Take Ten for Talmud
1653Bababasra19- Mashtin Bikir, The Navi commentaries explain it differently than the conclusion of our Gemorah
Shalom Alaykum, Abi Ahf of Team 613, we welcome you to Take 10 for Talmud. Baba Bhabasu your test, Baba Bhabasu 19b, pagination is 38. Starting from the top of the page about six lines down, we are making reference to the Mishnah on Yud Zayyana Madalif, which told us that there is a certain amount of distance required between Meiraghlayan, urine and the co-cell and the wall because, and there could be a number of considerations here, but the wetness or the caustic nature could cause damage to the wall either by weakening its foundation with wetness or by actually causing deterioration in the bricks and, therefore, Gimmelt Fakim, 3th Fakim, have to be the distance before a person is allowed to dispose of Meiraghlayan near his neighbor's wall. Amur Baba Bakhana, Baba Bakhana said "Mutul al-Adolasht in Mayim, but sad, co-slushal haveru. A man is allowed to let water opposite the wall of his friend. He is allowed to pass water. Next to his friend's wall, Dixiv, it's a possek. The possek says, the kratilah Ahov, Hashem will cut off of Ahov, meaning destroy the family. This was a king who was wicked, who did different things. Mashed in Bikir, a person or someone who urinates against the wall. Now, why they chose such an interesting expression is a matter of discussion independent of this, but the expression is someone who urinates against the wall refers to a male descendant of Ahov, and what we're saying is that his dynasty is going to come to an end because there will be no male child to continue it. The concept is that a woman passes water directly to the ground, and a man causes an arc, causes some distance, and therefore it could hit the wall. And so we have this interesting expression. I'm trying to go slowly because there are a few layers of logic here. The kratilah Ahov, Hashem will cut off of Ahov, this wicked king, Mashed in Bikir, which is a reference to male descendants. He will not have male descendants, and the expression is one who urinates against the wall. Rabbi Babarfano didn't come to discuss why the expression is used and didn't come to discuss why Ahov is getting this punishment. That's not our discussion. Our discussion is that for such an expression to exist, it would seem that such an action is permitted. And so Rabbi Babarfano reaches the conclusion that the fact that this Meiraglayam is hitting the wall is not considered a damage. It's permitted. Asks the Gamora of Anantana and as Meiraglayam in Akosa Shloshatwachim, we have a Mishnah that says that you have to separate between Meiraglayam and the wall. Obviously it does do damage. And the Gamora answers Hashem Bishochim. I can deflect your kasha and explain that the Mishnah is referring to poured Meiraglayam, meaning in quantity from a chamber pot. And it does not tell you anything about an individual relieving himself. Let's skip the parentheses and continue. Tashama come in here, another objection to Rabbi Babarfano's conclusion. The statement is, "Loyashtin adam miyim bitzat kos loshal havero." This is pretty explicit. "A person may not pass water by the wall of his friend. El imkhain, unless hirhekmi menugimultfachim." He distanced himself by Thritfachim. Now, in case someone's having trouble with this whole concept, doesn't have to be his front yard. It could be way in the back in his backyard. And there's a wall that demarcates between him and his friend's property. And you have this case with a person in the outdoors, especially in an age where restrooms weren't readily available. The question is, is this permitted or is it forbidden? And the Gomorrah says, "Bamed dvarama murem," when was this said, "Becausea levainim." By bricks of a bokosal avonim. But if it's stone, bhkade shaloyazik, you just have to be distant enough that you shouldn't do damage by creating moisture. Vikama tefach, and that's just one hands-breath. It doesn't need three. So if it's levainim bricks, then it has to be Thritfachim. But if it's just a question of introducing moisture, so tefach is enough for shaloyazik, and if it has good bedrock, then it's totally permitted if it's stone, as opposed to brick, because brick is deteriorating from this. But if it's stone, then it would be permitted because the wetness won't matter, because it's on bedrock. So by the time we're done this brice, it's very clear that there is a restriction from such behavior. And Rababar-Bharnas' conclusion is being contradicted. And the Gomorrah Ant says, "To yef de dravabar-Bharna, to yef de." It knocks out the ruling of Rababar-Bharna. And so it would be forbidden to relieve himself by the wall. For Rababar-Bharna-Krakkomar, we have a problem. Rababar-Bharnas quoting a possuk. The possuk describes male descendants of Ahav, the ones that are not going to survive, they're described as mashed in bikir. What an interesting expression it must be. It's permitted to do such behavior. Now, to be fair, the Gomorrah could theoretically have taken a different track here and answered its forbidden behavior. But there are people who do it, and therefore the expression existed. But the Gomorrah doesn't take that approach. And instead answers, "Hasam-Hachikomar, over there, this is what it's saying, Afi-Lumidi-the-Darkelish, Dunebikir, even something that normally urinates against the wall." Loshavikna-Leh, even that won't survive this fallout of Ahav's kingdom. Or my neo-Kalba, it's referring to a dog. And what the Gomorrah just accomplished is that it is forbidden to do this. But there is a creature that does do it, and that's what we're making reference to. The dog does it. It would be interesting to know if the dog does this consistently on his neighbor's wall. At some point can he go to the neighbor and say, "You have to restrain your dog because your dog is doing damage. Why is this different than any case in Babakama where the animal did damage and the owner is responsible on some level, possibly even liable for the damage that the animal did?" But in any case, we've deviated from the conclusion of Raba Babakhana that such behavior is permitted and said, "We're actually not talking about people doing it. We're talking about a dog doing it, and I guess it was hard to restrain the dogs from doing this, and it wasn't an immediate damage. And therefore it was enough to create an expression of Mashed in Bikir referring to a dog, and what was being said was even a dog won't survive from Ahav's palace from his kingdom." Now this expression of Mashed in Bikir comes up numerous times. We'll mention, by novel, the person who acted insultingly to David in the first book of Shmuel Parakkaf Hey Pasak Lamid Dalid. David uses the expression. He would have destroyed even Mashed in Bikir. It's used by Yeravam in the first book of Malachim, Yud Dalid Yud. The Navi says that his punishment will be the destruction of even Mashed in Bikir, and it's used as our Gomorrah references it in the story of Ahav, first book of Malachim Parakkaf Alif, Pasakkaf Alif. Now the Mafarsim in Navi actually bring both of these approaches. There's an approach that's brought that it refers to a male descendant, and that's why it's called Mashed in Bikir. And there's an approach that it refers to a calave a dog. Not even a dog will remain a Mashed in Bikir. And of course we have to wonder our Gomorrah's conclusion was that it should be a calave. Why would some Nefarsim still be learning Mashed in Bikir referring to a male descendant? And it's important to note that our Gomorrah may not necessarily be the final word. There are other Gomorrah's on this topic. And Mashed in Bikir for example, the Gomorrah in Sanhedrin Kufbeis with Rashi's explanation has a whole different approach to this term. So it is possible that those Mafarsim that learn that it refers to a male descendant had other sources besides our Gomorrah, and perhaps they did with this Gomorrah what we commented that perhaps it's forbidden, as the braysa says, it's forbidden to do this behavior, but nevertheless there was a lot of humanity that may do it, or they may at least do it when it comes to salam to stone walls as opposed to brick walls, enough that the expression would indeed exist regarding male. The alternative, again as our Gomorrah concludes, is even a calave, and you would want to go back to the different places in Navi where this term is used and see how the Mafarsim explain it in each case. As far as Halacha goes, it is indeed forbidden to be Mashed in Bikir in the case of bricks, in a case where it would do damage to the wall. Yesha Kalach, thank you for joining.