(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 38


1) Leaving a pot on the stove might be ...

1.... permitted - even on purpose - even though it would have been forbidden had it been cooked on purpose, because whereas cooking is a positive act, leaving on the stove is a negative inaction.
2. ... forbidden - even by mistake - because whereas in the case of cooking, a Jew is not likely to cook on purpose and claim that he did it by mistake, he *is* likely to do so with regard to leaving something on the stove - because it is only an Isur de'Rannanan (perhaps also because it does not involve an action, and because it takes place only on *Erev* Shabbos).
(a) 'she'Lo Bishel Kol Tzorcho' means that it is Mitztamek ve'Ra Lo' - i.e it will deteriorate if left on the stove.

(b) The Beraisa differentiates between a dish (that is not fully cooked) which was left on the stove by mistake (which is permitted), and one which was left on the stove on purpose (which is forbidden) - a Kashya on both opinions cited previously (as well as on Rebbi Chiya bar Aba), who said 've'Lo Shena', and who did not differentiate.

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak will answer, that *he* was speaking *after* they decreed Shogeg because of Meizid, whereas the Beraisa is speaking *before* the decree.

(d) Rabbah and Rav Yosef have no answer to the Kashya; they were lenient even be'Meizid, and the Beraisa clearly, is strict - even be'Shogeg?

1. True, Rebbi Meir at the beginning of the Perek was strict, forbidding a cooked pot to be left even on a Kirah that *was* Gerufah u'Ketumah (even according to Beis Hillel), but that is Lechatchilah - Bedieved, the pot is permitted - even on a stove that is *not* Gerufah u'Ketumah (before the decree, as we just explained).
2. As for Rebbi Yehudah, he was only lenient - according to Beis Hillel - by a stove that *is* Gerufah u'Ketumah, but not by one that is *not*, and that is where he is stringent here.
(b) Rebbi Yossi was lenient by hot water and strict by cooked eggs, because the former is 'Mitztamek ve'Ra Lo' (since it evaporates), whereas the latter is 'Mitztamek ve'Tov Lo'.

(c) When Rebbi Yossi forbade the eggs that were left on the stove, he meant that it was forbidden to repeat the performance the following Shabbos, but not that the eggs were forbidden *that* week.




(a) When the Amora'im explain that Beis Hillel permit Chazarah even on Shabbos, they mean even on Shabbos *morning* - not only on Friday night, when he is obviously returning the pot for Shabbos lunch, and is unlikely to stoke the coals anyway. (Tosfos, d.h. 'Afilu' disagrees with Rashi. See also Rosh Si'man 2, who is even more explanatory.)

(b) According to those who require *two conditions* for Chazarah: that the pot is still in his hand and that he had in mind to return it, Chazarah will be categorically forbidden once he has put the pot down on the floor.

(c) Others say, that provided he had in mind, when removing the pot, to re-place it, he is permitted to re-place it, even if he put it down on the floor. In that case, as long as the pot is still in his hand, he is permitted to re-place it - even if he did not have in mind to do so , at the time of removal (According to this opinion, Chazarah requires only *one* condition to be permitted.)

(a) The Gemara asks what the Din will be, regarding a pot that one hung on a peg behind the door or placed, not on the floor, but on a couch (whether they have the Din of a pot that has been placed on the floor, or a pot that is still in one's hand. And the Sha'aleh remains unresolved?

(b) The Gemara also asks whether, if one poured the contents of one pot into another pot, it is perhaps forbidden to 'return' it onto the flame, even if he did not put it down, since, although as far as the food is concerned, it is Chazarah, and will be permitted; from the point of view of the pot, it is like placing it on the stove for the first time, and will be forbidden. (This Sha'aleh too, remains unanswered.)

(a) A 'Tanur' is a cone-shaped oven, which becomes narrower on top, and which has room inside it for one pot. As a result of its shape, the heat inside is more concentrated, and things cook much more quickly. Consequently, one may not even leave anything - either inside or on top, irrespective of whether it was lit with Gefes or wood, or with straw or stubble.

(b) A 'Kupach' is a square oven with room inside for one pot, but which is shaped like a Kirah, rather than like a Tanur. If it was lit with straw or stubble, it has the Din of a Kirah, and one may leave food on it if it is Gerufah or Ketumah. But if it was lit with Gefes or wood, then it has the Din of a Tanur, on which Shehiyah is completely forbidden.

(c) Its small size causes it to reach a higher temperature than a Kirah, but its square shape prevents it from becoming as hot as a Tanur, Consequently, Chazal gave it the dual Din of a Kirah and a Tanur.

(a) Rav Yosef takes the words 'Bein mi'Tocho Bein Me'al Gabav' in our Mishnah - literally. The Mishnah implies that Semichah, which is not 'Tocho' nor 'Al Gabav', is permitted even by a Tanur.

(b) Abaye asks on Rav Yosef from the Kupach in our Mishnah, which, if lit with Gefes or wood, is like a Tanur, and is forbidden to put 'Bein mi'Tocho, Bein Me'al Gabav'. From this, we can infer that in the equivalent case of a Kirah, one would be permitted to place the pot on top of it. Now, since the Mishnah is speaking (according to Abaye's understanding), about a Tanur and Kupach which are (lit with Gefes and wood, and which are) not 'Gerufah u'Ketumah', it is forbidden to place a pot even on a Kirah, so why does the Mishnah write 'Harei Hu ke'Tanur'?
So Abaye concludes that 'Al Gabah' must mean 'next to', proving that even *Semichah* next to a Tanur is forbidden?

(c) The Gemara answers that the Mishnah is speaking about a Tanur and a Kupach which are 'Gerufah u'Ketumah', and which are therefore permitted to place on a Kirah (even if we learn 'Tocho' and 'Al Gabah' literally).

(d) Although we have answered Abaye's Kashya on Rav Yosef admirably, the Halachah will nevertheless be like Abaye, since we have a Beraisa in support of Abaye, which prohibits Semichah next to a Tanur, just like placing on top of it.

1. A Kirah which broke in two length-wise, is Tehorah, since neither of the pot locations can now be used; but if it broke width-wise, creating two ovens instead of one - since each of the two sections is now usable, they are both Tamei.
2. A Kupach, on the other hand, is not usable, whether it broke lengthwise or width-wise, and is therefore always Tahor. Incidentally, whatever is Tamei (because it is a K'li), is also considered a K'li regarding Shabbos (concerning the Dinim of Muktzah), and whatever is Tahor, because it is no longer a K'li, is not considered a K'li concerning Shabbos, either, and is therefore Muktzah).
(a) No! One may not place an egg beside a boiling kettle to become slightly roasted.

(b) The men of Teverya placed a pipe (before Shabbos) along which ran cold water, into the hot spring springs of Teverya, in order to heat the water in the pipe.

(c) The Chachamim ruled that the water which was heated ...

1. ... on Shabbos, had the Din of water that was heated on fire on Shabbos, and was therefore forbidden - both as regards washing and drinking.
2. ... on Yom-Tov, had the Din of water that was heated on Yom-Tov on the fire, and was therefore forbidden to use for washing, but permitted to drink.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,