Eruvin 191:1

ואיבעית אימא דכ"ע לצאת לא בעי כוונה והכא לעבור משום בל תוסיף קמיפלגי דתנא קמא סבר לעבור משום בל תוסיף לא בעי כוונה ורבן גמליאל סבר לעבור משום בל תוסיף בעי כוונה

And if you prefer I might reply that all agree that the discharge of the duty of a commandment requires no intention, but here it is the question of transgressing against the injunction of Thou shall not add,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All this word which I command you . . thou shalt not add thereto (Deut. XIII, 1) .');">¹</span> that is at issue between them; the first Tanna holding that in order to commit a transgression against the injunction of Thou shall not add<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All this word which I command you . . thou shalt not add thereto (Deut. XIII, 1) .');">¹</span> no intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To perform the commandments.');">²</span> is necessary while R'Gamaliel holds that in order to commit a transgression against the injunction of 'Thou shalt not add', intention is necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 662, n. 12.');">³</span>

ואיבעית אימא אי דסבירא לן דשבת זמן תפילין דכ"ע לא לעבור בעי כוונה ולא לצאת בעי כוונה

And if you prefer I might reply: If the view had been adopted that Sabbath is a time for tefillin all would have agreed that intention is unnecessary either in respect of transgression<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the injunction against adding to the commandments. Lit., 'to transgress'.');">⁴</span> or in respect of discharging the duty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the commandment of tefillin. Lit., 'and not to go out (from the obligation) '.');">⁵</span> but the point at issue between then here is with reference to the transgression<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the injunction against adding to the commandments. Lit., 'to transgress'.');">⁴</span> when a commandment is performed not at its proper time.

והכא בלעבור שלא בזמנו קמיפלגי תנא קמא סבר לא בעי כוונה ורבן גמליאל סבר לעבור שלא בזמנו בעי כוונה

The first Tanna holds that no intention is required<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 662, n. 10.');">⁶</span> while R'Gamaliel holds that to commit a transgression<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the injunction against adding to the commandments. Lit., 'to transgress'.');">⁴</span> when a commandment is performed not at its proper time intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To perform the commandment.');">⁷</span> is necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 662, n. 12.');">³</span>

אי הכי לרבי מאיר זוג אחד נמי לא

But if so, should not even one pair be forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'also not'; since by wearing tefillin on the Sabbath, which is an improper lime for that commandment, one adds the performance of the precept on the Sabbath to that of the weekdays.');">⁸</span> according to R'Meir?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the first Tanna whose view, as mentioned Supra, is in agreement with that of R. Meir.');">⁹</span> Furthermore, should not a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is maintained that the performance of a commandment at an improper time is deemed to be a transgression against the prohibition of adding to the commandments even where the act of performance was not intended to be a fulfillment of the commandment.');">¹⁰</span> who sleeps on the eighth day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the festival of Tabernacles. Pentateuchally the sukkah is to be used for seven days only.');">¹¹</span>

ועוד הישן בשמיני בסוכה ילקה אלא מחוורתא כדשנינן מעיקרא

be flogged?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the submission here he should. As in fact, however, it is not only allowed to sleep in the sukkah on the eighth day but also, in accordance with a Rabbinical enactment, obligatory, how could the last reply be maintained?');">¹²</span> It is perfectly clear, therefore,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but'.');">¹³</span> that the proper explanation is the one originally given.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the point at issue is the question whether Sabbath is a time for the wearing of tefillin or not. (For an explanation of the use of the Sukkah, and the manner of using it on the eighth day of Tabernacles v. Rashi a.l.) .');">¹⁴</span> Who is it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Among the Tannas, who might be presumed to be the first Tanna of our MISHNAH:');">¹⁵</span>

ומאן שמעת ליה שבת זמן תפילין ר' עקיבא דתניא (שמות יג, י) ושמרת את החקה הזאת למועדה מימים ימימה ימים ולא לילות מימים ולא כל ימים פרט לשבתות וימים טובים דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי

that was heard to hold that Sabbath is a time for the wearing of tefillin? - R'Akiba. For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 36b.');">¹⁶</span> Thou shalt, therefore, keep this ordinance in its season form year to year,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Miyamim yamimah (Ex. XIII, 10) . This verse forms a part of one of the four sections of the Pentateuch that are enclosed in the tefillin.');">¹⁷</span> the term 'days'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yamim (here rendered 'year') .');">¹⁸</span>

ר' עקיבא אומר לא נאמר חוקה זו אלא לענין פסח בלבד

excludes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and not'.');">¹⁹</span> nights,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that tefillin are to be worn only in the day time but not at night.');">²⁰</span> 'from the days'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Miyamim (here rendered 'from year') , the 'mi' ('from') implying 'some of'.');">²¹</span> implies: But not all days; thus excluding Sabbaths and festivals;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On which tefillin may not be worn.');">²²</span>

ואלא הא דתנן הפסח והמילה מצות עשה לימא דלא כרבי עקיבא דאי ר"ע כיון דמוקי לה בפסח לאו נמי איכא כדרבי אבין א"ר אילעאי דאמר רבי אבין אמר רבי אילעאי כל מקום שנאמר השמר פן ואל אינו אלא בלא תעשה

so R'Jose the Galilean. R'Akiba said: The expression 'This ordinance' was meant to apply to the Passover [sacrifice] only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Spoken of earlier in the context (Ex. XIII. 6ff) : not to the tefillin. Thus it has been shown that as regards the wearing of tefillin R. Akiba, unlike R. Jose the Galilean, excludes neither nights nor Sabbaths and festivals.');">²³</span> With reference, however, to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and but that'.');">²⁴</span> what we have learnt: 'The Paschal [sacrifice] and circumcision are positive commandments',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ker. 2a.');">²⁵</span>

אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא השמר דלאו לאו השמר דעשה עשה

must it be assumed that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that the Passover Sacrifice is only a positive commandment and the transgression of it does not, therefore, involve any of the penalties associated with a negative precept.');">²⁶</span> is not in agreement with the view of R'Akiba, for it were to be contended that it was in agreement with R'Akiba the objection would arise: Since he applied it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text: 'Thou shalt, therefore, keep' (Ex. XIII, 10) .');">²⁷</span> to the Passover [sacrifice] a negative precept also should be involved as R'Akiba laid down in the name of R'Ila'i for R'Abin citing R'Ila'i laid down: Wherever the expressions 'Take heed',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hishshamer, of the same root as weshamarta ('And thou shalt, therefore, keep') which R. Akiba applied to the Passover.');">²⁸</span> 'Lest' or 'Do not' is used a negative precept is invariably intended?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is only'.');">²⁹</span>

וסבר רבי עקיבא שבת זמן תפילין הוא והתניא ר"ע אומר יכול יניח אדם תפילין בשבתות וימים טובים ת"ל (שמות יג, ט) והיה לך לאות על ידך מי שצריכין אות יצאו אלו שהן גופן אות

- It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that the Passover sacrifice is only a positive commandment and the transgression of it does not, therefore, involve any of the penalties associated with a negative precept.');">³⁰</span> may be said to be in agreement even with the view of R'Akiba, for the expression 'Take heed' has the force of a negative precept only where it introduces a prohibitions but where it introduces a positive commandment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in Ex. XIII, 10.');">³¹</span> it has the force o a positive commandment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the ruling in the Mishnah of Ker. 2a. Lit., 'take heed of a " not"="" is="" not;="" take="" heed="" of="" a="" "do"="" do'.');"="">³²</span> But how could R'Akiba hold that the Sabbath is a time for wearing tefillin seeing that it was taught: R'Akiba stated: As it might have been presented that a man shall wear<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'lay', sc. on the arm and head.');">³³</span>

אלא האי תנא הוא דתניא הניעור בלילה רצה חולץ רצה מניח דברי רבי נתן יונתן הקיטוני אומר אין מניחין תפילין בלילה מדלילה לתנא קמא זמן תפילין שבת נמי זמן תפילין

tefillin on Sabbaths and festivals, it was explicitly said in Scripture: And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 9, emphasis on 'sign'.');">³⁴</span> which denotes: on those days only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Are tefillin to be worn.');">³⁵</span> that require a sign;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To indicate Israel's adherence to the laws of God.');">³⁶</span> but these,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sabbaths and festivals.');">³⁷</span>

דילמא ס"ל לילה זמן תפילין הוא שבת לאו זמן תפילין הוא דהא שמעינן ליה לרבי עקיבא דאמר לילה זמן תפילין הוא שבת לאו זמן תפילין הוא

since they themselves are a sign,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXXI, 13: For it (sc. the Sabbath and so also either holy days) is a sign between me and you. The fact that Israel observes the holy days is in itself sufficient proof of their adherence to the divine commandments.');">³⁸</span> are excluded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 36b. How then could the ruling of the first Tanna in our Mishnah (which, as has been explained supra, assumed the Sabbath to be a time for the wearing of tefillin) be attributed to R. Akiba?');">³⁹</span> - It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first ruling in our MISHNAH:');">⁴⁰</span> represents rather the view of the following Tanna.

אלא האי תנא הוא דתניא מיכל בת כושי היתה מנחת תפילין ולא מיחו בה חכמים ואשתו של יונה היתה עולה לרגל ולא מיחו בה חכמים מדלא מיחו בה חכמים אלמא קסברי מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא היא

For it was taught: If a man keeps awake at night,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that, unlike a man asleep, he is able to take proper care of his tefillin.');">⁴¹</span> he may remove his tefillin if he wishes or, if he prefers, he may put them on;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is not transgressing thereby the prohibition against adding to the commandments, since Pentateuchally the night also is a time for the wearing of tefillin. The Rabbinical enactment against wearing them at night is merely a precaution against possible disrespect to them during sleep.');">⁴²</span> so R'Nathan. Jonathan the Kitonite ruled: Tefillin may not be worn at night.

ודילמא סבר לה

Now, since according to the view of the first Tanna the night is a proper time for the wearing of tefillin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it is obvious that he does not apply Ex. XIII, 10 (which excludes the nights as well as Sabbaths and festivals) to the commandment of tefillin but to that of the Passover.');">⁴³</span> Sabbath also must be a proper time for the wearing of tefillin. But is it not possible that he holds that the night is a proper time for tefillin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he applies Ex. XIII, 10, to the Passover and not to tefillin.');">⁴⁴</span> but that the Sabbath nevertheless is not a time for it, since we have in fact heard R'Akiba to state that the night is a time for the tefillin and that the Sabbath is not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was deduced supra from Ex. XIII, 9.');">⁴⁵</span> - It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first ruling in our MISHNAH:');">⁴⁰</span> represents rather the opinion of the following Tanna. For it was taught: Michal the daughter of the Kushite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. Saul who was so described (cf. M.K. 16b) .');">⁴⁶</span> wore tefillin and the Sages did not attempt to prevent her, and the wife of Jonah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The son of Amittai, the prophet.');">⁴⁷</span> attended<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'was going up to'.');">⁴⁸</span> the festival pilgrimage and the Sages did not prevent her. Now since the Sages did not prevent her it is clearly evident that they hold the view that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tefillin.');">⁴⁹</span> is a positive precept the performance of which is not limited to a particular time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But may be performed at all times including the nights. Sabbaths and festivals. Had its performance been limited to particular times women would have been exempt from the duty of keeping it and Michal who would be guilty of adding to the commandments would have been required by the Sages to abandon her practice.');">⁵⁰</span> But is it not possible that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The author of this Baraitha.');">⁵¹</span> holds the same view