According to the kollel's insights to CHAGIGAH 6, A MOTHER'S חיוב OF "חינוך" FOR HER CHILD - in the case of the מצוה of שמחה, the woman is not obligated herself, nevertheless, she comes to ירושלים so that her husband can fulfill his חיוב to provide her with שמחה. Since she is involved in the מצוה of שמחה, she is obligated in the חינוך of her child for the מצוה of coming to ירושלים during the festival. Similarly, הילני המלכה the queen performed the מצוה of סוכה even though she was not obligated to do so. Therefore, the מצוה of חינוך applied to her, and thus she ensured that her sons properly fulfilled that מצוה.
why is this line (
מאי כל מצות האב על הבן אילימא כל מצותא דמיחייב אבא למיעבד לבריה נשים חייבות ) of the gmara stuck and implying that women would never be mechuyav? We have a good case where women are mechuyav- where she makes herself involved in the מצוה, albeit that if she didn't involve herself she would not be mechuyav. But why not be mukim כל מצות האב על הבן = כל מצותא דמיחייב אבא למיעבד לבריה נשים חייבות to instances where where she makes herself involved in the מצוה?
DANIEL GRAY, Toronto Canada
Shalom R' Gray,
Great to hear from you. I hear what you are saying, and that is an ingenious suggestion. At the same time, one gets the sense from the language of the Mishnah that "Kol Mitzvos ha'Av Al ha'Ben" is a universal statement that is general and covers all circumstances of the category. If we would say that it's only limited to cases where the mother took upon herself to do a mitzvah even when she wasn't obligated, then wouldn't that seriously limit the scope of this ruling's application? This would not be so, however, when it comes to Rav Yehudah's suggestion that the phrase means "Mitzvos for the father which the son must perform", since that too is general and universal in nature. I'm open to other possibilities but does this line of thought help to clarify?
Shanah Tovah, Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah!
Warmest regards,
Yishai Rasowsky