Shabbat 81b — the Talmud in English

Rabba bar Rav Shila asked Rav ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

Ḥisda:

the stones

after him to the roof

when he wishes to relieve himself there. Is there not excessive exertion in this?

He said to him

Rav Ḥisda:

Great is human dignity, which sets aside

even

the

prohibition of

a negative commandment in the Torah

[as we learn concerning returning a lost object. For it is written, “and you disregard it,” teaching you that there are times when you disregard the lost object, despite the prohibition of the negative commandment “you may not disregard it,” because of human dignity—for example, an elder for whom it is not according to his dignity to trouble himself with returning it].

And therefore even the prohibition of moving the stones [even with excessive exertion] is set aside because of human dignity.

And Rav Ḥisda stated the permission even in relation to a Torah prohibition, despite the fact that here the prohibition of moving is only rabbinic, because every rabbinic prohibition relies upon the Torah’s negative commandment, “Do not deviate from all that they instruct you.”

Ravina raised an objection to Marimar:

It was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may take a splinter from before him

lying on the ground, in order

to pick his teeth

to remove the meat between his teeth. And we do not say that the splinter is muktzeh.

And the Sages say: He may take it only from the manger of an animal

which is prepared, since it is designated for an animal’s food. But an ordinary splinter is muktzeh.

Behold, according to the Sages the prohibition of muktzeh is not set aside in a place involving human dignity, and they did not permit taking a splinter that is muktzeh, even though at times the meat between his teeth is visible from outside and is disgraceful in the eyes of people!?

And we answer:

How can these be compared!?

The matters are not similar:

There, a person fixes a place

in advance

for his meal, and he should have prepared a splinter there the day before. Therefore the Sages did not permit the prohibition of muktzeh.

But

however

here,

does

a person fix

for himself

a place for the privy?! Sometimes a person is found there and he goes to another privy [for their privies were in the field and belonged to many people], and he cannot prepare stones while it is still day. Therefore they permitted the prohibition of muktzeh for him, because of human dignity.

Rav Huna said: It is forbidden to relieve oneself in a plowed field

which has been plowed and stands ready for sowing,

on Shabbat.

And we inquire into it:

What is the reason

that we prohibit relieving oneself there?

that we prohibit relieving oneself there?

If you say, because of trampling,

in a field that is not his, for he harms his fellow through this, since he tramples [steps] upon the plowing and damages it.

If so,

even on a weekday as well

it should be prohibited?

Rather, because of the grasses,

which grow on the stones in a plowed field because of the moisture, and when he wipes himself with those stones, the grasses are torn out; and it is forbidden to tear out on Shabbat anything from the place where it grows.

It still is difficult:

But Resh Lakish said: A clod

a lump of earth

on which grasses have grown—

it is permitted to wipe oneself with it,

even though at times he comes to tearing out grasses from the clod, because it is an unintended act, and the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon, who says that an unintended act is permitted on Shabbat.

But one who tears from it

intentionally

on Shabbat is liable to a sin-offering,

even though he did not tear from the earth, since the clod is the place where the grasses grow.

And we answer:

Rather,

the reason it is forbidden is this:

Perhaps he will take

a clod

from above,

from a raised place in the field,

and throw it below,

into a hollow, thereby leveling the surface of the ground and making it fit for plowing,

and he will be liable because of Rabba’s principle.

For Rabba said: If he had a hollow and filled it,

sealing it with earth:

If this was

in a house—he is

liable because of building,

since he thereby repairs the floor of the house.

And if the hollow was

in a field—he is

liable

for sealing it

because of plowing,

since he prepares the ground for plowing.

The substance of the matter: Resh Lakish said: A clod on which grasses have grown—

it is permitted to wipe oneself with it, but one who tears from it on Shabbat is liable to a sin-offering.

Rav Pappi said: Learn from Resh Lakish,

who permitted wiping oneself with a clod on which grasses had grown, and we do not say that the grasses draw nourishment from the ground, and by merely lifting the clod he uproots something from its place of growth, that

this parpisa,

a perforated flowerpot in which something was sown—

it is permitted to move it

on Shabbat, and there is no violation of tearing out in this.

Rav Kahana objected to him: If they said

that it is permitted

for the purpose of

wiping,

will they say

also that it is permitted to move it

without a purpose?! It is possible that the matter is forbidden rabbinically, and they permitted it only for the purpose of wiping.

Abaye said: Parpisa, since it has come to our hand,

let us say a matter concerning it:

If

it was a perforated flowerpot, considered to draw nourishment from the ground,

placed upon the ground,

and he lifted it from the ground

and placed it upon stakes—

he is liable because of tearing out

rabbinically, since it appears like tearing out, as it no longer benefits from the scent of the ground.

But by Torah law it is not considered tearing out, because it is still attached to the ground.

[For Resh Lakish permitted it with a clod because of human dignity; and if there had been a Torah liability of stoning and excision, the Sages would not have permitted it].

If it was placed

the flowerpot

upon stakes, and he placed it upon the ground—

he is liable because of planting [

rabbinically].

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is forbidden to wipe oneself with pottery on Shabbat.

And we inquire into it:

What is the reason?

If you say, because of danger,

lest he sever the teeth of the rectum, if so

even on a weekday as well

it should be forbidden?

Rather, because of sorcery.

For sorcery can be performed against one who wipes himself with pottery, as will be stated below. If so,

even on a weekday as well it should not be [permitted]?

Rather, because of removing hairs,

since it removes the hair because it is sharp.

And why is it forbidden? Is this not

an unintended act,

and Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that an unintended act is permitted? [As explained below]!?

Rav Natan bar Oshaya said to them: A great man

like Rabbi Yoḥanan

has said a matter; let us state a reason for it:

It is unnecessary to say that on a weekday it is forbidden

to wipe oneself with pottery, because of sorcery or because of danger.

But on Shabbat, since it has the status of a utensil,

the pottery, which is fit for use—for example, to gather coals—one might say

it is quite proper,

that it is preferable for him to wipe himself with it rather than with a clod, which is muktzeh—

he teaches us

Rabbi Yoḥanan that even on Shabbat he should not wipe himself with it, because of sorcery or because of danger.

Rava taught it

this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that his reason is

because of removing hairs.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan contradicts Rabbi Yoḥanan—

Did Rabbi Yoḥanan say that it is forbidden to wipe oneself with pottery on Shabbat, indicating that

he holds

that an unintended act is forbidden?

But Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha follows an unattributed Mishna.

And we learned

in an unattributed Mishna:

A nazirite may wash his hair,

smoothing his hair,

and separate it,

separating his hairs from one another. And although it is possible that through this some of his hair will be torn out, and a nazirite is forbidden to shave his hair—rather, this is an unintended act, and it is permitted.

But he may not comb it,

with a comb, for hair will certainly be torn out, and this is an inevitable consequence, which is forbidden even when unintended.

Thus we learned in an unattributed Mishna that an unintended act is permitted. And how did Rabbi Yoḥanan say that an unintended act is forbidden?

And we conclude:

Rather, it is clear as Rav Natan bar Oshaya

that Rabbi Yoḥanan prohibited it because of sorcery or danger.

And we explain:

What sorcery

is there in wiping oneself by means of pottery?

It is like that incident involving Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna, who were traveling in a ship,

a ship.

A certain noblewoman said to them,

a distinguished woman [a gentile]:

Seat us together with you,

seat us with them in the ship,

but they did not seat her,

they did not agree to this.

She said a word,

a spell of sorcery.

She bound the ship,

and the ship stopped.

They said,

Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna,

a word,

a formula of purity.

They released it,

they released the ship from the sorcery, so that it could move.