Berakhot 25b (כה:) — the Talmud in English

And here, the dispute is concerning liquid that is wet enough to wet something else.

The First Tanna maintains that it is forbidden to recite Shema in front of urine only when the urine is wet enough to wet something else, whereas Rabbi Yosei is stringent and maintains that even when more of it has been absorbed and it is merely wet, but not enough to wet something else, it is forbidden.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one descended to immerse, if he can ascend

and cover himself and recite Shema before sunrise.

The Gemara discusses this:

Let us say:

Should we say that

the tanna

who taught here,

an anonymous

Mishna,

is Rabbi Eliezer, who said

that the time for reciting Shema is only

until sunrise?

The Gemara rejects this:

You may even say that the halakha is

halakha is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua,

who maintains that the time for reciting Shema extends until the third hour of the day;

and perhaps the advice to cover oneself with water and recite was stated for one who wishes to recite it

the advice to cover oneself with water and recite it was stated for one who wishes to recite it

like the vatikim.

As Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The vatikim would finish reciting it at sunrise.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if not, he should cover himself with water and recite.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: The water creates a separation only between his nakedness and his eyes; how can he recite Keriat Shema,

for

it is still the case that

his heart sees his nakedness,

and this is included in the prohibition, “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 said in the name of Rav:

The permission to create a separation

was stated with regard to turbid water,

because

it resembles solid earth,

and it serves

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 regard to clear water, he should sit in it up to his neck and recite; and some say that he should cloud it with his foot.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But the First Tanna,

who said, “He should sit in it up to his neck and recite”—the water creates a separation only between his nakedness and his eyes, so how can he recite Keriat Shema,

for

it is still the case that

his heart sees his nakedness?

The Gemara answers:

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

And

the Gemara still raises a difficulty:

But his heel sees his nakedness.

The Gemara answers:

He maintains 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 prohibited; Rava said: It is permitted.

Rav Zevid taught this passage in this manner,

as it was brought above.

Whereas

Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rav Ika, taught it as follows:

His heel

touches

the nakedness—

everyone agrees that it is prohibited.

But if his heel merely

sees

the nakedness—

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

Rava’s reasoning is that

the Torah was not given to ministering angels.

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

Rava said: In the case of feces in a glass vessel

a glass utensil,

it is permitted to recite Keriat Shema opposite it;

in the case of nakedness in a glass vessel, it is prohibited to recite Keriat Shema opposite it.

He explained the reasons for the laws:

In the case of feces in a glass vessel, it is permitted to recite Keriat Shema opposite it,

because

with regard to feces

the verse says, “And you shall cover your excrement,” and therefore

the matter depends on covering,

and it is covered.

Whereas

in the case of nakedness in a glass vessel, it is prohibited to recite Keriat Shema opposite it,

because

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

Abaye said: If there is

If there is

feces in his place, even in the measure of

the amount of

any amount,

and he wishes to recite Keriat Shema,

he may nullify it with spittle.

Rava said: And

it must be covered

with thick spittle.

Rava said: In the case of feces in a cavity, he places his sandal over it

and recites Keriat Shema.

Mar, son of Ravina, raised a dilemma:

If the

excrement

was stuck to his sandal, what is the law?

The dilemma remains unresolved.

Rav Yehuda said: It is forbidden to recite

the Shema facing a naked gentile.

The Gemara asks:

Why specifically

did he state this law specifically with regard to a

gentile,

when

even a Jew

who is naked

also

may not be faced while reciting?

The Gemara explains:

With regard to a

naked Jew, it was

obvious

to Rav Yehuda

that it is forbidden

to recite facing him.

Rather, a naked gentile

was

necessary for him

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

you might say: Since it is written concerning them [concerning the gentiles, Ezekiel 23:20]

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

“whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys,” say

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

as

the nakedness of

an ordinary donkey,

and it is permitted to recite facing the nakedness of an animal .

It teaches us that they too are called “nakedness”

with regard to reciting a sacred utterance facing their nakedness, and there is a source for this,

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

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

We learned in the Mishna:

The Mishna states:

And one may not cover himself neither in foul waters

[putrid waters]

nor in waters used for soaking flax,

because of their foul odor,

until he pours water into them.

The Gemara objects: The waters of the immersion pool are plentiful;

and how much water will he carry and pour

in order to nullify them?

The Gemara explains:

Rather, this is what he said: “One may not cover himself in foul waters or in waters used for soaking flax at all,

and likewise he may not recite in front of

urine until he pours water into it, and

then

he may recite,

because once the urine is collected in a vessel and is limited in quantity [relative to the immersion pool], it can be nullified by adding water to it.

The Sages taught: When urine is in front of him,

how much water must he pour into it?

Any amount.

[Even the slightest amount.]

Rabbi Zakkai says:

A revi’it.

Rav Naḥman said: The dispute

between Rabbi Zakkai and the first tanna applies when the urine was already in a vessel and he added the water to nullify it

at the end. But

if he added the water

at the beginning,

everyone agrees that water

of any amount suffices, because once the water preceded the urine, every portion of urine that falls into it is nullified, and joins in nullifying the portion that falls after it.

because since the water was there first, each portion of urine that falls into it is neutralized and joins in neutralizing the portion that falls afterward.

And

if

Rav Yosef had said the opposite:

the opposite:

The dispute

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

initially, and only afterward poured urine into it,

but

if he added the water only

at the end,

everyone agrees that he must add

a revi’it.

The Gemara relates:

Rav Yosef said to his attendant,

when he wished to pray and needed urine,

“Bring me a revi’it of water,”

to pour into the urine in order to nullify it,

in accordance with Rabbi Zakkai,

for according to the first tanna, when he adds water initially, any amount suffices.

The Sages taught: A graf shel re’i and a vessel for urine

are forbidden to recite the Shema facing them, even though they contain nothing,

because they are designated to receive excrement or urine.

As for the urine itself,

when it was collected in another vessel [and not in a vessel for urine] one may not recite facing it

until he pours water into it.

And how much water must he pour into it?

Any amount.

Rabbi Zakkai says:

A revi’it.

A graf, a vessel for urine, and urine are all grounds for prohibition against reciting,

whether

they are

in front of the bed,

with nothing separating them from him,

or whether

they are

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 interruption permits it. But if they were

in front of the bed,

he does not recite. But he distances himself

from them

four cubits

from the urine,

and

then

he recites.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even

if they are in a

house

whose dimensions are

one hundred cubits,

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 beneath 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 did he mean

—what is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s intention?

Does he mean that if they are placed

behind the bed, he recites immediately,

whereas if they are placed

in front of the bed, he distances himself four cubits and recites?

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

behind the bed,

he distances himself four cubits and recites,

whereas if they are placed

in front of the bed, he may not recite at all.

Come and hear

a proof supporting the first interpretation:

as it was taught in a beraita: “Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

If they are placed

behind the bed, he recites immediately,

and if they are placed

in front of the bed, he distances himself four cubits

and recites.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even

if the urine is in a

house

whose dimensions are

one hundred cubits—

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

The Gemara is astonished: Indeed,

our dilemma

concerning the intention of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel

has been resolved. But apparently the two

beraitot contradict one another,

since the positions of the tanna’im have been exchanged between them.

The Gemara answers:

Reverse

the positions in the

later beraita.

The Gemara asks:

What have you seen that makes you reverse

the positions in the

later beraita

rather than say

reverse

the positions in the

earlier beraita!?

The Gemara explains:

Who is the one you heard say elsewhere that

“the entire house is considered like four cubits”?

It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and this accords with his statement in the first beraita. Therefore, it is preferable to reverse the positions in the second beraita.

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 raised a question before Rav Huna: A bed

whose height is

less than three handbreadths

above the ground—

it is obvious to me

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

the principle of lavud

to the ground

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

three, four, five, six, seven, or eight

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

up to nine

handbreadths, what is the law?

Are the excrement and urine, or the graf and vessel for urine beneath it, considered concealed 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: On a bed that is elevated

ten

handbreadths above the ground,

I certainly have no question

whether it is considered a covering, since because of the intervening height, it does not appear to be lying beneath it, and it is certainly not covered.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

You did well not to raise the question

of a bed elevated ten handbreadths above the ground, since

every

object that is elevated

ten

handbreadths above the ground is considered

another domain,

and certainly does not cause an object lying beneath it to be considered concealed in the ground.

Rava said: The halakha is:

If the bed is elevated

less than three

handbreadths above the ground,

it is considered like lavud,

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

from three to ten

handbreadths,

that is what Rav Yosef asked Rav Huna, and he did not resolve it,

and it remains uncertain.

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

who says that it is prohibited to recite the Shema throughout an entire house containing a chamber pot, a urine vessel, or urine.

And so said Bali 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 for his son

by betrothing him

at the house of Rav Yitzhak bar Shmuel bar Marta, and he brought him

Rav Ahai brought his son

into the huppa, but the matter did not succeed

[he was unable to have intercourse].

He followed him to investigate

what was preventing him.

He saw a Torah scroll lying

in the place where they had intercourse.

He said to them

to the household of Rav Yitzhak:

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

as he could have died as punishment for this sin.

As it was taught in a beraita: In a house containing a Torah scroll or tefillin, it is prohibited to engage in marital relations there until one removes them or places them

in one vessel inside another.

Abaye said: They taught

that placing one vessel inside another is effective as a barrier and permits marital relations in that place

only when

one of the two vessels is

a vessel not designated for them

[not designated for placing the tefillin or Torah scroll in it].

But with a vessel that is designated for them, even

if he placed them in

ten vessels,

with each one inside the next,

it is considered like one vessel

and they do not constitute a barrier.