## Berakhot Daf 23b

###### Berakhot 23b:1
[Berakhot 23b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:1)

נִינְטְרַן. אָמַר רָבָא: כִּי הֲוָה אָזְלִינַן בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, כִּי הֲוָה נָקֵיט סִפְרָא דְאַגַּדְתָּא — יָהֵיב לַן, כִּי הֲוָה נָקֵיט תְּפִילִּין — לָא יָהֵיב לַן, אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּשְׁרוֹנְהוּ רַבָּנַן, נִינְטְרַן.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**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 Naḥman,** 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.**


###### Berakhot 23b:2
[Berakhot 23b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:2)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא יֹאחַז אָדָם תְּפִילִּין בְּיָדוֹ וְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בִּזְרוֹעוֹ וְיִתְפַּלֵּל. וְלֹא יַשְׁתִּין בָּהֶן מַיִם, וְלֹא יִישַׁן בָּהֶן לֹא שֵׁינַת קֶבַע וְלֹא שֵׁינַת עֲרַאי. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: סַכִּין וּמָעוֹת וּקְעָרָה וְכִכָּר, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**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.


###### Berakhot 23b:3
[Berakhot 23b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:3)

אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לֵית הִלְכְתָא כִּי הָא מַתְנִיתָא, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי הִיא. דְּאִי בֵּית הִלֵּל — הַשְׁתָּא בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא קָבוּעַ שְׁרֵי, בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא עֲרַאי מִיבַּעְיָא?!

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**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?**


###### Berakhot 23b:4
[Berakhot 23b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: דְּבָרִים שֶׁהִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ כָּאן, אָסַרְתִּי לְךָ כָּאן. מַאי לָאו תְּפִילִּין? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בֵּית הִלֵּל: הִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ כָּאן קָבוּעַ, אָסַרְתִּי לְךָ כָּאן בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא עֲרַאי. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הָא לָא שָׁרוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי?

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
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?


###### Berakhot 23b:5
[Berakhot 23b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:5)

כִּי תַּנְיָא הַהִיא, לְעִנְיַן טֶפַח וְטִפְחַיִים. דְּתָנֵי חֲדָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא נִפְנֶה — מְגַלֶּה לְאַחֲרָיו טֶפַח וּלְפָנָיו טִפְחַיִים. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לְאַחֲרָיו טֶפַח וּלְפָנָיו וְלֹא כְלוּם.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
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.**


###### Berakhot 23b:6
[Berakhot 23b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:6)

מַאי לָאו אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּאִישׁ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן לִגְדוֹלִים, כָּאן לִקְטַנִּים?

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**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.


###### Berakhot 23b:7
[Berakhot 23b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:7)

וְתִסְבְּרָא?! אִי בִּקְטַנִּים, לְאַחֲרָיו טֶפַח לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בִּגְדוֹלִים, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּאִישׁ, הָא בָּאִשָּׁה.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
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.


###### Berakhot 23b:8
[Berakhot 23b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:8)

אִי הָכִי הָא דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ, ״זֶהוּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה״ — מַאי ״אֵין עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה״? דַּרְכָּא דְמִלְּתָא הָכִי אִיתָא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
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.


###### Berakhot 23b:9
[Berakhot 23b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:9)

אֶלָּא לָאו, תְּפִילִּין, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְרָבָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת. תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**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.**


###### Berakhot 23b:10
[Berakhot 23b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:10)

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, קַשְׁיָא, הַשְׁתָּא בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא קָבוּעַ שְׁרֵי, בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא עֲרַאי לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
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.**


###### Berakhot 23b:11
[Berakhot 23b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:11)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא קָבוּעַ דְּלֵיכָּא נִיצוֹצוֹת, שָׁרוּ. בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא עֲרַאי דְּאִיכָּא נִיצוֹצוֹת, אָסְרִי.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara explains: **It says as follows:** When defecating in **a regular bathroom, where** one sits **there are no drops** of urine on one’s 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.**


###### Berakhot 23b:12
[Berakhot 23b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:12)

אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי ״אֵין עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה״? תְּשׁוּבָה מְעַלַּיְתָא הִיא!

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so, then why** was it referred to as an *a fortiori* inference that **“cannot be refuted”?** This seems **an excellent refutation** that explains the distinction.


###### Berakhot 23b:13
[Berakhot 23b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:13)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: הָא מִילְּתָא תֵּיתֵי לַהּ בְּתוֹרַת טַעְמָא, וְלָא תֵּיתֵי לַהּ בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר, דְּאִי אָתְיָא לַהּ בְּתוֹרַת קַל וָחוֹמֶר, זֶהוּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו תְּשׁוּבָה.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
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.**


###### Berakhot 23b:14
[Berakhot 23b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:14)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָרוֹצֶה לִיכָּנֵס לִסְעוּדַת קֶבַע, מְהַלֵּךְ עֲשָׂרָה פְּעָמִים אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, אוֹ אַרְבָּעָה פְּעָמִים עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת, וְיִפָּנֶה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִכְנָס.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**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.


###### Berakhot 23b:15
[Berakhot 23b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: הַנִּכְנָס לִסְעוּדַת קֶבַע, חוֹלֵץ תְּפִילָּיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִכְנָס. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מַנִּיחָן עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ, וְכֵן הָדוּר לוֹ.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
On this same subject, **Rabbi Yitzḥak 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 Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.


###### Berakhot 23b:16
[Berakhot 23b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:16)

וְעַד אֵימַת? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: עַד זְמַן בְּרָכָה.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
The Gemara asks: **And until when** in the meal must he refrain from wearing phylacteries? **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Until the time of the recitation of the blessing** of Grace after Meals.


###### Berakhot 23b:17
[Berakhot 23b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:17)

תָּנֵי חֲדָא: צוֹרֵר אָדָם תְּפִילָּיו עִם מְעוֹתָיו בַּאֲפַרְקְסוּתוֹ. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא יָצוֹר.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**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.


###### Berakhot 23b:18
[Berakhot 23b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:18)

לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאַזְמְנֵיהּ. הָא דְּלָא אַזְמְנֵיהּ. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַאי סוּדָרָא דִתְפִילִּין דְּאַזְמְנֵיהּ לְמֵיצַר בֵּיהּ תְּפִילִּין, צָר בֵּיהּ תְּפִילִּין — אָסוּר לְמֵיצַר בֵּיהּ פְּשִׁיטֵי, אַזְמְנֵיהּ וְלָא צָר בֵּיהּ, צָר בֵּיהּ וְלָא אַזְמְנֵיהּ — שְׁרֵי לְמֵיצַר בֵּיהּ זוּזִי.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
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 Ḥisda 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.**


###### Berakhot 23b:19
[Berakhot 23b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:19)

וּלְאַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר הַזְמָנָה מִילְּתָא הִיא: אַזְמְנֵיהּ אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא צָר בֵּיהּ. צָר בֵּיהּ, אִי אַזְמְנֵיהּ — אֲסִיר, אִי לָא אַזְמְנֵיהּ — לָא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**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.


###### Berakhot 23b:20
[Berakhot 23b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:20)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נְחוּנְיָא מֵרַב יְהוּדָה: מַהוּ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ אָדָם תְּפִילָּיו תַּחַת מְרַאֲשׁוֹתָיו? תַּחַת מַרְגְּלוֹתָיו לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי, שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בָּהֶן מִנְהַג בִּזָּיוֹן. כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי, תַּחַת מְרַאֲשׁוֹתָיו מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מוּתָּר, אֲפִילּוּ אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**Rav Yosef, son of Rav Neḥunya, 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.


###### Berakhot 23b:21
[Berakhot 23b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:21)

מֵיתִיבִי: לָא יַנִּיחַ אָדָם תְּפִילָּיו תַּחַת מַרְגְּלוֹתָיו מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בָּהֶם דֶּרֶךְ בִּזָּיוֹן, אֲבָל מַנִּיחָם תַּחַת מְרַאֲשׁוֹתָיו. וְאִם הָיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ — אָסוּר. הָיָה מָקוֹם שֶׁגָּבוֹהַּ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים אוֹ נָמוּךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים — מוּתָּר.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
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.


###### Berakhot 23b:22
[Berakhot 23b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:22)

תְּיוּבְתָּא דִשְׁמוּאֵל, תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**This is a conclusive refutation of Shmuel’s** statement. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Berakhot 23b:23
[Berakhot 23b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Berakhot/r/23b:23)

אָמַר רָבָא: אַף עַל גַּב דְּתַנְיָא תְּיוּבְתָּא דִשְׁמוּאֵל, הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא?

**Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921:**
**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?