Shabbat 38b — the Talmud in English

Rav Sheshet said: According to the one who says ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

that one may return it,

not only is it permitted to return the pot on Shabbat eve, but

one may return it even on

the day of

Shabbat.

Rabbi Oshaya likewise held that one may return the pot even on Shabbat.

For Rav Oshaya said: Once we were standing above

[before]

Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great, and we brought him a kettle of hot water

that had been standing on the [swept] stove,

from the lower story to the upper story, and we poured him a cup and returned it

the kettle

to its place

on the stove,

and he said nothing to us

about not returning it.

Rav Zerika said that Rav Abba said that Rav Tadאי: They taught

that it is permitted to return the pot to the stove on Shabbat

only

when it is

still in his hand, but

if he

placed it on the ground, it is forbidden

to return the pot to the stove, because it appears as though he is placing it there intentionally on Shabbat, and it appears as though he is cooking.

Rav Ami said: Rabbi Tadאי acted

by ruling that the halakha follows Rav Zerika, who said that if one placed the pot on the ground, it is forbidden to return it;

he acted for himself,

he issued this ruling only for himself, and the halakha does not follow him because he was a lone authority.

Rather, this is what Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Even

if he

placed it

the pot

on the ground, it is permitted

to return it to the stove.

The Gemara cites a dispute among the amoraim concerning Rabbi Elazar’s statement:

Rav Dimi and Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda disagreed about this, and both stated their opinions in the name of Rabbi Elazar.

One said:

Only if it is

still in his hand is it permitted

to return it to the stove; but if he placed it

on the ground, it is forbidden.

And one said:

Even if he

placed it on the ground, it is also permitted

to return it to the stove.

Ḥizkiya said in the name of Abaye: This statement that you said

—according to the one who says that one may not return the pot on Shabbat unless it is

still in his hand,

in which case it is

permitted

to return it to the stove—

was stated only

when

his intention

from the outset, at the time he removed it, was

to return

the pot to the stove.

But

if, at the time he removed it,

he did not intend to return it, it is forbidden.

It follows that according to this approach, returning a pot to the stove on Shabbat is permitted only when both conditions are met: a. It is still in his hand. b. He intended to return it.

The Gemara infers:

By implication,

from Ḥizkiya’s statement one learns that if both conditions were not met—for example,

if he

placed the pot

on the ground,

then in such a case,

even though he intended to return it, it is forbidden

to return it.

And conversely, if it is still in his hand but he did not intend to return it, it is forbidden.

There are those who say

that this is how

Ḥizkiya said in the name of Abaye: This statement that you said

—according to the one who says that if he placed the pot

on the ground it is forbidden—was not stated

as a general prohibition against returning it,

but

only if, when he placed it on the ground, he also thought

that he did not intend to return it. But

if he

intended to return it,

then even if he placed the pot on the ground,

it is permitted.

It follows that according to this approach, returning a pot to the stove on Shabbat is forbidden only when both conditions are met: a. He placed it on the ground. b. He did not intend to return it. But if only one condition was present, it is permitted to return it.

The Gemara infers:

By implication,

from the second version of Ḥizkiya’s statement one learns that if only one condition was present—for example,

when it was still in his hand, even though he did not intend to return it, it is permitted.

And conversely, if he placed it on the ground but it is still in his hand, it is permitted.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question: If he hung them

—the pots containing food or hot water—

on a stick,

rather than placing them on the ground,

what is the law?

Is this comparable to holding them in his hand, or to placing them on the ground?

And if you say that hanging it on a stick is equivalent to its being still in his hand, what is the law if he

placed them

the pots

on a bed—what is the law?

Is a bed considered like the ground, since in practice the pot is not in his hand, or perhaps, since he did not place it on the ground, this is not a complete diversion of attention, and it is permitted to return the pot from the bed to the stove?

Rav Ashi raised a question: If he transferred them—

he removed the water

from the urn

in which it had been cooked

to another urn

and afterward returned the water to the first urn—

what is the law?

Is it permitted to return the urn to the stove or not? It is possible that removing the water from one urn to another is considered like placing it on the ground, and is therefore like insulating and cooking intentionally on Shabbat; or perhaps in this case it does not appear like cooking.

And we conclude:

The question remains without a resolution.

Mishna:

The preceding Mishna dealt with the laws of a stove—a utensil containing a place for positioning two pots, whose heat is not particularly great. It was explained that it is permitted to leave a pot on the stove on Shabbat [and the Gemara disputed whether it is permitted to leave it even on a stove that has not been cleared, or only on one that has been cleared], and it is likewise permitted to return food to a stove that has been cleared, with no concern that this appears like cooking.

The Mishna before us deals with the laws of leaving a pot on a stove and returning it to an oven. An oven is wide at the bottom and narrow at the top, and therefore its heat is greater. It also deals with the laws of a small furnace, a utensil similar to a stove but with room for positioning only one pot; it is hotter than a stove but less hot than an oven.

