וּבַסַּכָּנָה מְכַסָּן וְהוֹלֵךְ לוֹ.

And in a time of danger, when it is dangerous to tarry outside town, he covers the phylacteries and proceeds on his way.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: נוֹתְנָן לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וַחֲבֵירוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ, עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לֶחָצֵר הַחִיצוֹנָה.

Rabbi Shimon says that there is an alternative method of transferring the phylacteries: One gives them to another who is less than four cubits from him, and the other passes them to another, until the phylacteries reach the outermost courtyard of the city. Since carrying less than four cubits in a public domain is not prohibited by Torah law, in this case, the Sages permitted carrying in that manner due to the sanctity of the phylacteries.

וְכֵן בְּנוֹ – נוֹתְנוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וַחֲבֵירוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן אָדָם חָבִית לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וַחֲבֵירוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ אֲפִילּוּ חוּץ לַתְּחוּם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא תְּהַלֵּךְ זוֹ יוֹתֵר מֵרַגְלֵי בְעָלֶיהָ.

And similarly, with regard to one’s son who was born in a field and may not be carried on Shabbat, since that is akin to carrying a burden in the public domain: One gives him to another, and the other passes him to another, even if it requires a hundred people. Rabbi Yehuda says: A person may even give a barrel to another, and the other may pass it to another, and in that way even take it beyond the Shabbat limit, provided that no one person carries it more than four cubits. They said to him: This barrel may not go a greater distance than the feet of its owner, i.e., it may not be carried any farther than its owner may walk.

גמ׳ זוּג אֶחָד – אִין, טְפֵי – לָא. לֵימָא תְּנַן סְתָמָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

We learned in the mishna that a person who finds phylacteries in a field may carry them by pairs, indicating that one pair, yes, it may be carried; however, more than one pair, no, they may not be carried. The Gemara asks: Let us say that we learned the unattributed mishna not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, despite the principle that an unattributed mishna usually reflects Rabbi Meir’s opinion.

דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר – הָאָמַר: לוֹבֵשׁ כָּל מַה שֶּׁיָּכוֹל לִלְבּוֹשׁ, וְעוֹטֵף כָּל מַה שֶּׁיָּכוֹל לַעֲטוֹף. דִּתְנַן: וּלְשָׁם מוֹצִיא כָּל כְּלֵי תַשְׁמִישׁוֹ, וְלוֹבֵשׁ כָּל מַה שֶּׁיָּכוֹל לִלְבּוֹשׁ, וְעוֹטֵף כָּל מַה שֶּׁיָּכוֹל לַעֲטוֹף!

As, if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, didn’t Rabbi Meir say: In order to rescue items from a fire, one is permitted to remove items from his house by wearing them, and he dons all the clothes that he can wear, and wraps himself in all items in which he can wrap himself. As we learned in a mishna: And one removes all the utensils to the courtyard adjacent to the fire, and dons all the garments that he can wear, and wraps himself in all the items in which he can wrap himself in order to rescue his property.

וְהַהִיא סְתָמָא, מִמַּאי דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלָהּ: לוֹבֵשׁ וּמוֹצִיא, וּפוֹשֵׁט וְלוֹבֵשׁ וּמוֹצִיא וּפוֹשֵׁט, אֲפִילּוּ כָּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

The Gemara asks: And from where do we know that this unattributed mishna with regard to Shabbat is a reflection of the opinion of Rabbi Meir? As it teaches with regard to that mishna: If there are many garments there, one dons a garment, and takes it out to a safe place, and removes it there, and returns to the fire, and dons another garment, and takes it out and removes it. And he may do so even all day long; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Apparently, according to Rabbi Meir, one may don only one garment at a time.

אָמַר רָבָא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר. הָתָם – דֶּרֶךְ מַלְבּוּשׁוֹ – כַּחוֹל שַׁוְויֵהּ רַבָּנַן, וְהָכָא דֶּרֶךְ מַלְבּוּשׁוֹ – כַּחוֹל שָׁווּיָהּ רַבָּנַן.

In answer to the question, Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, there is a distinction between the cases. There, if he dons the clothes in the manner that he typically wears them, the Sages rendered the legal status of wearing garments on Shabbat like the status of wearing garments during the week and permitted him to remove clothes from his house by wearing them in that manner. And here, too, if he dons phylacteries in the manner that he typically dons them, the Sages rendered the legal status of donning phylacteries on Shabbat like the status of donning phylacteries during the week.

הָתָם דְּבַחוֹל כַּמָּה דְּבָעֵי לָבֵישׁ – לְעִנְיַן הַצָּלָה נַמִי שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן. הָכָא דְּבַחוֹל נַמִי, זוּג אֶחָד – אִין, טְפֵי – לָא, לְעִנְיַן הַצָּלָה נַמִי: זוּג אֶחָד – אִין, טְפֵי לָא.

Consequently, there, where during the week he may wear as many clothes as he wishes, with regard to rescue from a fire the Sages likewise permitted him to wear as many clothes as he wishes. However, here, in the case of phylacteries, even during the week, donning one pair, yes, one may do so, but donning more than one pair, no, he may not do so. Therefore, with regard to rescue as well, the Sages said: Donning one pair, yes, one may do so; however, donning more than one pair, no, he may not.

״רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם״. מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר שַׁבָּת זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא – זוּג אֶחָד – אִין, טְפֵי – לָא.

We learned in the mishna that Rabban Gamliel says: He brings the phylacteries in two pairs by two pairs. The Gemara asks: What does he hold? What is the rationale for this halakha ? If he holds that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries, and one is permitted or even obligated to don phylacteries on Shabbat, then the ruling should be: Donning one pair, yes, this is permitted; donning more, no, it is prohibited. It should be prohibited to wear more than one pair as there is room to don only one set of phylacteries on one’s head.

וְאִי קָסָבַר שַׁבָּת לָאו זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא, וּמִשּׁוּם הַצָּלָה דֶּרֶךְ מַלְבּוּשׁ שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן – אֲפִילּוּ טְפֵי נַמִי!

And if he holds that Shabbat is not a time for phylacteries, and it was only due to the fact that rescue was permitted only in the manner that one typically wears clothing that the Sages permitted him to don phylacteries, he should likewise be permitted to don even more than two pairs. He should be permitted to don as many pairs of phylacteries as possible, not only two.

לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר: שַׁבָּת לָאו זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא, וְכִי שָׁרוּ רַבָּנַן לְעִנְיַן הַצָּלָה – דֶּרֶךְ מַלְבּוּשׁ בִּמְקוֹם תְּפִילִּין.

The Gemara answers: Actually, he holds that Shabbat is not a time for phylacteries, and when the Sages permitted one to don phylacteries for the purpose of rescue, it was only by donning them in the manner that one typically wears clothing, i.e., in the appropriate place for phylacteries. He may not don them anywhere else on his body, as in that case he is considered to be carrying, not wearing them.

אִי הָכִי, זוּג אֶחָד נַמִי – אִין, טְפֵי – לָא! אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: מָקוֹם יֵשׁ בָּרֹאשׁ לְהַנִּיחַ בּוֹ שְׁתֵּי תְפִילִּין.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, then one pair, yes, it should be permitted, but more, no, it should not be permitted, as the second pair is necessarily positioned out of place. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: There is room on one’s head to place two phylacteries. One can place two phylacteries on his head and don them both in the proper manner.

הָנִיחָא דְּרֹאשׁ, דְּיַד מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

The Gemara asks: It works out well with regard to donning two phylacteries of the head, as there is room; however, with regard to the phylacteries of the arm, what is there to say? How can one wear two phylacteries on his arm simultaneously?

כִּדְרַב הוּנָא; דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם בָּא מִן הַשָּׂדֶה וַחֲבִילָתוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, וּמְסַלְּקָן מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְקוֹשְׁרָן בִּזְרוֹעוֹ.

The Gemara answers that even when one dons two phylacteries on his arm, he is regarded as donning them in the typical manner, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna said: Sometimes a person comes from the field with his bundle on his head, and in order not to crush the phylacteries, he removes them from his head and binds them on his arm. This indicates that there is room for additional phylacteries on his arm.

אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהַג בָּהֶן דֶּרֶךְ בִּזָּיוֹן, רָאוּי מִי אָמַר?

The Gemara rejects this: Say that Rav Huna said that one may remove the phylacteries from his head and tie them on his arm so that he will not come to treat them in a degrading manner by placing a bundle on top of them. However, did he say that the spot on his arm is fit for two phylacteries? Can proof be cited from here that one may don additional phylacteries on his arm ab initio ?

אֶלָּא כִּדְאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: מָקוֹם יֵשׁ בָּרֹאשׁ שֶׁרָאוּי לְהַנִּיחַ בּוֹ שְׁתֵּי תְפִילִּין. הָכָא נַמִי: מָקוֹם יֵשׁ בַּיָּד שֶׁרָאוּי לְהַנִּיחַ בּוֹ שְׁתֵּי תְפִילִּין.

Rather, it is in accordance with that which Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: There is room on one’s head to place two phylacteries. Here, too, there is room on the arm to place two phylacteries.

תָּנָא דְּבֵי מְנַשֶּׁה: ״עַל יָדֶךָ״ – זוֹ קִיבּוֹרֶת, ״בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ״ – זוֹ קָדְקֹד. הֵיכָא? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מָקוֹם שֶׁמּוֹחוֹ שֶׁל תִּינוֹק רוֹפֵס.

The Gemara comments: The school of Menashe taught the following. The verse states: “And you shall bind them for a sign on your arm, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8). “On your arm,” this is the biceps muscle of the arm; “between your eyes,” this is the crown of the head. The Gemara asks: Where exactly on the crown of the head? The school of Rabbi Yannai say: Phylacteries are placed on the spot where a baby’s head is soft after birth.

לֵימָא בִּדְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק קָמִיפַּלְגִי; דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק, וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק!

The Gemara asks: Let us say that the tanna’im of the mishna disagree about the principle of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak, such that the first tanna is not of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak that there is room on one’s head for two phylacteries, while Rabban Gamliel is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak, and therefore one is permitted to bring in two pairs of phylacteries at a time.

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. וְהָכָא בְּ״שַׁבָּת זְמַן תְּפִילִּין״ קָמִיפַּלְגִי. דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: שַׁבָּת זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא,

The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone is of the opinion of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak, and here they disagree with regard to whether or not Shabbat is a time for phylacteries. The first tanna holds that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries. Although one may don one pair of phylacteries, he may not add to the mitzva by donning an extra pair. If he does so, it is tantamount to carrying a prohibited burden.

וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: שַׁבָּת לָאו זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא.

And Rabban Gamliel holds that Shabbat is not a time for phylacteries. Consequently, one may don more than one pair, as the day itself is not at all suitable for donning phylacteries. When he dons the second pair, he is not adding to the mitzva. With regard to rescuing them, the phylacteries have the legal status of an ornament that he is permitted to don, provided that he dons no more than two pairs.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – שַׁבָּת זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא. וְהָכָא בְּ״מִצְוֹת צְרִיכוֹת כַּוָּונָה״ קָמִיפַּלְגִי. תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: לָצֵאת בָּעֵי כַּוָּונָה,

And if you wish, say instead that the dispute should be understood as follows. Everyone agrees that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries, and here they disagree with regard to whether or not fulfillment of mitzvot requires intent. The first tanna holds: To fulfill a mitzva one needs intent. Therefore, if one dons phylacteries without intent to fulfill the mitzva, no mitzva is performed, and he is merely carrying a burden. However, if he has intent to fulfill the mitzva, he may don no more than one pair. If he does so, he violates the prohibition against adding to mitzvot.

וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: לָא בָּעֵי כַּוָּונָה.

And Rabban Gamliel holds: In order to fulfill a mitzva, one does not need intent. Therefore, if one dons two pairs of phylacteries he fulfills his obligation with one of them, but does not violate the prohibition against adding to mitzvot with the other. In order to do so, he would require specific intent to fulfill a second mitzva with the additional pair.