Deuteronómio 17:3 Referencias del Talmud: Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim, Tractate Sefer Torah, Jerusalem Talmud Horayot & Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin

³¹This paragraph also appears in Qiddušin 1:7, Notes 612–623. The origin probably is here. Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary³²S. Liebermann has emphasized repeatedly that in the Yerushalmi רְשׁוּתmeans “meritorious act which is not obligatory.” The Babli disagrees in the name of R. Eliezer, 91a.
In the Babli and related texts, it is taken for granted that women present in Jerusalem on Passover eve are obligated to take part in the Passover meal, based on Ex. 12:4 which designates the participants as “persons”, not “men” (Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Pisḥa 3, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 10; cf. Mishnah 8:1,7 Tosephta 8:10; Babli 91a/b.) But it should be noted that missing the sacrificial meal is a deadly sin only for men (Num. 9:13); only men are required (and permitted) to make up the missed sacrifice on the 14th of Iyar (Num. 9:13; Tosephta 8:10).
The statement means that an unaffiliated female, living neither in her father’s nor a husband’s house, is not obligated to seek a group with which to celebrate Passover. It would be considered most inappropriate if a single woman would join a group of men unrelated to her. But since she is included in the circle of celebrants of Passover by biblical law, if she alone or a group of similarly situated women want to organize their own Pesaḥ and meal, they are authorized to do so.
Circumcised slaves are included in the group of Passover celebrants in Ex. 12:44. The owner of uncircumcised slaves is prohibited from bringing a Pesaḥ., but one pushes the Sabbath away for it³³Since women are biblically empowered to celebrate Passover, the rule also applies to groups of women.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary³⁴In Qiddušin: This is in dispute.. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation³⁵Deut 17:3. Rules stated in the same verse must be of one and the same category.. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah³⁶In the Babli, 91b, this is a statement by R. Eleazar, probably the Tanna. In Sifry Deut. 130, its contrapositive is a statement of R. Simeon.. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”³⁷Mishnah Qiddušin 1:7.? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition³⁸And therefore follow the rules of prohibitions, obligatory for women..

Thirteen things were changed in it: They wrote "God created in the beginning" instead of “In the Beginning God Created” (Genesis 1:1). They wrote "I shall make man in My image and likeness" instead of “Let Us make man in Our image and Our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). And "He concluded his work on the sixth day and rested on the seventh day" instead of “And on the seventh day God concluded His work” (Genesis 2:2). They wrote "Male and Female He created him" instead of “them” (Genesis 5:2); "Come, let Me go down instead" of “let Us go down” (Genesis 11:7); "And Sarah laughed among her relatives" instead of “laughed to herself” (Genesis 18:12). They wrote "For in their anger they killed an ox and with their will they uprooted a trough" instead of “For in their anger they killed a man and with their will they slaughtered an ox” (Genesis 49:6), "And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon a carrier of people" instead of “upon a donkey” (Exodus 4:20). They wrote "And the residence of the children of Israel, who lived in the land of Canaan and in Egypt was four hundred thirty years" instead of “And the residence of the children of Israel, who lived in Egypt, was four hundred thirty years” (Exodus 12:40). They wrote "I have not taken one item of value from them" instead of “one donkey” (Numbers 16:15). They wrote "And the short-legged beast" instead of “hare” (Leviticus 11:6). They wrote "Which Hashem your God allotted you to give light to all nations" (Deuteronomy 4:19) inserting the phrase “to give light”. They added to the text “to the sun, the moon, or the whole host of heaven that I did not command” (Deuteronomy 17:3) the words “to serve them” at the end.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject; if they said, the menstruating woman is not mentioned in the Torah, Sabbath is not mentioned in the Torah, idolatry is not mentioned in the Torah, they are not liable⁹⁸Since anything written in the Torah is public knowledge and nobody would listen to them.. If they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part, they are liable. How is that? If they said, the menstruating woman is mentioned in the Torah but one who copulates with one who is watching a day to the next day is not liable⁹⁹In rabbinic medical theory, the minimum time which must elapse between one menstrual period and the next is the seven days of the niddah(Lev.15:19) followed by another 11 days. If a woman has a discharge on one of these 11 days, she is not classified as niddah but as zavah, whose rules are spelled out in Lev.15:25–30. Since the verse speaks of a discharge of many days, it is concluded that the full rules of zavah only apply after 3 days. For the first and second discharges in that 11 day period, the woman is called “watching one day to the next day”. For a day she is under the rules of niddah(Lev. 15:25) and therefore forbidden to her husband. But since the verse uses the expression all the days of the flow of her impurity shall be like the days of her menstruation, one could think that she is impure only during the day and not during the following night, or that a discharge during the night does not make her impure. This is clearly a matter of rabbinic interpretation.; Sabbath is mentioned in the Torah but one who brings from a private domain to a public domain is not liable¹⁰⁰The pentateuchal root of the prohibition to carry from a private to the public domain is Ex. 16:29, nobody should go out from his place, which is explained in Jer. 17:22 by do not move a load from your houses. Since as a matter of principle prophetic utterances should not be used as legal texts, the ruling of the Court could not be dismissed out of hand.; idolatry is mentioned in the Torah but one who prostrates himself is not liable¹⁰¹This is more difficult to understand since Deut. 17:3 clearly defines prostrating oneself in idolatry as a capital crime. Therefore, one has to agree with Maimonides’s Commentary that the Court changed the definition of “prostration”, e. g., ruling that kneeling down, bowing the head to the ground, is not punishable as long as one does not lie on the ground with outstretched hands and feet.; these are liable for it is said¹⁰²Lev. 4:13. Sifra Wayyiqra 2, Parašah4(7–8). something was hidden, something but not an entire subject.