Berakhot 24a

כֹּל לְנַטּוֹרִינְהוּ טְפֵי עֲדִיף. וְהֵיכָא מַנַּח לְהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בֵּין כַּר לְכֶסֶת, שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד רֹאשׁוֹ.

Because whatever offers more protection is preferable even at the cost of deprecation. And where under his head does he place them? Rabbi Yirmeya said: He places them between the pillow and the mattress, not directly aligned with his head but rather a bit to the side.

וְהָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מַנִּיחָן בְּכוֹבַע, תַּחַת מְרַאֲשׁוֹתָיו! דְּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְמוּרְשָׁא דְכוֹבַע לְבַר.

The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach a baraita that in that case he places them in a pouch used for phylacteries, directly under his head? The Gemara replies: He does so in a manner that the bulge in the pouch, where the phylacteries are, protrudes out and is not beneath his head.

בַּר קַפָּרָא צָיַיר לְהוּ בְּכִילְּתָא, וּמַפִּיק לְמוּרְשְׁהוֹן לְבַר. רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידֵּי מַנַּח לְהוּ אַשַּׁרְשִׁיפָא, וּפָרֵיס סוּדָרָא עִילָּוַיְיהוּ.

On this note, the Gemara relates that Bar Kappara would tie them in his bed curtain and project their bulge outward. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, would place them on a bench and spread a cloth over them.

אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף: זִימְנָא חֲדָא הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, וַאֲמַר לִי: זִיל אַיְיתִי לִי תְּפִילִּין. וְאַשְׁכַּחְתִּינְהוּ בֵּין כַּר לְכֶסֶת, שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד רֹאשׁוֹ. וַהֲוָה יָדַעְנָא דְּיוֹם טְבִילָה הֲוָה, וּלְאַגְמוֹרַן הֲלָכָה לְמַעֲשֶׂה הוּא דַּעֲבַד.

Rav Hamnuna, son of Rav Yosef, said: I was once standing before Rava and he told me: Go and bring me my phylacteries. And I found them in his bed, between the mattress and the pillow, not aligned with his head. And I knew that it was the day of his wife’s immersion in the ritual bath for purification from the ritual impurity of a menstruating woman, and he certainly engaged in marital relations in order to fulfill the mitzva, and he did so, he sent me to bring him his phylacteries, to teach us the practical halakha in that case.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נְחוּנְיָא מֵרַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיְּשֵׁנִים בְּמִטָּה אַחַת, מַהוּ שֶׁזֶּה יַחֲזִיר פָּנָיו וְיִקְרָא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, וְזֶה יַחֲזִיר פָּנָיו וְיִקְרָא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וַאֲפִילּוּ אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ.

Rav Yosef, son of Rav Neḥunya, who raised a dilemma above, raised a dilemma before Rav Yehuda: Two individuals sleeping in a single bed, given that it was standard practice to sleep without clothing, what is the halakha ; is it permissible for this one to turn his head aside and recite Shema and for that one turns his head and recites Shema ; or is it prohibited because they are unclothed and are considered unfit to recite Shema even though they are covered with a blanket? He said to him: Shmuel said as follows: This is permitted even if his wife is in bed with him.

מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא אַחֵר?! אַדְּרַבָּה, אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּגוּפוֹ, אַחֵר לָאו כְּגוּפוֹ.

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this response: You say that he is permitted to recite Shema in bed with his wife, and needless to say he is permitted to do so when in bed with another. On the contrary, since his wife is like his own flesh, and he will not have lustful thoughts of her, it is permitted; another is not like his own flesh and it is prohibited.

מֵיתִיבִי: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיְּשֵׁנִים בְּמִטָּה אַחַת — זֶה מַחֲזִיר פָּנָיו וְקוֹרֵא, וְזֶה מַחֲזִיר פָּנָיו וְקוֹרֵא. וְתַנְיָא אַחֲרִיתִי: הַיָּשֵׁן בַּמִּטָּה, וּבָנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ בְּצִדּוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִקְרָא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה טַלִּית מַפְסֶקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן. וְאִם הָיוּ בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ קְטַנִּים — מוּתָּר.

The Gemara raises an objection to this from the resolution of an apparent contradiction between two baraitot . It was taught in one baraita : Two unclothed individuals who are sleeping in a single bed, this one turns his head aside and recites Shema and that one turns his head aside and recites Shema . And it was taught in another baraita : One who is sleeping in bed and his unclothed children and members of his household are beside him, may not recite Shema unless a garment separates between them. If his children and the members of his household were minors, it is permitted to recite Shema even without a garment separating between them.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב יוֹסֵף לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהָא בְּאַחֵר. אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל קַשְׁיָא?

Granted, according to Rav Yosef, the apparent contradiction between the two baraitot is not difficult, as this baraita is referring to a case where his wife is in the bed with him, while this other baraita is referring to a case where another person is in bed with him and there is concern lest he will have lustful thoughts. However, according to Shmuel, who permits one to recite Shema regardless of who is in bed with him, it is indeed difficult. How would he interpret the baraita that prohibits?

אָמַר לְךָ שְׁמוּאֵל: לְרַב יוֹסֵף מִי נִיחָא? וְהָתַנְיָא הָיָה יָשֵׁן בַּמִּטָּה, וּבָנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ בַּמִּטָּה — לֹא יִקְרָא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה טַלִּיתוֹ מַפְסֶקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן. אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר — אִשְׁתּוֹ לְרַב יוֹסֵף תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, לְדִידִי נָמֵי תַּנָּאֵי הִיא.

The Gemara replies: Shmuel could have said to you: And according to Rav Yosef’s opinion, does it work out well? Wasn’t it taught in that same baraita that one who is sleeping in bed and his children and members of his household are beside him, may not recite Shema unless a garment separates between them? Doesn’t Rav Yosef hold that his wife is like his own flesh and no separation is necessary? Rather, what have you to say in response? Rav Yosef holds that there is a tannaitic dispute in the case of one’s wife; I, too, hold that it is a tannaitic dispute, and I accept the ruling of one of the baraitot .

אָמַר מָר: זֶה מַחֲזִיר פָּנָיו וְקוֹרֵא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע. וְהָא אִיכָּא עֲגָבוֹת! מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: עֲגָבוֹת אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא: הָאִשָּׁה יוֹשֶׁבֶת, וְקוֹצָה לָהּ חַלָּתָהּ עֲרוּמָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְכַסּוֹת פָּנֶיהָ בְּקַרְקַע, אֲבָל לֹא הָאִישׁ.

The Gemara reverts to clarify something mentioned above. The Master said in a baraita : This one turns his head aside and recites Shema. The Gemara notes a difficulty: Aren’t there bare buttocks? This supports the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: Buttocks do not constitute nakedness. Let us say that the following mishna supports Rav Huna’s opinion: A woman sits and separates her ḥalla naked, despite the fact that she must recite a blessing over the separation of the ḥalla , because she can cover her face, a euphemism for her genitals, in the ground, but a male, whose genitals are not covered when he sits, may not do so. The mishna teaches that exposed buttocks do not constitute nakedness.

תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ פָּנֶיהָ טוּחוֹת בַּקַּרְקַע.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak interpreted the mishna as referring to a case where her face, genitals, was completely covered in the ground such that her posterior was covered by the ground. Therefore, proof for Rav Huna’s opinion cannot be brought from this mishna.

אָמַר מָר: אִם הָיוּ בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ קְטַנִּים, מוּתָּר: וְעַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: תִּינוֹקֶת בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְתִינוֹק בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: תִּינוֹקֶת בַּת אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְתִינוֹק בֶּן שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד. אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי עַד כְּדַי ״שָׁדַיִם נָכֹנוּ וּשְׂעָרֵךְ צִמֵּחַ״.

The Master said in a baraita : If his children and the members of his household were minors, even though they are unclothed, it is permitted to recite Shema even without a garment separating between them. The Gemara asks: Until what age is one still considered a minor? Rav Ḥisda said: A girl until she is three years and one day old, and a boy until he is nine years and one day old, for these are the ages from which a sexual act in which they participate is considered a sexual act. Some say: A girl eleven years and one day old and a boy of twelve years and one day old, as that is the age at which they are considered adults in this regard. This age is only approximate, as the age of majority for both this, the boy, and that, the girl, is at the onset of puberty in accordance with the verse: “Your breasts were formed and your hair was grown” (Ezekiel 16:7).

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָתָם אָמַר רָבָא: אַף עַל גַּב דִּתְיוּבְתָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. הָכָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ בַּחֲדָא מְחִתָא מְחִתִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּאִיתְּמַר — אִיתְּמַר, וְהֵיכָא דְּלָא אִיתְּמַר — לָא אִיתְּמַר.

Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi: There, with regard to the law of phylacteries, Rava said: Despite a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. Here, what is the ruling? He said to him: Were all of them woven in the same act of weaving? Are there no distinctions between different cases? Rather, where it is stated, it is stated, and where it is not stated, it is not stated, and there is no comparison.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מָרִי לְרַב פָּפָּא: שֵׂעָר יוֹצֵא בְּבִגְדוֹ מַהוּ? קְרָא עֲלֵיהּ: שֵׂעָר, שֵׂעָר.

Rav Mari said to Rav Pappa: Does it constitute nakedness if one’s pubic hair protruded from his garment? Rav Pappa said about him: A hair, a hair. You are splitting hairs and being pedantic over trivialities.

אָמַר ר׳ יִצְחָק: טֶפַח בָּאִשָּׁה עֶרְוָה. לְמַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְאִסְתַּכּוֹלֵי בַּהּ, וְהָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לָמָּה מָנָה הַכָּתוּב תַּכְשִׁיטִין שֶׁבַּחוּץ עִם תַּכְשִׁיטִין שֶׁבִּפְנִים — לוֹמַר לָךְ כׇּל הַמִּסְתַּכֵּל בְּאֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה שֶׁל אִשָּׁה, כְּאִילּוּ מִסְתַּכֵּל בִּמְקוֹם הַתּוֹרֶף.

Rabbi Yitzḥak stated: An exposed handbreadth in a woman constitutes nakedness. The Gemara asks: Regarding which halakha was this said? If you say that it comes to prohibit looking at an exposed handbreadth in her, didn’t Rav Sheshet say: Why did the verse enumerate “anklets and bracelets, rings, earrings and girdles” (Numbers 31:50), jewelry that is worn externally, over her clothing, e.g., bracelets, together with jewelry worn internally, beneath her clothing, near her nakedness, e.g., girdles? This was to tell you: Anyone who gazes upon a woman’s little finger is considered as if he gazed upon her naked genitals, for if his intentions are impure, it makes no difference where he looks or how much is exposed; even less than a handbreadth.

אֶלָּא בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלִקְרִיאַת שְׁמַע.

Rather, it is referring even to his wife, with regard to the recitation of Shema . One may not recite Shema before an exposed handbreadth of his wife.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שׁוֹק בָּאִשָּׁה עֶרְוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גַּלִּי שׁוֹק עִבְרִי נְהָרוֹת״, וּכְתִיב: ״תִּגָּל עֶרְוָתֵךְ וְגַם תֵּרָאֶה חֶרְפָּתֵךְ״. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קוֹל בָּאִשָּׁה — עֶרְוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי קוֹלֵךְ עָרֵב וּמַרְאֵךְ נָאוֶה״. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: שֵׂעָר בָּאִשָּׁה עֶרְוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שַׂעֲרֵךְ כְּעֵדֶר הָעִזִּים״.

Along these lines, Rav Ḥisda said: Even a woman’s exposed leg is considered nakedness, as it is stated: “Uncover the leg and pass through the rivers” (Isaiah 47:2), and it is written in the following verse: “Your nakedness shall be revealed and your shame shall be seen” (Isaiah 47:3). Shmuel further stated: A woman’s singing voice is considered nakedness, which he derives from the praise accorded a woman’s voice, as it is stated: “Sweet is your voice and your countenance is alluring” (Song of Songs 2:14). Similarly, Rav Sheshet stated: Even a woman’s hair is considered nakedness, for it too is praised, as it is written: “Your hair is like a flock of goats, trailing down from Mount Gilead” (Song of Songs 4:1).

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אֲנִי רָאִיתִי אֶת רַבִּי שֶׁתָּלָה תְּפִילָּיו. מֵיתִיבִי: הַתּוֹלֶה תְּפִילָּיו יִתָּלוּ לוֹ חַיָּיו!

The Gemara resumes its discussion of phylacteries. Rabbi Ḥanina said: I saw Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hang his phylacteries. The Gemara raises an objection: It was taught in a baraita that one who hangs his phylacteries will have his life hang in the balance.

דּוֹרְשֵׁי חֲמוּרוֹת אָמְרוּ: ״וְהָיוּ חַיֶּיךָ תְּלֻאִים לְךָ מִנֶּגֶד״, זֶה הַתּוֹלֶה תְּפִילָּיו.

Moreover, the Symbolic Interpreters of the Torah said that the verse: “And your life shall hang in doubt before you [ minneged ]” (Deuteronomy 28:66), that is the punishment of one who hangs his phylacteries.

לָא קַשְׁיָא הָא בִּרְצוּעָה. הָא בִּקְצִיצָה.

The Gemara replies: This apparent contradiction is not difficult, as this baraita , which condemns one who hangs his phylacteries, refers to one who hangs them by the strap, allowing the leather boxes into which the parchment is placed to dangle in a deprecating way, which is certainly prohibited. That baraita , which relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would hang his phylacteries and that it is clearly permitted, refers to when one hangs them from the box with the straps dangling.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לָא שְׁנָא רְצוּעָה וְלָא שְׁנָא קְצִיצָה — אָסוּר. וְכִי תְּלָה רַבִּי — בְּכִיסְתָּא תְּלָה.

And if you wish, say another explanation instead: There is no difference whether he hangs the phylacteries from the strap and there is no difference whether he hangs the phylacteries from the box; both are prohibited. And when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hung his phylacteries, he hung them in their pouch.

אִי הָכִי מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְתֵימָא תִּיבְעֵי הַנָּחָה כְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose to relate that incident? The Gemara replies: Lest you say that phylacteries would require placement atop a surface, as is the custom with a Torah scroll. Therefore, it teaches us that this is unnecessary.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אֲנִי רָאִיתִי אֶת רַבִּי שֶׁגִּיהֵק וּפִיהֵק וְנִתְעַטֵּשׁ וְרָק

Since Rabbi Ḥanina related a story involving Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the Gemara cites another such story. Rabbi Ḥanina said: I saw Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, while he was praying, belch, yawn, sneeze, spit,