[Avodah] Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit

[Heather Luntz]

RRW writes:

> Do me a favor
> And Forget tosaphos
> 
> Have you seen the mishnah in sh'qalim?
> 
> Discard everything about bal tosif and every other pre-conceived notion
> and start anew and see that mishnah and meditate upon what it means
> 
> Otherwise we're talking accross each other and afaict Ran will make no
> sense either

Ok, I have gone back to your original reference to the Mishna in Shekalim as follows:

> See Mishnah Sh'qalim
> 1:5
> 
> There are 3 categories re: Sh'qalim
> 
> The Obligatory
> [EG Jewish adult males]
> The Rejected
> [EG Kussim etc.]
> And the Voluntary [EG Nashim avodim, ketanim]

And I have checked out the Mishna. 

But I don't see how it helps you.
 
> Question for contemplation: May a woman or child offer only a
> quarter-sheqel in lieu of a half-sheqel?

Clearly yes, they may, but then you see, they are not fulfilling the mitzvah of giving half a shekel, they are fulfilling the mitzvah of giving an nedavah to bedek habayis.  That is where the issue of semantics that I discussed before comes in.  At some point something becomes so far removed that it cannot be described as being the mitzvah you are seeking to identify it as, and it becomes something else.  Sometimes that something else is another mitzvah and sometimes it is not.

But let us go back to the Kussim as this is interesting.
The proof text that the Kussim etc are rejected is from a pasuk in Ezra "it is not for you ... to build the house of G-d" - and it is not just the half shekel that is rejected but anything vowed for bedek habayis.

But there is yet another factor at play here in Shekalim - what happens if a Kusi does indeed vow something for bedek habayis - does it become hekdesh (ie be subject to meila) or does it not?  Does he have the power to effect this transformation or not?  As far as I can gather, this is a machlokus between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in Aruchin 5b.  But at least according to Rabbi Yehuda it would seem that if a Kusi did indeed vow something for bedek habayis, (and presumably that would include a half shekel) then that object indeed becomes hekdesh, it is just that they refuse to use it to effectuate the upkeep of the Beis Hamikdash. Whereas reshut in this context would seem to me that not only are women able to make the transformation to hekdesh, but that the gabaiim are the prepared to indeed use the money for the upkeep of the temple.  The reshut and the rejection have nothing to do with the people in question, who seem to be making fundamental transformations in the money, it is to do with the subsequent actions of the gabaiim in dealing with such money.  A very very different sort of scenario to the one we are discussing in relation to things such as blowing shofar and taking lulav.

And I can't see how this has any bearing on the Ran.

> Let's go to 4 Minim
> Since a woman is not obligated therefore -Q: May she take 3 kosher
> minim
> and substitute a lemon for an Esrog?
> 
> Answer:
> of course not!

But as I have said, the usual reason not permitting this is baal tosif, nothing to do with psukim in Ezra.  You can't forget about it when it is the primary reason discussed in the gemora in the case in question.

> By obligating herself, a woman is not creating an obligation to DO,
> but to conform to the HOW whilst doing.
> 
> Similar to sh'chita and arba kanfos. A Jew is permitted to kill an
> animal w/o shechita,

But not to eat it which makes shechita a mitzvah kayemes.

 but when performing sh'chita a Jew must conform to
> Hilchos Sh'chita.

Agreed.

BTW, if you look in the Ran and in the Beit Yosef, you will see that they explicitly refer to the baal tosif problem as being at least one of the potential problems that in fact is not triggered in the case of women's performance.  This is as per Rashi who understands baal tosif as being the primary objection of Rav Yehuda (the bar plugta of Rabbi Yose whom we posken like).

It is also interesting that one of the primary proofs the Ran brings is from the statement that one who is commanded and does receives a greater reward than one who is not commanded and does.   And he points out that by the use of the term "greater" reward, it implies that one who is not commanded and does receives a reward, albeit a lesser reward, and it is the fact of that schar which leads to one being able to say vitzivanu.  Again, this is a lot stronger than that there is merely a conformity to the how - it indicates that the act continues to fall within the definition of mitzvah even if not commanded.

It is interesting to ask on the Ran, what would he say about non Jews performing mitzvot (other than, say, Shabbas, where we know there are specific prohibitions discussed)?  Would he say the same thing as he says here about women, ie that it is a mitzvah that is not commanded but which is done.  Or would he say that we learn out bnot yisroel somchot reshut, like Rabbi Yose, but Rabbi Yose does not say Kusim .. reshut, and that we understand that without this limud baal tosif is applicable here and hence we do not have a mitzvah, regardless of any conformity to the how.  My instinct is for the latter position, but I am not sure (and how about a non Jew doing the mitzvot in practicing to become a ger - does he say vitzivanu? ever?  How does he practice davening if a lot of the davening he can't really say, or do we just assume it is all meshum chinuch like we do with children).

> KT
> RRW