Various achronim discuss whether women are obligated in the mitzvah of tosefes yom tov. A nice lomdish formulation of the question (which was discussed here before) was posed by a questioner to R’ Binyamin Zilber (Az Nidbiru vol 1): if tosefes yom tov is an extension of kedushas yom tov itself, then just as women are obligated in the mitzvos of yom tov, they are obligated in tosefes, but if tosefes is an independent mitzvah, then there is no source to obligate women.
While the lomdus sounds nice, the assumption behind it is questionable. Although the gemara explicitly states that women are obligated in tosefes yom hakippurim, there is no source that would indicate an obligation in tosefes yom vov. Recall Tosfos (Kiddushin 34) from yesterday’s post suggested in their question that women are exempt from the aseh of yom tov, and retracted that assumption only because the aseh is attached to a lav. Tosefes yom tov is not attached to any lav, and so the exemption of women should stand. (This of course begs the question of why tosefes y”k is different than tosefes y”t).
Daf Yomi learners, however, will recall Tosfos (Kesubos 47a d”h d’masar) which writes that women may not do work during the tosefes shabbos, indicating that they are chayavos. The Ksav Sofer (O.C. 56) suggests that perhaps women are exempt only from zman gerama mitzvos like tefillin, which demand a kum v’aseh action to perform; they are, however, obligated in issurei aseh, such as the aseh of yom tov, which is fulfilled by the passive avoidance of work. (see also the safeik of R’ Akiva Eiger on perek 5 of mishnayos shabbos re: the issur of shvisas b’heima).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
See my comment to yesterday's post re: PY who says the same chiddush as the Ksav Sofer. The PY's context is actually tosefes YK.
ReplyDeleteAs for why tosefes YT would be different than YK -- based on your mehalech -- wouldn't simply be that there is a be-ferush ribbui on SUkkah 28? This point is actually a kasha on the PY I cited above (I think an answerable question but again ein kan mekomo).
I'm sorry I missed your comment from yesterday - baruch shekivanti to the same thought, and I see the K"S also references the same PN"Y.
ReplyDeleteIn raising the question about the difference between tosefes y"k and y"t I was wondering whether the gedarim are the same except in one case there is a gezeiras hakasuv to include women and in one case not, or is the inclusion/exclusion of women symptomatic of different gedarim that might apply. Not sure of nafka minos, but I wanted to toss is out there.
On that note - to be meyasheiv Tosfos in Kesubos the K"S (in one mehaleich) suggests that the ribuy for y"k is a giluei milsa for all cases.
Interesting -- there are two limudim for tosefes YK -- either from be-etzem ha-yom hazeh (on itzumo shel yom there is kares but on tosefes only an aseh) or from be-tishah lachodesh. The achronim suggest that the Rambam follows the etzem ha-yom ha-zeh limud which would only apply to YK (as opposed to be-tishah la-chodesh where the gemara concludes tishbetu shabatechem -- all kedusha there is tosefes). Maybe that is the vort that for YK there is a special limud of be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh, limited to YK and a special ribuyi for women (and the Rambam, though difficult with the gemara, only extends it to inuyim and not issur melacha) but for other days of tosefes kedusha, the limud could be from be-tisha or from shmitah (it's a mess figuring out how we "pasken" as to what the limud is from the sugyos both in Yoma and RH daf 9) and thus women would still be peturos.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the rambling comment -- again just to put out there.
See the K"S who plays with this idea (end of second column on the page)
ReplyDeletehttp://hebrewbooks.org/root/data/pdfs/SHUT/ketavsoferoc.pdf