Berakhot 25

אבל לתפלה עד שיכסה את לבו

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.

ואמר רב הונא שכח ונכנס בתפילין לבית הכסא מניח ידו עליהן עד שיגמור עד שיגמור סלקא דעתך אלא כדאמר רב נחמן בר יצחק עד שיגמור עמוד ראשון ולפסוק לאלתר וליקום משום דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דתניא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר עמוד החוזר מביא את האדם לידי הדרוקן סילון החוזר מביא את האדם לידי ירקון:

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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.

אתמר צואה על בשרו או ידו מונחת בבית הכסא רב הונא אמר מותר לקרות קריאת שמע רב חסדא אמר אסור לקרות קריאת שמע אמר רבא מאי טעמא דרב הונא דכתיב כל הנשמה תהלל יה הללויה

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 Ḥisda said: He is prohibited from reciting Shema. Rava said: What is the reason for Rav Huna’s opinion? As it is written: “Let every soul [neshama] praise the Lord; Halleluya” (Psalms 150:6), which he interprets as “Let everything that has breath” [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.

ורב חסדא אמר אסור לקרות קריאת שמע מאי טעמא דרב חסדא דכתיב כל עצמותי תאמרנה ה׳ מי כמוך:

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

אתמר ריח רע שיש לו עיקר רב הונא אמר מרחיק ארבע אמות וקורא קריאת שמע ורב חסדא אמר מרחיק ארבע אמות ממקום שפסק הריח וקורא קריאת שמע

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 Ḥisda said: The source is irrelevant; he distances himself four cubits from the place that the odor ceased and recites Shema.

תניא כותיה דרב חסדא לא יקרא אדם קריאת שמע לא כנגד צואת אדם ולא כנגד צואת כלבים ולא כנגד צואת חזירים ולא כנגד צואת תרנגולים ולא כנגד צואת אשפה שריחה רע ואם היה מקום גבוה עשרה טפחים או נמוך עשרה טפחים יושב בצדו וקורא קריאת שמע ואם לאו מרחיק ממנו מלוא עיניו וכן לתפלה ריח רע שיש לו עיקר מרחיק ארבע אמות ממקום הריח וקורא קריאת שמע

The Gemara notes that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda: 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.

אמר רבא לית הלכתא כי הא מתניתא בכל הני שמעתתא אלא כי הא דתניא לא יקרא אדם קריאת שמע לא כנגד צואת אדם ולא כנגד צואת חזירים ולא כנגד צואת כלבים בזמן שנתן עורות לתוכן

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.

בעו מיניה מרב ששת ריח רע שאין לו עיקר מהו אמר להו אתו חזו הני ציפי דבי רב דהני גנו והני גרסי והני מילי בדברי תורה אבל בקריאת שמע לא ודברי תורה נמי לא אמרן אלא דחבריה אבל דידיה לא:

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.

אתמר צואה עוברת אביי אמר מותר לקרות קריאת שמע רבא אמר אסור לקרות קריאת שמע

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.

אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתנן הטמא עומד תחת האילן והטהור עובר טמא טהור עומד תחת האילן וטמא עובר טהור ואם עמד טמא וכן באבן המנוגעת

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.

ורבא אמר לך התם בקביעותא תליא מילתא דכתיב בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה מושבו הכא והיה מחניך קדוש אמר רחמנא והא ליכא:

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: “He shall dwell alone; outside the camp shall his dwelling be” (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: “And your camp shall be holy” (Deuteronomy 23:15), and there is no holiness in those circumstances.

אמר רב פפא פי חזיר כצואה עוברת דמי פשיטא לא צריכא אף על גב דסליק מנהרא

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.

אמר רב יהודה ספק צואה אסורה ספק מי רגלים מותרים איכא דאמרי אמר רב יהודה ספק צואה בבית מותרת באשפה אסורה ספק מי רגלים אפילו באשפה נמי מותרין

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.

סבר לה כי הא דרב המנונא דאמר רב המנונא לא אסרה תורה אלא כנגד עמוד בלבד

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.

וכדרבי יונתן דרבי יונתן רמי כתיב ויד תהיה לך מחוץ למחנה ויצאת שמה חוץ וכתיב ויתד תהיה לך וגו׳ וכסית את צאתך

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: “You shall also have a place outside the camp, to which you will go” (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: “And 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” (Deuteronomy 23:14), indicating a clear obligation to conceal one’s excrement.

הא כיצד כאן בגדולים כאן בקטנים אלמא קטנים לא אסרה תורה אלא כנגד עמוד בלבד הא נפול לארעא שרי ורבנן הוא דגזרו בהו וכי גזרו בהו רבנן בודאן אבל בספקן לא גזור

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.

ובודאן עד כמה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל זמן שמטפיחין וכן אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל זמן שמטפיחין וכן אמר עולא כל זמן שמטפיחין גניבא משמיה דרב אמר כל זמן שרשומן ניכר

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 Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אמר רב יוסף שרא ליה מריה לגניבא השתא צואה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כיון שקרמו פניה מותר מי רגלים מיבעיא

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?

אמר ליה אביי מאי חזית דסמכת אהא סמוך אהא דאמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רב צואה אפילו כחרס אסורה

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.

והיכי דמי צואה כחרס אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל זמן שזורקה ואינה נפרכת ואיכא דאמרי כל זמן שגוללה ואינה נפרכת

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of feces like earthenware? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אמר רבינא הוה קאימנא קמיה דרב יהודה מדיפתי חזא צואה אמר לי עיין אי קרמו פניה אי לא איכא דאמרי הכי אמר ליה עיין אי מפלאי אפלויי

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.

מאי הוי עלה אתמר צואה כחרס אמימר אמר אסורה ומר זוטרא אמר מותרת אמר רבא הלכתא צואה כחרס אסורה ומי רגלים כל זמן שמטפיחין

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.

מיתיבי מי רגלים כל זמן שמטפיחין אסורין נבלעו או יבשו מותרים מאי לאו נבלעו דומיא דיבשו מה יבשו דאין רשומן ניכר אף נבלעו דאין רשומן ניכר הא רשומן ניכר אסור אף על גב דאין מטפיחין

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.

ולטעמיך אימא רישא כל זמן שמטפיחין הוא דאסור הא רשומן ניכר שרי אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה

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.

לימא כתנאי כלי שנשפכו ממנו מי רגלים אסור לקרות קריאת שמע כנגדו ומי רגלים עצמן שנשפכו נבלעו מותר לא נבלעו אסור רבי יוסי אומר כל זמן שמטפיחין

The Gemara notes: Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between the tanna’im, 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.

מאי נבלעו ומאי לא נבלעו דקאמר תנא קמא אילימא נבלעו דאין מטפיחין לא נבלעו דמטפיחין ואתא רבי יוסי למימר כל זמן שמטפיחין הוא דאסור הא רשומן ניכר שרי היינו תנא קמא אלא נבלעו דאין רשומן ניכר לא נבלעו דרשומן ניכר ואתא רבי יוסי למימר כל זמן שמטפיחין הוא דאסור הא רשומן ניכר שרי

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.

לא דכולי עלמא כל זמן שמטפיחין הוא דאסור הא רשומן ניכר שרי

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

והכא בטופח על מנת להטפיח איכא בינייהו:

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.

ירד לטבול אם יכול לעלות כו׳: לימא תנא סתמא כרבי אליעזר דאמר עד הנץ החמה

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.

אפילו תימא רבי יהושע ודלמא כותיקין דאמר רבי יוחנן ותיקין היו גומרין אותה עם הנץ החמה:

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 Yoḥanan said: The vatikin would conclude the recitation of Shema with sunrise.

ואם לאו יתכסה במים ויקרא: והרי לבו רואה את הערוה

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.

אמר רבי אלעזר ואי תימא רבי אחא בר אבא בר אחא משום רבינו במים עכורין שנו דדמו כארעא סמיכתא שלא יראה לבו ערותו

Regarding this Rabbi Elazar said, and some say it was Rabbi Aḥa bar Abba bar Aḥa 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.

תנו רבנן מים צלולין ישב בהן עד צוארו וקורא ויש אומרים עוכרן ברגלו

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.

ותנא קמא והרי לבו רואה את הערוה קסבר לבו רואה את הערוה מותר והרי עקבו רואה את הערוה קסבר עקבו רואה את הערוה מותר

The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna doesn’t 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’t 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.

אתמר עקבו רואה את הערוה מותר נוגע אביי אמר אסור ורבא אמר מותר רב זביד מתני לה להא שמעתא הכי רב חיננא בריה דרב איקא מתני לה הכי נוגע דברי הכל אסור רואה אביי אמר אסור רבא אמר מותר לא נתנה תורה למלאכי השרת והלכתא נוגע אסור רואה מותר

The Gemara notes, it was stated: If one’s 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 Ḥinnana, 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.

אמר רבא צואה בעששית מותר לקרות קריאת שמע כנגדה ערוה בעששית אסור לקרות קריאת שמע כנגדה צואה בעששית מותר לקרות קריאת שמע כנגדה דצואה בכיסוי תליא מילתא והא מיכסיא ערוה בעששית אסור לקרות קריאת שמע כנגדה ולא יראה בך ערות דבר אמר רחמנא והא קמיתחזיא

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: “And cover your excrement” (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: “And no indecent thing shall be seen in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15), and here it is seen.

