[Avodah] Why are women exempt from positive time-bound mitzvot

[Chana Luntz]

RAR wrote:
> "Mitzvos Aseh Shehazman Grama" has so many exceptions and details, and 
> those exceptions and details have their own exceptions and details... 
> A long time ago, I gave up trying to find a systematic set of rules 
> for which mitzvos apply to women.
> 
> It's a "siman/sibah" thing, I think...

And RMB replied:

<<I don't think it helps, as having so many exceptions and details not only
rules out causality (sibah) it also robs MASG of being a reliable sign for
guessing whether women would be exempt (siman).
We could shift the question, even: Instead of asking what the rule really is
for when nashim peturos, we can also ask why Chazal state a rule that
doesn't work. Why does the idiom even exist?
Which is why I think the rule DOES work, our problem is understanding it.>>

I am somewhat struggling to understand the problem here.  The rule clearly
works - as a presumption.  That is:

a) IF a positive mitzvah is time bound THEN women are exempt UNLESS there is
a pasuk or halacha Moshe M'sinai that includes them; while

b) IF a mitzvah is not-time bound, is negative or involve punishments THEN
women are obligated UNLESS there is a pasuk or halacha Moshe M'Sinai that
excludes them.

That, it seems to me, can be seen very clearly from Sukkah 28a-b.  The rule
ought to be that women are exempt from Sukkah based on the rule, but there
needs to be a halacha Moshe Mi' Sinai (and initially it was thought a
derivation of a pasuk) to exclude them because one might have thought they
were included for one (or both) of the reasons that Abaye and Rava give.
Likewise Yom Kippur, while because of the negative prohibitions and
punishments surrounding Yom Kippur, you would have thought from the rule
that women are included, that does not necessarily apply to tosefet Yom
Kippur which doesn't have those requirements, hence the need for a pasuk.

Indeed, not only does it work, it is clearly a form of halacha Moshe M'Sinai
itself - it is not a rule of Chazal (albeit stated by Chazal), because it
tips the presumption in the Torah one way or another, and requires psukim or
a halacha Moshe m'Sinai to correct in each given instance where it is not
meant to apply.

<<Anyway, I think emunas chakhamim compels us to say that if Chazal declared
a rule, that rule works. At least in the forward direction. We don't have to
say they are ONLY exempt from MASG to ask questions about talmud Torah.>>

Quite.  Except that I don't think it is so much about emunas chachamim in
Chazal declaring a rule, but about acceptance of Torah she ba'al peh as
transmitted by Chazal.  And that means in terms of understanding it, we are
in the territory of ta'amei mitzvot.  

RSRH is big on attempting to give ta'amei mitzvot, and that too is
considered part of Torah.  But as we know, giving a particular reason for a
mitzvah can be dangerous, because if such "reason" disappears or doesn't
apply, there are risks that people will apply the reason and not the
halacha.  Hence while someone might find any given ta'am satisfactory for
themselves, they do need to be careful not to state that this is "the
reason". I don't think that is any less problematic when applied to Torah
she ba'al peh than to Torah shel bichtav, and women's "identity" or women's
"ideal roles" fall within that category.  You could just as much say that
the Torah couldn't obligate women in these matters because there was only so
much social revolution it could have imposed on a bunch of slaves coming out
of Egypt (similar to the way the Rambam believes that korbanot were
instituted because the bnei Yisrael would not have coped without them, given
the surrounding cultures).

In addition, in this particular case, it seems key to make reference to the
machlokus between Rabbi Yehuda (plus Meir) and Rabbi Yosi (plus Shimon) as
to whether exemption means that a woman MUST not perform such mitzvot or
alternatively whether exemptions means it is non-obligatory but permissive,
ie that she MAY.   For example, if a woman performs such mitzvot, is she
over on bal tosif?  You might need a different ta'am depending on which one
of these two positions you follow.  That women are prohibited from
performing these mitzvot would seem much more in keeping with an "ideal
roles" and/or "shaping of identity" reason - than making performance
permissive. 

>-Micha

Regards

Chana