Siman 254

In the previous siman, section 8, it was explained that the shehiya which the sages forbade close to evening because of the concern "lest one rake the coals" applies only to a cooked dish that is fit for evening—meaning it has already begun to cook. However, a raw dish, which will not be cooked by evening and is intended for the next day, may be left for shehiya, because there is much time until the next day and one will not come to rake [the coals]; see there. However, this applies to a dish cooking in a pot, and even a roast in a pot—which is called "pot roast," meaning it is roasted without water—nevertheless, since it is in a pot, it requires much time for its cooking. But one who roasts a roast near the fire not in a pot, but rather places it near the fire or on top of coals, which hastens the cooking—it is forbidden even if raw, until there is time for it to be roasted while it is still day. And this is what the sages taught in the Mishnah (19b): "One may not roast meat, onion, or an egg unless there is time for them to be roasted while it is still day." However, we do not require complete roasting, but rather like the food of Ben Drusai, a third or half cooked, for we hold like Chananya who said: "Anything that is like the food of Ben Drusai may be left for shehiya on a kirah, even if it is not swept or covered with ash" (Gemara 20a). And even though the position of the Rambam is not like Chananya, as I wrote in the previous siman, that is regarding shehiya, but regarding roasting, he ruled like Chananya. And although the Rambam in chapter 3, halacha 16, wrote the wording: "so that they shall be roasted while it is still day and be fit for eating," see there, nevertheless, it is perforce his intention that it be like the food of Ben Drusai, as the Maggid Mishneh wrote, and there is a proof for this in the Gemara. (For Rav at the beginning of [the chapter] Kirah ruled that if it shrinks and it is improved by it, it is forbidden—and this is not like Chananya—and there Rav said: "so that they shall be roasted like the food of Ben Drusai," and this is the intention of the Ramakh brought there by the Kesef Mishneh, see there. And see Tosafot 37a, s.v. "Ee Amar Bishlama," who wrote that Rav is not like Chananya regarding an egg, see there. And this requires great study, for Rav, regarding the Mishnah of meat, onion, and egg, says "like the food of Ben Drusai," and one must say that an egg on coals is not "shrinks and is improved by it," and this is the opinion of the Rambam who forbids "shrinks and is improved by it" yet permitted an egg. And perforce it is so, for in [the chapter] Kirah 38a: "shrunken eggs that were left on a kirah are considered 'shrinks and is improved by it,'" see there, and not when they were roasted on coals; and if so, the words of Tosafot require great study, and delve into this.)

This is the wording of the Tur: "Even though it is permitted to leave raw meat—these words apply to a pot which does not cook quickly, and he removes his mind from it until the next day, and we do not fear that he might rake the coals. But regarding a roast that is near the fire—even raw it is forbidden to leave it close to nightfall, for it roasts quickly and it is possible for it to roast so that it is fit while it is still night, and he does not remove his mind from it and will come to rake the coals. And if it is in an oven plastered with clay—it is permitted even with goat meat, for the wind is not harmful to it and we do not fear that he might open it and rake, since it is plastered with clay. (As Rashi explained on page 18b, starting with 'and plastered,' that he would not go to all that trouble and he will remember, see there). And a kid, for which the wind is harmful—even if it is not plastered it is permitted, for we do not fear that he might open it and rake, since the wind is harmful to it, and provided that it is cut into pieces, for then the wind is harmful to it. But if it is whole, or goat meat even if cut into pieces, for which the wind is not harmful, if the oven is not plastered with clay—it is forbidden." Thus far his words.

And behold, according to the opinion of the Tur, as long as the opening of the oven is plastered—everything is permitted, even cooked foods in pots, since the reason is that he will remember until he removes the plaster. And this is the reason that it is our custom to plaster the opening of the oven close to evening, as I wrote in the previous siman, section 27, see there. And this is a leniency according to the opinion of the Tur, which is not the case according to the opinion of the Rambam, as will be explained. However, regarding the meat of a kid, he is stringent, for in his opinion the permission regarding the meat of a kid is because the wind is harmful to it, and according to this, the permission is only when it is roasted inside the oven and the oven is covered. But when the oven is not covered, or if it was roasted upon coals in front of the oven—there is no permission for this, and such is not the opinion of the Rambam, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 3, law 13: "An oven into which meat was placed while it was still day and he left it over on Shabbat, if it is the meat of a kid or the like—it is permitted, for if he were to rake the coals the meat would be singed, as it only requires the warmth of the fire alone. But if it is the meat of a goat or the meat of an ox—it is forbidden, lest he rake the coals to cook it. And if he plastered the opening of the oven with clay—it is permitted, for if he comes to open the oven and rake, the wind will enter and the meat will harden and be ruined, and the oven will cool and the meat will be ruined; and so too anything that the wind ruins—we do not decree upon it lest he uncover it and rake… and if he placed a whole kid into the oven—it is like the meat of a goat or the meat of an ox, and it is forbidden to leave it lest he rake, unless he plastered the oven etc." Thus far his words. Behold, he did not write the reason for the plastering as being that by the time he uncovers it he will remember, but rather because of the wind that will spoil the meat. And according to this, regarding cooked foods in a pot—the plastering of the oven would not be effective, unless we say that they too would be spoiled by the wind. And regarding the meat of a kid, he wrote the reason: that the meat would be singed; if so, even when the oven is uncovered or when it is roasted near the oven—it is permitted.

And this is the intention of our teacher, the Rema, who, after the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, which are like the words of the Rambam, wrote, and this is his wording: "And there are those who are stringent and hold that in an oven plastered with clay—everything is permitted, and on top of the fire which is revealed—everything is forbidden, and in an oven whose opening is covered but it is not plastered with clay—then one must distinguish between a kid and poultry (whose law is like a kid), and other meat in the manner that has been explained, and such is the custom according to this opinion" thus far his words, and this is the system of the Tur. And that which he wrote that there are those who are stringent, his intention is regarding the matter when they are on the fire which is revealed, for according to the Rambam—it is permitted for the reason that it will be charred, and according to the Tur—it is forbidden. But regarding the matter of plastering the oven, on the contrary, the Tur is for leniency. And this is what he wrote: "and such is the custom," meaning to plaster the opening of the oven, and as he wrote in the previous siman, section 27. And there is no distinction in roasting between whether it is completely raw or whether it was partially cooked, for in a place where it is permitted—it is completely permitted, and in a place where it is forbidden—it is completely forbidden and even if it reached the food of Ben Drusai. (Magen Avraham, subsection 4) And know, that it is called whole as long as the body is whole, even though its head and its legs are not on it. And a kid—this is in its youth, and it is called a goat when it has grown large, and poultry is similar to a kid, (and in the Gemara "a kid and a barha" was mentioned, which is a ram, and the poskim hold that a goat's law is like a ram because of its size, or they interpret barha as a male goat, see in the Aruch under the entry "barha") and see in section 8.

The Rambam wrote there in law 16: "One may not roast meat, an onion, or an egg on top of the fire, unless there is enough time for them to be roasted while it is still day and they are fit for eating (like the food of Ben Drusai). And if they remained after this on the fire on Shabbat until they are roasted a great deal—it is permitted, because it shrinks and is bad for it, for if he were to rake the coals he would char them, since they are on the body of the fire." Thus far his words. And ostensibly it appears that here his intention is not regarding kid meat, for kid meat is permitted in any case, as I wrote previously in section 4. And that which he wrote there, that with other meat it is forbidden if the oven is not smeared with clay—this is when it did not reach the food of Ben Drusai while it was still day, but if it reached the food of Ben Drusai—it is permitted, as he explains here.

But from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2, it does not appear so, for he wrote: "One may not roast an onion and an egg or meat upon coals unless there is enough time for it to be roasted while it is still day on its two sides like the food of Ben Drusai, which is half its cooking, even if it is goat meat; for since he placed it upon coals, he is only concerned that it roast quickly, and even though it will be singed, therefore we fear perhaps he will rake. But when it is roasted like the food of Ben Drusai, we do not fear perhaps he will come to rake, even if it is ox meat, for since it is fit for eating, why would he rake to ruin it." Thus far his words. And according to his words, the previous law deals with roasting in an oven not upon coals, and therefore goat meat is permitted for the reason that was explained, that it requires only light heating. But in placing it upon coals, or literally near them which is like being upon them, where the heat is extremely strong and perforce he is not concerned about singeing, for if he were concerned he would not do so—and therefore it is forbidden even with goat meat. And conversely, in the previous law it is forbidden even if it reached the food of Ben Drusai, for since it is not upon the coals and the heat is weak, he will be concerned that it not cook, and he will come to rake. But here upon the coals, he would not be so mad as to rake after it reached the food of Ben Drusai even with ox meat, for behold the raking is to ruin it. And know, that "upon the coals" is not literally, but rather next to the coals, for if not so, how would he take the meat from the coals, as he might come to extinguish, or he would have to wait until the coals are extinguished. (Magen Avraham, subsection 7)

But the Tur perforce does not hold this way, for even in the previous law he wrote "roast that is next to the fire," as I wrote in section 2, and in this law he wrote only according to the language of the Mishnah: "One may not roast meat, onion, or an egg unless there is enough time for them to be roasted while it is still day to the extent of the food of Ben Drusai," and he did not explain according to the language of the Rambam—learn from this that it is all one law, and consequently, in the previous law as well, the prohibition is only when it has not reached the food of Ben Drusai. And according to this, it is a wonder regarding our teacher, the Rema, whom we cited in section 5, that he did not mention this leniency. (And this is the intent of the Taz at the end of subsection 1.) And it appears that because these matters are not stated explicitly, neither in the Rambam nor in the Tur, even though it is certainly so, nevertheless, since it is not stated so explicitly—he did not want to cite this, and perhaps also regarding the law he agreed in this with our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and one who relies on the Tur in a time of need has not lost.

If one transgressed or forgot and it was roasted on Shabbat with a prohibition—it is forbidden; so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3, and he did not distinguish between one who transgressed intentionally and one who forgot unintentionally. And even though regarding shehiyah in the previous siman he distinguished in this manner in section 1, that in a case of forgetting we are not stringent when it is cooked completely even if it shrinks and it is beneficial for it, as we explained there in section 27, here according to his approach following the opinion of the Rambam regarding roasting in an oven that is not near the fire and is not smeared with clay—it is forbidden in any case as has been written. And the reason appears to be that, on the contrary, here even in a case of transgressing his intention is not to forbid when it has reached the state of the food of Ben Drusai, and certainly when it is cooked completely, and it refers to the law of one who roasts meat, an onion, and an egg, where the prohibition is only until the food of Ben Drusai as has been explained. And regarding one who placed it into the oven, there is one who says that in any case we do not forbid when one transgressed or forgot, since there are poskim who permit it entirely when the oven is covered, even when it is not smeared. (Magen Avraham, subsection 11, and his intention is to the poskim that the halacha is like Rav Ashi who permits with a wind-vane and not smeared, see there in Tosafot and the Rosh)

Fruits that are eaten raw—it is permitted to place them around the pot near the coals, even though it is impossible for them to be roasted before dark, for since they are fit to be eaten raw, it is as if they reached the status of the food of Ben Drusai. It is not similar to the onion that we prohibited, for it is not as good raw as raw fruits are. And in truth, anything that is not as good to eat raw as cooked, such as forest apples and the like—it is prohibited unless they reach the status of the food of Ben Drusai while it is still day. However, even though we permitted it regarding fruits, nevertheless one must be careful that if they were covered with a cover and became uncovered after dark—that one should not return the cover upon them after dark, and that one should not add any cover after dark, because through this they hasten to cook—and it is like one who cooks on Shabbat, and one must be very careful in this, for the masses do not perceive this as cooking. And it is obvious that on Shabbat it is prohibited to place them on the winter oven that the non-Jew will later kindle because of the cold, (ibid. subsection 14) and as I wrote in the previous siman, section 38. And by means of a non-Jew—it is permitted in such cases, as I wrote there, section 37, see there.

The sages taught in the Mishnah (19b): "One may not place bread in an oven with the onset of darkness, nor a cake upon coals—unless there is enough time for its surface to form a crust while it is still day." And with the forming of the crust, meaning that a crust and skin should form on the surface of the bread due to the fire—this suffices, even though regarding a cooked dish we require, even according to the approach of Rashi and Tosafot, that it reach the status of the food of Ben Drusai, and according to the Rambam even this is not effective, as was written at the beginning of the previous siman, nevertheless bread is not similar to a cooked dish and the forming of a crust suffices. And the reason is found in the Yerushalmi, that women are more diligent regarding bread than regarding a cooked dish, which is to say that they are careful with bread so that it does not become charred, and therefore we do not fear the stoking of the coals. This is what the Rambam wrote there: "One may not place bread... unless there is enough time for its surface to form a crust... and if they remained after that... for if he stokes the coals he will ruin them." Thus far his words. (And the commentators of the Yerushalmi explained an unusual explanation, see there.)

However, the essence of the matter is perplexing, for from the Mishnah it is clear that provided its surface forms a crust, it is permitted ab initio to place bread into the oven, and the baking will be completed at night. And it is not understood what he shall do with it regarding its removal from the oven, for the scraping of bread is forbidden on Shabbat as will be explained, unless we say that he should leave it in the oven until the conclusion of Shabbat, and this is a forced explanation, for it would certainly be scorched, as is understood. And perhaps since the sages of blessed memory said (117b) that the scraping of bread is a wisdom and not a labor, and they permitted it on occasion as will be explained, therefore if he sees that the bread will be ruined if it remains until the conclusion of Shabbat, they may tell a non-Jew to scrape it from the oven, for this is not a complete shevut, and furthermore, a shevut of a shevut in a case of loss is permitted.

Regarding this crusting of the surface, the Tur wrote: "so that the surface attached to the oven or the surface facing the fire shall crust," and the wording of the Rambam is also similar to this, see there. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote regarding bread: "the surface attached to the oven," and regarding a coal-cake: "the surface facing the fire," see there, because he holds that one of them is sufficient. Therefore, regarding a coal-cake, where the surface facing the fire hastens to bake—he wrote the surface facing the fire, and regarding bread, it is possible that the part attached to the oven hastens to bake, but the main point is—that one of them is sufficient, and whenever one breaks it and the strands do not stretch—it is called crusting of the surface, and so it is regarding matzah later in siman 461. And it appears to me that crusting of the surface occurs much earlier, but when the strands do not stretch—it has certainly reached crusting of the surface. (And it is necessary to say so, for behold, when the strands do not stretch it is somewhat fit for eating, as is proven from matzah, and if so, even regarding a cooked dish it should be permitted like the food of Ben Drusai according to the system of Rashi and Tosafot, and if so, why does the Yerushalmi divide between bread and a cooked dish? Rather, it is certainly as I have written, and examine this closely.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "And pastida or fladen—their surfaces must form a crust above and below, and that which is inside must be cooked to the extent of ma'achal Ben Derusai," thus far his words. There is one who grasped that he disagrees with our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and if so, he should have said "and there are those who say." (Magen Avraham, subsection 16) But it is not so, for specifically regarding thin bread or a charred cake is it sufficient with one side, and not with these which are thick, (the Gra) and according to this, in our bread which is thick—even our teacher, the Beit Yosef, admits that it requires the forming of a crust on both sides. Aside from this, there is no comparison of fladen and pastida to bread, for since they are filled in the middle—if so, the upper dough and the lower dough are two doughs, and it is like two charred cakes, and it necessarily requires above and below. (Dagul Merevavah) And also that which is inside must be cooked to the extent of ma'achal Ben Derusai, and we do not say that they are nullified regarding the dough, for this is not applicable to the prohibitions of Shabbat. And whenever he knows that it has not yet reached ma'achal Ben Derusai—there is a concern lest he rake the coals. (So it appears to me)

It is simple that regarding bread and a cake and the like, even if he placed them raw in the oven close to evening—it is forbidden, for it is not similar to a pot of cooked food which requires a long time for its cooking, but rather like a roast. And if he placed them close to darkness and their surfaces did not crust while it was still day: if intentionally—it is forbidden until the conclusion of Shabbat for the time it takes to be made, even if he has nothing to eat. And if unintentionally: if he has nothing to eat—we do not penalize an unintentional act on account of an intentional act, for man lives by bread, and it is not similar to cooked foods. Therefore, he is permitted to scrape from the oven enough for three meals for himself and his household, and he can also say to others who have nothing to eat: 'Come and scrape for yourselves enough for three meals.' And when he scrapes—he should not scrape with a scraper in the manner he does on a weekday, but rather with his hand or with a knife or the like, so that he does not act in the manner he acts on a weekday. And if it is impossible to scrape with a change—he may scrape with a scraper, for this is not a labor. And if he placed it with enough time for its surface to crust while it was still day, such that he did not perform a prohibited act: if he needs the bread for Shabbat—he scrapes in his usual manner, and if he does not need it for Shabbat—it is forbidden even with a change, because the scraping of bread is a shevut. And in all this there is no difference between our bread and ovens and theirs, unlike the one who wishes to permit more than three meals in ours. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 17) And we have already written that by means of a non-Jew it is possible that it is permitted when there is a loss in this, as I wrote in section 12, and see in section 17.

It is simple that with a stove that is cleared of coals or covered with ash, it is permitted to place the bread close to darkness, for it is no worse than a cooked dish. (Ibid. subsection 16) And if so, in our ovens which have the status of a stove, if they cleared the coals or covered them with ash, it is permitted to place the bread close to evening; however, to remove the bread is forbidden, except in the manner that has been explained, when it is needed for Shabbat or by means of a non-Jew. And a cake or types of dough that one bakes in a pot likewise have the status of bread, provided they are not filled with some filling of meat or eggs or fruit, (ibid.) for then their status is like cooking in a pot; and the pashtida and fladen that we wrote have the status of bread—that is when they are not in a pot. And it appears to me that in a pan it is not like a pot. And likewise, all that has been explained is only in an oven that is not smeared with clay. But if it is smeared, it is permitted in all manners, for it is no worse than a cooked dish. And likewise, if one is not baking for the needs of Shabbat but for the conclusion of Shabbat, such that there is time to bake it, it is also permitted, for in such cases we do not fear lest he rake the coals, for why should he rake? And this is like shehiyah for the needs of tomorrow, which we permitted in the previous siman. And why did we not permit here for the needs of tomorrow? Because we decree lest he eat it at night. But with a cooked dish, this concern does not exist, for it is not fit for the night, as it requires much cooking, which is not the case with bread. And one cannot say that if so, even when it is needed for the conclusion of Shabbat we should decree so, for it can be said that in this we do not decree, since it is forbidden to scrape bread from the oven on Shabbat. But when his intent is for the needs of tomorrow, then perforce his intent is for scraping, either by means of a change or by means of a non-Jew. Therefore, in truth, there is one who says that in our ovens, in which there is not such a prohibition of scraping, it is forbidden even when his intent is for the conclusion of Shabbat for this reason—lest he remove it at night and come to rake the coals. (Ibid. subsection 20) And in my humble opinion, it does not appear so, for is it to say that in ours, scraping is completely permitted? And one should not ask how it is permitted for the conclusion of Shabbat, for is hatmanah not forbidden for the needs of the conclusion of Shabbat, as I wrote in siman 257? For it can be said that the prohibition of hatmanah itself is a novelty, and we should not add to it. (Tosefet Shabbat)

And know, that which we wrote at the end of section 15, that there is no difference between our ovens and theirs—this is when he placed it in a prohibited manner. But in a permitted manner, such as with the crusting of the surface while it was still day—there is a difference, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7, and this is his wording: "In our ovens, which do not involve scraping—it is permitted to remove more than three meals with a knife or with anything he can stick into it. (And all the more so with his hands). Nevertheless, he should not remove it with a shovel, because it appears like a weekday activity." Thus far his words. And it deals with one who placed it in a permitted manner, (Magen Avraham subsection 23) and it is like a coal-cake upon coals, which was not prohibited like the scraping of bread. And also, this is specifically when he wants to eat on Shabbat, (ibid.) for then it is permitted even more than three meals. But to scrape for the sake of a weekday—behold, even mere handling is prohibited for the sake of a weekday, as is written in the Hagahot Maimoniyot, that it is prohibited to bring wine on Shabbat for the sake of Saturday night, and see in siman 323. And it has already been explained that only regarding bread did they permit three meals and not regarding cooked foods; however, if he has nothing to eat besides the cooked foods—it is obvious that it is permitted, for behold, it is prohibited to fast on Shabbat. (ibid.) And know, regarding the three meals that we permitted, if he took one loaf that contains the measure of three meals—there is one who says that it is prohibited to take more, even though he will not have lechem mishneh, and also he will not have a whole loaf at each meal—nevertheless it is prohibited, for this is not such a great obligation, (ibid.) and there are those who hesitate about this. And we have already explained that if the bread will spoil by Saturday night and he will have a loss—it is permitted to remove all the bread in our ovens and theirs by means of a non-Jew, and there is one who permits in our ovens even by himself in a case of loss. (Eliyah Rabbah) And it is correct, only that initially it is certainly better to do so by means of a non-Jew.

If one placed bread into the oven on Shabbat, whether he did so unintentionally, such that he did not know it was Shabbat today and remembered immediately, or whether he did so intentionally—it is permitted for him to remove it immediately before the bread begins to form a crust, so that he does not come to a prohibition of skilah or a chatat. And even though he would not be liable for a chatat, as all those liable for chatat are not liable unless their beginning and their end were unintentional, and here he has remembered—nevertheless, he would at any rate be performing an av melakhah unintentionally. And even though the removal of bread is a shevut, and especially in their days when removal was somewhat like a melakhah, as the bread was stuck to the walls—nevertheless, it is better for him to transgress a light shevut than to transgress an av melakhah. And also in a case of intentional action, even though if we were to forbid him from removing it and he would want to remove it, he would not be liable for skilah since we are not allowing him (Tosafot 4a, s.v. "kodem"), for if not so, it is obvious that he would not obey us (ibid.), nevertheless the sages permitted him ab initio so that he should not perform an av melakhah, even though he acted intentionally. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 21, who was precise regarding the wording "even intentionally," and according to what I have written it works out well, and examine it closely.)

And it is simple that if he is able to remove it by means of a change—he is obligated to do so. (ibid.) And also, specifically he himself or by means of a non-Jew, and this is certainly better than doing it by himself if it is possible for him, provided that until they find a non-Jew it does not begin to form a crust. But another Israelite—it is forbidden for him to remove it, for since there is a shevut in the scraping of the bread—we do not say to a person, "commit a minor sin so that your fellow shall not commit a severe prohibition," since the prohibition was not done by him, and also his fellow was negligent in that which he attached, (ibid.) for even an unintentional act is close to negligence, and the main point depends on the reason of negligence. (ibid.)

It was taught in a baraita (18b): A woman may not fill a pot with lentils and lupines and place it into the oven on Erev Shabbat at nightfall, and if she placed them—on Saturday night they are forbidden for the time it takes to prepare them. Similarly, a baker may not fill a barrel with water and place it into the oven on Erev Shabbat at nightfall, and if he did so—on Saturday night they are forbidden for the time it takes to prepare them. And the reason is lest he rake the coals, and Rashi explained (s.v. 'hai kedera') because they require a long time for cooking, and the entire night and day are not sufficient for them. And for a barrel of water, this is the reason: because they are accustomed to heat it over a low fire, and he will fear that it might cool down and will come to rake. (Tosafot ibid.)

But the Rambam wrote there the opposite, that these and all similar to them, even though they have not cooked at all—they are like a dish that has not cooked all its needs, because they do not require much cooking and his intent is to eat them immediately. Therefore, it is forbidden to leave them in the oven, and if he transgressed and left them—they are forbidden until the conclusion of Shabbat, and he must wait the time it takes to prepare them. Thus far his words. And the same law applies to a kirah and a kupach when they are not cleared or covered and it is possible to rake, and in a kupach clearing does not avail when it was fueled with olive-peat and wood, as I wrote in the previous siman, and with straw and stubble it does not require clearing as I wrote, and only in a kirah when it was fueled with olive-peat and wood does clearing avail. (Magen Avraham, subsection 25). And water, even though they are fit to be drunk raw—nevertheless it is not similar to fruits, for raw water is not as good as cooked, or for instance where it is needed for rinsing, which requires specifically hot water. Therefore, every type of water must be left from while it is yet day. (ibid. subsection 26). And one must scrutinize the explanation of the Rambam from that which we say in Shabbat (74b): "A lupine is different, for they boil it seven times," see there, for it is explained that they are difficult to cook. And regarding the matter of cooking tea, it will be explained in siman 318, and also to place the samovar close to darkness appears to be forbidden, for there is a concern lest he rake the coals, and furthermore, when he takes the teapot from upon it on Shabbat and places it back upon the samovar—it is complete cooking.