Siman 76

It has already been explained that tzoah is like ervah. It is forbidden to recite Keriat Shema, to pray, to say blessings, and to study in a place where there is tzoah opposite him. Tzoah is more stringent than ervah, for with tzoah it is also forbidden even in thought, as I wrote at the beginning of siman 74. However, in this regard tzoah is more lenient than ervah: for with ervah in a glass vessel it is forbidden to recite opposite it, as I wrote in the previous siman. But tzoah in a glass vessel is permitted even though it is visible, because the Torah made it dependent upon covering, as it is written: "and you shall turn back and cover your excrement." And behold, it is covered, and therefore even though he sees it through its walls – it is permitted.

And similarly regarding excrement in a pit—one places his sandal over it and recites Kriyat Shema, for it is considered as if it were covered. And if the foul odor does not reach him—it is permitted. But when there is a foul odor—it is forbidden, and even according to the opinion in siman 79 that a partition is effective even for a foul odor, see there. And this is a partition and not merely a covering. And similarly, specifically that the sandal does not touch the excrement. For since the sandal is on the body of the person, when the sandal touches the excrement—it is as if the excrement is on his body. And therefore, one must be very careful when exiting a lavatory, and from places that are not clean, to wipe his shoes well before entering the beit midrash to pray.

If they passed excrement before him, meaning that he is reciting Keriat Shema and another carries excrement before him, even though the excrement is passing by, it is nevertheless forbidden, for ultimately there is no "your camp shall be holy." Therefore, when the excrement passes before his eyes in front of him—it is forbidden to recite even when the excrement is four amot away from him, and he must distance himself the full extent of his vision. If the excrement is behind him, it is sufficient that he distances himself four amot from it, provided the odor does not reach him. When the excrement is at his sides—it is also sufficient with four amot like behind him. Therefore, when a person stands near water and excrement is floating upon the surface of the water—the law is also as has been explained (Beit Yosef, and Taz subsection 1). There is one who wishes to be lenient regarding before him with four amot, but it is not the primary view. (Magen Avraham in the name of the Bach, and see Taz ibid. However, the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 4 agrees with the Bach, that even before him four amot is sufficient.)

Excrement in water is not nullified unless the water is murky such that the excrement is not visible in them (Shiltei HaGibborim). And this is specifically when there is no foul odor. The mouth of a pig is considered like passing excrement (Gemara 25a). Even if it emerges from the river, for washing is of no use to it, as it is like a vessel of filth. Therefore, one must be careful not to pray in a house where pigs are common. It is forbidden to recite any berakhah there, and it is forbidden to don tefillin there. And wayfarers must be very careful in this matter.

If there was tzoah on his flesh and it was covered by his garments, or if he inserted his hand into a beit hakise through a hole, and the foul odor does not reach him – there is a dispute in the Gemara (25a). Rava Huna said: It is permitted to recite Kriat Shema, as it is written: "Let every soul praise the Lord" – the respiratory organs, the mouth and the nose, praise, and not the other organs. And we are not concerned with their cleanliness, since the tzoah is covered. And Rav Chisda said: It is forbidden to recite, as it is written: "All my bones shall say, Lord, who is like You." Therefore, all the organs are included in the praise, and they must be clean. The Rif and the Rosh ruled like Rav Huna, that it is permitted to recite Kriat Shema. And so it is explained from the Rambam in the third chapter, law 11, see there. However, Rabbeinu Chananel ruled like Rav Chisda that it is forbidden. And seemingly, the halacha follows the many, and it is permitted to recite.

However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4, after bringing the two opinions, that there are those who say that the one who permits did not permit excrement on his flesh except in a place where it is covered of its own accord without a garment, such as the armpits. And it is proper to act according to the words of the one who is stringent. Thus far his words. And the reason for this opinion is because there is no logic at all to actually permit excrement on his flesh, for it is simple that "and your camp shall be holy" is not fulfilled here, even though it is covered by clothes. Nevertheless, it is on his body, and the body is certainly no less than the camp itself, and covering does not avail it. Therefore, they interpret that this is in a place where it is impossible to be revealed at all, such as between his armpits. And therefore we read regarding it "and your camp shall be holy."

And the Rambam, of blessed memory, also guarded against this difficulty, as he wrote there: If there was a smear of excrement on his flesh, or his hands were soiled from the beit hakise, and there was no foul odor at all due to their smallness or dryness—it is permitted to recite… Thus far his words. Behold, he interpreted "a smear of excrement," meaning: not actual excrement, but rather traces of excrement. And likewise, he does not read "he brought his hands into the beit hakise" but rather "his hands were soiled from the beit hakise," meaning: that he wiped himself with something, and traces of soil remained on the hand as well. And it must be said that this deals with a case where he has no water, for he wipes his hands with a pebble or on a wall, as I wrote in siman 4, see there. However, in any event, even the Rambam only permitted it in such a manner. And regarding this itself, he wrote afterward that several Geonim instructed that it is forbidden for him to recite if his hands were soiled, and thus it is proper to do. Thus far his words.

And according to this, regarding actual tzoah on his flesh—it is certainly forbidden. However, regarding traces of tzoah or in a place that is covered, such as between the joints of his arms and the like, and he has no water—one may rely on the opinion of our teachers who permit it. And if there is tzoah on his clothes, such as on his shirt or trousers and the like, and it is covered by another garment—it is permitted according to all opinions (Magen Avraham, subsection 6). And it is not similar to tzoah stuck to his sandal which is forbidden, and even with a mere touch as I wrote in section 2, because with a sandal one walks and the tzoah is revealed slightly through his walking, which is not the case with other clothes (ibid. in the name of the Maor and the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah). Furthermore: the sandal is more nullified to the body than other clothes. Furthermore: the sandal is like a vessel of excrement (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 5). And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that semen on his flesh—its law is like tzoah. Thus far his words. And consequently, if there is a substance of semen on his flesh—it is forbidden to recite until he removes it. And if there are traces of semen on his flesh, or even a substance of semen, but it is between his thighs where it is never revealed, and he has no water—he may recite Keriat Shema and pray as he is. And semen on his shirt, and it is covered—it is permitted for him to recite Keriat Shema and to pray and to study. And such is the halacha. However, it is certainly true that if he can easily wash the place and remove the semen entirely—he shall receive a great reward, and it is for the honor of Heaven. But according to the law it is not an impediment, for such is the consensus of the great authorities as we have explained with the help of Heaven. (And the Sefer Chasidim was speaking of a measure of piety.)

Excrement in its place, meaning at the anus—it is forbidden to recite Keriat Shema (Yoma 30a). However, if it is not visible on the outside—it is permitted, for the Torah was not given to the ministering angels (ibid.). For there are people who are pressed for their needs, and the excrement stands at the anus, and they are unable to expel it. But if some of it is visible on the outside when he is sitting, even though it is not visible when he is standing—it is forbidden (ibid.). And it is not similar to excrement on one's flesh, which is permitted according to most poskim as I wrote in section 5, because in its place its foulness is greater (Gemara ibid.).

Therefore, one who has the disease of hemorrhoids, which they call "gildernem ader," and blood flows from him constantly, and along with the blood a foul, putrid moisture exits from him, and this has a foul odor—he is forbidden from any matter of sanctity as long as this moisture is flowing from him (Magen Avraham, subsection 8). And even if the time for the recitation of Shema and the time for prayer passes—he shall not recite, nor pray, nor bless. However, if there is no foul odor there, if the blood or the moisture exits through pushing intermittently—he has a remedy by washing the place of filth. But if it flows and descends constantly on its own, it is from the rectum, and there is no remedy for this (ibid.). And it is forbidden for him to mention any matter of sanctity until the flowing ceases.

