Answer (Ri): This that they mixed cold water with hot, this is unlike Hatmanah. We cannot learn from it;

We can say that they forbade because he cooks the cold water!

Explanation #3 (Ri): The [water in the] pipe did not mix with the hot water. It was surrounded by walls on every side. The water in the pipe was warmed due to the Chamei Tiverya. They did not bathe in the Chamei Tiverya itself, for it had an odor.

Support: Now, this is like Hatmanah, for the cold water was enveloped in the hot water, to become hot.

Explanation: It was totally cooked, like it explains below (145b), e.g. the hen of R. Aba. We may soak it in hot water, even in a Kli Rishon. Anything that did not come [in hot water before Shabbos], one may rinse it.

Observation: According to the Rashba, who says that Iruy (pouring from a Kli Rishon) is like a Kli Sheni, this is fine here that we may not soak it in a Kli Rishon, but one may rinse it from a Kli Rishon, in the way of Iruy.

Question: However, according to R. Tam, who explains that Iruy is like a Kli Rishon, you are forced to say that "one may rinse it" is from a Kli Sheni;

If so, why does it say "one may rinse"? One may even soak it (in a Kli Sheni)!

Answer #1 (Ri): One may not soak it even in a Kli Sheni. Since the water is hot, it looks like cooking.

Implied question: A Mishnah below (42b) says "but one may put into a bowl or plate"!

Answer: That is only regarding spices, which are made to sweeten the [food in the] pot, and it does not look like cooking [them].

Answer #2: Likewise, one may soak it, since we discuss a Kli Sheni;

The Mishnah mentioned rinsing to teach that even rinsing is the final Melachah for old salted fish and Kulyas ha'Ispanin (a very salty fish that is eaten only after rinsing it).

Implied question: Why didn't they decree about wrapping in scarves, lest he insulate in hot coals?

Answer: Scarves do not resemble hot coals. R. Yosi did not need to decree about scarves heated on a fire, for it is not normal to heat them so much, lest they burn.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Because he will not have enough sand to cover [the food], he will come to move earth stuck [to the ground], and he digs a hole.

Question (Riva): There is no Isur Torah if he digs a hole and needs only the earth according to R. Shimon, who exempts for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah (it is not done for a reason like its need in the Mishkan)!

Answer: We must say that according to Rashi, it is a decree lest he dig a hole to insulate an egg in it.

Question #1 (R. Tam, against Rashi): What was the answer below "a Stam roof has no earth"? Just the contrary, a Stam roof has plaster. Since we decree lest he dig, we should decree lest he dig in the plaster, and cover!

Question #2: It is found in old Seforim "because he moves earth from its place." According to Rashi, the text must say "lest he move"!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): He moves earth, which is Muktzah, from its place, when he inserts the egg in the earth. Rav Yosef holds that Tiltul Min ha'Tzad (he intends to move Heter, and as a result, Muktzah is moved) is considered moving;

[The Gemara says that Rabah and Rav Yosef, who argue about the reason [why R. Yosi forbids insulating an egg in earth], differ about loose earth. I.e. it is so loose that when he lets go of the egg, it is concealed by itself in the earth. He does not overtly move earth.

Support: Now it is fine, for a Stam roof does not have so much earth that one can insulate in it. We are not concerned lest he dig in the plaster.

Observation: According to this Perush, we could have said that they argue about prepared earth.

Observation: Even without this, there are many differences between them, e.g. a roof that has earth. There is no concern lest he insulate, but there is concern lest he move;

And [they differ about] the episode of people of Tiverya. Hatmanah applies, but not moving [earth].

Question (Rashba): It says below "but according to the opinion that [R. Yosi forbids] lest he move earth, he should decree." According to this Perush, it should not say "decree", rather, it should be forbidden (this is the very same Isur)!

Answer: All Isurim mid'Rabanan are decrees due to mid'Oraisa. Therefore, it says so.

Explanation #3 (R. Tam, in Sefer ha'Yashar): He moves earth from its place, and this is digging, a Toldah of plowing, even in loose earth, e.g. sand and dust of the road.

Source: It is proven like this in Beitzah (8a. It asks why may he dig earth to cover the blood.) It says "he grinds!", and answers that we discuss loose earth. It asks "he makes a hole!" This shows that [the Isur of] making a hole applies also to loose earth.

Implied question: It says here that they differ about loose earth!

Answer: [Here] it is so loose that when he puts an egg on it, it sinks by itself. Surely plowing does not apply to such earth.

Question (against Explanation #3): Why does Rabah argue with Rav Yosef, and he is not concerned for moving earth?

Since it says "but according to the opinion that he moves...", this connotes that it is fine for Rabah!

Answer: Rabah holds that [the Isur of making] a hole applies only when he overtly takes earth, and a hole remains. However, [the Isur of making] a hole does not apply to inserting an egg, since the hole is not evident (the egg fills the hole).

Explanation (Rashi): [The Isur of making] a hole does not apply in loose earth.

Implied question: In Beitzah (8a), it connotes that [the Isur of making] a hole applies in loose earth!

Answer: According to Rashi, we must say that there is a little loose earth, and around it is hard land. When he removes loose earth, the hole remains;

Here, when there is much loose earth, when he makes a hole, it does not last, for the walls of the hole fall, and they cannot remain [firm] because the land is not hard.

Question: Rather than distinguishing between Toldos Chamah (things heated through the sun) and Toldos Ohr (things heated through fire), we should distinguish within Toldos Chamah themselves, between a hot roof and sand and dust of the road, and a roof with earth!

Partial answer: According to the opinion that [R. Yosi forbids] lest he insulate in hot coals, it is fine that he distinguishes between a hot roof and hot plaster not in the way of Hatmanah;

However, Toldos Chamah themselves, we can distinguish only between in the way of Hatmanah and not in the way of Hatmanah, for also in sand, if he does not insulate [the egg] in it, just he lightly roasts it on [the sand], it is permitted.

Question: According to Rav Yosef, does he not hold of the decree lest he insulate in hot coals? This is why we forbid Hatmanah in something that adds heat!

Answer: Before Shabbos we can decree lest he insulate in hot coals and lest he stoke. However, here it is not applicable to decree. If we permit to cook in Toldos Chamah, should we be concerned lest he come to cook on Shabbos in Toldos Ohr?!

Question: We forbid after dark to insulate even when it does not add heat. This is a decree lest he heat it [before insulating]!

Answer: Only regarding something that was cooked, there is concern for lest he heat it [before insulating]. However, proper cooking, like here, people will not err due to Toldos Chamah.

Question: Why do we need to learn from the episode with people of Tiverya? Our Mishnah teaches this. One may not insulate in something that adds heat (47b)!

It discusses from before Shabbos, for after dark, [Hatmanah] even in something that does not add heat is forbidden, like it says above (34a)!

Answer #1 (Ri): Our Mishnah below, we can establish it Bein ha'Shemashos, but before Shabbos, one might have thought that it is permitted. (Therefore we must learn from the episode in Tiverya.)

Question: It teaches that we may insulate in wool shearings, but we may not move them. If it discusses Bein ha'Shemashos, how may we insulate in them? It is forbidden to move them!

Answer: We establish it like Rebbi, who says that everything forbidden due to Shevus (mid'Rabanan), they did not decree Bein ha'Shemashos.

Question: If it is like Rebbi, if Hatmanah is permitted during the day, it is permitted also Bein ha'Shemashos, for everything forbidden due to Shevus... [is permitted Bein ha'Shemashos]!

Answer: One might have thought that Chachamim were stringent about Hatmanah.

Answer #2 (R. Shmuel of Vardin): From the episode with people of Tiverya, [we learn that] Hatmanah (in something that adds heat) is Batel. It is forbidden even for eating, like it says "one may not drink [the water]."

Answer #3 (R. Yonah): It is Batel even for a pot of raw meat. This is why it says "Batel", which connotes totally.

Note: Here belongs DH Ha, which appears at the end of this Daf.

Implied question: We could have derived from the Seifa! It teaches that on Yom Tov, it is like water heated on Yom Tov;

If you will say that this refers to bathing the entire body, [this implies that] if it was heated before Yom Tov, it is permitted. Below (40a) we forbid bathing on Yom Tov!

It says "the next day, he enters and sweats (in the steambath), but he does not bathe. Only showering is permitted in the outer room [of the bathhouse].

Answer: It is the Gemara's style to infer as much as possible from the Reisha (even if it is easier to learn from the Seifa).

Question (Rashba): From our Mishnah itself, we could have derived, without this Beraisa that we bring! Since it says "one may not drink it", all the more so [bathing] the face, hands and feet is forbidden, unless it is proper to drink the water!

Answer (Ri): This is only if he heats them for the need of drinking, but for the need of bathing, even if it is proper to drink the water, Beis Shamai forbid, for they do not say Mitoch (since it is permitted for a need, i.e. Ochel Nefesh, it is permitted even not for a need - Beitzah 12a).

Source #1: In Beitzah (21b), Beis Shamai forbid making a bonfire to warm himself in front of it, even though it is proper to cook and bake!

Source #2 (Ri): Also from here we can learn. If Beis Shamai permitted for the need of bathing, because it is proper for drinking, if so our Mishnah is not even like Beis Shamai!

It teaches that one may not bathe with it, and one may drink it. This implies that it is proper for drinking, and even so, one may not bathe with it!

Conclusion: Rather, surely Beis Shamai permit only when he [heats it] for the need of drinking.

Assertion (Ri): He may heat even more than is needed for drinking, like it says in Eruvin (68a. They prepared hot water for Bris Milah (to bathe the baby afterwards), and it spilled. They said "ask his mother [if she needs to drink hot water. She is considered dangerously sick for a week after the birth, and we may do Melachah if she needs.] If she needs, heat up [also for the Bris] along with for his mother.

Limitation: Only the amount for his feet is permitted, but not what is needed for the entire body. This is because bathhouse attendants are suspected. Sometimes they heat primarily for bathing.

Inference: This implies that [they permit] only for his feet, but not for his entire body.

Support: Our entire Sugya connotes like this. We are stringent about hot water that was heated on Yom Tov like water heated on Shabbos, and they decreed about Zei'ah (a steambath) on Yom Tov just like on Shabbos, like it says in Beitzah (40a);

If so, it connotes that one may not burn for the sake of bathing. If not, they would not decree about Zei'ah.

Question: Why is burning unlike bathing? Burning for Zei'ah is permitted mid'Oraisa, like is proven there!

Answer (Ri, citing Riva): Bathing is merely for pleasure. It is forbidden, like incense, which we forbid in Kesuvos (7a) because most people do not desire it.

Support: The Yerushalmi connotes like this. This is only for bathing, but most people desire Zei'ah. It is not for pleasure, rather, for health.

Implied question: A Beraisa below (40a) says that if they plugged up the holes of a bathhouse from before Yom Tov, one may enter it and be Mezi'a [on Yom Tov. This implies that one may not be Mezi'a in water heated on Yom Tov!]

Answer: The same applies if the water was heated on Yom Tov (and one may heat it). It mentioned from before Yom Tov to teach that even so, only Zei'ah is permitted, but one may not bathe.

Assertion (Ri): [R. Meir forbids] even hot water that was heated from before Shabbos, for he forbids even cold water. Presumably, R. Yehudah forbids [even] in such hot water;

Also, presumably, we do not discuss people who transgressed [and heated water on Shabbos]. "This Tana" referred to is R. Shimon.

Support (Ri): We can prove that they argue about water that was heated from before Shabbos, from the Gemara below (147a);

Citation (147a): Just like Chamei Tiverya are hot, also cave water is hot. "One who bathes" is b'Di'eved, but l'Chatchilah it is forbidden. This implies that showering is l'Chatchilah. Who taught this? It is R. Shimon, for a Beraisa teaches "one may not shower... [R. Shimon permits]";

If they argue about water heated on Shabbos, but R. Yehudah permits [water heated] from before Shabbos, why must we establish it like R. Shimon? We should establish it like R. Yehudah, and it was heated from before Shabbos, for it was taught similar to Chamei Tiverya!

Question (R. Eliezer mi'Mitz): What was the question? There, it was heated on Shabbos, like it teaches "like water heated on Shabbos";

Inference: If it was heated from before Shabbos, it is permitted. Here they argue about when it was heated from before Shabbos, like I explained!

Answer (R. Yosef): The Gemara holds that since R. Meir is so stringent to forbid even cold water, he is stringent also to forbid [what was heated] from before Shabbos due to [water heated on] Shabbos.

This is why it asks "the episode of people of Tiverya was in the ground, and they forbade", when it was heated on Shabbos, and Rav Chisda said that in land, all permit;

This is even if it was heated on Shabbos, for according to R. Meir, if he forbids when it was heated on Shabbos, he would forbid also when it was heated from before Shabbos.

Question: R. Meir forbids showering [even] in cold water, even in land, like we conclude that they argue about in land;

Below (109a) it connotes that he permits [even bathing], for it says there "we may bathe in water of Gerar, and of Chamsan, Asya, or Tiverya, but not in the Yam ha'Gadol (Mediterranean Sea);

We ask a contradiction from a Beraisa that permits bathing in water of Tiverya or Yam ha'Gadol, and we establish the latter like R. Meir!

Answer: Here he forbids in land, i.e. similar to the case of a Kli. (Rav Chisda contrasts them, so presumably, they are similar. I.e. a small amount of water is enclosed in land, so it is feasible to heat it - PF.) It resembles bathing in hot water. There in a river they permitted, for [it is unfeasible to heat it, so] he looks like one who cools off in the river, and even in Chamei Tiverya, he does not resemble one who bathes in a bathhouse.

Implied question: R. Yochanan holds that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah!

Answer: Here, because R. Yehudah is Machri'a (the mediating opinion), the Halachah does not follow the Stam Mishnah.

Question: In Pesachim (13a, 21a) it asks "you should say that the Halachah follows R. Meir, for the Stam Mishnah is like him", even though he holds that R. Gamliel is Machri'a, for he asks after this "you should say that the Halachah follows R. Gamliel, for he is Machri'a!

Answer: The Stam Mishnah here is worse than there. Here the Mishnah is Stam, and there is an argument in a Beraisa, and the Halachah follows the Machri'a. (There, the Stam follows the argument. We know that Rebbi concluded like the Stam.)

However, if not for the Hachra'ah, the Halachah would follow our Stam Mishnah, even though there is an argument in a Beraisa.

Question: We should establish the Beraisa that forbids in a Kli because one who sees will say that it was heated today, and our Mishnah discusses in the ground, like it connotes. Below we distinguish between a Kli and the ground!

Answer: Only regarding showering, which is lenient, we can distinguish [in the ground from in a Kli]. Bathing, which is stringent, it is unreasonable to distinguish like this.