Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

April 14, 2020 | 讻壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Shabbat 39

Today’s shiur is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Gershon Schwartz, Harav Gershon ben Shmuel V’Sarah z”l on his 17th yahrzeit by Moshe Schwartz and by Rabbi Seth Phillips in honor of the Daf Yomi learners of Allentown, PA.

It is forbidden according to everyone to cook with something heated up by a fire (toldot ha’or) but there is a debate between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosi regarding cooking with an item heated up by the sun. What is allowed to be placed in hot water on Shabbat and on what is one allowed to pour water that was heated up? Is the pouring referring to a kli rishon or a kli sheni? If Rabbi Yosi permits items cooked by the heat of the sun, why does he agree with the rabbis that one cannot place an egg in the sand to cook? Why is the story of the people of Tiberias brought? Is it telling us the Rabbi Yosi agrees with the rabbis in that case also or does Rabbi Yosi side with the people of Tiberias, against the rabbis. Are the hot springs of Tiberias considered toldot ha’or (fire) or toldot hachama (sun)? When the rabbis said that the water that was heated through the acqueduct in Tiberias was forbidden to use for washing, what washing was he referring to? The whole body or one’s face, hands and feet? Each interpretation is difficult and the gemara suggests that the mishna is not referring to washing but to pouring water on oneself and holds like the most lenient of the opinions on the topic – Rabbi Shimon. Rabba bar bar Chana holds that Rabbi Yochanan held like the middle opinion – Rabbi Yehuda. Did he infer that from something that Rabbi Yochanan said or did he hear it stated explicitly? Why does it matter?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讻诇 砖讘讗 讘讞诪讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖讘转 砖讜专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讻诇 砖诇讗 讘讗 讘讞诪讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖讘转 诪讚讬讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讘砖讘转 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪诇讬讞 讬砖谉 讜拽讜诇讬讬住 讛讗讬住驻谞讬谉 砖讛讚讞转谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻转谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


Any salted food item that was already placed in hot water, i.e., cooked, before Shabbat, one may soak it in hot water even on Shabbat. And anything that was not placed in hot water before Shabbat, one may rinse it in hot water on Shabbat, but may not soak it, with the exception of old salted fish or the colias of the Spaniards [kolyas ha鈥檌spanin] fish, for which rinsing with hot water itself is completion of the prohibited labor of cooking. Once it is rinsed in hot water, it does not require any additional cooking. The same is true with regard to an egg that was slightly cooked. Since it thereby becomes edible, one who brought it to that state has violated the prohibition of cooking. The Gemara sums up: Indeed, conclude from it that this is its meaning.


讜诇讗 讬驻拽讬注谞讛 讘住讜讚专讬谉: 讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 转讘砖讬诇 诇转讜讱 讛讘讜专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讛讗 砖诪讜专 讜讗转 讛诪讬诐 讛讬驻讬诐 讘专注讬诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬爪谞谞讜 讜讗转 讛爪讜谞谉 讘讞诪讛 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讞诪讜 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉


We also learned in the mishna according to the first tanna: And one may not wrap an egg in cloths that were heated by the sun in order to heat up the egg, and Rabbi Yosei permits doing so. And with regard to that which we learned in a mishna that one may place cooked food into a pit on Shabbat to protect it from the heat; and one may place good, potable water into bad, non-potable water so that it will cool; and one may put cold water out in the sun to heat it, the Gemara asks: Let us say that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in our mishna and not the opinion of the Rabbis as represented by the first tanna in the mishna. The Rabbis prohibited heating food with the heat of the sun.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讞诪讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚砖专讬 讘转讜诇讚讜转 讛讗讜专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讬专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘转讜诇讚讜转 讛讞诪讛 诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 转讜诇讚讜转 讛讞诪讛 讗讟讜 转讜诇讚讜转 讛讗讜专 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉:


Rav Na岣an said: With regard to heating food in the sun itself, everyone agrees that one is permitted to place food in the sun to heat it, as it is certainly neither fire nor a typical form of cooking. Likewise, with derivatives of fire, i.e., objects that were heated by fire, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to heat food with them, as heating with them is tantamount to heating with fire itself. Where they argue is with regard to heating with derivatives of the sun, i.e., objects heated with the heat of the sun. This Sage, who represents the opinion of the Rabbis, holds that we issue a decree prohibiting a person to heat with derivatives of the sun due to derivatives of fire, which are prohibited. People have no way of knowing how the cooking vessel was heated. If the Sages permit the use of objects heated in the sun, people will come to permit use of objects heated by fire as well. And this Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that we do not issue a decree. Even though it is prohibited to heat with derivatives of fire, heating with derivatives of the sun is permitted.


