Parallel
עירובין 96:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
as R. Jose who ruled: It is optional for women to lay their hands upon an offering? For were you not to say so, how is it that Jonah's wife attended the festival pilgrimage and the Sages did not prevent her, seeing that there is no one who contends that the observance of a festival is not a positive precept the performance of which is limited to a particular time? You must consequently admit that he holds it to be optional; could it not then here also be said to be optional? — It reprsents rather the view of the following Tanna. For it was taught: If tefillin are found they are to be brought in, one pair at a time, irrespective of whether the person who brings them in is a man or a woman, and irrespective of whether the tefillin were new or old; so R. Meir. R. Judah forbids this in the case of new ones but permits it in that of old ones. Now since their dispute is confined to the question of new and old while in respect of the woman there is no divergence of opinion it may be concluded that it is a positive precept the performance of which is not restricted to a particular time, women being subject to the obligations of such precepts. But is it not possible that he holds the same view as R. Jose who stated: It is optional for women to lay their hands upon an offering? — This cannot be entertained at all, Öince neither R. Meir holds the same view as R. Jose nor does R. Judah hold the same view as R. Jose. ‘Neither R. Meir holds the same view as R. Jose’, since we learned: ‘Children are not to be prevented from blowing the shofar’; from which it follows that women are to be prevented; and any anonymous Mishnah represents the view of R. Meir. ‘Nor does R. Judah hold the same view as R. Jose’, since it was taught: Speak unto the children of Israel ... and he shall lay, only the sons of Israel ‘shall lay’ but not the daughters of Israel. R. Jose and R. Simeon ruled: It is optional for women to lay. Now who is the author of all anonymous statement in the Sifra? R. Judah. R. Eleazar said: If a man found blue wool in the street, and it was in the shape of straps. it is unfit but if it was in the shape of threads it is fit. Wherein, however, do straps differ? In that it may be assumed that they were dyed for the purpose of being used for the manufacture of a cloak? But then, might it not be assumed in the case of threads also that they were spun for the purpose of [weaving] a cloak [with them]? — This is a case where they were twisted. But even where they were twisted might it not be assumed that they were doubled for the purpose of being inserted in the border of a cloak? — This is a case where they were cut, since people would not take so much trouble with them. Raba observed: Does anyone go to the trouble of making all amulet in the shape of tefillin? Yet we have leant: THIS APPLIES TO OLD ONES BUT IN THE CASE OF NEW ONES HE IS EXEMPT! R. ZERA said to his son Ahabah, go out and teach them: If a man found blue wool in the street, it is unfit if it was in the shape of straps, but if it was in the shape of cut threads it is fit because no one would take unnecessary trouble. ‘And’, retorted Raba, ‘because Ahabah the son of R. Zera taught it has he, forsooth, hung jewels upon it? Have we not in fact learnt: THIS APPLIES TO OLD ONES BUT IN THE CASE OF NEW ONES HE IS EXEMPT?’ The fact, however, is, explained Raba, that the question whether one does, or does not take unnecessary trouble is a point at issue between Tannas. For it was taught: If tefillin are found they are to be brought in, one pair at a time, irrespective of whether the person who brings them is a man or a woman
—