## Tosafot on Berakhot Daf 24a

###### Tosafot on Berakhot 24a:2:1
[Tosafot on Berakhot 24a:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Berakhot/r/24a:2:1)

והא תני רבי חייא מניחן בכובע תחת מראשותיו - ואם תאמר אימא בכובע שלא כנגד ראשו שהרי בברייתא דלעיל נמי תני תחת מראשותיו ולא פריך מיניה משום דמצינן לפרושי שלא כנגד ראשו ואומר הרב דא"כ מאי איריא בכובע אפילו שלא בכובע נמי אלא ש"מ דמיירי אפילו כנגד ראשו ומ"מ קשיא לישני דמיירי באשתו עמו דבעיא כלי בתוך כלי וצ"ע:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
**DIDN’T RABBI ḤIYYA TEACH [THAT] HE PLACES THEM IN A POUCH, UNDER HIS HEAD?** R’ Yirmiyoh said that one places his t’filin between the mattress and the pillow not directly opposite his head. The Gemara challenges R’ Yirmiyoh from the Braiso of R’ Chiyo that says he places the t’filin in a pouch under his pillow. **And if you ask: I can say**that there is no contradiction from the Braiso to R’ Yirmiyoh because the Braiso is speaking of where the t’filin is in **a pouch that is not directly opposite his head.**I can prove that this is an acceptable answer to the Gemara’s challenge **for in the Braiso quoted earlier (23b) it also says**that t’filin can be placed **under his pillow and the Gemara does not challenge R’ Yirmiyoh from that Braiso, because**the Gemara is aware that **we can explain**that the Braiso is speaking of putting the t’filin **not directly opposite his head.**Why didn’t the Gemara seem to know that we can use the same answer in reference to R’ Chiyo’s Braiso?
**And the Rav says: that if so,**that R’ Chiyo’s Braiso is speaking of where the t’filin are not directly opposite his head **why does he speak about**placing them in **a pouch, even without a pouch**it should also be permitted to place t’filin not directly opposite his head. **Rather we can see from this that it is speaking even**where the t’filin **are opposite his head.**That is why this Braiso of R’ Chiyo contradicts R’ Yirmiyoh who says that one must place t’filin not directly opposite his head, whereas the previous Braiso that does not mention a pouch is not a contradiction to R’ Yirmiyoh.
However, **in any case**we remain with a problem, **the Gemara should answer**the challenge from R’ Chiyo’s Braiso by saying that the Braiso **is speaking of when his wife is with him, where it is required**that the t’filin be placed in **a vessel within another vessel.**That is why the Braiso speaks of a pouch even though it will be placed not directly opposite his head and it presents no contradiction to R’ Yirmiyoh at all. **And the issue requires contemplation.**


###### Tosafot on Berakhot 24a:5:1
[Tosafot on Berakhot 24a:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Berakhot/r/24a:5:1)

שנים שהיו ישנים במטה - וא"ת והלא רואה ערות עצמו וי"ל שיוציא ראשו לחוץ וא"ת והרי לבו רואה את הערוה וי"ל דקסבר לבו רואה את הערוה מותר אי נמי חוצץ בבגדו כנגד לבו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
**TWO INDIVIDUALS SLEEPING IN A SINGLE BED.** See Artscroll note 11. Tosfos here is referring to the Gemara on 25b that teaches that when one’s ervoh is exposed it is forbidden to recite the sh’ma. There are various degrees of exposure as will be discussed in the Gemara there. **And if you ask:**How can he possibly be permitted to recite sh’ma, but he sees his own ervoh.¹**
And we can answer: that he puts his head out**of the blanket. **And if you ask: but his heart sees the ervoh? And we can answer: that this Tano holds that**when **one’s heart exposed to the ervo it is permissible**to recite sh’ma. The rule that one may not recite sh’ma when his heart is exposed to ervo is the subject of a dispute. This Tano may hold like the opinion that is lenient in this matter. **Alternatively,**he is **separating**between his ervoh and his heart **by holding his garment opposite his heart.**

footnotes:
¹ This word ערוה when used in this context generally means one’s naked genitals.


###### Tosafot on Berakhot 24a:9:1
[Tosafot on Berakhot 24a:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Berakhot/r/24a:9:1)

והתניא היה ישן במטה ובני ביתו וכו' - פי' רש"י אשתו בכלל ביתו ולא נהירא חדא דלא אשכחן אשתו דמקריא בני ביתו ועוד לפירושו הול"ל והא קתני כאן כיון דאברייתא דלעיל קאי אבל מדקאמר והתניא משמע דברייתא אחרת היא ואומר ה"ר יוסף דגרסינן היה ישן במטה ואשתו ישנה בצדו לא יחזיר פניו ויקרא אא"כ היתה טלית מפסקת בינו לבינה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
**WASN’T IT TAUGHT: ONE WHO IS SLEEPING IN BED AND HIS CHILDREN ETC.?** The Gemara is dealing with the question of whether one may recite sh’ma when he is in a bed with another person and they are both naked. They are facing away from each other. Shmuel says that it is permissible even if the other person is his wife. Rav Yosaif argues that it is more likely that it is permitted with his wife, since one’s wife is like his self, he is accustomed to being with her and is not as likely to have improper thoughts when in contact with her. The Gemara presents two contradictory Braisos on this subject and suggests that this makes sense according to Rav Yosaif who says that one is permitted to say sh’ma when the other person is his wife, and he is not permitted to say sh’ma when there is another man in his bed.
However, Shmuel who says that it is always permitted, even when there is another man in his bed is contradicted by the Braiso that says it is forbidden. Shmuel wants to show that Rav Yosaif’s position is also the subject of a dispute and presents a third Braiso that indicates that it is forbidden to say sh’ma even when the other person is his wife. There is major confusion about the proper text of the Braisos involved. You can see that Tosfos begins with a quotation that is different than the Gemara as we have it printed. In the second Braiso that prohibits reciting sh’ma the text is **הישן במטה ובניו ובני ביתו בצדו – הרי זה לא יקרא קריאת שמע** One who was sleeping in bed and his sons and members of his household are with him – he should not recite sh’ma.
In the Third Braiso we have the text **היה ישן במטה ובניו ובני ביתו במטה – לא יקרא קריאת שמע**These texts are almost identical. Rashi says that in the second Braiso is not referring to his wife and in the third Braiso the same words are referring to his wife. Tosfos understands that according to Rashi the second and third Braisos are one and the same, it is juat that the Gemara originally understood that בני ביתו does not refer to his wife and when presented another time the Gemara means to say that those words do refer to his wife. Tosfos is not satisfied with this explanation and chooses to revise the text of the third Braiso.
**Rashi explained that**the Braiso means **that one’s wife is included in the members of his household. And this is not clear**for a number of reasons. **First, because we do not find that one’s wife is called בני ביתו the members of his household.**¹
**And furthermore, according to his explanation**that the third Braiso is actually one and the same as the second, when the Gemara presents this Braiso the Gemara **should have said: and we learned in this Braiso, since the Gemara is referring to the**second **Braiso mentioned earlier.**²
But since the Gemara **does say “and we learned in a Braiso” it appears that this is a different,**third**, Braiso. And the Rav Horav Yosaif says that our text in this third Braiso is: if he was sleeping in a bed and his wife was sleeping at his side, he should not turn his face**away from his wife **and recite**sh’ma, **unless a garment is separating between him and her.** Obviously, according to this text it is extremely clear that the question raised is about one’s wife.

footnotes:
¹ See the notes of R’ Akeevo Eiger who challenges Tosfos on this point.
² See פני יהושע who says that Rashi also holds that this is a third Braiso. There is a minor variation in the text of the second and third Braisos. In the first Braiso we read בצדו at his side. This does not refer to a wife since it is rather impersonal. In the third Braiso the text is במטה which is more fitting for a wife. Also, in the second Braiso, the ruling is qualified by, “if they were minors”. This qualification is sensible if we are not discussing his wife. The next Braiso does not mention that if they were minors the rule changes, because one who marries a minor is obviously attracted to her despite her being a minor and the prohibition against reciting sh’ma when she is in his bed would be in effect, even if she was a minor.