1) TOSFOS DH mi'Sha'as Hanachah v'Ad Sha'as Keshirah (cont.)

úåñôåú ã"ä îùòú äðçä åòã ùòú ÷ùéøä (äîùê)

åîùòú äðçä òã ÷ùéøä ãäëà îôøù ø''ú ãäê ÷ùéøä äééðå ääãå÷ ùîäã÷å åîöîöîå áøàùå ëîå ùìéà ÷ùåøä áåìã ãðãä (ãó ëå:) ìàå ÷ùåøä îîù äéà åëîå ÷ùåøä áå ëëìá

(a) Explanation (R. Tam): Here it says "from the time of Hanachah until Keshirah." This tying is mere tightening. He tightens it and makes it fit exactly on his head, like a Shilya (fetal sac) tied to a fetus in Nidah (26b). It is not literally tied, and it is like "tied to him like a dog";

åìôéøåù øáéðå àìéäå äåä ìéä ìîéîø îùòú ÷ùéøä åòã ùòú äðçä

1. According to R. Eliyahu, it should have said "from the time of Keshirah until Hanachah"!

åéù ñôøéí ùëúåá ëï

(b) Rebuttal (of Source #2): In some texts it says so.

åîñúáøà ëãáøé ø''ú áúôéìéï ùì øàù åëãáøé øáéðå àìéäå áúôéìéï ùì éã ãëúéá áùì éã å÷ùøúí ìàåú òì éãê ãîùîò ãëì ùòä ùîðéç öøéê ì÷ùéøä

(c) Compromise: R. Tam's opinion is more reasonable regarding the head Tefilin, and R. Eliyahu's opinion is more reasonable regarding the hand Tefilin, for it says regarding the hand Tefilin "u'Kshartam l'Os Al Yadecha", which implies that every time he puts it on, he must tie it.

úãò ãì÷îï (ãó ìæ.) ãøéù ø' ðúï äðçä áùîàì îãëúéá å÷ùøúí åëúáúí îä ëúéáä áéîéï àó ÷ùéøä áéîéï åëéåï ã÷ùéøä áéîéï äðçä áùîàì äéà

(d) Proof #1: Below (37a), R. Nasan expounds that Hanachah is on the left hand, since it is written "u'Kshartam... u'Chsavtam" - just like writing is with the right hand, also tying is with the right hand, and since tying is with the right hand, Hanachah is on the left hand;

åàí äéä ÷åùø úçéìä åàç''ë äéä îëðéñ áæøåò àí ëï äéëé ãéé÷ îéðä ãäðçä áùîàì

1. If he ties and afterwards enters his arm (inside the knot), how do we derive that Hanachah is on the left hand?!

åòåã àîøéðï áôø÷ àéï îòîéãéï (ò''æ ìè.) îòùä áàùä àçú ùäéúä ðéùàú ìçáø åäéúä ÷åùøú ìå úôéìéï (áæøåòå) [ö"ì òì éãå] îùîò ãúîéã äéúä òåùä ëï

(e) Proof #2: We say in Avodah Zarah (39a) that a case occurred with a woman who was married to a Chaver. She used to tie his Tefilin on his hand. This implies that she used to do so constantly!

åàôéìå ìñôøéí ùëúåá áäí ÷åîòú

(f) Rebuttal: Some texts say "Koma'as" (this can mean that she pressed or tied).

îëì î÷åí øåöä ìåîø ùäéúä ÷åùøú ìå ëòéï ÷îéò åìôé ùàéï ðåç ì÷ùåø áéã àçú äéúä îñééòú ìå

(g) Defense (of proof): In any case, it means that she used to tie for him, like a Kami'a (amulet). Because it is not easy to tie with one hand, she used to help him.

úãò ãìà ÷àîø ùäéúä îñééòä ìúôéìéï ùì øàù

(h) Support (of defense): It does not say that she helped with the head Tefilin

(ãúôéìéï) [ö"ì åúôéìéï - îäøù"à, áøëú äæáç] ùì øàù åãàé àéï öøéê ì÷ùåø áëì éåí ãìà öååúä úåøä ì÷ùåø ëì ùòä å÷ùø ùìä äìëä ìîùä îñéðé åäëé âîéøé ãìéäåé ÷ùåøéï úîéã

(i) Distinction: Surely one need not tie the head Tefilin every day. The Torah did not command to tie it every time [he puts it on]. Its knot is a tradition from Sinai. The tradition is that it must always be tied.

åäùúà ÷ùéøä ãùîòúéï ÷ùéøä îîù ãáùì éã îúçéì ìáøê [ö"ì îùòú ÷ùéøä òã ùòú äðçä - öàï ÷ãùéí]

(j) Consequence: The tying of our Sugya is proper tying. For hand Tefilin, one begins to bless from the time of tying until the time of donning.

çåæøðé ìåîø ãúôéìéï ùì éã ðîé ìà áòå ÷ùéøä áëì éåí ãáôø÷ áúøà ãî÷ååàåú (î''â) ÷çùéá ÷ùøéí ãàéï öøéëéï ùéáåàå áäï äîéí úôéìéï ùì øàù áæîï ùäéà çåöä åùì æøåò áæîï ùàéðä òåìä åéåøãú

(k) Retraction: Also the hand Tefilin need not be tied every day, for in Mikva'os (10:3) it lists knots in which water need not come [for Tevilah] - the head Tefilin when it is outside, and hand Tefilin when it does not ascend and descend;

ôéøåù çåöä ëîå àåöà ãèáòåú éãéå ãúåñôúà ãî÷åàåú ãä÷ùø îéäã÷ ùôéø

1. Explanation: "Outside" is like Utza of hand rings of the Tosefta of Mikva'os (6:4). The knot is properly tight;

áæîï ùàéðä òåìä åéåøãú ãéã

2. Implied question: What is "when it does not ascend and descend" of the hand Tefilin?

äééðå ìôé ùéù ÷åùøéí øàù äøöåòä áàîöò æå áæå ùàéðä éëåìä ìäøçéá åìòìåú åìéøã åéù (îñááéí) [ö"ì îëðéñéí - öàï ÷ãùéí] äøöåòä ùîñåááú á÷ùø äòùåé áøàùä ùäøöåòä ðúçáø á÷ùø åòåìä åéåøãú

3. Answer: [It says so] because some tie the end of the strap [to its] middle, so it cannot widen and go up and down, and some insert the strap that surrounds the knot made at its end, that the strap is connected to the knot and goes up and down;

åîã÷àîø ëùàéðä òåìä ìà çééõ åà''ö ìäúéøå áùòú èáéìä ù''î ÷ùø ùì ÷ééîà äåà. î''ø:

i. Since it says "when it does not go up [and down] it is not a Chatzitzah", and one need not untie it at the time of Tevilah, this shows that it is a permanent knot. This is from my Rebbi.

2) TOSFOS DH Sach Bein Tefilah li'Tefilah Chozer u'Mevarech

úåñôåú ã"ä ñç áéï úôéìä ìúôéìä çåæø åîáøê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether we may learn from here to Shechitah.)

îëàï îã÷ã÷éí ëùàãí ùåçè òåôåú àå áäîåú äøáä åñç áéï òåó ìòåó ùçåæø åîáøê

(a) Opinion #1: From here [some] derive that when one slaughters many birds or animals and he talked between one bird and another, he returns to bless.

åî''î òáéøä äéà áéãå ëãàîøéðï äëà ùçåæø òìéäí îòøëé äîìçîä

(b) Observation: In any case it is an Aveirah, like we say here that used to this he returns from the legions of war (due to fear lest he die due to this Aveirah).

åùîà ùàðé úôéìéï ùîöåä àçú äï àáì äúí ùàí éøöä éùçåè åàí éøöä ìà éùçåè

(c) Rebuttal: Perhaps Tefilin are different, for they are one Mitzvah. However, there, if he wants, he slaughters, and if he wants, he does not slaughter.

åîéäå îñúáøà ãëéåï ãéëåì ìôèåø ááøëä àçú àéï ìå ìãáø ëãé ùéäà æ÷å÷ ìáøëä ùðéä ëãîåëç áôø÷ áà ìå (éåîà ãó ò.) åáàìå ðàîøéï (ñåèä î:)

(d) Rejection (of Rebuttal): Presumably, since he can exempt [both] with one Brachah, he should not speak, which obligates him to make another Brachah, like is proven in Yoma (70a) and in Sotah (40b);

ãúðï ðåèì ñôø úåøä å÷åøà áàçøé îåú åàê áòùåø åáòùåø ùáçåîù äô÷åãéí ÷åøà òì ôä åôøéê áâîøà åðééúé ñôø úåøä åðé÷øé áéä åîùðé ø' ùîòåï áï ì÷éù îùåí áøëä ùàéðä öøéëä

1. Citation (Mishnah): [On Yom Kipur, the Kohen Gadol] receives a Sefer Torah and reads in Acharei Mos, and Ach be'Asor (in Emor) and uv'Asor in Bamidbar he reads by heart (normally, this is forbidden). The Gemara asks that they should bring [another] Sefer Torah and he should read in it, and Reish Lakish answered that it is due to an unnecessary Brachah;

àìîà ëéåï ãéëåì ìôèåø òöîå îáøëä ùðéä ÷øé ìä áøëä ùàéðä öøéëä

2. Inference: Since one can exempt himself from a second Brachah, this is called an unnecessary Brachah!

åùîà ñç áéï òåó ìòåó ëñç áàîöò ñòåãúå

(e) Opinion #2: Perhaps talking between one bird and another is like talking in the middle of a meal (it does not obligate a new Brachah).

åæä ãáø ôùåè ùàí ùåàì òåó ìùçåè ìà çùåá äôñ÷ îéãé ãäåä àèåì áøåê

(f) Distinction: Obviously, if he requests another bird to slaughter, this is not considered an interruption, just like "take this piece [of bread] on which I blessed" (Brachos 40a);

åîéãé ãäåé ðîé àáøëú ëñåé äãí ãàîøéðï áôø÷ ëñåé äãí (çåìéï ãó ôå:) àîø øá éäåãä ùçè çéä éëñðä åàç''ë éùçåè òåó åîùîò äúí ãàéï öøéê ìçæåø åìáøê

1. This is also like the Brachah of Kisuy ha'Dam. In Chulin (86b), Rav Yehudah said that if one slaughtered a Chayah, he covers the blood and afterwards slaughters a bird. It implies there that he need not bless again.

åëï ëùàãí îáøê é÷ðä''æ àéï äáøëåú äàçøåú äôñ÷ áéï áøëú äééï ìùúéä

2. Similarly, when one blesses (in Kidush of Yom Tov on Motza'ei Shabbos) on wine, Kidush ha'Yom, Ner, Havdalah and Zman (she'Hecheyanu), the other Brachos are not an interruption before the Brachah on the wine and drinking it.

åîéäå àí äéä æ÷å÷ ìçæåø åìáøê ëùñç áéï òåó ìòåó ëîå ëï äéä æ÷å÷ ìëñåú ãäà æéîðéï (àôéìå áî÷åí ùæ÷å÷ ìëñåé àîøéðï áôø÷ ëñåé äãí (âí æä ùí)) [ö"ì æ÷å÷ ìëñåñ àôéìå àí - éùø åèåá] ðôèø ááøëä àçú. î''ø

3. However, if he needed to return and bless when he talked between one bird and another, similarly he would need to cover [a bird's blood before slaughtering the next bird], for sometimes he must cover [before the next Shechitah] even when he is exempted through one Brachah. (R. Yehudah holds that a Chayah and a bird require two coverings, even if he did not interrupt in between. All the more so two birds require two coverings when he interrupted in between. The Halachah does not follow R. Yehudah, but we find that Rabanan argue with him only regarding a Chayah and a bird - Yashar v'Tov, based on the Rosh.)

3) TOSFOS DH Lo Sach Mevarech Achas Sach Mevarech Shetayim

úåñôåú ã"ä ìà ñç îáøê àçú ñç îáøê ùúéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings two explanations of this.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ìà ñç îáøê àçú áéï ùì éã áéï ùì øàù ñç îáøê ùúéí ìäðéç úôéìéï áùì éã åòì îöåú úôéìéï áùì øàù

(a) Explanation #1 (Rashi): If he did not talk, he blesses one [Brachah that is] both for the hand and head [Tefilin]. If he talked, he blesses twice - Lehani'ach Tefilin on the hand, and Al Mitzvas Tefilin on the head.

åø''ú ôéøù ìà ñç îáøê àçú ìùì øàù îáøê òì îöåú úôéìéï ùæå äéà áøëúå ñç îáøê á' ìùì øàù ìäðéç åòì îöåú åëï [ëúá] áùéîåùà øáà ãúôéìéï î''ø

(b) Explanation #2 (R. Tam): If he did not talk, he blesses once for the head Tefilin, i.e. Al Mitzvas Tefilin. This is its Brachah. If he talked, he blesses twice on the head - Lehani'ach and Al Mitzvas. So wrote Shimusha Raba of Tefilin. This is from my Rebbi.

4) TOSFOS DH Aveirah Hi b'Yado v'Chozer Aleha me'Archei ha'Milchamah

úåñôåú ã"ä òáéøä äéà áéãå åçåæø òìéä îòøëé äîìçîä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is if he did not bless afterwards.)

îúåê ôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ îùîò ãàí ñç åáéøê ùøé åìéëà àéñåøà àìà àãøáä îöåä åùëø áøëä

(a) Explanation: Rashi connotes that if he talked and blessed, it is permitted and there is no Isur. Just the contrary, there is a Mitzvah and reward for a Brachah!

åæä ìùåðå ñç áéï úôéìä ìúôéìä åìà áéøê òì ùì øàù òì îöåú àìà ñîê òì áøëä øàùåðä òáéøä äéà áéãå. î''ø

1. These are his words. If he talked between one Tefilin and the other, and did not bless on the head Al Mitzvas, rather, he relied on the first Brachah, this is an Aveirah. This is from my Rebbi.

5) TOSFOS DH u'Kshartam l'Os Al Yadecha v'Hadar v'Hayu l'Totafos Bein Einecha

úåñôåú ã"ä å÷ùøúí ìàåú òì éãê åäãø åäéå ìèåèôú áéï òéðéê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos rejects Rashi in Yoma due to our Gemara.)

îëàï ÷ùä ìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ãôø÷ àîø ìäí äîîåðä (éåîà ìâ: åùí) âáé àéï îòáéøéï òì äîöåú ãàîø ùîò îéðä òáåøé ãøòà àèåèôúà àñåø

(a) Explanation #1: [The Gemara] here is difficult for what Rashi explained in Yoma (33b) regarding "we do not pass over the Mitzvos." [Rava] said "this teaches that it is forbidden to pass over the hand [Tefilin, and precede] the head Tefilin";

ëùôåâò áúôéìéï ùì éã úçéìä àñåø ìäòáéø åìäðéç ùì øàù ãàéï îòáéøéï òì äîöåú

1. [Rashi explained that] when he encounters the hand Tefilin first, he may not pass over it and don the head Tefilin, for we do not pass over the Mitzvos.

