Shabbat 37a (לז.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara rejects this:

I will say to you that in fact

the Mishna teaches the law of returning,

whereas leaving food on a stove that has not been raked clear is permitted.

To avoid the difficulty of why the Mishna repeated the dispute concerning returning, it must be said that the Mishna comes to teach an additional novel point.

And the Mishna is incomplete, and this is what it teaches:

1.

With regard to a stove that they kindled with straw or rakings, one may return a dish to it.

2.

With peat or wood, one may not return it until he rakes the coals clear or until he places the ashes.

3. And here one must add to what is stated in the Mishna:

But with regard to leaving food

on a stove kindled with peat or wood,

one may leave it even though it has neither been raked clear nor covered.

According to this, the disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concern both leaving food and returning the pot—

The dispute concerning leaving food:

And what may they leave

on a stove that has not been raked clear?

Beit Shammai say: Hot water but not a dish, and Beit Hillel say: Hot water and a dish.

And the dispute concerning returning the pot:

And this ruling concerning returning of which I told you,

that it is permitted to return a pot to a stove that has been raked clear,

is not universally accepted; rather, it is the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

:

Beit Shammai say: One may remove the pot but may not return it, and Beit Hillel say: One may also return it.

Come and hear: For Rav Helbo said that Rav Hama bar Gurya said that Rav:

This statement that it is permitted to place a pot on a stove on Shabbat

was stated only

when one places the pot

on top of it—

on the rim of the stove—

but inside it,

within the thickness of its cavity,

it is forbidden.

From Rav Helbo’s words the Gemara proves that the Mishna teaches the law of “returning.”

For

granted, if you say

that the Mishna concerns the law of

“returning,”

whereas leaving food is permitted even on a stove that has not been raked clear, it is possible to explain that Rabbi Abbahu’s statement refers to the law of leaving food on a stove that has not been raked clear. Therefore,

this is why he distinguished,

this is what Rav Helbo distinguished

between inside it and on top of it:

only on top of the stove is it permitted to leave the dish, even though the stove has neither been raked clear nor covered; but inside it, it is forbidden to leave it, because this constitutes actual insulation in embers from before the day, which the Sages prohibited lest one stoke the coals on Shabbat.

But if you say

that the Mishna

teaches the law of “leaving,”

and leaving food is permitted only on a stove that has been raked clear, then Rav Helbo can be challenged:

What difference is there

whether he left the dish

inside it, or what difference is there

whether he left it

on top of it?

In either case, the stove is one from which the coals have been raked, and there is no concern that he will stoke them. Why, then, did he prohibit placing the dish inside the stove?

Rather, it is certainly proven from Rav Helbo’s words that the Mishna teaches the law of returning.

The Gemara rejects this: It is possible that Rav Helbo explains that the Mishna is speaking of the laws of leaving food and not of returning the pot. And as for the question, with regard to a stove that has been raked clear, “What difference is there between inside it and on top of it?”—

The answer is:

Do you think

that

Rav Helbo,

who distinguishes between inside it and on top of it,

is referring to the first clause?

Are you referring to what is stated in the first clause, that one must leave food on a stove that has been raked clear and covered, and therefore you ask: With regard to leaving food on a stove that has been raked clear, what difference is there between inside it and on top of it?

Rather, Rav Helbo

is referring to the final clause,

to what is stated in the final clause:

And Beit Hillel say: One may also return

the dish to a stove that has been raked clear.

And

with regard to this

Rav Helbo said that Rav Hama bar Gurya said that Rav:

As for what Beit Hillel said, that it is permitted to return the pot to a stove that has been raked clear,

they stated

this

only

with regard to returning it

on top of it. But

returning a dish

inside it is forbidden.

But with regard to leaving food on a stove that has been raked clear and covered, there is no distinction between inside it and on top of it; both are permitted.

The Gemara brings a proof in accordance with the view that the Mishna teaches the law of “leaving”:

Come and hear: With regard to two adjoining stoves,

which are joined together, with a clay wall separating them, one stove

of

them is

raked clear and covered, and one

of them, the one adjacent to it, is a stove

that has neither been raked clear nor covered—

one may leave food on the stove that has been raked clear and covered, but one may not leave food on the one that has neither been raked clear nor covered.

And what may they leave

on the stove that has been raked clear?

Beit Shammai say:

One may leave nothing at all on it,

not even anything.

And Beit Hillel say:

One may leave only

hot water, but not a dish.

And if he

removed

the dish from the stove,

everyone agrees that he may not return

the dish to the stove.

This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

It follows that according to Rabbi Meir, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree only concerning leaving food, but with regard to returning the pot everyone agrees that it is forbidden to return it.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed concerning two matters.

With regard to leaving food—

Beit Shammai say:

On a stove that has been raked clear it is permitted to leave

hot water, but not a dish. And Beit Hillel say: Hot water and a dish.

And with regard to returning the pot—

Beit Shammai say: One may remove the pot but may not return it. And Beit Hillel say: One may also return it.

I privodit Gemara dokazatelstvo:

esli, esli ty skazhesh, chto v Mishne skazano «ostavit»,

a to, chto v pervoi clause skazano «ne stavit, poka ne vygresti», oznachaet «ne ostavlyat», poluchaetsya, chto v pervoi clause Beit Shammai i Beit Hillel sporyat o zakone ostavleniya, a v poslednei clause — o zakone vozvrashcheniya; i togda

kakovo avtor Mishna? Eto Rabbi Yehuda,

kotoryi takzhe schital, chto Beit Shammai i Beit Hillel sporyat o zakonakh ostavleniya i vozvrashcheniya.

No esli ty skazhesh, chto v Mishne skazano «vozvratit»,

a pervaya clause Mishna govori o vozvrashchenii na pech, ochishchennuyu ot ugley, v Shabbat, togda ostavlyat razresheno dazhe na pechi, ne ochishchennoi ot ugley, to vozniknet trudnost:

kakovo avtor Mishna? Ne Rabbi Yehuda i ne Rabbi Meir,

kak Gemara razyasnit dalshe:

Esli eto Rabbi Meir —

vozniknet trudnost s Beit Shammai v odnom punkte.

Mezhdu tanna Mishna i Rabbi Meir est odno razlichie v tom, kakovo mnenie Beit Shammai. Poetomu nelzya skazat, chto Mishna sootvetstvuet Rabbi Meiru: po mneniyu Rabbi Meira, Beit Shammai zapreshchayut ostavlyat v Shabbat kak na pechi, ochishchennoi ot ugley, tak i na pechi, ne ochishchennoi ot ugley, togda kak soglasno nashei Mishne [esli skazano «vozvratit»] Beit Shammai razreshayut ostavlyat goryachuyu vodu dazhe na pechi, ne ochishchennoi ot ugley, a tem bolee na ochishchennoi.

A s Beit Hillel — v dvukh punktakh.

Mezhdu tanna Mishna i Rabbi Meir est dva razlichiya v tom, kakovo mnenie Beit Hillel:

A. Po slovam Rabbi Meira, Beit Hillel razreshayut ostavlyat na pechi, ochishchennoi ot ugley, tolko goryachuyu vodu, togda kak soglasno tanna Mishna [esli skazano «vozvratit»] Beit Hillel razreshayut ostavlyat na pechi, ne ochishchennoi ot ugley, i goryachuyu vodu, i blyudo.

B. Po slovam Rabbi Meira, Beit Hillel voobshche ne razreshayut vozvrashchat, a soglasno tanna Mishna Beit Hillel razreshayut vozvrashchat na pech, ochishchennuyu ot ugley, i goryachuyu vodu, i blyudo.

Takzhe nelzya obyasnit, chto Mishna sootvetstvuet Rabbi Yehude:

Ibo

esli my obyasnim, chto Mishna sootvetstvuet mneniyu

Rabbi Yehudy,

vozniknet trudnost s ochishchennoi i nakrytoi pechyu,

potomu chto Rabbi Yehuda utverzhdal, chto po mneniyu Beit Hillel razresheno ostavlyat tolko na pechi, ochishchennoi i nakrytoi, togda kak soglasno tanna Mishna [esli skazano «vozvratit»] razresheno ostavlyat i na pechi, ne ochishchennoi i ne nakrytoi.

