Shabbat 38

Shabbat 38

שָׁכַח קְדֵירָה עַל גַּבֵּי כִּירָה וּבִשְּׁלָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת, מַהוּ? אִישְׁתִּיק וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. לִמְחַר נְפַק דְּרַשׁ לְהוּ: הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יֹאכַל, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֹאכַל, וְלָא שְׁנָא.

If one forgot a pot on Shabbat eve atop a stove and it cooked on Shabbat, what is the ruling in that case? Is one permitted to eat that food, or not? He was silent and did not say a thing to him. The next day, he emerged and publicly taught them the following halakha: With regard to one who cooks on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat it, and if he cooked intentionally, he may not eat it; and the halakha is no different.

מַאי ״וְלָא שְׁנָא״? רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ לְהֶיתֵּירָא: מְבַשֵּׁל הוּא דְּקָא עָבֵיד מַעֲשֶׂה בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֹאכַל, אֲבָל הַאי דְּלָא קָא עָבֵיד מַעֲשֶׂה — בְּמֵזִיד נָמֵי יֹאכַל. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר לְאִיסּוּרָא: מְבַשֵּׁל הוּא דְּלָא אָתֵי לְאִיעָרוֹמֵי, בְּשׁוֹגֵג יֹאכַל, אֲבָל הַאי דְּאָתֵי לְאִיעָרוֹמֵי — בְּשׁוֹגֵג נָמֵי לָא יֹאכַל.

The last part of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s statement is unclear. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic meaning of the phrase: And it is no different? Rabba and Rav Yosef both said to interpret the phrase permissively in the following manner: One who cooks is one who performs an action. If he did so intentionally, he may not eat what he cooked. However, this one who forgot the pot on the stove, who does not perform an action, even if he intentionally left the pot on Shabbat eve, he may also eat the food. However, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that the phrase: And it is no different, should be interpreted restrictively in the following manner: It is one who cooks who will not come to deceive, as there is no room for suspicion that a person will intentionally cook on Shabbat. Therefore, if one cooks unwittingly, he may eat it. However, one who would come to deceive, intentionally leaving the pot on the stove and saying: I forgot it, the Sages penalize him and decree that if he did so unwittingly as well, he may not eat it.

מֵיתִיבִי: שָׁכַח קְדֵירָה עַל גַּבֵּי כִּירָה וּבִישְּׁלָה בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יֹאכַל, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֹאכַל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּחַמִּין שֶׁלֹּא הוּחַמּוּ כׇּל צוֹרְכָּן וְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁלֹּא בִּישֵּׁל כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ, אֲבָל חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ כׇּל צוֹרְכָּן וְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד — יֹאכַל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

The Gemara raises an objection to this statement from that which was taught in a baraita: One who forgot a pot atop a stove and it cooked on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat it; if he did so intentionally, he may not eat it. In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the pot contains hot water that was not yet completely heated, and the same applies to cooked food that was not yet completely cooked. However, if it contains hot water that was already completely heated and cooked food that was already completely cooked, whether the pot was left there unwittingly, or whether the pot was left there intentionally, one may eat it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ כׇּל צוֹרְכָּן — מוּתָּרִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּצְטַמֵּק וְרַע לוֹ. וְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ — אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ, וְכׇל הַמִּצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ, כְּגוֹן כְּרוּב וּפוֹלִים וּבָשָׂר טָרוּף — אָסוּר, וְכׇל הַמִּצְטַמֵּק וְרַע לוֹ — מוּתָּר.

Rabbi Yehuda says that there is a distinction: Hot water that was already completely heated is permitted because, in that case, the longer it remains on the fire, the more it shrivels, i.e., evaporates, and deteriorates. In that case, one would certainly not come to increase the heat because he would not want to lose more water through evaporation. However, cooked food that was completely cooked, it is prohibited to leave it on the fire because it shrivels and improves. There is room for concern that he will stoke the coals to increase the heat under the food. And there is a general principle: Anything that shrivels and improves, e.g., cabbage, and beans, and meat cut into small pieces is prohibited; and anything that shrivels and deteriorates is permitted.

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא תַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁלֹּא בִּישֵּׁל כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ. בִּשְׁלָמָא לָרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן קוֹדֶם גְּזֵרָה, כָּאן לְאַחַר גְּזֵרָה. אֶלָּא רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי לְהֶיתֵּירָא, אִי קוֹדֶם גְּזֵרָה — קַשְׁיָא מֵזִיד. אִי לְאַחַר גְּזֵרָה — קַשְׁיָא נָמֵי שׁוֹגֵג. קַשְׁיָא.

In any event, it was taught in that baraita that in the case of cooked food that was not completely cooked, if it was cooked unwittingly, it is permitted. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, this is not difficult. Although there is an apparent contradiction, as he prohibits eating from a pot that was unwittingly forgotten on the stove, and the baraita prohibits it only when it was left intentionally, he could explain the following: Here, the baraita, which permits eating it, was taught prior to the decree that was issued lest a person act deceitfully, whereas there, the halakha of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, was taught after the decree, which prohibited eating food even if it was forgotten unwittingly. However, according to the opinion of Rabba and Rav Yosef, who said to interpret the phrase permissively, whether he left it on the stove unwittingly or he did so intentionally, it is difficult. If this baraita was taught prior to the decree, the ruling with regard to when he did so intentionally is difficult, as Rabba and Rav Yosef permit eating the food even in that case. If this baraita was taught after the decree, the ruling with regard to when he did so unwittingly is also difficult, as Rabba and Rav Yosef permit eating the food in every case. No answer was found to this objection and the Gemara concludes: It is indeed difficult.

מַאי גְּזֵירְתָא? דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר רַב: בַּתְּחִילָּה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יֹאכַל, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֹאכַל, וְהוּא הַדִּין לַשּׁוֹכֵחַ. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ מְשַׁהִין בְּמֵזִיד וְאוֹמְרִים ״שְׁכֵחִים אָנוּ״, חָזְרוּ וְקָנְסוּ עַל הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ.

With regard to the matter itself, the Gemara asks: What is the decree that was discussed above in terms of the distinction between before the decree and after the decree? The Gemara says: This is the decree that Rav Yehuda bar Shmuel said that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Kahana said that Rav said: Initially, they would say: With regard to one who cooks on Shabbat, if it was unwitting, one may eat it; if it was intentional, one may not eat it. And the same is true with regard to one who forgets the pot atop the stove before Shabbat and it cooks on Shabbat. When the number of those who leave their pots intentionally and say we forgot to justify their actions, increased, the Sages then penalized those who forgot. Even one who forgets unwittingly may not eat it.

קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה! דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא לְכַתְּחִילָּה, הָא דִיעֲבַד. דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — בִּגְרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה, כָּאן — בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ גְּרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה.

In the Tosefta cited earlier, which deals with one who forgot a pot atop the stove and the food cooked on Shabbat, Rabbi Meir ruled leniently and permitted both hot water that was completely heated and cooked food that was completely cooked, even when it was left on the stove intentionally. Rabbi Yehuda ruled stringently and distinguished between different cases. However, in the Tosefta cited at the beginning of the chapter, it was taught that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to the opinions of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai as far as leaving food on the stove on Shabbat is concerned. Rabbi Meir says that it is completely prohibited to leave cooked food on the stove ab initio, even according to Beit Hillel who rule leniently. Rabbi Yehuda said that Beit Hillel ruled leniently and permitted doing so. There is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Meir and the other statement of Rabbi Meir, and there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara responds: Between one statement of Rabbi Meir and the other statement of Rabbi Meir there is no contradiction. That which we learned: Rabbi Meir prohibits leaving cooked food under any circumstances, is speaking ab initio; whereas this, where he permits eating the food even if it was left on the stove intentionally, is speaking after the fact. Between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda there is also no contradiction. There, where he permitted leaving the food on the stove, it is referring to the case of a stove that was swept and covered with ashes, whereas here, where he prohibited doing so, is referring to the case of a stove that is not swept and covered with ashes.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: עָבַר וְשִׁהָה מַאי? מִי קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן, אוֹ לָא? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נָתָן אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כְּשֶׁהָלָךְ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְצִיפּוֹרִי מָצָא חַמִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּהוּ עַל גַּבֵּי כִּירָה וְלֹא אָסַר לָהֶן, בֵּיצִים מְצוּמָּקוֹת שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּהוּ עַל גַּבֵּי כִּירָה, וְאָסַר לָהֶן. מַאי לַָאו לְאוֹתוֹ שַׁבָּת? — לָא, לְשַׁבָּת הַבָּאָה.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: One who transgressed and left his pot on the fire on Shabbat, what is his legal status? Did the Sages penalize him and prohibit him from eating the food, or did they not penalize him? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which Shmuel bar Natan said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: When Rabbi Yosei went to the city of Tzippori, he found hot water that was left on the stove, and he did not prohibit them from drinking it. He found eggs shriveled from overcooking that were left on the stove on Shabbat and he prohibited them from eating them. Is this not referring to permitting and prohibiting their consumption for that same Shabbat? If so, apparently he prohibits eating cooked food that was intentionally left on the stove on Shabbat. The Gemara immediately rejects this assumption: No. Rather, he prohibited them from doing so ab initio the following Shabbat, but he did not prohibit them from eating the eggs on that same Shabbat.

