Shabbat 37a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara rejects this:

“I will tell you that it is always possible

that we learned returning,”

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

And in order that it not be difficult why the Mishna repeated the disagreement regarding returning, one must say that the Mishna came to teach us an additional innovation.

“And it is lacking, and this is what it teaches”:

A.

“A stove that they heated with straw and stubble: they may return a stew upon it.”

B.

“With peat and wood, he may not return it until he rakes it out or until he places the ashes.”

C. And here one must add to what was stated in the Mishna:

“But to leave

on a stove that they heated with peat and wood,

they may leave even though it has not been raked out and has not been covered.”

According to this, the disagreements of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are regarding leaving and returning —

The disagreement regarding leaving:

“And what may they leave

on a stove that has not been raked out?

Beit Shammai say: hot water but not a stew, and Beit Hillel say: hot water and a stew.”

And the disagreement regarding returning:

“And this returning of which I tell you

that it is permitted to return on a stove that has been raked out,

is not universally accepted; rather, it is the disagreement of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel”

it is.

“For Beit Shammai say: one may remove but may not return, and Beit Hillel say: one may also return.”

Come and hear: For Rav Helbo said in the name of Rav Hama bar Guria, who said in the name of Rav:

What we say—that it is permitted to place a pot on a stove on Shabbat—

was stated only

when he places the pot

on top of it

on the rim of the stove,

but into it,

inside the thickness of its hollow,

it is forbidden.

And from Rav Helbo’s words the Gemara proves that the Mishna is “we learned returning.”

For

if you say

that the Mishna is dealing with the law of

“we learned returning,”

whereas leaving is permitted even on a stove that has not been raked out, then it is possible to explain that Rabbi Abahu’s words refer to the law of leaving on a stove that has not been raked out, and therefore

this is what he distinguished,

this is what Rav Helbo divided:

between into it and on top of it,

because only on top of the stove is it permitted to leave the stew, although it has not been raked out and covered, but into it it is forbidden to leave it, because this is actually placing it among embers from before the day, which the Sages prohibited lest one stoke the coals on Shabbat.

But if you say

that the Mishna

is “we learned leaving,”

and it is permitted to leave only on a stove that has been raked out, then one can challenge Rav Helbo:

What difference is it to me

whether he left the stew

into it, what difference is it to me

whether he left it

on top of it?

In either case, this is an instance in which he raked out the coals and there is no concern lest he stoke them, so why did he prohibit placing the stew inside the stove?

Rather, certainly, it is proven from Rav Helbo’s words that the Mishna is “we learned returning.”

The Gemara rejects: It is always possible that Rav Helbo explains that the Mishna speaks of the laws of leaving and not of the laws of returning; and as for that which we ask—regarding a stove that has been raked out, 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 section?

To what was said in the first section, that one must leave on a stove that has been raked out and covered, and from this you find it difficult: When leaving on one that has been raked out, is there a distinction between inside it and on top of it?

Rather, Rav Helbo

is referring to the final section,

to what is said in the final section:

“And Beit Hillel say: one may also return”

the stew to a stove that has been raked out.

And

regarding this

Rav Helbo said in the name of Rav Hama bar Guria, who said in the name of Rav:

What Beit Hillel said—that it is permitted to return it to a stove that has been raked out—

was stated

this

only

to return it

on top of it. But

to return a stew

inside it is forbidden.

But regarding leaving on a stove that has been raked out and covered, there is no distinction between inside it and on top of it, and both are permitted.

And the Gemara brings proof according to the one who says “we learned leaving”:

Come and hear: Two matching stoves,

connected together, with a clay wall separating them. One stove

of them

is

raked out and covered, and one

of them, adjacent to it, is a stove

that has not been raked out and has not been covered —

they may leave on top of the one that has been raked out and covered, but they may not leave on the one that has not been raked out and has not been covered.

And what may they leave

on the stove that has been raked out?

Beit Shammai say:

They may leave nothing

at all upon it.

And Beit Hillel say:

They may leave upon it only

hot water, but not a stew.

And if he

removed

the stew from the stove,

everyone agrees that he may not return

the stew to the stove.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

It follows that according to Rabbi Meir, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed only regarding the law of leaving, but regarding the law of returning everyone agrees that it is forbidden to return.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed regarding two matters.

Regarding the law of leaving —

Beit Shammai say:

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

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

And regarding the law of returning —

Beit Shammai say: one may remove but may not return. And Beit Hillel say: one may also return.

And the Gemara proves this:

Granted, if you say, “We learned ‘to leave,’”

and what we learned in the first clause, “He may not place it until he rakes out [the coals],” means that he may not leave it, it follows that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed in the first clause concerning the law of leaving, and in the latter clause concerning the law of returning, and according to this,

whose opinion is the Mishna? It is Rabbi Yehuda’s,

for Rabbi Yehuda likewise maintained that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed concerning the laws of leaving and returning.

But if you say, “We learned ‘to return,’”

and the first clause of the Mishna speaks of the law of returning on a stove whose coals have been raked out on Shabbat, whereas leaving is permitted even on a stove whose coals have not been raked out, then it will be difficult:

whose opinion is the Mishna? Neither Rabbi Yehuda nor Rabbi Meir,

as it proceeds to explain:

If it is Rabbi Meir—

it is difficult concerning one matter for Beit Shammai.

There is one difference between the tanna of the Mishna and Rabbi Meir concerning the view of Beit Shammai, and because of this it is impossible to say that the Mishna follows Rabbi Meir, for according to him Beit Shammai prohibit leaving on Shabbat, both on a stove whose coals have been raked out and on one whose coals have not been raked out, whereas according to our Mishna [if “to return” was taught], Beit Shammai permit leaving hot water even on a stove whose coals have not been raked out, and all the more so on one whose coals have been raked out.

And concerning Beit Hillel, in two matters,

there are two differences between the tanna of the Mishna and Rabbi Meir concerning the view of Beit Hillel:

A. According to Rabbi Meir, Beit Hillel permit leaving on a stove whose coals have been raked out only hot water, whereas according to the tanna of the Mishna [if “to return” was taught], Beit Hillel permit leaving hot water and a cooked dish on a stove whose coals have not been raked out.

B. According to Rabbi Meir, Beit Hillel do not permit returning at all, whereas according to the tanna of the Mishna, Beit Hillel permit returning hot water and a cooked dish onto a stove whose coals have been raked out.

And likewise it is impossible to explain that the Mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda:

For

if

we explain that the Mishna follows the view of

Rabbi Yehuda, it is difficult concerning [the distinction between] a stove whose coals have been raked out and one whose coals have been covered,

because Rabbi Yehuda maintained that according to Beit Hillel it is permitted to leave only on a stove whose coals have been raked out and covered, whereas according to the tanna of the Mishna [if “to return” was taught], it is permitted to leave also on a stove whose coals have not been raked out and covered.

And the Gemara answers:

In truth, I can say to you, “We learned ‘to return,’”

and there is no difficulty as to whose opinion the Mishna is, for it is possible to explain that the tanna of the Mishna is Rabbi Yehuda,

and our tanna agrees with Rabbi Yehuda in one matter, and disagrees with him in one matter,

as it proceeds to explain:

He agrees with Rabbi Yehuda in one matter,

in that he interprets the first disagreement of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel as concerning leaving

hot water and a cooked dish,

for according to Beit Shammai only hot water may be left, and according to Beit Hillel hot water and a cooked dish, and not like Rabbi Meir, who permitted Beit Hillel only hot water and permitted Beit Shammai nothing.

And

likewise the tanna of the Mishna accords with the words of Rabbi Yehuda in his explanation of the disagreement between Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning the law of

taking and returning,

for according to Beit Hillel one may return [the food] onto a stove whose coals have been raked out, while according to Beit Shammai one may not return it, and not like Rabbi Meir, who said that according to everyone one may not return it.

And he disagrees with him

—the tanna of the Mishna with Rabbi Yehuda—

in one matter—

for whereas our tanna maintains

that it is permitted

to leave [

hot water and a cooked dish for Beit Hillel, and only hot water for Beit Shammai],

even though [the stove] has not been raked out and covered. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains:

just as concerning returning, the discussion is about a stove whose coals have been raked out, so too

concerning leaving, [it must be] raked out and covered;

[if it is] not,

but

if it is not

raked out and covered,

[it is] not.

It follows that, in conclusion, the Gemara remained in doubt whether our Mishna taught “to leave” or taught “to return.”

They raised a dilemma:

A stove whose coals have not been raked out and covered,

what is [the law] of placing [a pot] beside it?

Is it specifically leaving [a pot] in

its interior or on its top that is prohibited, but placing it beside it is proper. Or perhaps it makes no difference.

And the Gemara brings a proof from a beraita that placing [a pot] beside it is permitted [this beraita was brought in full above at the beginning of the page]:

Come and hear: Two corresponding stoves,

connected together, with a clay wall separating between them, when

one

of the stoves

has its coals raked out and covered, and one,

the second stove,

does not have its coals raked out and covered—

they may leave

a cooked dish

on the one whose coals have been raked out and covered,

but they may not leave [it] on the one whose coals have not been raked out and covered.

Thus it is possible to leave [a pot] beside a stove whose coals have not been raked out, for he leaves it on the stove whose coals have been raked out

even though steam rises toward it from the other one,

and steam rises from the nearby stove whose coals have not been raked out, so this is like placing [a pot] beside a stove, and it is explained that placing [a pot] beside it is permitted.

The Gemara rejects [the proof]:

Perhaps,

in truth it is prohibited to place [a pot] beside a stove whose coals have not been raked out. And as for what was permitted to leave [a pot] on the two stoves, even though he is placing it beside a stove whose coals have not been raked out, it is because

there it is different, since

since it is raised,

the pot standing on the stove whose coals have been raked out is not adjacent to the wall of the stove whose coals have not been raked out, but is higher than it; since it is high,

the air controls it,

and therefore it is permitted to leave [the pot] on it.

And the Gemara brings another proof that it is prohibited to place [a pot] beside a stove whose coals have not been raked out:

Come and hear

from that

which Rav Safra said in the name of Rav Hiyya:

a stove with a fire on top of it,

if he covered it, and

afterward the fire returned and

flared up, one may place [a pot] beside it, maintain [a pot] on it, take [a pot] from it, and return [a pot] to it,

for even though it returned and flared up, it is like a covered [stove].

Learn from this that placing [a pot] beside it also

has the same law as leaving [a pot] [according to the one who says “to leave” was taught] and returning [it]: if

he covered it, yes,

it is permitted to place [a pot] beside it, but

if he did not cover it, no.

The Gemara rejects the proof:

But according to your reasoning,

according to your words, that one should infer from Rav Safra’s words, who said at the beginning of his statement, “he covered it,” and everything stated afterward is only in this situation, how will you interpret the continuation of the beraita

“they take [the pot] from it,” which it teaches?

Will we also infer here that specifically if

he covered it, yes,

it is permitted to take [the pot] from the stove, but if

he did not cover it, no!?

Surely there is certainly no reason to distinguish in this matter, since it is permitted to take [a pot] from a stove even if its coals have not been raked out and covered.

Rather,

it is necessarily necessary to say: Since concerning returning [a pot] covering is required, Rav Safra mentioned that he covered it, but to take [a pot] from the stove, it is not necessary to take it specifically from a covered stove. Rather,

the tanna

of the beraita

taught “they take [the pot]” because of “they return [it].”

But it is not necessary to take [the pot] specifically from a covered stove.

And if so, also concerning placing [a pot] beside the stove, which Rav Safra mentioned, it is possible to say,

here too, he taught “one may place [a pot] beside it” because of “one may maintain [a pot] on it.”

But in truth it is permitted to place [a pot] beside it even if he did not cover the fire.

But the Gemara wonders at its rejection:

Can this be compared!?

What is the comparison? Surely there is a distinction between “they take [the pot]” and “they place [the pot] beside it,” and it is possible that “they take [the pot]” was said because of “they return [it],” but “they place [the pot] beside it” was not.

For granted,

there,

what Rav Safra said, “they take [the pot],” can be explained because

taking and returning are in one place,

for it is impossible to return [the pot] unless he first took it; therefore

he taught “they take [the pot]” because of

“they return [it].”

But here,

what Rav Safra said, “they place [the pot] beside it,” cannot have been said because of “they maintain [a pot] on it,” for

placing [a pot] beside it is in one place, and maintaining [a pot] on it is in one place.

And if so, the Gemara’s proof from Rav Safra’s words returns to its place, and it is permitted to place [a pot] beside it only on a stove whose coals have been raked out and covered.

And the Gemara discusses:

What has become of it?

Whether the proof from the preceding beraita is indeed valid, or whether it is rejected.

And the Gemara brings a proof that it is permitted to place [a pot] beside a stove that has not been raked and covered:

Come and hear: If a stove was heated with peat and wood, one may place [a pot] beside it

even if he did not rake out [the coals] and cover [them],

but one may not leave [a pot on it],

one may not leave [a pot] on it,

unless it was raked and covered.

If the coals have dimmed,

they have weakened and partly gone out,

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

the stove, deemed

as covered

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

And it is proven that it is permitted to place [a pot] beside a stove that was not raked and covered.

Rav Yitzchak bar Nachmani said that Rav Oshaya said: If he covered [the fire],

the fire, and it subsequently

blazed up, one may leave upon it hot water that was heated completely, and a cooked dish that was cooked completely.

Even though the covering was nullified. But it is forbidden to leave upon it hot water and a cooked dish that were not cooked completely.