Shabbat 37b — the Talmud in English

:

Infer from this

from Rav Oshaya that to leave a dish that has been fully cooked, and it

continues to reduce

[it continues to cook]

and this is beneficial to it

[its owner is pleased with the additional cooking]

is permitted,

even if the stove is not swept and covered.

For a dish that reduces and this is detrimental to it, it is obvious that it is permitted to leave it on a stove that is not swept; 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 something that reduces beneficially to it on a stove that is not swept, since

here it is different, because he covered it

initially; and even though it was subsequently rekindled, the stove is treated as covered, because he made his דעת known that he does not want the dish to continue reducing, and it follows that this is like “reducing and this is detrimental to it.”

The Gemara asks in wonder:

If so, what is the point of stating it?

And the Gemara answers:

the rekindling was necessary to state; you might have said that once it was rekindled,

it is as though the stove had never been covered, but

it returns to its original status; therefore it comes to teach us

that it is called covered even after it was rekindled. The Gemara brings three statements concerning the view of Rabbi Yohanan:

The first teaching:

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

A stove that initially

was covered

and after some time it again

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

And 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 Yohanan

that something which reduces and this is beneficial to it is permitted.

And the Gemara rejects:

Here it is different, because he covered it.

The Gemara asks in wonder:

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

Rav Oshaya already said this, and he should have said, “And likewise Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan.”

And the Gemara answers:

The rekindling was necessary to state.

And we again ask in wonder:

this is the same thing,

that Rav Oshaya said above?

And we conclude:

the broom-tree coals were necessary to state,

for in this Rabbi Yohanan added to Rav Oshaya’s words and permitted leaving even with broom-tree coals, which are quicker to ignite.

The second teaching said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A stove that they heated with peat and wood,

and they did not sweep and cover it,

one may leave on it hot water that was not heated fully, and a dish that was not cooked fully

but only like the food of Ben Drusai.

If he removed [it] -

he took the pot from upon the stove ,

he may not return it until he sweeps it or until he places ashes.

And the Gemara explains,

he holds

Rav Sheshet concerning Rabbi Yohanan’s view, that

we learned in the Mishna “to return,”

and therefore he required covering only with regard to returning,

but for leaving, one may leave it even though it is not swept and not covered.

Rava said: We have learned both of them.

These two laws—that it is permitted to leave on a stove that is not swept and forbidden to return to it—were already explicitly taught in the Mishnayot; so what does Rabbi Yohanan come to teach us?

And Rava explains his words: the permission

to leave

on a stove that is not swept—

we learned: “One does not place bread into the oven at nightfall”

before nightfall,

nor

does one place

a cake upon coals, except so that its surface will form a crust,

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

It follows:

if its surface formed a crust, it is permitted,

even though it is still not fully baked, and even though the oven is not swept. And it is proven that it is permitted to leave on a stove that is not swept on Shabbat.

And likewise the prohibition

to return

a pot to a stove that is not swept until he sweeps and covers it—

we have likewise learned

in our Mishna:

“Beit Hillel say: one may also return.”

And Beit Hillel connected [permission] to return

to returning to the stove

only when it is swept and covered,

for it was already stated in the first clause, “he may not place [it] until he sweeps,” and necessarily the continuation of the Mishna refers specifically to returning to a swept oven.

But

to return

when it is not swept and covered—no.

And the Gemara answers: indeed, this is the meaning of the Mishnayot,

and Rav Sheshet too

did not come to teach that this is the halakha, but only

to teach the inference of the Mishna,

for since it says, “until its surface forms a crust,” it implies that if it already formed a crust, it is permitted.

The third report brought in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: If a stove was heated with peat or wood,

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

one may leave upon it a cooked dish that has been cooked completely, and hot water that has been heated completely, and even

a dish that becomes more reduced and thereby improves.

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.

A certain one of the Rabbis said to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda: But Rav and Shmuel both said

that a dish that becomes more reduced and thereby improves is prohibited

to leave on a stove that has not been raked out a dish that becomes more reduced and thereby improves; so how did you rule according to Rabbi Yohanan, who permits it?

He said to him

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

Do you think I do not know

—that I do not know what

Rav Yosef said in the name of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel: “A dish that becomes more reduced and thereby improves is prohibited”?

And if so, certainly what I said was not stated according to Shmuel’s method, but

when I said it to you,

only

I said it according to Rabbi Yohanan.

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

the close ones

to Rav and Shmuel,

who hold that it is prohibited to leave on a stove that has not been raked out a dish that becomes more reduced and thereby improves,

act according to Rav and Shmuel.

But

we shall act according to Rabbi Yohanan,

and it is permitted for us to leave food that becomes more reduced and thereby improves on a stove that has not been raked out.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is the law regarding leaving

food on a stove that has not been raked out?

He said to him

Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

Rav Yehuda had food left for him,

they would leave it for him,

and he would eat,

which implies that it is permitted to leave food, as Hananiah holds.

Abaye said to him

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

Apart from Rav Yehuda,

one cannot prove from Rav Yehuda,

because since he is in danger,

for at times he is seized by ravenous hunger, and therefore

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

—to leave food for him on a stove that has not been raked out.

But I am uncertain about the law concerning leaving food on a stove that has not been raked out

for me and you,

who are not ill:

what is it?

Rav Yosef said to him

Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

In Sura they leave food,

which shows that it is permitted to leave food on a stove that has not been raked out.

And where do we find that in Sura they practiced leaving food?

For Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak was a master of conduct

[careful in his actions],

and they left food for him and he ate.

Rav Ashi said: I was present

[I was situated]

before Rav Huna, and they left for him a dish of small fish,

they left for him on a stove that had not been raked out small fish cooked in oil and flour,

and he ate.

And I did not know

what his reason was for permitting leaving food on a stove that had not been raked out:

whether because he held that

food that becomes more reduced and thereby improves is permitted

to leave,

or

perhaps, in general, it is prohibited to leave something that becomes more reduced and thereby improves, but a dish of small fish does not become more reduced and thereby improve,

because since it contains flour,

flour,

it becomes more reduced and thereby worsens,

and therefore Rav Huna permitted leaving it.

Rav Nahman said

we have established as the halakha:

Food that becomes more reduced and thereby improves is prohibited

to leave on a stove that has not been raked out.

Food that becomes more reduced and thereby worsens is permitted.

The general principle of the matter

is: What is food that becomes more reduced and thereby improves, and what is food that becomes more reduced and thereby worsens?

Every

dish

that contains flour

—flour—is

food that becomes more reduced and thereby worsens, except

for

a dish of turnip

—turnip—

which, although it contains flour,

flour,

is food that becomes more reduced and thereby improves.

And these matters

that we say—that a dish of turnip is considered food that becomes more reduced and thereby improves—apply when

it contains meat,

for the fat of the meat softens the turnip.

But

if

there is not

in it

meat, in the dish of turnip,

it is food that becomes more reduced and thereby worsens.

And when it contains meat as well, we said

that it is food that becomes more reduced and thereby improves

only

when

they do not need it for guests, but

if

they need it for guests,

the dish is considered

food that becomes more reduced and thereby worsens,

since, for guests, important pieces are needed, and it is not respectful to place before them a reduced dish in which the meat is not recognizable. And the Gemara adds:

fig paste

—a food made of figs—,

porridge, and dates

—a food made of dates—are foods considered

“food that becomes more reduced and thereby worsens for them.”

They asked Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba: