עבדי הזמן: נשים, זמן וחירות

If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

Rebbi Yehudah says, “A person is obligated to say [the following] three Berachot (blessings) every day: Baruch [Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Shelo Asani Goy (Blessed are You Hashem, our God, King of the world, for not making me a gentile), Baruch [Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Shelo Asani Isha (Blessed are You Hashem, our God, King of the world, for not making me a woman), Baruch [Ata Hashem Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Shelo Asani Bur (Blessed are You Hashem, our God, King of the world, for not making me a boor). [The reason for saying a Beracha for not making him] a gentile is because it says ‘All nations are like nothing to Him. He considers them to be empty and void.’ (Isaiah 40:17) [The reason for saying a Beracha for not making him] a woman is because women are not obligated in Mitzvot (commandments).” [The reason for saying a Beracha for not making him] a boor is because a boor is not afraid of sin. They have said a parable to what this is similar to. [It is similar] to a king of flesh and blood who said to his servant to cook him [some] food, but he (i.e. the servant) has never cooked food in his life. In the end he ruins the food and angers his master. [Or the king told the servant] to hem for him a robe, but he (i.e. the servant) has never hemmed a robe in his life. In the end he [causes] the robe to get dirty and angers his master.

what do they do with, i.e., how do they interpret, this verse: “With which you cover yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:12)? The Gemara answers that the Rabbis require it for that which is taught in a baraita: The phrase “on the four corners of your garment” (Deuteronomy 22:12) indicates that one is required to attach ritual fringes to a garment that has four corners, but not to one that has three corners. The baraita continues: Do you say that a garment with four corners is obligated but not a garment with three corners? Or is it teaching only that a garment with four corners is obligated but not a garment that has five corners? When the verse states: “With which you cover yourself,” a garment with five corners is thereby mentioned in the verse as being obligated. Then how do I realize the meaning of: “On the four corners of your garment”? It teaches that this obligation is limited to a garment that has four corners, but not to one that has three corners. The Gemara asks: But what did you see that led you to include a garment with five corners and to exclude a garment with three corners, rather than including a garment with three corners and excluding a garment with five corners? The Gemara answers: I include a garment with five corners, as five includes four, and I exclude a garment with three corners, as three does not include four. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Shimon derive the halakha that a five-cornered garment is required to have ritual fringes? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the seemingly extraneous word: “With which [asher] you cover yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:12). The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis derive from this word? The Gemara answers: They do not learn any new halakhot from the word “which [asher].” The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with this phrase: “That you may look upon it” (Numbers 15:39), from which Rabbi Shimon derives that a nighttime garment is exempt? The Gemara answers: They require it for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse: “That you may look upon it and remember” (Numbers 15:39), teaches that one should see this mitzva of ritual fringes and remember another mitzva that is contingent on it. And which mitzva is that? It is the mitzva of the recitation of Shema. As we learned in a mishna (Berakhot 9b): From when may one recite Shema in the morning? From when one can distinguish between the sky-blue strings and the white strings of his ritual fringes. And it is taught in another baraita: The phrase “that you may look upon it and remember” teaches that one should see this mitzva of ritual fringes and remember another mitzva that is adjacent to it in the Torah. And which mitzva is that? It is the mitzva of diverse kinds of wool and linen, as it is written: “You shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together. You shall prepare yourself twisted cords” (Deuteronomy 22:11–12). It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “That you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord” (Numbers 15:39). This indicates that once a person is obligated in this mitzva of ritual fringes, he is obligated in all of the mitzvot. The Gemara comments: And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that ritual fringes are a positive, time-bound mitzva, and women are exempt from it. Only men are obligated in all mitzvot, including positive, time-bound mitzvot, just as they are obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes. It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “That you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord”; this teaches that this mitzva of ritual fringes is equivalent to all the mitzvot of the Torah. And it is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “That you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them.” This teaches that looking at the ritual fringes leads to remembering the mitzvot, and remembering them leads to doing them. And Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai says: Anyone who is diligent in this mitzva of ritual fringes merits receiving the Divine Presence. It is written here: “That you may look upon it [oto]” (Numbers 15:39), and it is written there: “You shall fear the Lord your God; and Him [oto] shall you serve” (Deuteronomy 6:13). Just as oto in that verse is referring to the Divine Presence, so too in this verse it is referring to the Divine Presence. The Sages taught in a baraita: The Jewish people are beloved, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, surrounded them with mitzvot: They have phylacteries on their heads, and phylacteries on their arms, and ritual fringes on their garments, and a mezuza for their doorways. Concerning them David said: “Seven times a day I praise You, because of Your righteous ordinances” (Psalms 119:164). This alludes to the two phylacteries, the four ritual fringes, and the mezuza, which total seven. And when David entered the bathhouse and saw himself standing naked, he said: Woe to me that that I stand naked without any mitzva. But once he remembered the mitzva of circumcision that was in his flesh his mind was put at ease, as he realized he was still accompanied by this mitzva. After he left the bathhouse, he recited a song about the mitzva of circumcision, as it is stated in the verse: “For the leader, on the Sheminith: A Psalm of David” (Psalms 12:1). This is interpreted as a psalm about circumcision, which was given to be performed on the eighth [bashemini] day of the baby’s life. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Anyone who has phylacteries on his head, phylacteries on his arm, ritual fringes on his garment, and a mezuza on his doorway is strengthened from all sides so that he will not sin, as it is stated in the verse: “And a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12). This is interpreted as an allusion to the three mitzvot of phylacteries, ritual fringes, and mezuza. And the verse states: “The angel of the Lord encamps round about them that fear Him, and delivers them” (Psalms 34:8). This is interpreted to mean that the angel of the Lord surrounds those who fulfill the mitzvot and saves them from sin. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is different about tekhelet from all other types of colors such that it was chosen for the mitzva of ritual fringes? It is because tekhelet is similar in its color to the sea, and the sea is similar to the sky, and the sky is similar to the Throne of Glory, as it is stated: “And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness” (Exodus 24:10), indicating that the sky is like a sapphire brickwork. And it is written: “The likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone” (Ezekiel 1:26). It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: The punishment for not attaching white strings is greater than the punishment for not attaching sky-blue strings, despite the fact that the sky-blue strings are more important. Rabbi Meir illustrates this with a parable: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a king of flesh and blood who said to his two subjects that they must bring him a seal. The king said to one of them: Bring me a seal of clay, and he said to the other one: Bring me a seal of gold. And both of them were negligent and did not bring the seals. Which of them will have a greater punishment? You must say that it is this one to whom he said: Bring me a seal of clay, and despite its availability and low cost, he did not bring it. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: A person is obligated to recite one hundred blessings every day, as it is stated in the verse: “And now, Israel, what [ma] does the Lord your God require of you” (Deuteronomy 10:12). Rabbi Meir interprets the verse as though it said one hundred [me’a], rather than ma. The Gemara relates that on Shabbat and Festivals, when the prayers contain fewer blessings, Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Avya, made an effort to fill this quota of blessings with blessings on spices [be’isparmakei] and sweet fruit, of which he would partake in order to recite extra blessings. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: A man is obligated to recite three blessings every day praising God for His kindnesses, and these blessings are: Who did not make me a gentile; Who did not make me a woman; and Who did not make me an ignoramus. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov heard his son reciting the blessing: Who did not make me an ignoramus. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said to him: Is it in fact proper to go this far in reciting blessings? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s son said to him: Rather, what blessing should one recite? If you will say that one should recite: Who did not make me a slave, that is the same as a woman; why should one recite two blessings about the same matter? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov answered: Nevertheless, a slave is more lowly than a woman, and therefore it is appropriate to recite an additional blessing on not having been born a slave. § The Sages taught: This ḥilazon, which is the source of the sky-blue dye used in ritual fringes, has the following characteristics: Its body resembles the sea, its form resembles that of a fish, it emerges once in seventy years, and with its blood one dyes wool sky-blue for ritual fringes. It is scarce, and therefore it is expensive. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: There is no mitzva, however minor, that is written in the Torah, for which there is no reward given in this world; and in the World-to-Come I do not know how much reward is given. Go and learn from the following incident concerning the mitzva of ritual fringes. There was an incident involving a certain man who was diligent about the mitzva of ritual fringes. This man heard that there was a prostitute in one of the cities overseas who took four hundred gold coins as her payment. He sent her four hundred gold coins and fixed a time to meet with her. When his time came, he came and sat at the entrance to her house. The maidservant of that prostitute entered and said to her: That man who sent you four hundred gold coins came and sat at the entrance. She said: Let him enter. He entered. She arranged seven beds for him, six of silver and one of gold. Between each and every one of them there was a ladder made of silver, and the top bed was the one that was made of gold. She went up and sat naked on the top bed, and he too went up in order to sit naked facing her. In the meantime, his four ritual fringes came and slapped him on his face. He dropped down and sat himself on the ground, and she also dropped down and sat on the ground. She said to him: I take an oath by the gappa of Rome that I will not allow you to go until you tell me what defect you saw in me. He said to her: I take an oath by the Temple service that I never saw a woman as beautiful as you. But there is one mitzva that the Lord, our God, commanded us, and its name is ritual fringes, and in the passage where it is commanded, it is written twice: “I am the Lord your God” (Numbers 15:41). The doubling of this phrase indicates: I am the one who will punish those who transgress My mitzvot, and I am the one who will reward those who fulfill them. Now, said the man, the four sets of ritual fringes appeared to me as if they were four witnesses who will testify against me. She said to him: I will not allow you to go until you tell me: What is your name, and what is the name of your city, and what is the name of your teacher, and what is the name of the study hall in which you studied Torah? He wrote the information and placed it in her hand. She arose and divided all of her property, giving one-third as a bribe to the government, one-third to the poor, and she took one-third with her in her possession, in addition to those beds of gold and silver. She came to the study hall of Rabbi Ḥiyya and said to him: My teacher, instruct your students concerning me and have them make me a convert. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to her: My daughter, perhaps you set your sights on one of the students and that is why you want to convert? She took the note the student had given her from her hand and gave it to Rabbi Ḥiyya. He said to her: Go take possession of your purchase. Those beds that she had arranged for him in a prohibited fashion, she now arranged for him in a permitted fashion. The Gemara completes its point about the reward of mitzvot and points out how this story illustrates the concept: This is the reward given to him in this world, and with regard to the World-to-Come, I do not know how much reward he will be given. § Rav Yehuda says: In the case of a borrowed cloak, for the first thirty days it is exempt from ritual fringes; from then on it is obligated. The Gemara notes: That distinction is also taught in a baraita: In the case of one who resides in a guesthouse [pundaki] in Eretz Yisrael, or one who rents a house outside of Eretz Yisrael, for the first thirty days he is exempt from the mitzva of mezuza; from then on he is obligated. But one who rents a house in Eretz Yisrael must affix a mezuza immediately, due to the settlement of Eretz Yisrael. § The mishna teaches: Absence of the phylacteries of the arm does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of the phylacteries of the head, and absence of the phylacteries of the head does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of the phylacteries of the arm. Rav Ḥisda said: They taught this only in a case where one has the other phylacteries, but they are not with him or he is unable to wear them for some reason. But if he does not have the other phylacteries at all, then their absence does prevent the fulfillment of the mitzva to don the phylacteries that he has. Later on, the students said to him: Do you still say that? Rav Ḥisda said to them: No, rather I would say the opposite: Concerning one who does not have the ability to fulfill two mitzvot, should he also not perform the one mitzva that he does have the ability to fulfill? The Gemara asks: And what did he hold initially when he said not to don one of the phylacteries in the absence of the other? The Gemara answers: He held that it was due to a rabbinic decree, lest he be negligent and not try to acquire the phylacteries that he lacks. Rav Sheshet says: Anyone who does not don phylacteries violates eight positive mitzvot. This is referring to the mitzva to don phylacteries of the arm and head, each of which is mentioned in four different passages (Exodus 13:9; Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8; Deuteronomy 11:18). And anyone who does not have ritual fringes on his garments violates five positive mitzvot. This is because the mitzva of ritual fringes is stated four times in the primary passage concerning ritual fringes in Numbers: “That they prepare for themselves strings…and they shall put on the fringe of the corner a sky-blue thread. And it shall be to you for a fringe that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord” (Numbers 15:38–39). An additional command appears in the verse: “You shall prepare yourself twisted cords” (Deuteronomy 22:12). And any priest who does not ascend the platform to recite the Priestly Benediction violates three positive mitzvot expressed in the verses: “So you shall bless the children of Israel; you shall say to them” (Numbers 6:23), and: “And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel” (Numbers 6:27). Anyone who does not have a mezuza in his doorway violates two positive mitzvot, stated in the verses: “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house” (Deuteronomy 6:9), and: “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house” (Deuteronomy 11:20). And Reish Lakish says: Anyone who dons phylacteries lives a long life, as it is stated:

We learned in the mishna that even the poorest of Jews should not eat until he reclines. It was stated that amora’im discussed the requirement to recline. Everyone agrees that matza requires reclining, i.e., one must recline when eating matza, and bitter herbs do not require reclining. With regard to wine, it was stated in the name of Rav Naḥman that wine requires reclining, and it was also stated in the name of Rav Naḥman that wine does not require reclining. The Gemara explains: And these two statements do not disagree with each other: This statement is referring to the first two cups, and that statement is referring to the last two cups. However, it was not clear which two cups require reclining according to Rav Naḥman. Some say the explanation in this manner and some say it in that manner. The Gemara elaborates: Some say it in this manner, that the first two cups require reclining, as it is now that freedom begins. Since reclining is a sign of freedom, while discussing the exodus from Egypt it is appropriate to drink while reclining. By contrast, the last two cups do not require reclining, because what was already was. In other words, by this point one has completed the discussion of the Exodus and has reached the latter stages of the seder. And some say it in that manner and claim that on the contrary, the last two cups require reclining, as it is at that time that there is freedom. However, the first two cups do not require reclining, as one still says: We were slaves. The Gemara concludes: Now that it was stated so, and it was stated so, i.e., there are two conflicting opinions and it cannot be proven which two cups require reclining, both these sets of cups and those require reclining. The Gemara continues to discuss the halakha of reclining. Lying on one’s back is not called reclining. Reclining to the right is not called reclining, as free men do not recline in this manner. People prefer to recline on their left and use their right hand to eat, whereas they find it more difficult to eat the other way. And not only that, but if one reclines to the right, perhaps the windpipe will precede the esophagus. The food will enter the windpipe, and one will come into danger of choking. A woman who is with her husband is not required to recline, but if she is an important woman, she is required to recline. A son who is with his father is required to recline. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to a student who is with his teacher? Perhaps he is not obligated to recline, as he is in awe of his rabbi, and reclining is a sign of complete freedom and independence.

During the Passover seder, between these cups that one is obligated to drink, e.g., between the first two of the four cups of wine, if one wants to drink he may drink. However, between the third and fourth cups, which are consumed after the meal, one may not drink. And if you say that wine satisfies a person, why may one drink extra cups? He will later eat matza when he is already satiated, which will constitute an excessive eating. Rather, learn from this that wine whets the appetite. The Gemara relates that Rav Sheshet would fast the entire eve of Passover. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rav Sheshet maintains that this practice was necessary because of two factors? First, when the mishna states that one may not eat adjacent to minḥa time, we learned this ruling with regard to the period of time adjacent to the greater minḥa, and the reason for the prohibition is due to the Paschal lamb, lest one be drawn after one’s meal and come to refrain from performing the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb. And second, Rav Sheshet maintains in accordance with that statement that Rabbi Oshaya said that Rabbi Elazar said: Ben Beteira would deem valid a Paschal lamb that was slaughtered in the morning on the fourteenth of Nisan for its own purpose, as from the morning it is already the time during which a Paschal lamb may be sacrificed, as the whole day is fit for the Paschal lamb. As ben Beteira maintained that when the Torah says the Paschal lamb must be sacrificed “bein ha’arbayim” (Exodus 12:6), which literally means: Between the evenings, but is often rendered: In the afternoon, the term refers to any time between the evening of yesterday and the current evening of the fourteenth. In other words, as Rav Sheshet maintained that the reason one may not eat on Passover eve is to prevent him from being distracted from preparing the Paschal lamb, and he also maintained that the Paschal offering may be sacrificed during the entire day of the fourteenth of Nisan, therefore, he would not eat that entire day. They say in response to this suggested interpretation of Rav Sheshet’s practice: No, it is by no means clear that this was his reasoning. Rav Sheshet was different, as he was delicate [istenis], for if he would taste some food in the morning, the food he ate at night would not be effective for him. He would therefore fast the whole day so that he could eat matza at night with a hearty appetite. We learned in the mishna that even the poorest of Jews should not eat until he reclines. It was stated that amora’im discussed the requirement to recline. Everyone agrees that matza requires reclining, i.e., one must recline when eating matza, and bitter herbs do not require reclining. With regard to wine, it was stated in the name of Rav Naḥman that wine requires reclining, and it was also stated in the name of Rav Naḥman that wine does not require reclining. The Gemara explains: And these two statements do not disagree with each other: This statement is referring to the first two cups, and that statement is referring to the last two cups. However, it was not clear which two cups require reclining according to Rav Naḥman. Some say the explanation in this manner and some say it in that manner. The Gemara elaborates: Some say it in this manner, that the first two cups require reclining, as it is now that freedom begins. Since reclining is a sign of freedom, while discussing the exodus from Egypt it is appropriate to drink while reclining. By contrast, the last two cups do not require reclining, because what was already was. In other words, by this point one has completed the discussion of the Exodus and has reached the latter stages of the seder. And some say it in that manner and claim that on the contrary, the last two cups require reclining, as it is at that time that there is freedom. However, the first two cups do not require reclining, as one still says: We were slaves. The Gemara concludes: Now that it was stated so, and it was stated so, i.e., there are two conflicting opinions and it cannot be proven which two cups require reclining, both these sets of cups and those require reclining. The Gemara continues to discuss the halakha of reclining. Lying on one’s back is not called reclining. Reclining to the right is not called reclining, as free men do not recline in this manner. People prefer to recline on their left and use their right hand to eat, whereas they find it more difficult to eat the other way. And not only that, but if one reclines to the right, perhaps the windpipe will precede the esophagus. The food will enter the windpipe, and one will come into danger of choking. A woman who is with her husband is not required to recline, but if she is an important woman, she is required to recline. A son who is with his father is required to recline. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to a student who is with his teacher? Perhaps he is not obligated to recline, as he is in awe of his rabbi, and reclining is a sign of complete freedom and independence. Come and hear a proof that Abaye said: When we were in the house of my Master, Rabba, there was not enough room for everyone to recline on Passover, so we reclined on each other’s knees, to fulfill the obligation to recline. When we came to the house of Rav Yosef, he said to us: You need not recline, as the fear of your teacher is like the fear of Heaven. A student is subject to the authority of his teacher and may not display freedom in his presence. The Gemara raises an objection: A person must recline in the presence of anyone, and even a student who is with his teacher must do so. This baraita directly contradicts the statement of Rav Yosef. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it was with regard to a craftsman’s apprentice, not a student of Torah in the company of his rabbi. One who is in the presence of a person teaching him a trade is not in awe of his instructor, and he is therefore obligated to recline. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to a waiter?Is a waiter obligated to recline? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a solution, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A waiter who ate an olive-bulk of matza while reclining has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara infers: If he ate matza while reclining, yes, he has fulfilled his obligation; if he was not reclining, no, he has not fulfilled the obligation. Learn from this that a waiter requires reclining. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the case. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in these four cups of wine at the Passover seder.