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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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