Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 13, 2020 | י״ט בניסן תש״פ

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 38

This week’s shiurim are dedicated by Caroline Ben-Ari in appreciation of the Hadran community of Rabbanit Farber in particular and for a refuah shleima for all who need it.

If one forgot and left the pot on an open fire from before Shabbat, can one eat the food on Shabbat? Is there a difference if it was done on purpose or by accident? A braita is brought with opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and they seem to be different than what was brought in the previous daf regarding the difference between foods that improve if left on the fire and foods that don’t improve. Which foods are in the category of “if they stay on the flame longer and shrivel, it is good for them”?  The gemara discusses returning food on Shabbat – it is unclear whether they are referring to food that was taken off the fire before Shabbat and one wants to return it on Shabbat or to return Shabbat morning? Under what conditions can one return items to the fire on Shabbat? There are a number of debates regarding requirements – does it still need to be in one’s hands and can’t be put on the ground?Does one need to have intent to return it? Does one need both? Until now, we have been discussing a type of oven/burner called a kira. What about an oven (wide at the bottom, narrow at the top) or a kupach. What is a kupach? How does it differ from a kira? Can one place items near an oven just not on top of it or inside it? Can one cook using something that was heated by the sun or by a fire?

 

תוכן זה תורגם גם ל: עברית

שכח קדירה על גבי כירה ובשלה בשבת מהו אישתיק ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי למחר נפק דרש להו המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל ולא שנא

If one forgot a pot on Shabbat eve atop a stove and it cooked on Shabbat, what is the ruling in that case? Is one permitted to eat that food, or not? He was silent and did not say a thing to him. The next day, he emerged and publicly taught them the following halakha: With regard to one who cooks on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat it, and if he cooked intentionally, he may not eat it; and the halakha is no different.

מאי ולא שנא רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרווייהו להיתירא מבשל הוא דקא עביד מעשה במזיד לא יאכל אבל האי דלא קא עביד מעשה במזיד נמי יאכל רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר לאיסורא מבשל הוא דלא אתי לאיערומי בשוגג יאכל אבל האי דאתי לאיערומי בשוגג נמי לא יאכל

The last part of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s statement is unclear. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic meaning of the phrase: And it is no different? Rabba and Rav Yosef both said to interpret the phrase permissively in the following manner: One who cooks is one who performs an action. If he did so intentionally, he may not eat what he cooked. However, this one who forgot the pot on the stove, who does not perform an action, even if he intentionally left the pot on Shabbat eve, he may also eat the food. However, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that the phrase: And it is no different, should be interpreted restrictively in the following manner: It is one who cooks who will not come to deceive, as there is no room for suspicion that a person will intentionally cook on Shabbat. Therefore, if one cooks unwittingly, he may eat it. However, one who would come to deceive, intentionally leaving the pot on the stove and saying: I forgot it, the Sages penalize him and decree that if he did so unwittingly as well, he may not eat it.

מיתיבי שכח קדירה על גבי כירה ובישלה בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל במה דברים אמורים בחמין שלא הוחמו כל צורכן ותבשיל שלא בישל כל צורכו אבל חמין שהוחמו כל צורכן ותבשיל שבישל כל צורכו בין בשוגג בין במזיד יאכל דברי רבי מאיר

The Gemara raises an objection to this statement from that which was taught in a baraita: One who forgot a pot atop a stove and it cooked on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat it; if he did so intentionally, he may not eat it. In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the pot contains hot water that was not yet completely heated, and the same applies to cooked food that was not yet completely cooked. However, if it contains hot water that was already completely heated and cooked food that was already completely cooked, whether the pot was left there unwittingly, or whether the pot was left there intentionally, one may eat it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

רבי יהודה אומר חמין שהוחמו כל צורכן מותרין מפני שמצטמק ורע לו ותבשיל שבישל כל צורכו אסור מפני שמצטמק ויפה לו וכל המצטמק ויפה לו כגון כרוב ופולים ובשר טרוף אסור וכל המצטמק ורע לו מותר

Rabbi Yehuda says that there is a distinction: Hot water that was already completely heated is permitted because, in that case, the longer it remains on the fire, the more it shrivels, i.e., evaporates, and deteriorates. In that case, one would certainly not come to increase the heat because he would not want to lose more water through evaporation. However, cooked food that was completely cooked, it is prohibited to leave it on the fire because it shrivels and improves. There is room for concern that he will stoke the coals to increase the heat under the food. And there is a general principle: Anything that shrivels and improves, e.g., cabbage, and beans, and meat cut into small pieces is prohibited; and anything that shrivels and deteriorates is permitted.

קתני מיהא תבשיל שלא בישל כל צורכו בשלמא לרב נחמן בר יצחק לא קשיא כאן קודם גזרה כאן לאחר גזרה אלא רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי להיתירא אי קודם גזרה קשיא מזיד אי לאחר גזרה קשיא נמי שוגג קשיא

In any event, it was taught in that baraita that in the case of cooked food that was not completely cooked, if it was cooked unwittingly, it is permitted. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, this is not difficult. Although there is an apparent contradiction, as he prohibits eating from a pot that was unwittingly forgotten on the stove, and the baraita prohibits it only when it was left intentionally, he could explain the following: Here, the baraita, which permits eating it, was taught prior to the decree that was issued lest a person act deceitfully, whereas there, the halakha of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, was taught after the decree, which prohibited eating food even if it was forgotten unwittingly. However, according to the opinion of Rabba and Rav Yosef, who said to interpret the phrase permissively, whether he left it on the stove unwittingly or he did so intentionally, it is difficult. If this baraita was taught prior to the decree, the ruling with regard to when he did so intentionally is difficult, as Rabba and Rav Yosef permit eating the food even in that case. If this baraita was taught after the decree, the ruling with regard to when he did so unwittingly is also difficult, as Rabba and Rav Yosef permit eating the food in every case. No answer was found to this objection and the Gemara concludes: It is indeed difficult.

מאי גזירתא דאמר רב יהודה בר שמואל אמר רבי אבא אמר רב כהנא אמר רב בתחילה היו אומרים המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל והוא הדין לשוכח משרבו משהין במזיד ואומרים שכחים אנו חזרו וקנסו על השוכח

With regard to the matter itself, the Gemara asks: What is the decree that was discussed above in terms of the distinction between before the decree and after the decree? The Gemara says: This is the decree that Rav Yehuda bar Shmuel said that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Kahana said that Rav said: Initially, they would say: With regard to one who cooks on Shabbat, if it was unwitting, one may eat it; if it was intentional, one may not eat it. And the same is true with regard to one who forgets the pot atop the stove before Shabbat and it cooks on Shabbat. When the number of those who leave their pots intentionally and say we forgot to justify their actions, increased, the Sages then penalized those who forgot. Even one who forgets unwittingly may not eat it.

קשיא דרבי מאיר אדרבי מאיר קשיא דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה דרבי מאיר אדרבי מאיר לא קשיא הא לכתחילה הא דיעבד דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה נמי לא קשיא כאן בגרופה וקטומה כאן בשאינה גרופה וקטומה

In the Tosefta cited earlier, which deals with one who forgot a pot atop the stove and the food cooked on Shabbat, Rabbi Meir ruled leniently and permitted both hot water that was completely heated and cooked food that was completely cooked, even when it was left on the stove intentionally. Rabbi Yehuda ruled stringently and distinguished between different cases. However, in the Tosefta cited at the beginning of the chapter, it was taught that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to the opinions of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai as far as leaving food on the stove on Shabbat is concerned. Rabbi Meir says that it is completely prohibited to leave cooked food on the stove ab initio, even according to Beit Hillel who rule leniently. Rabbi Yehuda said that Beit Hillel ruled leniently and permitted doing so. There is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Meir and the other statement of Rabbi Meir, and there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara responds: Between one statement of Rabbi Meir and the other statement of Rabbi Meir there is no contradiction. That which we learned: Rabbi Meir prohibits leaving cooked food under any circumstances, is speaking ab initio; whereas this, where he permits eating the food even if it was left on the stove intentionally, is speaking after the fact. Between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda there is also no contradiction. There, where he permitted leaving the food on the stove, it is referring to the case of a stove that was swept and covered with ashes, whereas here, where he prohibited doing so, is referring to the case of a stove that is not swept and covered with ashes.

איבעיא להו עבר ושהה מאי מי קנסוהו רבנן או לא תא שמע דאמר שמואל בר נתן אמר רבי חנינא כשהלך רבי יוסי לציפורי מצא חמין שנשתהו על גבי כירה ולא אסר להן ביצים מצומקות שנשתהו על גבי כירה ואסר להן מאי לאו לאותו שבת לא לשבת הבאה

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: One who transgressed and left his pot on the fire on Shabbat, what is his legal status? Did the Sages penalize him and prohibit him from eating the food, or did they not penalize him? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which Shmuel bar Natan said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: When Rabbi Yosei went to the city of Tzippori, he found hot water that was left on the stove, and he did not prohibit them from drinking it. He found eggs shriveled from overcooking that were left on the stove on Shabbat and he prohibited them from eating them. Is this not referring to permitting and prohibiting their consumption for that same Shabbat? If so, apparently he prohibits eating cooked food that was intentionally left on the stove on Shabbat. The Gemara immediately rejects this assumption: No. Rather, he prohibited them from doing so ab initio the following Shabbat, but he did not prohibit them from eating the eggs on that same Shabbat.

מכלל דביצים מצומקות מצטמקות ויפה להן נינהו אין דאמר רב חמא בר חנינא פעם אחת נתארחתי אני ורבי למקום אחד והביאו לפנינו ביצים מצומקות כעוזרדין ואכלנו מהן הרבה:

The Gemara is surprised: From this statement it can be inferred that eggs shriveled from overcooking shrivel and improve when left on the fire for a long time, and that is the reason that Rabbi Yosei made a distinction between hot water, which he permitted leaving on the stove, and eggs, which he prohibited leaving on the stove. The Gemara replies: Yes, overcooking improves the eggs. As Rav Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: One time Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and I were guests in the same place, and they brought before us overcooked eggs that shriveled to the size of crab apples [uzradin] and we ate many of them. Apparently, extended cooking improves eggs. Therefore, when they are left on the fire on Shabbat there is room for concern lest one stoke the coals in order to shrivel them more.

בית הלל אומרים אף מחזירין: אמר רב ששת לדברי האומר

We learned in the mishna: Beit Hillel say that one may even return a pot taken off the stove to the stove on Shabbat. Rav Sheshet said: According to the one who says

מחזירין אפילו בשבת ואף רבי אושעיא סבר אף מחזירין אפילו בשבת דאמר רבי אושעיא פעם אחת היינו עומדים לעילא מרבי חייא רבה והעלנו לו קומקמוס של חמין מדיוטא התחתונה לדיוטא העליונה ומזגנו לו את הכוס והחזרנוהו למקומו ולא אמר לנו דבר

that one may even return it, doing so is permitted even on Shabbat and not only on Shabbat eve. And Rav Oshaya also holds: One may even return it even on Shabbat. As Rav Oshaya said: Once we were standing on Shabbat before Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great and we passed up to him a kettle [kumkemos] of hot water from the bottom floor [deyota] to the top floor, and we poured him a cup and returned the kettle to its place on top of the stove, and he did not say anything to us. Apparently, he is of the opinion that even on Shabbat it is permitted to return a pot to the stove.

אמר רבי זריקא אמר רבי אבא אמר רבי תדאי לא שנו אלא שעודן בידו אבל הניחן על גבי קרקע אסור אמר רבי אמי רבי תדאי דעבד לגרמיה הוא דעבד אלא הכי אמר רבי חייא אמר רבי יוחנן אפילו הניחה על גבי קרקע מותר

Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Tadai said: They only taught that it is permitted to return vessels with the food inside them when they are still in his hand; however, if he already placed them on the ground, he obviously regretted placing them on the fire and it is prohibited to replace them on the stove. Rabbi Ami said: That which Rabbi Tadai did and said, he did on his own, and not in accordance with the accepted halakha. Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: Even if one placed the pot on the ground, it is permitted to return it to the stove.

פליגי בה רב דימי ורב שמואל בר יהודה ותרוייהו משמיה דרבי אלעזר אמרי חד אמר עודן בידו מותר על גבי קרקע אסור וחד אמר הניחן על גבי קרקע נמי מותר אמר חזקיה משמיה דאביי הא דאמרת עודן בידו מותר לא אמרן אלא שדעתו להחזיר אבל אין דעתו להחזיר אסור מכלל דעל גבי קרקע אף על פי שדעתו להחזיר אסור

The Gemara remarks that Rav Dimi and Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda disagreed about this matter, and both stated their opinion in the name of Rabbi Elazar. One said that when they are still in his hand, it is permitted to return them to the stove; when they were already placed on the ground, it is prohibited to do so. And one said that even if one placed them on the ground, it is also permitted to return it to the stove. Ḥizkiya said in the name of Abaye: That which you said, that when it is still in his hand, it is permitted to return it to the stove; we only said that halakha when his original intention was to return it to the stove. However, when it was not his original intention to return it, and he reconsidered and decided to return it, it is prohibited to return it. This proves by inference that if one placed it on the ground, even if his intention was to return it, it is prohibited.

איכא דאמרי אמר חזקיה משמיה דאביי הא דאמרת על גבי קרקע אסור לא אמרן אלא שאין דעתו להחזיר אבל דעתו להחזיר מותר מכלל שבעודן בידו אף על פי שאין דעתו להחזיר מותר בעי רבי ירמיה תלאן במקל מהו הניחן על גבי מטה מהו בעי רב אשי פינן ממיחם למיחם מהו תיקו:

Some say a different version of what Ḥizkiya said in the name of Abaye: That which you said, if one placed it on the ground it is prohibited; we only said that halakha when it was not his original intention to return it. However, if his original intention was to return it, it is permitted. With regard to this matter, Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: In a case where he neither placed them on the floor nor held them in his hand, but he hung them on a stick, what is the ruling? In a case where he placed it on top of a bed, what is the ruling? Similarly, Rav Ashi raised a dilemma: If one transferred them from one urn to another urn what is the ruling? The Gemara said: These dilemmas stand unresolved.

מתני׳ תנור שהסיקוהו בקש ובגבבא לא יתן בין מתוכו בין מעל גביו כופח שהסיקוהו בקש ובגבבא הרי זה ככיריים בגפת ובעצים הרי הוא כתנור:

MISHNA: The halakhot that were stated with regard to a stove were specific to a stove’s unique structure and the manner in which it retains heat. However, with regard to other baking apparatuses, i.e., an oven or a kupaḥ, there are different rules. The mishna delineates: An oven that they lit even with straw or rakings, one may neither place a pot inside it nor atop it on Shabbat. Whereas a kupaḥ that was lit with straw or rakings, its legal status is like that of a stove, and one is permitted to place a pot atop it on Shabbat. If it were lit with pomace or with wood, its legal status is like that of an oven and it is prohibited to place a pot atop it on Shabbat.

גמ׳ תנור שהסיקוהו סבר רב יוסף למימר תוכו תוכו ממש על גביו על גביו ממש אבל לסמוך שפיר דמי איתיביה אביי כופח שהסיקוהו בקש ובגבבא הרי הוא ככיריים בגפת ובעצים הרי הוא כתנור ואסור הא ככירה שרי במאי עסקינן אילימא על גביו ובמאי אילימא כשאינו גרוף וקטום אלא כירה כי אינה גרופה וקטומה על גביו מי שרי אלא לאו לסמוך וקתני הרי הוא כתנור ואסיר

GEMARA: With regard to that which we learned in the mishna that an oven that they lit even with straw or rakings, one may neither place a pot atop it nor inside it, Rav Yosef thought to say that when the mishna says inside it, it means actually inside it; and when it says atop it, it means actually atop it. However, to lean a pot against an oven, it may well be done. Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from that which we learned in our mishna: A kupaḥ that was lit with straw or rakings, its legal status is like that of a stove. If it were lit with pomace or with wood, its legal status is like that of an oven, and it is prohibited. By inference: If it were like a stove, it would be permitted. With what circumstances are we dealing? If you say that he placed the pot atop the kupaḥ, and in what case? If you say it is referring to a case where it is not swept and covered with ashes; a stove that is not swept and covered with ashes, is it permitted even to place a pot atop it on Shabbat? Rather, isn’t it referring to a case where one seeks to lean a pot against a kupaḥ, and it taught: It is like an oven, and prohibited?

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה הכא בכופח גרוף וקטום ותנור גרופה וקטומה עסקינן הרי הוא כתנור דאף על גב דגרוף וקטום על גביו אסור דאי ככירה כי גרופה וקטומה שפיר דמי: תניא כוותיה דאביי תנור שהסיקוהו בקש ובגבבא אין סומכין לו ואין צריך לומר על גביו ואין צריך לומר לתוכו ואין צריך לומר בגפת ובעצים כופח שהסיקוהו בקש ובגבבא סומכין לו ואין נותנין על גביו בגפת ובעצים אין סומכין לו

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here we are dealing with the cases of a kupaḥ that is swept and covered with ashes and an oven that is swept and covered with ashes, and the mishna is to be understood as follows: It is like an oven in the sense that, although it is swept and covered with ashes, it is prohibited to place a pot atop it; as, if its legal status were like that of a stove, when it is swept and covered it may well be done. The Gemara comments that there is a baraita that taught in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: An oven that one lit with straw and with rakings, one may not lean a pot against it, and needless to say one may not place a pot atop it, and needless to say one may not place a pot inside it, and, needless to say if it was lit with pomace or with wood it is prohibited. While with regard to a kupaḥ that was lit with straw or with rakings, one may lean a pot against it, but he may not place a pot atop it. If it was lit with pomace or with wood, one may not lean a pot against it.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי האי כופח היכי דמי אי ככירה דמי אפילו בגפת ובעצים נמי אי כתנור דמי אפילו בקש ובגבבא נמי לא אמר ליה נפיש הבליה מדכירה וזוטר הבליה מדתנור

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This kupaḥ, what are its circumstances? If it is considered like a stove, even if it was lit with pomace or with wood, it should also be permitted. And if it is considered like an oven, even with straw or with rakings, it should also not be permitted. Rav Ashi said to him: From a halakhic perspective, a kupaḥ has intermediate status. Its heat is greater than that of a stove; however, its heat is less than that of an oven.

היכי דמי כופח היכי דמי כירה אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא כופח מקום שפיתת קדרה אחת כירה מקום שפיתת שתי קדרות אמר אביי ואיתימא רבי ירמיה אף אנן נמי תנינא כירה שנחלקה לאורכה טהורה לרחבה טמאה כופח בין לאורכו בין לרוחבו טהור:

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a kupaḥ? What are the circumstances of a stove in terms of the configuration of the vessels? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: A kupaḥ is a small vessel that is similar to a stove; however, it only has one hole with enough space to place a single pot. A stove is like a double kupaḥ with enough space to place two pots. Abaye said, and some say that Rabbi Yirmeya said: We also learned this matter in a mishna dealing with the laws of ritual purity and impurity: An impure stove that was divided lengthwise is pure because it can no longer be considered a vessel. It is a broken vessel, and a broken vessel cannot become ritually impure. However, if the stove was divided widthwise, between the spaces for the pots, then it remains impure because it became two small stoves. However, a kupaḥ, whether it was divided lengthwise or whether it was divided widthwise, is pure because it can no longer be used as there is no way to put even a single pot on it. That is the difference between a kupaḥ and a stove.

מתני׳ אין נותנין ביצה בצד המיחם בשביל שתתגלגל ולא יפקיענה בסודרין ורבי יוסי מתיר ולא יטמיננה בחול ובאבק דרכים בשביל שתצלה

MISHNA: In addition to the halakhot that deal with cooking on the fire on Shabbat, several related halakhot are discussed. The mishna says: One may not place a raw egg next to an urn full of hot water so that it will roast slightly. And one may not even wrap it in cloths, i.e., one may not heat the egg inside cloths that were heated in the sun. And Rabbi Yosei permits doing so in that case. And, similarly, one may not insulate it in sand or in road dust that was heated in the sun so that it will roast. Although there is no actual cooking with fire here, it is similar to cooking and the Sages issued a decree to prohibit doing so.

מעשה שעשו אנשי טבריא והביאו סילון של צונן לתוך אמה של חמין אמרו להם חכמים אם בשבת כחמין שהוחמו בשבת ואסורין ברחיצה ובשתיה אם ביום טוב כחמין שהוחמו ביום טוב ואסורין ברחיצה ומותרין בשתיה:

The mishna relates a story about the people of the city of Tiberias, and they ran a cold-water pipe [silon] through a canal of hot water from the Tiberias hot springs. They thought that by doing so, they could heat the cold potable water on Shabbat. The Rabbis said to them: If the water passed through on Shabbat, its legal status is like that of hot water that was heated on Shabbat, and the water is prohibited both for bathing and for drinking. And if the water passed through on a Festival, then it is prohibited for bathing but permitted for drinking. On Festivals, one is even permitted to boil water on actual fire for the purposes of eating and drinking.

גמ׳ איבעיא להו גלגל מאי אמר רב יוסף גלגל חייב חטאת אמר מר בריה דרבינא אף אנן נמי תנינא

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: One who violated the halakha in the mishna and slightly roasted an egg next to an urn, what is the ruling? Rav Yosef said: One who slightly cooked an egg is liable to bring a sin-offering, as he performed the act of cooking on Shabbat, which is prohibited by Torah law. Mar, son of Ravina, said: We also learned something similar in the mishna:

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.  An...
daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Shabbat 38-46 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiVHiL6DOBc Join Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz each week as she reviews the key topics of the previous week’s seven pages....
What’s Cookin’?

What’s Cookin’?

Shabbat 38 What did our ancestors’ kitchens look like? What are all these terms thrown around in Shabbat and in...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 38: Putting One Over on Hilkhot Shabbat – Temporarily

More cooking! A decree that sheds light on halakhic cooking - and human nature. Defining terms: acting be-mezid, be-sho-geg, or...

Shabbat 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 38

שכח קדירה על גבי כירה ובשלה בשבת מהו אישתיק ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי למחר נפק דרש להו המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל ולא שנא

If one forgot a pot on Shabbat eve atop a stove and it cooked on Shabbat, what is the ruling in that case? Is one permitted to eat that food, or not? He was silent and did not say a thing to him. The next day, he emerged and publicly taught them the following halakha: With regard to one who cooks on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat it, and if he cooked intentionally, he may not eat it; and the halakha is no different.

מאי ולא שנא רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרווייהו להיתירא מבשל הוא דקא עביד מעשה במזיד לא יאכל אבל האי דלא קא עביד מעשה במזיד נמי יאכל רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר לאיסורא מבשל הוא דלא אתי לאיערומי בשוגג יאכל אבל האי דאתי לאיערומי בשוגג נמי לא יאכל

The last part of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s statement is unclear. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic meaning of the phrase: And it is no different? Rabba and Rav Yosef both said to interpret the phrase permissively in the following manner: One who cooks is one who performs an action. If he did so intentionally, he may not eat what he cooked. However, this one who forgot the pot on the stove, who does not perform an action, even if he intentionally left the pot on Shabbat eve, he may also eat the food. However, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that the phrase: And it is no different, should be interpreted restrictively in the following manner: It is one who cooks who will not come to deceive, as there is no room for suspicion that a person will intentionally cook on Shabbat. Therefore, if one cooks unwittingly, he may eat it. However, one who would come to deceive, intentionally leaving the pot on the stove and saying: I forgot it, the Sages penalize him and decree that if he did so unwittingly as well, he may not eat it.

מיתיבי שכח קדירה על גבי כירה ובישלה בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל במה דברים אמורים בחמין שלא הוחמו כל צורכן ותבשיל שלא בישל כל צורכו אבל חמין שהוחמו כל צורכן ותבשיל שבישל כל צורכו בין בשוגג בין במזיד יאכל דברי רבי מאיר

The Gemara raises an objection to this statement from that which was taught in a baraita: One who forgot a pot atop a stove and it cooked on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat it; if he did so intentionally, he may not eat it. In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the pot contains hot water that was not yet completely heated, and the same applies to cooked food that was not yet completely cooked. However, if it contains hot water that was already completely heated and cooked food that was already completely cooked, whether the pot was left there unwittingly, or whether the pot was left there intentionally, one may eat it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

רבי יהודה אומר חמין שהוחמו כל צורכן מותרין מפני שמצטמק ורע לו ותבשיל שבישל כל צורכו אסור מפני שמצטמק ויפה לו וכל המצטמק ויפה לו כגון כרוב ופולים ובשר טרוף אסור וכל המצטמק ורע לו מותר

Rabbi Yehuda says that there is a distinction: Hot water that was already completely heated is permitted because, in that case, the longer it remains on the fire, the more it shrivels, i.e., evaporates, and deteriorates. In that case, one would certainly not come to increase the heat because he would not want to lose more water through evaporation. However, cooked food that was completely cooked, it is prohibited to leave it on the fire because it shrivels and improves. There is room for concern that he will stoke the coals to increase the heat under the food. And there is a general principle: Anything that shrivels and improves, e.g., cabbage, and beans, and meat cut into small pieces is prohibited; and anything that shrivels and deteriorates is permitted.

קתני מיהא תבשיל שלא בישל כל צורכו בשלמא לרב נחמן בר יצחק לא קשיא כאן קודם גזרה כאן לאחר גזרה אלא רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי להיתירא אי קודם גזרה קשיא מזיד אי לאחר גזרה קשיא נמי שוגג קשיא

In any event, it was taught in that baraita that in the case of cooked food that was not completely cooked, if it was cooked unwittingly, it is permitted. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, this is not difficult. Although there is an apparent contradiction, as he prohibits eating from a pot that was unwittingly forgotten on the stove, and the baraita prohibits it only when it was left intentionally, he could explain the following: Here, the baraita, which permits eating it, was taught prior to the decree that was issued lest a person act deceitfully, whereas there, the halakha of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, was taught after the decree, which prohibited eating food even if it was forgotten unwittingly. However, according to the opinion of Rabba and Rav Yosef, who said to interpret the phrase permissively, whether he left it on the stove unwittingly or he did so intentionally, it is difficult. If this baraita was taught prior to the decree, the ruling with regard to when he did so intentionally is difficult, as Rabba and Rav Yosef permit eating the food even in that case. If this baraita was taught after the decree, the ruling with regard to when he did so unwittingly is also difficult, as Rabba and Rav Yosef permit eating the food in every case. No answer was found to this objection and the Gemara concludes: It is indeed difficult.

מאי גזירתא דאמר רב יהודה בר שמואל אמר רבי אבא אמר רב כהנא אמר רב בתחילה היו אומרים המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל והוא הדין לשוכח משרבו משהין במזיד ואומרים שכחים אנו חזרו וקנסו על השוכח

With regard to the matter itself, the Gemara asks: What is the decree that was discussed above in terms of the distinction between before the decree and after the decree? The Gemara says: This is the decree that Rav Yehuda bar Shmuel said that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Kahana said that Rav said: Initially, they would say: With regard to one who cooks on Shabbat, if it was unwitting, one may eat it; if it was intentional, one may not eat it. And the same is true with regard to one who forgets the pot atop the stove before Shabbat and it cooks on Shabbat. When the number of those who leave their pots intentionally and say we forgot to justify their actions, increased, the Sages then penalized those who forgot. Even one who forgets unwittingly may not eat it.

קשיא דרבי מאיר אדרבי מאיר קשיא דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה דרבי מאיר אדרבי מאיר לא קשיא הא לכתחילה הא דיעבד דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה נמי לא קשיא כאן בגרופה וקטומה כאן בשאינה גרופה וקטומה

In the Tosefta cited earlier, which deals with one who forgot a pot atop the stove and the food cooked on Shabbat, Rabbi Meir ruled leniently and permitted both hot water that was completely heated and cooked food that was completely cooked, even when it was left on the stove intentionally. Rabbi Yehuda ruled stringently and distinguished between different cases. However, in the Tosefta cited at the beginning of the chapter, it was taught that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to the opinions of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai as far as leaving food on the stove on Shabbat is concerned. Rabbi Meir says that it is completely prohibited to leave cooked food on the stove ab initio, even according to Beit Hillel who rule leniently. Rabbi Yehuda said that Beit Hillel ruled leniently and permitted doing so. There is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Meir and the other statement of Rabbi Meir, and there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara responds: Between one statement of Rabbi Meir and the other statement of Rabbi Meir there is no contradiction. That which we learned: Rabbi Meir prohibits leaving cooked food under any circumstances, is speaking ab initio; whereas this, where he permits eating the food even if it was left on the stove intentionally, is speaking after the fact. Between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda there is also no contradiction. There, where he permitted leaving the food on the stove, it is referring to the case of a stove that was swept and covered with ashes, whereas here, where he prohibited doing so, is referring to the case of a stove that is not swept and covered with ashes.

איבעיא להו עבר ושהה מאי מי קנסוהו רבנן או לא תא שמע דאמר שמואל בר נתן אמר רבי חנינא כשהלך רבי יוסי לציפורי מצא חמין שנשתהו על גבי כירה ולא אסר להן ביצים מצומקות שנשתהו על גבי כירה ואסר להן מאי לאו לאותו שבת לא לשבת הבאה

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: One who transgressed and left his pot on the fire on Shabbat, what is his legal status? Did the Sages penalize him and prohibit him from eating the food, or did they not penalize him? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which Shmuel bar Natan said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: When Rabbi Yosei went to the city of Tzippori, he found hot water that was left on the stove, and he did not prohibit them from drinking it. He found eggs shriveled from overcooking that were left on the stove on Shabbat and he prohibited them from eating them. Is this not referring to permitting and prohibiting their consumption for that same Shabbat? If so, apparently he prohibits eating cooked food that was intentionally left on the stove on Shabbat. The Gemara immediately rejects this assumption: No. Rather, he prohibited them from doing so ab initio the following Shabbat, but he did not prohibit them from eating the eggs on that same Shabbat.

מכלל דביצים מצומקות מצטמקות ויפה להן נינהו אין דאמר רב חמא בר חנינא פעם אחת נתארחתי אני ורבי למקום אחד והביאו לפנינו ביצים מצומקות כעוזרדין ואכלנו מהן הרבה:

The Gemara is surprised: From this statement it can be inferred that eggs shriveled from overcooking shrivel and improve when left on the fire for a long time, and that is the reason that Rabbi Yosei made a distinction between hot water, which he permitted leaving on the stove, and eggs, which he prohibited leaving on the stove. The Gemara replies: Yes, overcooking improves the eggs. As Rav Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: One time Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and I were guests in the same place, and they brought before us overcooked eggs that shriveled to the size of crab apples [uzradin] and we ate many of them. Apparently, extended cooking improves eggs. Therefore, when they are left on the fire on Shabbat there is room for concern lest one stoke the coals in order to shrivel them more.

בית הלל אומרים אף מחזירין: אמר רב ששת לדברי האומר

We learned in the mishna: Beit Hillel say that one may even return a pot taken off the stove to the stove on Shabbat. Rav Sheshet said: According to the one who says

מחזירין אפילו בשבת ואף רבי אושעיא סבר אף מחזירין אפילו בשבת דאמר רבי אושעיא פעם אחת היינו עומדים לעילא מרבי חייא רבה והעלנו לו קומקמוס של חמין מדיוטא התחתונה לדיוטא העליונה ומזגנו לו את הכוס והחזרנוהו למקומו ולא אמר לנו דבר

that one may even return it, doing so is permitted even on Shabbat and not only on Shabbat eve. And Rav Oshaya also holds: One may even return it even on Shabbat. As Rav Oshaya said: Once we were standing on Shabbat before Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great and we passed up to him a kettle [kumkemos] of hot water from the bottom floor [deyota] to the top floor, and we poured him a cup and returned the kettle to its place on top of the stove, and he did not say anything to us. Apparently, he is of the opinion that even on Shabbat it is permitted to return a pot to the stove.

אמר רבי זריקא אמר רבי אבא אמר רבי תדאי לא שנו אלא שעודן בידו אבל הניחן על גבי קרקע אסור אמר רבי אמי רבי תדאי דעבד לגרמיה הוא דעבד אלא הכי אמר רבי חייא אמר רבי יוחנן אפילו הניחה על גבי קרקע מותר

Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Tadai said: They only taught that it is permitted to return vessels with the food inside them when they are still in his hand; however, if he already placed them on the ground, he obviously regretted placing them on the fire and it is prohibited to replace them on the stove. Rabbi Ami said: That which Rabbi Tadai did and said, he did on his own, and not in accordance with the accepted halakha. Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: Even if one placed the pot on the ground, it is permitted to return it to the stove.

פליגי בה רב דימי ורב שמואל בר יהודה ותרוייהו משמיה דרבי אלעזר אמרי חד אמר עודן בידו מותר על גבי קרקע אסור וחד אמר הניחן על גבי קרקע נמי מותר אמר חזקיה משמיה דאביי הא דאמרת עודן בידו מותר לא אמרן אלא שדעתו להחזיר אבל אין דעתו להחזיר אסור מכלל דעל גבי קרקע אף על פי שדעתו להחזיר אסור

The Gemara remarks that Rav Dimi and Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda disagreed about this matter, and both stated their opinion in the name of Rabbi Elazar. One said that when they are still in his hand, it is permitted to return them to the stove; when they were already placed on the ground, it is prohibited to do so. And one said that even if one placed them on the ground, it is also permitted to return it to the stove. Ḥizkiya said in the name of Abaye: That which you said, that when it is still in his hand, it is permitted to return it to the stove; we only said that halakha when his original intention was to return it to the stove. However, when it was not his original intention to return it, and he reconsidered and decided to return it, it is prohibited to return it. This proves by inference that if one placed it on the ground, even if his intention was to return it, it is prohibited.

איכא דאמרי אמר חזקיה משמיה דאביי הא דאמרת על גבי קרקע אסור לא אמרן אלא שאין דעתו להחזיר אבל דעתו להחזיר מותר מכלל שבעודן בידו אף על פי שאין דעתו להחזיר מותר בעי רבי ירמיה תלאן במקל מהו הניחן על גבי מטה מהו בעי רב אשי פינן ממיחם למיחם מהו תיקו:

Some say a different version of what Ḥizkiya said in the name of Abaye: That which you said, if one placed it on the ground it is prohibited; we only said that halakha when it was not his original intention to return it. However, if his original intention was to return it, it is permitted. With regard to this matter, Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: In a case where he neither placed them on the floor nor held them in his hand, but he hung them on a stick, what is the ruling? In a case where he placed it on top of a bed, what is the ruling? Similarly, Rav Ashi raised a dilemma: If one transferred them from one urn to another urn what is the ruling? The Gemara said: These dilemmas stand unresolved.

מתני׳ תנור שהסיקוהו בקש ובגבבא לא יתן בין מתוכו בין מעל גביו כופח שהסיקוהו בקש ובגבבא הרי זה ככיריים בגפת ובעצים הרי הוא כתנור:

MISHNA: The halakhot that were stated with regard to a stove were specific to a stove’s unique structure and the manner in which it retains heat. However, with regard to other baking apparatuses, i.e., an oven or a kupaḥ, there are different rules. The mishna delineates: An oven that they lit even with straw or rakings, one may neither place a pot inside it nor atop it on Shabbat. Whereas a kupaḥ that was lit with straw or rakings, its legal status is like that of a stove, and one is permitted to place a pot atop it on Shabbat. If it were lit with pomace or with wood, its legal status is like that of an oven and it is prohibited to place a pot atop it on Shabbat.

גמ׳ תנור שהסיקוהו סבר רב יוסף למימר תוכו תוכו ממש על גביו על גביו ממש אבל לסמוך שפיר דמי איתיביה אביי כופח שהסיקוהו בקש ובגבבא הרי הוא ככיריים בגפת ובעצים הרי הוא כתנור ואסור הא ככירה שרי במאי עסקינן אילימא על גביו ובמאי אילימא כשאינו גרוף וקטום אלא כירה כי אינה גרופה וקטומה על גביו מי שרי אלא לאו לסמוך וקתני הרי הוא כתנור ואסיר

GEMARA: With regard to that which we learned in the mishna that an oven that they lit even with straw or rakings, one may neither place a pot atop it nor inside it, Rav Yosef thought to say that when the mishna says inside it, it means actually inside it; and when it says atop it, it means actually atop it. However, to lean a pot against an oven, it may well be done. Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from that which we learned in our mishna: A kupaḥ that was lit with straw or rakings, its legal status is like that of a stove. If it were lit with pomace or with wood, its legal status is like that of an oven, and it is prohibited. By inference: If it were like a stove, it would be permitted. With what circumstances are we dealing? If you say that he placed the pot atop the kupaḥ, and in what case? If you say it is referring to a case where it is not swept and covered with ashes; a stove that is not swept and covered with ashes, is it permitted even to place a pot atop it on Shabbat? Rather, isn’t it referring to a case where one seeks to lean a pot against a kupaḥ, and it taught: It is like an oven, and prohibited?

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה הכא בכופח גרוף וקטום ותנור גרופה וקטומה עסקינן הרי הוא כתנור דאף על גב דגרוף וקטום על גביו אסור דאי ככירה כי גרופה וקטומה שפיר דמי: תניא כוותיה דאביי תנור שהסיקוהו בקש ובגבבא אין סומכין לו ואין צריך לומר על גביו ואין צריך לומר לתוכו ואין צריך לומר בגפת ובעצים כופח שהסיקוהו בקש ובגבבא סומכין לו ואין נותנין על גביו בגפת ובעצים אין סומכין לו

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here we are dealing with the cases of a kupaḥ that is swept and covered with ashes and an oven that is swept and covered with ashes, and the mishna is to be understood as follows: It is like an oven in the sense that, although it is swept and covered with ashes, it is prohibited to place a pot atop it; as, if its legal status were like that of a stove, when it is swept and covered it may well be done. The Gemara comments that there is a baraita that taught in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: An oven that one lit with straw and with rakings, one may not lean a pot against it, and needless to say one may not place a pot atop it, and needless to say one may not place a pot inside it, and, needless to say if it was lit with pomace or with wood it is prohibited. While with regard to a kupaḥ that was lit with straw or with rakings, one may lean a pot against it, but he may not place a pot atop it. If it was lit with pomace or with wood, one may not lean a pot against it.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי האי כופח היכי דמי אי ככירה דמי אפילו בגפת ובעצים נמי אי כתנור דמי אפילו בקש ובגבבא נמי לא אמר ליה נפיש הבליה מדכירה וזוטר הבליה מדתנור

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This kupaḥ, what are its circumstances? If it is considered like a stove, even if it was lit with pomace or with wood, it should also be permitted. And if it is considered like an oven, even with straw or with rakings, it should also not be permitted. Rav Ashi said to him: From a halakhic perspective, a kupaḥ has intermediate status. Its heat is greater than that of a stove; however, its heat is less than that of an oven.

היכי דמי כופח היכי דמי כירה אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא כופח מקום שפיתת קדרה אחת כירה מקום שפיתת שתי קדרות אמר אביי ואיתימא רבי ירמיה אף אנן נמי תנינא כירה שנחלקה לאורכה טהורה לרחבה טמאה כופח בין לאורכו בין לרוחבו טהור:

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a kupaḥ? What are the circumstances of a stove in terms of the configuration of the vessels? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: A kupaḥ is a small vessel that is similar to a stove; however, it only has one hole with enough space to place a single pot. A stove is like a double kupaḥ with enough space to place two pots. Abaye said, and some say that Rabbi Yirmeya said: We also learned this matter in a mishna dealing with the laws of ritual purity and impurity: An impure stove that was divided lengthwise is pure because it can no longer be considered a vessel. It is a broken vessel, and a broken vessel cannot become ritually impure. However, if the stove was divided widthwise, between the spaces for the pots, then it remains impure because it became two small stoves. However, a kupaḥ, whether it was divided lengthwise or whether it was divided widthwise, is pure because it can no longer be used as there is no way to put even a single pot on it. That is the difference between a kupaḥ and a stove.

מתני׳ אין נותנין ביצה בצד המיחם בשביל שתתגלגל ולא יפקיענה בסודרין ורבי יוסי מתיר ולא יטמיננה בחול ובאבק דרכים בשביל שתצלה

MISHNA: In addition to the halakhot that deal with cooking on the fire on Shabbat, several related halakhot are discussed. The mishna says: One may not place a raw egg next to an urn full of hot water so that it will roast slightly. And one may not even wrap it in cloths, i.e., one may not heat the egg inside cloths that were heated in the sun. And Rabbi Yosei permits doing so in that case. And, similarly, one may not insulate it in sand or in road dust that was heated in the sun so that it will roast. Although there is no actual cooking with fire here, it is similar to cooking and the Sages issued a decree to prohibit doing so.

מעשה שעשו אנשי טבריא והביאו סילון של צונן לתוך אמה של חמין אמרו להם חכמים אם בשבת כחמין שהוחמו בשבת ואסורין ברחיצה ובשתיה אם ביום טוב כחמין שהוחמו ביום טוב ואסורין ברחיצה ומותרין בשתיה:

The mishna relates a story about the people of the city of Tiberias, and they ran a cold-water pipe [silon] through a canal of hot water from the Tiberias hot springs. They thought that by doing so, they could heat the cold potable water on Shabbat. The Rabbis said to them: If the water passed through on Shabbat, its legal status is like that of hot water that was heated on Shabbat, and the water is prohibited both for bathing and for drinking. And if the water passed through on a Festival, then it is prohibited for bathing but permitted for drinking. On Festivals, one is even permitted to boil water on actual fire for the purposes of eating and drinking.

גמ׳ איבעיא להו גלגל מאי אמר רב יוסף גלגל חייב חטאת אמר מר בריה דרבינא אף אנן נמי תנינא

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: One who violated the halakha in the mishna and slightly roasted an egg next to an urn, what is the ruling? Rav Yosef said: One who slightly cooked an egg is liable to bring a sin-offering, as he performed the act of cooking on Shabbat, which is prohibited by Torah law. Mar, son of Ravina, said: We also learned something similar in the mishna:

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top