1. The intentional transgressor:[1]
One who cooks on Shabbos, or did one of the other [Biblically prohibited[2]] actions, with prior knowledge of the prohibition is forbidden for him to ever benefit from that action that was done due to a fine.
The law of the pot: As well, the pot in which he cooked in is forbidden for him [to use] forever [until he kashers it], being that it is absorbed with an item that is forbidden for him.
The other people: However for others it is allowed [for them to benefit from] even the food [and let alone the pot] immediately after Shabbos without needing to wait the amount of time it took to cook it [on Shabbos], even if it was [originally] cooked [by the transgressor] on their behalf.
The reason for not needing to wait until enough time passed after Shabbos to have been able to cook it is: because [the Sages] only required one to wait this amount [of time] by a gentile which does [a forbidden action] for a Jew, as in such a case if [the Jew] were to be allowed to benefit [from the food] immediately after Shabbos then there is room to worry that he may tell [the gentile] to do so on Shabbos in order so [the food] be ready for him immediately after Shabbos. [The reason that we suspect for this is] because the prohibition against telling a gentile [to do a forbidden action on ones behalf] is considered light in the eyes of people. Similarly [this decree as well applies] even when a Jew does [a forbidden action] in a case that he started from before Shabbos to do something that was forbidden to be started as was explained in chapter 253 [Halacha 1], as this prohibition too is light in the eyes of people and there is thus worry that one will transgress it in order so [the food] be ready [for him to eat] immediately after Shabbos. Therefore [in the above two cases the Sages] required even others to delay [benefiting from the food] until enough time has passed after Shabbos to have been able to cook it. [The decree even includes other people] due to a decree that [otherwise] one may tell another person to start [cooking it for himself and others] from before Shabbos. However [by other prohibitions done on Shabbos the Sages] were not worried at all that one may tell a Jew to do for him the prohibited action on Shabbos in order for him to be able to benefit from it immediately after Shabbos. Furthermore, [besides for the fact that we do not suspect a Jew of stooping so low to have another Jew transgress for him, even if a Jew were to ask another Jew to do so for him] the Jew would not listen to him being that people do not sin [on behalf of someone else] without self benefit.
2. The Unintentional transgressor: [3]
If [the forbidden action] was done by mistake, then it is forbidden [to be benefited from] on Shabbos even by others, as since he did a Biblical prohibition [the Sages] were stringent to fine [from benefiting from it] on Shabbos just as if it was on purpose in which case it is forbidden also for others. [See Q&A]
The reason for this decree even by an unintentional transgression is: due to a decree that [otherwise] one may intentionally cook it and then say that it was done unintentionally.
After Shabbos: However in the evening [after Shabbos] it is immediately permitted [to be benefited from] even by the transgressor himself and he does not need to wait until enough time has passed after Shabbos to have been able to cook it for the reasons explained [above].
What is defined as an unintentional transgression?[4] If one committed [a transgression] due to the instructions of a Scholar which [he now knows] has made a mistake, then this is considered unintentional. The same applies for one who forgot that it was Shabbos or [forgot] that [the act that was done] is forbidden.
3. The law if one transgressed and cooked a food of which there are opinions which permit it to be done even initially: [5]
(If a Jew himself[6]) heated a food of which there are opinions which permit this to be done even initially, such as to place a food that was completely cooked but has liquid which has completely cooled down, and [by placing it near the fire] it heated up there until it became Yad Soledes, then even though [transgressing such a prohibition] makes one liable to bring a Chatas offering (for the Jew) [if the Jew placed the food there], nevertheless, since there are opinions which allow this to be done even initially, [therefore based on the letter of the law] one may rely on their words after the fact (to not forbid the food) .[7] [See Q&A]
The final custom with regards to one who reheated liquid which had fully cooled off[8]: [Despite the above] we are accustomed like the opinion which prohibits heating a liquid food on Shabbos, even in a case that one already heated it [and thus the food is forbidden to be eaten if this were done].
