Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 28, 2020 | 讘壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Berakhot 25

Can one recite shema if there is feces one’s body or in the area? What if the feces is being passed by? It there a different if the feces is not moving? If there is a foul odor from feces, does one need to move away from the feces or also from the odor? Until when is urine problematic – what if it is dry? How dry does it need to be to not be an issue for reciting shema? How can one say shema in the mikveh? Does one need to cloudy up the water? What types of foul smelling water can be fixed up by adding more water to it? How much water needs to be added? One cannot say shema in the vicinity of a utenstil used for collecting feces or urine. What does one do in order to allow one to say shema if there is a utensil there – three opinions are brought.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讗讘诇 诇转驻诇讛 注讚 砖讬讻住讛 讗转 诇讘讜

However, for prayer, one may not recite it until he covers his heart, because in prayer he addresses God directly and he must dress accordingly.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖讻讞 讜谞讻谞住 讘转驻讬诇讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 注诇讬讛谉 注讚 砖讬讙诪讜专 注讚 砖讬讙诪讜专 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 注讚 砖讬讙诪讜专 注诪讜讚 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇驻住讜拽 诇讗诇转专 讜诇讬拽讜诐 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 注诪讜讚 讛讞讜讝专 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讗讚诐 诇讬讚讬 讛讚专讜拽谉 住讬诇讜谉 讛讞讜讝专 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讗讚诐 诇讬讚讬 讬专拽讜谉:

And Rav Huna said: One who forgot and entered the bathroom while donning phylacteries places his hand on them until he finishes. The Gemara wonders: Does it enter your mind that he can do so until he is finished? Rather, as Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Until he finishes discharging the first mass of feces, at which point he can step out and remove his phylacteries. The Gemara asks: Let him stop immediately when he realizes that he is donning phylacteries and stand and step out. The Gemara replies: He cannot do so because of the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As it was taught in a baraita: A mass of feces that is held back without having been discharged causes a person to suffer from dropsy [hidrokan], while a stream of urine that is held back causes a person to suffer from jaundice [yerakon]. Since there is potential danger, the Sages did not require him to step out.

讗转诪专 爪讜讗讛 注诇 讘砖专讜 讗讜 讬讚讜 诪讜谞讞转 讘讘讬转 讛讻住讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讛谞砖诪讛 转讛诇诇 讬讛 讛诇诇讜讬讛

It was stated that the Sages disagreed with regard to one who had fecal matter on his skin or whose hand, but not the rest of his body, was placed inside the bathroom. Under those circumstances, Rav Huna said: He is permitted to recite Shema. Rav 岣sda said: He is prohibited from reciting Shema. Rava said: What is the reason for Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion? As it is written: 鈥淟et every soul [neshama] praise the Lord; Halleluya鈥 (Psalms 150:6), which he interprets as 鈥淟et everything that has breath鈥 [neshima]. As long as the mouth with which one recites praise is in a place of purity, the location of the other limbs of his body is irrelevant.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 注爪诪讜转讬 转讗诪专谞讛 讛壮 诪讬 讻诪讜讱:

And Rav 岣sda said: He is prohibited from reciting Shema. What is the reason for Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion? As it is written: 鈥淎ll of my bones shall say: Lord, who is like You鈥 (Psalms 35:10). Since this praise is undertaken with one鈥檚 entire body, he may not recite Shema even if just one limb is not appropriately clean.

讗转诪专 专讬讞 专注 砖讬砖 诇讜 注讬拽专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪诪拽讜诐 砖驻住拽 讛专讬讞 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注

It was said that the Sages disagreed over a similar issue: What is the legal status of a foul odor that emanates from a visible source? Rav Huna said: He distances himself four cubits from the source of the odor and recites Shema. And Rav 岣sda said: The source is irrelevant; he distances himself four cubits from the place that the odor ceased and recites Shema.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 讬拽专讗 讗讚诐 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 讗讚诐 讜诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 讻诇讘讬诐 讜诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 讞讝讬专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 讜诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 讗砖驻讛 砖专讬讞讛 专注 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪拽讜诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讜 谞诪讜讱 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讬讜砖讘 讘爪讚讜 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪专讞讬拽 诪诪谞讜 诪诇讜讗 注讬谞讬讜 讜讻谉 诇转驻诇讛 专讬讞 专注 砖讬砖 诇讜 注讬拽专 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪诪拽讜诐 讛专讬讞 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注

The Gemara notes that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda: A person may not recite Shema opposite human excrement, dog excrement, pig excrement, chicken excrement, a foul-smelling dung-heap or anything repulsive. However, if the filth were in a place ten handbreadths above or ten handbreadths below him, he may sit alongside it and recite Shema, as a height disparity of ten handbreadths renders it a separate domain. And if the filth were not ten handbreadths above or below him, he must distance himself until it remains beyond his range of vision. And the same is true of prayer. However, from a foul odor with a visible source, he distances himself four cubits from the place that the odor ceased and recites Shema.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讬 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讻诇 讛谞讬 砖诪注转转讗 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬拽专讗 讗讚诐 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 讗讚诐 讜诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 讞讝讬专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 讻诇讘讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖谞转谉 注讜专讜转 诇转讜讻谉

Rava said: The halakha is not in accordance with this baraita in all of these rulings, but rather in accordance with that which was taught in another baraita: One may neither recite Shema opposite human excrement under all circumstances, nor opposite pig excrement, nor opposite dog excrement into which skins had been placed for tanning, but other materials do not defile the venue of prayer.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 专讬讞 专注 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讬拽专 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗转讜 讞讝讜 讛谞讬 爪讬驻讬 讚讘讬 专讘 讚讛谞讬 讙谞讜 讜讛谞讬 讙专住讬 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗讘诇 讘拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 诇讗 讜讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗讘诇 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗:

They raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is the legal status of a foul odor that has no visible source, e.g., flatulence? He said to them: Come and see these mats in the study hall, as these students are sleeping on them and these other students are studying, and they are not concerned about foul odors. However, this only applies to Torah study because there is no alternative, but not to the recitation of Shema. And with regard to Torah study we said that it is permitted only when the odor originated with another, but not when it originated with himself.

讗转诪专 爪讜讗讛 注讜讘专转 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注

It was stated that the Sages disagreed over a parallel issue: What is the law with regard to feces passing before him, being moved from place to place? Abaye stated: One is permitted to recite Shema opposite it, while Rava said: One is forbidden to recite Shema opposite it.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讛讟诪讗 注讜诪讚 转讞转 讛讗讬诇谉 讜讛讟讛讜专 注讜讘专 讟诪讗 讟讛讜专 注讜诪讚 转讞转 讛讗讬诇谉 讜讟诪讗 注讜讘专 讟讛讜专 讜讗诐 注诪讚 讟诪讗 讜讻谉 讘讗讘谉 讛诪谞讜讙注转

Abaye said: From where do I say this halakha? I say this on the basis of what we learned in a mishna: One who is afflicted with biblical leprosy renders the area beneath any covering under which he is located ritually impure. In a case where the ritually impure leper is standing under the branches of a tree and a ritually pure person passes under the branches of that same tree, the pure person is rendered impure, as the entire area under that covering is impure. However, if the pure person is standing under the tree and the impure leper passes, he remains pure. And if the leper stopped under the tree, the pure person is immediately rendered impure. The same is true with regard to a stone afflicted with biblical leprosy (see Leviticus 14), in that if it is merely being moved from place to place, it does not cause impurity. The upshot is that impurity is only disseminated in all directions when the source of the impurity is stationary.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讛转诐 讘拽讘讬注讜转讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讚讚 讬砖讘 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诪讜砖讘讜 讛讻讗 讜讛讬讛 诪讞谞讬讱 拽讚讜砖 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗:

And Rava could have said to you: There, in the case of leprosy, it is contingent upon the permanence of the place, as with regard to the leper it is written: 鈥淗e shall dwell alone; outside the camp shall his dwelling be鈥 (Leviticus 13:46). His impurity is in his permanent dwelling-place. Here, with regard to the obligation to distance oneself from something repulsive, the Torah stated the principle: 鈥淎nd your camp shall be holy鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:15), and there is no holiness in those circumstances.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻讬 讞讝讬专 讻爪讜讗讛 注讜讘专转 讚诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚住诇讬拽 诪谞讛专讗

On this topic Rav Pappa said: The mouth of a pig is like passing feces. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. The Gemara replies: No, this halakha is only necessary to teach that even though the pig emerged from the river and one might assume that its mouth was thereby cleansed, it never becomes completely clean.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 住驻拽 爪讜讗讛 讗住讜专讛 住驻拽 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 诪讜转专讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 住驻拽 爪讜讗讛 讘讘讬转 诪讜转专转 讘讗砖驻讛 讗住讜专讛 住驻拽 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗砖驻讛 谞诪讬 诪讜转专讬谉

Rav Yehuda said: If there is uncertainty as to the presence of feces, e.g., whether something is or is not feces, and therefore whether or not one is permitted to utter sacred matters in its presence, it is prohibited to do so. However, if there is uncertainty as to the presence of urine, it is permitted to do so. Some say an alternative version of this. Rav Yehuda said: If there is uncertainty as to the presence of feces, in the home one may assume that there is no feces present and it is permitted to speak sacred matters, but if there is doubt as to the presences of feces in the dung-heap it is forbidden to do so. If there is uncertainty as to the presence of urine, however, even in the dung-heap it is permitted to do so.

住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 注诪讜讚 讘诇讘讚

He holds in accordance with that which Rav Hamnuna said, as Rav Hamnuna said: The Torah prohibited the utterance of sacred matters only opposite the stream of urine.

讜讻讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讬讚 转讛讬讛 诇讱 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讜讬爪讗转 砖诪讛 讞讜抓 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬转讚 转讛讬讛 诇讱 讜讙讜壮 讜讻住讬转 讗转 爪讗转讱

And in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, as Rabbi Yonatan raised a contradiction between two verses: On the one hand it is written: 鈥淵ou shall also have a place outside the camp, to which you will go鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:13), meaning that one must exit the camp before attending to his bodily needs but there is no obligation to cover it; and it is written in another verse: 鈥淎nd you shall have a spade among your weapons; and when you ease yourself outside, you shall dig with it, and turn back and cover your excrement鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:14), indicating a clear obligation to conceal one鈥檚 excrement.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讗谉 讘讙讚讜诇讬诐 讻讗谉 讘拽讟谞讬诐 讗诇诪讗 拽讟谞讬诐 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 注诪讜讚 讘诇讘讚 讛讗 谞驻讜诇 诇讗专注讗 砖专讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 讜讻讬 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讘讜讚讗谉 讗讘诇 讘住驻拽谉 诇讗 讙讝讜专

He resolves this contradiction: How is this resolved? Here, where one is required to conceal his bodily needs, it refers to feces; here, where there is no requirement to conceal his bodily needs, it refers to urine. Consequently, with regard to urine, reciting Shema was only prohibited by Torah law opposite the stream of urine, but once it has fallen to the ground, it is permitted. And the Sages are those who issued a decree with regard to urine. And when they issued a decree, it was only in a case of their certain presence, but in a case of their uncertain presence, they did not issue a decree.

讜讘讜讚讗谉 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讙谞讬讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专

The Gemara asks: In a case of the certain presence of urine, until when and in what state does its presence preclude one from uttering sacred matters? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: As long as it is wet enough to moisten the hands of one who touches it. And so too Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: As long as it moistens. And so too Ulla said: As long as it moistens. Geniva in the name of Rav said: It is forbidden as long as its mark is apparent on the ground.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖专讗 诇讬讛 诪专讬讛 诇讙谞讬讘讗 讛砖转讗 爪讜讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讬讜谉 砖拽专诪讜 驻谞讬讛 诪讜转专 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rav Yosef said: May God, his Master, forgive Geniva, as Rav could have said no such thing. Now, in the case of feces, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Once its surface has dried sufficiently to form a crust, one is permitted to utter sacred matters opposite it; is it necessary to say that opposite urine it is permitted once it dries?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚住诪讻转 讗讛讗 住诪讜讱 讗讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 爪讜讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讞专住 讗住讜专讛

Abaye said to him: What did you see that led you to rely on that halakha? Rely on this halakha; as Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: Uttering sacred matters opposite feces, even if it is as dry as earthenware, is prohibited.

讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 爪讜讗讛 讻讞专住 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讝讜专拽讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞驻专讻转 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讙讜诇诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞驻专讻转

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of feces like earthenware? Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: As long as one throws it and it does not crumble, it is still considered moist. And some say: As long as one can roll it from place to place and it does not crumble.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 讞讝讗 爪讜讗讛 讗诪专 诇讬 注讬讬谉 讗讬 拽专诪讜 驻谞讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬讬谉 讗讬 诪驻诇讗讬 讗驻诇讜讬讬

Ravina said: I was standing before Rav Yehuda of Difti when he saw feces. He said to me: Examine it and see whether or not its surface has dried sufficiently to form a crust. Some say that he said to him as follows: Examine it and see if it is cracked, as only then is it considered dry.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗转诪专 爪讜讗讛 讻讞专住 讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗住讜专讛 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专转 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 爪讜讗讛 讻讞专住 讗住讜专讛 讜诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉

Since several opinions were expressed on the subject, the Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this? It was stated that the halakha is subject to dispute: Reciting sacred matters opposite feces as dry as earthenware; Ameimar said: It is prohibited, and Mar Zutra said: It is permitted. Rava said that the halakha is: Opposite feces as dry as earthenware it is prohibited, and opposite urine, it is prohibited as long as it moistens.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 谞讘诇注讜 讗讜 讬讘砖讜 诪讜转专讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 谞讘诇注讜 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬讘砖讜 诪讛 讬讘砖讜 讚讗讬谉 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 讗祝 谞讘诇注讜 讚讗讬谉 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 讛讗 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 讗住讜专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谉 诪讟驻讬讞讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita: Urine, as long as it moistens it is prohibited. If it was absorbed into the ground or dried in place, it is permitted. What, is urine that was absorbed not similar to urine that dried? Just as when it dries its mark is no longer apparent, so too when it is absorbed, its mark is no longer apparent and then it is permissible. But when its mark is apparent, it is prohibited, even though it no longer moistens.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 砖专讬 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty to counter this: And according to your reasoning, say the first clause: As long as it moistens it is prohibited, from which one can infer: But if it does not moisten, but its mark is apparent, it is permitted. Rather, no inference beyond its basic meaning can be deduced from this baraita, as the inferences are contradictory.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讻诇讬 砖谞砖驻讻讜 诪诪谞讜 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚讜 讜诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 注爪诪谉 砖谞砖驻讻讜 谞讘诇注讜 诪讜转专 诇讗 谞讘诇注讜 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉

The Gemara notes: Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught a baraita: It is forbidden to recite Shema opposite a vessel from which urine was poured. However, the urine itself that was poured, if it was absorbed it is permitted; if it was not absorbed, it is prohibited. Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says: It is prohibited as long as it moistens.

诪讗讬 谞讘诇注讜 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 谞讘诇注讜 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 谞讘诇注讜 讚讗讬谉 诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 诇讗 谞讘诇注讜 讚诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 砖专讬 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诇讗 谞讘诇注讜 讚讗讬谉 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 诇讗 谞讘诇注讜 讚专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 砖专讬

The Gemara clarifies this dispute: What is the meaning of absorbed and not absorbed in what the first tanna says? If you say that absorbed means that it does not moisten and not absorbed means that it moistens, and Rabbi Yosei came to say: As long as it moistens it is prohibited, but if there is no moisture but its mark is apparent, it is permitted. If so, that is identical to the opinion of the first tanna and there is no dispute at all. Rather, absorbed means that its mark is not apparent and not absorbed means that its mark is apparent. And Rabbi Yosei came to say: As long as it moistens, it is prohibited, but if there is no moisture but its mark is apparent, it is permitted, in which case the dispute in our Gemara is parallel to this tannaitic dispute.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 砖专讬

The Gemara states that it is not necessarily parallel: No, everyone, both tanna鈥檌m, agrees that as long as it moistens, it is prohibited, and if there is no moisture but its mark is apparent, it is permitted.

讜讛讻讗 讘讟讜驻讞 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讟驻讬讞 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜:

And here, the difference between them is in a case where it is moist enough to moisten other things. According to the first tanna the prohibition is only in effect when the urine is moist enough to moisten other objects, while according to Rabbi Yosei it applies as long as the urine itself is moist, even if it is not moist enough to moisten other objects.

讬专讚 诇讟讘讜诇 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 讻讜壮: 诇讬诪讗 转谞讗 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚 讛谞抓 讛讞诪讛

We learned in a mishna that one who descended to immerse himself due to a seminal emission must calculate, whether or not he is able to ascend, cover himself with a garment and recite the morning Shema before sunrise. The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught this in the unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: One may recite Shema until sunrise.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讚诇诪讗 讻讜转讬拽讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜转讬拽讬谉 讛讬讜 讙讜诪专讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诐 讛谞抓 讛讞诪讛:

The Gemara immediately rejects this assumption: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer and holds that one may recite the morning Shema until the third hour of the day, and perhaps the halakha in the mishna was directed toward those whose practice was in accordance with the custom of the vatikin, pious individuals who were scrupulous in their performance of mitzvot, with regard to whom Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The vatikin would conclude the recitation of Shema with sunrise.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬转讻住讛 讘诪讬诐 讜讬拽专讗: 讜讛专讬 诇讘讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛注专讜讛

We learned in the mishna: And if one calculates that he will not be able to ascend and cover himself with a garment in time to recite Shema, he should cover himself in the water and recite Shema there. The Gemara asks: How can one recite Shema with his head above water? His heart sees his nakedness as there is no barrier between them.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讘专 讗讞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬谞讜 讘诪讬诐 注讻讜专讬谉 砖谞讜 讚讚诪讜 讻讗专注讗 住诪讬讻转讗 砖诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讘讜 注专讜转讜

Regarding this Rabbi Elazar said, and some say it was Rabbi A岣 bar Abba bar A岣 in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav: This was taught with regard to murky water, which is considered to be like solid earth. Therefore, it constitutes a barrier so that his heart does not see his nakedness.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬诐 爪诇讜诇讬谉 讬砖讘 讘讛谉 注讚 爪讜讗专讜 讜拽讜专讗 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讜讻专谉 讘专讙诇讜

On this same topic, the Sages taught in a baraita: If one was in clear water, he should sit in it up to his neck and recite Shema. And some say: He sullies the water with his foot.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜讛专讬 诇讘讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛注专讜讛 拽住讘专 诇讘讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛注专讜讛 诪讜转专 讜讛专讬 注拽讘讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛注专讜讛 拽住讘专 注拽讘讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛注专讜讛 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna doesn鈥檛 his heart see his nakedness through the clear water? The Gemara replies: He holds that even if his heart sees his nakedness, it is permitted to recite Shema. The Gemara continues and asks: But in the clear water, doesn鈥檛 his heel see his nakedness? The Gemara replies: Here too, the first tanna holds that in a case where his heel sees his nakedness it is permitted.

讗转诪专 注拽讘讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛注专讜讛 诪讜转专 谞讜讙注 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗住讜专 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讛讻讬 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讛讻讬 谞讜讙注 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 专讜讗讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗住讜专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讗 谞转谞讛 转讜专讛 诇诪诇讗讻讬 讛砖专转 讜讛诇讻转讗 谞讜讙注 讗住讜专 专讜讗讛 诪讜转专

The Gemara notes, it was stated: If one鈥檚 heel sees his nakedness it is permitted. However, what is the halakha in a case where his heel touches his nakedness? May one in that circumstance recite Shema or not? Abaye said: It is prohibited, and Rava said: It is permitted. The Gemara notes: Rav Zevid taught this halakha in that manner. Rav 岣nnana, son of Rav Ika, taught it as follows: In a case where his heel touches his nakedness, everyone agrees that it is prohibited. Their dispute is with regard to a case where his heel sees his nakedness. Abaye said: It is prohibited, and Rava said: It is permitted; the Torah was not given to the ministering angels, and a person, who, as opposed to a ministering angel, has genitals, cannot avoid this. And the halakha is that if his heel touches his nakedness it is prohibited, but if it merely sees his nakedness, it is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讗 爪讜讗讛 讘注砖砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚讛 注专讜讛 讘注砖砖讬转 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚讛 爪讜讗讛 讘注砖砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚讛 讚爪讜讗讛 讘讻讬住讜讬 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜讛讗 诪讬讻住讬讗 注专讜讛 讘注砖砖讬转 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚讛 讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 讘讱 注专讜转 讚讘专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 拽诪讬转讞讝讬讗

Rava said: Opposite feces covered only by a lantern-like covering, which is transparent, it is permitted to recite Shema. But opposite nakedness covered only by a lantern-like covering, it is prohibited to recite Shema. Opposite feces in a lantern, it is permitted to recite Shema because with regard to feces, the ability to recite Shema is contingent upon covering, as it is said: 鈥淎nd cover your excrement鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:14), and although it is visible, it is covered. On the other hand, opposite nakedness covered only by a lantern-like covering, it is prohibited to recite Shema; the Torah said: 鈥淎nd no indecent thing shall be seen in you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:15), and here it is seen.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 爪讜讗讛 讻诇 砖讛讜 诪讘讟诇讛 讘专讜拽 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讘专讜拽 注讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 爪讜讗讛 讘讙讜诪讗 诪谞讬讞 住谞讚诇讜 注诇讬讛 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讘注讗 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 爪讜讗讛 讚讘讜拽讛 讘住谞讚诇讜 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

Abaye said: A small amount of feces may be nullified with spittle, and as long as it is covered, it is permitted to recite Shema. Rava said: This applies specifically when it is thick spittle. Rava said: Feces in a hole in the ground, he places his sandal over the hole to cover it and recites Shema. Mar, son of Ravina, raised a dilemma: What is the halakha in a case where feces is stuck to his sandal? Perhaps he would be considered filthy in that case? Let this dilemma stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讙讜讬 注专讜诐 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚讜 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讙讜讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讙讜讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讗砖专 讘砖专 讞诪讜专讬诐 讘砖专诐 讗讬诪讗 讻讞诪讜专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讗讬拽专讜 注专讜讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜注专讜转 讗讘讬讛诐 诇讗 专讗讜:

Rav Yehuda said: Opposite a naked gentile, it is forbidden to recite Shema. The Gemara asks: Why did Rav Yehuda discuss particularly the case of a gentile? Even with regard to a Jew it is also prohibited. The Gemara replies: Opposite the nakedness of a Jew, it is obvious that it is prohibited; however, opposite the nakedness of a gentile, it was necessary for him to say. Lest you say that since it is written about gentiles: 鈥淭heir flesh is the flesh of donkeys鈥 (Ezekiel 23:20), say that his nakedness is like that of a mere donkey and does not constitute nakedness. Rav Yehuda taught us that their nakedness is also considered nakedness, as it is written regarding the sons of Noah: 鈥淎nd their father鈥檚 nakedness they did not see鈥 (Genesis 9:23). Although Noah predated Abraham and was consequently not Jewish, his nakedness is mentioned.

讜诇讗 讬转讻住讛 诇讗 讘诪讬诐 讛专注讬诐 讜诇讗 讘诪讬 讛诪砖专讛 注讚 砖讬讟讬诇 诇转讜讻谉 诪讬诐: 讜讻诪讛 诪讬讗 专诪讬 讜讗讝讬诇 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讬转讻住讛 诇讗 讘诪讬诐 讛专注讬诐 讜诇讗 讘诪讬 讛诪砖专讛 讻诇诇 讜诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 注讚 砖讬讟讬诇 诇转讜讻谉 诪讬诐 讜讬拽专讗

And we learned in the mishna: And one who needs to recite Shema may not cover himself with either foul water or water in which flax was soaked until he pours other water into it. The Gemara asks: How much water does he continue to pour in order to render them a permissible covering. If he is covering himself in water in which flax was soaked, it must be a considerable amount of water, requiring at least an equally considerable amount of water to neutralize it. Rather, this is what it says: One may neither cover himself with foul water nor water in which flax was soaked at all; and urine, which is considered repugnant, until he adds clean water to it, and only then he may recite Shema.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 讬讟讬诇 诇转讜讻谉 诪讬诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 讗讜诪专 专讘讬注讬转

The Sages taught a related disagreement in a baraita: How much water must one add in order to nullify urine? Any quantity is sufficient. Rabbi Zakkai says: One must add a quarter of a log.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讘住讜祝 讗讘诇 讘转讞讬诇讛 讻诇 砖讛谉

Rav Na岣an said: This dispute is with regard to a case where the urine is already in a vessel, and afterward one seeks to nullify it. However, if the clean water was in a vessel at the beginning, before the urine, each drop of urine is nullified as it enters the vessel and therefore any amount of clean water in the vessel is sufficient.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讘住讜祝 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 专讘讬注讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇砖诪注讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 专讘讬注讬转讗 讚诪讬讗 讻专讘讬 讝讻讗讬:

And Rav Yosef said: This dispute is with regard to the amount of water necessary to have in the vessel at the beginning, before the urine. However, afterward, everyone agrees that a quarter of a log is required. The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef said to his servant at the beginning: Bring me a quarter of a log of water, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zakkai.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讜注讘讬讟 砖诇 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚谉 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讻诇讜诐 讜诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 注爪诪谉 注讚 砖讬讟讬诇 诇转讜讻谉 诪讬诐 讜讻诪讛 讬讟讬诇 诇转讜讻谉 诪讬诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 讗讜诪专 专讘讬注讬转 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛诪讟讛 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛诪讟讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗讞专 讛诪讟讛 拽讜专讗 诇驻谞讬 讛诪讟讛 讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗 讗讘诇 诪专讞讬拽 讛讜讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜拽讜专讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬转 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬拽专讗 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗诐 讗讜 砖讬谞讬讞诐 转讞转 讛诪讟讛

The Sages taught an elaboration of this point in the Tosefta: Opposite a chamber pot used for excrement or urine, it is prohibited to recite Shema, even if there is nothing in it, as it is always considered filthy. Opposite urine itself, one may not recite Shema until he pours water into it. And how much water must he pour into it? Any quantity. Rabbi Zakkai says: A quarter of a log. That is the ruling both when it is before the bed and when it is behind the bed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: When it is behind the bed, one may recite Shema, but when it is before the bed, one may not recite Shema, but he must distance himself four cubits and only then recite Shema. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is even more strict, saying: Even in a house one hundred cubits in size, one may not recite Shema until he removes it or places it beneath the bed.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞专 讛诪讟讛 拽讜专讗 诪讬讚 诇驻谞讬 讛诪讟讛 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜拽讜专讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗讞专 讛诪讟讛 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜拽讜专讗 诇驻谞讬 讛诪讟讛 讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗 讻诇诇

A dilemma was raised before students at the yeshiva: How does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel state this halakha? What did he mean? Did he mean that if the chamber pot is behind the bed, he recites Shema immediately; before the bed, he distances himself four cubits and recites? Or perhaps he states the following: If the chamber pot is behind the bed, he distances himself four cubits and then recites Shema, but if it is before the bed he may not recite Shema at all?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞专 讛诪讟讛 拽讜专讗 诪讬讚 诇驻谞讬 讛诪讟讛 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬转 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬拽专讗 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗诐 讗讜 砖讬谞讬讞诐 转讞转 讛诪讟讛

In order to resolve this dilemma, the Gemara cites proof. Come and hear that it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If it is behind the bed he recites Shema immediately; before the bed, he distances himself four cubits. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even in a large house of one hundred cubits one may not recite Shema until he removes it or places it beneath the bed. Thus we see from this baraita that if the vessel is obstructed by the bed he may recite Shema immediately.

讘注讬讬谉 讗讬驻砖讬讟讗 诇谉 诪转谞讬讬转讗 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讗讬驻讜讱 讘转专讬讬转讗

The Gemara notes: Our dilemma has been resolved, but the baraitot contradict each other. The statements made in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in one baraita were made in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in the other. The Gemara resolves the contradiction: Reverse the latter baraita and say that the names of the tanna鈥檌m were attached to the wrong opinions.

诪讛 讞讝讬转 讚讗驻讻转 讘转专讬讬转讗 讗讬驻讜讱 拽诪讬讬转讗

This solution is difficult: What did you see that led you to reverse the latter baraita? Reverse the first one.

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇讬讛 讘讬转 讻讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诪讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗

The Gemara proves that the latter baraita should be reversed in accordance with the opinions expressed by these Sages in general. Who did you hear that said that an entire house is considered like four cubits? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who expressed that opinion in the halakhot of eiruv (Rav Nissim). Consequently, it is reasonable to posit that this would also be his opinion with regard to these halakhot, and the baraita was reversed accordingly.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘注讗讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讟讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 讚讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬 砖诇砖讛 讗专讘注讛 讞诪砖讛 砖砖讛 砖讘注讛 砖诪谞讛 转砖注讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 注砖专讛 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖驻讬专 注讘讚转 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讱 讻诇 注砖专讛 专砖讜转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讛讬讗

Rav Yosef said: I raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: It is obvious to me that a bed under which there is a space of less than three handbreadths is considered connected [lavud] to the ground as if the void beneath it does not exist, as halakha considers a void of less than three handbreadths as sealed. What, then, is the dilemma? What is the halakha if that space is three, four, five, six, seven, eight or nine handbreadths? He said to him: I do not know. However, with regard to a space greater than ten handbreadths I certainly have no dilemma, as it is clear that this space is considered a separate domain. Abaye said to him: You did well that you did not have a dilemma, as the halakha is that any space ten handbreadths high is a separate domain.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬 注砖专讛 专砖讜转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讛讬讗 诪砖诇砖讛 注讚 注砖专讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇讗 驻砖讟 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 讘讗诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专讛 讘转 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

Rava summarized and said: The halakha is that less than three handbreadths is considered connected and it is permitted to recite Shema. Ten handbreadths is a separate domain. Three to ten handbreadths is the case with regard to which Rav Yosef raised a dilemma before Rav Huna, and Rav Huna did not resolve it for him. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. And, so too, the Sage Bali said that Rav Ya鈥檃kov, son of Shmuel鈥檚 daughter, said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. And Rava said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

专讘 讗讞讗讬 讗讬注住拽 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讘讬 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 注讬讬诇讬讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 诪住转讬讬注讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讝诇 讘转专讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬 讞讝讗 住驻专 转讜专讛 讚诪谞讞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬讻讜 讛砖转讗 诇讗 讗转讗讬 住讻谞转讜谉 诇讘专讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖讬砖 讘讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇砖诪砖 讘讜 讗转 讛诪讟讛 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗诐 讗讜 砖讬谞讬讞诐 讻诇讬 讘转讜讱 讻诇讬

The Gemara relates: Rav A岣i arranged for his son to marry into the family of Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta. He led him to enter the wedding canopy for the wedding ceremony, but he was unsuccessful in his attempts to consummate the marriage. Rav A岣i followed him to examine possible causes of the problem and he saw a Torah scroll placed there. He said to them: Had I not come now, you would have endangered the life of my son. As it was taught in a baraita: In a room in which there is a Torah scroll or phylacteries, it is forbidden to engage in conjugal relations until he takes them out of the room or places them in a vessel inside a second vessel.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻诇讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讻诇讬讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诇讬讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖专讛 诪讗谞讬 讻讞讚 诪讗谞讗 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙诇讬诪讗

Abaye said: They only taught that a vessel inside a second vessel is sufficient when the vessel is not their, the Torah scroll鈥檚 or the phylacteries鈥, regular vessel. But a vessel that is their regular vessel, even ten vessels are considered as one vessel, and the Torah or phylacteries must be covered in another vessel not typically used for that purpose. Rava said: A cloak

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

daf_icon

Extempore Effusions on the Completion of Masechet Berakhot (chapters 1-3)

PEREK ALEPH: (2a) When may we say Shma at night? From the time the priests take their first bite 鈥楾il...

Berakhot 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Berakhot 25

讗讘诇 诇转驻诇讛 注讚 砖讬讻住讛 讗转 诇讘讜

However, for prayer, one may not recite it until he covers his heart, because in prayer he addresses God directly and he must dress accordingly.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖讻讞 讜谞讻谞住 讘转驻讬诇讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 注诇讬讛谉 注讚 砖讬讙诪讜专 注讚 砖讬讙诪讜专 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 注讚 砖讬讙诪讜专 注诪讜讚 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇驻住讜拽 诇讗诇转专 讜诇讬拽讜诐 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 注诪讜讚 讛讞讜讝专 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讗讚诐 诇讬讚讬 讛讚专讜拽谉 住讬诇讜谉 讛讞讜讝专 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讗讚诐 诇讬讚讬 讬专拽讜谉:

And Rav Huna said: One who forgot and entered the bathroom while donning phylacteries places his hand on them until he finishes. The Gemara wonders: Does it enter your mind that he can do so until he is finished? Rather, as Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Until he finishes discharging the first mass of feces, at which point he can step out and remove his phylacteries. The Gemara asks: Let him stop immediately when he realizes that he is donning phylacteries and stand and step out. The Gemara replies: He cannot do so because of the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As it was taught in a baraita: A mass of feces that is held back without having been discharged causes a person to suffer from dropsy [hidrokan], while a stream of urine that is held back causes a person to suffer from jaundice [yerakon]. Since there is potential danger, the Sages did not require him to step out.

讗转诪专 爪讜讗讛 注诇 讘砖专讜 讗讜 讬讚讜 诪讜谞讞转 讘讘讬转 讛讻住讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讛谞砖诪讛 转讛诇诇 讬讛 讛诇诇讜讬讛

It was stated that the Sages disagreed with regard to one who had fecal matter on his skin or whose hand, but not the rest of his body, was placed inside the bathroom. Under those circumstances, Rav Huna said: He is permitted to recite Shema. Rav 岣sda said: He is prohibited from reciting Shema. Rava said: What is the reason for Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion? As it is written: 鈥淟et every soul [neshama] praise the Lord; Halleluya鈥 (Psalms 150:6), which he interprets as 鈥淟et everything that has breath鈥 [neshima]. As long as the mouth with which one recites praise is in a place of purity, the location of the other limbs of his body is irrelevant.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 注爪诪讜转讬 转讗诪专谞讛 讛壮 诪讬 讻诪讜讱:

And Rav 岣sda said: He is prohibited from reciting Shema. What is the reason for Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion? As it is written: 鈥淎ll of my bones shall say: Lord, who is like You鈥 (Psalms 35:10). Since this praise is undertaken with one鈥檚 entire body, he may not recite Shema even if just one limb is not appropriately clean.

讗转诪专 专讬讞 专注 砖讬砖 诇讜 注讬拽专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪诪拽讜诐 砖驻住拽 讛专讬讞 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注

It was said that the Sages disagreed over a similar issue: What is the legal status of a foul odor that emanates from a visible source? Rav Huna said: He distances himself four cubits from the source of the odor and recites Shema. And Rav 岣sda said: The source is irrelevant; he distances himself four cubits from the place that the odor ceased and recites Shema.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 讬拽专讗 讗讚诐 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 讗讚诐 讜诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 讻诇讘讬诐 讜诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 讞讝讬专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 讜诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 讗砖驻讛 砖专讬讞讛 专注 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪拽讜诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讜 谞诪讜讱 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讬讜砖讘 讘爪讚讜 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪专讞讬拽 诪诪谞讜 诪诇讜讗 注讬谞讬讜 讜讻谉 诇转驻诇讛 专讬讞 专注 砖讬砖 诇讜 注讬拽专 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪诪拽讜诐 讛专讬讞 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注

The Gemara notes that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda: A person may not recite Shema opposite human excrement, dog excrement, pig excrement, chicken excrement, a foul-smelling dung-heap or anything repulsive. However, if the filth were in a place ten handbreadths above or ten handbreadths below him, he may sit alongside it and recite Shema, as a height disparity of ten handbreadths renders it a separate domain. And if the filth were not ten handbreadths above or below him, he must distance himself until it remains beyond his range of vision. And the same is true of prayer. However, from a foul odor with a visible source, he distances himself four cubits from the place that the odor ceased and recites Shema.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讬 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讻诇 讛谞讬 砖诪注转转讗 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬拽专讗 讗讚诐 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 讗讚诐 讜诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 讞讝讬专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻谞讙讚 爪讜讗转 讻诇讘讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖谞转谉 注讜专讜转 诇转讜讻谉

Rava said: The halakha is not in accordance with this baraita in all of these rulings, but rather in accordance with that which was taught in another baraita: One may neither recite Shema opposite human excrement under all circumstances, nor opposite pig excrement, nor opposite dog excrement into which skins had been placed for tanning, but other materials do not defile the venue of prayer.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 专讬讞 专注 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讬拽专 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗转讜 讞讝讜 讛谞讬 爪讬驻讬 讚讘讬 专讘 讚讛谞讬 讙谞讜 讜讛谞讬 讙专住讬 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗讘诇 讘拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 诇讗 讜讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗讘诇 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗:

They raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is the legal status of a foul odor that has no visible source, e.g., flatulence? He said to them: Come and see these mats in the study hall, as these students are sleeping on them and these other students are studying, and they are not concerned about foul odors. However, this only applies to Torah study because there is no alternative, but not to the recitation of Shema. And with regard to Torah study we said that it is permitted only when the odor originated with another, but not when it originated with himself.

讗转诪专 爪讜讗讛 注讜讘专转 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注

It was stated that the Sages disagreed over a parallel issue: What is the law with regard to feces passing before him, being moved from place to place? Abaye stated: One is permitted to recite Shema opposite it, while Rava said: One is forbidden to recite Shema opposite it.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讛讟诪讗 注讜诪讚 转讞转 讛讗讬诇谉 讜讛讟讛讜专 注讜讘专 讟诪讗 讟讛讜专 注讜诪讚 转讞转 讛讗讬诇谉 讜讟诪讗 注讜讘专 讟讛讜专 讜讗诐 注诪讚 讟诪讗 讜讻谉 讘讗讘谉 讛诪谞讜讙注转

Abaye said: From where do I say this halakha? I say this on the basis of what we learned in a mishna: One who is afflicted with biblical leprosy renders the area beneath any covering under which he is located ritually impure. In a case where the ritually impure leper is standing under the branches of a tree and a ritually pure person passes under the branches of that same tree, the pure person is rendered impure, as the entire area under that covering is impure. However, if the pure person is standing under the tree and the impure leper passes, he remains pure. And if the leper stopped under the tree, the pure person is immediately rendered impure. The same is true with regard to a stone afflicted with biblical leprosy (see Leviticus 14), in that if it is merely being moved from place to place, it does not cause impurity. The upshot is that impurity is only disseminated in all directions when the source of the impurity is stationary.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讛转诐 讘拽讘讬注讜转讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讚讚 讬砖讘 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诪讜砖讘讜 讛讻讗 讜讛讬讛 诪讞谞讬讱 拽讚讜砖 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗:

And Rava could have said to you: There, in the case of leprosy, it is contingent upon the permanence of the place, as with regard to the leper it is written: 鈥淗e shall dwell alone; outside the camp shall his dwelling be鈥 (Leviticus 13:46). His impurity is in his permanent dwelling-place. Here, with regard to the obligation to distance oneself from something repulsive, the Torah stated the principle: 鈥淎nd your camp shall be holy鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:15), and there is no holiness in those circumstances.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻讬 讞讝讬专 讻爪讜讗讛 注讜讘专转 讚诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚住诇讬拽 诪谞讛专讗

On this topic Rav Pappa said: The mouth of a pig is like passing feces. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. The Gemara replies: No, this halakha is only necessary to teach that even though the pig emerged from the river and one might assume that its mouth was thereby cleansed, it never becomes completely clean.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 住驻拽 爪讜讗讛 讗住讜专讛 住驻拽 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 诪讜转专讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 住驻拽 爪讜讗讛 讘讘讬转 诪讜转专转 讘讗砖驻讛 讗住讜专讛 住驻拽 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗砖驻讛 谞诪讬 诪讜转专讬谉

Rav Yehuda said: If there is uncertainty as to the presence of feces, e.g., whether something is or is not feces, and therefore whether or not one is permitted to utter sacred matters in its presence, it is prohibited to do so. However, if there is uncertainty as to the presence of urine, it is permitted to do so. Some say an alternative version of this. Rav Yehuda said: If there is uncertainty as to the presence of feces, in the home one may assume that there is no feces present and it is permitted to speak sacred matters, but if there is doubt as to the presences of feces in the dung-heap it is forbidden to do so. If there is uncertainty as to the presence of urine, however, even in the dung-heap it is permitted to do so.

住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 注诪讜讚 讘诇讘讚

He holds in accordance with that which Rav Hamnuna said, as Rav Hamnuna said: The Torah prohibited the utterance of sacred matters only opposite the stream of urine.

讜讻讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讬讚 转讛讬讛 诇讱 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讜讬爪讗转 砖诪讛 讞讜抓 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬转讚 转讛讬讛 诇讱 讜讙讜壮 讜讻住讬转 讗转 爪讗转讱

And in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, as Rabbi Yonatan raised a contradiction between two verses: On the one hand it is written: 鈥淵ou shall also have a place outside the camp, to which you will go鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:13), meaning that one must exit the camp before attending to his bodily needs but there is no obligation to cover it; and it is written in another verse: 鈥淎nd you shall have a spade among your weapons; and when you ease yourself outside, you shall dig with it, and turn back and cover your excrement鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:14), indicating a clear obligation to conceal one鈥檚 excrement.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讗谉 讘讙讚讜诇讬诐 讻讗谉 讘拽讟谞讬诐 讗诇诪讗 拽讟谞讬诐 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 注诪讜讚 讘诇讘讚 讛讗 谞驻讜诇 诇讗专注讗 砖专讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 讜讻讬 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讘讜讚讗谉 讗讘诇 讘住驻拽谉 诇讗 讙讝讜专

He resolves this contradiction: How is this resolved? Here, where one is required to conceal his bodily needs, it refers to feces; here, where there is no requirement to conceal his bodily needs, it refers to urine. Consequently, with regard to urine, reciting Shema was only prohibited by Torah law opposite the stream of urine, but once it has fallen to the ground, it is permitted. And the Sages are those who issued a decree with regard to urine. And when they issued a decree, it was only in a case of their certain presence, but in a case of their uncertain presence, they did not issue a decree.

讜讘讜讚讗谉 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讙谞讬讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专

The Gemara asks: In a case of the certain presence of urine, until when and in what state does its presence preclude one from uttering sacred matters? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: As long as it is wet enough to moisten the hands of one who touches it. And so too Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: As long as it moistens. And so too Ulla said: As long as it moistens. Geniva in the name of Rav said: It is forbidden as long as its mark is apparent on the ground.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖专讗 诇讬讛 诪专讬讛 诇讙谞讬讘讗 讛砖转讗 爪讜讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讬讜谉 砖拽专诪讜 驻谞讬讛 诪讜转专 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rav Yosef said: May God, his Master, forgive Geniva, as Rav could have said no such thing. Now, in the case of feces, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Once its surface has dried sufficiently to form a crust, one is permitted to utter sacred matters opposite it; is it necessary to say that opposite urine it is permitted once it dries?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚住诪讻转 讗讛讗 住诪讜讱 讗讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 爪讜讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讞专住 讗住讜专讛

Abaye said to him: What did you see that led you to rely on that halakha? Rely on this halakha; as Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: Uttering sacred matters opposite feces, even if it is as dry as earthenware, is prohibited.

讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 爪讜讗讛 讻讞专住 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讝讜专拽讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞驻专讻转 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讙讜诇诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 谞驻专讻转

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of feces like earthenware? Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: As long as one throws it and it does not crumble, it is still considered moist. And some say: As long as one can roll it from place to place and it does not crumble.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 讞讝讗 爪讜讗讛 讗诪专 诇讬 注讬讬谉 讗讬 拽专诪讜 驻谞讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬讬谉 讗讬 诪驻诇讗讬 讗驻诇讜讬讬

Ravina said: I was standing before Rav Yehuda of Difti when he saw feces. He said to me: Examine it and see whether or not its surface has dried sufficiently to form a crust. Some say that he said to him as follows: Examine it and see if it is cracked, as only then is it considered dry.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗转诪专 爪讜讗讛 讻讞专住 讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗住讜专讛 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专转 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 爪讜讗讛 讻讞专住 讗住讜专讛 讜诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉

Since several opinions were expressed on the subject, the Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this? It was stated that the halakha is subject to dispute: Reciting sacred matters opposite feces as dry as earthenware; Ameimar said: It is prohibited, and Mar Zutra said: It is permitted. Rava said that the halakha is: Opposite feces as dry as earthenware it is prohibited, and opposite urine, it is prohibited as long as it moistens.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 谞讘诇注讜 讗讜 讬讘砖讜 诪讜转专讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 谞讘诇注讜 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬讘砖讜 诪讛 讬讘砖讜 讚讗讬谉 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 讗祝 谞讘诇注讜 讚讗讬谉 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 讛讗 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 讗住讜专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谉 诪讟驻讬讞讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita: Urine, as long as it moistens it is prohibited. If it was absorbed into the ground or dried in place, it is permitted. What, is urine that was absorbed not similar to urine that dried? Just as when it dries its mark is no longer apparent, so too when it is absorbed, its mark is no longer apparent and then it is permissible. But when its mark is apparent, it is prohibited, even though it no longer moistens.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 砖专讬 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty to counter this: And according to your reasoning, say the first clause: As long as it moistens it is prohibited, from which one can infer: But if it does not moisten, but its mark is apparent, it is permitted. Rather, no inference beyond its basic meaning can be deduced from this baraita, as the inferences are contradictory.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讻诇讬 砖谞砖驻讻讜 诪诪谞讜 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚讜 讜诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 注爪诪谉 砖谞砖驻讻讜 谞讘诇注讜 诪讜转专 诇讗 谞讘诇注讜 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉

The Gemara notes: Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught a baraita: It is forbidden to recite Shema opposite a vessel from which urine was poured. However, the urine itself that was poured, if it was absorbed it is permitted; if it was not absorbed, it is prohibited. Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says: It is prohibited as long as it moistens.

诪讗讬 谞讘诇注讜 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 谞讘诇注讜 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 谞讘诇注讜 讚讗讬谉 诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 诇讗 谞讘诇注讜 讚诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 砖专讬 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诇讗 谞讘诇注讜 讚讗讬谉 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 诇讗 谞讘诇注讜 讚专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讬诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 砖专讬

The Gemara clarifies this dispute: What is the meaning of absorbed and not absorbed in what the first tanna says? If you say that absorbed means that it does not moisten and not absorbed means that it moistens, and Rabbi Yosei came to say: As long as it moistens it is prohibited, but if there is no moisture but its mark is apparent, it is permitted. If so, that is identical to the opinion of the first tanna and there is no dispute at all. Rather, absorbed means that its mark is not apparent and not absorbed means that its mark is apparent. And Rabbi Yosei came to say: As long as it moistens, it is prohibited, but if there is no moisture but its mark is apparent, it is permitted, in which case the dispute in our Gemara is parallel to this tannaitic dispute.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讟驻讬讞讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讛讗 专砖讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 砖专讬

The Gemara states that it is not necessarily parallel: No, everyone, both tanna鈥檌m, agrees that as long as it moistens, it is prohibited, and if there is no moisture but its mark is apparent, it is permitted.

讜讛讻讗 讘讟讜驻讞 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讟驻讬讞 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜:

And here, the difference between them is in a case where it is moist enough to moisten other things. According to the first tanna the prohibition is only in effect when the urine is moist enough to moisten other objects, while according to Rabbi Yosei it applies as long as the urine itself is moist, even if it is not moist enough to moisten other objects.

讬专讚 诇讟讘讜诇 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 讻讜壮: 诇讬诪讗 转谞讗 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚 讛谞抓 讛讞诪讛

We learned in a mishna that one who descended to immerse himself due to a seminal emission must calculate, whether or not he is able to ascend, cover himself with a garment and recite the morning Shema before sunrise. The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught this in the unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: One may recite Shema until sunrise.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讚诇诪讗 讻讜转讬拽讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜转讬拽讬谉 讛讬讜 讙讜诪专讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诐 讛谞抓 讛讞诪讛:

The Gemara immediately rejects this assumption: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer and holds that one may recite the morning Shema until the third hour of the day, and perhaps the halakha in the mishna was directed toward those whose practice was in accordance with the custom of the vatikin, pious individuals who were scrupulous in their performance of mitzvot, with regard to whom Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The vatikin would conclude the recitation of Shema with sunrise.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬转讻住讛 讘诪讬诐 讜讬拽专讗: 讜讛专讬 诇讘讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛注专讜讛

We learned in the mishna: And if one calculates that he will not be able to ascend and cover himself with a garment in time to recite Shema, he should cover himself in the water and recite Shema there. The Gemara asks: How can one recite Shema with his head above water? His heart sees his nakedness as there is no barrier between them.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讘专 讗讞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬谞讜 讘诪讬诐 注讻讜专讬谉 砖谞讜 讚讚诪讜 讻讗专注讗 住诪讬讻转讗 砖诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讘讜 注专讜转讜

Regarding this Rabbi Elazar said, and some say it was Rabbi A岣 bar Abba bar A岣 in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav: This was taught with regard to murky water, which is considered to be like solid earth. Therefore, it constitutes a barrier so that his heart does not see his nakedness.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬诐 爪诇讜诇讬谉 讬砖讘 讘讛谉 注讚 爪讜讗专讜 讜拽讜专讗 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讜讻专谉 讘专讙诇讜

On this same topic, the Sages taught in a baraita: If one was in clear water, he should sit in it up to his neck and recite Shema. And some say: He sullies the water with his foot.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜讛专讬 诇讘讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛注专讜讛 拽住讘专 诇讘讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛注专讜讛 诪讜转专 讜讛专讬 注拽讘讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛注专讜讛 拽住讘专 注拽讘讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛注专讜讛 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna doesn鈥檛 his heart see his nakedness through the clear water? The Gemara replies: He holds that even if his heart sees his nakedness, it is permitted to recite Shema. The Gemara continues and asks: But in the clear water, doesn鈥檛 his heel see his nakedness? The Gemara replies: Here too, the first tanna holds that in a case where his heel sees his nakedness it is permitted.

讗转诪专 注拽讘讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛注专讜讛 诪讜转专 谞讜讙注 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗住讜专 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讛讻讬 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讛讻讬 谞讜讙注 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 专讜讗讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗住讜专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讗 谞转谞讛 转讜专讛 诇诪诇讗讻讬 讛砖专转 讜讛诇讻转讗 谞讜讙注 讗住讜专 专讜讗讛 诪讜转专

The Gemara notes, it was stated: If one鈥檚 heel sees his nakedness it is permitted. However, what is the halakha in a case where his heel touches his nakedness? May one in that circumstance recite Shema or not? Abaye said: It is prohibited, and Rava said: It is permitted. The Gemara notes: Rav Zevid taught this halakha in that manner. Rav 岣nnana, son of Rav Ika, taught it as follows: In a case where his heel touches his nakedness, everyone agrees that it is prohibited. Their dispute is with regard to a case where his heel sees his nakedness. Abaye said: It is prohibited, and Rava said: It is permitted; the Torah was not given to the ministering angels, and a person, who, as opposed to a ministering angel, has genitals, cannot avoid this. And the halakha is that if his heel touches his nakedness it is prohibited, but if it merely sees his nakedness, it is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讗 爪讜讗讛 讘注砖砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚讛 注专讜讛 讘注砖砖讬转 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚讛 爪讜讗讛 讘注砖砖讬转 诪讜转专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚讛 讚爪讜讗讛 讘讻讬住讜讬 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜讛讗 诪讬讻住讬讗 注专讜讛 讘注砖砖讬转 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚讛 讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 讘讱 注专讜转 讚讘专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 拽诪讬转讞讝讬讗

Rava said: Opposite feces covered only by a lantern-like covering, which is transparent, it is permitted to recite Shema. But opposite nakedness covered only by a lantern-like covering, it is prohibited to recite Shema. Opposite feces in a lantern, it is permitted to recite Shema because with regard to feces, the ability to recite Shema is contingent upon covering, as it is said: 鈥淎nd cover your excrement鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:14), and although it is visible, it is covered. On the other hand, opposite nakedness covered only by a lantern-like covering, it is prohibited to recite Shema; the Torah said: 鈥淎nd no indecent thing shall be seen in you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:15), and here it is seen.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 爪讜讗讛 讻诇 砖讛讜 诪讘讟诇讛 讘专讜拽 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讘专讜拽 注讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 爪讜讗讛 讘讙讜诪讗 诪谞讬讞 住谞讚诇讜 注诇讬讛 讜拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讘注讗 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 爪讜讗讛 讚讘讜拽讛 讘住谞讚诇讜 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

Abaye said: A small amount of feces may be nullified with spittle, and as long as it is covered, it is permitted to recite Shema. Rava said: This applies specifically when it is thick spittle. Rava said: Feces in a hole in the ground, he places his sandal over the hole to cover it and recites Shema. Mar, son of Ravina, raised a dilemma: What is the halakha in a case where feces is stuck to his sandal? Perhaps he would be considered filthy in that case? Let this dilemma stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讙讜讬 注专讜诐 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚讜 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讙讜讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讙讜讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讗砖专 讘砖专 讞诪讜专讬诐 讘砖专诐 讗讬诪讗 讻讞诪讜专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讗讬拽专讜 注专讜讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜注专讜转 讗讘讬讛诐 诇讗 专讗讜:

Rav Yehuda said: Opposite a naked gentile, it is forbidden to recite Shema. The Gemara asks: Why did Rav Yehuda discuss particularly the case of a gentile? Even with regard to a Jew it is also prohibited. The Gemara replies: Opposite the nakedness of a Jew, it is obvious that it is prohibited; however, opposite the nakedness of a gentile, it was necessary for him to say. Lest you say that since it is written about gentiles: 鈥淭heir flesh is the flesh of donkeys鈥 (Ezekiel 23:20), say that his nakedness is like that of a mere donkey and does not constitute nakedness. Rav Yehuda taught us that their nakedness is also considered nakedness, as it is written regarding the sons of Noah: 鈥淎nd their father鈥檚 nakedness they did not see鈥 (Genesis 9:23). Although Noah predated Abraham and was consequently not Jewish, his nakedness is mentioned.

讜诇讗 讬转讻住讛 诇讗 讘诪讬诐 讛专注讬诐 讜诇讗 讘诪讬 讛诪砖专讛 注讚 砖讬讟讬诇 诇转讜讻谉 诪讬诐: 讜讻诪讛 诪讬讗 专诪讬 讜讗讝讬诇 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讬转讻住讛 诇讗 讘诪讬诐 讛专注讬诐 讜诇讗 讘诪讬 讛诪砖专讛 讻诇诇 讜诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 注讚 砖讬讟讬诇 诇转讜讻谉 诪讬诐 讜讬拽专讗

And we learned in the mishna: And one who needs to recite Shema may not cover himself with either foul water or water in which flax was soaked until he pours other water into it. The Gemara asks: How much water does he continue to pour in order to render them a permissible covering. If he is covering himself in water in which flax was soaked, it must be a considerable amount of water, requiring at least an equally considerable amount of water to neutralize it. Rather, this is what it says: One may neither cover himself with foul water nor water in which flax was soaked at all; and urine, which is considered repugnant, until he adds clean water to it, and only then he may recite Shema.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 讬讟讬诇 诇转讜讻谉 诪讬诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 讗讜诪专 专讘讬注讬转

The Sages taught a related disagreement in a baraita: How much water must one add in order to nullify urine? Any quantity is sufficient. Rabbi Zakkai says: One must add a quarter of a log.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讘住讜祝 讗讘诇 讘转讞讬诇讛 讻诇 砖讛谉

Rav Na岣an said: This dispute is with regard to a case where the urine is already in a vessel, and afterward one seeks to nullify it. However, if the clean water was in a vessel at the beginning, before the urine, each drop of urine is nullified as it enters the vessel and therefore any amount of clean water in the vessel is sufficient.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讘住讜祝 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 专讘讬注讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇砖诪注讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 专讘讬注讬转讗 讚诪讬讗 讻专讘讬 讝讻讗讬:

And Rav Yosef said: This dispute is with regard to the amount of water necessary to have in the vessel at the beginning, before the urine. However, afterward, everyone agrees that a quarter of a log is required. The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef said to his servant at the beginning: Bring me a quarter of a log of water, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zakkai.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬 讜注讘讬讟 砖诇 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讻谞讙讚谉 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讻诇讜诐 讜诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 注爪诪谉 注讚 砖讬讟讬诇 诇转讜讻谉 诪讬诐 讜讻诪讛 讬讟讬诇 诇转讜讻谉 诪讬诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 讗讜诪专 专讘讬注讬转 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛诪讟讛 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛诪讟讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗讞专 讛诪讟讛 拽讜专讗 诇驻谞讬 讛诪讟讛 讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗 讗讘诇 诪专讞讬拽 讛讜讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜拽讜专讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬转 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬拽专讗 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗诐 讗讜 砖讬谞讬讞诐 转讞转 讛诪讟讛

The Sages taught an elaboration of this point in the Tosefta: Opposite a chamber pot used for excrement or urine, it is prohibited to recite Shema, even if there is nothing in it, as it is always considered filthy. Opposite urine itself, one may not recite Shema until he pours water into it. And how much water must he pour into it? Any quantity. Rabbi Zakkai says: A quarter of a log. That is the ruling both when it is before the bed and when it is behind the bed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: When it is behind the bed, one may recite Shema, but when it is before the bed, one may not recite Shema, but he must distance himself four cubits and only then recite Shema. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is even more strict, saying: Even in a house one hundred cubits in size, one may not recite Shema until he removes it or places it beneath the bed.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞专 讛诪讟讛 拽讜专讗 诪讬讚 诇驻谞讬 讛诪讟讛 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜拽讜专讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗讞专 讛诪讟讛 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜拽讜专讗 诇驻谞讬 讛诪讟讛 讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗 讻诇诇

A dilemma was raised before students at the yeshiva: How does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel state this halakha? What did he mean? Did he mean that if the chamber pot is behind the bed, he recites Shema immediately; before the bed, he distances himself four cubits and recites? Or perhaps he states the following: If the chamber pot is behind the bed, he distances himself four cubits and then recites Shema, but if it is before the bed he may not recite Shema at all?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞专 讛诪讟讛 拽讜专讗 诪讬讚 诇驻谞讬 讛诪讟讛 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬转 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬拽专讗 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗诐 讗讜 砖讬谞讬讞诐 转讞转 讛诪讟讛

In order to resolve this dilemma, the Gemara cites proof. Come and hear that it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If it is behind the bed he recites Shema immediately; before the bed, he distances himself four cubits. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even in a large house of one hundred cubits one may not recite Shema until he removes it or places it beneath the bed. Thus we see from this baraita that if the vessel is obstructed by the bed he may recite Shema immediately.

讘注讬讬谉 讗讬驻砖讬讟讗 诇谉 诪转谞讬讬转讗 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讗讬驻讜讱 讘转专讬讬转讗

The Gemara notes: Our dilemma has been resolved, but the baraitot contradict each other. The statements made in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in one baraita were made in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in the other. The Gemara resolves the contradiction: Reverse the latter baraita and say that the names of the tanna鈥檌m were attached to the wrong opinions.

诪讛 讞讝讬转 讚讗驻讻转 讘转专讬讬转讗 讗讬驻讜讱 拽诪讬讬转讗

This solution is difficult: What did you see that led you to reverse the latter baraita? Reverse the first one.

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇讬讛 讘讬转 讻讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诪讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗

The Gemara proves that the latter baraita should be reversed in accordance with the opinions expressed by these Sages in general. Who did you hear that said that an entire house is considered like four cubits? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who expressed that opinion in the halakhot of eiruv (Rav Nissim). Consequently, it is reasonable to posit that this would also be his opinion with regard to these halakhot, and the baraita was reversed accordingly.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘注讗讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讟讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 讚讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬 砖诇砖讛 讗专讘注讛 讞诪砖讛 砖砖讛 砖讘注讛 砖诪谞讛 转砖注讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 注砖专讛 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖驻讬专 注讘讚转 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讱 讻诇 注砖专讛 专砖讜转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讛讬讗

Rav Yosef said: I raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: It is obvious to me that a bed under which there is a space of less than three handbreadths is considered connected [lavud] to the ground as if the void beneath it does not exist, as halakha considers a void of less than three handbreadths as sealed. What, then, is the dilemma? What is the halakha if that space is three, four, five, six, seven, eight or nine handbreadths? He said to him: I do not know. However, with regard to a space greater than ten handbreadths I certainly have no dilemma, as it is clear that this space is considered a separate domain. Abaye said to him: You did well that you did not have a dilemma, as the halakha is that any space ten handbreadths high is a separate domain.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬 注砖专讛 专砖讜转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讛讬讗 诪砖诇砖讛 注讚 注砖专讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇讗 驻砖讟 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 讘讗诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专讛 讘转 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

Rava summarized and said: The halakha is that less than three handbreadths is considered connected and it is permitted to recite Shema. Ten handbreadths is a separate domain. Three to ten handbreadths is the case with regard to which Rav Yosef raised a dilemma before Rav Huna, and Rav Huna did not resolve it for him. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. And, so too, the Sage Bali said that Rav Ya鈥檃kov, son of Shmuel鈥檚 daughter, said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. And Rava said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

专讘 讗讞讗讬 讗讬注住拽 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讘讬 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 注讬讬诇讬讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 诪住转讬讬注讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讝诇 讘转专讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬 讞讝讗 住驻专 转讜专讛 讚诪谞讞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬讻讜 讛砖转讗 诇讗 讗转讗讬 住讻谞转讜谉 诇讘专讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖讬砖 讘讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 讗住讜专 诇砖诪砖 讘讜 讗转 讛诪讟讛 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗诐 讗讜 砖讬谞讬讞诐 讻诇讬 讘转讜讱 讻诇讬

The Gemara relates: Rav A岣i arranged for his son to marry into the family of Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta. He led him to enter the wedding canopy for the wedding ceremony, but he was unsuccessful in his attempts to consummate the marriage. Rav A岣i followed him to examine possible causes of the problem and he saw a Torah scroll placed there. He said to them: Had I not come now, you would have endangered the life of my son. As it was taught in a baraita: In a room in which there is a Torah scroll or phylacteries, it is forbidden to engage in conjugal relations until he takes them out of the room or places them in a vessel inside a second vessel.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻诇讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讻诇讬讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诇讬讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖专讛 诪讗谞讬 讻讞讚 诪讗谞讗 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙诇讬诪讗

Abaye said: They only taught that a vessel inside a second vessel is sufficient when the vessel is not their, the Torah scroll鈥檚 or the phylacteries鈥, regular vessel. But a vessel that is their regular vessel, even ten vessels are considered as one vessel, and the Torah or phylacteries must be covered in another vessel not typically used for that purpose. Rava said: A cloak

Scroll To Top