5

The Bavli, Shabas 40 amud 1, cites a disagreement between Rav and Sh'muel. It then brings three proofs to Sh'muel's view. Each proof quotes what appears AFAICT to be a b'raysa, and each proof is introduced differently from the way the others are:

חמין שהוחמו מע״ש רב אמר למחר רוחץ בהן כל גופו אבר אבר ושמואל אמר לא התירו לרחוץ אלא פניו ידיו ורגליו מיתיבי חמין שהוחמו מע״ש 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 תא שמע לא התירו לרחוץ בחמין שהוחמו מע״ש אלא פניו ידיו ורגליו ה״נ כעין פניו ידיו ורגליו תניא כוותיה דשמואל חמין שהוחמו מע״ש למחר רוחץ בהן פניו ידיו ורגליו אבל לא כל גופו אבר אבר ואצ״ל חמין שהוחמו בי״ט

As you see, the first proof is introduced with "מיתיבי", the second with "תא שמע", and the third with "תניא כוותיה דשמואל". Why?

1

tl;dr

The first beraita is presented as a direct attack against Rav. The second is a support for Shmuel. Neither of these is ultimately dispositive. The third beraita is certainly in accordance with the position of Shmuel and not that of Rav.


Details

Here's my (admittedly not particularly well-sourced) take on the sugya:

  1. The first proof is a direct attack on Rav's position. Rav said you can wash your whole body (limb by limb) in hot water. To which the gemara records a (seeming) refutation:

מיתיבי חמין שהוחמו מע״ש למחר רוחץ בהן פניו ידיו ורגליו אבל לא כל גופו

They asked [against Rav]: "Water that was heated on Friday, the next day one may use it to wash his face hand and feet, but not his entire body."

  1. The second proof does not directly attack Rav. Rather, it seems to assert Shmuel's postion (which would then implicitly refute the position of Rav). Shmuel said that hot water may only be used to wash face, hands and feet. The gemara backs this up with:

תא שמע לא התירו לרחוץ בחמין שהוחמו מע״ש אלא פניו ידיו ורגליו

Come and listen [to a proof for Shmuel]: "They only permitted using water heated on Friday to wash one's face, hands and feet."

  1. Note that for the first two proofs for Shmuel's postion, the gemara points out that they are not dispositive. Now the gemara brings a third proof which it knows is watertight, i.e. a beraita which is definitely in accordance with Shmuel and not Rav:

תניא כוותיה דשמואל חמין שהוחמו מע״ש למחר רוחץ בהן פניו ידיו ורגליו אבל לא כל גופו אבר אבר

It was taught like Shmuel: "Water that was heated on Friday, the next day one may use it to wash his face, hands and feet, but not his whole body, even limb by limb."

  • Sounds plausible. Would sound more plausible if you would show that each of those three intros is used, throughout shas, the way you describe. – msh210 Mar 28 '18 at 10:22
  • @msh210 Your suggestion is good, but a little tricky to implement. I tried looking online for a listing of 'gemara keywords' to link to, but drew a blank (hence the links to the online aramaic-hebrew dictionary instead). I know there are published books with this kind of stuff. If anyone has such a guide and wants to edit in some references, be my guest... – Joel K Mar 28 '18 at 10:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .