שבת מ

שבת מ

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