Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 26, 2020 | 讻状讟 讘讟讘转 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Berakhot 23

If one needs to go to the bathroom during shmone esreh, what does one do? Can one pray when one needs to go to the bathroom? Can one bring tefillin into the bathroom? Can one bring them in by carrying them in one’s hand or wrapped in something? There are dangers if one leaves them outside and therefore Beit Hillel permits bringing them into a permanent bathroom in one’s hand. Would he allow it also in a temporary bathroom? It was also believed that there were spirits in the bathroom and some brought tefillin there to protect them from the spirits. Why would there be a difference? Before sitting down to a meal, one should try to use the bathroom. Also one should not wear one’s tefillin when eating, in case one gets drunk. Can one put money in a head covering that is being used to wrap one’s tefillin? Can one sleep with tefillin under one’s pillow? Is it allowed even if his wife is in bed with him?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诪专 住讘专 讗诐 砖讛讛 讻讚讬 诇讙诪讜专 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讞讜讝专 诇专讗砖 讜诪专 住讘专 诇诪拽讜诐 砖驻住拽

One Sage held that, as a rule, if one interrupted his prayer and delayed continuing his prayer for an interval sufficient to complete the entire prayer, he returns to the beginning of the prayer. And one Sage held: He returns to the place in the prayer where he stopped.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讗诐 砖讛讛 讗诐 诇讗 砖讛讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗诐 砖讛讛 讻讚讬 诇讙诪讜专 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讞讜讝专 诇专讗砖 讜讛转诐 讘讚诇讗 砖讛讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讙讘专讗 讚讞讜讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 讜讗讬谉 转驻诇转讜 转驻诇讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讙讘专讗 讞讝讬讗 讛讜讗 讜转驻诇转讜 转驻诇讛

Rejecting this possibility, Rav Ashi said: If that was the crux of their dispute, they should have discussed the element of: If he delayed, and: If he did not delay. Nowhere in their dispute do they mention the matter of how long the delay was for. Rather, everyone, both Rav 岣sda and Rav Hamnuna, agrees that if one delayed continuing his prayer for an interval sufficient to complete the entire prayer, he returns to the beginning of the prayer. And there, in the dispute under discussion, they disagree with regard to one who did not delay that long. The dispute centers on the status of the one praying in this particular case. As one Sage holds that since he evidently needed to urinate before starting his prayer, he is a man who was disqualified, and unfit for prayer, and his prayer is not a valid prayer; therefore he must repeat it in its entirety. And one Sage holds he is a man who was fit for prayer and his prayer is a valid prayer.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞爪专讱 诇谞拽讘讬讜 讗诇 讬转驻诇诇 讜讗诐 讛转驻诇诇 转驻诇转讜 转讜注讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇砖讛讜转 讘注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇砖讛讜转 讘注爪诪讜 转驻诇转讜 转驻诇讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who needs to relieve himself may not pray, and if he prayed, his prayer is an abomination. Rav Zevid and some say Rav Yehuda said in qualifying this statement: They only taught this halakha in a case where one cannot restrain himself. But, if he can restrain himself, his prayer is a valid prayer as he is not tarnished by his need to relieve himself.

讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 注讚 驻专住讛 讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 注诇 注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 注诇 注爪诪讜 转驻诇转讜 转驻诇讛 讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 注讚 驻专住讛

The Gemara asks: And for how long must he be able to restrain himself? Rav Sheshet said: For as long as it takes to walk one parasang. Some teach this halakha directly on what was taught in the baraita: In what case is this statement said? Where he is unable to restrain himself, but if he is able to restrain himself, his prayer is a valid prayer. And for how long? Rav Zevid said: For as long as it takes to walk one parasang.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛谞爪专讱 诇谞拽讘讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬转驻诇诇 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛讻讜谉 诇拽专讗转 讗诇讛讬讱 讬砖专讗诇

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: One who needs to relieve himself may not pray, because it is stated: 鈥淧repare to greet your God, O Israel鈥 (Amos 4:12), and one must clear his mind of all distractions to prepare to receive the Lord during prayer.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 砖诪讜专 专讙诇讱 讻讗砖专 转诇讱 讗诇 讘讬转 讛讗诇讛讬诐 砖诪讜专 注爪诪讱 砖诇讗 转讞讟讗 讜讗诐 转讞讟讗 讛讘讗 拽专讘谉 诇驻谞讬 讜拽专讜讘 诇砖诪注 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讬 拽专讜讘 诇砖诪讜注 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讗诐 讞讜讟讗讬诐 诪讘讬讗讬诐 拽专讘谉 讜注讜砖讬诐 转砖讜讘讛 诪转转 讛讻住讬诇讬诐 讝讘讞 讗诇 转讛讬 讻讻住讬诇讬诐 砖讞讜讟讗讬诐 讜诪讘讬讗讬诐 拽专讘谉 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬诐 转砖讜讘讛

In this context, the Gemara cites an additional statement, which Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淕uard your foot when you go to the house of God, and prepare to listen; it is better than when fools offer sacrifices, as they know not to do evil鈥 (Ecclesiastes 4:17)? It means: When you enter the house of the Lord, guard yourself from transgression, and if you commit a transgression, bring a sacrifice before Me in atonement. The verse continues: 鈥淎nd draw near and listen to the words of the wise.鈥 Rava said: Be prepared to hearken to the words of the wise, who, if they commit a transgression, they bring a sacrifice and repent. He interprets the next part of the verse: 鈥淚t is better than when fools give sacrifices,鈥 that one should not act like the fools who commit a transgression and bring a sacrifice but do not repent.

讻讬 讗讬谞诐 讬讜讚注讬诐 诇注砖讜转 专注 讗讬 讛讻讬 爪讚讬拽讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诇 转讛讬 讻讻住讬诇讬诐 砖讞讜讟讗讬诐 讜诪讘讬讗讬诐 拽专讘谉 讜讗讬谞诐 讬讜讚注讬诐 讗诐 注诇 讛讟讜讘讛 讛诐 诪讘讬讗讬诐 讗诐 注诇 讛专注讛 讛诐 诪讘讬讗讬诐 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 讟讜讘 诇专注 讗讬谞谉 诪讘讞讬谞讬诐 讜讛诐 诪讘讬讗讬诐 拽专讘谉 诇驻谞讬

Regarding the end of the verse: 鈥淎s they know not to do evil,鈥 the Gemara asks: If so, they are righteous. Rather it must be understood: Do not be like the fools who commit a transgression and bring a sacrifice, but are unaware whether they are bringing it as a thanks-offering for the good, or as an offering of atonement for the evil. This is the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎s they know not to do evil鈥; they know not if and when their actions are evil. With regard to those individuals, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: They cannot distinguish between good and evil and yet they bring a sacrifice before me?

专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜专 谞拽讘讬讱 讘砖注讛 砖讗转讛 注讜诪讚 讘转驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬

Rav Ashi and some say Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappa said: Mind your orifices when you stand before me in prayer.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讞讜诇抓 转驻讬诇讬讜 讘专讞讜拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜谞讻谞住 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 拽讘讜注 讗讘诇 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 注专讗讬 讞讜诇抓 讜谞驻谞讛 诇讗诇转专 讜讻砖讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪谞讬讞谉 诪驻谞讬 砖注砖讗讜 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 拽讘讜注

The Sages taught: One who enters a bathroom must remove his phylacteries at a distance of four cubits and enter. Rav A岣 bar Rav Huna said that Rav Sheshet said: This was only taught with regard to one entering a regular bathroom, but one who enters a makeshift bathroom may remove his phylacteries and defecate immediately. But when one exits from a makeshift bathroom, he must distance himself four cubits before donning his phylacteries because he has now rendered that place a regular bathroom.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 砖讬讻谞住 讗讚诐 讘转驻讬诇讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 拽讘讜注 诇讛砖转讬谉 诪讬诐 专讘讬谞讗 砖专讬 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 讗住专 讗转讜 砖讬讬诇讜讛 诇专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗住讜专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬驻谞讛 讘讛谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 砖诪讗 讬驻讬讞 讘讛谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages in the yeshiva: What is the halakha; may one enter a regular bathroom wearing his phylacteries in order to urinate? The Sages disagreed: Ravina permitted to do so while Rav Adda bar Mattana prohibited it. They came and asked this of Rava. He said to them: It is forbidden because we are concerned lest he will come to defecate with them still on. Others say that this halakha is because we are concerned that, since he is already in the bathroom, he might forget that his phylacteries are on his head and will break wind with them still on him.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 拽讘讜注 讞讜诇抓 转驻讬诇讬讜 讘专讞讜拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讘讞诇讜谉 讛住诪讜讱 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞讻谞住 讜讻砖讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜讞讝谉 讘讬讚讜 讜谞讻谞住 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讜讞讝谉 讘讘讙讚讜 讜谞讻谞住

It was taught in another baraita: One who enters a regular bathroom must remove his phylacteries at a distance of four cubits, place them in the window in the wall of the bathroom adjacent to the public domain, and then enter. And when he exits, he must distance himself four cubits before donning them. This is the statement of Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel say: He must remove his phylacteries but he holds them in his hand and enters. Rabbi Akiva says: He holds them in his garment and enters.

讘讘讙讚讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讝讬诪谞讬谉 诪讬砖转诇讬 诇讛讜 讜谞驻诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讜讞讝谉 讘讘讙讚讜 讜讘讬讚讜 讜谞讻谞住

The Gemara wonders: Does it enter your mind to say in his garment? There is room for concern because sometimes he forgets them and they fall. Rather, say: He holds them with his garment and in his hand and enters the bathroom. He holds the phylacteries in his hand and covers it with the garment.

讜诪谞讬讞诐 讘讞讜专讬谉 讛住诪讜讻讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜诇讗 讬谞讬讞诐 讘讞讜专讬谉 讛住诪讜讻讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖诪讗 讬讟诇讜 讗讜转诐 注讜讘专讬 讚专讻讬诐 讜讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讞砖讚

It was established in the baraita: And if there is room to place them, he places them in the holes adjacent to the bathroom, but he does not place them in the holes adjacent to the public domain, lest the phylacteries will be taken by passersby and he will come to be suspect.

讜诪注砖讛 讘转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 砖讛谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬讜 讘讞讜专讬谉 讛住诪讜讻讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讗转 讝讜谞讛 讗讞转 讜谞讟诇转谉 讜讘讗转 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜讗诪专讛 专讗讜 诪讛 谞转谉 诇讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讘砖讻专讬 讻讬讜谉 砖砖诪注 讗讜转讜 转诇诪讬讚 讻讱 注诇讛 诇专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜谞驻诇 讜诪转 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讗 讗讜讞讝谉 讘讘讙讚讜 讜讘讬讚讜 讜谞讻谞住

And an incident occurred involving a student who placed his phylacteries in the holes adjacent to the public domain, and a prostitute passed by and took the phylacteries. She came to the study hall and said: See what so-and-so gave me as my payment. When that student heard this, he ascended to the rooftop and fell and died. At that moment they instituted that one should hold them with his garment and in his hand and enter to avoid situations of that kind.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讞讜专讬谉 讛住诪讜讻讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讘讗讬谉 注讻讘专讬诐 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讞诇讜谞讜转 讛住诪讜讻讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讗讬谉 注讜讘专讬 讚专讻讬诐 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讗 讗讜讞讝谉 讘讬讚讜 讜谞讻谞住

The Sages taught in a baraita on this topic: At first, they would place the phylacteries in the holes adjacent to the bathroom, and mice would come and take them or gnaw upon them. Therefore, they instituted that they should place them in the holes adjacent to the public domain, where there were no mice. However, passersby would come and take the phylacteries. Ultimately, they instituted that one should hold the phylacteries in his hand and enter.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讬讗砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讙讜诇诇谉 讻诪讬谉 住驻专 讜讗讜讞讝谉 讘讬诪讬谞讜 讻谞讙讚 诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 专爪讜注讛 讬讜爪讗转 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讟驻讞

On this topic, Rabbi Meyasha, son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said: The halakha in this case is that one rolls up the phylacteries in their straps like a scroll, and holds them in his hand opposite his heart. Rav Yosef bar Manyumi said that Rav Na岣an said: This is provided that the strap of the phylacteries does not emerge more than a handbreadth below his hand.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诇诇讘砖谉 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诇诇讘砖谉 注讜砖讛 诇讛谉 讻诪讬谉 讻讬住 讟驻讞 讜诪谞讬讞谉

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar A岣 said that Rabbi Zeira said: It was only taught that one rolls up his phylacteries when there is still time left in the day to don them. If there is not time left in the day to don them before nightfall, when phylacteries are not donned, he makes a one-handbreadth pouch of sorts for them and he places them in it.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬讜诐 讙讜诇诇谉 讻诪讬谉 住驻专 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讘讬讚讜 讻谞讙讚 诇讘讜 讜讘诇讬诇讛 注讜砖讛 诇讛谉 讻诪讬谉 讻讬住 讟驻讞 讜诪谞讬讞谉

Similarly, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: During the day one rolls up the phylacteries like a scroll and places them in his hand opposite his heart, and at night he makes a one-handbreadth pouch of sorts for them and he places them in it.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻诇讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诇讬讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讻诇讬讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讟驻讞

Abaye said: They only taught that it must be a one-handbreadth pouch with regard to a vessel that is the phylacteries鈥 regular vessel, but in a vessel that is not their regular vessel, he may place the phylacteries in it, even if it is less than a handbreadth.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 转讚注 砖讛专讬 驻讻讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转

Mar Zutra and, some say, Rav Ashi, said as proof for that distinction: The laws of impurity state that only a space of at least a handbreadth can serve as a barrier to prevent the spread of impurity imparted by a corpse. Nevertheless, small sealed vessels less than a handbreadth in size protect their contents from ritual impurity even if they are inside a tent over a corpse. This proves that even a space smaller than a handbreadth can serve as a barrier before impurity.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 讘注讬 诇诪讬注诇 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 住驻专讗 讚讗讙讚转讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘 诇谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 转驻讬诇讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘 诇谉 讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖专讜谞讛讜 专讘谞谉

Rabba bar bar 岣na said: When we would walk after Rabbi Yo岣nan, we would see that when he sought to enter the bathroom while holding a book of aggada, he would give it to us. When he was holding phylacteries, he would not give them to us, as he said: Since the Sages permitted to hold them,

谞讬谞讟专谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 住驻专讗 讚讗讙讚转讗 讬讛讬讘 诇谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 转驻讬诇讬谉 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇谉 讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖专讜谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 谞讬谞讟专谉

they will protect me. Although there were people on hand to whom he could have handed the phylacteries, he kept them to protect himself from danger. Rava said: When we would walk after Rabbi Na岣an, we would see that when he was holding a book of aggada, he would give it to us. When he was holding phylacteries, he would not give them to us, as he said: Since the Sages permitted to hold them, they will protect me.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬讗讞讝 讗讚诐 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讜住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讝专讜注讜 讜讬转驻诇诇 讜诇讗 讬砖转讬谉 讘讛谉 诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讬砖谉 讘讛谉 诇讗 砖讬谞转 拽讘注 讜诇讗 砖讬谞转 注专讗讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 住讻讬谉 讜诪注讜转 讜拽注专讛 讜讻讻专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉

The Sages taught: One may not hold phylacteries in his hand or a Torah scroll in his arm and pray, because his concern that the phylacteries or Torah scroll might fall will distract him from his prayer. And so too, with regard to sacred objects, one may not urinate with them in his hands and may not sleep with them in his hands, neither a deep sleep nor even a brief nap. Shmuel said: Not only should one holding phylacteries refrain from prayer, but one holding a knife, money, a bowl, or a loaf of bread have a similar status in that his concern that they might fall will distract him from his prayer.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讬 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛砖转讗 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 拽讘讜注 砖专讬 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 注专讗讬 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rava said that Rav Sheshet said: The halakha is not in accordance with this baraita, because it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. As if it was in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, now Beit Hillel permitted to hold phylacteries in his hand when he defecates in a regular bathroom, is it necessary to say that it is permitted when he urinates in a makeshift bathroom?

诪讬转讬讘讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛转专转讬 诇讱 讻讗谉 讗住专转讬 诇讱 讻讗谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛转专转讬 诇讱 讻讗谉 拽讘讜注 讗住专转讬 诇讱 讻讗谉 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 注专讗讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讗 诇讗 砖专讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara raised an objection based on the second part of the baraita, where it was taught: Matters which I permitted you to do here, I prohibited you from doing there. In other words, there are matters that were permitted in a regular bathroom and not in a makeshift bathroom. What, is it not referring to phylacteries? Granted, if you say that the prohibition against urinating while wearing phylacteries is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, then we would understand the baraita as follows: Matters which I permitted you to do here, to hold phylacteries in a regular bathroom, I have prohibited you from doing there, in the makeshift bathroom. But if you hold that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, they did not permit anything in a regular bathroom. What, then, is the meaning of matters which I permitted you to do here?

讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟驻讞 讜讟驻讞讬讬诐 讚转谞讬 讞讚讗 讻砖讛讜讗 谞驻谞讛 诪讙诇讛 诇讗讞专讬讜 讟驻讞 讜诇驻谞讬讜 讟驻讞讬讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗讞专讬讜 讟驻讞 讜诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

This challenge is rejected by the Gemara, which explains: When that baraita was taught it was not in reference to phylacteries, but with regard to the matter of one handbreadth and two handbreadths. As is it was taught in one baraita: When one relieves himself, he must maintain modesty and bare a single handbreadth of his flesh behind him and two handbreadths before him. And it was taught in another baraita: One may only bare a single handbreadth behind him and nothing before him.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讗讬砖 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇讙讚讜诇讬诐 讻讗谉 诇拽讟谞讬诐

What, are not both this baraita and that one referring to a male, and the apparent contradiction between the two baraitot is not difficult, as here the baraita that states that one may bare a handbreadth behind him and nothing before him is referring to defecation, while here, the other baraita that states that one may bare a handbreadth behind him and two handbreadths before him is referring to urination. Accordingly, despite the fact that one may bare two handbreadths before him when urinating in a makeshift bathroom, matters that I have permitted you to do here, one may bare nothing before him when defecating in an established bathroom, I have prohibited you from doing there.

讜转住讘专讗 讗讬 讘拽讟谞讬诐 诇讗讞专讬讜 讟驻讞 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗讬砖 讛讗 讘讗砖讛

The Gemara rejects this explanation: And how can you understand it that way? If that baraita is referring to urination, why do I need to bare one handbreadth behind him? Rather, both this baraita and that baraita are referring to defecation, and the apparent contradiction between the two baraitot is not difficult. This baraita that states that one may bare two handbreadths before him is referring to a man, who must bare himself in case he inadvertently urinates. That baraita that states that one may not bare anything in front is referring to a woman, who does not need to uncover herself to account for inadvertent urination.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 注诇讛 讝讛讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 转砖讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 转砖讜讘讛 讚专讻讗 讚诪诇转讗 讛讻讬 讗讬转讗

The Gemara challenges this: If so, then that which is taught with regard to this halakha in the baraita: This is an a fortiori inference for which there is no refutation, meaning that even though logically it would seem correct to be stricter in the case of defecating in a regular bathroom than in the case of urinating in a makeshift bathroom, that is not the ruling, is difficult. According to the distinction suggested above, what is the meaning of: for which there is no refutation? That is the nature of the matter; men and women need to uncover themselves differently.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 转讬讜讘转讗

Rather, is it not so that the baraita that states: Matters which I permitted you to do here, I prohibited you from doing there, is referring to phylacteries, and the a fortiori inference that cannot be refuted is similarly referring to phylacteries. And the refutation of that which Rava says that Rav Sheshet says, that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, is indeed a conclusive refutation.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 讛砖转讗 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 拽讘讜注 砖专讬 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 注专讗讬 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara asks: Nevertheless, it remains difficult: Now, holding phylacteries in his hand when he defecates in a regular bathroom is permitted, all the more so that it is permitted when he urinates in a makeshift bathroom.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 拽讘讜注 讚诇讬讻讗 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 砖专讬 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 注专讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讗住专讬

The Gemara explains: It says as follows: When defecating in a regular bathroom, where one sits there are no drops of urine on one鈥檚 clothes or shoes, he need not dirty his hands to clean his garment, and therefore one is permitted to hold phylacteries in his hand. However, in a makeshift bathroom, where one stands, and there are ricocheting drops which he may touch with his hand, it is prohibited.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 转砖讜讘讛 转砖讜讘讛 诪注诇讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara challenges: If so, then why was it referred to as an a fortiori inference that 鈥渃annot be refuted鈥? This seems an excellent refutation that explains the distinction.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 转讬转讬 诇讛 讘转讜专转 讟注诪讗 讜诇讗 转讬转讬 诇讛 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讚讗讬 讗转讬讗 诇讛 讘转讜专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讝讛讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 转砖讜讘讛:

The Gemara explains that it says as follows: Derive this matter based on the reason mentioned above that due to different circumstances the ruling is different. Do not derive it by means of an a fortiori inference, as if you were to derive it by means of an a fortiori inference, it would certainly be an a fortiori inference that cannot be rebutted.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讜爪讛 诇讬讻谞住 诇住注讜讚转 拽讘注 诪讛诇讱 注砖专讛 驻注诪讬诐 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讜 讗专讘注讛 驻注诪讬诐 注砖专 讗诪讜转 讜讬驻谞讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讻谞住

The Sages taught: One who wishes to enter and partake of a regular meal that will last for some time, paces a distance of four cubits ten times, or ten cubits four times, in order to expedite the movement of the bowels, and defecates. Only then may he enter and partake of the meal. That way he spares himself the unpleasantness of being forced to leave in the middle of the meal.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛谞讻谞住 诇住注讜讚转 拽讘注 讞讜诇抓 转驻讬诇讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讻谞住 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪谞讬讞谉 注诇 砖诇讞谞讜 讜讻谉 讛讚讜专 诇讜

On this same subject, Rabbi Yitz岣k said: One who partakes of a regular meal removes his phylacteries and then enters, as it is inappropriate to partake in a meal where there is frivolity while wearing phylacteries. And this statement disputes the statement of Rabbi 岣yya, as Rabbi 岣yya said: During a formal meal one places his phylacteries on his table, and it is admirable for him to do so in order that they will be available to don immediately if he so desires.

讜注讚 讗讬诪转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 注讚 讝诪谉 讘专讻讛

The Gemara asks: And until when in the meal must he refrain from wearing phylacteries? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Until the time of the recitation of the blessing of Grace after Meals.

转谞讬 讞讚讗 爪讜专专 讗讚诐 转驻讬诇讬讜 注诐 诪注讜转讬讜 讘讗驻专拽住讜转讜 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬爪讜专

It was taught in one baraita: One may bundle his phylacteries with his money in his head covering [apraksuto], and it was taught in another baraita: One may not bundle phylacteries and money together.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讝诪谞讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗讝诪谞讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗讬 住讜讚专讗 转驻讬诇讬谉 讚讗讝诪谞讬讛 诇诪讬爪专 讘讬讛 转驻讬诇讬谉 爪专 讘讬讛 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇诪讬爪专 讘讬讛 驻砖讬讟讬 讗讝诪谞讬讛 讜诇讗 爪专 讘讬讛 爪专 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讝诪谞讬讛 砖专讬 诇诪讬爪专 讘讬讛 讝讜讝讬

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as one must distinguish and say that this baraita, which prohibits bundling phylacteries and money together, refers to a case where the vessel was designated for use with phylacteries, while this baraita, which permits one to do so, refers to a case where the vessel was not designated for that purpose. As Rav 岣sda said: With regard to this cloth used with phylacteries that one designated to bundle phylacteries in it, if one already bundled phylacteries in it then it is prohibited to bundle coins in it, but if he only designated it for that purpose, but did not yet bundle phylacteries in it, or if he bundled phylacteries in it but did not originally designate it for that purpose, then it is permitted to bundle money in it.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讛讝诪谞讛 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讗讝诪谞讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 爪专 讘讬讛 爪专 讘讬讛 讗讬 讗讝诪谞讬讛 讗住讬专 讗讬 诇讗 讗讝诪谞讬讛 诇讗

And according to Abaye, who said that designation is significant, as Abaye holds that all relevant halakhot apply to an object designated for a specific purpose, whether or not it has been already used for that purpose, the halakha is: If he designated the cloth, even if he did not bundle phylacteries in it, he is prohibited from bundling money in it. However, if he bundled phylacteries in it, if he designated the cloth for that particular use, it is prohibited to bundle money in it, but if he did not designate it, no, it is not prohibited.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞讜谞讬讗 诪专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛讜 砖讬谞讬讞 讗讚诐 转驻讬诇讬讜 转讞转 诪专讗砖讜转讬讜 转讞转 诪专讙诇讜转讬讜 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 砖谞讜讛讙 讘讛谉 诪谞讛讙 讘讝讬讜谉 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 转讞转 诪专讗砖讜转讬讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜转专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗砖转讜 注诪讜

Rav Yosef, son of Rav Ne岣nya, raised a dilemma before Rav Yehuda: What is the halakha; may a man place his phylacteries in his bed, under his head while he sleeps? He himself explains: With regard to whether or not one may place them under his feet, I have no dilemma, as that would be treating them in a deprecating manner and is certainly prohibited. My dilemma is whether or not one may place them under his head; what is the halakha in that case? Rav Yehuda said to him, Shmuel said as follows: It is permitted, even if his wife is with him in his bed.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讗 讬谞讬讞 讗讚诐 转驻讬诇讬讜 转讞转 诪专讙诇讜转讬讜 诪驻谞讬 砖谞讜讛讙 讘讛诐 讚专讱 讘讝讬讜谉 讗讘诇 诪谞讬讞诐 转讞转 诪专讗砖讜转讬讜 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗砖转讜 注诪讜 讗住讜专 讛讬讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讙讘讜讛 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讜 谞诪讜讱 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讜转专

The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita: A man may not place his phylacteries under his feet, as in doing so, he treats them in a deprecating manner, but he may place them under his head. And if his wife was with him, it is prohibited even to place it under his head. If there was a place where he could place the phylacteries three handbreadths above or three handbreadths below his head it is permissible, as that space is sufficient for the phylacteries to be considered in a separate place.

转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 转讬讜讘转讗

This is a conclusive refutation of Shmuel鈥檚 statement. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚转谞讬讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

Rava said: Although a baraita was taught that constitutes a conclusive refutation of Shmuel, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in this matter. What is the reason for this?

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

daf_icon

Extempore Effusions on the Completion of Masechet Berakhot (chapters 1-3)

PEREK ALEPH: (2a) When may we say Shma at night? From the time the priests take their first bite 鈥楾il...

Berakhot 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 23

诪专 住讘专 讗诐 砖讛讛 讻讚讬 诇讙诪讜专 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讞讜讝专 诇专讗砖 讜诪专 住讘专 诇诪拽讜诐 砖驻住拽

One Sage held that, as a rule, if one interrupted his prayer and delayed continuing his prayer for an interval sufficient to complete the entire prayer, he returns to the beginning of the prayer. And one Sage held: He returns to the place in the prayer where he stopped.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讗诐 砖讛讛 讗诐 诇讗 砖讛讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗诐 砖讛讛 讻讚讬 诇讙诪讜专 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讞讜讝专 诇专讗砖 讜讛转诐 讘讚诇讗 砖讛讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讙讘专讗 讚讞讜讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 讜讗讬谉 转驻诇转讜 转驻诇讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讙讘专讗 讞讝讬讗 讛讜讗 讜转驻诇转讜 转驻诇讛

Rejecting this possibility, Rav Ashi said: If that was the crux of their dispute, they should have discussed the element of: If he delayed, and: If he did not delay. Nowhere in their dispute do they mention the matter of how long the delay was for. Rather, everyone, both Rav 岣sda and Rav Hamnuna, agrees that if one delayed continuing his prayer for an interval sufficient to complete the entire prayer, he returns to the beginning of the prayer. And there, in the dispute under discussion, they disagree with regard to one who did not delay that long. The dispute centers on the status of the one praying in this particular case. As one Sage holds that since he evidently needed to urinate before starting his prayer, he is a man who was disqualified, and unfit for prayer, and his prayer is not a valid prayer; therefore he must repeat it in its entirety. And one Sage holds he is a man who was fit for prayer and his prayer is a valid prayer.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞爪专讱 诇谞拽讘讬讜 讗诇 讬转驻诇诇 讜讗诐 讛转驻诇诇 转驻诇转讜 转讜注讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇砖讛讜转 讘注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇砖讛讜转 讘注爪诪讜 转驻诇转讜 转驻诇讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who needs to relieve himself may not pray, and if he prayed, his prayer is an abomination. Rav Zevid and some say Rav Yehuda said in qualifying this statement: They only taught this halakha in a case where one cannot restrain himself. But, if he can restrain himself, his prayer is a valid prayer as he is not tarnished by his need to relieve himself.

讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 注讚 驻专住讛 讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 注诇 注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 注诇 注爪诪讜 转驻诇转讜 转驻诇讛 讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 注讚 驻专住讛

The Gemara asks: And for how long must he be able to restrain himself? Rav Sheshet said: For as long as it takes to walk one parasang. Some teach this halakha directly on what was taught in the baraita: In what case is this statement said? Where he is unable to restrain himself, but if he is able to restrain himself, his prayer is a valid prayer. And for how long? Rav Zevid said: For as long as it takes to walk one parasang.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛谞爪专讱 诇谞拽讘讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬转驻诇诇 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛讻讜谉 诇拽专讗转 讗诇讛讬讱 讬砖专讗诇

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: One who needs to relieve himself may not pray, because it is stated: 鈥淧repare to greet your God, O Israel鈥 (Amos 4:12), and one must clear his mind of all distractions to prepare to receive the Lord during prayer.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 砖诪讜专 专讙诇讱 讻讗砖专 转诇讱 讗诇 讘讬转 讛讗诇讛讬诐 砖诪讜专 注爪诪讱 砖诇讗 转讞讟讗 讜讗诐 转讞讟讗 讛讘讗 拽专讘谉 诇驻谞讬 讜拽专讜讘 诇砖诪注 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讬 拽专讜讘 诇砖诪讜注 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讗诐 讞讜讟讗讬诐 诪讘讬讗讬诐 拽专讘谉 讜注讜砖讬诐 转砖讜讘讛 诪转转 讛讻住讬诇讬诐 讝讘讞 讗诇 转讛讬 讻讻住讬诇讬诐 砖讞讜讟讗讬诐 讜诪讘讬讗讬诐 拽专讘谉 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬诐 转砖讜讘讛

In this context, the Gemara cites an additional statement, which Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淕uard your foot when you go to the house of God, and prepare to listen; it is better than when fools offer sacrifices, as they know not to do evil鈥 (Ecclesiastes 4:17)? It means: When you enter the house of the Lord, guard yourself from transgression, and if you commit a transgression, bring a sacrifice before Me in atonement. The verse continues: 鈥淎nd draw near and listen to the words of the wise.鈥 Rava said: Be prepared to hearken to the words of the wise, who, if they commit a transgression, they bring a sacrifice and repent. He interprets the next part of the verse: 鈥淚t is better than when fools give sacrifices,鈥 that one should not act like the fools who commit a transgression and bring a sacrifice but do not repent.

讻讬 讗讬谞诐 讬讜讚注讬诐 诇注砖讜转 专注 讗讬 讛讻讬 爪讚讬拽讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诇 转讛讬 讻讻住讬诇讬诐 砖讞讜讟讗讬诐 讜诪讘讬讗讬诐 拽专讘谉 讜讗讬谞诐 讬讜讚注讬诐 讗诐 注诇 讛讟讜讘讛 讛诐 诪讘讬讗讬诐 讗诐 注诇 讛专注讛 讛诐 诪讘讬讗讬诐 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 讟讜讘 诇专注 讗讬谞谉 诪讘讞讬谞讬诐 讜讛诐 诪讘讬讗讬诐 拽专讘谉 诇驻谞讬

Regarding the end of the verse: 鈥淎s they know not to do evil,鈥 the Gemara asks: If so, they are righteous. Rather it must be understood: Do not be like the fools who commit a transgression and bring a sacrifice, but are unaware whether they are bringing it as a thanks-offering for the good, or as an offering of atonement for the evil. This is the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎s they know not to do evil鈥; they know not if and when their actions are evil. With regard to those individuals, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: They cannot distinguish between good and evil and yet they bring a sacrifice before me?

专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜专 谞拽讘讬讱 讘砖注讛 砖讗转讛 注讜诪讚 讘转驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬

Rav Ashi and some say Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappa said: Mind your orifices when you stand before me in prayer.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讞讜诇抓 转驻讬诇讬讜 讘专讞讜拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜谞讻谞住 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 拽讘讜注 讗讘诇 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 注专讗讬 讞讜诇抓 讜谞驻谞讛 诇讗诇转专 讜讻砖讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪谞讬讞谉 诪驻谞讬 砖注砖讗讜 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 拽讘讜注

The Sages taught: One who enters a bathroom must remove his phylacteries at a distance of four cubits and enter. Rav A岣 bar Rav Huna said that Rav Sheshet said: This was only taught with regard to one entering a regular bathroom, but one who enters a makeshift bathroom may remove his phylacteries and defecate immediately. But when one exits from a makeshift bathroom, he must distance himself four cubits before donning his phylacteries because he has now rendered that place a regular bathroom.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 砖讬讻谞住 讗讚诐 讘转驻讬诇讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 拽讘讜注 诇讛砖转讬谉 诪讬诐 专讘讬谞讗 砖专讬 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 讗住专 讗转讜 砖讬讬诇讜讛 诇专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗住讜专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬驻谞讛 讘讛谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 砖诪讗 讬驻讬讞 讘讛谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages in the yeshiva: What is the halakha; may one enter a regular bathroom wearing his phylacteries in order to urinate? The Sages disagreed: Ravina permitted to do so while Rav Adda bar Mattana prohibited it. They came and asked this of Rava. He said to them: It is forbidden because we are concerned lest he will come to defecate with them still on. Others say that this halakha is because we are concerned that, since he is already in the bathroom, he might forget that his phylacteries are on his head and will break wind with them still on him.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 拽讘讜注 讞讜诇抓 转驻讬诇讬讜 讘专讞讜拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讘讞诇讜谉 讛住诪讜讱 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞讻谞住 讜讻砖讛讜讗 讬讜爪讗 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜讞讝谉 讘讬讚讜 讜谞讻谞住 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讜讞讝谉 讘讘讙讚讜 讜谞讻谞住

It was taught in another baraita: One who enters a regular bathroom must remove his phylacteries at a distance of four cubits, place them in the window in the wall of the bathroom adjacent to the public domain, and then enter. And when he exits, he must distance himself four cubits before donning them. This is the statement of Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel say: He must remove his phylacteries but he holds them in his hand and enters. Rabbi Akiva says: He holds them in his garment and enters.

讘讘讙讚讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讝讬诪谞讬谉 诪讬砖转诇讬 诇讛讜 讜谞驻诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讜讞讝谉 讘讘讙讚讜 讜讘讬讚讜 讜谞讻谞住

The Gemara wonders: Does it enter your mind to say in his garment? There is room for concern because sometimes he forgets them and they fall. Rather, say: He holds them with his garment and in his hand and enters the bathroom. He holds the phylacteries in his hand and covers it with the garment.

讜诪谞讬讞诐 讘讞讜专讬谉 讛住诪讜讻讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜诇讗 讬谞讬讞诐 讘讞讜专讬谉 讛住诪讜讻讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖诪讗 讬讟诇讜 讗讜转诐 注讜讘专讬 讚专讻讬诐 讜讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讞砖讚

It was established in the baraita: And if there is room to place them, he places them in the holes adjacent to the bathroom, but he does not place them in the holes adjacent to the public domain, lest the phylacteries will be taken by passersby and he will come to be suspect.

讜诪注砖讛 讘转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 砖讛谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬讜 讘讞讜专讬谉 讛住诪讜讻讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讗转 讝讜谞讛 讗讞转 讜谞讟诇转谉 讜讘讗转 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜讗诪专讛 专讗讜 诪讛 谞转谉 诇讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讘砖讻专讬 讻讬讜谉 砖砖诪注 讗讜转讜 转诇诪讬讚 讻讱 注诇讛 诇专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜谞驻诇 讜诪转 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讗 讗讜讞讝谉 讘讘讙讚讜 讜讘讬讚讜 讜谞讻谞住

And an incident occurred involving a student who placed his phylacteries in the holes adjacent to the public domain, and a prostitute passed by and took the phylacteries. She came to the study hall and said: See what so-and-so gave me as my payment. When that student heard this, he ascended to the rooftop and fell and died. At that moment they instituted that one should hold them with his garment and in his hand and enter to avoid situations of that kind.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讞讜专讬谉 讛住诪讜讻讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讘讗讬谉 注讻讘专讬诐 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讞诇讜谞讜转 讛住诪讜讻讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讗讬谉 注讜讘专讬 讚专讻讬诐 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讗 讗讜讞讝谉 讘讬讚讜 讜谞讻谞住

The Sages taught in a baraita on this topic: At first, they would place the phylacteries in the holes adjacent to the bathroom, and mice would come and take them or gnaw upon them. Therefore, they instituted that they should place them in the holes adjacent to the public domain, where there were no mice. However, passersby would come and take the phylacteries. Ultimately, they instituted that one should hold the phylacteries in his hand and enter.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讬讗砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讙讜诇诇谉 讻诪讬谉 住驻专 讜讗讜讞讝谉 讘讬诪讬谞讜 讻谞讙讚 诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 专爪讜注讛 讬讜爪讗转 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讟驻讞

On this topic, Rabbi Meyasha, son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said: The halakha in this case is that one rolls up the phylacteries in their straps like a scroll, and holds them in his hand opposite his heart. Rav Yosef bar Manyumi said that Rav Na岣an said: This is provided that the strap of the phylacteries does not emerge more than a handbreadth below his hand.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诇诇讘砖谉 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诇诇讘砖谉 注讜砖讛 诇讛谉 讻诪讬谉 讻讬住 讟驻讞 讜诪谞讬讞谉

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar A岣 said that Rabbi Zeira said: It was only taught that one rolls up his phylacteries when there is still time left in the day to don them. If there is not time left in the day to don them before nightfall, when phylacteries are not donned, he makes a one-handbreadth pouch of sorts for them and he places them in it.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬讜诐 讙讜诇诇谉 讻诪讬谉 住驻专 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讘讬讚讜 讻谞讙讚 诇讘讜 讜讘诇讬诇讛 注讜砖讛 诇讛谉 讻诪讬谉 讻讬住 讟驻讞 讜诪谞讬讞谉

Similarly, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: During the day one rolls up the phylacteries like a scroll and places them in his hand opposite his heart, and at night he makes a one-handbreadth pouch of sorts for them and he places them in it.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻诇讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诇讬讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讻诇讬讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讟驻讞

Abaye said: They only taught that it must be a one-handbreadth pouch with regard to a vessel that is the phylacteries鈥 regular vessel, but in a vessel that is not their regular vessel, he may place the phylacteries in it, even if it is less than a handbreadth.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 转讚注 砖讛专讬 驻讻讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转

Mar Zutra and, some say, Rav Ashi, said as proof for that distinction: The laws of impurity state that only a space of at least a handbreadth can serve as a barrier to prevent the spread of impurity imparted by a corpse. Nevertheless, small sealed vessels less than a handbreadth in size protect their contents from ritual impurity even if they are inside a tent over a corpse. This proves that even a space smaller than a handbreadth can serve as a barrier before impurity.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 讘注讬 诇诪讬注诇 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 住驻专讗 讚讗讙讚转讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘 诇谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 转驻讬诇讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘 诇谉 讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖专讜谞讛讜 专讘谞谉

Rabba bar bar 岣na said: When we would walk after Rabbi Yo岣nan, we would see that when he sought to enter the bathroom while holding a book of aggada, he would give it to us. When he was holding phylacteries, he would not give them to us, as he said: Since the Sages permitted to hold them,

谞讬谞讟专谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 住驻专讗 讚讗讙讚转讗 讬讛讬讘 诇谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 转驻讬诇讬谉 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇谉 讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖专讜谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 谞讬谞讟专谉

they will protect me. Although there were people on hand to whom he could have handed the phylacteries, he kept them to protect himself from danger. Rava said: When we would walk after Rabbi Na岣an, we would see that when he was holding a book of aggada, he would give it to us. When he was holding phylacteries, he would not give them to us, as he said: Since the Sages permitted to hold them, they will protect me.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬讗讞讝 讗讚诐 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讜住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讝专讜注讜 讜讬转驻诇诇 讜诇讗 讬砖转讬谉 讘讛谉 诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讬砖谉 讘讛谉 诇讗 砖讬谞转 拽讘注 讜诇讗 砖讬谞转 注专讗讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 住讻讬谉 讜诪注讜转 讜拽注专讛 讜讻讻专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉

The Sages taught: One may not hold phylacteries in his hand or a Torah scroll in his arm and pray, because his concern that the phylacteries or Torah scroll might fall will distract him from his prayer. And so too, with regard to sacred objects, one may not urinate with them in his hands and may not sleep with them in his hands, neither a deep sleep nor even a brief nap. Shmuel said: Not only should one holding phylacteries refrain from prayer, but one holding a knife, money, a bowl, or a loaf of bread have a similar status in that his concern that they might fall will distract him from his prayer.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讬 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛砖转讗 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 拽讘讜注 砖专讬 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 注专讗讬 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rava said that Rav Sheshet said: The halakha is not in accordance with this baraita, because it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. As if it was in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, now Beit Hillel permitted to hold phylacteries in his hand when he defecates in a regular bathroom, is it necessary to say that it is permitted when he urinates in a makeshift bathroom?

诪讬转讬讘讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛转专转讬 诇讱 讻讗谉 讗住专转讬 诇讱 讻讗谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛转专转讬 诇讱 讻讗谉 拽讘讜注 讗住专转讬 诇讱 讻讗谉 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 注专讗讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讗 诇讗 砖专讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara raised an objection based on the second part of the baraita, where it was taught: Matters which I permitted you to do here, I prohibited you from doing there. In other words, there are matters that were permitted in a regular bathroom and not in a makeshift bathroom. What, is it not referring to phylacteries? Granted, if you say that the prohibition against urinating while wearing phylacteries is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, then we would understand the baraita as follows: Matters which I permitted you to do here, to hold phylacteries in a regular bathroom, I have prohibited you from doing there, in the makeshift bathroom. But if you hold that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, they did not permit anything in a regular bathroom. What, then, is the meaning of matters which I permitted you to do here?

讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟驻讞 讜讟驻讞讬讬诐 讚转谞讬 讞讚讗 讻砖讛讜讗 谞驻谞讛 诪讙诇讛 诇讗讞专讬讜 讟驻讞 讜诇驻谞讬讜 讟驻讞讬讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗讞专讬讜 讟驻讞 讜诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

This challenge is rejected by the Gemara, which explains: When that baraita was taught it was not in reference to phylacteries, but with regard to the matter of one handbreadth and two handbreadths. As is it was taught in one baraita: When one relieves himself, he must maintain modesty and bare a single handbreadth of his flesh behind him and two handbreadths before him. And it was taught in another baraita: One may only bare a single handbreadth behind him and nothing before him.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讗讬砖 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇讙讚讜诇讬诐 讻讗谉 诇拽讟谞讬诐

What, are not both this baraita and that one referring to a male, and the apparent contradiction between the two baraitot is not difficult, as here the baraita that states that one may bare a handbreadth behind him and nothing before him is referring to defecation, while here, the other baraita that states that one may bare a handbreadth behind him and two handbreadths before him is referring to urination. Accordingly, despite the fact that one may bare two handbreadths before him when urinating in a makeshift bathroom, matters that I have permitted you to do here, one may bare nothing before him when defecating in an established bathroom, I have prohibited you from doing there.

讜转住讘专讗 讗讬 讘拽讟谞讬诐 诇讗讞专讬讜 讟驻讞 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗讬砖 讛讗 讘讗砖讛

The Gemara rejects this explanation: And how can you understand it that way? If that baraita is referring to urination, why do I need to bare one handbreadth behind him? Rather, both this baraita and that baraita are referring to defecation, and the apparent contradiction between the two baraitot is not difficult. This baraita that states that one may bare two handbreadths before him is referring to a man, who must bare himself in case he inadvertently urinates. That baraita that states that one may not bare anything in front is referring to a woman, who does not need to uncover herself to account for inadvertent urination.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 注诇讛 讝讛讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 转砖讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 转砖讜讘讛 讚专讻讗 讚诪诇转讗 讛讻讬 讗讬转讗

The Gemara challenges this: If so, then that which is taught with regard to this halakha in the baraita: This is an a fortiori inference for which there is no refutation, meaning that even though logically it would seem correct to be stricter in the case of defecating in a regular bathroom than in the case of urinating in a makeshift bathroom, that is not the ruling, is difficult. According to the distinction suggested above, what is the meaning of: for which there is no refutation? That is the nature of the matter; men and women need to uncover themselves differently.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 转讬讜讘转讗

Rather, is it not so that the baraita that states: Matters which I permitted you to do here, I prohibited you from doing there, is referring to phylacteries, and the a fortiori inference that cannot be refuted is similarly referring to phylacteries. And the refutation of that which Rava says that Rav Sheshet says, that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, is indeed a conclusive refutation.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 讛砖转讗 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 拽讘讜注 砖专讬 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 注专讗讬 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara asks: Nevertheless, it remains difficult: Now, holding phylacteries in his hand when he defecates in a regular bathroom is permitted, all the more so that it is permitted when he urinates in a makeshift bathroom.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 拽讘讜注 讚诇讬讻讗 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 砖专讬 讘讬转 讛讻住讗 注专讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讗住专讬

The Gemara explains: It says as follows: When defecating in a regular bathroom, where one sits there are no drops of urine on one鈥檚 clothes or shoes, he need not dirty his hands to clean his garment, and therefore one is permitted to hold phylacteries in his hand. However, in a makeshift bathroom, where one stands, and there are ricocheting drops which he may touch with his hand, it is prohibited.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 转砖讜讘讛 转砖讜讘讛 诪注诇讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara challenges: If so, then why was it referred to as an a fortiori inference that 鈥渃annot be refuted鈥? This seems an excellent refutation that explains the distinction.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 转讬转讬 诇讛 讘转讜专转 讟注诪讗 讜诇讗 转讬转讬 诇讛 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讚讗讬 讗转讬讗 诇讛 讘转讜专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讝讛讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 转砖讜讘讛:

The Gemara explains that it says as follows: Derive this matter based on the reason mentioned above that due to different circumstances the ruling is different. Do not derive it by means of an a fortiori inference, as if you were to derive it by means of an a fortiori inference, it would certainly be an a fortiori inference that cannot be rebutted.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讜爪讛 诇讬讻谞住 诇住注讜讚转 拽讘注 诪讛诇讱 注砖专讛 驻注诪讬诐 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讜 讗专讘注讛 驻注诪讬诐 注砖专 讗诪讜转 讜讬驻谞讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讻谞住

The Sages taught: One who wishes to enter and partake of a regular meal that will last for some time, paces a distance of four cubits ten times, or ten cubits four times, in order to expedite the movement of the bowels, and defecates. Only then may he enter and partake of the meal. That way he spares himself the unpleasantness of being forced to leave in the middle of the meal.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛谞讻谞住 诇住注讜讚转 拽讘注 讞讜诇抓 转驻讬诇讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讻谞住 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪谞讬讞谉 注诇 砖诇讞谞讜 讜讻谉 讛讚讜专 诇讜

On this same subject, Rabbi Yitz岣k said: One who partakes of a regular meal removes his phylacteries and then enters, as it is inappropriate to partake in a meal where there is frivolity while wearing phylacteries. And this statement disputes the statement of Rabbi 岣yya, as Rabbi 岣yya said: During a formal meal one places his phylacteries on his table, and it is admirable for him to do so in order that they will be available to don immediately if he so desires.

讜注讚 讗讬诪转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 注讚 讝诪谉 讘专讻讛

The Gemara asks: And until when in the meal must he refrain from wearing phylacteries? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Until the time of the recitation of the blessing of Grace after Meals.

转谞讬 讞讚讗 爪讜专专 讗讚诐 转驻讬诇讬讜 注诐 诪注讜转讬讜 讘讗驻专拽住讜转讜 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬爪讜专

It was taught in one baraita: One may bundle his phylacteries with his money in his head covering [apraksuto], and it was taught in another baraita: One may not bundle phylacteries and money together.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讝诪谞讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗讝诪谞讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗讬 住讜讚专讗 转驻讬诇讬谉 讚讗讝诪谞讬讛 诇诪讬爪专 讘讬讛 转驻讬诇讬谉 爪专 讘讬讛 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇诪讬爪专 讘讬讛 驻砖讬讟讬 讗讝诪谞讬讛 讜诇讗 爪专 讘讬讛 爪专 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讝诪谞讬讛 砖专讬 诇诪讬爪专 讘讬讛 讝讜讝讬

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as one must distinguish and say that this baraita, which prohibits bundling phylacteries and money together, refers to a case where the vessel was designated for use with phylacteries, while this baraita, which permits one to do so, refers to a case where the vessel was not designated for that purpose. As Rav 岣sda said: With regard to this cloth used with phylacteries that one designated to bundle phylacteries in it, if one already bundled phylacteries in it then it is prohibited to bundle coins in it, but if he only designated it for that purpose, but did not yet bundle phylacteries in it, or if he bundled phylacteries in it but did not originally designate it for that purpose, then it is permitted to bundle money in it.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讛讝诪谞讛 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讗讝诪谞讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 爪专 讘讬讛 爪专 讘讬讛 讗讬 讗讝诪谞讬讛 讗住讬专 讗讬 诇讗 讗讝诪谞讬讛 诇讗

And according to Abaye, who said that designation is significant, as Abaye holds that all relevant halakhot apply to an object designated for a specific purpose, whether or not it has been already used for that purpose, the halakha is: If he designated the cloth, even if he did not bundle phylacteries in it, he is prohibited from bundling money in it. However, if he bundled phylacteries in it, if he designated the cloth for that particular use, it is prohibited to bundle money in it, but if he did not designate it, no, it is not prohibited.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞讜谞讬讗 诪专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛讜 砖讬谞讬讞 讗讚诐 转驻讬诇讬讜 转讞转 诪专讗砖讜转讬讜 转讞转 诪专讙诇讜转讬讜 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 砖谞讜讛讙 讘讛谉 诪谞讛讙 讘讝讬讜谉 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 转讞转 诪专讗砖讜转讬讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜转专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗砖转讜 注诪讜

Rav Yosef, son of Rav Ne岣nya, raised a dilemma before Rav Yehuda: What is the halakha; may a man place his phylacteries in his bed, under his head while he sleeps? He himself explains: With regard to whether or not one may place them under his feet, I have no dilemma, as that would be treating them in a deprecating manner and is certainly prohibited. My dilemma is whether or not one may place them under his head; what is the halakha in that case? Rav Yehuda said to him, Shmuel said as follows: It is permitted, even if his wife is with him in his bed.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讗 讬谞讬讞 讗讚诐 转驻讬诇讬讜 转讞转 诪专讙诇讜转讬讜 诪驻谞讬 砖谞讜讛讙 讘讛诐 讚专讱 讘讝讬讜谉 讗讘诇 诪谞讬讞诐 转讞转 诪专讗砖讜转讬讜 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗砖转讜 注诪讜 讗住讜专 讛讬讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讙讘讜讛 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讜 谞诪讜讱 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讜转专

The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita: A man may not place his phylacteries under his feet, as in doing so, he treats them in a deprecating manner, but he may place them under his head. And if his wife was with him, it is prohibited even to place it under his head. If there was a place where he could place the phylacteries three handbreadths above or three handbreadths below his head it is permissible, as that space is sufficient for the phylacteries to be considered in a separate place.

转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 转讬讜讘转讗

This is a conclusive refutation of Shmuel鈥檚 statement. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚转谞讬讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

Rava said: Although a baraita was taught that constitutes a conclusive refutation of Shmuel, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in this matter. What is the reason for this?

Scroll To Top