Parallel
עירובין 96
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
And if you prefer I might reply that all agree that the discharge of the duty of a commandment requires no intention, but here it is the question of transgressing against the injunction of Thou shall not add, that is at issue between them; the first Tanna holding that in order to commit a transgression against the injunction of Thou shall not add no intention is necessary while R. Gamaliel holds that in order to commit a transgression against the injunction of ‘Thou shalt not add’, intention is necessary. And if you prefer I might reply: If the view had been adopted that Sabbath is a time for tefillin all would have agreed that intention is unnecessary either in respect of transgression or in respect of discharging the duty, but the point at issue between then here is with reference to the transgression when a commandment is performed not at its proper time. The first Tanna holds that no intention is required while R. Gamaliel holds that to commit a transgression when a commandment is performed not at its proper time intention is necessary. But if so, should not even one pair be forbidden according to R. Meir? Furthermore, should not a man who sleeps on the eighth day be flogged? It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the proper explanation is the one originally given. Who is it that was heard to hold that Sabbath is a time for the wearing of tefillin? — R. Akiba. For it was taught: Thou shalt, therefore, keep this ordinance in its season form year to year, the term ‘days’ excludes nights, ‘from the days’ implies: But not all days; thus excluding Sabbaths and festivals; so R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba said: The expression ‘This ordinance’ was meant to apply to the Passover [sacrifice] only. With reference, however, to what we have learnt: ‘The Paschal [sacrifice] and circumcision are positive commandments’, must it be assumed that this is not in agreement with the view of R. Akiba, for it were to be contended that it was in agreement with R. Akiba the objection would arise: Since he applied it to the Passover [sacrifice] a negative precept also should be involved as R. Akiba laid down in the name of R. Ila'i for R. Abin citing R. Ila'i laid down: Wherever the expressions ‘Take heed’, ‘Lest’ or ‘Do not’ is used a negative precept is invariably intended? — It may be said to be in agreement even with the view of R. Akiba, for the expression ‘Take heed’ has the force of a negative precept only where it introduces a prohibitions but where it introduces a positive commandment it has the force of a positive commandment. But how could R. Akiba hold that the Sabbath is a time for wearing tefillin seeing that it was taught: R. Akiba stated: As it might have been presented that a man shall wear tefillin on Sabbaths and festivals, it was explicitly said in Scripture: And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, which denotes: on those days only that require a sign; but these, since they themselves are a sign, are excluded? — It represents rather the view of the following Tanna. For it was taught: If a man keeps awake at night, he may remove his tefillin if he wishes or, if he prefers, he may put them on; so R. Nathan. Jonathan the Kitonite ruled: Tefillin may not be worn at night. Now, since according to the view of the first Tanna the night is a proper time for the wearing of tefillin, Sabbath also must be a proper time for the wearing of tefillin. But is it not possible that he holds that the night is a proper time for tefillin but that the Sabbath nevertheless is not a time for it, since we have in fact heard R. Akiba to state that the night is a time for the tefillin and that the Sabbath is not? — It represents rather the opinion of the following Tanna. For it was taught: Michal the daughter of the Kushite wore tefillin and the Sages did not attempt to prevent her, and the wife of Jonah attended the festival pilgrimage and the Sages did not prevent her. Now since the Sages did not prevent her it is clearly evident that they hold the view that it is a positive precept the performance of which is not limited to a particular time. But is it not possible that he holds the same view
—
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
—