פירוש על ברכות 47:9

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.

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.