Commentary for Berakhot 46:4
מיתיבי דברים שהתרתי לך כאן אסרתי לך כאן מאי לאו תפילין אי אמרת בשלמא בית הלל התרתי לך כאן קבוע אסרתי לך כאן בית הכסא עראי אלא אי אמרת ב"ש הא לא שרו ולא מידי
It is quoted in objection: "What I have permitted thee in one place I have forbidden thee in another, [and this is an argument a fortiori which cannot be refuted"] — does this not refer to the Tefillin? It is quite right if thou sayest that the above Baraita emanates from Bet Hillel; for then I have permitted thee elsewhere [to enter] a regular privy [with Tefillin], but here I forbid thee [to enter] a chance privy ! On the other hand, if thou sayest that it emanates from Bet Shammai, they do not permit it in either case !
Tosafot on Berakhot
MATTERS WHICH I PERMITTED YOU HERE ETC. The Gemara says that one is allowed to carry t’filin into an established latrine and hold them in his hand while he urinates. In a Braiso quoted in the Gemara we find that it is prohibited to hold t’filin in one’s hands as he urinates. Rovo says that the Braiso is the opinion of Bais Shamai and that Bais Hilel disagrees with that Braiso and we follow Bais Hilel. The Gemara questions Rovo’s interpretation of the Braiso. Its question hinges upon another quotation from a Braiso about the contrast of laws in different latrines.The Braiso says: “Things that I have permitted for you here, I have prohibited there”. The Gemara seems to understand that “here”, means an established latrine and “there”, refers to a temporary latrine. Based on this understanding the Gemara attempts to disprove Rovo. Tosfos wonders why the Gemara is so sure that “here” refers to an established latrine and “there” refers to a temporary latrine, perhaps the reverse is true.
When faced with the Braiso that says that what I have permitted “here” I have prohibited “there”, the Gemara does not want to answer that things that I have permitted “here”, in a temporary latrine, I have prohibited “there”, in an established latrine, which would refer to the ruling that it is prohibited to defecate while wearing t’filin on one’s head in an established latrine, but it is permitted to urinate in a temporary latrine.Because, we do not find that ruling in a Braiso, and it is therefore difficult to say that this Braiso is referring to that ruling. However, this rule about exposing a tefach or two t’fochim in a latrine, we do find openly in a Braiso, and that is why the Gemara does not hesitate to suggest that the Braiso is referring to that ruling. HoRav R’ Yosaif is the author of this Tosfos.
When faced with the Braiso that says that what I have permitted “here” I have prohibited “there”, the Gemara does not want to answer that things that I have permitted “here”, in a temporary latrine, I have prohibited “there”, in an established latrine, which would refer to the ruling that it is prohibited to defecate while wearing t’filin on one’s head in an established latrine, but it is permitted to urinate in a temporary latrine.Because, we do not find that ruling in a Braiso, and it is therefore difficult to say that this Braiso is referring to that ruling. However, this rule about exposing a tefach or two t’fochim in a latrine, we do find openly in a Braiso, and that is why the Gemara does not hesitate to suggest that the Braiso is referring to that ruling. HoRav R’ Yosaif is the author of this Tosfos.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Abraham Cohen Footnotes to the English Translation of Masechet Berakhot
These words are added by M. and are quoted in the Gemara below.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Abraham Cohen Footnotes to the English Translation of Masechet Berakhot
The conclusion is therefore: either the statement of Raba is wrong, or the quotation "What I have permitted" etc. cannot refer to holding the Tefillin in a privy.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy