ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 37
(a) The distinction that Rav makes between the top of the stove (which is
permitted), and inside (which he states, is forbidden), makes sense if the
Reisha of the Mishnah refers to Chazarah - but Shehiyah is permitted even
by a stove which is *not* 'Gerufah' or 'Ketumah' - because placing the pot
inside the stove means putting it in the hot coals (which is obviously more
stringent than putting it on top of the stove).
But if the Reisha is speaking about Shehiyah, in which case, even
*Shehiyah* requires Gerifah and Ketimah, why should there be a difference
between the inside and the top?
(b) The Gemara concludes that Rav refers to the Seifa of the Mishnah, which
permits Chazarah to a Kirah which is 'Gerufah u'Ketumah', and it is *there*
that he restricts the Chazarah to on top of the stove but not inside. And,
as we have already explained, there is no problem with Rav's Din with
regard to Chazarah.
(a) According to Rebbi Meir in *Beis Shamai*, not even Shehiyah on the oven
which is 'Gerufah u'Ketumah' is permitted, when it is joined to a Kirah
which is not 'Gerufah u'Ketumah'.
(b) According to Rebbi Meir in *Beis Hillel,* one may only leave hot water
on the stove which is a Gerufah, but not a cooked pot of food.
(c) According to Rebbi Meir, returning the pot is not permitted - even
according to Beis Hillel - even on to the stove which is 'Gerufah
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, Beis Shamai permit one to leave hot water
on a stove which is a Gerufah u'Ketumah, and Beis Hillel permit cooked
(b) Beis Shamai forbid re-placing on the stove outright, whereas according
to Beis Hillel, whatever one may leave on the stove, one may also replace.
(c) If the Reisha of the Mishnah refers to Shehiyah, to say that Shehiyah
too, needs 'Gerufah u'Ketumah', then our Mishnah concurs entirely with the
opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in this Beraisa. But, if our Mishnah refers to
Chazarah, and Shehiyah is permitted even on a stove that is not 'Garuf
ve'Katum', then our Mishnah will concur with neither Rebbi Meir, not Rebbi
Yehudah. Why not?
Because according to Rebbi Meir, Beis Shamai (who, in his opinion, does not
permit even Shehiyah - and even on a Kirah that is 'Garuf ve'Katum') will
not concur with Beis Shamai in our Mishnah (who permits Shehiyah even on a
Kirah which is *not" 'Garuf ve'Katum*). And as for Beis Hillel, in our
Mishnah, they permit Shehiyah completely, even on a Kirah which is not
'Garuf ve'Katum', whilst, according to Rebbi Meir, they only permit hot
water on a 'Gerufah and a Ketumah', and nothing on a Kirah which is not
Whilst even Rebbi Yehudah, who conforms with our Mishnah in all points
connected with a Kirah which is 'Gerufah u'Ketumah', does not conform with
it with regard to a Kirah which is *not* 'Gerufah u'Ketumah', since he
maintains that nothing is permitted there, whereas in our Mishnah, Beis
Shamai permits at least hot water, and Beis Hillel, even cooked foods.
Consequently, it would appear that the Reisha of our Mishnah speaks about
Shehiyah, and not Chazarah?
(d) The Gemara concludes that we could establish our Mishnah by Chazarah,
and regarding Chazarah, the Tana of our Mishnah concurs with Rebbi
Yehudah, both as regards Beis Shamai's and Beis Hillel's opinions regarding
what one may leave on a 'Garuf ve'Katum' and as regards whether Chazarah is
permitted at all on a Kirah which is 'Gerufah u'Ketumah'. Regerding
Shehiyah, our Tana will indeed disagree with both Rebbi Meir and with Rebbi
Yehudah, as we explained.
(a) It may well that the Beraisa allows one to place the pot next to the
stove that is not 'Gerufah u'Ketumah', because the pot is now* on top of*
the stove, where there is plenty of air, but that does not mean that one
may also place it on the ground next to the wall of a Kirah which is not
'Gerufah u'Ketumah', where there is no air.
One may leave a pot on dying embers or on coal that one has covered with
flax shavings, because in both cases, like by Ketimah (after one has placed
ashes on top of the coals), one has indicated that he does not really want
the fire to grow bigger, and is therefore unlikely to stoke the coals.
(b) If we deduce that, without 'Katmah', it would be forbidden to *place*
the pot next to the stove, then we can also deduce that without 'Katmah',
it would be forbidden to *take from* the stove - and why on earth should
So the Gemara suggests that the Beraisa mentioned 'Notlin' (by 'Katmah')
because of 'Machzirin' (which would certainly be forbidden, were it not for
'Katmah'), and 'Somchin' because of 'Mekaymin' (which is also permitted
only because of Katmah).
(c) But the Gemara rejects that on the grounds that to mention 'Notlin'
because of 'Machzirin' makes good sense, since the two happen in the same
place, and therefore go hand in hand (in other words, one cannot re-place a
pot before one has removed it); this is not however, the case, by Somchin
and Mekaymin, which take place in two different locations and which are not
therefore connected - so why should the Beraisa mention the one because of
(d) The Gemara concludes that it is permitted to leave a pot next to a
stove that is not 'Garuf ve'Katum', and the source is a Beraisa, which
specifically differentiates between Shehiyah on a Kirah which is not
'Gerufah u'Ketumah' and Semichah.
(a) 'Mitztamek ve'Yafeh Lo' means that although the food is basically
cooked and edible, it will improve on the flame. (The word 'Mitztamek'
means to shrink, which food tends to do when left on the flame.)
(b) No! There is no proof that one leave a pot on that has cooked less than
Mitztamek ve'Yafeh Lo' on a stove which is not Gerufah u'Ketumah, because
he expressly says 'Katmah'.
(c) Rav Oshaya's Chidush is, that although the fire flared up again, we do
not say that the Ketimah that he made has been rendered ineffective; having
spread ashes on the fire, he has indicated that he does not want the fire
to get bigger, and that is sufficient.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan adds, that even if the coals were 'Gechalim shel Rosem',
which tends to get hotter than most other coals, it is still considered
Keyimah, and we do not say that really, he intended the fire to flare up
(a) From the Mishnah in the first Perek (which forbids one to leave bread
to bake in the oven unless its face has crusted, from which we can infer,
that once its face has crusted, one may) we can learn that it is permitted
to leave food which is Mitztamek ve'Yafeh Lo on a Kirah which is not
'Gerufah u'Ketumah' (since a Tanur - of which that Mishnah is speaking -
which *is* Gerufah' u'Ketumah has the equivalent Din to a Kirah which is
(b) Although the above inference seems obvious, the Amora'im (who are never
so presumptuous as to tell us what the Tana'im say specifically), do
sometimes tell us Chidushim that are no more than inferences from the
Mishnayos, as if they were not written at all.
(c) 'Why do you ask me from the opinion of Shmuel'? Rav Shmuel bar
Yehudah asked that Talmid who queried him, 'I know what Shmuel holds! When
I said that it is permitted to leave a pot which is 'Mitztamek ve'Yafeh Lo'
on a stove which is not Gerufah u'Ketumah, I was quoting the opinion of
Rebbi Yochanan', who disagrees with Shmuel.
(a) We cannot learn from Rav Yehudah that one may leave a pot which is
'Mitztamek ve'Yafeh Lo' on a flame that is not 'Gerufah u'Ketumah', because
Rav Yehudah was prone to attacks of an illness called Bulmus, and it was a
matter of Piku'ach Nefesh to provide him with the appropriate foods.
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak was very took great care to do everything
(c) Rav Ashi was uncertain whether Rav Nachman left the small fish on the
boil because he permitted Shehiyah by a pot which is 'Mitztamek ve'Yafeh
Lo' on a stove that is not Gerufah u'Ketumah', or whether it was because,
on account of the flour, he considered it Mitztamek ve'Ra Lo', which
everyone agrees, is permitted.
(a) Rav Nachman rules that 'Mitztamek ve'Yafeh Lo' is forbidden, and
'Mitztamek ve'Ra Lo' is permitted.
(b) The only cooked food containing flour which actually improves, when
left to cook on the stove, is a dish of turnip - provided it also contains
(c) Even *meat* is considered 'Mitztamek ve'Ra Lo' when one has guests,
because, although the taste of the dish improves, a person wants nice large
pieces to serve his guests, not pieces that have fragmented due to the
extra cooking, to the extent that one cannot even recognize the meat in the
(d) If the dish will still improve on the flame, we suspect that one may
still come to stoke the coals, which he will not do by a dish which stands