1)

(a)We attempt to prove that our Mishnah is speaking about Chazarah (and not Shehiyah), from Rav, who is quoted as saying 'Lo Shanu Ela Al Gabav, Aval le'Tochah, Asur' - because this distinction will make sense only if the Reisha of the Mishnah refers to Chazarah (but Shehiyah is permitted even by a stove which is not 'Gerufah' or 'Ketumah'. Because then leaving the pot inside the stove will mean putting it in the hot coals (which is obviously more stringent than leaving 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, particularly as Shehiyah only pertains to Erev Shabbos.

(b)We refute this proof however, by establishing Rav on the Seifa of the Mishnah, where Beis Hillel permits returning the pot 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 far as Chazarah on Shabbos is concerned, Rav's distinction between on top of the Kirah and inside it is well-founded.

2)

(a)In the Beraisa, which speaks about two ovens which are joined, Beis Hillel permits one to leave a pot on the one that is 'Gerufah u'Ketumah' on Shabbos, but not on the one that is not. 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 - Beis Hillel only permit leaving hot water on the stove which is a Gerufah u'Ketumah, 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 u'Ketumah.

3)

(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 food, too.

(b)Beis Shamai will forbid replacing 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; whereas if it refers to Chazarah, and Shehiyah is permitted even on a stove that is not Garuf ve'Katum, then our Mishnah will concur neither with Rebbi Meir, not Rebbi Yehudah. This is 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 permit 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 at all on a Kirah which is not Garuf ve'Katum. 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)We conclude however - that we could establish our Mishnah by Chazarah, and regarding Chazarah, the Tana of our Mishnah concurs with Rebbi Yehudah, as regards the opinions of both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel 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.

4)

(a)We ask whether, according to Rebbi Yehudah (who is strict regarding Shehiyah), it is also forbidden to leave a pot that is not fully cooked next to an oven that is not Gerufah u'Ketumah. There no proof from the Beraisa, which permits one to place a pot on the stove which is a Gerufah u'Ketumah which is attached to the one which is not - because 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 it does not follow 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.

(b)We cannot infer from the Beraisa, which writes 'Katmah ve'Nislabsa, Somchin Lah, u'Mekaymin Aleha, ve'Notlin Mimenah u'Machzirin Lah', that without Ketimah, it is forbidden to place the pot next to a stove which is not 'Gerufah u'Ketumah' - because once we infer that, without 'Katmah', it would be forbidden to place the pot next to the stove, then we can also infer that without 'Katmah', it would be forbidden to take from the stove - which would be senseless. So we suggest 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)We object to the contention that we decree 'Notlin' because of 'Machzirin', and therefore 'Somchin' because of 'Mekaymin' - on the grounds that granted 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 the other?

(d)We conclude - that it is permitted to leave a pot next to a stove that is not 'Garuf ve'Katum'. The source is a Beraisa, which specifically differentiates between Shehiyah on a Kirah which is not Gerufah u'Ketumah and Semichah.

5)

(a)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 - placing 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.

6)

(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 it is left on the flame.)

(b)Rav Oshaya is quoted as saying 'Katmah ve'Huv'arah, Mashhin Aleha Chamin she'Huchmu Kol Tzorchan ve'Tavshil she'Bishel Kol Tzorcho'. There is no proof from here 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)It might be permitted - because, despite the fact that the fire flares up again, thisd does not render the Ketimah that he made, ineffective. The reason for this is that, having spread ashes on the fire, he has indicated that he does not want the fire to get bigger, and that is sufficient.

(d)Rabbah bar bar Chanah quotes Rebbi Yochanan exactly like Rav Oshaya, but adds 'Afilu Gechalim shel Rosem'. What he is adding is - that, even though 'Gechalim shel Rosem' tend to get hotter than most other coals, this does not detract from his Ketimah.

7)

(a)We prove from our Mishnah in the first Perek, which writes 'Ein Nosnin es ha'Pas be'Soch ha'Tanur Im Chasheichah ... Ela Kedei she'Yikremu Panehah' - 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 - the subject of that Mishnah - which is Gerufah' u'Ketumah is equivalent to a Kirah which is not).

(b)Rav Sheishes needs to tell us this specifically - because it is not written specifically in the Mishnah, and the Amora'im (who will never repeat what is written specifically in a Mishnah), will sometimes teach us specifically what is only implied by the Tana'im.

(c)Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah also quotes Rebbi Yochanan like Rav Sheishes. When that Talmid queried him from Rav and Shmuel, who forbid one to leave a pot that will still improve with cooking on a stove which is not 'Gerufah u'Ketumah' - he replied that, when he permitted leaving a pot which is 'Mitztamek ve'Yafeh Lo' on a stove that is not Gerufah u'Ketumah, he was quoting the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan', who disagrees with Rav and Shmuel.

8)

(a)There is no proof from Rav Yehudah that one may leave cooked food on a stove that is not Gerufah u'Ketumah, to cook on Shabbos from his wife, who used to do so - 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 Yosef told Abaye that, in Sura, they used to permit Shehiyah on a stove which was not Gerufah u'Ketumah, due to the fact that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - who was known for the meticulous care that he took in whatever he did, used to do so.

(c)Rav Nachman would leave small fish cooked in their own oil with flour, on the stove. But Rav Ashi (this must be the earlier Rav Ashi, who lived in the time of Rav - unless Rav Huna is referring to Rav Huna brei de'Rav Yehoshua) was uncertain whether Rav Nachman permitted Shehiyah on a stove that was not Gerufah u'Ketumah. Rav Ashi's Safek was - 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.

9)

(a)The last word in the Sugya goes to Rav Nachman - who 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 meat.

(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 dish.

(d)The reason that we differentiate between food which will improve and food which deteriorates (with regard to leaving them on a stove which is not Gerufah u'Ketumah) is - because 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 to deteriorate.