Berakhot 25b — the Talmud in English

And here, the difference between them is with regard to something wet enough to make another thing wet.

The first tanna holds that it is forbidden to recite [the Shema] before urine only if the urine is in a state of being wet enough to make another thing wet, whereas Rabbi Yosei is stringent and holds that even when it has been absorbed more and is merely wet, but is not sufficient to make another thing wet, it is forbidden.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he descended to immerse, if he can ascend

and cover himself and recite before the sun shines.

The Gemara discusses:

Shall we say,

is it to be said that

the tanna,

who taught here,

the anonymous

[statement] of the Mishna,

is according to Rabbi Eliezer, who said

that the time for reciting the Shema is only

until the sun shines?

The Gemara rejects:

You may even say

that the halakha is

according to Rabbi Yehoshua,

that the time for reciting the Shema continues until the third hour of the day,

and perhaps

the advice to cover oneself in the water and recite was said for one who wishes to recite it

like the vatikin.

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The vatikin would finish it with the sunrise.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if not, he should cover himself in the water and recite it.

The Gemara asks: The water interrupts only between his nakedness and his eyes, so how will he recite the Shema,

for

it is still the case that

his heart sees his nakedness,

and he is included in the prohibition of “there shall not be seen among you a matter of nakedness.” The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Elazar said—and some say Rabbi Aḥa bar Abba bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbeinu:

The permission to interrupt

was taught with regard to turbid water,

because

it resembles compact earth,

and it is effective

so that his heart will not see

his

nakedness.

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to clear water, he should sit in it up to his neck and recite the Shema; and some say that he should make it murky with his foot.

The Sages taught: With clear water, he sits in it up to his neck and recites, and some say that he makes it turbid with his foot.

The Gemara asks:

But the first tanna

who said, “He sits in it up to his neck and recites”—the water interrupts only between his nakedness and his eyes, so how will he recite the Shema,

for

it is still the case that

his heart sees his nakedness?

The Gemara answers:

He holds that when his heart sees his nakedness, it is permitted.

And

the Gemara still asks:

But his heel sees his nakedness.

The Gemara answers:

He holds that when his heel sees his nakedness, it is permitted.

It was stated: When his heel sees his nakedness, it is permitted.

His heel

touches

the nakedness—

Abaye said: It is forbidden; Rava said: It is permitted.

Rav Zevid taught this statement in this manner,

as it was brought above.

Whereas

Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rav Ika, taught it in this manner:

His heel

touches

the nakedness—

everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

But if his heel merely

sees

the nakedness—

Abaye said: It is forbidden; Rava said: It is permitted.

And Rava’s reason is that

the Torah was not given to ministering angels.

And the halakha is: Touching is forbidden; seeing is permitted.

Rava said: Feces in a glass vessel

a glass vessel

—it is permitted to recite the Shema opposite it;

nakedness in a glass vessel—it is forbidden to recite the Shema opposite it.

And he explained the reasons for the laws:

Feces in a glass vessel—it is permitted to recite the Shema opposite it,

because

with regard to feces

it is said, “And you shall cover your excrement,” and therefore

the matter depends upon covering,

and here it is covered.

Whereas

nakedness in a glass vessel—it is forbidden to recite the Shema opposite it,

because

“There shall not be seen among you a matter of nakedness,” the Merciful One said, and here it is visible.

Abaye said:

If in his place there is

feces

in the measure of

any amount,

and he wishes to recite the Shema,

he nullifies it with spittle.

Rava said: And

it must be covered

with thick spittle.

Rava said: If there is feces in a hole, he places his sandal over it

and recites the Shema.

Mar, the son of Ravina, raised a question:

If the

excrement

was stuck to his sandal, what is the law?

The matter shall stand unresolved.

Rav Yehuda said: It is forbidden to recite

the Shema opposite an unclothed gentile.

The Gemara asks:

Why specifically

did he state this law specifically with regard to an

unclothed gentile,

when

even an Israelite

who is unclothed

also

is forbidden to recite opposite him?

The Gemara explains: An

unclothed Israelite

is

obvious to him

to Rav Yehuda

that it is forbidden

to recite opposite him;

rather, an unclothed gentile

was

necessary for him to teach us that it is forbidden to recite opposite him, because

to teach that it is forbidden to recite facing him, because

one might have said: Since it is written concerning them [concerning the gentiles, in Ezekiel 23:20],

[with regard to the nations, in Ezekiel 23:20],

“whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys,” let us say

that with regard to reciting a sacred utterance, his nakedness is considered

like

the nakedness of

a mere donkey,

and it is permitted to recite opposite the nakedness of an animal —

it teaches us that they too are called “nakedness” with regard to reciting a sacred utterance opposite their nakedness. And there is a source for this,

with regard to uttering sacred words while facing their nakedness, and there is a source for this,

as it is written [concerning the sons of Noah, in Genesis 9:23]:

[concerning the descendants of Noah, in Genesis 9:23]:

“And they did not see their father’s nakedness.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“And he may not cover himself either in foul waters

[that are putrid]

or in soaking water in which flax is soaked, because of their stench,

because of their foul odor,

until he pours water into them.”

The Gemara objects: The water of the immersion pool is abundant,

and how much water will he pour and continue pouring

in order to nullify it?

The Gemara explains:

Rather, this is what he said: “He may not cover himself in foul waters at all, nor in soaking water,

and likewise he may not recite before

urine until he pours water into it, and

then

he may recite,

because since the urine is gathered in a vessel and is limited [relative to an immersion pool], it can be nullified by placing water into it.

The Sages taught: When urine is before him,

When urine is before him,

how much water should he pour into it?—

Any amount.

Rabbi Zakkai says—

a revi’it.

Rav Naḥman said: The dispute

between Rabbi Zakkai and the first tanna applies when the urine preceded the water in the vessel, and he gave the water to nullify it

at the end, but

if he gave the water

at the beginning, and only afterward placed urine into it, according to everyone water

any amount of water is sufficient,

of any amount suffices,

because since the water preceded it, each portion of urine that falls into it is nullified, and joins in nullifying the portion that falls after it.

And

if

Rav Yosef had said the opposite:

the opposite:

The dispute

between Rabbi Zakkai and the first tanna applies when he gave the water

initially, and only afterward put urine into it;

but

if he gave the water only

at the end, everyone agrees that he must give

a quarter-log.

a revi’it.

The Gemara brings:

Rav Yosef said to his attendant,

when he wished to pray and needed to deal with urine:

“Bring me a revi’it of water,”

to put urine into it in order to nullify it; this is

in accordance with Rabbi Zakkai,

for according to the first tanna, when he puts the water in at the beginning, any amount suffices.

The Sages taught: A vessel for excrement and a vessel for urine,

it is forbidden to recite the Shema opposite them, even though they contain nothing,

because they are designated to receive excrement or urine.

And the urine itself,

when it was gathered in another vessel [and not in a vessel for urine] he may not recite opposite it

until he pours water into it.

And how much water should he pour into it? —

Any amount.

Rabbi Zakkai says—

a revi’it.

And a vessel for excrement, a vessel for urine, and urine forbid reciting,

whether

they were

before the bed,

with nothing separating them from him,

or

they were

behind the bed,

even though the bed separates them from him.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If they were

If they are

behind the bed—

he recites, because the separation permits it; but if they were

because the separation permits it. But if they are

before the bed—

he does not recite. But he distances

himself

four cubits

from the urine,

and then

then

he recites.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if they are in a

if they are in a

house

whose size is

one hundred cubits, distancing four cubits is not effective in it, because the entire house is considered four cubits. Therefore,

distancing oneself four cubits is ineffective, because the entire house is considered four cubits. Therefore,

he may not recite until he removes them, or places them under the bed, at which point it is permitted to recite even though they are within his four cubits, because they are considered covered by the bed.

in which case he may recite even though they are within his four cubits, because they are considered covered by the bed.

They raised a dilemma: What is he saying—

what is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s intention?

Is his intention that if they are placed

behind the bed, he recites immediately,

and if they are placed

before the bed, he distances four cubits and recites?

Or perhaps this is what he is saying: If they are placed

If they are placed

behind the bed, he distances four cubits and recites,

and if they are placed

before the bed, he does not recite at all.

Come and hear

in support of the first possibility:

for it was taught: “Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If they are placed

If they are placed

behind the bed, he recites immediately,

and if they are placed

before the bed, he distances four cubits

and recites;

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even if the urine is in a

if the urine is in a

house

whose size is

one hundred cubits—

he may not recite until he removes them or places them under the bed.”

The Gemara is astonished: Indeed,

our dilemma,

concerning Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel’s intention,

has been resolved. But apparently the two

baraitot contradict one another, for the positions of the Sages have been exchanged in them.

because the positions of the tannaitic opinions have been reversed in them.

The Gemara answers:

Reverse the positions in the

later

baraita.

The Gemara discusses:

What did you see that you reversed the positions in the

the opinions in

later baraita,

and why not say

reverse the positions in the

earlier baraita!?

the earlier beraita?

The Gemara explains:

Whom do you hear saying elsewhere

“the entire house is considered like four cubits”?—

It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and this accords with his words in the first baraita; therefore it is preferable to reverse the positions in the second one.

and this agrees with his statement in the first beraita. Therefore, it is preferable to reverse the opinions in the second one.

Rav Yosef said: I asked Rav Huna: A bed

whose height is

less than three handbreadths

above the ground,

it is obvious to me

that a vessel for excrement, a vessel for urine, or urine placed beneath it is considered hidden in the ground, since

the principle of lavud

to the ground

applies, and this covering permits reciting the Shema opposite them. But if there are

three, four, five, six, seven, eight

handbreadths between it and the ground, and it is not lavud,

nine

handbreadths, it is not considered attached to the ground.

what is the law: are the excrement and urine, or the vessel for excrement and the vessel for urine beneath it, considered hidden in the ground?

regarding whether the excrement and urine, or the vessel for excrement and urine vessel beneath it, are considered hidden in the ground?

He said to me,

Rav Huna:

I do not know.

And Rav Yosef adds: in a bed that is high

ten

handbreadths above the ground,

I certainly have no question

whether it is considered a covering, for because of the interruption of the height, it does not appear to be placed beneath it, and it is certainly not covered.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

You did well that you did not raise the question

concerning a bed ten handbreadths high from the ground, for

every

thing that is high

ten

handbreadths above the ground is considered

another domain,

and certainly does not cause the thing placed beneath it to be considered concealed in the ground.

Rava said: The halakha is,

if the height of the bed is

less than three

handbreadths above the ground—

it is considered like lavud,

and what is placed beneath it is considered concealed in the ground. But if beneath it there are

from three to ten

handbreadths,

this is what Rav Yosef asked Rav Huna, and he did not resolve it for him,

and it remains a doubt.

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

that it is forbidden to recite the recitation of the Shema in the entire house in which there is a chamber pot, a urinal, or urine.

And Bali likewise said in the name of Rav Yaakov, son of the daughter of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

And Rava said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

Rav Ahai arranged a match for his son

and betrothed his son

in the house of Rav Yitzhak bar Shmuel bar Marta; he brought him

Rav Ahai’s son

to the bridal chamber, but the matter did not succeed

[he was unable to have intercourse].

He went after him to investigate

to find out what was preventing him.

He saw a Torah scroll lying

in the place where they were engaging in intercourse.

He said to them

the members of Rav Yitzhak’s household:

If I had not come now, you would have endangered my son

who could have died as punishment for this sin.

For it was taught in a beraita: In a house in which there is a Torah scroll or tefillin, it is forbidden to engage in intercourse there until they remove them or place them

in one vessel inside another vessel.

Abaye said: They taught this

that covering with one vessel inside another is effective as a separation and permits intercourse in its place,

only when

one of the two vessels is

a vessel that is not their usual vessel

[that is not intended for placing the tefillin or the Torah scroll in it].

But with a vessel that is their usual vessel, even

if he placed them in

ten vessels,

and they are one inside the other,

it is considered like one vessel

and they do not form a separation .