Shabbat 82a (פב.) — the Talmud in English

She said to them: “What can I do for you?”

The sorcery does not control you because you are careful about matters that lead to the control of sorcery.

You do not wipe yourselves with shards

of earthenware,

and you do not kill lice on your garments,

you do not kill a louse while it is on your garments,

and you do not pull out vegetables and eat them from the bundle tied by the gardener.

Rather, you first untie the bundle and only then eat the vegetables.

Thus, wiping with earthenware is effective against sorcery.

Rav Huna said to his son, Rabba: “Why do you not frequently attend before Rav Hisda, whose teachings are incisive?”

He said to him: “Why should I go to him

—why should I go to him?

For whenever I go to him, he engages me

in conversation

about mundane matters.

For example,

he says to me: ‘One who enters the lavatory should not sit down abruptly,

one should not sit down quickly and forcefully,

and should not strain excessively,

one should not exert himself too much, because

this rectum

is

suspended by three teeth,

attached to three strips of flesh that appear like teeth. Therefore, one must act cautiously,

lest the

three

teeth of the rectum become dislodged, causing danger,’

as the rectum may come out.”

Rav Huna said

to his son, Rabba:

“He,

Rav Hisda,

is occupied with the lives of people,

with matters that concern the lives of people,

and you say

that he engages you

in mundane matters?

All the more so—

go to him!”

If there were before him a pebble and a shard of earthenware

on Shabbat:

Rav Huna said: He wipes himself with the pebble,

although it is muktze,

but he does not wipe himself with the shard,

because of the danger, lest the teeth of the rectum become dislodged.

And Rav Hisda said: He wipes himself with the shard,

since it has the status of a utensil,

but he does not wipe himself with the pebble,

as it is muktze.

The Gemara raises an objection

to Rav Huna from that which is taught in a beraita:

If there were before him a pebble and a shard of earthenware—

“If there were before him a pebble and a potsherd,

he wipes himself with the shard, but he does not wipe himself with the pebble.

Is this a refutation of Rav Huna?

Rafram bar Pappa explained

and established the matter

before Rav Hisda in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna,

to reconcile his words: The beraita is speaking

of the rims of utensils,

the edge of an earthenware utensil, which is smooth and poses no danger that the teeth of the rectum will become dislodged. Therefore, it is preferable to a pebble.

If there were before him a pebble and grass

on Shabbat, there is a dispute concerning it

between Rav Hisda and Rav Hamnuna. One said: He wipes himself with the pebble, but he does not wipe himself with the grass,

because it is moist and cuts the flesh. [Rashi’s teachers explain that it is prohibited because of uprooting the grass. Rashi rejected their explanation, since no one disputes that it is prohibited to uproot it. Rather, it certainly refers to wiping himself while the grass remains attached, without uprooting it].

And one said: He wipes himself with the grass

while it remains attached, without uprooting it, so that he does not move muktze. He does not move it.

But he does not wipe himself with the pebble,

because by doing so he moves muktze.

The Gemara raises an objection

to the one who says that he wipes himself with grass, from that which is taught in a beraita:

One who wipes himself with something over which fire

the fire

has control—

the lower teeth

of the rectum

fall out.

But grass is subject to the control of fire.

This is not difficult.

This

refers to one who wipes himself

with

grass

that is moist,

over which fire has no control.

That

refers to the case in which the lower teeth fall out; he wipes himself

with

grass

that is dry,

over which fire has control.

With regard to one who needs to relieve himself but cannot do so,

Rav Hisda and Ravina dispute the matter:

One said: An evil spirit controls him,

an evil spirit controls him,

so that he has a foul odor in his mouth, because the waste rots in his intestines and the odor emerges through his mouth.

And one said: A spirit of filth controls him,

so that his entire body smells foul from perspiration, because the odor is absorbed into his flesh and limbs and becomes fetid sweat.

It was taught in accordance with the one who says that a spirit of filth controls him.

As it is taught in a beraita: One who needs to relieve himself and eats is comparable to an oven that was heated over its own ashes,

without being cleaned of the ashes.

And this is the beginning of a spirit of filth.

If one needs to relieve himself but cannot do so,

because the opening does not open:

Rav Hisda said: He should stand and sit, stand and sit.

Rav Hanan of Nehardea said: He should move from side to side.

He should examine himself in one corner, move to another corner, and examine himself again.

Rav Hamnuna said: He should feel around with a pebble in that place.

And the Sages say: He should divert his attention,

as will be explained.

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: “All the more so, when he diverts his attention, will he not relieve himself?”

He said to him,

Rav Ashi: This is what the Sages mean:

He should divert his attention from other matters.

Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: I myself saw that Arab

Ishmaelite

who stood and sat, stood and sat, until he poured out

his excrement

like a pot.

The Sages taught: One who enters a fixed meal,

and it is disgraceful for him to rise in the middle of the meal if he needs to relieve himself—

he should walk ten times, four cubits each time,

and between each time he should sit and examine himself, for walking facilitates the evacuation of the bowels.

And some say: four times, ten cubits each time,

for this is preferable, since he walks farther each time,

and relieves himself, and

then he

enters

the meal

and sits in his place.

Mishna:

Earthenware—

the measure for carrying it out is

that which is sufficient to place between one beam and another

[when pillars or beams are arranged one above the other, a space is formed between them, and a shard of earthenware is placed there so that the upper one will not bend; this is the measure of earthenware for which one is liable when carrying it out on Shabbat],

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says: That which is sufficient to rake fire with it,

to transfer coals from one place to another.

Rabbi Yosei says: That which is sufficient to contain a quarter-log

of water.

Rabbi Meir said: Although there is no proof for the matter

that earthenware is used for raking a coal from the fire—

there is an allusion to the matter

in the prophecy of the prophet Isaiah.

It is stated in the prophecy of the prophet Isaiah to the Jewish people, who rejected the prophecy of truth and trusted in oppression and crooked ways [chapter 30, verses 13–14]: “

Therefore, this iniquity shall be for you like a breach [in a wall] that is ready to fall, bulging out [the breach] in a lofty wall, whose breaking will come suddenly, in an instant.

And its breaking shall be like the breaking of a potter’s vessel, [and the breaking will be into pieces so small that]

no shard will be found among its fragments

[among the broken shards, even]

an earthenware shard

[one suitable]

for raking

[a coal]

from a fire of kindling.

And [likewise no shard suitable] for drawing [water with it] water from a cistern [a hollow containing water] will be found.”

Rabbi Yosei said to him:

But

is that a proof

of your contention?

On the contrary, in the latter part of the verse it is written that no shard suitable

“for drawing

[water with it]

water from a cistern

[a hollow containing water]” will be found.

It follows that earthenware is also used to contain water, and this is its measure: one is liable for carrying it out on Shabbat when it is of a size suitable to contain a quarter-log of water.

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty:

It is apparent

from the wording of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Meir in the Mishna that

Rabbi Yosei’s measure

is greater

than Rabbi Meir’s measure.

For Rabbi Meir said “to rake a coal with it” without specifying any particular measure. This implies that even if it is suitable for raking a single coal, that is sufficient. This is a smaller measure than Rabbi Yosei’s measure, who said, “that which is sufficient to contain a quarter-log of water.”

But this is difficult, for

the verse,

from the words of the verse in Isaiah cited in the Mishna, implies that

Rabbi Meir’s measure

of earthenware sufficient for raking a coal

is greater

than Rabbi Yosei’s measure, which is sufficient to contain a quarter-log of water.

The proof is as follows:

If it enters your mind that Rabbi Yosei’s measure is greater,

the following difficulty arises:

Would

the prophet first curse them

by saying

with a small utensil,

that no shard would remain for them even of the size required to rake a fire,

and then curse them again

and subsequently curse them again

with a large utensil,

saying that no larger shard would remain for them that was suitable to contain a quarter-log of water?

Is it the way of those who curse to curse first with regard to a large matter and afterward with regard to a small matter!?

Rather, certainly, the measure of earthenware suitable for containing water is smaller than that suitable for raking a fire.

But this is difficult, since the Mishna implies the opposite.

Abaye said:

It is not difficult.

The Mishna as well,

when Rabbi Meir says there “to rake the fire,” is referring

to raking a fire—

a large conflagration of fire!

And with a large conflagration, even to remove a small coal from it one must use a large shard, so that one will not be burned. In any event, this measure is larger than that required to contain water, as the verse indicates.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei says: There is a proof from there.

And we considered the matter:

Did Rabbi Yosei answer Rabbi Meir properly?

And we answer:

And Rabbi Meir

held that

the verse states, “It is not necessary to say.”

The verse means:

It is not necessary to say that anything considered significant by people,

such as an earthenware shard suitable for raking a fire,

should not be found for them,

so that it will not be available for their use.

Rather, even something that people do not consider significant,

such as an earthenware shard for containing water, also

should not be found for them.

We will return to you, chapter “One who carries out wine.”

Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva said: From where is it derived that idolatry imparts ritual impurity through carrying,

so that one who carries it becomes impure even if he did not touch it,

like a menstruant,

who imparts impurity to a person who carries her through carrying?

As it is stated,

by the prophet Isaiah [30:22], that idolatry has the laws of impurity of a menstruant: “

And you shall defile the plating of your silver idols, and the covering of your golden images.

Cast them away -

like a menstruant

[niddah].

Go out -

you shall say to it.”

And we expound:

Just as a menstruant imparts impurity through carrying,

to the person who carries her,

so too, idolatry imparts impurity through carrying,

to the person who carries it through carrying.

Gemara:

We learned there,

in tractate Avodah Zarah:

If one’s wall was adjacent to an idolatry,

so that the same wall was also shared with the house of idolatry,

and it fell -

it is forbidden

for him

to rebuild it,

because by doing so he benefits the idolatry.

What should he do?

He withdraws inward

into

his own area four cubits, and builds

the wall there.