Berakhot 048

1:
The first four words of this translation are probably among the most "irritating" of all halakhic terminology to those of us whose "antennae" are tuned to the implications of the bracketing. But in our study of this (and any other) mishnah, at the first stage, we must put aside our emotions and try to understand the mishnah on its own terms. Only thereafter will we be sufficiently equipped to address its meaning and its implications for us today.

2:
The term "women" in our mishnah means to include all female humans who are at least 12 years old.

3:
The term "slaves" refers to Canaanite servants, not the indentured Hebrew servant. These two terms were discussed extensively when we studied Tractate Kiddushin. Very briefly: the eved ivri [involuntarily indentured Jewish servant] is a Jew for all purposes (except personal freedom) for the six-year term of his indenture, and is not the subject of our mishnah. Nor is the ammah ivriyyah [Jewish maidservant] who, for the purposes of our mishnah, may be included under the rubric of "women". The eved kena'ani [Canaanite servant] was a person born as a non-Jew who was sold into slavery and bought by a Jew. At the end of the first year of his being with his Jewish master he had to decide whether he was prepared to be circumcised and to accept those mitzvot that were incumbent upon Jewish women or to be resold to a non-Jew. You will recall that we learned in Berakhot 39 and Berakhot 40 that Rabban Gamli'el had a Canaanite servant called Tavi who was an observant Jew, and who was regarded with affection by his master who sat shiv'ah for him when he died. If a Canaanite servant was granted his freedom he became a full Jew in all senses. (The Talmud even records sages granting freedom to their Canaanite servants in order to complete a minyan [ritual quorum]!)

4:
The term "children" is meant to include human males who are under the age of 13 years.

5:
Despite the questionable tradition that grew up over the long centuries that if someone is "excused" from the performance of a duty this means that they may not perform that duty, this is not the case from the halakhic point of view. Even if someone is "excused" from a certain mitzvah they may certainly elect to perform it. The only disagreement between the rabbis of the middle ages in this regard was whether the excused person electing to perform a mitzvah may recite the b^erakhah that goes with it. For example, may a woman electing to "take the Lulav" [the four species used during the festival of Sukkot] recite the b^erakhah that goes with this mitzvah "… al n^etilat lulav"? To simplify a long discussion, we can say that the general consensus among the rabbis of oriental [Sefaradi] Jewry was that such a person may not recite the b^erakhah, whereas the general consensus among the Ashkenazi rabbis was that such a person may, indeed, recite the b^erakhah. The sole exception that is relevant to our present discussion was women electing to put on Tefillin but since that is one of the subjects of this present mishnah we may leave that until its proper place.

6:
We may well ask why the persons mentioned in our mishnah are excused. A more general rule is found in Tractate Kiddushin, Chapter One, Mishnah 7. The relevant part of that mishnah reads:

7:
All 613 mitzvot of the Torah may be categorized as "positive" ("Thou shalt") or "negative" ("Thou shalt not"). (Of the 613, 365 are negative – an easy number to remember.) A "time-specific" mitzvah is one that has to be performed at a certain time, an action that is religiously meaningless if not performed within the time-frame indicated. For example, there is no religious virtue living in a sukkah during January, there is no religious virtue in eating matzah during Ĥanukah – and so forth.

To be continued.

Next Shiur