Daf Ditty.

Shabbes 81

Daf Ditty Shabbes 81

Daf Ditty. Shabbes 81
Daf Ditty. Shabbes 81

:‫ אמר להוּ‬.‫ כּזית כּאגוֹז וּכביצה‬:‫ אֲבָנִים שֶׁל בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא שִׁיעוּרָן בְּכַמָּה? ְֱֲִֵֶַָאָמרוּ לוֹ‬,‫ רַבּוֹתַי‬:‫ אֲמַר לְהוּ‬,‫זוּנִין עַל לְבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא‬
‫ רבּי שׁמעוֹן בּרבּי יוֹסי אוֹמר משּׁוּם‬.‫ כּזית כּאגוֹז וּכביצה‬:‫ רבּי יוֹסי אוֹמר‬,‫ תּניא‬.‫וכי טוּרטני יכניס? נמנוּ וגמרוּ מֹלא היּד‬
‫ מְֹלא ַהיּ ָד‬:‫אָבִיו‬.

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.

Rav Chisdah was asked if it would be permitted to carry the pessoi up to a

rooftop latrine on Shabbat. The concern here is that this would involve
addition exertion, which is a forbidden.

Rav Chisdah ruled that it was certainly permissible, because “human dignity
is so important that it suspends a prohibition of the Torah” (‫ּגָדֹול ּכְבֹוד‬
‫)הַּבְִרּיֹות ׁשֶּדֹוחֶה אֶת ״ֹלא תַעֲׂשֶה״ ׁשֶּבַּתֹוָרה‬.

81b‫פ״א ב‬

‫ְבּעָא מִינֵּיהּ ַרבָּהּ בַּר ַרב שֵׁילָא מ ֵַרב‬

‫ יתיב מרימר וק ַאָמר‬.‫ גּדוֹל כּבוֹד הבּריּוֹת שׁדּוֹחה את ״ֹלא תעשׂה״ שׁבּתּוֹרה‬:‫ מַהוּ לְהַעֲלוֹתָם ְֲִֵֶַָאַחריו לגּג? אמר ליהּ‬:‫חִסְדָּא‬
‫ וחכמים‬,‫ רבּי אליעזר אוֹמר נוֹטל ְֲִֵֶַָאָדם קיסם משּׁלּפניו לחצוֹת בּוֹ שׁינּיו‬:‫ איתיביהּ רבינא למרימר‬.‫להּ להא שׁמעתּא‬ ְֱִֵֶַָ
‫ הכא — אָדָ ם קוֹ ֵב ַע מָקוֹם‬,‫אוֹמרים ֹלא יטּוֹל אלּא מן האבוּס שׁל בּהמה! הכי השׁתּא?! התם — ְִֵַָאָדם קוֹבע מקוֹם לסעוּדה‬
‫? ְלבֵית ַה ִכּסֵּא‬

Rabba bar Rav Sheila raised a dilemma before Rav 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.
Daf Ditty. Shabbes 81

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.

Human dignity must be preserved. The Gemara teaches that our sages even allowed a negative
commandment to be disregarded in order to maintain the respect for a human being. Rashi
explains that this rule is derived from the Torah itself, where we find that not every person is
obligated to return every type of lost object. In describing the basic law to return a lost object to
its owner, the Torah uses a peculiar terminology.

,‫ׂשֵיֹו‬-‫ׁשֹור אָחִיָ אֹו אֶת‬-‫תְִראֶה אֶת‬-‫ֹלא‬  ‫ א‬1 Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his
,‫ הָׁשֵב ּתְׁשִיבֵם‬ :‫ מֵהֶם‬,ָ‫ וְהִתְעַּלַמְּת‬,‫ נִּדָחִים‬sheep driven away, and hide thyself from
.ָ‫ לְאָחִי‬them; thou shalt surely bring them back unto
thy brother.
--‫ וְֹלא יְַדעְּתֹו‬,ָ‫ֹלא ָקרֹוב אָחִיָ אֵלֶי‬-‫וְאִם‬  ‫ ב‬2 And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee,
‫ וְהָיָה עִּמְָ עַד ּדְֹרׁש‬,ֶָ‫ּתֹוְ ּבֵית‬-‫ אֶל‬,‫ וַאֲסַפְּתֹו‬and thou know him not, then thou shalt bring
.‫ וַהֲׁשֵבֹתֹו לֹו‬,‫ אָחִיָ אֹתֹו‬it home to thy house, and it shall be with thee
until thy brother require it, and thou shalt
restore it to him.
‫ וְכֵן‬,‫ וְכֵן ּתַעֲׂשֶה לְׂשִמְלָתֹו‬,‫וְכֵן ּתַעֲׂשֶה לַחֲמֹרֹו‬  ‫ ג‬3 And so shalt thou do with his ass; and so
,‫ּתֹאבַד מִּמֶּנּו‬-‫אֲבֵַדת אָחִיָ אֲׁשֶר‬-‫ ּתַעֲׂשֶה לְכָל‬shalt thou do with his garment; and so shalt
{‫ }ס‬ .‫ לְהִתְעַּלֵם‬,‫ ֹלא תּוכַל‬ :‫ ּומְצָאתָּה‬thou do with every lost thing of thy brother's,
which he hath lost, and thou hast found; thou
mayest not hide thy

The verse states that upon coming across lost objects, we are warned, “‫ – מהם והתעלמת‬you shall
hide yourself from them.” The Gemara (Bava Metzia 30a) determines, for example, that if it is
Daf Ditty. Shabbes 81

not becoming for a distinguished elderly person to pick up this item and be seen in public with it,
he is exempt. This is where human dignity allows us to disregard the mitzvah.1

‫ א( והתעלמת פעמים‬,‫ מנהני מילי דת"ר )דברים כב‬:‫מצא שק או קופה ]וכל דבר[ שאין דרכו ליטול הרי זה לא יטול‬
‫שאתה מתעלם ופעמים שאי אתה מתעלם‬
§ The mishna teaches: If a person found a sack or a basket or any other item that it is not his
typical manner to take and carry because it is beneath his dignity, he shall not take it.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: It
is stated with regard to the return of a lost item: “You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep
wandering and disregard them; you shall return them to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1). The
tanna explains that the phrase “and disregard them” means that there are occasions in which you
may disregard lost items and there are occasions in which you may not disregard them.

‫הא כיצד היה כהן והיא בבית הקברות או שהיה זקן ואינה לפי כבודו או שהיתה מלאכה שלו מרובה משל חבירו לכך‬
‫נאמר והתעלמת מהם‬
How so; under what circumstances may one disregard a lost item?

One may do so in a case where he was a priest and the lost item is in the graveyard (Leviticus
21:1–4), or where he was an elderly person and it is not in keeping with his dignity to tend to the
item, or where the value of his labor was greater than the value of the lost item of the other
person, i.e., if the finder was to return the item, reimbursing him for his lost wages would cost
more than the value of the item; therefore, it is stated: “And disregard them.”

‫למאי איצטריך קרא אילימא לכהן והיא בבית הקברות פשיטא האי עשה והאי לא תעשה ועשה ולא אתי עשה ודחי את‬
‫לא תעשה ועשה ותו לא דחינן איסורא מקמי ממונא‬

The Gemara asks: For what case was a verse necessary to derive that one may disregard a lost
item? If we say that the verse is necessary for the case of a priest and the lost item in the
graveyard, it is obvious that he need not return the item, as this obligation to return the lost item
is a positive mitzva: “You shall return them to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1), and that entry
of a priest into a graveyard is prohibited by both a prohibition: “To the dead among his people
he shall not defile himself” (Leviticus 21:1), and a positive mitzva: “You shall be
holy” (Leviticus 19:2); and there is a principle that a positive mitzva does not override a
prohibition and a positive mitzva. And furthermore, we do not override a ritual prohibition in the
face of monetary matters.

1 Daf Digest Shabbes 81

Daf Ditty. Shabbes 81

For further reading:2

2 A Jewish
Conception of Human Dignity: Philosophy and Its Ethical Implications for Israeli Supreme Court Decisions
Doron Shultziner The Journal of Religious Ethics Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 2006), pp. 663-683
Daf Ditty. Shabbes 81

How old was the use of objects to assist in anal toilet?

Daf Ditty. Shabbes 81

The first mention of toilet paper in the Western world comes from the 16th century, with a short
description by the French novelist (and physician) François Rabelais arguing its ineffectiveness.3

China, however, had toilet paper in the 2nd century BC,4 and the Japanese used chuugi (20-25
cm wooden sticks) during the Nara period (8th century AD) for both external and internal
cleaning of the anal canal. Other cultures do not use toilet paper, partly because paper is often not
easily available. Anal cleaning can be carried out in various ways according to local customs and
climate, including with water (using a bidet, for example), leaves, grass, stones, corn cobs,
animal furs, sticks, snow, seashells, and, lastly, hands. During the Greco-Roman period, a sponge
fixed to a stick (tersorium) was used to clean the buttocks after defecation; the sponge was then
replaced in a bucket filled with salt water or vinegar water.5

Another technique was to use oval or circular fragments of ceramic known as “pessoi” (meaning
pebbles), a term also used to denote an ancient board game. Aristophanes referred to the use of
pessoi for sanitary purposes in Peace (5th century BC):6

“Arms dealer (displaying a cuirass): And what, alack, shall I do with this rounded cuirass, a
beautiful fit, worth ten minas?
Trygaeus: Well, that one will not make a loss for you, anyway. Give me that at cost price. It will
be very convenient to crap in . . .
Arms dealer: Stop this impudent mockery of my goods!
(placing the cuirass on the ground like a chamber pot, and squatting on it):
Like this, if you put three stones beside it. Is it not clever?”5

This conversation is clearly scatological (as often in Aristophanes), and the lines before and after
this quote refer to wiping the buttocks. It therefore seems likely that Trygaeus is referring to the
Greek proverb: “Three stones are enough to wipe one’s arse,”.

The abrasive characteristics of ceramic suggest that long term use of pessoi could have resulted
in local irritation, skin or mucosal damage, or complications of external haemorrhoids.7 Maybe
this crude and satiric description by Horace in his 8th epode (1st century BC)—“an ass at the

3 Rabelais F. Gargantua et Pantagruel , 1, 13

4Needham J. Science and civilization in China. Vol 5. Chemistry and chemical technology. Part 1: paper and printing. Caves
Books, 1
5 Seneca. Letters to Lucilius , 70, 20.
6 As usual I am indebted to Talmudology for insights
7 Philippe Charlier assistant professor in forensic medicine and anthropologist 1 2, Luc Brun pathologist 3 , Clarisse Prêtre
researcher 4 , Isabelle Huynh-Charlier radiologistToilet hygiene in the classical era, BMJ DEC 2012
Daf Ditty. Shabbes 81

centre of dry and old buttocks mimicking that of a defecating cow”— refers to complications
arising from such anal irritation.8

I cannot resist the scatological humor inherited from the greek masters!!!

8 Janicke DM, Pundt MR. Anorectal disorders. Emerg Med Clin North Am 1996;14(4):757-88.