Gemara otvechaet:

Vsegda ya mogu skazat tebe, chto v Mishne skazano «vozvratit»,

i ne vozniknet trudnost s voprosom, kakovo ee avtor, ibo mozhno obyasnit, chto tanna nashei Mishna — Rabbi Yehuda,

i nash tanna soglasen s Rabbi Yehudoi v odnom punkte, a v odnom s nim sporit,

kak Gemara razyasnit dalshe:

On soglasen s Rabbi Yehudoi v odnom punkte —

v tom, chto pervyi spor Beit Shammai i Beit Hillel on istolkovyvaet kak spor ob ostavlenii

goryachei vody i blyuda,

tak chto Beit Shammai razreshayut ostavlyat tolko goryachuyu vodu, a Beit Hillel — goryachuyu vodu i blyudo, a ne kak Rabbi Meir, kotoryi razreshal Beit Hillel tolko goryachuyu vodu, a Beit Shammai — voobshche nichego.

I

tanna Mishna takzhe sootvetstvuet slovam Rabbi Yehudy v ego obyasnenii spora Shammai i Beit Hillel o zakone

vzyatiya i vozvrashcheniya:

po mneniyu Beit Hillel, vozvrashchat mozhno na pech, ochishchennuyu ot ugley, a po mneniyu Beit Shammai vozvrashchat nelzya, a ne kak skazal Rabbi Meir, chto po vseobshchemu mneniyu vozvrashchat nelzya.

A sporit s nim

tanna Mishna s Rabbi Yehudoi

v odnom punkte —

ibo nash tanna schitaet, chto

razresheno

ostavlyat [

Beit Hillel — goryachuyu vodu i blyudo, a Beit Shammai — tolko goryachuyu vodu],

daже esli pech ne ochishchena i ne nakryta. A Rabbi Yehuda schitaet,

chto podobno tomu, kak v zakone vozvrashcheniya rech idet o pechi, ochishchennoi ot ugley, tak i

v zakone ostavleniya nuzhny ochishchennaya i nakrytaya pech,

a ne

prosto nakrytaya i ochishchennaya.

A esli ne

ochishchena i ne nakryta,

nelzya.

Takim obrazom, v itoge Gemara ostavila nereshennym vopros, govori li nasha Mishna ob ostavlenii ili o vozvrashchenii.

Im bylo zadano:

pech, ne ochishchennaya i ne nakrytaya,

chto skazat o prislonenii k nei?

Neuzheli zapreshcheno tolko ostavlyat vnutri nee ili na ee verkh, a prislonit k nei razresheno? Ili, mozhet byt,

net razlichiya.

I Gemara privodit dokazatelstvo iz baraity, chto prislonyat razresheno [eta baraita polnostyu privodilas vyshe, v nachale lista]:

Ta shma: dve sootvetstvuyushchie pechi,

soedinennye vmeste, mezhdu kotorymi stoit glinyanaya stena; pri etom

odna

iz pechei

ochishchena i nakryta, a drugaya

vtoraya pech

ne ochishchena i ne nakryta —

ostavlyayut

blyudo

na ochishchennoi i nakrytoi pechi,

no ne ostavlyayut na pechi, ne ochishchennoi i ne nakrytoi.

Takim obrazom, mozhno ostavlyat ryadom s pechyu, ne ochishchennoi i ne nakrytoi, ved ostavlyayut na pechi, ochishchennoi i nakrytoi,

nesmotrya na to chto par podnimaetsya k nei s drugoi storony,

to est par podnimaetsya ot sosednei pechi, ne ochishchennoi i ne nakrytoi, i eto podobno prisloneniyu k pechi; znachit, prislonyat razresheno.

Gemara oprovergaet:

vozmozhno,

na samom dele prislonyat k pechi, ne ochishchennoi ot uglei, zapreshcheno. A to, chto razresheno ostavlyat na dvukh pechakh, hotya eto oznachaet prislonenie k pechi, ne ochishchennoi ot uglei, obyazano tomu,

chto zdes inache, ibo poskolku

ona podnyata,

kastrulya, stoyashchaya na pechi, ochishchennoi ot uglei, ne prislonena k stene pechi, ne ochishchennoi ot uglei, a nakhoditsya vyshe nee; a poskolku ona podnyata,

vozdukh vo vsey stepeni vlaste n ey,

poetomu razresheno ostavlyat na nei.

I Gemara privodit eshche odno dokazatelstvo tomu, chto prislonyat k pechi, ne ochishchennoi ot uglei, zapreshcheno:

Ta shma

iz togo,

chto skazal Rav Safra ot imeni Rav Hiyyai:

pech, na verkhu kotoroi nakhoditsya ogon,

esli ee nakryli, i

potom ogon snova

razgorelsya, k nei mozhno prislonyat, na nei mozhno ostavlyat, iz nee mozhno vzyat i k nei mozhno vozvratit,

ibo dazhe posle togo, kak ogon snova razgorelsya, pech schitaetsya nakrytoi.

Sleduet otsyuda, chto takzhe i prislonenie

imeet tot zhe zakon, chto ostavlenie [po mneniyu, chto v Mishne skazano ob ostavlenii] i vozvrashchenie: esli

ona nakryta — da,

to est prislonyat razresheno, no

esli ne nakryta — net.

Gemara oprovergaet dokazatelstvo:

po tvoemu mneniyu,

esli ty schitaesh, chto iz slov Rav Safry, skazavshego v nachale svoih slov «esli ee nakryli», nuzhno vyvesti, chto vse dalneyshee otnositsya tolko k etomu sluchayu, kak togda obyasnit prodolzhenie baraity,

gde skazano: «Iz nee vzymaют»?

Neuzheli i zdes nuzhno skazat, chto imenno esli

ee nakryli — da,

mozhno vzyat s pechi, a esli

ee ne nakryli — nelzya?!

Ved konechno net nikakogo osnovaniya razlichat: vzyat mozhno s pechi, dazhe esli ona ne ochishchena i ne nakryta.

No

neobkhodimo skazat: poskolku dlya vozvrashcheniya trebuetsya nakrytie, Rav Safra upomyanul «ee nakryli», no dlya vzyatiya s pechi ne nuzhno, chtoby vzyat imenno s nakrytoi pechi. No

tanna

baraity

upomyanul vzyatie iz-za vozvrashcheniya.

No ne nuzhno vzyat imenno s nakrytoi pechi.

I togda tak zhe v otnoshenii prisloneniya, upomyanutogo Rav Safroi, mozhno skazat:

zdes takzhe tanna upomyanul «prislonyayut» iz-za «ostavlyayut».

No na samom dele prislonyat razresheno, dazhe esli ogon ne nakryli.

No Gemara vozrazhaet na eto oproverzhenie:

kak mozhno sravnivat?!

Ved nuzhno razlichat mezhdu «vzyat» i «prislonit»: vozmozhno, slovo «vzyat» upomyanuto iz-za vozvrashcheniya, no «prislonit» — net.

Ibo, deistvitelno,

tam,

to, chto Rav Safra skazal «vzymaют», mozhno obyasnit tak:

vzyatie i vozvrashchenie proiskhodyat v odnom meste,

tak kak nevozmozhno vozvratit blyudo, esli snachala ego ne vzyali; poetomu

tanna upomyanul vzyatie iz-za

vozvrashcheniya.

No zdes,

to, chto Rav Safra skazal «prislonyayut», nelzya obyasnit kak upomyanuto iz-za vozvrashcheniya, ibo

prislonenie proiskhodit v odnom meste, a ostavlenie — v drugom meste.

I tak, dokazatelstvo Gemary iz slov Rav Safry ostayotsya v sile: prislonyat razresheno tolko k pechi, ochishchennoi i nakrytoi.

And the Gemara discusses:

What was established?

Is the proof from the aforementioned baraita indeed valid, or is it rejected?

And the Gemara brings a proof that it is permitted to lean a pot against a stove that has not been raked and covered:

Come and hear: With regard to a stove that was kindled with peat or wood, one may lean a pot against it

the pot, even if one did not rake out the coals and cover them,

but one may not leave food on it,

one may not leave a pot on it,

unless it has been raked and covered.

If the coals have dimmed,

they have weakened and partially died down,

or if one placed fine flax tow upon it, it is

the stove is considered

like one that has been covered

with ash, and it is permitted to leave a pot on it.

It is established that it is permitted to lean a pot against a stove that has not been raked and covered.

Rav Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani said that Rav Oshaya said: If one covered it,

the fire, and it

was rekindled, one may leave on it hot water that was heated completely, and a dish that was cooked completely.

Even though the covering was thereby nullified. But it is prohibited to leave on it hot water and a dish that have not been heated or cooked completely.