åäùúà îàé àéøéà îùåí ãàéï îòáéøéï òì äîöåú úéôå÷ ìé îùåí ãëê îöåúå ãîðéç ùì éã åàç''ë îðéç ùì øàù

(b) Question: Why does this depend on "we do not pass over the Mitzvos"? We should know this already because this is its Mitzvah - first one dons the hand Tefilin, and afterwards the head Tefilin!

åîôøù ø''ú îùåí ø' çððàì áùí øá äàé âàåï ãàééøé áùòä ùçåìõ úôéìéï åîðéçï áúé÷ ùìà éòáéø àåúï ùì éã åéúððä áúé÷ úçéìä åàç''ë ùì øàù ìîòìä

(c) Explanation #2 (R. Tam citing R. Chananel citing Rav Hai Gaon): It discusses when he removes Tefilin and puts them in a case. He may not take the hand Tefilin and put it in a case first, and afterwards the head Tefilin on top...

ãà''ë ëùáà ìäðéç úôéìéï äéä ôåâò áùì øàù úçéìä åäéä öøéê ìäòáéø òì äîöåú îùåí ãùì éã îðéç úçéìä åàç''ë ùì øàù

1. For if so, when he [next] comes to don Tefilin he will encounter the head Tefilin first, and he will need to pass over Mitzvos, because one [must] don the hand Tefilin first, and afterwards the head.

ìôéëê öøéê ìäðéç áúåê äúé÷ ùì øàù úçéìä åàç''ë ùì éã ìîòìä

2. Therefore, he must put in the case the head Tefilin first, and afterwards the hand Tefilin above.

åøáéðå àìéäå îôøù ãìòðéï îùîåù àééøé ãàîøéðï ì÷îï ùàãí çééá ìîùîù áúôéìéï áëì ùòä åùòä ÷ì åçåîø îöéõ

(d) Explanation #3 (R. Eliyahu): It refers to touching. We say below (36b) that one must constantly touch his Tefilin. We learn from a Kal v'Chomer from the Tzitz;

åäùúà ÷àîø ãáùì éã îîùîù úçéìä îùåí ãôâò áäå áøéùà åàéï îòáéøéï òì äîöåú. î''ø

1. [In Yoma] it says that he touches the hand Tefilin first, for he encounters it first, and we do not pass over the Mitzvos. This is from my Rebbi.

6) TOSFOS DH Amar Rabah Rav Huna Asbera Li

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø øáä øá äåðà àñáøà ìé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that the text says Rabah.)

øáä âøñéðï åìà øáà ãøáà ìà øàä øá äåðà îòåìí ãäà àîøéðï áôø÷ áúøà ã÷ãåùéï (ãó òá:) ãáéåí ùîú øá éäåãä ðåìã øáà

(a) Assertion: The text says Rabah, and not Rava, for Rava never saw Rav Huna, for we say in Kidushin (72b) that on the day that Rav Yehudah died, Rava was born;

åøá äåðà ùëéá ÷åãí øá éäåãä ëãîåëç áîåòã ÷èï (ãó éæ) ãëé ðç ðôùéä ãøá éäåãä ÷àîø äúí âáøà øáä ëøá éäåãä ìéëà äëà

1. And Rav Huna died before Rav Yehudah, like is proven in Mo'ed Katan (17a) that when Rav Yehudah died, [Rabanan] said there "there is not anyone as great as Rav Yehudah here";

åøá äåðà äéä âãåì áçëîä åáîðéï îëì úìîéãéí ãøá ëãîùîò áôø÷ áúøà ãëúåáåú (ãó ÷å.). î''ø

2. And Rav Huna was greater in Chachmah and number [of Talmidim] than all of Rav's Talmidim, like it connotes in Kesuvos (106a). This is from my Rebbi.

7) TOSFOS DH ucheshe'Yagi'a Zman Memashmesh Bahen u'Mevarech

úåñôåú ã"ä åëùéâéò æîðï îîùîù áäï åîáøê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos infers that the same applies to Tzitzis.)

îëàï ðøàä ëùàãí îùëéí ÷åãí äéåí åîúòèó áöéöéú ëùéàåø äéåí àéï öøéê ìäñéø èìéúå ëãé ìçæåø åììáåù åìäúòèó åìáøê ãëéåï ùîîùîù áå éëåì ìáøê

(a) Inference: From here it seems that when one rises early before [the light of] day and wraps himself in Tzitzis, when the day gets light, he need not remove his Talis in order to return and wear it and wrap himself and bless. Since he touches it, he can bless.

àó òì ôé ùéù ìçì÷ áéï úôéìéï ìöéöéú ùäîùîåù îöåä ëãì÷îï

(b) Implied question: One can distinguish between Tefilin and Tzitzis, for touching [Tefilin] is a Mitzvah, like it says below!

