Implied Question: Although we Pasken in 'ha'Kometz Rabah' (Menachos, Daf 36b) that 'Nighttime is subject to Tefilin', and 'It is Halachah even though we do not specifically teach it' ...

Answer (Tefilin): Nevertheless it is correctly considered a 'Mitzvas Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama, seeing as it does not apply on Shabbos and Yom-Tov ...

Source: As we Darshen in Perek ha'Motzei Tefilin (Eruvin, Daf 96a) - Since they do not require a sign, because Shabbos itself is considered a sign, as the Torah writes (in Sh'mos, 31) "For it is a sign" ...

Answer (Tzitzis): And as for Tzitzis that is considered here a 'Mizvas Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama - the Ri explains that it goes like Rebbi Shimon in Perek ha'Techeiles (Menachos, Daf 43a) who holds that 'Nighttime is not subject to Tzitzis', and who therefore exempts women - and that is the Halachah ...

Proof #1: Because in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Daf 25b), the Gemara attributes the fact that a sheet is Patur from Tzitzis to a Gezeirah on account of a night-garment, a reason that is confined to Rebbi Shimon exclusively.

Proof #2: Moreover the Gemara says in the second Perek of B'rachos (Daf 14b) that in Eretz Yisrael they did not recite the Parshah of Tzitzis at nighttime'. And Abaye too, concludes that 'We start reciting it, since they began reciting it in Eretz Yisrael, and once we begin reciting it, we finish it'.

Question #1: On what grounds does the Gemara consider Tzitzis a Mitzvas Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama, according to the opinion in Menachos (Daf 41a) that 'Tzitzis is the obligation of the Talis', seeing as garments that are in a box are Chayav' ...

Question #1 (cont.): Because there, there is not time issue at all, seeing as they are Chayav both by day and by night? ...

Question #2: And the Kashya extends even to the opinion that 'Tzitzis is the obligation of the person', because, just as a night garment that one wears by day is Patur, so too, is a day garment that one wears by night, Chayav?

Source: As the Yerushalmi (here, See Masores ha'Shas) rules - 'A day garment that one wears in the night is subject to Tzitzis ...

Question #2: That being the case, how can one possibly consider it 'Z'man Gerama', seeing as it is Chayav both in the day and in the night?

Source: The Ri answers that since its obligation is depends on the fact that the time causes it to be worn in the day, it falls under the category of 'Z'man Gerama' - in that the time that one wears it causes it to be Chayav.

Introduction to Question: Tosfos Rebbi asks that all of these are also subject to a La'av - by Ma'akeh the Torah writes (in Devarim, 22) "Do not place bloodshed in your house" ...

Refuted Answer: Even though the Gemara in Basva Kama (Daf 15b) establishes it by someone who rears a wild dog ar who has a rickety ladder, which conforms to 'Placing with the hands' ...

Refutation: Nevertheless, it also refers to a Ma'akeh ...

Proof: As we find in the Sifri (in Ki Seitzei, 229) which Darshens "ve'Asisa", 'this is a Mitzvas Asei'; "Lo Sasim Damim", 'this is a Mitzvas Lo Sa'aseh'.

Introduction to Question (cont.): By Aveidah too, the Torah writes (in Ki Seitzei 22) "Do not hide from it", and by Shilu'ach ha'Kein it writes (ibid.) "Do not take the mother with the babies" ...

Question: This being the case, how can a women be Patur, even if they are 'Z'man Gerama', seeing as the Torah equates a woman with a man regarding all punishments (i.e. La'avin) in the Torah?

Answer #1: The Ri answers that in all the cases, one can find a case of an Asei without a Lo Sa'aseh ...

Answer #1 (cont.): By Ma'akeh "Lo Sasim Damim" only applies where one initially builds a house with the intention of not constructing a parapet - but if one had in mind to add it and after the building is complete, one changed one's mind, or if he constructed it and it collapsed, there remains only an Asei of "ve'Asisa Ma'akeh".

Answer #1 (cont.): By Aveidah too, there is an Asei without a La'av, there where one picks it up with the intention of returning it, for example, if he took it after Yi'ush, where neither the La'av of "Lo Suchal Lehis'alem" nor that of "Lo Sigzol" applies ...

Answer #1 (cont.): And he then decides not to return it, which is subject only to the Asei of "Hashev Teshivem" ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Also by Shiu'ach ha'Kein - where he took the mother intending to send it away, and then changed his mind, and did not do so, in which case there is no La'av, only the Asei of "Shale'ach Teshalach".

Answer #2: Others explain that the difference will be - where the woman has another Mitzvas Asei to fulfill ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Because if women would be Patur from an Asei which is not Z'man Gerama, she would be Patur from the La'av as well - due to the principle that an 'Asei overrides a Lo Sa'aseh' ...

Answer #2 (concl.): Whereas if they are Chayav, the Asei will not override the Lo Sa'aseh, since 'An Asei cannot override a Lo Sa'aseh and an Asei'.

Question: Rav Yosef from Eretz Yisrael queries this explanation, in that, if so, when the Mishnah in Shabbos (Daf 25a) prohibits kindling Shemen Sereifah on Yom-Tov, because 'Yom-Tov is an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh', whereas burn ing Kodshim is only an Asei ...

Question (cont.): Does this mean that a woman, who is not subject to the Asei of Yom-Tov, since it is a Z'man Gerama, is permitted to burn Shemen Sereifah on Yom-Yov?

Refuted Answer: And if you will say that indeed she is ...

Refutation: Why does no Tana say so?

Question (concl.): Why then, is she not? It must be because an Asei together with which there is a La'av, the La'av itself is stronger and an Asei cannot override it.

Conclusion: In which case here too, the La'av is stronger (and the Asei would not override it under any circumstances).

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that this applies to both Eruv Chatzeiros and Eruv T'chumin' (See Rashash).

Refutation: This is not correct however - since Eruvei Chatzeiros requires bread (Eruvin, 71b).

Authentic Explanation: 'Ba'Kol Me'arvin must therefore apply exclusively to Eruvei T'chumin.

Implied Question: Although the Gemara in 'Bameh Madlikin' - 'One's small children die for the sin of one's Bitul Torah' ...

Answer: That is merely an Asmachta.

Implied Question: And the Pasuk (Devarim 30) "Ki Hi Chayecha", implying that a woman is also Chayav to study Torah - for the same reason - 'Men need life ... ?' ...

Answer #1: The Pasuk refers, not to Torah study, but to the performing of Mitzvos - meaning that 'the Torah teaches you Mitzvos which is your life'.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Torah does in fact, refer both to Torah study and to Mezuzah, as the Gemara explains here ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Only it is not logical to obligate women to study Torah due to the S'vara that 'Men need life ... ?', since we find a Miy'ut by them, as the Gemara stated earlier "And you shall teach them to your sons", 'and not to your daughters'.

Answer #2 (cont.): Mezuzah on the other hand, by which there is no Miy'ut, only because it initially wants to exempt women from Mezuzah by means of a Hekesh to Torah study ...

Answer #2 (concl.): It is a logical to apply the S'vara 'Men need life ... ?', to override the Hekesh and to obligate women in the Mitzvah of Mezuzah.

Source: Because 'Whoever is forbidden to eat Chametz is obligated to eat Matzah' (Rashi).

Question: Why do we need by Matzah 'Whoever is forbidden to eat Chametz ... ' to teach us that women are Chayav to eat Matzah, seeing as without it we would also know that she is ...

Question (cont.): Because if she was Patur, why would we need "ha'Ezrach" to teach us that she is Patur from Sukah? Isn't it obvious, seeing as it is a Mitzvas Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama? ...

Question (cont.): It must therefore be that women are Chayav Matzah, and we need "ha'Ezrach" by Sukah to preclude women, that we should not learn them via the Gezeirah Shavah "Chamishah-Asar" "Chamishah-Asar" from Chag ha'Matzos

Question (concl.): So why do we need the reason of 'Kol she'Yeshno'?

Answer: We do indeed need the reason of 'Kol she'Yeshno', because if we would not learn from it that women are Chayav Matzah, we would explain that "ha'Ezrach" comes to include women, seeing as, bearing in mind that it is a Mitzvas Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama, we do not need to preclude them.

Answer (cont.): But now that we see that they are Chayav Matzah from 'Kol she'Yeshno be'Bal Tochal Chametz', "ha'Ezrach must come to preclude them, because we do not need to include them, as we would know that from the Gezeirah Shavah of "Chamishah-Asar" "Chamishah-Asar",

Explanation #1: Rashi explains the Chiyuv for her to rejoice is not incumbent upon her, but it is up to her husband to make her happy ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): 'What will you say about a widow?' - seeing as the Torah writes 'Simchah' in connection with her, when it says (in Devarim 16) "And the Levi, the Ger, the Yasom and the Almanah".

Explanation #1 (concl.): And the Gemara answers 'By the one with whom she is staying - meaning that she is not commanded, but the Pasuk is speaking by a poor Almanah, and that with whoever she is staying is obligated to make her happy from his own resources, with food, drink and with new linen clothes (up to here are Rashi's words).

Question #1: Rabeinu Tam queries that however, inasmuch as that refers specifically to the time when the Beis-ha'Mikdash is not standing ...

Source: As is evident in Arvi Pesachim (Pesachim Daf 109a) - 'Men with what is fitting for them - with wine and women with what is fitting for them - with colored (pretty) clothes - and that speaks exclusively when the Beis-ha'Mikdash is not standing ....

Source (cont.): As it states there - that 'Nowadays there is no Simchah without wine, but that, when the Beis-ha'Mikdash stands, there is no Simchah without Basar, as the Pasuk writes (in Devarim 27) "You shall Shecht Shelamim and eat there and rejoice"?

