אֶחָד חֲדָשׁוֹת וְאֶחָד יְשָׁנוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר בַּחֲדָשׁוֹת וּמַתִּיר בִּישָׁנוֹת. אַלְמָא מָר סָבַר טָרַח אִינִישׁ, וּמָר סָבַר לָא טָרַח אִינִישׁ. and whether the phylacteries are new or old; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits carrying new phylacteries but permits carrying old ones. Apparently, one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that a person exerts himself to fashion an amulet that looks like phylacteries, and one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that a person does not exert himself for this purpose, and therefore something that has the appearance of phylacteries must be phylacteries.
(שיצ״י עצב״י סִימָן.) וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּתָנֵי אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: אֵלּוּ הֵן יְשָׁנוֹת — כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן רְצוּעוֹת וּמְקוּשָּׁרוֹת, חֲדָשׁוֹת — יֵשׁ בָּהֶן רְצוּעוֹת וְלֹא מְקוּשָּׁרוֹת. דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא טָרַח אִינִישׁ. Shin, yod, tzadi, yod, ayin, tzadi, beit, yod is a mnemonic for the statements that follow. The Gemara adds: And now that the father of Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak has taught that these are deemed old phylacteries: Any that have straps that are permanently tied in the manner of phylacteries, and new phylacteries are those that have straps that are not tied, the conclusion is that everyone agrees that a person does not exert himself to fashion an amulet similar to phylacteries or string-like ritual fringes. They disagree with regard to new phylacteries that are not tied properly and cannot be donned in a manner typical of a weekday. The reason is that tying a permanent knot on Shabbat is prohibited by Torah law. Therefore, these phylacteries may not be donned, and Rabbi Zeira’s opinion is accepted.
וְלִיעְנְבִינְהוּ מִיעְנָב! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, עֲנִיבָה פְּסוּלָה בִּתְפִילִּין. The Gemara asks a question with regard to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that new phylacteries may not be brought into town because they lack a permanent knot: Why must one tie the phylacteries with a knot? Let him simply tie a bow, which is not prohibited on Shabbat, and place the phylacteries on his head and arm in that manner. Rav Ḥisda said: That is to say that a bow is invalid for phylacteries, as a proper knot is required.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: עֲנִיבָה קְשִׁירָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִיא. Abaye said: This is not the correct interpretation. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: A bow is a full-fledged knot, and it is prohibited to tie it on Shabbat by Torah law.
טַעְמָא דַּעֲנִיבָה קְשִׁירָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִיא, הָא לָאו הָכִי — עָנֵיב לְהוּ, וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: קֶשֶׁר שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי הוּא, וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: וְנוֹיֵיהֶן לְבַר! The Gemara asks: The reason that it is prohibited to tie a bow is that a bow is a full-fledged knot. If that were not so, one could tie the phylacteries with a bow. But didn’t Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, say in the name of Rav: The form of the permanent knot of phylacteries is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai; and Rav Naḥman said: And their decorative side, the side of the knot where the shape of the letter appears, must face outward. Apparently, a bow does not suffice for phylacteries, as an actual knot is required.
דְּעָנֵיב לְהוּ כְּעֵין קְשִׁירָה דִידְהוּ. The Gemara rejects this contention: It is referring to a case where one tied a bow similar in form to a permanent knot, without actually tying a permanent knot.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב: הַלּוֹקֵחַ תְּפִילִּין מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּמְחֶה — בּוֹדֵק שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁל יָד וְאַחַת שֶׁל רֹאשׁ, אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁל רֹאשׁ וְאַחַת שֶׁל יָד. Rav Ḥisda said that Rav said: One who purchases a large quantity of phylacteries from one who is not an expert, i.e., a person who has not proven to be a reliable manufacturer of phylacteries, the purchaser examines two phylacteries of the arm and one of the head, or two of the head and one of the arm, to see if they are valid and the individual reliable. If the three phylacteries are found to be valid upon examination, the seller is considered an expert and the rest of the phylacteries are presumed valid as well.
מָה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי מֵחַד גַּבְרָא קָא זָבֵין, לִבְדּוֹק אוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁל יָד אוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ. The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, this ruling is problematic: If the buyer purchased all of the phylacteries from one person, who acquired them from somebody else, let him examine three phylacteries of the arm or three of the head, in accordance with the principle that presumptive status is established after three instances.
אִי מִתְּרֵי תְּלָתָא גַּבְרֵי זָבֵין, כׇּל חַד וְחַד לִיבְעֵי בְּדִיקָה. לְעוֹלָם מֵחַד גַּבְרָא זָבֵין, וּבָעֵינַן דְּמִיתְמַחֵי בְּשֶׁל יָד וּבְשֶׁל רֹאשׁ. If he purchased the phylacteries from two or three people, each and every one of the phylacteries should require examination. The presumptive status of one pair of phylacteries does not apply to the others, as they might have been produced by a different person. The Gemara answers: Actually, this refers to a case where the buyer bought the phylacteries from one person, and we require that the seller prove himself to be an expert with regard to both the phylactery of the arm and the phylactery of the head.
אִינִי?! וְהָא תָּנֵי רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: בִּתְפִילִּין בּוֹדֵק שָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁל יָד וְשֶׁל רֹאשׁ, מַאי לָאו אוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁל יָד אוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ! לָא: שָׁלֹשׁ, מֵהֶן שֶׁל יָד מֵהֶן שֶׁל רֹאשׁ. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rabba bar Shmuel teach that with regard to phylacteries one examines three of the arm and three of the head? What, is it not that he examines either three phylacteries of the arm or three of the head? The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, it means that he examines three phylacteries in total, among them phylacteries of the arm and among them phylacteries of the head, as stated by Rav Ḥisda in the name of Rav.
וְהָתָנֵי רַב כָּהֲנָא: בִּתְפִילִּין בּוֹדֵק שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁל יָד וְשֶׁל רֹאשׁ! הָא מַנִּי רַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: בִּתְרֵי זִימְנֵי הָוֵי חֲזָקָה. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Kahana teach that with regard to phylacteries one examines two of the arm and two of the head? This statement certainly contradicts Rav’s opinion. The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Presumptive status is established by two times. Although most Sages maintain that it takes three instances to establish a presumptive status, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules that two cases suffice. Consequently, in the case of phylacteries, it is sufficient to examine two.
אִי רַבִּי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְכֵן בַּצֶּבֶת הַשֵּׁנִי, וְכֵן בַּצֶּבֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. וְאִי רַבִּי — שְׁלִישִׁי מִי אִית לֵיהּ? The Gemara asks: If this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, say the latter clause of that same baraita as follows: And he must likewise examine the second bundle of phylacteries, and likewise the third bundle. And if it is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, is he of the opinion that a third examination is necessary? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not require a third examination to establish a presumptive status, as he maintains that the examination of two bundles suffices.
מוֹדֶה רַבִּי בִּצְבָתִים, דְּמִתְּרֵי תְּלָתָא גַּבְרֵי זָבֵין. אִי הָכִי אֲפִילּוּ רְבִיעִי נָמֵי, וַאֲפִילּוּ חֲמִישִׁי נָמֵי! The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes with regard to bundles, as one buys them from two or three different people. It can be assumed that the various bundles of phylacteries were not all manufactured by the same person. Consequently, the validity of one bundle does not establish a presumption with regard to another. The Gemara asks: If so, even the fourth bundle must be examined as well, and even the fifth as well. If the bundles were bought from different manufacturers, every one of them requires examination, not only the third.
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי. וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי שְׁלִישִׁי לְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵחֶזְקֵיהּ, וּלְעוֹלָם אֲפִילּוּ רְבִיעִי וַחֲמִישִׁי נָמֵי. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; this is how one must proceed. And the reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches three bundles rather than four or five is to exclude the third bundle from its presumptive status. By stating that the third bundle must be examined, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi indicates that in this case two examinations do not establish a presumption; rather, all of the bundles must be checked. And actually, even the fourth and fifth bundles require examination as well.
מְצָאָן צְבָתִים אוֹ כְרִיכוֹת וְכוּ׳. מַאי צְבָתִים וּמַאי כְּרִיכוֹת? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֵן הֵן צְבָתִים, הֵן הֵן כְּרִיכוֹת. צְבָתִים — זָוֵוי זָוֵוי, כְּרִיכוֹת — דִּכְרִיכָן טוּבָא. It was stated in the mishna that if one finds phylacteries tied in bundles or in wrapped piles, he sits there and waits with them until dark and then brings them in. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of bundles in this context, and what is meant by wrapped piles? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The same types of objects are called bundles, and they are also called wrapped piles, i.e., both contain more than one pair of phylacteries. Bundles consist of many pairs of phylacteries arranged in pairs [zuvei] of a head phylactery with an arm phylactery, whereas wrapped piles indicates that many phylacteries are wrapped together in no particular arrangement.
מַחְשִׁיךְ עֲלֵיהֶן וּמְבִיאָן. וְאַמַּאי? לְעַיְּילִינְהוּ זוּג זוּג! אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: לְדִידִי מִיפָּרְשָׁא לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּא, כׇּל שֶׁאִילּוּ מַכְנִיסָן זוּג זוּג וְכָלוֹת קוֹדֶם שְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה, מַכְנִיסָן זוּג זוּג. וְאִי לָא, מַחְשִׁיךְ עֲלֵיהֶן וּמְבִיאָן. We learned in the mishna that one sits there and waits with them until dark and then brings them in. The Gemara asks: And why must he do that? Let him bring them in pair by pair. Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: This matter was explained to me personally by my father as follows: Any instance where there are few enough phylacteries that were he to bring them in pair by pair he would finish before sunset, he brings them in pair by pair. But if not, i.e., if there are so many pairs of phylacteries that were he to bring them in one pair at a time he would not bring them all in before sunset, he waits there with all of them until dark and then brings them in.
וּבַסַּכָּנָה מְכַסָּן וְהוֹלֵךְ. וְהָתַנְיָא: וּבַסַּכָּנָה מוֹלִיכָן פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת! אָמַר רַב: לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּסַכָּנַת גּוֹיִם, הָא — בְּסַכָּנַת לִסְטִים. It was stated in the mishna that in a time of danger one covers the phylacteries and proceeds on his way. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a different baraita: And in a time of danger he carries them less than four cubits at a time? The Gemara answers that Rav said: It is not difficult. In this mishna, which states that the finder covers the phylacteries, it is referring to the danger posed by gentiles, where the gentile authorities decreed against donning phylacteries and the finder is afraid to be seen carrying them. However, in that baraita, which teaches that one may carry them less than four cubits at a time, it is dealing with the danger posed by bandits [listim]. In that case he is afraid to remain there until dark, but he is not worried about taking the phylacteries with him. Consequently, he may carry them less than four cubits at a time.