Menachot

But did not R. Hisda and Rabbah b. R. Huna say the evening prayer while still wearing them? — They certainly differ [from the above ruling]. And could Rabbah b. R. Huna have said so? Did not Rabbah b. R. Huna say that if it was doubtful whether darkness had already fallen or not, one should not take them off1 nor put them on? Now it follows from this that if it were certain that darkness had fallen one would have to take them off! — This was stated with regard to the eve of Sabbath.2 But what can be his view? If he holds that the night is a time for tefillin, then the Sabbath is also a time for tefillin, and if, on the other hand, he holds that the night is not a time for tefillin, then the Sabbath, too, is not a time for tefillin, since the same passage which excludes the Sabbath [from the wearing of tefillin] also excludes the night. For it was taught:3 It is written, And thou shalt observe this ordinance in its season from day to day.4 ‘Day’, but not night; ‘from day’, but not all days; hence the Sabbaths and the Festivals are excluded. So R. Jose the Galilean; but R. Akiba says, This ordinance refers only to the Passover-offering!5 — He derives it from the text from which R. Akiba derives it.6 For it was taught: One might have thought that a man should put on the tefillin on Sabbaths and on Festivals, Scripture therefore says, And it shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes,7 that is, [only on those days] which stand in need of a sign [are tefillin to be worn], but Sabbaths and Festivals are excluded, since they themselves are a sign.8 R. Eleazar said, Whosoever puts on the tefillin after sunset transgresses a positive precept.9 R. Johanan said, He transgresses a negative precept.10 Shall we say that they differ in the principle stated by R. Abin in the name of R. Ila'a? For R. Abin said in the name of R. Ila'a, Wherever the expression ‘observe’, ‘lest’, or ‘do not’, is used it indicates a negative precept. One11 therefore accepts R. Abin's principle while the other12 does not! — No, all accept the principle stated by R. Abin in the name of R. Ila'a, but they differ in this point: one12 maintains that the expression ‘observe’ when used in connection with a prohibition has the force of a negative precept and when used in connection with a command has the force of a positive precept; but the other11 maintains that the expression ‘observe’ even when used in connection with a command has the force of a negative precept. R. Eleazar also said, If one's purpose is to guard them it is allowed.13 Rabina related, I was once sitting before R. Ashi when darkness had already fallen and he put on his tefillin;14 so I said to him, ‘Is it my Master's purpose to guard them?’ ‘Yes’, he replied. I saw, however, that his purpose was not to guard them. He was of the opinion that that was the law,15 but one should not rule so [in actual practice].16 Rabbah b. R. Huna said, A man must from time to time touch his tefillin;17 this may be inferred by an a fortiori argument from the plate.18 If of the plate, which contains the Divine Name only once, the Torah says, And it shall be always upon his forehead,19 implying that his mind must not be diverted from it; how much more is this to apply to the tefillin which contain the Divine Name so many times! Our Rabbis taught: Thy hand,20 that is the left hand. You say it is the left hand, but perhaps it is the right! It is written, Yea, My hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand hath spread out the heavens.21 And it is also written, Her hand she put to the tent-pin, and her right hand to the workmen's hammer.22 And it is also written, Why withdrawest Thou Thy hand, even Thy right hand? Draw it out of Thy bosom and consume them.23 not the proper time for the wearing of the tefillin. year’. excluded in the verse. observe this ordinance... from day to day, thereby excluding the nights, and a prohibition derived from a positive precept has the force of a positive precept only. concerned. (Ex. XXVIII, 36). seen in the other verses quoted.