Shabbat 81

מתני׳ עצם כדי לעשות תרווד רבי יהודה אומר כדי לעשות ממנו חף זכוכית כדי לגרור בו ראש הכרכר צרור או אבן כדי לזרוק בעוף רבי אלעזר בר יעקב אומר כדי לזרוק בבהמה

MISHNA: The measure that determines liability for carrying out a bone is equivalent to that which is used to make a spoon. Rabbi Yehuda says: In a measure equivalent to that which is used to make from it a key. The measure that determines liability for carrying out glass is equivalent to that which is used to scrape and smooth the top of a bobbin, a sharpened stick used by weavers. The measure that determines liability for carrying out a pebble or a stone is equivalent to that which is used to throw at a bird to chase it away. Rabbi Elazar bar Ya’akov says: Equivalent to that which is used to throw at an animal, which is larger.

גמ׳ למימרא דשיעורא דרבי יהודה נפיש הא קיימא לן דשיעורא דרבנן נפיש אמר עולא חפי פותחת: תנו רבנן חפי פותחת טהורין קבען בפותחת טמאין ושל גל אף על פי שחיברן בדלת וקבען במסמרים טהורין שכל המחובר לקרקע הרי הוא כקרקע:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the measure of Rabbi Yehuda is greater? Don’t we maintain that the measure of the Rabbis is greater? Ulla said: Rabbi Yehuda did not refer to the entire key, but to the teeth of a key. With regard to the above, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The teeth of a key are ritually pure, and they cannot become impure when separate from the key, as they have no function on their own. However, if one affixed them to a key, they can become ritually impure as part of a utensil. And teeth of a lock, even though one attached them to the door and affixed them with nails, are ritually pure, as anything attached to the ground has the same legal status as the ground itself, which cannot become ritually impure.

זכוכית כדי לגרור בו: תנא סכוכית כדי לפצוע בה שני נימין כאחת:

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out glass is equivalent to that which is used to scrape and smooth the top of a bobbin. A tanna taught that halakha in a Tosefta in a different manner: The measure that determines liability for carrying out glass is equivalent to that which is used to cut two threads at once, as a glass shard can be used in place of a knife.

צרור או אבן כדי לזרוק בעוף רבי אלעזר כו׳: אמר רבי יעקב אמר רבי יוחנן והוא שמרגשת בה וכמה שיעורו תניא רבי אלעזר בן יעקב אומר משקל עשרה זוז:

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out a pebble or a stone is equivalent to that which is used to throw at a bird to chase it away. Rabbi Elazar ben Ya’akov says: Equivalent to that which is used to throw at an animal. Rabbi Ya’akov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And that is only if the stone is large enough that the animal feels it. And how much is the measure of that stone? It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar ben Ya’akov says: A weight of ten zuz.

זונין על לבי מדרשא אמר להו רבותי אבנים של בית הכסא שיעורן בכמה אמרו לו כזית כאגוז וכביצה אמר להו וכי טורטני יכניס נמנו וגמרו מלא היד תניא רבי יוסי אומר כזית כאגוז וכביצה רבי שמעון ברבי יוסי אומר משום אביו מלא היד:

The Gemara relates: Zunin entered the study hall and said to the Sages: My teachers, with regard to stones that may be moved on Shabbat for wiping in the bathroom, how much is their measure? They said to him: Stones of only three sizes may be moved for that purpose: An olive-bulk, a nut-bulk, and an egg-bulk. He said to them: And will he take scales [turtani] into the bathroom to weigh each stone? They were counted and the Sages concluded that one need not measure the stones. He simply takes a handful of stones. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says the measure of bathroom stones is an olive-bulk, a nut-bulk, and an egg-bulk. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father: One need not measure the stones. He simply takes a handful of stones.

תנו רבנן (בשבת) שלש אבנים מקורזלות מותר להכניס לבית הכסא וכמה שיעורן רבי מאיר אומר כאגוז רבי יהודה אומר כביצה אמר רפרם בר פפא אמר רב חסדא כמחלוקת כאן כך מחלוקת באתרוג התם מתניתין הכא ברייתא אלא כמחלוקת באתרוג כך מחלוקת כאן

Our Sages taught in a baraita with regard to Shabbat: Three sharpened stones may be taken into the bathroom. And what is their measure? Rabbi Meir says: A nut-bulk; Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk. Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav Ḥisda said: Like the dispute here, so too, there is a dispute between these Sages with regard to the minimum size of a citron. The Gemara is surprised at the comparison. Why does the Gemara cite this baraita as a mnemonic to recall the dispute about the size of a citron? There, with regard to a citron, it is a mishna that is known by all; here it is a baraita, which is more obscure and more likely to require a mnemonic and a comparison to a more popular source. Rather, the phrasing is reversed: Like the dispute with regard to a citron, so too, there is a dispute here.

אמר רב יהודה אבל לא את הפאייס מאי פאייס אמר רבי זירא כרשיני בבלייתא אמר רבא אסור למשמש בצרור בשבת כדרך שממשמש בחול מתקיף לה מר זוטרא ליסתכן כלאחר יד אמר רבי ינאי אם יש מקום קבוע לבית הכסא מלא היד אם לאו כהכרע מדוכה קטנה של בשמים אמר רב ששת אם יש עליה עד מותר

Rav Yehuda said: However, one may not move the payis for use in a bathroom. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of payis? Rabbi Zeira said: It refers to clods of Babylonian earth, which is soft and flaky. Rava said: It is prohibited to manipulate the anus with a stone on Shabbat to help discharge bodily functions in the manner that one manipulates it on weekdays. Mar Zutra strongly objected to this: According to Rava, should one endanger himself by refraining from relieving himself? The Gemara explains: He meant he should do so in an unusual manner and not in the manner it is typically done. With regard to the size of stones, Rabbi Yannai said: If he has a fixed place for a bathroom, he may take a handful of stones; if he does not need them on Shabbat, he can use them on another occasion. If he does not have a fixed place he may bring in an average size stone, which is the size of a small mortar used for crushing spices. Rav Sheshet said: If the stone has an indication on it that it has already been used in the bathroom, one is permitted to move it for that purpose on Shabbat, regardless of its size.

מיתיבי עשרה דברים מביאין את האדם לידי תחתוניות ואלו הן האוכל עלי קנים ועלי גפנים ולולבי גפנים ומוריגי בהמה בלא מלח ושדרו של דג ודג מליח שלא בישל כל צורכו והשותה שמרי יין והמקנח בסיד ובחרסית בצרור שקינח בו חברו ויש אומרים אף התולה עצמו בבית הכסא לא קשיא הא בלח הא ביבש ואיבעית אימא כאן מצד אחד וכאן משני צדדין ואיבעית אימא הא דידיה הא דחבריה

The Gemara raises an objection: Is it permitted to wipe with a stone that was already used? Didn’t the Sages say: Ten things bring a person to suffer from hemorrhoids and they are: One who eats the leaves of bulrushes, grape leaves, tendrils of grapevines, the palate and tongue of an animal, as well as any other part of the animal which is not smooth and which has protrusions, without salt, the spine of a fish, a salty fish that is not fully cooked, and one who drinks wine dregs, and one who cleans himself with lime and clay, the materials from which earthenware is made, and one who cleans himself with a stone with which another person has cleaned himself. And some say: One who suspends himself in the bathroom as well. Apparently, using a previously used stone is dangerous to one’s health. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where it is prohibited, is referring to a case where the stone is still moist. Here, where it is permitted, is referring to a case where the stone is dry. And if you wish, say instead that here, where it is prohibited, is referring to one side, using the side that was already used; here, where it is permitted, is referring to both sides, using the other side of the same stone. And if you wish, say instead that this, where it is permitted, is referring to one’s own stone, which he used to clean himself; this, where it is prohibited, is referring to another person’s stone, which poses a danger.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף ירדו עליה גשמים ונשטשטשו מהו אמר ליה אם היה רישומן ניכר מותר

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is the ruling if rain fell on the stone and the indications that it had been used previously in the bathroom were obscured? The dilemma is: Is moving it permitted like a stone that is designated for use in the bathroom on Shabbat, or, is moving it prohibited since its indications were obscured and it might have the legal status of set-aside? Rav Yosef said to him: If indication on them is apparent, even though it is partially obscured, it is permitted, since the stone remains clear that it is designated for use in the bathroom.

בעא מיניה רבה בר רב שילא מרב

Rabba bar Rav Sheila raised a dilemma before Rav

חסדא מהו להעלותם אחריו לגג אמר ליה גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה את לא תעשה שבתורה יתיב מרימר וקאמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה רבינא למרימר רבי אליעזר אומר נוטל אדם קיסם משלפניו לחצות בו שיניו וחכמים אומרים לא יטול אלא מן האבוס של בהמה הכי השתא התם אדם קובע מקום לסעודה הכא אדם קובע מקום לבית הכסא

Ḥisda: What is the halakha with regard to taking those stones up with him to the roof if his bathroom is there? Is it permitted or is it prohibited due to the exertion involved? He said to him: It is permitted; great is human dignity as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah. The Gemara relates: Mareimar sat and stated this halakha. Ravina raised an objection to the statement of Mareimar from a baraita where Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may take a wood chip from the ground before him to clean his teeth on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say one may take a wood chip only from the animal’s trough, which is already designated for the animal’s use, but not from wood on the ground, which is set-aside. Apparently, despite the fact that using the wood chip enhances human dignity, it is nevertheless prohibited due to the prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara rejects this: How can you compare? There, a person determines the place for his meal. Since he knows where he will eat he should have prepared toothpicks beforehand. Here, does a person determine the place for a bathroom? He relieves himself wherever he finds a discreet place to do so.

אמר רב הונא אסור לפנות בשדה ניר בשבת מאי טעמא אילימא משום דוושא אפילו בחול נמי ואלא משום עשבים והאמר ריש לקיש צרור שעלו בו עשבים מותר לקנח בה והתולש ממנה בשבת חייב חטאת אלא דילמא נקיט מעילאי ושדא לתתאי ומיחייב משום דרבה דאמר רבה היתה לו גומא וטממה בבית חייב משום בונה בשדה חייב משום חורש

Rav Huna said: It is prohibited to defecate in a plowed field on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for that prohibition? If you say it is due to the fact that in doing so he treads on the furrows and destroys them, it should be prohibited even on weekdays. Rather, it is due to the concern that he will clean himself with a clod of earth on which grasses have grown. Didn’t Reish Lakish say that it is permitted to wipe with a stone upon which grasses have grown even though the grasses will be detached as a result? And that is the halakha even though one who unwittingly detaches grasses from it on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. Rather, the concern is lest he take a clod of earth from a high place, a pile of dirt, and throw it to a low place, into a hole in the ground. And in that case, he would be liable due to that which Rabba said, as Rabba said: If one had a hole and filled it, in the house, he is liable due to the prohibited labor of building; in the field, he is liable due to plowing.

גופא אמר ריש לקיש צרור שעלו בו עשבים מותר לקנח בה והתולש ממנה בשבת חייב חטאת אמר רב פפי שמע מינה מדריש לקיש האי פרפיסא שרי לטלטולי מתקיף לה רב כהנא אם אמרו לצורך יאמרו שלא לצורך אמר אביי פרפיסא הואיל ואתא לידן לימא ביה מילתא היה מונח על גבי קרקע והניחו על גבי יתידות מיחייב משום תולש היה מונח על גבי יתידות והניחו על גבי קרקע חייב משום נוטע

With regard to the matter itself, Reish Lakish said: It is permitted to wipe with a stone upon which grasses have grown. And one who detaches grasses from it unwittingly on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. Rav Pappi said: Learn from that which Reish Lakish said that it is permitted to carry this perforated flowerpot on Shabbat. Rav Kahana strongly objects to this: If they said that it is permitted to carry a stone with weeds on it for a purpose, will they say it is permitted to carry a flowerpot for no purpose? Abaye said: Since the topic of a perforated pot has come to our hands, let us say something with regard to it: If it had been placed on the ground and one lifted it and placed it on top of pegs on Shabbat, he is liable for the labor of detaching. The roots of the plant could have protruded through the holes to draw sustenance from the ground, and when one lifts it he detaches it from that sustenance. Similarly, if it had been placed on pegs and one placed it on the ground, he is liable for the labor of planting.

אמר רבי יוחנן אסור לקנח בחרס בשבת מאי טעמא אילימא משום סכנה אפילו בחול נמי ואלא משום כשפים אפילו בחול נמי לא ואלא משום השרת נימין דבר שאין מתכוין הוא אמר להו רב נתן בר אושעיא גברא רבה אמר מילתא נימא בה טעמא לא מיבעיא בחול דאסור אבל בשבת הואיל ואיכא תורת כלי עליו שפיר דמי קא משמע לן

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited to wipe with an earthenware shard on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for that prohibition? If you say that it is due to the danger that he might injure himself with the sharp edges of the shard, it should be prohibited also on weekdays. Rather, it is due to the fact that it invites witchcraft. If so, he should also not do so on weekdays. Rather, the concern is lest he remove hairs with the earthenware shard. However, that is an unintentional act, which is permitted. Rav Natan bar Oshaya said to those who raised the question: A great man said something, let us say a reason for it, and explain Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement as follows: It is not necessary to say that it is prohibited on a weekday for the aforementioned reasons because he has the option of using a stone. However, with regard to Shabbat we would have said that since this shard has the status of a utensil and is not set-aside, he may well use it, as it is preferable to a stone, which is set-aside. Therefore, he teaches us that it is prohibited.

רבא מתני לה משום השרת נימין וקשיא ליה דרבי יוחנן אדרבי יוחנן מי אמר רבי יוחנן אסור לקנח בחרס בשבת אלמא דבר שאין מתכוין אסור והאמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן נזיר חופף ומפספס אבל לא סורק אלא מחוורתא כדרב נתן בר אושעיא

Rava taught that Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled that it is prohibited due to the removal of hairs, and he raised a difficulty between that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said here and that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said elsewhere. Did Rabbi Yoḥanan say it is forbidden to wipe with an earthenware shard on Shabbat? Apparently, he holds that an unintentional act is prohibited. Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan state a principle: The halakha is ruled in accordance with an unattributed mishna? And we learned in a mishna: A nazirite, for whom it is prohibited to cut his hair, may wash his hair on a weekday with sand and natron and separate it with his fingers; however, he may not comb it, which would certainly pull out some hair. Apparently, the unintentional act of removing hair while shampooing is permitted. Rather, it is clearly in accordance with the explanation of Rav Natan bar Oshaya.

מאי כשפים כי הא דרב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא הוו קא אזלי בארבא אמרה להו ההיא מטרוניתא אותבן בהדייכו ולא אותבוה אמרה איהי מילתא אסרתה לארבא אמרו אינהו מילתא שריוהא אמרה להו מאי איעביד לכו

The Gemara asks: What is the witchcraft involved with wiping with an earthenware shard? The Gemara explains: It is as that which transpired when Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna were going on a boat. A certain matron [matronita] said to them: Let me sit with you, and they did not let her sit. She said something, an incantation of witchcraft, and stopped the boat. They said something, the Holy Name, and freed it. She said to them: What will I do to you, to enable me to harm you with witchcraft,