To purchase this Sefer, click here
10. The law if one transgressed and insulated in material which adds heat:
First Opinion: If one transgressed and insulated [in material which increases heat], even [if this was done] inadvertently [without prior knowledge of the prohibition], [nevertheless] the food is forbidden both to him and to others until after Shabbos.  [See Q&A] [However this only applies] in a case that the added heat to the food made it condense in a way beneficial to it, or if the food was cold and got heated through this insulation. However, if it remained the same temperature as it was originally, and it’s a food [which has been cooked to the point] that further cooking will cause it to condense in a way detrimental to it, then it is permitted [to be eaten on Shabbos], being that there is no benefit being gained from having done the prohibition.
Second Opinion: [Food which is cooked to the point of Ben Drusaiy, or which contains raw meat entered right before Shabbos, or which is designated to only be eaten the next day, may even initially be insulated before Shabbos with material that adds heat. See above, Halacha 2, for full content of this opinion].
The Final Ruling regarding food designated for the next day: One may not [initially] rely on the latter opinion [which rules that food designated for the next day may be insulated before Shabbos with material that adds heat], -unless it is already after the fact [in which case one may rely on them] as long as this does not occur on a regular basis.
The Final Ruling regarding food cooked to Ben Drusaiy and raw meat: [Admur does not make clear mention regarding the law if one went ahead and insulated food cooked to the point of Ben Drusaiy, or food which had raw meat placed in it right before Shabbos. See Q&A for the final ruling on this matter.]
If one insulated food which has been cooked to the point of Ben Drusaiy, may he be lenient like the opinions that permit this, and thus be allowed to eat the food on Shabbos?
Opinion of Rav Farkash: If the food was fully cooked before Shabbos, even if further condensing is good for it, then if the insulation was done by mistake or due to lack of knowledge of the prohibition, one may be lenient to eat it on Shabbos.
However if the food was not fully cooked, but was cooked to the point of Ben Drusaiy, then one should not eat it on Shabbos, unless it is a pressing situation.
Other Poskim: There are Poskim which learn that according to Admur it is permitted even in a non-pressing situation to eat it, so long as the food was cooked to the point of Ben Drusaiy.
If one transgressed and insulated food with a heating material is the food permitted immediately after Shabbos, or does one need to wait until enough time passes for it to heat up?
The food is forbidden until enough time has passed after Shabbos to be able to have heated it.
Final Summary-What is the law if one transgressed and insulated before Shabbos with material that adds heat in a way prohibited to be done?
The food is prohibited until after Shabbos unless either:
1. The food was already cooked to the point of Ben Drusaiy. [According to Rav Farkash this is allowed only if it is a pressing situation. If the food is fully cooked then one may be lenient even in a non pressing situation.] If it is fully cooked and further cooking is detrimental to the owner, it is allowed to be eaten according to all.
2. One insulated right before Shabbos raw meat with material that adds heat. [According to Rav Farkash this is allowed only if it is a pressing situation].
3. Before Shabbos one insulated food that he does not plan to eat until the next day with material that adds heat. However, if this is a recurring matter then one may not eat the food on Shabbos.
What is the law if one intentionally transgressed a Rabbinical prohibition on Shabbos?
It is forbidden for all on Shabbos to benefit from it, and permitted for all immediately after Shabbos. [This is with exception to Shehiyah/Chazara/Hatmanah and Amira Lenachri in which case one must wait Kdei Sheyasu after Shabbos.]
What is the law if one unintentionally transgressed a Rabbinical prohibition on Shabbos?
The food is permitted for all people immediately on Shabbos.
What is the law if one further cooked a food which was already cooked to the point of Ben Drusaiy?
The Mishneh Berurah rules that in all scenarios where an opinion exists which permit one to heat a certain food on Shabbos then if one transgressed the stringent ruling and heated it, nevertheless it remains permitted to be eaten on Shabbos. Thus, if food was already cooked to Ben Drusaiy from before Shabbos then even if one transgressed and further cooked it on Shabbos it is permitted.
