One who transgressed and cooked a food on Shabbos-May the food be eaten – Part 1

One who transgressed and cooked a food on Shabbos-May the food be eaten?

May the food be eaten on Shabbos:^[1]

If one transgressed and caused a food to be cooked on Shabbos [in a way that is forbidden according to all opinions, as explained throughout this chapter], then the food is forbidden to be eaten by anyone on Shabbos, whether for the transgressor or his household or for any other person.^[2] This applies whether the transgression was done innocently [i.e. Beshogeig] or due to negligence or lack of care of the prohibition [i.e. Meizid].^[3] [However, by a Rabbinical prohibition, we are lenient to permit the food to be eaten on Shabbos if the transgression was done Beshogeig.[4]]

The law in a scenario that the cooking prohibition is under debate:^[5] In all cases in which there is a debate amongst the Poskim [whose opinions are recorded in Shulchan Aruch^[6]] as to whether the heating of a certain item consists of the cooking prohibition [See examples below], then even if the final ruling of the debate is to be stringent and prohibit doing so on Shabbos, nonetheless, after the fact if one already did so the food remains permitted to be eaten [so long as the Chazarah restrictions were not transgressed, as explained in Chapter 5 Halacha 9].

Reheated liquid that had cooled off: Despite the above ruling, if one reheated a cold liquid on Shabbos to the point of Yad Soledes, then even if the liquid was cooked before Shabbos and since became cold [in which case it is subject to debate as to whether reheating it on Shabbos consists of a prohibition], the custom is to prohibit to eat the liquid on Shabbos.^[7] If, however, a gentile heated it, then Bedieved one may be lenient to eat it on Shabbos.^[8]

Examples of cooking transgressions of which the food becomes forbidden to eat on Shabbos:

1. One cooked raw food on a flame, or other source of heat.
2. One replaced a non-fully cooked food onto the flame, or source of heat, as explained in the Q&A.
3. Keli Rishon:^[9] If one placed uncooked food into a Keli Rishon then the food is forbidden to be eaten on Shabbos. The above is with exception to spices [i.e. salt] added to a Keli Rishon dish, in which case the dish may be eaten even though it was Yad Soledes, and even if the pot was on the fire. However, there are opinions^[10] which argue and prohibit even by spices.^[11]
4. Iruiy Keli Rishon:^[12] If one poured from a Keli Rishon onto an uncooked food, then the outer layer of the food is forbidden to be eaten on Shabbos.

Examples of cooking transgressions of which the food remains permitted:

1. Bishul Achar Afiyah Utzelia-Placed a baked or roasted food in a Keli Rishon or Sheiyni:^[13] If one transgressed and placed a baked or roasted food in a Keli Rishon [that is off the fire] or Keli Sheiyni, then the food remains permitted to be eaten on Shabbos.
2. Afiyah Utzelia Achar Bishul-Heated a cooked food opposite a flame:^[14] If one transgressed and heated a cooked food opposite a visible flame [from a distance^[15]], and the solid food was dry of its liquid, then one may be lenient like the opinions which hold that it does not contain a roasting/baking prohibition, and thus it may be eaten on Shabbos.
3. Melted a congealed food: One who transgressed and heated a precooked congealed food on Shabbos [i.e. cold gravy of fish or chicken] to the point that it melted, it is nevertheless permitted to be eaten on Shabbos, [so long as the Chazarah restrictions were not transgressed, i.e. warmed it on top of a pot that is over the fire, as explained in Chapter 5].^[16] [Seemingly, this applies even if the food was heated to the point of Yad Soledes, so long as it did not contain actual cold liquid.^[17]]
4. Keli Sheiyni:^[18] If one placed an uncooked food into a Keli Sheiyni, the food is permitted to be eaten.

______________________________________________________________________

[1] Admur 318:1 “If [the forbidden action] was done [even] 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.”; Michaber 318:1

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that in a time of need one may be lenient to allow the food to be eaten by even the transgressor on Shabbos if it was done Beshogeg. [M”B 318:7; Gr”a 318; Rebbe Meir in Gemara ibid]

[2] The reason: 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. [Admur ibid]

[3] The reason: 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. [Admur ibid]

[4] See Q&A!

[5] Admur 253:24 “If one transgressed and returned a pot on Shabbos to an area which (according to all opinions–So rules also) is forbidden for one to return there”; Admur 253:25 “(If a Jew himself) 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).” [Parentheses are in the original. See Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 3 which says that Admur was in doubt in this ruling]; M”B 318:2; 318:27; Biur Halacha 253 “Veim Hichziru Yisrael” based on M”A 253:14; See Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 3 based on Admur 253 KU”A 9

[6] Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 3 rules based on Admur 253 KU”A 9 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 being 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. 

[7] Admur 318:9“If the liquid completely cooled down, we are accustomed like the first opinion even regarding a case that one already heated it [and thus the food would be forbidden to be eaten] as was explained in chapter 253 [Halacha 25].” Vetzaruch Iyun as there the Alter Rebbe rules in parentheses that even if a Jew himself heats up liquid food it is allowed to be eaten being that there are opinions which permit this even initially. 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. Perhaps however there in 253:25 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.

[8] Admur 253:25 “(even if the Jew commanded the gentile to return it) if he returned it (even the Jew himself) to an area where there are opinions which permit this to be done even initially, such as to place it near an oven 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 even though [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 will be explained in 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).”; See M”B 318:2 in name of Peri Megadim

[9] See Admur 318:17 “If one transgressed and placed salt even in Keli Rishon, even if it is on the fire, in which case he transgressed a prohibition [according to all], nevertheless the food is permitted [to be eaten on Shabbos] as the salt is nullified against the food.”; Rama 318:9

[10] Admur ibid “There are opinions who argue and prohibit the food until after Shabbos.”; [Seemingly this refers to both the opinion of the Taz and M”A brought next which both write different limitations to the above ruling of the Rama. Admur does not specify anything of the ruling of the M”A here and hence seems to imply he holds that according to the Rama the salt is nullified in all cases.] Some Poskim rule the food is forbidden even if one placed a small amount of salt in the food. [Taz 318:15] Others rule it is forbidden only if one had not placed salt in the food before Shabbos, or if one placed so much salt that it alone is able to salt the food without the help of yesterday’s salt. [M”A 318:31; M”B 318:73]

[11] The reason: As the entire allowance of the Rama is because of the rule of Zeh Vizeh Gorem, and we do not say the rule of Zeh Vizeh Gorem when the two items are not working simultaneously. [Taz ibid] Alternatively, we only say the rule of Zeh Vizeh Gorem when there was a limited amount of salt added. [M”A and M”B ibid]

[12] Admur 318:19; M”A 318:32; M”B 318:74

[13] Admur 318:12 “However, if one did so it is permitted [to be eaten on Shabbos] even [if one placed it] in a Keli Rishon, as rules the latter opinion.”; M”B 318:46

[14] Admur 318:12; M”B 318:46

[15] However, to heat it very close to an open fire is prohibited due to the Chazarah restrictions, as explained in Chapter 5 Halacha 9, and thus possibly even Bedieved if one heated it very close to a visible flame, such food would be prohibited from being eaten on Shabbos, as explained in Chapter 5 Halacha 10.

[16] Admur 318:27 in his final ruling “although once the fat has already melted one may be lenient like the second opinion.”; M”A 318:42; M”B 318:106

Other opinions in Admur: Some Poskim rule that if [the fat] already [melted] then the fat that had melted on Shabbos is forbidden [to be eaten]. [1^st opinion in Admur 318:25; M”A 318:42; 320:14] The reason for this is as this is the law with juice that has flowed on Shabbos from fruits that are designated to be used for juice which are forbidden [to be drunk] due to a decree that [if this were to be allowed then] one may come to squeeze the fruits on Shabbos [in order to make juice] being that these [fruits] are designated for this purpose as will be explained there [in chapter 320 Halacha 3]. This [suspicion] likewise applies to this fat [that has melted on Shabbos] as since it is common for [the fat] to be liquidly and transparent therefore when it is congealed it is similar to fruits that are designated to be juiced, of which the juice that flows from it on Shabbos is forbidden until night [i.e. after Shabbos]. [Admur ibid; Ran 51b in answer to question of Ramban against Sefer Hateruma] This however only applies if one transgressed Molid in the process. [So can be learned from fact Admur permits even Lechatchila to place the food near an oven that will be turned on by a gentile. See P”M 318 A”A 42 and Iglei Tal Dash 36:12; However according to those that hold of the reason of Nolad-Muktzah, seemingly this would not help. Veztaruch Iyun. See Shabbos Kehalacha 3 17:3 and 29]

[17] As whether it is permitted to reheat a previously cooked congealed food which will melt upon being heated is under debate in the Poskim, and even Admur in his Shulchan Aruch 318:27 rules that there is no cooking prohibition involved, and rules regarding the melting prohibition that Bedieved one may be lenient. Now, although in his Siddur, Admur rules stringently that it is Biblically forbidden to reheat congealed liquids, nonetheless, it does not escape the fact that it is under legitimate debate and therefore Bedieved, the future remains permitted, based on the rule Admur ruled above that all transgressions which are under debate are permitted after the fact.

[18] Biur Halacha 318 “Asur Litein”; Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 23