Abraham Cohen Footnotes to the English Translation of Masechet Berakhot

Sefaria · Talmud > Bavli > Modern Commentary on Talmud · 2,997 sections

45.10
A bag of that size would prevent its contents from contracting defilement.
45.11
Even less than a handbreadth in size.
45.12
As his disciples.
46.1
Rashi renders "Let them protect me" so. from evil spirits which frequeut such a place. M. omits the word altogether.
46.2
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.
46.3
Viz. that a man may not urinate while holding the Tefillin.
46.4
So above (fol. 23 a, p. 150) where Bet Shammai teach that the Tefillin must be left on the window-sill
46.5
See above, fol. 23a, p. 150.
46.6
Since it is solely for the purpose of urinating, it is assumed that the Baraita refers to an occasional privy.
46.7
These words are added by M. and are quoted in the Gemara below.
46.8
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.
46.9
Not more, from a sense of modesty.
46.10
To avoid soiling his clothes.
46.11
And then the statement "What I have permitted" etc. would hold good here.
46.12
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.
46.13
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.
46.14
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 !
46.15
To which one resorts for the purpose of the major function.
46.16
Since it is used as a urinal only.
46.17
Viz. the probability of soiling the hand with urine.
46.18
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.
46.19
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.
46.20
Each time he should examine himself and see whether he needs relief.
46.21
Lest he become intoxicated and behave in an unbecoming manner while wearing them.
46.22
Not together, but in two separate parcels.
46.23
So Jastrow; others explain the word to mean a head-cloth or turban.
46.24
M. : Rab Nehemiah.
46.25
I.e. his pillow on which he could place them in case of necessity.
47.1
If they were left lying about mice might get at them.
47.2
I.e. not facing the bed.
47.3
M. : Nehemiah.
47.4
For Raba's wife after her period of separation.
47.5
Viz. as Samuel taught : It is allowed, even if his wife is with him.
47.6
M. : Nehemiah.
47.7
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.
47.8
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.
47.9
Since he holds that his wife is part of himself, he does not require a sheet between them, but with others he does.
47.10
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.
47.11
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."
47.12
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.
47.13
Although the posterior parts are exposed; thus supporting Rab Huna's view.
47.14
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.
47.15
M. : Rafram b. Pappa said in the name of Rab Hisda.
47.16
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 ?
47.17
Class them all together.
47.18
That the Halakah is in accord with Samuel.
47.19
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'?
47.20
It is to be ignored.
47.21
Cf. Is. iii. 18-24.
47.22
I.e. he may not read the Shema' in these circumstances.
47.23
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.
47.24
That they may hang in a bag.
48.1
This is how some of the commentators understand the phrase. According to Rashi, it means "search in his garment (so. for vermin)" which are unescapable in the East ; cf. Lane, p. 3.
48.2
In his Tallit, if it fell from him during prayer.
48.3
He acts as though God were hard of hearing.
48.4
Of the prophets of Baal it is said, "And they cried aloud" (I Kings xviii. 28).
48.5
When Rabbi acted so.
48.6
Since it is regarded as an involantary act.
48.7
The verb "to sneeze" is also used euphemistically in the sense "to break wind,"
48.8
He was susceptible to sneezing and experienced it even when praying. Hence this teaching relieved his mind.
48.9
It is a sign his prayer will be heard in Heaven. Mr H. Loewe drew my attention to a Latin parallel : "Hoc ut dixit, Amor, sinistra ut ante, dextra sternuit approbationem" ; Catullus 45.
48.10
See p. 154 n. 6.
48.11
Added by M.
48.12
And the upper part of his body bare.
49.1
M. omits : b. Isaac.
49.2
I.e. he must take the earliest opportunity to remove them.
49.3
Judaism enjoins the duty of maintaining the body in a healthy condition.
49.4
Through a hole in the wall or fence, his body being outside.
49.5
I.e. the organs through which breath is taken, the mouth and nose. So long as these are not in the unclean place, praise may be offered.
49.6
I.e. limbs; they all have to be clean or in a clean place.
49.7
I.e. there is filth lying about.
49.8
M. : remove himself to a place where the smell is imperceptible and read.
49.9
In the vicinity of filth.
49.10
M. : stands.
49.11
Under any circumstances.
49.12
The excrement of these animals was used for cleaning purposes; cf. T. A.I. p. 154 and p. 574 n. 346.
49.13
I.e. it is not caused by excrement but breaking of wind. May one read the Shema'?
49.14
Although some of the sleepers may cause a foul odour, others are studying, an indication that the Shema' may be read under such conditions.
49.15
The cases are not analogous ; he must remove himself from the odour before reading the Shema'.
49.16
E.g. a leper.
49.17
According to Abbai, this is analogous to the quoted Baraita ; so if the passing leper does not cause defilement, the passing manure should not interfere with the reading of the Shema'.
49.18
Cf. Lev. xiv. 37 ff. If the stone is carried past a man, he is not infected ; if it is set down where he is, he does contract defilement.
49.19
What reply can he make to the reasoning upon which Abbai bases his view?
49.20
The analogy is false, because the quoted Mishnah only means to teach that the leper defiles any place where he stands for a while, which thus becomes temporarily his "dwelling."
49.21
The circumstance of the passing manure and saying the Shema'.
49.22
I.e. not only must the spot where he is standing be holy but the surroundings also.
49.23
Since the pig constantly pokes its snout amidst filth.
49.24
The presumption being that there is no excrement in the room, but there is in the ash-heap.
49.25
M. : Johanan.
49.26
That in v. 13 there is no mention of covering as in v. 14.
49.27
Geniba had wrongly reported the teaching of Rab.
49.28
That Rab permits the Shema' when the moisture had dried, and not when all trace had disappeared, as Geniba reported him.
49.29
M. : Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said in the name of R. Johanan.
49.30
So M. ; not as edd.: Judab. On Difti, see p. 48 n. 2.
49.31
If so, he would be able to read the Shema'.
49.32
By the sun, wben it has fallen on stone.
49.33
This conclusion contradicts Raba's statement of the Halakah.
49.34
And thus the quoted Baraita would be self-contradictory !
49.35
But that is impossible, since his opinion must be different, it being mentioned in contrast to that of the first Tanna.
49.36
This is to be connected with the opening sentence of the paragraph. It denies that the question here discussed is the same as that before considered.

Tractate Berakot by A. Cohen, Cambridge University Press, 1921. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002182132 Licence: Public Domain. Source.