Siman 312

In the time of the Gemara, their beit kisse locations were in the fields behind the city, and for the most part they did not have a permanent place for this, but rather once in this place and once in another place. And even those who had a fixed beit kisse there, it was not designated for one individual, but rather many would enter there. Also in their days they would not wipe with paper due to the lack of its existence, and furthermore they would not wipe with something that fire rules over, as it is stated in Shabbat (82.): "One who wipes with something that fire rules over—his lower teeth fall out." And they would wipe with soft stones, and they are muktzeh like ordinary stones, for it is impossible to prepare them, as if he prepares them in the house it is forbidden to carry them out to the field, and if he prepares them in the field others will take them, for even one who had a fixed beit kisse, it was not designated for him alone, and how shall he act, for human dignity is great and in such a great necessity.

Therefore, the sages said as follows: that for the sake of human dignity, they permitted him to handle stones that are fit for wiping. This means that one who has a designated place for a beit hakise may bring in a handful of stones, and even though he does not need this for a single time, they will remain for him for a second time. And even if another person takes them, nevertheless, what of it? For this is all handling for the needs of the beit hakise, for what is the difference to me if it is he or if it is another? Since he takes them in one hand, it is a single exertion. And although initially one should not handle muktzeh for the sake of another, the main point is that he handles them for himself for another time, and we only said that even if another takes them, what of it; but the essence of the permission is because they are fit for him. Therefore, when he does not have a fixed place, he is forbidden from bringing in a handful, but only enough for wiping, and this is the size of a small pestle of spices. And if it is recognizable on the stone that it was used for wiping, it has become prepared, and it is permitted to bring it in even if it is very large. And if there are many and the wiping is recognizable on them, it is permitted to handle them even more than a handful, for since they were used for wiping, they have been prepared for this. And even if rains fell and blurred it, nevertheless, if their mark is recognizable that they were used for wiping, it is permitted (according to Rashi ibid. 81a, and in law they would not disagree on this). And even though it is possible that they were not prepared from the eve of Shabbat but rather they wiped with them on Shabbat, and on Shabbat preparation is not effective, nevertheless, in this matter one should be lenient even in a case of doubt, since they were lenient in this matter.

And they said in the Gemara there (81b) that they permitted moving the stones, and even to bring them up to the roof if he went up there to relieve himself, and we are not concerned with excessive exertion (Rashi). And also we do not say that since he relieves himself on the roof it is a fixed place and he should have prepared from the eve of Shabbat, but nevertheless they permitted it for him (Tosafot and the Ran there), and as the Tur wrote, and this is his wording: "And it is permitted to bring them up to the roof to wipe with them, and we do not say that since he has a specific place for himself, he should bring them up there from the eve of Shabbat" thus far his words. And even though in the Gemara there it is proved that the reason for the permission is because he does not have a fixed place and could not have prepared from the eve of Shabbat, and if so, here where he goes onto the roof why is it permitted, for he could have prepared from the eve of Shabbat, and it must be said that on the roof is not called a fixed place, and so it is explicitly explained in Tosafot Sukkah (36b, starting with the words "On Shabbat," see there).

And according to this, it is explicitly proven that in a place where one has a fixed location, such as among us where there is one who has a private beit hakise, and similarly all of our battei kisaot are in courtyards where it is permitted to carry, and everyone is able to prepare the wiping paper from Erev Shabbat—it is prohibited to take muktzeh on Shabbat for wiping. And so wrote one of the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch (Magen Avraham, subsection 1), and so wrote the Hagahot Maimoniyot (chapter 26). However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work at the end of this siman, wrote that there is no distinction. This is his wording: "And from the words of the poskim who wrote without qualification, it implies that just as we permit bringing them up to the roof even though it was possible from Erev Shabbat, so too for us it is permitted because of human dignity." Thus far his words. And so wrote the Hagahot Ashri in Shabbat there, and the Tosafot in Sukkah there also appear as those who are uncertain about this. And from the words of the Tur, it appears explicitly toward permission, and it must be said that he holds that this is the explanation in the Gemara: that this which they permitted was because a person does not fix a place for a beit hakise, but now that they permitted it—they permitted it entirely, for it is impossible to permit for this one and prohibit for that one. And so it appears in my humble opinion to be the primary view, for even if we say according to the previous opinion that he should have prepared from Erev Shabbat, nevertheless, what shall he do now when he did not prepare? Ultimately, great is human dignity. And so it appears to me as the primary law, that certainly every person is obligated to prepare, since among us it is possible to prepare; however, if he did not prepare—great is human dignity, and he is able to take from the courtyard an object fit for wiping even though it is muktzeh.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1: "Some say that specifically in a courtyard it is permitted to carry stones, and some say that even from a karmelit to a private domain it is also permitted, for this too is only a rabbinic prohibition and for the sake of human dignity they permitted it." Thus far his words. And that which he wrote according to the first opinion, "specifically in a courtyard"—it is not literal, for behold, their outhouses were in the fields; rather, it means that within one domain they permitted it, and not from domain to domain. And even though they permitted muktzeh, nevertheless, carrying out is more stringent than muktzeh, and even if it is not more stringent, they only permitted one prohibition and not two prohibitions. And the second opinion holds that muktzeh is more stringent than carrying from domain to domain in a rabbinic context, and since they permitted muktzeh for the sake of human dignity—all the more so they permitted a karmelit (Tosafot Sukkah ibid.), and he holds that there is no distinction between one prohibition and two prohibitions. And one should not ask according to the first opinion that if so, what shall he do in a field when there are no stones fit for wiping within his four amot where he relieves himself, for to carry four amot in a karmelit is certainly forbidden according to this opinion just as it is forbidden to carry from a karmelit to a courtyard, as it can be said that he should relieve himself within four amot of the stones. And even if he has a fixed place there, nevertheless, if there are no stones there within four amot he shall not relieve himself there, for this was not permitted, and regarding the halacha one should be lenient in a rabbinic matter (the Harav Zal, and regarding the essence of the first opinion that Rashi noted, I did not find this explicit in Rashi, see there and examine carefully).

Regarding that which was explained in section 2, that if it is recognizable on the stone that it was used for wiping it is permitted even more than the size of a handful, there is one who says that the other stones surrounding it are also permitted, even though there is no recognition on them (Magen Avraham, subsection 2, in the name of Shiltei HaGibborim), and they rejected his words as there is no reason for this (Magen Avraham and Eliyah Rabbah). In my humble opinion his words are correct, if we are precise: what benefit is the sign, for did he not throw it and nullify it from this need? Rather, perforce we must say that this is not similar to throwing the remnants of a vessel into the trash, for since here is its place designated for it—he did not nullify it. However, it still must be understood, for would he who wiped with it and prepared it for wiping search specifically for it when he needs to wipe again? Rather, perforce we must say that he prepared this place, that from here he will take for wiping, and if so, it follows that he prepared all the stones surrounding it. And it is simple that if he explicitly designated with his mouth or in his thought the stones in this place—it is effective, as written in siman 308 section 40, that designation is effective. According to this, it is proper that every person should say while it is still day: I hereby prepare everything in the courtyard that is fit for wiping.

If rain fell upon the stones and they were sunk into the ground: if they are covered with the dust of the earth, it is forbidden to dig for them, for he is digging in the ground. However, if their impression is recognizable from above that they are stones, it is permitted to take them in order to wipe, and there is not in this a concern of digging or demolishing or grinding, like one who separates clods of earth who is liable for grinding, for here, since the stones are recognizable on their own, they have no connection to the ground. And a pebble upon which grass grew—it is permitted to wipe with it and we do not fear that perhaps the grass will be uprooted, for this is not a pesik reisha. Therefore, even if it happened that they were uprooted, it is an unintended act and there is no prohibition. And even if the pebble is resting on the ground, as will be explained in siman 336 that it is forbidden to lift it from the ground, for it is like uprooting, nevertheless, since this is only rabbinic as written there, they did not prohibit it in a case of human dignity (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And it is simple that this is when he has no other thing with which to wipe (and from this is a proof that the Magen Avraham holds like the final opinion of the Rema that we explained in section 5, and examine this well).

One may not handle a clod of earth to wipe with it, because it is not fit for wiping, since it crumbles. And it is forbidden to wipe with a shard, even on a weekday, due to danger that it might sever the sphincters of the rectum. And if there were before him on Shabbat a pebble and smooth handles of a shard, since they are smooth there is no concern of danger—he wipes with the handle of the shard which is fit to cover the opening of vessels. And even though with a shard there is a concern of sorcery, as I wrote above in siman 3, nevertheless regarding the matter of Shabbat it is preferable to a pebble which is not fit for anything. If there were before him a pebble and herbs—he should wipe with the herbs if they are moist, but if they are dry—one does not wipe, because they are sharp and cut the flesh, and also because it is a thing over which fire has power, for they were particular about this in the Gemara as has been written (see Magen Avraham subsection 5 and in Tosefot Shabbat).

And one may wipe on Shabbat with moist grasses even if they are attached, when they are long enough that one can wipe with them while they are still attached, provided that one does not move them, meaning that one does not detach them from the ground due to the prohibition of plucking (Tosefot Shabbat). But there is no muktzeh in them while they are still attached, for if they were muktzeh, how would it be permitted to wipe with them? For muktzeh is forbidden to be moved even in part, as I wrote in siman 311 (ibid. and the words of the Magen Avraham, subsection 6, who wrote it is due to muktzeh, are astonishing). And you should know that this is so, for they forbade climbing a tree lest one climb and pluck, and not because of muktzeh, for after the plucking, when they are plucked on Shabbat, they become muktzeh, but not while they are still attached. And there is no concern of using that which is attached, for this only applies to a tree and not to greens, as will be explained in siman 336 with the help of Heaven.

And if he needed to relieve himself and is unable to evacuate, such that his remedy is to manipulate the rectum—whereby he manipulates it with a pebble and the orifice opens—he should not manipulate on Shabbat in the manner that he manipulates on a weekday, which is that he holds the pebble with the whole hand because of the removal of hairs, meaning that he will remove the hair in that place. And even though with a shard we are not concerned for this, this is because with wiping it is not a pesik reisha, which is not the case with a pebble (Magen Avraham, subsection 7) during manipulation. Rather, he manipulates in an atypical manner, which is that he holds the pebble with two of his fingers and manipulates. And to manipulate with a plug, which they call a klystier, in the rectum—its law is like a pebble, that he should not hold it except with two of his fingers. And it is forbidden to go out into the public domain with a plug, even if it is entirely inserted into the body, for since he inserts it regularly in order to repeatedly remove it, it is a burden like one who carries out in his mouth, and this is its manner of carrying out, and even in a karmelit it is forbidden.

It is forbidden to relieve oneself in a ploughed field on Shabbat, meaning a field that has been ploughed and stands ready for sowing, for we fear lest he come to level pits, as perhaps he will take a pebble from a mound and cast it into a pit (see Magen Avraham, subsection 9). This applies to his own field, for in the field of his fellow—even on a weekday it is forbidden, because he treads with his feet upon his ploughed land and ruins the field. Large stones that are arranged like a hollow seat and sat upon in the fields in the place designated for a beit hakise, as was the custom in their days—it is permitted to arrange them on Shabbat. And even though it is a temporary structure, the sages did not decree against it, because of human dignity. Nevertheless, to make it like a tent is forbidden (ibid.), and in Choshen Mishpat siman 274 it was explained regarding the enactment of Yehoshua concerning the matter of the need for wiping, see there.