Eruvin 96b — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

Perhaps, he holds

that this tanna, who says that the Sages did not protest against her,

follows Rabbi Yosei,

who says

below:

Women may perform semikha—

it is optional.

Even though women are not obligated in the mitzva of semikha on the offering, nevertheless they have permission to perform semikha if they wish to do so.

And the same is true of the mitzva of tefillin: women are always exempt from it, and nevertheless they are permitted to put on tefillin.

For if you do not say so,

it is difficult concerning what they said:

Jonah's wife would make the pilgrimage, and the Sages did not protest against her,

the Sages.

But

is there anyone who says

that the mitzva of making the pilgrimage to the

pilgrimage, is it not a positive mitzva whose time causes it—

and women are obligated in it? Surely it is a positive mitzva whose time causes it, and women are exempt from it.

Rather,

certainly

he holds

that women are indeed exempt from making the pilgrimage, and nevertheless

it is optional

for them to make the pilgrimage.

Here too,

with regard to tefillin, although they are exempt—

it is optional

for them to put them on.

If so, do we have no proof that this tanna holds that Shabbat is the time of tefillin?

And we answer:

Rather, this tanna is [the one].

For it was taught: One who finds tefillin brings them in pair by pair.

Both a man and a woman

who find tefillin.

Both new and old

he brings them in pair by pair,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda prohibits

bringing in

new

tefillin,

new,

lest they are not tefillin but merely an amulet, and he desecrates Shabbat by bringing them in.

And he permits old ones.

And the Gemara infers:

They disagree only

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda

with regard to new and old ones.

But with regard to a woman they do not disagree

that she brings them in pair by pair.

Conclude from this:

tefillin

is a positive mitzva whose time

does not cause it.

And every positive mitzva whose time does not cause it, women are obligated [in it].

For if women were exempt from the mitzva of tefillin, tefillin would be like a burden for them, and would not be an adornment for them, and they would be prohibited from bringing them in from the field to the city.

And since tefillin is a positive mitzva whose time does not cause it—conclude from this that Shabbat is the time of tefillin.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Perhaps he holds like Rabbi Yosei, who says that women may perform semikha optionally,

and are permitted to put on tefillin. And consequently tefillin is an adornment for them?

And we answer:

That cannot enter your mind!

Neither Rabbi Meir holds like Rabbi Yosei, nor Rabbi Yehuda holds like Rabbi Yosei,

that women may perform semikha optionally.

And we explain from where we know that they do not hold like Rabbi Yosei:

Rabbi Meir does not hold like Rabbi Yosei,

from this,

as we learned

in tractate Rosh Hashana:

They do not prevent children from sounding [the shofar].

The court does not have to prevent minors from sounding on Rosh Hashana, for they must be trained in the mitzvot.

And we infer:

women,

they do prevent

them from sounding!

Since they are exempt from sounding the shofar, they appear as though they are adding to the mitzvot. And the same is true of all mitzvot from which women are exempt: they do not have permission to perform them, because of “Do not add.”

And an anonymous Mishna

everywhere, and likewise the Mishna of Rosh Hashana—

is Rabbi Meir

it.

It follows that Rabbi Meir does not hold like Rabbi Yosei, that women may perform semikha optionally.

Nor does Rabbi Yehuda hold like Rabbi Yosei,

from this,

as it was taught

in the Sifra:

It is stated in the portion of Vayikra

“Speak to the Children of Israel

“When a person brings an offering from you,” and later in the portion it is stated

“And he shall lean

his hand on the head of the burnt offering.”

And we expound from the juxtaposition of “Children of Israel” to “And he shall lean” -

specifically

the Children of Israel perform semikha, but the daughters of Israel do not perform semikha.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:

Even though they are exempt, nevertheless

women may perform semikha optionally.

And the anonymous Sifra,

the Torat Kohanim,

who is it—

Rabbi Yehuda

it!

It follows that even Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Elazar said: One who finds tekhelet

wool dyed with the color tekhelet

in the marketplace.

If he found the wool in the form of

strips,

which are still at the stage of combed and dyed wool, they are

invalid

for the mitzva of tekhelet in tzitzit.

But if he found the tekhelet in the state of

threads—

fit

are those threads for the mitzva of tekhelet.

And we raise the question:

What is different about strips

of tekhelet, that they are invalid,

because he dyed them with the intention of making a garment,

perhaps he did not dye them for the sake of the mitzva, but in order to make a garment from them, and the dyeing of tekhelet must be for its sake.

If so,

with regard to threads too, let us say that he spun them with the intention of making a garment,

perhaps the spinning of the threads was intended in order to weave a garment from them, and not for the sake of the mitzva of tzitzit?

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

With twisted [threads].

He found thick threads, each thread twisted from several thin threads, which were certainly made for the sake of tzitzit, for it is not customary to use twisted threads for weaving.

And we raise an objection:

Twisted [threads] too—

let us say, he twisted them with the intention of making the hem of a garment,

that he twisted them in order to weave them into the edge of the garment, for it is customary to place twisted threads there, and not for the sake of the mitzva?

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

With cut [threads],

cut threads.

For people certainly do not take the trouble to such an extent

to cut them beforehand and tie them again in order to weave them into a garment. Rather, certainly they were intended for the sake of tzitzit.

Rava said: Does a person take the trouble to make an amulet in the form of tefillin

in the form of tefillin? And nevertheless we find that we are concerned even about such a remote possibility.

As we learned

at the beginning of our chapter:

When are these words said? With regard to old ones; but with regard to new ones, he is exempt

from bringing them into the city, for since no impression of the knot of tefillin is recognizable on them, we are concerned lest they are not tefillin but merely an amulet in the form of tefillin. And here too, should we be concerned lest he took the trouble to spin threads and cut them in the form of the tekhelet of tzitzit, even though his intention was to weave a garment from them?

Rabbi Zeira said to Ahava his son: Go, teach it to them

go tell the scholars of the academy who raised an objection to Rabbi Elazar, asking why he declared valid [the case] where one found threads, for I have an explicit beraita supporting his words:

One who finds tekhelet in the marketplace—

strips are invalid.

Cut threads—

fit. For a person does not

take the trouble!

Rava said: And

does

the fact that Ahava son of Rabbi Zeira taught it

mean that he hung earrings on it?

But because Ahava son of Rabbi Zeira taught this beraita, did he hang earrings on it? That is, what benefit was there in his teaching this beraita?

But we learned

in the Mishna the opposite:

When are these words said? With regard to new ones; but with regard to old ones, he is exempt,

so it follows that we say that a person does take the trouble?

Rather, Rava said: He took the trouble and he did not take the trouble—

it is a dispute among the tannaim

the tannaim disagreed concerning this reasoning.

For it was taught: One who finds tefillin brings them in pair by pair, both a man and a woman,