Daf Ditty 79

MISHNA: If the entire community or most of it became ritually impure, or the priests were all impure and the community was pure, they should perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in ritual impurity. If a minority of the community became impure, even if they are many people, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ, and those who are impure perform the ritual on the second Pesaḥ.

GEMARA: The Sages taught: If most or all of the Jewish people were impure and the priests and sacred vessels used in the Temple service were pure; or, conversely, if the Jewish people were pure and the priests and sacred vessels were impure; and even in a situation in which the

1 Jewish people and the priests were pure and the sacred vessels were impure, they may perform any part of the ritual of the Paschal lamb in ritual impurity. The reason for this is that a communal offering, which is sacrificed even in a state of ritual impurity, is not divided. Therefore, since some of the service must be performed in a state of ritual impurity, it may all be performed in a state of ritual impurity.

It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to the mishna’s statement that the Paschal lamb may be sacrificed in a state of impurity if the majority of the public is impure. In a case where the Jewish people were divided, and exactly half were pure and half were impure, Rav said half and half is like the majority, and Rav Kahana said half and half is not like the majority.

The explains the dispute between Rav and Rav Kahana. Rav said: Half and half is like the majority, meaning that each of the two groups has the status of the majority of the public. Therefore, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of ritual purity. And those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of ritual impurity. They are also considered like the majority of the public, and the sacrifice of the majority of the public is not deferred to the second Pesaḥ. And Rav Kahana said: Half and half is not like the majority. Therefore, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ, and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ.

Some say that what was stated above is not the correct conclusion based on Rav Kahana’s statement. Rather, Rav Kahana said: Half and half is not like the majority. Therefore, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ,

2

and those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ or the second. They do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ because they are not the majority, and the Paschal lamb may be sacrificed in a state of impurity only when the majority of the community is impure. Additionally, they may not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ because they are not the minority, and only the sacrifice of a minority of the community is deferred to the second Pesaḥ.

The Gemara raises an objection from that which we learned in the mishna: If the entire community became ritually impure, or if most of it became impure, or if the priests were impure and the community was pure, they should perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in impurity. This indicates that it is only when most of the community is impure that they perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in impurity, but if it is half and half, they do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav.

Rav could have said to you: When a majority of the community is impure, they may all perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in impurity. Even those who are still pure are not required to ensure that they remain pure in order to sacrifice the Paschal lamb. When it is half and half, these who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of purity and these who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of impurity.

3

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to understand the mishna in this way, as the latter clause teaches: If a minority of the community became impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. This indicates that it is only when the minority has become impure that they perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. But when it is half and half this is not the case; rather, these perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of purity and those perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb for themselves in a state of impurity on the first Pesaḥ.

The Gemara asks: According to Rav and according to the latter version of the opinion of Rav Kahana, with regard to that which was taught in the second quoted above, that those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ and those who are impure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ, how do they reconcile it? The Gemara answers: According to them, the case under discussion is one where the Jewish people are divided, and half are pure, and half are impure. However, the majority of the men are pure, and the majority of the women are impure, and the women complete the number of impure people necessary to reach half of the community.

And this tanna holds that the participation of women in the first Pesaḥ is optional. Therefore, remove the women from those who are impure, and the impure become the minority. And the sacrifice of the minority is deferred to the second Pesaḥ according to all opinions.

Steinzaltz

4

The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rav and according to the first version of the opinion of Rav Kahana, with regard to that which was taught in the third baraita cited above: Those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ and those who are impure do not perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ or on the second Pesaḥ, how do they reconcile it according to their opinions?

Rav reconciles the baraita by explaining that it is referring to a case where the men of the Jewish people were divided, and half were impure and half were pure, and the women, a majority of whom were pure, added on to the number of those who were pure so that the majority of the community was pure. And this tanna holds that the participation of women in the first Pesaḥ is obligatory, and their participation in the second Pesaḥ is optional.

Tosafos

'סות ה"ד רבסק םישנ ןושארב תושר ןושארב םישנ רבסק ה"ד 'סות

Tosfos first explains why this goes to Rav but not according to Rav Kahana, then reconciles all the opinions with the Gemara in Sanhedrin.

שמ ו ם ר ב ךירטציא רמימל יכה . . . כ ממ יטי

It is necessary to say this because of Rav ...

יאד ןושארב הבוח ,הוה ןנירמא וללה'ד ישוע ן ןמצעל . . . ' . מע ןיו ול' ןימ ,ו בח ואב א . Since, if it would be a Chovah for them to bring it on Pesach Rishon, we would say that 'Each one makes their own Korban.

לבא ברל ,אנהכ וליפא וה ו ושארב ן ,הבוח יתא ,ריפש אגלפד ושארב ן אל ידבע , נשבו י ידבע , יכ ו ן נשבד י םישנ ,תושר,ורםש שד כ דע שו ,יב ל שר גפ ,יש ת ,בח שר וו ויא אה וה ו והל םיאמט .אטועימ םיאמט והל ו וה . Whereas according to Rev Kahana, even if they would be a Chovah on Pesach Rishon, there would be no problem, seeing as half do not bring on Pesach Rishon, but on Pesach Sheini, since on Pesach Sheini women are R'shus, it transpires that Teme'im are the minority.

5 אהו רמאד 'רפב אמק ירדהנסד ן ףד( .בי ) יבג והיקזח אישהש תא לארשי תושעל חספ ינש - יכיה' ?ימד רמא בר ,ישא יאב מ יד כה גכ ו ן יהש ו לארשי הצחמ מט םיא הצחמו ירוהט ן , ו םישנ תומילשמ םירוהטל תופדועו ןהילע .ןיעתפוו יוט ויש ינו ,ןיוטהחו י

And when, in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 12.), with regard to Chizkiyahu, who made Yisrael make a Pesach Sheini, in answer to the Kashya 'How does it speak?', Rav Ashi establishes it where Yisrael were half Teme'im and half Tehorim, and where women made up the Tehorim, turning them into a majority.

ארקיעמ רבס םישנ" ושארב ן ,"הבוח והו ו והל םיאמט אטועימ וחדימו חספל נש י .ינ סל חיו טעמםאט ה ווו ,הו ןואבםש"רסאקע

.The Gemara first thought that 'Women are Chayav to bring Pesach Rishon, in which the Teme'im there are a minority, and are therefore pushed off to the Pesach Sheini ...

ףוסבלו רבס ' םישנ" ןושארב ,"תושר והו ו והל םיאמט ,אבור אבורו ינשב אל ידבע ' . דעא יש בר או ימ ול ה "ור ואבםש" רסףסל but it concludes that, in fact ' "Women by Pesach Rishon are R'shus", in which case the Teme'im were in the majority, and the majority of Teme'im do not bring the Pesach Sheini'.

אתשהו ברל אנשיללו ארתב ברד ,אנהכ אל הוה ךירצ ימל טקנ 'תומילשמ' , אלא תופדוע ןהילע ,אדירג אנשיללו אמק אמק אנשיללו ,אדירג ןהילע תופדוע אלא , 'תומילשמ' טקנ ימל ךירצ הוה אל ,אנהכ ברד ארתב אנשיללו ברל אתשהו ברד אנהכ הוה יצמ ימל טקנ תומילשמ' אלו ?'תופדוע אלו תומילשמ' טקנ ימל יצמ הוה אנהכ ברד

Now, according to both Rav and the second Lashon of Rav Kahana, the Genara need to explain that the women made up the Tehorim' ...

אלא טקנ תומילשמ' 'תופדועו - אתשהד כל ו הל ו ל נשי י השע אלש ותכ הר .ה ת ל ש ש לוכ תה

And the reason that it did was in order to establish that Chizkiyah's ruling did conform with - law according to all opinions.

הוהו יצמ ונשל י י ףוסבלד רבס ' םישנ ןושארב הבוח ינשבו 'תושר . . . תש ישו בח ואבםש רסףסל ייוש ימהה

The Gemara could in fact, have established the Chizkiyah's conclusion as being that 'Women are a Chovah by the Pesach Rishon and R'shus by the Pesach Sheini.

ךכלו ואל ריפש דבע חספ ינש .ישחפדערפ ולךל

Which explains why he was wrong to make them bring the Pesach Sheini.

אלא םושמ םתהד אבילא יברד ועמש ן יק ימי נ ן , תיאד היל ןמקל קרפב השאה ףד( :אצ ) ' םישנ ושארב ן 'תושר . תש ןואבםש א ד הא רב מלהלתא ,ןנייי ןומ יר בל תדםש ל

Only the Gemara there goes according to Rebbi Shimon, who holds later in Perek ha'Ishah (Daf 91:) 'Nashim ba'Rishon R'shus!'

יא ימנ , נ אחי היל יחדימל ףאד המ אלש ושע ןושארב היה אלש ידכ ן .ןיכאשהה ואב ש ל מףד חילהלאינ ,ינ י

6 Alternatively, the Gemara prefers to explain why the fact that Chizkiyahu did not make them bring the Pesach Rishon was also not according to the Halachah.

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

What impurity?

The Gemora cites a braisa which says that if either the nation was impure, or if the kohanim and the vessels were impure, or even if just the vessels were impure, the Pesach was offered in impurity by all, as it is brought in unison.

Rav Chisda says that impure vessels cause it to be brought in impurity only if they are impure due to contact with a corpse, making them a source of impurity which will make those who handle them impure. However, if they became impure by touching a dead rodent, making them a first level impurity, they will only make the meat impure, but not the kohanim. Since eating impure meat is only a standard prohibition, that impurity does not allow impure people to be involved, since that is a more severe kares prohibition which can be avoided. The Gemora explains that Rav Chisda says that impurity is only suspended in a communal sacrifice, and therefore we only allow whatever impurity is necessary.

Rav Yitzchak also says that it is only suspended. Rava says that even if the knife is a first level impurity, making the meat impure, impure people can be involved in offering it. Since the verse which prohibits one from eating an impure sacrifice concludes by saying that anyone impure may eat a sacrifice, this teaches that the requirement that one who eats the meat be pure is only when the meat itself is pure. Once the meat is impure, there is no restriction on someone impure eating it.

Half and half

The Gemora cites a dispute about the status of half a nation which is impure. Rav says that half is like a majority, while Rav Kahana says it is not. Rav says that they are like a majority, and therefore, all offer the first Pesach. The two halves offer separately, to avoid the pure half doing it impurely. Rav Kahana says that that they are not like a majority, and therefore the pure half offers it on the first Pesach, and the impure half on the second Pesach.

Some say that Rav Kahana says that the impure half don’t offer either Pesach. They can’t offer the first, since they’re not a majority, and they can’t offer the second, since they are not a minority either. The Gemora challenges Rav from our Mishna, which says that if a majority of the nation was impure, they offer the Pesach in impurity, implying that half of the nation wouldn’t offer it in impurity. Rav deflects this by saying that the Mishna means that everyone’s Pesach is done in

1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Pesachim_79.pdf

7 impurity only when a majority is impure, but if half is impure, they offer it in impurity, but the other half offer it in purity.

The Gemora supports this reading from the continuation of the Mishna which says that if a minority is impure, the pure majority offers the first Pesach in purity, and the rest offer it on the second Pesach. This implies that if half are impure, they do not offer it on the second Pesach, supporting Rav, who says that they offer it on the first.

The Gemora tries to challenge Rav Kahana from this support but deflects. According to the second version of Rav Kahana, the Gemora deflects it by saying that the second statement of the Mishna is teaching that if half are impure, they do not offer it at all, not on the first or the second.

According to the first version of Rav Kahana, the Gemora deflects it by saying that the second statement only used the case of a majority pure to continue the format of the first statement, but it applies equally if half were impure

Sara Ronis writes:2

Today’s daf asks what the community should do if they are ritually impure before . Should they offer the paschal sacrifice in a state of ritual impurity, or should they wait until Pesach Sheni?

The holiday of Pesach Sheni, Second Passover, happens exactly one month after Passover, on the fourteenth of . The holiday is instituted in the book of Numbers, when some men are unable to offer the paschal sacrifice because they are ritually impure with death. They come to and ask what they should do. Moses kicks the question upstairs and God supplies the answer: “When any of you or of your posterity who are defiled by a corpse or are on a long journey would offer a to the Lord, they shall offer it in the second month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight…” (Number 9: 11-2)

I’ve always loved Pesach Sheni. First of all, it’s my birthday. And second of all, it’s the holiday of second chances, an opportunity to do something wonderful when you weren’t able to before. The on today’s daf affirms this emergency make-up holiday with an important caveat:

If the entire community or most of it became ritually impure, or the priests were all impure and the community was pure, they should perform the ritual of the paschal lamb in ritual impurity.

2 Myjewishlearning.com

8

If a minority of the community became impure, those who are pure perform the ritual of the paschal lamb on the first Passover, and those who are impure perform the ritual on the second Passover.

If only a minority are impure, they are gifted with a second chance, on Pesach Sheni. But if the majority of the community is impure, then actually the paschal sacrifice can be offered in ritual impurity!

The example from the Book of Numbers involves tum’at met, death impurity. But let’s be honest — according to the rabbinic schema, the vast majority of people who would be seriously ritually impure on any given day would be people who menstruate, who contract tum’at niddah. Furthermore, the average menstrual cycle is about 28 days, so if someone has tum’at niddah on the fourteenth of Nissan, then they are very likely to have it again on the fourteenth of Iyar!

Women’s exclusion is not just implicit in today’s discussion of Pesach Sheni. Given that we follow the majority in deciding whether or not the paschal sacrifice can be offered in communal ritual impurity, the rabbis ask what to do if there is a 50/50 split. If the numbers are equal, how do we determine who is in the majority? The Gemara suggests removing women from the count, and following the majority status of men only.

Pesach Sheni is a chance for people who couldn’t be part of communal ritual to join in, better late than never. But who is part of that community? Today’s daf pulls in two opposite directions. On the one hand, it insists that those who are ritually impure (at least with tum’at met) can and must participate in Passover when they are able to, to be part of the community of Israel offering their paschal sacrifices. On the other hand, it implicitly and explicitly removes women from the communal calculus — when we have already learned that women are obligated in paschal sacrifice.

Today’s daf highlights the complexities of defining community, of moving towards inclusion, and thinking seriously about who counts.

9 WHEN HALF THE PEOPLE ARE "TAMEI" AND HALF ARE "TAHOR"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Korban Pesach must be brought on the fourteenth of . However, the Torah provides a dispensation for those who were too far away and were not able to reach Yerushalayim on time, or who were Tamei when the fourteenth of Nisan arrived. They may bring the Korban Pesach on the fourteenth of Iyar. This dispensation, though, applies only to individuals. If the entire Tzibur was Tamei, the Korban Pesach is brought on the fourteenth of Nisan, even though the people are in a state of Tum'ah and will offer the Korban b'Tum'ah.

The Gemara discusses the Halachah in a case in which half of the Tzibur is Tamei and half is Tahor. Everyone agrees that the people who are Tahor bring the Korban on Pesach Rishon, the fourteenth of Nisan. When, though, do the people who are Tamei bring the Korban? The Gemara here records three opinions.

Rav says that the people who are Tamei also bring the Korban on Pesach Rishon. Rav Kahana, in the Gemara's first version of his statement, says that they bring the Korban on Pesach Sheni, the fourteenth of Iyar. In the Gemara's second version of his statement, Rav Kahana says that those who are Tamei do not bring the Korban Pesach at all.

A fourth opinion is cited by the Gemara later. Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa (80a) says that the entire Tzibur may bring their Korban b'Tum'ah (this differs from Rav's opinion, who says that those who are Tahor must bring the Korban b'Taharah). (See Chart.)

Our Daf cites a Beraisa which states explicitly that those who are Tamei bring the Korban on Pesach Sheni, like Rav Kahana (according to the Gemara's first version of his statement).

How do the other opinions (Rav, and the second version of Rav Kahana) understand this Beraisa?

3 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-079.htm

10 The Gemara answers that the Beraisa does not refer to a case in which exactly half of the people are Tahor and half are Tamei. Rather, it refers to a case in which a majority of the people are Tahor. Why, then, does it say that half are Tahor? The Gemara explains that in the case of the Beraisa, there are a number of women who are Tamei, who raise the total number of Tamei people to match the number of Tahor people. Thus, when the Beraisa says that "half of the people are Tahor and half are Tamei," it means that half are Tamei when the women who are Tamei are included. Since a woman's to bring the Korban Pesach is voluntary (both on Pesach Rishon and on Pesach Sheni if she was Tamei on Pesach Rishon), the number of women are not counted when we determine how many members of the Tzibur are Tahor and how many are Tamei. Consequently, the group that is Tamei is a minority, and the group that is Tahor is the majority. Since those who are Tamei are a minority, they bring the Korban Pesach on Pesach Sheni.

Why does the Gemara not suggest the opposite scenario in order to answer the Beraisa? There is an opinion that women are obligated to bring the Korban Pesach (on both Pesach Rishon and on Pesach Sheni if they were Tamei on Pesach Rishon), just like men. Accordingly, when the Beraisa says that half of the Tzibur are Tahor and half are Tamei, it is counting only the men. There are, however, some women who are Tahor, and because they are obligated to bring the Korban Pesach they are included in the count, and thus they make those who are Tahor the majority. (This is similar to the way the Gemara resolves another Beraisa.) (MAHARSHA)

KARNEI RE'EM suggests that if women are obligated on both Pesach Rishon and Pesach Sheni, then they are absolutely equal to men with regard to the Korban Pesach and there is no reason for the Beraisa to count only the men and say that half are Tahor and half are Tamei. Only if women would be obligated to bring the Korban only on Pesach Rishon but not on Pesach Sheni, or they would have no obligation to bring the Korban on either day, would they not be considered to have an equal standing with men with regard to the Korban Pesach, and the Beraisa would be justified in counting only the men. If women are fully obligated just like men, then the words "half are Tahor and half are Tamei" must also include the women.

Therefore, the Gemara does not suggest this answer to explain the Beraisa.

Women and the Passover Sacrifice

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

What level of obligation do women have regarding the korban Pesah?

Although the main discussion of this question takes place in the next chapter of Massekhet Pesahim, as we will see, the point is raised here in the context of bringing the Pesah sacrifice when the community is tameh, or ritually defiled.

4 https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim79/

11 Generally speaking, the rule is that women are not obligated in positive mitzvot that are time- bound. Therefore such mitzvot as hearing the shofar on Rosh haShana or sitting in the sukka on the holiday of are not obligatory on women. Nevertheless, with regard to the laws of Pesah it is well known that women are obligated in the positive commandments (like eating matza), just as they are obligated in the negative ones (like refraining from eating hametz). The question that arises on our daf is whether the obligation is a full requirement to the extent that they would be obligated to bring a sacrifice on Pesah sheni should they miss Pesah rishon (first), or, perhaps, their obligation does not go so far.

Mishna: If the entire community or most of it became ritually impure, or the priests were all impure and the community was pure, they should perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb in ritual impurity. If a minority of the community became impure, even if they are many people, those who are pure perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesah, and those who are impure perform the ritual on the second Pesah.

The Gemara brings a number of baraitot that discuss what to do if there are an equal number of people who are tameh and tahor (ritually pure). The positions taken by the baraitot seem difficult. For example, one baraita teaches that, in such a case, the people who are tahor bring the korban in its proper time, but those who are tameh do not bring the korban at all – neither on Pesah rishon nor on Pesah sheni.

Rav explains the case to be when there are an equal number of tameh and tahor people, but the majority of those who are tahor are women. Rav believes that women are obligated in the korban Pesah on Pesah rishon, but on Pesah sheni they can choose whether or not to participate.

So, on Pesah rishon only the people who are tahor bring the korban because there is not a majority of tameh people. Therefore, we cannot activate the rule of tuma hutra be-tzibur – that when the majority of the people are ritually defiled, we allow the korban to be brought

The people who are tameh cannot bring the korban on Pesach sheni either, since they can only do so if they were a minority on Pesah rishon. If we remove the women from the equation on Pesah sheni – since they are not obligated to participate in it – it turns out that the tameh people were not a minority on Pesah rishon, so the obligation to bring a sacrifice on Pesah sheni never takes effect.

Women and the Pesach Seder

Rav Chaim Navon writes:5

5 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-26-women-and-pesach-seder

12 I. Matza

The states that women are obligated to eat matza at the Pesach seder, even though it is a time-bound positive commandment, from which women are generally exempt:

For Rabbi Eliezer said: “Women are obligated in [the commandment of] eating matza by Torah law, as it is stated: ‘You shall eat no leavened bread with it; [seven days shall you eat unleavened bread therewith]” (Devarim 16:3). Whoever is subject to “You shall eat no leavened bread” is subject to the [mitzva of] eating unleavened bread; and these women, since they are subject to [the injunction of] “You shall eat no leavened bread,” are [also] subject to “Arise, eat unleavened bread.” (Pesachim 43b)

The Gemara establishes that there is a connection between the prohibition of and the obligation to eat matza. Women are forbidden to eat chametz, as they are bound by all the negative commandments. Therefore, they must also eat matza on the night of the seder. The prohibition of chametz and the commandment to eat matza constitute a single unit.

II. The Paschal Offering

The Gemara elsewhere addresses the question whether women are obligated to bring the Paschal offering (Pesachim 91b). According to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yose, we slaughter a Paschal offering for a woman separately,[1] whereas according to Rabbi Shimon we do not – she can join a group of men and participate in their Paschal offering. The Gemara connects Rabbi Yehuda's view to the position that a woman is obligated to bring a Paschal offering. This is derived from the verse: “And if the household be too little for a lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the souls; according to every man's eating shall you make your count for the lamb” (Shemot 12:4). The neutral term “souls” includes both men and women. Indeed, the Rambam (Hilkhot Korban Pesach 1:1) rules that women are obligated in the Paschal offering just like men.

13 III. The Four Cups of Wine

The Gemara asserts that women are obligated to drink four cups of wine at the seder: “Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: ‘Women are obligated in these four cups [of wine], for they too were included in that miracle’” (Pesachim 108a-b). The Gemara states this rule about another two rabbinic time-bound positive commandments – reading Megillat Esther on and lighting candles on Chanuka. comments on the passage in Pesachim, explaining that by virtue of righteous women the people of Israel were redeemed from Egypt. But the Tosafot point out that this explanation is also brought with respect to megillah reading, and there the expression “they too” is inappropriate, as the miracle of Purim was performed principally through Esther; her participation was not a marginal addition, as “they too” seems to imply. The Tosafot therefore explain that in each of these three historical instances, the women of Israel were exposed to the same danger as their male counterparts.

Iv.

The Posekim agree that women are also obligated in the mitzva to eat maror (bitter herbs) at the seder, but it is not clear why this should be so. The Arukh Ha-shulchan writes as follows:

Since [women] are obligated in matza, they are also obligated in the Paschal offering and in maror, as they are compared one to the other. As it is written: “They shall eat [the Paschal offering] with matzot and maror.” Even though the obligation to eat maror nowadays is [only] by Rabbinic law, nevertheless, whatever the Rabbis enacted, they enacted similar to Scriptural law. Accordingly, they are obligated in all the commandments of the night, as they are all one matter. And furthermore, it was by virtue of righteous women that our forefathers were redeemed from Egypt. Therefore, it is obvious that they are obligated in all the commandments of the night, as they are all only because of the redemption from Egypt. (Orach Chayyim 472:15)

The words of the Arukh Ha-shulchan contain several novelties. First, he argues that even the obligation of women regarding the Paschal offering – which the Gemara connects to the verse, “according to the number of the souls,” is connected to the analogy to the prohibition of chametz. According to him, after the Gemara learns that women are obligated in the mitzva of eating matza, it expands this obligation to include the Paschal offering and maror as well.

14

What about the duty to eat maror nowadays, which is only rabbinic? The Arukh Ha- shulchan proposes two ways of understanding why women are obligated in maror today. First: “Whatever the Rabbis enacted, they enacted similar to Scriptural law.” That is to say, when the Rabbis instituted the mitzva of maror, they established that its laws should be similar to the obligation of maror which was in force during the time of the Temple. Women, who were obligated in the mitzva of maror when it was a Torah obligation, are also obligated in the mitzva now that it is mandated by Rabbinic decree alone. Second, “they too were included in that miracle” – this rationale is relevant to all the rabbinic obligations on the night of the seder.

The Arukh Ha-shulchan implies that these two rationales apply to other mitzvot of the Seder night as well, such as the four cups. Apart from the consideration that “they too were included in that miracle,” he mentions that all the commandments of the night are “one matter.” If women are obligated to eat matza, they are obligated in all the mitzvot performed that night. The Rabbis enacted these mitzvot as part of a comprehensive system of commandments to be observed on the night of the seder, and anyone who is obligated to eat matza, etc., is also obligated in these rabbinic commandments. There might have been room to distinguish between maror – fundamentally a Torah obligation that is no longer applicable – and the four cups – a rabbinic obligation at its core. Perhaps the analogy to matza applies to maror, but it is difficult to include a fundamentally rabbinic mitzva with the rest of the mitzvot, such that they all be considered “one matter.” In any event, the Arukh Ha-shulchan does not make this distinction.

v. Relating the Story of from Egypt

The mitzva of sippur yetziat Mitzrayim, relating the story of the exodus from Egypt, finds expression in the recitation of the . This mitzva is incumbent upon women, but it is not clear whether their obligation is by Torah law or by rabbinic enactment. The Sefer Ha- chinukh (commandment no. 21) writes that women are obligated in this mitzva by Torah law. The Minchat Chinukh expresses his surprise:

“This applies to males and females, etc.” In my opinion, this is a great novelty. Why should this mitzva apply to women, seeing that it is a time-bound positive commandment, from which women are exempt? … Rambam (Hilkhot Avoda Zara 12:3) lists the time-bound positive commandments in which women are obligated: kiddush, matza, the Paschal offering, rejoicing on the Festivals, and hakhel. But he does not count this. From where

15 then does [the Chinukh] derive that women are obligated in this mitzva? He learns that the reason is that they too were included in that miracle, as with megillah reading and the four cups. But the Tosafot already proved in several places that this only creates a rabbinic obligation…

Women are certainly obligated by rabbinic law, as they are obligated in the four cups and in on the night of the seder. (Minchat Chinukh, commandment 21 [6])

The Minchat Chinukh argues that the Rambam does not mention that women are obligated in the mitzva of telling the story of the exodus from Egypt. What is more, in Hilkhot Avoda Zara (chap. 12), where the Rambam notes the six time-bound positive commandments to which women are subject by Torah law, he does not mention this mitzva. It should be noted, on the other hand, that at the end of his listing of the positive commandments in his Sefer Ha-mitzvot, the Rambam mentions those commandments from which women are exempt. He implies that women are not exempt from the mitzva of telling the story of the exodus from Egypt (mitzva no. 157). While this may seem like a contradiction, it is certainly possible that the Rambam changed his position on this point.

The Minchat Chinukh argues that, in any case, it is obvious that women are obligated in the mitzva of telling the story of the exodus at least by rabbinic decree, just as they are obligated to drink the four cups of wine. It should be noted that theoretically one could have argued that women are not at all obligated in the mitzva of telling the story of the exodus. Thus far, we have seen mitzvot that are incumbent upon both men and women by Torah law, e.g., eating matza (as both men and women are prohibited from eating chametz); and we have also seen mitzvot in which both men and women are obligated by rabbinic decree, e.g., the four cups (as “they too were included in that miracle”). It may be that the factor of “they too were included in that miracle” is only relevant to mitzvot that are fundamentally rabbinic in origin, and not to mitzvot in which men are obligated by Torah law. If this is the case, there is room to say that the mitzva of telling the story of the exodus falls into neither of the two categories described above, and therefore women are entirely exempt. As stated, however, not even the Minchat Chinukh raises such a possibility.

VI. Hallel

The Minchat Chinukh considers it obvious that women are obligated to recite Hallel on the night of the seder (by rabbinic decree). He refers to the Tosafot in Sukka:

16

The implication here is that women are exempt from Hallel on Sukkot and , the reason being that it is a time-bound positive commandment. Even though with respect to Hallel on the night of the seder, the Gemara in Arvei Pesachim (108a) implies that [women] are obligated in the four cups, and presumably the four cups were only instituted so that Hallel and the Haggadah should be recited over them – the Hallel of Pesach is different, as it comes for the miracle, and they too were included in that miracle. But here it is not recited over a miracle. (Tosafot, Sukka 38a)

The Tosafot assert that if women are obligated in the mitzva of the four cups, they are apparently also obligated in the Hallel that is recited on the night of the seder, for “presumably the four cups were only instituted so that Hallel and the Haggadah should be recited over them.” Why should women be obligated in the Hallel recited on the night of the seder but not in the Hallel recited on Sukkot and Shavuot? The Tosafot explain that the Hallel recited on the night of the seder is exceptional, “as it comes for the miracle, and they too were included in that miracle.”

What is the meaning of the distinction between the Hallel recited on Sukkot and the Hallel recited on the night of the seder? R. Yitzchak Soloveitchik (Chiddushei Maran Riz Ha- Levi, Hilkhot Chanuka 3:6) distinguishes between the Hallel recited on all the various occasions, which is recited as a “reading,” and the Hallel recited on the night of the seder, which is recited as a “song.” Hallel is usually recited as part of the prayer service. But on the night of the seder, it is an excited response to deliverance from affliction. “In each and every generation a person is obligated to see himself as if he left Egypt” (Pesachim 116b). A person who has just left Egypt responds to the salvation of his people from slavery by singing Hallel. Therefore, on the night of the seder, Hallel is recited at night, a phenomenon not found on any other occasion. And, therefore, women are exempt from the Hallel recited on the various holidays, but they are obligated in the Hallel recited on the night of the seder, as it is a show of thanksgiving for the miracle, and “they too were included in that miracle.”

VII. Reclining

The ruling of the Shulchan Arukh is straightforward: “Women too are obligated in the four cups and in all the commandments that apply that night” (Orach Chayyim 472:14). Indeed, thus far we have seen that women are obligated in all the mitzvot related to the seder. The only question

17 is whether they are obligated by Torah law or by rabbinic decree. There is, however, one rabbinic commandment regarding which the role of women is unclear, namely, the mitzva of reclining.

The Gemara in Pesachim (108a) states: “A woman in her husband's [house] need not recline, but if she is a woman of importance she must recline.” The words “in her husband's [house]” did not appear in the texts available to the Rishonim, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that we are dealing with an addition that was inserted into the Gemara, and that comprises sort of an explanation: When is a woman exempt from reclining? When she is in her husband's house.

The Rosh writes that we find among the Rishonim two different explanations of this law, and that there is a practical difference between them:

A woman need not recline. The Rashbam explains: “Because of reverence for her husband, to whom she is beholden.” According to this, a widow or a divorcee must recline. The She'iltot De-Rav Achai writes that it is not the manner of women to recline. According to this, a widow and a divorcee are also [exempt], but as for an important woman, it is her manner to recline. (Rosh, Pesachim, chap. 10, no. 20)

The Rashbam explains that a woman does not recline because she is beholden to her husband. The She'iltot writes that it is not the manner of a woman to recline. The practical difference is whether or not a single woman must recline. They both agree (following the Gemara) that an important woman must recline, but for different reasons: The Rashbam would say that an important woman feels free and is not subject to her husband, whereas the She'iltot would argue that it is the way of an important woman, in contrast to other women, to recline.

The Me’iri follows the Rashbam, adding another halakhic ramification:

A woman need not recline, because a woman is not free in the presence of her husband. But if she is an important woman, she must recline, as there is nothing servile in her

18 marriage. [As for an ordinary woman,] when she is not in her husband's presence, it would seem that she must recline. (Meiri, Pesachim 108a)

The Meiri argues that a woman is exempt from reclining because “a woman is not free in the presence of her husband.” In light of this, he reaches the conclusion that a woman's exemption from reclining only applies when she is in her husband's presence. This is similar to a parallel statement from the same passage in Pesachim, which posits that a disciple in his teacher's presence is exempt from reclining because of his reverence for his teacher.

A third explanation appears, among other places, in the words of Rabbeinu Manoach in his commentary on the Rambam:

If she is an important woman – that is, if she has no husband and she is the mistress of the house, she must recline. Alternatively, if she is important with respect to her handiwork, a God-fearing woman, the daughter of the great Torah scholars of the generation, and she has the praises of a woman of valor, this woman… even if she has a husband, she must recline. Alternatively, you can explain: “She need not recline” – since she is busy with cooking and preparing the food, they exempted her from reclining, just as they exempted her from time-bound positive commandments. But an important woman, who has male servants and maidservants who take care of food matters and she sits idle – she must recline. (Rabbeinu Manoach, Hilkhot Chametz U-matza 7:5)

Rabbeinu Manoach understands that a woman's exemption is connected to the extent of her obligation to her husband. In light of this, he proposes two possible explanations of the expression “important woman”: (1) a woman who has no husband and (2) an impressive woman, in practical or spiritual terms, who does not nullify herself with respect to her husband.

But then Rabbeinu Manoach proposes another explanation: A woman's exemption is connected to the fact that she is busy preparing the food. Consequently, an “important woman” is one who need not involve herself in preparing and serving the food, as she has servants who do that in her place. In light of this novel explanation, it is clear that such a woman would be obligated to recline.

19

The Mordechai cites, in the name of the Tosafot, a novel position with important practical ramifications in this context: “If she is an important woman, she must recline. The Tosafot explain that all of our women are important, and they are required to recline” (Addendum to Arvei Pesachim). It follows that, due to changing societal norms, a woman’s exemption from reclining may no longer be relevant. If a woman’s exemption from reclining resulted from her “subjugation” to her husband, then it may be that women today should recline because they are no longer regarded as being subject to their husbands. If their exemption resulted from the need to prepare the meal, we can say that today a woman's involvement in preparing the meal no longer requires that she be absent from the meal itself.

The Shulchan Arukh and the Rema rule:

A woman need not recline, unless she is an important woman.

Rema: All of our women are considered important (Mordechai); but they are not accustomed to recline, as they rely on the words of the Ra’avya, who writes that today there is no need [for anyone] to recline. (Orach Chayyim 472:4)

There is room to discuss whether, in the time of the Mordechai, women actually reclined, or perhaps even then they were not accustomed to do so. In any event, it is clear that in the time of the Rema – as today – many women were not accustomed to recline. But in light of the Mordechai's ruling that all of our women are considered important, it is difficult to understand why women are not particular about reclining.

In this context, the Rema mentions the Ra’avya, who maintains that in our time, nobody is required to recline – neither men nor women. Why? In the days of Chazal, reclining represented the normal way of sitting at a distinguished meal, but in our day that is no longer the case. The Rema argues that women are not accustomed to reclining, even though they are all considered important women, because they rely on the Ra’avya, who exempts everybody from reclining in our time. The Rema's explanation seems very forced, as the Ra’avya does not distinguish between women and men; why then should only women rely on his position?

20

The Vilna Gaon, in his commentary, mentions the rationale of the She'iltot, that the Gemara exempts woman from reclining because they are not accustomed to reclining all year long. According to this, it can be argued that today, even important women are not accustomed to reclining all year long, and therefore they should not recline at the seder. This might be the basis for distinguishing between men and women. Regarding men, it was established that they are obligated to recline. According to most Posekim (except for the Ra’avya), this is a binding law that does not depend on one’s personal custom. But as for women, it was established from the outset that their obligation depends on their custom (for, unlike men, already then, most women were not accustomed to reclining). As a result, a woman’s obligation to recline depends on the custom of each generation.

In practice, many women today are not accustomed to reclining. But there are different customs regarding the matter, and some women indeed recline at the seder, just as men do.

Women and Reclining

Gil Student writes:6

6 https://www.torahmusings.com/2011/04/women-and-reclining/

21

As we tell the Exodus story during the seder, we teach about our freedom not only verbally — through reciting the text of the Haggadah — but also actively, including reclining at key places.

Women, who are obligated in the various aspects of the seder, do not recline in many Ashkenazic communities. Why would they refrain from this, alone among the obligations of the evening?

As we tell the Exodus story during the seder, we teach about our freedom not only verbally — through reciting the text of the Haggadah — but also actively, including reclining at key places. Women, who are obligated in the various aspects of the seder, do not recline in many Ashkenazic communities. Why would they refrain from this, alone among the obligations of the evening?

22 I. Women’s Leniency

As we recently discussed (link), the Talmud exempts women from reclining except “important” women who are either independent or free from household chores. According to Tosafos, all women in their day — and certainly today — are “important”. Yet, they still do not recline in many communities, and as codified by the Rema in Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chaim 472:4). Is this not a violation of the Talmudic ruling that “important” women must recline? Rema bases the leniency for women on the Ra’avya’s ruling that reclining today is not a sign of freedom. In Mishnaic times, the wealthy elite reclined while eating. However, times have changed and reclining no longer demonstrates freedom. Yet why do women rely on this Ra’avya and not men? Either all should lean or none. Why the gender distinction?

II. Two Aspects of Reclining

R. Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai, Seder Mo’ed 29:3) quotes an explanation of this widespread, codified practice which posits that there are two aspects to reclining. The Midrash (Shemos Rabbah 20:19) notes the ambiguous language of Exodus 12:13. What is normally translated as “But God led the people about” can also be translated as “And God caused the nation to recline.” By reclining during the seder, we are commemorating this aspect of the Exodus story. Reclining is a remembrance of the miracle (zekher la-nes).

On the other hand, reclining is also a publicization of the miracle (pirsum ha-nes). By acting like free people, we are demonstrating to the world that we were taken out of Egypt. If God had not taken the out of Egypt, we and our fathers and our fathers’ fathers would still be slaves and would be unable to recline at the seder.

III. Reclining Today

While authorities disagreed which of these two reasons — commemorating or publicizing the miracle — obligate us to recline, we act strictly and follow both. However, according to the second reason (pirsum ha-nes), reclining only serves to publicize the miracle if free people today recline. Since they do not, we need not recline. According to the first reason, however, reclining still fulfills the function of commemorating the miracle.

Women’s obligation in the commandments of the night come from the reason of “Af hein hayu be- oso ha-nes – they too were part of the same miracle.” R. B. Soloveitchik explains that this reason only applies to mitzvos that publicize a miracle, such as reading the megillah and lighting Chanukah candles, but not mitzvos that commemorate a miracle, such as sitting in a .

Therefore, it stands to reason that women are only obligated to recline because of the second reason (pirsum ha-nes) while men are obligated because of both. Since leaning only has meaning today according to the first reason (zekher la-nes) and not the second, men must lean but women need not.

23 Saying korbanos: Are women obligated?

Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Schwartz writes:7

The Talmud (Megilla 31b) notes that at the time the Beis HaMikdash was around Hashem promised the Jewish nation that assuming they bring korbanos, he will make sure that they will inherit the land. The Gemara asks what happens when the Beis HaMikdash is no longer around. To which the Gemara answers that Hashem had already established a seder korbanos and so long as we read from them Hashem will count the reading as if we brought the korbanos and they will atone for all sins. The Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 1:9) notes the importance of reciting korbanos each and every day. The Rema actually reviews this important issue again (O.C. 48:1) clearly underscoring the importance of this mitzvah. In particular, the Korban HaTamid is singled out for its significance to be recited each and every day prior to Davening. However, there is an obvious question: If the one who recites korbanos is treated as though he brought them, what happens when the "he" is a "she"? In other words, should women recite korbanos? After all, they are not obligated to bring them! The Beis Yosef (O.C. end of siman 47) quotes the Agur who notes that Tefilla replaces the bringing of Korbanos (Berachos 26b). He also adds that women are obligated in Tefilla (based on Berachos 20b). Accordingly, the Agur maintains that women must also recite korbanos. This position is cited by Mogen Avraham (47:14) and the Biur Halacha. Shulchan Aruch Harav has a slightly different position. He maintains that the talmud's position that Tefilla stands in the place of korbanos applies, in the morning, only to the Korban Tamid for which Shachris stands. Therefore, he holds that women only have to say the Parshas Hatamid. L'halacha, it seems that most women do neither. This seems to be based on the fact that many of the Poskim dispute the position of the Agur (See Mor U'Ketziya end of siman 47; Shut Yosef Ometz, 67 among others). They note, that if the reference of reciting korbanos is to replace the Korbanos Tzibbur, then women do not have to contribute to these Korbanos (See Mishna Shekalim 1:3). And if the obligation is part of Davening, then according to the Magen Avrohom (104:7), a woman's obligation is only to ask for Hashem's mercy. The only possibility whereby a woman would be obligated to recite korbanos would be in regard to a personal obligation (Chatas, Asham, Todah etc. See Rambam Hil. Maaseh HaKorbanos 3:2). However even men do not recite the special Parshiyos that surround these korbanos and suffice themselves with the recitation of the Mishna "eizehu mikoman." However the main purpose of these Mishnayos is to fulfill the obligation of talmud Torah (See O.C. 50:1) and women are exempt from that obligation. Therefore, women traditionally do not recite korbanos when they don't have the time. What does a woman who does have a personal obligation do to fulfill the statement that "reciting a section of korbanos counts as if she brought one"? Say a woman gave birth, does she recite the

7 https://www.adathisraelshul.org/e-torah/parsha/67-vayikra/597-women-saying-korbanos

24 section that deals with the korbanos of a Yoledes? The Shut Lev Chaim (15) notes that in such a situation she SHOULD recite the appropriate section of the Torah in its proper time. Still others maintain, that where possible, women should recite all of the korbanos each and every day (Kaf Hachaim 70:1).

25