讜诇讗 讬讟诪讬谞谞讛 讘讞讜诇: 讜诇讬驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讛讗 专讘讛 讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讬谉 讘专诪抓 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讝讬讝 注驻专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 注驻专 转讬讞讜讞


We learned in the mishna: And one may not insulate it in sand or in road dust that was heated in the sun. The Gemara asks: And let Rabbi Yosei disagree with this halakha as well. If he holds that one is permitted to cook on Shabbat using objects heated by the sun, the same should apply with regard to sand. The Gemara cites two answers. Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei agrees with the opinion of the Rabbis in this case. The Sages issued a decree in this case due to concern lest one come to insulate it in hot ashes, which is certainly prohibited, if he is permitted to insulate food in sand or road dust. Insulating in sand and insulating in hot ashes appear to be very similar. Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Yosei prohibits it in this case because when insulating it in the sand, he displaces dirt. It is as if he dug a hole in the sand, which is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the answers proposed by Rabba and Rav Yosef? Apparently, the two answers lead to the same practical conclusion. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in the case of loose earth. Loose earth does not require digging a hole. According to Rav Yosef鈥檚 explanation, there is no reason to prohibit insulating food in loose earth, as displacing loose earth involves no prohibition. However, if the decree was issued lest one insulate an egg in hot ashes, then it applies even in the case of loose earth.


诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 讘讬爪讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讙 专讜转讞 讜讗讬谉 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 讘讬爪讛 注诇 讙讘讬 住讬讚 专讜转讞 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讬谉 讘专诪抓 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讝讬讝 注驻专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 诇讬讙讝专 住转诐 讙讙 诇讬转 讘讬讛 注驻专


The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may slightly roast an egg on a hot rooftop heated by the sun; however, one may not slightly roast an egg on top of boiling limestone. Granted, this works out well according to the opinion of the one who said that insulating an egg in sand is prohibited due to a decree lest he come insulate it in hot ashes. There is no reason to issue a decree on a hot rooftop, as it is not at all similar to hot ashes. However, according to the opinion of the one who said that the reason is because he is displacing dirt, let him issue a decree and prohibit warming an egg on the rooftop as well because there is sometimes dirt on the roof. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult because, in general, a rooftop does not have dirt, and there is no reason to issue a decree in uncommon cases.


转讗 砖诪注 诪注砖讛 砖注砖讜 讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗 讜讛讘讬讗讜 住讬诇讜谉 砖诇 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讗诪讛 砖诇 讞诪讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讬谉 讘专诪抓 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讚诪讬讗 诇讛讟诪谞讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讝讬讝 注驻专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


Come and hear a different objection to the opinion of the amora from our mishna: The Sages prohibited the people of the city of Tiberias, who ran a cold-water pipe through a canal of hot water from the Tiberias hot springs, from using the water. Granted, according to the opinion of the one who said that the prohibition is due to a decree lest one insulate food in hot ashes, that is the reason that this was prohibited, as it is similar to insulating. The cold-water pipe was placed inside the hot water and was surrounded by it. However, according to the opinion of the one who said that the reason is because one displaces dirt, what is there to say to explain the prohibition?


诪讬 住讘专转 诪注砖讛 讟讘专讬讗 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 诇讗 讬驻拽讬注谞讛 讘住讜讚专讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 诪注砖讛 讚讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗 讚转讜诇讚讜转 讞诪讛 讛讜讗 讜讗住专讬 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讛讜讗 转讜诇讚讜转 讗讜专 讛讜讗 讚讞诇驻讬 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讙讬讛谞诐


The Gemara answers: Do you think that the story about Tiberias refers to the latter clause of the mishna? No, it refers to the first clause of the mishna, and it should be understood as follows: The Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei disagree with regard to wrapping an egg in cloths. The Rabbis say: One may not wrap it in cloths and Rabbi Yosei permits doing so. And the Rabbis said the following to Rabbi Yosei: Wasn鈥檛 the incident involving the people of Tiberias with derivatives of the sun, as the hot springs of Tiberias are not heated by fire, and nevertheless the Sages prohibited them from using the water? Rabbi Yosei said to them: That is not so. That incident involved derivatives of fire, as the hot springs of Tiberias are hot because they pass over the entrance to Gehenna. They are heated by hellfire, which is a bona fide underground fire. That is not the case with derivatives of the sun, which are not heated by fire at all.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗


On the same topic, Rav Hisda said:


诪诪注砖讛 砖注砖讜 讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗 讜讗住专讬 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 讘讟诇讛 讛讟诪谞讛 讘讚讘专 讛诪讜住讬祝 讛讘诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讘专 转讘专讬谞讛讜 讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗 诇住讬诇讜谞讬讬讛讜:


From this action performed by the people of Tiberias and the fact that the Sages prohibited them from using the water, the conclusion is that the practice of insulating a pot in something that increases the heat over the course of Shabbat was abolished on Shabbat. And not only is it prohibited to do so on Shabbat itself, but it is also prohibited while it is still day before Shabbat. Running pipes of cold water through hot water is similar to insulating water in something that adds heat. Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the people of Tiberias. Rav Na岣an said to him: The people of Tiberias have already broken their pipes. Even they reconsidered their position.


诪注砖讛 砖注砖讜 讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗: 诪讗讬 专讞讬爪讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讞讬爪转 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讗诇讗 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 讘砖讘转 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专讬谉 讛讗 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇诪讞专 专讜讞抓 讘讛谉 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讗诇讗 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜


We learned in the mishna with regard to the incident, which related what the people of Tiberias did, that the legal status of water that was heated in the Tiberias hot springs is like that of water heated on Shabbat, and it is prohibited for use in bathing. The Gemara clarifies this matter: What type of bathing is this? If you say that it is referring to bathing one鈥檚 entire body, that is difficult. That would indicate that only water heated on Shabbat is prohibited for use in bathing one鈥檚 entire body; however, bathing one鈥檚 entire body in hot water heated before Shabbat is permitted. That cannot be. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, one may use it the next day to wash his face, his hands, and his feet incrementally; however, not to wash his entire body? Rather, it must be that the bathing prohibited in the mishna with water heated on Shabbat is, in fact, washing his face, his hands, and his feet.


讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗住讜专讬谉 讘专讞讬爪讛 讜诪讜转专讬谉 讘砖转讬讛 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬讞诐 讗讚诐 讞诪讬谉 诇专讙诇讬讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉


However, if so, say the latter clause of the mishna: On a Festival, the legal status of the water is like that of water that was heated by fire on a Festival, and it is prohibited for bathing and permitted for drinking. Even on a Festival, washing one鈥檚 face, hands, and feet is prohibited with this hot water. If so, let us say that we learned the unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. As we learned in a mishna, Beit Shammai say: A person may not heat water for his feet on a Festival unless it is also fit for drinking, and Beit Hillel permit doing so. According to Beit Hillel, it is permitted to heat water on a Festival for the purpose of washing one鈥檚 feet. According to the proposed interpretation of the term bathing in the mishna, as referring to washing one鈥檚 face, hands, and feet, our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. This is problematic, as the halakhic opinion of Beit Shammai is rejected and only rarely cited in an unattributed mishna.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讬拽讗 讘专 讞谞谞讬讗 诇讛砖转讟祝 讘讛谉 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬砖转讟祝 讗讚诐 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讘讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讘讬谉 讘爪讜谞谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讞诪讬谉 讗住讜专 讘爪讜谞谉 诪讜转专


Rav Ika bar 岣nanya said: In our mishna, we are dealing with water that was heated in order to rinse one鈥檚 entire body with it. Rinsing does not have the same legal status as bathing. And that which we learned in the mishna: Water that was heated on Shabbat is prohibited for bathing, from which it can be inferred that water heated before Shabbat is permitted for bathing on Shabbat, is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the Tosefta. As it was taught in a Tosefta: One may neither rinse his entire body with hot water, even if it was heated before Shabbat, nor with cold water; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon permits doing so even with hot water because it was heated before Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: With hot water, it is prohibited; with cold water, it is permitted. According to Rabbi Shimon, it is completely prohibited to rinse with water that was heated on Shabbat itself. Consequently, our mishna, which does not differentiate between hot and cold water, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讻诇讬 讗讘诇 讘拽专拽注 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 讜讛讗 诪注砖讛 讚讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗 讘拽专拽注 讛讜讛 讜讗住专讬 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘拽专拽注 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专


Rav 岣sda said: This dispute over washing with water heated before Shabbat is specifically with regard to water in a vessel, as one might mistakenly think that it was heated on Shabbat, and there is then concern lest one permit the use of water heated with fire on Shabbat. However, when the water was collected in the ground, everyone agrees that it is permitted. The Gemara challenges this: Wasn鈥檛 the incident involving the people of Tiberias with regard to water in the ground, and nevertheless the Sages prohibited it? Rather, if this was stated, this is what was stated, i.e., this is the correct version of Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement: This dispute is specifically when the water is collected in the ground. However, when it is in a vessel, everyone agrees that it is prohibited.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讗讜 诪讻诇诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱 诪讗讬 讻诇诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 转谞讞讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 (专讘) 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖谞讬诐 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪讻专讬注 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讻专讬注 讞讜抓 诪拽讜诇讬 诪讟诇谞讬讜转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞诪讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讬拽诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讻专讬注 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讻专讬注 讞讚讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转诇诪讬讚 讛讜讗 讜注讜讚 讛讗


Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha in this dispute is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Yosef said to him: Did you learn this from Rabbi Yo岣nan explicitly, or did you learn it by inference from something else that he said? The Gemara remarks: What was the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan from which this conclusion could be inferred? As Rav Tan岣m said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that Rabbi Yannai said that Rav said: Every place that you find two who disagree and each one of them establishes his opinion in a series of cases, and one of the Sages, a third one, adopts a compromise opinion and says that in some cases the halakha is in accordance with one, and in some cases the halakha is in accordance with the other, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the compromiser. This principle holds true except for the case of the ritual impurity of insignificant strips of material. In that case, even though Rabbi Eliezer is stringent, and Rabbi Yehoshua is lenient, and Rabbi Akiva compromises, the halakha is not in accordance with the statement of the compromiser: First, because Rabbi Akiva is a student of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and lacks the authority to decide between the opinions of his rabbis. And furthermore, didn鈥檛


Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Weaving Wisdom

Rabbis, Archaeologist and Linguists

In the Daf Yomi, we see many interesting discussions about ancient vessels and other types of furnishings and tools.聽 An...
daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Shabbat 38-46 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiVHiL6DOBc Join Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz each week as she reviews the key topics of the previous week鈥檚 seven pages....
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 39: Heated by Hellfire

Still more cooking - frying your egg on the sidewalk ( is the sun)? Acceptable or not? What about-face hot...

Shabbat 39

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 39

讻诇 砖讘讗 讘讞诪讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖讘转 砖讜专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讻诇 砖诇讗 讘讗 讘讞诪讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬 讛砖讘转 诪讚讬讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讘砖讘转 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪诇讬讞 讬砖谉 讜拽讜诇讬讬住 讛讗讬住驻谞讬谉 砖讛讚讞转谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻转谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


Any salted food item that was already placed in hot water, i.e., cooked, before Shabbat, one may soak it in hot water even on Shabbat. And anything that was not placed in hot water before Shabbat, one may rinse it in hot water on Shabbat, but may not soak it, with the exception of old salted fish or the colias of the Spaniards [kolyas ha鈥檌spanin] fish, for which rinsing with hot water itself is completion of the prohibited labor of cooking. Once it is rinsed in hot water, it does not require any additional cooking. The same is true with regard to an egg that was slightly cooked. Since it thereby becomes edible, one who brought it to that state has violated the prohibition of cooking. The Gemara sums up: Indeed, conclude from it that this is its meaning.


讜诇讗 讬驻拽讬注谞讛 讘住讜讚专讬谉: 讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 转讘砖讬诇 诇转讜讱 讛讘讜专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讛讗 砖诪讜专 讜讗转 讛诪讬诐 讛讬驻讬诐 讘专注讬诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬爪谞谞讜 讜讗转 讛爪讜谞谉 讘讞诪讛 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讞诪讜 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉


We also learned in the mishna according to the first tanna: And one may not wrap an egg in cloths that were heated by the sun in order to heat up the egg, and Rabbi Yosei permits doing so. And with regard to that which we learned in a mishna that one may place cooked food into a pit on Shabbat to protect it from the heat; and one may place good, potable water into bad, non-potable water so that it will cool; and one may put cold water out in the sun to heat it, the Gemara asks: Let us say that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in our mishna and not the opinion of the Rabbis as represented by the first tanna in the mishna. The Rabbis prohibited heating food with the heat of the sun.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讞诪讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚砖专讬 讘转讜诇讚讜转 讛讗讜专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讬专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘转讜诇讚讜转 讛讞诪讛 诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 转讜诇讚讜转 讛讞诪讛 讗讟讜 转讜诇讚讜转 讛讗讜专 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉:


Rav Na岣an said: With regard to heating food in the sun itself, everyone agrees that one is permitted to place food in the sun to heat it, as it is certainly neither fire nor a typical form of cooking. Likewise, with derivatives of fire, i.e., objects that were heated by fire, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to heat food with them, as heating with them is tantamount to heating with fire itself. Where they argue is with regard to heating with derivatives of the sun, i.e., objects heated with the heat of the sun. This Sage, who represents the opinion of the Rabbis, holds that we issue a decree prohibiting a person to heat with derivatives of the sun due to derivatives of fire, which are prohibited. People have no way of knowing how the cooking vessel was heated. If the Sages permit the use of objects heated in the sun, people will come to permit use of objects heated by fire as well. And this Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that we do not issue a decree. Even though it is prohibited to heat with derivatives of fire, heating with derivatives of the sun is permitted.


讜诇讗 讬讟诪讬谞谞讛 讘讞讜诇: 讜诇讬驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讛讗 专讘讛 讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讬谉 讘专诪抓 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讝讬讝 注驻专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 注驻专 转讬讞讜讞


We learned in the mishna: And one may not insulate it in sand or in road dust that was heated in the sun. The Gemara asks: And let Rabbi Yosei disagree with this halakha as well. If he holds that one is permitted to cook on Shabbat using objects heated by the sun, the same should apply with regard to sand. The Gemara cites two answers. Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei agrees with the opinion of the Rabbis in this case. The Sages issued a decree in this case due to concern lest one come to insulate it in hot ashes, which is certainly prohibited, if he is permitted to insulate food in sand or road dust. Insulating in sand and insulating in hot ashes appear to be very similar. Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Yosei prohibits it in this case because when insulating it in the sand, he displaces dirt. It is as if he dug a hole in the sand, which is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the answers proposed by Rabba and Rav Yosef? Apparently, the two answers lead to the same practical conclusion. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in the case of loose earth. Loose earth does not require digging a hole. According to Rav Yosef鈥檚 explanation, there is no reason to prohibit insulating food in loose earth, as displacing loose earth involves no prohibition. However, if the decree was issued lest one insulate an egg in hot ashes, then it applies even in the case of loose earth.


诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 讘讬爪讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讙 专讜转讞 讜讗讬谉 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 讘讬爪讛 注诇 讙讘讬 住讬讚 专讜转讞 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讬谉 讘专诪抓 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讝讬讝 注驻专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 诇讬讙讝专 住转诐 讙讙 诇讬转 讘讬讛 注驻专


The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may slightly roast an egg on a hot rooftop heated by the sun; however, one may not slightly roast an egg on top of boiling limestone. Granted, this works out well according to the opinion of the one who said that insulating an egg in sand is prohibited due to a decree lest he come insulate it in hot ashes. There is no reason to issue a decree on a hot rooftop, as it is not at all similar to hot ashes. However, according to the opinion of the one who said that the reason is because he is displacing dirt, let him issue a decree and prohibit warming an egg on the rooftop as well because there is sometimes dirt on the roof. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult because, in general, a rooftop does not have dirt, and there is no reason to issue a decree in uncommon cases.


转讗 砖诪注 诪注砖讛 砖注砖讜 讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗 讜讛讘讬讗讜 住讬诇讜谉 砖诇 爪讜谞谉 诇转讜讱 讗诪讛 砖诇 讞诪讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟诪讬谉 讘专诪抓 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讚诪讬讗 诇讛讟诪谞讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讝讬讝 注驻专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


Come and hear a different objection to the opinion of the amora from our mishna: The Sages prohibited the people of the city of Tiberias, who ran a cold-water pipe through a canal of hot water from the Tiberias hot springs, from using the water. Granted, according to the opinion of the one who said that the prohibition is due to a decree lest one insulate food in hot ashes, that is the reason that this was prohibited, as it is similar to insulating. The cold-water pipe was placed inside the hot water and was surrounded by it. However, according to the opinion of the one who said that the reason is because one displaces dirt, what is there to say to explain the prohibition?


诪讬 住讘专转 诪注砖讛 讟讘专讬讗 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 诇讗 讬驻拽讬注谞讛 讘住讜讚专讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 诪注砖讛 讚讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗 讚转讜诇讚讜转 讞诪讛 讛讜讗 讜讗住专讬 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讛讜讗 转讜诇讚讜转 讗讜专 讛讜讗 讚讞诇驻讬 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讙讬讛谞诐


The Gemara answers: Do you think that the story about Tiberias refers to the latter clause of the mishna? No, it refers to the first clause of the mishna, and it should be understood as follows: The Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei disagree with regard to wrapping an egg in cloths. The Rabbis say: One may not wrap it in cloths and Rabbi Yosei permits doing so. And the Rabbis said the following to Rabbi Yosei: Wasn鈥檛 the incident involving the people of Tiberias with derivatives of the sun, as the hot springs of Tiberias are not heated by fire, and nevertheless the Sages prohibited them from using the water? Rabbi Yosei said to them: That is not so. That incident involved derivatives of fire, as the hot springs of Tiberias are hot because they pass over the entrance to Gehenna. They are heated by hellfire, which is a bona fide underground fire. That is not the case with derivatives of the sun, which are not heated by fire at all.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗


On the same topic, Rav Hisda said:


诪诪注砖讛 砖注砖讜 讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗 讜讗住专讬 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 讘讟诇讛 讛讟诪谞讛 讘讚讘专 讛诪讜住讬祝 讛讘诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讘专 转讘专讬谞讛讜 讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗 诇住讬诇讜谞讬讬讛讜:


From this action performed by the people of Tiberias and the fact that the Sages prohibited them from using the water, the conclusion is that the practice of insulating a pot in something that increases the heat over the course of Shabbat was abolished on Shabbat. And not only is it prohibited to do so on Shabbat itself, but it is also prohibited while it is still day before Shabbat. Running pipes of cold water through hot water is similar to insulating water in something that adds heat. Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the people of Tiberias. Rav Na岣an said to him: The people of Tiberias have already broken their pipes. Even they reconsidered their position.


诪注砖讛 砖注砖讜 讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗: 诪讗讬 专讞讬爪讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讞讬爪转 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讗诇讗 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 讘砖讘转 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专讬谉 讛讗 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诪讜转专讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇诪讞专 专讜讞抓 讘讛谉 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讗诇讗 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜


We learned in the mishna with regard to the incident, which related what the people of Tiberias did, that the legal status of water that was heated in the Tiberias hot springs is like that of water heated on Shabbat, and it is prohibited for use in bathing. The Gemara clarifies this matter: What type of bathing is this? If you say that it is referring to bathing one鈥檚 entire body, that is difficult. That would indicate that only water heated on Shabbat is prohibited for use in bathing one鈥檚 entire body; however, bathing one鈥檚 entire body in hot water heated before Shabbat is permitted. That cannot be. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, one may use it the next day to wash his face, his hands, and his feet incrementally; however, not to wash his entire body? Rather, it must be that the bathing prohibited in the mishna with water heated on Shabbat is, in fact, washing his face, his hands, and his feet.


讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗住讜专讬谉 讘专讞讬爪讛 讜诪讜转专讬谉 讘砖转讬讛 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬讞诐 讗讚诐 讞诪讬谉 诇专讙诇讬讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇砖转讬讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉


However, if so, say the latter clause of the mishna: On a Festival, the legal status of the water is like that of water that was heated by fire on a Festival, and it is prohibited for bathing and permitted for drinking. Even on a Festival, washing one鈥檚 face, hands, and feet is prohibited with this hot water. If so, let us say that we learned the unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. As we learned in a mishna, Beit Shammai say: A person may not heat water for his feet on a Festival unless it is also fit for drinking, and Beit Hillel permit doing so. According to Beit Hillel, it is permitted to heat water on a Festival for the purpose of washing one鈥檚 feet. According to the proposed interpretation of the term bathing in the mishna, as referring to washing one鈥檚 face, hands, and feet, our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. This is problematic, as the halakhic opinion of Beit Shammai is rejected and only rarely cited in an unattributed mishna.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讬拽讗 讘专 讞谞谞讬讗 诇讛砖转讟祝 讘讛谉 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬砖转讟祝 讗讚诐 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讘讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讘讬谉 讘爪讜谞谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讞诪讬谉 讗住讜专 讘爪讜谞谉 诪讜转专


Rav Ika bar 岣nanya said: In our mishna, we are dealing with water that was heated in order to rinse one鈥檚 entire body with it. Rinsing does not have the same legal status as bathing. And that which we learned in the mishna: Water that was heated on Shabbat is prohibited for bathing, from which it can be inferred that water heated before Shabbat is permitted for bathing on Shabbat, is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the Tosefta. As it was taught in a Tosefta: One may neither rinse his entire body with hot water, even if it was heated before Shabbat, nor with cold water; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon permits doing so even with hot water because it was heated before Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: With hot water, it is prohibited; with cold water, it is permitted. According to Rabbi Shimon, it is completely prohibited to rinse with water that was heated on Shabbat itself. Consequently, our mishna, which does not differentiate between hot and cold water, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讻诇讬 讗讘诇 讘拽专拽注 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 讜讛讗 诪注砖讛 讚讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗 讘拽专拽注 讛讜讛 讜讗住专讬 诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘拽专拽注 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专


Rav 岣sda said: This dispute over washing with water heated before Shabbat is specifically with regard to water in a vessel, as one might mistakenly think that it was heated on Shabbat, and there is then concern lest one permit the use of water heated with fire on Shabbat. However, when the water was collected in the ground, everyone agrees that it is permitted. The Gemara challenges this: Wasn鈥檛 the incident involving the people of Tiberias with regard to water in the ground, and nevertheless the Sages prohibited it? Rather, if this was stated, this is what was stated, i.e., this is the correct version of Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement: This dispute is specifically when the water is collected in the ground. However, when it is in a vessel, everyone agrees that it is prohibited.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讗讜 诪讻诇诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱 诪讗讬 讻诇诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 转谞讞讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 (专讘) 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖谞讬诐 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪讻专讬注 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讻专讬注 讞讜抓 诪拽讜诇讬 诪讟诇谞讬讜转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞诪讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讬拽诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讻专讬注 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讻专讬注 讞讚讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转诇诪讬讚 讛讜讗 讜注讜讚 讛讗


Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha in this dispute is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Yosef said to him: Did you learn this from Rabbi Yo岣nan explicitly, or did you learn it by inference from something else that he said? The Gemara remarks: What was the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan from which this conclusion could be inferred? As Rav Tan岣m said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that Rabbi Yannai said that Rav said: Every place that you find two who disagree and each one of them establishes his opinion in a series of cases, and one of the Sages, a third one, adopts a compromise opinion and says that in some cases the halakha is in accordance with one, and in some cases the halakha is in accordance with the other, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the compromiser. This principle holds true except for the case of the ritual impurity of insignificant strips of material. In that case, even though Rabbi Eliezer is stringent, and Rabbi Yehoshua is lenient, and Rabbi Akiva compromises, the halakha is not in accordance with the statement of the compromiser: First, because Rabbi Akiva is a student of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and lacks the authority to decide between the opinions of his rabbis. And furthermore, didn鈥檛


Scroll To Top