Eruvin 96a (צו.) — the Talmud in English

And if you wish, say instead: Everyone

holds that

to fulfill

one’s obligation

does not require intent. And here

the issue is

whether one transgresses the prohibition of

“Do not add”

that they disagree.

For the first tanna holds:

Just as fulfilling one’s obligation does not require intent, the same is true

with regard to transgressing the prohibition of “Do not add”: intent is not required.

Therefore, he may not bring two pairs, since even if he does not intend them for the purpose of the mitzva, he transgresses the prohibition of “Do not add.”

And Rabban Gamliel holds:

Although fulfilling one’s obligation does not require intent,

transgressing the prohibition of “Do not add” does require intent.

And anyone who does not intend them for the purpose of the mitzva does not transgress “Do not add.” Therefore, he may bring two pairs without intending them for the purpose of the mitzva, in which case he does not transgress “Do not add.”

And if you wish, say instead: If we hold

if we were to hold

that Shabbat is a time for tefillin,

then

everyone

will hold that

not transgressing

the prohibition of “Do not add”

requires intent, whereas fulfilling

the mitzva obligation

does not require intent.

And here

everyone agrees that Shabbat is not a time for tefillin.

And

with regard to transgressing

the prohibition of “Do not add”

when it is not the time

of the mitzva

they disagree.

For the first tanna holds:

Even when it is not the time of the mitzva,

intent is not required.

And one who adds to the mitzva when it is not its time, even if he does not intend it for the purpose of the mitzva, this is nevertheless considered a mitzva and an addition to the mitzva, and he transgresses “Do not add.”

Therefore, he may not bring two pairs into the city on Shabbat, even without intending them for the purpose of the mitzva.

And Rabban Gamliel holds: To transgress

the prohibition of “Do not add”

when it is not its time—

requires intent.

Since it is now not the time of the mitzva, and he also does not intend it for the purpose of the mitzva, there is neither a mitzva nor an addition here.

Therefore, he may bring two pairs on Shabbat, which is not a time for tefillin, provided that he does not intend them for the purpose of the mitzva; he will then not transgress “Do not add.”

And we challenge this:

If so, according to Rabbi Meir [

that is, the first tanna,]

he should not bring even one pair

he should not bring it, since the very act of putting on tefillin on Shabbat is an addition to the mitzva, as Shabbat is not a time for tefillin!?

Furthermore,

I will ask:

one who sleeps on the eighth

day, Atzeret,

in the sukka is flogged

for violating “Do not add,” even if he does not intend it for the purpose of the mitzva!

Yet we hold that outside Eretz Yisrael one sits in a sukka on Shemini Atzeret [because of the uncertainty concerning the calendar day, as perhaps today is still Sukkot]. And if, according to the first tanna, when it is not the proper time intent is not required, then by sitting in the sukka one transgresses a possible violation of “Do not add”?

Rather, certainly everyone agrees that transgressing “Do not add” when it is not the proper time requires intent. And one who sits in the sukka on the eighth day intends that, if today is not Sukkot, he does not intend it for the purpose of the mitzva.

And we conclude:

Rather, it is clear as we answered initially,

that they disagree with regard to whether Shabbat is a time for tefillin or is not a time for tefillin.

We inquire into this:

And whom have you heard

who holds

that Shabbat is a time for tefillin

?

And we answer:

Rabbi Akiva!

As it was taught:

It is written in the passage “Sanctify to Me,” in which the mitzva of tefillin is stated:

“And you shall observe this statute at its appointed time from days to days.”

And we expound:

“Days”—

but not nights,

as they are not a time for tefillin.

“From days,”

some days,

but not all days—

excluding Shabbatot and Festivals,

which are also not a time for tefillin,

the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Rabbi Akiva says: “It was not stated

“statute”

here except with regard to the matter of Pesaḥ alone,

as the passage above is discussing Pesaḥ, and not the mitzva of tefillin. And “from days to days” means from year to year.

According to Rabbi Akiva, we have no exposition excluding tefillin on nights and Shabbatot, and he is the tanna who holds that Shabbat is a time for tefillin.

We inquire into this:

But then, that which we learned

at the beginning of tractate Keritot:

Pesaḥ and circumcision are positive mitzvot

They are. Therefore, one does not bring a sin-offering for unintentionally failing to perform them, despite the fact that deliberate failure to perform them is punishable by karet, because a sin-offering is brought only for a sin that involves a prohibition.

Shall we say

that this Mishna

is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva

?

For if it is Rabbi Akiva, since he interprets

the verse “And you shall observe this statute”

as referring to Pesaḥ,

then

there is also a prohibition

for failing to offer the Pesaḥ offering. For the verse “And you shall observe” implies a prohibition,

as Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Ila’ai:

For Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Ila’ai: Everywhere

that it is stated

in the Torah

“Beware”

or

“lest,” and

likewise

“do not” \-

is not

a positive mitzva,

but rather is a prohibition

!

And if so, even with regard to the Pesaḥ offering, according to Rabbi Akiva, since “And you shall observe” is written concerning it, it constitutes a prohibition.

And since its deliberate violation is punishable by karet, he should be liable for failing to perform it unintentionally!?

And we reject this:

You may even say that it is Rabbi Akiva’s

Mishna; it is not difficult.

Because only

“Beware” of a prohibition,

when the Torah warns one to beware and not do something, constitutes

a prohibition.

But

“Beware” of a positive mitzva,

such as here, where the warning is to fulfill the mitzva of Pesaḥ, constitutes

a positive mitzva.

And we challenge this:

And

if

does Rabbi Akiva hold that Shabbat is a time for tefillin?

But was it not taught: Rabbi Akiva says: Might a person put on tefillin on Shabbatot and Festivals?

The verse states: “And it shall be for you as a sign upon your hand.”

And this indicates that it is specifically

those who require a sign,

namely, weekdays, when Israel needs to place a sign upon themselves to demonstrate that they hold by the Torah of

These are excluded,

Shabbatot and Festivals, on which one is exempt from tefillin, because

they themselves are a sign

between the Holy One, blessed be He, and Israel, as it is written concerning Shabbat: “For it is a sign between Me and you.”

Thus, Rabbi Akiva holds that Shabbat is not a time for tefillin. And if so, who is the tanna who holds that Shabbat is a time for tefillin?

And we answer:

Rather, it is this tanna.

As it was taught: One who remains awake at night,

since he need not fear that he might pass wind while sleeping with the tefillin on him—

if he wishes, he removes

the tefillin,

if he wishes, he puts

them on. There is no violation of “Do not add,” because nighttime is a time for tefillin by Torah law; it was the Sages who decreed that one may not put them on at night, lest he pass wind while sleeping.

Therefore, this person who remains awake is permitted to put on tefillin at night,

the words of Rabbi Natan.

Yonatan HaKitosi says: One may not put on tefillin at night,

because nighttime is not a time for tefillin.

And

from the fact that nighttime, according to the first tanna, is a time for tefillin

it follows that he does not expound the verse “from days to days” with regard to tefillin, but rather with regard to Pesaḥ.

And if so, according to him—

Shabbat should likewise be a time for tefillin

! For only from that verse can Shabbat be excluded.

And we reject this:

Perhaps,

although

he holds

according to the first tanna that

nighttime is a time for tefillin,

because “from days to days” refers to Pesaḥ, nevertheless he holds that

Shabbat is not a time for tefillin.

He derives it from “as a sign upon your hand”: these, which are themselves a sign, are excluded.

For we have heard Rabbi Akiva say that nighttime is a time for tefillin,

as he expounds “from days to days” with regard to Pesaḥ, and nevertheless holds that

Shabbat is not a time for tefillin,

as we said above.

And we answer:

Rather, it is this tanna.

As it was taught: Michal, daughter of Kush [

that is, Saul,]

would put on tefillin, and the Sages did not protest against her!

And the wife of Jonah

son of Amittai

would make pilgrimage

during the Festival,

and the Sages did not protest against her!

From the fact that they did not protest against

Michal

the Sages

for putting on tefillin,

apparently, they hold

that tefillin

is a positive mitzva whose observance is not time-bound

and women are obligated in it. For if they were exempt, it would be forbidden for them to put on tefillin, as this would constitute an addition to the words of the Torah.

Thus, they hold that nighttime and Shabbat are times for tefillin, and that there is no time when one is exempt from the mitzva of tefillin. For if nighttime or Shabbat were not a time for tefillin, it would follow that tefillin is a positive mitzva whose observance is time-bound, and women are exempt from positive mitzvot whose observance is time-bound.