Women and Grace

That might be true, but even if it is, you still need to use one of my docheks (or come up with another answer) to explain the parallel between isha and katan.

Welcome back

From where?

My understanding of the reason why it’s ??? ???? is that the guy is a clown for not knowing how to say Birchas Hamazon. If that is the reason, and the braisa’s goal was to tell us this then the braisa should have just said “??? ???? on someone who isn’t able to bentch himself. Do you have a different understanding of ??? ?????

??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????

I thought I had seen such a pshat but I didn’t remember where.

I can see how using this pshat would make it less dochek. But I still think it’s dochek.

Also, see Tosafos there.

If by “What do you want from ‘????” you mean what am I using Tosafos for then I will specify that I am drawing an implication from the words

“????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????” and the words

“???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???”

I know. But his explanation of why it’s a bizayon is that a woman is not chayev. So by Birchas Hamazon, it would only be a bizayon if women are not obligated. Which would the prove that women’s Birchas Hamazon is only d’rabanan.

Exactly. So who says that it’s a bizayon to have a woman be motzi a man?

Rashi doesn’t say it by Birchas Hamazon.

Rashi writes:

????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??????

Thus Rashi’s understanding of the braisa is that a woman’s chiyuv of Birchas Hamazon is d’rabanan. We’re supposed to be attempting to read the braisa according to the opinion that a woman’s chiyuv is d’oraisa (or a safek). Rashi’s understanding of “??? ????” by Birchas Hamazon is assuming that women are only d’rabanan.

Let’s backtrack a bit. Let’s assume that a woman’s chiyuv is d’oraisa. Why then is it “??? ????”? She is just as chayev as he is. Ella mai, the “??? ????” is like the first half of Rashi – there is a tayna on the guy for not learning how to bentch. But what about Tosafos who explains and wants to apply Rashi’s second half to the braisa of Birchas Hamazon? So I would say that Tosafos understood that Rashi was explaining the braisa in accordance with the view that a woman’s chiyuv is only d’rabanan. Thus, I would ask my question that if the braisa’s goal was to tell us that a man should know how to bentch, it should have done so without misleadingly paralleling a woman to a katan.

Alternatively, you could explain Rashi’s second half differently from how Tosafos does and say that it’s simply inherently “demeaning” for a woman/katan to be motzi a man, and then combine this with your suggestion that the braisa’s goal is to tell us this.

The bizayon would be like the first half of Rashi – the guy’s an utter failure for not knowing/learning how to bentch.

Your pshat about “mitvos aseh shehazman grama in general” might conceptually be able (to combine with your original suggestion as to the purpose of the braisa) to alleviate (some of) the dochekness pointed out in my original question, but I definitely don’t think that that’s what either Rashi or Tosafos is saying. And also, it would then have nothing to do with Birchas Hamazon. It would simply be that it’s always less than desirable for a woman to be motzi a man by any mitzvah, even when they have the same chiyuv. And why should it be true that having fewer chiyuvim has any relevance?

I agree to that. But it’s because Rashi is learning the braisa in accordance with the view that a woman’s chiyuv is only d’rabanan.