## Eruvin Daf 96a

###### Eruvin 96a:1
[Eruvin 96a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/96a:1)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָצֵאת לָא בָּעֵי כַּוּוֹנָה, וְהָכָא לַעֲבוֹר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תּוֹסִיף״ קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: לַעֲבוֹר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תּוֹסִיף״ לָא בָּעֵי כַּוּוֹנָה. וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: לַעֲבוֹר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תּוֹסִיף״ בָּעֵי כַּוּוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that **everyone agrees** that **to fulfill** a mitzva **one does not need intent, and here they disagree with regard to** the condition needed **to violate** the prohibition: **Do not add** to mitzvot of the Torah. **As the first *tanna* holds** that **one does not need intent to violate** the prohibition: **Do not add** to mitzvot. One who dons another pair of phylacteries transgresses the prohibition against adding to mitzvot even if he does not don them with the intention of fulfilling the mitzva. **And Rabban Gamliel holds** that in order **to violate** the prohibition: **Do not add** to mitzvot, **one needs intent** to perform a mitzva. Since in this case one’s intention is merely to move the phylacteries to a safer place, he may don a second pair.


###### Eruvin 96a:2
[Eruvin 96a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/96a:2)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִי דִּסְבִירָא לַן דְּשַׁבָּת זְמַן תְּפִילִּין — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא לַעֲבוֹר בָּעֵי כַּוּוֹנָה וְלָא לָצֵאת בָּעֵי כַּוּוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that the dispute may be explained as follows. **If we were to maintain** that **Shabbat is** a fit **time for** donning **phylacteries, everyone** would **agree** that **one does not need intent to violate** the prohibition against adding to mitzvot, **nor does one need intent to fulfill** a mitzva. In this case, one’s intention has no bearing on his action.


###### Eruvin 96a:3
[Eruvin 96a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/96a:3)

וְהָכָא בְּ״לַעֲבוֹר שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ״ קָמִיפַּלְגִי. תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: לָא בָּעֵי כַּוּוֹנָה. וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: לַעֲבוֹר שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ בָּעֵי כַּוּוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, here, they disagree with regard to** the condition for **violating** the prohibition against adding to a mitzva **not in its** proper **time,** i.e., when a mitzva is performed not at its prescribed time. **The first *tanna* holds** that if the act of a mitzva is performed not in its proper time, **one does not need intent;** that is, even if one does not intend to perform the mitzva he nonetheless violates the prohibition against adding to mitzvot by his action alone. Consequently, in this case, a person may not don more than one pair of phylacteries. **And Rabban Gamliel holds that to violate** the prohibition against adding to a mitzva **not in its** proper **time, one needs intent** to fulfill the mitzva. Without such intent one does not violate the prohibition, and therefore in this case he may don a second pair of phylacteries.


###### Eruvin 96a:4
[Eruvin 96a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/96a:4)

אִי הָכִי, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר זוּג אֶחָד נָמֵי לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this last explanation the Gemara asks: **If so, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir** one should **not even** don **one pair** of phylacteries. According to Rabbi Meir’s opinion, one who does so violates the prohibition against adding to mitzvot merely by donning one pair, since he is fulfilling the mitzva of phylacteries at a time when he is not commanded to do so.


###### Eruvin 96a:5
[Eruvin 96a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/96a:5)

וְעוֹד: הַיָּשֵׁן בַּשְּׁמִינִי בְּסוּכָּה יִלְקֶה! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִדְשַׁנִּינַן מֵעִיקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** according to this opinion, **one who sleeps in a *sukka* on the Eighth Day** of Assembly **should be flogged** for violating the prohibition against adding to mitzvot, as he adds to the mitzva of: “You shall dwell in booths for seven days” (Leviticus 23:42). Yet the Sages instituted that outside of Eretz Yisrael, Jews must observe *Sukkot* for eight days, even though one who sleeps in a *sukka* on the eighth night outside of Eretz Yisrael transgresses a Torah law. **Rather, it is clear as we originally answered,** i.e., you must accept one of the other explanations.


###### Eruvin 96a:6
[Eruvin 96a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/96a:6)

וּמַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ שַׁבָּת זְמַן תְּפִילִּין? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְשָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת הַחֻקָּה הַזֹּאת לְמוֹעֲדָהּ מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה״. ״יָמִים״ — וְלֹא לֵילוֹת. ״מִיָּמִים״ — וְלֹא כׇּל יָמִים, פְּרָט לְשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since the topic of phylacteries was discussed, the Gemara continues to explore this issue. **Whom did you hear** who said that **Shabbat is** a fit **time for** donning **phylacteries?** It is **Rabbi Akiva, as it was taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the end of the section in the Torah beginning with: “Sanctify all firstborns to me” (Exodus 13:2), which deals with the mitzvot of the Paschal lamb and phylacteries: **“And you shall observe this ordinance in its season from year [*miyamim*] to year”** (Exodus 13:10), which indicates that these mitzvot apply during the **days** [***yamim***] **and not** during the **nights.** Furthermore, the letter *mem* in **“from year” [*miyamim*]** teaches: **But not** on **all days;** this **excludes Shabbat and Festivals,** on which phylacteries are not worn. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.**


###### Eruvin 96a:7
[Eruvin 96a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/96a:7)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא נֶאֱמַר חוּקָּה זוֹ אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן פֶּסַח בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva says: This ordinance is stated only with regard to the Paschal** lamb, and it does not refer to phylacteries at all. According to Rabbi Akiva, there is no reason to refrain from donning phylacteries on Shabbat and Festivals.


###### Eruvin 96a:8
[Eruvin 96a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/96a:8)

וְאֶלָּא הָא דִּתְנַן: הַפֶּסַח וְהַמִּילָה מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה — לֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא — כֵּיוָן דְּמוֹקֵי לָהּ בְּפֶסַח, לָאו נָמֵי אִיכָּא, כִּדְרַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעַאי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעַאי: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הִשָּׁמֶר״ ״פֶּן״ וְ״אַל״ — אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** with regard to **that** which **we learned** in a mishna that **the Paschal** lamb **and circumcision are positive mitzvot, let us say that** this statement is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva.** The reason for this claim is **that if** you say this teaching is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, since he establishes** this verse as referring **to the Paschal** lamb, this would mean that in failure to bring this offering there **is also** the violation of **a negative** mitzva, **in accordance with** the principle **that Rabbi Avin** said that **Rabbi Elai said. As Rabbi Avin said** that **Rabbi Elai said: Any place** where **it is stated: Observe, lest, or do not,** this means **nothing other than a negative** mitzva, as these are negative terms. Consequently, the verse “You shall observe this ordinance,” which refers to the Paschal lamb, constitutes a negative mitzva.


###### Eruvin 96a:9
[Eruvin 96a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/96a:9)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, ״הִשָּׁמֶר״ דְּלָאו — לָאו, ״הִשָּׁמֶר״ דַּעֲשֵׂה — עֲשֵׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Even if you say** that **Rabbi Akiva** holds that no negative mitzva applies to the Paschal lamb, it is not difficult, as an additional principle must be taken into account. Although it is true that the term **observe with regard to a negative** mitzva indicates the presence of another **negative** mitzva; that same term **observe** with regard to **a positive** mitzva has the force of **a positive** mitzva, as the Torah is warning adherents to take special care in the observance of a mitzva. The word observe in connection with the Paschal lamb is an example of this type of positive mitzva.


###### Eruvin 96a:10
[Eruvin 96a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/96a:10)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שַׁבָּת זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא?! וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַנִּיחַ אָדָם תְּפִילִּין בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל יָדְךָ״, מִי שֶׁצְּרִיכִין אוֹת, יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ — שֶׁהֵן גּוּפָן אוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the issue at hand: **And** does **Rabbi Akiva** really **hold that Shabbat is a time for** donning **phylacteries? Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Akiva says:** I **might** have thought that **a person should don phylacteries on *Shabbatot* and Festivals.** Therefore, **the verse states: “And it shall be for a sign for you on your arm,** and for a remembrance between your eyes, so that God’s law shall be in your mouth; for with a strong arm God brought you out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:9). The obligation to don phylacteries applies when Jews **require a sign** to assert their Judaism and their status as the Chosen People, i.e., during the week, **excluding** Shabbat and Festivals, **as they are themselves signs** of Israel’s status as the Chosen People and a remembrance of the exodus from Egypt. Consequently, no further sign is required on these days. This teaching proves that Rabbi Akiva maintains that Shabbat is not a fit time for donning phylacteries.


###### Eruvin 96a:11
[Eruvin 96a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/96a:11)

אֶלָּא הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא דְּתַנְיָא: הַנֵּיעוֹר בַּלַּיְלָה, רָצָה — חוֹלֵץ, רָצָה — מַנִּיחַ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי נָתָן. יוֹנָתָן הַקִּיטוֹנִי אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַנִּיחִין תְּפִילִּין בַּלַּיְלָה. מִדְּלַיְלָה לְתַנָּא קַמָּא זְמַן תְּפִילִּין — שַׁבָּת נָמֵי זְמַן תְּפִילִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, it is this *tanna*,** Rabbi Natan, who maintains that Shabbat is a fit time for donning phylacteries, **as it was taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who is awake at night, if he wishes he** may **remove** his phylacteries, and **if he wishes he** may continue to **don** them, and he need not worry about violating the prohibition against adding to mitzvot. This is **the statement of Rabbi Natan. Yonatan HaKitoni says: One** may **not don phylacteries at night. From** the fact **that according to the first *tanna*,** Rabbi Natan, **night is** a fit **time for phylacteries,** it may be inferred that **Shabbat, too, is a time for** donning **phylacteries,** as Rabbi Natan evidently does not accept Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s limitation based on the phrase: From year to year.


###### Eruvin 96a:12
[Eruvin 96a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/96a:12)

דִּילְמָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לַיְלָה זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא, שַׁבָּת לָאו זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא. דְּהָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: לַיְלָה זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא, שַׁבָּת לָאו זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this contention: This is not a conclusive proof, as **perhaps he holds** that although **night is** a fit **time for phylacteries, Shabbat is not** a fit **time for phylacteries. As we** have **heard that Rabbi Akiva said** that **night is a time for phylacteries,** because he does not accept the limitation of “from days to days,” and yet he maintains that **Shabbat is not a time for phylacteries,** as no sign is required on Shabbat. It is therefore possible that Rabbi Natan holds the same opinion.


###### Eruvin 96a:13
[Eruvin 96a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/96a:13)

אֶלָּא הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא דְּתַנְיָא: מִיכַל בַּת כּוּשִׁי הָיְתָה מַנַּחַת תְּפִילִּין וְלֹא מִיחוּ בָּהּ חֲכָמִים, וְאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל יוֹנָה הָיְתָה עוֹלָה לָרֶגֶל וְלֹא מִיחוּ בָּהּ חֲכָמִים. מִדְּלֹא מִיחוּ בָּהּ חֲכָמִים — אַלְמָא קָסָבְרִי מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** we must say that **it is this *tanna*** who maintains that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries, **as it was taught** in a *baraita*: **Michal, daughter of Kushi,** King Saul, **would don phylacteries, and the Sages did not protest against her** behavior, as she was permitted to do so. **And** similarly, **Jonah’s wife would undertake the Festival pilgrimage and the Sages did not protest against her** practice. **From** the fact **that the Sages did not protest against** Michal’s donning phylacteries, **it is apparent that these** Sages **hold** that phylacteries **is a positive mitzva not bound by time,** i.e., it is a mitzva whose performance is mandated at all times, including nights and Shabbat. There is an accepted principle that women are obligated in all positive mitzvot not bound by time.


###### Eruvin 96a:14
[Eruvin 96a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/96a:14)

וְדִילְמָא סָבַר לַהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this contention: **But perhaps** that *tanna* **holds**