Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 37a

After all, I can tell you that we learnt about replacing it, but the text is defective, and this is what he [the Tanna] teaches: IF A STOVE IS HEATED WITH STUBBLE OR RAKINGS, A POT may be placed thereon; WITH PEAT OR WOOD, one must not replace it UNTIL HE SWEEPS IT OR COVERS IT WITH ASHES; but as for keeping it there, that is permitted even if it is neither swept nor covered with ashes. Yet what may be kept there? BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN; HOT WATER, BUT NOT A DISH; WHILE BETH HILLEL RULE: BOTH HOT WATER AND A DISH. And as to this replacing, of which I tell you,¹  it is not an agreed ruling, but [the subject of] a controversy between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. For BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: WE MAY REMOVE [IT], BUT NOT REPLACE [IT]; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: WE MAY REPLACE [IT] TOO.

Come and hear: For R. Helbo said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: We learnt this only of the top [of the stove]; but within it is forbidden. Now, if you say that we learnt about replacing it, it is well: hence there is a difference between the inside and the top.²  But if you say that we learnt about keeping it there, what does it matter whether it is within or on top? — Do you think that R. Helbo refers to the first clause? He refers to the last: BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: WE MAY REPLACE [IT] TOO, Whereon R. Helbo said in the name of R. Hama b. Goria in Rab's name: We learnt this only of the top; but within it is forbidden.

Come and hear: If two stoves that are joined, one being swept or covered with ashes, whilst the other is not, we may keep [aught] upon the one that is swept or covered with ashes³  but not upon the one that is not swept or covered with ashes. And what may be kept there? Beth Shammai maintain: Nothing at all; while Beth Hillel rule: Hot water, but not a dish. If one removes it, all agree that he must not replace it: that is R. Meir's view. R. Judah said: Beth Shammai maintain: Hot water, but not a dish; while Beth Hillel rule: Both hot water and a dish. Beth Shammai maintain: We may remove, but not replace it; while Beth Hillel rule: We may replace it too. Now, if you say that we learnt about keeping [it] there, it is well; with whom does our Mishnah agree? R. Judah. But if you say that we learnt about replacing, who is the authority of our Mishnah? neither R. Judah nor R. Meir! [For] if R. Meir, there is a difficulty on Beth Shammai's view in one respect,⁴  and on Hillel's in two?⁵  If R. Judah, [the case of a stove that is] swept or covered with ashes is difficult!⁶ — After all, I can tell you that we learnt about replacing it, but our Tanna agrees with R. Judah in one respect and disagrees with him in another. He agrees with R. Judah in one respect, viz., in respect to hot water, and a dish, and removing and replacing [them]. But he disagrees with him in another. For whereas our Tanna holds that keeping them [there is permitted] even if it is neither swept nor covered with ashes, R. Judah maintains that even keeping [them there] is [permitted] only if it is swept or covered with ashes, but not otherwise.

The scholars propounded: May one lean [a pot] against it?⁷  on the inside and top thereof it is forbidden, but leaning against it may be permitted; or perhaps, there is no difference? — Come and hear: If two stoves are joined, one being swept and covered with ashes, whilst the other is neither swept nor covered with ashes: we may keep [aught] upon the one that is swept or covered with ashes, but not upon the one that is not swept or covered with ashes, though the heat reaches it from the other.⁸  Perhaps there it is different, because since it is elevated, the air affects it.⁹

Come and hear: For R. Safra said in R. Hiyya's name: If it [the stove] was covered with ashes, yet blazed up again, one may lean [a pot] against it, keep [a pot) upon it, remove [it] thence and replace [it]. This proves that even leaning is [permitted] only when it is covered with ashes, but not otherwise. Yet according to your reasoning, when he states, 'one may remove [it] thence,'[does this imply] only if covered with ashes, but not otherwise?¹⁰  But [you must answer,] removing is mentioned on account of replacing; so here too, leaning is stated on account of keeping.¹¹  How compare! There, since removing and replacing refer to the same place, removing is stated on account of replacing; but here, the leaning is in one place whereas the keeping is in another!

What is our decision thereon? — Come and hear: If a stove is heated with peat or wood, one may lean [a pot] against it, but must not keep [it there] unless it is swept or covered with ashes. If the coals have died down,¹²  or thoroughly beaten flax is placed upon it, it is as though covered with ashes.¹³

R. Isaac b. Nahmani said in R. Oshaia's name: If he covered it with ashes yet it blazed up again, one may keep upon it hot water that has [previously] been heated as much as is required, or a dish which has been boiled all it needs.

1. That it is permissible provided the stove is swept.
2. It is intelligible that a pot may not be replaced within the oven, even after it is swept or covered with ashes, since the heat there is naturally greater than on top (Ri in Tosaf).
3. Though heat reaches it from the second stove.
4. In our Mishnah they permit hot water to be kept there even if it is not swept or covered with ashes, whilst here they permit nothing.
5. In the Mishnah they permit hot water and a dish to be kept there even if it is unswept, etc., whilst here it is stated that if it is swept hot water only may be kept there, and nothing at all if it is unswept. Again, in the Mishnah they state that it may be replaced if it is swept, whereas here it is taught that all agree that it may not be replaced.
6. Here it is stated that nothing at all may be kept there, while in the Mishnah either hot water alone or a dish too may be kept there according to Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel respectively.
7. Sc. a stove that is unswept etc.
8. Our problem is similar, and this shows that it is permitted.
9. The pot stands on the stove and is surrounded by air, which cools it, and therefore the heat from the other stove is disregarded. But leaning against an unswept stove, without air interposing, may be forbidden.
10. Surely not!
11. Yet covering with ashes may not be required for leaning.
12. Not being entirely extinguished, but burning dully and feebly.
13. Thus for leaning it need not be swept, etc.

Then this proves that when it shrinks¹  and is improved thereby, it is permitted?² — [No.] There it is different, because he covered it with ashes. If so, why state it? — It is necessary [to state it, because] it blazed up again. You might argue, since it blazed up again, it reverts to its original state;³  hence he informs us [that it is not so].⁴

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: If he covered it with ashes, yet it blazed up again; one may keep upon it hot water, if that has been heated all it needs, or a dish which has been boiled all it needs, even if they are coals of broom.⁵  Then this proves that when it shrinks and is improved thereby it is permitted? — [No.] Here it is different, because he covered it with ashes. If so, why state it? It is necessary [to state it where] it blazed up again. Then it is identical with the first [dictum]? — It is necessary [to state it] of coals of broom.

R. Shesheth said in R. Johanan's name: If a stove is fired with peat or wood, hot water insufficiently heated, and a dish insufficiently cooked, may be kept upon it. But if he [the owner] moved [them], he must not replace [them] before he sweeps or covers [it] with ashes. Thus he holds that we learnt our Mishnah with respect to replacing, but keeping is permitted even if it is not swept or covered with ashes.⁶  Said Raba: We learnt both: We learnt with respect to keeping: 'Bread may not be set in an oven before nightfall, nor a cake set upon coals, unless its surface can form a crust while it is yet day'.⁷  Hence if its surface formed a crust, it is permitted.⁸  With respect to replacing we also learnt: BETH HILLEL RULE: WE MAY REPLACE TOO. Now Beth Hillel permit it only when it is swept or covered with ashes, but not if it is neither swept nor covered with ashes.⁹ — R. Shesheth indeed informs us of the deduction of the Mishnah.¹⁰

R. Samuel b. Judah said in R. Johanan's name: If a stove is fired with peat or wood, one may keep upon it a dish sufficiently cooked or hot water which is sufficiently heated, even if it [the dish] shrinks and is improved thereby. Said one of the Rabbis to R. Samuel b. Judah. But Rab and Samuel both maintain: If it shrinks and is improved thereby it is forbidden?¹¹ — He answered him: Do I then not know that R. Joseph said in Rab Judah's name in Samuel's name: If it shrinks and is improved thereby it is forbidden? I tell it to you¹²  according to R. Johanan. R. 'Ukba of Mesene¹³  said to R. Ashi: You, who are near to Rab and Samuel, do act as Rab and Samuel; but we will act according to R. Johanan.¹⁴

Abaye asked R. Joseph, What about keeping [a pot on the stove]?¹⁵  — He answered him, It is indeed kept for Rab Judah, and he eats thereof! Put Rab Judah aside, said he, for since he is in danger,¹⁶  it may be done for him even on the Sabbath. What about keeping it for me and you? — in Sura,¹⁷  he replied, they do keep it. For R. Nahman b. Isaac is most particular,¹⁸  and yet they keep it for him and he eats.

R. Ashi said: I was standing before R. Huna, when he ate a fish pie which they bad kept [on the stove] for him. And I do not know whether it is because he holds that if it shrinks and is improved thereby it is permitted, or because since it contains flour paste it deteriorates in shrinking. R. Nahman said: If it shrinks and is improved thereby, it is forbidden;¹⁹  if it shrinks and deteriorates, it is permitted. This is the general rule of the matter: whatever contains flour paste, shrinks and deteriorates, except a stew of turnips, which though containing flour paste shrinks and improves. Yet that is only if it contains meat; but if it contains no meat, it shrinks and deteriorates. And even if it contains meat, we say thus only if it is not intended for guests; but if it is intended for guests, it deteriorates in the shrinking.²⁰  Pap of dates, daysa,²¹  and a dish of dates shrink and deteriorate.

R. Hiyya b. Abba was asked:

1. Through cooking.
2. Rashi: the reference must be to a dish which improves the longer it is kept on the stove, for if it deteriorates, it may obviously be kept there, as we certainly need not fear that the owner may rake up the coals, and the dictum is superfluous. Ri: the reference is presumably to the average dish, which improves with shrinking.
3. And the dish may not be kept there.
4. For by covering it with ashes he showed that he did not desire any further shrinkage.
5. Rothem is a species of broom growing in the desert (Jast.), which retains its heat longer than other coals and is slower to go out.
6. V. supra 37a.
7. V. supra 19b.
8. To keep it there, though the oven is not swept, etc.
9. What need then of R. Johanan's dictum?
10. This is the answer: R. Shesheth informs us that the Mishnah refers to replacing (v. Tosaf. a.l.). Though Raba takes that for granted, the matter was in doubt (supra 36b).
11. To keep it on the stove.
12. That it is permitted.
13. In Babylon: it is the island formed by the Euphrates, the Tigris, and the Royal Canal.
14. Though they too were much nearer to the academies of Rab and Samuel than to R. Johanan's, the communities of Mesene preferred the authority of Palestine; v. Obermeyer, p. 204.
15. If the stove is unswept.
16. He suffered from bulimy, and had to eat hot food.
17. A town on the Euphrates, where Rab founded his famous academy.
18. Rashi. Or perhaps, a master of practice (Jast,), i.e., thoroughly versed in correct practice.
19. To keep it on the stove.
20. When intended for personal consumption it is cut up into small pieces before being placed in the pot, and so the fat pervades the whole and prevents deterioration. But when intended for guests it is cut up in large chunks; since the fat cannot pervade the whole the shrinking causes it to deteriorate.
21. A dish of pounded grain.