Shabbat 41a (מא.) — the Talmud in English

This refers to the ruling that the Sages prohibited swimming in a pool: this is because the pool in question

does not have raised edges

around it.

Since it resembles a river, the Sages decreed that one may not swim in it, despite there being no concern that he might repair a swimming bladder in order to swim with it.

This

refers to Rabbi Abbahu’s bathhouse pool; the pool in question

does have raised edges,

and it resembles a vessel rather than a river. Therefore, 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

place his hands opposite his lower opening,

for the sake of modesty,

but I do not know whether he touched

his organ

or whether he did not touch it.

The Gemara is puzzled: How could Rabbi Zeira have been uncertain? Surely

it is obvious that

Rabbi Abbahu

did not touch

his organ.

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Whoever holds his organ while urinating,

and, as a result of touching it, becomes aroused and experiences a seminal emission, is

as though he brings a flood upon the world.

This was the sin of the generation of the Flood: they emitted semen in vain. Thus, it is prohibited to touch one’s organ; so how could Rabbi Zeira have been uncertain whether Rabbi Abbahu touched it or not?

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said: They treated

Rabbi Abbahu’s conduct—placing his hands on his organ while bathing in the river

like an invading army.

As we learned: An invading army

[a foreign army accustomed to searching for food and pillaging]

that entered a city:

if it entered

in peacetime,

then

barrels

of wine that were

open

when the army entered are

prohibited

from that point onward for drinking, lest the soldiers have poured libations from them to idolatry. Only barrels that were

sealed are permitted.

But if the army entered

in wartime, both these and those

—the sealed and the open barrels—

are permitted, because they have no

the

time to pour libations.

Apparently, since they are frightened,

because the soldiers fear the war,

they do not pour libations

at that time.

Here too,

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

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

and there is no concern that he will experience a seminal emission.

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 had placed his hand on his organ or not.

The Gemara returns and raises a difficulty:

Is that so? But Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: Whoever places his hands opposite his lower opening

is as though he denies the covenant of Abraham our forefather,

because by covering the place of circumcision he appears to be ashamed of it.

The Gemara answers:

This is not difficult. This

statement that it is prohibited to cover it refers to

when he descends,

when he goes down into the river. Since he faces the river, he should not cover himself, because there is no issue of modesty in that position; and if he covers himself, he appears to deny the covenant of Abraham our forefather. Whereas

this

statement that Rav Abbahu covered himself refers to

when he ascends,

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

We find that the amoraim disputed this matter: whether there is a distinction between descending into the river and ascending from it.

For example, Rava,

when he went down to bathe in the river,

would bend over.

He would bend over both when going and when returning, thereby concealing that place, and he was not concerned that his modesty would make him appear to deny the covenant of Abraham our forefather.

In contrast,

Rabbi Zeira,

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

stood upright,

because he was concerned about Rav’s statement even when he faced the people.

But

the Sages of the house of Rav Ashi,

the scholars of Rav Ashi’s academy,

when they descended,

when they went down toward the river,

stood upright,

because when they faced the river there was no lack of modesty in doing so, and one who covers himself where modesty is not relevant appears to deny the covenant of Abraham our forefather. But

when they ascended,

when they came up from the river,

they bent over,

bending themselves for the sake of modesty.

The Gemara relates an incident connected with Abaye’s earlier statement [40b]: “It is permitted to say ordinary matters [in the bathhouse] in the sacred language.”

Rabbi Zeira was avoiding Rav Yehuda,

refraining from appearing before Rav Yehuda, because

he wanted

Rabbi Zeira

to ascend to the Land of Israel.

He wished to go up to the Land of Israel, but feared that Rav Yehuda would instruct him not to go, since Rav Yehuda held that during the exile it is prohibited to ascend from Babylonia to the Land of Israel.

As 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.”

Rabbi Zeira held that the verse concerns the sacred vessels that had been taken down to Babylonia, and not Israelites who had descended to Babylonia.

He said,

Rabbi Zeira:

I will go and hear from him

from Rav Yehuda

a matter

of Torah without letting him see me,

and then I will go and ascend,

I will go up to the Land of Israel.

He went,

Rabbi Zeira, and

found him,

Rav Yehuda,

standing in the bathhouse

[when he was in the bathhouse],

and he was saying to

his servant

in the sacred language

[in the sacred language]:

“Bring me natron

[soap] to scrub my head,

bring me a comb!”

He also said to the people in the bathhouse, in Aramaic:

“Open your mouths,

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

and

thereby

release the vapor,

expel the vapor of sweat from your bodies.

And

he further said to them:

“Drink

from

the water of the bathhouse,

the water of the bathhouse, even though it had been heated for bathing and not for drinking.”

Rabbi Zeira said,

Rabbi Zeira:

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

The Gemara explains what novel point Rabbi Zeira heard from Rav Yehuda:

Granted,

with regard to saying

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

from Rav Yehuda’s words that

ordinary matters may be said

in a bathhouse

in the sacred language,

in accordance with Abaye’s statement.

And likewise, what Rav Yehuda said,

“Open your mouths and release the vapor,” also

teaches us

in accordance with Shmuel,

who said: The vapor

of the bathhouse that enters through the mouth

releases vapor,

expelling the vapor of sweat from the body.

But

what he said,

“Drink the water of the bathhouse”—what advantage is there

in this statement?

The Gemara explains that Rav Yehuda thereby teaches the same principle as

that which is taught in a beraita:

If one eats and does not drink, his eating

is like spilling his own

blood,

and

this is the beginning of intestinal illness.

If one eats and does not walk four cubits

after eating, before going to sleep ,

his food putrefies

in his intestines and is not digested,

and this is the beginning

[the cause] of

bad breath

from the mouth.

If one needs to relieve himself and eats—

it is like an oven that was heated over its ashes,

without having been cleaned before it was heated,

and this is the beginning

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

a foul odor.

If one bathes in hot water and does not drink from it—

it is like an oven that was heated from the outside but not heated from within.

This is the novel point that Rav Yehuda taught in the bathhouse.

If one bathes in hot water and does not rinse himself

afterward

in cold water—

it is like iron that was placed in fire and was not placed

afterward

in cold water.

Placing glowing iron in cold water is what strengthens the iron.

If one bathes and does not anoint himself

with oil before applying the oil,

it is like water

that is sprinkled

onto a barrel

without entering it.

Mishna:

A swept-out mulyar,

a vessel with a small receptacle at its side for placing coals, from which the coals had been 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 antikhi,

a vessel that is extremely hot [and the Gemara explains what this is],

even though it has been swept

of its coals,

one may not drink from it.

This is because even after the coals have been removed, it continues to produce heat.

Gemara:

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of a swept mulyar?

A tanna taught:

A utensil containing two receptacles, one inside and one outside:

water on the inside, and coals on the outside.

What are the circumstances of an

antikhi?

Rabba said: In the kirah.

The kirah itself contains a small receptacle in which the water is heated. Since the walls of the kirah are very hot, as they are heated with it throughout the week, they add heat to the water inside the kirah even after the coals have been swept out. It is therefore like a kirah that has not been swept out.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In the cauldrons.

And the Gemara explains:

The one who says: In the cauldrons—certainly, in the kirah.

But the one who says: In the kirah—not in the cauldrons.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman: In the case of an antikhi, even though it has been swept out and covered, one may not drink from it, because its copper heats it.

Mishna:

From this point onward, the Mishnayot and the Gemara discuss the laws of a first vessel and a second vessel.

We hold that “a first vessel cooks.” That is, if a vessel was on the fire and was removed from it, then as long as its heat is within the category of “heat at which the hand recoils,” it cooks anything placed into 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.” Therefore, it is permitted to place a cooked dish in a second vessel even when the hand recoils from its heat, since it is continually cooling and lacks the power to cook. This excludes items that are “quick to cook,” which one may not 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 discuss the law of pouring cold water into a first vessel, and the converse.

The meḥam,

a vessel for boiling water,

which he emptied

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

may not have cold water placed into it in order

[for it]

to become hot,

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

But he may place

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; on the contrary, the hot water is cooled by the cold water, it is permitted to do so.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “The meḥam that he emptied: he may not place cold water into it in order for it to become hot. But he may place [cold water] into it in order to thaw it.”

And the Gemara discusses this:

What is it saying!?

Does the tanna mean that he emptied the meḥam from the fire, or does he mean that he emptied the water from the meḥam? And likewise, what is the explanation of what is first stated, “He may not place water into it,” followed by, “But he may place [water] into it”?

Rav Adda bar Mattana said: This is what it means: The meḥam from which he emptied

the

hot water

that was in it, leaving it empty,

he may not place a small amount of water into it

in a quantity

sufficient for it to become hot,

so that the hot walls of the meḥam heat that water. This is prohibited even if his intention is to leave it inside only briefly, until it thaws, lest he forget and it remain in the meḥam and become cooked.

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

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

to thaw it.