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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 15, 2020 | 讻状讗 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.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 40

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?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讗讬 诪讻诇诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讬

Rabbi Akiva reconsider and adopt Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 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 岣na said to Rav Yosef: I heard it explicitly.

讗转诪专 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 专讘 讗诪专 诇诪讞专 专讜讞抓 讘讛谉 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讗讘专 讗讘专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇专讞讜抓 讗诇讗 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 诪讬转讬讘讬 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 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诇讗 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗诇讗 讗讘专 讗讘专 讜讛讗 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 拽转谞讬 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 opinion. Rav could have said to you: When the baraita says: Not one鈥檚 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鈥檛 it say one鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇专讞讜抓 讘讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗诇讗 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear from what was taught in a baraita: They only permitted to wash one鈥檚 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 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 讗讘专 讗讘专 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘讛 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚专讘 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 专讘 专讜讞抓 讘讛谉 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讜诪砖讬讬专 讗讘专 讗讞讚 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻诇 讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 转讬讜讘转讗

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鈥檚 statement, against him and the Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗讘讬讬 专讘讛 诪讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讻砖诪注转讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 讚讛讗 讗讬转讜转讘 (讚讬诇诪讗) 诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛

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鈥檚 statement, as Rav鈥檚 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鈥檚 statement.

讜讗讬 诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 讜讚讗讬 注讘讬讚 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚诪专 注讘讬讚 讻专讘 讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 讚注讘讬讚 讻砖诪讜讗诇 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讜诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛 讻讞讜诪专讬 讚专讘 注讘讬讚 讻拽讜诇讬 讚专讘 诇讗 注讘讬讚

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 leniencies. Therefore, it is not clear how Rabba acted in practice.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪专讞抓 砖驻拽拽讜 谞拽讘讬讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 专讜讞抓 讘讜 诪讬讚 驻拽拽讜 谞拽讘讬讜 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇诪讞专 谞讻谞住 讜诪讝讬注 讜讬讜爪讗 讜诪砖转讟祝 讘讘讬转 讛讞讬爪讜谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘诪专讞抓 砖诇 讘谞讬 讘专拽 砖驻拽拽讜 谞拽讘讬讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇诪讞专 谞讻谞住 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛讝讬注讜 讘讜 讜讬爪讗讜 讜谞砖转讟驻讜 讘讘讬转 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讗诇讗 砖讞诪讬谉 砖诇讜 诪讞讜驻讬谉 讘谞住专讬诐 讻砖讘讗 讛讚讘专 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讞诪讬谉 砖诇讜 诪讞讜驻讬谉 讘谞住专讬谉 讜诪砖专讘讜 注讜讘专讬 注讘讬专讛 讛转讞讬诇讜 诇讗住讜专 讗诪讘讟讬讗讜转 砖诇 讻专讻讬谉 诪讟讬讬诇 讘讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖

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.

诪讗讬 注讜讘专讬 注讘讬专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讘转讞讬诇讛 讛讬讜 专讜讞爪讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讛转讞讬诇讜 讛讘诇谞讬诐 诇讛讞诐 讘砖讘转 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讛讜讞诪讜 讗住专讜 讗转 讛讞诪讬谉 讜讛转讬专讜 讗转 讛讝讬注讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讜 专讜讞爪讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讝讬注讬谉 讗谞讞谞讜 讗住专讜 诇讛谉 讗转 讛讝讬注讛 讜讛转讬专讜 讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讜 专讜讞爪讬谉 讘讞诪讬 讛讗讜专 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讛 专讞爪谞讜 讗住专讜 诇讛谉 讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讛 讜讛转讬专讜 诇讛谉 讗转 讛爪讜谞谉 专讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讛讚讘专 注讜诪讚 诇讛谉 讛转讬专讜 诇讛谉 讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讛 讜讝讬注讛 讘诪拽讜诪讛 注讜诪讚转

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚注讘专 讗讚专讘谞谉 砖专讬 诇诪讬拽专讬 诇讬讛 注讘专讬讬谞讗 讻诪讗谉

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?

讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗

Rabba鈥檚 statement is according to this tanna in the baraita, who referred to those who violated a rabbinic decree as transgressors.

讗诪讘讟讬讗讜转 砖诇 讻专讻讬诐 诪讟讬讬诇 讘讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讜拽讗 讻专讻讬谉 讗讘诇 讚讻驻专讬诐 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讝讜讟专讬谉 谞驻讬砖 讛讘诇讬讬讛讜

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪转讞诪诐 讗讚诐 讻谞讙讚 讛诪讚讜专讛 讜讬讜爪讗 讜诪砖转讟祝 讘爪讜谞谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬砖转讟祝 讘爪讜谞谉 讜讬转讞诪诐 讻谞讙讚 讛诪讚讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪驻砖讬专 诪讬诐 砖注诇讬讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬讞诐 讗讚诐 讗诇讜谞讟讬转 讜诪谞讬讞讛 注诇 讘谞讬 诪注讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗 拽讜诪拽讜诪讜住 砖诇 诪讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讜讬谞讬讞谞讜 注诇 讘谞讬 诪注讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜讚讘专 讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讘讬讗 讗讚诐 拽讬转讜谉 诪讬诐 讜诪谞讬讞讜 讻谞讙讚 讛诪讚讜专讛 诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讞诪讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转驻讬讙 爪讬谞转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讘讬讗讛 讗砖讛 驻讱 砖诇 砖诪谉 讜诪谞讬讞转讜 讻谞讙讚 讛诪讚讜专讛 诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讘砖诇 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬驻砖专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗砖讛 住讻讛 讬讚讛 砖诪谉 讜诪讞诪诪转讛 讻谞讙讚 讛诪讚讜专讛 讜住讻讛 诇讘谞讛 拽讟谉 讜讗讬谞讛 讞讜砖砖转

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诪谉 诪讛 讛讜讗 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讛转讬专讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诇讗讬住讜专讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讛转讬专讗 砖诪谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讬讚 住讜诇讚转 讘讜 诪讜转专 拽住讘专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 砖诪谉 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇诪讬诪专 砖诪谉 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇 讜讛驻砖专讜 诇讗 讝讛 讛讜讗 讘砖讜诇讜 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 砖诪谉 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇 讜讛驻砖专讜 讝讛讜 讘砖讜诇讜

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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诇讗讬住讜专讗 砖诪谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讬讚 住讜诇讚转 讘讜 讗住讜专 拽住讘专 砖诪谉 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇 讜讛驻砖专讜 讝讛讜 讘砖讜诇讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇诪讬诪专 讛驻砖专讜 诇讗 讝讛讜 讘砖讜诇讜 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 砖诪谉 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇 讜讛驻砖专讜 讝讛讜 讘砖讜诇讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻诇讗讞专 讬讚

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讞讚 砖诪谉 讜讗讞讚 诪讬诐 讬讚 住讜诇讚转 讘讜 讗住讜专 讗讬谉 讬讚 住讜诇讚转 讘讜 诪讜转专 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讬讚 住讜诇讚转 讘讜 讗诪专 专讞讘讗 讻诇 砖讻专讬住讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 谞讻讜讬转

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, Ra岣va, said: Any water that could cause a baby鈥檚 stomach to be scalded is considered water from which the hand spontaneously recoils.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞讻谞住转讬 讗讞专 专讘讬 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘拽砖转讬 诇讛谞讬讞 诇讜 驻讱 砖诇 砖诪谉 讘讗诪讘讟讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讟讜诇 讘讻诇讬 砖谞讬 讜转谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖诪谉 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇讬 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讘砖诇 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛驻砖专讜 讝讛讜 讘砖讜诇讜

Rav Yitz岣k 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.

讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讜转专 诇讛专讛专 讞讜抓 诪讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 讞讜诇 诪讜转专 诇讗讜诪专谉 讘诇砖讜谉 拽讜讚砖 砖诇 拽讜讚砖 讗住讜专 诇讗讜诪专谉 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讜诇 讗驻专讜砖讬 诪讗讬住讜专讗 砖讗谞讬

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鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檛 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.

转讚注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪注砖讛 讘转诇诪讬讚讜 砖诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖谞讻谞住 讗讞专讬讜 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘拽砖 诇讛讚讬讞 拽专拽注 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪讚讬讞讬谉 诇住讜讱 诇讜 拽专拽注 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谉 住讻讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讗驻专讜砖讬 诪讗讬住讜专讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗驻专讜砖讬 诪讗讬住讜专讗 砖讗谞讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛诪讘砖诇 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 诪注砖讛 讚专讘讬 诇讗讞专 讙讝讬专讛 讛讜讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟讜诇 讘讻诇讬 砖谞讬 讜转谉 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛诪讘砖诇 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 谞诪讬 讚拽讗诪专 诪讻转 诪专讚讜转

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鈥檛 Rav 岣sda 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗谞讗 讞讝讬转讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚砖讟 讘讗诪讘讟讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 注拽专 讗讬 诇讗 注拽专 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 注拽专 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬砖讜讟 讗讚诐 讘讘专讬讻讛 诪诇讗讛 诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诪讚转 讘讞爪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗

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鈥檚 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

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.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 40: No Showers on Shabbat

The decree against full showers or baths on Shabbat, even when the water has been heated prior to Shabbat. Plus:...

Shabbat 40

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 40

讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讗讬 诪讻诇诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讬

Rabbi Akiva reconsider and adopt Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 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 岣na said to Rav Yosef: I heard it explicitly.

讗转诪专 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 专讘 讗诪专 诇诪讞专 专讜讞抓 讘讛谉 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讗讘专 讗讘专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇专讞讜抓 讗诇讗 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 诪讬转讬讘讬 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 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诇讗 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗诇讗 讗讘专 讗讘专 讜讛讗 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 拽转谞讬 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 opinion. Rav could have said to you: When the baraita says: Not one鈥檚 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鈥檛 it say one鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇专讞讜抓 讘讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗诇讗 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear from what was taught in a baraita: They only permitted to wash one鈥檚 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 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 讗讘专 讗讘专 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘讛 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚专讘 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 专讘 专讜讞抓 讘讛谉 讻诇 讙讜驻讜 讜诪砖讬讬专 讗讘专 讗讞讚 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻诇 讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 转讬讜讘转讗

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鈥檚 statement, against him and the Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗讘讬讬 专讘讛 诪讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讻砖诪注转讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 讚讛讗 讗讬转讜转讘 (讚讬诇诪讗) 诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛

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鈥檚 statement, as Rav鈥檚 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鈥檚 statement.

讜讗讬 诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 讜讚讗讬 注讘讬讚 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚诪专 注讘讬讚 讻专讘 讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 讚注讘讬讚 讻砖诪讜讗诇 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讜诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛 讻讞讜诪专讬 讚专讘 注讘讬讚 讻拽讜诇讬 讚专讘 诇讗 注讘讬讚

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 leniencies. Therefore, it is not clear how Rabba acted in practice.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪专讞抓 砖驻拽拽讜 谞拽讘讬讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 专讜讞抓 讘讜 诪讬讚 驻拽拽讜 谞拽讘讬讜 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇诪讞专 谞讻谞住 讜诪讝讬注 讜讬讜爪讗 讜诪砖转讟祝 讘讘讬转 讛讞讬爪讜谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘诪专讞抓 砖诇 讘谞讬 讘专拽 砖驻拽拽讜 谞拽讘讬讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇诪讞专 谞讻谞住 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛讝讬注讜 讘讜 讜讬爪讗讜 讜谞砖转讟驻讜 讘讘讬转 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讗诇讗 砖讞诪讬谉 砖诇讜 诪讞讜驻讬谉 讘谞住专讬诐 讻砖讘讗 讛讚讘专 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讞诪讬谉 砖诇讜 诪讞讜驻讬谉 讘谞住专讬谉 讜诪砖专讘讜 注讜讘专讬 注讘讬专讛 讛转讞讬诇讜 诇讗住讜专 讗诪讘讟讬讗讜转 砖诇 讻专讻讬谉 诪讟讬讬诇 讘讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖

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.

诪讗讬 注讜讘专讬 注讘讬专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讘转讞讬诇讛 讛讬讜 专讜讞爪讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讛转讞讬诇讜 讛讘诇谞讬诐 诇讛讞诐 讘砖讘转 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讛讜讞诪讜 讗住专讜 讗转 讛讞诪讬谉 讜讛转讬专讜 讗转 讛讝讬注讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讜 专讜讞爪讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讝讬注讬谉 讗谞讞谞讜 讗住专讜 诇讛谉 讗转 讛讝讬注讛 讜讛转讬专讜 讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讜 专讜讞爪讬谉 讘讞诪讬 讛讗讜专 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讛 专讞爪谞讜 讗住专讜 诇讛谉 讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讛 讜讛转讬专讜 诇讛谉 讗转 讛爪讜谞谉 专讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讛讚讘专 注讜诪讚 诇讛谉 讛转讬专讜 诇讛谉 讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讛 讜讝讬注讛 讘诪拽讜诪讛 注讜诪讚转

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚注讘专 讗讚专讘谞谉 砖专讬 诇诪讬拽专讬 诇讬讛 注讘专讬讬谞讗 讻诪讗谉

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?

讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗

Rabba鈥檚 statement is according to this tanna in the baraita, who referred to those who violated a rabbinic decree as transgressors.

讗诪讘讟讬讗讜转 砖诇 讻专讻讬诐 诪讟讬讬诇 讘讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讜拽讗 讻专讻讬谉 讗讘诇 讚讻驻专讬诐 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讝讜讟专讬谉 谞驻讬砖 讛讘诇讬讬讛讜

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪转讞诪诐 讗讚诐 讻谞讙讚 讛诪讚讜专讛 讜讬讜爪讗 讜诪砖转讟祝 讘爪讜谞谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬砖转讟祝 讘爪讜谞谉 讜讬转讞诪诐 讻谞讙讚 讛诪讚讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪驻砖讬专 诪讬诐 砖注诇讬讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬讞诐 讗讚诐 讗诇讜谞讟讬转 讜诪谞讬讞讛 注诇 讘谞讬 诪注讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗 拽讜诪拽讜诪讜住 砖诇 诪讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讜讬谞讬讞谞讜 注诇 讘谞讬 诪注讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜讚讘专 讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讘讬讗 讗讚诐 拽讬转讜谉 诪讬诐 讜诪谞讬讞讜 讻谞讙讚 讛诪讚讜专讛 诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讞诪讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转驻讬讙 爪讬谞转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讘讬讗讛 讗砖讛 驻讱 砖诇 砖诪谉 讜诪谞讬讞转讜 讻谞讙讚 讛诪讚讜专讛 诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讘砖诇 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬驻砖专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗砖讛 住讻讛 讬讚讛 砖诪谉 讜诪讞诪诪转讛 讻谞讙讚 讛诪讚讜专讛 讜住讻讛 诇讘谞讛 拽讟谉 讜讗讬谞讛 讞讜砖砖转

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖诪谉 诪讛 讛讜讗 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讛转讬专讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诇讗讬住讜专讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讛转讬专讗 砖诪谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讬讚 住讜诇讚转 讘讜 诪讜转专 拽住讘专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 砖诪谉 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇诪讬诪专 砖诪谉 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇 讜讛驻砖专讜 诇讗 讝讛 讛讜讗 讘砖讜诇讜 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 砖诪谉 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇 讜讛驻砖专讜 讝讛讜 讘砖讜诇讜

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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诇讗讬住讜专讗 砖诪谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讬讚 住讜诇讚转 讘讜 讗住讜专 拽住讘专 砖诪谉 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇 讜讛驻砖专讜 讝讛讜 讘砖讜诇讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇诪讬诪专 讛驻砖专讜 诇讗 讝讛讜 讘砖讜诇讜 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 砖诪谉 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇 讜讛驻砖专讜 讝讛讜 讘砖讜诇讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻诇讗讞专 讬讚

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讞讚 砖诪谉 讜讗讞讚 诪讬诐 讬讚 住讜诇讚转 讘讜 讗住讜专 讗讬谉 讬讚 住讜诇讚转 讘讜 诪讜转专 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讬讚 住讜诇讚转 讘讜 讗诪专 专讞讘讗 讻诇 砖讻专讬住讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 谞讻讜讬转

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, Ra岣va, said: Any water that could cause a baby鈥檚 stomach to be scalded is considered water from which the hand spontaneously recoils.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞讻谞住转讬 讗讞专 专讘讬 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘拽砖转讬 诇讛谞讬讞 诇讜 驻讱 砖诇 砖诪谉 讘讗诪讘讟讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讟讜诇 讘讻诇讬 砖谞讬 讜转谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖诪谉 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇讬 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讘砖诇 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛驻砖专讜 讝讛讜 讘砖讜诇讜

Rav Yitz岣k 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.

讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讜转专 诇讛专讛专 讞讜抓 诪讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 讞讜诇 诪讜转专 诇讗讜诪专谉 讘诇砖讜谉 拽讜讚砖 砖诇 拽讜讚砖 讗住讜专 诇讗讜诪专谉 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讜诇 讗驻专讜砖讬 诪讗讬住讜专讗 砖讗谞讬

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鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檛 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.

转讚注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪注砖讛 讘转诇诪讬讚讜 砖诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖谞讻谞住 讗讞专讬讜 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讘拽砖 诇讛讚讬讞 拽专拽注 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪讚讬讞讬谉 诇住讜讱 诇讜 拽专拽注 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谉 住讻讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讗驻专讜砖讬 诪讗讬住讜专讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗驻专讜砖讬 诪讗讬住讜专讗 砖讗谞讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛诪讘砖诇 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 诪注砖讛 讚专讘讬 诇讗讞专 讙讝讬专讛 讛讜讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟讜诇 讘讻诇讬 砖谞讬 讜转谉 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛诪讘砖诇 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 谞诪讬 讚拽讗诪专 诪讻转 诪专讚讜转

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鈥檛 Rav 岣sda 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗谞讗 讞讝讬转讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚砖讟 讘讗诪讘讟讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 注拽专 讗讬 诇讗 注拽专 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 注拽专 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬砖讜讟 讗讚诐 讘讘专讬讻讛 诪诇讗讛 诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诪讚转 讘讞爪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗

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鈥檚 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

Scroll To Top