Kiddushin

It1 is necessary [for another reason]: I might have thought, we derive [identity of law from the employment of] ‘fifteen’ here and in connection with the Feast of unleavened bread:2 just as there, women are liable, so here too. Hence it is necessary. But what of pilgrimage,3 which is an affirmative command limited to time, yet the reason [of woman's exemption] is that Scripture wrote, [Three times in the year all] thy males [shall appear before the Lord thy God],4 thus excluding women; but otherwise women would be liable? — It is necessary: I would have thought, we learn the meaning of ‘appearance’ from ‘assembling’.5 Now, instead of deriving an exemption from phylacteries, let us deduce an obligation from [the precept of] rejoicing?6 Said Abaye: As for a woman, her husband must make her rejoice.7 Then what can be said of a widow?8 It refers to her host.9 Now, let us learn [liability] from [the precept of] ‘assembling’?10 Because unleavened bread and ‘assembling’ are two verses [i.e., precepts] with the same purpose,11 and wherever two verses have the same purpose, they cannot throw light [upon other precepts].12 If so, phylacteries and pilgrimage are also two verses with one purpose,13 and cannot illumine [other precepts]? — They are both necessary: for had the Divine Law stated phylacteries but not pilgrimage, I would have thought, let us deduce the meaning of ‘appearance’ from ‘assembling’.14 While had the Divine Law written pilgrimage but not phylacteries, I would have reasoned, Let phylacteries be assimilated to mezuzah.15 Thus both are necessary.16 If so, unleavened bread and ‘assembling’ are also necessary? — For what are they necessary? Now, if the Divine Law stated ‘assembling’ but not unleavened bread, it were well:17 for I would argue, let us deduce ‘fifteen’, ‘fifteen’, from the feast of Tabernacles.18 But let the Divine Law write unleavened bread, and ‘assembling’ is unnecessary, for I can reason, If it is incumbent upon children,19 how much more so upon women! Hence it is a case of two verses with the same purpose, and they cannot throw light [upon other precepts]. Now, that is well on the view that they do not illumine [other cases]. But on the view that they do, what may be said?20 Furthermore, [that] affirmative precepts not limited to time are binding upon women; how do we know it? Because we learn from fear:21 just as fear is binding upon women, so are all affirmative precepts not limited to time incumbent upon women. But let us [rather] learn from the study of the Torah?22 — Because the study of the Torah and procreation23 are two verses which teach the same thing,24 and wherever two verses teach the same thing, they do not illumine [others]. same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord. Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God. . . assemble the people, men and women, etc. include woman. do so one only would be sufficient, for the second could be deduced; and similarly all other precepts. But this obviously does not hold good when each is necessary in itself; in that case, therefore, both together throw light upon other cases.