[Avodah] Chief Rabbi Metzger: Women can lead Seder

Chana Luntz Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk
Tue Apr 10 07:45:09 PDT 2012


--- On Thu, 4/5/12, Poppers, Michael <MPoppers at kayescholer.com> wrote:

>>I don't understand, R'Micha -- isn't it true that there's a machloqes
whether women are chayav in BhM mid'Oraysa or only mid'Rabbanan and no such
>>machloqes whether they (shehayu b'oso haneis) are chayav in sippur
y'tziyas Mitzrayim?
-----------------------------------

And RHM replied:

>Once again: Sipur Yitzias Mitzrayim is a D'Oraisa for women (MItzvah 21 in
the Chinuch).

Well my reading of the Minchas Chinuch is that he actually disagrees and
holds it is only d'rabbanan, see there.  I am not sure that anybody else
does though.

> 'Af Hein Hayah B'Oso HaNes' is not a Sefora that is used for D'Oraisos. It
is used for D'Rabbanans - like the Daled Kosos.

The Minchas Chinuch does assert this, and indeed this is one answer given in
Tosphos (Megilla 4a "af hen") - to the question of why we need to learn out
the chiyuv of eating matza from the prohibition on chometz, won't af hen
b'oso hanes do, but I am not sure it is so pashut.  Tosphos itself there in
Megilla brings, in the name of Rabbanu Yosef Ish Yerushalayim, an
alternative reason - ie we might have learnt the gezera shava tes vav, tes
vav that women should be exempt (which would suggest that indeed af hen
b'oso hanes does give rise to d'orisas).

And indeed, the Tosphos on Pesachim 108b (as opposed to Megila) seems to
imply this.  The Tosphos on "she'af hen" says - "v'i lav have ta'ama lo hayu
chayovos mshum d'nashim peturos memitzvos aseh shehazman grama af al gav
d'arba kosos drabbanan k'ain d'orisa tikun".  What you are saying is that
*because* arba kosos are d'rabbanan then the reason of af hen b'oso hanes
applies - but that is not the usual meaning of "af al gav" - rather, it
seems to suggest that even though the arba kosos are d'rabbanan, just like
the d'orisas in which women are included because of af hen b'oso hanes, so
too the rabbis enacted the d'rabbanans to match.

> The Minchas Chinuch >questions how this Mitzvah (Being?a MASHZG from which
women are exempt -?is nonetheless a Chiuv D'Oraisa for them.

Yes, but the logical conclusion of this questioning is, as he suggests, that
women are only obligated in sippur yitzias mitzrayim d'rabbanan.  If you
reject the Minchas Chinuch, and follow the Chinuch, then it might be that
you are also rejecting the idea that af hen boso hanes as being necessarily
only for d'rabbanans.  

>The Kehilas Yaakov suggests that since it is Makish to Achilas Matzah in
the sense that one of the meanings of Lechem Oni is that it is something
over >which many questions are answered (i.e. the Haggdah that begings with
the Arba Kushios) it derives its Chiuv D'Oraisa from that. Matzah is also a
MASHZG >and a Chiuv D'Oraisa for women. We apply the following dictum: Kol
Sheyeshna B' Bal Tochel Chametz - Yeshna B'Kum Ochel Matzos.

This seems to suggest that, according to the Kehilas Yaakov, if somebody did
not have any matza to make a seder on, they would therefore be exempt from
sippur yitzias mitzrayim (at least on a d'orisa level), just as we are
currently exempt (d'orisa) from mitzvas maror, because we cannot bring the
korban pesach (the current obligation for maror being only d'rabbanan).
That doesn't seem right to me.   While the timing of sippur yitzias
mitzrayim is explicitly linked to the time ordained for the eating of
matzah, it seems a bit farfetched to say that one drags along the other.

In addition, Tosphos's question regarding the need for the pasuk re matza,
assumes that, af hen beoso hanes would, if it applied to d'orisas, naturally
mean that women were included in achilas matza.  But is that necessarily the
case? - yitzias mitzrayim was a nes, the korban pesach involved a nes (being
passed over), sipur yitzias mitrayim is the telling over of the nes, but
what is the actual *nes* involved in matza?  Not rising is perfectly normal
if you don't have time to let it rise.  And as the gemora makes clear, there
are two mitzvos involved in eating matza.  One with the korban pesach (and
maror), but which aspect disappears, like maror, when there is no korban
pesach. And one independent obligation to eat matza even b'zman hazeh when
there is no korban pesach.  Is it necessarily the case that, even were af
hen b'oso hanes to apply, that it would apply to this obligation to eat
matza b'zman hazeh, without kol sheyeshna b'abal tochel chametz?

>HM

Moed Tov

Chana




More information about the Avodah mailing list