7

Pesachim 43: says that women are obligated in the Mitzva of Matza since they are obligated in the prohibition of not eating Chametz. Why do we not say that the reason is since they were part of the Neis of Yetzias Mitzrayim (we were actually redeemed because of the Nashim Zidkoniyos) like we say by Chanuka & Purim?

  • 1
    We were redeemed because of nashim tzadkaniyot? I thought it had something to do with God, Avraham and a bunch of cut up animals. – Baal Shemot Tovot Apr 6 '12 at 16:24
  • 1
    @هه: see Sotah 11b: בשכר נשים צדקניות שהיו באותו הדור נגאלו ישראל ממצרים. (Presumably, had it not been for them, Hashem would have waited the full four hundred years before keeping His promise at the bris bein habesarim.) – Alex Apr 6 '12 at 19:16
  • Having been tzidkaniyos is not necessarily the reason for their chiyuv in various mitzvos of Pesach. In fact Tosafos on P'sachim 108 hold it is not. But being associated/comorbid with a negative commandment always obligated women in the corresponding positive. – WAF Apr 6 '12 at 21:25
  • 1
    If you like an answer, consider marking it correct :) – mevaqesh Nov 8 '17 at 7:48
4

IIRC the principle that 'they as well were in the miracle' is a Rabbinic reason for applying Rabbinic commandments to women, not a reason for applying biblical laws.

2

R. Hayyim Paltiel (Leviticus 12:3) writes explicitly, as do other Rishonim, that women would only be included rabbinically on the basis of the principle that includes them in mitsvot associated with miracles they were involved in:

ואין להקשות מה מצה שאף הן היו באותו הנס דאין זה רק מדרבנן

R. Moshe Soloveitchik, however, explained that that principle only obligates women in mitsvot whose very definition is to commemorate a miracle. In the case of matsa, the commemoration is the motivation for the mitsva, but doesn't define the nature of the mitsvah itself. Accordingly, women wouldn't be included at all, even rabbinicaly, were it not for the derasha. This is quoted in in the name of his son in Reshimot Shiurim to Berakhot (20b):

והגר"מ זצ"ל אמר דאין לדמות חיוב נשים במגילה... דשאני קריאת המגילה שיסוד קיומה הוי קיום מצות פרסומי ניסא, וסברת אף הן היו באותו הנס מרבה נשים במצוות שיסוד קיומן ועצם החפצא שלהן הויין מצות פרסומי ניסא, ואינה סברא לחייב נשים במצות שנתקנו זכר לנס. ועפי"ז תירץ הגר"מ אמאי אין נשים מחוייבות בתפילין ובמצה מטעם שאף הן היו באותו הנס, דאע"פ שמצות תפילין ומצות אכילת מצה הויין מצוות שהן זכר לנס דיצ"מ וכדכתיב בקרא שמצות תפילין הוא "למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך כי ביד חזקה הוציאך ה' ממצרים", מ"מ אין בהם חלות קיום פרסום הנס, ולכן ליכא לחייב נשים בהן מטעם שאף הן היו באותו הנס

0

For another, more drashic answer, R' Tzadok of Lublin reasons (in sefer Pri Tzadik) that since women were responsible for the first sin through the consuming the fruit of the eitz hadaas, they should be responsible for its tikkun (its fix or rectification).

Since according to one of the four opinions, the eitz hadaas was wheat and according to gemara it was not only raw wheat, but the tree grew ready-to-eat delectable buns (ie chometz) the tikkun of such an aveira is to do the opposite: consume matzah. (Of course men, having also eaten from the buns, must do likewise and effectuate the tikkun.)

While this is not on the topic of the question, we can go a little bit further. The gemara in Sanhedrin says that the revival of the dead will take place in Nissan. Why? Because eating from the eitz hadaas brought death and its rectification (over generations and generations of bittuling the sin by eating matzah seder night) will eventually bring the opposite: life. May it be this year.

  • One of the opinions is it was an etrog? Why aren't they then obligated in Lulav to fix that? – Double AA Apr 10 '17 at 21:04
  • Ditto for wine and fig... It is a good kasha on R' Tzadok. Anyone have any ideas? – Adam Kapelner Apr 13 '17 at 3:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .