Shabbat 40

הדר ביה רבי עקיבא לגביה דרבי יהושע ואי מכללא מאי דילמא הני מילי במתניתין אבל בברייתא לא אמר ליה אנא בפירוש שמיע לי

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.

אתמר חמין שהוחמו מערב שבת רב אמר למחר רוחץ בהן כל גופו אבר אבר ושמואל אמר לא התירו לרחוץ אלא פניו ידיו ורגליו מיתיבי חמין שהוחמו מערב שבת למחר רוחץ בהן פניו ידיו ורגליו אבל לא כל גופו תיובתא דרב אמר לך רב לא כל גופו בבת אחת אלא אבר אבר והא פניו ידיו ורגליו קתני כעין פניו ידיו ורגליו

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.

תא שמע לא התירו לרחוץ בחמין שהוחמו מערב שבת אלא פניו ידיו ורגליו הכא נמי כעין פניו ידיו ורגליו

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.

תניא כוותיה דשמואל חמין שהוחמו מערב שבת למחר רוחץ בהן פניו ידיו ורגליו אבל לא כל גופו אבר אבר ואין צריך לומר חמין שהוחמו ביום טוב רבה מתני לה להא שמעתא דרב בהאי לישנא חמין שהוחמו מערב שבת למחר אמר רב רוחץ בהן כל גופו ומשייר אבר אחד איתיביה כל הני תיובתא תיובתא

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.

אמר ליה רב יוסף לאביי רבה מי קא עביד כשמעתיה דרב אמר ליה לא ידענא מאי תיבעי ליה פשיטא דלא עביד דהא איתותב (דילמא) לא שמיעא ליה

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.

ואי לא שמיעא ליה ודאי עביד דאמר אביי כל מילי דמר עביד כרב בר מהני תלת דעביד כשמואל מטילין מבגד לבגד ומדליקין מנר לנר והלכה כרבי שמעון בגרירה כחומרי דרב עביד כקולי דרב לא עביד

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.

תנו רבנן מרחץ שפקקו נקביו מערב שבת למוצאי שבת רוחץ בו מיד פקקו נקביו מיום טוב למחר נכנס ומזיע ויוצא ומשתטף בבית החיצון

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.

אמר רב יהודה מעשה במרחץ של בני ברק שפקקו נקביו מערב יום טוב למחר נכנס רבי אלעזר בן עזריה ורבי עקיבא והזיעו בו ויצאו ונשתטפו בבית החיצון אלא שחמין שלו מחופין בנסרים כשבא הדבר לפני חכמים אמרו אף על פי שאין חמין שלו מחופין בנסרין ומשרבו עוברי עבירה התחילו לאסור אמבטיאות של כרכין מטייל בהן ואינו חושש

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.

מאי עוברי עבירה דאמר רבי שמעון בן פזי אמר יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא בתחילה היו רוחצין בחמין שהוחמו מערב שבת התחילו הבלנים להחם בשבת ואומרים מערב שבת הוחמו אסרו את החמין והתירו את הזיעה ועדיין היו רוחצין בחמין ואומרים מזיעין אנחנו אסרו להן את הזיעה והתירו חמי טבריה ועדיין היו רוחצין בחמי האור ואומרים בחמי טבריה רחצנו אסרו להן חמי טבריה והתירו להן את הצונן ראו שאין הדבר עומד להן התירו להן חמי טבריה וזיעה במקומה עומדת

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.

אמר רבא האי מאן דעבר אדרבנן שרי למיקרי ליה עבריינא כמאן

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?

כי האי תנא

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

אמבטיאות של כרכים מטייל בהן ואינו חושש אמר רבא דוקא כרכין אבל דכפרים לא מאי טעמא כיון דזוטרין נפיש הבלייהו

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.

תנו רבנן מתחמם אדם כנגד המדורה ויוצא ומשתטף בצונן ובלבד שלא ישתטף בצונן ויתחמם כנגד המדורה מפני שמפשיר מים שעליו תנו רבנן מיחם אדם אלונטית ומניחה על בני מעים בשבת ובלבד שלא יביא קומקומוס של מים חמין ויניחנו על בני מעים בשבת ודבר זה אפילו בחול אסור מפני הסכנה

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.

תנו רבנן מביא אדם קיתון מים ומניחו כנגד המדורה לא בשביל שיחמו אלא בשביל שתפיג צינתן רבי יהודה אומר מביאה אשה פך של שמן ומניחתו כנגד המדורה לא בשביל שיבשל אלא בשביל שיפשר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אשה סכה ידה שמן ומחממתה כנגד המדורה וסכה לבנה קטן ואינה חוששת

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.

איבעיא להו שמן מה הוא לתנא קמא רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו להתירא רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר לאיסורא רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו להתירא שמן אף על פי שהיד סולדת בו מותר קסבר תנא קמא שמן אין בו משום בשול ואתא רבי יהודה למימר שמן יש בו משום בשול והפשרו לא זה הוא בשולו ואתא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל למימר שמן יש בו משום בשול והפשרו זהו בשולו

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.

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר לאיסורא שמן אף על פי שאין היד סולדת בו אסור קסבר שמן יש בו משום בשול והפשרו זהו בשולו ואתא רבי יהודה למימר הפשרו לא זהו בשולו ואתא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל למימר שמן יש בו משום בשול והפשרו זהו בשולו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל היינו תנא קמא איכא בינייהו כלאחר יד

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.

אמר רבי יהודה אמר שמואל אחד שמן ואחד מים יד סולדת בו אסור אין יד סולדת בו מותר והיכי דמי יד סולדת בו אמר רחבא כל שכריסו של תינוק נכוית

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.

אמר רבי יצחק בר אבדימי פעם אחת נכנסתי אחר רבי לבית המרחץ ובקשתי להניח לו פך של שמן באמבטי ואמר לי טול בכלי שני ותן שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה שמן יש בו משום בשול ושמע מינה כלי שני אינו מבשל ושמע מינה הפשרו זהו בשולו

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.

היכי עביד הכי והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן בכל מקום מותר להרהר חוץ מבית המרחץ ובית הכסא וכי תימא בלשון חול אמר ליה והאמר אביי דברים של חול מותר לאומרן בלשון קודש של קודש אסור לאומרן בלשון חול אפרושי מאיסורא שאני

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.

תדע דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מעשה בתלמידו של רבי מאיר שנכנס אחריו לבית המרחץ ובקש להדיח קרקע ואמר לו אין מדיחין לסוך לו קרקע אמר לו אין סכין אלמא אפרושי מאיסורא שאני הכא נמי לאפרושי מאיסורא שאני

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.

אמר רבינא שמע מינה המבשל בחמי טבריא בשבת חייב דהא מעשה דרבי לאחר גזירה הוה ואמר ליה טול בכלי שני ותן איני והאמר רב חסדא המבשל בחמי טבריא בשבת פטור מאי חייב נמי דקאמר מכת מרדות

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.

אמר רבי זירא אנא חזיתיה לרבי אבהו דשט באמבטי ולא ידענא אי עקר אי לא עקר פשיטא דלא עקר דתניא לא ישוט אדם בבריכה מלאה מים ואפילו עומדת בחצר לא קשיא הא

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