Curb Your . . . Enthusiasm

Daf 23. Summary. When one is interrupted in prayer for a period of time equal or exceeding the interval it would take to recite the entire prayer, one must return to the beginning. One who has to relieve himself may not pray. Rav Zevid “and some say Rav Yehuda” says he may pray “if he can retsrain himself.” The gemara seeks to determine how long he must be able to restrain himself, and whether or not he must remove his tefillin before entering a bathroom. Some say “we are concerned . . . he might forget that his tefillin are on his head and will break wind with them still on him.”

A student left his tefillin adjacent to a public toilet and they were snatched by a whore. She brought them to the study hall and claimed she received them from the student as her payment. The student went to the roof and committed suicide. From this incident the rabbis ruled that one should carry one’s tefillin when one enters the bathroom. However, one must not hold them (or a Torah scroll) when one is praying and, likewise, one may not hold them while urinating.

How much may one bare while defecating? How much may one bare while urinating? How far should one distance himself to defecate from the place where he will eat?

Comment. Have we seen this in a Seinfeld episode? Is this the inspiration for Philip Roth’s Conversion of the Jews? The Talmud proves that the urban problem of locating a public facility has been with us longer than we suspected. More importantly, the Talmud shows the willingness of the rabbis to change a rabbinic ordinance when it does more harm than good.

This entry was posted in Daf Yomi, Hevruta study, Talmud and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Curb Your . . . Enthusiasm

  1. charleshollander says:

    There’s a difference between Koren and Soncino in describing what is a regular and what a makeshift (Soncino, ad hoc) bathroom. Koren distinguishes between the nighttime, when one can take a dump in the municipal dump, say, or in the daytime, when one has to go farther afield. It’s not clear which is regular and which makeshift here. For Soncino, the regular privy is OK for tefillin since it is used for urine only; the ad hoc one is not for urine only. I don’t get that one either. In any case, it’s clear why Mar Zutra said “In the time of finding refers to a privy.” (8a)

  2. elenizl says:

    I think that what the rabbis refer to as “established” or “regular” simply beens that it has been used that way before … not that it is an actual structure set up for this purpose.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s