The Ketzos Hashulchan however rules based on Admur that this leniency of after the fact only applies to prohibitions which have been brought in the Shulchan Aruch with dissenting opinions, and have not been fully ruled upon, in which case even though we may be accustomed to be stringent one may be lenient after the fact. However, if in the Shulchan Aruch it plainly rules like the stringent opinion, then one must be stringent even after the fact, despite that there are other opinions brought down in Shulchan Aruch which rule leniently. Thus, if one were to further cook a food that was already cooked to the point of Ben Drusaiy it would be forbidden to eat on Shabbos.
If one mixed a food that is on the fire is the food forbidden?
If the food is fully cooked and one did so Beshogeg then seemingly the food remains permitted being this mixing is only a Rabbinical prohibition. If, however the food was not fully cooked then seemingly the food is forbidden although this matter requires further analysis.
If a gentile cooked one’s food on Shabbos without his knowledge is it forbidden?
If a Jew cooked another person’s food without his permission is it forbidden?
What is the law if one raised the flame under a pot of food?
This matter requires further analysis.
What is the law if one lowered the flame under a pot?
The food is permitted.
What is the law if one did a forbidden action to another person’s food, such as he mixed the food on the fire or added cold water to it or turned on the flame?
If the Jew did not cause any benefit to the food and was not told by the owner to do the action, the food remains permitted for the owner and others and is only forbidden for the perpetrator. Thus, if someone added cold water to one’s food that is on the fire, or removed it from the fire and then returned it without fulfilling the Chazara conditions, or he extinguished the fire under the pot and then reignited it, the food is permitted for the owner and others.
 Admur 257:1
 This ruling goes in accordance with the ruling of the Michaber, the first opinion mentioned in Halacha 2 above, that it is forbidden to insulate foods even if they are fully cooked. However according to the other opinions mentioned above foods which are cooked until Ben Drusaiy may even be initially insulated before Shabbos. Admur does not mention in his final ruling what is the law if one Bedieved insulated cooked food. Regarding the final ruling see Q&A 1.
 One should immediately remove the food from the insulation. [Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 2 page 7]
 Meaning that if he has already insulated food for Shabbos day in material which adds heat, one may be lenient to eat this food on Shabbos. To note that according to the Michaber all the above is forbidden even after the fact.
 Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 2 pages 12-15
 The Rama clearly rules that when insulated Beshogeg it is permitted; however the Magen Avraham limits this to only of the food has been fully cooked. While the Taz argues completely on the Rama and says that it is always forbidden. The M”B rules like the Rama in this, however argues on the Magen Avraham as will be brought in the next note.
 The Mishneh Berurah as well as the Chayeh Adam and other Poskim all rule that by time of need one may be lenient if the food had already been cooked to the point of Ben Drusaiy.
Regarding the opinion of the Alter Rebbe in all this: On the one hand he completely omitted this ruling of the Rama to be lenient Bedieved, and only brought that there are some people which are accustomed to do so initially, and did not go into at all what is the law if Bedieved it was done. However, on the other hand it seems that it is included in the latter ruling regarding food insulated for the next day, that Bedieved one may be lenient, as the wording there is “There are those which are even furthermore lenient…” implying that if even in this case we are lenient after the fact, then certainly in the previous case. However nevertheless, one cannot innovate a Halacha based on these inferences, and thus one should not allow it to be eaten unless there is a pressing situation, in which case there are many Poskim which permit it.
[Now, although in 253:24-25 Admur rules that after the fact we only prohibit food if a prohibition was done according to all opinions, and thus here too since this matter is a dispute it should be permitted Bedieved according to Admur. Nevertheless, this can not necessarily be used here as a proof as a) Despite this law that in case of dispute Bedieved we are lenient, we find that Admur himself rules at times to be stringent even Bedieved. [see 318:9]; b) Admur himself limited his ruling regarding food designated for the next day that one may only be lenient Bedieved if it is not occur often, thus showing that he does not take the previous mentioned rule into account in this case of dispute.]
The above is all in accordance to the opinion of Rav Farkash in Shabbos Kehalacha. For other opinions in Admur see Q&A above.
 See Kitzur Halachos Shulchan Aruch Admur 257:7 footnote 16.
 As this is the simple implication of Admur in 257:1 which seems to include Ben Drusaiy foods in the Bedieved leniency. As well it follows the rule in 253:24 that by all cases of dispute we are lenient Bedieved.
 Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 2 pages 9-10
 The Ketzos Hashulchan adds in parentheses that the food is forbidden until enough time has passed after Shabbos to be able to have heated it. However seemingly this only applies if one insulated food before Shabbos. However, if one insulated food on Shabbos, then it would be permitted immediately after Shabbos, based on the rule explained in chapter 318 regarding this. [Seemingly this is the reason that the Alter Rebbe did not write that it is forbidden until enough time has passed after Shabbos, being that he wanted to state the Halacha in accordance to all scenarios.]
 Based on the rulings mentioned in the Q&A above.
 Chapter 257 Halacha 1,
 All the below mentioned scenarios are disputed if allowed to be done even initially, and thus we are lenient after the fact to not prohibit the food on Shabbos [and at times this leniency is only in pressing situation, as explained above].
 See Q&A above
If on Erev Shabbos one insulated the food with a material that adds heat but the food had been cooked to the extent that further condensing is damaging for it and the food did not become hotter, but rather retained its temperature then it may be eaten on Shabbos according to all opinions [meaning even according to the Michaber], as there is no benefit gained from the prohibition. However, if the food is not fully cooked then according to the Michaber it is not allowed on Shabbos.
 Admur 339:7; Mishneh Terumos 2:3
 Implication of 339:7; 405:9; Gr”a; Chayeh Adam; M”B 318:3 and in Biur Halacha “Hamivashel”; and is implied from Admur in the Halacha here that the fine only applies to a Biblical prohibition. [Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 2]
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that a Rabbinical transgression has the same law as a Rabbinical transgression. [P”M 318 brought in Biur Halacha ibid]
To note: There is a story noted with the Chofetz Chaim [as told over by Rav Shmuel Chaim Kublanken, who was eating by the Chofetz Chaim that Shabbos, to the author of the Ketzos Hashulchan] regarding that he, the Chofetz Chaim, had forgotten and accidently salted radishes prior to adding oil to it [which is possibly forbidden according to the Rambam, as well perhaps he did not have oil in which case it is forbidden according to all] and when he remembered he pushed the radishes away and avoided eating them. Nevertheless, one must say that this was a mere stringency of the Chofetz Chaim in order to follow those opinions [Peri Megadim] which are also stringent by Rabbinical prohibitions to forbid the food. This however is not the actual Halachic ruling. As well one must say that the Chofetz Chaim added some liquid to the radishes as otherwise he would in truth have transgressed the salting prohibition according to the second opinion. [Ketzos Hashulchan 128 footnote 5]
 Admur 318:27
 124 footnote 3
 Admur 253 KU”A 9
 See previous Q&A; Furthermore, if the food would have anyways been cooked without this mixing one has not really benefited at all from the mixing and is hence similar to the ruling that one may benefit from Maaseh Shabbos if he would have been able to regardless receive the same benefit without the action being done. [See Admur 276:14; Piskeiy Teshuvos 276:16; Igros Moshe 3:47] On the other hand perhaps the Sages prohibited benefiting from the action of a Jew even if no benefit was received. See 253:24 regarding a dispute in this matter in a case that one returned a pot without fulfilling the Chazara conditions. Vetzaruch Iyun.
 See Admur 276:1
 See Admur 276:1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 253:11
 This is similar to one who mixed the food while it is on the fire of which we wrote earlier the different sides in this matter.
 Piskeiy Teshuvos 253:11 based on Mahrshag 2:130; Imrei Yosher 1:129; Michzeh Eliyahu 1:53; Migdanos Eliyahu 2:150; 3:1
 However, regarding if the person mixed the food, see previous Q&A regarding if it is forbidden for the perpetrator himself.
 If the food was not fully cooked and was returned then according to Admur seemingly the food would be forbidden for all even it was already half cooked as explained in the previous Q&A. Vetzaruch Iyun as perhaps if the food would have anyways been cooked without this mixing one has not really benefited at all from the mixing and is hence similar to the ruling that one may benefit from Maaseh Shabbos if he would have been able to regardless receive the same benefit without the action being done. [See Admur 276:14; Piskeiy Teshuvos 276:16; Igros Moshe 3:47]
Leave A Comment?
You must be logged in to post a comment.