Menachot Daf 36 (מנחות דף ל״ו)
Daf: 36 | Amudim: 36a – 36b | Date: 15 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (36a)
Segment 1
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Chisda: Speaking between tefillin requires an additional blessing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: סָח בֵּין תְּפִילָּה לִתְפִילָּה חוֹזֵר וּמְבָרֵךְ.
English Translation:
§ Rav Ḥisda says: If one spoke between donning the phylacteries of the arm and the phylacteries of the head, he must recite the blessing again when donning the phylacteries of the head.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda introduces a practical ruling about the blessings on tefillin. When donning tefillin, ideally one should proceed directly from the arm tefillin to the head tefillin without interruption. If one speaks between them, this creates a “hefsek” (interruption) that breaks the connection between the two parts of the mitzva, requiring a new blessing for the head tefillin. This highlights the Talmudic understanding that although the arm and head tefillin are two separate objects, they are conceptually linked as one mitzva.
Key Terms:
- סָח (Sach) = Spoke — any verbal interruption between the two tefillin
- חוֹזֵר וּמְבָרֵךְ (Chozer umvarech) = Returns and recites a blessing — must recite an additional blessing
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: Rabbi Yochanan says to always recite a blessing on the head tefillin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סָח – אִין, לֹא סָח – לָא? וְהָא שְׁלַח רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַל תְּפִילָּה שֶׁל יָד אוֹמֵר ״בָּרוּךְ אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לְהַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין״, עַל תְּפִילִּין שֶׁל רֹאשׁ אוֹמֵר ״בָּרוּךְ אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל מִצְוַת תְּפִילִּין״.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: One can infer that if he spoke, yes, he must recite a blessing when donning the phylacteries of the head, but if he did not speak, he does not recite a blessing. The Gemara challenges this: But Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, sent a ruling in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: On the phylacteries of the arm one says the blessing: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who has sanctified us through His mitzvot and commanded us to don phylacteries. On the phylacteries of the head one says the blessing: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who has sanctified us through His mitzvot and commanded us concerning the mitzva of phylacteries. This indicates that one always recites a blessing when donning the phylacteries of the head.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws an inference from Rav Chisda’s statement: if one must recite a blessing when speaking, then presumably one does NOT recite a blessing when not speaking. But this seems to contradict Rabbi Yochanan’s transmitted teaching that there are two distinct blessings — “lehanniach tefillin” for the arm and “al mitzvat tefillin” for the head — implying that both are always recited. The two different blessing formulas (“to don” vs. “concerning the mitzva of”) suggest they are two separate obligations.
Key Terms:
- לְהַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין (Lehanniach tefillin) = To don tefillin — the blessing formula for the arm tefillin
- עַל מִצְוַת תְּפִילִּין (Al mitzvat tefillin) = Concerning the mitzva of tefillin — the blessing formula for the head tefillin
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: Abaye and Rava harmonize the two views
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: לֹא סָח – מְבָרֵךְ אַחַת, סָח – מְבָרֵךְ שְׁתַּיִם.
English Translation:
Abaye and Rava both say, to resolve this apparent contradiction: Rabbi Yoḥanan meant that if one did not speak, he recites one blessing; if he spoke, he recites two blessings, when donning the phylacteries of the head as well as when donning the phylacteries of the arm.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye and Rava offer an elegant resolution. Rabbi Yochanan’s statement about two blessings applies only when there was an interruption (hefsek). In the ideal case where one proceeds directly from arm to head tefillin without speaking, only one blessing (“lehanniach tefillin”) is required. But if one spoke between them, two blessings are needed — the original blessing on the arm was not sufficient to cover the head tefillin due to the interruption, so a second blessing (“al mitzvat tefillin”) must be added. This reconciles Rav Chisda and Rabbi Yochanan.
Key Terms:
- מְבָרֵךְ אַחַת (Mevarech achat) = Recites one blessing — the standard procedure without interruption
- מְבָרֵךְ שְׁתַּיִם (Mevarech shtayim) = Recites two blessings — required when there is an interruption
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita: Speaking between tefillin is a sin that disqualifies from war
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא: סָח בֵּין תְּפִילָּה לִתְפִילָּה – עֲבֵירָה הִיא בְּיָדוֹ, וְחוֹזֵר עָלֶיהָ מֵעֶרְכֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה.
English Translation:
Concerning this, it is taught in a baraita: If one spoke between donning the phylacteries of the arm and the phylacteries of the head, he has a sin, and due to that sin he returns from the ranks of soldiers waging war. This is referring to the preparation for war, when the officers announce: “What man is there who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go and return to his house” (Deuteronomy 20:8). The Sages explained that this is referring to one who is fearful due to his transgressions.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita elevates the severity of speaking between tefillin from a procedural inconvenience to an actual transgression. The reference to the battlefield announcement is striking: before war, those who are “fearful due to their sins” are sent home so their fear doesn’t demoralize the troops. That speaking between tefillin qualifies as such a sin indicates how seriously the Sages viewed interrupting the tefillin procedure. It emphasizes that tefillin is not merely a ritual but a sacred act requiring focused intention.
Key Terms:
- עֲבֵירָה (Aveira) = A sin/transgression — speaking between tefillin is not just procedurally problematic but spiritually harmful
- עֶרְכֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה (Erkei hamilchama) = The ranks of war — the formation of soldiers preparing for battle
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita: Order of donning and removing tefillin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא מַנִּיחַ – מַנִּיחַ שֶׁל יָד, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַנִּיחַ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ, וּכְשֶׁהוּא חוֹלֵץ – חוֹלֵץ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ חוֹלֵץ שֶׁל יָד. בִּשְׁלָמָא כְּשֶׁהוּא מַנִּיחַ – מַנִּיחַ שֶׁל יָד וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַנִּיחַ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּקְשַׁרְתָּם לְאוֹת עַל יָדֶךָ״, וַהֲדַר ״וְהָיוּ לְטוֹטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״.
English Translation:
It is further taught in a baraita: When one dons phylacteries, he first dons the phylacteries of the arm and afterward dons the phylacteries of the head. And when he removes his phylacteries, he first removes the phylacteries of the head and afterward removes the phylacteries of the arm. The Gemara asks: Granted, the ruling that when one dons phylacteries he first dons the phylacteries of the arm and afterward dons the phylacteries of the head is understood, as it is first written: “And you shall bind them for a sign upon your arm,” and then it is written: “And they shall be for frontlets between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8).
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita establishes the proper sequence for tefillin: arm first when putting on, head first when taking off. The order for donning is straightforward — the Torah mentions the arm before the head in the verse. But the Gemara is puzzled about the removal order. Why must the head come off before the arm? The verse doesn’t seem to address removal at all. This leads to an interesting derivation in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- מַנִּיחַ (Maniach) = Dons/places — the act of putting on tefillin
- חוֹלֵץ (Choletz) = Removes — the act of taking off tefillin
- טוֹטָפֹת (Totafot) = Frontlets — the biblical term for head tefillin
Segment 6
TYPE: דרשה
Rav Huna’s teaching: “Between your eyes” implies both must be present
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהוּא חוֹלֵץ, חוֹלֵץ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חוֹלֵץ שֶׁל יָד, מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבָּה: רַב הוּנָא אַסְבְּרַאּ לִי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיוּ לְטוֹטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁבֵּין עֵינֶיךָ יְהוּ שְׁתַּיִם.
English Translation:
But from where do we derive the halakha that when he removes his phylacteries, he first removes the phylacteries of the head and afterward he removes the phylacteries of the arm? Rabba said in explanation: Rav Huna explained to me the source of this halakha. The verse states: “And you shall bind them for a sign upon your arm and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes,” and it is derived from here: As long as the phylacteries of the head are between your eyes, the number of phylacteries you are wearing shall be two.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna provides an elegant derivation for the removal order. The verse says the tefillin shall be “between your eyes” (plural — “them” referring to both). This implies that whenever the head tefillin is in place, both tefillin should be present. Therefore, you cannot remove the arm tefillin while still wearing the head tefillin — that would violate the “two shall be” principle. The head must come off first, so that at no point do you have only the head tefillin without the arm tefillin.
Key Terms:
- יְהוּ שְׁתַּיִם (Yehu shtayim) = Shall be two — the derivation that both tefillin must be worn together when the head tefillin is on
- בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ (Bein einekha) = Between your eyes — the location of the head tefillin
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
When to recite the blessing and early morning donning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תְּפִילִּין מֵאֵימָתַי מְבָרֵךְ עֲלֵיהֶן? מִשְּׁעַת הַנָּחָתָן. כֵּיצַד? הָיָה מַשְׁכִּים לָצֵאת לַדֶּרֶךְ וּמִתְיָירֵא שֶׁמָּא יֹאבֵדוּ – מַנִּיחָן, וּכְשֶׁיַּגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן מְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בָּהֶן וּמְבָרֵךְ עֲלֵיהֶן.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to phylacteries, from when does one recite a blessing over them? From when the time arrives to don them. How so? If one is rising early to leave his home to travel on the road and is afraid lest his phylacteries become lost during the journey, he dons them even at night, despite the fact that this is not the proper time for the mitzva of phylacteries. And when the time for their mitzva arrives, in the morning, he touches them and recites a blessing over them.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita addresses a practical scenario: a traveler who must leave before dawn and fears his tefillin might get lost or stolen during the journey. He may don them at night for safekeeping, but since night is not the proper time for the mitzva (as the Gemara will discuss), no blessing is recited then. When daylight arrives and the proper time for tefillin begins, he touches them and recites the blessing. The “touching” (memashesh) serves as an act of re-engagement with the mitzva.
Key Terms:
- מְמַשְׁמֵשׁ (Memashesh) = Touches/feels — physically engaging with the tefillin to acknowledge the beginning of the mitzva
- מִשְּׁעַת הַנָּחָתָן (Mishe’at hanachatan) = From the time of their donning — the blessing is connected to the time, not just the physical act
Segment 8
TYPE: מחלוקת
Dispute: Until when may one wear tefillin?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעַד מָתַי מַנִּיחָן? עַד שֶׁתִּשְׁקַע הַחַמָּה. רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה רֶגֶל מִן הַשּׁוּק, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד זְמַן שֵׁינָה. וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב שֶׁאִם חֲלָצָן לָצֵאת לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא אוֹ לִיכָּנֵס לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ וְשָׁקְעָה חַמָּה – שׁוּב אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וּמַנִּיחָן.
English Translation:
And until when does one wear them? Until the sun sets. Rabbi Ya’akov says: Until traffic in the marketplace ceases. And the Rabbis say: Until the time of sleep. And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Ya’akov that if one removed them to go out to the bathroom or to enter the bathhouse and the sun set, one does not don them again.
קלאוד על הדף:
A three-way dispute emerges about the latest time for wearing tefillin. The anonymous first view says sunset is the cutoff. Rabbi Yaakov extends this to nightfall (when people leave the marketplace). The Rabbis are even more lenient, allowing tefillin until bedtime. However, all agree on one point: if you’ve already removed them for a practical reason (bathroom, bathhouse) and the sun has set, you don’t put them back on. This shows that while opinions vary about the outer limit, no one requires re-donning after sunset once removed.
Key Terms:
- תִּשְׁקַע הַחַמָּה (Tishka hachama) = The sun sets — sunset, a key halakhic time marker
- תִּכְלֶה רֶגֶל מִן הַשּׁוּק (Tikhleh regel min hashuk) = Traffic ceases from the marketplace — nightfall when people go home
Segment 9
TYPE: הלכה
Rav Nachman’s ruling and practice of Rav Chisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב. רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מְצַלּוּ בְּהוּ בְּאוּרְתָּא. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov. The Gemara likewise relates that Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna would pray in the evening, i.e., the evening service, with phylacteries. Some say that Rav Naḥman ruled that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov but in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna that the mitzva of phylacteries ends at sunset.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman issues a ruling favoring Rabbi Yaakov’s lenient view, permitting tefillin until nightfall. The Gemara notes that Rav Chisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna actually practiced this — they would pray the evening Maariv service while wearing tefillin. However, an alternative version is presented: some say Rav Nachman ruled AGAINST Rabbi Yaakov. This creates uncertainty about the normative practice, which the Gemara will explore further on the next amud.
Key Terms:
- מְצַלּוּ בְּהוּ בְּאוּרְתָּא (Metzalu behu be’urta) = They would pray in them in the evening — wearing tefillin for the evening prayer
- אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי (Ika de’amri) = Some say — introducing an alternative version of a ruling
Amud Bet (36b)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge: Rav Chisda’s practice vs. Rav Nachman’s ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מְצַלּוּ בְּהוּ בְּאוּרְתָּא? הָהוּא פְּלִיגָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna would pray in the evening with phylacteries. The Gemara explains: That opinion represented in this incident disagrees with the ruling of Rav Naḥman.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara addresses the apparent contradiction: if Rav Nachman ruled that the halakha is NOT like Rabbi Yaakov (according to the second version), then how could Rav Chisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna wear tefillin at night? The answer is that they simply disagreed with Rav Nachman. This illustrates that even among the Amoraim, there was no uniform practice regarding nighttime tefillin — different scholars followed different opinions.
Key Terms:
- פְּלִיגָא (Pliga) = Disagrees — indicating that the practice represents a minority or disputed view
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge: Rabba bar Rav Huna’s own statement about twilight and Shabbat eve
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: סָפֵק חֲשֵׁיכָה סָפֵק (לָא) [אֵין] חֲשֵׁיכָה – לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מַנִּיחַ, הָא וַדַּאי חֲשֵׁיכָה – חוֹלֵץ! הָתָם בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אִיתְּמַר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And did Rabba bar Rav Huna actually say this, that the mitzva of phylacteries applies at night? But doesn’t Rabba bar Rav Huna say: If it is uncertain whether it is nightfall or whether it is not nightfall, one neither removes his phylacteries, as it is not yet definitely night, nor dons them ab initio. This indicates that if it is definitely nightfall, one removes his phylacteries. The Gemara answers: Rabba bar Rav Huna’s ruling there was stated with regard to Shabbat eve, as one may not don phylacteries on Shabbat, when the mitzva does not apply.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises an internal contradiction within Rabba bar Rav Huna’s own rulings. He seems to say that one should remove tefillin at definite nightfall, yet he also wore tefillin for evening prayers! The resolution: his statement about removing tefillin at nightfall was specifically about Friday evening, when Shabbat begins. On Shabbat, tefillin are not worn at all, so as Shabbat enters (at nightfall Friday), one must remove them. But on weeknights, he could wear them into the evening.
Key Terms:
- סָפֵק חֲשֵׁיכָה (Safek chashekha) = Uncertain nightfall — the twilight period (bein hashmashot) when it’s unclear if it’s day or night
- עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת (Erev Shabbat) = Friday evening — when Shabbat begins at nightfall
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: Night and Shabbat exemptions should be linked
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר לַיְלָה זְמַן תְּפִילִּין, שַׁבָּת נָמֵי זְמַן תְּפִילִּין. אִי קָסָבַר שַׁבָּת לָאו זְמַן תְּפִילִּין, לַיְלָה נָמֵי לָאו זְמַן תְּפִילִּין, דְּמֵהֵיכָא דְּמִמַּעֲטָא שַׁבָּת מֵהָתָם מִמַּעֲטִי לֵילוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: What does Rabba bar Rav Huna hold? If he holds that night is a time when one performs the mitzva of wearing phylacteries, then Shabbat is also a time when one performs the mitzva of wearing phylacteries. If he holds that Shabbat is not a time when one performs the mitzva of wearing phylacteries, then night is also not a time when one performs the mitzva of wearing phylacteries. The reason for this statement is that from the source where Shabbat is excluded from the mitzva of phylacteries, nights are excluded from there as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes deeper into the logic. If we exempt Shabbat from tefillin based on a particular verse, that same verse should exempt nights too! How can Rabba bar Rav Huna distinguish between them? Either both are valid times for tefillin, or neither is. The exemptions for night and Shabbat seem to come from the same source, so they should rise or fall together. This sets up the next segment, which will explore the different scriptural sources.
Key Terms:
- זְמַן תְּפִילִּין (Zman tefillin) = A time for tefillin — a period when the mitzva of tefillin applies
- מִמַּעֲטָא (Mima’ata) = Is excluded — derived exclusion from a verse
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili vs. Rabbi Akiva: Source of exemptions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְשָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת הַחֻקָּה הַזֹּאת לְמוֹעֲדָהּ מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה״ – ״יָמִים״ וְלֹא לֵילוֹת, ״מִיָּמִים״ וְלֹא כׇּל יָמִים, פְּרָט לְשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה חוּקָּה זוֹ אֶלָּא לְפֶסַח בִּלְבָד.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the end of the passage of the Torah that discusses both the mitzvot of the Paschal offering and phylacteries: “And you shall observe this ordinance in its season from year [miyamim] to year” (Exodus 13:10). This indicates that these mitzvot apply during the days [yamim] but not during the nights. Furthermore, the letter mem, meaning from, in the term: “From year [miyamim],” teaches: These mitzvot apply on some days, but not on all days. This excludes Shabbatot and Festivals, on which phylacteries are not worn. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: This verse, mentioning an ordinance, is stated only with regard to the Paschal offering, and it is not referring to phylacteries at all. Evidently, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that at night one is exempt from the obligation of donning phylacteries, says that on Shabbat one is exempt as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
A crucial tannaitic dispute emerges. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives from “miyamim yamima” (from days to days) that tefillin apply only during days — not nights, not Shabbat, not Festivals. For him, all these exemptions come from the same source. Rabbi Akiva, however, argues that this verse refers only to Pesach (the Paschal offering), not to tefillin at all. This means Rabbi Akiva needs a different source for the Shabbat exemption — opening the possibility that night and Shabbat exemptions have different sources.
Key Terms:
- מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה (Miyamim yamima) = From days to days — the verse in Exodus 13:10 used for derivations
- חֻקָּה (Chuka) = Ordinance — referring to either tefillin or Pesach depending on interpretation
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: Rabbi Akiva derives Shabbat exemption from “sign”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהֵיכָא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַנִּיחַ אָדָם תְּפִילִּין בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וּבְיָמִים טוֹבִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהָיָה לְאוֹת עַל יָדְךָ וּלְטוֹטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״ – מִי שֶׁצְּרִיכִין אוֹת, יָצְאוּ שַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁהֵן גּוּפָן אוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Rabba bar Rav Huna derives the exemption from the obligation to don phylacteries on Shabbat from a different source, the source where Rabbi Akiva derives it from, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that a person should don phylacteries on Shabbatot and Festivals. To counter this, the verse states: “And it shall be for a sign for you on your arm, and for a remembrance between your eyes, so that God’s law shall be in your mouth; for with a strong arm God brought you out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:9). This teaches that the obligation to don phylacteries applies when the Jewish people require a sign to assert their status as God’s nation, i.e., during the week. This serves to exclude Shabbatot and Festivals, as they themselves are signs of the Jewish people’s status as God’s nation and a remembrance of the exodus from Egypt. Consequently, no further sign is required on these days.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the key resolution. Rabba bar Rav Huna follows Rabbi Akiva, who derives the Shabbat exemption from a different source — the word “sign” (ot). Tefillin are called a “sign” of the covenant between God and Israel. But Shabbat itself is ALSO a sign (as stated elsewhere in the Torah). Since Shabbat is already a sign, wearing tefillin (another sign) would be redundant. But this reasoning applies ONLY to Shabbat and Festivals — not to weeknights, which have no inherent “sign” status. Therefore, one could hold that night is a valid time for tefillin while Shabbat is not.
Key Terms:
- אוֹת (Ot) = Sign — tefillin serve as a sign of the covenant; Shabbat is also a sign
- שֶׁהֵן גּוּפָן אוֹת (Shehen gufan ot) = They themselves are a sign — Shabbat and Festivals inherently signify the covenant
Segment 6
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Elazar vs. Rabbi Yochanan: What violation for nighttime tefillin?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל הַמַּנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין אַחַר שְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: עוֹבֵר בְּלָאו. לֵימָא בְּרַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הִשָּׁמֶר״ ״פֶּן״ וְ״אַל״ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar says: Anyone who dons phylacteries after sunset violates a positive mitzva. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He violates a prohibition. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these Sages disagree with regard to the principle that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says. As Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says: Any place where it is stated in the Torah any of the terms: Observe, or: Lest, or: Do not, this means nothing other than a prohibition, as these are negative terms.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new dispute emerges, assuming nighttime tefillin is indeed prohibited. Rabbi Elazar says one violates a positive commandment (mitzvas aseh), while Rabbi Yochanan says one violates a negative prohibition (lav). The practical difference relates to the severity of the transgression — violations of negative commandments are generally considered more serious. The Gemara proposes that they disagree about Rabbi Avin’s principle: when the Torah says “hishameru” (observe/beware), is that a negative prohibition or just a warning?
Key Terms:
- עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה (Over ba’aseh) = Violates a positive mitzva — a less severe category of violation
- עוֹבֵר בְּלָאו (Over belav) = Violates a prohibition — a more severe category
- הִשָּׁמֶר, פֶּן, אַל (Hishameru, pen, al) = Observe, lest, do not — terms that may indicate prohibitions
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
First explanation: Disagreement about Rabbi Avin’s principle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּמָר אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין, וּמָר לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains this suggestion: As this Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Avin, and therefore the verse: “And you shall observe this ordinance in its season from year to year,” from which the exclusion of nights is derived, is a prohibition, as it employs the term “observe.” And that Sage, Rabbi Elazar, is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Avin, and therefore the term: “And you shall observe,” is a positive mitzva.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara’s first explanation is that Rabbi Yochanan accepts Rabbi Avin’s principle — that “hishameru” (observe) indicates a prohibition — so violating the time restriction on tefillin is a lav. Rabbi Elazar rejects this principle, so for him the “observe” language creates only a positive mitzva (to wear tefillin at the proper time), and wearing them at the wrong time is merely a violation of that positive command.
Key Terms:
- אִית לֵיהּ (It lei) = He holds this opinion — accepts the principle
- לֵית לֵיהּ (Leit lei) = He does not hold this opinion — rejects the principle
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ אחר
Alternative: Both accept Rabbi Avin; they disagree on scope
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר ״הִשָּׁמֶר״ דְּלָאו – לָאו, וְ״הִשָּׁמֶר״ דַּעֲשֵׂה – עֲשֵׂה, וּמָר סָבַר ״הִשָּׁמֶר״ דַּעֲשֵׂה נָמֵי לָאו.
English Translation:
The Gemara counters: No, everyone is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says, and here they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that the term “observe” written with regard to a prohibition has the status of a prohibition, whereas that same term “observe” written with regard to a positive mitzva has the status of a positive mitzva, as the Torah is issuing a warning to take special care in the observance of a mitzva. Accordingly, the command with regard to the positive mitzva of phylacteries is a positive mitzva. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that the term “observe” written with regard to a positive mitzva is also a prohibition.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers a more nuanced explanation. Both sages accept Rabbi Avin’s principle, but they disagree about its scope. Rabbi Elazar holds that “hishameru” creates a prohibition only when attached to an existing prohibition; when attached to a positive mitzva (like tefillin), it just adds emphasis but remains in the positive category. Rabbi Yochanan holds more broadly that “hishameru” always creates a prohibition, even when warning about a positive mitzva. This is a subtle but significant distinction in how to read the Torah’s language.
Key Terms:
- הִשָּׁמֶר דְּלָאו (Hishameru delav) = “Observe” regarding a prohibition — definitely creates a negative prohibition
- הִשָּׁמֶר דַּעֲשֵׂה (Hishameru da’aseh) = “Observe” regarding a positive mitzva — the subject of the dispute
Segment 9
TYPE: אגדתא
Rabbi Elazar permits nighttime tefillin for safeguarding; Rav Ashi’s hidden practice
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: וְאִם לְשׇׁמְרָן – מוּתָּר. וְאָמַר רָבִינָא: הֲוָה יָתֵיבְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי וְחָשַׁךְ, וְהִנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין, וַאֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: לְשׇׁמְרָן קָא בָעֵי לְהוּ מָר? וַאֲמַר לִי: אִין. וַחֲזֵיתֵיהּ לְדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּלָאו לְשׇׁמְרָן הוּא בָּעֵי, קָסָבַר: הֲלָכָה וְאֵין מוֹרִין כֵּן.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Elazar says: And although it is prohibited to don phylacteries at night, if one does so in order to safeguard them from theft and the like, it is permitted. And Ravina said: I was sitting before Rav Ashi and it grew dark, and he donned phylacteries. And I said to him: Does the Master need to safeguard them? And he said to me: Yes. But I saw that his intention in donning them was not that he needed to safeguard them; rather, Rav Ashi holds: This is the halakha, that night is an appropriate time for phylacteries, but a public ruling is not issued to that effect.
קלאוד על הדף:
This fascinating passage reveals a private practice of Rav Ashi. Even though the normative teaching is that night is not a time for tefillin, Rabbi Elazar permits wearing them for safekeeping. Ravina observed Rav Ashi don tefillin after dark and questioned him. Rav Ashi gave the “official” answer (for safekeeping), but Ravina perceived his true intention — Rav Ashi actually believed night IS a valid time for tefillin. However, he applied the principle “halakha ve’ein morin ken” — the law permits it, but we don’t publicly teach this, lest people treat tefillin carelessly at night.
Key Terms:
- לְשׇׁמְרָן (Leshomran) = To safeguard them — wearing tefillin for protection rather than mitzva fulfillment
- הֲלָכָה וְאֵין מוֹרִין כֵּן (Halakha ve’ein morin ken) = The law is so, but we do not teach it publicly — a halakhic principle for sensitive rulings
Segment 10
TYPE: מימרא
Rabba bar Rav Huna: One must touch tefillin regularly
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בַּתְּפִילִּין בְּכׇל שָׁעָה, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִצִּיץ, וּמָה צִיץ שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא אַזְכָּרָה אַחַת, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״וְהָיָה עַל מִצְחוֹ תָּמִיד״, שֶׁלֹּא (תַּסִּיחַ) [יַסִּיחַ] דַּעְתּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, תְּפִילִּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אַזְכָּרוֹת הַרְבֵּה, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה!
English Translation:
Rabba bar Rav Huna says: A person is obligated to touch his phylacteries regularly for the entire time that he is wearing them. This is derived from an a fortiori inference from the frontplate of the High Priest, as follows: And if with regard to the frontplate, which has only one mention of God’s name, the Torah states: “And it should be always upon his forehead” (Exodus 28:38), which means that the High Priest must always be aware that the frontplate is placed on his head and that he should not be distracted from it, then with regard to phylacteries, which have numerous mentions of God’s name, all the more so one must always be aware of them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba bar Rav Huna introduces a practical obligation: one must periodically touch the tefillin while wearing them to maintain awareness. The kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) is compelling: if the Tzitz (High Priest’s frontplate) with only one mention of God’s Name required constant awareness (“tamid” — always), how much more so the tefillin, which contain the Shema and other passages with God’s Name mentioned multiple times! This teaches that tefillin demand continuous mindfulness, not just the initial act of donning them.
Key Terms:
- לְמַשְׁמֵשׁ (Lemashmeish) = To touch/feel — periodically touching the tefillin to maintain awareness
- צִיץ (Tzitz) = The frontplate — the golden headband worn by the High Priest with God’s Name engraved on it
- קַל וָחוֹמֶר (Kal vachomer) = A fortiori — a logical argument from minor to major case
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
The left arm: Proof that “yad” means the left hand
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״יָדְךָ״ – זוֹ שְׂמֹאל. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שְׂמֹאל, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא יָמִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַף יָדִי יָסְדָה אֶרֶץ וִימִינִי טִפְּחָה שָׁמָיִם״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״יָדָהּ לַיָּתֵד תִּשְׁלַחְנָה וִימִינָהּ לְהַלְמוּת עֲמֵלִים״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״לָמָּה תָשִׁיב יָדְךָ וִימִינֶךָ מִקֶּרֶב חֵיקְךָ כַלֵּה״.
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “And it shall be for a sign for you on your arm [yadkha]” (Exodus 13:9), that this is referring to the left arm. Do you say it means the left arm, or is it only the right arm? The verse states: “Even My hand [yadi] has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand [vimini] has spread out the heavens” (Isaiah 48:13). And another verse states: “Her hand [yadah] she put to the tent pin, and her right hand [viminah] to the workmen’s hammer” (Judges 5:26), and another verse states: “Why do You withdraw Your hand [yadkha], even Your right hand [viminekha]? Draw it out of Your bosom and consume them” (Psalms 74:11). All these verses employ the term yad with regard to the left hand, and use the term yamin, literally, right, without the term yad, to indicate the right hand.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now addresses which arm receives the tefillin. The verse says “yadekha” (your hand/arm), but which one? The baraita brings three biblical proofs that “yad” by itself refers specifically to the left hand, while the right is called “yamin” separately. In Isaiah, God’s “yadi” (My hand) is distinguished from “My right hand.” In Judges, Yael’s “yadah” (her hand) holds the tent peg while “her right hand” holds the hammer. In Psalms, “Your hand” and “Your right hand” are listed as separate entities. This establishes that tefillin of the arm go on the left arm.
Key Terms:
- יָד (Yad) = Hand/arm — when used alone, refers to the left hand
- יָמִין (Yamin) = Right — used specifically to denote the right hand
- שְׂמֹאל (Semol) = Left — the arm on which tefillin are worn