Shabbat 40b — the Talmud in English

for this is the tanna,

he is the tanna of the beraita who said, “When transgressors became numerous, they began to prohibit [sweating]”; thus, he called those who bathe on Shabbat in hot water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat “transgressors,” although this bathing is prohibited only by the decree of the Sages.

And the Gemara explains the conclusion of the beraita:

“In the bathhouses of the large cities, he may walk in them and need not be concerned,”

lest they say that he entered them in order to sweat.

Rava said: Specifically,

the bathhouses of

large cities

they permitted walking in them, even though he sweats, because he did not enter there for that purpose,

but

in the bathhouses

of villages, they did not

permit the Sages to walk in them.

What is the reason? Since they are small,

for they are small,

their heat is great,

there is great heat in them, and it is therefore as though he entered initially in order to sweat; and this is included in the decree by which they prohibited sweating.

The Sages taught: A person may warm

his body

opposite the fire

on Shabbat,

and go out and wash himself with cold water,

although his body is hot, and there is no concern that he will heat the water that comes upon him and that it will cook.

provided that he does not wash himself with cold water

first, and while his body is wet, sit

and warm himself opposite the fire, because he warms

heats

the water upon him,

and it appears as though he bathed in hot water.

The Sages taught: A person may warm a towel

a towel, when he feels pain in his intestines,

and place it upon his intestines

on Shabbat,

for this is his remedy.

provided that he does not bring a kettle of hot water and place it upon his intestines on Shabbat,

because the Sages were concerned lest hot water spill from the kettle onto his body, and it would be found that he is bathing in hot water on Shabbat.

And this matter —

placing a kettle with hot water upon the intestines —

is prohibited even on a weekday, because of

the danger,

lest the water spill onto his body and burn him.

The Sages taught: A person may bring a pitcher

of

water

that is cold,

and place it opposite the fire

on Shabbat, but

he may not

place it there

in order [until]

[that is, until]

that they become hot

so that the hand recoils from them,

but

only

in order

until

their

coldness departs,

and immediately, once they warm, he must remove the water from opposite the fire.

Rabbi Judah says: A woman may bring a flask of oil

and place it opposite the fire

on Shabbat, but

she may not

place it

in order [until]

[that is, until]

that the oil cooks

the oil, for there is also a prohibition of cooking on Shabbat with oil,

but in order that it warm,

and immediately, when it warms, she must take it from there.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says:

it is prohibited to place oil opposite the fire in order that it warm, because its warming is its cooking; but it is permitted to heat oil with a change, in an indirect manner. Therefore,

a woman may anoint her hand with oil and warm it opposite the fire, and anoint her small son, and need not be concerned,

on account of cooking.

They raised a question before them: Oil —

what is its law,

what is its law? Is it permitted to warm it near the fire

according to the first tanna?

And the amoraim disputed the opinion of the first tanna:

Rabba and Rav Yosef both said:

the first tanna disputes [Rabbi Judah], and holds that oil differs from water,

for permissibility.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

the first tanna holds that oil differs from water,

for prohibition.

And the Gemara explains the dispute of the tannaim according to Rabba and Rav Yosef:

Rabba and Rav Yosef both said

that the first tanna holds regarding oil

for permissibility,

and therefore to place

oil

near the fire

even though the hand recoils from it, is permitted;

they explain the dispute of the tannaim in this manner:

The first tanna holds

that

with oil there is no

prohibition of

cooking

on Shabbat.

And Rabbi Judah came to say: Oil does have the prohibition of cooking,

and therefore it is prohibited to place oil near the fire until the hand recoils from it, but it is permitted to place it near the fire until it warms, since it does not cook until after the hand recoils from it,

and its warming is not its cooking.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel came to say: Oil is subject to cooking,

in accordance with the words of Rabbi Judah, and therefore it is forbidden to place it near the fire until it reaches a temperature at which the hand recoils from it,

and

even to thaw it slightly near the fire is forbidden, since

this thawing is its cooking,

but in an unusual manner, by means of a change, it is permitted.

The Gemara explains the dispute of the tannaim according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

For the first tanna, oil differs from water

for prohibition

in the stringent sense, because to place

oil

near a bonfire,

even though the hand does not recoil from it, is forbidden.

And this is the dispute of the tannaim:

He holds

the first tanna

that oil is subject to cooking, and its thawing is its cooking.

And Rabbi Judah came to say: Its thawing

of oil

is not its cooking,

and therefore it is permitted to place oil so that it will thaw near a bonfire as long as the hand does not recoil from it; but if the hand recoils from it, it is forbidden, because there is cooking with oil.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say: Oil is subject to cooking, and its thawing is its cooking,

and it is forbidden even to thaw it.

The Gemara is astonished:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is the same as the first tanna!?

For the first tanna also holds that there is cooking with oil and that its thawing is its cooking.

And we explain:

There is between them

thawing performed in an unusual manner,

in an unusual manner.

For the first tanna, every thawing is forbidden, even if it is performed in an unusual manner. But according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is permitted.

And we conclude:

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Both oil and water

have the same law: if

the hand recoils from it, it is forbidden; if the hand does not recoil from it, it is permitted.

And the Gemara explains:

And what is the definition of a temperature at which the hand recoils from it?

How does one assess the degree of heat? For there are people whose hands recoil from mild heat, while others recoil only from considerable heat?

Rav Reḥava said: Anything by which a child’s belly would be scalded

from the heat—this is the measure of a temperature at which the hand recoils from it.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: Once I entered after Rabbi

into the bathhouse

of the hot springs of Tiberias,

and I sought to place a flask of oil for him in the bathing pool

which is a first vessel , in order to thaw the oil, so that he could anoint himself with it before bathing.

And he said to me

Rabbi,

Take

from the water

in a second vessel, and put

the oil into a second vessel.

The Gemara infers from this incident:

Derive three things from this—

three novel laws: A.

Derive from this—

oil is subject to cooking,

and therefore it is forbidden to place it in a first vessel.

B.

And derive from this—

only a first vessel cooks, but

a second vessel does not cook.

C.

And derive from this—

the thawing

of oil in a first vessel fit for cooking

is its cooking.

And the Gemara discusses:

How did he do this?

How did Rabbi instruct his student in the bathhouse,

for Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Everywhere it is permitted to contemplate

words of Torah,

except in a bathhouse and a lavatory,

because it is stated: “And your camp shall be holy.” [Deuteronomy 23:15, cited below, 154...]

And if you will say

that Rabbi

said it to him in ordinary language

to Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi, and it is permitted to issue a ruling in ordinary language.

It is still difficult:

For Abaye said: Matters of ordinary concern may be said

in the

bathhouse

even

in the holy language,

but matters

of holiness may not be said

in the bathhouse, even

in an ordinary language,

and it is thus clear that it is forbidden to issue a ruling even in ordinary language.

And the Gemara answers:

Separating from a prohibition is different;

it is permitted to issue a ruling in the bathhouse in order to separate a person from a prohibition. Therefore, Rabbi instructed Rabbi Yitzḥak not to insulate it in a first vessel, so that he would not cook it.

And the Gemara brings proof that it is permitted to issue a ruling in the bathhouse in order to separate from a prohibition:

Know this, for Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There was an incident involving a student of Rabbi Meir who entered after him into the bathhouse, and he sought to wash

and rinse the

floor, and he said to him

Rabbi Meir,

“One does not rinse it,”

lest he come to level hollows. And likewise he sought

to anoint the floor for him; he said to him, “One does not anoint it.”

Thus Rabbi Meir instructed that it is forbidden to rinse and anoint the floor on Shabbat,

clearly, separating from a prohibition is different,

and if so,

here too

one may say that Rabbi said to his student, “Take in a second vessel,” since

separating from a prohibition is different.

Ravina said: Derive from this

from that incident, in which Rabbi prohibited placing oil in the bathing pool because of the prohibition of cooking, that

one who cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias on Shabbat is liable

for a sin-offering.

For the incident involving Rabbi took place after the decree

that they prohibited bathing in hot water on Shabbat; and if so, he certainly bathed in the hot springs of Tiberias, concerning which they had not issued the decree,

and

even so

he said to him: “Take it in a secondary vessel and give it,”

which shows that the hot springs of Tiberias cook. And we raise an objection:

Is that so? For Rav Hisda said: One who cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias on Shabbat is exempt

from a sin-offering, since the hot springs of Tiberias were heated by the sun, and derivatives of the sun are not prohibited by Torah law.

And the Gemara answers:

What does Ravina also mean when he says “liable”?

Ravina means:

liable for disciplinary lashes

by rabbinic law.

Rav Zeira said: I saw Rabbi Abbahu swimming

[floating] on Shabbat

in a bathtub.

And we learned in tractate Beitzah [36b]: One may not swim on the surface of the water, lest he make for himself a swimmer’s barrel [a boat with which to swim].

And I do not know

how the incident occurred:

If he lifted

Rabbi Abbahu his feet from the ground, then he held that it is permitted to float in a bathtub, since the Sages issued a decree only concerning one who swims in a river, lest he make for himself a swimmer’s barrel; but in a bathtub, where there is no reason for such concern, they did not issue a decree.

If he did not lift

Rabbi Abbahu his feet, it was because of the decree lest he make a swimmer’s barrel. And although in a bathtub there is no reason for the concern that he might make a swimmer’s barrel, the Rabbis did not distinguish within their decree; but if he did not lift his feet, he was not swimming, and the Sages did not prohibit it.

The Gemara is astonished:

It is obvious that he did not lift them,

because they issued the decree everywhere,

as it was taught in a beraita: A person may not swim

in a pool full of water,

even though there is no concern lest he make a swimmer’s barrel in the pool,

and even

if the pool

is situated in a courtyard,

where there is no concern lest he splash water a distance of four cubits, it is prohibited to swim in it. If so, Rabbi Abbahu certainly did not lift his feet.

And the Gemara answers: It is possible that Rabbi Abbahu did lift his

feet

and swam, because the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting swimming in a bathtub or a pool. As for what we find in the beraita, that it is prohibited to swim even in a pool,

it is not difficult,