עשה of eating מצות. So from here we see that the תורה says that whoever is obligated in this מצוה of not eating חמץ is obligated in the מצוה of eating מצה. And therefore, since women are also obligated in the לא תעשה, in the negative מצוה of not eating חמץ during פסח, because as we said that a מצות לא תעשה, women are obligated the same as men, so they are obligated to keep the מצוה of not eating חמץ, so automatically they are also obligated to keep the מצוה of eating מצה. So we see here that there is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, and

nevertheless women are חייב, the מצוה of מצה. Or שמחה, the מצוה of having שמחה on יום טוב. It says in יום טוב: ושמחת בחגך אתה ובנך ובתך, that you should be happy during יום טוב, you and your son and your daughter. So we see that women are obligated to fulfill the מצוה of שמחת יום טוב, of having שמחה on יום טוב, even though it's a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, because it's only on יום טוב that we have this מצוה. Or הקהל, the מצוה of הקהל is that the year after שמיטה, all the יידן would have to come to ירושלים during the יום טוב of סוכות, and the מלך would speak to them. And this מצוה applies to everybody, even to women, because the פסוק says clearly הקהל את העם האנשים והנשים והטף, you should gather together the men, the women, and the children. So women are obligated to fulfill the מצוה of הקהל even though it is a מצוה that is הזמן גרמא, it is dependent on time, it is only once in seven years during the יום טוב of סוכות. And nevertheless, women are חייב. So we see the מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא that these mentioned are מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא ונשים חייבות, so women are חייב. So how can you state a rule that all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא women are פטור? ותו, and also, והרי תלמוד תורה, we see that learning תורה, this is a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא. It's a מצוה which is not dependent on time. A person is always obligated to learn תורה, and nevertheless women are פטור, as we said before that we learn out from the פסוק ושננתם לבניך, you should teach תורה to your sons, so we learn out לבניך ולא לבנותיך, to your sons and not to your daughters. So we know that women are פטור. Or פריה ורביה, the מצוה of multiplying, being fruitful, of having children, is a מצוה only on men, not on women. As the גמרא learns it out in כתובות, because the פסוק says פרו ורבו ומלאו את הארץ וכבשה, you should multiply, be fruitful, fill up the world and conquer it. So the גמרא says that we learn out from here that only men are obligated in this מצוה. Since the תורה says וכבשה, you should conquer it, so the תורה is telling us that this מצוה is only given to those people who their דרך is to conquer. So האיש, a man who his דרך is to conquer, a man fights and conquers, he is מצווה on פריה ורביה, he is obligated to fulfill this מצוה of פריה ורביה. But a woman that is not, her דרך is not to conquer, she is פטור from the מצוה of פריה ורביה. And also פדיון הבן, the מצוה of פדיון הבן we said before, only is for men, not for women. So we see these מצות, דלאו מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא הוא. These are מצות which are not dependent on time, ונשים פטורות, and nevertheless, women are exempt. So how can you state a rule that all מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא women are חייב? אמר רבי יוחנן, so רבי יוחנן said: אין למדין מן הכללות, you cannot learn out from a כלל, that whenever we give a rule, we cannot learn out from there and say that it means everything. ואפילו במקום שנאמר בו חוץ, even where it says חוץ, even where they give an exception to the rule, there there would be a סברא to say that anything but those exceptions are included in the rule. Because if there would be more exceptions to the rule, then how can he say that this is the rule except these few things? By saying that, it would seem that only these are the exceptions, and everything else included in the rule. Nevertheless, he says it's not so, that even when there is an exception mentioned specifically, we still cannot learn out from the rule and say it means everything. דתנן, as we learned, בכל מערבין ומשתתפין, you could use any type of food for an עירוב or for a שיתוף. עירוב is when you make an עירוב חצרות, when you make an עירוב amongst yards that cannot carry, so the חכמים said that the only way they could carry is if they make an עירוב. Or by a מבוי, which is a street, and you have to make a שיתופי מבואות, that is another type of עירוב that if you do that, you're able to carry, and you must use some food. You put the food away in a certain place and since all the people in that מבוי or all the people on that yard, in that חצר, have a part in this food, and since the mind of a person is where his food is, so it's considered as if they all lived in that one place where the food is put. So the דין is you could use any type of food for an עירוב, חוץ מן המים ומלח, except water or salt, because the חכמים said you only have to use things which satisfy you, which fill up a person, and water doesn't fill up a person, and salt is not a food that fills up a person. Therefore, you cannot use these two for an עירוב, but everything else you could use. And the

question is ותו ליכא, isn't there anything else that you cannot use, aren't there any other types of foods that you cannot use? והאיכא כמהין ופטריות, isn't there mushrooms that you also not allowed to use? Because the חכמים knew that even though it's food, nevertheless it doesn't fill up a person. So here we see that even though he said חוץ, he gave an exception to the rule, nevertheless the rule is not complete, because if we would say the rule is complete it would seem that everything except water and salt could be used, and the truth is not everything. Here we see mushrooms cannot be used. So אלא that's what tells us אין למידין מן הכללות, you cannot learn out from a כלל, from a rule, אפילו במקום שנאמר בו חוץ, even if it's is a place where it says clearly חוץ, there is an exception mentioned, still you can't learn out from the rule. And the same thing with our משנה, that even though the משנה gives a rule that every מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא women are פטור, every מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא women are חייב, nevertheless there are exceptions to the rule and there are certain מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא which women are חייב, and certain מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא that women are פטור. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, כל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות, the מצות עשה that depend on time, women are פטור. So the גמרא asks, מנלן, how do we know that? Where does it say in the תורה that women are פטור from those מצוות which depend on time? And the גמרא answers, גמר מתפילין, we learn it out from תפילין. מה תפילין נשים פטורות, just like תפילין women are פטור, אף כל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות, so too from every other מצוה which depends on time women are פטור. Just like תפילין is a מצוה which is הזמן גרמא as we said before, because there are certain times that you are פטור, it's considered a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, so just like תפילין you are פטור, so too women are פטור from all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. And as

רש״י says, we learn it out from a מה מצינו, that's a כלל, when we find a דין by one מצוה, so then all the other מצוות which are similar to this one מצוה have the same דין. So here too, since we find one מצוה which is הזמן גרמא and women are פטור, so we know that all מצוות שהזמן גרמא women are פטור. And the גמרא says, ותפילין, how do we know תפילין itself that women are פטור? גמר לה מתלמוד תורה, they learn out תפילין from the מצוה of learning תורה. The reason we learn out תפילין from the מצוה of learning תורה, as רש״י says, because in the פסוקים they go together. The תורה says ושננתם לבניך, you should teach תורה to your sons, and right after that it says וקשרתם לאות על ידך, you should tie it for a sign on your hand which is the מצוה of תפילין. So the תורה puts together the מצוה of learning תורה with the מצוה of putting on תפילין, so therefore we learn out תפילין from the מצוה of תלמוד תורה, and we say מה תלמוד תורה נשים פטורות, just like from learning תורה women are פטור, as we said before we learn out from the פסוק ושננתם לבניך, you should teach your sons, not your daughters, so we know that women are פטור from learning תורה, אף תפילין נשים פטורות, so too from the מצוה of תפילין women are פטור. And the

גמרא asks, וניקש תפילין למזוזה, let's compare תפילין to מזוזה, just like we compare תפילין to תורה, because the מצוה of תפילין says in the תורה right after the מצוה of learning תורה, let's learn out תפילין from מזוזה because right after the מצוה of תפילין the תורה tells us the מצוה of מזוזה. So who says that we have to compare תפילין to the מצוה mentioned before, which is the מצוה of תלמוד תורה, and we will say women are פטור from תפילין, let's compare תפילין to the מצוה mentioned right after תפילין, which is the מצוה of מזוזה, which is also close right afterwards, and we'll say that just like מזוזה women are חייב as the גמרא will say later, so too women are חייב in the מצוה of תפילין. And the גמרא answers, תפילין לתלמוד תורה איתקיש בין בפרשה ראשונה בין בפרשה שנייה. תפילין is compared to learning תורה, in other words תפילין is mentioned right next to the מצוה of learning תורה in the first פרשה of קריאת שמע, which is the פרשה of שמע ואהבת, and also in the second פרשה of קריאת שמע, which is the פרשה of והיה אם שמוע. Because also in the פרשה of והיה אם שמוע it says first וקשרתם לאות על ידכם והיו לטוטפת בין עיניכם, and then right away it says ולמדתם אותם את בניכם. So here too the מצוה of תפילין says right next to the מצוה of תלמוד תורה, so therefore we compare תפילין to תלמוד תורה. But תפילין למזוזה בפרשה שנייה לא איתקיש. תפילין to מזוזה is not compared, it doesn't say close in the second פרשה of קריאת שמע, because in the second פרשה of קריאת שמע between the מצוה of תפילין and the מצוה of מזוזה, the תורה puts in the מצוה of learning תורה. So there the מצוה of תפילין is not right next to the מצוה of מזוזה, so therefore When we have a choice of comparing תפילין to תורה, or comparing תפילין to מזוזה, so we say, since the תורה compares תפילין to תלמוד תורה in both פרשיות, we'd rather say that the דינים of תפילין are learned out from the דינים of תורה, rather than the דינים of תפילין should be learned out from the דינים of מזוזה, since in the second פרשה, תפילין is not close to the דינים of מזוזה. Then the

גמרא asks: וניקש מזוזה לתלמוד תורה. Let's compare מזוזה to תלמוד תורה. We know that women are obligated to fulfill the מצוה of מזוזה, but why don't we compare מזוזה to תלמוד תורה and say, just like women are פטור from learning תורה, they should be פטור from מזוזה? And the reason the גמרא feels that we should compare מזוזה to תלמוד תורה, since we said before that the תורה compares, puts together the מצוה of מזוזה right next to the מצוה of תלמוד תורה, so maybe what the תורה wants to tell us is that we should learn out מזוזה from תלמוד תורה, that just like women are פטור from תלמוד תורה, they should be פטור from מזוזה too. And the גמרא says: לא סלקא דעתך. We don't have such an הוה אמינא, we don't have such a סברא, because דכתיב למען ירבו ימיכם, right after the מצוה of מזוזה, it says that the reward will be that you will have a long life. So גברי בעי חיי נשי לא בעי חיי? Men have to live and women don't have to live? Since it is נוגע, it's important for the life of the person, so we understand that this is a מצוה on the women too, since women also have to live. Then the

גמרא asks a קושיא: והרי סוכה דמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. We see that סוכה, which is a מצות עשה dependent on time, דכתיב בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים, because the תורה says, you should sit in the סוכה seven days, so it's only seven days a year that you have to sit in the סוכה, so it's a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. And still we see that טעמא דכתב רחמנא האזרח להוציא את הנשים, that the whole reason why women are פטור from סוכה, the גמרא tells us in סוכה, because we learn out from a special פסוק. The תורה says האזרח, that every אזרח, every citizen, so to speak, should sit in the סוכה. So the גמרא says in סוכה that this word אזרח comes to exclude women, that only the men are מחוייב to sit in the סוכה, but not women. So it comes out that the reason women are פטור from סוכה is because we have the special פסוק that tells us that, that women are פטור from סוכה. הא לאו הכי, but if not for this special פסוק האזרח, נשים חייבות, women would have been חייב to sit in the סוכה. But how come? If we give a rule that every מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, women are פטור, because, as we said before, we learn it out from תפילין, why do we have to have a special פסוק by סוכה that women are פטור? They should be פטור without that special פסוק, because it is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. אמר אביי, אביי said, איצטריך, we do need that special פסוק by סוכה, because סלקא דעתך אמינא, because if not for that special פסוק, I would think that even though סוכה is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, still women should be חייב by סוכה specifically. הואיל דכתיב בסוכות תשבו, since the תורה says, you should sit in the סוכה, and we know it means תשבו כעין תדורו, your sitting should be there like your living. In other words, what the תורה is telling us that you should live normally in the סוכה. In other words, whatever you would be doing in your house during the week of סוכות, you should do that in the סוכה. So we would think that מה דירה, just like in a person's home, איש ואשתו, a man with his wife live there, אף סוכה איש ואשתו, so too the סוכה should be for a man and his wife. So therefore there would be a סברא to say that even though סוכה is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, nevertheless women are חייב, and therefore, by סוכה, we need the special פסוק אזרח to tell us that women are פטור. רבא אמר, but רבא says, איצטריך, we need the special פסוק for a different reason, because סלקא דעתך אמינא, I would think, if not for the special פסוק האזרח to exclude women from the מצוה of סוכה, I would think נילף, I should learn out חמשה עשר חמשה עשר מחג המצות, from פסח. By פסח it says that the יום טוב is on חמשה עשר, on the fifteenth day of the month, the fifteenth day of ניסן. By סוכות it says that the יום טוב is on the fifteenth day of the month, the fifteenth day of תשרי. So I would make a גזירה שוה and compare the מצוה of סוכה to the מצוה of מצה. And I would say: מה להלן, just like over there by the מצוה of מצה, נשים חייבות, women are obligated to eat מצה the night of פסח, as we said before, that even though it is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, the גמרא in פסחים learns out from the special פסוק, לא תאכל עליו חמץ שבעת ימים תאכל עליו מצות, that women are obligated to eat מצה. So I would say אף כאן, here too, by the מצוה of סוכה, נשים חייבות, women are obligated. So therefore, צריכא, therefore we need this special פסוק by סוכה. to tell us that women are exempt. But otherwise, if not for these special reasons why we would think that maybe women should be חייב בסוכה, we don't need special פסוקים. There is a general rule that any מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, women are פטור. Then the

גמרא asks another קשיא, going back to the משנה, where we said that מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, women are פטור. So the גמרא asks, והרי ראיה, the מצוה of ראיה, this is a מצוה of עליה לרגל. The דין is that on every יום טוב, which means the יום טוב of פסח, שבועות, and סוכות, there is a חיוב to go up to ירושלים for all the יידן, and there they have to bring קרבנות ראיה. So the גמרא asks, that this קרבן ראיה, מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, it is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. וטעמא דכתב רחמנא זכורך להוציא הנשים, and the reason we say that women are פטור from this מצוה is because the תורה says clearly זכורך, your זכרים, your males. So the תורה tells us clearly that only men are obligated to fulfill this מצוה of ראיה, and women are פטור. הא לאו הכי, but if not for this special פסוק זכורך, I would think that נשים חייבות, women are obligated. But the question is, why? If we have this rule that we learn out from תפילין, that every מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא women are פטור, so wouldn't we know on our own that women are פטור from the מצוה of ראיה? Why do we have to have this special פסוק זכורך? The גמרא answers, איצטריך, I do need that special פסוק by the מצוה of ראיה. Because סלקא דעתך אמינא, if not for this special פסוק זכורך, I would have a הוה

אמינא, I would think נילף ראיה ראיה מהקהל. I would make a גזירה שוה, compare the מצוה of ראיה to the מצוה of הקהל. Because in both פסוקים, we have the word ראיה. By the מצוה of ראיה, it says יראה כל זכורך. By the מצוה of הקהל, it says that when should this מצוה of הקהל take place? It says בבוא כל ישראל לראות, when all the יידן will come to be seen by השם. So we use the word ראיה by the מצוה of הקהל, too. So we can make a גזירה שוה and compare the two. We would compare the מצוה of ראיה from the מצוה of הקהל. And we would say, just like by הקהל, women are חייב, because it says בפירוש in the תורה, אנשים, נשים, וטף, men, women, and children. So I would say, so, too, with the מצוה of ראיה, women are חייב. So therefore, we have to have a special פסוק כל זכורך to teach us that women are פטור from ראיה. But otherwise, any מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, women are פטור without any special פסוקים. Now, the

גמרא goes back to the עצם הדין, to the דין itself. We said before that how do we know that women are פטור from a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא? Because we learn it out from תפילין. Just like תפילין, women are פטור, and תפילין is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, so we know that all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, women are פטור. So the גמרא asks, ועד דילפינן מתפילין לפטורא, that instead of learning out from תפילין that women are פטור, נילף משמחה לחיובא, let's learn out from the מצוה of שמחה to be חייב. The מצוה of שמחה, that on יום טוב you have to have שמחה, we said before, women are חייב in that מצוה. As the פסוק says, ושמחת בחגך אתה ובנך ובתך, that you should be happy on יום טוב, you and your son and your daughter. So we see women are חייב בשמחה. And שמחה is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, it is a מצוה which depends on time, it's only on יום טוב. So why don't we say that just like שמחה is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא and nevertheless women are חייב, so too all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, women are חייב? In other words, why should we learn out from תפילין that מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא women are פטור, let's learn out from שמחה that all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא women are חייב?

אמר אביי, אביי says, אשה בעלה משמחה, that really, a woman herself is not obligated to fulfill the מצוה of שמחה. It is only that her husband is obligated to make her happy, to give her שמחה. And as רש''י says, that concerning the woman, we דרשנ'ן as if it would say not ושמחת, but ושמחת, you should make her happy. And therefore, we can't learn out from the מצוה of שמחה that just like a woman is חייב בשמחה, so too she is חייב in all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, because really a woman is not חייב in the מצוה of שמחה, it is a חיוב on her husband to give her שמחה. Then the גמרא asks, אלמנה מאי איכא למימר? This is only good by a woman who is married, so there we could say that her husband will give her שמחה. But an אלמנה, a widow, what could you say there? There you also are obligated to give her שמחה, and she has no husband! So obviously there is a מצוה on herself to fulfill the מצוה of שמחה. So we see here that a woman is obligated for the מצוה of שמחה. And the גמרא answers: בשרויה אצלו. That טאקע when the תורה says that you are obligated to give שמחה to an אלמנה, it doesn't mean that she herself is obligated in the מצוה of שמחה, it means the one that she's living with. Since she's talking about a poor אלמנה, and she is staying with somebody, so that somebody that she is staying with is obligated to be משמח her to make her happy, but she herself has no מצוה of שמחה. And the

גמרא asks a קושיא: וניליף מהקהל. Let's learn out from הקהל. הקהל, we said, was a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, and nevertheless, the תורה says clearly that you have to bring women too, that women are also obligated in the מצוה of הקהל. So let's learn out from הקהל that just like הקהל, which is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, women are חייב, so too women should be חייב in all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, instead of learning out from תפילין that women are פטור from מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, let's learn out from הקהל that women are חייב in the מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. And the גמרא answers: משום דהוה מצה והקהל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד. Because מצה and הקהל are two פסוקים that come together to tell us the same דין. And the rule is, כל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין, that whenever we have two פסוקים that tell us the same דין, they cannot teach this דין concerning any other case. The rule is that when can we learn out a דין from one place that that will teach us the דין in many, many other places, only if the תורה tells us that דין concerning one thing. If the תורה tells us that דין in two places, then we can't learn out from these two places to any other place. Because we would say like this: if the תורה meant that we should learn out from this to all other places, so why did the תורה write it in two places? The תורה should have written it in one place, and automatically we would have learned out to all other places, including that second place. Why did the תורה tell us the דין in that specifically in that second place? So obviously the תורה meant to say that it's only in these two places that the דין applies, but in all other places it doesn't apply. Because if it would apply in all other places, then the תורה would just say it in one place. And that's what the גמרא is saying here: that since the תורה tells us specifically by מצה that women are חייב, as we said before, the תורה does it by comparing the איסור of חמץ with the מצוה of מצה, so the תורה did something specially to tell us that women are obligated in מצה, the תורה also tells us in the second place, by הקהל, that women are obligated, so we say, since the תורה tells us this דין in two places, it's in order that we shouldn't learn out from there. Because if the תורה would mean that we should learn out from there, the תורה would only say this in one of the two, and not say it in the second, and automatically we would learn it out for all over, including that second one. And that's what the גמרא answers here: that the reason we cannot learn out from הקהל, because we have it by מצה and we have it by הקהל, so these are שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, the תורה tells us in these two places, so that means that we can't learn out from there. So the

גמרא asks: אי הכי, if the reason we can't learn out from there is because the תורה tells us this דין in two places, how can we learn that out from תפילין? We say we learn out that women are פטור from מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא from תפילין, we can't learn out from תפילין either, because תפילין וראיה נמי שני כתובים הבאים כאחד ואין מלמדין. We have two places where the תורה tells us that women are פטור from a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא: one place is תפילין, and the other place is ראיה. As we said before, there is a פסוק: זכורך, that tells us that women are פטור from ראיה. So here, too, we have two places where the תורה tells us that women are פטור, and they're both מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. So if the תורה would mean that we should learn out from there that women are פטור from all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, the תורה would only write this דין in one of the two, but not in the second, and we would learn out automatically the second from the first, as we would learn out all other דינים. And since the תורה does tell it to us in both places, by תפילין and by ראיה, so maybe that means that we cannot learn out from these two. So the question is: how could the גמרא say that we learn out the דין that מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות from תפילין, when really תפילין and ראיה are שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, they're two פסוקים that come together to teach us that we can't learn out? And the גמרא answers: צריכא. We do need both פסוקים. In other words, this rule, that whenever we have two פסוקים that tell us the same דין, it means that we cannot learn out from there, that is only if there is no reason for the תורה to tell it to us in the second place. But if we have a reason why the תורה must tell it to us in the second place—in other words, if the תורה would say it only in one of the two, we would have a good reason to say that the second place does not have the same דין—so in a case like that, by the fact that the תורה tells it to us in two places doesn't show that it's meant not to be learned out. In a case like that we do not say that the reason the תורה said this דין in two places is in order not to learn out, because we could say like this: maybe really the תורה wants us to learn out, איי the question is, why did the תורה tell it to us in the second place too? Because if not for the תורה telling us, we would not have known the דין in the second place, because we would think that the second place is excluded because of whatever reason the גמרא will find. And that's what the גמרא says here, that we do not consider תפילין and ראיה as שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, because if the תורה would write just one of the two, we would not have known the second, and therefore the תורה must write the דין in both places, and since it is not considered שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, we already could learn out the דין from תפילין. And the גמרא explains why תפילין and ראיה are not שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, why if the תורה would write the דין only in one of the two, we wouldn't know the second. And the גמרא says: צריכי, we need them both. דאי כתב רחמנא תפילין, if the תורה would just write the דין that women are פטור from תפילין, ולא כתב ראיה, and the תורה would not write specifically that women are פטור from ראיה, הוה אמינא, I would think, נילף ראיה ראיה מהקהל, I would say that they are חייב by ראיה, because I would say learn out ראיה from הקהל, since there is a גזירה שוה. By ראיה it says the word ראיה, as we said before, and by הקהל it says the word ראיה, it says ליראות. So we would think maybe we have to compare ראיה to הקהל, and therefore we would think that by ראיה women are חייב, so therefore the תורה must specifically say this דין that women are פטור by ראיה. On the other hand, אי כתב רחמנא ראיה, if the תורה would only write this דין by ראיה, that women are פטור from ראיה, ולא כתב תפילין, and the תורה would not write that women are פטור from תפילין, הוה אמינא, I would think, אקיש תפילין למזוזה, that I should compare תפילין to מזוזה, since the תורה puts תפילין next to מזוזה, and I would say that just like מזוזה women are חייב, תפילין women are חייב too. צריכא, therefore we have to have that one too. So since there is a reason why we must have both, automatically it is not considered שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, and therefore we could learn out from תפילין that women are פטור from all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. And then the גמרא asks, אי הכי, if so, מצה והקהל נמי צריכי. We said before that why can't we learn out from הקהל that women should be חייב מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, just like הקהל they're חייב, so too they should be חייב in all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא? And the answer the גמרא gave was, because we have two פסוקים where we see women are חייב,

מצה and הקהל, so they became שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, so we can't learn out from there. But the גמרא now asks that here too, by these two פסוקים of מצה and הקהל, we need them both, if the תורה would just say one of the two, we would not know the second. And as we've said before, wherever the תורה must write them both because we would not know the other if would only say one, we do not consider it as שני כתובים הבאים כאחד. So the question here is that מצה and הקהל we also need both, and therefore it is not שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, and therefore back to the question: why can't we learn out from הקהל that just like הקהל women are חייב even though it's a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, so too women should be חייב in all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא? And the גמרא answers: למאי צריכי, what do you need it for? You just said that we need both, if the תורה would just write one of the two, מצה or הקהל, we would not know the second, and therefore the תורה must write them both, and therefore it's not considered שני כתובים הבאים כאחד. Let's see, what do we need it for? In other words, why couldn't the תורה just write one, we should know the other? בשלמא, מילא, we understand, אי כתב רחמנא הקהל, if the תורה would write just the מצוה of הקהל, doesn't mean the תורה would write the מצוה of הקהל, the תורה has to write the מצוה of הקהל, we mean to say if the תורה would just write that women are חייב in the מצוה of הקהל, ולא כתב מצה, and the תורה would not write that women are חייב in the מצוה of מצה, הוה אמינא, I would think, נילף חמשה עשר חמשה עשר מחג הסוכות, that I should learn out with a גזירה שוה of the word חמשה עשר חמשה עשר from סוכות, and I would say just like by סוכות women are פטור from the מצוה of סוכה, so too on פסח women are פטור from the מצוה of מצה. Therefore we would not know from הקהל that women are חייב in the מצוה of מצה, I would think that מצה is an exception because we would learn it out from סוכות. אלא, but נכתוב רחמנא מצה ולא בעי הקהל, let the תורה just write מצה, and I wouldn't need הקהל, and I would know myself that by הקהל women are חייב. דהוה אמינא, I would say, טפלים חייבין, if children are חייב in the מצוה of הקהל as the תורה says, אנשים נשים וטף, that means even if the תורה wouldn't write נשים, the תורה wouldn't write that women are חייב, but the תורה would still write that children are חייב, so I would say that that מה דאך children are חייב in the מצוה of הקהל, נשים לא כל שכן, certainly women. So I would know that women are חייב by הקהל. So why does the תורה have to write הקהל? Why wouldn't it have been enough if the תורה would write מצה? So since the תורה does write it by הקהל, even though it's extra, הלכך הוו להו שני כתובים הבאים כאחד ואין מלמדין. So therefore, it became two כתובים הבאים כאחד, two פסוקים that the תורה tells us the same דין, even though the תורה didn't have to, so that means that we shouldn't learn out from there. And therefore, we cannot learn out from הקהל and מצה that just like those two, women are חייב, even though they're מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, so too women should be חייב in all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. We can't learn out from there. And what we do learn out from is from תפילין, and we say that just like תפילין is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא and women are פטור, so too women are פטור from all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. Concerning the statement of אביי, he said, אשה בעלה משמחה. Concerning the מצוה of שמחה, he says that a woman, her husband gives her שמחה, so we find a מחלוקת between רש״י and תוספות. Here in the גמרא in קידושין, and also on the גמרא in ראש השנה דף ו׳ עמוד ב׳. רש״י learns that when we say אשה בעלה משמחה, that the husband has to give her שמחה, so רש״י says it means that he has to give her nice clothes, he has to give her nice food, etc. The general דין of שמחה, when we say a person is מחוייב in the מצוה of שמחה, so we know it means that he has to bring special קרבנות. There are שלמי שמחה, special קרבני שלמים, that he eats from that meat, and that's how the person fulfills the מצוה of שמחה, as we know אין שמחה אלא בבשר, and that means בשר שלמים, that there is no מצוה of שמחה unless you bring a קרבן שלמים, שלמי שמחה, and you eat from that meat. Nevertheless, רש״י says when it says אשה בעלה משמחה, that the woman, her husband gives her שמחה, so רש״י learns it means something else. It has nothing to do with the קרבן, it has to do with giving clothes, etc. So תוספות asks, from רש״י it's משמע that a woman has no obligation to eat from the קרבנות of שמחה, so תוספות asks, we find in the גמרא in חגיגה, the גמרא says, איזהו קטן, we say it's, it says in the גמרא there, that a קטן, a child, is פטור from the מצוה of ראיה, is פטור from going up to ירושלים the מצוה of ראיה. So the גמרא says, which one is פטור from the מצוה of ראיה? כל שאינו יכול לאחוז בידו של אביו ולעלות מירושלים להר הבית. Anyone that cannot hold on to the hand of his father and go up from ירושלים to הר הבית, to the place where the בית המקדש was, a child like that is פטור from ראיה. And the גמרא asks, עד הכא מאן אתייה? Who brought him up till here? You say it depends on going from ירושלים to הר הבית. Who brought him up to ירושלים? And the גמרא says, דמיחייבא אימיה בשמחה. Since his mother is מחוייב in שמחה, so his mother brought him up. So תוספות says, from here we see that a woman is supposed to go up to ירושלים in order to have from שלמי שמחה, because if it means that she only is obligated to have שמחה that the husband should buy her clothes, she doesn't have to come up to ירושלים for that. And here the גמרא says that the woman is מחוייב to go up to ירושלים in order to fulfill the מצוה of שמחה. So we see that a woman is obligated to eat from the שלמים of שמחה. How could רש״י say that a woman has no obligation to eat from the שלמי שמחה? And therefore, the רבינו תם says that when the גמרא says that בעלה משמחה, a woman, her husband gives her שמחה, that the חיוב is on her husband, not on her. Really, it means that she is obligated to eat from the שלמי שמחה, but what the גמרא means to say is that it's not a חיוב on her. She herself doesn't have an obligation to bring a קרבן and to eat from the meat, it's her husband that has an obligation to give her from his קרבן. And that's what the גמרא meant here, that the woman is herself not חייב בשמחה, not that she's not חייב to eat, but she doesn't have the חיוב of שמחה. אי if so, תוספות says, how could the גמרא in חגיגה use the term that אימיה דמיחייבא בשמחה, that the mother, that she is מחוייב בשמחה, she came up to ירושלים, and the גמרא uses the term she is מחוייב בשמחה, we're saying now that the woman herself is not מחוייב בשמחה? So תוספות says, it טאקע means she is מחוייב because of her husband, that we consider her מחוייב because of her husband. Really, the חיוב is on her husband, and nevertheless, we still call her מחוייב בשמחה. באמת, a similar מחלוקת is between the רמב״ם and the ראב״ד. The רמב״ם says in הלכות חגיגה פרק א׳ סוף הלכה א׳, when he speaks about the מצוה of שמחה, he says ונשים חייבות במצוה זו, that women are חייב in this מצוה. And this refers to the מצוה of eating from the קרבן of שמחה. The ראב״ד writes there, לא בקרבן, that a woman is not obligated in the קרבן, אלא בשמחה שתשמח עם בעלה, שמחה that she should be happy with her husband, שתעלה עמו והוא ישמח אותה, that she should go up with him and he should make her happy, but she is not מחויב in the קרבן of שמחה. And the לחם משנה explains that the רמב"ם learns like תוספות. Not like רש"י, and therefore the רמב"ם says that she is מחויב in the שלמי שמחה, just like תוספות says that a woman is מחויב to eat from the שלמי שמחה, and the גמרא in חגיגה calls it איהי מחייבא בשמחה, she is מחויב, even though that the חיוב was on the husband to give her. While the ראב"ד learns that you couldn't consider her מחויב. In other words, you can't write ונשים חייבות במצוה זו, that women are מחויב in this מצוה, since this מצוה is not on her, but the מצוה is on her husband. So we see here a מחלוקת between רש"י and תוספות, and the רמב"ם and the ראב"ד, whether we could consider a woman מחויב in שלמי שמחה, based on the fact that her husband has to give her from his שלמים, but she herself does not have an obligation to eat from the קרבן on her own. Now in order to understand the מחלוקת between רש"י and תוספות, and the רמב"ם and the ראב"ד, the ליובאוויטשער רבי in his ספר לקוטי שיחות חלק י"ז, the 17th volume, in פרשת קדושים, explains it as follows. He says we find another מחלוקת between רש"י and תוספות. רש"י in the גמרא ברכות דף מ"ח עמוד א' learns that the מצוה of חינוך, the מצוה that a child who is under בר מצוה is מחויב מדרבנן to fulfill all the מצוות, so רש"י says לאו מצוה דידיה, אלא דאבוה, it is not the מצוה of the child, it is the מצוה of the father. In other words, there's a חיוב on the father to be מחנך the child that the קטן should do the מצוות. And therefore רש"י learns that if a child ate and he is בענטשינג ברכת המזון, and the father also is מחויב in ברכת המזון, or any other גדול is מחויב בברכת המזון, but a case where they are מחויב only מדרבנן, because they only ate enough that מדאורייתא you would be פטור from בענטשינג and מדרבנן you're חייב, so רש"י learns that the קטן cannot be מוציא the גדול. Even though normally, when one is מחויב in something מדרבנן, in a ברכה, he could be מוציא someone else who's מחויב מדרבנן, so here too, the child is מחויב to בענטש

מדרבנן, the גדול is מחויב also only to בענטש מדרבנן, so why shouldn't the child be מוציא the גדול? So רש"י says, because the מצוה on the child to בענטש מדרבנן is not on the child, it's the מצוה on the father. So therefore the child is not considered a מחויב בדבר, someone who is obligated in the מצוה, and therefore he cannot be מוציא the גדול. While תוספות there learns that the child could be מוציא the גדול because the child, תוספות says, is מחויב מדרבנן to בענטש and considered a מחויב בדבר, and since the father or the other גדול is also מחויב only מדרבנן, the child could be מוציא the גדול. What is the reasoning behind this מחלוקת? So the ליובאוויטשער רבי explains it based on a question. לכאורה, how can תוספות learn that the child is considered a מחויב בדבר? How is it possible for a child to be מחויב in a מצוה? מדאורייתא he's פטור. Why is he פטור? Because he's not a בר דעת. So how could the חכמים put a חיוב on a child who's not a בר דעת? Whenever we say that דרבנן make certain חיובים in a case where you are פטור מדאורייתא, it's because the reason you are פטור is not because you are not a person who can accept חיובים, there are other reasons why you are פטור, there the רבנן are able to make you חייב. But here the reason a קטן is פטור מדאורייתא is because he is not a בר דעת, he's not a person who is able to accept חיובים. So how can the רבנן come along and put a חיוב on the קטן?

Therefore he says that באמת, even according to תוספות, originally the חיוב started with the father. The חכמים put a חיוב on the father that he has an obligation to see that his son should do all the מצוות, and it's the חיוב of the father. But since the חיוב of the father is to do the מצוה with the child, to see that the child does the מצוה, so in a case like that, automatically the חיוב is transferred to the child, that the child is considered a מחויב בדבר. On his own he couldn't be a מחויב בדבר, but since he is part of the מצוה of the father, he is considered himself a מחויב בדבר. And this is the מחלוקת between רש"י and תוספות. תוספות goes along with this שיטה, that whenever there is a חיוב on one to do something with the other one, even though the חיוב did not go directly on the other one, the other one is considered a מחויב בדבר because he is part of the מצוה of the first one. While רש"י doesn't learn that way. רש"י learns that since the חיוב was put on the father, we do not say that the child who is the one that the מצוה is going to be done with is considered a מחויב בדבר. We do not say that the חיוב, so to speak, is transferred from the father to the child. And therefore the child, the קטן, remains an אינו מחויב בדבר, he is not considered one who is obligated to do it, not even מדרבנן, therefore רש"י learns the child cannot be מוציא the גדול. גדול with ברכת המזון. And the same will apply here. The

case of שמחה, we say that the father the husband is מחוייב to give his wife from his שלמי שמחה. So תוספות learns the שיטה that whenever there is an obligation on one to do a מצוה with the other, automatically the other one is considered a מחוייב בדבר, so תוספות learns that אשה בעלה משמחה means that the husband is מחוייב to give her part of his שלמי שמחה, and we could consider her a מחוייב בדבר. And that's why the גמרא could say אמו דמיחייבא בשמחה, the mother is מחוייב בשמחה, even though she's not מחוייב on her own. She is מחוייב because her husband is מחוייב to give her, but nevertheless the חיוב is so to speak transferred to her, and she is considered a מחוייב בדבר. While רש״י, who does not learn that way in the case of חינוך, does not learn that way here too, and he cannot say that the woman could be considered a מחוייב בדבר because the husband is מחוייב to give her. Therefore רש״י does not learn that way. He does not learn that there is a חיוב on the husband to give her from his שלמי שמחה, and because of that, the גמרא will consider her a מחוייב בדבר. And the same applies to the רמב״ם and the ראב״ד. Because the

רמב״ם in הלכות ברכות פרק ה׳ הלכה ט״ו הלכה ט״ז learns that בן מברך לאביו, that a child could be מוציא his father. So obviously the רמב״ם learns that the חיוב is on the child. So the רמב״ם learns like תוספות. While the ראב״ד, he doesn't learn that way, so the ראב״ד learns like רש״י. So we see that the same סברא that we said concerning רש״י and תוספות, that תוספות learns that the חיוב is transferred to the one you're supposed to do the מצוה with, and רש״י learns that it's not, the same applies to the רמב״ם and the ראב״ד. The רמב״ם learns that the חיוב is transferred, and the ראב״ד learns it's not. And that is the reason why concerning the מצוה of שמחה, the רמב״ם writes that נשים חייבות במצוה זו, women are מחוייב in this מצוה, and the ראב״ד learns that women are not מחוייב in this מצוה, because the ראב״ד learns like רש״י that the חיוב is not transferred. Just to bring an example to this סברא that if the חיוב is on one person to do something to the other, the other one is considered a מחוייב בדבר, is from the שיטה of the חרדים and the הפלאה. The חרדים in the מצות עשה דתלויות בפה פרק ד׳ אות י״ח, and the הפלאה in כתובות דף כ״ד עמוד ב׳, they both write that concerning ברכת כהנים, that even though the מצוה is that the כהן should give a ברכה to the אידן, to the ישראל, nevertheless they say there is a מצות עשה on the ישראל to get געבענטשט. And the הפלאה writes there, וכן מצינו בכל מקום אף על גב דבתורה אינו מפורש הציווי אלא על העושה, we find that in many places that even though the תורה gives the ציווי only on the one that does it, המצוה על שניהם, the מצוה is on both. So this is a ראיה that there is such a סברא that when the חיוב is on one, but it is to do it with the other, the other one is considered a מחוייב בדבר. And this would be the שיטה of תוספות and the רמב״ם, while רש״י and the ראב״ד would not learn that way. And the ליובאוויטשער רבי in that ספר ליקוטי שיחות brings many, many מחלוקות between רש״י and תוספות and the רמב״ם and the ראב״ד that are based on this סברא. Also, based on this סברא, the ליובאוויטשער רבי in a different place, in ליקוטי שיחות חלק י״ט, in the 19th volume, answers a קשיא of the מפרשים on this גמרא. The מהרי״ט and the מקנה and other מפרשים ask a סתירה between this גמרא that we learned today and the גמרא in חגיגה. This גמרא says that if the תורה would not write the מצוה of הקהל, which means that if the תורה would not say that women are obligated in the מצוה of הקהל, we would know ourselves that they are obligated. And the גמרא says, because we would learn out of a קל וחומר: if children are obligated in the מצוה of הקהל, certainly women are obligated in the מצוה of הקהל. So from this גמרא it comes out that children are obligated in the מצוה of הקהל, and that's why we would have known that women are also obligated in the מצוה of הקהל, we would learn it out from the children. But the גמרא in חגיגה דף ג׳ עמוד א׳ says, asks a קשיא. He says there that the תורה says that you have to bring אנשים, נשים וטף, you have to bring men, women, and children. And the גמרא says: אנשים באים ללמוד, men they come to learn. נשים באות לשמוע, women come to hear. טף למה באין? Why do the children come? And he answers: כדי ליתן שכר למביאיהן, in order to give reward to those that brought them. In other words, it would seem from that גמרא that there is no חיוב on the children to come, it's only a חיוב on the fathers to bring the children in order that the father who brought the child should get שכר. But as far as the child himself is concerned, there is no חיוב. So from that גמרא it comes out that children themselves are not מחוייב. So how could the גמרא here say that we would have learned out the חיוב of women from the חיוב of children, when from that גמרא it seems that really there is no חיוב on children to come? So the ליובאוויטשער רבי explains that באמת we have to understand פשט in that גמרא. And based on the סברא that we said before, we'll understand the פשט in the גמרא here, and ממילא, we'll also understand how it's no סתירה between that גמרא and this גמרא. The גמרא there says like this: אם אנשים באים ללמוד, נשים באות לשמוע, טף למה באים? If the men they come to learn, the women they come to hear, why do the children come? Now the question is, why does he have to give the הקדמה, that introduction, that if the men come to learn, the women come to hear, what do the children come for? Why didn't he just ask, why do the children come? We can't learn that this is just an introduction to the question. Like sometimes you find in the גמרא it says, בשלמא so-and-so, but the other thing is hard, or הניחא so-and-so, but the other thing is not understood. If that would be the פשט in the גמרא, the גמרא should have said בשלמא. The גמרא the גמרא should have said, בשלמא אנשים באים ללמוד, נשים באות לשמוע, טף למה באים? But the גמרא doesn't use the לשון בשלמא. So obviously, it seems that the גמרא is trying to tell us a חידוש that אנשים באים ללמוד, men come to learn, women come to hear, and ממילא, that brings up the question, why do you bring the children? And a ראיה that the גמרא really is trying to tell us a חידוש, that men come to learn, women come to hear, not just as an introduction to later, because we see that רש״י in חומש on the פסוק in פרשת וילך brings this דרש from the גמרא, and רש״י actually divides it into a few pieces. On the words אנשים, רש״י says ללמוד. On the words נשים, רש״י says לשמוע. On the word טף, רש״י says למה באו? ליתן שכר למביאיהם. So we see that רש״י comes to tell us that אנשים come to learn, women come to hear. So obviously, רש״י learns that this is a חידוש that we're trying to learn out, that men come to learn, women come to hear, not just as an introduction. Now the question is, why does he have to tell us, and what does he mean with telling us this, that men come to learn, women come to hear? So he explains that it is a big חידוש, because when we look into the פסוקים, it says הקהל את העם, האנשים והנשים והטף, you should gather all the, make the whole nation, the men, the women, and children. And the פסוק continues, למען ישמעו ולמען ילמדו ויראו, in order for them to hear, in order for them to learn, and to fear השם. So from the פסוק is משמע that this is a מצוה on the one that is supposed to gather them, and that is the מלך. The king is obligated to gather all the יידן together, and to read to them certain פסוקים of the תורה. So it seems in the תורה that this is a מצוה only on the מלך. When the תורה says, in order for them to hear, in order for them to learn, it seems as if not that this is a חיוב on the people, this is the reason, the purpose, the goal of the מצוה on the מלך. Like we find in the פסוק it says, למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם, that you should do the מצוה of כיבוד אב or the מצוה of מזוזה in order that you should live long. So there למען is only an outcome of the מצוה, but this is not the מצוה itself. So here too we could learn בפשטות, the מצוה is הקהל on the מלך. The goal of the מצוה on the מלך is so that the people should learn. And that's what the גמרא is trying to tell us that it's not so. אנשים באים ללמוד, the men come to learn. What he's telling us is that there is a חיוב on the men themselves. The חיוב is for them to come and learn. נשים באות לשמוע, the women come to hear. There is a חיוב on the women to come. And the reason there is a חיוב on them is, as we said before, since there is an obligation on the מלך to gather together the men, the women, and the children, so automatically that makes them automatically מחויב, that the men, the women, and children are מחויב. As we said before, that the סברא is that whenever you have a חיוב on one to do something with someone else, so that someone else is considered a מחויב בדבר. So therefore, the men become a מחויב בדבר, the women become a מחויב בדבר, and even the children become a מחויב בדבר. So there is one חיוב on them all. The purpose of that חיוב on them, so the purpose of the חיוב on the men is to learn תורה, the purpose on the women is to hear. On the children, there can be no purpose, because since the children are too small to learn or to hear, so over there, there is no specific purpose מצד the חיוב that comes upon them. So the truth is the חיוב does come upon them, because the מלך is מחויב to gather them. But the reason for this חיוב upon them, that only applies to men and to women. And that's what the גמרא meant when the גמרא asked the קשיא. The גמרא first gave a statement, אנשים באים ללמוד, to tell us that the men have their own חיוב to come, and there is a purpose in their own חיוב. Even though that the חיוב comes to them because the מלך is obligated to bring them, but nevertheless, לאחר, after the חיוב comes upon them, there is a reason for that חיוב itself. The reason for that is that they should be able to learn תורה. And the same with the women. After there's a חיוב on the women, because the מלך is obligated to gather the women, too, so automatically the women become a מחויב בדבר. And The reason for that חיוב that comes upon them, the גמרא gives is לשמוע, to listen. But the גמרא שאלה is, טף למה באין? When we say the חיוב comes upon the children too, what is the reason for that חיוב upon the children? Since the מלך is obligated to gather the children too, and automatically we said the חיוב is transferred to the children too, so they are מחוייב, so the גמרא שאלה is, what is the reason for that חיוב upon the children? And the גמרא טאקע says that there is no specific reason מצד the children. The reason why there is a חיוב on the children is ליתן שכר למביאיהן, is in order for those that bring them should have שכר for bringing them. And there is no specific reason for the children being מחוייב. But according to this it comes out that even though the גמרא says that the reason for the children's coming is in order to give שכר for those that bring them, it doesn't mean that the children themselves are not מחוייב בדבר. All the גמרא wants to know, what is the reason for them being a מחוייב בדבר. So according to this, children are מחוייב בדבר because of the התחייבות that is transferred to them through the מלך. So that fits to our גמרא in קידושין where the גמרא says that טפלים חייבים, that children are חייב, and we asked before from the גמרא in חגיגה is משמע that children are not חייב. But according to this פשט it comes out that children are חייב, and the reason for the חיוב is because it's transferred from the מלך to the children. But what the גמרא meant, ליתן שכר למביאיהן, is only as an explanation to the reason why the children should be חייב. And the גמרא says there is טאקע no reason מצד the children themselves, the reason why the חיוב is transferred upon the children, so the one that brings the child should get שכר. But one might ask, how does this fit to the גמרא before? We explained before that according to תוספות, אשה בעלה משמחה means that she is מחוייב to eat from the שלמים and therefore, she גמרא in חגיגה considers her a מחוייב בדבר, and nevertheless the גמרא here says that it's considered as if a woman is פטור because the חיוב comes to her through her husband. So it comes out that according to תוספות, since the חיוב comes through somebody else, we don't consider her as a מחוייב בדבר in it, even though we can call her a מחוייב בדבר, but as far as this גמרא is concerned לגבי the דין of מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, we consider her פטור. So according to that, since we said that the reason we say אנשים, נשים וטף are חייב בהקהל is because the מצוה of the מלך is transferred upon them, so how can the גמרא here consider the woman מחוייב in this מצוה when really the only reason she is מחוייב is because it's transferred from the מלך? And we just said before that if the מצוה is transferred upon her, as far as מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא we consider her פטור, how come לגבי הקהל we consider her חייב? And he answers, because there is a big difference between שמחה and הקהל. By the case of שמחה we say there are two חיובים on the husband. There's a חיוב on the husband for himself, the מצוה of שמחה, then there's another חיוב on the husband to be משמח his wife. And therefore, her חיוב is not considered a חיוב on her, it's a חיוב upon him and it's transferred to her, and she is considered פטור from the מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. But by the case of הקהל, the מצוה of the מלך himself is הקהל האנשים והנשים והטף. So this is actually part of the original מצוה of הקהל. And therefore, the gathering of the woman is considered מחוייב בדבר because that is the only way the מלך's מצוה could be fulfilled. By the case of שלמים, שלמי שמחה, even if the husband will not give her, he will have fulfilled his מצוה anyway. So therefore it's a separate מצוה on him to give her, and therefore she is not considered מחוייב because he has the מצוה of giving her. In the case of הקהל, the whole מצוה of the מלך is הקהל האנשים והנשים והטף. So the woman's coming to הקהל is part of the original עצם מצוה of הקהל. Therefore, it is considered as if the woman is מחוייב בדבר of הקהל, similar to the men who are מחוייב, and the טף who are מחוייב.