הדר ביה רבי עקיבא לגביה דרבי יהושע ואי מכללא מאי דילמא הני מילי במתניתין אבל בברייתא לא אמר ליה אנא בפירוש שמיע לי
Rabbi Akiva reconsider and adopt Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion? In the dispute over the laws of bathing as well, the ruling should have been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda because his is the compromise opinion. Therefore, Rav Yosef asked whether the ruling was based on that principle alone. The Gemara asks: And if the halakha was derived by inference, what of it? It is legitimate to draw conclusions by inference. The Gemara responds: Perhaps this principle, that the halakha is established in accordance with the compromise opinion, applies only in a mishna; but in a baraita, no, it does not apply. Perhaps the baraita is not a sufficiently reliable source to establish the halakha in accordance with the compromise opinion based on its formulation. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to Rav Yosef: I heard it explicitly.
אתמר חמין שהוחמו מערב שבת רב אמר למחר רוחץ בהן כל גופו אבר אבר ושמואל אמר לא התירו לרחוץ אלא פניו ידיו ורגליו מיתיבי חמין שהוחמו מערב שבת למחר רוחץ בהן פניו ידיו ורגליו אבל לא כל גופו תיובתא דרב אמר לך רב לא כל גופו בבת אחת אלא אבר אבר והא פניו ידיו ורגליו קתני כעין פניו ידיו ורגליו
An amoraic dispute was stated: With regard to hot water that was heated on Shabbat evebefore Shabbat, Rav said: The next day, on Shabbat, one may wash his entire body with it; however, not all at once. Rather, he washes one limb at a time, in a departure from the standard practice, to remind him that it is Shabbat. And Shmuel said: They only permitted washing one’s face, his hands, and his feet with hot water, even if it was heated on Shabbat eve; however, they did not permit washing his entire body, even in increments. The Gemara raises an objection from what was taught in a baraita: Hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, the next day one may wash his face, his hands, and his feet with it but not his entire body. This is a conclusive refutation of Rav’s opinion. Rav could have said to you: When the baraita says: Not one’s entire body, it means not his entire body at once, but one limb and then another limb until he washes his entire body is permitted. The Gemara asks: Doesn’t it say one’s face, his hands, and his feet, and no more? Rav answers: It means that one washes his body in a manner similar to the manner that one washes his face, his hands, and his feet, i.e., each limb separately, and they were cited as examples of washing one limb at a time.
תא שמע לא התירו לרחוץ בחמין שהוחמו מערב שבת אלא פניו ידיו ורגליו הכא נמי כעין פניו ידיו ורגליו
The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear from what was taught in a baraita: They only permitted to wash one’s face, his hands, and his feet with hot water that was heated before Shabbat. This poses a difficulty to Rav. Rav answers: Here too, this refers to washing one limb at a time, in a manner similar to the way one washes his face, his hands, and his feet.
תניא כוותיה דשמואל חמין שהוחמו מערב שבת למחר רוחץ בהן פניו ידיו ורגליו אבל לא כל גופו אבר אבר ואין צריך לומר חמין שהוחמו ביום טוב רבה מתני לה להא שמעתא דרב בהאי לישנא חמין שהוחמו מערב שבת למחר אמר רב רוחץ בהן כל גופו ומשייר אבר אחד איתיביה כל הני תיובתא תיובתא
The Gemara remarks: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: Hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, the next day one may wash his face, his hands, and his feet with it but not his entire body, even one limb at a time. And, needless to say, this is the halakha with regard to hot water that was heated on a Festival. Rabba would teach this halakha of Rav in this language: Hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, the next day, Rav said: One may bathe his entire body in it and exclude one limb to remind himself that today is Shabbat. They raised all of these conclusive refutations, with which they objected to the previous version of Rav’s statement, against him and the Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.
אמר ליה רב יוסף לאביי רבה מי קא עביד כשמעתיה דרב אמר ליה לא ידענא מאי תיבעי ליה פשיטא דלא עביד דהא איתותב (דילמא) לא שמיעא ליה
Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Does Rabba act in accordance with this halakha of Rav? He said to him: I do not know. The Gemara asks: What is his dilemma? It is obvious that Rabba did not act in accordance with Rav’s statement, as Rav’s statement was conclusively refuted. The Gemara answers: Perhaps he did not hear, i.e., he did not know of the challenges or he did not consider them substantial. Perhaps, in his opinion, it is still reasonable to act in accordance with Rav’s statement.
ואי לא שמיעא ליה ודאי עביד דאמר אביי כל מילי דמר עביד כרב בר מהני תלת דעביד כשמואל מטילין מבגד לבגד ומדליקין מנר לנר והלכה כרבי שמעון בגרירה כחומרי דרב עביד כקולי דרב לא עביד
The Gemara says: If so, there is still no room for the dilemma. And if Rabba did not hear this refutation, certainly he acted in accordance with Rav’s opinion, as Abaye said: In all halakhic matters of the Master, Rabba, he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except these three where he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. He ruled: One may not light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp, and one may untie ritual fringes from garment to garment, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging. According to Rabbi Shimon, it is permitted to drag heavy objects, and there is no concern that, as a result, a ditch might be dug in the ground. In any case, it is certainly reasonable to say that he acted in accordance with the opinion of Rav in the case of bathing on Shabbat as well. The Gemara answers: His is not an absolute proof. Perhaps Rabba’s custom was that he acted in accordance with the stringencies of Rav and he did not act in accordance with the leniencies of Rav. Washing with hot water on Shabbat is one of Rav’s leniencies. Therefore, it is not clear how Rabba acted in practice.
תנו רבנן מרחץ שפקקו נקביו מערב שבת למוצאי שבת רוחץ בו מיד פקקו נקביו מיום טוב למחר נכנס ומזיע ויוצא ומשתטף בבית החיצון
The Sages taught in a Tosefta: A bathhouse whose openings were sealed on Shabbat eve so that the heat would not diminish, after Shabbat one may bathe in it immediately. If its openings were sealed on the eve of a Festival, the next day, on the Festival itself, one may enter and sweat in the heat produced by the hot water and emerge and rinse with cold water in the outer room of the bathhouse.
אמר רב יהודה מעשה במרחץ של בני ברק שפקקו נקביו מערב יום טוב למחר נכנס רבי אלעזר בן עזריה ורבי עקיבא והזיעו בו ויצאו ונשתטפו בבית החיצון אלא שחמין שלו מחופין בנסרים כשבא הדבר לפני חכמים אמרו אף על פי שאין חמין שלו מחופין בנסרין ומשרבו עוברי עבירה התחילו לאסור אמבטיאות של כרכין מטייל בהן ואינו חושש
Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident in the bathhouse of Benei Berak, whose openings were sealed on the eve of a Festival. The next day, on the Festival itself, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and Rabbi Akiva entered and sweated there, and emerged and rinsed themselves in the outer room. However, this bathhouse was unique because the hot water was covered by wooden boards and there was no concern lest a person bathe in the hot water. When this matter came before the Sages, they said: Even if its hot water is not covered by boards, it is permitted to sweat from the heat in the bathhouse. When the number of transgressors increased, the Sages began to prohibit this. However, the large bathhouses [ambatyaot] in cities, one may stroll through them as usual and need not be concerned about the prohibitions of Shabbat, even if he sweats while doing so.
מאי עוברי עבירה דאמר רבי שמעון בן פזי אמר יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא בתחילה היו רוחצין בחמין שהוחמו מערב שבת התחילו הבלנים להחם בשבת ואומרים מערב שבת הוחמו אסרו את החמין והתירו את הזיעה ועדיין היו רוחצין בחמין ואומרים מזיעין אנחנו אסרו להן את הזיעה והתירו חמי טבריה ועדיין היו רוחצין בחמי האור ואומרים בחמי טבריה רחצנו אסרו להן חמי טבריה והתירו להן את הצונן ראו שאין הדבר עומד להן התירו להן חמי טבריה וזיעה במקומה עומדת
And the Gemara asks: What are these transgressors? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Initially, people would bathe even on Shabbat in hot water that was heated before Shabbat. The bathhouse attendants began to heat water on Shabbat and say that it was heated before Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages prohibited bathing in hot water and permitted sweating. And they would still bathe in hot water and say: We are sweating, and that is why we entered the bathhouse. Therefore, the Sages prohibited sweating and permitted bathing in the hot springs of Tiberias. And people would still bathe in hot water heated by fire and say: We bathed in the hot springs of Tiberias. Therefore, they prohibited even the hot springs of Tiberias and permitted them to bathe in cold water. When the Sages saw that their decrees were not upheld by the people because of their stringency, they permitted them to bathe in the hot springs of Tiberias, and the decree prohibiting sweating remained in place.
אמר רבא האי מאן דעבר אדרבנן שרי למיקרי ליה עבריינא כמאן
In this context, Rava said: One who violates a decree of the Sages, it is permitted to call him a transgressor. Transgressor is not a term limited to one who violates a severe Torah prohibition. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabba make this statement?