Berakhot

but the Tefillah he may not say until he covers his chest.  R. Huna further said: If a man forgot and entered a privy while wearing his tefillin, he places his hand over them till he finishes. 'Till he finishes'? How can this be assumed? Rather it is as R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Until he finishes the first discharge. But why should he not stop at once and get up? — On account of the dictum of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, as it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Keeping back the faeces brings on dropsy, keeping back urine brings on jaundice. It has been stated: If there is some excrement on a man's flesh or if his hand is inside a privy,  R. Huna says that he is permitted to say the Shema', while R. Hisda says he is forbidden to say the Shema'. Raba said: What is the reason of R. Huna? — Because it is written, Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord.  R. Hisda says that it is forbidden to say the Shema'. What is the reason of R. Hisda? — Because it is written, All my bones shall say, Lord, who is like unto Thee. It has been stated: [If there is] an evil smell [proceeding] from some tangible source, R. Huna says that one removes [from the source of the smell] four cubits and recites the Shema'; R. Hisda says: He removes four cubits from the place where the smell ceases, and then recites the Shema'. It has been taught in accordance with R. Hisda: A man should not recite the Shema' either in front of human excrement or of the excrement of dogs or the excrement of pigs or the excrement of fowls or the filth of a dungheap which is giving off an evil smell. If, however, it is in a place ten handbreadths above him or ten handbreadths beneath him, he can sit at the side of it and recite the Shema'; otherwise he removes himself out of sight of it; and similarly for the Tefillah. [If there is] an evil smell [proceeding] from a tangible object, he removes four cubits from [the source of] the smell and recites the Shema'. Raba said: The law is not as stated in this Baraitha,  but it has been taught in the following: A man should not recite the Shema' in front either of human excrement or excrement of pigs or excrement of dogs when he puts skins in them.  They asked R. Shesheth: What of an evil smell which has no tangible source?  He said to them: Come and see these mats in the school house; some sleep on them  while others study. This, however, applies only to study,  but not to the Shema'. And even as regards study it applies only if the smell is made by another but not if it is made by himself. It has been stated: If manure is being carried past one, Abaye says it is permitted to recite the Shema',  while Raba says it is forbidden to recite the Shema'. Said Abaye: Whence do I derive my opinion? Because we have learnt: If an unclean person is standing under a tree and a clean one passes by, he becomes unclean. If a clean person is standing under a tree and an unclean one passes by, he remains clean, but if he [the unclean person] stands still, he becomes unclean. And similarly with a stone smitten with leprosy.  To which Raba can reply: In that case the deciding factor is the permanence,  as it is written, He shall dwell alone, without the camp shall his dwelling be.  But in this case, the All-Merciful has said, Therefore shall thy camp be holy,  and this condition is not fulfilled. R. Papa said: The snout of a pig is like manure being carried past. This is obvious?  — It required to be stated, to show that it applies even if the animal is coming up from the river. Rab Judah said: If there is a doubt about [the presence of] excrement, it is forbidden; if there is a doubt about urine, it is permitted. Some there are who say: Rab Judah said: If there is a doubt about excrement in the house, it is permitted,  in the dungheap it is forbidden. If there is a doubt about urine, it is permitted even in the dungheap. He adopted the view of R. Hamnuna; for R. Hamnuna said: The Torah forbade the recital of the Shema' only in face of the Stream [of urine]. And this is as taught by R. Jonathan; for R. Jonathan contrasted two texts. It is written: Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad,  and it is also written, And thou shalt have a paddle … thou shalt cover that which cometh from thee.  How are these two statements to be reconciled? The one speaks of easing, the other of urine. This proves that urine was not forbidden by the Torah save in face of the stream only, and once it has fallen to the ground it is permitted, and it is the Rabbis who imposed a further prohibition, and when they did so, it was only in a case of certainty but not in a case of doubt. And in a case of certainty, how long is it forbidden? — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: So long as it moistens [the ground]. And so said Rabbah b. Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: So long as it moistens [the ground]. So too said 'Ulla: So long as it moistens [the ground]. Ganiba said in the name of Rab: So long as the mark is discernible. Said R. Joseph: May Ganiba be forgiven by his Master!  Seeing that even of excrement Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab that as soon as it has dried on top it is permitted, is there any question about urine! Said Abaye to him: What reason have you for relying on this statement? Rely rather on this one which was made by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of Rab: Even if excrement is as a potsherd, it is forbidden [to recite the Shema' near it]. What is the test of its being as dry as a potsherd? — So long as one can throw it [on to the ground] and it does not break, [it is not so dry]. Some say: So long as one can roll it without breaking it.  Rabina said: I was once standing before Rab Judah of Difti, and he saw dung and said to me, Look if the top has dried, or not. Some say that what he said to him was this: Look if it has formed cracks. What is the ultimate decision?  It has been stated: When dung is like a potsherd, Amemar says it is forbidden and Mar Zutra says it is permitted [to say the Shema' near it]. Raba said: The law is that if dung is as dry as a potsherd it is forbidden, and in the case of urine as long as it is moistening [the ground]. An objection was raised: As long as urine is moistening [the ground] it is forbidden; if it has been absorbed [in the ground] or has dried up,  it is permitted. Now are we not to understand that 'absorption' here is compared to 'drying', and that just as after drying there is no mark left, so after absorption there must be no mark left, and that if there is still a mark it is forbidden, even though it no longer moistens? — But adopting your line of argument, let us see the first clause: 'As long [as urine] is moistening [the ground] it is forbidden', which implies that if there is a mark it is permitted.  — The fact is from this [Baraitha] we cannot infer [either way]. Shall we say that there is a difference of Tannaim [on this point]? [For it was taught:] If Urine has been poured out of a vessel, it is forbidden to recite the Shema' in front of that vessel. As for urine itself, if it has been absorbed in the ground it is permitted, if it has not been absorbed it is forbidden. R. Jose says: So long as it moistens the ground. Now what is meant by the 'absorbed' and 'not absorbed' mentioned by the first Tanna? Shall I say that 'absorbed' means that it does not moisten and that 'not absorbed' means that it still moistens, and R. Jose came and said that so long as it moistens it is forbidden, but if only the mark is discernible it is permitted? This is the same as the first Tanna says! We must say then that 'absorbed' means that the mark is not discernible and 'not absorbed' means that the mark is discernible, and R. Jose came and said that so long as it moistens it is forbidden, but if only the mark is discernible it is permitted? — No; both agree that so long as it moistens it is forbidden, and if only the mark is discernible it is permitted,