Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

April 12, 2020 | 讬状讞 讘谞讬住谉 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Shabbat 37

This week’s shiurim are sponsored by Talia Kaplan Rubin in honor of her husband, Benjamin Rubin, who has been learning the daf. She’s very proud of you – keep up the good work! Today’s shiur is sponsored by Tracee Rosen in honor of all her friends and colleagues who are studying daf yomi this cycle and by Betsy Mehlman for a refuah shleima for Sarah Sally bat Carrie, mother of Shoshana Nissan.

The gemara tries to find an asnswer to the question – is the beginning of our mishna talking about leaving an item on the flame from before Shabbat or retunring something to the fire on Shabbat? Does the mishna ohld like Chananiya or not? Is one allowed to put a pot next to the fire to warm up even the coals are not swpet to the side or covered up with ashes? The gemara brings the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya and three versions of Rabbi Yochanan regarding the issue of putting something on the fire before Shabbat – do the ashes need to be swept to the side or covered? Does it matter if the food is fully cooked or is it sufficient if it is partially cooked (maachal ben drosai)? Does it matter if the food will be imporved with more cooking or is it only allowed if it will get worse if one cooks it too long? The gemara then brings different opinions that were practiced in different places.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讛讞讝讬专 转谞谉 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻讬专讛 砖讛住讬拽讜讛 讘拽砖 讜讘讙讘讘讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 注诇讬讛 转讘砖讬诇 讘讙驻转 讜讘注爪讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 注讚 砖讬讙专讜祝 讗讜 注讚 砖讬转谉 讗转 讛讗驻专 讗讘诇 诇砖讛讜转 诪砖讛讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讙专讜祝 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讟讜诐 讜诪讛 讛谉 诪砖讛讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 讜讛讱 讞讝专讛 讚讗诪专讬 诇讱 诇讗讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉


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.


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讘讛 讗讘诇 诇转讜讻讛 讗住讜专 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讛讞讝讬专 转谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖谞讬 讘讬谉 转讜讻讛 诇注诇 讙讘讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇砖讛讜转 转谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 转讜讻讛 诪讛 诇讬 注诇 讙讘讛 诪讬 住讘专转 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讘讛 讗讘诇 转讜讻讛 讗住讜专


Come and hear another resolution to this dilemma from that which Rabbi 岣lbo said that Rav 岣ma 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 岣lbo 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 岣lbo said that Rav 岣ma 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.


转讗 砖诪注 砖转讬 讻讬专讜转 讛诪转讗讬诪讜转 讗讞转 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 讜讗讞转 砖讗讬谞讛 讙专讜驻讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽讟讜诪讛 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讛 讙专讜驻讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽讟讜诪讛 讜诪讛 讛谉 诪砖讛讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 注拽专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉


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.


讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖讛讜转 转谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讛讞讝讬专 转谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽砖讬讗 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘讞讚讗 讜诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘转专转讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛


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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.


诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讛讞讝讬专 转谞谉 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讞讚讗 讘讞诪讬谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讚讗讬诇讜 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘专 诇砖讛讜转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讙专讜祝 讜拽讟讜诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘诇砖讛讜转 谞诪讬 讙专讜祝 讜拽讟讜诐 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗


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.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇住诪讜讱 讘讛 转讜讻讛 讜讙讘讛 讗住讜专 讗讘诇 诇住诪讜讱 讘讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗


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.


转讗 砖诪注 砖转讬 讻讬专讜转 讛诪转讗讬诪讜转 讗讞转 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 讜讗讞转 砖讗讬谞讛 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 住诇讬拽 诇讬讛 讛讘诇讗 诪讗讬讚讱 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讚诇讬讗 砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗


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.


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 拽讟诪讛 讜谞转诇讘转讛 住讜诪讻讬谉 诇讛 讜诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪诪谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇住诪讜讱 谞诪讬 拽讟诪讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 拽讟诪讛 诇讗 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪诪谞讛 讚拽转谞讬 拽讟诪讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 拽讟诪讛 诇讗 讗诇讗 转谞讗 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转谞讗 住讜诪讻讬谉 诪砖讜诐 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉


Come and hear another resolution to this dilemma from that which Rav Safra said that Rav 岣yya 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.


讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讘讞讚 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 转谞讗 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 住讜诪讻讬谉 讘讞讚 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讜诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘讞讚 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗


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.


诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讻讬专讛 砖讛住讬拽讜讛 讘讙驻转 讜讘注爪讬诐 住讜诪讻讬谉 诇讛 讜讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 讙讞诇讬诐 砖注诪诪讜 讗讜 砖谞转谉 注诇讬讛 谞注讜专转 砖诇 驻砖转谉 讚拽讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻拽讟讜诪讛


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.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 拽讟诪讛 讜讛讜讘注专讛 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 讻诇 爪讜专讻谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 砖讘讬砖诇 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜


Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani 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.


砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 诪讜转专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚拽讟诪讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讛讜讘注专讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讜讘注专讛 讛讚专讗 诇讛 诇诪讬诇转讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉


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.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讟诪讛 讜讛讜讘注专讛 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 讻诇 爪讜专讻谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 砖讘讬砖诇 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讙讞诇讬诐 砖诇 专讜转诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 诪讜转专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚拽讟诪讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讛讜讘注专讛 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 讙讞诇讬诐 砖诇 专讜转诐 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛


Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬专讛 砖讛住讬拽讜讛 讘讙驻转 讜讘注爪讬诐 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞诪讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讜讞诪讜 讻诇 爪讜专讻谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 砖诇讗 讘讬砖诇 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜 注拽专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 注讚 砖讬讙专讜祝 讗讜 注讚 砖讬转谉 讗驻专 拽住讘专 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 转谞谉 讗讘诇 诇砖讛讜转 诪砖讛讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讙专讜祝 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讟讜诐


Rav Sheshet said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 转谞谞讛讬 诇砖讛讜转 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗转 讛驻转 讘转讜讱 讛转谞讜专 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 讜诇讗 讞专专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬拽专诪讜 驻谞讬讛 讛讗 拽专诪讜 驻谞讬讛 砖专讬 诇讛讞讝讬专 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽砖专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诇讗 讘讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讗讬谞讛 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 诇讗 讜专讘 砖砖转 谞诪讬 讚讬讜拽讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉


Rava said: We already learned both aspects of Rav Sheshet鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬专讛 砖讛住讬拽讜讛 讘讙驻转 讜讘注爪讬诐 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇讬讛 转讘砖讬诇 砖讘讬砖诇 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜 讜讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 讻诇 爪讜专讻谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 诇专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 讗住讜专


Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檛 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?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 诇讬转 讗谞讗 讬讚注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 讗住讜专 讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 诪诪讬砖谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗转讜谉 讚诪拽专讘讬转讜 诇专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 注讘讬讚讜 讻专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗谞谉 谞注讘讬讚 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉


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 Yo岣nan. 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 Yo岣nan.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讛讜 诇砖讛讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讛讜 诇讬讛 讜讗讻讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诪住讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 谞诪讬 砖专讬 诇诪注讘讚 诇讬讛 诇讬 讜诇讱 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘住讜专讗 诪砖讛讜 讚讛讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪专讬 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛 讜诪砖讛讜 诇讬讛 讜讗讻讬诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜砖讛讬谉 诇讬讛 讻住讗 讚讛专住谞讗 讜讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 诪讜转专 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪讬讞讗 诪爪讟诪拽 讜专注 诇讜 讛讜讗


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鈥檛 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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 讗住讜专 诪爪讟诪拽 讜专注 诇讜 诪讜转专 讻诇诇讗 讚诪诇转讗 讻诇 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪讬讞讗 诪爪讟诪拽 讜专注 诇讜 诇讘专 诪转讘砖讬诇 讚诇讬驻转讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪讬讞讗 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 讛讜讗 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讘砖专讗 讗讘诇 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讘砖专讗 诪爪讟诪拽 讜专注 诇讜 讛讜讗 讜讻讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讘砖专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 拽讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讗讘诇 拽讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 诪爪讟诪拽 讜专注 诇讜 诇驻讚讗 讚讬讬住讗 讜转诪专讬 诪爪讟诪拽 讜专注 诇讛谉


Rav Na岣an 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.


讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗


They raised a dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba:


Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Weaving Wisdom

Rabbis, Archaeologist and Linguists

In the Daf Yomi, we see many interesting discussions about ancient vessels and other types of furnishings and tools.聽 An...
daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Shabbat 33-37- Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCb2NcsYM50 We will review topics on Daf 33-37 including types of cooking and ovens.聽 We will then learn...
Women's Daf Yomi of Alon Shvut

Heating food on erev shabbat. The adventure continues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnCAwa4xmY Shabbat 37: Heating food on erev shabbat / returning food on shabbat, Chananya and Chachamim. The adventure continues. With...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 37: None of These Melakhot Is Exactly as It Seems

Cooking! When more time on the fire is better or worse for the food. Also: Understanding the variables in cooking...

Shabbat 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 37

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讛讞讝讬专 转谞谉 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻讬专讛 砖讛住讬拽讜讛 讘拽砖 讜讘讙讘讘讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 注诇讬讛 转讘砖讬诇 讘讙驻转 讜讘注爪讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 注讚 砖讬讙专讜祝 讗讜 注讚 砖讬转谉 讗转 讛讗驻专 讗讘诇 诇砖讛讜转 诪砖讛讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讙专讜祝 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讟讜诐 讜诪讛 讛谉 诪砖讛讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 讜讛讱 讞讝专讛 讚讗诪专讬 诇讱 诇讗讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉


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.


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讘讛 讗讘诇 诇转讜讻讛 讗住讜专 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讛讞讝讬专 转谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖谞讬 讘讬谉 转讜讻讛 诇注诇 讙讘讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇砖讛讜转 转谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 转讜讻讛 诪讛 诇讬 注诇 讙讘讛 诪讬 住讘专转 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讘讛 讗讘诇 转讜讻讛 讗住讜专


Come and hear another resolution to this dilemma from that which Rabbi 岣lbo said that Rav 岣ma 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 岣lbo 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 岣lbo said that Rav 岣ma 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.


转讗 砖诪注 砖转讬 讻讬专讜转 讛诪转讗讬诪讜转 讗讞转 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 讜讗讞转 砖讗讬谞讛 讙专讜驻讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽讟讜诪讛 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讛 讙专讜驻讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽讟讜诪讛 讜诪讛 讛谉 诪砖讛讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 注拽专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 转讘砖讬诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪讬谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉


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.


讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖讛讜转 转谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讛讞讝讬专 转谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽砖讬讗 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘讞讚讗 讜诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘转专转讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛


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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.


诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讛讞讝讬专 转谞谉 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讞讚讗 讘讞诪讬谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讚讗讬诇讜 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘专 诇砖讛讜转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讙专讜祝 讜拽讟讜诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘诇砖讛讜转 谞诪讬 讙专讜祝 讜拽讟讜诐 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗


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.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇住诪讜讱 讘讛 转讜讻讛 讜讙讘讛 讗住讜专 讗讘诇 诇住诪讜讱 讘讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗


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.


转讗 砖诪注 砖转讬 讻讬专讜转 讛诪转讗讬诪讜转 讗讞转 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 讜讗讞转 砖讗讬谞讛 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 住诇讬拽 诇讬讛 讛讘诇讗 诪讗讬讚讱 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讚诇讬讗 砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗


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.


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 拽讟诪讛 讜谞转诇讘转讛 住讜诪讻讬谉 诇讛 讜诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪诪谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇住诪讜讱 谞诪讬 拽讟诪讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 拽讟诪讛 诇讗 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪诪谞讛 讚拽转谞讬 拽讟诪讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 拽讟诪讛 诇讗 讗诇讗 转谞讗 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转谞讗 住讜诪讻讬谉 诪砖讜诐 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉


Come and hear another resolution to this dilemma from that which Rav Safra said that Rav 岣yya 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.


讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讘讞讚 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 转谞讗 谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 住讜诪讻讬谉 讘讞讚 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讜诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘讞讚 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗


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.


诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讻讬专讛 砖讛住讬拽讜讛 讘讙驻转 讜讘注爪讬诐 住讜诪讻讬谉 诇讛 讜讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 讙讞诇讬诐 砖注诪诪讜 讗讜 砖谞转谉 注诇讬讛 谞注讜专转 砖诇 驻砖转谉 讚拽讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻拽讟讜诪讛


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.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 拽讟诪讛 讜讛讜讘注专讛 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 讻诇 爪讜专讻谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 砖讘讬砖诇 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜


Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani 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.


砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 诪讜转专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚拽讟诪讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讛讜讘注专讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讜讘注专讛 讛讚专讗 诇讛 诇诪讬诇转讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉


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.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讟诪讛 讜讛讜讘注专讛 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 讻诇 爪讜专讻谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 砖讘讬砖诇 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讙讞诇讬诐 砖诇 专讜转诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 诪讜转专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚拽讟诪讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讛讜讘注专讛 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 讙讞诇讬诐 砖诇 专讜转诐 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛


Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬专讛 砖讛住讬拽讜讛 讘讙驻转 讜讘注爪讬诐 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞诪讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讜讞诪讜 讻诇 爪讜专讻谉 讜转讘砖讬诇 砖诇讗 讘讬砖诇 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜 注拽专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 注讚 砖讬讙专讜祝 讗讜 注讚 砖讬转谉 讗驻专 拽住讘专 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 转谞谉 讗讘诇 诇砖讛讜转 诪砖讛讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讙专讜祝 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讟讜诐


Rav Sheshet said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 转谞谞讛讬 诇砖讛讜转 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗转 讛驻转 讘转讜讱 讛转谞讜专 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 讜诇讗 讞专专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬拽专诪讜 驻谞讬讛 讛讗 拽专诪讜 驻谞讬讛 砖专讬 诇讛讞讝讬专 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽砖专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗诇讗 讘讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讗讬谞讛 讙专讜驻讛 讜拽讟讜诪讛 诇讗 讜专讘 砖砖转 谞诪讬 讚讬讜拽讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉


Rava said: We already learned both aspects of Rav Sheshet鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬专讛 砖讛住讬拽讜讛 讘讙驻转 讜讘注爪讬诐 诪砖讛讬谉 注诇讬讛 转讘砖讬诇 砖讘讬砖诇 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜 讜讞诪讬谉 砖讛讜讞诪讜 讻诇 爪讜专讻谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 诇专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 讗住讜专


Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檛 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?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 诇讬转 讗谞讗 讬讚注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 讗住讜专 讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 诪诪讬砖谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗转讜谉 讚诪拽专讘讬转讜 诇专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 注讘讬讚讜 讻专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗谞谉 谞注讘讬讚 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉


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 Yo岣nan. 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 Yo岣nan.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讛讜 诇砖讛讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讛讜 诇讬讛 讜讗讻讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诪住讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 谞诪讬 砖专讬 诇诪注讘讚 诇讬讛 诇讬 讜诇讱 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘住讜专讗 诪砖讛讜 讚讛讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪专讬 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛 讜诪砖讛讜 诇讬讛 讜讗讻讬诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜砖讛讬谉 诇讬讛 讻住讗 讚讛专住谞讗 讜讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 诪讜转专 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪讬讞讗 诪爪讟诪拽 讜专注 诇讜 讛讜讗


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鈥檛 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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 讗住讜专 诪爪讟诪拽 讜专注 诇讜 诪讜转专 讻诇诇讗 讚诪诇转讗 讻诇 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪讬讞讗 诪爪讟诪拽 讜专注 诇讜 诇讘专 诪转讘砖讬诇 讚诇讬驻转讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪讬讞讗 诪爪讟诪拽 讜讬驻讛 诇讜 讛讜讗 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讘砖专讗 讗讘诇 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讘砖专讗 诪爪讟诪拽 讜专注 诇讜 讛讜讗 讜讻讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讘砖专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 拽讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讗讘诇 拽讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 诪爪讟诪拽 讜专注 诇讜 诇驻讚讗 讚讬讬住讗 讜转诪专讬 诪爪讟诪拽 讜专注 诇讛谉


Rav Na岣an 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.


讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗


They raised a dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba:


Scroll To Top