The Babylonian Talmud on The Utilization of Stones to Clean Up After Defecating

UTILIZATION OF STONES TO CLEAN UP AFTER DEFECATING

            III.2 A.      Zonin [Zeno] went into the house of study. He said to them, “My lords, what is the requisite size of stones used in the toilet [for removing shit]?”
            B.      They said to him, “The size of an olive, a nut, and an egg.”
            C.      He said to him, “So are we going to have to take into the toilet a balance [to know the proper volume of the stones]?”
            D.      They took a vote and decided that the requisite measure was simply a handful.
               III.3 A.      It has been taught on Tannaite authority:
               B.      R. Yosé says, “The size of an olive, a nut, and an egg.”
               C.      R. Simeon b. R. Yosé says in the name of his father, “A handful.”
            III.4 A.      It has been taught on Tannaite authority:
            B.      On the Sabbath it is permitted to take along three rounded pebbles into the privy. [Such a privy has no walls, and ordinarily one could not carry an object into it.]
            C.      What is the minimum size?
            D.      R. Meir says, “The size of a nut.”
            E.      R. Judah says, “The size of an egg.”
               III.5 A.      Said Rafram bar Papa said R. Hisda, “Parallel to the dispute in the present passage is the dispute concerning the etrog.”
               B.      But there the dispute concerns a Mishnah rule [namely: The measure of the smallest acceptable citron (M. Suk. 3:7A)], while here the dispute concerns a Tannaite statement that is external to that document! Rather, as is the dispute with reference to the etrog so is the dispute here.
            III.6 A.      Said R. Judah, “But not with a brittle stone.”
            B.      What is the definition of a brittle stone?
            C.      Said R. Zira, “Babylonian pebbles.”
            III.7 A.      Said Raba, “On the Sabbath it is forbidden to utilize a chip as a suppository in the way in which one does so on weekdays.”
            B.      Objected Mar Zutra, “So is he supposed to endanger himself?”
            C.      It is done in a backhanded way.
            III.8 A.      Said R. Yannai, “If the privy has a fixed location, one may bring in a handful of stones; if not, only a stone the size of the leg of a small spice mortar may be brought in.”
            B.      Said R. Sheshet, “If there is some sort of testimony [for example, a shit stain on the chip], it is permitted.”
            C.      An objection was raised: Ten things cause piles: He who eats leaves of reeds, leaves of vines, sprouts of vines, the rough parts of the meat of an animal, the backbone of a fish, salted fish not properly cooked, he who drinks wine lees, he who wipes himself with lime, potters’ clay, or pebbles used by someone else [vs. Sheshet]. Some say, He who strains himself in the privy too much.
               D.      No problem, the one speaks of when it is still wet with shit, the other, when the shit has dried up. If you prefer, I shall say, the one speaks of a chip with shit on one side, the other, on both sides. And if you want, I’ll say, the one speaks of his own chip, the other, someone else’s.
                 III.9 A.      Said Abbayye to R. Joseph, “If rain fell on it and the stain was washed away, what’s the law?”
                 B.      He said to him, “If the mark thereof is perceptible, it is permitted.”
            III.10 A.      Rabbah bar R. Shila asked R. Hisda, [81B] “What is the law as to bringing up stones after himself to the roof?”
            B.      He said to him, “The honor owing to human beings is so considerable that it overrides the negatives of the Torah.” [One may do so.]
               C.      Maremar went into session and stated this tradition. Objected Rabina to Maremar, “R. Eliezer says, ‘A person takes a wood splinter which may be before him to pick at his teeth’ [M. Bes. 4:6A]. But sages say, ‘One may take only from the straw in the crib that is before cattle.’ [Freedman: This wood is in the status of food, such that it may be put to the other purpose as well. But, contrary to Eliezer, if the wood were not already food, it could not be used for some different, secondary purpose, for instance, as a toothpick.]” [Freedman: It is regarded as ready for use, but otherwise would be forbidden as something not ready for use on the Sabbath, and human dignity does not override that consideration.]
               D.      But how are the matters comparable? In the one case, someone assigns a place for his meal, but does someone assign a place for a toilet?!
            III.11 A.      Said R. Huna, “It is forbidden on the Sabbath to take a shit in a ploughed field.”
            B.      How come? Should I say that it would be on the count of treading? Then even on a weekday it should also be forbidden to do so [in someone else’s ploughed field]! And should I say it is on account of the grass [which one may pick up in connection with taking some dirt for toilet paper]? Then didn’t R. Simeon b. Laqish say, “As to a pebble on which grass has sprouted, it is permitted to use that for toilet paper on the Sabbath, but if one takes the grass off on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering”? Rather, it is lest he take a clod from somewhere high and toss it down to somewhere low, in which case he would be liable on the count that was described by what Rabbah said, for said Rabbah, “If someone had a hole and filled it up, if it is in the house, he is liable on the count of building, and if it is in the field, he is liable on the count of ploughing.”
               III.12 A.      Reverting to the body of the foregoing: Said R. Simeon b. Laqish, “As to a pebble on which grass has sprouted, it is permitted to use that for toilet paper on the Sabbath, but if one takes the grass off on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering”—
               B.      Said R. Pappi, “On the basis of what R. Simeon b. Laqish has said, you may draw the inference that one may pick up a perforated pot” [even though the earth might be seen as attached to the ground, but we treat the pebble as detached despite the grass that has grown on it, so this pot is regarded in the same way (Freedman)].
               C.      Objected R. Kahana to this statement, “Well, if they have said that it is all right to do so in case of need [in the toilet], will they say so where there is no pressing need?”
               III.13 A.      Said Abbayye, “Since the subject of the perforated pot has come to hand, let’s talk about it: If it was lying on the ground and one put it on pegs, he is liable on the count of detaching; if it is lying on pegs and one put it on the ground, he is liable on the count of planting.”
            III.14 A.      Said R. Yohanan, “On the Sabbath it is forbidden to wipe oneself with a sherd.”
               B.      How come? Should we say that it is because of the danger to health? Well, then, even on weekdays it should be forbidden, too. And should I say it is on account of witchcraft? Then again, even on weekdays it should be forbidden, too. But it must be because of tearing out hair. But that is unintentional!
               C.      Said to them R. Nathan bar Oshayya, “When an eminent authority makes a statement, let’s give a valid reason for it: It goes without saying that it is forbidden on weekdays, but as to the Sabbath, since the object is classified as a utensil, I might suppose that it is permitted [instead of a chip or pebble, which are not utensils]. So we are informed that that is not the case.”
                 III.15 A.      Raba repeated the rule and explained that it was on account of tearing the hair, and so he found a contradiction between two statements of R. Yohanan. For has R. Yohanan said, “It is forbidden to wipe oneself with a sherd on the Sabbath”? Then he takes the view that it is forbidden to do something even if he doesn’t intend to do it. But hasn’t R. Yohanan said, “The decided law is in accord with the unattributed Mishnah rule”? And have we not learned in the Mishnah: A Nazir shampoos and parts his hair [with his fingers], but he does not comb his hair [M. Naz. 6:3D]? So it’s better to represent matters in line with the presentation of R. Nathan bar Oshayya.
                   III.16 A.      What’s the point of the reference to witchcraft?
                   B.      It is in accord with the following: R. Hisda and Rabbah bar R. Huna were traveling in a boat. A noble lady said to them, “Sit me with you,” but they didn’t sit her with them.
                   C.      She said something, and the boat was stopped.
                   D.      They said something and released it.
                   E.      She said to them, “What shall I do to you? [82A] For you don’t wipe yourselves with a sherd, you don’t kill vermin on your garments, and you don’t pull up and eat a vegetable from a bunch that the gardener has tied together.”
                     III.17 A.      Said R. Huna to his son, Rabbah, “How come you don’t frequent R. Hisda’s teaching, since his traditions are very sharp?”
                     B.      He said to him, “Why should I go to him? When I go to him, he goes into session for rather secular teachings. He said to me, ‘one who goes into the toilet shouldn’t sit down too fast or push too much, because the rectum sets on three teeth-like glands, and the teeth-like glands of the rectum might become dislocated, so threatening good health.’ ”
                     C.      He said to him, “He’s engaged in matters of good health, and you call these secular matters?! All the reason for you to go to him.”
            III.18 A.      If before someone were a pebble and a sherd—
            B.      R. Huna said, “He wipes himself with the pebble and he doesn’t dry himself with the sherd.”
            C.      And R. Hisda said, “He wipes himself with the sherd and he doesn’t dry himself with a pebble.”
               D.      An objection was raised: If before someone were a pebble and a sherd, he wipes himself with the sherd and he doesn’t dry himself with a pebble. That refutes what R. Huna has said.
               E.      Rafram bar Pappa explained the matter before R. Hisda with respect to R. Huna as speaking of rims of utensils.
            III.19 A.      If before someone were a pebble and grass—
            B.      R. Hisda and R. Hamnuna—
            C.      One said, “One wipes himself with a pebble and doesn’t wipe himself with grass.”
            D.      The other said, “He wipes himself with grass and doesn’t wipe himself with a pebble.”
               E.      By way of objection: He who wipes himself with something that is flammable—the lower teeth will be torn away.
               F.      No problem, the one speaks of wet grass, the other, dry.
            III.20 A.      He who has to take a shit but doesn’t do it—
            B.      R. Hisda and Rabina—
            C.      One said, “He smells like a fart.”
            D.      The other said, “He smells like shit.”
               E.      It has been taught on Tannaite authority in accord with the view of him who says, he smells like shit:
               F.      He who has to take a shit but goes on eating is like an oven that is heated up on top of its ashes, and that is the beginning of b.o.
            III.21 A.      He who has to take a shit but can’t—
            B.      Said R. Hisda, “Let him stand up and sit down again, stand up and sit down again.”
            C.      R. Hanan of Nehardea said, “Let him shift from side to side.”
            D.      R. Hamnuna said, “Let him fiddle around with a pebble on the anus.”
            E.      And rabbis say, “Let him think about other things.”
            F.      Said R. Aha b. Raba to R. Ashi, “All the more so will he if he thinks about other things?”
            G.      He said to him, “So let him not think of other things [but only this].”
            H.      Said R. Jeremiah of Difti, “I myself saw a Tai-Arab stand up and sit down over and over again, until the shit came out of him as from a pitcher.”
            III.22 A.      Our rabbis have taught on Tannaite authority:
            B.      He who comes into a house to take a regular meal should first walk ten lengths of four cubits—others say, four of ten—and take a shit and then go in and sit in his regular place.

Neusner, J. (2011). The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (Vol. 2, pp. 354–358). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Tractate Shabbat Chapter 8:6