Shabbat 37
לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ לְהַחֲזִיר תְּנַן, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: כִּירָה שֶׁהִסִּיקוּהָ בְּקַשׁ וּבִגְבָבָא — מַחֲזִירִין עָלֶיהָ תַּבְשִׁיל, בְּגֶפֶת וּבְעֵצִים — לֹא יַחֲזִיר עַד שֶׁיִּגְרוֹף אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן אֶת הָאֵפֶר. אֲבָל לְשַׁהוֹת — מְשַׁהִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גָּרוּף וְאֵינוֹ קָטוּם. וּמָה הֵן מְשַׁהִין? — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: חַמִּין, אֲבָל לֹא תַּבְשִׁיל. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חַמִּין וְתַבְשִׁיל. וְהָךְ חֲזָרָה דַּאֲמַרִי לָךְ, לָאו דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא, אֶלָּא מַחֲלוֹקֶת בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל, שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נוֹטְלִין וְלֹא מַחֲזִירִין. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף מַחֲזִירִין.
The Gemara rejects this proof. Actually, you can say that in the first clause of the mishna we learned to return and the mishna is incomplete. A clause must be added to the mishna, and it teaches the following: With regard to a stove that was lit with straw or rakings, one may return a pot of cooked food to it. If it was lit with pomace or with wood, one may not return a pot to it until one sweeps the coals out while it is still day or until one covers the coals with ashes. However, to leave the pot on the flame on Shabbat, one may leave it, even though it is not swept and not covered with ashes. Through this addition, the continuation of the dispute can be understood as follows: And what may they leave? Beit Shammai say: Hot water but not cooked food. And Beit Hillel say: Both hot water and cooked food. Furthermore: And that return that I said to you at the start of the mishna is not according to everyone. Rather, it too is subject to a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: One may remove but not return. And Beit Hillel say: One may even return. The dilemma with regard to the interpretation of the mishna has not been resolved.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא עַל גַּבָּהּ, אֲבָל לְתוֹכָהּ — אָסוּר. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא ״לְהַחֲזִיר״ תְּנַן — הַיְינוּ דְּשָׁנֵי בֵּין תּוֹכָהּ לְעַל גַּבָּהּ. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״לְשַׁהוֹת״ תְּנַן, מַה לִּי תּוֹכָהּ מַה לִּי עַל גַּבָּהּ? — מִי סָבְרַתְּ רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי? אַסֵּיפָא קָאֵי: ״וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אַף מַחֲזִירִין״ — וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא עַל גַּבָּהּ, אֲבָל תּוֹכָהּ — אָסוּר.
Come and hear another resolution to this dilemma from that which Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: They only taught that placing is permitted with regard to a stove as far as placing a pot atop it is concerned. However, placing a pot inside it is prohibited. Granted, if you say that we learned returning in the mishna, that is why there is a halakhic difference between placing a pot inside it and placing a pot atop it. If one returns it on Shabbat, placing it inside a stove that might have burning coals, there is concern that Shabbat would be desecrated. Therefore, it was only permitted to place cooked food atop the stove. However, if you say that we learned leaving in the mishna, what is the difference to me whether it is inside the stove and what is the difference to me whether it is atop it? Ultimately, he does nothing on Shabbat with the hot ashes in the stove. The Gemara rejects this proof: Do you think that Rabbi Ḥelbo is referring to the first clause of the mishna? No, he is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, which states: And Beit Hillel say that one may even return. And with regard to this Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: They only taught that one may return the cooked food atop the stove; however, inside it is prohibited. If so, there is still no resolution to the dilemma.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁתֵּי כִּירוֹת הַמַּתְאִימוֹת, אַחַת גְּרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה, וְאַחַת שֶׁאֵינָהּ גְּרוּפָה וְאֵינָהּ קְטוּמָה: מְשַׁהִין עַל גַּבֵּי גְּרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה וְאֵין מְשַׁהִין עַל שֶׁאֵינָהּ גְּרוּפָה וְאֵינָהּ קְטוּמָה. וּמָה הֵן מְשַׁהִין? — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: וְלֹא כְלוּם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חַמִּין, אֲבָל לֹא תַּבְשִׁיל. עָקַר — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לֹא יַחֲזִיר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: חַמִּין, אֲבָל לֹא תַּבְשִׁיל. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חַמִּין וְתַבְשִׁיל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נוֹטְלִין, אֲבָל לֹא מַחֲזִירִין. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף מַחֲזִירִין.
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in the Tosefta: In the case of two adjoining stoves that share a common wall, in one of them, the coals were swept or covered with ashes, and in one the coals were not swept and not covered with ashes; the ruling with regard to leaving a pot atop them on Shabbat is as follows: One may leave food atop the one that was swept or covered with ashes, and one may not leave food atop the one that was not swept and not covered with ashes. And to the crux of the matter, what may one leave? Beit Shammai say: Nothing at all. They dispute the halakha cited above. And Beit Hillel say: One may leave hot water but not cooked food. However, if one removed the cooked dish from atop the stove, everyone, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agrees that one may not return it atop the stove; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. According to the tradition that he received, that is the issue disputed between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Rabbi Yehuda says that the dispute is different. Beit Shammai say: One may leave hot water on it but not cooked food. And Beit Hillel say: One may leave both hot water and cooked food. Furthermore, Beit Shammai say: One may remove a pot from the stove on Shabbat but may not return it. And Beit Hillel say: One may even return it.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא ״לְשַׁהוֹת״ תְּנַן, מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״לְהַחֲזִיר״ תְּנַן, מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְלָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — קַשְׁיָא לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי בַּחֲדָא, וּלְבֵית הִלֵּל בְּתַרְתֵּי. אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, קַשְׁיָא גְּרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה.
Granted, if you say that the case we learned in our mishna was with regard to leaving the pot on the stove, in accordance with whose opinion is our mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. However, if you say that the case we learned in our mishna was with regard to returning the pot to the stove, in accordance with whose opinion is our mishna? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. If you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is difficult for Beit Shammai in one respect. In our mishna, Beit Shammai permit some use of a stove on Shabbat; while according to Rabbi Meir in the baraita, Beit Shammai prohibit any use. And for Beit Hillel it is difficult in two respects. According to our understanding of the mishna, Beit Hillel permit both hot water and cooked food, contrary to Rabbi Meir’s version of their opinion as stated in the baraita. Similarly, in our mishna, Beit Hillel permit returning the pot to the stove, contrary to Rabbi Meir’s version of their opinion. If you explain that our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita, it is difficult with regard to the issue of sweeping the coals and covering them with ashes. In the mishna, both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai allow leaving it on a stove whose coals were not swept or covered with ashes. According to Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita, apparently a stove whose coals are neither swept nor covered with ashes may not be used at all. Since this interpretation leads to contradictions, it is preferable to explain the mishna in accordance with the other approach, so that the mishna will at least correspond to one opinion.
לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ ״לְהַחֲזִיר״ תְּנַן, וְתַנָּא דִידַן סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּחֲדָא וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא. סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּחֲדָא — בְּחַמִּין וְתַבְשִׁיל, וְנוֹטְלִין וּמַחְזִירִין. וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא — דְּאִילּוּ תַּנָּא דִידַן סָבַר לְשַׁהוֹת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גָּרוּף וְקָטוּם, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר בִּלְשַׁהוֹת נָמֵי גָּרוּף וְקָטוּם — אִין, אִי לָא — לָא.
This claim is rejected: Actually, you can say that the case we learned in our mishna was with regard to returning the pot to the stove, and our tanna in the mishna holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda in one matter, and disagrees with him in one matter. He holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda in one matter, with regard to the matter of hot water and cooked food, and what may be taken from the stove and what may even be returned. And he disagrees with him in one matter: While our tanna in the mishna held that to leave a pot on a stove is permitted even though it is not swept or covered with ashes, Rabbi Yehuda held: With regard to permitting one to leave a pot on the stove as well, if the stove was swept or covered with ashes, yes, it is permitted; if it was not swept or covered with ashes, no, it is prohibited.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִסְמוֹךְ בָּהּ? תּוֹכָהּ וְגַבָּהּ אָסוּר, אֲבָל לִסְמוֹךְ בָּהּ — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a stove that was neither swept nor covered with ashes, what is the halakha with regard to permitting one to lean a cooked dish against it, so that it may be heated from the sides of the stove? The dilemma is: Was it only placing a pot inside it and atop it that is prohibited, but to lean the pot against it he may well do so? Or, perhaps, leaning is no different and it is prohibited in every case.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁתֵּי כִּירוֹת הַמַּתְאִימוֹת, אַחַת גְּרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה וְאַחַת שֶׁאֵינָהּ גְּרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה, מְשַׁהִין עַל גַּבֵּי גְּרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא סָלֵיק לֵיהּ הַבְלָא מֵאִידָךְ! דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכֵיוָן דְּמִידַּלְּיָא שָׁלֵיט בָּהּ אַוֵּירָא.
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in a baraita: If there are two adjoining stoves, one that was swept or covered with ashes and one that was not swept and covered with ashes, one may leave cooked food atop the stove that is swept and covered with ashes on Shabbat. Apparently, it is permitted to lean a pot on a stove that was not swept, even though heat rises to it from the other stove. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps that case of two adjoining stoves is different. Since the pot is elevated, the air affects it and cools it. Therefore, it is not comparable to actually leaning it against the stove.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא: קְטָמָהּ וְנִתְלַבְּתָה, סוֹמְכִין לָהּ וּמְקַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ, וְנוֹטְלִין מִמֶּנָּה וּמַחְזִירִין לָהּ. שְׁמַע מִינָּה לִסְמוֹךְ נָמֵי, קְטָמָהּ — אִין, לֹא קְטָמָהּ — לָא. וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, ״נוֹטְלִין מִמֶּנָּה״ דְּקָתָנֵי, קְטָמָהּ — אִין, לֹא קְטָמָהּ — לָא?! אֶלָּא תְּנָא נוֹטְלִין מִשּׁוּם מַחְזִירִין, הָכָא נָמֵי תְּנָא סוֹמְכִין מִשּׁוּם מְקַיְּימִין.
Come and hear another resolution to this dilemma from that which Rav Safra said that Rav Ḥiyya said: If there is a stove whose coals one covered with ashes on Shabbat eve and it subsequently reignited on Shabbat, one may lean a pot against it, and leave cooked food on it, and remove food from it, and even return food to it. Conclude from this the following with regard to leaning, as well: If he covered them with ashes, yes, if he did not cover them with ashes, no, as the Gemara is speaking about a stove whose ashes were covered properly during the day. The Gemara rejects this proof too. And according to your opinion, that which was taught: One may remove the food from it, would you say there too that if he covered them, yes, and if he did not cover them, no? Everyone agrees that it is permitted to take the pot off of the stove even if it is not swept or covered with ashes. Rather, it must be understood that he taught permission to remove the pot due to the fact that it taught permission to return it. Here too, it taught permission to lean the pot due to the fact that it taught permission to leave the pot on the stove. Consequently, a conclusion cannot be drawn that leaning a pot on an unswept stove is prohibited.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם נוֹטְלִין וּמַחְזִירִין בְּחַד מָקוֹם הוּא, תְּנָא נוֹטְלִין מִשּׁוּם מַחְזִירִין. אֶלָּא הָכָא — סוֹמְכִין בְּחַד מָקוֹם הוּא וּמְקַיְּימִין בְּחַד מָקוֹם הוּא.
The Gemara is astonished by this comparison. How can you compare them? There, one removes the pot from and returns it to one and the same place. Therefore, it taught removing due to returning, as one cannot return a pot before he removes it. However, here, where one leans the pot is in one place and where one leaves the pot is in one, another, place, there is no connection between the two. If the tanna did not intend to teach that leaning is permitted only on a swept stove, there would be no reason to mention permission to lean in conjunction with permission to leave. In any event, this is not an absolute proof, and the dilemma has not been resolved.
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע: כִּירָה שֶׁהִסִּיקוּהָ בְּגֶפֶת וּבְעֵצִים סוֹמְכִין לָהּ, וְאֵין מְקַיְּימִין אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן גְּרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה. גֶּחָלִים שֶׁעָמְמוּ אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן עָלֶיהָ נְעוֹרֶת שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן דַּקָּה — הֲרֵי הִיא כִּקְטוּמָה.
The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached with regard to this dilemma? Come and hear a resolution to this from that which was taught in the Tosefta: With regard to a stove that was lit with pomace or with wood, one may lean a pot of cooked food against it; however, one may not leave a pot inside it unless the stove is swept out or covered with ashes. Coals that dimmed or on which a strip of thinly beaten flax was placed and the fire did not ignite, it is as if it were covered with ashes, and one need not add more ashes to it. In any case, the conclusion is drawn from here that one is permitted to lean a dish of cooked food against a stove, even though it is not covered with ashes or swept out.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: קְטָמָהּ וְהוּבְעֲרָה מְשַׁהִין עָלֶיהָ חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ כׇּל צוֹרְכָּן וְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ.
Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani said that Rav Oshaya said: With regard to a stove that he covered with ashes and that reignited on Shabbat, one may leave hot water that was already completely heated and cooked food that was already completely cooked upon it. In that case, there is no need for additional cooking, and therefore there is no concern that one might come to stoke the coals and ignite the fire.
שְׁמַע מִינָּה מִצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ מוּתָּר! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּקַטְמַהּ. אִי הָכִי מַאי לְמֵימְרָא?! הוּבְעֲרָה אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כֵּיוָן דְּהוּבְעֲרָה הָדְרָא לָהּ לְמִילְּתָא קַמַּיְיתָא, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
Conclude from this halakha that even when it is food that shrivels and improves by remaining on the fire, it is nevertheless permitted to leave it. The food is already completely cooked and there is no concern lest one come to stoke the coals and ignite the fire. Rabbi Oshaya did not distinguish between different types of foods in permitting this. The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Here, it is different because he covered the coals in the stove with ashes, and that is the reason that he is permitted to leave food on the stove. The Gemara asks: If so, what purpose was there to say this halakha? Is it to teach that if the coals are covered with ashes, there is no room for concern? That is obvious. The Gemara answers: The case where he covered it with ashes and it reignited on Shabbat was necessary and required additional articulation. Lest you say that since it reignited, it returns to its original status and is prohibited, therefore it taught us that this is not the case.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קְטָמָהּ וְהוּבְעֲרָה, מְשַׁהִין עָלֶיהָ חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ כׇּל צוֹרְכָּן וְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ גֶּחָלִים שֶׁל רוֹתֶם. שְׁמַע מִינָּה מִצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ מוּתָּר! — שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּקַטְמַהּ. אִי הָכִי מַאי לְמֵימְרָא?! הוּבְעֲרָה אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. הַיְינוּ הָךְ! — גֶּחָלִים שֶׁל רוֹתֶם אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a stove that he swept out or covered with ashes before Shabbat and subsequently reignited on Shabbat, one may leave hot water that was already completely heated and cooked food that was already completely cooked upon it, even if the coals were from the wood of a broom tree, which are very hot and long-burning. If so, conclude from this that even if food shrivels and improves while on the stove, it is permitted. The Gemara rejects this: Here, in this case, it is different because he covered it with ashes. Therefore, it is permitted to leave it on the stove. The Gemara asks: If so, what was the purpose of saying this halakha? The Gemara answers: Mention of the case where he covered it with ashes and it reignited on Shabbat was necessary. The Gemara challenges that explanation: This case is identical to the previous one. Why did Rabbi Yoḥanan find it necessary to repeat what was already said? The Gemara responds that there is a novel element in his statement. It was necessary to teach the case of coals from the wood of a broom tree. Even in a case of especially hot coals it is permitted.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כִּירָה שֶׁהִסִּיקוּהָ בְּגֶפֶת וּבְעֵצִים מְשַׁהִין עָלֶיהָ חַמִּין שֶׁלֹּא הוּחַמּוּ כׇּל צוֹרְכָּן וְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁלֹּא בִּישֵּׁל כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ. עָקַר — לֹא יַחֲזִיר עַד שֶׁיִּגְרוֹף אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן אֵפֶר. קָסָבַר: מַתְנִיתִין ״לְהַחֲזִיר״ תְּנַן, אֲבָל לְשַׁהוֹת — מְשַׁהִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גָּרוּף וְאֵינוֹ קָטוּם.
Rav Sheshet said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a stove that was lit with pomace or with wood, one may leave hot water on it even if the water has not yet been completely heated, and the same is true for cooked food even if it was not yet completely cooked. However, if one removed the food from the stove, one may only return it if he sweeps the coals out of the stove while it is still day, or if he places ashes on the coals. The reason for mentioning this halakha is because he holds that in our mishna we learned with regard to returning the cooked food to the stove; however, with regard to leaving a pot on top of the stove, if it was placed there while it was still day, one may leave it on the stove even if it is not swept and not covered with ashes.
אָמַר רָבָא: תַּרְוַויְיהוּ תְּנַנְהִי. לְשַׁהוֹת תְּנֵינָא: אֵין נוֹתְנִין אֶת הַפַּת בְּתוֹךְ הַתַּנּוּר עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה וְלֹא חֲרָרָה עַל גַּבֵּי גֶּחָלִים אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּקְרְמוּ פָּנֶיהָ. הָא קָרְמוּ פָּנֶיהָ — שְׁרֵי. לְהַחֲזִיר נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אַף מַחְזִירִין. וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָשָׁרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל אֶלָּא בִּגְרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה, אֲבָל בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ גְּרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה לָא! וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת נָמֵי דִּיּוּקָא דְמַתְנִיתִין קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
Rava said: We already learned both aspects of Rav Sheshet’s halakha and there is no need to teach us something that was already stated explicitly in the mishna. We already learned that it is permitted to leave a pot on the stove. One may not put bread into the oven at nightfall and may not place cake on top of coals unless there is enough time before Shabbat that its surface will form a crust. However, if its surface already formed a crust before Shabbat, it is permitted to leave it even in an oven that was not swept and not covered with coals. Likewise, we also already learned in our mishna the second aspect of Rav Sheshet’s halakha that it is permitted to return the pot to the fire, as Beit Hillel say: One may even return. And it is clear that Beit Hillel only went so far as permitting the return of the pot in a stove that is swept or covered with ashes; however, in one that is not swept or covered with ashes, they did not permit doing so. If so, Rav Sheshet’s statement is superfluous. The Gemara answers: Rav Sheshet also only came to teach us the inference from the mishna and not to introduce new halakhot.
אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כִּירָה שֶׁהִסִּיקוּהָ בְּגֶפֶת וּבְעֵצִים מְשַׁהִין עָלֶיהָ תַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ וְחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ כׇּל צוֹרְכָּן וַאֲפִילּוּ מִצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן לְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה: הָא רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ מִצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ אָסוּר!
Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a stove that was lit with pomace or with wood, on Shabbat eve one may leave a cooked dish that was already completely cooked, as well as hot water that was already completely heated, upon it and even if it is the type of food that when left for a prolonged period of time on the fire it shrivels and improves. There is no concern lest one come to stoke the coals. The Gemara relates that one of the Sages said to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda: Isn’t it Rav and Shmuel who both say, contrary to your opinion, that if food shrivels and improves when placed on the stove, leaving it on there on Shabbat is prohibited?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ לֵית אֲנָא יָדַע דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ — אָסוּר? כִּי קָאָמֵינָא לָךְ, לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן קָאָמֵינָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב עוּקְבָא מִמֵּישָׁן לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אַתּוּן דִּמְקָרְבִיתוּ לְרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל — עֲבִידוּ כְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲנַן נַעֲבֵיד כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to him: Is that to say that I do not know that Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If food shrivels and improves when left on the fire for an extended period, it is prohibited to leave it there? When I said to you that it is permitted to leave it, I said it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rav Ukva from Meishan said to Rav Ashi: You, who are close to the place where Rav and Shmuel lived, act in accordance with the ruling of Rav and Shmuel; we will act in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: מַהוּ לְשַׁהוֹת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא רַב יְהוּדָה מְשַׁהוּ לֵיהּ וְאָכֵיל. אָמַר לֵיהּ: בַּר מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּכֵיוָן דִּמְסוּכָּן הוּא — אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת נָמֵי שְׁרֵי לְמֶעְבַּד לֵיהּ. לִי וְלָךְ מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּסוּרָא מְשַׁהוּ, דְּהָא רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מָרֵי דְעוֹבָדָא הֲוָה, וּמְשַׁהוּ לֵיהּ וְאָכֵיל. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא וְשַׁהִין לֵיהּ כָּסָא דְהַרְסָנָא וָאֲכַל, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִשּׁוּם דְקָסָבַר מִצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ מוּתָּר, אִי מִשּׁוּם דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִית בֵּיהּ מִיחָא — מִצְטַמֵּק וְרַע לוֹ הוּא.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is the ruling with regard to leaving food on the stove from Shabbat eve? Rav Yosef said to him: Didn’t they leave food for Rav Yehuda and he ate it? Apparently, it is permitted to do so. Abaye said to him: No proof can be brought from Rav Yehuda. Since he is in danger, as he is sick and needs hot food, even on Shabbat as well, it is permitted to heat up food for him. However, for me and you as well as for all other people what is the ruling? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: In Sura, they leave food on the stove from Shabbat eve, as Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak from Sura was a master of good deeds who was meticulous in his performance of mitzvot, and they would leave food for him and he would eat it. Rav Ashi said: I stood before Rav Huna and saw that they left fish fried in oil [kasa deharsena] for him atop the stove on Shabbat, and he ate the fish on Shabbat. And I do not know if his reason for doing so is because he holds that it is permitted to leave food that shrivels and improves when left on the stove for a long time. Or, if it is because this dish has flour in it, and therefore it shrivels and deteriorates. Everyone agrees that it is permitted to leave food atop the stove that shrivels and deteriorates.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מִצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ — אָסוּר, מִצְטַמֵּק וְרַע לוֹ — מוּתָּר. כְּלָלָא דְּמִלְּתָא: כׇּל דְּאִית בֵּיהּ מֵיחָא — מִצְטַמֵּק וְרַע לוֹ, לְבַר מִתַּבְשִׁיל דְּלִיפְתָּא דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית בֵּיהּ מֵיחָא — מִצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ הוּא. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאִית בֵּיהּ בִּשְׂרָא, אֲבָל לֵית בֵּיהּ בִּשְׂרָא — מִצְטַמֵּק וְרַע לוֹ הוּא. וְכִי אִית בֵּיהּ בִּשְׂרָא נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא קָבָעֵי לֵהּ לְאוֹרְחִין, אֲבָל קָבָעֵי לֵהּ לְאוֹרְחִין — מִצְטַמֵּק וְרַע לוֹ. לַפְדָּא דַּיְיסָא וְתַמְרֵי מִצְטַמֵּק וְרַע לָהֶן.
Rav Naḥman said: Food that shrivels and improves when left on the stove, it is prohibited to leave it on the stove; if it shrivels and deteriorates, it is permitted. The principle in this matter is as follows: Any food that has flour in it shrivels and deteriorates, except for a cooked turnip dish, which, even though it has flour, shrivels and improves. And this applies only when there is meat in it, but when there is no meat in it, it shrivels and deteriorates. And when there is meat in it, too, we only said that it shrivels and improves when one does not need it for guests, but when one needs it for guests, it shrivels and deteriorates because it is not polite to serve guests overcooked food, which is not aesthetic. Furthermore: Leaving dishes made of figs [lafda], porridge, or dates on the stove causes them to shrivel and deteriorate.
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא:
They raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba:
