Berakhot 25a — the Talmud in English

But for prayer,

it is forbidden to stand when he is wearing nothing except a belt, because he must present himself as one who stands in awe before the King, and he does not appear so

until

he puts on a garment

that covers his heart.

And

further

Rav Huna said:

if

he forgot and entered the lavatory wearing phylacteries, he places his hand over them until he finishes.

The Gemara assumed that his intention was to say that he should finish relieving himself. Therefore it wondered:

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

For he must interrupt and leave to remove his phylacteries immediately.

The Gemara answers:

Rather, as Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: “Until he finishes

doing

the first stream

of the large [bowel movement], which he had already begun.” The Gemara still asks:

“And should he not stop immediately and stand?”

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

in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: A large-bowel stream

that

returns

into a person’s body when he interrupts in the middle of relieving himself

causes a person to contract hydrokon,

an intestinal illness that causes his abdomen to swell. Whereas

a stream

of urine

that returns

to a person’s body

causes the person

to contract

the illness

yarkon.

It was stated: Excrement on his flesh

or

if he stood behind a partition and his

hand was resting

in a lavatory: 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?

For it is written [A0100]](Psalms 150:6)

[Psalms 150:6]

“Let every soul praise the Lord,”

and its meaning is that praise applies only to the limbs with 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?

For it is written [A0131]](there 35:10)

[there, Psalms 35:10]

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

Its meaning is that the praise is to be performed with all the limbs, and therefore all of them require cleanliness.

It was stated: Odor that has a source,

whose source is excrement ,

Rav Huna said: He distances himself four cubits

from the place of the excrement

and recites the Shema,

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

and recites the Shema.

It was taught in accordance with Rav Hisda: A person may not recite the Shema neither opposite human excrement

even when it has no odor,

nor opposite chicken excrement, nor opposite

[excrement of] a refuse heap whose odor is bad.

And if it was

the excrement in

a place ten handbreadths high,

or ten handbreadths low, he sits beside it

and recites the Shema.

But if not,

he distances himself as far as his eyes can see.

Likewise

the law

with regard to

prayer

is,

that if the excrement is in the same domain as him, he distances himself as far as his eyes can see; and if it is in another domain, he sits beside it and prays.

The beraita concludes:

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

This proves in accordance with Rav Hisda, that he must distance himself four cubits from the place where the odor ends.

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

which prohibited reciting opposite all excrement of dogs and pigs, even when hides had not been placed in them for processing and 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 excrement,

nor opposite pig excrement, nor opposite dog excrement when hides have been placed inside it;

but if hides have 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 a foul odor that has no physical source?”

What

is its law? Is it permitted to recite words of sanctity in its presence, or not?

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

mats spread out in the study hall,

for some sleep on them,

some of the students sleep on them,

while others study,

the other students study in the study hall, even though a sleeping person normally passes gas while asleep. This proves that a foul odor with no physical source does not prohibit reciting words of sanctity.

This applies

that a foul odor with no physical source does not prohibit

when studying Torah,

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

But not when reciting the Shema.

A person who wishes to recite it can leave and recite it outside.

And even regarding words of Torah, this statement was made

that it is permitted to study where there is an odor with no physical source

only

when it is the passing of gas

belonging to another person. But

when the odor comes from passing gas

belonging to oneself, it is not permitted;

rather, he must wait until the wind dissipates.

It was stated: With excrement that is passing by,

when a receptacle of excrement is carried past 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.

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

[Negaim 13:7] concerning a person afflicted with leprosy, who causes impurity in the place where he is fixed:

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

the pure person becomes

impure,

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

“the pure person stands under 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 he stopped,

the impure person makes the pure person

impure. And so

is the law

with regard to a stone afflicted with leprosy,

which causes impurity only when the person carrying it stops in 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 walking person has the status of something moving, we can infer that when excrement is carried past him, it likewise has the status of something moving and does not prohibit its place.

And Rava could say to you: There,

in the case of the person afflicted with leprosy, one who is walking does not cause impurity, because

the matter depends on being fixed in place,

as it says,

“as it is written”

[Leviticus 13:46]:

“He shall sit in isolation; outside the camp shall be his dwelling.”

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

here,

regarding the prohibition of excrement,

“your camp shall be holy”

the Merciful One said

[Deuteronomy 23:15], and this refers to the place where a person who is speaking words of sanctity is located.

And

once excrement enters his place,

there is no

“holy place.”

Rav Pappa said: A pig’s snout

has the status of excrement passing by,

and it is prohibited to recite the recitation of the Shema in front of it.

The Gemara asks:

Is this not obvious?

A pig’s snout is considered like excrement passing by, since there is always excrement in its mouth.

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary

to teach that it is prohibited to recite in front of it,

even though it has just come up from the river,

even when the pig has emerged from bathing in a river, the washing does not help it, because it is like a receptacle of excrement, which is designated to receive excrement.

Rav Yehuda said: If there is uncertainty

whether what was found in his place is

excrement, it is prohibited.

But

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

There are those who state:

This is what

Rav Yehuda said: If there is uncertainty

whether there is

excrement in the house, it is permitted,

because people do not ordinarily leave excrement in a house. But when the uncertainty is whether there is excrement

in a refuse heap

located nearby,

it is prohibited,

because people ordinarily throw excrement into it. Whereas

if there is uncertainty whether it is urine, even in a refuse heap it is permitted.

The Gemara proves from this that Rav Yehuda

agreed with the position of Rav Hamnuna.

For Rav Hamnuna said: The Torah did not prohibit

speaking words of sanctity in the presence of urine lying on the ground

except in the presence of a stream

of urine

alone.

And

the reason for this is

as in the teaching of Rabbi Yonatan:

Rabbi Yonatan raised a contradiction:

he found an apparent contradiction between the verses.

It is written

[Deuteronomy 23:13], concerning the sanctity of the army camp:

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

This implies that one does not have to cover his excrement, and even when it is exposed, the place remains “holy.”

And

on the other hand,

it is written

[there, verse 14]:

“You shall have a peg

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

and cover your excrement.”

Thus, one is required to cover it.

He explained:

How can these verses be reconciled?

Here,

the verse that requires covering is speaking

of adults.

Whereas

here,

the verse that does not require covering

speaks of children,

excrement,

of minors.

Thus,

against

minors the Torah did not prohibit

speaking a matter of sanctity,

but only against a pillar. Now,

if they fell to the ground,

according to Torah law

it is permitted,

and only

the Sages decreed concerning them. And when the Sages decreed concerning them—

only

when their presence is certain, but concerning their doubt they did not decree.

And when their presence is certain, how long

must they remain on the ground, and will it be prohibited to speak facing them?—

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: As long as they cause wetness

[and at the end of the page a dispute is brought concerning the measure of “causing wetness”].

And so said Rabbah bar bar Hannah in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: As long as they cause wetness.

And so said Ulla: As long as they cause wetness.

Ganeiva in the name of Rav said: As long as their trace is discernible

on the ground.

Rav Yosef said: May the Master forgive him

—may his Master

forgive Ganeiva!

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

now,

concerning

excrement Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: “Once its surface has formed a crust

[that its outer surface has hardened],

it is permitted”; is this not obvious concerning urine?!

And why would it be necessary to wait until it had been completely absorbed into the ground?

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

—that Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that if its surface has formed a crust it is permitted—and thereby reject Ganeiva’s testimony in the name of Rav? Why do you not

rely on this statement that Rabbah bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: “Excrement, even

if dry

like pottery, is prohibited”?

And since he was stringent concerning excrement, it is possible that urine too is prohibited until it is absorbed.

And

the Gemara clarifies:

What are the circumstances of “excrement like pottery”?—

Rabbah bar bar Hannah said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: As long as, when it is thrown, it does not crumble.

And some say:

even if, when it is thrown, it crumbles, it is still moist

as long as, when it is rolled, it does not crumble.

Ravina said: I was standing before Rav Yehuda of Difti; he saw excrement and said to me: Examine whether its surface has formed a crust or not.

Some say: This is what he said to him: Examine whether it is cracked into cracks

[if it has cracks in it], and that is a sign that it has become completely dry.

The Gemara discusses:

What has been decided about it?

What is the conclusion concerning the matter above, regarding the measure for the prohibition of urine that fell on the ground?

It was stated: Excrement

dry

like pottery. Ameimar said: It is prohibited; and Mar Zutra said: It is permitted.

Rava said: The halakha is: Excrement like pottery is prohibited. And urine

its prohibition is

as long as it causes wetness.

He raised an objection

from what we learned in a beraita:

Urine, as long as it causes wetness, is prohibited; if it was absorbed or dried, it is permitted.

And the Gemara proves:

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

it is permitted only in a manner

that its trace is not discernible, so too when it was absorbed

it is permitted only in a manner

that its trace is not discernible. Now, if its trace is discernible, it is prohibited, even though it does not cause wetness.

And this is not in accordance with Rava.

The Gemara answers:

And according to your reasoning, say the first clause: “As long as it causes wetness, it is prohibited,”

and we should infer:

Now, if its trace is discernible, it is permitted.

Rather, nothing can be inferred from this.

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

The Gemara discusses:

Let us say,

whether we should say that the explanation of the measure established by Rava, “as long as it causes wetness,” depends on a dispute

between tannaim:

For it was taught:

A vessel from which urine was poured out,

it is prohibited to recite the Shema facing it, and urine itself that was poured out, if

it was absorbed, it is permitted

to recite facing it, but if

it was not absorbed, it is prohibited.

Rabbi Yosei says:

the prohibition against reciting facing it applies only

as long as it causes wetness.

And the Gemara discusses:

What do “was absorbed” and “was not absorbed,” which the first tanna says, mean?—

If you say “was absorbed”

this means

that it does not cause wetness,

and

“was not absorbed”

this means

that it causes wetness, and

concerning this

Rabbi Yosei came to say, “It is prohibited only as long as it causes wetness; now, if its trace is discernible, it is permitted,”

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

are

the words of

the first tanna,

since both hold that the prohibition applies only when it causes wetness.

Rather,

necessarily the intention of the first tanna is to permit only when

“it was absorbed”

because

its trace is not discernible, and

the prohibition when

“it was not absorbed”

is because

its trace is discernible.

And Rabbi Yosei came

to dispute and

to say

that only

as long as it causes wetness is it prohibited. Now, if its trace is discernible,

it is permitted.

And it follows that they dispute the matter discussed above: what is the measure of the prohibition of urine?

The Gemara rejects this:

No! Everyone

holds that only

as long as it causes wetness is it prohibited. Now, if its trace is discernible, it is permitted.