Shabbat 39

כל שבא בחמין מלפני השבת שורין אותו בחמין בשבת וכל שלא בא בחמין מלפני השבת מדיחין אותו בחמין בשבת חוץ מן המליח ישן וקולייס האיספנין שהדחתן זו היא גמר מלאכתן שמע מינה:

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’ispanin] 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.

ולא יפקיענה בסודרין: והא דתנן נותנין תבשיל לתוך הבור בשביל שיהא שמור ואת המים היפים ברעים בשביל שיצננו ואת הצונן בחמה בשביל שיחמו לימא רבי יוסי היא ולא רבנן

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.

אמר רב נחמן בחמה דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דשרי בתולדות האור כולי עלמא לא פליגי דאסיר כי פליגי בתולדות החמה מר סבר גזרינן תולדות החמה אטו תולדות האור ומר סבר לא גזרינן:

Rav Naḥman 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.

ולא יטמיננה בחול: וליפלוג נמי רבי יוסי בהא רבה אמר גזרה שמא יטמין ברמץ רב יוסף אמר מפני שמזיז עפר ממקומו מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו עפר תיחוח

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’s 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.

מיתיבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר מגלגלין ביצה על גבי גג רותח ואין מגלגלין ביצה על גבי סיד רותח בשלמא למאן דאמר גזרה שמא יטמין ברמץ ליכא למיגזר אלא למאן דאמר מפני שמזיז עפר ממקומו ליגזר סתם גג לית ביה עפר

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.

תא שמע מעשה שעשו אנשי טבריא והביאו סילון של צונן לתוך אמה של חמין וכו׳ בשלמא למאן דאמר גזרה שמא יטמין ברמץ היינו דדמיא להטמנה אלא למאן דאמר מפני שמזיז עפר ממקומו מאי איכא למימר

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?

מי סברת מעשה טבריא אסיפא קאי ארישא קאי לא יפקיענה בסודרין ורבי יוסי מתיר והכי קאמרי ליה רבנן לרבי יוסי הא מעשה דאנשי טבריא דתולדות חמה הוא ואסרי להו רבנן אמר להו ההוא תולדות אור הוא דחלפי אפיתחא דגיהנם

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’t 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.

אמר רב חסדא

On the same topic, Rav Hisda said:

ממעשה שעשו אנשי טבריא ואסרי להו רבנן בטלה הטמנה בדבר המוסיף הבל ואפילו מבעוד יום אמר עולא הלכה כאנשי טבריא אמר ליה רב נחמן כבר תברינהו אנשי טבריא לסילונייהו:

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 Naḥman said to him: The people of Tiberias have already broken their pipes. Even they reconsidered their position.

מעשה שעשו אנשי טבריא: מאי רחיצה אילימא רחיצת כל גופו אלא חמין שהוחמו בשבת הוא דאסורין הא חמין שהוחמו מערב שבת מותרין והתניא חמין שהוחמו מערב שבת למחר רוחץ בהן פניו ידיו ורגליו אבל לא כל גופו אלא פניו ידיו ורגליו

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’s entire body, that is difficult. That would indicate that only water heated on Shabbat is prohibited for use in bathing one’s entire body; however, bathing one’s entire body in hot water heated before Shabbat is permitted. That cannot be. Wasn’t 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.

אימא סיפא ביום טוב כחמין שהוחמו ביום טוב ואסורין ברחיצה ומותרין בשתיה לימא תנן סתמא כבית שמאי דתנן בית שמאי אומרים לא יחם אדם חמין לרגליו אלא אם כן ראויין לשתיה ובית הלל מתירין

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’s 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’s feet. According to the proposed interpretation of the term bathing in the mishna, as referring to washing one’s 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.

אמר רב איקא בר חנניא להשתטף בהן כל גופו עסקינן והאי תנא הוא דתניא לא ישתטף אדם כל גופו בין בחמין ובין בצונן דברי רבי מאיר רבי שמעון מתיר רבי יהודה אומר בחמין אסור בצונן מותר

Rav Ika bar Ḥananya said: In our mishna, we are dealing with water that was heated in order to rinse one’s 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.

אמר רב חסדא מחלוקת בכלי אבל בקרקע דברי הכל מותר והא מעשה דאנשי טבריא בקרקע הוה ואסרי להו רבנן אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר מחלוקת בקרקע אבל בכלי דברי הכל אסור

Rav Ḥisda 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’t 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 Ḥisda’s 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.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כרבי יהודה אמר ליה רב יוסף בפירוש שמיע לך או מכללא שמיע לך מאי כללא דאמר רב תנחום אמר רבי יוחנן אמר רבי ינאי אמר (רב) כל מקום שאתה מוצא שנים חלוקין ואחד מכריע הלכה כדברי המכריע חוץ מקולי מטלניות שאף על פי שרבי אליעזר מחמיר ורבי יהושע מיקל ורבי עקיבא מכריע אין הלכה כדברי המכריע חדא דרבי עקיבא תלמיד הוא ועוד הא

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan explicitly, or did you learn it by inference from something else that he said? The Gemara remarks: What was the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan from which this conclusion could be inferred? As Rav Tanḥum said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’t