פירוש על ברכות 49:28

HE RULED. Rabainu Chananel ruled as Rav Chisdo says that it is forbidden to recite k’reeas sh’ma even with excrement under his garment on his flesh, and he holds that we follow the verse “all my limbs shall exclaim” (T’hilim 35). For even though Rav Chisdo is a student of Rav Huno, we follow the stringent opinion.
And Rav Alfas ruled like Rav Huno, that we are lenient in this matter when one discovers excrement on his body that was covered while he prayed, because the Gemara challenges Rav Popo from Rav Huno’s opinion in Yoma perek Hamemunoh (30a).¹Rav Popo there says that when one has excrement at its source, the anal area, he may not recite sh’ma. The Gemara proceeds to ask why this is any different than Rav Huno’s case when one has excrement on his body under his garment where he rules that he may recite sh’ma. The Gemara is asking its question from Rav Huno who holds that it is permissible to recite sh’ma and seems to be ignoring that Rav Popo is in agreement with Rav Chisdo who holds that it is prohibited. It seems that the Gemara knows that we rule in favor of Rav Huno. However see Rashi there in Yoma 30a, who explains that the Gemara’s question is from both Rav Huno and Rav Chisdo and if so, is no proof that the halochoh is in accordance with Rav Huno. See Shulchan Oruch 76, 4, who rules that initially one should be stringent and avoid praying when there is excrement on his body covered by his clothing, but de facto when one has already prayed and then finds excrement on his body, he can rely on those who say that it is permissible and he need not repeat his prayers. Since the Gemara there uses Rav Huno’s opinion to challenge Rav Popo, it is obvious that the Gemara holds that we rule in favor of Rav Huno. Otherwise, if we ruled like Rav Chisdo, it would present no difficulty to Rav Popo.

THE HALAKHA IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS BARAITA IN ALL OF THESE RULINGS, [BUT] RATHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT WHICH WAS TAUGHT ETC. The Gemara introduced a Braiso to prove that Rav Chisdo is correct, that one must distance himself four cubits from where the foul odor of the excrement dissipates and only then is he permitted to recite sh’ma. In that Braiso, it also mentions that these prohibitions are in effect for the excrement of pigs and dogs as well. Rovo argues that the halachoho is not in accordance with this Braiso on the issue of excrement of pigs and dogs, rather we follow a second Braiso that says that the excrement of pigs and dogs is a problem only when they are being used in the tanning process. Then the odor is extremely foul, but ordinarily they do not present a problem.
Rashi explained that the halochoh is not in accordance with this Braiso that we learned earlier that prohibits reciting sh’ma in the presence of excrement of dogs and pigs even when they are not being used in the process of tanning hides. However, this differentiation does not apply to human excrement, and it is prohibited to recite sh’ma in the presence of human excrement in any case.¹Rashi says that it is quite unusual to use human excrement in the processing of hides and it is therefore unlikely that the Braiso would mention that human excrement is a problem only when used for tannin hides.
Tosfos now analyzes what the Braiso did not mention. It appears that Rovo is not discussing excrement of chickens and in the second Braiso we do not have the text, excrement of chickens at all. And the second Braiso does not argue about this, excrement of chickens with the earlier Braiso that did mention excrement of chickens. And according to this, it is mentioned in the first Braiso that one may not recite sh’ma in the presence of excrement of chickens and not at all in the second Braiso, it should be prohibited to recite sh’ma in the presence of chicken excrement.
Rabainu Yehudoh qualifies Tosfos conclusion. And Rabainu Yehudoh says that only when they are in their coop where there is a huge stench is it forbidden to recite sh’ma, but as far as the chickens that walk²See Rosh Simon 45 whose text is בבית הגדלים. This translates as chickens that are raised in a house. They do not have a great stench, but those that are raised in a coop may have a great stench even when walking in a house. in the houses the stench of their excrement is not as foul and we need not be concerned and we are permitted to recite sh’ma in the presence of that excrement.
And in Yerushalmee it says that we need only be concerned with chickens that are edomim, and we do not know the explanation of edomim. Some say that it translates as red, and that red chickens have a stronger stench. Others say that edomim refers to the land of Edom where there is a massive amount of barley that causes a very foul odor in the chicken excrement. Tosfos was uncertain of the explanation. And it further says in Yerushalmee that we must distance ourselves from the excrement of animals when reciting sh’ma. R’ Yishmoel son of R’ Yitzchok says, but only the excrement of a donkey and not other animals.³For further clarification, see Shulcha Oruch 79, 5.

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.

M. omits : b. Isaac.

I.e. he must take the earliest opportunity to remove them.

Judaism enjoins the duty of maintaining the body in a healthy condition.

Through a hole in the wall or fence, his body being outside.

I.e. the organs through which breath is taken, the mouth and nose. So long as these are not in the unclean place, praise may be offered.

I.e. limbs; they all have to be clean or in a clean place.

I.e. there is filth lying about.

M. : remove himself to a place where the smell is imperceptible and read.

In the vicinity of filth.

M. : stands.

Under any circumstances.

The excrement of these animals was used for cleaning purposes; cf. T. A.I. p. 154 and p. 574 n. 346.

I.e. it is not caused by excrement but breaking of wind. May one read the Shema'?

Although some of the sleepers may cause a foul odour, others are studying, an indication that the Shema' may be read under such conditions.

The cases are not analogous ; he must remove himself from the odour before reading the Shema'.

E.g. a leper.

According to Abbai, this is analogous to the quoted Baraita ; so if the passing leper does not cause defilement, the passing manure should not interfere with the reading of the Shema'.

Cf. Lev. xiv. 37 ff. If the stone is carried past a man, he is not infected ; if it is set down where he is, he does contract defilement.

What reply can he make to the reasoning upon which Abbai bases his view?

The analogy is false, because the quoted Mishnah only means to teach that the leper defiles any place where he stands for a while, which thus becomes temporarily his "dwelling."

The circumstance of the passing manure and saying the Shema'.

I.e. not only must the spot where he is standing be holy but the surroundings also.

Since the pig constantly pokes its snout amidst filth.

The presumption being that there is no excrement in the room, but there is in the ash-heap.

M. : Johanan.

That in v. 13 there is no mention of covering as in v. 14.

Geniba had wrongly reported the teaching of Rab.

That Rab permits the Shema' when the moisture had dried, and not when all trace had disappeared, as Geniba reported him.

M. : Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said in the name of R. Johanan.

So M. ; not as edd.: Judab. On Difti, see p. 48 n. 2.

If so, he would be able to read the Shema'.

By the sun, wben it has fallen on stone.

This conclusion contradicts Raba's statement of the Halakah.

And thus the quoted Baraita would be self-contradictory !

But that is impossible, since his opinion must be different, it being mentioned in contrast to that of the first Tanna.

This is to be connected with the opening sentence of the paragraph. It denies that the question here discussed is the same as that before considered.