תנו רבנן: הנכנס לישן ביום, רצה חולץ, רצה מניח. בלילה, חולץ ואינו מניח, דברי רבי נתן. רבי יוסי אומר: הילדים לעולם חולצין ואינן מניחין, מפני שרגילין בטומאה. לימא קסבר רבי יוסי: בעל קרי אסור להניח תפילין. אמר אביי: בילדים ונשותיהן עמהן עסקינן, שמא יבואו לידי הרגל דבר. ת"ר: שכח ושמש מטתו בתפילין, אינו אוחז לא ברצועה ולא בקציצה עד שיטול ידיו ויטלם, מפני שהידים עסקניות הן.
Our Rabbis taught: He who wishes to sleep by day, may, if he desires, remove [his tefillin] and may, if he so desires, leave them on. At night, he may not leave them on but must remove them. These are the words of Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Yosi said: Youths must always remove them and never leave them on, since ritual uncleanness is of frequent occurrence with them. Must we then say that Rabbi Yosi is of the opinion that a man who has seminal emission may not don his tefillin? Abbayye answered: We are dealing here with the case of young men in the company of their wives [upon whom the restriction was imposed] lest they proceed to familiar practice. Our Rabbis taught: If he forgot and had sexual intercourse in his tefillin on he should not seize hold either of a strap or of a capsule until he washes his hands to take them off, since hands are busy.
@Manuscript evidence
רבי יוסי [...] בטומאה
In the version of Rabbenu Hananel: תניא: ר' יוסי אומר הילדים, בזמן שנשותיהן עמהם, חולצים בין ביום ובין בלילה, ואח"כ ישנים (Rabbi Yosi taught: Youths when accompanied by their wives remove [their tefillin] whether it is day or night, and afterwards they sleep).
עד שיטול ידיו ויטלם
The JTS MS. 1608850 has: עד שיטבול ידיו (till he immerses his hands). Rabbenu Hananel’s version reads: עד שיטול ידיו ויסירם מראשו (till he washes his hands and removes them from his head) which may indicate that both statements are an interpretation of the word ויטלם in our text.
@General observations
This section is connected to the end of mSuk 2:4: “Casual eating and drinking are permitted outside the sukkah” אוכלים ושותין עראי חוץ לסוכה, with the baraita’s response: “Casual eating and drinking are permitted outside the sukkah but not casual sleeping.” The sugya then adds a series of baraitot concerning sleeping and tefillin. The abovementioned section of bSuk 26b discusses the connection between sleep, sexual relations and tefillin.
The first baraita presents a dispute between Rabbi Natan, who permits sleeping with tefillin on, since there is less likelihood of having sexual relations during a short daytime nap, and Rabbi Yosi who has reservations about such a broad sanction since it does not apply to all age groups. For example, youths must remove their tefillin since they might have seminal emission even during a short nap. The stama interprets Rabbi Yosi’s use of the word לעולם (never) as prohibiting all youths to sleep during the day with their tefillin on. He consequently deduces that all men who might have a seminal emission are forbidden to sleep with their tefillin on. Abbayye, on the other hand, gives a more circumscribed interpretation of Rabbi Yosi’s statement, applying it only to youths together with their wives. The purpose of this prohibition is so that they will act in a respectful manner with tefillin on, and not don them during sexual relations.[1]
The second baraita discusses tefillin and sexual relations. If a man forgot to remove his tefillin prior to sexual relations then he must wash his hands before he removes them, “since hands are busy.”
[1] Abbayye may have based his opinion on the version of the baraita found in the writings of Rabbenu Hananel, see under manuscript evidence.
@Feminist observations
Rabbi Natan distinguishes between one who sleeps during the day, for whom it is optional to remove his tefillin, and one who sleeps at night, for whom it is compulsory. Rabbi Yosi agrees with Rabbi Natan regarding the night but he disputes the ruling concerning the removal of tefillin when sleeping during the day. Abbayye likewise referes to sleep during daytime but as it relates to youths and their wives. Based on his word usage, Abbayye apparently does not view youths and their wives sleeping together during daytime as improper or indecent.
Yet in an earlier midrash from the Land of Israel, the amora Rabbi Yohanan holds an opposing view:
המשמש מיטתו ביום הרי זה מגונה, דאמר ר' יוחנן: אין תשמיש המיטה אלא בלילה (ב"ר סד ח).
It is considered indecent to have sexual intercourse during the day, as Rabbi Yohanan stated: Sexual intercourse should not take place except at night (GenR 64:8).
Rabbi Yohanan’s contemporaries hold similar views, as is clear from the following sugya:
אמר רב חסדא: אסור לו לאדם שישמש מיטתו ביום, שנאמר: "ואהבת לרעך כמוך" (ויקרא יט יח). מאי משמע? אמר אביי: שמא יראה בה דבר מגונה ותתגנה עליו. אמר רב הונא: ישראל קדושים ואין משמשים מיטותיהן ביום. אמר רבא: ואם היה בית אפל, מותר. ותלמיד חכם מאפיל בכסותו ומשמש (ב' נדה יז ע"א).
Said Rav Hisda: A person is prohibited from having sexual intercourse during the day, as it is written: “Love your fellow as yourself” (Lev 19:18). What does this mean? Abbayye says: For fear that he might see in her an indecency and she would become indecent in his eyes. Said Rav Huna: Israel are holy and do not engage in sex during the day. Said Rava: In a dark house it is permitted. And a scholar of the sages creates darkness with his robe and engages [in sexual intercourse] (bNid 17a).
Both Rav Huna and Rav Hisda are early Babylonian amoraim. Abbayye and Rava explain and qualify their statements. Rava, in response to Rav Huna, determined that “in a dark house it is permitted” and Abbayye, in an explanation of Rav Hisda’s midrash maintains that it is not the night that is important but the avoidance of observing nudity. In other words, he would fully comply with Rava that in a darkened house sexual intercourse during the day would be permitted. Hence, it is possible that taboos that had been common and accepted in preceding generations lost their grip during the period of Abbayye and Rava (the 4th century CE).
Yaakov Elman hypothesizes that the origin of this innovative ruling is connected to Mahoza, the capital of the Persian Empire and the site of a Babylonian talmudic academy.[1] He claims that Jewish society assimilated various prevalent customs followed by the higher echelons of society in Mahoza, which included sexual relations during daytime, and he cites bBer 59b to support this hypothesis:
[1] ELMAN, “He in His Cloak.”
ואמר רבא: האי דחריפי בני מחוזא, משום דשתו מיא דדגלת, האי דגיחורי משום דמשמשי ביממא, האי דניידי עינייהו משום דדיירי בבית אפל.
And Rava also said: The reason why people of Mahoza are so sharp is because they drink the water of the Tigris; the reason why they have red spots is because they indulge in sexual intercourse in the daytime; the reason why their eyes blink is because they live in dark houses.
Elman maintains that the Persian custom of daytime sexual relations came about due to a fear of demons combined with the dread of infections contracted through sexual relations. Elman’s analysis, combined with Abbayye’s ruling, indicate change in the Babylonian sages’ view of daytime sexual relations.
Another interesting aspect of this source is the use of the words בילדים ונשותיהן (youths and their wives) in relation to very young married men. Based on this, as well as on other examples,[1] Adiel Schremer concluded that the realia in the Bavli demonstrates that men married at an early age, for which the term “youths” was appropriate.[2]