If there was a small amount of tzoah before him—he may nullify it with saliva by spitting on it, and recite [Shema] facing it. And this is specifically when the saliva is thick. And the placing of water upon the tzoah is not effective unless they were murky, such that the tzoah is not visible through them. And it is not similar to a glass lantern, which is a superior covering (ibid. subsection 9). And even thick saliva, the nullification is only effective temporarily. However, over the course of an hour, the saliva melts and is absorbed into it, and it is no longer effective and returns to its prohibition.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said (25a): A doubt regarding tzoah in a house—it is permitted; in a rubbish heap—it is forbidden. And it must be said that even if there is room to say that tzoah was established in the house, such as when it is known that infants go there for their needs, but there is a doubt whether they removed the tzoah or not—it is permitted, for the status of an ordinary house is that it is cleaned. And perforce one must say so, for if tzoah was not established in the house, what relevance is there to "a doubt regarding tzoah in a house"? Or perhaps one should not be so lenient, and if it is merely known that minors go there—one must know clearly that they removed the tzoah from there. And if not—it is forbidden to recite, to pray, and to bless. Rather, it refers to where there are minors but it is not known that they go there, for in such a case it is called "a doubt regarding tzoah in a house" and it is permitted.

However, from the words of the students of our teacher Yonah in the third chapter, it is clear that even in such a case it is forbidden. For they wrote regarding that which we say, "If one prayed and found excrement in his place" – since he has sinned, even though he prayed, his prayer is not a prayer, and he must return and pray. And they wrote that this refers to a place where children are commonly found, and he had an obligation to check the place; see there. Behold, it is explicitly stated that if there are merely children in the house – it is a case of "doubtful excrement" which is forbidden. And according to their words, one must perforce say that the ruling that "doubtful excrement" in a house is permitted refers to a case where there are no children there at all. And if so, it is not understood how "doubtful excrement" is relevant in such a case, and it requires further study.

And the words of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch are opaque in this, as they wrote according to the language of the Shas: If there is a doubt whether there is tzoah in a house—it is permitted to recite, for the presumption of a house is that it does not contain tzoah. Thus far their words. And afterwards they wrote: If one recited in a place where it is appropriate to be in doubt regarding tzoah, and found it afterwards—he must return and recite. But if the place is not appropriate to be in doubt regarding it—he does not need to return and recite. Thus far their words. And they did not explain the boundaries of the place, how and what.

However, in the words of the Rambam, I see a great change from the wording of the Shas. For he wrote in the third chapter, law 15: If one was reciting the Shema in a house, and he was in doubt if there was excrement there… – behold, it is permitted to recite. Thus far his words. And the second law, that if one prayed and found excrement in his place, that he must return and pray – is not found in him at all. And only at the beginning of the chapter there, when he wrote that one does not recite in a bathhouse nor in a latrine, he wrote that anyone who recited in a place where one does not recite – returns and recites, see there. But in this specific case, when he found excrement in his place – he mentioned nothing.

It appears to me that even according to the Rambam, the inference we made follows a fortiori. For how is a doubt regarding tzua in a house relevant if there are no infants there? If so, since it is permitted to recite, how could they say that when one finds tzua in his place he must repeat the prayer? Therefore, he explains it thus. And this is the layout of the tradition: Certainly, if before the recitation of Shema and the prayer it entered his mind that there is a doubt of tzua here—for example, if there are infants or the like—he is forbidden to begin until he inspects the place. And if he did not inspect and found tzua, he is considered negligent, and is obligated to repeat the recitation and the prayer. And this matter he did not need to explain in detail, as this is included in what he wrote at the beginning of the chapter, that in filthy places it is forbidden to recite, and if one recited, he repeats the recitation. And automatically, if there is a doubt of filth, it is like any doubt regarding a Torah law and we follow the stringent view. And there is no novelty in this.

And that which they said, "Doubtful tzoa in the house is permitted"—it is a different matter. And this is: that before the recitation of Shema and the prayer, it did not occur to him that there was any doubt at all regarding tzoa, and he began to recite. And in the middle of the recitation, the doubt arose in his heart, because there are children there and the like. However, since he began to recite with permission, and the presumption of a house is that there is no tzoa there, and when the children leave they remove it from there, for indeed such is the way of most people. And therefore they permitted him to finish. And then, even if he found tzoa afterward—he is an anus, since the doubt did not occur to him at all. And the Torah was not given to the ministering angels, and regarding such a case they did not say that he must return and recite. And this is why the Rambam was precise in his words: "He was reciting and became doubtful," meaning: that the doubt occurred to him after he began to recite. And so it appears to my humble opinion to be the primary ruling.

A doubt regarding tzua in a garbage heap is forbidden because the presumption of a garbage heap is that there is tzua there. Therefore, it is forbidden for him to recite, to pray, or to bless facing a garbage heap until he inspects it, and even if the garbage heap itself does not have a foul odor, for if there is a foul odor in the garbage heap, it is forbidden regardless. I saw one who wrote that a garbage heap even in a house is forbidden (the HaGra"z), but in my humble opinion it is not so, for in Chullin (12a) there is a dispute whether one casts carcasses into a garbage heap that is in a house, and we hold in Yoreh Deah siman 1 that one does not cast them. Rashi explained there: A person is not prone to cast his carcass into a garbage heap in a house because it rots and there is a foul odor. Thus far his words. And if so, certainly one does not cast human tzua there, as there is no foul odor greater than human tzua. Therefore, it seems to me that a garbage heap in this context in the Gemara and poskim is specifically a garbage heap in a courtyard, and not a garbage heap in a house.

And so too if it is known to him that there is tzua in the house, but he does not know if it is human tzua or the tzua of dogs, some say that in a house it is permitted and in a refuse heap it is forbidden (Magen Avraham, subsection 10, in the name of the Riaz). And some say that we follow the majority presence, for we attribute it to what is common, whether to be lenient or to be stringent, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah, siman 57 (Magen Avraham). And when children are more common than dogs—even in a house it is forbidden. And when dogs are more common—even in a refuse heap it is permitted (ibid.). And some are stringent regarding a refuse heap in any case (Pri Chadash). And so too when it is known that there is tzua in the house—it is forbidden in any case (ibid.), for in a place where tzua is established—it is certainly forbidden to recite until he knows clearly that it is from dogs. And so one should rule. And it is obvious that if it was clarified afterward that it was from a human, he is obligated to repeat the recitation.

Urine is not so, for even in a place where there is reason to doubt whether there is urine there, even in a rubbish heap it is permitted. And the reason: for from the Torah it is only forbidden opposite the one urinating, at the time he urinates in his usual manner. But after the urine has fallen on the ground – it is permitted from the Torah, and the reason will be explained in siman 77. And it is only forbidden by rabbinic law, and in a case of doubt they did not decree. Therefore, regarding urine, even if he found it in a place where it was appropriate to have a doubt – he does not need to return and recite or pray. (And see Magen Avraham, subsection 11, that even with dripping – it is permitted from the Torah, see there.)

It appears to me that just as it is forbidden to recite and to pray facing urine by rabbinic decree, so too it is forbidden facing any repulsive thing, such as vomit, or a great deal of nasal discharge, and phlegm and mucus—the repulsive discharges of saliva—for they are no less than urine. And "Prepare to meet your God, O Israel." There is one who is lenient in this, but it does not seem correct to me. Furthermore, it appears that if one recited facing a rubbish heap and went on his way without checking, even though he committed a prohibition, nevertheless he does not need to return and recite, unless it was definitely established that there was excrement there. (And there is one who did not write so, see Biur Halacha. But it appears to me as I have written, and examine carefully and you will find it simple.)