כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: נָשִׁים סוֹמְכוֹת רְשׁוּת.

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: It is optional for women to place their hands

דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי – אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל יוֹנָה הָיְתָה עוֹלָה לָרֶגֶל וְלֹא מִיחוּ בָּהּ. מִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר רֶגֶל לָאו מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא הוּא? אֶלָּא: קָסָבַר רְשׁוּת, הָכָא נַמִי: רְשׁוּת.

As, if you do not say so, that this tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, the baraita states that Jonah’s wife would ascend to Jerusalem for the Festival pilgrimage and the Sages did not reprimand her. Is there anyone who says that the mitzva of Festival pilgrimage is not a time-bound positive mitzva and that women are obligated to fulfill it? Rather, he holds that she did not embark on the pilgrimage as an obligation, but that it was optional; here, too, with regard to phylacteries, it is optional. Consequently, no proof can be cited from this baraita as to whether or not Shabbat is a fit time for phylacteries.

אֶלָּא הַאי תַּנָּא הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: הַמּוֹצֵא תְּפִילִּין – מַכְנִיסָן זוּג זוּג, אֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה, אֶחָד חֲדָשׁוֹת וְאֶחָד יְשָׁנוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר בַּחֲדָשׁוֹת וּמַתִּיר בַּיְּשָׁנוֹת.

Rather, who is the tanna who maintains that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries? It is this tanna who taught the halakha , as it was taught in the Tosefta : One who finds phylacteries brings them in pair by pair, whether the finder is a man or whether she is a woman, and whether the phylacteries are new or whether they are old. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits bringing in new phylacteries since they might merely be amulets in the form of phylacteries, but he permits bringing in old ones, which are certainly valid phylacteries.

עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא בַּחֲדָשׁוֹת וִישָׁנוֹת, אֲבָל בָּאִשָּׁה – לָא פְּלִיגִי. שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא הוּא, וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁאֵין הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת.

Analysis of this Tosefta indicates that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree only with regard to the issue of new phylacteries and old ones; however, with regard to a woman bringing in the phylacteries, they do not disagree that it is permitted. Learn from it that this tanna maintains that donning phylacteries is a positive mitzva not bound by time, and since women are obligated in every positive mitzva not bound by time, a woman may don these phylacteries and walk into the town.

וְדִילְמָא סָבַר לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: נָשִׁים סוֹמְכוֹת רְשׁוּת? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעֲתָךְ, דְּלֹא רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וְלֹא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

The Gemara attempts to refute this. But perhaps that tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: It is optional for women to place their hands on the head of a sacrificial animal before it is slaughtered. Here too, perhaps it is optional for women to don phylacteries. The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as neither Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, nor does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as the Gemara proceeds to prove.

לֹא רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דִּתְנַן: אֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַתִּינוֹקוֹת מִלִּתְקוֹעַ. הָא נָשִׁים – מְעַכְּבִין. וּסְתָם מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

Neither Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna: One need not prevent children from sounding the shofar on Rosh HaShana. Although there is an element of prohibition in sounding the shofar when there is no obligation to do so, since the children will one day be obligated to sound the shofar , one need not prevent them from doing so and learning. It may be inferred from here that one must prevent women from sounding the shofar . And an unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, indicating that according to Rabbi Meir, a woman does not even have the option of performing a time-bound positive mitzva.

וְלֹא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּתַנְיָא: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְסָמַךְ״ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל סוֹמְכִין וְאֵין בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל סוֹמְכוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: נָשִׁים סוֹמְכוֹת רְשׁוּת.

Nor does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as it was taught in the Sifra , the halakhic midrash on Leviticus. The verse states: “Speak to the sons of Israel…and he shall place his hands on the head of the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:2–4). By inference, the sons of Israel place their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not place their hands. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: It is optional for women to place their hands on the head of a sacrificial animal before it is slaughtered.

וּסְתָם סִיפְרָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

And who is the author of an unattributed Sifra ? It is Rabbi Yehuda. This teaching proves that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that women do not have the option of placing their hands on a sacrifice. Neither Rabbi Meir nor Rabbi Yehuda accepts Rabbi Yosei’s opinion that it is optional for women to perform time-bound positive mitzvot; therefore, the tanna who cited their opinions that a woman may bring in phylacteries on Shabbat maintains that the mitzva of phylacteries is not time-bound and is in effect even on Shabbat, which is why even women are obligated.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַמּוֹצֵא תְּכֵלֶת בַּשּׁוּק, לְשׁוֹנוֹת – פְּסוּלוֹת, חוּטִין – כְּשֵׁרִין.

Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to one who one finds fabric dyed sky blue in the marketplace, if he found strips of combed and dyed wool they are unfit for use as ritual fringes. The sky blue threads used in ritual fringes must be spun and dyed for the purpose of the mitzva, and these strips might have been dyed for a different purpose. However, if one found sky blue threads, they are fit for use in ritual fringes, as it can be assumed they were prepared for that purpose.

מַאי שְׁנָא לְשׁוֹנוֹת – דְּאָמַר: אַדַּעֲתָא דִּגְלִימָא צָבְעִינְהוּ. חוּטִין נַמִי, נֵימָא: אַדַּעֲתָא דִּגְלִימָא טָוִינְהוּ. בִּשְׁזוּרִים.

The Gemara asks: What is different about strips that renders them unfit? It is because Rabbi Elazar said: One dyed the strips with the intent to use them for a cloak. If so, with regard to threads as well, let us say: One spun them with the intent to use them for a cloak. In that case, they too would be deemed unfit. The Gemara answers: Here, it is referring to threads that are twisted, which are not typically used for weaving.

שְׁזוּרִים נַמִי, נֵימָא: אַדַּעֲתָא דְּשִׁיפְתָּא דִּגְלִימָא עָיְיפִינְהוּ. בְּמוּפְסָקִין, דְּכוּלֵּי הַאי וַדַּאי לָא טָרְחִי אֱינָשֵׁי.

The Gemara asks: With regard to twisted threads as well, let us say that one twisted them with the intent of attaching them to the hem of a cloak as ornamentation. The Gemara answers: It is referring to twisted threads that were cut into short strings suitable for use as ritual fringes, as people certainly do not exert themselves and fashion fringes of a cloak to resemble ritual fringes.

אָמַר רָבָא: וְכִי אָדָם טוֹרֵחַ לַעֲשׂוֹת קָמֵיעַ כְּמִין תְּפִילִּין? דִּתְנַן: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בַּיְּשָׁנוֹת, אֲבָל בַּחֲדָשׁוֹת – פָּטוּר.

Rava said: The assertion that people do not exert themselves is problematic, as by the same token, does a person exert himself to fashion an amulet in the form of phylacteries? Nevertheless, the Sages were concerned that an object that appears to be phylacteries might actually be a different object. As we learned in a mishna: In what case is this statement that one is permitted to carry phylacteries inside on Shabbat said? It is with regard to old phylacteries. However, with regard to new ones, he is exempt from the obligation to bring them in, as it is possible that they are not phylacteries but amulets in the form of phylacteries. Similarly, there should be concern lest people fashion items similar to objects used for a mitzva, even if exertion is involved.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא לְאַהֲבָה בְּרֵיהּ, פּוֹק תְּנֵי לְהוּ: הַמּוֹצֵא תְּכֵלֶת בַּשּׁוּק, לְשׁוֹנוֹת – פְּסוּלִין, חוּטִין מוּפְסָקִין – כְּשֵׁירִין, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם טוֹרֵחַ.

Rabbi Zeira said to his son Ahava: Go out and teach this baraita to the Sages. With regard to one who finds fabric dyed sky blue in the marketplace, if he finds strips, they are unfit for use in ritual fringes; however, if he finds threads cut into short strings, they are fit for use in ritual fringes because a person does not exert himself. Apparently, that is the reason for the halakha .

אֲמַר רָבָא: וּמִשּׁוּם דְּתָנֵי לָהּ אַהֲבָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא כֵּיפֵי תְּלָא לָהּ? וְהָתְנַן: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בַּיְּשָׁנוֹת, אֲבָל בַּחֲדָשׁוֹת – פָּטוּר.

Rava said: And because Ahava, son of Rabbi Zeira, taught this halakha , has he hung ornamental rings on that line of reasoning, i.e., does that constitute an absolute proof? The difficulty posed by Rava from the mishna is not resolved by the baraita , as we learned: In what case is this statement that one is permitted to carry phylacteries inside said? It is with regard to old phylacteries. However, with regard to new ones, he is exempt. Apparently, there is concern lest one exert himself to fashion an object similar to one used in a mitzva.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: טָרַח וְלֹא טָרַח – תַּנָּאֵי הִיא,

Rather, Rava said: The sources are not contradictory, as the question of whether one exerts himself or does not exert himself is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im . Some hold that one exerts himself as indicated by the mishna with regard to phylacteries, whereas others hold that one does not exert himself as stated with regard to sky blue dye.

דְּתַנְיָא: הַמּוֹצֵא תְּפִילִּין – מַכְנִיסָן זוּג זוּג, אֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה,

As it was taught in the Tosefta : One who finds phylacteries in a field brings them in to the town pair by pair, whether the finder is a man or a woman,