Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת קידושין דף ל"ה. But we will start on דף ל"ד עמוד ב', nine lines from the bottom of the עמוד, starting with the word הניחא. We're in the middle of the סוגיא of the דין that women are exempt, פטור, from מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, from those מצות that have a time limit, that depend on time. And מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, those מצות that do not depend on time, women are חייב. And the גמרא said that how do we know that women are פטור from those מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, the גמרא said because we learn it out from תפילין. Just like תפילין is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, it's a מצוה that depends on time, because there are certain times where you do not have to put on תפילין. So that shows that תפילין has a time limit, there is a time when you do put on תפילין and there's a time when you don't put on תפילין. And just like תפילין women are פטור, so too are women פטור from all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, from all מצות that have a time limit. But then the

גמרא asked a question, why don't we learn out from הקהל that women should be חייב in מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא? הקהל is the מצוה that once in seven years, the year after שמיטה, the king has to gather all the יידן together in the בית המקדש, and read to them certain פרשיות of the תורה. And the תורה says clearly, הקהל את העם האנשים והנשים והטף, he should gather together the nation, men, women, and children. So the תורה says clearly that women are also part of the מצוה of הקהל. So we see here that even though the מצוה of הקהל is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, it is a positive מצוה that depends on time, nevertheless, women are חייב. So the גמרא asked before, let us learn out from the מצוה of הקהל that women are חייב to keep the מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. And the גמרא answered: We cannot learn out from הקהל because we have another מצוה where the תורה says that women are חייב even though it is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, and that is the מצוה of מצה. So since the תורה tells us by two מצות which are זמן גרמא that women are חייב, automatically we cannot learn out from those two מצות to teach us concerning all other מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, because the כלל is that שני כתובין הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין.

Whenever we have two פסוקים that teach us concerning two things the same דין, that automatically tells us that we cannot learn out from there concerning all other cases. Because if the תורה would have meant that we should learn out from those דינים concerning all other cases which are similar, then the תורה would only write that דין in one of the two, and not write it in the second. If the תורה meant we should learn out from there, so then the second one the תורה writes it is extra, because if we're going to learn out from the first, we would have known the second automatically. Just like we want to learn out all other similar cases, we would have learned out the second one too. So why did the תורה have to write the same דין in the second place too? So since the תורה writes the same דין in two places, that itself shows that the תורה means that we should not learn out from here to all other cases. And therefore, the גמרא says, since we find a special פסוק by הקהל that women are חייב, the תורה says clearly, האנשים והנשים והטף, that women are also obligated in the מצוה of הקהל, so the תורה says clearly concerning this מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא that women are חייב, the תורה also says clearly concerning the מצוה of מצה that women are חייב, as we learned before that the גמרא learns it out since the תורה specifically puts together the איסור of eating חמץ right next to the מצוה of מצה to teach us that those that are obligated not to eat חמץ on פסח are מחויב to eat מצה, so the תורה did something special that we should learn out that women are חייב, so that since the תורה told us specifically the דין that women are חייב in two cases, that itself shows us that the תורה does not want us to learn out from here to all other מצות, and therefore we cannot learn out from הקהל and מצה that women are חייב in מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. And therefore what remains is that we learn out from תפילין that women are פטור from מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. But now the גמרא asks: הניחא, this is only good למאן דאמר אין מלמדין, according to the one that holds that when the תורה tells us the same דין in two places, it is to tell us that we should not learn out from there. אלא למאן דאמר מלמדין, מאי איכא למימר? But

according to the one that holds that it could be learned out from two places, what can we answer? Because there is a מחלוקת whether we use this rule of שני כתובין הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין, that whenever the תורה tells us a דין in two places, that means that we should not learn out. If the תורה tells us the same דין in three places, שלשה כתובין הבאים כאחד, then everyone agrees that the תורה means that we should not learn out. from there. But whenever the תורה tells us the same דין in two places, there we have a מחלוקת. One מאן דאמר holds that when the תורה tells us the same דין in two places, we should not learn out, אין מלמדין, but another מאן דאמר holds that since it's only in two places, we still could learn out. And that's the גמרא's question here. The reason we cannot learn out that women are חייב in מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא from הקהל and מצה, we said was because these are שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, two פסוקים that tell us the same דין, and that's how we cannot learn out. But that answer is only good according to the מאן דאמר who holds that when the תורה tells us the same דין in two פסוקים, we cannot learn out. But according to the מאן דאמר that holds that when the תורה tells us the same דין in two פסוקים, we could learn out, so what kind of answer can we give according to that מאן דאמר? Why cannot we not learn out from הקהל and מצה that women should be חייב in מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא? And the גמרא continues, ותו, there is another question we could ask: מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, נשים חייבות מנלן? We

