Berakhot 23b — the Talmud in English

I will guard them:

I shall bring them in with me, and they will guard me there from harmful forces.

Rava said: When we would follow Rav Naḥman, when he would hold a book of aggada—

he would give it to us.

But

when he would hold tefillin—

he would not give them to us. He said: Since the Sages permitted us to release them—

they will guard me.

The Sages taught: A person may not hold

|tefillin in his hand and he may not hold

a Torah scroll

in his arm, and pray,

because he cannot concentrate on his prayer, since he is preoccupied with guarding them so that they should not fall from his hand and be disgraced.

And he may not urinate with them, and he may not sleep with them, neither a fixed sleep nor a temporary sleep,

lest he emit wind while sleeping with them, for then he is unable to guard himself against it.

Shmuel said:

One who holds in his hand during prayer

a knife, money, a bowl, or a loaf—

these are like them,

because he cannot concentrate, since he is concerned lest they fall and injure someone or be damaged; and he may not pray until he puts them down from his hand.

Rava said in the name of Rav Sheshet: The halakha does not follow this

beraita,

which says that he may not urinate while the tefillin are upon him, because

it is the view of Beit Shammai,

who stated above that it is forbidden to enter a lavatory with tefillin!

For if it were Beit Hillel—

now,

if entering with tefillin that he is holding in his hand into

a permanent lavatory is permitted, a temporary lavatory,

a place where he is now coming to urinate and which until now was not a lavatory—

would it be required [to prohibit it]?

The Gemara challenges Rav Sheshet’s statement that the beraita is “the view of Beit Shammai”: Surely later in the beraita, regarding the distinctions between the laws of a temporary lavatory and those of a permanent lavatory, we learned:

“Things that I permitted you here—

I prohibited for you here.”

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not

the intention of the tanna to say:

“Tefillin,

which Beit Hillel permitted one to enter with in his hand into a permanent lavatory, ‘I prohibited for you here’—to urinate while they are upon him, even in a lavatory that is not permanent”?

If you say as a satisfactory matter

that this beraita follows

Beit Hillel,

it can be explained as follows: “

Things that I

permitted you here,”

namely, to bring tefillin in his hand into a lavatory

permanent—“

I prohibited for you here,” to urinate while wearing them, even in

a temporary lavatory.

But, if you say

like Rav Sheshet, that this beraita follows

Beit Shammai—

did they not permit

Beit Shammai

anything at all?!

The Gemara answers:

When that statement was taught—“Things that I permitted you here—I prohibited for you here”—it was not regarding tefillin, but regarding matters of modesty,

локтя и двух локтей

regarding

uncovering

a handbreadth and two handbreadths

in a lavatory.

For one [teaching] taught: When he relieves himself—

behind him he uncovers a handbreadth, and before him two handbreadths.

And another [teaching] taught: Behind him a handbreadth, and before him nothing at all!

Is it not that both this and that

the two beraitot deal

with a man, and there is no difficulty: Here,

where he uncovers two handbreadths before him—

for a major evacuation,

when he must uncover more. Whereas

here,

where he does not uncover before him—

for a minor evacuation,

when he does not need to uncover so much.

The Gemara rejects this:

And can you understand it so? If it is for a minor evacuation—

behind him,

uncovering

a handbreadth—why do I need it?

Rather, both this and that concern a major evacuation, and there is no difficulty:

This,

where he uncovers two handbreadths before him—

concerns a man,

who, when he relieves himself for a major evacuation, must also urinate, and therefore he must uncover the handbreadth before him as well.

This,

where he does not uncover before him—

concerns a woman,

who does not need to uncover anything before her, even for urination.

The Gemara asks:

If so,

that the continuation of the beraita does not deal with tefillin, but with matters of modesty, let us challenge

that which it teaches concerning it,

in the continuation of the beraita:

This—

this matter, that what I said, “Things that I permitted in this place, I prohibited in that place,” should be rejected—is indeed

a kal va-chomer to which there is no answer.

For granted, if the continuation of the beraita concerns tefillin in a lavatory, we can properly argue, with a kal va-chomer to which there is no answer, that it is impossible to be more stringent in a temporary lavatory than in a permanent lavatory.

But if the subject is the laws of modesty, that things which I permitted a man to uncover I prohibited a woman from uncovering—

what is

a

“kal va-chomer to which there is no answer”

that would reject these matters?

Surely this is in fact the law, for

the way of the matter—

so it is: a woman truly needs less uncovering than a man.

a woman genuinely needs to uncover less than a man.

Rather, is it not,

necessarily the words of the tanna in the beraita refer to that which he prohibited: urinating with

“tefillin,”

and this is what he said: What I said, “Things that I permitted you in a permanent lavatory, I prohibited for you in a temporary lavatory,” is a law refuted by a kal va-chomer to which there is no answer.

And it is a refutation of Rava in the name of Rav Sheshet,

who said that this beraita is “the view of Beit Shammai.” And the conclusion of the Gemara is indeed that it is

a refutation,

for according to Beit Shammai there are no things at all permitted in a permanent lavatory that could be prohibited in a temporary lavatory.

The Gemara now explains the beraita:

In any event, it is difficult

what the tanna’s initial assumption was in being more stringent in a temporary lavatory than in a permanent one, until it was rejected by a kal va-chomer to which there is no answer. Surely

now, if a permanent lavatory is permitted—

is a temporary lavatory not all the more so,

that it is permitted?

The Gemara explains:

This is what he is saying: A permanent lavatory,

which is prepared for a major evacuation and in which one sits,

where there is no

splashing, when urinating there, of

droplets

of urine, and there is no concern that they will splash upon his feet and he will rub them with his right hand —

is permitted.

But

a temporary lavatory,

that is, an incidental place where he urinates standing ,

where there is

splashing, when urinating there, of

droplets

upon his feet —

they prohibited it,

because he must wipe the droplets , and he is not permitted to do this while the tefillin are upon him.

The Gemara asks:

If so, why

is this law refuted by a kal va-chomer, and why did the tanna agree that it is

one to which there is no answer?

What do you mean, “to which there is no answer”? Surely

it has an excellent answer!

The Gemara answers:

This is what he is saying:

When you come to discuss

this matter,

the laws of a temporary and a permanent lavatory—

derive it

specifically

by way of a reason,

for then it is appropriate to permit urination while the tefillin are on his head specifically in a permanent lavatory, because it lacks the concern of splashing droplets; and because of this reason it is appropriate to be more lenient in a permanent lavatory than in a temporary one.

But do not derive it

the laws of a temporary and a permanent lavatory

by a kal va-chomer,

that is, that one should be more stringent in the permanent lavatory, which is more severe, and lenient in the temporary lavatory, which is less severe.

For if you derive it by a kal va-chomer,

indeed it would be impossible to be lenient and permit urination specifically in the more severe permanent lavatory and to be stringent in the temporary one. For—

this is a kal va-chomer

that one should be stringent in the permanent lavatory,

to which there is no answer

that we find that in some place we were lenient regarding the permanent lavatory and stringent regarding the temporary one.

The Sages taught: One who wishes to enter a fixed meal

and does not want to need to relieve himself in the middle of the meal, which is disgraceful for him —

walks ten times four cubits,

or

four times ten cubits, and relieves himself, and afterward enters

the meal.

Rabbi Yitzchak said: One who enters a fixed meal,

and there is concern lest he become intoxicated and disgrace himself with the tefillin on his head—

removes his tefillin

and may leave them outside,

and afterward enters.

And this disagrees with Rabbi Chiyya, for Rabbi Chiyya said: He places them

the tefillin near him

on his table. And this is more proper for him

to conduct himself this way, so that he can put them on immediately upon finishing his meal and will not have to go to the place where he removed his tefillin.

And until when

does he sit at the meal without tefillin?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzchak said: Until the time of the blessing

afterward over the food; that is, he puts them on even before the Grace after Meals.

One [teaching] taught: A person may bundle his tefillin

together

with his money—

in his cloak,

which is the cloth that he customarily places over his head and shoulders, with its two ends hanging at the two sides of his head, and in which he can bundle tefillin and money together. But since bundling them together is not the manner of honor, he makes two knots in it: one for his tefillin and the other for his money.

And another [baraita] taught: He must not tie up

them together!

It is not difficult:

This

that which we learned, “He must not tie up” the coins together with the tefillin, is in a case

where he designated it,

where he set aside the scarf for the tefillin, and it is no longer possible to use it for coins.

This

that which we learned, “A person may tie up his tefillin and his coins” together, is in a case

where he did not designate it.

For Rav Hisda said: This scarf of tefillin that he designated for tying tefillin in it,

if

he tied tefillin in it—

then

it is forbidden to tie coins in it

money. But if

he designated it but did not tie [tefillin] in it, or

or

he tied [tefillin] in it but did not designate it—

it is permitted to tie money in it.

But according to Abaye, who said, “Designation—

is a matter [of significance],”

then: if he

designated it

for tefillin—

even though he did not tie [tefillin] in it,

it is forbidden to use it for mundane purposes.

And if it happened that he

tied [tefillin] in it,

then only

if he designated it—

it is forbidden,

but

if he did not designate it—

it is not

forbidden to tie coins in it, even though he has already tied tefillin in it.

Rav Yosef, son of Rav Nehunia, asked Rav Yehuda: What is the [halakha] regarding a person placing his tefillin beneath his head

while he is sleeping at night?

Beneath his feet, I have no question

that it is forbidden—for

he treats them in a disgraceful manner.

What I do have a question about—

beneath his head: what is [the halakha]?

He said to him: Thus said Shmuel: It is permitted,

and

even

when

his wife is with him

in the bed, and it is possible that he will have marital relations .

They raised an objection: A person must not place his tefillin beneath his feet, because he treats them in a disgraceful manner. But he may place them beneath his head.

And if his wife is with him—

it is forbidden.

And if

there was a place three handbreadths high

above his head,

or low

beneath his head,

three handbreadths—

it is permitted

to place his tefillin there even when his wife is with him.

A refutation of Shmuel; a refutation.

Rava said: Even though a refutation of Shmuel was taught—

the halakha is in accordance with him.

What is the reason?