Question: Why does the Gemara not pose the question that, according to the Rabbanan, why are Mora and Mezuzah not considered 'Sh'nei Kesuvim'?

Answer: According to what Tosfos wrote above (on 34b DH 'Nashim', that both Pesukim are needed, this is not a problem.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that, since we need the Pasuk for a Hekesh to exempt women from Z'man Gerama, we can extrapolate that Mitzvos Asei she'Lo ha'Zeman Gerama they are Chayav ...

Refuted Explanation (cont.): Because if they would be Patur, why would we need the Hekesh to Tefilin to exempt women from Z'man Gerama, since we would know that anyway - from the fact that they are Patur from Mitzvos she'Lo ha'Zeman Gerama, Kal va'Chomer from Z'man Gerama?

Refutation: This is not correct however, because how could the Gemara not mention the Hekesh of Tefilin? Since then, we would say the opposite - that we would learn from Matzah and Hakhel that they are subject to Z'man Gerama?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains - 'So we see that Mitzvos Asei she'Lo ha'Zeman Gerama women are Chayav' - because if they would be Patur, it should have inserted the Hekesh of "Toras Hash-m be'Ficha" by Talmud-Torah or by Pidyon ha'Ben ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... to compare to it and say that just as women are Patur from Talmud-Torah or Pidyon ha'Ben, which are Mitzvos Asei she'Lo ha'Zeman Gerama, so too, are they Patur from all Mitzvos Asei she'Lo ha'Zeman Gerama

Explanation #2 (cont.): .... in the same way as it now compares for P'tur, Z'man Gerama to Tefilin ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... and since it writes the Hekesh by Tefilin, which is Z'man Gerama, we can extrapolate that Mitzvos Asei she'Lo ha'Zeman Gerama women are Chayav.

Clarification: Rashi explains that, on the contrary, it should have said the other way round - 'she'Lo ha'Zeman Gerama we learn from Tefilin that women are Patur, whereas ha'Zeman Gerama they are Chayav - from Matzah and Hakhel, since he holds 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad, Melamdim'?

Clarification (cont.): ... and the Gemara answers that the Tana who holds that Tefilin is not Z'man Gerama is Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Ein Melamdim'.

Clarification (cont.): Rashi explains further that "According to Rebbi Meir, we do not need a Hekesh, because we learn it from a Binyan Av - from Re'iyah which is a Mitzvas Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama, and women are Patur from it.

Question: ... and if one asks that we should learn from Matzah and Hakhel that they are Chayav ...

Answer: ... Rebbi Meir holds 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad, Ein Melamdim' ". (Until here is the Lashon of Rashi).

Reason: And the reason that women are Patur from Mitzvos Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama is because it is specifically by Matzah and Hakhel that the Torah obligates them, but all other Mitzvos Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama, women are Patur ...

Reason (cont.): ... because, since he holds 'Ein Melamdin', it is a form of Miy'ut - Davka they are Chayav, but others are Patur.

Question: That explains Z'man Gerama, but from where do we know that they are Chayav Mitzvos Asei she'Lo ha'Zeman Gerama?

Answer: Seeing as Talmud Torah and Pidyon ha'Ben are Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad, and Ein Melamdin, it is a form of Miy'ut - Davka they are Patur, but all other cases of she'Lo ha'Zeman Gerama, women are Chayav.

Introduction to Question: The Gemara has answered as to why they are Patur from Mitzvos Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama - that we cannot learn from Matzah and Hakhel, since they are joined by Simchah - turning it into Sheloshah Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad, as Tosfos explained earlier ...

Question: ... but from where do we know that they are Chayav Mitzvos Asei she'Lo ha'Zeman Gerama? Why do we not learn from Talmud Torah and Pidyon ha'Ben that are they not Patur?

Answer: Because he (Rebbi Yehudah) does not hold like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (that women are Chayav P'ru u'Revu) and Talmud Torah, Pidyon ha'Ben and P'ru u'Revu are therefore 'Sheloshah Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'.

Introduction to Question: According to Abaye, who said earlier (on Daf 34b) that 'It is her husband who makes his wife happy', there are only two Pesukim ...

Question (cont.): How will he then explain the P'tur of Mitzvos Asei she'ha'Zeman Gerama according to Rebbi Yehudah - Why should we not learn from Matzah and Hakhel that they are Chayav?

Answer: He adds Kidush ha'Yom to the list of Matzah and Hakhel, turning it into 'Sheloshah Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad' from which we do not learn.

Source: And women are Chayav Kidush ha'Yom min ha'Torah from the Pasuk (in Sh'mos, 20) "Zachor es Yom ha'Shabbos", 'Zachrehu al ha'Yayin' ...

Source (cont.): ... and since whoever is subject to Shemirah (the Melachos of Shabbos) is subject to Zechirah (Kidush), women, who are subject to Shemirah, are also subject to Zechirah.

Question: How much more so would it have been better not to mention it, since it would have shown even more pity on her, inasmuch as she would be subject neither to punishment nor to sin?

Answer: Because in any event, she needs a Kaparah there where the Torah specifically inserts a punishment for women, such as in the Parshah of forbidden marriages.

Clarification: This is La'av Davka, since Eved is compared to Ishah, to obligate him to observe the Mitzvos like a woman, and we learn this from the Gezeirah Shavah "lah" "lah" from Ishah ...

Clarification (cont.): What the Gemara therefore means is that she is not Chayav like a man.

Question: How can a Saris have a beard, bearing in mind that not having a beard is one of the signs of a Saris, and the Gemara rules (in Yevamos, Daf 80a & 80b) that he is not a Saris unless he possesses all the signs of one?

Answer: It speaks where he grew a beard after the majority of his years (thirty-six), in which case he then becomes a Saris ...

Source: ... as the Gemara says in Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah, Daf 47a) - that if the signs of a Saris do not appear on him, he is a Katan until he reaches half his years, and when he does, he becomes both a Gadol and a Saris simultaneously (See Masores ha'Shas).

Question: Why do we need a Gezeirah Shavah, since it is already clear from the Torah's change of Lashon or from the S'vara mentioned earlier?

Answer: That is only before we learn from the Beraisa that somewhere they are considered a beard, but once, having revealed by Nega'im, we know that they are, one can no longer preclude them from the change of Lashon.

Clarification: 'If so' - that this is what the Gezeirah Shavah is coming to teach us, and the Parshah is interrupted

Clarification (cont.): ... the Torah ought to have written "es she'bi"Zekanecha", since it is as if it had written "Pe'ah", seeing as 'Pe'ah' is written in the same Pasuk in connection with 'the head' ...

Explanation #1: ... and we will then learn that the 'shaving' that is written by the Kohanim refers to the destruction of the beard, and the corner of the beard of a Yisrael from that of the Kohanim.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, we can learn it with a Binyan Av - 'One is Chayav on the corner of the beard of Kohanim, as the Torah writes "And the corner of their beards they shall not shave", and one is Chayav on the corner of the beard of a Yisrael'.

Clarification (cont.): ... 'So why does the Torah write "Pe'as"? To teach us two things'; The Pasuk is teaching us a complete Gezeirah Shavah - to include everything in the Parshah, such as the corner of the beard ...

Clarification (concl.): ... in that we Darshen "B'nei Aharon", 'and not B'nos Aharon', and all the more so by a Yisrael, from the Gezeirah Shavah of "Pe'as" "Pe'as" (See Maharsha).

Clarification: We would have thought, Rashi explains, that G'didah and S'ritah are two different things, one is performed by hand and one, with a K'li.

Question: What forces us to explain that "Ki Am Kadosh" refers to S'ritah, which is not mentioned in that Parshsah at all, and not to G'didah and Korchah, which are?

Answer #1: The Gemara prefers to say that "Ki Am Kadosh refers to S'ritah, despite the fact that it is not mentioned in that Parshah ...

Answer (cont.): ... than to invert the Pasuk, to say that "Banim Atem" does not refer to "Lo Sisgod'du to which it is juxtaposed, but to "Korchah", to which it is not, since 'Gedidah' interrupts between them.

Answer (concl.): Nor can we learn the other way round, as the Gemara explicitly explains - 'And what did you see to preclude 'Korchah ... '?

Answer #2: Furthermore, there would be another inversion - in that "Am Kadosh" would refer to the Gedidah that is mentioned prior to Korchah, which juxtaposes it, and not to Korchah - which is written next to it.