An oven

—a utensil wide at the bottom and narrow at the top, whose heat is greater than that of a stove—may not be used for leaving food in place or returning food to it on Shabbat . And even when it was

heated with straw and stubble,

which are materials that do not increase heat,

one may not place

food in it,

whether inside it or on top of it,

because since the oven is extremely hot, this is like insulating the food with a material that increases heat.

Kofah

a utensil in which there is room for placing one pot, and which becomes hotter than a kirah and less hot than an oven; at times its law is like that of a kirah, and at times like that of an oven:

When

they heated it with straw and stubble, it is like a kirah,

and it is permitted to leave a cooked dish upon it from the eve of Shabbat, and to return it to it on Shabbat.

And if they heated it

with peat and wood, it is like an oven,

and it is forbidden to place [a dish] in it, whether inside it or on top of it.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses how to interpret what was stated in the Mishna:

“An oven that they heated

with straw and stubble: one may not place [a dish] neither inside it nor on top of it.”

Rav Yosef thought to say

that the meaning of

“inside it”

is

literally inside it,

and likewise

“on top of it”

means

literally on top of it.

And in these places it is forbidden to place the pot so that it will cook from the heat of the oven, because its heat is great.

But to lean

a cooked dish against the wall of the oven from the eve of Shabbat, where the heat is not great,

is entirely permitted.

Abaye objected

to Rav Yosef from our Mishna, from which it appears that it is forbidden to lean [a dish] against an oven, as we learned:

A kofah

that they heated with straw and stubble is like a kirah. With peat and wood it is like an oven, and it is forbidden

to place a cooked dish in a kofah heated with peat and wood.

And Abaye infers from what was stated, “With peat and wood it is like an oven,” that the prohibition is only because the law of the kofah is like that of an oven.

If so,

if the law of the kofah were

like that of a kirah,

then it would be

permitted

to place a cooked dish in it despite the fact that it was heated with peat and wood.

With what are we dealing,

with what form of cooking in a kofah is the Mishna dealing?

If you say

that we assume that the Mishna is dealing with cooking

on top of it,

for this is the manner of cooking with it, and concerning this the Mishna states that if it was heated with peat and wood, its law is like that of an oven.

And with what,

in what manner was the pot placed on the kofah?

If you say

that we assume that the Mishna is speaking of placing [the pot] on a kofah

when it has not been raked out and covered with ashes.

If so, one can ask: why did the Mishna need to say, “A kofah that they heated with peat and wood is like an oven”? It implies that if it were treated like a kirah, it would be permitted to leave [a dish] on top of it—

Rather, as for a kirah, when it has not been raked out and covered with ashes, is [placing a dish] on top of it permitted?

But even in a kirah that has not been raked out, it is forbidden to place a cooked dish in it. If so, why did the Mishna prohibit placing a cooked dish in a kofah heated with peat and wood only because it resembles an oven?

Rather, is it not so

that necessarily the Mishna is not speaking of cooking on top of the kofah, because there is no distinction between a kirah and a kofah with regard to cooking on top of them: in both of them, if one raked out and covered [the coals], it is permitted, and if one did not rake out, it is forbidden. Rather, certainly the Mishna is dealing with the law of

leaning

against the kofah, and concerning this it states that if it was heated with straw and stubble, it is permitted to lean [a dish against it],

and it teaches

that if it was heated with peat and wood,

it is like an oven, and it is forbidden

to lean [a dish] against it, and all the more so it is forbidden to lean [a dish] against an oven.

And since it is proven from the latter clause that it is forbidden to lean [a dish] against a kofah, and all the more so against an oven, this is difficult for Rav Yosef, who inferred from the first clause that it is permitted to lean [a dish] against an oven.

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said

that it is indeed possible that it is permitted to lean [a dish] against an oven, as Rav Yosef stated. And what we find in the latter clause—that a kofah heated with peat and wood is forbidden—is because it resembles an oven. And when we asked why they did not prohibit the kofah because it had not been raked out and covered with ashes, one can say:

Here we are dealing with a kofah that had been raked out and covered with ashes, and an oven that had been raked out and covered with ashes.

And the Mishna teaches us this: just as it is forbidden to place [a dish] in an oven even if it has been raked out and covered with ashes, so too with a kofah. Because they were stringent with regard to a kofah and an oven whose heat is exceedingly great, not to place a cooked dish in them even if one raked out and covered [the coals].

And this is what it means: A kofah that they heated with peat and wood

is like an oven, for even though it has been raked out and covered with ashes, placing [a dish] on top of it is forbidden, for if

we were to treat the kofah

like a kirah,

then it would be permitted to place [a dish] in it, since with a kirah,

when it has been raked out and covered with ashes, it is entirely permitted.

It was taught in accordance with Abaye,

that it is forbidden to lean [a dish] against an oven and against a kofah heated with peat and wood:

An oven that they heated with straw and stubble—

a.

One may not lean [a dish] against it,

b.

And it is not necessary to say

that one may not place a cooked dish

on top of it.

c.

And it is not necessary to say

that it is forbidden to place a cooked dish

inside it.

d.

And it is not necessary to say

that if they heated it

with peat and wood,

it is forbidden to lean [a dish] against it and to place [a dish] on top of it or inside it.

A kofah that they heated with straw and stubble

is treated like a kirah, and therefore— a.

One may lean [a dish] against it,

just as one may lean [a dish] against a kirah.

b.

One may not place [a dish] on top of it.

And if the kofah was heated

with peat and wood,

its law is like that of an oven, and therefore

one may not lean [a dish] against it.

And this proves Abaye’s view: it is forbidden to lean [a dish] against an oven and against a kofah heated with peat and wood.

He said to him,

challenging

Rav Aḥa son of Rava to Rav Ashi:

This kofah

which we learned in the Mishna—that if it was heated with straw and stubble it is treated like a kirah, while if it was heated with peat and wood it is treated like an oven—

what are the circumstances?

If it is like a kirah—

then

even

if they heated it

with peat and wood as well,

it should be permitted, as with a kirah.

If it is like an oven—

then

even

if they heated it

with straw and stubble, it should also not be permitted,

as is the law of an oven.

He said to him,

Rav Ashi: A kofah

has greater heat,

its heat is higher,

than a kirah, and lesser heat,

its heat is lower,

than an oven.

What are the circumstances of a kofah, and what are the circumstances of a kirah,

what is the distinction between them?

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: A kofah—

it has

room for placing one pot.

A kirah—

it has

room for placing two pots,

and consequently it does not have as much heat as a kofah.

Abaye said, and some say Rabbi Yirmeya: We too have learned [this],

that the distinction between a kofah and a kirah is that in a kirah there is room to place two pots, while in a kofah there is room for one pot.

For so we learned in a Mishna in tractate Kelim, concerning the purification of an earthenware utensil, which is purified from its impurity through the breaking of the utensil:

An oven made of earthenware that became impure: its breaking purifies it.

A kirah

of earthenware that is impure,

when it split,

and broke into two parts. If it split

lengthwise—

it is pure,

because it is not fit for placing utensils upon it.

But if it split

widthwise, it is impure,

because in a kirah there is room for placing two pots, and when it splits widthwise, room remains in it for placing one pot. Since it is still fit for use, it is not considered a broken kirah, and it continues to be impure.

A kofah

that is impure and broke and split into two,

whether

it split

lengthwise, or whether

it split

widthwise—

it is pure,

because it has room for placing only one pot, and after it splits it is impossible to use it, and its breaking purifies it.

From here [it follows] that in a kirah there is room for placing two pots, while in a kofah there is room for placing one pot.

Mishna:

a.

One may not place

on Shabbat

an egg beside the hot-water urn

[a copper kettle] that was heated by fire,

so that it will roll,

that the egg will be partially roasted from the heat of the urn. Just as it is forbidden to cook on Shabbat on the fire itself, so it is forbidden by Torah law to cook on something that was heated by fire, which is a “derivative of fire.”

b.

And one may not burst it with cloths.

He may not break the egg in order that it cook upon cloths [garments] that were heated by the sun [called “derivatives of the sun”]. Even though by law it is permitted to cook on Shabbat in the sun itself, the Sages decreed that one may not cook with something heated by the sun [“derivatives of the sun”], lest they err and cook with something heated by fire [“derivatives of fire”].

And Rabbi Yosei permits.

Just as it is permitted to cook on Shabbat with the sun itself, so too it is permitted to cook with substances heated by the sun.

3.

And he should not insulate it

the egg

in sand and

road dust,

which had been heated by the sun,

so that it will be roasted.

4.

An incident occurred involving the people of Tiberias, and they brought

on the eve of Shabbat

a pipe of cold water

a pipe through which cold water flowed, and inserted it

into a channel of hot water

the hot springs of Tiberias, so that the cold water flowing through the pipe would become heated and they would be able to bathe with it on Shabbat.

The Sages said to them

the people of Tiberias:

If it was on Shabbat

the cold water became heated, it is

like water that was heated

initially

on Shabbat, and it is forbidden for bathing and drinking.

6.

If

the water became heated

on a Festival,

it is

like water that was heated on a Festival, and it is forbidden for bathing,

but permitted for drinking.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One may not place an egg beside a kettle so that it will become fully cooked.

They raised the following question:

If one transgressed and

cooked

an egg on Shabbat,

what

is the ruling? Is this kind of cooking also treated as cooking on Shabbat?

Rav Yosef said: If he cooked it—

he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

Just as it is forbidden to cook on Shabbat over a fire, so it is forbidden to cook with something that was heated by a fire, which is called “a substance heated by a fire.”

Mar bar Ravina said: We have also learned a source supporting this,

as we find a Mishna in accordance with Rav Yosef.