1)

(a)The Mishnah in Terumos writes that if someone cooks on Shabbos be'Shogeg, the food is permitted; be'Meizid, it is forbidden. Rebbi Chiya bar Aba rules, that with regard to leaving cooked food on the stove, there is no difference between Shogeg and Meizid. Some explain this to mean that this case is more lenient, and is always permitted; others, that it is more strict, and is always forbidden. The Mishnah in Terumos writes that if someone cooks on Shabbos be'Shogeg, the food is permitted; be'Meizid, it is forbidden. Rebbi Chiya bar Aba ruled, that with regard to leaving cooked food on the stove, there is no difference between Shogeg and Meizid. Some explain this to mean that this case is more lenient - and is always permitted; others, that it is more strict, and is always forbidden. 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 unlike by cooking, no act has been performed.

2. ... forbidden - even by mistake - because of the possibility that one will deliberately leave something on the stove (seeing as it is only an Isur de'Rabbanan - and perhaps because it neither involves an action nor does it take place Shabbos itself), and claim that he did it inadvertantly (somethinf that he is unlikely to do when it comes to cooking, which is an Isur d'Oraysa for which one receives S'kilah).

2)

(a)The Beraisa cites the case of 'a Tavshil she'Lo Bishel Kol Tzorko' - meaning 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 (and 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 Sh'na', and did not differentiate.

(c)To resolve this Kashya ...

1. ... Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (who forbids even Shogeg) explains - that he was speaking after they decreed Shogeg because of Meizid, whereas the Beraisa is speaking before the decree.

2. ... Rabbah and Rav Yosef however - have no answer to the Kashya. They were lenient even be'Meizid, and the Beraisa is clearly strict - even be'Shogeg.

3)

(a)In the Beraisa that we are currently dealing with, Rebbi Meir permits even a pot that was left on a stove that is not Gerufah u'Ketumah, whereas Rebbi Yehudah forbids it even Bedieved.

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 why he is stringent here.

(b)Rebbi Yossi permits hot water that was left on the stove, but not cooked eggs ... because the former is 'Mitztamek ve'Ra Lo' (since it evaporates), whereas the latter is 'Mitztamek ve'Tov Lo'.

(c)The Gemara asks whether, if someone, believing that it is permitted (see Maharsha on Rashi DH 'Avar ve'Shaha') leaves a pot of cooked food on the stove, is permitted to eat it that Shabbos or not. There is no proof from Rebbi Yossi, who forbade the cooked eggs in the previous question, and who was speaking in precisely such a case - because what he meant was, that it was forbidden to repeat the performance the following Shabbos, but not that the eggs were forbidden that week.

4)

(a)The Amaro'im explain that Beis Hillel permit Chazarah even on Shabbos - meaning even on Shabbos morning not only on Friday night, when it is obvious that he is returning the pot for Shabbos lunch, and is unlikely to stoke the coals anyway. (Tosfos DH 'Afilu' disagrees with Rashi. See also Rosh Si'man 2, who is even more explicit).

(b)Some permit Chazarah when the pot is still in one's hand, provided he had in mind to return it, at the time when he removed it. 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) - once he has put the pot down on the floor, Chazarah will be categorically forbidden.

(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, at the time of removal, he did not have in mind to do so. (According to this opinion, Chazarah requires only one condition, and not two, on order to be permitted.)

5)

(a)We ask what the Din will be, with regard to ...

1. ... replacing on to the stove, a pot that one hung on a peg or placed 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.

2. ... returning on to the stove, a pot into which one poured the cooked food (from the pot in which it was cooked) - whether it is forbidden to 'return' it on to 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.

(b)Both She'eilos remain unresolved.

6)

(a)A 'Tanur' - is a cone-shaped oven, which becomes narrower on top, and which has room inside it for only 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 square. 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)The reason for the Kupach's dual Din is - because, on the one hand, its small size causes it to reach a higher temperature than a Kirah, but, on the other, its square shape prevents it from becoming as hot as a Tanur.

7)

(a)Rav Yosef deduces from our Mishnah that it is permitted to place a pot next to a Tanur or a Kupach on Shabbos - because he 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, thinking that the Mishnah is speaking by a Tanur or a Kupach that is not 'Gerufah u'Ketumah', asks on Rav Yosef from a Kupach which he lit with Gefes or with wood, and which the Mishnah gives the Din of a Tanur - 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'? Therefore, Abaye concludes that 'Al Gabah' must mean 'next to', proving that even Semichah next to a Tanur is forbidden.

(c)We answer 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 - we nevertheless conclude like Abaye, since we have a Beraisa which supports him inasmuch as it prohibits Semichah next to a Tanur, just like placing on top of it.

8)

(a)

1. A Kirah which broke in two length-wise, is Tehorah, since neither of the pot sections 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. Note, that 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).

9)

(a)One may - not place an egg beside a boiling kettle to become slightly roasted.

(b)Before Shabbos - the men of Teverya would place a pipe into the hot spring springs of Teverya, in order to heat the water which flowed through the pipe.

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

1. ... on Shabbos - had the Din of water that was heated by 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 by fire, and was therefore forbidden to use for washing, but not for drinking.