Siman 79

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: If human excrement was behind him – he must distance himself four amot from the place where the odor ends. Even if he has an illness such that he cannot smell – he must distance himself four amot from the place where the odor would end for one who can smell. And from before him, he must distance himself the full range of his vision. Even at night, or if he is blind and cannot see it – he must distance himself until the place where it would be impossible to see during the day. And if it is at his side – its law is like that which is behind him. Thus far his words. And the opinion of the Rambam in the third chapter is that behind him he only needs to distance himself four amot and until the odor ends. But four amot from the place where the odor ends is not required. And most of the poskim disagree with him. (And the intention of the Rambam in halacha 12 is regarding behind him, for regarding before him – he already ruled in halacha 8 like the full range of vision. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

And in this, that he ruled that the sides are like behind him, so ruled the Rambam there in law 8, and so wrote the Semag. And there is one who disagrees, saying that the sides are considered like in front of him, as we find regarding a curved lulav in Sukkah (32a). And he says that the Rambam is dealing with a case where it is impossible to place it behind him, for then it is like behind him. But in a place where it is possible—it is like in front of him, and as I have written below in siman 81 (Kessef Mishneh in the name of our teacher, Manoach). And there is one who wrote that the sides of the front are like the front, and those of the back are like the back, as with the Kohanim below in siman 128 (Magen Avraham, subsection 2).

And these comparisons are a wonder in my eyes: for regarding the lulav it is because of "beauty," and regarding the kohanim the reason is because their blessing is not significant to him, see there. But here the reason is because of seeing, for in front of him he necessarily sees, but from the sides he does not necessarily see. Furthermore: regarding matters of prayer, we find concerning passing in front of one who is praying that the sides have the status of behind him, as I wrote below in siman 102. And it is not comparable to siman 81 where they distinguish between possible and impossible, for it is different there where he found the excrement opposite him and is forced to turn away from this place – certainly it is better to turn behind him, and why should he not do so? But here we are dealing with one who sees the excrement from the sides, and he does not need to turn away from this place. Therefore, leave it to its law, that it is like behind him. (And also the Pri Chadash and the Eliyah Rabbah disagree with them, see there. And therefore it appears in my humble opinion that the primary ruling is as I have written.)

And know that regarding these measurements of four amot and the full extent of his vision as has been explained, there is no distinction in this between whether the tzoah is in a courtyard, in the street, or in a field and he recites there, or if he recites in a house and the tzoah is found in that same room—these distances are sufficient. And we do not say: since the person and the tzoah are in one room, the entire room is considered like four amot. For in this the Tannaim disagreed at the end of the third chapter of Berakhot, and the Rif, the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in siman 87 ruled that we do not say the entire room is considered like four amot, see there. And even though the Ritz Giat ruled there that it is considered like four amot, as our teacher Yonah wrote there in his name—it is a minority opinion, see there. And in truth, one who wishes to be concerned for himself for this opinion is compelled to leave this room entirely, or to remove the tzoah from there.

This is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1: that a shaliach tzibbur who prays in the beit knesset or in a house and there is tzoah there, even if it is behind him and far from him – he must remain silent until it is removed, since he fulfills the obligation of the many, and it is impossible that there would not be some of the tzibbur within four amot of the tzoah. Thus far his words. That is to say: even if the tzoah is behind the entire tzibbur, nevertheless, certainly some of them are within four amot. And he was only concerned for the tzibbur, but for the shaliach tzibbur himself there is no concern even though they are in one room, and this is for the reason that has been explained. And that which he wrote: the measure of four amot – this is from the place where the odor ends. And so too if the tzoah intervenes between the tzibbur and the shaliach tzibbur – it is forbidden in any case, as I wrote above in siman 55 regarding the matter of answering "Amen," see there (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And even though now every individual prays for himself, nevertheless, one must answer "Amen" to the blessings of the shaliach tzibbur (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 6). Therefore, in Pesukei D'Zimrah, where he does not fulfill their obligation, and also there is no "Amen" here – it is permitted for the shaliach tzibbur to recite it when the tzoah is behind him at the distance that has been explained (ibid., and Magen Avraham ibid.). And regarding urine when it is in the beit knesset, and the entire congregation is four amot away from it – it is permitted for the shaliach tzibbur to pray (Turei Zahav, subsection 2).

It appears to me that according to what will be explained in siman 82, that even dry tzua like a shard that has no foul odor is forbidden, if so, regarding behind him and to the sides, he only needs to distance himself four amot. However, in front of him there is no distinction, since the prohibition is the fullness of his sight, because he sees it—there is then no distinction between whether it has an odor or does not have an odor. And so too regarding a shaliach tzibbur in the beit knesset, if for the entire congregation it is behind them and distanced four amot—it is permitted for him to pray, as with urine which we explained.

Even if there is tzoah in the house, but it is in a place that constitutes a separate domain for itself, such as if it is on a place ten tefachim high and four tefachim wide, which is the definition of a reshut hayachid, or if it is in a place ten deep, and a bad odor does not reach him from there—it is permitted to recite. And there is one who permits even if it is not four wide, that ten high alone is sufficient (Taz, subsection 3). And this is not the primary view. And so most of the great authorities agreed, that it must specifically be ten high and four wide (Bach and Magen Avraham and Eliyah Rabbah). And likewise, if the tzoah is in another room, even if he is sitting next to the doorway, and the odor does not reach him—he may recite even though there are not four amot between him and the tzoah. For since the tzoah is in another domain, we apply to it "and your camp shall be holy."

And behold, according to the opinion of the Rosh, when the tzoah is in another domain – it is permitted even if he sees it. And so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 3. And the reason: for regarding tzoah there is no negative commandment of "and He shall see no unseemly thing in you," only the positive commandment of "your camp shall be holy." And here, his camp is holy. But the Rashba, of blessed memory, holds that if he sees it – it is forbidden, for he holds that regarding tzoah there is also the prohibition of "and He shall not see." And the primary ruling is like the Rosh (Beit Yosef), and as I wrote in siman 74 section 4, see there. Nevertheless, one should be concerned for the opinion of the Rashba, and that is to close his eyes or turn his face, for in this even the Rashba admits that closing the eyes or at night is effective, since it is in another domain (Magen Avraham subsection 8). And there is one who wrote that according to the Rashba, closing the eyes and night are not effective (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 8). Therefore, it is good to turn his face.

And regarding that which we wrote, that the foul odor should not reach him, the Rambam and the Tur ruled accordingly, that for an odor, a separation of domains is not effective. However, there are some of our teachers who ruled that it is effective, for just as it is effective for the tzua itself, so too it is effective for its foul odor (the Rosh and Tosafot of Rabbi Yitzchak in the name of the Rabbis of France). And ostensibly this opinion is not understood: for in the end, is there not a foul odor? And it appears to me that their intention is that its law is like a foul odor that has no source, which will be explained is permitted for Torah study (see the Perishah who also raised this difficulty, and his answer is forced). And it seems that even according to the first opinion, one does not require a distancing of four amot from the place where the odor ends (ibid.). And if the tzua was in this room and they removed it from there, and the odor still exists—it is forbidden according to all opinions until the odor ceases, since the tzua was in this room (Magen Avraham, subsection 9). And one who does not smell it—it is permitted (ibid.), since the source of the tzua is not present. And all the more so when it is in another domain, it is permitted for one who does not smell it. (And the words of the Levush require further study, as the Perishah wrote.)

A small courtyard that was breached in its entirety into a large one, and the large one exceeds it from the sides—the small one is not considered as a house unto itself since it was breached in its entirety into the large one. But the large one, since its walls exceed those of the small one from this side and from that side—it is considered as a house unto itself, as I wrote in siman 55 regarding the joining of a minyan, see there. Therefore, if there is tzoah in the large one—it is forbidden to recite in the small one until he distances himself according to the measures that have been explained, for it is as if the tzoah is with the person in one room. But when there is tzoah in the small one—it is permitted to recite in the large one without distancing if the bad odor does not reach him, provided it is the type of odor that people are typically distressed by. And we do not say that the person who is in the large one shall pull the tzoah after him, for since the prohibition is because of the tzoah—we follow the tzoah and not the person, just as in siman 55 where we follow the majority and not the minority. (The Magen Avraham, subsection 10, wrote that according to the "there are those who say"—it is permitted in any case, see there. But according to what I wrote in section 9—the permission is only for Talmud Torah, see there. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

And know that even though it seemingly implies in Eruvin (92b) that the entire small area is considered like the location of the opening of the large area, and if so, a distance of four amot would not be effective, for such is the case regarding other laws explained there. And I saw one who raised this as a difficulty against our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote in section 3 that distancing is effective in the small area when the excrement is in the large area, as I wrote in the previous section. But in truth, the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, are correct, for certainly the plain meaning of the sugya in Eruvin is so. However, this is according to the one who holds at the end of the third chapter of Berakhot that the entire house is like four amot. But we hold that it is not considered like four amot, as I wrote in section 4. And according to this opinion, the sugya there will be interpreted regarding the matter of distancing. (See Mishnah Berurah who remained in wonderment, but it is not a difficulty at all. And they did not bother to mention it there since it depends on a dispute. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And know that according to what has been explained, that in another domain one does not require distancing, therefore if one stands in prayer facing an open window, and a pig passes before the window – he does not require distancing. He should only shut his eyes so that he does not see it, and also that no foul odor reaches him. And so too regarding Kiddush Levanah when a pig passes before him – he must turn his face or distance himself as far as his eyes can see. And even when he turns his face he requires a distancing of four amot, for the mouth of a pig is considered like passing excrement, as I wrote in siman 76.

The excrement of a dog or a pig, if one placed hides in them—one must distance oneself from them as from human excrement, for when there are hides in them, their odor is very foul. But if there are no hides in them—their law is like the law of the excrement of other domestic animals, wild beasts, and birds, from which one does not need to distance oneself if they do not have a foul odor due to their abundance or their age, like the dung that is placed for a long time in one location which produces a stench. And if they have a foul odor—their law is like human excrement in all the details that have been explained.

The soft excrement of a donkey after it has come from the road, and the excrement of a cat and a marten, and a malodorous carcass—their law is like that of human excrement. For their ordinary state is that their odor is foul. Therefore, even if by chance their odor is not foul—it is forbidden like human excrement (Magen Avraham subsection 12). And it appears that for all laws their law is like human excrement, which is to say: behind him he must distance four amot from the place where the odor ends, and in front of him as far as his eyes can see. And one who walks on the road, even though he sees the form of an animal opposite him, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5 that if the odor does not reach him—he does not concern himself with the minority to attribute it to a donkey. And near a city, some say that one must be concerned, because the majority of animals found there are donkeys in a place where donkeys are common. Thus far his words.

And behold, there is one who explained that that which he wrote, that if the scent does not reach him he need not be concerned... – the intention is even if it has a scent, only that the scent does not reach him, it is permitted. And he raised a difficulty: for one must distance four amot from the place where the scent ends (Magen Avraham, subsection 13). However, the truth is that his intention is that he does not need to be concerned that perhaps it has a scent (ibid.). For so it is clarified from what he wrote, that he is not concerned to attribute it to that of a donkey. However, in the Tur he wrote that he only needs to distance until the place where the scent ends, see there. And according to this, in truth their law is not exactly like human excrement, to distance four amot from the place where the scent ends. And according to this, if the scent does not reach him, even though it has a scent – we are not concerned for it (ibid.). And nevertheless, for the practical law, it is difficult to transgress the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef (see Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 14).

In the Yerushalmi, it is forbidden to recite against the urine of a donkey coming from the road, and against red poultry excrement, meaning: when the excrement is red. And some say that the poultry are red, which are called "Englishe Hahn." And some say that the intention is regarding poultry in the land of Edom, which eat barley and their excrement is foul-smelling (Magen Avraham, subsection 14). And some say that regarding any animal, beast, or bird whose excrement has a foul odor—it is forbidden to recite against them. And some say that anything that eats bread—it is forbidden to recite against its excrement, such as dogs and pigs. And anything whose way is not with bread—it is permitted (see Taz). And the "Englishe Hahn" that we wrote is "Indik" in our language, and we have no clear ruling in this matter. And certainly it is proper to be stringent if only the smell is loathsome.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7: The excrement of chickens that wander in the house—its law is like the excrement of domestic animals, wild animals, and birds (and is permitted). However, their coop has a foul odor, and is similar to human excrement. Thus far his words. The same law applies to a cattle stall—it is forbidden to recite in it when there is much animal excrement in it (Chayei Adam). There are those who wish to be lenient in this, but it is not the primary view. For behold, even facing a rubbish heap it is forbidden to recite when its odor is bad, as is found in the Gemara (25a), and in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 8. And perforce this is when there is no excrement there, for if there were excrement there—let it be derived on account of the excrement. If so, a cattle stall is no less than a rubbish heap (and so wrote the Mishnah Berurah).

The odor of excrement is called "a foul odor that has a physical source." And the odor of flatulence is called "a foul odor that has no physical source," and they said in the Gemara there that it is more lenient than an odor that has a physical source. That is, when flatulence emanates from his fellow and there is a foul odor—he is forbidden from reciting Shema and praying and reciting blessings until the odor dissipates. And he does not require a distance of four amot from the place where the odor dissipates as is the case with excrement. However, to study is permitted even when the odor has not yet dissipated. Only if he himself flatulated and there is a foul odor—he is forbidden even from studying until the odor dissipates. And the reason: since a foul odor that has no physical source is rabbinic—they were lenient for the sake of avoiding the neglect of Torah study when the odor comes from another, as is common in yeshivot where these sleep and these study (Gemara).