be-dibbur ehad?
In the context of my seemingly never-ending (but actually generally neglected except for spurts right before deadlines. like now...) research into women and kiddush, I ran across this nifty Sifra:
Sifra behukotai parashah 1, s.v. “im be-hukotai telekhu’ (1:3 in Bar Ilan land)
ספרא בחוקותי פרשה א
(ג) וכן הוא אומר "זכור את יום השבת לקדשו" יכול בלבך, כשהוא אומר "שמור", הרי שמירת לב אמורה, הא מה אני מקיים זכור? שתהי' שונה בפיך.
‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy’
– when [the text] says ‘guard’ (Deut. 5:12), then internal guarding is mentioned.
Then what must I establish [as the meaning of] ‘zakhor’?
- That you should say it verbally.
Kiddush here is connected to the "zakhor" as opposed to "shamor," however both seem to be taken as refering to positive rememberance of shabbat.
In contrast is the more famous midrash halakhah (perhaps not so formal, but it does seem like a hekesh) in Berakhot, 20b, regarding women the postiive obligation of "kedushat ha-yom" (aka "kiddush"):
תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף כ עמוד ב
אמר רב אדא בר אהבה נשים חייבות בקדוש היום דבר תורה אמאי מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא הוא וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות אמר אביי מדרבנן אמר ליה רבא והא דבר תורה קאמר ועוד כל מצות עשה נחייבינהו מדרבנן אלא אמר רבא אמר קרא +שמות כ'+ זכור +דברים ה'+ ושמור כל שישנו בשמירה ישנו בזכירה והני נשי הואיל ואיתנהו בשמירה איתנהו בזכירה
Rav Ada son of Ahavah said: 'Women are obligated in the sanctififcation of the day at the Torah level.'
Why? - It is a positive timebound commandment, and women are exempt from all positive timebound commandments!
Abbay said: he (Rav Ada son of ahavah) spoke of a rabbinic obligation.
Rava said to [Abaye]: but he said 'on the torah level'! And furthermore, will we obligate them in all positive commandments by rabbinic decree (ie, what is teh reasoning for including women in kiddush specifically)?
Rather, Rava said (in answer to the origianl question): Scripture says 'remember' and 'leep' ('zakhor' and 'shamor') - everyone who is included in keeping (shemirah, here being understood as negative commandments of shabbat) is included in remembering (zekhirah, which includes/equals? the positive commandment of kiddush), and these women, since they are included in shemira, they are included inzekhirah.
So, in both derashot zekhirah is the recitation of kiddush. But in one, shemirah is internally rememebering shabbat and in one shemirah is not doing melacha, etc. Is there a reconciliation, or shall we say that the understanding of shamor changed from the (early) sifra to the later Amoraim? Alternatively, how serious a drashah is the Sifra? Does it really think that both shamor and zachor can be fully explained as references to kiddush hayom?
One thing abt Rava, though, is that he understand the imparateive "shamor" as a reference to negative commandments. One nice thing abt the Sifra is that it understands "shamor" as the positive imperative it looks like.
Just came to my attention. thoughts?
posted by miriam @ 12:27 PM
2 Comments:
What exactly would it mean to be Chayav to remember internally? Very few mitzvot have a portion that is entirely mental. So I might attempt to reconcile them by saying that the internal remembering is simply a prerequisite for not doing work- that is, shamor means not to do work, but the sifra realizes that this necessarily means that you are mentally aware what day it is. And then zachor is the verbal remembering, which is about the only mitzva aseh that there is, so it works out.
Also re: shamor, the gemara almost always reads shamor as a lo ta'aseh, since the torah frequently writes, "Shamor lest you do blah blah..." The Sifra's interpreting it as something positive is actually much more of a radical move halachically.
I like your point about what "shemirat lev" could mean.
As for "shamor" itself, while the Gemara generally reads it as refering to a lav, I still think that reading is a drashah - against the grammatical function of the word as a positive imperative, at least. So saying the gemara always reads it that way in some ways just highlights my interest in seeing if perhaps such a reading is not necessarily the plain or only way to read the text, even for earlier rabbis.
anyhoo, thanks for commenting!
Post a Comment
<< Home