Previous daf

1)

(a) If the egg which one placed next to a boiling kettle (be'Shogeg) roasts slightly on Shabbos, one is Chayav a Chatas.

(b) The only two foods that one may not wash with hot water are an old salted fish or (even a fresh) tunny fish, which cook in hot water.

(c) We can learn from the above that one will be Chayav for cooking even with hot water, and not with fire (if that is how that particular food in normally prepared). Likewise, one will also be Chayav for cooking with heat, even without fire - and that is why we said that one is Chayav a Chatas for placing an egg next to a hot Tanur.

(a) It is permitted to place

1. ... a cooked pot into a pit for storage.
2. ... a container of hot water into a ditch of dirty water to cool.

(b) The author of the Mishnah in Chavis which permits the placing of cold water in the sand to heat, could be the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yossi, because everyone agrees that it is permitted to cook in the sun. Why?
Because it is not the normal way of cooking, and one is therefore unlikely to confuse cooking in fire with cooking in the sun.

(c) Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan argue about cooking in something which became heated through the sun (such as a cloth); Rebbi Yossi permits that too, whereas the Rabbanan forbid it, in case one will confuse it with something that became heated through fire.

(d) Rebbi Yossi agrees with the prohibition of cooking an egg in the sand, according to Rabbah, because he may come to place it in hot coals (which are similar to hot sand); and according to Rav Yosef, because he may come to dig the sand in order to make a hole to house the egg, in which case he will be Chayav for digging - Rav Yosef (Tosfos, d.h. 'Mipnei' interprets 'Meziz Afar' to mean because of Muktzah).

(a) The difference between whether Chazal prohibited placing an egg in the sand to boil because one may then place it in ashes, or because he may dig a hole - is in a case of soft earth, in which where the second reason is not applicable, because even if one does dig a hole, he will not be Chayav, since it will fill in immediately.

(b) Rav Yosef is not concerned about digging a hole in the sand on the roof, because most rooves do not have sand on them.

(a) According to Rav Yosef, why did the Chachamim forbid the pipe of the men of Teverya? How is that similar to digging a hole in sand?

(b) According to Rabbah, the decree is clear, since they were worried that one may learn from the pipe to heat up the water in hot coals.

(c) Rav Yosef will explain that the story of the men of Teverya is brought in the Mishnah in support of the Reisha, where Rebbi Yossi permits 'Toldos ha'Chamah'. The Rabbanan prove from there that it is forbidden to cook even in Toldos ha'Chamah (which they take for granted, the hot springs of Teverya, are).

(d) Rebbi Yossi however, maintains that the hot springs of Teverya are Toldos ha'Eish. Why?
Because they pass in front of the entrance to Gehinom, and that is where they get heated.

5)

(a) The decree that Chazal issued by the pipe of the men of Teverya, is, in effect, the decree forbidding one to wrap hot foods - even on Erev Shabbos - in something which increases their heat.

(b) Rav Nachman informed Ula that the Halachah could hardly be like the men of Teverya, since the men of Teverya themselves had already (retracted and) broken their pipe.

(a) Water that was heated on Erev Shabbos may be used to wash one's head, arms and legs, but not to take a bath.

(b) According to Beis Shamai, it is forbidden to wash one's head, arms and legs in water that was heated on Yom-Tov, unless it was heated specifically for drinking; whereas according to Beis Hillel it is permitted, even if the water was heated specifically for washing.

(c) In that case, it appears that our Mishnah, which forbade the water in the pipe regarding washing (even one's head, arms and legs - apparently), because it was heated on Yom-Tov for washing, follows the opinion of Beis Shamai?

(d) 'Shituf' is pouring water over oneself, and then washing one's entire body with that water. Rebbi Shimon permits Shituf with water that was heated up before Shabbos or Yom-Tov.

(e) Our Mishnah now runs like this: 'Im be'Shabbos ... va'Asurin bi'Rechitzah' -i.e. Shituf. (But if the water had been heated on *Erev* Shabbos, Shituf would have been permitted). 'Im be'Yom-Tov ... va'Asurin bi'Rechitzah - i.e. Shituf (because even Beis Hillel only permitted water to be heated up on Yom-Tov for washing one's head, arms and legs - but not for Shituf).

8)

(a) If water is heated in a vessel, it is more evident that it was heated by fire, and people will learn from there to heat up water by pouring it when it is cold, into hot water (which is forbidden); whereas water which has been heated in the ground (from Erev Shabbos) is not so obvious that it was heated by fire, and so there is less reason to decree an Isur on it.

(b) Considering that the water in the pipe of the men of Teverya was heated in the ground, and still the Chachamim forbade it, the first version of Rav Chisda, permitting water heated in the ground, is unacceptable.

(c) The Gemara therefore re-quotes Rav Chisda to esrablish the Machlokes Tana'im, when the water was heated on the ground, but when it was heated in a vessel, they all agree with Rebbi Meir - that even Shituf is Asur, even in cold water.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan did not rule specifically like Rebbi Yehudah. He did however, say, that wherever we find a dispute between two Tana'im, with a third Tana making a compromise between the two (meaning that he divides the Halachah into two parts, ruling in the part one like one of the Tana'im, and in the other part, like the other one), then we rule like the one who makes the compromise - because the 'compromiser' joins with each of the two Tana'im like whom he rules, to make two against one (and we always follow the majority). In our case too, Rebbi Yehudah rules like Rebbi Meir by hot water (to make it two against one - le'Hachmir), and like Rebbi Shimon by cold water (to make it two against one - le'Hakel).

(b) The only exception to that rule is the case that we learnt above (29a&b) regarding a cloth that one hung on a peg or placed behind the door, where we rule like Rebbi Yehoshua against Rebbi Eliezer, and not like Rebbi Akiva who compromises; firstly, because Rebbi Akiva was a Talmid of Rebbi Eliezer, and we do not contend with the opinion of a Talmid when he argues with his Rebbi. Secondly, because Rebbi Akiva himself retracted - to agree entirely with Rebbi Yehoshua.

(c) Had we not concluded that in fact, Rabbah bar bar Chanah had not heard it directly from Rebbi Yochanan, we would not have been able to apply that principle to our case, which is a Beraisa, whereas Rebbi Yanai's principle (of ruling like the compromiser) was said with regard to Tana'im in the Mishnah, and does not necessarily apply to Beraisos.