àéï ðøàä ìçì÷ ãáôø÷ äúëìú (ì÷îï ãó îâ.) îãîé úôéìéï ìöéöéú ìòðéï îéùîåù åìáøê. î''ø

(c) Answer: It seems unreasonable to distinguish, for below (43a) it compares Tefilin to Tzitzis regarding touching and blessing. This is from my Rebbi.

8) TOSFOS DH R. Yakov Omer Ad she'Tichleh Regel Min ha'Shuk...

úåñôåú ã"ä øáé éò÷á àåîø òã ùúëìä øâì îï äùå÷...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that both of them hold that Laylah Zman Tefilin.)

øáé éò÷á åçëîéí ñáéøà ìäå ãìéìä æîï úôéìéï àìà çééùéðï ìùîà éùï áäï åòáéã øáé éò÷á äøç÷ä èôé îãøáðï. î''ø:

(a) Explanation: R. Yakov and Chachamim hold that [the Mitzvah of] Tefilin is [even] at night, but we are concerned lest one sleep in them. R. Yakov made a greater distance [to prevent sleeping in them] than Chachamim did. This is from my Rebbi.

36b----------------------------------------36b

9) TOSFOS DH v'Ha Rav Chisda v'Rabah bar Rav Huna Matzlu Behu b'Orsa

úåñôåú ã"ä åäà øá çñãà åøáä áø øá äåðà îöìå áäå áàåøúà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos justifies the question.)

ôùéèà ìéä ãäà ã÷àîø øá ðçîï àéï äìëä ëøáé éò÷á ìàå îùåí ùéäà äìëä ëçëîéí ãàí ëï ìéîà äìëä ëçëîéí àìà ìîéîø ãäìëä ëúðà ÷îà

(a) Explanation: It is obvious to [the Makshan] that Rav Nachman taught that the Halachah does not follow R. Yakov, not because the Halachah follows Chachamim, for if so, [Rav Nachman] should have said "the Halachah follows Chachamim"! Rather, he teaches that the Halachah follows the first Tana.

åäà ãìà àîø äìëä ëú''÷

(b) Implied question: Why didn't he say that the Halachah follows the first Tana?

ìôé ùäãáø ùðåé ñúí åìà ðæëø áä ìùåï øáéí åìà ìùåï éçéã. î''ø

(c) Answer: It is because [his opinion] was taught Stam, and was not mentioned a plural and not a singular expression. This is from my Rebbi.

10) TOSFOS DH Iy ka'Savar Laylah Zman Tefilin

úåñôåú ã"ä àé ÷ñáø ìéìä æîï úôéìéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Isur to go out wearing Tefilin on Shabbos.)

åà''ú îëì î÷åí çåìõ ëãàîøéðï áô' áîä àùä (ùáú ãó ñà.) âîøà åìà áúôéìéï ãàôé' ìîàï ãàîø ùáú æîï úôéìéï ìà éöà ãìîà îéôñ÷ï åàúé ìàéúåééðäå àøáò àîåú áøùåú äøáéí

(a) Question: In any case he should remove [his Tefilin], like we say in Shabbos (61a) in the Gemara [on the citation from the Mishnah] "v'Lo bi'Tefilin", that even according to the opinion that Shabbos Zman Tefilin, one may not go out [wearing Tefilin on Shabbos in Reshus ha'Rabim], lest [the straps] snap, and he will come to carry them four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim!

åîéäå ìøáé òððé áø ùùåï ãàîø áôø÷ áîä àùä éåöàä (ùí ãó ñã:) (áëáåì ìà) [ö"ì äëì ëëáåì ãìà - öàï ÷ãùéí] àñøå àìà áøä''ø àáì áçöø ùøé ðéçà ãäëà áçöø åø''ú ôåñ÷ ëøáé òððé

(b) Answer #1: According to R. Anani bar Sason, who says in Shabbos (64b) that everything is like Kavul (a wool cap under the headdress, or a signet of slavery. Chachamim) forbade only in Reshus ha'Rabim, but permitted in the Chatzer, it is fine. Here is in the Chatzer. R. Tam rules like R. Anani.

àáì ìøá ãàîø ëì ùàñøå çëîéí ìöàú ìøä''ø àñøå ìöàú ìçöø ÷ùä

(c) Question: According to Rav, who says that everything that Chachamim forbade in Reshus ha'Rabim, they forbade to go out in the Chatzer with it, it is difficult!

åàéï ìåîø ãîåãä øá ááéú ãùøé

1. Suggestion: Rav agrees that it is permitted in the house.

ãäà àîøéðï (áøéù) [ö"ì áôø÷ - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëéøä (ùí îå.) äùéøéí åäðæîéí åäèáòåú äøé äï ëëì äëìéí äðéèìéí áçöø åàîø òåìà îä èòí äåàéì åàéëà úåøú ëìé òìéäí

2. Rejection: We say in Shabbos (46a) that chains, nose-rings and rings are like all Kelim that one may move in a Chatzer. Ula said that this is because they have the status of a Kli.

åàí äéå øàåééï ìäú÷ùè ìà äéä ìåîø èòí (ãîùîò) ãùøé ìèìèì îùåí úåøú ëìé àò''â ãìà çæé áùáú ãîãîé ìéä äúí ìùøâà ãðôèà

i. If they are proper to wear for ornaments, he would not give the reason because they have the status of a Kli, even though they are not proper for Shabbos, for there [Rav Avya] compares them to a kerosene lamp!

åé''ì ãîåãä øá ãúôéìéï ãùøé áçöø ãìà àñéøé àìà áøä''ø ãìà ãîé ìùàø úëùéèéï ãâæø øá áçöø ãìîà îéùúìé åàúé ìàôå÷é ìøä''ø

(d) Answer #2: Rav agrees that Tefilin are permitted in the Chatzer. They are forbidden only in Reshus ha'Rabim. They are unlike only ornaments, about which Rav decrees [to forbid] in the Chatzer, lest he forget and take them to Reshus ha'Rabim;

àáì úôéìéï ëéåï ãòùåééï ìîùîù áúôéìéï îéãëø ãëéø ìéä ëãàîø áô''÷ ãùáú (ãó éá.) âîøà ìà éöà äçééè áîçèå

1. However, Tefilin, since it is normal to touch Tefilin [constantly], he remembers it, like it says in Shabbos (12a) in the Gemara [on the citation from the Mishnah] "a tailor may not go out with his needle";

ãàîø ùîåàì éåöà àãí áúôéìéï òí çùéëä î''è ëéåï ãàîø øáä áø àáåä çééá àãí ìîùîù áúôéìéï ëì ùòä åùòä äìëê îéãëø ãëéø ìäå

i. Shmuel said that one may go out with Tefilin Im Chashechah (until close to dark). What is the reason? Since Rabah bar Avuha taught that one must constantly touch his Tefilin, therefore he remembers it.

åà''ú àí ëï ëé àîø øá (ùáú ãó ñã:) ëì ùàñøå çëîéí ìöàú ìø''ä àñåø ìöàú ìçöø çåõ îëáåì åôàä ðëøéú äåä ìéä ìîéîø ðîé çåõ îúôéìéï

(e) Question: If so, when Rav said (Shabbos 64b) that everything that Chachamim forbade to go out with in Reshus ha'Rabim, it is forbidden to go out with it in the Chatzer, except for Kavul or a wig, he should have said also "except for Tefilin"!

åé''ì ãìà îééøé øá àìà áúëùéèéï

(f) Answer #1: Rav discusses only ornaments.

åòåã îùåí ãìîàï ãàîø ùáú ìàå æîï úôéìéï äåà ìà ùééê ìîéîø çåõ îúôéìéï

(g) Answer #2: [He did not say so] for it is not appropriate to say according to the opinion that Shabbos is not Zman Tefilin "except for Tefilin."

åàí úàîø ãäëà àîøéðï ñô÷ çùéëä ìà çåìõ åìà îðéç åáô''÷ ãùáú (ãó éá.) ÷àîø éåöà àãí áúôéìéï ò''ù òí çùéëä îùîò äà ñô÷ çùéëä ìà

(h) Question: Here we say that when it is Safek dark, he [need] not remove Tefilin, and he does not put on, and in Shabbos (12a) it says that one may go out with Tefilin Im Chashechah. This implies that when it is Safek dark, he may not!

åé''ì äúí áøùåú äøáéí åäëà áçöø. î''ø

(i) Answer: There it discusses going out to Reshus ha'Rabim. Here it discusses in the Chatzer. This is from my Rebbi.

11) TOSFOS DH v'Shamarta Es ha'Chukah ha'Zos l'Mo'adah v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åùîøú àú äçå÷ä äæàú ìîåòãä ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses a Brachah on removing Tefilin.)

áôø÷ áà ñéîï (ðãä ðà:) åáñåó ëéöã îáøëéï (áøëåú ãó îã:) ãàîøéðï ãáðé îòøáà îáøëé áúø ãîñì÷é úôéìééäå ìùîåø çå÷éå

(a) Reference: In Nidah (51b) and in Brachos (44b) we say that people in Eretz Yisrael bless after removing Tefilin "Lishmor Chukav."

îôøù øáéðå úí ãìàçø ùîñì÷ àú èìéúå ìéëà îàï ãîáøê ãìà ùééëà áøëä ãìùîåø çå÷éå àìà îúôéìéï ãåå÷à ãëúéá áäå çå÷ä

(b) Assertion (R. Tam): After removing one's Talis, no one says to bless. The Brachah "Lishmor Chukav" applies only to Tefilin, about which "Chukah" is written;

åãåå÷à ëùîñì÷ï ñîåê ìù÷éòú äçîä ããøùéðï éîéí åìà ìéìåú åîçåéá ìñì÷ï ëãàîøéðï áñîåê äðéç úôéìéï àçø ù÷éòú äçîä òåáø áòùä

1. And [he blesses] only when he removes [Tefilin] close to dark, for we expound "days", and not nights, and he is obligated to remove them, like we say below that if he put on Tefilin after Shki'ah, he transgresses as Aseh.

åáéøåùìîé ãáøëåú ôø÷ äéä ÷åøà àîøéðï ðîé òì îéìúà ãáðé îòøáà ãîáøëé ìùîåø çå÷éå ëîàï ãàîø áçå÷ú úôéìéï äëúåá îãáø àáì ìîàï ãàîø ãáçå÷ú äôñç äëúåá îãáø ìà à''ë ëì ùëï ãìàçø öéöéú ìà îáøê

(c) Support: In the Yerushalmi in Brachos, we say also about this that Bnei Eretz Yisrael bless "Lishmor Chukav", like the opinion that the verse discusses Chukah of Tefilin, but not according to the opinion that it discusses Chukah of Pesach. If so, all the more so after [removing] Tzitzis, one does not bless!

åáôø÷ áà ñéîï (ðãä ðà:) âáé éù èòåï áøëä ìôðéå åàéï èòåï áøëä ìàçøéå ã÷àîø ìàéúåéé îöåú åôøéê ìáðé îòøáà ãîáøëé ìáúø ãîñì÷é úôéìééäå ìàéúåéé îàé äåä îöé ìîéîø öéöéú

(d) Observation: In Nidah (51b) regarding "some things require a Brachah beforehand, but not a Brachah afterwards", it says "to include Mitzvos", and it asks according to Bnei Eretz Yisrael, who bless after removing their Tefilin, what [does it include]? It could have said that it includes Tzitzis.

åäàéãðà ìà îáøëé ìùîåø çå÷éå àôé' ìàçø úôéìéï ãáñîåê ôñ÷éðï ãìéìä æîï úôéìéï ã÷àîø äìëä åàéï îåøéï ëï åîãøáðï äåà ãàñåø ãçééùéðï ùìà ééùï áäí

(e) Pesak: Nowadays, they do not bless "Lishmor Chukav" even after Tefilin, for below we rule that Laylah Zman Tefilin, for it says that it is the Halachah, but we do not publicly rule like it, and it is forbidden [to wear Tefilin] at night, for we are concerned lest he sleep in them;

å÷øà ãåùîøú àú äçå÷ä áçå÷ú äôñç äëúåá îãáø. î''ø

1. The verse "v'Shamarta Es ha'Chukah" discusses Chukas ha'Pesach. This is from my Rebbi.

12) TOSFOS DH Yatz'u Shabbosos v'Yamim Tovim she'Hen Atzman Keruyin Os

úåñôåú ã"ä éöàå ùáúåú åéîéí èåáéí ùäï òöîï ÷øåééï àåú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not Chol ha'Mo'ed is Zman Tefilin.)

ìà îùåí ãàñéøé áòùééú îìàëä ãàôé' çåìå ùì îåòã ãùøé áòùééú îìàëä àéëà àåú áôñç ãàñåø áàëéìú çîõ åáñåëåú ãçééá áñåëä

(a) Explanation: It is not because they are forbidden to do Melachah, for even during Chol ha'Mo'ed, that it is permitted to Melachah, there is an Os - during Pesach one may not do Melachah, and during Sukos one is obligated in Sukah.

åáôø÷ áúøà ãîåòã ÷èï (ãó éè. åùí) îùîò ãçåìå ùì îåòã çééá ãàîø äúí ëåúá úôéìéï ìòöîå åìàçøéí áèåáä ãáøé ø''î

(b) Assertion: In Mo'ed Katan (19a) it connotes that Chol ha'Mo'ed is obligated [in Tefilin], for it says there that one may write Tefilin for himself, and for others b'Tovah (with compensation). This is R. Meir's opinion;

ø' éäåãä àåîø îòøéí åîåëø ëãé ôøðñúå àú ùìå åëåúá ìòöîå ëå' àåøé ìéä øáä áø áø çðä ìøá çððàì åëï àåøé ìéä øá äìëä ëåúá åîåëø ëãé ôøðñúå

1. R. Yehudah says, one may scheme and sell his own Tefilin to finance himself, and write [new] Tefilin for himself. Rabah bar bar Chanah ruled for Rav Chananel, and also Rav ruled for him, that one may write and sell to finance himself.

îùîò ãîðéç áîåòã ãàé îùåí ìàçø äîåòã îä ìé ìòöîå îä ìé ìàçøéí ìîä îåúø ìëúåá ìòöîå ùàéï æä öåøê ôøðñúå

i. Inference: One wears Tefilin on Chol ha'Mo'ed, for if it were for after the Mo'ed, what is the difference between for himself and for others? Why is it permitted to write for himself? This is not needed to finance himself!

îéäå ìàå øàéä àôùø ãøáé îàéø åø' éäåãä ìèòîééäå ãàéú ìäå ùáú æîï úôéìéï áôø÷ áúøà ãòéøåáéï (ãó öå:)

(c) Rebuttal: This is not a proof. It is possible that R. Meir and R. Yehudah hold like they taught elsewhere. They hold that Shabbos is Zman Tefilin, in Eruvin (96b).

òåã øàéä îéøåùìîé ôø÷ áúøà ãîåòã ÷èï çã áø ðù àéáã úôéìåéé áîåòãà àúà ìâáé øá çððàì ùìç ìâáé øáä áø áø çðä àîø ìéä )éäéá úôéìåéé åàæéì ëúåá ìê àîø ìéä øá( [ö"ì æéì äá ìéä úôéìéê åàú ëúåá ìê àúà ì÷îéä ãøá àîø ìéä - öàï ÷ãùéí] æéì ëúåá ìéä ôéøåù áìà äòøîä

(d) Observation: There is another proof from the Yerushalmi in Mo'ed Katan (that we wear Tefilin during Chol ha'Mo'ed). A man lost his Tefilin during the Mo'ed. He came in front of Rav Chananel (a scribe); he sent him to Rabah bar bar Chanah, who told [Rav Chananel] "give to him your Tefilin, and write for yourself." [Rav Chananel] came in front of Rav, who told him "go write for him", i.e. without scheming.

îúðé' ôìéâà òì øá ëåúá äåà àãí úôéìéï åîæåæä ìòöîå äà ìàçø àñåø

1. Citation (Yerushalmi): Our Mishnah argues with Rav. [It seems that] one may write Tefilin and Mezuzah for himself. This implies that it is forbidden for another!

øá ôúø ìä áëåúá ìäðéç åîñúîà øá (âøñéðï ëå' äåä ñáéøà ìéä ëäìëúà ãùáúåú åéîéí èåáéí ìàå æîï úôéìéï) [ö"ì ñáéøà ìéä ëäìëúà ãùáúåú åéîéí èåáéí ìàå æîï úôéìéï - öàï ÷ãùéí]

2. Answer: Rav explains when he writes to leave over (and wear after the Mo'ed). Presumably, Rav holds like the Halachah, that Shabbos and Yom Tov are not Zman Tefilin;

)àôéìå äëé ùøé ìëúåá åìîëåø úôéìéï áìà äòøîä åìøáä áø áø çðä ò''é äòøîä ãëåìäå àîåøàé ñáéøà ìäå ùáú ìàå æîï úôéìéï øá çñãà åøáä áø øá äåðà åàò''â ãñáéøà ìäå ìéìä æîï úôéìéï) [ö"ì ãëåìäå àîåøàé ñáéøà ìäå ùáú ìàå æîï úôéìéï øá çñãà åøáä áø øá äåðà åàò''â ãñáéøà ìäå ìéìä æîï úôéìéï åàôéìå äëé ùøé ìëúåá åìîëåø úôéìéï áìà äòøîä åìøáä áø áø çðä ò''é äòøîä - öàï ÷ãùéí]

i. Source: All the Amora'im hold that Shabbos is not Zman Tefilin, [e.g.] Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna, even though they hold that night is Zman Tefilin, and even so [Rav] permits to write and to sell Tefilin without scheming, and according to Rabah bar bar Chanah [it is permitted] through scheming.

åîéäå áæä çåì÷ äù''ñ ùìðå ãøáä áø áø çðä ñáø ëøá åäúí ôìéâé. î''ø

(e) Observation: However, the Bavli disagrees about this. [It says that] Rabah bar bar Chanah holds like Rav, and [in the Yerushalmi] they argue. This is from my Rebbi.

13) TOSFOS DH Yadcha Zu Smol

úåñôåú ã"ä éãê æå ùîàì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rava does not learn the right hand from Metzora.)

åàí úàîø ìòéì áñô''÷ (ãó é.) ãàééúø ìéä éã ãîöåøò ìàâîåøé àéã ã÷îéöä ãåéîìà ëôå äééðå ðîé áéîéï

(a) Question: Above (10a), Yad of Metzora is extra for [Rava] to learn to Yad of Kemitzah, i.e. "Yemalei Kapo" is also with the right hand;

àãøáä äåä ìï ìàâîåøé àéã ãúôéìéï ãäåé áéîéï åãîé ìéä ãéìôéðï éã îéã åäúí éìôéðï ëôå îéã

1. We should rather learn to Yad of Tefilin, that it is with the right, and it resembles it [more], for we [would] learn Yad from Yad, and there we learn Kapo from Yad!

åéù ìôøù ãðéçà ìéä ìàâîåøé äúí òáåãä îòáåãä

(b) Answer #1: [Rava] prefers to learn there Avodah from Avodah.

îéäå ÷ùä ãàúøåééäå ðéìó

(c) Question: We should learn both of them!

åùîà îùåí ãìà ãîé ìääåà ãäúí éã îîù åäëà ÷éáåøú áæøåò. î''ø:

(d) Answer #2: Perhaps it is because it is different. There it is truly the hand, and here it is the [place of] the muscle on the arm. This is from my Rebbi.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF