Implied question: We hold like Chananyah (who permits Shehiyah l'Chatchilah)!

Answer #1: Here he asks about a food that was not k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai. Chananyah agrees [that Shehiyah is forbidden for it].

Answer #2: He asks even about a pot of raw [meat].

Implied question: Above (18b) we permit [Shehiyah for a pot of raw meat]!

Answer: That is only in a Tanur (an oven wide at the bottom and narrow on top), which gets very hot. Even without stoking, it will be cooked tomorrow (i.e. in time for the morning meal);

However, a Kirah (a rectangular oven with room for two pots. Its heat dissipates, for its top) has greater exposure to air, it is forbidden, for there is concern lest he stoke.

Question: Above (18b, a Beraisa says) that a woman may not fill a pot with Asasiyos (peas?, and put it in an oven just before Shabbos). If she did, it is forbidden bi'Chdei she'Ya'asu (until it would get cooked had she put it in) after Shabbos! (This is unlike Rabah and Rav Yosef, who permit, for no action was done on Shabbos.)

Answer: Even without this [Beraisa], we properly challenge [Rabah and Rav Yosef] from the Beraisa [of R. Meir] that we bring.

Question (Ri): We should say that both of them are before the decree. The Beraisa permits Shogeg, i.e. when it was k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai [before Shabbos], and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak discusses when it was not k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai, like I explained (above, DH Shachach)!

Answer (R. Tam): "It cooked on Shabbos" connotes that it was not cooked at all beforehand.

Implied question: Why don't we say that Rav Nachman holds like R. Yehudah, who forbids a Tavshil even if it is fully cooked, and all the more so if it was not cooked?

Answer: Perhaps R. Yehudah discusses only Mezid, but he agrees with R. Meir about Shogeg that it is permitted, even if it was not fully cooked.

Inference: Here it connotes that Stam hot water and a Tavshil include the case of fully cooked. If not, this is not a question at all!

Rebuttal (Rashba): Even if Stam hot water and a Tavshil are not fully cooked, it is a proper question, for when it is not Garuf, the Beraisa above connotes that Shehiyah is totally forbidden, even if it is fully cooked;

If it permitted when it is fully cooked, it should have explained for what Shehiyah is permitted when it is not Garuf, like it explains regarding Garuf;

[Our Gemara asks properly, for] here, R. Meir permits when it is fully cooked, even if it is not Garuf!

Remark: In any case [even if the above inference is invalid], it seems that Stam hot water and a Tavshil include the case of fully cooked, since it is obvious to the Gemara that the one who forbids returning, forbids even if it was fully cooked, like is proven regarding "even R. Oshaya [permits returning on Shabbos]" (38b).

Implied question: This answer does not suffice! Above, R. Meir permits Stam hot water, which is even if it was not fully heated, even l'Chatchilah. Here, he forbids hot water that was not fully heated even b'Di'eved!

Answer: We must answer like [the Gemara] answers the contradiction in R. Yehudah. [There] he discusses [a Kirah that was] Garuf v'Katum, and [here] it is not Garuf v'Katum.

Observation: Also for R. Yehudah, we must answer that one discusses l'Chatchilah, and one discusses b'Di'eved, for when it is not Garuf, above (37a) he forbids even fully heated water, and here he permits!

Rather, we can answer that [above he forbids] l'Chatchilah, and [here he permits] b'Di'eved.

Implied suggestion: We can establish it when it was not cooked k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai.

Rejection: We already resolved above that it is forbidden, like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak!

Explanation #1 (Ri): He asks about when it was cooked, and he was Shogeg, according to R. Yehudah, even though the Halachah does not follow R. Yehudah. Does he forbid Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo only b'Mezid, or even b'Shogeg?

He brings a proof from the episode of R. Yosi, who forbade. It connotes that it was even b'Shogeg, since it says "Shehiyah was done", and not "they did Shehiyah."

Question: The expression "Avar" (he transgressed) and did Shehiyah" connotes Mezid, like "she transgressed and kneaded" in Pesachim (42a)!

Explanation #2 (Rashba): Here we ask about before the decree. After the decree, obviously Shogeg is forbidden like Mezid.

Explanation: The entire Sugya is when it is not Garuf. If it was Garuf, no Amora forbids, like I explained above (37a DH Iy).

This is like Rav Chisda, who forbids above (37b) Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo.

Explanation (Rashi): [He may return on Shabbos night, and even] on Shabbos, i.e. the next day.

Question: If so, it should have said "on Shabbos day"!

Answer: Based on what I explained (above, 36b DH u'Beis) that their argument is primarily [about returning] before Shabbos, this is fine.

Question: Below (51a), a Beraisa teaches "and so R. Shimon ben Gamliel used to say, that they forbade only that kettle, but if he cleared the water to another kettle, it is permitted";

Inference: It is permitted more in another kettle. Here it connotes oppositely!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Here, regarding one who did Shehiyah on a Kirah, when it is in the same kettle, which is hot, he will not come to stoke. However, in another kettle, which is cold, he will come to stoke;

However, regarding Hatmanah, it is permitted more when it is cold, for a small amount of stoking will not help.

Note: In the following Dibur, Tosfos Yeshanim gives another answer to this question.

Comment - Answer #2 (Rashba, citing the Ri): There, regarding Hatmanah, which is for the need of tomorrow, there is no concern for stoking, since without stoking, it will get very warm;

However, here he needs it for the night. There is concern for stoking.

Question: It connotes a little there that we discuss Hatmanah on [Shabbos] night. (End of comment.)

Explanation: If the Mishnah (36b) discusses returning, also here "Lo Yiten" means that he may not return, but Shehiyah is permitted even in a Tanur that is not Garuf v'Katum;

It connotes like this above (18b). We permit [Shehiyah of] a pot with raw [meat], or [Tavshil] k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai, even if it is not Garuf v'Katum;

It connotes there that we discuss a Tanur, for it refers to what was taught there above "a woman may not fill a pot with Asasiyos..."

Implied question: This is not precise, for Abaye holds that we cannot establish it when it is Garuf, for then it is unreasonable to him that there is a distinction between Gefes or wood, and straw or stubble;

If Abaye held that we can establish it when it is Garuf, like Rav Ada establishes it, he would not be able to resolve anything from it.

Rav Ada establishes it when it is Garuf. He holds that really, there is more heat when it is fueled with Gefes or wood, even though it is Garuf, than when it was heated with straw or stubble.

Opinion #1: Some texts say in the Seifa "a Kupach (a rectangular oven with room for one pot) that was heated with Gefes or wood, one may not do Semichah near it."

Support: If the text said "one may do Semichah near it", this is unlike Abaye, who holds that also a Kupach, one may not do Semichah near it, like we said above!

Rejection: If the text says "one may do Semichah", we can establish it when it is Garuf. It mentioned Gefes or wood for a Chidush, that even so, one may do Semichah. (Maharam - even though the previous Tosfos said that Abaye holds that if it is Garuf, it is unreasonable to distinguish between Gefes or wood, and straw or stubble, we can say that the Tana mentioned Gefes or wood because it is a bigger Chidush.)

Implied question: It says in Bava Basra (18a) that sand cools what is cold, and heats what is hot. Here, the egg is cold! (Why is it forbidden?)

Answer: Here we discuss sand that was heated in the sun, similar to dust of the road.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): They brought [the pipe in the channel] before Shabbos. There is no Isur at all to bring it, like a Beraisa teaches above (18a) "one may dig a trench that will divert water [from a spring] to a garden, and it will irrigate it the entire Shabbos";

They forbade bathing. This is a decree lest people mix [cold water with Chamei Tiverya, i.e. naturally hot spring water] on Shabbos. To mix them on Shabbos is forbidden due to [mixing with water] heated through fire. It is considered like one decree [and not a decree due to a decree].

Explanation #2: If we would explain that the pipe had holes, and when they bathed on Shabbos they opened the holes and the cold water mixed with the hot, this is better, for now it is [truly] a single decree due to water heated through fire.

Question: However, the Gemara compares this to Hatmanah from before Shabbos, and learns from it to forbid Hatmanah during the day in something that adds heat. This is a decree lest he insulate in hot coals, and lest he stoke!