Berakhot 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

But with regard to prayer,

it is forbidden to stand when he is wearing nothing but a belt, because he must present himself as one standing in awe before the King, and he does not appear that way

until

he puts on a garment

that covers his heart.

And

further

Rav Huna said:

if

he forgot and entered a bathroom wearing phylacteries, he places his hand over them until he finishes.

The Gemara assumed that his intention was to say that he should finish attending to his needs. Therefore it asks:

“Until he finishes”—could this enter your mind!?

For he must stop and leave immediately in order to remove his phylacteries.

The Gemara answers:

Rather, as Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: “Until he finishes”

performing

the first discharge

of feces, which he had already begun. The Gemara nevertheless asks:

“Why must he not stop immediately and stand up?”

The Gemara answers: They permitted him to finish because of the danger, as they said

in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A discharge

of feces

that returns

into a person’s body when he interrupts in the middle of attending to his needs

causes the person to develop hydroken,

an intestinal illness that causes his abdomen to swell. Whereas

a stream

of urine

that returns

into a person’s body

causes the person

to develop

an illness called

jaundice.

It was stated: If there is feces on his flesh

or

if he was standing behind a partition and

his hand was resting

in a bathroom, Rav Huna said: It is permitted to recite the Shema. Rav Hisda said: It is forbidden to recite the Shema.

Rava said: What is the reason of Rav Huna

who permitted him to recite the Shema?

As it is written [Psalms 150:6]:

[Psalms 150:6]

“Let every soul praise the Lord,”

which means that praise applies only to the organs through which one breathes, such as the mouth and nose, and only they require cleanliness.

And Rav Hisda said: It is forbidden to recite the Shema.

What is the reason of Rav Hisda?

As it is written [Psalms 35:10]:

[there, Psalms 35:10]

“All my bones shall say: Lord, who is like You?”

This means that the praise must be performed with all the organs, and therefore all of them require cleanliness.

It was stated: Concerning foul odor that has a source,

whose source is feces,

Rav Huna said: He distances himself four cubits

from the place of the feces

and recites the Shema,

while Rav Hisda said: He distances himself four cubits from the place where the odor ceases,

and recites the Shema.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rav Hisda: A person may not recite the Shema opposite human feces

even when they have no odor,

nor opposite chicken feces, nor opposite

a refuse heap whose odor is foul.

And if it was

the feces in

a place ten handbreadths high,

or ten handbreadths lower, he sits beside it

and recites the Shema.

And if not,

he distances himself as far as his eyes can see.

The same

law applies

to

the matter of

prayer:

if the feces are in the same domain as he is, he distances himself as far as his eyes can see; if they are in another domain, he sits beside them and prays.

The beraita concludes:

“Foul odor that has a source: he distances himself four cubits from the place of the odor and recites the Shema.”

This proves the view of Rav Hisda, that he must distance himself four cubits from the place where the odor ceases.

Rava said: The halakha is not in accordance with this beraita

that prohibited reciting opposite all dog and pig feces, even when hides had not been placed in them for tanning, since they do not have such a strong odor

(in all these teachings).

Rather,

the halakha is

as in this beraita: A person may not recite the Shema opposite human feces,

nor opposite pig feces, nor opposite dog feces when hides have been placed inside them.

But if hides had not been placed in them, it is permitted to recite opposite them, since in themselves they do not have such a strong odor.

They asked Rav Sheshet: “What is the status of foul odor that has no substance?”

What

is its law? Is it permitted to recite a sacred matter in its vicinity, or not?

He said to them: Look at these mats in the study hall,

mats spread out in the study hall,

for some sleep,

as some of the students sleep on them,

while others study,

the other students study in the study hall, even though one who is sleeping is accustomed to pass gas while asleep. This proves that foul odor that has no substance does not prohibit.

And this applies

that foul odor without substance does not prohibit

with regard to words of Torah,

because it is impossible to interrupt all those studying in the study hall on account of those who are sleeping.

But with regard to the recitation of the Shema, no.

For one who wishes to recite it can go outside and recite it.

And with regard to words of Torah as well, we said this

that it is permitted to study in a place with foul odor that has no substance

only

in the case of

his fellow’s

flatulence.

But when the odor is from

his own flatulence, no; rather, he must wait until the wind dissipates.

It was stated:

With regard to excrement being carried past, when a chamber pot of excrement is carried before him —

Abaye said: It is permitted to recite

the recitation of the Shema. Rava said: It is prohibited to recite the recitation of the Shema.

Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by Rabbeinu Yonah held that it is prohibited by

Abaye said: From where do I say this? For we learned:

[Negaim 13:7], with regard to a person afflicted with tzara'at, who renders impure in his fixed location:

“The impure person stands beneath the tree and the pure person passes by,”

the pure person becomes

impure,

because the one who is standing is considered fixed in his place. But if

“the pure person stands beneath the tree and the impure person passes by,”

the pure person remains

pure,

because one who is walking is not considered fixed.

And

only

if the impure person stopped

does the pure person become

impure. And so

the same

applies to a stone afflicted with tzara'at,

which renders impure only if the person carrying it stands in his place.

Since we find in this Mishna that one who is walking is not considered fixed in his place, and a stone in the hand of a person who is walking has the status of something moving, we can infer from this that if excrement is carried past him, its status is that of something moving, and it does not prohibit its place.

And Rava would say to you: There,

with regard to the person afflicted with tzara'at, one who is walking does not render impure, because

the matter depends on being fixed,

as

it is written [Leviticus 13:46]:

[Leviticus 13:46]:

“He shall dwell alone; outside the camp shall be his dwelling.”

This implies that only his “dwelling” is impure. But

here,

with regard to the prohibition of excrement,

“And your camp shall be holy”

the Merciful One said

[Deuteronomy 23:15], and this refers to the place of the person speaking words of sanctity.

And

once excrement has entered his place,

there is not

a “holy place.”

Rav Pappa said: A pig’s snout

is considered like excrement being carried past,

and it is forbidden to recite the recitation of the Shema before it.

The Gemara asks:

It is obvious

that a pig’s snout is considered like excrement being carried past, since there is always excrement in its mouth.

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary

to state that it is forbidden to recite before it,

even though it has come up from the river,

even when the pig has emerged from bathing in the river, the washing is not effective for it, because it is like a chamber pot designated to receive excrement.

Rav Yehuda said: If there is uncertainty

whether what was found in his place is

excrement, it is forbidden.

But

if there is uncertainty whether it is urine, it is permitted.

And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written And on the other hand it is written

There are those who say:

This is what

Rav Yehuda said: If there is uncertainty

whether there is

excrement in the house, it is permitted,

because it is not customary to leave excrement in a house, but when the uncertainty is whether there is excrement

in a refuse heap

that is near him,

it is forbidden,

because it is customary to throw excrement into it. Whereas

uncertainty regarding urine, even in a refuse heap, is also permitted.

The Gemara proves from this that Rav Yehuda

held in accordance with the position of Rav Hamnuna.

For Rav Hamnuna said: The Torah did not prohibit

speaking sacred words opposite urine lying on the ground

except opposite a stream

of urine

alone.

Whereas Whereas Whereas Whereas Whereas Whereas Whereas Whereas Whereas Whereas Whereas Whereas Whereas Whereas Whereas

And

the reason for this

is in accordance with Rabbi Yonatan:

Rabbi Yonatan raised a contradiction:

he posed an apparent contradiction between the verses:

It is written [Deuteronomy 23:13],

with regard to the sanctity of the military camp,

“And you shall have a place outside the camp, and you shall go out there outside.”

This implies that one need not cover his excrement, and even though it is exposed, the place remains “holy.”

And

on the other hand,

it is written [ibid., 14]:

[there, verse 14]:

“And you shall have a peg

on your weapon, and it shall be when you sit outside, and you shall dig with it, and you shall return

and cover your excrement.”

Thus, one is obligated to cover it.

He explained:

How is this resolved?

Here,

the verse that requires covering

speaks of major

excrement.

Whereas here,

the verse that does not require covering

speaks of minor

excrement,

that of children.

Apparently,

with regard to

minors, the Torah did not prohibit

speaking words of sanctity,

but only opposite a pillar. Indeed,

if they fall to the ground,

by Torah law it is

permitted,

and only

the Sages issued a decree concerning them. And when the Sages issued a decree concerning them—

only

in a case of certainty, but they did not issue a decree in a case of uncertainty.

And in a case of certainty, how long

must they remain on the ground for it to be prohibited to speak words of sanctity opposite them?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: As long as they moisten [the ground]

[and at the end of the column, a dispute is cited concerning the measure of “moisten.”]

And Rabba bar bar Hanna said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan likewise: As long as they moisten.

And Ulla likewise said: As long as they moisten.

Geneiva said in the name of Rav: As long as their mark remains visible

on the ground.

Rav Yosef said: May the Master forgive him

may his Master

forgive Geneiva!

For he certainly testified falsely in the name of Rav. For

now,

with regard to

feces, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: “Once its surface has crusted over

[that is, its outer layer has hardened],

it is permitted.” Is this not all the more so the case with urine?

Why, then, should one have to wait until it has been completely absorbed into the ground?

Abaye said to him: What have you seen that made you rely on this

that Rav Yehuda permitted in the name of Rav when its surface has crusted over, and thereby reject Geneiva’s testimony in the name of Rav? Why not

rely on that which Rabba bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: “Feces, even

when dry

like earthenware, are prohibited”?

And since he was stringent with regard to feces, it is possible that urine is likewise prohibited until it has been absorbed.

And

the Gemara inquires:

What are the circumstances of “feces like earthenware”?

Rabba bar bar Hanna said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: As long as one can throw it and it does not crumble.

Some say:

Even if it crumbles when thrown, it is still moist

as long as one can roll it and it does not crumble.

Ravina said: I was standing before Rav Yehuda of Difti. He saw feces and said to me: Examine whether its surface has crusted over or not.

Some say: This is what he said to him: Examine whether it has developed cracks

[that is, whether there are fissures in it], which is a sign that it has become completely dry.

The Gemara discusses:

What conclusion was reached?

What is the conclusion regarding the matter discussed above, concerning the measure that determines the prohibition of urine that has fallen onto the ground?

It was stated: Feces

dry

like earthenware. Ameimar said they are prohibited, and Mar Zutra said they are permitted.

Rava said: The halakha is that feces like earthenware are prohibited. And urine

is prohibited

as long as it moistens.

An objection was raised

from what we learned in a beraita:

Urine is prohibited as long as it moistens; once it has been absorbed or has dried, it is permitted.

And the Gemara proves:

Is it not that “absorbed” is analogous to “dried”? Just as “dried”

is permitted only in a case

where no mark remains, so too “absorbed”

is permitted only in a case

where no mark remains? Thus, if its mark remains, it is prohibited, even though it does not moisten.

And this is unlike Rava.

The Gemara answers:

And according to your reasoning, say the first clause: “It is prohibited as long as it moistens,”

and we should infer:

But if its mark remains visible, it is permitted.

Rather, no inference can be drawn from this.

And there is neither a difficulty nor a proof from here against Rava.

The Gemara discusses:

Shall we say

that the explanation of the measure established by Rava, “as long as it moistens,” depends on a dispute

between tannaitic authorities:

As it was taught in a beraita:

A vessel from which urine was spilled

is one opposite which it is prohibited to recite the Shema, while the urine itself that was spilled—if

it has been absorbed, it is permitted

to recite opposite it, but if

it has not been absorbed, it is prohibited.

Rabbi Yosei says:

The prohibition against reciting opposite it applies only

as long as it moistens.

And the Gemara discusses:

What do “absorbed” and “not absorbed,” as stated by the first tanna, mean?

If we say that “absorbed”

means

that it does not moisten,

and

“not absorbed”

means

that it moistens, and

with regard to this

Rabbi Yosei came to say, “It is prohibited only as long as it moistens; but if its mark remains visible, it is permitted,”

then there is no dispute here, because Rabbi Yosei’s words

are

the words of

the first tanna,

as both maintain that it is prohibited only while it moistens.

Rather,

the first tanna must have intended to permit only in the case of

“absorbed,”

because

no mark remains visible,

and the prohibition in the case of

“not absorbed”

is because

its mark remains visible.

And Rabbi Yosei came

to disagree and

say

that only

as long as it moistens is it prohibited. But if its mark remains visible,

it is permitted.

It follows that they disagree concerning the matter discussed above: What is the measure of the prohibition of urine?

The Gemara rejects this:

No! Everyone

agrees that only

as long as it moistens is it prohibited. But if its mark remains visible, it is permitted.