4. Is the food allowed to be eaten after Shabbos if that night is Yom Tov? [9]
If Yom Tov falls out on the evening after Shabbos then [food which was cooked on Shabbos] is forbidden until after Yom Tov, because [on] Shabbos [one] is not allowed to prepare for Yom Tov.
Other Opinions: [However] there are opinions which say that there is no preparation involved in this case for the reasons that will be explained in chapter 501 [Halacha 18].
The Final Ruling: One should suspect for the first opinion [and thus not eat it until after Yom Tov].
5. What is the law if the food which was cooked on Shabbos got mixed into other foods? [10]
Mixed in after Shabbos: If one intentionally cooked [food on Shabbos] and after Shabbos that food got mixed into other foods, then it is nullified in majority [of the Kosher food].
The reason that the food is not considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin[11]: It is not considered Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin, meaning [that we do not say that since] other people can eat this mixture without any prohibition at all, even without [the food that was cooked on Shabbos] being nullified in majority, [therefore it is considered a food that has a permitted side], because something is only categorized as having a permitted side if [the food] will become permitted for the person that it was forbidden for. However here without it being nullified in majority it is only permitted for other people to which the food was never prohibited for them at all from after Shabbos and onwards.
On Shabbos: However if it became mixed on Shabbos, then since on that day it is considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin for those other than the cook, to whom it is [therefore] now not nullified in majority[12], [therefore] it is considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin also for the person who cooked it and this mixture [thus] becomes forbidden to him forever.[13]
6. Is food that had a transgression done to it on behalf of an ill person allowed to be eaten by others? [14]
Eating from meat of an animal permissibly slaughtered on Shabbos: One who slaughters on Shabbos on behalf of a deathly ill person, it is permitted for a healthy person to eat from this meat while raw. One is to eat it without salting it [for blood] but rather with merely rinsing it alone, as is explained in Yora Deia chapter 67 [Halacha 2][15], because it is forbidden to salt on Shabbos as will be explained in chapter 321 [Halacha 2].
[Furthermore] even if the sick person received his illness today [on Shabbos] and [thus] yesterday [before Shabbos] he did not have in mind at all to slaughter [the animal] today [on Shabbos], nevertheless it does not contain [the] Muktzah [prohibition], for the reason explained in chapter 310 [Halacha 6].
Eating from food cooked or that had done to it any other forbidden action on behalf of an ill person: However one who cooks, or does another type of [forbidden] action for a deathly ill person, then it is forbidden [for that cooked food to be eaten] on Shabbos by a healthy person or by [even] a sick person who is not deathly ill.
The reason for why one may not eat from the cooked food is: due to a decree that [if he were allowed to eat from it then] he may come to add [meat] for himself to the [forbidden] action [being done][16].
However by slaughtering, adding [more to the action being done] on behalf of a healthy person is not relevant, as it is not possible to [obtain] a Kezayis[17] of meat that one needs for the sick person without slaughtering the entire animal.
The law when a gentile did a forbidden action to the food on behalf of an ill person: [Furthermore] even if one did [the forbidden action of cooking and the like] through a gentile, whether it was done on behalf of a deathly ill person [or] whether on behalf of a sick person who is not deathly ill, it is forbidden for a healthy person [to partake in that food] on Shabbos, due to a decree that [if he were allowed to partake in it] perhaps he may [tell the gentile] to add [more food] on his behalf.
However after Shabbos it is allowed [to be eaten] by a healthy person immediately, and he does not have to wait the amount of time after Shabbos that it would have taken to cook it being that the gentile which did [the forbidden action to the food] was permitted [to be told to do so being that it was] for the need of a sick person.
If the gentile cooked or baked the food: However this [allowance to eat the food after Shabbos] only refers to [when] other [forbidden] actions [were done to the food on Shabbos by the gentile] with exception to baking and cooking, as if a gentile baked or cooked on Shabbos for the need of a sick person, then it is forbidden for a healthy person even after Shabbos due to it containing [the prohibition of eating] food cooked by a gentile, as will be explained in Yorah Deiya chapter 113 [Halacha 1].[18]
7. Fruits that were cut down on Shabbos on behalf of a sick person:[19]
The fruit was not yet ripe: One who cuts down an unripe fruit on behalf of a sick person on Shabbos then [that fruit] is forbidden [to be eaten or even moved] by a healthy person [on Shabbos] being that it is Muktzah. [This applies] even if the person was [already] sick from before Shabbos, and one already had in mind from before Shabbos to cut down the fruit on Shabbos.
The reason for this is: because designating [a Muktzah item from before Shabbos] does not help at all by [items that are] connected [to the ground] in cases that it is still growing and ripening on Shabbos.
The fruit is completely ripe: However if the fruit has finished ripening and no longer will continue to grow then designating it [before Shabbos] does help [to remove its Muktzah state and allow it to be moved in the above scenario] even though it was attached to the ground [on Shabbos].[20]
Summary:
A. One who cooks or does other Biblical transgressions with prior knowledge of the prohibition:
The person who did the transgression: The food is forbidden in benefit for him forever and the pot need kashering.
All Others: It is permitted in benefit immediately after Shabbos, unless Yom Tov falls after Shabbos in which case it may only be eaten after Yom Tov.
B. Unintentional transgressor of a Biblical prohibition:
The food is forbidden for all on Shabbos and is permitted for all immediately after Shabbos unless Yom Tov falls out after Shabbos.
C. One who asks a gentile to do a forbidden action on Shabbos whether advertently or not:
See Chapter 325.
D. What is the law if the forbidden food fell into other foods?
Fell in on Shabbos: The entire food becomes forbidden for others until after Shabbos whether the food was cooked advertently or inadvertently.[21] For the actual cook however if he cooked it advertently then the entire mixture is forbidden for him forever, irrelevant of the ratio[22]. If he cooked it inadvertently then it is forbidden for him until after Shabbos, just like is the law regarding others.
Fell in after Shabbos: Is nullified in majority for the cook in a case that he cooked it advertently on Shabbos[23].
E. Is food that had a transgression done to it on behalf of an ill person allowed to be eaten by others?
Done by a Jew: It is forbidden for any other Jew to eat from it on Shabbos with exception to raw meat from a ritually slaughtered animal, and a fruit that was completely ripe and was designated from before Shabbos. After Shabbos all foods are immediately permitted for all
Done by a gentile: Is permitted immediately after Shabbos for all, with exception to foods that were cooked and baked due to them being Pas/Bishul Akum.
8. What is the law if one transgressed the Shehiyah restrictions and left a pot over a flame in a case that it was prohibited to do so?[24]
In all places that it was explained that it is forbidden to leave food/liquid on the fire for Shabbos then if one transgressed and left it on the fire, even if this was done inadvertently[25], such as that one forgot to remove it before Shabbos or that he thought it was allowed, then nevertheless the food is forbidden for himself and for others to eat until enough time has passed after Shabbos for it to have been able to have cooked.[26]
One who does not have anything to eat other then cooked food which was left on the oven in a prohibited way:[27] If one does not have anything else at all to eat on Shabbos besides for this food alone, then if it was left there inadvertently, he is allowed to eat it due to the honor which is required to be shown for Shabbos, being that it is forbidden to fast on Shabbos.
9. The law if one transgressed the Chazara conditions
A. The law if one placed a food on a flame on Shabbos without fulfilling the required conditions:[28]
If one transgressed and returned a pot on Shabbos to an area which (according to all opinions) is forbidden for one to return there[29], whether this was done advertently [with prior knowledge of the transgression] or was done inadvertently [such as he did not have knowledge of the transgression],[nevertheless] the food is forbidden until enough time has passed after Shabbos for one to be able to have gotten this benefit from the food[30].
If the food is fully cooked: However this only refers to a case that the cooking of the food which was placed on Shabbos caused the food to condense in a way beneficial for the food. However if it condensed in a way that was damaging to the food then it is permitted to eat even on Shabbos, as he has received no benefit from the transgression.
Other Opinions: [Furthermore] there are opinions which deliberate even when the food that was returned had condensed in a way beneficial for it, if it should be prohibited at all after the fact, if it was done inadvertently, being that the food was already fully cooked [prior to being returned to the fire].
The Final ruling: One may rely on this latter opinion to allow people who the food was not intended to be heated up for, [to eat from it on Shabbos]. However for [the person himself who returned it to the fire and for] his household members one should not permit [it to be eaten by them], as the food had also been returned to the fire on their behalf.
B. If a gentile placed ones food onto an oven on Shabbos, in a way prohibited for a Jew to do, is the food permitted?[31]
If the food is fully cooked and still warm: The above [prohibition to eat the food when the conditions were not fulfilled] is only referring to when a Jew himself returned the pot [onto the oven]. However if one returned the pot through a gentile[32], then even if this was done advertently [I.e. one knew of the prohibition to ask him to do so], the food is permitted [to be eaten on Shabbos] even if the cooking of the food made it condense in a way beneficial to it, as long as the food was fully cooked, as in such a case one does not benefit so much [from the further cooking] being that it was already fit to be eaten.
If the food has fully cooled down: However this [allowance to eat the food] only applies if the food was [still] a little hot prior to it being placed on the fire, and thus was fit to be eaten. However if it was completely cold [prior to the gentile placing it on the fire], and was thus not fit to be eaten [in its current state], then even if the gentile heated it up on his own on behalf of the Jew [without being told to do so by the Jew], then if this was heated in a way that is forbidden (according to all opinions) for a Jew to do have done[33], and the Jew which owns the food saw the gentile doing this and kept quiet[34], then since the action of the gentile was of benefit for him, it is forbidden for any person to eat from it even after it has cooled down, until enough time has passed after Shabbos for one to be able to have received this benefit from the food.
If the Jew was unaware of the gentiles actions: However if the Jew which owns the food did not know when the gentile returned the pot that the food was completely cold or [he did] but he did not at all notice the gentile coming to return it [and thus could not have protested against the gentile], then the food is permitted [to be eaten on Shabbos], being that most probably the Jew did not want at all for the gentile to heat up his food after it had become completely cold, and [thus the food remains permitted, as] the gentile does not have the power to prohibit the food of a Jew against his will.
The law if one transgressed and placed food by a fire in a case that there are opinions which permit it to be done: [Furthermore] (even if the Jew commanded the gentile to return it) if he returned it (even the Jew himself[35]) to an area where there are opinions which permit this to be done even initially, such as to place it near an oven[36] that is not swept or covered, or next to a bonfire, food that was completely cooked but has liquid which has completely cooled down, and [by placing it near the fire] it heated up there until it became Yad Soledes, then although [transgressing such a prohibition according to some opinions] makes one liable to bring a Chatas offering (for the Jew) [if the Jew placed the food there], nevertheless, since there are opinions which allow this to be done even initially as is explained in chapter 318, [therefore] one may rely on their words after the fact (to not forbid the food placed on by the gentile, even if the Jew commanded him to do so).
Summary-The law of the food with which one transgressed and placed it by a fire on Shabbos:
A Jew placed it there:
- If the food is fully cooked and further cooking is detrimental for the owner:It may be eaten by all people on Shabbos
- If the food is fully cooked and further cooking is beneficial for the owner:
- The Transgressor and his household members: If the placing of the food on the fire transgressed a prohibition according to all opinions [such as the food has fully cooled down and was placed on the fire, or the fire was not covered], then whether this was done on purpose or by mistake, the transgressor and his household[37] may not eat the food until enough time has passed after Shabbos for one to be able to have heated it up and received the benefit which he had transgressed.
- Non-household members: May eat from the food even on Shabbos if the transgression was done inadvertently.
- If the food was not fully cooked:
The food may not be eaten by anyone on Shabbos, and may be eaten by all immediately after Shabbos. If however the transgressor did so advertently, the food is forever forbidden for him.
In short: A fully cooked food which was returned in a forbidden way is only forbidden if all the following apply:
- Further cooking is beneficial.
- Fire was uncovered, or was covered but food has fully cooled down.
A gentile placed it there:
- If the Jew commanded him to do so then it is only prohibited if a) the food was not fully cooked, or b) the food was fully cooked but had fully cooled down and was heated in a forbidden way according to all, such as directly over the fire [even if the fire is covered, as opposed to near the fire, in which case some opinions hold even a Jew may heat it]. If it is fully cooked and warm then it is never forbidden even if further cooking of it benefits the owner, and even if the fire was uncovered.
- If the gentile returned the food there on his own accord for the Jews behalf: Then as long as the Jew did not notice what was done, the food is always permitted [if the food was fully cooked].
10. The law if one transgressed and insulated in material which adds heat:[38]
First Opinion[39]: 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. [40] [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[41] [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.]
Q&A
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:[42] 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.[43]
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.[44]
Other Poskim: There are Poskim[45] 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[46].
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?[47]
The food is forbidden until enough time has passed after Shabbos to be able to have heated it.[48]
Final Summary[49]-What is the law if one transgressed and insulated before Shabbos with material that adds heat in a way prohibited to be done?[50]
The food is prohibited until after Shabbos unless either[51]:
- 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.[52]] If it is fully cooked and further cooking is detrimental to the owner, it is allowed to be eaten according to all.
- 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].
- 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.
Q&A
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. [53]
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?
Is permitted for all immediately on Shabbos. [54]
What is the law if one further cooked a food which was already cooked to the point of Ben Drusaiy?
The Mishneh Berurah[55] 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[56] however rules based on Admur[57] 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.[58]
If a gentile cooked one’s food on Shabbos without his knowledge is it forbidden?[59]
Yes.
If a Jew cooked another person’s food without his permission is it forbidden?[60]
Yes.
What is the law if one raised the flame under a pot of food?
This matter requires further analysis.[61]
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?[62]
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[63]. 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[64], or he extinguished the fire under the pot and then reignited it the food is permitted for the owner and others.
[1] 318/1
[2] Regarding Rabbinical actions, see Q&A
[3] 318/1
[4] 318/2
[5] 253/25
[6] Parentheses are in the original. See Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 3 which says that Admur was in doubt in this ruling.
[7] 253/25
[8] 318/9
[9] 318/3
[10] 318/4. This is based on Magen Avraham 318/2. Unlike the simple reading in Rama Yoreh Deah 102/4
[11] A Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin
[12] As a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin is never nullified. [Yoreh Deah 102]
[13] This follows the ruling of the Magen Avraham in 318/2. However the simple wording of the Rama in Yoreh Deah 102/4 implies that food cooked on Shabbos Bimeizid is never considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin being that only something which will become permitted for all people is considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin. See Magen Avraham ibid.
[14] 318/5
[15] There it explains that one is allowed to eat raw meat without removing its blood being that the blood prohibition only applies to blood that has left the flesh of the animal. Nevertheless one is still obligated to wash the meat prior to eating being that there is blood that has separated on its surface.
[16] Meaning he may come to add an extra piece of meat to the pot that he is cooking for the ill person in order so he too can have a piece, in which case he has done a Biblical prohibited action of cooking. Thus the Sages decree against him eating at all from any of the cooked meat even if it was cooked solely for the ill person.
[17] 27 grams.
[18] This follows the ruling of the Taz in Yorah Deah 113/15, and so rules also Beir Heiytiv [there 19] and other Achronim. To note that the Beir Heiytiv even mentions that it should be forbidden for the sick person after Shabbos, however from Admur it is implied that it is still allowed for the sick person.
However the Rama [Yorah Deah 113 Halacha 16] and Shach [in Nekudos Hakesef there in 113] Mishneh Berurah [318/14] and Gra rule that it is permitted to be eaten by a healthy person even when cooked, as since it was done permissibly the Sages never made a decree here of “cooked foods of Gentiles”.
[19] 318/6
[20] Vetzaruch Iyun why this is not prohibited to be moved do to that one may come to pick extra fruit on his own behalf, as said in Halacha 6. However regarding why it should not be prohibited the same way we prohibit fruit [even fully ripened] that was cut by a gentile on Shabbos [chapter 325 Halacha 8], perhaps is because the decree of it falling off on its own does not apply when a Jew took it off.
[21] As either way it is for them a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin.
[22] As it is considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin on Shabbos when the mixture occurred, and since it never becomes permitted for him it never leaves this status.
[23] However for others or if he cooked it inadvertently the food itself becomes permitted after Shabbos.
[24] 253/12
[25] Chapter 253 Halacha 12
[26] Meaning if it takes 90 minutes to make such a dish, then one must wait until 90 minutes after Shabbos to be allowed to eat it.
[27] Chapter 254 Halacha 8
[28] 253/24
[29] Meaning that there were conditions which are required by all which were not fulfilled, such as that the food was not fully cooked, or the flame was not covered, or it was a Tanur oven of back then.
[30] Vetzaruch Iyun if this waiting of “Kdei Sheyasu” applies if the food was not fully cooked and one thus transgressed the cooking prohibitions, in which case we rule that it is permitted immediately after Shabbos.
[31] 253/25
[32] Meaning one asked a gentile to do so for him.
[33] Such as the gentile placed it on the fire as opposed to near the fire
[34] Meaning he did not protest against the gentile doing so.
[35] Meaning the above allowance applies even if the Jew himself placed it there, and certainly if a gentile placed it there based on his command. However Tzaruch Iyun from Chapter 318/9 that the Alter Rebbe rules that the custom is that if a Jew himself heats up near liquid food which has fully cooled down, that it is prohibited even after the fact. Perhaps however here the Alter Rebbe is mentioning the letter of the law that it is permitted, while there he is mentioning the custom, which is to be stringent.
[36] However to place such food on an oven is forbidden according to all being that the food in this case has completely cooled down, and thus would be prohibited after the fact.
[37] Vetzaruch Iyun regarding guests.
[38] 257/1
[39] 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.
[40] One should immediately remove the food from the insulation. [Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 2 page 7]
[41] 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.
[42] Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 2 pages 12-15
[43] 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.
[44] 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.
[45] See Kitzur Halachos Shulchan Aruch Admur 257/7 footnote 16.
[46] 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.
[47] Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 2 pages 9-10
[48] 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.]
[49] Based on the rulings mentioned in the Q&A above.
[50] Chapter 257 Halacha 1,
[51] 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].
[52] 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.
[53] Chapter 339 Halacha 7
[54] 339/7; 405/9. So rules also M”B in Biur Halacha and is implied from Admur in the Halacha here that the fine only applies to a Biblical prohibition. [Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 2]
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]
[55] 318/27
[56] 124 footnote 3
[57] 253 KU”A 9
[58] 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.
[59] See 276/1
[60] See 276/1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 253/11
[61] 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.
[62] Piskeiy Teshuvos 253/11 based on Mahrshag 2/130; Imrei Yosher 1/129; Michzeh Eliyahu 1/53; Migdanos Eliyahu 2/150; 3/1
[63] However regarding if the person mixed the food, see previous Q&A regarding if it is forbidden for the perpetrator himself.
[64] 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.