The meaning of the word citizen in the Torah

I am copying your second question related to this:

Shalom Rabbi,
The Gemara in Tractate Kiddushin says that women are exempt from the sukkah commandment since the Torah refers to it as “the citizen.”
On the other hand, with regard to Yom Kippur, it says “You shall afflict your souls, the citizen and the stranger, etc.” and here the citizen also includes women.

I thank the Rabbi for his explanation of this.
On the other hand, with regard to Yom Kippur, the Torah says “You shall afflict your souls, and you shall not do any work, the citizen and the stranger who sojourns among you,” and here the citizen also includes women.
How do these two verses fit together?

Thank you and all the best

My answer:
First, with regard to Sukkot, it says “the citizen in Israel,” and perhaps it is only men, for my sake it is only a citizen.
Second, this is what I meant above regarding the contradictions. Therefore, it seems that it is a context-dependent term. When we say citizen and immigrant, we mean everything (after all, an immigrant is less of a citizen than a woman), and therefore we probably learn that a citizen includes women. A citizen in general (and perhaps specifically “citizen in Israel”) does not include women.
Of course, these are always possible opinions.

This question was explicitly asked by the Gemara in Tractate Sukkah 28:2, and the answer was that in fact the word "citizen" does not exclude women who are veiled, but rather "the law was followed and the rabbis approved it randomly".

Correction: Sukkah, page 28, a.

This does not answer. The reference is the opposite of the meaning of the word, so what reference is this?

This is a question about the Gemara in the Sukkah. Isn't it the Gemara that made it difficult to have a large number of women to torture the small number of women in the Sukkah, both of which were taught and the "citizen" and replied that women are indeed not reduced from the "citizen" but rather this is a reference in the Talmud.
So the Gemara must be asked which of these references is this.
But it is not very difficult: On Yom Kippur we found that the word "citizen" refers to a citizen and not a civil woman, and only the "a" of the "citizen" (the "citizen") multiplies every citizen and civil woman. In the Sukkah there is a law that reduces women, so therefore the "a" of the "citizen" He came to a sermon and did not include women, and if so, the usual accuracy remains: citizen and not citizen (except that there is no need for a minority for the study, since the Halakhah itself teaches this, and therefore this study is not a source but a reference).

Obviously. I made the Gemara difficult. But I didn't understand the excuse you offer for my difficulty.
According to the Gemara's conclusion, a citizen is only men. Therefore, the Ha'A includes women in the Yom Kippur (for the conclusion, only with the addition of a suffix). So also in the Sukkah, a citizen is only men. Now, there is a Ha'A including women because of a kind of Taduro or or Tu-Tu, and that is why the Halachah comes to exclude women. And the minority from the Ha'A is a reference in the Balma (and in fact, the main part of the Ha'A sermon comes to include converts).
And that is why I made it difficult to make a reference that the Ha'A comes to exclude women. After all, a citizen is only men, and the Ha'A is also a letter that comes to include (as in converts and also with the addition of a suffix), and not to exclude. So how do you make a reference to exclude women from the word citizen? Both the word citizen always includes men, and the word citizen without the word citizen includes only men. If they had to say that they learn from the word citizen without the word citizen, excluding women, and to add that it is a reference. That would have been more reasonable.
You suggested that they really excluded the word citizen and not the word citizen. But the Gemara clearly explained that the reference to the exclusion of women is from the word citizen and not from the word citizen itself.

Although all of this is according to Rashi, who wrote that the kushiya was how the ha'a performs opposite roles. But Britva wrote that the kushiya is from the word citizen itself, and lame.

Yes, I meant that in the conclusion that it is a reference, perhaps the accuracy is not what is known (and from the Gemara in Kiddushin we do not hear anything about the accuracy of the knowledge).
But on second thought, you are right, and it is difficult to say so in the Gemara in the Sukkah, because from the baraita there it means that the accuracy is what is known.
I do not know how much effort we should put into understanding the logic of something that is not a real study but is mainly for memorization, but perhaps we can say that since there is a clear halakha excluding veiled women, it would again not be possible to understand that the word “citizen” in the Sukkah comes to the sermon ‘citizen’ and not ‘citizen’ Because this has already been learned from the Halachah, and therefore the knowledge can actually exclude women (because according to the Gemara, if the word "citizen" does not exclude "citizen", then the knowledge excludes "citizen", and if the word "citizen" excludes "citizen", then the knowledge excludes "citizen"). Indeed, the