Assertion: [R. Yosi ha'Gelili] relies on the Drashah below "l'Os Al Yadecha" (Tefilin applies only when Yisrael need an Os. If not, what is the reason to exclude Shabbos and Yom Tov?)

Suggestion: It seems that we should not wear Tefilin on Chol ha'Mo'ed, for it does not need an Os, for then it is forbidden to do Melachah that is not Devar ha'Avud (he will suffer a loss if he does not do it now, or one of the other four Heterim for Melachah).

Support: Also, [there is another Os;] one is obligated in Sukah during Sukos, and he is forbidden to eat Chametz during Pesach! Also Bahag rules like this (he is exempt during Chol ha'Mo'ed).

Rebuttal: The Yerushalmi connotes that he must wear [Tefilin on Chol ha'Mo'Ed];

Citation (Yerushalmi): A man who lost [his] Tefilin came in front of Rav Chananel; he sent him in front of Rabah bar Rav Chanah. [Rabah] told a scribe "give to him your Tefilin, and write for yourself, for (a Mishnah, Mo'ed Katan 3:4) teaches 'one may write Tefilin for himself [during Chol ha'Mo'ed].'"

Citation (cont.): [The scribe] came in front of Rav. He told him "[you need not give your Tefilin to him. You may] write explicitly for him."

Citation (cont.): Our Mishnah argues with Rav! It says "one may write Tefilin for himself", but not for others! Rav explains that this is Lehani'ach.

Explanation: Rav establishes our Mishnah when he wants to leave the Tefilin for after the Mo'ed, but for the need of the Mo'ed, he may write even for others.

Support (of Rebuttal): People conduct like this (they wear Tefilin on Chol ha'Mo'ed). They bring another proof from Beitzah 15a, regarding "we may send Tefilin." (Rav Sheshes justified sending Tefilin on Yom Tov, for "anything that one may benefit from it b'Chol, one may send it on Yom Tov." Ohr Zaru'a (cited in Hagahos Ashri Beitzah 1:25, b'Sof) explains that "Chol" refers to Chol ha'Mo'Ed.)

Inference: R. Tam derived from here that people in Eretz Yisrael, who used to bless when removing Tefilin "Lishmor Chukav" (Brachos 44b), this was only when they removed close to dark, because night is not Zman Tefilin (there is no Mitzvah then), for Chukah was written for this (to exclude nights).

Pesak: We do not hold like this. One need not bless, even if he removes them because night [is coming], for we hold like R. Akiva, who says that Chukah was said only regarding Pesach.

Support: In Menachos (36b), we rule that night is Zman Tefilin, until the time of sleep;

Rav Ashi and Ravina conclude there that this is the Halachah, but we do not rule like this. (Rather, we tell people to remove Tefilin at night.) However, [mid'Oraisa] the entire night is Zman Tefilin, like R. Akiva of our Sugya.

Consequence: Even R. Yochanan, who says in Menachos (36b) that also Hishamer of an Aseh is a Lav, and therefore one who puts on Tefilin after sunset transgresses a Lav, he agrees that if he did not wear during the day, he is not lashed;

Regarding [the obligation to] wear during the day, Hishamer of an Aseh is an Aseh, just like regarding doing [Korban] Pesach, which it says here that it is an Aseh, because it is fulfilled through an action;

Only regarding wearing Tefilin at night, R. Yochanan said that it is a Lav, for it is like Hishamer b'Nega ha'Tzara'as, which he considers to be a Lav, in Shabbos (132b);

Even though it is written "Lishmor... v'La'asos" (which connote an Aseh, he holds that Hishamer b'Nega ha'Tzara'as is a Lav), because it means a Lav - be careful and do not cut [Tzara'as from the body].

Citation: In the Pesikta (Rabsi 22), R. Chizkiyah said in the name of R. Avahu that Yonah's wife was returned (from Aliyah l'Regel, i.e. entering the Mikdash during the festival), and Chachamim protested against Michal.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If it is an Aseh sheha'Zman Gerama, they would have protested against [Michal], for it looks like she adds [to the Mitzvah].

Rebuttal (Ri): R. Yehudah holds that Nashim Somchos Reshus (a woman may do Semichah on her Korban, even though she is exempt), and we know that he holds in Sukah (2b) that Queen Hilni and her seven sons dwelled in a Sukah!

Defense #1: We can say that she dwelled [in a Sukah] due to her seven sons, and it does not look like Bal Tosif (adding to a Mitzvah).

Defense #2: We know that Rava holds (Rosh Hashanah 28b) that to transgress [Bal Tosif] not at the time [of the Mitzvah] he must intend [for the Mitzvah];

For a woman, who is not obligated, it is like not at the time, and since she did not intend [for the Mitzvah], she did not transgress.

Disclaimer: This is a difficult defense.

Explanation #2: The reason for the one who says that it is not Reshus (women may wear Tefilin) is because Tefilin requires a clean body [one may not emit gas while wearing them], and women are not zealous to be careful [about this];

The reason [they protested] about Aliyah l'Regel is because it looks like she brings Chulin b'Azarah, or for entering the Mikdash without need. (This is like Reish Lakish (Chagigah 7a), who forbids entering without a Korban, and unlike R. Yochanan.)

Also blowing a Shofar and Semichah, we stop them according to the opinion that it is not Reshus, it is not because it looks like they add;

Rather, it is because Teki'ah is a Melachah mid'Rabanan, like it says in Chulin (84b), that the Vadai Mitzvah [to blow on Rosh Hashanah] does not override Shabbos, and Semichah, even if he places his hands softly (the Korban does not support his weight), it looks like using Kodshim.

Inference (R. Tam): This shows that women may bless on any Mitzvas Aseh sheha'Zman Gerama, even though they are exempt, just like Michal bas Sha'ul. Presumably, she also blessed [on Tefilin].

Implied question: R. Meir and R. Yehudah argue with [R. Yosi], like it says below!

Answer: We hold like R. Yosi against both of them.

Implied question: The Stam Mishnah "we do not stop children from blowing" is unlike R. Yosi, for it connotes that we stop women, like it says below!

Answer: Even so, what was done in practice is more authoritative. Michal bas Sha'ul [wore Tefilin], Yonah's wife [was Olah l'Regel], and there was an episode in Chagigah (16b) in which they brought [a Shelamim] to the Ezras Nashim and [women] did Semichah on it, in order to please them.

Support (R. Tam): Rav Yosef said in Bava Kama (87a) "initially, [I said that] if one will tell me that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah (that a Suma (blind person) is exempt from Mitzvos), I will make a party for Rabanan, for I am not commanded, and I fulfill..."

If when one is exempt and he fulfills, he may not bless, why did he say that] he will make a party? He would lose all the Brachos for all the Mitzvos, and 100 Brachos every day!

Explanation: It is not considered a Brachah l'Vatalah, since he blesses on the Mitzvah he does, even though he is exempt.

Rebuttal: There is no proof from a Suma to a woman, for a Suma is obligated mid'Rabanan;

Even so, Rav Yosef would have been happy [to hear that he is exempt] because mid'Oraisa he is not commanded, and [even so] he fulfills.

Source #1: It is somewhat proven (that a Suma is obligated mid'Rabanan) in Pesachim (116b);

It says that a Suma is exempt from saying Hagadah (telling about Yetzi'as Mitzrayim), and it asks from Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshes, who said the Hagadah and they were Motzi their households. It answers that he holds that nowadays [the Mitzvah to eat] Matzah (and likewise, to say the Hagadah) is mid'Rabanan.

Inference: They are obligated mid'Rabanan, and therefore they can be Motzi others.

Rebuttal (of inference): Even if it is Reshus (he is not obligated even mid'Rabanan), he can be Motzi one who is obligated mid'Oraisa, just like a minor who blesses for his father, in Brachos (20b), and [a minor] can count as one of the seven Aliyos [on Shabbos], and he can [read and] be Motzi others (even adults, who are obligated) in the Megilah, according to R. Yehudah, like he said in Megilah (19b).

Source #2: In Megilah (24a), R. Yehudah says "anyone who never saw the sun and moon may not be Pores Al Shma (say part of the Birkos Keri'as Shma, i.e. Yotzer ha'Me'oros, to be Motzi others)";

Inference: If he saw them, even if now he became blind, he may be Pores Al Shma, even though R. Yehudah holds that a Suma is exempt from all Mitzvos;

Rather, surely he is obligated mid'Rabanan, and he can say Kideshanu b'Mitzvosav v'Tzivanu, since he is obligated mid'Rabanan, like we say in Shabbos (23a) "where did [Hash-m] command us [to light Ner Chanukah]? Lo Sasur (do not veer from what Chachamim say)";

Summation of Rebuttal: However, a woman is not obligated even mid'Rabanan in a Mitzvas Aseh sheha'Zman Gerama, like is proven explicitly in Brachos (20b) regarding "women are obligated in Kidush ha'Yom (on Shabbos night)" mid'Oraisa, and in Sukah regarding Queen Hilni. How can she say v'Tzivanu?!

Implied question: Why is a Suma obligated mid'Rabanan, and Chachamim totally exempted a woman?

Answer #1: Chachamim were stringent about a Suma, for he is a kind of person (man) who is obligated.

Answer #2: He should not appear like a Nochri [like he would] if he were totally exempt from all Mitzvos. However, a woman, even though she is totally exempt from Mitzvos Aseh sheha'Zman Gerama, she is still obligated in all the other Mitzvos.

Implied question: Why does a woman count towards the seven Aliyos, and she blesses Birkas ha'Torah, even though she is exempt from Talmud Torah, like it says in Kidushin (29b) and above (27a? This connotes that she is obligated mid'Rabanan!)

Answer (R. Tam): This is not a proof. The Brachah for Kri'as ha'Torah is not due to the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, for even if one blessed Ha'arev Na, or he was exempt [from Birkas ha'Torah] through Ahavah Rabah, he blesses again.

Proof: When there is no Levi, a Kohen reads in place of a Levi, and he blesses, even though he blessed on the first reading.

Suggestion: We can bring a proof from a minor, who blesses Birkas ha'Mazon even though he is exempt. (Likewise, a woman may bless, even though she is exempt!)

Rejection: That is no proof to a woman, for a minor will come to be obligated, and [his father] is obligated to train him, and he is not commanded "Lo Sisa" (not to bless l'Vatalah).

Question: Perhaps [she may wear Tefilin to save them] because it is normal for a person to wear them, like it says in Shabbos (61a) that Tefilin is considered something worn!

Answer: That is only for a man, for he normally wears them during the week, but not for a woman, like we say there "the opposite applies to a man. What is proper for a man (a ring with a stamp) is not proper for a woman, and what is proper for a woman (a ring without a stamp) is not proper for a man."

Inference: Both R. Meir and R. Yehudah hold that women are obligated in Tefilin, for it is not Zman Gerama.

Question: In Brachos (20b), a Mishnah teaches that women, slaves and minors are exempt from Tefilin. The Gemara asks that this is obvious, and answers that it is needed, for Tefilin is equated to Mezuzah;

[Why did it ask that this is obvious? The Mishnah] must teach unlike R. Meir and R. Yehudah!

Answer: According to the opinion that considers Tefilin to be Zman Gerama, it was obvious. Therefore, it needed to give the reason that [Tefilin and Mezuzah are] equated.

Question (R. Yom Tov of Vin): How does the Gemara infer below that R. Meir does not hold like R. Yosi from the Stam Mishnah that we do not stop children from blowing, and due to this we want to say that the Mishnah in Brachos (20b) is unlike R. Meir?

Just the contrary, we should say that that Stam Mishnah is like R. Meir, who holds that women are exempt, and here R. Meir taught that both men and women [may save Tefilin] because he holds like R. Yosi, who says that Nashim Somchos Reshus, and our Stam Mishnah "we do not stop" is unlike R. Meir!

Answer #1 (Ri): No matter what you will say, the Stam Mishnah in Brachos is unlike R. Meir, for that Mishnah holds that Nashim Somchos Lav Reshus, for it teaches there that women, slaves and children are exempt from Kri'as Shma and Tefilin, and obligated in Tefilah, Birkas ha'Mazon and Mezuzah;

You are forced to say that these children did not reach the age of Chinuch, for if they reached the age of Chinuch, they are obligated also in Tefilin, like it says in Sukah (42a) that a child who knows to guard Tefilin, his father must buy for him Tefilin;

Rather, we discuss when they did not reach the age of Chinuch. "They are obligated" does not refer to children, rather, to women and slaves. It mentioned children only regarding exemption.

Implied question: Also this is no Chidush, that they are exempt when did not reach the age of Chinuch!

Answer: It was taught only to teach that women and slaves are like children regarding Tefilin. If [children] want to wear them, we do not allow them, due to disgrace to Tefilin, when they did not reach the age of Chinuch.

Answer #2: [The Tartzan] prefers to say that the Mishnah in Brachos is unlike R. Meir, because R. Meir said [that one may save at once only] one pair, but not more. This is resolved only if he holds that Shabbos is Zman Tefilin, like we concluded above...

... Unless we will say that R. Meir holds unlike Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak, who says that there is place on the head for two Tefilin.

Remark: In Rosh Hashanah (33a), some texts [of this Beraisa] say "these are R. Yehudah's words." Here it is proven that the text does not say so (for we need a source that R. Yehudah taught it).

Explanation: This is like we conclude, that they are twined and cut. One does not toil so much [if not for the Mitzvah].

Question: Even though they were made for Tzitzis, why is it Kosher? It says in Menachos (42b) that one may buy Techeles only from an expert who knows that a sample [of Techeles to test if it is ready] is Pasul. One may not buy from one who is not an expert, for there is concern that he used it for testing.

Answer: When he found them twined and cut, that we know that they were for the need of Tzitzis, we should attribute that they fell from an expert, for when he is not an expert, he does not normally engage in the matter, for he knows that people will not buy from him;

Even for himself, he does not normally make [Techeles], for he knows that he is not expert in the laws of dying.

Explanation: Now we are not thinking that the reason is based on whether or not they are tied, like we will say below (97a). We are thinking that both of them are not tied, but in old Tefilin, the impression of the knot is recognized in them, and in new ones, it is not recognized, so for new ones we are concerned lest it was a Kam'ia;

However, in old ones, there is no concern for a Kam'ia, for if it was a Kam'ia, he would not have made a knot. Surely he would not make it so much like Tefilin!

Question: Since they are not tied, how can one bring them in on Shabbos? On Shabbos one may not tie!

Answer #1: He holds that also without tying, it is like wearing.

Answer #2: He makes a bow, even according to R. Yehudah. We are thinking that presumably, he intends to untie the bow and make a full knot, and it is not permanent.