Shabbat 40a — the Talmud in English

And furthermore, this ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

Rabbi Akiva retracted his position before Rabbi Joshua,

and conceded his words.

And it is possible that from this Rabbah bar bar Hannah learned that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah: for with regard to rinsing in hot water, he held like Rabbi Meir, who prohibited it, and in this there is a majority 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 there is a majority against Rabbi Meir, who prohibited it. It follows that for all of Rabbi Judah’s positions there is a majority to decide in accordance with him.

Rabbah bar bar Hannah said to Rav Yosef:

And if [I learned it] from this inference,

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

what

difference does it make to you?

Rav Yosef said to him: If indeed you did not hear explicitly from Rabbi Yohanan that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah, but only learned this from the general principle that Rabbi Yohanan stated, it is possible to reject [your inference]:

Perhaps

what Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi, that the halakha is in accordance with the words of the decisive opinion,

that statement applies

to disputes that Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] brought

in the Mishna, but

with regard to disputes stated only

in a beraita, we do not

decide in accordance with the words of the decisive opinion. And since the dispute of Rabbi Judah, Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Shimon was brought not in the Mishna but in a beraita, one cannot prove from Rabbi Yohanan’s words that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah.

Rabbah bar bar Hannah said to him

to Rav Yosef:

I heard it explicitly

from Rabbi Yohanan that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah, and I did not learn this merely from an inference.

It was stated: Water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat,

by law one may bathe his entire body in it, but the Sages decreed [as follows] that one may not bathe his entire body.

And how much is he permitted to bathe?

Rav said: On the morrow

on Shabbat,

he may bathe his entire body in it,

but not all at once; rather,

limb by limb.

And Shmuel said: They permitted bathing

the entire body limb by limb

only

only

his face, his hands, and his feet

are permitted.

He raised an objection: Water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat; on the morrow

on Shabbat,

he may wash his face, hands, and feet in it, but not his entire body,

thus it is evident that only his face, hands, and feet may be washed.

A refutation of Rav,

who permitted washing the entire body limb by limb.

And the Gemara answers:

Rav could say to you:

What we learned in the beraita, “but

not his entire body,”

means that he should not wash his entire body

all at once, but

only

limb by limb.

And we raise an objection:

But

in the beraita it teaches, “He may wash his

face, hands, and feet in it,”

and it implies that it is forbidden to wash his other limbs?

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

in the manner of

washing

his face, hands, and feet,

for he washes each one separately.

And the Gemara again raises an objection to Rav:

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

It implies that only his face, hands, and feet may be washed, and not his entire body limb by limb.

And Rav answers:

Here too,

the meaning of the beraita is that they permitted washing the entire body

in the manner of

washing

his face, hands, and feet.

That is, his entire body limb by limb.

And the conclusion of the Gemara is:

A beraita was taught in accordance with Shmuel:

Water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat,

then

on the morrow he may wash his face, hands, and feet in it, but not his entire body limb by limb.

And it is not necessary to say

that it is forbidden to wash his entire body, even limb by limb, in

water that was heated on a Festival,

but washing his face, hands, and feet is permitted.

Rabbah taught this statement of Rav in this wording:

Water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat,

then

on the morrow

one does not wash his entire body in it all at once. And what does he wash?

Rav said: He washes his entire body in it, but leaves one limb

that he does not wash.

He raised an objection

to Rav from

all these refutations

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

And according to Rabbah’s explanation of Rav, it is impossible to reconcile this as we answered above, that the intention of the beraitot is that one washes his entire body in the manner of washing his face, hands, and feet, which means limb by limb, for according to Rabbah, Rav holds that one washes his entire body all at once and leaves one limb. And we conclude:

A refutation.

Rav Yosef said to Abaye

Did Rabbah act in accordance with Rav’s statement

that it is permitted to wash one’s entire body in water heated on the eve of Shabbat, provided that he leaves one limb?

He said to him,

Abaye to Rav Yosef:

I do not know

how Rabbah conducted himself—whether like Rav or like Shmuel, in accordance with whom the halakha is.

The Gemara wonders:

What does he need to ask him

Rav Yosef, whether Rabbah acted like Rav?

For it is obvious that he did not act

like him,

for Rav was refuted

by all the beraitot brought above.

And the Gemara answers: Rav Yosef held that Rabbah

had not heard

the objections that the Gemara raised against Rav.

And the Gemara wonders about its answer: If so, the opposite should be asked: Why did it occur to Rav Yosef to be uncertain whether Rabbah acted like Rav?

And if he had not heard

Rav’s objections from the Gemara, then

certainly

Rabbah

acted

like Rav.

And the reason is:

For Abaye said: In every matter of the master,

in all of the actions of his uncle Rabbah,

he acted

he used to act

like Rav,

even when the amoraim disputed him.

Except,

apart

from these three,

three matters

in which he acted like Shmuel.

And these are they:

a. According to Shmuel,

they place—

they take the threads of

the

tzitzit

from a garment

that is old, and place them

on a garment

that he wishes to wrap himself in; but Rav prohibits this, because it involves contempt for a mitzva.

b.

And

likewise, according to Shmuel,

they light

a Hanukkah lamp by taking a splinter and lighting it

from a lamp

that is burning, in order to light

another lamp, but Rav prohibits this because of degradation of a mitzva.

c. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon disputed the law of performing on Shabbat an act concerning which one does not intend, such as dragging a bed across the ground, whereby a furrow is made in the earth as a result of the dragging, which is the labor of plowing, except that he did not intend this labor [and it is not inevitable that the furrow will be made]. Rabbi Judah prohibits it, and Rabbi Shimon permits it,

c. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disputed the law concerning performing an unintended act on Shabbat—for example, dragging a bed across the ground, which causes a furrow to be made in the soil. Making such a furrow is the labor of plowing, but he did not intend to perform this labor [and the furrow is not inevitable]. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits this, while Rabbi Shimon permits it,

and

Shmuel ruled

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

while Rav ruled in accordance with Rabbi Judah.

And apart from these three matters, Rabbah conducted himself in every matter like Rav. It is reasonable that in this law as well Rabbah conducted himself like Rav, who permitted washing one’s entire body except for one limb. If so, why was Rav Yosef uncertain whether Rabbah acted like Rav?

And the Gemara answers: Rabbah

acted only according to Rav’s stringencies,

but

did not act according to Rav’s leniencies,

and therefore, with regard to washing, where Rav was lenient, Rav Yosef was uncertain whether Rabbah acted like him or not.

The Sages taught: A bathhouse whose openings they sealed

so that more heat would not enter,

before Shabbat,

it is forbidden to bathe in it on Shabbat, for they issued a decree concerning bathing; but

at the conclusion of Shabbat, one may bathe in it immediately

and he need not wait the time required for the work to be done, since it was not heated on Shabbat.

The perforations were stopped up on the eve of the Festival -

On the morrow

on the Festival it is forbidden for him to bathe, since they decreed concerning bathhouses that one may not bathe even when they were heated on the eve of the Festival, but

he entered

the bathhouse on the Festival

and sweated.

And

if he wishes to rinse himself, he may not rinse himself inside, lest they suspect him, as though he had rinsed himself or bathed in hot water, but

he goes out and rinses himself in the outer room.

Rav Yehuda said: There was an incident involving a bathhouse of the sons of Benei Brak whose perforations were stopped up on the eve of the Festival. On the morrow Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Akiva entered and sweated in it, and they went out

and rinsed themselves in the outer room.

But

they added a stringency and rinsed themselves in the outer room of the bathhouse,

whose hot water was covered with boards,

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

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 it was unnecessary to be stringent in this matter, but

even though

its hot water is not covered with boards,

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

And when transgressors became numerous,

as it is 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, in which there is not much steam, they did not decree concerning them. Therefore,

he walks about in them

as is his manner and sweats,

and he has no concern,

that people will say that he is doing so in order to sweat. And the Gemara explains what was stated in the beraita: “When transgressors became numerous, they began to prohibit sweating,” and in the course of this it will explain how they began to decree.

What are “transgressors”?

For 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 that had been heated on the eve of Shabbat.

The bath attendants began to heat

the water

on Shabbat, and they would say: “It was heated on the eve of Shabbat,”

and therefore

the Sages prohibited

the

hot water,

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

and they permitted sweating,

in water that had been heated on the eve of Shabbat.

And there were still

transgressors

bathing in hot water,

and transgressing the decree of the Sages,

saying, “We are sweating,”

and in order to uphold the decree prohibiting bathing,

the Sages prohibited for them

also

the sweating,

and they permitted

bathing in

the hot springs of Tiberias,

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

And there were still

transgressors

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

And therefore

the Sages prohibited for them

also bathing in

the hot springs of Tiberias,

so that transgressors would not be able to bathe in water heated on the eve of Shabbat,

and they permitted for them

only

the cold water,

to bathe in cold water.

Afterward

they saw

the Sages

that the matter could not stand for them,

for the public could not withstand the decree that they prohibited everything to them except cold water, they returned and

permitted them

to bathe in

the hot springs of Tiberias,

and all the more so in cold water.

And sweating remains in its place —

in its prohibition, so that they would not come to bathe in hot water and say, “We are sweating.”

Rava said: One who transgresses the decree of the Sages,

concerning a decree of the Sages,

it is permitted to call him

it is permitted to call him

a transgressor.

In accordance with whom,

where do we find this law?