Shabbat 37aשבת ל״ז א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Shabbat 37a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
37aל״ז א

לעולם אימא לך להחזיר תנן וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני כירה שהסיקוה בקש ובגבבא מחזירין עליה תבשיל בגפת ובעצים לא יחזיר עד שיגרוף או עד שיתן את האפר אבל לשהות משהין אף על פי שאינו גרוף ואינו קטום ומה הן משהין בית שמאי אומרים חמין אבל לא תבשיל ובית הלל אומרים חמין ותבשיל והך חזרה דאמרי לך לאו דברי הכל היא אלא מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל שבית שמאי אומרים נוטלין ולא מחזירין ובית הלל אומרים אף מחזירין

The Gemara rejects this proof. Actually, you can say that in the first clause of the mishna we learned to return and the mishna is incomplete. A clause must be added to the mishna, and it teaches the following: With regard to a stove that was lit with straw or rakings, one may return a pot of cooked food to it. If it was lit with pomace or with wood, one may not return a pot to it until one sweeps the coals out while it is still day or until one covers the coals with ashes. However, to leave the pot on the flame on Shabbat, one may leave it, even though it is not swept and not covered with ashes. Through this addition, the continuation of the dispute can be understood as follows: And what may they leave? Beit Shammai say: Hot water but not cooked food. And Beit Hillel say: Both hot water and cooked food. Furthermore: And that return that I said to you at the start of the mishna is not according to everyone. Rather, it too is subject to a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: One may remove but not return. And Beit Hillel say: One may even return. The dilemma with regard to the interpretation of the mishna has not been resolved.

תא שמע דאמר רבי חלבו אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב לא שנו אלא על גבה אבל לתוכה אסור אי אמרת בשלמא להחזיר תנן היינו דשני בין תוכה לעל גבה אלא אי אמרת לשהות תנן מה לי תוכה מה לי על גבה מי סברת רבי חלבו ארישא קאי אסיפא קאי ובית הלל אומרים אף מחזירין ואמר רבי חלבו אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב לא שנו אלא על גבה אבל תוכה אסור

Come and hear another resolution to this dilemma from that which Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: They only taught that placing is permitted with regard to a stove as far as placing a pot atop it is concerned. However, placing a pot inside it is prohibited. Granted, if you say that we learned returning in the mishna, that is why there is a halakhic difference between placing a pot inside it and placing a pot atop it. If one returns it on Shabbat, placing it inside a stove that might have burning coals, there is concern that Shabbat would be desecrated. Therefore, it was only permitted to place cooked food atop the stove. However, if you say that we learned leaving in the mishna, what is the difference to me whether it is inside the stove and what is the difference to me whether it is atop it? Ultimately, he does nothing on Shabbat with the hot ashes in the stove. The Gemara rejects this proof: Do you think that Rabbi Ḥelbo is referring to the first clause of the mishna? No, he is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, which states: And Beit Hillel say that one may even return. And with regard to this Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: They only taught that one may return the cooked food atop the stove; however, inside it is prohibited. If so, there is still no resolution to the dilemma.

תא שמע שתי כירות המתאימות אחת גרופה וקטומה ואחת שאינה גרופה ואינה קטומה משהין על גבי גרופה וקטומה ואין משהין על שאינה גרופה ואינה קטומה ומה הן משהין בית שמאי אומרים ולא כלום ובית הלל אומרים חמין אבל לא תבשיל עקר דברי הכל לא יחזיר דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר בית שמאי אומרים חמין אבל לא תבשיל ובית הלל אומרים חמין ותבשיל בית שמאי אומרים נוטלין אבל לא מחזירין ובית הלל אומרים אף מחזירין

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in the Tosefta: In the case of two adjoining stoves that share a common wall, in one of them, the coals were swept or covered with ashes, and in one the coals were not swept and not covered with ashes; the ruling with regard to leaving a pot atop them on Shabbat is as follows: One may leave food atop the one that was swept or covered with ashes, and one may not leave food atop the one that was not swept and not covered with ashes. And to the crux of the matter, what may one leave? Beit Shammai say: Nothing at all. They dispute the halakha cited above. And Beit Hillel say: One may leave hot water but not cooked food. However, if one removed the cooked dish from atop the stove, everyone, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agrees that one may not return it atop the stove; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. According to the tradition that he received, that is the issue disputed between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Rabbi Yehuda says that the dispute is different. Beit Shammai say: One may leave hot water on it but not cooked food. And Beit Hillel say: One may leave both hot water and cooked food. Furthermore, Beit Shammai say: One may remove a pot from the stove on Shabbat but may not return it. And Beit Hillel say: One may even return it.

אי אמרת בשלמא לשהות תנן מתניתין מני רבי יהודה היא אלא אי אמרת להחזיר תנן מתניתין מני לא רבי יהודה ולא רבי מאיר אי רבי מאיר קשיא לבית שמאי בחדא ולבית הלל בתרתי אי רבי יהודה קשיא גרופה וקטומה

Granted, if you say that the case we learned in our mishna was with regard to leaving the pot on the stove, in accordance with whose opinion is our mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. However, if you say that the case we learned in our mishna was with regard to returning the pot to the stove, in accordance with whose opinion is our mishna? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. If you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is difficult for Beit Shammai in one respect. In our mishna, Beit Shammai permit some use of a stove on Shabbat; while according to Rabbi Meir in the baraita, Beit Shammai prohibit any use. And for Beit Hillel it is difficult in two respects. According to our understanding of the mishna, Beit Hillel permit both hot water and cooked food, contrary to Rabbi Meir’s version of their opinion as stated in the baraita. Similarly, in our mishna, Beit Hillel permit returning the pot to the stove, contrary to Rabbi Meir’s version of their opinion. If you explain that our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita, it is difficult with regard to the issue of sweeping the coals and covering them with ashes. In the mishna, both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai allow leaving it on a stove whose coals were not swept or covered with ashes. According to Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita, apparently a stove whose coals are neither swept nor covered with ashes may not be used at all. Since this interpretation leads to contradictions, it is preferable to explain the mishna in accordance with the other approach, so that the mishna will at least correspond to one opinion.

לעולם אימא לך להחזיר תנן ותנא דידן סבר לה כרבי יהודה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא סבר לה כרבי יהודה בחדא בחמין ותבשיל ונוטלין ומחזירין ופליג עליה בחדא דאילו תנא דידן סבר לשהות ואף על פי שאינו גרוף וקטום ורבי יהודה סבר בלשהות נמי גרוף וקטום אין אי לא לא

This claim is rejected: Actually, you can say that the case we learned in our mishna was with regard to returning the pot to the stove, and our tanna in the mishna holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda in one matter, and disagrees with him in one matter. He holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda in one matter, with regard to the matter of hot water and cooked food, and what may be taken from the stove and what may even be returned. And he disagrees with him in one matter: While our tanna in the mishna held that to leave a pot on a stove is permitted even though it is not swept or covered with ashes, Rabbi Yehuda held: With regard to permitting one to leave a pot on the stove as well, if the stove was swept or covered with ashes, yes, it is permitted; if it was not swept or covered with ashes, no, it is prohibited.

איבעיא להו מהו לסמוך בה תוכה וגבה אסור אבל לסמוך בה שפיר דמי או דילמא לא שנא

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a stove that was neither swept nor covered with ashes, what is the halakha with regard to permitting one to lean a cooked dish against it, so that it may be heated from the sides of the stove? The dilemma is: Was it only placing a pot inside it and atop it that is prohibited, but to lean the pot against it he may well do so? Or, perhaps, leaning is no different and it is prohibited in every case.

תא שמע שתי כירות המתאימות אחת גרופה וקטומה ואחת שאינה גרופה וקטומה משהין על גבי גרופה וקטומה ואף על גב דקא סליק ליה הבלא מאידך דילמא שאני התם דכיון דמידליא שליט בה אוירא

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in a baraita: If there are two adjoining stoves, one that was swept or covered with ashes and one that was not swept and covered with ashes, one may leave cooked food atop the stove that is swept and covered with ashes on Shabbat. Apparently, it is permitted to lean a pot on a stove that was not swept, even though heat rises to it from the other stove. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps that case of two adjoining stoves is different. Since the pot is elevated, the air affects it and cools it. Therefore, it is not comparable to actually leaning it against the stove.

תא שמע דאמר רב ספרא אמר רב חייא קטמה ונתלבתה סומכין לה ומקיימין עליה ונוטלין ממנה ומחזירין לה שמע מינה לסמוך נמי קטמה אין לא קטמה לא ולטעמיך נוטלין ממנה דקתני קטמה אין לא קטמה לא אלא תנא נוטלין משום מחזירין הכא נמי תנא סומכין משום מקיימין

Come and hear another resolution to this dilemma from that which Rav Safra said that Rav Ḥiyya said: If there is a stove whose coals one covered with ashes on Shabbat eve and it subsequently reignited on Shabbat, one may lean a pot against it, and leave cooked food on it, and remove food from it, and even return food to it. Conclude from this the following with regard to leaning, as well: If he covered them with ashes, yes, if he did not cover them with ashes, no, as the Gemara is speaking about a stove whose ashes were covered properly during the day. The Gemara rejects this proof too. And according to your opinion, that which was taught: One may remove the food from it, would you say there too that if he covered them, yes, and if he did not cover them, no? Everyone agrees that it is permitted to take the pot off of the stove even if it is not swept or covered with ashes. Rather, it must be understood that he taught permission to remove the pot due to the fact that it taught permission to return it. Here too, it taught permission to lean the pot due to the fact that it taught permission to leave the pot on the stove. Consequently, a conclusion cannot be drawn that leaning a pot on an unswept stove is prohibited.

הכי השתא התם נוטלין ומחזירין בחד מקום הוא תנא נוטלין משום מחזירין אלא הכא סומכין בחד מקום הוא ומקיימין בחד מקום הוא

The Gemara is astonished by this comparison. How can you compare them? There, one removes the pot from and returns it to one and the same place. Therefore, it taught removing due to returning, as one cannot return a pot before he removes it. However, here, where one leans the pot is in one place and where one leaves the pot is in one, another, place, there is no connection between the two. If the tanna did not intend to teach that leaning is permitted only on a swept stove, there would be no reason to mention permission to lean in conjunction with permission to leave. In any event, this is not an absolute proof, and the dilemma has not been resolved.

מאי הוי עלה תא שמע כירה שהסיקוה בגפת ובעצים סומכין לה ואין מקיימין אלא אם כן גרופה וקטומה גחלים שעממו או שנתן עליה נעורת של פשתן דקה הרי היא כקטומה

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached with regard to this dilemma? Come and hear a resolution to this from that which was taught in the Tosefta: With regard to a stove that was lit with pomace or with wood, one may lean a pot of cooked food against it; however, one may not leave a pot inside it unless the stove is swept out or covered with ashes. Coals that dimmed or on which a strip of thinly beaten flax was placed and the fire did not ignite, it is as if it were covered with ashes, and one need not add more ashes to it. In any case, the conclusion is drawn from here that one is permitted to lean a dish of cooked food against a stove, even though it is not covered with ashes or swept out.

אמר רבי יצחק בר נחמני אמר רב אושעיא קטמה והובערה משהין עליה חמין שהוחמו כל צורכן ותבשיל שבישל כל צורכו

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani said that Rav Oshaya said: With regard to a stove that he covered with ashes and that reignited on Shabbat, one may leave hot water that was already completely heated and cooked food that was already completely cooked upon it. In that case, there is no need for additional cooking, and therefore there is no concern that one might come to stoke the coals and ignite the fire.