I’m copying here your second question, which is related to this topic:

Hello Rabbi,
The Talmud in tractate Kiddushin says that women are exempt from the commandment of sukkah because the Torah says with regard to it, “the native-born.”
By contrast, with regard to Yom Kippur it says, “you shall afflict your souls, the native-born and the convert, etc.,” and here “the native-born” includes women as well.

I would appreciate the Rabbi’s explanation of this.
By contrast, regarding Yom Kippur the Torah says, “You shall afflict your souls, and you shall do no manner of work, the native-born and the convert who sojourns among you,” and here “the native-born” includes women as well.
How are these two verses reconciled?

Thank you and all the best.

My answer:
First, regarding Sukkot it says, “the native-born in Israel,” and perhaps that means only men, as opposed to just “native-born” in the general sense.
Second, this is what I meant above about the contradictions. So it seems this is a context-dependent term. When it says “the native-born and the convert,” it comes to include everyone (since a convert is less of a native-born than a woman), and therefore apparently they infer that “native-born” includes women. “Native-born” by itself—and perhaps specifically “the native-born in Israel”—does not include women.
Of course, it is always possible that these are differing opinions.

This question is asked explicitly by the Talmud in tractate Sukkah 28b, and the answer given there is that in fact the word “the native-born” does not exclude women from sukkah; rather, “these are halakhot, and the Rabbis merely attached them to the verses.”

Correction: Sukkah 28a.

That doesn’t answer it. The textual support runs opposite to the meaning of the word, so what kind of textual support is that?

But that is really a question on the Talmud in Sukkah. After all, it is the Talmud there that challenged the inclusion of women in the affliction of Yom Kippur against the exclusion of women from sukkah, both derived from “the native-born,” and answered that women are indeed not excluded by “the native-born”; it is only a mere textual support.
So the question to ask on the Talmud is: what sort of textual support is this?
But it is not so very difficult: on Yom Kippur we find that the word “native-born” refers to a male citizen and not a female citizen, and only the definite article (“the native-born”) includes every male and female citizen. In sukkah there is a halakhah that excludes women; if so, the definite article in “the native-born” must be coming for some exposition other than including women, and therefore the usual inference remains: a male citizen and not a female citizen. (Except that no exclusion is actually needed for the derivation, since the halakhah itself teaches this; therefore this derivation is not a source but only a textual support.)

Obviously. I was raising the difficulty on the Talmud. But I didn’t understand the answer you are suggesting to my question.
According to the Talmud’s conclusion, “native-born” refers only to men. Therefore the definite article comes to include women on Yom Kippur (in the conclusion, only regarding the additional affliction). So in sukkah too, “native-born” refers only to men. Now there is an initial assumption to include women because of “you shall dwell as you live” or the verbal analogy of the fifteenth of the month to the fifteenth of the month, and then the halakhah comes to exclude women. And the exclusion from the definite article is only a mere textual support (and in fact the main exposition of the definite article comes to include converts).
And about this I asked: how can they make a textual support that the definite article comes to exclude women? After all, “native-born” by itself refers only to men, and the definite article is usually an added letter that comes to include, not to exclude, as with converts and also with the additional affliction. So how can they make a textual support to exclude women from the definite article in “the native-born”? Not only does the definite article always come to include, but the word “native-born” without the definite article already includes only men. If anything, they should have said that they derive the exclusion of women from “native-born” without the definite article, and then add that this is only a textual support. That would have been more reasonable.
You suggested that they really excluded from the word “native-born” and not from the definite article. But the Talmud explicitly explained that the textual support for excluding a woman is from the definite article, not from the word “native-born” itself.

Though all this is according to Rashi, who wrote that the difficulty was how the definite article could play opposite roles. But the Ritva wrote that the difficulty is from the word “native-born” itself, and that still requires further analysis.

Yes, I meant that in the conclusion, once we say it is only a textual support, perhaps the inference is not from the definite article (and indeed from the Talmud in Kiddushin one hears nothing about the definite article).
But on second thought, you are right, and it is difficult to say that in the Talmud in Sukkah, because the baraita there implies that the inference is from the definite article.
I don’t know how much effort we need to invest in understanding the logic of something that is not a real derivation but is mainly just for mnemonic support, but perhaps one could say that since there is an explicit halakhah excluding women from sukkah, there was no longer any initial assumption to understand that the word “native-born” in sukkah comes for the exposition “a male citizen and not a female citizen,” because that was already learned from the halakhah. Therefore the definite article specifically could exclude women. (Because according to the Talmud, if the word “native-born” does not exclude a female citizen, then the definite article excludes a female citizen; and if the word “native-born” does exclude a female citizen, then the definite article includes her.) And indeed, this requires further analysis.