Eruvin 95b (צה:) — the Talmud in English

And in a time of danger,

when he fears remaining there, lest bandits come and attack him,

he covers them

with a garment

and goes on his way.

Rabbi Shimon says:

He transports them less than four cubits

and

afterward

gives them to his fellow, and his fellow to another fellow,

and each one transports them less than four cubits,

until he reaches the outer courtyard

first in the city, which is a protected place.

And likewise his son,

who was born in the field on Shabbat,

he gives him to his fellow, and his fellow to another fellow,

each one less than four cubits,

even a hundred

people, until they bring him into the city.

Rabbi Yehuda says: A person may give a barrel

with water

to his fellow, and his fellow to another fellow,

and transport it in this manner

even beyond the Shabbat limit.

They said to him: You may not transport

this

barrel farther than the feet of its owner,

for it may be transported only as far as its owner himself may walk. Their manner of dispute will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty: Is it only

one pair, yes,

that he may bring in at one time, according to the first tanna?

More—

no?

Shall we say

that it should be said that

we learned anonymously

in the Mishna

not in accordance with Rabbi Meir?

But an anonymous Mishna is attributed to Rabbi Meir.

For if it is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, he says

that if a fire breaks out on Shabbat in his courtyard,

he puts on everything he can put on, and wraps himself in everything he can wrap himself in,

even many garments, one on top of another, and carries them out to another courtyard. But here, he permitted him to bring in only one pair?

For we learned

in tractate Shabbat [120a]:

And there,

to the courtyard adjacent to the fire,

he brings out all the utensils he needs

for that Shabbat.

And he puts on everything he can put on, and wraps himself in everything he can wrap himself in.

And the Gemara explains:

And that anonymous ruling—

from where do you know that it is Rabbi Meir’s?

For it teaches concerning it

in a beraita [there]:

He puts them on and carries them out

to another courtyard,

and removes them

there, and then returns

and puts them on, carries them out, and removes them, even throughout the entire day; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And Rabbi Yosei disagrees with him, saying that only eighteen garments are permitted. He is the Rabbi Yosei mentioned in the Mishna who disagrees with the first tanna. It follows that the first tanna is Rabbi Meir.

And we answer:

Rava said: Even if you say

that the Mishna

is Rabbi Meir’s,

there is no difficulty:

There,

with other garments,

as his ordinary manner of wearing them during the week—

the Sages made it so.

They permitted him to put them on in the manner in which he dresses on a weekday. And the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And

also

here,

with tefillin,

as his ordinary manner of wearing them during the week—

the Sages made it so.

Rava explains:

There, since on

a weekday

he may put on as many as he wishes,

since it is his practice to wear as many garments as he wishes on a weekday, therefore

with regard to rescue

on Shabbat

the Sages likewise permitted him

to carry out as many garments as he wishes by way of wearing them.

But

here, since on a weekday as well,

only

one pair, yes,

does he put on;

more, no.

And not more. Therefore,

with regard to rescue as well—

one pair, yes; more, no.

For the tanna of the Mishna holds that Shabbat is a time for tefillin, and it is the normal manner to put on tefillin on Shabbat; and with regard to rescuing them from disgrace, they permitted only that he put them on in the manner of the mitzva, and no more.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Gamliel says: Two pairs at a time:

And we raise a difficulty:

What does

Rabban Gamliel

hold? If he holds that Shabbat is a time for tefillin,

and they permitted rescuing them only in the manner of their mitzva, then

one pair, yes; more, no.

Why, then, did he permit putting on two pairs?

And if he holds that Shabbat is not a time for tefillin, and they permitted it because of rescue,

and since he puts them on his head and arm, they are not considered a burden, but

a manner of wearing

them, for they are an ornament for a person, and in such a manner

the Sages permitted it.

If so,

even more

than one pair

as well

should be permitted to bring in?

And we answer:

Actually, he holds

Rabban Gamliel

that Shabbat is not a time for tefillin.

But when the Sages permitted it with regard to rescue,

when he brings them in

by way of wearing them,

it is specifically

in the place

where it is fit to put

tefillin,

since not the entire head is fit for the placement of tefillin, but specifically the depression at the crown of the head.

With regard to Shabbat as well, it is specifically there that they are considered an ornament. But outside the depression, since they protrude excessively, they are not an ornament but a burden, and it is forbidden to enter the city wearing them.

And we object:

If so,

only

one pair, yes,

is fit to be placed there.

More, no.

For apparently that place [on the head and arm] can accommodate only one pair!

And we answer:

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: There is room on the head to place two tefillin!

And we object:

That works

for tefillin

of the head.

But tefillin

of the arm—

what can be said?

For not the entire arm is fit for the placement of tefillin, but only the biceps, and there is no room there for more than one tefilla. How, then, did they permit him to bring in two pairs of arm-tefillin?

And we answer:

As in the statement of Rav Huna.

For Rav Huna said: Sometimes a person comes from the field with his bundle on his head, and

when he comes to carry the bundle, he

removes

the head-tefillin

from his head and ties them to his arm

so that his head will be free for carrying the bundle.

It follows that there is room on the arm for two pairs of tefillin.

And we object:

You may say that Rav Huna said

that he places them on his arm because they permitted him to do so in order

not to treat them in a degrading manner,

so that he would not place his bundle on them, and therefore they permitted him to put them on his arm.

But that the place is

fit

for the placement of an additional tefilla—

who said so?

And we conclude:

Rather, it is as Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said

with regard to the head-tefillin:

There is room on the head that is fit for placing two tefillin.

Here too,

with regard to the arm-tefillin, we say:

There is room on the arm that is fit for placing two tefillin!

The tanna of the school of Menashe: “And you shall bind them as a sign

on your hand”—

this is the biceps,

the raised flesh of the arm, which is the part of the limb between the elbow and the shoulder. “And they shall be as frontlets

between your eyes”—

this is the crown of the head.

And we explain:

Where on the crown of the head?

The school of Rabbi Yannai said: The place where the brain of an infant is soft.

Soft.

And the Gemara explains the dispute between the first tanna and Rabban Gamliel in the Mishna:

Let us say that they disagree concerning the statement of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak,

who said that there is room on the head to place two tefillin—

they disagree.

For the first tanna does not accept the statement of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak,

and in his view there is room on the head and arm for only one pair of tefillin. Therefore, it is forbidden to bring more than one pair into the city.

And Rabban Gamliel accepts the statement of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak,

and there is room on the head and arm for two pairs of tefillin.

And we reject this:

No,

they do not disagree on this point. Rather,

everyone accepts the statement of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak.

And here: concerning Shabbat,

whether it is

a time for tefillin is what they disagree about.

For the first tanna holds: Shabbat is a time for tefillin,

and the tefillin are not considered an ornament; rather, only the fulfillment of the mitzva makes them a garment.

Therefore, only one pair may be brought in. Furthermore, since Shabbat is a time for tefillin, there is a prohibition of adding to the mitzva when putting on two pairs of tefillin. The prohibition of adding to the mitzva comes and causes the tefillin to be considered a burden.

The first anonymous opinion holds: Shabbat is a time for wearing tefillin,

And Rabban Gamliel holds: Shabbat is not a time for tefillin,

and it is not the mitzva that causes the tefillin to have the status of a garment; rather, they are inherently an ornament.

There is also no prohibition of adding to the mitzva, since the mitzva of tefillin does not apply at all on Shabbat, and they are merely like a garment. Therefore, it is permitted to bring in even two pairs, since two tefillin as well are included in the category of an ornament. And if you wish, say: Everyone

holds

that Shabbat is a time for tefillin,

and tefillin are not included in the category of an ornament.

And here they disagree concerning whether mitzvot require intention.

The first tanna holds:

With every mitzva, one who wishes to fulfill his obligation

requires intention!

He must explicitly intend that he is performing the act for the sake of the mitzva.

Therefore, he cannot bring in two pairs.

For either way, if he intends to put them on for the sake of the mitzva, he violates the prohibition of adding to the mitzva.

And if he does not intend them for the sake of the mitzva, he fulfills his obligation with neither pair, and they are a burden upon him.

And Rabban Gamliel holds:

Mitzvot

do not require intention,

and therefore he can bring in two pairs when he does not intend them for the sake of the mitzva.

With one pair he fulfills his obligation even though he did not have intention, whereas with the second pair he does not violate the prohibition of adding to the mitzva, since he did not intend to fulfill a mitzva with it.

For one violates the prohibition of adding to the mitzva only when one intends the addition for the sake of the mitzva. And with regard to each pair, we say that with it he fulfills his obligation.

and therefore he can bring in two pairs when he does not intend to put them on for the sake of the mitzva.

With one pair he fulfills his obligation even though he did not have the required intention, whereas with the second pair he does not violate the prohibition of adding to the mitzva, since he did not intend to fulfill a mitzva with it. For the prohibition of adding to the mitzva applies only when one intends the addition to be for the sake of the mitzva. Regarding each pair, we say that it is the pair with which he fulfills his obligation.

For one transgresses “do not add” only when one intends the addition for the sake of a mitzva. And with regard to each pair we say that with it he fulfills his obligation.