Commentary for Berakhot 47:27

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.

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

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.¹See the notes of R’ Akeevo Eiger who challenges Tosfos on this point.
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.²See 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.
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.

If they were left lying about mice might get at them.

I.e. not facing the bed.

"And Rav Chisda says, the leg of a woman is nakedness". And specifically [it is nakedness] to others and to men, because of [sexual] thoughts, but to herself it is not, as we teach (Mishna Challah 2:3) "A woman may sit and separate challah naked" (implying she may make the accompanying blessing whilst naked). And so with Rabbi Yitzchak's statement, "a handbreadth of a woman is nakedness" -- the scope of his statement is narrow and applies specifically with a man's own wife and [whilst he, the husband, is] saying Shema. The Ra'avad of blessed memory analyses this: it is possible specifically in a private place she comes, and it arises Rav Chisda's saying that the thigh of a woman is a hidden place and is nakedness -- but even on the back of her husband, even though this is not a hidden place on a man. But her face and her feet and her voice when it speaks and does not sing, and her hair that comes out of her braid and isn't covered, we aren't concerned about them because he is accustomed to seeing them and won't be distracted. And with another woman, it is forbidden to stare at her because of the place, and even her little finger or her hair, and forbidden to hear her even when she is speaking, as we said in Kiddushin 70a; "'Let the Master send greetings to Yalta,' and he said to him, 'This is what Shmuel says: the voice of a woman is nakedness'". And rather it appears that this is specifically the voice of sending or returning greetings, since the reason [of the prohibition?] is closeness of mind. And the Rav Alfasi of blessed memory, that he should not be recalled for this at all, wrote the Raavad of blessed memory that it is possible that this is because we said, see the letters, that this is not because of nakedness. The Rav of Blessed Memory thought this is all because a handbreadth of her thigh and hair and voice is nakedness. And he of blessed memory wrote that this is not a good reason, rather in this case it is because of distraction and because there is seeing, and the issue of buttocks is explained specifically with regards to herself, and with regards to his wife if he doesn't see [buttocks] and even if he is touching [them], and everything he does not see but there is only touching, he is not distracted he is "arrogant" [familiar] with her.

M. : Nehemiah.

For Raba's wife after her period of separation.

Viz. as Samuel taught : It is allowed, even if his wife is with him.

M. : Nehemiah.

Throughout this discussion it must be remembered that in the Orient it was the general custom in the Summer to sleep quite naked; cf. Lane, p. 158. Even in the Winter people often slept naked because of lack of clothing. See p. 157 n. 1.

By using the word "even," Samuel implied that the more lenient view is to be taken when he is with somebody else. Rab Joseph retorts that the more lenient view is to be taken when his wife is with him, because she is to be considered part of himself.

Since he holds that his wife is part of himself, he does not require a sheet between them, but with others he does.

For he said "Even if his wife is with him." If, therefore, he does not require a sheet with her, he cannot require one with somebody else.

According to Rashi, "members of his household" must here be understood to include his wife. Later commentators (see Tosafot) reject this, and correct the text to read "with his wife, he may not turn away and read the Shema' unless there is a garment separating between them."

I.e. the dispute between Samuel and Rab Joseph goes back to the days of the Tannaim, and there are Baraitot (irreconcilable with each other) to be quoted in support of both opinions.

Although the posterior parts are exposed; thus supporting Rab Huna's view.

So that even the posteriors are covered; consequently the Mishnah offers no support to Rab Huna. Buchler, Der galilaische 'Am ha'ares, p. 252 n. 1, points out that the circumstance here debated is not far-fetched and imaginary ; but the extreme poverty into which a section of the people had sunk, so that some of them had actually no clothing, made it a question of practical importance. See also T. A. I. pp. 134 ff.

M. : Rafram b. Pappa said in the name of Rab Hisda.

Although Samuel's opinion respecting the reading of the Shema' when a man is in bed with others is refuted by Rab Joseph, is the Halakah in agreement with him ?

Class them all together.

That the Halakah is in accord with Samuel.

If the man's garment was torn so that hair protruded, is this to be deemed nakedness in connection with the reading of the Shema'?

It is to be ignored.

Cf. Is. iii. 18-24.

I.e. he may not read the Shema' in these circumstances.

M. : Doreshe Reshumot. Both these terms are the names of ancient Schools of Bible interpreters. See the exhaustive discussion of Lauterbach in J. Q. R. (New Series) i. pp. 291-333, 503-531. His conclusion is, "The Doreshe Hamurot were, therefore, those allegoristic interpreters of the law whose method and tendency were to find the importance and significance of the law, its real meaning and purpose, since it is this, the real meaning and purpose, that gave the law weight and importance ; and they considered the importance and significance of the law, its homer, to lie, not in the plain meaning of the letter of the law, but in the spirit of the law and its allegorical meaning, which they would read into it"; ibid. p. 509.

That they may hang in a bag.