Shabbat 41a — the Talmud in English

This:

that which the Sages prohibited—to swim in a pool—was said regarding a pool

that has no embankments.

It has no fence around it, and since it resembles a river, the Sages decreed that one may not swim in it, even though there is no concern lest he make a swimming barrel in order to swim with it.

This—

in Rabbi Abbahu’s bathhouse, it is speaking of a pool

that has embankments,

and it does not resemble a river but rather a vessel; and the Sages did not decree that one may not swim in it.

And Rabbi Zeira said: I saw Rabbi Abbahu

when he was bathing in a river,

placing his hands opposite the front of his lower region

for the sake of modesty,

and I did not know whether he touched

the organ

or whether he did not touch it.

The Gemara wonders: how could Rabbi Zeira be uncertain? Surely

it is obvious that

Rabbi Abbahu

did not touch

the organ.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Whoever holds the organ while urinating,

and because of his touching it he becomes aroused and comes to a seminal emission, he is

as though he brings a flood upon the world.

For this was the sin of the generation of the Flood: they emitted seed in vain. Thus it is prohibited to touch the organ; so how could Rabbi Zeira be uncertain whether Rabbi Abbahu touched it or not?

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said: They made

Rabbi Abbahu’s practice—who placed his hands on his organ while bathing in a river—

like a band of scouts.

For we learned: A band of scouts

[a foreign army that customarily searches for provisions and plunders]

that entered a city:

if it entered

in a time of peace,

then

barrels

of wine that were

open

at the time the army entered are

prohibited

from then on for drinking, lest they poured some of it as a libation for idolatry. Only barrels that were

sealed are permitted.

But if the army entered

in a time of war, both these and those,

the sealed and the open ones,

are permitted, because they have no

time

to pour a libation.

Apparently, since they are frightened,

for the members of the army are afraid because of the war,

they do not pour libations

at that time.

So too,

one who bathes in a river is occupied with his actions, and therefore,

since he is frightened, he does not come to thoughts,

and there is no concern lest he come to a seminal emission.

And the Gemara explains:

And here, what fear

is there?

The fear of the river,

lest he drown in it.

Therefore Rabbi Zeira was uncertain whether Rabbi Abbahu placed his hand on his organ or not.

The Gemara returns and raises an objection:

Is that so? For Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Whoever places his hands opposite the front of his lower region—

it is as though he denies the covenant of Abraham our father,

because by covering the place of circumcision he appears as one who is ashamed of it.

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult. This

which we said is prohibited to cover refers to

when he descends,

when he goes down into the river. Since his face is toward the river, he should not cover himself, because there is no matter of modesty here; and if he covers himself, he will appear as one who denies the covenant of Abraham our father. Whereas

this

which we said that Rabbi Abbahu covered himself was

when he ascends,

when he came up from the river. Since his face was toward the people, he was permitted to cover himself for the sake of modesty.

And we find that there is a dispute among the amoraim concerning this matter: whether there is a distinction between descending into the river and ascending from it.

For this is like the case of Rava:

when he would descend to bathe in the river,

he would bend,

he would bend both when going and when returning, thereby concealing that place, and he was not concerned that his modesty would make him appear as one who denies the covenant of Abraham our father.

But opposite him,

Rabbi Zeira,

both when descending into the river and when ascending from it,

would stand upright,

because he was concerned for Rav’s statement even when his face was toward the people.

Whereas

the Sages of Rav Ashi’s academy,

the Torah scholars from Rav Ashi’s academy,

when they were descending,

when they were going toward the river,

stood upright,

because while their faces were toward the river there was no deficiency of modesty in this, and one who covers himself where there is no matter of modesty appears as one who denies the covenant of Abraham our father. But

when they were ascending,

when they came up from the river,

they bent,

bending themselves for the sake of modesty.

The Gemara brings an incident related to Abaye’s statement above [40b]: “Words of ordinary matters may be spoken [in the bathhouse] in the holy language.”

Rabbi Zeira was avoiding Rav Yehuda,

refraining from appearing before Rav Yehuda, because

he wanted

Rabbi Zeira wanted

to ascend to the Land of Israel,

to go up to the Land of Israel, and he was concerned that Rav Yehuda would instruct him not to go up there, since Rav Yehuda held that it is prohibited to ascend during the exile from Babylonia to the Land of Israel.

For Rav Yehuda said: Whoever ascends

during the exile

from Babylonia to the Land of Israel transgresses a positive commandment, as it is stated

[Jeremiah 27:22]:

“They shall be brought to Babylonia, and there they shall remain.”

And Rabbi Zeira held that the verse concerns the vessels of the Sanctuary that were brought down to Babylonia, and not Israelites who went down to Babylonia.

He said,

Rabbi Zeira:

I shall go and hear from him

from Rav Yehuda

a matter,

a Torah matter, without his seeing me,

and I shall come and ascend,

I shall go and ascend to the Land of Israel.

He went,

Rabbi Zeira,

and found him,

he found Rav Yehuda

standing in the bathhouse

[when he was in the bathhouse],

and he was saying to him,

Rav Yehuda was saying to

his attendant

[to his servant], in the holy language:

Bring me soap

[soap] with which to wash the head;

bring me a comb!

And he further said in Aramaic to the people in the bathhouse:

Open your mouths,

open your mouths in order to inhale the steam of the bathhouse,

and

through this

expel the steam,

expel the steam of sweat from the body.

And

he further said to them:

Drink,

drink

from the water of the bathhouse,

from the water of the bathhouse, even though it was not heated for drinking but only for bathing.

Rabbi Zeira said,

Rabbi Zeira:

If I had come only to hear this matter, it would have been enough for me.

And the Gemara explains what the novel point was that Rabbi Zeira heard from Rav Yehuda:

Granted,

concerning the saying

“Bring soap, bring a comb,” it teaches us

we learn from Rav Yehuda’s words that

words of ordinary matters are permitted to be spoken

in the bathhouse

in the holy language,

as Abaye said.

And likewise, what Rav Yehuda said,

“Open your mouths and expel the steam,” also

teaches us

in accordance with Shmuel,

for Shmuel said: The steam

of the bathhouse, which enters through the mouth,

expels the steam,

expelling the steam of sweat from the body.

But

what he said,

“Drink water of the bathhouse,” what is the advantage,

what is the benefit that he recommended through this statement?

And the Gemara explains that Rav Yehuda teaches this in accordance with that

which was taught in a beraita:

If one ate and did not drink, his eating

is like spilling

blood

of himself,

and this is the beginning of intestinal illness.

If one ate and did not walk four cubits

after his meal, before going to sleep —

his food rots

in his intestines and is not digested,

and this is the beginning of

[the cause of]

bad odor

of the mouth.

One who needed to relieve himself and ate—

is like an oven that they heated upon its ashes,

without cleaning it before heating it,

and this is the beginning

[the cause] of his body becoming filled with sweat having

a foul odor.

If one bathed in hot water and did not drink from it—

he is like an oven that they heated from the outside and did not heat from the inside.

And this is what Rav Yehuda innovated in the bathhouse.

If one bathed in hot water and did not rinse himself

afterward

in cold water—

he is like iron that they placed in fire and did not place it

afterward

in cold water.

For placing iron while it is boiling into cold water is what strengthens the iron.

If one bathed and did not anoint himself

with oil before the anointing,

he is like water

that is sprinkled

upon a barrel

and does not enter it.

Mishna:

A swept-out mulyar,

a vessel which has at its side a small receptacle in which to place coals, and from which the coals were removed while it was still day,

one may drink from it

hot water

on Shabbat,

because it merely preserves the heat that remained in it from the eve of Shabbat.

But

an antichi,

a vessel that is very hot [and the Gemara explains what it is],

even though it was swept out

of its coals,

one may not drink from it.

For even after it is swept out, it continues to produce steam.

Gemara:

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of a mulyar that has been raked out?

A tannai:

a vessel containing two receptacles, one internal and one external,

water on the inside and coals on the outside.

What are the circumstances of

an antiki?

Rava said: It is a house of the stove.

In the stove itself there is a small receptacle in which the water is heated, and since the walls of the stove are very hot, because they heat with them throughout the entire week, they add heat to the water inside the stove even after the coals have been raked out; and this is like a stove that has not been raked out.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is a house of the boilers.

And the Gemara explains:

The one who says it is a house of the boilers, all the more so it is a house of the stove.

And the one who says it is a house of the stove—but a house of the boilers, no.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rav Naḥman: An antiki, even though it has been raked out and covered, one may not drink from it, because its copper heats it.

Mishna:

From here onward, the Mishnayot and the Gemara deal with the laws of a first vessel and a second vessel.

It is established for us: “A first vessel cooks.” That is to say, a vessel that was on the fire and was removed from it—so long as its heat is within the category of “heat at which the hand recoils,” it cooks everything that enters it, except for ox meat and salt, as explained in the following Mishna. But if the hand does not recoil from it, it does not cook, and it is permitted to place a cooked dish in it. “A second vessel does not cook,” and therefore it is permitted to place a cooked dish in a second vessel, even though the hand recoils from it, since it continually cools, and it does not have the power to cook. Except for things that are “quick to cook,” which it is forbidden to place even in a second vessel.

A second vessel does not cook,” and therefore it is permitted to place a cooked dish in a second vessel even when its heat is such that the hand recoils from it, since it is continually cooling and does not have the power to cook. This is except for items that cook easily, which may not be placed even in a second vessel.

The Mishna and Gemara before us deal with the law of pouring cold water into a first vessel, and the reverse.

The boiler,

a vessel of boiling water,

which he emptied [

of its hot water, or which he removed from the fire, with the water remaining in it, as will be explained in the Gemara],

one may not put cold water into it in order [

that]

it should become hot,

because the hot boiler has the status of a first vessel, and it cooks.

But he may give

a large quantity of cold water

into it, or into the cup, in order to thaw it.

Since the cold water is not cooked by the hot water, but, on the contrary, the hot water is cooled by the cold water, it is therefore permitted to do so.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “The boiler that he emptied, one may not put cold water into it in order that it should become hot. But he may put [water] into it in order to thaw it.”

And the Gemara asks:

What is it saying!?

Is the intention of the tannai that he removed the boiler from the fire, or is his intention to say that he emptied the water that was inside it from the boiler? And likewise, what is the explanation of what is stated at first, “one may not put water into it,” and then it says again, “but he may put into it”?

Rav Adda bar Mattana said: This is what it is saying: The boiler from which he emptied

the

hot water

that was inside it, and it became empty,

one may not put a small amount of water into it

in a quantity

in order that it should become hot

from the hot walls of the boiler; and even if his intention is to leave it in it for a short time until it thaws, it is forbidden, lest he forget and it remain in the boiler and become cooked.

But he may put a large quantity of water into it,

in such a quantity that it cannot become cooked even if it remains for a long time, and in the boiler there is only the amount

in order to thaw it.