Commentary for Berakhot 49:8
בעו מיניה מרב ששת ריח רע שאין לו עיקר מהו אמר להו אתו חזו הני ציפי דבי רב דהני גנו והני גרסי וה"מ בדברי תורה אבל בק"ש לא ודברי תורה נמי לא אמרן אלא דחבריה אבל דידיה לא:
Rab Sheshet was asked : How is it with a foul odour which has no [material] cause? He replied : Come and behold the mats in the school of Rab, on which some are sleeping while others are studying. But this refers only to words of Torah, not to the reading of the Shema'. And even of words of Torah this is not said except [when the bad odour is caused] by another ; but if he himself is the cause, he must not [even study until the odour has passed off].
Tosafot on Berakhot
A FOUL ODOR [THAT IS NOT FROM A] TANGIBLE SOURCE? The Gemara differentiates between a foul odor that has a tangible source and a foul odor that does not have a tangible source. Tosfos is examining the definition of a non-tangible source. Does it mean there is no tangible source at all, as in the case of a foul odor from a person who passes wind or perhaps the source of the foul odor may be tangible but not visible to us, and that too would qualify as an odor from a non-tangible source?
There are those who say that our latrines where the pit containing the excrement is deep, when they have a wall that separates them from the surrounding area they are the equivalent of a foul odor that has no tangible source, as we find with the latrines of the Persians (Later 26a). Their latrines consisted of a pit that was not directly below the opening. Beneath the opening there was a slope that leads to a pit that was some distance from the opening. The Gemara later says that it is permitted to recite sh’ma in the Persian latrines. Tosfos is considering that when there is a partition around a regular latrine the surrounding area should be considered as a foul odor from a non- tangible source, just as the Persian latrines certainly had a foul odor, but were permitted for sh’ma because of the distance from the pit, so too, the area around the regular latrines should be considered as a foul odor of a non-tangible source.
There are those who say that our latrines where the pit containing the excrement is deep, when they have a wall that separates them from the surrounding area they are the equivalent of a foul odor that has no tangible source, as we find with the latrines of the Persians (Later 26a). Their latrines consisted of a pit that was not directly below the opening. Beneath the opening there was a slope that leads to a pit that was some distance from the opening. The Gemara later says that it is permitted to recite sh’ma in the Persian latrines. Tosfos is considering that when there is a partition around a regular latrine the surrounding area should be considered as a foul odor from a non- tangible source, just as the Persian latrines certainly had a foul odor, but were permitted for sh’ma because of the distance from the pit, so too, the area around the regular latrines should be considered as a foul odor of a non-tangible source.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Abraham Cohen Footnotes to the English Translation of Masechet Berakhot
I.e. it is not caused by excrement but breaking of wind. May one read the Shema'?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Abraham Cohen Footnotes to the English Translation of Masechet Berakhot
Although some of the sleepers may cause a foul odour, others are studying, an indication that the Shema' may be read under such conditions.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Abraham Cohen Footnotes to the English Translation of Masechet Berakhot
The cases are not analogous ; he must remove himself from the odour before reading the Shema'.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy