פירוש על ברכות 46:25

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.

Rashi renders "Let them protect me" so. from evil spirits which frequeut such a place. M. omits the word altogether.

The fear lest they will fall might disturb his ability to concentrate his mind on his prayer. Blau, Das altjudische Zauberwesen, p. 150 n. 7, suggests a different reason for the origin of this law. It is an allusion to a superstitious practice whereby these sacred objects were held in the hand as amulets while reciting incantations. Similarly, passages from the New Testament were used as charms by Christians ; see Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrhyncus Papyri, Part viii.

Viz. that a man may not urinate while holding the Tefillin.

So above (fol. 23 a, p. 150) where Bet Shammai teach that the Tefillin must be left on the window-sill

See above, fol. 23a, p. 150.

Since it is solely for the purpose of urinating, it is assumed that the Baraita refers to an occasional privy.

These words are added by M. and are quoted in the Gemara below.

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.

Not more, from a sense of modesty.

To avoid soiling his clothes.

And then the statement "What I have permitted" etc. would hold good here.

Then the quoted statement could be taken to mean : What I have permitted thee in the case of a male I have forbidden thee in the case of a female.

Bet Hillel permit the former (see fol. 23a, p. 150), but according to the result of the reasoning in the former paragraph, they forbid the latter !

For a man to uncover in front and a woman behind, and there is no argument a fortiori here at all. Consequently we cannot find anything to which the quoted statement "What I have permitted thee" etc. can be made to refer except the Tefillin.

To which one resorts for the purpose of the major function.

Since it is used as a urinal only.

Viz. the probability of soiling the hand with urine.

As follows: An occasional privy is not to be treated as strictly as a regular one; if then we are permitted to hold the Tefillin in the latter, how much more so in the former! This is irrefutable as an argument, but it nevertheless leads to a wrong conclusion. We have consequently to base our position on the practical consideration of the possibility of soiling the hand.

It speaks here of a meal at which he will be one of several guests, and it would be deemed impolite if he had to leave the table daring the meal.

Each time he should examine himself and see whether he needs relief.

Lest he become intoxicated and behave in an unbecoming manner while wearing them.

Not together, but in two separate parcels.

So Jastrow; others explain the word to mean a head-cloth or turban.

M. : Rab Nehemiah.

I.e. his pillow on which he could place them in case of necessity.