Rav and Shmuel debate what type of washing can be done on Shabbat with water that was heated up before Shabbat? Raba has a different, more lenient version of Rav. Rav Yosef wanted to know if he actually held that way. A few braitot are brought which deal with issues in the bathhouse with water heated up before Shabbat and also explain the stages of the ordinance instituted forbidding bathing and steaming with water heated up before Shabbat and Yom Tov. Can oil be warmed? Is there an issue with cooking oil? Is warming it to take out the chill the same as cooking it? Various opinions are brought. How are laws regarding bathing in hot springs different from water heated before Shabbat? Is it forbidden to swim on Shabbat?
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Shabbat 40
הֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וְאִי מִכְּלָלָא, מַאי? דִילְמָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּמַתְנִיתִין, אֲבָל בְּבָרַיְיתָא — לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמִיעַ לִי.
Rabbi Akiva reconsider and adopt Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion? In the dispute over the laws of bathing as well, the ruling should have been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda because his is the compromise opinion. Therefore, Rav Yosef asked whether the ruling was based on that principle alone. The Gemara asks: And if the halakha was derived by inference, what of it? It is legitimate to draw conclusions by inference. The Gemara responds: Perhaps this principle, that the halakha is established in accordance with the compromise opinion, applies only in a mishna; but in a baraita, no, it does not apply. Perhaps the baraita is not a sufficiently reliable source to establish the halakha in accordance with the compromise opinion based on its formulation. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to Rav Yosef: I heard it explicitly.
אִתְּמַר: חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, רַב אָמַר: לְמָחָר רוֹחֵץ בָּהֶן כׇּל גּוּפוֹ, אֵבֶר אֵבֶר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לֹא הִתִּירוּ לִרְחוֹץ אֶלָּא פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו. מֵיתִיבִי: חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, לְמָחָר רוֹחֵץ בָּהֶן פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו אֲבָל לֹא כׇּל גּוּפוֹ. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב. אָמַר לְךָ רַב: ״לֹא כׇּל גּוּפוֹ״ — בְּבַת אַחַת, אֶלָּא אֵבֶר אֵבֶר. וְהָא ״פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו״ קָתָנֵי! — כְּעֵין פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו.
An amoraic dispute was stated: With regard to hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve before Shabbat, Rav said: The next day, on Shabbat, one may wash his entire body with it; however, not all at once. Rather, he washes one limb at a time, in a departure from the standard practice, to remind him that it is Shabbat. And Shmuel said: They only permitted washing one’s face, his hands, and his feet with hot water, even if it was heated on Shabbat eve; however, they did not permit washing his entire body, even in increments. The Gemara raises an objection from what was taught in a baraita: Hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, the next day one may wash his face, his hands, and his feet with it but not his entire body. This is a conclusive refutation of Rav’s opinion. Rav could have said to you: When the baraita says: Not one’s entire body, it means not his entire body at once, but one limb and then another limb until he washes his entire body is permitted. The Gemara asks: Doesn’t it say one’s face, his hands, and his feet, and no more? Rav answers: It means that one washes his body in a manner similar to the manner that one washes his face, his hands, and his feet, i.e., each limb separately, and they were cited as examples of washing one limb at a time.
תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא הִתִּירוּ לִרְחוֹץ בְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אֶלָּא פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו! הָכָא נָמֵי, כְּעֵין פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו.
The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear from what was taught in a baraita: They only permitted to wash one’s face, his hands, and his feet with hot water that was heated before Shabbat. This poses a difficulty to Rav. Rav answers: Here too, this refers to washing one limb at a time, in a manner similar to the way one washes his face, his hands, and his feet.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, לְמָחָר רוֹחֵץ בָּהֶן פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו, אֲבָל לֹא כׇּל גּוּפוֹ אֵבֶר אֵבֶר. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. רַבָּה מַתְנֵי לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא דְּרַב בְּהַאי לִישָּׁנָא: חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לְמָחָר, אָמַר רַב: רוֹחֵץ בָּהֶן כׇּל גּוּפוֹ וּמְשַׁיֵּיר אֵבֶר אֶחָד. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ כׇּל הָנֵי תְּיוּבָתָא. תְּיוּבְתָּא.
The Gemara remarks: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: Hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, the next day one may wash his face, his hands, and his feet with it but not his entire body, even one limb at a time. And, needless to say, this is the halakha with regard to hot water that was heated on a Festival. Rabba would teach this halakha of Rav in this language: Hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, the next day, Rav said: One may bathe his entire body in it and exclude one limb to remind himself that today is Shabbat. They raised all of these conclusive refutations, with which they objected to the previous version of Rav’s statement, against him and the Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף לְאַבָּיֵי: רַבָּה מִי קָא עָבֵיד כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב? אָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא יָדַעְנָא. מַאי תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ? פְּשִׁיטָא דְּלָא עָבֵיד, דְּהָא אִיתּוֹתַב. (דִּילְמָא) לָא שְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ.
Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Does Rabba act in accordance with this halakha of Rav? He said to him: I do not know. The Gemara asks: What is his dilemma? It is obvious that Rabba did not act in accordance with Rav’s statement, as Rav’s statement was conclusively refuted. The Gemara answers: Perhaps he did not hear, i.e., he did not know of the challenges or he did not consider them substantial. Perhaps, in his opinion, it is still reasonable to act in accordance with Rav’s statement.
וְאִי לָא שְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ — וַדַּאי עָבֵיד. דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כׇּל מִילֵּי דְּמָר עָבֵיד כְּרַב, בַּר מֵהָנֵי תְּלָת דְּעָבֵיד כִּשְׁמוּאֵל. מְטִילִין מִבֶּגֶד לְבֶגֶד, וּמַדְלִיקִין מִנֵּר לְנֵר, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּגְרִירָה! — כְּחוּמְרֵי דְּרַב עָבֵיד, כְּקוּלֵּי דְּרַב לָא עָבֵיד.
The Gemara says: If so, there is still no room for the dilemma. And if Rabba did not hear this refutation, certainly he acted in accordance with Rav’s opinion, as Abaye said: In all halakhic matters of the Master, Rabba, he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except these three where he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. He ruled: One may untie ritual fringes from garment to garment, and one may light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging. According to Rabbi Shimon, it is permitted to drag heavy objects, and there is no concern that, as a result, a ditch might be dug in the ground. In any case, it is certainly reasonable to say that he acted in accordance with the opinion of Rav in the case of bathing on Shabbat as well. The Gemara answers: His is not an absolute proof. Perhaps Rabba’s custom was that he acted in accordance with the stringencies of Rav and he did not act in accordance with the leniencies of Rav. Washing with hot water on Shabbat is one of Rav’s leniencies. Therefore, it is not clear how Rabba acted in practice.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֶרְחָץ שֶׁפָּקְקוּ נְקָבָיו מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת רוֹחֵץ בּוֹ מִיָּד. פָּקְקוּ נְקָבָיו מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב, לְמָחָר נִכְנָס וּמַזִּיעַ, וְיוֹצֵא וּמִשְׁתַּטֵּף בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן.
The Sages taught in a Tosefta: A bathhouse whose openings were sealed on Shabbat eve so that the heat would not diminish, after Shabbat one may bathe in it immediately. If its openings were sealed on the eve of a Festival, the next day, on the Festival itself, one may enter and sweat in the heat produced by the hot water and emerge and rinse with cold water in the outer room of the bathhouse.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בַּמֶּרְחָץ שֶׁל בְּנֵי בְּרַק שֶׁפָּקְקוּ נְקָבָיו מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב, לְמָחָר נִכְנַס רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְהִזִּיעוּ בּוֹ וְיָצְאוּ וְנִשְׁתַּטְּפוּ בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן. אֶלָּא שֶׁחַמִּין שֶׁלּוֹ מְחוּפִּין בִּנְסָרִים. כְּשֶׁבָּא הַדָּבָר לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, אָמְרוּ: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חַמִּין שֶׁלּוֹ מְחוּפִּין בִּנְסָרִין. וּמִשֶּׁרַבּוּ עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה הִתְחִילוּ לֶאֱסוֹר. אַמְבַּטְיָאוֹת שֶׁל כְּרַכִּין — מְטַיֵּיל בָּהֶן וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident in the bathhouse of Benei Berak, whose openings were sealed on the eve of a Festival. The next day, on the Festival itself, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and Rabbi Akiva entered and sweated there, and emerged and rinsed themselves in the outer room. However, this bathhouse was unique because the hot water was covered by wooden boards and there was no concern lest a person bathe in the hot water. When this matter came before the Sages, they said: Even if its hot water is not covered by boards, it is permitted to sweat from the heat in the bathhouse. When the number of transgressors increased, the Sages began to prohibit this. However, the large bathhouses [ambatyaot] in cities, one may stroll through them as usual and need not be concerned about the prohibitions of Shabbat, even if he sweats while doing so.
מַאי ״עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה״? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא: בַּתְּחִילָּה הָיוּ רוֹחֲצִין בְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. הִתְחִילוּ הַבַּלָּנִים לְהָחֵם בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאוֹמְרִים: מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת הוּחַמּוּ. אָסְרוּ אֶת הַחַמִּין וְהִתִּירוּ אֶת הַזֵּיעָה. וַעֲדַיִין הָיוּ רוֹחֲצִין בְּחַמִּין וְאוֹמְרִים: ״מְזִיעִין אֲנַחְנוּ״. אָסְרוּ לָהֶן אֶת הַזֵּיעָה וְהִתִּירוּ חַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָה. וַעֲדַיִין הָיוּ רוֹחֲצִין בְּחַמֵּי הָאוּר, וְאוֹמְרִים: בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָה רָחַצְנוּ. אָסְרוּ לָהֶן חַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָה וְהִתִּירוּ לָהֶן אֶת הַצּוֹנֵן. רָאוּ שֶׁאֵין הַדָּבָר עוֹמֵד לָהֶן, הִתִּירוּ לָהֶן חַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָה וְזֵיעָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת.
And the Gemara asks: What are these transgressors? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Initially, people would bathe even on Shabbat in hot water that was heated before Shabbat. The bathhouse attendants began to heat water on Shabbat and say that it was heated before Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages prohibited bathing in hot water and permitted sweating. And they would still bathe in hot water and say: We are sweating, and that is why we entered the bathhouse. Therefore, the Sages prohibited sweating and permitted bathing in the hot springs of Tiberias. And people would still bathe in hot water heated by fire and say: We bathed in the hot springs of Tiberias. Therefore, they prohibited even the hot springs of Tiberias and permitted them to bathe in cold water. When the Sages saw that their decrees were not upheld by the people because of their stringency, they permitted them to bathe in the hot springs of Tiberias, and the decree prohibiting sweating remained in place.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי מַאן דְּעָבַר אַדְּרַבָּנַן, שְׁרֵי לְמִיקְרֵי לֵיהּ ״עֲבַרְיָינָא״: כְּמַאן —
In this context, Rava said: One who violates a decree of the Sages, it is permitted to call him a transgressor. Transgressor is not a term limited to one who violates a severe Torah prohibition. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabba make this statement?
כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא:
Rabba’s statement is according to this tanna in the baraita, who referred to those who violated a rabbinic decree as transgressors.
אַמְבַּטְיָאוֹת שֶׁל כְּרַכִּים מְטַיֵּיל בָּהֶן וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. אָמַר רָבָא: דַּוְקָא כְּרַכִּין, אֲבָל דִּכְפָרִים — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא — כֵּיוָן דְּזוּטְרִין נְפִישׁ הַבְלַיְיהוּ.
It was taught in a Tosefta: In bathhouses in cities, one may stroll through them and, even if he sweats while doing so, need not be concerned. Rava said: This applies specifically to bathhouses in cities; but in villages, no, it does not apply. What is the reason for this distinction? Since the bathhouses in the villages are small, their heat is great, and even merely walking through them will certainly cause one to sweat.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִתְחַמֵּם אָדָם כְּנֶגֶד הַמְּדוּרָה וְיוֹצֵא וּמִשְׁתַּטֵּף בְּצוֹנֵן, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּטֵּף בְּצוֹנֵן וְיִתְחַמֵּם כְּנֶגֶד הַמְּדוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְשִׁיר מַיִם שֶׁעָלָיו. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֵיחֵם אָדָם אֲלוּנְטִית וּמַנִּיחָהּ עַל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם בְּשַׁבָּת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא קוֹמְקוּמוֹס שֶׁל מַיִם חַמִּין וְיַנִּיחֶנּוּ עַל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם בְּשַׁבָּת. וְדָבָר זֶה אֲפִילּוּ בַּחוֹל אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה.
The Sages taught: One may warm himself opposite a bonfire on Shabbat and emerge and rinse in cold water as long as he does not first rinse in cold water and then warm himself opposite the bonfire. This is prohibited because he thereby warms the water on his body and renders it lukewarm. The Sages also taught: A person whose intestines are painful may heat up a towel [aluntit] and place it on his intestines even on Shabbat. This is permitted as long as one does not bring a kettle of water and place it on his intestines on Shabbat, lest the water spill and he come to wring it out (Tosafot), which is a prohibited labor on Shabbat. And placing a kettle directly on his intestines is prohibited even on a weekday due to the danger involved. If the water is extremely hot it could spill and scald him.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֵבִיא אָדָם קִיתוֹן מַיִם וּמַנִּיחוֹ כְּנֶגֶד הַמְּדוּרָה. לֹא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיֵּחַמּוּ, אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתָּפוּג צִינָּתָן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְבִיאָה אִשָּׁה פַּךְ שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן וּמְנִיחָתוֹ כְּנֶגֶד הַמְּדוּרָה. לֹא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּבְשַׁל, אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּפְשַׁר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אִשָּׁה סָכָה יָדָהּ שֶׁמֶן וּמְחַמַּמְתָּהּ כְּנֶגֶד הַמְּדוּרָה, וְסָכָה לִבְנָהּ קָטָן, וְאֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת.
Similarly, the Sages taught: One may bring a jug [kiton] full of cold water and place it opposite the bonfire on Shabbat; not so that the water will heat up, as it is prohibited to cook on Shabbat, rather to temper the cold, as one is permitted to render water less cold on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: A woman may take a cruse of oil and place it opposite the bonfire; not so the oil will cook, rather, so it will warm until it is lukewarm. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A woman may smear her hand with oil, and heat it opposite the fire, and afterward smear her young son with the heated oil, and she need not be concerned about cooking on Shabbat.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שֶׁמֶן מָה הוּא לְתַנָּא קַמָּא? רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לְהֶתֵּירָא, רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר לְאִיסּוּרָא. רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לְהֶתֵּירָא: שֶׁמֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַיָּד סוֹלֶדֶת בּוֹ — מוּתָּר. קָסָבַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא שֶׁמֶן אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּל. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְמֵימַר שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּל, וְהֶפְשֵׁרוֹ לֹא זֶה הוּא בִּשּׁוּלוֹ. וַאֲתָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְמֵימַר שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּל, וְהֶפְשֵׁרוֹ זֶהוּ בִּשּׁוּלוֹ.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to heating oil in this manner on Shabbat, what is its legal status according to the first tanna, who permits doing so with water? Does he permit oil as well? Rabba and Rav Yosef both said that the opinion of the first tanna is to permit doing so in the case of oil. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that the opinion of the first tanna is to prohibit doing so. Rabba and Rav Yosef both said that the opinion of the first tanna is to permit doing so. The Gemara explains the dispute in the mishna: Oil, even though it is heated to the point at which the hand spontaneously recoils [soledet] from its heat, is permitted to be heated in this manner. The reason is because the first tanna holds that oil is not subject to the prohibition of cooking. Cooking oil to its boiling point requires a very high temperature; merely heating it is not considered cooking. And Rabbi Yehuda came to say that oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking; however, warming it to a lukewarm temperature is not tantamount to cooking it. Therefore, it is permitted to place a jar of oil near the fire in order to raise its temperature, though it is prohibited to heat it to the point of cooking. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say that oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking, and warming it is tantamount to cooking it. He permitted it only in the specific case of a woman who smeared her hand with oil, heated it, and smeared her son with it.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר לְאִיסּוּרָא: שֶׁמֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַיָּד סוֹלֶדֶת בּוֹ — אָסוּר. קָסָבַר שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּל, וְהֶפְשֵׁרוֹ זֶהוּ בִּשּׁוּלוֹ. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְמֵימַר הֶפְשֵׁרוֹ לֹא זֶהוּ בִּשּׁוּלוֹ. וַאֲתָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְמֵימַר שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּל, וְהֶפְשֵׁרוֹ זֶהוּ בִּשּׁוּלוֹ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ כִּלְאַחַר יָד.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The opinion of the first tanna is to prohibit doing so. He explains the dispute in the following manner: According to the first tanna, with regard to oil, even if the heat is not so great that the hand spontaneously recoils from it, it is prohibited to heat it. He holds that oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking, and warming it is tantamount to cooking it. And Rabbi Yehuda came to say, leniently, that warming it is not tantamount to cooking it. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and to say that oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking, and warming it is tantamount to cooking it. The Gemara questions: According to this explanation, the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is identical to the opinion of the first tanna. What is the difference between them? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where this is done in a backhanded manner, i.e., not as it is typically done. According to the first tanna, it is totally prohibited to heat the oil, whereas according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is permitted to heat the oil in a backhanded manner.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֶחָד שֶׁמֶן וְאֶחָד מַיִם, יָד סוֹלֶדֶת בּוֹ — אָסוּר, אֵין יָד סוֹלֶדֶת בּוֹ — מוּתָּר. וְהֵיכִי דָמֵי יָד סוֹלֶדֶת בּוֹ? אָמַר רַחֲבָא: כׇּל שֶׁכְּרֵיסוֹ שֶׁל תִּינוֹק נִכְוֵית.
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said that the halakha is: With regard to both oil and water, heating either one to the point where the hand spontaneously recoils from it is prohibited. Heating either one to the point where the hand does not spontaneously recoil from it is permitted. The Gemara asks: And what are the circumstances in which a hand spontaneously recoils from it? Not all hands are equal in their sensitivity to heat. The Sage, Raḥava, said: Any water that could cause a baby’s stomach to be scalded is considered water from which the hand spontaneously recoils.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: פַּעַם אַחַת נִכְנַסְתִּי אַחַר רַבִּי לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ, וּבִקַּשְׁתִּי לְהַנִּיחַ לוֹ פַּךְ שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן בְּאַמְבָּטִי, וְאָמַר לִי: טוֹל בִּכְלִי שֵׁנִי וְתֵן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תְּלָת: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּל, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כְּלִי שֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ מְבַשֵּׁל, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הֶפְשֵׁרוֹ זֶהוּ בִּשּׁוּלוֹ.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: One time I followed Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi into the bathhouse on Shabbat to assist him, and I sought to place a jar of oil in the bathtub for him, to heat the oil somewhat before rubbing it on him. And he said to me: Take water from the bath in a secondary vessel and place the oil into it. The Gemara remarks: Learn from this comment of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi three halakhot: Learn from it that oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking. This explains why he prohibited placing it in the bathtub. And learn from it that a secondary vessel is not hot and does not cook. And learn from it with regard to oil that warming it is tantamount to cooking it.
הֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי, וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּכָל מָקוֹם מוּתָּר לְהַרְהֵר חוּץ מִבֵּית הַמֶּרְחָץ וּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא! וְכִי תֵּימָא בִּלְשׁוֹן חוֹל אֲמַר לֵיהּ, וְהָאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דְּבָרִים שֶׁל חוֹל מוּתָּר לְאוֹמְרָן בִּלְשׁוֹן קוֹדֶשׁ, שֶׁל קוֹדֶשׁ אָסוּר לְאוֹמְרָן בִּלְשׁוֹן חוֹל! אַפְרוֹשֵׁי מֵאִיסּוּרָא שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara is astonished by this story: How did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi do this? How did he teach his student halakha in the bathhouse? Didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In all places, it is permitted to contemplate Torah matters except for the bathhouse and the bathroom? And if you say that he spoke to him in a secular language, didn’t Abaye say: Secular matters are permitted to be spoken in the sacred language, Hebrew, even in the bathhouse, and sacred matters may not be spoken in the bathhouse even in a secular language? The Gemara answers: It was permitted for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to conduct himself in that manner because he was preventing an individual from violating a prohibition, which is different.
תִּדַּע, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּתַלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁנִּכְנַס אַחֲרָיו לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ וּבִקֵּשׁ לְהַדִּיחַ קַרְקַע. וְאָמַר לוֹ: אֵין מַדִּיחִין. לָסוּךְ לוֹ קַרְקַע. אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין סָכִין. אַלְמָא אַפְרוֹשֵׁי מֵאִיסּוּרָא שָׁאנֵי, הָכָא נָמֵי לְאַפְרוֹשֵׁי מֵאִיסּוּרָא שָׁאנֵי.
Know that this is so, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There was an incident where a student of Rabbi Meir followed him into the bathhouse on Shabbat and sought to rinse the floor in order to clean it. And Rabbi Meir said to him: One may not rinse the floor on Shabbat. The student asked if it was permitted to smear the floor with oil. He said to him: One may not smear the floor with oil. Apparently, preventing one from violating a prohibition is different. Here too, in the incident involving Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, preventing one from violating a prohibition is different and permitted.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב. דְּהָא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּרַבִּי לְאַחַר גְּזֵירָה הֲוָה, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: טוֹל בִּכְלִי שֵׁנִי וְתֵן. אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא בְּשַׁבָּת — פָּטוּר! מַאי ״חַיָּיב״ נָמֵי דְּקָאָמַר — מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת.
Ravina said: Learn from it that one who cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias on Shabbat is liable, as the incident with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was after the decree, and he said to his student: Take hot water in a secondary vessel and place the oil into it. Had he cooked the oil in the hot water itself, he would have violated a Torah prohibition. Since the incident with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi took place after the Sages issued a decree to prohibit bathing in hot water on Shabbat, it must have taken place in a bath in the hot springs of Tiberias. The Gemara challenges this: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Ḥisda say that one who cooks in the Tiberias hot springs on Shabbat is not liable? The Gemara answers: There is no contradiction. What, too, is the meaning of the term liable that Ravina said? It does not mean that one who cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias is liable to be stoned or to bring a sin-offering like one who violates a Torah prohibition. Rather, it means liable to receive lashes for rebelliousness, which one receives for intentionally violating rabbinic decrees.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֲנָא חֲזִיתֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ דְּשָׁט בְּאַמְבָּטִי, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִי עֲקַר אִי לָא עֲקַר. פְּשִׁיטָא דְּלָא עֲקַר, דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יָשׁוּט אָדָם בִּבְרֵיכָה מְלֵאָה מַיִם, וַאֲפִילּוּ עוֹמֶדֶת בֶּחָצֵר! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא
Rabbi Zeira said: I saw Rabbi Abbahu floating in a bath on Shabbat, and I do not know if he lifted his feet and was actually swimming in the water, or if he did not lift his feet. The Gemara questions Rabbi Zeira’s uncertainty. It is obvious that he did not lift his feet, as it was taught in a baraita: A person may not float in a pool full of water on Shabbat, and even if the pool was in a courtyard, where there is no room for concern lest he violate a prohibition. This is not difficult; this baraita is referring to a place
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Marian Frankston
Pennsylvania, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Marian Frankston
Pennsylvania, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
Shabbat 40
הֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וְאִי מִכְּלָלָא, מַאי? דִילְמָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּמַתְנִיתִין, אֲבָל בְּבָרַיְיתָא — לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמִיעַ לִי.
Rabbi Akiva reconsider and adopt Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion? In the dispute over the laws of bathing as well, the ruling should have been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda because his is the compromise opinion. Therefore, Rav Yosef asked whether the ruling was based on that principle alone. The Gemara asks: And if the halakha was derived by inference, what of it? It is legitimate to draw conclusions by inference. The Gemara responds: Perhaps this principle, that the halakha is established in accordance with the compromise opinion, applies only in a mishna; but in a baraita, no, it does not apply. Perhaps the baraita is not a sufficiently reliable source to establish the halakha in accordance with the compromise opinion based on its formulation. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to Rav Yosef: I heard it explicitly.
אִתְּמַר: חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, רַב אָמַר: לְמָחָר רוֹחֵץ בָּהֶן כׇּל גּוּפוֹ, אֵבֶר אֵבֶר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לֹא הִתִּירוּ לִרְחוֹץ אֶלָּא פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו. מֵיתִיבִי: חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, לְמָחָר רוֹחֵץ בָּהֶן פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו אֲבָל לֹא כׇּל גּוּפוֹ. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב. אָמַר לְךָ רַב: ״לֹא כׇּל גּוּפוֹ״ — בְּבַת אַחַת, אֶלָּא אֵבֶר אֵבֶר. וְהָא ״פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו״ קָתָנֵי! — כְּעֵין פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו.
An amoraic dispute was stated: With regard to hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve before Shabbat, Rav said: The next day, on Shabbat, one may wash his entire body with it; however, not all at once. Rather, he washes one limb at a time, in a departure from the standard practice, to remind him that it is Shabbat. And Shmuel said: They only permitted washing one’s face, his hands, and his feet with hot water, even if it was heated on Shabbat eve; however, they did not permit washing his entire body, even in increments. The Gemara raises an objection from what was taught in a baraita: Hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, the next day one may wash his face, his hands, and his feet with it but not his entire body. This is a conclusive refutation of Rav’s opinion. Rav could have said to you: When the baraita says: Not one’s entire body, it means not his entire body at once, but one limb and then another limb until he washes his entire body is permitted. The Gemara asks: Doesn’t it say one’s face, his hands, and his feet, and no more? Rav answers: It means that one washes his body in a manner similar to the manner that one washes his face, his hands, and his feet, i.e., each limb separately, and they were cited as examples of washing one limb at a time.
תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא הִתִּירוּ לִרְחוֹץ בְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אֶלָּא פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו! הָכָא נָמֵי, כְּעֵין פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו.
The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear from what was taught in a baraita: They only permitted to wash one’s face, his hands, and his feet with hot water that was heated before Shabbat. This poses a difficulty to Rav. Rav answers: Here too, this refers to washing one limb at a time, in a manner similar to the way one washes his face, his hands, and his feet.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, לְמָחָר רוֹחֵץ בָּהֶן פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו, אֲבָל לֹא כׇּל גּוּפוֹ אֵבֶר אֵבֶר. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. רַבָּה מַתְנֵי לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא דְּרַב בְּהַאי לִישָּׁנָא: חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לְמָחָר, אָמַר רַב: רוֹחֵץ בָּהֶן כׇּל גּוּפוֹ וּמְשַׁיֵּיר אֵבֶר אֶחָד. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ כׇּל הָנֵי תְּיוּבָתָא. תְּיוּבְתָּא.
The Gemara remarks: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: Hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, the next day one may wash his face, his hands, and his feet with it but not his entire body, even one limb at a time. And, needless to say, this is the halakha with regard to hot water that was heated on a Festival. Rabba would teach this halakha of Rav in this language: Hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, the next day, Rav said: One may bathe his entire body in it and exclude one limb to remind himself that today is Shabbat. They raised all of these conclusive refutations, with which they objected to the previous version of Rav’s statement, against him and the Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף לְאַבָּיֵי: רַבָּה מִי קָא עָבֵיד כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב? אָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא יָדַעְנָא. מַאי תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ? פְּשִׁיטָא דְּלָא עָבֵיד, דְּהָא אִיתּוֹתַב. (דִּילְמָא) לָא שְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ.
Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Does Rabba act in accordance with this halakha of Rav? He said to him: I do not know. The Gemara asks: What is his dilemma? It is obvious that Rabba did not act in accordance with Rav’s statement, as Rav’s statement was conclusively refuted. The Gemara answers: Perhaps he did not hear, i.e., he did not know of the challenges or he did not consider them substantial. Perhaps, in his opinion, it is still reasonable to act in accordance with Rav’s statement.
וְאִי לָא שְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ — וַדַּאי עָבֵיד. דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כׇּל מִילֵּי דְּמָר עָבֵיד כְּרַב, בַּר מֵהָנֵי תְּלָת דְּעָבֵיד כִּשְׁמוּאֵל. מְטִילִין מִבֶּגֶד לְבֶגֶד, וּמַדְלִיקִין מִנֵּר לְנֵר, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּגְרִירָה! — כְּחוּמְרֵי דְּרַב עָבֵיד, כְּקוּלֵּי דְּרַב לָא עָבֵיד.
The Gemara says: If so, there is still no room for the dilemma. And if Rabba did not hear this refutation, certainly he acted in accordance with Rav’s opinion, as Abaye said: In all halakhic matters of the Master, Rabba, he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except these three where he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. He ruled: One may untie ritual fringes from garment to garment, and one may light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging. According to Rabbi Shimon, it is permitted to drag heavy objects, and there is no concern that, as a result, a ditch might be dug in the ground. In any case, it is certainly reasonable to say that he acted in accordance with the opinion of Rav in the case of bathing on Shabbat as well. The Gemara answers: His is not an absolute proof. Perhaps Rabba’s custom was that he acted in accordance with the stringencies of Rav and he did not act in accordance with the leniencies of Rav. Washing with hot water on Shabbat is one of Rav’s leniencies. Therefore, it is not clear how Rabba acted in practice.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֶרְחָץ שֶׁפָּקְקוּ נְקָבָיו מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת רוֹחֵץ בּוֹ מִיָּד. פָּקְקוּ נְקָבָיו מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב, לְמָחָר נִכְנָס וּמַזִּיעַ, וְיוֹצֵא וּמִשְׁתַּטֵּף בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן.
The Sages taught in a Tosefta: A bathhouse whose openings were sealed on Shabbat eve so that the heat would not diminish, after Shabbat one may bathe in it immediately. If its openings were sealed on the eve of a Festival, the next day, on the Festival itself, one may enter and sweat in the heat produced by the hot water and emerge and rinse with cold water in the outer room of the bathhouse.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בַּמֶּרְחָץ שֶׁל בְּנֵי בְּרַק שֶׁפָּקְקוּ נְקָבָיו מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב, לְמָחָר נִכְנַס רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְהִזִּיעוּ בּוֹ וְיָצְאוּ וְנִשְׁתַּטְּפוּ בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן. אֶלָּא שֶׁחַמִּין שֶׁלּוֹ מְחוּפִּין בִּנְסָרִים. כְּשֶׁבָּא הַדָּבָר לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, אָמְרוּ: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חַמִּין שֶׁלּוֹ מְחוּפִּין בִּנְסָרִין. וּמִשֶּׁרַבּוּ עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה הִתְחִילוּ לֶאֱסוֹר. אַמְבַּטְיָאוֹת שֶׁל כְּרַכִּין — מְטַיֵּיל בָּהֶן וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident in the bathhouse of Benei Berak, whose openings were sealed on the eve of a Festival. The next day, on the Festival itself, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and Rabbi Akiva entered and sweated there, and emerged and rinsed themselves in the outer room. However, this bathhouse was unique because the hot water was covered by wooden boards and there was no concern lest a person bathe in the hot water. When this matter came before the Sages, they said: Even if its hot water is not covered by boards, it is permitted to sweat from the heat in the bathhouse. When the number of transgressors increased, the Sages began to prohibit this. However, the large bathhouses [ambatyaot] in cities, one may stroll through them as usual and need not be concerned about the prohibitions of Shabbat, even if he sweats while doing so.
מַאי ״עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה״? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא: בַּתְּחִילָּה הָיוּ רוֹחֲצִין בְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. הִתְחִילוּ הַבַּלָּנִים לְהָחֵם בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאוֹמְרִים: מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת הוּחַמּוּ. אָסְרוּ אֶת הַחַמִּין וְהִתִּירוּ אֶת הַזֵּיעָה. וַעֲדַיִין הָיוּ רוֹחֲצִין בְּחַמִּין וְאוֹמְרִים: ״מְזִיעִין אֲנַחְנוּ״. אָסְרוּ לָהֶן אֶת הַזֵּיעָה וְהִתִּירוּ חַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָה. וַעֲדַיִין הָיוּ רוֹחֲצִין בְּחַמֵּי הָאוּר, וְאוֹמְרִים: בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָה רָחַצְנוּ. אָסְרוּ לָהֶן חַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָה וְהִתִּירוּ לָהֶן אֶת הַצּוֹנֵן. רָאוּ שֶׁאֵין הַדָּבָר עוֹמֵד לָהֶן, הִתִּירוּ לָהֶן חַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָה וְזֵיעָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת.
And the Gemara asks: What are these transgressors? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Initially, people would bathe even on Shabbat in hot water that was heated before Shabbat. The bathhouse attendants began to heat water on Shabbat and say that it was heated before Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages prohibited bathing in hot water and permitted sweating. And they would still bathe in hot water and say: We are sweating, and that is why we entered the bathhouse. Therefore, the Sages prohibited sweating and permitted bathing in the hot springs of Tiberias. And people would still bathe in hot water heated by fire and say: We bathed in the hot springs of Tiberias. Therefore, they prohibited even the hot springs of Tiberias and permitted them to bathe in cold water. When the Sages saw that their decrees were not upheld by the people because of their stringency, they permitted them to bathe in the hot springs of Tiberias, and the decree prohibiting sweating remained in place.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי מַאן דְּעָבַר אַדְּרַבָּנַן, שְׁרֵי לְמִיקְרֵי לֵיהּ ״עֲבַרְיָינָא״: כְּמַאן —
In this context, Rava said: One who violates a decree of the Sages, it is permitted to call him a transgressor. Transgressor is not a term limited to one who violates a severe Torah prohibition. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabba make this statement?
כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא:
Rabba’s statement is according to this tanna in the baraita, who referred to those who violated a rabbinic decree as transgressors.
אַמְבַּטְיָאוֹת שֶׁל כְּרַכִּים מְטַיֵּיל בָּהֶן וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. אָמַר רָבָא: דַּוְקָא כְּרַכִּין, אֲבָל דִּכְפָרִים — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא — כֵּיוָן דְּזוּטְרִין נְפִישׁ הַבְלַיְיהוּ.
It was taught in a Tosefta: In bathhouses in cities, one may stroll through them and, even if he sweats while doing so, need not be concerned. Rava said: This applies specifically to bathhouses in cities; but in villages, no, it does not apply. What is the reason for this distinction? Since the bathhouses in the villages are small, their heat is great, and even merely walking through them will certainly cause one to sweat.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִתְחַמֵּם אָדָם כְּנֶגֶד הַמְּדוּרָה וְיוֹצֵא וּמִשְׁתַּטֵּף בְּצוֹנֵן, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּטֵּף בְּצוֹנֵן וְיִתְחַמֵּם כְּנֶגֶד הַמְּדוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְשִׁיר מַיִם שֶׁעָלָיו. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֵיחֵם אָדָם אֲלוּנְטִית וּמַנִּיחָהּ עַל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם בְּשַׁבָּת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא קוֹמְקוּמוֹס שֶׁל מַיִם חַמִּין וְיַנִּיחֶנּוּ עַל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם בְּשַׁבָּת. וְדָבָר זֶה אֲפִילּוּ בַּחוֹל אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה.
The Sages taught: One may warm himself opposite a bonfire on Shabbat and emerge and rinse in cold water as long as he does not first rinse in cold water and then warm himself opposite the bonfire. This is prohibited because he thereby warms the water on his body and renders it lukewarm. The Sages also taught: A person whose intestines are painful may heat up a towel [aluntit] and place it on his intestines even on Shabbat. This is permitted as long as one does not bring a kettle of water and place it on his intestines on Shabbat, lest the water spill and he come to wring it out (Tosafot), which is a prohibited labor on Shabbat. And placing a kettle directly on his intestines is prohibited even on a weekday due to the danger involved. If the water is extremely hot it could spill and scald him.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֵבִיא אָדָם קִיתוֹן מַיִם וּמַנִּיחוֹ כְּנֶגֶד הַמְּדוּרָה. לֹא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיֵּחַמּוּ, אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתָּפוּג צִינָּתָן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְבִיאָה אִשָּׁה פַּךְ שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן וּמְנִיחָתוֹ כְּנֶגֶד הַמְּדוּרָה. לֹא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּבְשַׁל, אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּפְשַׁר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אִשָּׁה סָכָה יָדָהּ שֶׁמֶן וּמְחַמַּמְתָּהּ כְּנֶגֶד הַמְּדוּרָה, וְסָכָה לִבְנָהּ קָטָן, וְאֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת.
Similarly, the Sages taught: One may bring a jug [kiton] full of cold water and place it opposite the bonfire on Shabbat; not so that the water will heat up, as it is prohibited to cook on Shabbat, rather to temper the cold, as one is permitted to render water less cold on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: A woman may take a cruse of oil and place it opposite the bonfire; not so the oil will cook, rather, so it will warm until it is lukewarm. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A woman may smear her hand with oil, and heat it opposite the fire, and afterward smear her young son with the heated oil, and she need not be concerned about cooking on Shabbat.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שֶׁמֶן מָה הוּא לְתַנָּא קַמָּא? רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לְהֶתֵּירָא, רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר לְאִיסּוּרָא. רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לְהֶתֵּירָא: שֶׁמֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַיָּד סוֹלֶדֶת בּוֹ — מוּתָּר. קָסָבַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא שֶׁמֶן אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּל. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְמֵימַר שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּל, וְהֶפְשֵׁרוֹ לֹא זֶה הוּא בִּשּׁוּלוֹ. וַאֲתָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְמֵימַר שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּל, וְהֶפְשֵׁרוֹ זֶהוּ בִּשּׁוּלוֹ.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to heating oil in this manner on Shabbat, what is its legal status according to the first tanna, who permits doing so with water? Does he permit oil as well? Rabba and Rav Yosef both said that the opinion of the first tanna is to permit doing so in the case of oil. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that the opinion of the first tanna is to prohibit doing so. Rabba and Rav Yosef both said that the opinion of the first tanna is to permit doing so. The Gemara explains the dispute in the mishna: Oil, even though it is heated to the point at which the hand spontaneously recoils [soledet] from its heat, is permitted to be heated in this manner. The reason is because the first tanna holds that oil is not subject to the prohibition of cooking. Cooking oil to its boiling point requires a very high temperature; merely heating it is not considered cooking. And Rabbi Yehuda came to say that oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking; however, warming it to a lukewarm temperature is not tantamount to cooking it. Therefore, it is permitted to place a jar of oil near the fire in order to raise its temperature, though it is prohibited to heat it to the point of cooking. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say that oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking, and warming it is tantamount to cooking it. He permitted it only in the specific case of a woman who smeared her hand with oil, heated it, and smeared her son with it.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר לְאִיסּוּרָא: שֶׁמֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַיָּד סוֹלֶדֶת בּוֹ — אָסוּר. קָסָבַר שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּל, וְהֶפְשֵׁרוֹ זֶהוּ בִּשּׁוּלוֹ. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְמֵימַר הֶפְשֵׁרוֹ לֹא זֶהוּ בִּשּׁוּלוֹ. וַאֲתָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְמֵימַר שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּל, וְהֶפְשֵׁרוֹ זֶהוּ בִּשּׁוּלוֹ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ כִּלְאַחַר יָד.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The opinion of the first tanna is to prohibit doing so. He explains the dispute in the following manner: According to the first tanna, with regard to oil, even if the heat is not so great that the hand spontaneously recoils from it, it is prohibited to heat it. He holds that oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking, and warming it is tantamount to cooking it. And Rabbi Yehuda came to say, leniently, that warming it is not tantamount to cooking it. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and to say that oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking, and warming it is tantamount to cooking it. The Gemara questions: According to this explanation, the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is identical to the opinion of the first tanna. What is the difference between them? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where this is done in a backhanded manner, i.e., not as it is typically done. According to the first tanna, it is totally prohibited to heat the oil, whereas according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is permitted to heat the oil in a backhanded manner.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֶחָד שֶׁמֶן וְאֶחָד מַיִם, יָד סוֹלֶדֶת בּוֹ — אָסוּר, אֵין יָד סוֹלֶדֶת בּוֹ — מוּתָּר. וְהֵיכִי דָמֵי יָד סוֹלֶדֶת בּוֹ? אָמַר רַחֲבָא: כׇּל שֶׁכְּרֵיסוֹ שֶׁל תִּינוֹק נִכְוֵית.
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said that the halakha is: With regard to both oil and water, heating either one to the point where the hand spontaneously recoils from it is prohibited. Heating either one to the point where the hand does not spontaneously recoil from it is permitted. The Gemara asks: And what are the circumstances in which a hand spontaneously recoils from it? Not all hands are equal in their sensitivity to heat. The Sage, Raḥava, said: Any water that could cause a baby’s stomach to be scalded is considered water from which the hand spontaneously recoils.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: פַּעַם אַחַת נִכְנַסְתִּי אַחַר רַבִּי לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ, וּבִקַּשְׁתִּי לְהַנִּיחַ לוֹ פַּךְ שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן בְּאַמְבָּטִי, וְאָמַר לִי: טוֹל בִּכְלִי שֵׁנִי וְתֵן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תְּלָת: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּל, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כְּלִי שֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ מְבַשֵּׁל, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הֶפְשֵׁרוֹ זֶהוּ בִּשּׁוּלוֹ.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: One time I followed Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi into the bathhouse on Shabbat to assist him, and I sought to place a jar of oil in the bathtub for him, to heat the oil somewhat before rubbing it on him. And he said to me: Take water from the bath in a secondary vessel and place the oil into it. The Gemara remarks: Learn from this comment of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi three halakhot: Learn from it that oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking. This explains why he prohibited placing it in the bathtub. And learn from it that a secondary vessel is not hot and does not cook. And learn from it with regard to oil that warming it is tantamount to cooking it.
הֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי, וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּכָל מָקוֹם מוּתָּר לְהַרְהֵר חוּץ מִבֵּית הַמֶּרְחָץ וּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא! וְכִי תֵּימָא בִּלְשׁוֹן חוֹל אֲמַר לֵיהּ, וְהָאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דְּבָרִים שֶׁל חוֹל מוּתָּר לְאוֹמְרָן בִּלְשׁוֹן קוֹדֶשׁ, שֶׁל קוֹדֶשׁ אָסוּר לְאוֹמְרָן בִּלְשׁוֹן חוֹל! אַפְרוֹשֵׁי מֵאִיסּוּרָא שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara is astonished by this story: How did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi do this? How did he teach his student halakha in the bathhouse? Didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In all places, it is permitted to contemplate Torah matters except for the bathhouse and the bathroom? And if you say that he spoke to him in a secular language, didn’t Abaye say: Secular matters are permitted to be spoken in the sacred language, Hebrew, even in the bathhouse, and sacred matters may not be spoken in the bathhouse even in a secular language? The Gemara answers: It was permitted for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to conduct himself in that manner because he was preventing an individual from violating a prohibition, which is different.
תִּדַּע, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּתַלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁנִּכְנַס אַחֲרָיו לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ וּבִקֵּשׁ לְהַדִּיחַ קַרְקַע. וְאָמַר לוֹ: אֵין מַדִּיחִין. לָסוּךְ לוֹ קַרְקַע. אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין סָכִין. אַלְמָא אַפְרוֹשֵׁי מֵאִיסּוּרָא שָׁאנֵי, הָכָא נָמֵי לְאַפְרוֹשֵׁי מֵאִיסּוּרָא שָׁאנֵי.
Know that this is so, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There was an incident where a student of Rabbi Meir followed him into the bathhouse on Shabbat and sought to rinse the floor in order to clean it. And Rabbi Meir said to him: One may not rinse the floor on Shabbat. The student asked if it was permitted to smear the floor with oil. He said to him: One may not smear the floor with oil. Apparently, preventing one from violating a prohibition is different. Here too, in the incident involving Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, preventing one from violating a prohibition is different and permitted.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב. דְּהָא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּרַבִּי לְאַחַר גְּזֵירָה הֲוָה, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: טוֹל בִּכְלִי שֵׁנִי וְתֵן. אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא בְּשַׁבָּת — פָּטוּר! מַאי ״חַיָּיב״ נָמֵי דְּקָאָמַר — מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת.
Ravina said: Learn from it that one who cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias on Shabbat is liable, as the incident with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was after the decree, and he said to his student: Take hot water in a secondary vessel and place the oil into it. Had he cooked the oil in the hot water itself, he would have violated a Torah prohibition. Since the incident with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi took place after the Sages issued a decree to prohibit bathing in hot water on Shabbat, it must have taken place in a bath in the hot springs of Tiberias. The Gemara challenges this: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Ḥisda say that one who cooks in the Tiberias hot springs on Shabbat is not liable? The Gemara answers: There is no contradiction. What, too, is the meaning of the term liable that Ravina said? It does not mean that one who cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias is liable to be stoned or to bring a sin-offering like one who violates a Torah prohibition. Rather, it means liable to receive lashes for rebelliousness, which one receives for intentionally violating rabbinic decrees.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֲנָא חֲזִיתֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ דְּשָׁט בְּאַמְבָּטִי, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִי עֲקַר אִי לָא עֲקַר. פְּשִׁיטָא דְּלָא עֲקַר, דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יָשׁוּט אָדָם בִּבְרֵיכָה מְלֵאָה מַיִם, וַאֲפִילּוּ עוֹמֶדֶת בֶּחָצֵר! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא
Rabbi Zeira said: I saw Rabbi Abbahu floating in a bath on Shabbat, and I do not know if he lifted his feet and was actually swimming in the water, or if he did not lift his feet. The Gemara questions Rabbi Zeira’s uncertainty. It is obvious that he did not lift his feet, as it was taught in a baraita: A person may not float in a pool full of water on Shabbat, and even if the pool was in a courtyard, where there is no room for concern lest he violate a prohibition. This is not difficult; this baraita is referring to a place
Follow
