Berakhot 049

8:
The "rule of thumb" codified in Tractate Kiddushin 1:7 ("All positive, time-specific mitzvot are incumbent upon men whereas women are excused; all positive mitzvot that are not time-specific are incumbent upon both men and women; all negative commandments, be they time-specific or not, are incumbent upon both men and women…") is so unsatisfactory that even the sages themselves had to admit that it is a generalization and "one cannot deduce specifics from generalizations". There are so many exceptions to the rule that one begins to wonder to what extent it is indeed a rule. For example, women are required to eat matzah at the seder service; women are required to recite Kiddush on Shabbat and Yom-Tov – and these requirements are not modern innovations, but "go back to Sinai" as it were. And both these examples are positive mitzvot that are "time-specific". (The only time that we must eat matzah is at the seder service; for the rest of Pesach we need not if we choose not to, it's just that we may not eat bread. It goes without saying that the Shabbat Kiddush if recited on a Tuesday is ritually meaningless.)

9:
So now let us return to our question: why are the persons mentioned in our mishnah excused? What do the sages see "women, slaves and children" as having in common that they are bracketed together? What is the characteristic that is common to all three? If the women were not on the list it would be easier for us, today, to intuitively understand the common characteristic. If, for instance, the list were to read "children, soldiers on active service and persons incarcerated in a state penitentiary" it would be easier for us to spot the common characteristic (as perceived by the sages). None of these persons are "masters of their own fate". The Talmud [Kiddushin 30b] quotes from the Midrash Halakhah called Sifra. Let us try and follow the discussion.

10:
The Torah [Leviticus 19:3] rules: "Let each man respect his mother and father". (This translation in no way reflects the complexity of the Hebrew original, which is the basis of the midrash we shall study.) Despite the fact that the Torah refers to "each man" the sages ruled that "sometimes" women also were obligated by this command. The inclusion of daughters in the command to respect parents is based on the fact that the verb ["respect"] in Hebrew is in the plural. That being the case, the Sifra asks, Why does the verse start with the noun 'man' [ish]? The answer given is now easy for us to understand (even if it is almost impossible to swallow): A man is always a free agent to do his parents' bidding, whereas a woman [i.e. wife] is not such a free agent because someone else has tutelary rights over her. [Ish – sipek be-yado la'asot, ishah eyn sipek be-yadah la'asot mipney she-reshut aĥerim aleha.] There can be no doubt that our interpretation is correct, since the Gemara [Kiddushin 30b] continues: Rav Iddi bar Avin reports that Rav says that when a wife is divorced she becomes a man's equal again in this respect [since she is once again a free agent].

11:
Much ink has been needlessly spilled in trying to "smooth over the rough edges" of this midrash. The most ubiquitous "resolution" of the dilemma is to explain that a married woman is not a free agent because of her duties to her household and her children. This is a red herring. We must face the fact that, for the sages, women – however much they were loved and respected – were not considered part of general society. This was not always the case and is not now the case, but it was the case in Talmudic times. It seems reasonable to assume that the subordinate situation of the wife in rabbinic literature reflects a general social situation. There were obviously shining exceptions, but as a rule women were lacking in education and public social standing. The sociology of the situation is, in my opinion, outside the scope of our study: I only state what seems to be an objective description of an historical situation. (To those interested in further reading on this topic I can heartily recommend an article by the late Rabbi Theodore Friedman: "The shifting role of women from the Bible to the Talmud", first published in Judaism, Vol. 36, No.4, Fall 1987.)

To be continued.

Next Shiur