אמר אביי צואה כל שהו מבטלה ברוק אמר רבא וברוק עבה אמר רבא צואה בגומא מניח סנדלו עליה וקורא קריאת שמע בעא מר בריה דרבינא צואה דבוקה בסנדלו מאי תיקו

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.

אמר רב יהודה גוי ערום אסור לקרות קריאת שמע כנגדו מאי איריא גוי אפילו ישראל נמי ישראל פשיטא ליה דאסור אלא גוי איצטריכא ליה מהו דתימא הואיל וכתיב בהו אשר בשר חמורים בשרם אימא כחמור בעלמא הוא קא משמע לן דאינהו נמי איקרו ערוה דכתיב וערות אביהם לא ראו:

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: “Their flesh is the flesh of donkeys” (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: “And their father’s nakedness they did not see” (Genesis 9:23). Although Noah predated Abraham and was consequently not Jewish, his nakedness is mentioned.

ולא יתכסה לא במים הרעים ולא במי המשרה עד שיטיל לתוכן מים: וכמה מיא רמי ואזיל אלא הכי קאמר לא יתכסה לא במים הרעים ולא במי המשרה כלל ומי רגלים עד שיטיל לתוכן מים ויקרא

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.

תנו רבנן כמה יטיל לתוכן מים כל שהוא רבי זכאי אומר רביעית

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.

אמר רב נחמן מחלוקת לבסוף אבל בתחילה כל שהן

Rav Naḥman 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.

ורב יוסף אמר מחלוקת לכתחילה אבל לבסוף דברי הכל רביעית אמר ליה רב יוסף לשמעיה אייתי לי רביעיתא דמיא כרבי זכאי:

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.

תנו רבנן גרף של רעי ועביט של מי רגלים אסור לקרות קריאת שמע כנגדן ואף על פי שאין בהן כלום ומי רגלים עצמן עד שיטיל לתוכן מים וכמה יטיל לתוכן מים כל שהוא רבי זכאי אומר רביעית בין לפני המטה בין לאחר המטה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לאחר המטה קורא לפני המטה אינו קורא אבל מרחיק הוא ארבע אמות וקורא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אפילו בית מאה אמה לא יקרא עד שיוציאם או שיניחם תחת המטה

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.

איבעיא להו היכי קאמר אחר המטה קורא מיד לפני המטה מרחיק ארבע אמות וקורא או דילמא הכי קאמר לאחר המטה מרחיק ארבע אמות וקורא לפני המטה אינו קורא כלל

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?

תא שמע דתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אחר המטה קורא מיד לפני המטה מרחיק ארבע אמות רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אפילו בית מאה אמה לא יקרא עד שיוציאם או שיניחם תחת המטה

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.

בעיין איפשיטא לן מתנייתא קשיין אהדדי איפוך בתרייתא

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’im were attached to the wrong opinions.

מה חזית דאפכת בתרייתא איפוך קמייתא

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

מאן שמעת ליה דאמר כוליה בית כארבע אמות דמי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר היא

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.

אמר רב יוסף בעאי מיניה מרב הונא מטה פחות משלשה פשיטא לי דכלבוד דמי שלשה ארבעה חמשה ששה שבעה שמנה תשעה מהו אמר ליה לא ידענא עשרה ודאי לא מיבעי לי אמר אביי שפיר עבדת לא איבעיא לך כל עשרה רשותא אחריתי היא

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.

אמר רבא הלכתא פחות משלשה כלבוד דמי עשרה רשותא אחריתי היא משלשה עד עשרה היינו דבעא מיניה רב יוסף מרב הונא ולא פשט ליה אמר רב הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר וכן אמר באלי אמר רב יעקב ברה בת שמואל הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר ורבא אמר אין הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר

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’akov, son of Shmuel’s 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.

רב אחאי איעסק ליה לבריה בי רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא עייליה לחופה ולא הוה מסתייעא מילתא אזל בתריה לעיוני חזא ספר תורה דמנחא אמר להו איכו השתא לא אתאי סכנתון לברי דתניא בית שיש בו ספר תורה או תפילין אסור לשמש בו את המטה עד שיוציאם או שיניחם כלי בתוך כלי

The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥai arranged for his son to marry into the family of Rav Yitzḥak 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 Aḥai 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.

אמר אביי לא שנו אלא בכלי שאינו כליין אבל בכלי שהוא כליין אפילו עשרה מאני כחד מאנא דמי אמר רבא גלימא

Abaye said: They only taught that a vessel inside a second vessel is sufficient when the vessel is not their, the Torah scroll’s or the phylacteries’, 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