Shabbat 37b (לז:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains:

infer from this

from the statement of Rav Oshaya that leaving a dish that has been fully cooked, and that

continues to reduce

[continues to cook]

and this improves it

[its owner is pleased by the additional cooking]

is permitted,

even if the stove has not been raked and covered.

For as far as a dish that continues to reduce and this harms it is concerned, it is obvious that it is permitted to leave it on a stove that has not been raked, so what does Rav Oshaya come to teach us?

The Gemara rejects this: One cannot prove from Rav Oshaya that it is permitted to leave food that continues to reduce and this improves it on a stove that has not been raked, since

this case is different, as it was covered

from the outset. And although it was subsequently rekindled, the stove is treated as covered, because he demonstrated that he does not want the dish to continue reducing; consequently, this is like food that continues to reduce and this harms it.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so, what is the point of stating this?

And the Gemara answers:

It was necessary to state that it was rekindled;

lest you say that once it was rekindled,

it reverts to its original status, this comes to teach us

that it is still called covered even after it was rekindled. The Gemara cites three statements concerning Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: The Shulḥan Arukh did not cite the halakha of a stove that was covered and then rekindled. The Magen Avraham [253:5] ruled that it is permitted to leave food on a stove that was rekindled. Rabbi Akiva Eiger noted that according to Tosafot’s second answer, it is permitted to leave only a dish that has not been fully cooked. And the Pri Megadim resolved this by stating that it is a rabbinic doubt, and the Sha'ar HaTziyun [17] added that the Ramban concludes that it is treated as covered for every matter, and the Ran wrote likewise. At first glance, this implies that it is also permitted to return food to it on Shabbat.

The first tradition:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

A stove that initially

was covered

and later

was rekindled: One may leave on it hot water that was heated to the extent necessary, and a dish that was cooked to the extent necessary.

Even

if the stove was rekindled with

broom-tree coals,

which are hotter than other coals and are not quick to go out.

Here too, the Gemara infers:

infer from this

from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that

food that continues to reduce and this improves it is permitted.

The Gemara rejects this:

This case is different, as it was covered.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so, what is the point of stating this!?

Rav Oshaya had already stated this, and he should have said: “And likewise said Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan.”

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary to state that it was rekindled.

The Gemara again raises a difficulty:

That is the same matter

that Rav Oshaya stated above.

And it concludes:

It was necessary to state broom-tree coals,

for in this Rabbi Yoḥanan added to Rav Oshaya’s statement and permitted leaving food even on broom-tree coals, which ignite more quickly.

The second tradition stated in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to a stove that was kindled with peat or wood,

and which was neither raked nor covered,

one may leave on it hot water that was not heated to the extent necessary, and a dish that was not cooked to the extent necessary

but only to the degree of the food of ben Derosai.

If he removed it

—he took the pot off the stove —

he may not return it until he rakes the coals or places ashes on them.

And the Gemara explains:

He holds

Rav Sheshet, in explaining Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, that

we learned the Mishna with regard to returning,

and therefore covering is required only with regard to returning the pot,

but with regard to leaving it, one may leave it even though it was neither raked nor covered.

Rava said: We learned both of them explicitly.

These two laws—that it is permitted to leave food on a stove that has not been raked, but prohibited to return it to that stove—were already explicitly taught in the Mishnayot. What, then, did Rabbi Yoḥanan come to teach us?

And Rava explains his statement: The permission

to leave

food on a stove that has not been raked—

we learned it: “One may not place bread in the oven at nightfall”

before nightfall,

nor

may one place

a cake on the coals, except so that its surface will crust,

so that the bread develops a crust and a shell before Shabbat.

It follows:

if its surface has crusted, it is permitted,

even though it has not yet been fully baked, and even though the oven has not been raked. This proves that it is permitted to leave food on a stove that has not been raked on Shabbat.

And likewise, the prohibition against

returning

a pot to a stove that has not been raked until one rakes and covers it—

we also learned it

in our Mishna:

“Beit Hillel say: One may also return [the pot].”

And Beit Hillel did not permit returning

the pot to the stove

except when it had been raked and covered,

since it was already stated in the first clause, “He may not place it until he rakes [the coals],” and it is necessarily the case that the continuation of the Mishna refers specifically to returning the pot to a raked stove.

But

to return it

to one that has not been raked and covered is prohibited.

The Gemara answers: Indeed, this is the meaning of the Mishnayot.

And Rav Sheshet too

did not come to innovate that this is the halakha; rather, he only

comes to teach the inference from the Mishna,

for since it says “until its surface crusts,” it follows that if it has already crusted, it is permitted.

The third report cited in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Yohanan said: With regard to a kirah whose coals were kindled with peat or wood,

and one did not rake out the coals and cover them with ash,

one may leave upon it a cooked dish that has been cooked to the extent necessary, and hot water that has been heated to the extent necessary, and even

a dish that improves as it continues to contract.

The Ba’al HaMaor maintained that Ḥananya permitted leaving food cooked to the extent of the food of Ben Derosai on an unraked kirah only when it contracts and deteriorates, but when it contracts and improves it is prohibited. In the case of food cooked completely that contracts and improves, everything depends on the custom of the locale, as the Gemara will state below. Accordingly, one may say that Rabbi Yohanan held like Ḥananya and like the custom that permits leaving completely cooked food that improves as it contracts. The Ramban, the Rashba, and Tosafot Ri rejected his words. C. Tosafot of the Rosh [37a] wrote that Rabbi Yohanan ruled like Ḥananya, but was stringent and permitted leaving food only from the time it was completely cooked onward. D. The Ran wrote that Rabbi Yohanan held like Rabbi Meir. Above, Rabbi Meir said that one may leave only hot water on a raked kirah, whereas Rabbi Yehuda permits hot water and a cooked dish. Their dispute extends only to food that has not been cooked completely; but when it has been cooked completely, Rabbi Meir permits one to leave hot water and a cooked dish ab initio even on an unraked kirah, while Rabbi Yehuda prohibits it. See the words of the Ramban below, where he made this same distinction with regard to Rav Yehuda’s opinion.

One of the Rabbis said to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda: But Rav and Shmuel both said:

When it contracts and improves, it is prohibited

to leave on an unraked kirah a cooked dish that improves as it contracts, so how could you rule in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, who permits it?

He said to him,

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to that member of the Rabbis:

Do you think I do not know

—am I unaware of—what

Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: When it contracts and improves, it is prohibited?

And if so, it is certainly the case that what I said was not stated according to Shmuel’s position. Rather,

when I spoke to you,

I spoke

only with regard to Rabbi Yohanan.

Rav Ukva of Meishan said to Rav Ashi: You who are close

—the associates—

to Rav and Shmuel,

who hold that it is prohibited to leave on an unraked kirah a dish that improves as it contracts,

act in accordance with Rav and Shmuel.

But

we should act in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan,

and it is permitted for us to leave food that improves as it contracts on an unraked kirah.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is the ruling concerning leaving

food on an unraked kirah?

Rav Yosef said to him,

Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

Rav Yehuda would have food left for him,

they would leave it for him,

and he would eat.

This indicates that it is permitted to leave food on the fire, in accordance with Ḥananya.

Abaye said to him,

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

Apart from Rav Yehuda,

there is no proof from Rav Yehuda,

because since he is in danger,

as he was sometimes seized by bulmos, an attack of ravenous hunger,

it is also permitted to do this for him even on Shabbat

—to leave food for him on an unraked kirah.

But I remain uncertain about the ruling concerning leaving food on an unraked kirah

for me and for you,

who are not ill:

what is the ruling?

Rav Yosef said to him,

Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

In Sura they leave food on the fire,

which indicates that it is permitted to leave food on an unraked kirah.

And where do we find that in Sura they had the practice of leaving food on the fire?

For Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was a man of action

[meticulous in his conduct],

and they would leave food for him, and he would eat.

Rav Ashi said: I was present

[I was staying]

before Rav Huna, and they left for him a cup of deresna fish,

small fish cooked in oil and flour, which they left for him on an unraked kirah,

and he ate.

And I do not know

why he permitted leaving food on an unraked kirah:

whether because he held

that when it contracts and improves, it is permitted

to leave it on the fire,

or

whether, in fact, it is prohibited to leave food that improves as it contracts, but kasa de-harsena does not improve as it contracts

because since it contains flour,

flour,

it contracts and deteriorates,

and therefore Rav Huna permitted leaving it on the fire.

Rav Naḥman said:

We have accepted as the halakha:

When it contracts and improves, it is prohibited

to leave it on an unraked kirah.

When it contracts and deteriorates, it is permitted.

The general rule

with regard to what is considered food that improves as it contracts and what is considered food that contracts and deteriorates:

Any

cooked dish

that contains flour—

flour—is

food that contracts and deteriorates, except

for

a turnip dish—

turnip—

which, although it contains flour,

flour,

is food that improves as it contracts.

And this applies

when we say that a turnip dish is considered food that improves as it contracts, when

it contains meat,

as the fat of the meat softens the turnip.

But

if

there is not

in it

in the turnip dish

any meat, it is food that contracts and deteriorates.

And even when it contains meat, we said

that it is food that improves as it contracts

only

when

it is not designated for guests. But

if

it is designated for guests,

the dish is considered

food that contracts and deteriorates,

because it is necessary to serve the guests substantial pieces, and it is not respectful to place before them a contracted dish in which the meat is no longer discernible. The Gemara adds:

lifda—

a food made from figs—,

porridge, and dates—

a food made from dates—are foods considered

“food that contracts and deteriorates for them.”

They asked Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba: