Sanhedrine 66A
We learned that the double Ish (Ish Ish) in the pusuk regarding cursing ones parents comes to teach that the prohibition includes not only adult men but also women, tumtum, and androginos.
In many other parshiot, such as Mishpatim,the commands against many crimes employ the use of the word ish, only. If we need the Ish Ish of Viyikra 20:9 to lean out what is mentioned above concerning cursing ones parents, it would seem that where Ish Ish is not employed the prohibition applies only to adult males.
Your comments on this would be most helpful. Thank you in advance.
Mike, Denver, USA
Your question is asked by Tosfos (66a, DH l'Rabos). Tosfos answers that one can distinguish between where the Torah speaks in the general masculine gender, which is the usual case in the Torah, and betweeen where the Torah mentions only the word "Ish." Where the Torah mentions only the word "Ish," we would assume that this includes only men. Therefore, if Vayikra 20:9 would have stated only "Ish," this would have taught us that only a male is liable for cursing his parents, but a female, Tumtum, and Androginus are exempt. Now that Vayikra 20:9 states "Ish Ish," this teaches that everyone is liable. In contrast, wherever the Torah speaks in the general masculine gender, this means that both male and female are included, even if it does not state "Ish" and "Ishah."
There are some places where the Torah states explicitly "Ish" or "Ishah" (see Shemos 21:29, Bamidbar 5:6, and see Bava Kama 15a). In these cases, both male and female are included.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Dear Rabbi Bloom,
Thank you for your response. I did not see this until today which explains the delayed thank you.
A few more questions in regard to Ish Ish. Were are there examples of ish by itself teaching only men and not women, and secondly if the Ish Ish comes to include tumtum, and androginos it would seem that when ish written once is referring to both men and women it would be only men and women excluding tumtum, and androginos? If this is the case then there must be many lavim that do not apply to tumtum, and androginos? For example Shemos 21:14 If a man (Ish) shall act intentionally... ie murder... It would seem from this discussion that tumtum, and androginos whould be exempt? Again, your comments are most helpful.
Sincerely,
Mike Denver, USA
1.
(a) There is an example in Sanhedrin (46a). The Mishnah there (45b) states that according to the Chachamim, after a man is punished with Sekilah, his body is hanged, but after a woman is punished with Sekilah, her body is not hanged. The Gemara there (46a) derives this from the verse, "v'Chi Yiheyeh v'Ish Chet Mishpat Maves... Lo Salin Nivlaso Al ha'Etz" -- "And if a man has committed a sin deserving death... his body shall not remain all night upon the gallows, but rather you shall bury him that day..." (Devarim 21:22-23). The Chachamim learn from here that "Ish but not Ishah" -- a woman's body is not hanged.
(b) Another example is from Kidushin (24a). If a woman redeems produce of Ma'aser Sheni from her husband's field onto her own coins, she does not add the Chomesh that the Torah usually requires when one redeems his own Ma'aser Sheni. This is derived from the verse, "v'Im Ga'ol Yig'al Ish mi'Ma'asro, Chamishiso Yosef Alav" -- "If a man wants to redeem any of his tithes, he must add a fifth to it" (Vayikra 27:31), which teaches that only a man adds a Chomesh, but not a woman.
2. The Ran (in Chidushei ha'Ran) gives an interesting explanation which may shed light on your question concerning Tumtum and Androginus. He writes that when the Gemara says that this is "to include Tumtum and Androginus," these two categories are only "dragged in" in order to accompany the Halachah of the "Bas," but it is not really necessary to mention Tumtum and Androginus. This is because we already know that these two are included once we know that both a man and a woman are liable. Since these two are merely individuals about whom we are in doubt about whether they are male or female, it follows that if both men and women are liable, then the Tumtum amd Androginus are also liable (since they are either man or woman).
According to this approach, all Lavim which apply to both men and women also apply to a Tumtum and Androginus, because they are either man or woman.
(However, there is an opinion -- that of Rebbi Yosi in the Mishnah in Bikurim 4:5, that an Androginus is a species in its own right, and the question of whether it has the status of a man or woman was left by the Chachamim unresolved. The explanation of the Ran does not appear to cover this opinion.)
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Here is a different answer to explain why a woman is liable for murder even though the verse (Shemos 21:14) states that "when an Ish shall act intentionally (i.e. murder)" he is liable, and Tosfos in Sanhedrin (66a, DH l'Rabos) writes that whenever the Torah writes only the word "Ish" once this comes to exclude women.
This answer is based on the Mechilta (a commentary on Chumash Shemos written by Chazal and printed in the Malbim edition of the Chumash) in Parsha 4, #54 on Parshas Mishpatim (this is on Shemos 21:12). The Mechilta asks, how do we know that if a woman murdered a minor or a fellow woman that she is liable? The Mechilta answers that this is learned from the words "Rotze'ach Hu" ("he is a murderer") written a few times in Bamidbar (35:16-21). These extra words come to include (l'Rabos) that a woman is always liable for murder in the same way that a man is liable.
Dovid Bloom
Dear Rabbi Bloom,
Thank you again for your answers.
So is it correct to state then, when the Torah uses Ish Ish, it is not a universal rule. That in this case where Ish Ish is used in regard to "blessing" ones parents it comes to teach that daughters/women are included in the prohibition because we could have thought that if Ish was used by itself, then it by itself, could have come to exclude women, by reasoning for example that since women are more emotional than men, that they would not be covered in this lav, to the extent of the death penalty?
And when by murder where Ish is used by itself there is no reason that one could come to think that it excludes women and therefore the use of Ish Ish is not employed, because it is not needed?
(This was an explanation from my brother when I asked him.)
Thank you in advance!
Sincerely,
Mike
Mike, your brother's explanation is very interesting. I do not think it is on the same lines as the Mefarshim we have seen so far, but I am going to suggest a source for this way of thinking.
This is from the story of Yosef and the wife of Potifar, in Bereshis 39. Verse 9 there relates how Yosef tried to persuade her not to sin with him. He stressed to her that he possessed the most senior position in her husband's household and that the only thing that Potifar had not granted to Yosef was his own wife. How, then, could he perpetrate this great crime against his master? It is only at the very end of his lecture to Potifar's wife that Yosef mentions that this would also be a sin against Hashem. This is interesting, because one would have thought that Yosef should have mentioned at the very beginning that this act was against his religion and thus immediately have escaped the efforts of Potifar's wife.
The Ramban explains that the reason why Yosef spoke this way is because women are more emotional, and if he would have started off by saying that it is a crime against Hashem, she might not have appreciated this so readily. Therefore, he stressed first the human aspect of the treachery to her husband, his boss.
This may be similar to your reasoning, that since women sometimes react in a more spontaneous way, they might not be culpable for the capital penalty for "blessing" their parents. Of course, in the conclusion, the Halachah in this matter is exactly the same for women as for men.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom