מִמַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעָשׂוּ אַנְשֵׁי טִבֶּרְיָא וְאָסְרִי לְהוּ רַבָּנַן – בָּטְלָה הַטְמָנָה בְּדָבָר הַמּוֹסִיף הֶבֶל, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. אָמַר עוּלָּא: הֲלָכָה כְּאַנְשֵׁי טִבֶּרְיָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: כְּבָר תְּבַרִינְהוּ אַנְשֵׁי טִבֶּרְיָא לְסִילוֹנַיְיהוּ.

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.

“מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעָשׂוּ אַנְשֵׁי טִבֶּרְיָא״. מַאי רְחִיצָה? אִילֵימָא רְחִיצַת כָּל גּוּפוֹ, אֶלָּא חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ בַּשַּׁבָּת – הוּא דַּאֲסוּרִין, הָא חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת – מוּתָּרִין?! וְהָתַנְיָא: חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, לְמָחָר רוֹחֵץ בָּהֶן פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו, אֲבָל לֹא כָּל גּוּפוֹ?! אֶלָּא – פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו.

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.

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: בְּיוֹם טוֹב – כְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וַאֲסוּרִין בִּרְחִיצָה וּמוּתָּרִין בִּשְׁתִיָּה. לֵימָא תְּנַן סְתָמָא כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי; דִּתְנַן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יָחֵם אָדָם חַמִּין לְרַגְלָיו אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁתִיָּה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין!

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.

אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בַּר חֲנַנְיָא: לְהִשְׁתַּטֵּף בָּהֶן כָּל גּוּפוֹ עָסְקִינַן; וְהַאי תַּנָּא הוּא, דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יִשְׁתַּטֵּף אָדָם כָּל גּוּפוֹ, בֵּין בְּחַמִּין וּבֵין בְּצוֹנֵן – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּחַמִּין – אָסוּר, בְּצוֹנֵן – מוּתָּר.

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.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בִּכְלִי, אֲבָל בְּקַרְקַע – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. וְהָא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּאַנְשֵׁי טִבֶּרְיָא בְּקַרְקַע הֲוָה, וְאָסְרִי לְהוּ רַבָּנַן! אֶלָּא, אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: מַחֲלוֹקֶת – בְּקַרְקַע, אֲבָל בִּכְלִי – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר.

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.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ, אוֹ מִכְּלָלָא שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ? מַאי כְּלָלָא? דְּאָמַר רַב תַּנְחוּם אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר (רַב): כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁנַיִם חֲלוּקִין וְאֶחָד מַכְרִיעַ – הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמַּכְרִיעַ, חוּץ מִקּוּלֵּי מַטְלָנִיּוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַחְמִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מֵיקֵל, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְרִיעַ – אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמַּכְרִיעַ. חֲדָא: דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא תַּלְמִיד הוּא, וְעוֹד: הָא

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