Now we continue with HaRambam, in Hilchot Kriyat Shema (Laws of the Shema), Perek Gimmel (Chapter three), Halachah Aleph (First law): “Hakoreh et Shema, rochetz yadav bamayim kodem sheyikra” (One who reads the Shema washes his hands with water before reading). Interesting. HaRambam says your hands have to be clean before you read the Kriyat Shema. Isn’t that true for any prayer, really? Yes, but here he is talking about Shema.
“Higi'a zeman keri'atah” — the time of Kriyat Shema came. “Velo matza mayim” — he doesn’t find water before reading. “Lo ye'acher keri'atah veyelech levakesh mayim” — don’t miss the reading for water. “Ela mekanne'ach yadav be'afar” — put his hands on something abrasive, like dust; “o betzeror” — or rub his hand against a rock; “o bekorah” — or against a pole. “Vechayotzei bahen, vekoreh” — and then he reads.
Halachah Bet. It’s funny that he switches the order of tzeror and afar here. I know that makes—yeah, well, he’s a girsa (textual version) guy. We’ll read the perek, and then go back for iyun.
Halachah Bet: “Ein korin, lo beveit hamerchatz” — you can’t read Kriyat Shema in a bathhouse; “velo beveit hakisse” — not in a bathroom, even though there’s no tzo'ah; “velo beveit hakevarot” — not in a cemetery, and not beside a corpse. “Ve'im hirchik arba amot (cubits) min hakever o min hamet, muttar likrot” — but if he distances himself four amot from the grave or the corpse, it’s permissible to read. “Vechol mi shekara bimkom she'ein korin bo, chozer vekoreh” — if you read in a place where you’re not allowed to read, you have to read it again.
Then, in Perek Gimmel, HaRambam says: “Beit hakisse hechadash, shehuchan ve'adayin lo nishtamesh bo” — if you have a new bathroom that hasn’t yet been used, “muttar likrot Kriyat Shema lenegdo.” Lenegdo means in front of it, but not inside it. “Umerchatz chadash, muttar likrot betocho” — in a new bathhouse, you can even read inside it.
“Hayu shenei batim” — if there are two rooms, “zimen echad mehem leveit hakisse, ve'amar al hasheni: ‘vezeh’”—he designated one as a bathroom and then said of the second one, “this one”—“harei hasheni safek im hizmino lechach im lo, lefichach ein korin bo lechatchilah.” So, in the second room, you can’t read there lechatchilah, because we’re not sure what he meant when he said “vezeh.” “Ve'im kara, yatza” — but if he read there, he has fulfilled his obligation.
If he said, “Gam zeh,” that’s worse: “harei sheneihem mezumanim, ve'ein korin bahem.” “Gam” means that this one, too, is like the first one, and therefore it’s a bathroom.
“Chatzar hamerchatz”—the courtyard of the bathhouse. What is that? “Vehu hamakom shebnei adam omdim bo levushin”: it’s the outer room where people are still dressed. It’s permissible to read Kriyat Shema there.
Halachah Daled: It’s not only talking about Kriyat Shema. “Velo Kriyat Shema bilvad, ela kol inyan shehu midevrei hakodesh” — anything that’s kodesh, “assur le'omro beveit hamerchatz uveveit hakisse.” You can’t say it in the bathhouse or the bathroom, even if you say it in a foreign language. And it’s not only a matter of saying it: “ela afilu leharher belibo bedivrei Torah (words of Torah) beveit hakisse uveit hamerchatz, umekom hatinofet,” the place where there’s tzo'ah or mei raglayim, is also prohibited. So you’re not even allowed to think divrei Torah in the bathroom, the bathhouse, or what we call mekom hatinofet—the place where there is excrement or urine.
Halachah Hey: “Devarim shel chol, muttar le'omram bilshon kodesh beveit hakisse.” That means non-sacred things can be said in Hebrew in the bathroom. “Vechen hakinuyim,” the different names of Hashem that aren’t direct names, such as Rachum, Chanun, and Ne'eman, are names representing Hashem’s ways, and it’s permissible to say them in the bathroom.
“Aval hashemot hameyuchadim, vehen hashemot she'einam nimchakim” — the names that are not erased — “assur lehazkiran beveit hakisse uveveit hamerchatz hayashan”: it’s forbidden to mention them in a used bathroom or bathhouse.
“Ve'im nizdamen lo lehafrish min hadavar ha'assur beveit hamerchatz o beveit hakisse, mafrish ve'afilu bilshon kodesh uve'inyanei kodesh.” What is that referring to? If, let’s say, he needs to stop his friend from making an issur in the bathroom, he can stop him, even though he’s doing something religiously charged. It’s permissible to do that, even if he has to stop him in lashon hakodesh.
Halachah Vav: “Tzo'at ha'adam vetzo'at hakelavim,” the excrement of a person and the excrement of dogs and pigs, “bizman sheyesh betochan orot,” when they contain pieces of flesh or leather, and any excrement that has a bad smell, “assur likrot keri'at Shema kenegdan.” You can’t read the Shema in front of it. Similarly, you can’t read in front of a person’s urine. But in front of an animal’s urine, you can read.
“Katan she'eino yachol le'echol kezayit dagan bichdei sheyochal hagadol keshalosh beitzim dagan.” If there’s a katan, about six or seven years old, who can’t eat a kezayit of bread in the time an adult would take to eat three beitzim, “ein marchikin lo mitzo'ato velo mimei raglav.” His excrement isn’t considered excrement, and his urine isn’t considered urine, for the purposes of Kriyat Shema.
Halachah Zayin: “Hayetah tzo'ah yeveshah kecheres, assur likrot kenegdah.” If the excrement has dried like pottery, it’s forbidden to read in front of it. “Ve'im hayetah yeveshah yoter mecheres ad she'im zerakah titparech,” if it’s so dry that it would break apart if you threw it, “harei ke'afar,” it’s like dust, “umutar likrot kenegdah.”
“Mei raglayim shenivle'u vakarka”: if urine was absorbed into the ground, “im hayu martivin hayad,” if touching it would still make your hand wet, it’s forbidden to read in front of it. Otherwise, it’s permissible.
Halachah Chet: How far must a person distance himself from excrement and urine before reading? Four amot. “Bameh devarim amurim” (In what case is this said?) When it’s behind him or at his side. So if he puts the excrement four amot behind him, he’s okay. But if it’s in front of him, he has to move away until he can’t see it, and then he can read.
Halachah Tet: “Bameh devarim amurim”—the ruling that a baby’s excrement isn’t considered excrement until he eats—applies to Kriyat Shema according to HaRambam. Right? Yes, according to HaRambam, for Kriyat Shema. We’ll get to the study in a minute.
“Keshehayah imahem babayit bemakom shaveh”: that applies when everything is on the same level, when you’re in the house with the excrement. But if there’s a place ten tefachim higher than it, or ten tefachim lower, “yoshev betzad hamakom vekore, sheharei nifsak beineihem.” He sits at the side and reads, because there’s a break between them. It’s a different reshut. Even if the distance isn’t four amot, it’s okay because it’s a separate domain, as long as no bad smell reaches him.
Similarly, if he covers the excrement or urine with a vessel, even though they’re in the same house, “harei hen kekevurin,” they’re as if buried, and it’s permissible to read in front of them.
Halachah Yud: “Hayah beino uvein hatzo'ah mechitzah shel zechuchit.” Let’s say there’s a glass window between him and the excrement. Even though he can see it through the glass, it’s permissible to read at its side—not directly in front of it.
“Natan revi'it mayim letoch mei raglayim shel pa'am achat”: if someone urinated once, in one discharge, and you pour a revi'it of water into it, that dilutes it, and you can read within four amot. A revi'it isn’t a lot, but one discharge and a revi'it of water nullifies it. It makes no difference whether you’re Og Melech Habashan or a midget.
Halachah Yud-Alef: “Hayetah tzo'ah begumah”—if the excrement is in a depression, a hole—“omed besandalo al hagumah,” he puts his heel over the hole to cover it and reads, as long as his shoe doesn’t touch the excrement.
“Hayetah kenegdo tzo'ah mu'etet beyoter kemo tipah”: if there’s a tiny bit of excrement in front of him, like a drop, “rokek aleha rok aveh”—he can spit thick phlegm on it until it’s covered, and then read.
“Hayetah tzo'ah al besaro,” if there’s a small trace of excrement on his body, or his hands are dirty from the bathroom, and there’s no smell because it’s dry or the amount is small, it’s permissible to read because there’s no bad smell. But if the excrement is in its usual place on the body, even though it can’t be seen when he’s standing, it becomes visible when he sits. He can’t read until he cleans it thoroughly, because excrement is disgusting and has a bad smell.
Some Geonim ruled that it’s forbidden to read Kriyat Shema if his hands are dirty, even if the excrement on them doesn’t smell. HaRambam says, “vechen ra'ui la'asot”—that’s the practice to follow.
Halachah Yud-Bet: “Rei'ach ra sheyesh lo ikar.” There’s a bad smell that has a source—not excrement, right? Right, a bad smell that comes from an object with an actual source. “Marchik arba amot vekoreh im pasak harei'ach”: distance yourself four amot and read if the smell has stopped. If it hasn’t stopped, distance yourself until you reach the place where the smell stops.
“Veshe'ein lo ikar,” a smell without a source, for example, someone who passed gas: it’s not an object with a source, just air. “Marchik ad makom shetichleh harei'ach vekoreh.” You don’t have to go four amot. Even if he’s only one amah away, if the smell has stopped, he’s fine. When there’s a source, four amot is the minimum, and he keeps going farther if it still smells. For a smell without a source, the rule is to move away only until you can’t smell it anymore.
“Graf shel re'i” is the bucket they put the re'i in, and “avit shel mei raglayim” is the bucket for urine. It’s forbidden to read Kriyat Shema in front of them, even if they’re empty and don’t smell, because they’re considered like a bathroom.
Halachah Yud-Gimmel: “Tzo'ah overet.” What’s a case of tzo'ah overet? For example, excrement floating across the water. It’s forbidden to read in front of it. A pig’s mouth is also considered tzo'ah overet, and it’s forbidden to read in front of it until it has passed four amot away.
Halachah Yud-Daled: If he’s reading Kriyat Shema and reaches a place of filth, “lo yani'ach yado al piv veyikra.” Don’t think that covering your face is enough. Rather, he stops until he passes that place. Similarly, if someone passes gas while reading, he stops until the smell goes away, and then continues reading. The same applies to divrei Torah: he stops, waits until the smell dissipates, and then continues.
If the smell came from someone else, he stops for Kriyat Shema, but not for divrei Torah. He can continue learning even though the smell came from another person. There’s a difference between Kriyat Shema and Torah.
If someone is reading Kriyat Shema in a house and has a safek whether there’s excrement or urine there—sometimes there are babies in the house—he may read. But if he’s reading in an ashpah, a garbage dump, he has to assume there’s excrement there. If he isn’t sure whether there’s excrement, he can’t read until he checks, because an ashpah is presumed to be a place of filth. But even in an ashpah, if he has a safek about urine, he may read.
Halachah Tet-Zayin: Just as it’s forbidden to read Kriyat Shema in front of excrement and urine until you move away, so too it’s forbidden to read in front of ervah, something immodest, until you turn your face away. Even in front of a Kuti (Samaritan) or a katan, you can’t read in front of their ervah. Even if a glass partition separates you from it, like a television screen, since you can see it, it’s forbidden to read until you turn your head or turn off the TV.
“Vechol guf ha'ishah ervah”: a woman’s whole body is considered ervah. Therefore, a person can’t look at any part of a woman while reading the Shema. Even if it’s his wife, if a tefach of her body is uncovered, he can’t read in front of it.
Halachah Yud-Zayin: Just as he can’t read in front of another person’s ervah, he can’t read in front of his own ervah. He can’t read while undressed until he covers his ervah. If he has a cloth belt, leather belt, or sash around his waist, even though the rest of his body is naked, it’s permissible to read Kriyat Shema. That’s it: put on a belt and you’re fine, as long as your heel isn’t touching your ervah, as when sitting like an Indian.
Are Ashkenazim putting on a belt? They’re overdressed according to HaRambam. HaRambam is telling you that all you need is a belt. Ashkenazim put on a belt for tefillah. This is just for reading Kriyat Shema: the minimum clothing is a belt. What does it cover? It doesn’t cover the ervah; it’s a belt. As long as you don’t look at it, you’re okay. That’s what HaRambam writes.
“Hayah yashen betalito”: let’s say he was under the bed and naked. He puts the sheet under his heart to separate his head and heart from the outside, while the rest of his body is under the covers. But he shouldn’t cover his neck and then read, because he has to make sure his heart isn’t in the same zone as the ervah. If he covers himself here, his heart and the ervah are in the same location. “Veyikra mipnei shelibo ro'eh et ha'ervah venimtza kemi shekoreh belo chagorah”: his heart sees the ervah, so it’s as if he’s reading without a belt.
Halachah Yud-Chet: If two people are sleeping under one cover, each one is forbidden to read, even if he puts a sheet under his heart, until there’s another sheet separating them, so their flesh doesn’t touch from below to above. Throw a pillow or something between them.
If he’s sleeping with his wife, or with his young children, “harei gufan kegufo”—their bodies are like his body, and he isn’t conscious of them. Therefore, even if they’re touching skin to skin, he turns his face away, puts the sheet under his heart, leaving his head out and the rest of his body under the cover, and reads.
Halachah Yud-Tet: Until what age are they considered ketanim for this purpose? Until the boy is twelve years and one day old and the girl is eleven years and one day old, provided they’re showing signs of puberty. After that, he can’t read until there’s a sheet between them.
If they haven’t yet developed those signs, then they could even make eruv basar until the boy is thirteen years and one day old and the girl is twelve years and one day old. So that assumes they reached puberty at eleven for girls and twelve for boys. If they didn’t reach puberty then, eleven or twelve is still okay, and it won’t be forbidden until twelve and thirteen.
That is basically Perek Gimmel. Now let’s look at some of the iyun (in-depth study). I’ll read from the Kesef Mishneh, a commentary on HaRambam. Let’s look at some of the main issues. We’ll take the subject of ervah, which brings us to Halachah Tet-Zayin. In the Gemara, in Berachot, it says: “Keshem.” Maran in the Kesef Mishneh says: “Sham Berachot kaf-heh, amar Rav Yehudah Kuti arom asur likrot Kriyat Shema kenegdo.” A naked Kuti—why does the Gemara say Kuti? Even a Jew, too. “Kuti itztaricha leh”—it was necessary to teach us. I might have thought that since the verse says, “asher besar chamorim besaram,” they’re like a donkey. They might be considered a chamor for certain things, but regarding ervah, they are ervah. The Gemara teaches that they, too, are considered ervah.
“Ve'ervat avihem lo ra'u.” That’s about Noach. Rabbeinu learned from there that a katan’s ervah is ervah, because it’s no less than a Kuti. It has nothing to do with age; the point is that you’re seeing ervah. Therefore, turning your face is enough; you don’t need four amot. And the same applies even if there’s a glass partition.
The Kesef Mishneh says that the wording “ad sheyachazir panav” clearly implies that turning your face is enough, even if the woman is close to you. The Torah’s prohibition concerning ervah is about seeing it. That’s different from excrement, where you can’t be within the same four amot. For ervah, the talui is “lo yera'eh becha”—that it shouldn’t be seen. So, if you don’t see it, you don’t see it.
“Vechol guf ha'ishah”: Rabbi Yitzchak said that a tefach of a woman is ervah, and the Gemara explains that this is about his wife and Kriyat Shema. What does it mean if a tefach of her body is uncovered? It specifically means a part of her that is normally covered. The wording “meguleh” supports that: if a tefach is uncovered, that means a place that is normally covered.
The rabbis also said that a woman’s voice is ervah and her hair is ervah. Rabbeinu holds that this wasn’t said regarding Kriyat Shema, but regarding the prohibition against benefiting from her voice and looking at her hair. That’s why he doesn’t mention them here. They aren’t only prohibited during Kriyat Shema; those are regular laws of ervah.
This is Halachah Tet-Zayin. HaRambam’s wording is: “Keshem she'asur likrot keneged tzo'ah, asur likrot keneged ha'ervah ad sheyachazir panav.” The Gemara learns this from the verse, “Velo yera'eh becha ervat davar” (No indecent thing shall be seen among you): it’s forbidden to read facing ervah because it’s visible to him.
But there is no prohibition against reading in the same reshut as ervah, as there is against reading in a place where there’s excrement. The prohibition concerning excrement is learned from “Vehayah machanecha kadosh” (Your camp shall be holy). There, the camp has to be holy, meaning the whole domain where he’s reading has to be holy. Here, the verse only says “lo yera'eh”—it shouldn’t be seen. Therefore, even if she’s right behind you, that’s okay.
HaRambam also says, “afilu goi o katan, lo yikra keneged ervatan.” The Gemara in Berachot says it’s forbidden to read facing a non-Jew, and the chidush is that even though the verse says “shebsar chamorim besaram,” the Gemara teaches that it’s still considered ervah. They learn it from Noach, who was a non-Jew. He was a Bnei Noach, the father of all the Bnei Noach. When Shem and Yefet came to cover him, the verse says they covered his ervah. So a Kuti or a non-Jew has the status of ervah, because the Torah calls it ervah. “Ve'ervat avihem lo ra'u” is the proof.
The Gemara doesn’t mention the ervah of a katan. The Kesef Mishneh says HaRambam derives the ervah of a katan from the ervah of a non-Jew: ultimately, if it looks like ervah, it becomes ervah, and a child should be no different. That isn’t accepted by all the Rishonim (early authorities). In fact, there’s a machloket among the Rishonim over whether a katan’s ervah is considered ervah. You see that HaRambam’s opinion is that it is.
The Beit Yosef in siman ayin-heh writes that from HaRambam’s wording here, it appears that even a child’s ervah is called ervah. Since he doesn’t distinguish, it implies that at any age, if it’s called ervah, it has the status of ervah and it’s forbidden to read facing it. Therefore, he writes that one should be careful not to read Kriyat Shema facing a katan’s ervah.
The Me'iri writes that from HaRambam’s words here, where even a katan’s ervah is considered ervah, we learn that the mohel (ritual circumciser) must cover the ervah when he says the blessing over the milah. There’s a practical halachah that comes out of HaRambam here. Does he say it in Hilchot Milah? We’ll check now.
When you say the blessing for Brit Milah, the mohel is right over the ervah. So he has to turn his head, or cover it with something. Is closing his eyes enough? Closing your eyes is dependent on seeing. But the Me'iri then objects that even according to HaRambam, who considers a katan’s ervah to be ervah, perhaps that applies only to older children. What’s the cutoff? What about an eight-day-old baby? He wasn’t talking about that.
In Hilchot Milah, Perek Gimmel, Halachah Hey, HaRambam rules that someone circumcising an adult has to cover his ervah before saying the blessing. Only when he circumcises an adult does he have to cover it. This implies that when he circumcises a minor, he doesn’t have to cover the ervah. So HaRambam clearly makes a chiluk between mailing a gadol and mailing a katan.
The Radbaz points out a contradiction in HaRambam. Here he says a katan’s ervah is ervah, but in Hilchot Milah HaRambam ruled that you only have to cover an adult. What’s going on? He adds that you can’t distinguish between Kriyat Shema and the blessing over milah. They’re both sacred matters. What difference does it make whether it’s Kriyat Shema or a blessing? You’re saying Hashem’s Name; it’s still a sacred matter. So don’t distinguish by saying Kriyat Shema is stricter than a blessing.
The Radbaz answers that even though a katan’s ervah isn’t called ervah, with regard to Kriyat Shema it’s forbidden to read facing it. Kriyat Shema requires more kavanah (intention) than other blessings, and one must not think about something else. Even a katan’s ervah could cause him to think about something else. That’s a big chidush: Kriyat Shema already requires “bechol levavecha,” extra intention, so we don’t want you looking even at something that is only like ervah. For the laws of milah, a katan’s ervah itself isn’t ervah; only an adult’s is.
He gives another distinction: HaRambam follows the Rosh regarding milah; the mohel is occupied with the work of the milah, so there’s no concern of ervat davar. Think of our friend Morris, who does ten brit milot a day; it doesn’t affect him. That’s not going to take away the mohel’s kavanah, and he’s occupied with his work. You also say Kriyat Shema every day, but you don’t say it every day in front of ervah. This is a mitzvah that has to be done in front of ervah. It’s like a doctor: he gets used to it, so it won’t lead to thoughts of that kind. What about the father? If he’s not the mohel, he says the blessing “lehachniso” and the other blessings. The father can face the congregation; the mohel is right over the baby.
The Radbaz gives another answer: it’s a short blessing. It seems the prohibition is because it might lead to thoughts, and they don’t want you to have those thoughts at that time. For Kriyat Shema, which requires kavanah, they were stricter. But the mohel is occupied with his work, and the blessing is short.
The Shulchan Aruch, in ayin-heh, se'if daled, rules that it’s forbidden to read facing a katan’s ervah. The Rama writes that some permit it as long as the child isn’t fit for intercourse. But regarding the blessing at the time of the milah, the Shulchan Aruch says you don’t have to cover the ervah. That’s the halachah: Maran rules like HaRambam that you don’t have to cover the milah during Brit Milah. Even though we rule that it’s ervah, that applies only to Kriyat Shema, not to everything else.
Now, would closing your eyes be enough? The Rambam doesn’t say to close your eyes; he says to turn around. The Rambam’s wording says to turn your face away. Were they covering their eyes as we do? Is that what we do for Shema, putting a hand over the eyes? They bring that from a Gemara where Rebbi was covering his eyes while giving the shiur. But it’s not brought down in the Shulchan Aruch. The mekubalim bring the Shin-dalet-yud (the letters Shin-Dalet-Yud). No, but everyone does it for kavanah, for kavanah purposes.
HaRambam’s wording is, “lo yikra keneged ervatam mipnei shero'eh otam ad sheyachazir panav.” Why does HaRambam say “ad sheyachazir panav”? Why not give the easier option of closing your eyes? This is the proof to Rabbi Ginzburg: if you ever see him at a wedding, he turns around. He’s following HaRambam’s wording, “ad sheyachazir panav.” You might say, “Just close your eyes; don’t look.” But it says to turn your face. That’s where he gets it from. After all those years, he might have been right.
The Beit Yosef writes that the wording implies that turning your face is enough, even if the woman is close to you. The reason is that the Torah says the prohibition of ervah is about seeing it: “Velo yera'eh becha ervat davar.” Since he doesn’t see her, it’s permissible to read in her place. He adds that it follows that at night, when he doesn’t see her, or during the day if he closes his eyes, it’s permissible to read.
That’s different from excrement, because closing your eyes doesn’t help if you’re still within four amot. That prohibition isn’t dependent on seeing; it depends on being in the same camp. The Beit Yosef proves this from Rabbeinu Yonah and the Rashba, who wrote that if someone is standing naked in water, with his eyes above the water, and he isn’t looking at his ervah, he may read. Even though he’d see his ervah if he looked into the water, since he doesn’t see it now, he may read. So it’s really talui—not on turning away from it, but on seeing or not. That’s exactly what Maran writes in the Shulchan Aruch.
But there’s a separation. You don’t need a separation; just close your eyes. If I can’t see the heart—okay, that’s a different law, whether the water has to be made dirty or not. The point is that your eyes don’t see the ervah. That’s the main thing. Since right now he doesn’t see it, he may read. The same thing applies in a mikveh.
But the Roke'ach writes that if ervah is in front of him, even if he closes his eyes, it’s forbidden. The Mordechai writes the same, and that’s also the view of most of the later authorities: one shouldn’t be lenient about closing his eyes for Kriyat Shema.
So the question is whether closing your eyes is enough. The Mishnah Berurah writes that even according to the Beit Yosef, who permits closing one’s eyes, that’s specifically for reading facing another person’s ervah. But if the person reading has his own ervah uncovered, closing his eyes or turning his face away doesn’t help. Rather, he must cover his ervah so that it isn’t visible to him or to others.
So, as Joey said, when he’s reading for himself, it’s not enough to close his eyes so he doesn’t see his ervah. He has to cover it. From HaRambam, though, it didn’t sound like that; it sounded as if putting on a belt was enough.
What’s the reason it’s forbidden to read Kriyat Shema when your ervah is uncovered, even if you don’t see it? The Ra'avad explains that the verse doesn’t say “lo tir'eh ervat davar,” but “lo yera'eh becha”—it shouldn’t be seen even by others. So he really has to cover his ervah. He has to do two things: make a separation, and actually cover the ervah, because it says “lo yera'eh,” that it shouldn’t be seen by anyone.
That’s a very big chidush we’re learning from HaRambam. We’ve learned a couple of things from his wording. The Beit Yosef understands HaRambam’s instruction to turn around as a way of not seeing the ervah. So closing your eyes can also help, according to the Beit Yosef, although other Rishonim argue. But when it comes to your own ervah, it’s not enough that you don’t see it; it actually has to be covered.
Now, “afilu ishto, im hayah meguleh tefach migufah, lo yikra”: even if it’s his wife, if a tefach of her body is uncovered, he can’t read facing it. We explained that this applies to his wife if a tefach is uncovered. The source is the Gemara: Rabbi Yitzchak said, “tefach be'ishah ervah.” The Gemara asks what prohibition that refers to. If it’s about looking, you can’t even look at a woman’s finger. So the Gemara explains that the law of a tefach being ervah was said regarding Kriyat Shema.
But the Gemara and HaRambam don’t explain the law regarding another woman. Is it permissible to read facing an uncovered area smaller than a tefach? HaRambam is talking about his wife, and he gives the measure of a tefach. What about someone else?
The authorities disagree. The basis of their dispute is that the Gemara explains that, regarding the prohibition of looking at another woman, it’s forbidden even to look at less than a tefach, even a small finger. So the question is whether, for the law of ervah, less than a tefach is also considered ervah for Kriyat Shema. You could argue that if you can’t look at another woman’s pinky, perhaps even less than a tefach is ervah for Kriyat Shema. A woman might not have her hair fully covered, or her sleeve might be above the elbow. If the measure is a tefach, that might mean three inches above the elbow. But that’s the measure for your wife. For another woman, even a millimeter above the elbow might put you in the ervah zone. So what do you say about that?
The Bach says that the implication of HaRambam’s wording, “afilu ishto im hayah meguleh tefach begufah,” and similarly the wording of the Shulchan Aruch, is that even regarding another woman, the prohibition applies only when a tefach is uncovered, not less. The Machatzit Hashekel writes that this is also what the wording of the Shulchan Aruch implies.
Where does he get that from HaRambam? HaRambam says, “afilu ishto im hayah meguleh tefach begufah.” Surely a tefach of an ordinary woman’s body would be ervah. The chidush is that even his wife is subject to the famous tefach measure, though you might have thought that with his wife it could be more than a tefach. That’s how the Bach understands it.
But that isn’t necessarily the case. It could still be stricter with another woman. The Rambam isn’t necessarily distinguishing between them. He may be saying that you might think the measure for a woman is even more than a tefach, and he teaches that the familiar tefach measure applies to everyone, even his wife. That’s how the Bach understands HaRambam. It’s a nice diyuk, an inference from the wording. The purpose of this shiur is to infer HaRambam’s opinion from his wording and see what he holds.
The Bach sees in HaRambam’s words, “afilu be'ishto,” that the regular tefach rule applies to everyone. But there’s a difference: with another woman, the looking prohibition is much stricter. With your wife, you can look at her pinky even when she’s a Niddah (menstruant). With a woman who isn’t your wife, you can’t even look at her pinky.
So there are two different measures here. The measure for ervah in Kriyat Shema is a tefach, even though the measure for looking at another woman is much less than a tefach. What’s the distinction? He says that the prohibition against looking at another woman, even at a small finger, applies when you intend to look at her. Then you derive pleasure, and even looking at a small finger is prohibited. But regarding Kriyat Shema, even if you aren’t deliberately looking, the chidush is that when we say “tefach be'ishah ervah,” if the ervah is in front of you, it doesn’t matter whether you intend to look or derive pleasure. There’s a woman in front of you; you’re reading Kriyat Shema, not intending to look or enjoy it, but it’s still forbidden. According to the Bach, the prohibition for Kriyat Shema applies when the ervah is in front of you and visible, whether or not you intend to look. The prohibition regarding a small finger applies when you intend to look.
“Aval haRa'avyah uveHagahot Maimoniyot pasku beshem Ba'al Halachot Gedolot shebe'ishah acheret asur likrot afilu keneged pachot mitefach meguleh.” The Ba'al Halachot Gedolot also rules that regarding another woman, it’s forbidden to read even facing less than a tefach of uncovered skin.
So we have a major dispute about HaRambam’s view regarding another woman. Let’s get the dispute clear. According to the Bach, the measure is a tefach, and there’s no distinction between his wife and another woman. The Rambam meant that when he said “even his wife.” But we have the famous commentator of HaRambam, the Lechem Mishneh. I’ll quote him.
HaRambam says, “vechol guf ha'ishah ervah.” The Gemara says, “tefach be'ishah ervah.” What is that referring to? If it’s about looking at a woman, anyone who looks at a woman’s small finger is like someone looking at her private parts. The Gemara answers that it’s about his wife and Kriyat Shema. Now, the Gemara had to explain that this applies to his wife. What does that imply? Specifically for his wife, a tefach is required for Kriyat Shema, but with another woman, even a small finger is forbidden.
It doesn’t make sense to say the same law applies to another woman, because even though looking at a small finger is forbidden, perhaps reading Kriyat Shema requires a tefach. If so, why did the Gemara say “his wife”? Why not just say the law is for Kriyat Shema in general, for any woman? Rather, the Gemara means that it’s a tefach for his wife, implying that for everyone else, even less than a tefach is forbidden. It would be a stretch to say “his wife” was needed to teach that even his wife is subject to the tefach measure, as the Bach understands HaRambam. Rather, it’s as we’ve explained: HaRambam’s tefach is specifically his wife. That’s also what Ba'al Halachot Gedolot says.
So the Lechem Mishneh, a very important commentator on HaRambam, understands HaRambam differently from the Bach. This is a fundamental machloket. According to the Lechem Mishneh, the Bach’s approach doesn’t work. You have two opinions here, the Bach and the Lechem Mishneh. Don’t mix them up. The dispute is about HaRambam’s opinion regarding another woman. Regarding his wife, it’s a tefach. What does tefach mean? An area that is normally covered but is exposed. Is that also the measure for another woman?
The Bach says that HaRambam’s “even his wife” implies that everyone has the tefach measure. The Damesek says, “Look at the Gemara. The Gemara says the tefach law was stated regarding his wife. If the tefach rule applied to everyone, it would have stated a bigger chidush: that the rule applies to Kriyat Shema in general. The fact that it says ‘his wife’ sounds like for someone else, it’s even less.” So we have a dispute. We’re learning HaRambam, not deciding practical halachah. To know practical halachah, you have to open the Shulchan Aruch and see what he holds regarding another woman. You can analyze that and tell me what Maran holds, but we’re learning HaRambam.
Now, what part of the body is called ervah, and is forbidden to read facing? There are a few opinions. The ervah itself, for a man or a woman, is forbidden to read facing. If a woman’s ervah is revealed, she herself is forbidden to read Kriyat Shema or say sacred matters. Then there are parts of a woman’s body that are normally covered. The halachah says that if a tefach of one of those areas is uncovered, it’s forbidden to read facing it. Why are they considered ervah, even though they aren’t ervah for the woman herself, who is permitted to read Kriyat Shema facing them? Because regarding someone else, they’re considered ervah.
Rav Moshe writes in Igrot Moshe that if looking at those areas could lead to improper thoughts, they’re considered ervah regarding anyone except the woman herself. So if a woman has part of her elbow uncovered, she can read Kriyat Shema, but someone else can’t read facing that area.
Parts of a woman’s body that are normally uncovered, such as her face and the area below the elbow, are places where it’s forbidden to look in order to derive pleasure, but they don’t have the status of ervah, and it’s permissible to read facing them. The Kesef Mishneh infers this from HaRambam’s wording. What does HaRambam mean by “im hayah meguleh tefach”? It means an area that is normally covered. HaRambam’s wording is that if an area is uncovered, the prohibition applies only to those areas. The Beit Yosef also infers this from the same passage.
One last question: when we say it’s forbidden to read Kriyat Shema facing a tefach of a woman that’s uncovered, is that only if you look at it, or is it enough that it’s in front of you?
From HaRambam’s wording, it appears that if he looks at a woman, even if he looks at parts of her body that are normally uncovered, it’s forbidden for him to read. That’s a striking point. Wait, from HaRambam’s wording? Again: if he looks at a woman, even if he looks at parts of her body that are normally uncovered, it’s forbidden for him to read. Her face? Yes, her face. It’s forbidden to read if he’s looking at her, because “kol guf ha'ishah ervah hu.” It also means that one shouldn’t look at his wife while he’s reading.
Look at HaRambam’s wording in Halachah Yud-Zayin: “vechol guf ha'ishah ervah.” What does that mean? You just told me it applies only to the normally covered areas, and now you’re saying the whole body is ervah. Then it says, “lefichach lo yistakel beguf ha'ishah keshehu kore”—therefore, don’t look at a woman’s body while reading. So regarding looking, every part of a woman’s body is considered ervah. You’re right that, regarding looking, all of a woman’s body, including her hands and face, is included. The Ra'avad, however, says that even regarding looking, the prohibition applies only when he looks at another woman. With his wife, looking at her face and hands isn’t a problem.
So there’s a major dispute among the Rishonim: can a person read Kriyat Shema in front of his wife while looking at her? “I’m looking at my wife’s face and saying, ‘Ve'ahavta.’” That isn’t ervah; it’s an area that is normally exposed. But the inference from HaRambam is that the whole body of a woman is ervah, so you shouldn’t look at any part of her body. Rav Moshe writes that it’s talui on whether looking at the normally exposed areas could lead to improper thoughts. If it could, it’s forbidden. But regarding a tefach of ervah, whether it will lead to improper thoughts isn’t something you can decide for yourself; it’s forbidden regardless.
He writes that when a tefach is uncovered in an area that’s normally covered, it seems that it’s forbidden to read Kriyat Shema even if you don’t look, and it’s permissible to read only if you turn your face away. That’s a big chidush from Rav Moshe. He wants to say a few things. When reading Kriyat Shema in front of your wife’s face, it depends on whether it will lead to improper thoughts. But when it’s a tefach of ervah, simply being in front of it is a problem until you close your eyes or turn away. So just doing this, or reading with your head down, isn’t enough. You have to do something: close your eyes or turn around. That’s the way Rav Moshe wants to hold it.
So if he isn’t looking at her, her face isn’t ervah? Her face—only if he’s looking. Exactly. If she’s in the room and you’re reading Kriyat Shema with your eyes in the book or your eyes closed, you’re okay because you aren’t looking. But if you’re looking at her face, I would have thought there’s no problem, because the face isn’t ervah. From HaRambam, though, it sounds like it is, because the whole body is ervah, including the normally exposed areas. Right. That applies when you’re looking. When you’re not looking, only the other areas are the issue. If it’s a face that’s normally uncovered and you aren’t looking, you’re fine. Your wife’s face. Exactly—your wife’s face.
The beauty of this is that it’s all there in HaRambam, and we missed the diyuk. When we go back and ask what he means by “vechol guf ha'ishah ervah,” the answer is in the next words: “lefichach lo yistakel beguf ha'ishah.” Therefore, don’t look at a woman’s body while reading, even his wife. Then he says, “ve'im hayah meguleh tefach migufah, lo yikra kenegdah.” Even if you aren’t looking, you can’t read facing it.
HaRambam is very precise. When he’s talking about areas that are normally uncovered, he says “vechol guf ha'ishah.” That means even his wife; even with his wife, looking at any part of her body is a problem. And then he says, “ve'afilu ishto.” I don’t have to guess; the Rambam says it explicitly. That refers to her face. “Ve'im hayah meguleh tefach migufah” means an area that’s normally covered. “Lo yikra kenegdah”: don’t read facing her. That already means there’s a problem even if you’re not looking, unless you close your eyes or turn away. If you see it, you have a problem. That’s a nice diyuk in HaRambam.