ממעשה שעשו אנשי טבריא ואסרי להו רבנן בטלה הטמנה בדבר המוסיף הבל ואפילו מבעוד יום אמר עולא הלכה כאנשי טבריא אמר ליה רב נחמן כבר תברינהו אנשי טבריא לסילונייהו:
From this action performed by the people of Tiberias and the fact that the Sages prohibited them from using the water, the conclusion is that the practice of insulating a pot in something that increases the heat over the course of Shabbat was abolished on Shabbat. And not only is i t prohibited to do so on Shabbat itself, but it is also prohibited while it is still day before Shabbat. Running pipes of cold water through hot water is similar to insulating water in something that adds heat. Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the people of Tiberias. Rav Naḥman said to him: The people of Tiberias have already broken their pipes. Even they reconsidered their position.
מעשה שעשו אנשי טבריא: מאי רחיצה אילימא רחיצת כל גופו אלא חמין שהוחמו בשבת הוא דאסורין הא חמין שהוחמו מערב שבת מותרין והתניא חמין שהוחמו מערב שבת למחר רוחץ בהן פניו ידיו ורגליו אבל לא כל גופו אלא פניו ידיו ורגליו
We learned in the mishna with regard to the incident, which related what the people of Tiberias did, that the legal status of water that was heated in the Tiberias hot springs is like that of water heated on Shabbat, and it is prohibited for use in bathing. The Gemara clarifies this matter: What type of bathing is this? If you say that it is referring to bathing one’s entire body, that is difficult. That would indicate that only water heated on Shabbat is prohibited for use in bathing one’s entire body; however, bathing one’s entire body in hot water heated before Shabbat is permitted. That cannot be. Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, one may use it the next day to wash his face, his hands, and his feet incrementally; however, not to wash his entire body? Rather, it must be that the bathing prohibited in the mishna with water heated on Shabbat is, in fact, washing his face, his hands, and his feet.
אימא סיפא ביום טוב כחמין שהוחמו ביום טוב ואסורין ברחיצה ומותרין בשתיה לימא תנן סתמא כבית שמאי דתנן בית שמאי אומרים לא יחם אדם חמין לרגליו אלא אם כן ראויין לשתיה ובית הלל מתירין
However, if so, say the latter clause of the mishna: On a Festival, the legal status of the water is like that of water that was heated by fire on a Festival, and it is prohibited for bathing and permitted for drinking. Even on a Festival, washing one’s face, hands, and feet is prohibited with this hot water. If so, let us say that we learned the unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. As we learned in a mishna, Beit Shammai say: A person may not heat water for his feet on a Festival unless it is also fit for drinking, and Beit Hillel permit doing so. According to Beit Hillel, it is permitted to heat water on a Festival for the purpose of washing one’s feet. According to the proposed interpretation of the term bathing in the mishna, as referring to washing one’s face, hands, and feet, our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. This is problematic, as the halakhic opinion of Beit Shammai is rejected and only rarely cited in an unattributed mishna.
אמר רב איקא בר חנניא להשתטף בהן כל גופו עסקינן והאי תנא הוא דתניא לא ישתטף אדם כל גופו בין בחמין ובין בצונן דברי רבי מאיר רבי שמעון מתיר רבי יהודה אומר בחמין אסור בצונן מותר
Rav Ika bar Ḥananya said: In our mishna, we are dealing with water that was heated in order to rinse one’s entire body with it. Rinsing does not have the same legal status as bathing. And that which we learned in the mishna: Water that was heated on Shabbat is prohibited for bathing, from which it can be inferred that water heated before Shabbat is permitted for bathing on Shabbat, is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the Tosefta. As it was taught in a Tosefta: One may neither rinse his entire body with hot water, even if it was heated before Shabbat, nor with cold water; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon permits doing so even with hot water because it was heated before Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: With hot water, it is prohibited; with cold water, it is permitted. According to Rabbi Shimon, it is completely prohibited to rinse with water that was heated on Shabbat itself. Consequently, our mishna, which does not differentiate between hot and cold water, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
אמר רב חסדא מחלוקת בכלי אבל בקרקע דברי הכל מותר והא מעשה דאנשי טבריא בקרקע הוה ואסרי להו רבנן אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר מחלוקת בקרקע אבל בכלי דברי הכל אסור
Rav Ḥisda said: This dispute over washing with water heated before Shabbat is specifically with regard to water in a vessel, as one might mistakenly think that it was heated on Shabbat, and there is then concern lest one permit the use of water heated with fire on Shabbat. However, when the water was collected in the ground, everyone agrees that it is permitted. The Gemara challenges this: Wasn’t the incident involving the people of Tiberias with regard to water in the ground, and nevertheless the Sages prohibited it? Rather, if this was stated, this is what was stated, i.e., this is the correct version of Rav Ḥisda’s statement: This dispute is specifically when the water is collected in the ground. However, when it is in a vessel, everyone agrees that it is prohibited.
אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כרבי יהודה אמר ליה רב יוסף בפירוש שמיע לך או מכללא שמיע לך מאי כללא דאמר רב תנחום אמר רבי יוחנן אמר רבי ינאי אמר (רב) כל מקום שאתה מוצא שנים חלוקין ואחד מכריע הלכה כדברי המכריע חוץ מקולי מטלניות שאף על פי שרבי אליעזר מחמיר ורבי יהושע מיקל ורבי עקיבא מכריע אין הלכה כדברי המכריע חדא דרבי עקיבא תלמיד הוא ועוד הא
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha in this dispute is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Yosef said to him: Did you learn this from Rabbi Yoḥanan explicitly, or did you learn it by inference from something else that he said? The Gemara remarks: What was the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan from which this conclusion could be inferred? As Rav Tanḥum said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that Rabbi Yannai said that Rav said: Every place that you find two who disagree and each one of them establishes his opinion in a series of cases, and one of the Sages, a third one, adopts a compromise opinion and says that in some cases the halakha is in accordance with one, and in some cases the halakha is in accordance with the other, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the compromiser. This principle holds true except for the case of the ritual impurity of insignificant strips of material. In that case, even though Rabbi Eliezer is stringent, and Rabbi Yehoshua is lenient, and Rabbi Akiva compromises, the halakha is not in accordance with the statement of the compromiser: First, because Rabbi Akiva is a student of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and lacks the authority to decide between the opinions of his rabbis. And furthermore, didn’t