Shabbat 40a (מ.) — the Talmud in English

Furthermore, this

Rabbi Akiva subsequently retracted his position in favor of Rabbi Yehoshua,

and conceded his argument.

And it is possible that Rabbah bar bar Ḥana learned from this general principle that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. For with regard to rinsing in hot water, he held like Rabbi Meir, who prohibited it, and in this matter the majority is against Rabbi Shimon, who permitted it; and with regard to rinsing in cold water, he held like Rabbi Shimon, who permitted it, and in this matter the majority is against Rabbi Meir, who prohibited it. It follows that with regard to every statement of Rabbi Yehuda, there is a majority to determine the halakha in accordance with him.

Rabbah bar bar Ḥana said to Rav Yosef,

And if it was from this general principle,

if indeed I learned that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda from this principle, and I did not hear this explicitly,

what

difference does this make to you?

Rav Yosef said to him: If indeed you did not hear explicitly from Rabbi Yoḥanan that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, but learned it only from the general principle that Rabbi Yoḥanan stated, it is possible to reject this proof:

Perhaps

what Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi, that the halakha follows the decisive opinion,

that statement applies

to disputes that Rabbi included

in a Mishna; but

with regard to disputes stated only

in a beraita, we do not

rule in accordance with the decisive opinion. Since the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Shimon was not brought in the Mishna, but only in a beraita, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement cannot prove that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbah bar bar Ḥana said

to Rav Yosef:

I heard it explicitly

from Rabbi Yoḥanan that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda; I did not learn this merely from the general principle.

It was stated: With regard to hot water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat,

by strict law one may bathe his entire body in it, but the Sages issued a decree [as follows] prohibiting bathing one’s entire body.

And how much of his body may he bathe?

Rav said: On the following day

on Shabbat,

he may bathe his entire body in it,

but not all at once; rather,

one limb at a time.

And Shmuel said: They permitted bathing

one’s entire body one limb at a time

only

only

his face, hands, and feet

may be bathed.

The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to hot water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat, on the following day

on Shabbat

one may bathe his face, hands, and feet in it, but not his entire body,

indicating that one may bathe only his face, hands, and feet.

This is a refutation of Rav,

who permitted bathing one’s entire body one limb at a time.

The Gemara answers:

Rav could say to you:

As for what we learned in the beraita, “but

not his entire body,”

the intention is that he may not bathe his entire body

all at once, but

only

one limb at a time.

The Gemara challenges this:

But

the beraita teaches, “He may bathe his

face, hands, and feet in it,”

which implies that it is prohibited to bathe the other limbs.

Rav answers: The meaning of the beraita is that one may bathe his entire body

in the manner of

bathing

one’s face, hands, and feet,

bathing each of them separately.

The Gemara again challenges Rav:

Come and hear: They permitted bathing in hot water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat only one’s face, hands, and feet.

This implies that one may bathe only his face, hands, and feet, but not his entire body one limb at a time.

Rav answers:

Here too,

the meaning of the beraita is that they permitted bathing one’s entire body

in the manner of

bathing

one’s face, hands, and feet.

That is, one’s entire body one limb at a time.

The Gemara concludes:

A beraita was taught in accordance with Shmuel:

With regard to hot water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat,

then

on the following day one may bathe his face, hands, and feet in it, but not his entire body one limb at a time.

And it is unnecessary to say

that it is prohibited to bathe one’s entire body, even one limb at a time, in

hot water that was heated on a Festival,

but one may bathe his face, hands, and feet.

Rabbah taught this teaching of Rav in this wording:

With regard to hot water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat,

then

on the following day

one may not bathe his entire body in it all at once. And what may he bathe?

Rav said: He may bathe his entire body in it, leaving one limb

that he does not bathe.

He raised an objection

to Rav from

all those refutations

that the Gemara raised above from beraitot in which it is stated that one may bathe one’s face, hands, and feet.

According to Rabbah’s understanding of Rav, it is impossible to resolve the objections as we resolved them above, by explaining that the beraitot mean that one may rinse his entire body in the manner of his face, hands, and feet, namely, one limb at a time. For according to Rabbah, Rav holds that one bathes his entire body all at once, leaving one limb. And we conclude:

Tiyuvta.

Rav Yosef said to Abaye

Did Rabbah act in accordance with Rav’s teaching,

that one may bathe his entire body in hot water heated on the eve of Shabbat, provided that he leaves one limb unbathed?

He said to him,

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

I do not know

how Rabbah conducted himself, whether in accordance with Rav or in accordance with Shmuel, whose opinion is the halakha.

The Gemara is surprised:

What was he asking him?

Why did Rav Yosef ask whether Rabbah acted in accordance with Rav? After all,

it is obvious that he did not act

in accordance with him,

as Rav was refuted

by all the beraitot cited above.

The Gemara answers: Rav Yosef held that Rabbah

had not heard

the objections that the Gemara raised against Rav.

The Gemara challenges this answer: If so, the opposite question should be asked: Why did it occur to Rav Yosef to be uncertain whether Rabbah acted in accordance with Rav?

And if he had not heard

Rav’s objections from the Gemara,

certainly

Rabbah

would have acted

in accordance with Rav.

The reason is:

For Abaye said: In every matter of my master,

in all of the actions of his uncle Rabbah,

he acted

he was accustomed to act

in accordance with Rav,

even when the amoraim disagreed with him.

Except

for

these three

things,

in which he acted in accordance with Shmuel.

And these are they:

a. According to Shmuel,

one transfers—

one takes the threads of

the

tzitzit

from an

old garment and places them

on a

different garment that he wishes to wear. Rav prohibits this because it constitutes contempt for a mitzva.

b.

And

likewise, according to Shmuel,

one lights

a Hanukkah lamp by taking a splinter and lighting it

from a

burning lamp in order to light

another lamp

with it. Rav prohibits this because it constitutes degradation of a mitzva.

c. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disputed the law concerning performing an unintended act on Shabbat, such as dragging a bed across the ground, thereby creating a furrow in the earth through the dragging. This is the labor of plowing, but he did not intend this labor [and the furrow is not inevitable]. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits it, whereas Rabbi Shimon permits it.

And

Shmuel ruled

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to dragging,

while Rav ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

Apart from these three matters, Rabbah conducted himself in every matter in accordance with Rav. It is therefore reasonable that in this halakha as well, Rabbah acted in accordance with Rav, who permitted bathing one’s entire body apart from one limb. If so, why was Rav Yosef uncertain whether Rabbah acted in accordance with Rav?

The Gemara answers: Rabbah acted only

in accordance with Rav’s stringencies,

but

he did not act in accordance with Rav’s leniencies.

Therefore, with regard to bathing, in which Rav was lenient, Rav Yosef was uncertain whether Rabbah acted in accordance with him.

The Sages taught: With regard to a bathhouse whose openings were sealed

so that additional heat would not enter,

before Shabbat,

it is prohibited to bathe in it on Shabbat, as they issued a decree prohibiting bathing.

But immediately upon the conclusion of Shabbat, one may bathe in it

and need not wait the period required for the work to be performed, since it was not heated on Shabbat.

On the eve of the Festival –

for the next day

on the Festival it was forbidden for him to bathe, since they decreed concerning bathhouses that one may not bathe even when they had been heated on the eve of the Festival. However, he

entered

the bathhouse on the Festival

and sweated.

And

if he wished to rinse himself, he would not rinse himself inside, lest people suspect him of having rinsed or bathed in hot water; rather, he

would leave and rinse himself in the outer chamber.

Rav Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the bathhouse of the people of Benei Brak, whose openings they sealed on the eve of the Festival. On the following day, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Akiva entered and sweated there, and they left

and rinsed themselves in the outer chamber.

Rather,

they adopted an additional stringency and rinsed themselves in the outer chamber of the bathhouse,

whose hot water was covered with boards,

and they did so so that it would not appear that they had rinsed themselves in water heated on Shabbat.

When the matter came before the Sages,

that they had rinsed themselves in water from a bathhouse whose hot water was covered with boards,

they said

that there was no need to be stringent in this regard. Rather,

even if

its hot water is not covered with boards,

it is permitted to rinse oneself in the outer chamber of the bathhouse.

And when violators became numerous,

as will be explained below, they began heating water so that they could sweat on the Festival,

they began to prohibit

sweating in the bathhouse.

But

the bathhouses of the large cities,

which are large bathhouses that do not contain much steam, were not included in the decree. Therefore,

he walks about in them

as usual and sweats,

and he need not be concerned

that people will say he is doing so in order to sweat. The Gemara explains the statement in the beraita: “When violators became numerous, they began to prohibit sweating,” and in the course of this it will explain how the decrees began.

What are the violators?

As Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: At first,

they would bathe

on Shabbat

in hot water heated on the eve of Shabbat.

The bathhouse attendants began heating

the water

on Shabbat, saying, “It was heated on the eve of Shabbat,”

and therefore

the Sages prohibited

the

hot water,

so that people would not bathe in it even if it had been heated on the eve of Shabbat.

But they permitted sweating

in water heated on the eve of Shabbat.

And there were still

violators

bathing in hot water,

thereby violating the decree of the Sages,

saying, “We are sweating,”

and in order to uphold the decree prohibiting bathing,

the Sages prohibited them

also

from sweating.

But they permitted

bathing in

the hot springs of Tiberias,

since they become hot on their own, and they were not concerned that people would come to permit bathing in water heated by fire.

And there were still

violators

bathing in water heated by fire, saying, “We bathed in the hot springs of Tiberias.”

Therefore,

the Sages prohibited them

also from bathing in

the hot springs of Tiberias,

so that violators would not be able to bathe in hot water heated on the eve of Shabbat.

But they permitted them

only

cold water,

to bathe in cold water.

Afterward

they saw

that the Sages

the matter would not stand for them,

as the public could not endure the decree by which they had prohibited everything except cold water; so they returned and

permitted them

to bathe in

the hot springs of Tiberias,

and all the more so in cold water.

But sweating remained prohibited -

so that they would not come to bathe in hot water and say: “We are merely sweating.”

Rava said: With regard to one who transgresses the words of the Sages,

that is, a decree of the Sages,

it is permitted to call him

a transgressor,

an offender.

In accordance with what,

that is, where do we find this ruling?