Shabbat 38b (לח:) — the Talmud in English

a. Rashi explains that the novel point in Rav Sheshet’s statement is that not only is it permitted to return the pot on Shabbat eve, but it is permitted even during the day. One might have thought that the Mishna permitted returning the pot only when he removed it from the stove on the night of Shabbat, since in that case it is clear to everyone that he intended to return it for the following day, and therefore it is permitted to return it. But if he removed it during the day, one might have thought that it is forbidden to return it, since his actions do not demonstrate that he intended to return it. Rav Sheshet therefore teaches us that if he removed it during the day as well, it is permitted to return it. From Rashi’s wording it appears that the thought that returning it during the day might be forbidden is not because this would constitute cooking intentionally on Shabbat, but because it would constitute intentionally insulating the pot. And the Ran explained that this follows his approach at the beginning of the chapter, that the prohibition against leaving a pot on the stove and returning it is because it is considered insulating it with a material that increases heat. b. Tosafot wrote that the main dispute concerns Shabbat Tosafot [36b, s.v. “And Beit Hillel”] wrote that the main dispute concerns Shabbat eve: Is it permitted to return the pot close to the onset of Shabbat, when there is not enough time for the food to boil? Beit Shammai prohibit it, whereas Beit Hillel permit it. Rav Sheshet added that according to Beit Hillel, it is permitted to return the pot even on Shabbat. c. Ramban cited those who explain that Beit Hillel Ramban cited those who explain that Beit Hillel permitted returning the pot only during the period between sunset and nightfall, while Rav Sheshet permitted returning it even after nightfall. d. And from the words of the Jerusalem Talmud, Ramban Ramban and the Ran proved that Rav Sheshet’s novel teaching is that even if one removed the pot from the stove on Shabbat eve, he may return it on Shabbat itself. But if he removed it on Shabbat itself, it is obvious that he may return it, because in that case he is not placing it there intentionally on Shabbat. Only when he removed it on Shabbat eve and returns it on Shabbat is there an act of intentional placement on Shabbat.

Kofah

a utensil with room for placing one pot, which becomes hotter than a kira but less hot than an oven; at times its status is that of a kira, and at times that of an oven:

When

it was heated with straw and brushwood, it is like a double-sided kira,

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

And if

it was heated 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 is stated in the Mishna:

“An oven that was heated

with straw and brushwood: one may not place [a dish] inside it or 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.

In these places it is forbidden to put the pot down so that it will cook from the heat of the oven, because its heat is intense.

But to lean

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

is certainly permitted.

Abaye raised an objection

to Rav Yosef from our Mishna, which implies that it is forbidden to lean a pot against an oven, as we learned:

A kofah

that was heated with straw and brushwood is like a kira. If it was heated with peat and wood, it is like an oven, and it is forbidden

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

Abaye infers from the statement that when heated with peat and wood it is like an oven that the prohibition is only because the kofah has the status of an oven.

Here,

if the kofah had the status

of a kira,

then it would be

permitted

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

With what are we dealing,

what type of cooking in a kofah is the Mishna discussing?

If you say

that the Mishna is discussing cooking

on top of it,

as that is the usual manner of cooking with it, and the Mishna states regarding this that if it was heated with peat and wood, it is like an oven—

And with what

in what manner was the pot placed on the kofah?

If you say

that the Mishna is speaking of placing it on a kofah

whose coals have not been raked out and covered with ashes.

If so, one may ask: Why did the Mishna need to say that a kofah heated with peat and wood is like an oven? It implies that if it had the status of a kira, it would be permitted to leave a pot on top of it—

Rather, in the case of a kira, when its coals have not been raked out and covered with ashes, is placing a pot on top of it permitted?

After all, even in the case of a kira whose coals have not been raked out, it is forbidden to place a dish in it. If so, why did the Mishna prohibit placing a dish in a kofah heated with peat and wood only because it resembles an oven?

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that the Mishna is not discussing cooking on top of the kofah? For there is no distinction between a kira and a kofah with regard to cooking on top of them: in both cases, if the coals have been raked out and covered with ashes it is permitted, and if they have not been raked out it is forbidden. Rather, certainly the Mishna is discussing the law of

leaning

a pot against a kofah, and it states that if it was heated with straw and brushwood, it is permitted to lean a pot against it;

and it teaches:

if it was heated with peat and wood,

it is like an oven, and it is forbidden

to lean a pot against it, and certainly it is forbidden to lean a pot against an oven.

Since the latter clause proves that it is forbidden to lean a pot 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 pot against an oven.

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

Actually, it is possible that it is permitted to lean a pot against an oven, in accordance with Rav Yosef. And the reason we find in the latter clause that a kofah heated with peat and wood is forbidden is that it resembles an oven. As for the question of why the kofah was not prohibited because its coals had not been raked out and covered with ashes, one can say:

Here we are dealing with a kofah whose coals have been raked out and covered with ashes, and with an oven whose coals have been raked out and covered with ashes.

The Mishna teaches us that just as it is forbidden to place a dish in an oven even when its coals have been raked out and covered with ashes, so too is it forbidden in the case of a kofah. The Sages were stringent with regard to a kofah and an oven, whose heat is particularly intense, and prohibited placing a dish in them even after their coals had been raked out and covered with ashes.

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

is like an oven: although its coals have been raked out and covered with ashes, it is forbidden to place a pot on top of it, for if

we were to consider the kofah

like a kira,

then it would be permitted to place a pot in it, since a kira

whose coals have been raked out and covered with ashes is certainly permitted.

It was taught in accordance with Abaye:

it is forbidden to lean a pot against an oven or against a kofah heated with peat and wood:

An oven that was heated with straw and brushwood—

a.

One may not lean a pot against it,

b.

And it is not necessary to say

that one may not place a dish

on top of it.

c.

And it is not necessary to say

that it is forbidden to place a dish

inside it.

d.

And it is not necessary to say

that if it was heated

with peat and wood,

it is forbidden to lean a pot against it or place one on top of it or inside it.

A kofah that was heated with straw and brushwood

is treated like a kira, and therefore: a.

One may lean a pot against it,

just as one may lean a pot against a kira.

b.

But one may not place a pot on top of it.

And if the kofah was heated

with peat and wood,

its status is that of an oven, and therefore

one may not lean a pot against it.

This proves Abaye’s view: it is forbidden to lean a pot against an oven or against a kofah heated with peat and wood.

He said to him,

challenging him,

Rav Aha son of Rava to Rav Ashi:

This kofah

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

what are the circumstances?

If it is like a kira—

then

even

if it was heated

with peat and wood as well,

it should be permitted, as in the case of a kira.

If it is like an oven—

then

even

if it was heated

with straw and brushwood, it should not be permitted,

as is the law of an oven.

He said to him:

Rav Ashi said to him: A kofah

has greater heat

than a kira,

but lesser heat

than an oven.

Its heat is greater than that of a kira, and its heat is less than that of an oven.

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

what is the distinction between them?

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: A kofah—

has

room for placing one pot.

A kira

has

room for placing two pots,

and consequently its heat is not as great as that of a kofah.

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

that the distinction between a kofah and a kira is that a kira has room for placing two pots, whereas a kofah has room for only one pot.

Thus we learned in a Mishna in tractate Kelim, concerning the ritual purity of earthenware vessels, which is attained by breaking the vessel:

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

A kira

of earthenware that is impure,

which split

and broke into two pieces: if it split

lengthwise,

it is pure,

since it is no longer fit for placing vessels upon it.

But if it split

widthwise, it is impure,

since a kira has 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 kira, and it remains impure.

A kofah

that is impure and breaks into two pieces—

whether

it split

lengthwise, or whether

it split

widthwise—

it is pure,

since it has room for placing only one pot, and after it splits it cannot be used. Its breaking therefore purifies it.

It follows that a kira has room for placing two pots, whereas a kofah has room for placing one pot.

Mishna:

a.

One may not place

on Shabbat

an egg beside a boiler

[a copper kettle] that was heated by fire,

in order that it should roll,

that is, that the egg should become partially roasted from the heat of the boiler. Just as it is forbidden to cook on Shabbat over fire itself, so it is forbidden by Torah law to cook with an object that was heated by fire, which is a “derivative of fire.”

b.

And one may not crack it in cloths.

One may not break the egg in order that it should cook on cloths [garments] that were heated by the sun [called “derivatives of the sun”]. Although by strict 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 one mistakenly cook with something heated by fire [“derivatives of fire”].

And Rabbi Yosei permits.

Just as it is permitted to cook on Shabbat in the sun itself, so too is it permitted to cook in derivatives of the sun.

3.

And he should not insulate it

the egg

in sand and in

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 pipe

within 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 in it on Shabbat.

The Sages said to them

to the people of Tiberias:

If on Shabbat

the cold water became heated, it is

like water that was heated

initially

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

6.

If

it became heated

on a Festival,

it is

like water that was heated on a Festival, and it is prohibited 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.

A dilemma was raised before them:

If one transgressed and

fully cooked

an egg on Shabbat,

what

is the law? Is cooking in this manner also considered cooking on Shabbat?

Rav Yosef said: If he fully cooked it—

he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

Just as it is prohibited to cook on Shabbat over a fire, so it is prohibited to cook in something that became heated from fire, which is called “a derivative of fire.”

Mar bar Ravina said: We too have learned,

we find a Mishna in accordance with Rav Yosef.