said that the דין is that a מצות עשה that is not dependent on time, women are חייב. Where do we know that from? And the גמרא says, דיליף ממורא. We learn it out from the מצוה of מורא, from the מצוה that a person is supposed to have fear from his father and mother. מה מורא, just like by this דין of fear, נשים חייבות, women are obligated, because the פסוק says clearly, איש אמו ואביו תיראו. And the גמרא said before that we learn out from this פסוק that women are obligated. Since the תורה starts off by saying, a man from his mother and father they should be afraid. It starts off with singular and finishes off plural, they should be afraid. So the גמרא said before, that teaches us that we're talking about two categories of people, men and women, that males and females both are obligated to have fear from the father and mother. So just like מורא, having fear of father and mother, women are חייב, and having fear of one's father and mother is a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, it's a positive מצוה which is not dependent on time, so from here we learn out that אף כל מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, so too any other מצוה which is not dependent on time, נשים חייבות, women are obligated. But then the גמרא asks, וניליף מתלמוד תורה, let us learn out from the מצוה of learning תורה that women should be פטור. מצות תלמוד תורה is also a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא. There is no time limit for the מצוה of learning תורה. And nevertheless, women are not obligated, as we learned before, that the פסוק says, ושננתם לבניך, you should teach the 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 exempt from the מצוה of learning תורה. So let's learn out from תלמוד תורה that just like women are exempt from תלמוד תורה, so too are they exempt from all מצות עשה even though it's not הזמן גרמא? The גמרא answers, משום דהוה ליה תלמוד תורה ופריה ורביה שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, because we have two פסוקים where the תורה tells us the same דין that a מצות עשה which is not dependent on time and women are פטור. One is תלמוד תורה, and the other one is פריה ורביה, the מצוה of multiplying and being fruitful, the מצוה of having children. So there too, even though it's a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, it's a positive מצוה that's not dependent on time, and nevertheless, women are פטור. As the גמרא learns out that the תורה says, פרו ורבו ומלאו את הארץ וכבשוה, you should be fruitful and multiply and fill up the world and conquer it, and the גמרא learns out in כתובות that the one that is able to conquer, that the דרך of this person is to conquer, he is obligated to be fruitful, and that is a man, but the one that is not the דרך to conquer, which is a woman, she is not obligated to fulfill the מצוה of פרו ורבו. So here we have two מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, and in both cases the תורה tells us that women are פטור. So the כלל is, וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין, and whenever we have two פסוקים that tell us the same דין, it automatically means that it is not to teach, we cannot learn out from there concerning other cases. So therefore, we cannot learn out from תלמוד תורה and not from פריה ורביה that women are exempt from מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, because the תורה tells us this דין in two places, which means we should not learn out from there. And therefore, what remains is that women are חייב in the מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא because we learn it out from the מצוה of מורא. And then the גמרא asks,

ולרבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, but according to רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה דאמר, that he says, על שניהם הוא אומר, that for both השם said ויברך אותם אלקים, השם blessed them, פרו ורבו, they should be fruitful and multiply, in other words, רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה holds that women are obligated to fulfill the מצוה of פריה ורביה. So according to רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, we only have one פסוק where the תורה tells us that women are פטור from the מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא. And that is only the מצוה of תלמוד תורה. מאי איכא למימר, what can we say according to him, why don't we learn out from the מצוה of תלמוד תורה that women should be פטור, even if it's a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא? The only reason we said we couldn't learn out from תלמוד תורה was because we have two פסוקים that say the same דין: תלמוד תורה and פריה ורביה. But according to רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, that the תורה does not tell us that דין by פריה ורביה, because he holds that women are חייב, so we're left with one מצוה שלא הזמן גרמא that women are פטור. So let's learn out from that one, from תלמוד תורה, that women should be פטור. And the גמרא answers: משום דהוה תלמוד תורה ופדיון הבן שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, because we still have two פסוקים: the מצוה of תלמוד תורה, as we said before, and the מצוה of פדיון הבן, because the גמרא said before that women are פטור from fulfilling the מצוה of פדיון הבן on their sons, as we learned it out from the word where it says in the תורה: תפדה, that you should redeem your firstborn, and we said we have to read it: תפדה, should be redeemed, and the גמרא said that whoever has to be redeemed himself is obligated to redeem his son, whoever doesn't have to be redeemed is not obligated to redeem his son. So the therefore, women that are not obligated to be redeemed do not have the obligation to redeem their sons. So here we have another מצוה, which is שלא הזמן גרמא, and the תורה tells us that women are פטור. So again, we have two פסוקים that the תורה tells us the same דין, that women are פטור from a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא. And the כלל is, וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, any two פסוקים that tell us the same דין that come together, אין מלמדין, we can't learn out from there. But now the גמרא asks another question: ולרבי יוחנן בן ברוקה נמי, according to רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, who says that women are obligated to fulfill the מצוה of פריה ורביה, נמי תו, נהוו פריה ורביה ומורא שני כתובים הבאים כאחד ואין מלמדין. Let פריה ורביה and the מצוה of מורא become two פסוקים that tell tell us the same דין and we shouldn't learn out? The גמרא said before: how do we know that women are חייב in מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא? So the גמרא said because we learn out from מורא, from the מצוה of having fear of one's father and mother. But according to רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, the תורה tells us the same thing in another case. According to רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, the תורה tells us by פריה ורביה that women are חייב. Now, פריה ורביה is a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא. So according to רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, we have two places in the תורה where the תורה tells us that women are חייב by a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא. And the כלל is when we have two פסוקים that tell us the same דין, we cannot learn out. So according to רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, how can we learn out that women are חייב by מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא? מילא, according to us that we do not hold that women are חייב at פריה ורביה, we only have one פסוק in the תורה where it says that women are חייב במצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, and that is the פסוק of מורא, so we could learn out from מורא to all מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא. But according to רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, that he says the תורה tells it to us in a second place, too, by פריה ורביה, so according to him, how can we learn out from there that women are חייב in a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא? And the גמרא answers: צריכא, that we need both פסוקים. Because the reason why we don't learn out when the תורה tells us the same thing in two places is, as we said before, that if the תורה would want us to learn out, it would have said in one place, and we would have known the second place automatically from the first, just like we would know in all similar cases. But in a case where we would not have known the second one from the first, there is a reason why we would think that that second place should not have been learned out from the first for the specific reason in that case, so there the תורה must write the second, because otherwise we wouldn't know it. In a case like that, we do not call this שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, because we cannot say, "Why did the תורה write it in the second case? We would have learned it out from the first," because we would not have learned it out from the first. And therefore, in a case like that, we do not consider it שני כתובים הבאים כאחד. So here, too, the גמרא says that we cannot consider, according to רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, פריה ורביה and מורא as שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, because צריכי, we need both פסוקים. One would not have been enough; we wouldn't have learned out the second from the first, or the same if the תורה would write only the second, we wouldn't have learned out the first from the second. Because דאי כתב רחמנא מורא, if the תורה would write the דין that women are חייב only by מורא, ולא כתב פריה ורביה, and it wouldn't write the דין by פריה ורביה, הוה אמינא, I would say that by פריה ורביה women are פטור. Because וכבשוה אמר רחמנא, the תורה says you should conquer it, איש דדרכו לכבוש, a man that his דרך is to conquer, אין, so he is obligated in the מצוה of פריה ורביה, אשה, but a woman, דאין דרכה לכבוש, her דרך is not to conquer, לא, she is not obligated. So therefore, if the תורה wouldn't write specially by פריה ורביה that woman is obligated To this מצוה, we would think she is not obligated. So therefore the תורה must write specially by פריה ורביה that woman is obligated. ואי כתב בפריה ורביה ולא כתב מורא, if the תורה would write just by פריה ורביה that a woman is obligated, and would not write by מורא, הוה אמינא, I would think there is a reason to say that a woman should not be obligated in the מצוה of מורא, of fearing one's father and mother. Why? Because we would say איש דסיפק בידו לעשות, a man that is able to do because he is in his own רשות, אין, he is obligated to fulfill this מצוה. אשה, but a woman, דאין סיפק בידה לעשות, she doesn't have the ability to do because she's under the רשות of her husband, I would say לא, she does not have to fulfill the מצוה of מורא. אי, we could say, but this is only if she is married, she has a husband. What about a woman who is not married? But I would think that כיון דאין סיפק בידה לעשות, that since under many circumstances she doesn't have the ability to do, לא תתחייב כלל, so she shouldn't be חייב at all. So I would think that this whole מצוה of מורא does not apply to a woman. Therefore צריכא, the תורה must write specially that a woman is obligated in the מצוה of מורא. So there is a reason why the תורה must write the דין by both, so automatically they are not שני כתובין הבאים כאחד, and therefore, even according to רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, we're able to learn out from the מצוה of מורא, and also from the מצוה of פריה ורביה, that a woman is obligated to keep מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא. Now the גמרא goes back, like we said before, that the reason we cannot learn out from תלמוד תורה that woman should be פטור from מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, so we said the reason was because תלמוד תורה and פדיון הבן are שני כתובין הבאים כאחד, and therefore we cannot learn out from there. So the

גמרא asks now, הניחא למאן דאמר שני כתובין הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין, that's good only according to the one that holds that when we have two פסוקים tell us the same דין, we cannot learn out from there. אלא למאן דאמר מלמדין, but according to the one that holds that when the תורה tells us the דין by two פסוקים, we still could learn out, מאי איכא למימר? What can we say? So it comes out that these two פסוקים of תלמוד תורה and פדיון הבן should teach us the דין. So why can't we learn out from there that woman should be פטור from מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, just like they are פטור from תלמוד תורה and פטור from פדיון הבן? Even though they are מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, let them be פטור in all מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, according to the מאן דאמר that when the תורה tells us the same דין in two פסוקים, we still could learn out from there concerning all similar cases? The גמרא says, אמר רבא, רבא said, פפונאי ידעי לה לטעמא דהא מילתא. The תלמידים from פפוניא, they know the reason for this ענין. ומנו, who is the one that came from פפוניא who knows this reason? רב אחא בר יעקב. It is רב אחא בר יעקב. And what the reason that he gives? אמר קרא, the פסוק says, והיה לך לאות על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך, it should be for a sign on your hands and for a remembrance between your eyes, which refers to the מצוה of תפילין, the תורה continues, למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך, in order that the תורה of ה' should be in your mouth. So the

תורה writes the מצוה of תפילין right next to speaking about the general תורה. So from here we know that הוקשה כל התורה כולה לתפילין, the whole תורה is compared to תפילין. So we learn out from תפילין that מה תפילין, just like תפילין, מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא ונשים פטורות, just as תפילין is a מצות עשה which is dependent on time and women are פטור, אף כל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות. So too, all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, women are פטור. So here we have a היקש. The תורה is מקיש, compares the two, תפילין to the whole תורה. So therefore, even though the גמרא asked before, let us learn out from מצה and הקהל that women should be חייב in מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, and the reason we gave why we can't learn out from מצה and הקהל is because it is שני כתובין הבאים כאחד, but then the גמרא asked, but according to the מאן דאמר that holds that by two פסוקים we still could learn out, the question it was, why can't we learn out from מצה and הקהל that women should be חייב in מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא? So the answer is that we learn it out from תפילין, and it's more סברא to learn out from a היקש, when the תורה compares two, rather than to learn out through a בנין אב, which means through a comparison. If we would learn out from מצה and הקהל that women should be חייב מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, it would be called a בנין אב. The תורה tells us the דין in one place, and that sets the rule to all other places. But if we learn out from תפילין, it is not through just comparing similar cases one to another, but it is called a היקש, as the תורה actually is מקיש, compares the two. So it is more reason, more סברא, to learn out from a היקש than learning out from a בנין אב. And therefore, since we have the היקש to tell us that women are פטור from מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, we'd rather learn out that way than to learn out from מצה and הקהל that women are חייב. So from here we know that women are פטור from a מצות עשה

שהזמן גרמא. And now, מידי דמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות, saying since women are פטור from a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, the תורה tells us that, מכלל, that itself teaches us, דמצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא נשים חייבות. That a מצות עשה which is not dependent on time, women are obligated. Since the תורה teaches us through תפילין that anything which is similar to תפילין women are פטור, that itself teaches us that all other מצות women are חייב. In other words, that those מצות which are not similar to תפילין, which are not הזמן גרמא, automatically women are חייב. Because if women would be פטור from those too, then why does the תורה tell us that women are פטור from מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא? That itself that the תורה tells us that they are פטור from those מצות which have a time limit, that itself teaches us that any other מצוה, which means מצות that don't have a time limit, women are חייב. But then the גמרא asks, הניחא this is only good למאן דאמר תפילין מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. According to the one that holds that תפילין is called a מצוה which is הזמן גרמא, dependent on time. אלא למאן דאמר, but according to the one that holds that תפילין מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, that תפילין is a מצוה that is not dependent on time, and as רש"י says it's a מחלוקת in the גמרא שבת, דף ס"א, and in the גמרא עירובין דף צ"ה, so according to that מאן דאמר, מאי איכא למימר? What can we say? How can we learn out from תפילין concerning all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא that women are פטור if he holds that תפילין is considered a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא? From where will he know that all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא women are פטור? The

גמרא answers, מאן שמעת ליה דאמר תפילין מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא? רבי מאיר. Who did you hear holds that תפילין is considered a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא? It is רבי מאיר. As רש"י brings that רבי מאיר in מסכת עירובין holds that תפילין is a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא. So according to רבי מאיר, the question was, how can we learn out from תפילין that women are פטור from מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא? According to רבי מאיר, we could learn it out from the other לימוד. As we said before, we learn it out from ראיה. Just like women are פטור from ראיה, which is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, so too are women פטור from all מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. אי, the question we asked, let us learn out rather from מצה and הקהל that women should be חייב in מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא? And the answer we gave was that מצה and הקהל are שני כתובים הבאים כאחד. And what was wrong with that answer? It was only wrong according to the מאן דאמר that by two פסוקים we still could learn out. But דסבר לה, רבי מאיר holds, שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין. That מאיר himself holds that when you have two פסוקים you cannot learn out. So according to רבי מאיר, we're able to learn it out from ראיה, and we can't ask a question let's learn out the opposite from מצה and הקהל they should be חייב, because רבי מאיר himself happens to hold שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין. So according to him, this is the way we know that women are פטור from מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא, and we don't have to learn out from תפילין. The only reason the גמרא said before we have to learn out from תפילין is because otherwise we should learn out from מצה and הקהל that they should be חייב, if we hold שני כתובים הבאים כאחד we could learn out. But if we hold that שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין, we could learn it out from ראיה, and we cannot ask the question from מצה and הקהל. But then the גמרא asks,

ולרבי יהודה, according to רבי יהודה, הוא דאמר that he says שני כתובים הבאים כאחד מלמדין, that we could learn out from two פסוקים, he says that in סנהדרין as רש"י says, and he also holds תפילין מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, that תפילין is a מצוה that is not dependent on time, מאי איכא למימר? What can we say? In other words, according to רבי יהודה, we cannot learn out from both לימודים. We can't learn out according to רבי יהודה from תפילין, because he holds תפילין is a מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא. We can't learn out from ראיה, from any other לימוד, because we could ask the question let us learn out from מצה and הקהל that they should be חייב in מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא. Because according to him, even though the תורה writes it in two places, we still could learn out. So according to רבי יהודה the question is, where do we know that women are פטור from מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא? The גמרא answers that באמת we could learn it out from ראיה. אי, the question was let us learn out from מצה and הקהל that women should be חייב, because he holds that two פסוקים we still could learn out, משום דהוו מצה, שמחה, והקהל שלושה כתובים הבאים כאחד. According to him, we have three פסוקים that tell us the same thing: מצה, and also שמחה, the fact that a woman is obligated to fulfill the מצוה of שמחה. The reason we said before in the גמרא that it is not connected to our דין is because אשה בעלה משמחה. We said that a woman is not obligated in the מצוה of שמחה, it's only an obligation on her husband to be משמח her to make her happy. But רבי יהודה would not hold that way. רבי יהודה would hold And the גמרא says וצריכא, we need all three פסוקים, we wouldn't know one from the other. If the תורה would just write that women are like men in one of the three, we wouldn't know that the same דין applies to the other one. And the גמרא explains why: דאי אשמעינן בהא קמייתא, if the תורה would just let us tell us the first, that concerning עונשין שבתורה, concerning punishment, concerning לא תעשה's, women are like men, I would think משום כפרה חס רחמנא עליה, in order to get a כפרה, השם should forgive, that's why השם had pity on the woman, and השם said that the women are equal to men, and they get the same punishment in order for them to get the right כפרה. אבל דיני, when it comes to דיני ממונות, אימא, I would say, איש, a man, דבר משא ומתן, a man who is a person of business אין, by him these דינים are, all these דינים apply, אשה, but a woman who doesn't do business, לא, these דינים do not apply, therefore the תורה must write specifically that a woman is equal to a man also concerning דיני ממונות. ואי אשמעינן הא, if the תורה would say concerning ממונות, I would think, משום דחיוסא היא, because it's important for her life, therefore the תורה said that she should be equal to a man in דיני ממונות, because otherwise, she wouldn't have from what to live, people won't do business with her, because people could steal from her and no one could do anything, she could steal from other people and no one could do anything, because she does is not part of these דינים. Therefore, she wouldn't have from what to live, so the תורה said, no, that women are equal to men in דיני ממונות. אבל כופר, but when it comes to the third case, of a owner of the ox paying כופר, אימא, I would think, איש דבר מצות אין, a man who has more מצות, so if a man is killed, then you have to pay כופר. But אשה, if a woman is killed, לא, there is no דין in כופר because she is not obligated to do so many מצות. So her death is not that bad that the owner should have to pay כופר, therefore the תורה has to tell us that even in the case of כופר, a woman is like a man. ואי אשמעינן הא, if the תורה would just tell us concerning a דין of כופר that if a woman is killed is the same דין as a man, I would think, משום דאיכא איבוד נשמה, חס רחמנא עלה, because after all, a נשמה was lost, a person got killed, which is a very, very terrible thing, there the תורה says that women are like men. אבל הנך תרתי, but the other two, when it comes to דיני ממונות, or when it comes to punishments, אימא, I would say לא, women are not the same as men. צריכא, therefore the תורה has to tell us the other two also, that even in those cases women are like men. So because of that, the תורה must tell us the דין that women are equal to men in all of the cases: in the case of עונשין, in the case of דינין, דיני ממונות, and also in the case of מיתה, which is concerning כופר and all other מיתות. And then the גמרא continues to explain the משנה. Said in the

משנה that even though women are obligated to keep all מצות לא תעשה, but there are a few exceptions: חוץ מבל תקיף, except the מצוה of not surrounding your head. This means the מצוה of not cutting off פאות, which is מצות לא תעשה, and women are exempt. And the reason it's called תקיף, surrounding, because what the תורה means is that a person should not make his head smooth all around, because in front, in the forehead, it's smooth, there is no hair there, in back of the head, on the bottom, there is also no hair, but just in the middle, in the place of the פאות, that's where we have hair. If a person cuts off his פאות, then he makes like a round circle around his head of smooth all over. So the תורה says, you should not, לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, you should not make, surround, make smooth all around your head, and that is the עבירה of cutting off the פאות. So concerning this עבירה, women are exempt. And also, בל תשחית, not to destroy your beard, the תורה says, ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך, you should not destroy the פאות, the corners of your beard. And as the גמרא will explain, that means you shouldn't cut off your beard with a razor. So this מצוה too women are exempt. וכולי, etc., the next one is a woman is exempt from the מצות לא תעשה דלא תטמא למתים, of not becoming טמא to dead bodies. In

other words, even a woman who is a daughter of a כהן, she is still not מחוייב in this מצוה of not becoming טמא, because a כהן has a מצות לא תעשה, a negative מצוה, of not being allowed to become טמא to a dead body. So the משנה says that a woman, even though she is a כהנת, a בת כהן, is not מחוייב in this מצוה of not becoming טמא to מתים. The גמרא asks, בשלמא, maybe we understand בל תטמא למתים the reason why she's exempt from this עבירה of becoming טמא to מתים, דכתיב, because the תורה says, אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן. In the beginning of the פרשה, where the תורה says that a woman should not become טמא to מתים, the תורה starts off with the words אמור אל הכהנים, speak to the כהנים, בני אהרן, the sons of אהרן. So from here we learn out, בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן, the sons of אהרן, but not the daughters of אהרן. In other words, the מצוה that the תורה says right after this פסוק, which is the מצוה of not becoming טמא, only applies to בני אהרן, to the sons of אהרן, to the males, and not to the daughters of אהרן, not to the women. So we know why women are exempt from this מצוה of not becoming טמא to מתים. אלא בל תקיף ובל תשחית מנלן? But

where do we know that a woman is exempt from the מצוה of בל תקיף, of not cutting off the פאות, and not shaving off the beard with a razor? So the גמרא says, דכתיב, because the פסוק says, לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, do not surround the corners of your head, ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך, and do not destroy the corners of your beard. And the תורה puts these two מצות together. So we learn out that כל שישנו בהשחתה ישנו בהקפה, anyone who is obligated not to destroy his beard is obligated not to surround his head, which means not to cut off the פאות. והני נשי, these women, הואיל ולא איתנהו בהשחתה, since they are not part of the obligation of cutting off the beards, ליתנהו בהקפה. They're also not part of the מצוה of not cutting off the פאות. So that's where we know that a woman is not obligated not to cut off the פאות, because we compare it to לא תשחית of the beard. But then the גמרא asks, ומנלן דלא איתנהו בהשחתה? How do we know that a woman is not obligated in the מצוה of destroying the beards? In other words, really we mean that if a woman does have a beard for some freak reason, how do we know that she is not obligated not to cut off that beard with a razor? The גמרא says, איבעית אימא, if you want I will say, סברא. It is a סברא. It is a logical סברא. דהא לא אית לה זקן, that she doesn't have a beard. In other words, since in most cases a woman does not have a beard, so therefore we assume that this מצוה does not apply to her. And therefore, even in a case where she does have a beard, she is not obligated not to destroy that beard, because in most cases women do not have beards, so this whole מצוה doesn't apply to them. איבעית אימא, if you want, קרא, I could tell you we learn it out from the פסוק. דאמר קרא, since the פסוק says, לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, you shall not surround the corners of your head, and the תורה says it plural, לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, you shall not cut the corners of your head, in plural. And it continues, ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך, and you should not destroy the corners of your beard, and here the תורה says it singular, תשחית and פאת זקנך. Now the question is, why did the תורה change its expression? מדשני קרא בדיבוריה, since the תורה changed its wording, because דאם כן, if the תורה wouldn't change, normally, נכתוב רחמנא, the תורה should have written פאת זקנכם, the corner of your beards in plural. מאי זקנך? Why did the תורה write here in singular? To teach us a דין, that we should learn out, זקנך ולא זקן אשתך, your beard and not the beard of your wife. So this פסוק teaches us that the beard of your wife, which means the beard of a woman, is not under the prohibition of לא תשחית. And therefore, we learn out that just like she's not under the prohibition of לא תשחית of the beard, she's also not under the prohibition of לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, of not cutting off the פאות, because the תורה put the two together. So from here we know that a woman is exempt from the מצוה of בל תשחית and the מצוה of בל תקיף. But then the גמרא asks,

ולא? Is it not so? What do you say, that a woman is not under the prohibition of destroying her beards? והתניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא, that זקן אשה והסריס שהעלו שער, the beard of a woman or a סריס that grew hair, a סריס is a person who normally doesn't have a beard. He has other signs also that show he's a סריס, and a סריס doesn't usually have a beard. So the ברייתא says that if a woman grew a beard or a סריס grew a beard, הרי הן כזקן לכל דבריהם, it has a דין of a beard concerning all the דינים. מאי לאו, don't you think, להשחתה, that what he meant was concerning the לאו of השחתה, that they are like a beard, that there is a prohibition on this beard of not being משחית, of not destroying it. In other words, here we see that a woman is under the prohibition of השחתה. So how can we say in the משנה that a woman is exempt from the לאו of בל תשחית? And the גמרא answers, אמר אביי, אביי said, להשחתה לא מצית אמרת. You cannot say that when the ברייתא said that it has a דין of a beard לכל דבריהם, concerning everything, it cannot apply to the דין of השחתה, that's for sure. Why? דיליף, because we learn out, פאה פאה מבני אהרן. We learn out a גזירה שוה. In the פסוק that we spoke about before, which is the פסוק לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך, which is a פסוק concerning all the יידן, it's a פסוק in פרשת קדושים, קפיטל י״ט פסוק כ״ז, and there the תורה says, concerning all the יידן, that they should not surround the corners of their head, and they shall not destroy the corners of their beard. So here the תורה uses the לשון פאת זקנך. The פסוק in פרשת אמור, which deals with כהנים, the פסוק in אמור כ״א פסוק ה׳, the תורה says, ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו, the corners of their beard they shall not shave. So here too the תורה uses the word פאת. Now in that פרשה, before the פסוק that tells us that they should not shave their beards, the introduction to that whole פרשה is with the פסוק we mentioned before, אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן, you should speak to the כהנים the sons of אהרן. And we said before that the words בני אהרן come to teach us ולא בנות אהרן, that these דינים do not apply to the daughters of אהרן. So even though the first דין right after that פסוק is לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו, not to become טמא, so concerning the דין of a כהן not being allowed to become טמא, definitely this לימוד of ולא בנות אהרן applies, because that is the first דין right after the פסוק בני אהרן. So that is for sure that the דינים of becoming טמא to a מת does not apply to the daughters of אהרן, to the women, but at this point the גמרא feels that that introduction of בני אהרן with the לימוד ולא בנות אהרן applies to the whole פרשה. And therefore, the פסוק that says in a few פסוקים later, ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו, they should not shave the corners of their beards, is also included in that introduction ולא בנות אהרן. So the תורה tells us clearly according to this פשט, that this דין that that a כהן is not allowed to shave the corners of his beard only applies to the males, not to the females. So this is a clear פסוק that by כהנים the דינים of not cutting the beard only applies to the men, not to the women. And since by the ישראלים, the פסוק in קדושים that deals with regular אידן, the תורה also uses the same לשון of פאת, so we make a גזירה שוה from that פאת to the פאת that says by כהנים. מה להלן, just like by the דין of the כהנים, נשים פטורות, women are פטור, אף כאן, so too, by the ישראלים, the other פסוק in קדושים, there too נשים פטורות, women are פטור. But that's what אביי said. It's impossible to say that women should be obligated in the מצוה of השחתה, and the ברייתא where it says that a woman if she has a beard, the beard has a דין of a beard concerning all דינים, it should apply to the איסור of shaving it with a razor, that couldn't be, because we have a clear גזירה שוה that it doesn't apply to the women, just to the men, because we learn out a גזירה שוה פאת by the ישראלים from the פסוק פאת זקנם לא יגלחו that says by the כהנים, and there there is an introduction of בני אהרן, where we learn out ולא בנות אהרן, that it doesn't apply to the daughters. Then the גמרא asks, how can we say that? דאי סבירא לן, if we would hold דכי כתיב בני אהרן אכוליה עניינא כתיב, that when the תורה gives this introduction of בני אהרן, it goes on the whole ענין, not only on the first דין of this טומאת מתים, but it goes on the whole ענין, including on this דין of not destroying the beard, if so, נשתוק קרא מיניה, the תורה shouldn't have written it at all, ותיתי בקל וחומר, and we would learn it out with a קל וחומר. In other words, if the פשט is that the תורה says בפירוש, clearly, that the דין of פאת זקנם לא יגלחו by כהנים does not apply to women, because the word בני אהרן, which excludes women, goes also on the דין of פאת זקנם לא יגלחו, if that would be so, we wouldn't בכלל need the גזירה שוה of פאת פאת to tell us that by ישראלים women are פטור from this מצוה, because we would learn it out from a קל וחומר, and we would say like this: ואנא אמינא, and I would say, ומה כהנים שריבה בהם הכתוב מצות יתירות, מה דא כהנים, which the תורה gave them extra מצות. In other words, by them everything is more than by ישראל. Nevertheless, בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן, nevertheless the דין that the תורה gave to the כהנים of not destroying their beards only applies to the men and not to the women, ישראלי לא כל שכן, the same דין when it is concerning an ישראל, certainly it doesn't apply to the women. If by the כהנים it doesn't apply to the women, even though by the כהנים everything is stricter, certainly the same דין by ישראל does not apply to the women. And therefore, we do not need the

גזירה שוה פאת פאת. And this is the גמרא's קשיא: how can אביי say that we learn it out from a גזירה שוה פאת פאת, because by the כהנים the בני אהרן applies direct also to the פסוק of פאת זקנם לא יגלחו? So the גמרא asks, if the בני אהרן applies to the whole ענין, also to the later פסוקים, to the פסוק פאת זקנם לא יגלחו, why do we need a גזירה שוה at all? Since the תורה says clearly that by כהנים it doesn't apply to women, so we understand ourselves with a קל וחומר that it doesn't apply to women by ישראלים. Why do we need a גזירה שוה? And the גמרא says, אי לאו גזירה שוה, if not for the גזירה שוה, הוה אמינא, I would think, הפסיק הענין, that there is an interruption in the ענין. In other words, what makes us say that the פסוק בני אהרן, which excludes women, also applies to the פסוק of פאת זקנם לא יגלחו, it is because of the גזירה שוה of פאת פאת. If not for the גזירה שוה פאת פאת, we would טאקע say that בני אהרן only applies to the first דין, to the דין of טומאה, and does not apply פאת זקנם לא יגלחו, and therefore we would not know that women are exempt from this איסור of פאת זקנם לא יגלחו. Now that we have a גזירה שוה פאת פאת, in

other words, the תורה is telling us that there's something we have to learn out by ישראלים from כהנים, that itself tells us that by כהנים we know for sure this special דין that it doesn't apply to women, and ממילא we could learn out the same דין by ישראלים. So if not for the גזירה שוה, we would think that the דין of טומאה that says right after בני אהרן interrupts the לימוד of בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן, and it doesn't apply to פאת זקנם לא יגלחו. Now that the תורה tells us a גזירה שוה, so that itself teaches us that there must be a דין which is known by the case of the כהנים, and from there we have to learn out to the ישראלים. Now what is that דין? That דין must be that women are exempt. So that itself tells us that the פסוק בני אהרן applies also to the פסוק of פאת זקנם לא יגלחו. But the גמרא asks, השתא נמי נימא הפסיק הענין. Now too, even if we have a גזירה שוה, we still are able to say that there is a הפסק, an interruption, and the words בני אהרן do not apply to פאת זקנם לא יגלחו. אי, we just said that because we have a גזירה שוה, that itself tells us that there must be something that we know by כהנים that we must learn out to ישראלים. So how can the גמרא say now that we could still say that בני אהרן and the לימוד ולא בנות אהרן does not apply to פאת זקנם לא יגלחו? So the גמרא says, ואי משום גזירה שוה, but if you're going to want to say that we must say that בני אהרן applies to that פסוק too because of the גזירה שוה, no, מיבעי ליה לכדתניא. We need the גזירה שוה for something else. We could still have the גזירה שוה, and the גזירה שוה could be concerning a different דין, not concerning the דין that women are exempt. What's the other דין that we could use the גזירה שוה for? לכדתניא, to a דין that we learned in a ברייתא. Learned in a ברייתא, it says by כהנים לא יגלחו. The expression by the כהנים in פרשת אמור is ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו. So יכול, I would think, גילחו במספרים יהא חייב, that if you shaved it with scissors, you should also be חייב. Since the תורה says לא יגלחו, you shall not shave it, so we would think, if you shave it with scissors, you're also חייב. תלמוד לומר, so therefore the תורה tells us the other פסוק in קדושים by ישראל, there it says לא תשחית, do not destroy. And when you cut it with a scissor, you do not destroy it. So that teaches us that if you cut it with a scissor, you are not חייב. But יכול, I would think, לקטיה במלקט וברהיטני יהא חייב, if he plucks the hair out with pincers or a remover, he should be חייב, because this is השחתה, this is a way of destruction. תלמוד לומר, therefore we have the other פסוק by the כהנים, לא יגלחו, do not shave, and this is not considered shaving. הא כיצד? So what do What is the איסור? גילוח שיש בו השחתה, a shaving which comes along with destruction. הוי אומר, so we say, זה תער, that is a razor. In

other words, when we compare both פסוקים, the פסוק by ישראל in קדושים and the פסוק by כהנים in פרשת אמור, when we put the two together, then we come out with a clear דין that you're only חייב if you do it with a razor. Now what makes us compare both דינים? Because in both פסוקים we have the same word, we have פאת. So we make a גזירה שוה פאת פאת to tell us that we have to compare both דינים, and we give the דין of one to the other, and the דין of the other to the first. In other words, we learn out from כהנים concerning ישראל that also by ישראל it has to be השחתה. We learn out from ישראל concerning כהנים that also by כהנים it has to be גילוח. From the two together, we come out to the דין that you're only חייב if it's done through a תער, through a razor. So here we see that we use the גזירה שוה for something else. So the question comes up that how can you say that after we have this גזירה שוה פאת פאת, we know that the פסוק בני אהרן and the לימוד ולא בנות אהרן also applies to the later פסוקים, because otherwise, what do we need the גזירה שוה for? Here we say, see that we do need the גזירה שוה for something else. So then we're back to the question that since we don't use the גזירה שוה פאת פאת for this, so we don't know that the words בני אהרן applies also to the דינים of פאת זקנם לא יגלחו. So ממילא, we do not know that the תורה exempts women from the איסור of cutting their beard with a razor. Now if we don't know that the תורה exempts the women by the כהנים, we also don't know that the תורה exempts the women by the ישראלים. So we're back to the question, how could אביי have said that one thing is for sure, that the women are exempt from the איסור of השחתה, since we learn out פאת פאת from כהנים, when the truth is we cannot we don't have the גזירה שוה פאת פאת from כהנים? And the גמרא answers, אם כן, if so, if the גזירה שוה would only apply to the דין mentioned before to teach us that it has to be through a razor, but not to teach us that women are exempt, נכתוב קרא השחתת זקנך. In the פסוק where it says ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך, the תורה should skip the word פאת and just write השחתת זקנך. מאי פאת זקנך?

Why does the תורה write פאת זקנך? שמע מינה תרתי, that it teaches us both. In other words, as רש״י explains, the beginning of the פסוק is לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם. So the תורה uses the word פאת: do not surround the corners of your head. Then the תורה says, ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך, do not destroy the corners of your beard. Why did the תורה again have to write the word פאת, the corners of your beard? If the תורה would just write, ולא תשחית את שיבת זקנך, and do not destroy it of the beard, we would know it refers to the corners. Since it starts off by saying, do not surround the corners of your head, and it would say, and do not destroy them of the beard, we would understand it means the corners of the beard because it comes after the words פאת ראשכם. So why did the תורה have to write the word פאת זקנך? If the תורה would not write the word פאת זקנך, it would be as if the תורה would have written those words, and it would be enough for us to learn out the גזירה שוה from this פסוק, פאת זקנך, to the פסוק in פרשת אמור, פאת זקנם לא יגלחו. Even though the תורה wouldn't write outright the word פאת, but it would be as if the תורה would have written the word פאת, it would be enough for that גזירה שוה. Why did the תורה have to write the word פאת outright? So that teaches us that the תורה wanted to stress that this is a real גזירה שוה, a גזירה שוה concerning everything. By the תורה outright writing the word פאת זקנך, it means that we have to compare this פאת זקנך to the פסוק in פרשת אמור, ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו, concerning everything. So therefore we cannot say that the גזירה שוה is only to teach us that the איסור applies only for a razor, but it comes to teach us everything, that just like over there it applies only to men, not to women, so too here it applies to men, not to women. Because the תורה makes it a strong גזירה שוה, and that teaches us that we have to learn out something else from that פסוק, too. Now what else can we learn out from there other than the fact that it has to be through a razor? So probably it means that we should learn out that women are exempt. And that itself tells us that the פסוק בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן applies to the פסוק ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו. Because if it wouldn't apply to the פסוק ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו, why do we need this extra גזירה שוה for? As we said before, the fact that we have a גזירה שוה means that the תורה wants to tell us that there is something special in the פרשה of ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו, and the only thing that could be is to exempt women. And even though there is something else that we learn out from the גזירה שוה, that it has to be through a razor, but if it would only mean that, the תורה would not have written the word פאת here. By the תורה writing the word פאת here in פרשת קדושים, that teaches us that there is something more, and the only thing more that could be is that over there we know women are exempt, so too here, by ישראלים, women are exempt. רש״י also says a little bit different פשט, that when the גמרא says that the תורה didn't have to write the word פאת זקנך, but it should have written את שיבת זקנך, it doesn't mean that then we would consider it as if the word פאת would have been written, and we would have made the גזירה שוה anyway, but we would not have made the גזירה שוה. The גמרא meant to say that it should not say the word פאת, it should just say את שיבת זקנך, and we would learn it out from the פסוק ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו by כהנים with a בנין אב, not with a גזירה שוה. We would have looked at the פסוק by כהנים, and we would have said, just like by כהנים the איסור is only if it is with גילוח, so too by the ישראלים it's with גילוח. And we would go back and say, just like by ישראלים it's only with השחתה, so too by the כהנים it's with השחתה. Even without a גזירה שוה, we would just compare the two. Why did the תורה have to write the word פאת? To teach us that there is a גזירה שוה. Now what could that גזירה שוה add? Obviously there is something more in the case of the כהנים which we don't know yet. So that must be that the פסוק בני אהרן ולא בנות אהרן applies to the ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו, and the גזירה שוה comes to tell us that we should learn out from there, just like over there women are exempt, so too by the ישראלים women are exempt. And that's what the גמרא means, שמע מינה תרתי, that the fact that the תורה does write the word פאת teaches us both. It teaches us that it is only through a razor, and it also teaches us that women are exempt. So now we

come to a conclusion that we know for sure that women are exempt from this איסור of לא תשחית the beard. So ואלא, if so, the גמרא asks, הא דתניא, what we learn in the ברייתא, זקן האשה והסריס שהעלו שער, the beard of a woman or a סריס that grew a beard, הרי הן כזקן לכל דבריהם, it's like a beard concerning every דין, למאי הלכתא, concerning which דין did it mean? It couldn't mean concerning the דין of השחתה, because we just said women are exempt. So what does it mean? אמר מר זוטרא, so מר זוטרא said, לטומאת נגעים, concerning the טומאה of נגעים. The טומאה of a נגע, the טומאה of צרעת, because there is a special type of טומאה which is in the hair, as the תורה says, or in the hair of the head or in the hair of the beard, and there are different דינים in this נגע לגבי other נגעים. Other נגעים become טמא, for instance, if you have white hair. In this case, it become טמא if you have yellow hair, golden hair, and many other דינים which the דינים of נגעים in the head, which are called נתקים, a נתק, are different than the נגעים in other places of the body. So that's what the ברייתא meant, that if a woman has a beard, then לגבי the דין of טומאת נגעים of the beard, she has the same דין as a man. So the גמרא asks,

טומאת נגעים בהדיא כתיבא. טומאת נגעים, that it's equal by a man and a woman, it says בפירוש in the תורה, because the תורה starts off the דינים of the נגעים of the hair, ואיש או אשה כי יהיה בו נגע, if he'll have a נגע, בראש או בזקן, in the head or in the beard. So we see clearly the תורה gives an introduction, man or a woman, and it speaks about a נגע in the hair or the beard. So we see that if a woman has a beard, she will have the same דין as a man. אלא אמר רב זוטרא, so therefore רב זוטרא said, לטהרת נגעים. It's not like concerning the טומאה of a נגע, but the טהרה. That if a woman has a נגע in her beard, then she becomes טמא, and she has to go through the process of טהרה, of becoming clean, same as a man. So the גמרא asks, טהרת נגעים נמי פשיטא. The טהרה of this נגע is also simple. כיון דבת טומאה היא בת טהרה היא, since the תורה says clearly that she becomes טמא if the נגע is in her beard, similar to a man, so we understand ourselves that she has to go through the whole process of טהרה. So the גמרא answers, איצטריך, we need it. But the ברייתא tells us the special דין that if a woman has a beard, it has the same דין as by a man, it really comes concerning the טומאה. That if she has a נגע in her beard, then she becomes טמא with this special נגע like a man would become טמא if he has a נגע in his beard. אי, the question was that that is a בפירוש a פסוק, why does the ברייתא have to tell us that? Because סלקא דעתך אמינא, I would think, לצדדין כתיב, that when the פסוק says it's two sides. In other words, we have to divide the פסוק. We would learn maybe the פסוק means like this: איש או אשה כי יהיה בו נגע בראש, that if a man or a woman have a נגע in the head, so the word או אשה, or a woman, only applies to the נגע of the head. Then when the תורה says או בזקן, or in the beard, הדר אתיא לאיש, that only goes to a man. The word או אשה only would apply to the נגע in the head. And we would stop between the words בראש and the words או בזקן. קא משמע לן, so the ברייתא tells us that it's not so. And if a woman has a beard, she does have the same דין as a man לגבי the דין of טומאת נגעים.