Shabbat 40b (מ:) — the Talmud in English

For this tanna,

is the tanna of the beraita who said: “When violators of the prohibition became numerous, they began to prohibit [sweating].” Thus, he called those who bathe on Shabbat in hot water heated on the eve of Shabbat “violators of the prohibition,” even though this bathing is prohibited only by rabbinic decree.

And the Gemara explains the conclusion of the beraita:

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

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

Rava said: Specifically,

the bathhouses of

the large cities

were permitted, despite the fact that he sweats, because he did not enter there for that purpose;

but

in the bathhouses

of the villages, it is not

permitted by the Sages to walk about in them.

What is the reason? Since they are small,

being small,

their heat is abundant;

they contain great heat, and he is therefore like one who entered initially in order to sweat. This is included in the decree by which sweating was prohibited.

The Sages taught: A person may warm

his body

opposite a fire

on Shabbat,

and he may go out and rinse himself with cold water,

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

Provided that he does not first rinse himself with cold water

and, while his body is still wet, sit

and warm himself opposite the fire, because he is warming

heating

the water upon him,

and it appears as though he bathed in hot water.

The Sages taught: A person may warm an aluntit

[a towel] when he feels discomfort in his intestines,

and place it on his intestines

on Shabbat,

since this is his remedy.

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

because the Sages were concerned that hot water might spill from the kettle onto his body, with the result that he would be bathing in hot water on Shabbat.

And this matter—

placing a kettle of hot water on the intestines—

is prohibited even on a weekday, because of

the danger,

lest the water spill onto his body and scald him.

The Sages taught: A person may bring a jug

of

water

that is cold,

and place it opposite the fire

on Shabbat, but

he may not

leave it there

in order [

until]

that it becomes hot

so that the hand recoils from it;

rather,

only

in order

until

its coldness dissipates

;

and immediately, once it has warmed, he must remove the water from opposite the fire.

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

and place it opposite the fire

on Shabbat, but

she may not

place it there

in order [

until]

that the oil cooks,

since cooking also applies to oil on Shabbat;

rather, in order that it become warm,

and as soon as it becomes warm she must take it away.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

It is prohibited to place oil opposite the fire in order that it become warm, because its warming is its cooking; but it is permitted to warm oil in an unusual manner, indirectly. Therefore,

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

about cooking.

They raised a dilemma: Oil—

what is its status,

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

according to the first tanna?

The amoraim disputed the view of the first tanna:

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say:

The first tanna disagrees and maintains that oil differs from water,

to permit it.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The first tanna maintains that oil differs from water,

to prohibit it.

The Gemara explains the dispute between the tanna’im according to Rabba and Rav Yosef:

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say

that the first tanna maintains with regard to oil

that it is permitted,

and therefore placing

oil

near the fire

is permitted even if the hand recoils from it;

they explain the dispute between the tanna’im as follows:

The first tanna holds

that

oil is not subject to

the prohibition of

cooking

on Shabbat.

And Rabbi Yehuda came to say: Oil is subject to 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 becomes warm, since it does not cook until the hand recoils from it,

and its warming is not its cooking.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say: Oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking,

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; therefore, it is prohibited to place it near a fire until it reaches a temperature at which one’s hand recoils from it,

and

it is even prohibited to warm it slightly near the fire, since

this warming is its cooking;

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

The Gemara explains the dispute between the tannaitic opinions according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

According to the first tanna, oil differs from water

with regard to prohibition

in the stringent direction, for placing

oil

near a bonfire

is prohibited even when one’s hand does not recoil from it.

And this is the dispute between the tannaim:

The first tanna holds

that

oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking, and this warming is its cooking.

And Rabbi Yehuda came to say: Its warming

of oil

is not its cooking;

therefore, it is permitted to place oil near a fire so that it will warm, as long as one’s hand does not recoil from it. But if one’s hand does recoil from it, it is prohibited, because oil is subject to cooking.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say: Oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking, and this warming is its cooking,

and it is prohibited even to warm it.

The Gemara is astonished:

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

For the first tanna also holds that oil is subject to cooking and that its warming is its cooking.

And we explain:

There is a difference between them

with regard to warming performed in an unusual manner,

in an unusual manner.

According to the first tanna, all warming is prohibited, even when 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

one’s hand recoils from it, it is prohibited; if one’s hand does not recoil from it, it is permitted.

The Gemara explains:

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

How is this degree of heat measured? After all, there are people whose hands recoil from mild heat, while others recoil only from considerable heat.

Reḥava said: Any heat at which a baby’s belly would be scalded

by it is the measure of heat at which one’s hand recoils.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: Once I entered after Rabbi

into the bathhouse

of the hot springs of Tiberias,

and I wished to place a flask of oil for him in the bath

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

And he said to me

—Rabbi—

Take

water

in a secondary vessel, and put

the oil into the secondary vessel.

The Gemara infers from this incident:

Learn from this three things —

three novel legal principles: First,

learn from this—

oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking,

and therefore it is prohibited to place it in a primary vessel.

Second,

and learn from this—

only a primary vessel cooks, but

a secondary vessel does not cook.

Third,

and learn from this—

the warming

of oil in a primary vessel fit for cooking

is its cooking.

And the Gemara discusses:

How could he do this?

How could Rabbi issue a ruling to his student in a bathhouse?

But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Everywhere it is permitted to think

about words of Torah

except in a bathhouse and a lavatory,

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

And if you would say

that Rabbi

spoke to him in non-sacred language

—to Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi—and it is permitted to issue a ruling in non-sacred language.

The difficulty nevertheless remains:

But didn’t Abaye say: Secular matters may be spoken

in

the bathhouse

even

in the sacred language,

whereas matters

of sanctity may not be spoken

in the bathhouse, even

in a non-sacred language?

It is therefore clear that it is prohibited to issue a ruling even in non-sacred language.

The Gemara answers:

Preventing a transgression is different;

it is permitted to issue a ruling in a bathhouse in order to prevent a person from transgressing. Therefore, Rabbi instructed Rabbi Yitzḥak not to place the oil in a primary vessel, so that he would not cook it.

The Gemara brings proof that it is permitted to issue a ruling in a bathhouse in order to prevent a transgression:

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

the

floor, and he said to him

—Rabbi Meir—

“One may not wash it,”

lest he come to level depressions in the ground. And he likewise wished

to anoint the floor, and he said to him: “One may not anoint it.”

Thus, Rabbi Meir instructed him that it is prohibited to wash or anoint the floor on Shabbat,

clearly, preventing a transgression is different,

and if so,

here too

one can say that Rabbi told his student, “Take it in a secondary vessel,” since

preventing a transgression is different.

Ravina said: Learn from this

incident, in which Rabbi prohibited placing oil in the bath, because of the prohibition of cooking, that

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

to bring a sin-offering.

For this was the incident involving Rabbi, after the decree had been enacted

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 enacted the decree

and

even so,

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

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

Is that so? But Rav Ḥisda 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.

The Gemara answers:

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

Ravina means:

liable to lashes for rebelliousness

by rabbinic law.

Rav Zeira said: I saw Rabbi Abbahu swimming [

floating] on Shabbat

in a bath.

And we learned in tractate Beitza [36b]: One may not swim on the surface of the water, due to a decree lest he fashion for himself a swimmer’s vessel [a boat in which to swim].

And I do not know

how the incident occurred:

Did he lift

Rabbi Abbahu his feet off the ground, holding that it is permitted to float in a bath, since the Sages enacted a decree only concerning one who swims in a river, lest he fashion for himself a swimmer’s vessel; but in a bath, where there is no reason for such concern, they did not enact the decree?

Or did he not lift

Rabbi Abbahu his feet, because of the decree lest he fashion a swimmer’s vessel? Although in a bath there is no reason to fear that he might fashion a swimmer’s vessel, the Sages 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 challenges this:

It is obvious that he did not lift them,

because they enacted 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 that he might fashion a swimmer’s vessel in the pool,

and even

if the pool

is situated in a courtyard,

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

The Gemara answers: It is indeed possible that Rabbi Abbahu lifted his

feet

and swam, because the Sages did not enact a prohibition against swimming in a bath or in a pool. And what we find in the beraita, that it is prohibited to swim even in a pool,

is not difficult,