(ז) כָּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן עַל הָאָב, אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוֹת הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין. וְכָל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, בֵּין שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין, חוּץ מִבַּל תַּשְׁחִית וּבַל תַּקִּיף וּבַל תִּטַּמָּא לְמֵתִים:
(7) With regard to all mitzvot of a son with regard to his father, men are obligated to perform them and women are exempt. And with regard to all mitzvot of a father with regard to his son, both men and women are obligated to perform them. The mishna notes an additional difference between the obligations of men and women in the performance of mitzvot: With regard to all positive, time-bound mitzvot, i.e., those which must be performed at specific times, men are obligated to perform them and women are exempt. And with regard to all positive mitzvot that are not time bound, both men and women are obligated to perform them. And with regard to all prohibitions, whether they are time-bound or whether they are not time-bound, both men and women are obligated to observe them, except for the prohibitions of: Do not round the corners of your head, and: Do not destroy the corners of your beard, which are derived from the verse: “You shall not round the corners of your head and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27), and a prohibition that concerns only priests: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse (see Leviticus 21:1). These mitzvot apply only to men, not women, despite the fact that they are prohibitions.
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 וְנַקֵּישׁ תְּפִילִּין לִמְזוּזָה תְּפִילִּין לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה אִיתַּקּוּשׁ בֵּין בְּפָרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה בֵּין בְּפָרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה תְּפִילִּין לִמְזוּזָה בְּפָרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה לָא אִיתַּקּוּשׁ
§ 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). 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.
(יט) וְלִמַּדְתֶּ֥ם אֹתָ֛ם אֶת־בְּנֵיכֶ֖ם לְדַבֵּ֣ר בָּ֑ם בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ֤ בְּבֵיתֶ֙ךָ֙ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ֣ בַדֶּ֔רֶךְ וּֽבְשׇׁכְבְּךָ֖ וּבְקוּמֶֽךָ׃
(19) and teach them to your children—reciting them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up;
דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב בְּרַם זָכוּר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ לַטּוֹב וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן גַּמְלָא שְׁמוֹ שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא הוּא נִשְׁתַּכַּח תּוֹרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבִּתְחִלָּה מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אָב מְלַמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אָב לֹא הָיָה לָמֵד תּוֹרָה מַאי דְּרוּשׁ וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אֹתָם וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אַתֶּם
What was this ordinance? As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Truly, that man is remembered for the good, and his name is Yehoshua ben Gamla. If not for him the Torah would have been forgotten from the Jewish people. Initially, whoever had a father would have his father teach him Torah, and whoever did not have a father would not learn Torah at all. The Gemara explains: What verse did they interpret homiletically that allowed them to conduct themselves in this manner? They interpreted the verse that states: “And you shall teach them [otam] to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19), to mean: And you yourselves [atem] shall teach, i.e., you fathers shall teach your sons.
וְאִיהִי מְנָלַן דְּלָא מִיחַיְּיבָה לְמֵילַף נַפְשַׁהּ דִּכְתִיב וְלִימַּדְתֶּם וּלְמַדְתֶּם כֹּל שֶׁאֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוין לְלַמְּדוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה לְלַמֵּד אֶת עַצְמוֹ וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין אֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוין לְלַמְּדוֹ אֵין מְצֻוֶּוה לְלַמֵּד אֶת עַצְמוֹ וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין אֲחֵרִים מְצֻוִּוין לְלַמְּדָהּ דְּאָמַר קְרָא וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אֹתָם אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם וְלֹא בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that she is not obligated to teach herself? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And you shall teach [velimadtem],” which can be read as: And you shall study [ulmadtem], which indicates that whoever others are commanded to teach is commanded to teach himself, and whoever others are not commanded to teach is not commanded to teach himself. And from where is it derived that others are not commanded to teach a woman? As the verse states: “And you shall teach them to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19), which emphasizes: Your sons and not your daughters.
(ז) וְשִׁנַּנְתָּ֣ם לְבָנֶ֔יךָ וְדִבַּרְתָּ֖ בָּ֑ם בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ֤ בְּבֵיתֶ֙ךָ֙ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ֣ בַדֶּ֔רֶךְ וּֽבְשׇׁכְבְּךָ֖ וּבְקוּמֶֽךָ׃ (ח) וּקְשַׁרְתָּ֥ם לְא֖וֹת עַל־יָדֶ֑ךָ וְהָי֥וּ לְטֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵינֶֽיךָ׃
(7) Impress them upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up. (8) Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead;
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי קַרְיָינָא כֵּיוָן שֶׁקָּרָא שְׁלֹשָׁה פְּסוּקִים בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁיִּקְרָא וִיתַרְגֵּם יְתַרְגֵּם מִדַּעְתֵּיהּ וְהָתַנְיָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר הַמְתַרְגֵּם פָּסוּק כְּצוּרָתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה בַּדַּאי וְהַמּוֹסִיף עָלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה מְחָרֵף וּמְגַדֵּף אֶלָּא מַאי תַּרְגּוּם תַּרְגּוּם דִּידַן וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דַּאֲמַר לַהּ קַרְיָינָא אֲבָל אָמַר לַהּ קָרָא אֲנָא עַד דְּקָרֵי אוֹרָיְיתָא נְבִיאֵי וּכְתוּבֵי בְּדִיּוּקָא עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר הֲלָכוֹת וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר תּוֹרָה מֵיתִיבִי אֵיזוֹ הִיא מִשְׁנָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר הֲלָכוֹת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִדְרָשׁ מַאי תּוֹרָה מִדְרַשׁ תּוֹרָה וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דַּאֲמַר לַהּ תָּנֵינָא אֲבָל אֲמַר לַהּ תַּנָּא אֲנָא עַד דְּתָנֵי הִילְכְתָא סִפְרָא וְסִיפְרֵי וְתוֹסֶפְתָּא עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי תַּלְמִיד אֵין אוֹמְרִים כְּשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי וּכְשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן זוֹמָא אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁשּׁוֹאֲלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם דָּבָר אֶחָד בְּתַלְמוּדוֹ וְאוֹמְרוֹ וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּמַסֶּכְתָּא דְכַלָּה עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲנִי חָכָם אֵין אוֹמְרִים כְּחַכְמֵי יַבְנֶה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲבֵירָיו אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁשּׁוֹאֲלִים אוֹתוֹ דְּבַר חׇכְמָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם וְאוֹמְרָהּ
§ The Sages taught: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am literate with regard to the Torah, once he has read three verses in the synagogue she is betrothed. Rabbi Yehuda says that she is not betrothed until he reads and translates the verses. The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yehuda mean that one translates according to his own understanding? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Megilla 3:21) that Rabbi Yehuda says: One who translates a verse literally is a liar, since he distorts the meaning of the text, and conversely, one who adds his own translation is tantamount to one who curses and blasphemes God? Rather, to which translation is Rabbi Yehuda referring? He is referring to our accepted translation. And this statement applies only if he said to her: I am literate, but if he said to her: I am a reader, this indicates that he is an expert in the reading of the Torah, and she is not betrothed unless he knows how to read the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings with precision. The Gemara discusses a similar case: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I study [shoneh], Ḥizkiyya says it means that he studies halakhot, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says it means that he studies Torah, i.e., the written Torah. The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan from a baraita: What is the meaning of: Mishna? Rabbi Meir says halakhot, Rabbi Yehuda says homiletics. Neither of them, however, says that it refers to the written Torah. What is the meaning of: Torah, that Rabbi Yoḥanan said? It is homiletic interpretation of the Torah. And this statement applies only if he said to her: I study [taneina]. But if he says to her: I am a tanna [tanna ana], she is not betrothed unless he studies halakha, i.e., Mishna, Sifra and Sifrei, and Tosefta. If a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a student of Torah, one does not say that he must be a student who is scholarly like Shimon ben Azzai or like Shimon ben Zoma, who were called students despite their great knowledge, as they were never ordained. Rather, it means anyone who, when he is asked one matter in any topic of his studies, responds appropriately and can say what he has learned, and this suffices even if his statement was in the tractate of Kalla. Similarly, if a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a scholar, one does not say that he must be like the scholars of Yavne, like Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues. Rather, it is referring to anyone who, when he is asked about a matter of wisdom on any topic related to the Torah, responds appropriately and can say what he has learned.