Eiruvin 96a, b

Just when I have almost given up on finding hidden treasures in Eiruvin, I read daf 95.

We begin where we left off, in a discussion about tefilin.  In figuring out who should carry in tefilin found outside of Shabbat boundaries on Shabbat, the rabbis must discuss intention.  Intention has different implications when regarding positive commandments and negative commandments; time-bound mitzvot and obligations not bound by time.  

We learn that circumcision, for example, is a positive, time-bound mitzvah.  Intentionally leaving oneself uncircumsized is prohibited and the person in question will be punished (beyond being circumsized, of course, which is not actually considered to be a punishment but the entering of a covenant).  If one unintentionally leaves himself uncircumsized, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering as it is not a prohibition.

The rabbis wonder about whether or not tefilin should be worn at night.  They consider whether we have been instructed to observe this mitzvah only during the day, based on scripture.  They debate about whether we are allowed to don tefilin on Shabbat and Festivals, or whether tefilin are only to be worn during weekdays.  And then, suddenly, we are told about Michal, the daughter of Kushi.

Michal in fact may have been the daughter of Saul.  Although her story is not based in scripture but is rabbinical in origin, the rabbis tell that she donned tefilin and the Sages did not object.  This would prove that tefilin is a positive and not a time-bound mitzvah, as women are obligated to perform all mitzvot that are not time-bound.  

They mention Jonah's wife, who travelled on the Festival pilgrimage. There is some confusion about whether or not this was allowed; if she was turned back, that may have been because she was not obligated to perform the mitzvah of pilgrimage for a totally separate reason (having to do with her place of residence).  However, the rabbis tell us that both of these women performed non-time bound, positive mitzvot.

The rabbis move into a conversation about whether or not a woman is obligated to place her hands on the head of a sacrificial animal.  We are not allowed to add to a mitzvah nor to detract from it.  If women are not required to perform this particular mitzvah, the rabbis argue that we should not be allowed to move toward performance, even if our intention is to perform rather than to fulfil the mitzvah.

Finally, in a similar vein, the rabbis discuss whether or not children are allowed to blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashana.  If they are of educational age (3 years) but not over 6 years of age, they are allowed to blow the shofar for this prepares them for fulfilling that mitzvah in the future.  However, girls of that age should not be allowed to practice blowing the shofar, as we don't want girls to prepare for a mitzvah that they should not fulfill.

The daf ends with discussion about fabric/thread for a tallit.  Pre-dyed fabric is not acceptable, for we must supervise the dying process.  This argument is compared with found tefilin which may or may not be amulets in the shape of tefilin.

The casual discussion of women's rights and obligations is startling.  It seems that the rabbis had significant debates regarding whether or not women are obligated to fulfil/perform certain mitzvot.  I can't help but wonder how much of their rulings were founded on practicality.  If they decided that a woman was obligated to don tefilin, she would take longer with her prayer and be less available to the family in busy morning hours. And what implication might that have on women's participation in other religious rituals?  I wonder if the logic of the rabbis was influenced by very human, very practical needs, and not on the words of scripture which always are open for interpretation.