Great Books - Engendering Gender: From the Bible to the Rabbis

(א) בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹקִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃ (ב) וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְה֑וֹם וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹקִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃ (ג) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹקִ֖ים יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר׃ (ד) וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹקִ֛ים אֶת־הָא֖וֹר כִּי־ט֑וֹב וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱלֹקִ֔ים בֵּ֥ין הָא֖וֹר וּבֵ֥ין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃ (ה) וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹקִ֤ים ׀ לָאוֹר֙ י֔וֹם וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם אֶחָֽד׃ {פ}
(ו) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹקִ֔ים יְהִ֥י רָקִ֖יעַ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַמָּ֑יִם וִיהִ֣י מַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין מַ֖יִם לָמָֽיִם׃ (ז) וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹקִים֮ אֶת־הָרָקִ֒יעַ֒ וַיַּבְדֵּ֗ל בֵּ֤ין הַמַּ֙יִם֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ מִתַּ֣חַת לָרָקִ֔יעַ וּבֵ֣ין הַמַּ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֖ר מֵעַ֣ל לָרָקִ֑יעַ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃ (ח) וַיִּקְרָ֧א אֱלֹקִ֛ים לָֽרָקִ֖יעַ שָׁמָ֑יִם וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם שֵׁנִֽי׃ {פ}
(ט) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹקִ֗ים יִקָּו֨וּ הַמַּ֜יִם מִתַּ֤חַת הַשָּׁמַ֙יִם֙ אֶל־מָק֣וֹם אֶחָ֔ד וְתֵרָאֶ֖ה הַיַּבָּשָׁ֑ה וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃ (י) וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹקִ֤ים ׀ לַיַּבָּשָׁה֙ אֶ֔רֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵ֥ה הַמַּ֖יִם קָרָ֣א יַמִּ֑ים וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹקִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃ (יא) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹקִ֗ים תַּֽדְשֵׁ֤א הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ דֶּ֗שֶׁא עֵ֚שֶׂב מַזְרִ֣יעַ זֶ֔רַע עֵ֣ץ פְּרִ֞י עֹ֤שֶׂה פְּרִי֙ לְמִינ֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹ עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃ (יב) וַתּוֹצֵ֨א הָאָ֜רֶץ דֶּ֠שֶׁא עֵ֣שֶׂב מַזְרִ֤יעַ זֶ֙רַע֙ לְמִינֵ֔הוּ וְעֵ֧ץ עֹֽשֶׂה־פְּרִ֛י אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹ לְמִינֵ֑הוּ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹקִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃ (יג) וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם שְׁלִישִֽׁי׃ {פ}
(יד) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹקִ֗ים יְהִ֤י מְאֹרֹת֙ בִּרְקִ֣יעַ הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם לְהַבְדִּ֕יל בֵּ֥ין הַיּ֖וֹם וּבֵ֣ין הַלָּ֑יְלָה וְהָי֤וּ לְאֹתֹת֙ וּלְמ֣וֹעֲדִ֔ים וּלְיָמִ֖ים וְשָׁנִֽים׃ (טו) וְהָי֤וּ לִמְאוֹרֹת֙ בִּרְקִ֣יעַ הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם לְהָאִ֖יר עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃ (טז) וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹקִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים׃ (יז) וַיִּתֵּ֥ן אֹתָ֛ם אֱלֹקִ֖ים בִּרְקִ֣יעַ הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם לְהָאִ֖יר עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ (יח) וְלִמְשֹׁל֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם וּבַלַּ֔יְלָה וּֽלְהַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין הָא֖וֹר וּבֵ֣ין הַחֹ֑שֶׁךְ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹקִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃ (יט) וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם רְבִיעִֽי׃ {פ}
(כ) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹקִ֔ים יִשְׁרְצ֣וּ הַמַּ֔יִם שֶׁ֖רֶץ נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֑ה וְעוֹף֙ יְעוֹפֵ֣ף עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ עַל־פְּנֵ֖י רְקִ֥יעַ הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃ (כא) וַיִּבְרָ֣א אֱלֹקִ֔ים אֶת־הַתַּנִּינִ֖ם הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים וְאֵ֣ת כׇּל־נֶ֣פֶשׁ הַֽחַיָּ֣ה ׀ הָֽרֹמֶ֡שֶׂת אֲשֶׁר֩ שָׁרְצ֨וּ הַמַּ֜יִם לְמִֽינֵהֶ֗ם וְאֵ֨ת כׇּל־ע֤וֹף כָּנָף֙ לְמִינֵ֔הוּ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹקִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃ (כב) וַיְבָ֧רֶךְ אֹתָ֛ם אֱלֹקִ֖ים לֵאמֹ֑ר פְּר֣וּ וּרְב֗וּ וּמִלְא֤וּ אֶת־הַמַּ֙יִם֙ בַּיַּמִּ֔ים וְהָע֖וֹף יִ֥רֶב בָּאָֽרֶץ׃ (כג) וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם חֲמִישִֽׁי׃ {פ}
(כד) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹקִ֗ים תּוֹצֵ֨א הָאָ֜רֶץ נֶ֤פֶשׁ חַיָּה֙ לְמִינָ֔הּ בְּהֵמָ֥ה וָרֶ֛מֶשׂ וְחַֽיְתוֹ־אֶ֖רֶץ לְמִינָ֑הּ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃ (כה) וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹקִים֩ אֶת־חַיַּ֨ת הָאָ֜רֶץ לְמִינָ֗הּ וְאֶת־הַבְּהֵמָה֙ לְמִינָ֔הּ וְאֵ֛ת כׇּל־רֶ֥מֶשׂ הָֽאֲדָמָ֖ה לְמִינֵ֑הוּ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹקִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃ (כו) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹקִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכׇל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכׇל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ (כז) וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹקִ֤ים ׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹקִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃ (כח) וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹקִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹקִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ וּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם֙ וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכׇל־חַיָּ֖ה הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ (כט) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹקִ֗ים הִנֵּה֩ נָתַ֨תִּי לָכֶ֜ם אֶת־כׇּל־עֵ֣שֶׂב ׀ זֹרֵ֣עַ זֶ֗רַע אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י כׇל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאֶת־כׇּל־הָעֵ֛ץ אֲשֶׁר־בּ֥וֹ פְרִי־עֵ֖ץ זֹרֵ֣עַ זָ֑רַע לָכֶ֥ם יִֽהְיֶ֖ה לְאׇכְלָֽה׃ (ל) וּֽלְכׇל־חַיַּ֣ת הָ֠אָ֠רֶץ וּלְכׇל־ע֨וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֜יִם וּלְכֹ֣ל ׀ רוֹמֵ֣שׂ עַל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ֙ נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֔ה אֶת־כׇּל־יֶ֥רֶק עֵ֖שֶׂב לְאׇכְלָ֑ה וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃ (לא) וַיַּ֤רְא אֱלֹקִים֙ אֶת־כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וְהִנֵּה־ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם הַשִּׁשִּֽׁי׃ {פ}
(א) וַיְכֻלּ֛וּ הַשָּׁמַ֥יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ וְכׇל־צְבָאָֽם׃ (ב) וַיְכַ֤ל אֱלֹקִים֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מְלַאכְתּ֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מִכׇּל־מְלַאכְתּ֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָֽׂה׃ (ג) וַיְבָ֤רֶךְ אֱלֹקִים֙ אֶת־י֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י וַיְקַדֵּ֖שׁ אֹת֑וֹ כִּ֣י ב֤וֹ שָׁבַת֙ מִכׇּל־מְלַאכְתּ֔וֹ אֲשֶׁר־בָּרָ֥א אֱלֹקִ֖ים לַעֲשֽׂוֹת׃ {פ}
(ד) אֵ֣לֶּה תוֹלְד֧וֹת הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִבָּֽרְאָ֑ם בְּי֗וֹם עֲשׂ֛וֹת ה' אֱלֹקִ֖ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם׃ (ה) וְכֹ֣ל ׀ שִׂ֣יחַ הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה טֶ֚רֶם יִֽהְיֶ֣ה בָאָ֔רֶץ וְכׇל־עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה טֶ֣רֶם יִצְמָ֑ח כִּי֩ לֹ֨א הִמְטִ֜יר ה' אֱלֹקִים֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאָדָ֣ם אַ֔יִן לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃ (ו) וְאֵ֖ד יַֽעֲלֶ֣ה מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ וְהִשְׁקָ֖ה אֶֽת־כׇּל־פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃ (ז) וַיִּ֩יצֶר֩ ה' אֱלֹקִ֜ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֗ם עָפָר֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה וַיִּפַּ֥ח בְּאַפָּ֖יו נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים וַיְהִ֥י הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃ (ח) וַיִּטַּ֞ע ה' אֱלֹקִ֛ים גַּן־בְּעֵ֖דֶן מִקֶּ֑דֶם וַיָּ֣שֶׂם שָׁ֔ם אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָצָֽר׃ (ט) וַיַּצְמַ֞ח ה' אֱלֹקִים֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה כׇּל־עֵ֛ץ נֶחְמָ֥ד לְמַרְאֶ֖ה וְט֣וֹב לְמַאֲכָ֑ל וְעֵ֤ץ הַֽחַיִּים֙ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַגָּ֔ן וְעֵ֕ץ הַדַּ֖עַת ט֥וֹב וָרָֽע׃ (י) וְנָהָר֙ יֹצֵ֣א מֵעֵ֔דֶן לְהַשְׁק֖וֹת אֶת־הַגָּ֑ן וּמִשָּׁם֙ יִפָּרֵ֔ד וְהָיָ֖ה לְאַרְבָּעָ֥ה רָאשִֽׁים׃ (יא) שֵׁ֥ם הָֽאֶחָ֖ד פִּישׁ֑וֹן ה֣וּא הַסֹּבֵ֗ב אֵ֚ת כׇּל־אֶ֣רֶץ הַֽחֲוִילָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־שָׁ֖ם הַזָּהָֽב׃ (יב) וּֽזְהַ֛ב הָאָ֥רֶץ הַהִ֖וא ט֑וֹב שָׁ֥ם הַבְּדֹ֖לַח וְאֶ֥בֶן הַשֹּֽׁהַם׃ (יג) וְשֵֽׁם־הַנָּהָ֥ר הַשֵּׁנִ֖י גִּיח֑וֹן ה֣וּא הַסּוֹבֵ֔ב אֵ֖ת כׇּל־אֶ֥רֶץ כּֽוּשׁ׃ (יד) וְשֵׁ֨ם הַנָּהָ֤ר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי֙ חִדֶּ֔קֶל ה֥וּא הַֽהֹלֵ֖ךְ קִדְמַ֣ת אַשּׁ֑וּר וְהַנָּהָ֥ר הָֽרְבִיעִ֖י ה֥וּא פְרָֽת׃ (טו) וַיִּקַּ֛ח ה' אֱלֹקִ֖ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֑ם וַיַּנִּחֵ֣הוּ בְגַן־עֵ֔דֶן לְעׇבְדָ֖הּ וּלְשׇׁמְרָֽהּ׃ (טז) וַיְצַו֙ ה' אֱלֹקִ֔ים עַל־הָֽאָדָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר מִכֹּ֥ל עֵֽץ־הַגָּ֖ן אָכֹ֥ל תֹּאכֵֽל׃ (יז) וּמֵעֵ֗ץ הַדַּ֙עַת֙ ט֣וֹב וָרָ֔ע לֹ֥א תֹאכַ֖ל מִמֶּ֑נּוּ כִּ֗י בְּי֛וֹם אֲכׇלְךָ֥ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ מ֥וֹת תָּמֽוּת׃ (יח) וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ ה' אֱלֹקִ֔ים לֹא־ט֛וֹב הֱי֥וֹת הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְבַדּ֑וֹ אֶֽעֱשֶׂה־לּ֥וֹ עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃ (יט) וַיִּ֩צֶר֩ ה' אֱלֹקִ֜ים מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָ֗ה כׇּל־חַיַּ֤ת הַשָּׂדֶה֙ וְאֵת֙ כׇּל־ע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וַיָּבֵא֙ אֶל־הָ֣אָדָ֔ם לִרְא֖וֹת מַה־יִּקְרָא־ל֑וֹ וְכֹל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִקְרָא־ל֧וֹ הָֽאָדָ֛ם נֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּ֖ה ה֥וּא שְׁמֽוֹ׃ (כ) וַיִּקְרָ֨א הָֽאָדָ֜ם שֵׁמ֗וֹת לְכׇל־הַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּלְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּלְכֹ֖ל חַיַּ֣ת הַשָּׂדֶ֑ה וּלְאָדָ֕ם לֹֽא־מָצָ֥א עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃ (כא) וַיַּפֵּל֩ ה' אֱלֹקִ֧ים ׀ תַּרְדֵּמָ֛ה עַל־הָאָדָ֖ם וַיִּישָׁ֑ן וַיִּקַּ֗ח אַחַת֙ מִצַּלְעֹתָ֔יו וַיִּסְגֹּ֥ר בָּשָׂ֖ר תַּחְתֶּֽנָּה׃ (כב) וַיִּ֩בֶן֩ ה' אֱלֹקִ֧ים ׀ אֶֽת־הַצֵּלָ֛ע אֲשֶׁר־לָקַ֥ח מִן־הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְאִשָּׁ֑ה וַיְבִאֶ֖הָ אֶל־הָֽאָדָֽם׃ (כג) וַיֹּ֘אמֶר֮ הָֽאָדָם֒ זֹ֣את הַפַּ֗עַם עֶ֚צֶם מֵֽעֲצָמַ֔י וּבָשָׂ֖ר מִבְּשָׂרִ֑י לְזֹאת֙ יִקָּרֵ֣א אִשָּׁ֔ה כִּ֥י מֵאִ֖ישׁ לֻֽקְחָה־זֹּֽאת׃ (כד) עַל־כֵּן֙ יַֽעֲזׇב־אִ֔ישׁ אֶת־אָבִ֖יו וְאֶת־אִמּ֑וֹ וְדָבַ֣ק בְּאִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וְהָי֖וּ לְבָשָׂ֥ר אֶחָֽד׃ (כה) וַיִּֽהְי֤וּ שְׁנֵיהֶם֙ עֲרוּמִּ֔ים הָֽאָדָ֖ם וְאִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וְלֹ֖א יִתְבֹּשָֽׁשׁוּ׃

Genesis 1-2

(1) When God began to create*When God began to create Others “In the beginning God created.” heaven and earth— (2) the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from*a wind from Others “the spirit of.” God sweeping over the water— (3) God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. (4) God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. (5) God called the light Day and called the darkness Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.*a first day Others “one day.” (6) God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the water, that it may separate water from water.” (7) God made the expanse, and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse. And it was so. (8) God called the expanse Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (9) God said, “Let the water below the sky be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. (10) God called the dry land Earth and called the gathering of waters Seas. And God saw that this was good. (11) And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. (12) The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that this was good. (13) And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (14) God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate day from night; they shall serve as signs for the set times—the days and the years; (15) and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth.” And it was so. (16) God made the two great lights, the greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars. (17) And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, (18) to dominate the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that this was good. (19) And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (20) God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and birds that fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” (21) God created the great sea monsters, and all the living creatures of every kind that creep, which the waters brought forth in swarms, and all the winged birds of every kind. And God saw that this was good. (22) God blessed them, saying, “Be fertile and increase, fill the waters in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” (23) And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. (24) God said, “Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature: cattle, creeping things, and wild beasts of every kind.” And it was so. (25) God made wild beasts of every kind and cattle of every kind, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. And God saw that this was good. (26) And God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.”
(27) And God created humankind in the divine image,
creating it in the image of God—
creating them male and female. (28) God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.” (29) God said, “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours for food. (30) And to all the animals on land, to all the birds of the sky, and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath of life, [I give] all the green plants for food.” And it was so. (31) And God saw all that had been made, and found it very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (1) The heaven and the earth were finished, and all their array. (2) On the seventh day God finished the work that had been undertaken: [God] ceased*ceased Or “rested.” on the seventh day from doing any of the work. (3) And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy—having ceased on it from all the work of creation that God had done. (4) Such is the story of heaven and earth when they were created. When God ה' made earth and heaven— (5) when no shrub of the field*shrub of the field I.e., suitable for pasturage. was yet on earth and no grasses of the field*grasses of the field I.e., cereal grasses, suitable as crops. had yet sprouted, because God ה' had not sent rain upon the earth and there were no human beings to till the soil, (6) but a flow would well up from the ground and water the whole surface of the earth— (7) God ה' formed the Human*the Human I.e., the progenitor of the species and the point of origin for human society. Heb. ha-’adam; trad. “man.” In the eyes of ancient Israel, the typical initiator of a lineage was male, and so the first human being would also have been imagined as male. See further the Dictionary under ’adam. from the soil’s humus,*soil’s humus Heb. ‘afar min ha-’adamah, rendered to emulate the wordplay with Heb. ha-’adam “the Human”; more precisely, “loose dirt from the soil.” NJPS “dust of the earth.” blowing into his nostrils the breath of life: the Human became a living being. (8) God ה' planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and placed there the Human who had been fashioned. (9) And from the ground God ה' caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and bad. (10) A river issues from Eden to water the garden, and it then divides and becomes four branches. (11) The name of the first is Pishon, the one that winds through the whole land of Havilah, where the gold is. (12) (The gold of that land is good; bdellium is there, and lapis lazuli.*lapis lazuli Others “onyx”; meaning of Heb. shoham uncertain. ) (13) The name of the second river is Gihon, the one that winds through the whole land of Cush. (14) The name of the third river is Tigris, the one that flows east of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (15) God ה' settled the Human in the garden of Eden, to till it and tend it. (16) And God ה' commanded the Human, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; (17) but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die.” (18) God ה' said, “It is not good for the Human to be alone; I will make a fitting counterpart for him.” (19) And God ה' formed out of the earth all the wild beasts and all the birds of the sky, and brought them to the Human to see what he would call them; and whatever the Human called each living creature, that would be its name. (20) And the Human gave names to all the cattle and to the birds of the sky and to all the wild beasts; but no fitting counterpart for a human being was found. (21) So God ה' cast a deep sleep upon the Human; and, while he slept, [God] took one of his sides*sides Heb. ṣela‘ot, trad. “ribs.” Cf. 1 Kings 6.34; Exod. 25.12; 26.20, 26–27, 35; 30.4. and closed up the flesh at that site. (22) And God ה' fashioned the side that had been taken from the Human into a woman, bringing her to the Human. (23) Then the Human said,
“This one at last
Is bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh.
This one shall be called Woman,*Woman Heb. ’ishshah; so trad. More precisely in context, “a (female) member of the human species.” See next note and the Dictionary under ’ish.
For from a Human*a Human More precisely, “the (formerly lone) member of the human species.” NJPS “man”; trad. “Man.” See the Dictionary under ’ish. was she taken.” (24) Hence a man*man So trad.; Heb. ’ish. Contrast the previous verse. leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife,*wife So trad.; Heb. ’ishshah (with possessive suffix). Cf. the previous note and contrast the previous verse. so that they become one flesh. (25) The two of them were naked,*naked Heb. ‘arummim, play on ‘arum “shrewd” in 3.1. the Human*the Human Heb. ha-’adam; trad. “the man.” See note at v. 7. and his wife, yet they felt no shame.

ויקרא רבה י״ד:א׳

(א) אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ (ויקרא יב, ב), הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים קלט, ה): אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִם זָכָה אָדָם נוֹחֵל שְׁנֵי עוֹלָמוֹת, הַזֶּה וְהַבָּא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי, וְאִם לָאו בָּא לִתֵּן דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קלט, ה): וַתָּשֶׁת עָלַי כַּפֶּכָה, כְּדִכְתִיב (איוב יג, כא): כַּפְּךָ מֵעָלַי הַרְחַק, אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס בְּרָאוֹ, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּבְרָא דוּ פַּרְצוּפִין נִבְרָא וּנְסָרוֹ וְנַעֲשָׂה שְׁנַיִם גַּבִּים, גַּב לְזָכָר גַּב לִנְקֵבָה. אֵיתִיבוּן לֵיהּ (בראשית ב, כא): וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, אָמַר לָהֶן מִסִּטְרוֹהִי, כְּדִכְתִיב (שמות כו, כ): וּלְצֶלַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן. אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה וְרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ וְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִסּוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ מְלוֹא כָל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ בְּרָאוֹ. מִן הַמִּזְרָח לַמַּעֲרָב מִנַּיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי, מִן הַצָּפוֹן לַדָּרוֹם מִנַיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ד, לב): וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם, וּמִנַּיִן כַּחֲלָלוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַתָּשֶׁת עָלַי כַּפֶּכָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָחוֹר זֶה יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן, וָקֶדֶם זֶה יוֹם הָאַחֲרוֹן, עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דִּכְתִיב (בראשית א, כד): תּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה לְמִינָהּ, נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, זוֹ רוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָחוֹר זֶה יוֹם הָאַחֲרוֹן, וָקֶדֶם זֶה יוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דִּכְתִיב (בראשית א, ב): וְרוּחַ אֱלֹקִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם, זֶה רוּחוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ הַמָּשִׁיחַ, אִם זָכָה אָדָם אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אַתָּה קָדַמְתָּ לְכָל מַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית, וְאִם לָאו אוֹמְרִים לוֹ יַתּוּשׁ קַדְמָךְ, שִׁלְשׁוּל קַדְמָךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי תַּנְחוּם, אָחוֹר לְכָל הַמַּעֲשִׂים, וָקֶדֶם לְכָל הָעֳנָשִׁין, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר אַף קִלּוּסוֹ לֹא בָּא אֶלָּא בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קמח, י): הַחַיָּה וְכָל בְּהֵמָה רֶמֶשׂ וְצִפּוֹר כָּנָף, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַלְכֵי אֶרֶץ וְכָל לְאֻמִּים. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׂמְלָאי, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁיְצִירָתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם אַחַר בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף, כָּךְ תּוֹרָתוֹ אַחַר בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ויקרא יא, מו): זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ.

Vayikra Rabbah 14:1

(1) "A woman when she gives seed (conceives)" [Leviticus 12:2]: That's what is written, "You have created me behind and before." [Psalms 139:5] Said Rabbi Yochanan: If man merits, he inherits two worlds, this one and the coming one, that's what is written: "You have created me behind and before (front)." And if not, he comes to give reckoning, as it says, "And You laid your hand (kapcha) on me." [ibid], as it is written, [Job 13:21] "Withdraw your hand (kapcha) far from me." Said Rav Shmuel bar Nachman: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first man, he created him as an androgynous being. Reish Lakish: When it was created, dual faces [together] were created, and it was cut, and two were made. [One] back was male, [one] back was female. They challenged him: [Genesis 2:21] "And He took one of his ribs (tzela)"!? He said to them, it is of his sides, as it is written, "and to the side (tzela) of the Tabernacle" [Exodus 26:20]. Said Rabbi Berachiya and Rabbi Chelbo and Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman: When God created the first man, from one end of the world to the other end, He created him to fill the entire world. How do we know from east to west? As it says, "You created me back to east (kedem)." How do we know from north to south? As it says, [Deuteronomy 4:32] "From the ends of the heavens to the ends of the heavens." How do we know that it was the expanse of the world? As it says, "And You laid your hand on me." Said Rabbi Elazar: "Behind" - that's the first day [of creation]. "Before" - that's the last day. For the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, there is the verse, [Genesis 1:24]: "Let the earth bring forth the living soul (nefesh chaya) to its kind." "Living soul" - that's the spirit of the first man. Said Reish Lakish: "Behind" - that's the last day. "Before" - that's the first day. For the opinion of Reish Lakish, there is the verse: [Genesis 1:2] "And the spirit of God wavered upon the water" - that is the spirit of the king messiah. If man merits, we say to him: "You were created before all of creation." If not, we say to him, "The mosquito preceded you." Said Rabbi Yishmale b'Rabbi Tanchum: "Behind" on all creation, "before" (first) in all punishments. Said Rabbi Yochanan: Even man's praise only comes last, as it says [Psalms 148:110]: "Beasts and all cattle creeping things and flying fowl". And afterwards, [Psalms 148:11]: "Kings of the earth and all peoples." Said Rabbi Simlai: "Just like man's formation was after beast, cattle, and bird, so too his laws are after beast, cattle, and bird, and that's what is written, "This is the law of cattle" [Leviticus 11:46], and afterwards, "A woman when she gives seed..."

אוצר מדרשים, אלפא ביתא דבן סירא, אלפא ביתא אחרת לבן סירא ל״ד

כשברא הקב״ה אדם הראשון יחיד, אמר לא טוב היות האדם לבדו, ברא לו אשה מן האדמה כמוהו וקראה לילית, מיד התחילו מתגרין זה בזה, אמרה היא איני שוכבת למטה, והוא אומר איני שוכב למטה אלא למעלה שאת ראויה למטה ואני למעלה, אמרה לו שנינו שוין לפי ששנינו מאדמה, ולא היו שומעין זה לזה, כיון שראתה לילית אמרה שם המפורש ופרחה באויר העולם, עמד אדם בתפלה לפני קונו ואמר, רבש״ע אשה שנתת לי ברחה ממני, מיד שגר הקב״ה שלשה מלאכים הללו אחריה להחזירה, אמר לו הקב״ה אם תרצה לחזור מוטב, ואם לאו תקבל על עצמה שימותו מבניה בכל יום מאה בנים, עזבו אותה והלכו אחריה והשיגוה בתוך הים במים עזים שעתידין המצריים לטבוע בו וספרוה דבר ה' ולא רצתה לחזור, אמרו לה אנו נטביעך בים, אמרה להם הניחוני שלא נבראתי אלא להחליש התינוקות כשהן משמונה ימים מיום שיולד אשלוט בו אם הוא זכר, ואם נקבה מיום ילדותה עד עשרים יום. וכששמעו דבריה הפצירו לקחתה, נשבעת להם בשם אל חי וקיים שכל זמן שאני רואה אתכם או שמכם או תבניתכם בקמיע לא אשלוט באותו התינוק, וקבלה על עצמה שימותו מבניה מאה בכל יום, לפיכך בכל יום מתים מאה מן השדים, ולכך אנו כותבים שמותם בקמיע של נערים קטנים ורואה אותם וזוכרת השבועה ומתרפא הילד.

Otzar Midrashim, The Aleph Bet of ben Sira, The Alphabet of ben Sira, (alternative version) 34

When the Holy Blessed One created the first Adam alone, They said, (Genesis 2:18) 'It is not good for this Adam to be alone.' They created for him a wife out of the Earth like he had been, and called her Lilith. Immediately they began to challenge each other. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the Earth.' But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the world's air. Adam stood in prayer before his Creator and said, 'Sovereign of the universe! The woman you gave me has run away from me.' Immediately, the Holy Blessed One sent these three angels to bring her back. The Holy Blessed One said to Adam, 'If she agrees to come back, good. If not, she must permit one hundred of her children to die every day.' They departed and pursued her, and overtook her in the midst of the sea, in the mighty waters wherein the Egyptians would ultimately drown. They told her God's word, but she did not wish to return. The angels said, 'We shall drown you in the sea.' She said to them, 'Let me be. I was created only to cause illness to infants. I have dominion over them for eight days after birth if they are male, and if female, after birth for twenty days.' When the angels heard Lilith's words, they insisted on taking her. But she swore to them by the name of the living and eternal God, 'Whenever I see you or your names or your forms in an amulet, I will have no power over that infant.' She also agreed to have one hundred of her children die every day. Accordingly, every day one hundred demons perish, and for the same reason, we write their names on the amulets of young children, and she sees them, she remembers her oath, and the child is healed."

משנה קידושין א׳:ז׳

(ז) כָּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן עַל הָאָב, אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוֹת הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין. וְכָל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, בֵּין שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין, חוּץ מִבַּל תַּשְׁחִית וּבַל תַּקִּיף וּבַל תִּטַּמָּא לְמֵתִים:

Mishnah Kiddushin 1:7

(7) With regard to all mitzvot of a son with regard to his father, men are obligated to perform them and women are exempt. And with regard to all mitzvot of a father with regard to his son, both men and women are obligated to perform them. The mishna notes an additional difference between the obligations of men and women in the performance of mitzvot: With regard to all positive, time-bound mitzvot, i.e., those which must be performed at specific times, men are obligated to perform them and women are exempt. And with regard to all positive mitzvot that are not time bound, both men and women are obligated to perform them. And with regard to all prohibitions, whether they are time-bound or whether they are not time-bound, both men and women are obligated to observe them, except for the prohibitions of: Do not round the corners of your head, and: Do not destroy the corners of your beard, which are derived from the verse: “You shall not round the corners of your head and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27), and a prohibition that concerns only priests: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse (see Leviticus 21:1). These mitzvot apply only to men, not women, despite the fact that they are prohibitions.

קידושין ל״ד-ל״ה

וּתְפִילִּין. וְאֵיזוֹהִי מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – מְזוּזָה, מַעֲקֶה, אֲבֵידָה, וְשִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן. וּכְלָלָא הוּא? הֲרֵי מַצָּה, שִׂמְחָה, הַקְהֵל, דְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא, וְנָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת! וְתוּ: וַהֲרֵי תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן דְּלָאו מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ הוּא – וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין לְמֵדִין מִן הַכְּלָלוֹת, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״חוּץ״, דִּתְנַן: בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמֶלַח, וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאִיכָּא כְּמֵהִין וּפִטְרִיּוֹת! אֶלָּא אֵין לְמֵדִין מִן הַכְּלָלוֹת, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״חוּץ״. וּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת מְנָלַן? – גָּמַר מִתְּפִילִּין, מַה תְּפִילִּין נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת – אַף כׇּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וּתְפִילִּין? – גָּמַר לַהּ מִתַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, מָה תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת – אַף תְּפִילִּין נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְנַקֵּישׁ תְּפִילִּין לִמְזוּזָה! תְּפִילִּין לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה אִיתַּקּוּשׁ, בֵּין בְּפָרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה בֵּין בְּפָרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה, תְּפִילִּין לִמְזוּזָה בְּפָרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה לָא אִיתַּקּוּשׁ. וְנַקֵּישׁ מְזוּזָה לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״לְמַעַן יִרְבּוּ יְמֵיכֶם״, גַּבְרֵי בָּעוּ חַיֵּי, נְשֵׁי לָא בָּעוּ חַיֵּי?! וַהֲרֵי סוּכָּה דְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ, דִּכְתִיב ״בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״, טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא הָאֶזְרָח לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנָּשִׁים, הָא לָאו הָכִי נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל דִּכְתִיב ״בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ״ – ״תֵּשְׁבוּ״ כְּעֵין תָּדוּרוּ: מָה דִּירָה אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ – אַף סוּכָּה אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ. וְרָבָא אָמַר: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: נֵילַף ״חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ ״חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ מֵחַג הַמַּצּוֹת, מָה לְהַלָּן נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת – אַף כָּאן נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת, צְרִיכָא. וַהֲרֵי רְאִיָּה, דְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ, וְטַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״זְכוּרְךָ״ – לְהוֹצִיא הַנָּשִׁים, הָא לָאו הָכִי נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת! אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: נֵילַף ״רְאִיָּה״ ״רְאִיָּה״ מֵהַקְהֵל. וְאַדְּיָלְפִינַן מִתְּפִילִּין לִפְטוּרָא, נֵילַף מִשִּׂמְחָה לְחִיּוּבָא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִשָּׁה בַּעֲלָהּ מְשַׂמְּחָהּ. אַלְמָנָה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? בִּשְׁרוּיָה אֶצְלוֹ. וְנֵילַף מֵהַקְהֵל! מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה מַצָּה וְהַקְהֵל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד – אֵין מְלַמְּדִים. אִי הָכִי, תְּפִילִּין וּרְאִיָּה נָמֵי שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד – וְאֵין מְלַמְּדִים! צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא תְּפִילִּין וְלָא כְּתַב רְאִיָּה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: נֵילַף רְאִיָּה רְאִיָּה מֵהַקְהֵל. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא רְאִיָּה וְלָא כְּתַב תְּפִילִּין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אַקֵּישׁ תְּפִילִּין לִמְזוּזָה, צְרִיכָא. אִי הָכִי, מַצָּה וְהַקְהֵל נָמֵי צְרִיכִי! לְמַאי צְרִיכִי? בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא הַקְהֵל וְלָא כְּתַב מַצָּה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: נֵילַף ״חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ ״חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ מֵחַג הַסּוּכּוֹת. אֶלָּא נִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא מַצָּה, וְלָא בָּעֵי הַקְהֵל, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: טְפָלִים חַיָּיבִים, נָשִׁים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?! הִילְכָּךְ, הָוֵה לְהוּ שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְאֵין מְלַמְּדִים. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? וְתוּ: מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת מְנָלַן? דְּיָלֵיף מִמּוֹרָא, מָה מוֹרָא נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת – אַף כׇּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת. וְנֵילַף מִתַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה! – מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה וּפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְכֹל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִים. וּלְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא, דְּאָמַר: עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹקִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ״ מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְכֹל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין. וּלְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא נָמֵי, נִיהְווֹ פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה וּמוֹרָא שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד וְאֵין מְלַמְּדִין! צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא מוֹרָא, וְלָא כְּתַב פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: ״וְכִבְשֻׁהָ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא – אִישׁ דְּדַרְכּוֹ לְכַבֵּשׁ – אִין, אִשָּׁה דְּאֵין דַּרְכָּהּ לְכַבֵּשׁ – לָא. וְאִי כְּתַב פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה וְלֹא כְּתַב מוֹרָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אִישׁ דְּסִיפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת – אִין, אִשָּׁה דְּאֵין סִיפֵּק בְּיָדָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹת – לָא, וְכֵיוָן דְּאֵין סִיפֵּק בְּיָדָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹת לֹא תִּתְחַיֵּיב כְּלָל, צְרִיכָא. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רָבָא: פַּפּוּנָאֵי יָדְעִי לַהּ לְטַעְמָא דְּהָא מִילְּתָא. וּמַנּוּ – רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל יָדְךָ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת ה׳ בְּפִיךָ״ – הוּקְּשָׁה כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ לִתְפִילִּין, מָה תְּפִילִּין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ, וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת – אַף כׇּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וּמִדְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת, מִכְּלָל דְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תְּפִילִּין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תְּפִילִּין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר תְּפִילִּין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְסָבַר לַהּ שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְכֹל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין. וּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד מְלַמְּדִין, וּתְפִילִּין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵאי מַצָּה, שִׂמְחָה, וְהַקְהֵל שְׁלֹשָׁה כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין. וְכׇל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יַעֲשׂוּ מִכׇּל חַטֹּאת הָאָדָם״ – הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל עוֹנָשִׁים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. דְּבֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר תָּנָא: אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם״ – הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל דִּינִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה תָּנָא: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה״ – הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ לְכׇל מִיתוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא, מִשּׁוּם כַּפָּרָה חָס רַחֲמָנָא עֲלַהּ, אֲבָל דִּינִין, אֵימָא: אִישׁ, דְּבַר מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן – אִין, אִשָּׁה – לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְועִינַן הָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּחַיּוּתַהּ הִיא, אֲבָל כּוֹפֶר אֵימָא: אִישׁ, דְּבַר מִצְוֹת – אִין, אִשָּׁה – לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא אִיבּוּד נְשָׁמָה חָס רַחֲמָנָא עֲלַהּ, אֲבָל הָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי – אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא. חוּץ מִ״בַּל תַּקִּיף״ וּ״בַל תַּשְׁחִית״ כּוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא ״בַּל תִּטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים״, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״ – בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן, וְלֹא בְּנוֹת אַהֲרֹן. אֶלָּא ״בַּל תַּקִּיף״ וּ״בַל תַּשְׁחִית״ מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ״ – כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּהַשְׁחָתָה יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּהַקָּפָה. וְהָנֵי נְשֵׁי, הוֹאִיל וְלָא אִיתַנְהוּ בְּהַשְׁחָתָה, לֵיתַנְהוּ בְּהַקָּפָה. וּמְנָלַן דְּלָא אִיתַנְהוּ בְּהַשְׁחָתָה? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא: דְּהָא לָא אִית לְהוּ זָקָן. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ״, מִדְּשַׁנִּי קְרָא בְּדִיבּוּרֵיהּ, דְּאִם כֵּן נִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״פְּאַת זְקַנְכֶם״. מַאי ״זְקָנֶךָ״ – זְקָנֶךָ, וְלֹא זְקַן אִשְׁתְּךָ. וְלָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: זְקַן אִשָּׁה, וְהַסָּרִיס שֶׁהֶעֱלוּ שֵׂעָר – הֲרֵי הֵן כְּזָקָן לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. מַאי לָאו לְהַשְׁחָתָה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְהַשְׁחָתָה לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, דְּיָלֵיף ״פְּאַת״ ״פְּאַת״ מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן, מָה לְהַלָּן נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת – אַף כָּאן נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְאִי סְבִירָא לַן דְּכִי כְּתִיב ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״ – אַכּוּלֵּיהּ עִנְיָנָא כְּתִיב, נִישְׁתּוֹק קְרָא מִינֵּיהּ וְתֵיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: וּמָה כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁרִיבָּה בָּהֶם הַכָּתוּב מִצְוֹת יְתֵירוֹת – ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״ – וְלֹא בְּנוֹת אַהֲרֹן, יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? אִי לָאו גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן. הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי נֵימָא הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן! וְאִי מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״, יָכוֹל גִּילְּחוֹ בְּמִסְפָּרַיִים יִהְיֶה חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תַשְׁחִית״. יָכוֹל לִקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּבְרָהִיטְנֵי יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״. הָא כֵּיצַד? גִּילּוּחַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה תַּעַר. אִם כֵּן, נִיכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״אֶת שֶׁבִּזְקָנֶךָ״, מַאי ״פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי. וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: זְקַן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַסָּרִיס שֶׁהֶעֱלוּ שֵׂעָר הֲרֵי הֵן כְּזָקָן לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לְטוּמְאַת נְגָעִים. טוּמְאַת נְגָעִים בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיבָא, ״וְאִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יִהְיֶה בוֹ נָגַע בְּרֹאשׁ אוֹ בְזָקָן״! אֶלָּא אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לְטׇהֳרַת נְגָעִים. טׇהֳרַת נְגָעִים נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא, כֵּיוָן דְּבַת טוּמְאָה הִיא – בַּת טׇהֳרָה הִיא! אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא לִצְדָדִים כְּתִיב: ״אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יִהְיֶה בוֹ נָגַע בְּרֹאשׁ״, ״אוֹ בְזָקָן״ – הֲדַר אֲתָאן לְאִישׁ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. אִיסִי תָּנֵי: אַף ״בַּל יִקְרְחוּ״ – נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּאִיסִי דְּדָרֵישׁ הָכִי? ״בָּנִים אַתֶּם לַה׳ אֱלֹקֵיכֶם לֹא תִתְגֹּדְדוּ וְלֹא תָשִׂימוּ קׇרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם לָמֵת. כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, בָּנִים וְלֹא בָּנוֹת – לְקׇרְחָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לְקׇרְחָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לִגְדִידָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״ – הֲרֵי גְּדִידָה אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים בָּנִים וְלֹא בָּנוֹת – לְקׇרְחָה. וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגְּדִידָה וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַקׇּרְחָה? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת הַגְּדִידָה, שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָהּ בִּמְקוֹם הַשֵּׂעָר וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם שֵׂעָר, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת הַקׇּרְחָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֵׂעָר. וְאֵימָא: בָּנִים וְלֹא בָּנוֹת – בֵּין לְקׇרְחָה בֵּין לִגְדִידָה, וְכִי כְּתִב: ״כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, בִּשְׂרִיטָה הוּא דִּכְתִיב! קָסָבַר אִיסִי שְׂרִיטָה וּגְדִידָה

Kiddushin 34-35

And the donning of phylacteries (Deuteronomy 6:8), which are not worn at night or on Shabbat and Festivals, is also a positive, time-bound mitzva. And what is a positive mitzva that is not time bound? Examples include the affixing of a mezuza (Deuteronomy 11:20), the construction of a parapet on a roof (Deuteronomy 22:8), returning a lost item (Deuteronomy 22:1–3), and the release of the mother bird from the nest, i.e., the mitzva of sending away a mother bird when one finds it sitting on chicks or eggs (Deuteronomy 22:6–7). The Gemara asks: But is this an established principle? But there are the mitzvot of eating matza on the first night of Passover (Exodus 23:15), of rejoicing on a Festival (Deuteronomy 16:9–11), and assembly on Sukkot following the Sabbatical Year (Deuteronomy 31:10–13). And each of these is a positive, time-bound mitzva, and yet women are obligated in them. And furthermore, one can raise a difficulty as follows: But there are the mitzvot of Torah study (Deuteronomy 6:7), procreation (Genesis 1:28), and redemption of the firstborn (Exodus 13:12–13), each of which is not a positive, time-bound mitzva, and yet women are exempt from them. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One does not learn practical halakhot from general statements, i.e., when a general statement appears in a mishna and uses the term: All, it is not to be understood as an all-inclusive statement without exceptions. This is the case even in a place where it says: Except, to exclude a specific matter. A proof for this is as we learned in a mishna (Eiruvin 26b): One can establish a joining of houses in courtyards [eiruv ḥatzerot] and a joining of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv teḥumin], and similarly, one can merge courtyards to permit carrying in a joint alleyway on Shabbat. This can be done with all types of food except for water and salt. This is stated as a halakha with specific exceptions, and yet one can ask: Is there nothing else that cannot be used for an eiruv? But there are truffles and mushrooms, which also cannot be used for an eiruv, because they do not offer nourishment. Rather, conclude from this that one may not learn from general statements, even in a place where it says: Except. § The Gemara turns to the sources of this principle. From where do we derive that women are exempt from positive, time-bound mitzvot? It is derived by juxtaposition from the mitzva of phylacteries: Just as women are exempt from donning phylacteries, so too, women are exempt from all positive, time-bound mitzvot. And the exemption of women from donning phylacteries is derived from their exemption from Torah study: Just as women are exempt from Torah study, as derived from Deuteronomy 11:19, so too women are exempt from donning phylacteries, as the two issues are juxtaposed in the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:7–8). The Gemara asks: And let us say the opposite and juxtapose phylacteries to mezuza, which is also mentioned in that passage. Mezuza is a mitzva in which women are also obligated. Based on this comparison, women would be obligated in phylacteries as well. The Gemara answers: Phylacteries are juxtaposed to Torah study in both the first paragraph and in the second paragraph of Shema, whereas phylacteries are not juxtaposed to mezuza in the second paragraph. It is therefore preferable to compare phylacteries to Torah study. The Gemara says: But if so, let us juxtapose mezuza to Torah study and say that women are also exempt from the obligation of a mezuza. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This could not enter your mind, as it is written with regard to the mitzva of mezuza: “That your days may be multiplied” (Deuteronomy 11:21). Can it be said that men need life but women do not need life? Since the reward for the performance of the mitzva of mezuza is extended life, this mitzva applies to women as well. The Gemara further asks: But there is the mitzva of residing in a sukka, which is a positive, time-bound mitzva, as it is written: “In sukkot you shall reside seven days” (Leviticus 23:42), referring to seven specific days of the year. Nevertheless, the reason women are exempt from this mitzva is that the Merciful One writes in the continuation of the verse: “All the homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot.” The definite article “the” is an exclusion, and serves to exclude the women from the obligation to reside in a sukka. It may be derived from here that if that was not so, women would be obligated. This indicates that women do not receive a blanket exemption from every positive, time-bound mitzva. Abaye said: In the case of residing in a sukka a special verse was necessary to exempt women, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: “In sukkot you shall reside,” this means that you should reside as you dwell in your permanent home: Just as a man and his wife live together in a residence, so too, a man and his wife are obligated to reside together in a sukka. And Rava said: It is necessary to state this verse for another reason, as it might enter your mind to say: Derive a verbal analogy with regard to Sukkot, where the verse states: “On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the festival of Sukkot” (Leviticus 23:34), from Passover, where the verse states: “And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the festival of Passover” (Leviticus 23:6). One would then say that just as there women are obligated to eat matza on the first night of Passover, despite the fact that it is a time-bound mitzva, so too here, with regard to the mitzva of residing in the sukka, women are obligated. Therefore it was necessary for the verse to use the term “the homeborn” to exclude women from the obligation to reside in a sukka. The Gemara further asks: But there is the mitzva of appearance, i.e., the obligation to bring a burnt-offering on pilgrimage Festivals, which is a positive, time-bound mitzva. And the reason women are exempt from this obligation is that the Merciful One writes, with regard to this mitzva: “Three times in the year all of your males shall appear before the Lord God” (Exodus 23:17), which serves to exclude women. It may be derived from here that if that were not so, women would be obligated. This indicates that women are not necessarily exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the verse to teach the halakha in this case as well, as it might enter your mind to say: Derive a verbal analogy with regard to appearance, where the verse states: Three times in the year all of your males shall appear,” from the appearance stated with regard to the mitzva of assembly, about which the verse states: “When all of Israel come to appear before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 31:11). One would then say that just as women are obligated in the mitzva of assembly, so too they should be obligated to appear on a pilgrimage Festival. It is therefore necessary for the Torah to state explicitly that women are exempt from the mitzva of appearance on a pilgrimage Festival. With regard to the primary proof for the principle that women are exempt from positive, time-bound mitzvot, the Gemara asks: But before deriving the halakha from phylacteries, to exempt women from all positive, time-bound mitzvot, derive it from the mitzva of rejoicing on a Festival, in which women are obligated, to obligate women in all these mitzvot. Abaye said: The mitzva of rejoicing does not apply directly to women. Rather, a woman is rendered joyful by her husband, i.e., the mitzva is for him to gladden her on a Festival. The Gemara asks: What can be said with regard to a widow, who no longer has a husband but is nevertheless obligated to be joyful on a Festival, as it is written: “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God, you…and the widow” (Deuteronomy 16:11)? The Gemara answers that the mitzva does not apply directly to a widow; rather, it applies to the men with whom she is present, i.e., they have an obligation to ensure that widows rejoice on the Festivals. The Gemara asks: But why not derive that women are obligated in all positive, time-bound mitzvot from the mitzva of assembly, in which women are explicitly obligated despite the fact that it is a time-bound mitzva. The Gemara answers: One cannot derive in this manner, because the verses concerning matza and assembly are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter, that women are obligated in these mitzvot despite the fact that these are positive, time-bound mitzvot. And there is a principle that any two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent that applies to other cases. Rather, the two instances are considered exceptions. The Gemara asks: If so, the verses concerning phylacteries and appearance are also two verses that come as one, as they both indicate that women are exempt from positive, time-bound mitzvot, and therefore the verses do not teach a precedent. The Gemara answers: These are not considered as two verses that come as one, as both are necessary, each for its own reason. As, if the Merciful One had written that women are exempt from donning phylacteries and had not written that they are exempt from the mitzva of appearance, I would say: Derive a verbal analogy to obligate women from the verse stated with regard to appearance from the appearance stated with regard to the mitzva of assembly. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to teach that women are exempt from the mitzva of appearance. And if the Merciful One had written that women are exempt from appearance, and had not written that they are exempt from donning phylacteries, I would say: I will compare phylacteries to mezuza, which would mean that women are obligated in the mitzva of phylacteries. Therefore, it is necessary to state this halakha for both phylacteries and appearance, and they are not two verses that come as one. The Gemara asks: If so, the verses concerning matza and assembly are also necessary, each for its own reason, and they are not two verses that come as one either. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: For what purpose are both of them necessary? Granted, if the Merciful One had written that women are obligated in the mitzva of assembly but had not written that they are obligated in eating matza, I would say: Derive a verbal analogy with regard to Passover, where the verse states: “And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the festival of Passover” (Leviticus 23:6), from Sukkot, where the verse states: “On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the festival of Sukkot” (Leviticus 23:34), teaching that women are exempt from eating matza, just as they are exempt from residing in a sukka. Therefore, it is necessary for a verse to teach that women are obligated in eating matza. But let the Merciful One write that women are obligated in eating matza, and it would not be necessary to state the same halakha with regard to assembly, and I would say on my own: If children are obligated in assembly, as is stated explicitly in the verse “Assemble the people, the men and the women and the children” (Deuteronomy 31:12), are women not all the more so obligated? Therefore, as it is explicitly stated that women are obligated in assembly, the verses concerning matza and assembly are two verses that come as one, and consequently do not teach a precedent. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says as a principle that two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent. But according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach a precedent, what can be said? And furthermore, one can ask: From where do we derive that women are obligated in positive mitzvot that are not time bound? The Gemara answers that one derives this from the mitzva of fearing one’s mother and father: Just as women are obligated in the mitzva of fear (Leviticus 19:3), so too, women are obligated in every positive mitzva that is not time bound. The Gemara asks: But why not derive the opposite from Torah study: Just as women are exempt from Torah study, so too they should be exempt from all positive mitzvot that are not time bound. The Gemara answers: One cannot derive an exemption for women from their exemption from Torah study, because Torah study and procreation are two verses that come as one, as in both cases women are exempt, despite the fact that these are not time-bound mitzvot. And any two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who says that with regard to both of them, men and women, the verse states: “And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and conquer it” (Genesis 1:28), what can be said? According to his opinion, women are exempt from only one positive mitzva that is not time bound, Torah study; why not derive other mitzvot from this case? The Gemara answers: The reason this is not a difficulty is because Torah study and the redemption of the firstborn son, from which women are also exempt, are two verses that come as one, and any two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka as well, let procreation, which he maintains applies to women, and fear of one’s mother and father be considered two verses that come as one and they should not teach a precedent. The Gemara answers: Both cases are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written only that women are obligated in fear of their parents, and had not written that they are obligated in procreation, I would say that as the Merciful One states: “Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and conquer it” (Genesis 1:28), this leads to the conclusion that women are exempt from procreation, by the following reasoning: As it is the manner of a man to go to war and to conquer, yes, he is obligated in procreation, but as it is not the manner of a woman to conquer, she is not obligated in procreation. And if the Merciful One had written only that women are obligated in the mitzva of procreation, and had not written that they are obligated to fear their parents, I would say: With regard to a man, as it is in his power to perform this mitzva, yes, he is obligated to fear his mother and father, but with regard to a woman, as it is not in her power to perform this mitzva when she is married, since her obligations to her husband may prevent her from doing so, she is not obligated. And as it is not in her power to perform this mitzva when she is married, perhaps women should not be obligated at all and there should be no difference between a married and an unmarried woman. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to state that women are obligated in both procreation and the fear of parents, and these are not considered two verses that come as one. The Gemara notes that the earlier question remains difficult: This works out well according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent. But according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach a precedent, what can be said? According to this opinion it can be derived that women are obligated in positive, time-bound mitzvot from matza and assembly, and that they are exempt from positive mitzvot that are not time bound, from Torah study and the redemption of the firstborn son. Rava said: The Sages of Pafunya know the reason for this matter. The Gemara comments: And who is the scholar called by the nickname: The Sages of Paphunya? It is Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, who said as follows: The verse states with regard to phylacteries: “And it shall be a sign for you on your arm and for a memorial between your eyes, that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth” (Exodus 13:9). In this manner the entire Torah is juxtaposed to phylacteries: Just as donning phylacteries is a positive, time-bound mitzva and women are exempt from it, so too are women exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva in the Torah. And from the fact that women are exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva, one can learn by inference that women are obligated in every positive mitzva that is not time bound. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the mitzva of donning phylacteries is a positive, time-bound mitzva. But according to the one who says that donning phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound, as it is applicable the entire year, day and night, what can be said? The Gemara answers: Who did you hear who said that donning phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound? It is Rabbi Meir, and he holds that matza and assembly are verses that come as one, and he further maintains that any two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that two verses that come as one do teach a precedent, and who also says that donning phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound, what can be said? The Gemara answers: It is not derived from here that women are obligated in positive, time-bound mitzvot because the verses that mention matza, rejoicing, and assembly are three verses that come as one, and everyone agrees three verses that come as one do not teach a precedent. § The mishna further teaches: And with regard to all prohibitions, whether or not they are time bound, both men and women are obligated to observe them. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and likewise the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states with regard to a guilt-offering: “When a man or woman shall commit any sin that a person commits” (Numbers 5:6). The verse equates a woman to a man with regard to all punishments in the Torah, as a woman is also required to bring an offering for atonement. The school of Rabbi Eliezer taught as follows. The verse states: “Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them” (Exodus 21:1), stating “them” in the plural. This verse equates a woman to a man with regard to all judgments in the Torah, i.e., monetary cases and damages. The school of Ḥizkiyya taught: The verse states, with regard to the ransom one pays if his animal killed a person: “And killed a man or woman” (Exodus 21:29). Here too, the verse equates a woman to a man, with regard to all deaths in the Torah, i.e., the same halakha applies to an animal that kills either a man or a woman. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state all three of these verses. As, if the Torah had taught us only this first case, with regard to a woman’s obligation to sacrifice guilt-offerings, I would say that the Merciful One has pity on her due to atonement, i.e., God gave her the possibility to atone for her sin through an offering. But with regard to monetary judgments, I would say that with regard to a man, who generally conducts business negotiations, yes, these halakhot apply to him, but in the case of a woman, who generally does not conduct business negotiations, no, the halakhot of monetary judgments do not apply to her. And similarly if the Torah had taught us only this case of monetary judgments, I would say that these judgments apply to a woman, because there are circumstances where engaging in business is her livelihood. But with regard to the ransom that is paid when one’s animal killed someone, I would say: If the animal killed a man, who is commanded in all mitzvot, yes, its owner should have to pay the ransom, but if the animal killed a woman, who is obligated in only some mitzvot, no, he is exempt from the ransom. And conversely: If the Torah had taught us that men and women are equated only in this case of the ransom, one might say that because there is the loss of life the Merciful One has pity on her and therefore the owner of the animal is always obligated to pay the ransom. But with regard to those two other categories, I might say no, a woman is not equated to a man. Therefore it was necessary to mention them all. § The mishna teaches that women are obligated in all prohibitions except for the prohibitions of: Do not round the corners of one’s head, and: Do not destroy the corners of your beard, and: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse. The Gemara asks: Granted, a woman of priestly lineage is not obligated in the mitzva of: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse, as it is written: “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: None shall become impure for the dead among his people” (Leviticus 21:1). This verse teaches that the prohibition applies to the sons of Aaron, but not the daughters of Aaron. But from where do we derive the prohibitions of: Do not round the corners of one’s head, and: Do not destroy the corners of your beard? The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: “You shall not round the corners of your head and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27). The juxtaposition of the two prohibitions teaches that anyone who is included in the prohibition against destroying the beard is included in the prohibition against rounding the head. And since these women are not included in the prohibition against destroying, they are also not included in the prohibition against rounding the head. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that women are not obligated in the prohibition against destroying the corners of one’s beard? The Gemara answers: If you wish, propose a logical reason, as ordinarily women do not have a beard. And if you wish, cite a verse that teaches this point, as the verse states: “You shall not round the corners of your head [roshekhem] and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard [zekanekha]” (Leviticus 19:27). The Gemara explains: From the fact that the verse changed its language, as the term “your head [roshekhem]” is in the plural while “your beard [zekanekha]” is in the singular, it can be inferred that if so, if the prohibition against destroying one’s beard applied to everyone, let the Merciful One write: And you shall not destroy the corners of your beards [zekanekhem], in the plural, so that the end of the verse parallels the beginning. What is indicated by the fact that the verse states: “And you shall not destroy the corners of your beard [zekanekha],” in the singular? This serves to teach: Your beard is included, but not your wife’s beard. The Gemara asks: And is a woman not included in this prohibition? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Nega’im 4:8): The beard of a woman and that of a eunuch, if they grow facial hair, are considered like a beard for all matters. What, is it not the case that this statement is referring to the prohibition against destroying? Abaye said: You cannot say that the baraita is referring to destroying, as it is derived that a woman is exempt through the verbal analogy of “the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27) here and “the corners of their beard” (Leviticus 21:5) from the sons of Aaron: Just as there, in the case of priests, women are certainly exempt from the mitzva, as the verse is referring to the male descendants of Aaron who perform the Temple service and not to women, so too here, with regard to the prohibition against destroying one’s beard, which is stated to all Jews, women are exempt. At this stage the Gemara assumes that the exclusion of women denoted by the verse: “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron” (Leviticus 21:1), which excludes women, is applied to all the mitzvot stated in that chapter, including destroying the corners of one’s beard. The Gemara asks: But if we maintain that when the Merciful One writes: “The sons of Aaron” (Leviticus 21:1), it is written with regard to the entire manner of that chapter, including the prohibition against destroying one’s beard, let the verse, i.e., the Torah, be silent and not state about this prohibition concerning all Jews. And this halakha could be derived through an a fortiori inference, as I could say the following: And if with regard to priests, for whom the verse includes additional mitzvot, this prohibition applies only to the sons of Aaron and not the daughters of Aaron, is it not all the more so the case with regard to Israelites, who have fewer mitzvot, that only men should be obligated and not women? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, the verbal analogy is necessary. Were it not for the verbal analogy, I would say that the halakhot of ritual impurity concluded discussion of that matter. In other words, the exclusion of women denoted by the phrase “the sons of Aaron” applies only to the halakhot of impurity, which appear immediately after that phrase. Conversely, the other halakhot mentioned in this chapter, including the prohibition against destroying the beard, apply to women as well. The Gemara asks: If so, now too, let us say that the halakhot of ritual impurity concluded discussion of that matter, and the daughters of Aaron are also prohibited to destroy their beards. And if you maintain that the reason the prohibition stated with regard to priests does not apply to women is due to the verbal analogy employing the term “the corners of,” which serves to connect the halakha stated with regard to priests with the halakha stated with regard to all Jews, that verbal analogy is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to priests: “Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard” (Leviticus 21:5). One might have thought that a priest would be liable even if he shaved his beard with scissors. Therefore the verse states, in a command issued to all Jews: “And you shall not destroy the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27). This teaches that one is liable only for destroying the beard to the root, which is not achieved with scissors. The baraita continues: One might have thought that if he extracted his hairs with tweezers, which uproot hairs, or small planes [uvirhitni], he should likewise be liable for destroying his hair. The verse therefore states: “Neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard,” to teach that shaving alone is prohibited and these actions are not considered shaving. How can both these requirements for the prohibition be met? The verse is referring to a type of shaving that involves destruction. You must say this is shaving with a razor. According to this baraita, the verbal analogy is necessary to define the action included in the prohibition against destroying, not to teach who is included in the prohibition. The Gemara explains: If it is so that the verbal analogy teaches only which action is included in the prohibition against destroying, let the verse write: That which is of your beard. What is added by the expression “the corners of your beard”? Conclude two conclusions from it, both the definition of the prohibition against shaving and the exemption of women. The Gemara returns to its question. But that which is taught in the baraita: The beard of a woman and that of a eunuch, if they grew facial hair, are considered like a beard for all matters, with regard to what halakha is this stated? Mar Zutra says: It is stated with regard to ritual impurity from leprosy. A leprous sore in the beard of a woman or a eunuch is treated like an affliction of the beard, not like an affliction on the skin. Different halakhot apply to leprous sores that develop on various parts of the body. The Gemara objects: Concerning ritual impurity from leprosy, it is written explicitly: “And when a man or woman has a plague upon the head or upon the beard” (Leviticus 13:29). This indicates that there is no difference between a man and woman with regard to the beard in the case of leprosy. The baraita would not state a halakha that is explicit in the verse. Rather, Mar Zutra says: This baraita is referring to ritual purification from leprosy, i.e., women can also be purified from leprosy of the beard. The Gemara asks: With regard to ritual purification from leprosy it is also obvious: Since impurity applies to a woman, purity likewise applies to her. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this with regard to the impurity of afflictions of the beard, as it might enter your mind to say that this verse is written disjunctively, i.e., that the phrase: “And when a man or woman has a plague upon the head,” applies to both a man or a woman; whereas when it states: “Or upon the beard,” we have come back to the case of a man alone. Therefore the baraita teaches us that this phrase is not referring solely to a man, as there is no difference between a man and a woman with regard to leprosy. Isi taught in a baraita: Women are also exempt from the prohibition: Do not make baldness upon your heads, a prohibition against tearing out one’s hair in grief over someone’s death. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Isi? The Gemara explains that he teaches as follows: The verse states: “You are the sons of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1–2). This verse, which applies to sons and not daughters, is referring to causing baldness, and therefore this prohibition includes only men. The Gemara asks: Do you say that this is referring to causing baldness, or is it perhaps referring only to the prohibition against cutting, which appears first? The Gemara answers that when it states: “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God,” it is stated with regard to the prohibition against cutting, and this verse applies to both men and women, as they are all members of God’s people. How then do I realize and explain the emphasis on sons and not daughters? This is referring to the prohibition against causing baldness. The Gemara asks: And what did you see to include cutting and to exclude causing baldness? Perhaps the opposite is true, and causing baldness applies to men and women whereas cutting applies only to men. The Gemara answers: I include cutting, whose prohibition is broader, as it is applicable both in a place of hair and not in a place of hair; and I exclude causing baldness, which is more limited, as it applies only in a place of hair. The Gemara asks: But one can say that the limitation of sons and not daughters applies both to causing baldness and to cutting, and when the verse writes: “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God,” that is written with regard to scoring oneself. The prohibition against scoring oneself is derived from a verbal analogy from a verse stated with regard to priests (see Leviticus 21:5), which applies to both men and women. The Gemara answers: Isi maintains that scoring oneself and cutting

תוספתא ביכורים ב׳:ב׳-ו׳

(ב) אנדרוגינוס יש בו דרכים שוה לאנשים ויש בו דרכים שוה לנשים ויש בו דרכים שוה לאנשים ולנשים ויש בו שאינו שוה לא לאנשים ולא לנשים.

(ג) דרכים ששוה [בהן] לאנשים מטמא בלובן כאנשים נושא אבל לא נושא כאנשים ואין מתייחד עם הנשים כאנשים ואינו נתזן עם הבנות כאנשים [ואין מטמא למתים כאנשים] ועובר על בל תקיף [ועובר על בל] תשחית כאנשים וחייב בכל המצות האמורות בתורה כאנשים.

(ד) דרכים ששוה לנשים מטמא באודם כנשים ואין מתייחד עם האנשים כנשים ואין זוקק ליבום כנשים ואין חולק עם הבנים כנשים ואין [חולק] בקדשי קדשים כנשים ופסול לכל עדות שבתורה כנשים ואם נבעל בעבירה פסול [מן הכהונה] כנשים.

(ה) דרכים ששוה [בהן] לאנשים ולנשים חייבין על נזקו [בין איש בין אשה] ההורגו במזיד נהרג בשוגג גולה לערי מקלט [אמו יושבת עליו בדם טוהר כאנשים] וכנשים ומביאה עליו קרבן כאנשים וכנשים [ונוחל בכל נחלות כאנשים וכנשים חולק בקדשי הגבול כאנשים וכנשים ואם אמר הריני נזיר שזה איש ואשה הרי זה נזיר].

(ו) דרכים [שלא] שוה [בהן לא] לאנשים [ולא לנשים] אין חייבין על [חטאתו] ואין שורפין על טומאתו ואין נערך לא כאנשים [ולא כנשים] אין נמכר לעבד עברי לא כאנשים [ולא כנשים] אם אמר הריני נזיר שאין זה איש ואשה הרי זה נזיר ר' יוסי אומר אנדרוגינוס בריה [לעצמו ולא יכלו חכמים להכריע עליו] אם איש הוא [אם] אשה [הוא] אבל טומטום אינו כן אלא או ספק איש או [ספק] אשה.

Tosefta Bikkurim 2:2-6

(2) An androgynous (i.e., a hermaphrodite) is in some ways like a man and in some ways like a woman. And in some ways he* is like both a man and a woman, and in some ways he is like neither a man nor a woman. [Note: The Tosefta uses the masculine gender as a default in reference to an androgynous.]

(3) The ways in which he is like men: He imparts impurity with white discharge like men. He marries but is not married (נישא not נושא), like men. And he may not seclude himself with women, like men. And he is not provided sustenance (ניזון not נתזן) along with [a person's] daughters, like men. And he does not [permit himself to] become impure by the dead, like men (i.e., male priests). He is subject to transgressing the prohibition against "rounding off [the corners of the head]" (Lev. 19:27) and [if he is a priest] he is subject to transgressing the prohibition against "defiling oneself with the dead" (Lev. 21:1), like men, and he is liable for performing all the commandments in the Torah, like men.

(4) The ways in which he is like women: He imparts impurity with red discharge, like women. And he may not be secluded with men, like women. And he does not create a levirate bond with his deceased brother's wife, like women. And he does not share in a portion of the most holy offerings, like women. And he is disqualified in all testimony that is [delineated] in the Torah, like women. And if he engaged in forbidden sexual relations, he is disqualified from [the priestly gifts bestowed upon members of] the priesthood, like women.

(5) Ways that he is like both men and women: One who strikes him is liable, as with men and women. One who willfully kills him is executed, and one who unintentionally kills him is exiled to the cities of refuge. [After he is born,] his mother observes the period of blood-purity, as with men and women (see Niddah 28a:15), and she brings a sacrifice, as with men and women. And he possesses all the rights of inheritance, as with men and women. And he partakes of a portion of the priestly gifts of the countryside (e.g., the shankbone, maw, and jaw, Deut. 18:3) like men and women, and if someone said "Behold, I will become a nazirite if this one is neither a man nor a woman," behold he has become a nazirite.

(6) Ways in which he is neither like a man nor a woman: He is not liable on his impure [discharge], and he does not burn his impure [Terumah], and he does not have a prescribed value, which is neither like men nor like women, and he is not sold as a Hebrew slave, which is neither like men nor like women. If someone said, "Behold, I will become a nazirite if this one is neither a man nor a woman," behold, he has become a nazirite. Rabbi Yosei says, an androgynous is a unique creation unto himself and the Sages were unable to render a decision about him, whether he is a man or woman, but this is not so with a tumtum, as to whom there is only a doubt as to whether he is a man or a woman.