Siman 43

It has already been explained that tefillin require a clean body. Even passing gas is forbidden, and certainly performing one's needs while wearing them. Even if one merely needs to relieve himself, it is forbidden to wear them, and certainly to perform his needs. In the Gemara and in the Rambam, no distinction was mentioned between the one of the head and the one of the hand. On the contrary, it is explicitly proven that it is also forbidden with the one of the hand, for they said in Shabbat (49a): Tefillin require a clean body, that one should not pass gas in them, see there—behold, it employs the plural language. Furthermore, it is called "tefillah" when it is a single one in the language of the Shas, and not "tefillin." And even though the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 1 wrote: It is forbidden to enter a bathroom... with the tefillin that are on his head—they did not come to exclude the one of the hand, as there is one who says so (see Ma'adanei Yom Tov). Rather, they came to exclude when he is not wearing them on the place of the tefillin, but rather they are placed in his hand or in his lap. But the same law applies to the one of the hand. (And so wrote the Magen Avraham, small subsection 1, and ruled so in practice. And see Eliyah Rabbah and Ba'er Heitev in the name of Beit Yaakov, and their words are astonishing. And so agreed the Yad Ephraim and the Bnei Chaya, as the Ba'er Heitev wrote. And even though the Tosafot in Menachot 35b were in doubt about this, and also the Rosh in the laws of tefillin section 12 brought this, nevertheless, even according to them it would be a doubt regarding a Torah prohibition. And certainly so since the Rambam did not mention this at all. And from the language of the Gemara it is explicitly explained so. And if it is because of that which is in Shabbat 62a, see there—there it is regarding the matter of removing them four cubits beforehand, see there. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

And know that all our teachers agreed that only for adults is it forbidden to be in tefillin by the law, but for minors it is permitted according to the core law. However, there are distinctions regarding a permanent beit hakise, where we fear lest he defecate in them, but in a temporary beit hakise, which is when he stands in some place to urinate – it is permitted to urinate even when they are on his head. And only when they are in his hand, not in the place of the tefillin – it is forbidden for another reason as will be explained. And the opinion of the Rambam is that even when they are on his head it is forbidden to urinate, as will be explained. And they wrote the reason: because we decree lest he flatulate in them (Kessef Mishneh and Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And seemingly it is necessary to say so, for behold in Berakhot (23a) they inquired: What is the law regarding a man entering a permanent beit hakise in tefillin to urinate water? Ravina permitted. Rav Adda forbade, we fear lest he defecate in them or flatulate in them, see there. Behold, even the one who forbids does so only by reason of a decree. But in my humble opinion, it does not appear so from the words of the Rambam, as we will explain with the help of Heaven in section 6.

This is the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 1: It is forbidden to enter a permanent beit hakise to urinate while wearing the tefillin that are on his head, as a decree lest he perform his needs in them. But if he holds them in his hand—it is permitted to urinate in them in a permanent beit hakise. And in a temporary beit hakise—it is permitted to urinate in them while they are on his head. But if he holds them in his hand—it is forbidden to urinate in them while standing, even if he holds them in his garment, because he must rub the droplets on his legs with his hand. Rather, he removes them at a distance of four amot and gives them to his fellow. Thus far his words.

And according to this, the primary distinction between permanent and temporary is: that in a permanent place one urinates while sitting and there are no sparks, and in a temporary place one urinates while standing and there are sparks. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote there, and this is his wording: And this is specifically when he urinates while sitting, for there is no concern for sparks. But if he urinates while standing—it is obvious that it is forbidden, for it is no better than a temporary beit hakise. And the same law applies if he urinates while sitting or into loose earth where there are no sparks in a temporary beit hakise—it is also permitted. And there is no distinction between permanent and temporary regarding this matter. Rather, in a permanent place he presumably performs his needs while sitting, and in a temporary place he presumably performs them while standing since he is not relieving himself for bowel movements. Thus far his words. And I wonder about this: for behold, we concern ourselves lest he relieve himself or lest he flatulate as I wrote in section 2, and if so, granted that in a temporary place there is no concern lest he relieve himself, but is there not a concern lest he flatulate even in a temporary place? And one must say that in a temporary place there is also no such concern. And it is not understood, and it requires further study. (And also in the Gemara itself it is difficult according to the approach of our teachers, for the concern lest he flatulate exists even when urinating in any place whatsoever, yet the inquiry is only regarding a permanent place. And in truth, the Kesef Mishneh and the Magen Avraham explained that this is the reasoning of the Rambam, meaning: that in the final conclusion it is forbidden in any place to urinate while they are on his head, see there in the Kesef Mishneh. And this is not the way of the Shas. But according to what we will explain regarding the intent of the Rambam, it works out well.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that from the words of the Rambam it appears that it is forbidden to urinate while they are on his head, whether in a permanent beit hakise or in a temporary beit hakise. And one should be concerned for his words. Thus far his words. This is the wording of the Rambam in the fourth chapter, law 17: If one was wearing tefillin and needed the beit hakise – he should not leave the tefillin in holes adjacent to the public domain and enter, lest passersby take them. What should he do? Even if he needed to urinate water – he removes his tefillin at a distance of four amot, and rolls them in his garment like a Sefer Torah, and holds them in his right hand opposite his heart. And he should be careful so that a strap does not protrude a tefach from under his hand. And he enters and performs his needs. And when he exits, he distances himself four amot from the beit hakise and wears them. In what case are these things said? In a permanent beit hakise, where sparks do not splash upon him. But in a temporary beit hakise – he shall not enter with them while they are rolled, but rather he removes them and gives them to his fellow to guard them. And urine does not cease except by sitting, or in loose earth, or in a sloped place. Thus far his words. And we have already written that the great authorities explained that therefore he forbade even in a temporary one when urinating while they are on his head because of the concern of flatulence, and not that there is an intrinsic prohibition to urinate in tefillin as there is a prohibition with excrement. But in my humble opinion, it does not appear so from his words there, as he wrote: If he forgot and entered the beit hakise while he was wearing tefillin – he places his hand upon them until he finishes the first stream, and exits and removes them, and afterward enters and performs his needs. For if he interrupts the first stream, whether with excrement or with urine – he will come to illnesses in which there is great danger. Thus far his words; behold, he wrote this law even regarding urine. And if it should enter your mind that there is no prohibition in this from the essence of the law, but only because of the concern of flatulence, why did they not permit him to finish? Rather, certainly he holds that from the essence of the law it is forbidden to urinate in tefillin.

And in truth, I do not understand the opinion of our teachers: for why should it be permitted to urinate in tefillin, is this not a lack of a clean body? Therefore, the Rambam holds that to urinate while they are on his head and on his arm in the place of the placement of tefillin—it is certainly forbidden in any case because of the degradation of tefillin, just as with excrement. And that which they inquired in the Gemara there: "What is the law regarding a person entering a permanent beit hakise in tefillin to urinate?"—it is not while they are on his head. Rather, this is its explanation: for prior to this the Rabbis taught: One who enters a beit hakise—he removes his tefillin at a distance of four amot and enters. Rav Sheshet said: They only taught this regarding a permanent beit hakise, but in a temporary beit hakise—he removes them and relieves himself immediately. And when he exits—he moves away four amot and dons them, because he has made it a permanent beit hakise. They inquired: What is the law regarding a person entering a permanent beit hakise in tefillin to urinate? Ravina permits, Rav Adda and Rava forbid… and this is its explanation: What is the law regarding entering when they are in his hands, if he requires a distance of four amot since he entered a permanent one? Or if he does not require a distance of four amot since he entered only to urinate? And it concludes that it is forbidden, meaning: that he requires a distance of four amot, because perhaps he will relieve himself or flatulate. And it is like relieving himself, and he requires a distance of four amot. And if it is difficult: behold, when they are in his hands—it is forbidden to urinate because of sparks? But this is according to the conclusion there, where the Shas disagrees with Rav Sheshet and Rava, and concludes against them with a refutation. But Rav Sheshet and Rava do not hold of the concern of sparks, for behold they wondered: Now in a permanent one it is permitted, in a temporary one is it necessary to ask? And the Shas rejects them, see there. And in this, the Rambam indeed ruled so, as I have written. Furthermore: is there no case where it is permitted according to the conclusion of the Shas? Behold, while sitting or in loose earth or on a slope it is permitted. However, in any event, this inquiry is only regarding the matter of the distance of four amot, but when they are placed in the place of their placement—it is forbidden to urinate by the fundamental law.

And know that which we wrote in section 3 in the name of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, that when one enters a permanent beit hakissei it is permitted to urinate while the tefillin are in his hand – so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in the Shulchan Aruch. However, the Tur wrote: in his garment and in his hand, meaning that he wraps them in his garment and holds them in his hand. And also the Rambam there wrote so. Therefore, there is one who wrote that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, placed a stumbling block before those who study, for certainly his intention was also thus, as he himself wrote in section 5 (Taz subsection 1, and see Eliyah Rabbah). But in truth it appears that he wrote this intentionally, for behold Rashi also explained there that he only holds them in his hand, see there. And behold, in this there is a dispute of the Tannaim there, for Beit Hillel holds only in his hand, and Rabbi Akiva holds in his garment and in his hand. And there are some of the great authorities who wrote that in every place where Beit Hillel and Rabbi Akiva disagree – the halacha follows Beit Hillel, at the end of the chapter "HaMafkid" and in Ohalot chapter five, and in several other places (Pnei Yehoshua in his novellae there). And this is the reasoning of Rashi, of blessed memory. And in section 5 where our teacher, the Beit Yosef, was stringent – that is regarding a bowel movement as is explained there and as we will transcribe his words in section 11, and if so, there is no stumbling block here. However, for the practical law, we certainly require his garment and his hand, since the Rambam ruled so explicitly.

However, that which the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote, that for a temporary need it is permitted to urinate in them while they are on his head, but when holding them in his hand it is forbidden, and he must remove them at a distance of four amot and give them to his fellow, see there—this is certainly difficult. For why is a distance of four amot required, since the prohibition is only due to the concern of sparks? And indeed, the Rambam did not write a distance of four amot, see there. Therefore, they wrote that this only refers to a permanent need, but for a temporary need—a distance of four amot is not required (Magen Avraham subsection 4 and Taz subsection 3). But it does not appear so from their wording. And perhaps they hold that even for a temporary need a distance of four amot is required, for that which Rava Sheshet said in the Gemara there, that for a temporary need he removes them and relieves himself immediately—the Rif and the Rambam omitted it. And their reason appears to be because we do not rule like Rav Sheshet at the end of the sugya regarding holding them in his hand for a temporary need, as I have written. Therefore, we also do not rule like Rav Sheshet in this (and so wrote the Pnei Yehoshua).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: A permanent beit hakise—this means that there is excrement in it, and it is upon the surface of the field without a pit. And a temporary beit hakise—this means, for example, to urinate, for which a person does not go to a beit hakise, and this time this place was made into a beit hakise for the first time. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: For behold, previously he wrote two laws regarding a permanent one, that when they are on his head—it is forbidden to urinate lest he defecate, and when they are in his hand—it is permitted to urinate. And regarding a temporary one, he wrote that it is permitted to urinate when they are on his head, but when holding them in his hand—it is forbidden. To this he says that a permanent beit hakise, which I permitted to you when they are in his hand—this is even when it is without a pit. For you should not say that since it is without a pit—it is very loathsome, and it is forbidden even to hold in his hand. He comes to teach us that it is not so. And afterwards he says that regarding a temporary one, which I permitted to you when they are on his head, do not say that there has been a temporary beit hakise there until now, for in such a case I did not permit it to you, but rather that this time it was made into a beit hakise. And the commentators explained his intention that when it is covered—one does not need to distance himself four amot. And only when the excrement is upon the surface of the field—is a distancing of four amot required (Magen Avraham subsection 6 and Pri Megadim and the Gra"z). And because of this they were pressed, see there. And according to my humble opinion it is not so, and its explanation is as I have written. (Also what the Magen Avraham wrote from Rashi there—there is also no proof, and Rashi's intention is also as I have written. And the proof is from what he wrote regarding a temporary one, see there. And examine closely and you will find it easy.)

He further wrote in section 4: If they are in his lap and he is wearing a belt, or in his garment in his hand – it is permitted whether to urinate or to defecate. Thus far his words. That is to say: in a temporary beit hakise, for there is no concern here of droplets, as when they are in his lap – he will certainly not touch them with his hands. And that which he wrote "in his garment in his hand," this is its explanation: that they are wrapped in a garment and he holds the garment in his hand, for even if he rubs the droplets and touches – he will touch the garment and not the tefillin. And it is not similar to what he wrote previously that it is forbidden even if he grasps them in his garment, for there his intention is that he grasps them with his garment. And we concern ourselves that he might touch them themselves, since they are revealed. But here the explanation is that they are wrapped in his garment. (See Magen Avraham subsection 8 and Taz subsection 4, who were pressed and wrote distant paths. The Magen Avraham explained that they are tied in his garment, and the Taz explained that the tefillin are under his garment, and he holds with his hand over his garment, see there. And it is a wonder: why should we not concern ourselves that he might remove his hand and they will fall? And according to what I have written it works out well with simplicity. Examine and you will find it easy.)

He further wrote in section 5: If one wishes to enter a permanent beit hakisse to relieve himself—he removes them at a distance of four amot, rolls them by their straps, and holds them in his right hand and within his garment against his heart. And he must be careful that a strap does not extend a tefach from beneath his hand. And when he exits—he moves four amot away and dons them. Thus far his words, and this is from the words of the Rambam that we cited in section 5. And know that regarding what he wrote, that when he enters a permanent beit hakisse to relieve himself therein he removes them at a distance of four amot, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say even without his needs. And it is good to be stringent. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that his intention is not regarding the entry, for regarding this there is no one who disagrees that it is forbidden to enter a beit hakisse or a bathhouse with tefillin. And "it is good to be stringent" is not applicable to this, for it is a complete prohibition. Rather, his intention is regarding the distance of four amot. (And with this, the difficulty of the Magen Avraham, subsection 9, is well-settled, see there. And examine closely and you will find it simple.) And that which he wrote that he "holds them in his right hand" is because with the left one must wipe, as I wrote in siman 3.

It is permitted to enter filthy alleyways while wearing tefillin, even if there is an explicitly filthy place. And it is good to cover them with a hat. And if one wishes to remove them and return to don them—it is well done (Magen Avraham, subsection 11, in the name of Ma'aseh Rokeach). That is to say: even though he will be required to recite the blessing again, nevertheless, if he wishes to do so—it is well done. And it appears to me that only to walk through there is it permitted. But to stand there—it is forbidden. (See Magen Avraham ibid., who brought a proof for this law from Berakhot 24b, see there. And it is not a proof, for perhaps it is dealing with the evening recitation of Shema. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

All the permissions that were explained regarding tefillin in the matter of a beit hakise – this is when he wishes to return and don them. But if he was wearing tefillin at night or close to darkness, such that there is no time to don them again after he exits, and he needs to relieve himself – he may not enter with them into a beit hakise even if they are rolled in his garment, and even to urinate while sitting where there is no concern of droplets. Rather, how shall he act? He removes them and places them in a vessel if it has a tefach, or in a vessel that is not their specific vessel even if it does not have a tefach. And he holds the vessel in his hand and enters. In what case are these words said? In a beit hakise that is in a field. But in a beit hakise that is in a house – he shall not bring them in at all, since he can leave them in a guarded place. And so too travelers, if they have a place to leave them in a guarded spot on the wagon, or to give them to a fellow – they shall not bring them into a beit hakise at all (Ateret Zekenim). And the Rambam wrote in the tenth chapter: Amulets that contain matters of sacred writings – one may not enter with them into a beit hakise unless they were covered in leather. And a person shall not hold a Sefer Torah in his arm and enter with it into a beit hakise, even though it is wrapped in a cloth… Thus far his words (see Magen Avraham subsection 13 and subsection 14). And so too to place tefillin on the ground – one specifically needs a vessel that has a space of a tefach, for then it is considered an ohel to separate between them and the ground (ibid.).

If one forgot tefillin on his head and performed his needs in them, whether for bowel movements or for urination—he places his hand upon them until he finishes the first stream, and he exits and removes them, and returns and finishes his needs. For a stream that is held back leads to dropsy, and a jet of urine that is held back leads to jaundice. And it is permitted for a physician to take a vessel of urine in his hand while tefillin are on his head, but a person of soul should be stringent upon himself. And know that from all that has been explained—it is not proper to urinate in tefillin even with the shel yad, for according to what we explained there is no difference between the shel yad and the shel rosh. And according to what we explained regarding the opinion of the Rambam, there is no difference between bowel movements and urination. And aside from this, there is a desecration of God's name before the masses, and one who does so—it is proper to rebuke him.