Implied question: Rabanan argue with him, and permit in Nidah (13a)!

Answer: They permit only due to [concern for suspicion of] Mamzeres, lest [drops fall on his feet and] he appear [castrated] like a Kerus Shafchah, and people will slander his children and say that they are Mamzerim.

Assertion: The text does not say "beforehand", for in the entire Gemara, bathing is before anointing, like it says in Kidushin (22b) "he bathed him and anointed him", and it is written "bathe and anoint."

Disclaimer: One could say that the verse discusses that she anointed herself for a good smell, therefore she did not anoint beforehand, for the bathing would remove the anointing from her [but normally, anointing is first].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is because [Muliyar ha'Garuf] does not add heat. It only preserves the water's heat;

One may not drink from Antiki, even if it is Garuf, because it adds heat.

Rebuttal #1: It is reasonable to decree about something that adds heat only regarding Hatmanah. This is a decree lest he insulate in hot ashes!

Rebuttal #2: It is difficult to say that our Mishnah discusses when he transgressed (Hatmanah in an Antiki, which adds heat).

Rebuttal #3: One may not drink from an Antiki in any case, even through Shehiyah. If our Mishnah discusses returning, Shehiyah is permitted even if it is not Garuf!

Rebuttal #4: If our Mishnah forbids drinking due to added heat, we should challenge Rabah and Rav Yosef, who permit above (38a) one who forgot a pot on a Kirah and it cooked on Shabbos, even though it did not get cooked k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai, and even if he was Mezid!

Explanation #2 (Rav Pores): One may drink from Muliyar ha'Garuf on Shabbos, i.e. they mix the hot water with wine, for the water in the Muliyar is not so hot that the wine will get cooked from the water mixed into it;

One may not drink from an Antiki even if it is Garuf, since it has more heat, and the wine gets cooked from the water when it is mixed in. The Yerushalmi connotes like this.

Implied question: Why can't we answer that it did not reach Tziruf, like we answer in Yoma (34b, about hot metal used to warm the Mikveh for the Kohen Gadol)?

Answer: A Stam kettle reached Tziruf.

Question: It says "u'Finu Es ha'Bayis", "v'Anochi Pinisi ha'Bayis", "Solu Panu Darech", and it says in the Gemara "Panu place for the son of Levi" (Kesuvos 77b. In all of these) he empties out the contents (even though it does not say Heimenu (from it))!

Answer: Since in several places "Pinuy" refers to the matter cleared away, e.g. "one who is Mefaneh his items from corner to corner" (Eruvin 50b), "we may be Mefaneh four or five boxes" (below, 126b), "Penu Kelim due to the Tum'ah", "earth and he is destined Lefanoso", [the Tana] should not have taught Pinahu, rather, Pinah Mimenu (from it), since it is possible to err.

Inference: However, according to R. Shimon it is permitted, even though it is Metzaref, since it does not cook, e.g. there is much water, and [the heat in the walls of] the kettle cannot cook the large amount of water inside;

This is like we find in Yoma (34b, that hot metal) does not cook, yet it [can be] Metzaref, for R. Yehudah says that we bring thick pieces of iron and put them in the water to blunt its chill. If it cooked, it would be forbidden;

Even so, we ask "it is Metzaref!"

Implied question: Abaye holds like R. Shimon, for he said above "[Rabah] did everything like Rav, except for these three matters that he did like Shmuel", and one of them is that the Halachah follows R. Shimon regarding dragging a bench (he permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven. I.e. he does not intend for it, and it is not certain to happen.) Presumably, Abaye holds like Rabah, his Rebbi! (Why does he establish our Mishnah like R. Yehudah?)

Answer: Even so, he establishes our Mishnah like R. Yehudah due to his question "it does not say that he cleared water from a kettle!" (The Mishnah connotes that he removed the kettle from the fire. However, if he emptied the water from a kettle, it is forbidden due to Metzaref, like R. Yehudah, who forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven.)

Rav Ada was not concerned for Abaye's question, and he establishes our Mishnah like the Halachah, like R. Shimon.

Assertion: Above, the text does not say "Rav Ada bar Masna in the name of Rav" for Rav holds like R. Yehudah regarding dragging [a bench].

Support: Below, he explicitly establishes our Mishnah like R. Yehudah! (I.e. Rav says that our Mishnah forbids an amount that enables Tziruf. The Gemara says that R. Shimon permits.)

Assertion: We must say that it is not a Pesik Reishei (inevitable consequence). It is possible that it will not be Metzaref. R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei!

Implied question: The Gemara asks "it is (i.e. surely) Metzaref"!

Answer: It means "perhaps it is Metzaref."

Question #1: Here it connotes that regarding Tziruf, R. Yehudah forbids also Davar she'Eino Miskaven;

In Yoma (34b), Rashi's text says "this is for Torah laws. Here, Tziruf is mid'Rabanan. The text does not say "there is no Shevus (stringencies mid'Rabanan) in the Mikdash";

[Rashi] explains that only for Torah laws R. Yehudah forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven, but not for Tziruf, which is mid'Rabanan.

Question #2: Even without [our Sugya], Rashi's Perush is difficult, for R. Yehudah forbids dragging in a Mishnah in Beitzah (23b);

The Mishnah permits dragging a bench only on Kelim, but not on the ground, and we establish it like R. Yehudah, who forbids when he does not intend, even though there is no Isur Torah in dragging, even if he intends, like it connotes at the end of our Perek (46a), for it is plowing unskillfully.

Question #3: Also, the Sugya there is difficult, for Abaye answers "you can even say that it reached Tziruf. Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted;

Citation (34b) Question: Did Abaye say so? In a Beraisa, R. Oshaya teaches "Yimol Besar Orlaso" - even if there is a Nega, he cuts it (even though a Lav forbids cutting off Tzara'as);

Citation (cont.): Why do we need a verse? Abaye said, it is needed only according to R. Yehudah, who forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven (he intends only for Bris Milah, but not to cut Tzara'as,).

Summation of Question #3: Why don't we bring the Mishnah in Beitzah in which R. Yehudah forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven, and rather we bring Abaye's teaching?

Question #4: [Rashi] erases from the text "there is no Shevus in the Mikdash"!

Answer: There, Abaye said "even... Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted, i.e. according to R. Yehudah. R. Yehudah forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven only mid'Rabanan;

The Gemara asks from "Yimol Besar Orlaso", which Abaye establishes that R. Yehudah needs the verse. If so, this shows that R. Yehudah forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven mid'Oraisa!

This is the text of the answer. This is in the entire Torah. I.e. in the entire Torah except for Shabbos, [Davar she'Eino Miskaven] is forbidden mid'Oraisa. Tziruf, regarding Shabbos, Eino Miskaven is forbidden only mid'Rabanan;

Since he does not intend, it is not Melachah Machasheves, and it is permitted, for there is no Shevus in the Mikdash.

Observation: Now the Sugya here and the Sugya there are fine.

Question: In Kerisus (20b), Rav Ashi says "the case is, he [blew and] intended to extinguish the top coals, and the bottom coals flared up by themselves";

The first Tana holds like R. Yehudah, who forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven. Therefore, he says that he is Chayav Chatas. The one who exempts holds like R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven.

Inference: R. Yehudah forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven, even regarding Shabbos, mid'Oraisa!

Answer: There it is a Pesik Reishei. It is impossible to extinguish the top coals, without the bottom coals flaring up. It is considered Melachah Machasheves;

Even though it is a Pesik Reishei, R. Shimon exempts, for it is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. He does not need the bottom coals to flare up.

Implied question: Why did he mention intending and not intending? The first Tana should have said like R. Yehudah, who says that Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah...

Answer: It said so for a Chidush in R. Yehudah, so you will not say that R. Yehudah obligates Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah only when he intends to do the Melachah, e.g. he extinguishes a wooden coal so people will not be damaged. He intends to extinguish...

However, there that he does not intend to make the bottom coals flare up, no (I would think that he is exempt). He teaches that this is not so. Since it is a Pesik Reishei, he is liable.

Citation (Kerisus 20b): In the case of taking coals to get warm, and they flared up by themselves (Beraisos argue about whether he is liable or exempt), it says that this [Beraisa] is like R. Yehudah, who says that Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is liable, and this [Beraisa] is like R. Shimon.

Implied question: He does not intend that they flare up, for R. Shimon exempts. If he intended that they flare up, this is Tzerichah l'Gufah! (We should say "this is like R. Yehudah, who forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven", to teach a bigger Chidush, just like in the case of blowing on coals!)

Answer: Even so, since he is pleased that they flare up, we do not call that Eino Miskaven. Therefore, it did not mention she'Eino Miskaven;

However, when he intended to extinguish the top coals, he is not pleased at all that the bottom coals flare up, for he comes to extinguish. The expression "she'Eino Miskaven" is appropriate, even though it is a Pesik Reishei.

Implied question: R. Shimon permits taking coals to get warm. Below (103a), it connotes that one who detaches for eating, or for animals [and this improves the land], in his own land he is Chayav Chatas for any amount, even though he does not intend to improve the land!

Answer: This is unlike all other cases of Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, e.g. taking coals to get warm. There, even though he does not intend to improve [the land], we can testify that he is pleased;

However, one who takes coals does not benefit from their flaring up. Even without flaring up, he will get warm. Since he does not benefit, it is clear that he does not intend to make them flare up, and it is a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah Lo.

Explanation #1: Rashi connotes that he explains the Sugya as follows. [Rav said] we learned only regarding something for which Tziruf does not apply. It needs only to become warm, e.g. a kettle removed [from a fire];

However, to be Metzaref, i.e. something to which Tziruf applies, e.g. a kettle from which the water was cleared, it is forbidden.

Shmuel says permits even to be Metzaref, i.e. even something to which Tziruf applies.

It connotes that this is even if he intends. Therefore, [the Gemara] asks "does he permit Tziruf l'Chatchilah?!"

Explanation #1 (cont.): [We answer that] rather, they taught as follows. [Rav said] we learned, i.e. that when the water was cleared from the kettle, one may put cold water in it, only an amount to become warm, but not to be Metzaref. E.g. he did not fill all of it. There is Tziruf only if he fills it to the top;

Rav explains "Pinahu" like Rav Ada (he cleared water from a kettle). The Gemara asked above "he is Metzaref!" because it understands that [Rav Ada] said "but one may put in it much water", i.e. enough for Tziruf, since he said "much";

However, when [a kettle] was removed [from the fire] and the water is inside, Tziruf is impossible. This [explanation] is difficult.

Explanation #2 (Ri): Also when [a kettle] was removed, Tziruf applies, when he fills it;

When he cleared [all] water from it, any amount of water can be Metzaref.

Source #1: Above, we asked "he is Metzaref!", and we did not answer that there is not enough for Tziruf.

Source #2: Abaye said "but a kettle from which he cleared out the water is forbidden, for he is Metzaref." This connotes that it is obvious to him that he is Metzaref, and we cannot distinguish [based on the amount], for there is Tziruf through any amount.

Explanation #2 (cont.): [Rav said] we learned only in order to make warm, i.e. he intends to make warm;

Now [the Gemara] holds that Rav discusses even an amount to be Metzaref, but to be Metzaref, i.e. to intend for Tziruf, is forbidden, like R. Shimon;

He explains "Pinahu" that he cleared water from it, like Rav Ada;

Alternatively, he removed it with the water, like Abaye, and we discuss when there is an amount for Tziruf, e.g. he totally fills it with cold water. Even though the hot water inside was not removed, there is an amount for Tziruf.

[Rav] distinguishes between intent [for Tziruf] and no intent, like R. Shimon, and unlike Abaye, who establishes it when there is not an amount for Tziruf, like R. Yehudah.

Implied question: When we ask according to Shmuel "does he permit Tziruf l'Chatchilah?!", we could have asked so according to Rav!

Since [Rav] holds that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah regarding dragging, i.e. Davar she'Eino Miskaven, what forced him to establish our Mishnah when there is an amount for Tziruf, and like R. Shimon? He should establish it when there is not an amount for Tziruf, like Abaye, and like R. Yehudah, whom [Rav] holds like!

Answer: Rather, [the Gemara] challenges Shmuel, for it is a better question. (Surely, no one permits intent for Tziruf!)

Explanation #2 (cont.): [We answer that] rather, they taught as follows. Now we explain our Mishnah totally like Abaye, that he removed the kettle with the water. It means as follows;

[Rav said] we learned only an amount to make warm. He does not totally fill the kettle. However, an amount for Tziruf, even if he intends only to make warm, is forbidden, like R. Yehudah, for [Rav] holds like him;

However, when he cleared water from [the kettle], it is forbidden, for in every case there is an amount for Tziruf, like I explained.

Implied question: When Abaye said "however, a kettle from which he cleared water...", he could have said "what is the case? There is an amount to get warm, but if there is an amount for Tziruf, it is forbidden"!

Answer: [Abaye] preferred this version (to distinguish removing the kettle from clearing out the water), for he inferred from the word "Pinahu" that [our Mishnah] is like R. Yehudah.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Shmuel permits even an amount for Tziruf, like R. Shimon.

Question #1: Since Shmuel said "even an amount for Tziruf", if so, he establishes our Mishnah like Abaye, who inferred from the word "Pinahu". According to Rav Ada, who explains that he cleared the water from it, there is always an amount fo Tziruf! Why did Shmuel say "even an amount for Tziruf"?

Question #2: Since he explains like Abaye, if so we should infer only if he removed the kettle, but if he cleared out the water, it is forbidden, like R. Yehudah!

Answer: Shmuel refers to Rav's words, and says "even an amount for Tziruf is permitted", for I hold like R. Shimon. [Shmuel holds that] we establish our Mishnah like Rav Ada, when he cleared out the water, and there is always an amount for Tziruf.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Rav understands "Pinahu" in our Mishnah like Rav Ada, that he cleared out the water. An amount to warm is when he did not fill it. An amount for Tziruf is when he filled it.

Question #1: When [the Gemara] asked above "he is Metzaref!", it should have answered that he did not fill it!

Question #2: Since Abaye said "but a kettle from which he cleared out the water, he may not put into it at all, for it is Metzaref", this implies that it is Metzaref in every case, even if he did not fill it!

Answer: He understands "Pinahu" like Abaye, and says that we learned only an amount to warm. He did not put so much water that the hot water will get cold, but if he put so much water that the hot water will get cold, it is forbidden. Even though he does not intend for Tziruf, it is forbidden. (Tosfos Yeshanim in the name of R"SH of Mirzborg.)