Introduction to Question #2: Moreover Rashi's Lashon implies that the husband is not Chayav to take her to Yerushalayim and to feed her Shalmei Simchah ...

Question #2: However, the Gemara in Maseches Chagigah (Daf 6.) does not imply this, when it rules that a son who is no longer tied to his mother's apron-strings is Chayav to bring an Olas Re'iyah to the Har ha'Bayis, and one who is, is not Chayav ...

Question #2 (cont.): And in answer to the question 'Who brought him to here (Yerushalayim)?, the Gemara replies, 'Up to here, his mother who is Chayav be'Simchah, brought him'?

Question #3: Furthermore, if Simchah refers to linen clothes, she could fulfill it at home?

Introduction to Question #4: And moreover, the Tosefta (in Chagigah, Perek 1) states 'Yisrael are commanded three Mitzvos - Re'iyah, Chagigah and Simchah; We find by Re'iyah what does not apply to the other two - that it all goes to Hash-m ...

Introduction to Question #4 (cont.): We find by Chagigah what does not apply to the other two - that it took place before the Torah was given ...

Introduction to Question #4 (cont.): And we find by Simchah what does not apply to the other two - that it applies to both men and women ...

Question #4: So we see that Simchah refers to the Korban?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains 'Ishah Ba'alah Mesamchah" - with his Shalmei Simchah, that her obligation lies on her husband ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And that of a widow, on the one with whom she is staying, but she herself is not obligated to bring Shalmei Simchah.

Refuted Explanation: This does not mean that the Torah should not write Tefilin at all, since it needs to write the Mitzvah of Tefilin per se ...

Authentic Explanation: What it therefore means is it should not write the Hekesh of Tefilin to Talmud Torah.

Clarification: This means that the Torah should not write the Chiyuv of women with regard to Hakhel ...

Clarification: But the Mitzvah of Hakhel it needs to write.

Question: But did the Gemara not say that Matzah and Hakhel are two Pesukim that come to teach us the same thing and that we cannot therefore learn from them?

Answer: We nevertheless think that by via the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Re'iyah' 'Re'iyah', we will learn Re'iyah from Hakhel.

Question: Why do we need this Kal va'Chomer? Without it we can learn to render women subject to Hakhel from Matzah ...

Question #1: Even if it had not mentioned 'children' by Hakhel at all - since that is how 'Two Pesukim ... ' works.

Answer: Had it not mentioned 'children' by Hakhel, we would have thought that, on the contrary, we will learn the 'Re'iyah' of Hakhel from the 'Re'iyah' of Olas Re'iyah and exempt her, as the Gemara said earlier.

Question: Seeing as we do not learn the Chiyuv Hakhel from that of Matzah, why does the Gemara need to ask "Let it write Matzah and we will not need Hakhel?' - Without Matzah we can also learn the Chiyuv of Hakhel from 'children' with a Kal va'Chomer?

Answer: Had it not written 'women by Matzah, we would have thought that we cannot learn women from a Kal va'Chomer - since children are better that women - seeing as they will become Chayav, whereas women, who won't, are not Chayav ...

Answer: But now that we find that women are Chayav by Matzah and children are not, we can justifiably learn a Kal va'Chomer by Hakhel, in that 'If children are Chayav, how much more so, women!'.

Question: Why does the Gemara not say that we learn it from Mezuzah?

Answer: It could, in fact, have said that, and it mentions one of two possibilities.

Question: In that case, Mora and Mezuzah are two Pesukim that teach us the same thing, and we cannot learn from them?

Answer: Both of them are needed, because, had the Torah written Mora and not Mezuzah, we would have thought that they Patur from Mezuzah, since we learn from Talmud-Torah.

Answer (cont.): Whereas had it written Mezuzah and not Mora, we would have thought that they are Patur from Mora, as the Gemara explains later (on Daf 35a) 'Because she cannot (always) manage to do it.

Question: On the contrary, we ought rather to learn from Mora that she is Chayav ...

Source: Since the Gemara says in the first Perek of Yevamos (Daf 8a) that 'Wherever one can make a Hekesh either le'Kula or le'Chumra, we make it le'Chumra'?

Answer #1: The Ram answers that logic dictates that we learn from Talmud Torah, because, since women are Patur from such a precious and beloved Mitzvah as Talmud Torah, it follows that they are also Patur other Mitzvos that are not governed by time.

Answer #2: Furthermore, it is more S'vara to learn from Talmud Torah than from Mora, since one's father and mother, whose Kavod is compared to that of Hash-m, are different, and we cannot learn other Mitzvos from it.

Answer #3: Moreover, it is not logical to learn from Mora, since there are times where she is not Chayav - there where she is under the jurisdiction of others (i.e. her husband), as the Gemara said earlier (on Daf 30b) - 'A woman does not have the means to do it'.