Wednesday, November 29, 2006

shabbos kiddush - does arvus apply to women

The gemara in Brachos has a safeik whether women are chayavos in birchas hamazon min hatorah or not. The Rosh writes that since this issue is unresolved, a woman may not be motzi a man in bentching because her chiyuv may be derabbanan and his chiyuv is d’oraysa. Asks the Rosh, why should this distinction in the levels of chiyuvim matter? – just like a man who ate a k’zayis (chiyuv derabbanan) can be motzi a man who ate k’dei seviya (chiyuv d’oraysa) because of the principle of arvus (i.e. even if I have no chiyuv, I have to help someone else fulfill their chiyuvim), even if a woman’s chiyuv is derabbanan, she could be motzi a man through arvus?! (Arvus would theoretically work even if the one being motzi his/her friend ate nothing, e.g. someone can be motzi a friend in kiddush without drinking the kos, but there is a special din derabbanan by bentching that the motzi has to have eaten). The Rosh answers with a tremendous chiddush that the principle of arvus does not apply to women. The Dagul m’Revava raises a number of questions all based on this yesod of the Rosh, the most well known (O.C. 271) relating to the mitzvah of kiddush. According to the Magen Avraham, a man is yotzei his mitzvah of kiddush m’doraysa by reciting kiddush hayom in ma’ariv of Shabbos. How can a man be motzi his wife, who is chayeves in kiddush min hatorah, when he has already fulfilled his kiddush m’doraysa and the principle of arvus does not apply to women?!
R’ Akiva Eiger completely disagrees with the Dagel m’Revava’s reading of the Rosh. The Rosh never meant that arvus does not extend to women – what the Rosh meant is in a case where the status of chiyuv is a safeik, like the question of a woman’s obligation to bentch, we do not extend the principle of arvus. Perhaps the reason many women who ordinarily do not daven ma’ariv have the minhag of doing so on Shabbos and Y”T night is to avoid this issue raised by the Dagul m’Revava. Depending on how low you define the threshold for mitzvas kiddush, perhaps a woman wishing her husband “Good Shabbos” suffices on a d’orasya level (R’ Akiva Eiger). Furthermore, the Minchas Chinuch (again, thank you Bill Selliger) challenges the whole premis of the MG”A based on the gemara in Pesachim which says that zechiras yetziyas mitzrayim is an integral part of kiddush, which is lacking in ma’ariv. But unless I am missing something, there is another answer available based on yesterday’s discussion. Even though m’doraysa kiddush can be accomplished with a minimal statement mentioning kedushas shabbos, once Chazal added the obligations of kiddush being said al hakos b’makom seudah, then a failure to meet the derabbanan criteria should also mean the d’oraysa kiyum is not fulfilled either.

12 comments:

  1. Bill Selliger12:10 PM

    Hold on. There is a major difference between being over an issur d'rabonon to achieve a d'oraysa and not being mikayeim a supplementary mitzva d'rabonon.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A sukkah which holds rosho and rubo but not shulchano is just missing a supplemental derabbanan criteria - it's not a violation of anything. Here too, you said kiddush, but are missing the kos and the makom seudah.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bill Selliger1:13 PM

    Look at Sukka 3a. "Poslin", "lo yatza", "gazrinan"...does that sound like a supplemental din d'rabonon? B"SH nullified the sukka. Where does it say by kiddush that that if it's not “b'makom seuda”, or not “al hakos”, that the kiddush is pasul? See Pesachim 106a and Tosafos there. (See also the bottom of 100b and top of 101a. Efsher sh'shadisi bi narga – aval yeish makom l’ayin.)

    Are you denying that one can be mikayeim a mitzva on a d'oraysa level without also fulfilling all the d'rabonon criteria? Matza without heseiba? Tefilla without 18 brachos? Kiddushin without seeing the woman first? Bitul chametz without hashbasa?

    It follows also, then, that if I move muktza on Shabbos, I should get stoned, because I was really being michalel Shabbos m’doraysa – since the chachomim added a supplemental din.

    How is every d'rabonon not a violation of "al tosef"? Even if (like the Rambam) they say it's just a d'rabonon, they are still being mosef on the Torah? (I guess this can be a kasha on shitas Tosafos Sukka 3a as well.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. >>>B"SH nullified the sukka. Where does it say by kiddush that that if it's not “b'makom seuda”, or not “al hakos”, that the kiddush is pasul?

    It says you are not yotzei - you assume that means not yotzei some kiyum derabbanan. Prove it.

    >>>Are you denying that one can be mikayeim a mitzva on a d'oraysa level without also fulfilling all the d'rabonon criteria?

    I am simply quoting the Pri Megadim who raises the same safeik by birchas hamazon without shem and malchus - does that forfeit the d'oraysa of bentching? Isn't that the same issue you raise of tefillah without 18 brachos? You are arguing like this is a reductio ad absurdum to suggest, but the PM"G didn't think so! (Also remember my caveat from yesterday (that you didn't like) that it only works on a derabbanan directly related to the d'oraysa.)

    >>>It follows also, then, that if I move muktza on Shabbos, I should get stoned, because I was really being michalel Shabbos m’doraysa

    No, because although you may not fulfill the d'oraysa of shabason, you have not violated a d'oraysa of chilul shabbos.

    >>>Even if (like the Rambam) they say it's just a d'rabonon, they are still being mosef on the Torah?

    How? There is a difference between the chachamim saying without doing X you fail to get a kiyum d'oraysa vs. the Torah saying without doing X you don't get a kiyum.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bill Selliger3:12 PM

    We're going to go in circles.

    I'm glad you're using the book. Stop thanking me for it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bill Selliger8:33 PM

    I'm sorry; I can't resist. The Mahari Algazi has a sefer called "Ara D'rabonon". The purpose of the sefer is to examine various dinim and determine if they are d'oraysa or d'rabonon in nature. In his hakdama, he lists tens of nafka minos (some well known; others more obscure). Ayin sham. I will satisfy myself by enumerating just two of them:

    1) Safek. According to you, if I'm not sure if I davened mincha, I'm mechyuv min haTorah to daven again. See SA OC 107and the N"K there. There is no question that anyone - including the PM"G himself (see B"H there) - entertains your idea.

    2) Mitzva haba b'aveira. Tosafos himself (Sukka 9a) answers that MH"B is only a p'sul d'rabonon. According to you, why should that make a difference? One wouldn't be yotzei the mitzva m'd'oraysa anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  7. >>>1) Safek
    I have no idea how this follows. The chachamim said if you have a safeik you are patur - what does that have to do with the issue of failing to fulfill a vaday chiyuv derabbanan?

    >>>2) Mitzva haba b'aveira. Tosafos himself (Sukka 9a) answers that MH"B is only a p'sul d'rabonon. According to you, why should that make a difference?

    Tosfos' question is why you need an extra pasuk to pasel a sukkah gezulah. The Torah does not rely on the foreknowledge that maybe chazal would create an issur derabbanan of mhbb"a that would cause the miztva d'oraysa to be forfeit - the Torah creates such an issur where it seems necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bill Selliger10:06 AM

    How can the chachomim declare you patur on a safeik chiyuv d'oraysa? Let me clarify: According to you, every d'rabonon carries with it d'oraysa ramifications. (This is not the same as the Ramban's kasha on the Rambam.) You postulated that I am not yotzei the mitzva d'oraysa of tefilla if I did not fulfill all Rabbinic stipulations. So, if I am not sure if I fulfilled the Rabbinic stipulation of 18 brachos, it follows that I am also not sure if I fulfilled the d'oraysa requirement of tefilla. Since I'm not sure if I fulfilled the d'oraysa requirement of tefilla, I should have to daven again.

    This argument is not mentioned anywhere in the poskim. Hagam sh'lo ra'inu aino raya, the PM"G himself offers an alternative understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  9. R' Yonah's formulation was that the chachamim were oiker the din d'oraysa. Only where there was a vaday violation of a derabbanan does that apply, not b'makom safeik, just like the PM"G holds that violating a derbbanan b'ones is an exception.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bill Selliger12:56 PM

    You didn't violate anything here (and that's the first point I made up top). What are you going to say, "Only where there was a vaday non-compliance with a derabbanan do the chachomim nullify your kiyum, not b'makom safeik compliance"??? Does that make sense to you?! What are the mechanics of how the chachomim are being oker your kiyum? The bottom line is that according to you, you didn't do the mitzva at all!

    ReplyDelete
  11. >>>What are you going to say, "Only where there was a vaday non-compliance with a derabbanan do the chachomim nullify your kiyum, not b'makom safeik compliance"??? Does that make sense to you?!

    I'm afraid it does, so as you wrote eariler, we are going in circles. A reductio ad absurdum is not going to work on me here.

    ReplyDelete
  12. shoyn6:57 PM

    interesting the nusach of the brocho that women make according to the baal hatanya in his siddur is 'lehadlik neros shel shabbos KODESH', i think its the badei hashulchan on the ketzos hashulchan that explains the reason for the word 'kodesh' is that through reciting this work the woman has been yotze kiddush midorayso and consquently her husband can be motzi her as they are both obligated miderabanan.

    ReplyDelete