מִכְּלָל דְּבֵיצִים מְצוּמָּקוֹת — מִצְטַמְּקוֹת וְיָפֶה לָהֶן נִינְהוּ? אִין. דְּאָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: פַּעַם אַחַת נִתְאָרַחְתִּי אֲנִי וְרַבִּי לִמְקוֹם אֶחָד וְהֵבִיאוּ לְפָנֵינוּ בֵּיצִים מְצוּמָּקוֹת כְּעוּזְרָּדִין וְאָכַלְנוּ מֵהֶן הַרְבֵּה.

The Gemara is surprised: From this statement it can be inferred that eggs shriveled from overcooking shrivel and improve when left on the fire for a long time, and that is the reason that Rabbi Yosei made a distinction between hot water, which he permitted leaving on the stove, and eggs, which he prohibited leaving on the stove. The Gemara replies: Yes, overcooking improves the eggs. As Rav Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: One time Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and I were guests in the same place, and they brought before us overcooked eggs that shriveled to the size of crab apples [uzradin] and we ate many of them. Apparently, extended cooking improves eggs. Therefore, when they are left on the fire on Shabbat there is room for concern lest one stoke the coals in order to shrivel them more.

בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף מַחְזִירִין. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר

We learned in the mishna: Beit Hillel say that one may even return a pot taken off the stove to the stove on Shabbat. Rav Sheshet said: According to the one who says

מַחְזִירִין, אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת. וְאַף רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא סָבַר ״אַף מַחְזִירִין״ — אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: פַּעַם אַחַת הַיְינוּ עוֹמְדִים לְעֵילָּא מֵרַבִּי חִיָּיא רַבָּה וְהַעֲלֵנוּ לוֹ קוּמְקְמוֹס שֶׁל חַמִּין מִדְּיוֹטָא הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה לִדְיוֹטָא הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, וּמָזַגְנוּ לוֹ אֶת הַכּוֹס, וְהֶחֱזַרְנוּהוּ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְלֹא אָמַר לָנוּ דָּבָר.

that one may even return it, doing so is permitted even on Shabbat and not only on Shabbat eve. And Rav Oshaya also holds: One may even return it even on Shabbat. As Rav Oshaya said: Once we were standing on Shabbat before Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great and we passed up to him a kettle [kumkemos] of hot water from the bottom floor [deyota] to the top floor, and we poured him a cup and returned the kettle to its place on top of the stove, and he did not say anything to us. Apparently, he is of the opinion that even on Shabbat it is permitted to return a pot to the stove.

אָמַר רַבִּי זְרִיקָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי תַּדַּאי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁעוֹדָן בְּיָדוֹ, אֲבָל הִנִּיחָן עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע — אָסוּר. אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: רַבִּי תַּדַּאי דַּעֲבַד — לְגַרְמֵיהּ הוּא דַּעֲבַד. אֶלָּא הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ הַנִּיחָה עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע — מוּתָּר.

Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Tadai said: They only taught that it is permitted to return vessels with the food inside them when they are still in his hand; however, if he already placed them on the ground, he obviously regretted placing them on the fire and it is prohibited to replace them on the stove. Rabbi Ami said: That which Rabbi Tadai did and said, he did on his own, and not in accordance with the accepted halakha. Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: Even if one placed the pot on the ground, it is permitted to return it to the stove.

פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב דִּימִי וְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה, וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמְרִי. חַד אָמַר: עוֹדָן בְּיָדוֹ — מוּתָּר, עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע — אָסוּר. וְחַד אָמַר: הִנִּיחָן עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע נָמֵי מוּתָּר. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: הָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ עוֹדָן בְּיָדוֹ — מוּתָּר, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ לְהַחֲזִיר, אֲבָל אֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לְהַחֲזִיר — אָסוּר. מִכְּלָל דְּעַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ לְהַחֲזִיר — אָסוּר.

The Gemara remarks that Rav Dimi and Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda disagreed about this matter, and both stated their opinion in the name of Rabbi Elazar. One said that when they are still in his hand, it is permitted to return them to the stove; when they were already placed on the ground, it is prohibited to do so. And one said that even if one placed them on the ground, it is also permitted to return it to the stove. Ḥizkiya said in the name of Abaye: That which you said, that when it is still in his hand, it is permitted to return it to the stove; we only said that halakha when his original intention was to return it to the stove. However, when it was not his original intention to return it, and he reconsidered and decided to return it, it is prohibited to return it. This proves by inference that if one placed it on the ground, even if his intention was to return it, it is prohibited.

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: הָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע — אָסוּר, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לְהַחֲזִיר, אֲבָל דַּעְתּוֹ לְהַחֲזִיר — מוּתָּר. מִכְּלָל שֶׁבְּעוֹדָן בְּיָדוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לְהַחֲזִיר — מוּתָּר. בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: תְּלָאָן בְּמַקֵּל מַהוּ? הִנִּיחָן עַל גַּבֵּי מַטָּה מַהוּ? בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: פִּינָּן מִמֵּיחַם לִמְיַחֵם מַהוּ? — תֵּיקוּ.

Some say a different version of what Ḥizkiya said in the name of Abaye: That which you said, if one placed it on the ground it is prohibited; we only said that halakha when it was not his original intention to return it. However, if his original intention was to return it, it is permitted. This proves by inference that while they are still in his hand, even if it was not his original intention to return it, it is permitted. With regard to this matter, Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: In a case where he neither placed them on the floor nor held them in his hand, but he hung them on a stick, what is the ruling? In a case where he placed it on top of a bed, what is the ruling? Similarly, Rav Ashi raised a dilemma: If one transferred them from one urn to another urn what is the ruling? The Gemara said: These dilemmas stand unresolved.

מַתְנֵי׳ תַּנּוּר שֶׁהִסִּיקוּהוּ בְּקַשׁ וּבִגְבָבָא לֹא יִתֵּן בֵּין מִתּוֹכוֹ בֵּין מֵעַל גַּבָּיו. כּוּפָּח שֶׁהִסִּיקוּהוּ בְּקַשׁ וּבִגְבָבָא — הֲרֵי זֶה כְּכִירַיִים, בְּגֶפֶת וּבְעֵצִים — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּתַנּוּר.

MISHNA: The halakhot that were stated with regard to a stove were specific to a stove’s unique structure and the manner in which it retains heat. However, with regard to other baking apparatuses, i.e., an oven or a kupaḥ, there are different rules. The mishna delineates: An oven that they lit even with straw or rakings, one may neither place a pot inside it nor atop it on Shabbat. Whereas a kupaḥ that was lit with straw or rakings, its legal status is like that of a stove, and one is permitted to place a pot atop it on Shabbat. If it were lit with pomace or with wood, its legal status is like that of an oven and it is prohibited to place a pot atop it on Shabbat.

גְּמָ׳ תַּנּוּר שֶׁהִסִּיקוּהוּ: סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר ״תּוֹכוֹ״ — תּוֹכוֹ מַמָּשׁ, ״עַל גַּבָּיו״ — עַל גַּבָּיו מַמָּשׁ, אֲבָל לִסְמוֹךְ שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: כּוּפָּח שֶׁהִסִּיקוּהוּ בְּקַשׁ וּבִגְבָבָא הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכִירַיִים, בְּגֶפֶת וּבְעֵצִים הֲרֵי הוּא כְּתַנּוּר, וְאָסוּר. הָא כְּכִירָה — שְׁרֵי. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא עַל גַּבָּיו, וּבְמַאי? אִילֵימָא כְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ גָּרוּף וְקָטוּם, אֶלָּא כִּירָה כִּי אֵינָהּ גְּרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה, עַל גַּבָּיו מִי שְׁרֵי? אֶלָּא לָאו לִסְמוֹךְ, וְקָתָנֵי: הֲרֵי הוּא כְּתַנּוּר, וַאֲסִיר!

GEMARA: With regard to that which we learned in the mishna that an oven that they lit even with straw or rakings, one may neither place a pot atop it nor inside it, Rav Yosef thought to say that when the mishna says inside it, it means actually inside it; and when it says atop it, it means actually atop it. However, to lean a pot against an oven, it may well be done. Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from that which we learned in our mishna: A kupaḥ that was lit with straw or rakings, its legal status is like that of a stove. If it were lit with pomace or with wood, its legal status is like that of an oven, and it is prohibited. By inference: If it were like a stove, it would be permitted. With what circumstances are we dealing? If you say that he placed the pot atop the kupaḥ, and in what case? If you say it is referring to a case where it is not swept and covered with ashes; a stove that is not swept and covered with ashes, is it permitted even to place a pot atop it on Shabbat? Rather, isn’t it referring to a case where one seeks to lean a pot against a kupaḥ, and it taught: It is like an oven, and prohibited?

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הָכָא בְּכוּפָּח גָּרוּף וְקָטוּם, וְתַנּוּר גְּרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה עָסְקִינַן. הֲרֵי הוּא כְּתַנּוּר — דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּגָרוּף וְקָטוּם — עַל גַּבָּיו אָסוּר, דְּאִי כְּכִירָה כִּי גְּרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: תַּנּוּר שֶׁהִסִּיקוּהוּ בְּקַשׁ וּבִגְבָבָא אֵין סוֹמְכִין לוֹ, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר עַל גַּבָּיו, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְתוֹכוֹ, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּגֶפֶת וּבְעָצִים. כּוּפָּח שֶׁהִסִּיקוּהוּ בְּקַשׁ וּבִגְבָבָא סוֹמְכִין לוֹ, וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין עַל גַּבָּיו. בְּגֶפֶת וּבְעֵצִים אֵין סוֹמְכִין לוֹ.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here we are dealing with the cases of a kupaḥ that is swept and covered with ashes and an oven that is swept and covered with ashes, and the mishna is to be understood as follows: It is like an oven in the sense that, although it is swept and covered with ashes, it is prohibited to place a pot atop it; as, if its legal status were like that of a stove, when it is swept and covered it may well be done. The Gemara comments that there is a baraita that taught in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: An oven that one lit with straw and with rakings, one may not lean a pot against it, and needless to say one may not place a pot atop it, and needless to say one may not place a pot inside it, and, needless to say if it was lit with pomace or with wood it is prohibited. While with regard to a kupaḥ that was lit with straw or with rakings, one may lean a pot against it, but he may not place a pot atop it. If it was lit with pomace or with wood, one may not lean a pot against it.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי כּוּפָּח הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי כְּכִירָה דָּמֵי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּגֶפֶת וּבְעֵצִים נָמֵי! אִי כְּתַנּוּר דָּמֵי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּקַשׁ וּבִגְבָבָא נָמֵי לָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְפִישׁ הַבְלֵיהּ מִדְּכִירָה וְזוּטַר הַבְלֵיהּ מִדְּתַנּוּר.

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This kupaḥ, what are its circumstances? If it is considered like a stove, even if it was lit with pomace or with wood, it should also be permitted. And if it is considered like an oven, even with straw or with rakings, it should also not be permitted. Rav Ashi said to him: From a halakhic perspective, a kupaḥ has intermediate status. Its heat is greater than that of a stove; however, its heat is less than that of an oven.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי כּוּפָּח, הֵיכִי דָמֵי כִּירָה? אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: כּוּפָּח — מְקוֹם שְׁפִיתַת קְדֵרָה אַחַת. כִּירָה — מְקוֹם שְׁפִיתַת שְׁתֵּי קְדֵרוֹת. אֲמַר אַבָּיֵי, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: כִּירָה שֶׁנֶּחְלְקָה לְאוֹרְכָּה — טְהוֹרָה. לְרׇחְבָּהּ — טְמֵאָה. כּוּפָּח, בֵּין לְאוֹרְכּוֹ בֵּין לְרוֹחְבּוֹ — טָהוֹר.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a kupaḥ? What are the circumstances of a stove in terms of the configuration of the vessels? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: A kupaḥ is a small vessel that is similar to a stove; however, it only has one hole with enough space to place a single pot. A stove is like a double kupaḥ with enough space to place two pots. Abaye said, and some say that Rabbi Yirmeya said: We also learned this matter in a mishna dealing with the laws of ritual purity and impurity: An impure stove that was divided lengthwise is pure because it can no longer be considered a vessel. It is a broken vessel, and a broken vessel cannot become ritually impure. However, if the stove was divided widthwise, between the spaces for the pots, then it remains impure because it became two small stoves. However, a kupaḥ, whether it was divided lengthwise or whether it was divided widthwise, is pure because it can no longer be used as there is no way to put even a single pot on it. That is the difference between a kupaḥ and a stove.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין נוֹתְנִין בֵּיצָה בְּצַד הַמֵּיחַם בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּתְגַּלְגֵּל, וְלֹא יַפְקִיעֶנָּה בְּסוּדָרִין. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר. וְלֹא יַטְמִינֶנָּה בְּחוֹל וּבַאֲבַק דְּרָכִים בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּצָּלֶה.

MISHNA: In addition to the halakhot that deal with cooking on the fire on Shabbat, several related halakhot are discussed. The mishna says: One may not place a raw egg next to an urn full of hot water so that it will roast slightly. And one may not even wrap it in cloths, i.e., one may not heat the egg inside cloths that were heated in the sun. And Rabbi Yosei permits doing so in that case. And, similarly, one may not insulate it in sand or in road dust that was heated in the sun so that it will roast. Although there is no actual cooking with fire here, it is similar to cooking and the Sages issued a decree to prohibit doing so.

מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעָשׂוּ אַנְשֵׁי טְבֶרְיָא וְהֵבִיאוּ סִילוֹן שֶׁל צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ אַמָּה שֶׁל חַמִּין. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים: אִם בְּשַׁבָּת — כְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, וַאֲסוּרִין בִּרְחִיצָה וּבִשְׁתִיָּהּ. אִם בְּיוֹם טוֹב — כְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וַאֲסוּרִין בִּרְחִיצָה, וּמוּתָּרִין בִּשְׁתִיָּה.

The mishna relates a story about the people of the city of Tiberias, and they ran a cold-water pipe [silon] through a canal of hot water from the Tiberias hot springs. They thought that by doing so, they could heat the cold potable water on Shabbat. The Rabbis said to them: If the water passed through on Shabbat, its legal status is like that of hot water that was heated on Shabbat, and the water is prohibited both for bathing and for drinking. And if the water passed through on a Festival, then it is prohibited for bathing but permitted for drinking. On Festivals, one is even permitted to boil water on actual fire for the purposes of eating and drinking.

גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: גִּלְגֵּל מַאי? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: גִּלְגֵּל — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת. אָמַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא:

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: One who violated the halakha in the mishna and slightly roasted an egg next to an urn, what is the ruling? Rav Yosef said: One who slightly cooked an egg is liable to bring a sin-offering, as he performed the act of cooking on Shabbat, which is prohibited by Torah law. Mar, son of Ravina, said: We also learned something similar in the mishna: