Eruvin 96a — the Talmud in English

Alternatively, if you wish, everyone

holds that

to fulfill

his obligation

does not require intention. And here

they disagree

concerning transgressing through

“Do not add”

.

For the first tanna holds:

just as fulfilling [the obligation] does not require intention, so too

transgressing through “Do not add” does not require intention.

Therefore, he cannot bring in two pairs, for even if he does not intend them for the sake of the mitzva, he transgresses “Do not add.”

And Rabban Gamaliel holds:

indeed, fulfilling one’s obligation does not require intention, but

transgressing through “Do not add” requires intention.

And anyone who does not intend for the sake of the mitzva does not transgress “Do not add.” Therefore, he can bring in two pairs without intending them for the sake of the mitzva, for in this way he does not transgress “Do not add.”

Alternatively, if you wish, if we hold

if we were to hold

that Shabbat is the time for phylacteries,

then

everyone

will hold that

to transgress

through “Do not add”

requires intention, but to fulfill

the obligation of the mitzva

does require intention.

And here

everyone holds that Shabbat is not the time for phylacteries.

And

with regard to transgressing

“Do not add”

when it is not its time

of the mitzva

they disagree.

For the first tanna holds:

even when it is not the time of the mitzva

intention 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 sake of the mitzva, this bears the designation of a mitzva and an addition to the mitzva, and he transgresses “Do not add.”

Therefore, he cannot bring two pairs into the city on Shabbat, even without intending them for the sake of the mitzva.

And Rabban Gamaliel holds: to transgress

“Do not add”

when it is not its time—

intention is required.

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

Therefore, he can bring two pairs on Shabbat, which is not the time for phylacteries, provided that he does not intend them for the sake of the mitzva; and he will not transgress “Do not add.”

And we raise an objection:

If so, according to Rabbi Meir

that is, the first tanna

one pair also not

should he bring in, because the very placing [of phylacteries] on Shabbat is an addition to the mitzva, since Shabbat is not the time for phylacteries?!

Furthermore,

it is stated:

one who sleeps on the eighth

day, Atzeret,

in a sukka is flogged

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

And yet we hold that outside the Land of Israel one sits in a sukka on the eighth day, Atzeret [because of the uncertainty of the day, lest today still be Sukkot]. And if, according to the first tanna, when it is not its time intention is not required, then by this sitting they would transgress a possible “Do not add”?

Rather, certainly everyone holds that to transgress when it is not its time requires intention. And one who sits on the eighth day intends that if today is not Sukkot, he does not intend it for the sake of the mitzva.

And we conclude:

Rather, it is clear as we answered initially:

they disagree concerning whether Shabbat is the time for phylacteries or whether it is not the time for phylacteries.

We inquire concerning this:

And who is the one from whom you heard

that he holds

that Shabbat is the time for phylacteries

?

And we answer:

Rabbi Akiva!

For it was taught:

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

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

And we expound:

“Days”—

but not nights,

for they are not the time for phylacteries.

“From days,”

part of the days,

but not all days—

excluding Shabbatot and Festivals,

which also are not the time for phylacteries,

the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

Rabbi Akiva says: “This statute”

was stated

only with regard to the Passover offering,

for the section speaks about it above, and not with regard to the mitzva of phylacteries. And “from days to days” means from year to year.

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

We inquire concerning this:

But then, what of that which we learned

at the beginning of tractate Keritot:

“The Passover offering and circumcision are positive commandments.”

Therefore, he does not bring a sin-offering for his inadvertence in failing to perform them, despite the fact that they entail karet when performed deliberately, because one brings a sin-offering only for a sin that contains a prohibition.

Shall we say

that this Mishna

is not according to Rabbi Akiva

?

For if it is Rabbi Akiva, since he interprets

the verse “And you shall observe this statute”

with regard to the Passover offering,

then

there is also a prohibition

in failing to offer the Passover offering. For the verse “And you shall observe” has the implication of “a prohibition,”

as Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Ilai:

For Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Ilai: Everywhere

that it is stated

in the Torah

“beware”

or

“lest,” and

likewise

“do not”— \-

it is not

“a positive commandment,”

but rather it is a prohibition

!

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

And since its deliberate violation entails karet, he should be liable for his inadvertence in failing to perform it?!

And we reject this:

Even if you say that it is Rabbi Akiva,

it is not difficult.

Because only

“beware” of a prohibition,

when the Torah warns that one should beware and not do this, is

a prohibition.

But

“beware” of a positive commandment,

as here, where the warning is to fulfill the mitzva of the Passover offering, is

a positive commandment.

And we raise an objection:

And

does

Rabbi Akiva hold that Shabbat is the time for phylacteries?

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

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

And it implies specifically

one who requires 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 phylacteries, 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.”

It follows that Rabbi Akiva holds that Shabbat is not the time for phylacteries. And if so, who is the tanna who holds that Shabbat is the time for phylacteries?

And we answer:

Rather, it is this tanna.

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

who need not fear lest he pass gas while sleeping while the phylacteries are upon him—

if he wishes, he removes

the phylacteries;

if he wishes, he puts on

them. And there is no “Do not add” here, because night is the time for phylacteries by Torah law, and it was the Rabbis who decreed not to put them on at night, lest he pass gas in them while sleeping.

Therefore, this one who remains awake is permitted to put on phylacteries at night,

the words of Rabbi Natan.

Yonatan of the town of Kiton says: One does not put on phylacteries at night,

because night is not the time for phylacteries.

And

from the fact that night, according to the first tanna, is the time for phylacteries,

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

And if so, according to him—

Shabbat too is the time for phylacteries

! For it is only from that verse that Shabbat can be excluded.

And we reject this:

Perhaps,

although

he holds

—the first tanna—that

night is the time for phylacteries,

because “from days to days” refers to the Passover offering, nevertheless he holds that

Shabbat is not the time for phylacteries.

For he derives it from “as a sign upon your hand”: these are excluded, since they themselves are a sign.

For we have indeed heard Rabbi Akiva say: Night is the time for phylacteries,

for he expounds “from days to days” with regard to the Passover offering, and nevertheless he holds that

Shabbat is not the time for phylacteries,

as we said above.

And we answer:

Rather, it is this tanna.

For it was taught: Michal, daughter of Kush

that is, Saul

used to put on phylacteries, and the Sages did not protest against her!

And the wife of Jonah

son of Amittai

used to go up to Jerusalem for the Festival pilgrimage

during the Festival,

and the Sages did not protest against her!

From the fact that they did not protest against her,

Michal,

the Sages

for putting on phylacteries,

it is evident that they hold

that phylacteries

are a positive commandment not occasioned by a specific time,

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

It follows that they hold that night and Shabbat are the time for phylacteries, and there is no time when one is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries. For if night or Shabbat were not the time for phylacteries, it would emerge that phylacteries are a positive commandment occasioned by a specific time, and women are exempt from commandments occasioned by a specific time.