וּתְפִילִּין And the donning of phylacteries (Deuteronomy 6:8), which are not worn at night or on Shabbat and Festivals, is also a positive, time-bound mitzva.
וְאֵיזוֹהִי מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ מְזוּזָה מַעֲקֶה אֲבֵידָה וְשִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן And what is a positive mitzva that is not time bound? Examples include the affixing of a mezuza (Deuteronomy 11:20), the construction of a parapet on a roof (Deuteronomy 22:8), returning a lost item (Deuteronomy 22:1–3), and the release of the mother bird from the nest, i.e., the mitzva of sending away a mother bird when one finds it sitting on chicks or eggs (Deuteronomy 22:6–7).
וּכְלָלָא הוּא הֲרֵי מַצָּה שִׂמְחָה הַקְהֵל דְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא וְנָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת וְתוּ וַהֲרֵי תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן דְּלָאו מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ הוּא וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת The Gemara asks: But is this an established principle? But there are the mitzvot of eating matza on the first night of Passover (Exodus 23:15), of rejoicing on a Festival (Deuteronomy 16:9–11), and assembly on Sukkot following the Sabbatical Year (Deuteronomy 31:10–13). And each of these is a positive, time-bound mitzva, and yet women are obligated in them. And furthermore, one can raise a difficulty as follows: But there are the mitzvot of Torah study (Deuteronomy 6:7), procreation (Genesis 1:28), and redemption of the firstborn (Exodus 13:12–13), each of which is not a positive, time-bound mitzva, and yet women are exempt from them.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵין לְמֵדִין מִן הַכְּלָלוֹת וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ חוּץ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One does not learn practical halakhot from general statements, i.e., when a general statement appears in a mishna and uses the term: All, it is not to be understood as an all-inclusive statement without exceptions. This is the case even in a place where it says: Except, to exclude a specific matter.
דִּתְנַן בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמֶלַח וְתוּ לֵיכָּא וְהָאִיכָּא כְּמֵהִין וּפִטְרִיּוֹת אֶלָּא אֵין לְמֵדִין מִן הַכְּלָלוֹת וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ חוּץ A proof for this is as we learned in a mishna (Eiruvin 26b): One can establish a joining of houses in courtyards [eiruv ḥatzerot] and a joining of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv teḥumin], and similarly, one can merge courtyards to permit carrying in a joint alleyway on Shabbat. This can be done with all types of food except for water and salt. This is stated as a halakha with specific exceptions, and yet one can ask: Is there nothing else that cannot be used for an eiruv? But there are truffles and mushrooms, which also cannot be used for an eiruv, because they do not offer nourishment. Rather, conclude from this that one may not learn from general statements, even in a place where it says: Except.
וּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת מְנָלַן גָּמַר מִתְּפִילִּין מַה תְּפִילִּין נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת אַף כׇּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת וּתְפִילִּין גָּמַר לַהּ מִתַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה מָה תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת אַף תְּפִילִּין נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת § The Gemara turns to the sources of this principle. From where do we derive that women are exempt from positive, time-bound mitzvot? It is derived by juxtaposition from the mitzva of phylacteries: Just as women are exempt from donning phylacteries, so too, women are exempt from all positive, time-bound mitzvot. And the exemption of women from donning phylacteries is derived from their exemption from Torah study: Just as women are exempt from Torah study, as derived from Deuteronomy 11:19, so too women are exempt from donning phylacteries, as the two issues are juxtaposed in the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:7–8).
וְנַקֵּישׁ תְּפִילִּין לִמְזוּזָה תְּפִילִּין לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה אִיתַּקּוּשׁ בֵּין בְּפָרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה בֵּין בְּפָרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה תְּפִילִּין לִמְזוּזָה בְּפָרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה לָא אִיתַּקּוּשׁ The Gemara asks: And let us say the opposite and juxtapose phylacteries to mezuza, which is also mentioned in that passage. Mezuza is a mitzva in which women are also obligated. Based on this comparison, women would be obligated in phylacteries as well. The Gemara answers: Phylacteries are juxtaposed to Torah study in both the first paragraph and in the second paragraph of Shema, whereas phylacteries are not juxtaposed to mezuza in the second paragraph. It is therefore preferable to compare phylacteries to Torah study.
וְנַקֵּישׁ מְזוּזָה לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דִּכְתִיב לְמַעַן יִרְבּוּ יְמֵיכֶם גַּבְרֵי בָּעוּ חַיֵּי נְשֵׁי לָא בָּעוּ חַיֵּי The Gemara says: But if so, let us juxtapose mezuza to Torah study and say that women are also exempt from the obligation of a mezuza. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This could not enter your mind, as it is written with regard to the mitzva of mezuza: “That your days may be multiplied” (Deuteronomy 11:21). Can it be said that men need life but women do not need life? Since the reward for the performance of the mitzva of mezuza is extended life, this mitzva applies to women as well.
וַהֲרֵי סוּכָּה דְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָהּ דִּכְתִיב בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא הָאֶזְרָח לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנָּשִׁים הָא לָאו הָכִי נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת The Gemara further asks: But there is the mitzva of residing in a sukka, which is a positive, time-bound mitzva, as it is written: “In sukkot you shall reside seven days” (Leviticus 23:42), referring to seven specific days of the year. Nevertheless, the reason women are exempt from this mitzva is that the Merciful One writes in the continuation of the verse: “All the homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot.” The definite article “the” is an exclusion, and serves to exclude the women from the obligation to reside in a sukka. It may be derived from here that if that was not so, women would be obligated. This indicates that women do not receive a blanket exemption from every positive, time-bound mitzva.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי אִיצְטְרִיךְ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הוֹאִיל דִּכְתִיב בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ תֵּשְׁבוּ כְּעֵין תָּדוּרוּ מָה דִּירָה אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ אַף סוּכָּה אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ Abaye said: In the case of residing in a sukka a special verse was necessary to exempt women, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: “In sukkot you shall reside,” this means that you should reside as you dwell in your permanent home: Just as a man and his wife live together in a residence, so too, a man and his wife are obligated to reside together in a sukka.
וְרָבָא אָמַר And Rava said: