14 - Ein Bishul Achar Bishul

Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz

Q#1: I wasn't particularly moved by that question. Meaning, he's trying to tell me a din in bishul also. What's the din in bishul? The patur part. The aval assur part you're right, that belongs in perek gimmel, but the patur part that you're not chayav for it belongs here! Meaning, it's a din de'oraisa that you're not chayav for bishul for cooking it, and that's correct so it belongs here. Ein hachi nami, there may be a din derabanan that it's an issur of hachzarah miderabanan, so he has to be accurate, so he keeps it accurate by saying patur instead of mutar, because it's mutar on a de'oraisa level, but that's not accurate, so he has to use the word patur. But it's not misplaced. It's in the correct location. So I didn't really understand that question. There's also a question whether you can be medayeik from the placement of the Rambam, what you can be medayeik from where the Rambam places things. I've heard from R' Asher Weiss many times that the Rambam will put things as they would naturally come up, meaning he'll put things next to each other when one would naturally come up in the context of the other halachos. So very often it's not based off the yesod hadin, it's based on what... you know... the Rambam was writing a book that should be able to use so that people should know where to find things. It's more based on the way life naturally runs, rather than necessarily the yesod hadin. I don't know. It seems that many, many, many other talmidei chachamim do not understand that way, that many, many people make diyukim in the yesod hadin based on the placement of the Rambam, but that's what kach shamati from R' Asher Weiss on several occasions. But you don't even need that kashyah, you don't even need to say like R' Asher Weiss, because over here it's right, it belongs over here in perek tes.

Q#2: Again, I wasn't so bothered by this kashyah either, because typically when you talk about a fire you talk about an uncovered fire, right? You'd need to say otherwise if you mean a covered fire. And he already discussed the dinim of hachzarah in perek gimmel, he doesn't need to rehash all the ways around the issur of hachzarah. But typically, when you're talking about being mevashel something, you don't think about being mevashel on a blech or a kadeirah, you think about being mevashel on an open fire.

Bar-Ilan

R. Issar Zalman Melzer (1870 - 1954).
R. Issar Zalman was born in Mir, first studied with R. Yom Tov Lipman, auther of Malbushei Yom Tov, and was Rabbi in Mir. He studies seven years in Yeshivat Volozhin, becoming a disciple of R. Haym Soloveitchik. He then studied a year in Raden, and lectured for a number of years in the Slobodka Yeshiva. In 1894 he founded a yeshiva in the town of Slutzk, becoming the rabbi of this town in 1903. In 1925, he emigrated to the Land of Israel, serving as dean of the Etz Chaim Yeshiva in Jerusalem until his death in 1954. His Even Ha'Azel can be viewed as a primary basic book expressing the yeshiva methodology of Talmud study. This methodology is usually ascribed to R. Haym Soloveitchik of Brisk, and hence it is natural that this volume would be a mouthpiece for R. Haym's deep Talmudic analysis. The first volumes were published in 1935, and the last of the nine volumes was published post - humously in 1978.

Rav Sobolofsky

I was making myself a tea on Shabbos morning, and as I was pouring the water from the urn a drop hit my hand, and he drew his hand back. And it was worth burning my hand so that I was able to show that yad soledes is different than the temperature for drinking.

The 39 Melachos (by Rabbi David Ribiat) P. 640

c) Using hot water in a multi-family dwelling

Where there is extreme need, there may be basis to permit use of hot water faucets in a multi-family dwelling (in which non-Jews also reside) if all, or many of the apartments are supplied by the same hot water heater. A Rav must be consulted, however, before attempting to make use of this leniency.²⁶⁴

ספר ל"ט מלאכות, בישול הע' 264

דאפשר לדונו כספק פס"ר ע"י גמרא כאשר יבואר בסמוך, אך צ"ע למעשה

הנה כפי מה ששמעתי ממומחים בענין זה, אם כבר פתוח ברז אחד שממנו יוצאת המים חמים מן היורה, אין פתיחת ברז שני גורם לשום ריבוי בכמות המים קרים שנכנסים (ואע"ג שהוא מרבה בכניסת מים קרים) כי הצינור שמביא המים קרים אל תוך היורה נתמלה ע"י פתיחת שנים או שלשה ברזות - כי בכל אופן אותו צינור מביא כל שיעור כמות המים שהיא יכולה להביא לא פחות ולא יותר

ומזה נוכל ללמד לנ"ד, כגון שיש יורה גדולה אחת מספקת לכמה משפחות שכולן מוציאין מים חמין מאותו יורה וגם עכו"ם משתמשים בה, יש לידון בו כספק פס"ר דלעולם יש ספק, דלמא באותו שעה שהוא פותח הברז, כבר גם העכו"ם נמי משתמש בברז החמים שלו וכבר נשפכו המים קרים אל היורה ע"י העכו"ם והעכו"ם הוא הגורם והישראל לא פעל כלום

The Laws of Cooking and Warming Food on Shabbat (by Rabbi Mordechai Willig)

Chapter 2: Cooking after Cooking

A. Background

The mishnah¹ states that any food which was placed in water on Friday may be soaked in water on Shabbat. The Mordechai,² quoting R. Eliezar of Metz, comments: "From here [we learn] that ein bishul achar bishul (there is no [prohibited act of] cooking after cooking). Therefore, any fully cooked food may be placed near the fire or in a pot which was on the fire in order to be reheated." This rule is implicit in the Shulchan Arukh,³ explicit in the Mishnah Berurah⁴ and is universally accepted in practic today. In fact, the Tosafot HaRosh⁵ considers the priciple of ein bishul achar bishul to be self-evident, and asks why a mishnah is needed to state it. Acordingly, he explains the novelty of the mishnah to be a different point: the permissibility of soaking the cooked food to the point that it becomes dissolved (as Rashi in fact interprets the mishnah).

B. The Rambam's Position on Ein Bishul Achar Bishul

However, the Rambam's formulation seems to contradict the otherwise unanimous view that bishul achar bishul is permitted. He writes: "One who cooks on the fire somehting that does not need cooking at all is exempt (patur)."⁶ The language of "exempt" (from punishment, rather than "permitted") indicates tha a rabbinic prohibition exists.

The Eglei Tal⁷ suggests that the rabbinic prohibition involved is not that of cooking, but rather a separate prohibition of returning a pot onto an uncovered fire. The Eglei Tal's interpretation that the rabbinic prohibition that the Rambam means is not one of "cooking," but rather one of "returning" is unlikely for two reasons: The rules of "returning" are found elsewhere in the Rambam's code,⁸ and do not belong in the ninth chapter, where the halakhah that one is patur for bishul achar bishul is found. Moreover, there is no indication that the fire in this case is uncovered.

The assumption that the Rambam prohibits bishul achar bishul requires reinterpretation of the mishnah which states that any food which was placed in hot water on Friday may be soaked in hot water on Shabbat (above, section A). Indeed, the Beit Yosef ⁹ infers from the Rambam¹⁰ an entirely new understanding of the mishnah: it permits only soaking, and not bishul achar bishul. The Rambam, in codifying the rule of the mishnah, states: "Something that is cooked before Shabbat, or soaked in hot water before Shabbat, even though it is now cold, may be soaked in hot water on Shabbat."¹¹ The requirement cited above in the Rambam's formulation of cooking after cooking ("One who cooks on the fire something that is fully cooked or something that does not need cooking at all is exempt [patur]"), that the food be fully cooked before Shabbat in order for one not to be biblically culpable for reheating, is omitted in the context of the permissibility of soaking. As long as the food was soaked in hot water before Shabbat, even if it wasn't even half cooked (ma'achal ben derusa'i, the minimal standard for halakhic cooking, as defined by the Rambam in Hilkhot Shabbat 9:5), it is considered cooked so that a subsequent soaking in hot water is not considered cooking.¹²

The Even HaAzel¹³ notes that the Rambam places this halakhah amongst rabbinic prohibitions, and does not permit a second cooking on Shabbat. Only soaking, which is a rabbinic prohibition of improving food in a manner which resembles cooking,¹⁴ is permitted after a previous cooking or soaking, because the food was already improved.

R. Uriel Eisenthal, in Megillat Sefer,¹⁵ points out that according to the Beit Yosef's understanding of the Rambam, the mishnah does not state that bishul achar bishul, which only applies after the food has been actually cooked, is permissible even on the rabbinic level. Only soaking is permitted on the rabbinic level. Nonetheless, bishul achar bishul must be permissible, as the Vilna Gaon¹⁶ attempts to prove from the halakhah that one may return a pot onto a covered fire. However, the Vilna Gaon's proof is unconvincing. The permissibility of returning a pot onto a covered fire could be limited to a pot whose contents are still hot. If the food is cold it may prohibited to reheat, against the Vilna Gaon's assumption that returning a pot to a covered fire is permissible even then.

Indeed, the Rambam¹⁷ rules that one may not place cold food on a hot vessel, because he is heating the food on Shabbat. The Megillat Sefer¹⁸ assumes that placing cold food on a hot vessel is a separate prohibition not due to bishul, and asks how it can be reconciled¹⁹ with the mishnah that allows reheating, and the statement of the Talmud²⁰ which allows placing cold water into a cup of hot water.

If our analysis of the Rambam's position is correct, placing cold food on a hot vessel is not a separate prohibition but a rabbinic violation of bishul achar bishul. As such, the rabbinic prohibition does not apply in the case of the mishnah, which does not allow reheating after all; it allows only soaking. Nor does the rabbinic prohibition apply in the case of the Talmud (42a), since the cup of hot water is a keli sheni, a vessel which was never on the fire, which does not cook its contents.²¹

C. Summary

Almost all Rishonim and Achronim derive from the mishnah (Shabbat 145b) which permits re-soaking previously soaked food, that re-cooking previously cooked food is also permissible (=ein bishul achar bishul). The Rambam, however, believes that re-cooking previously cooked food is rabbinically prohibited, and that the mishnah on Shabbat 145b permits only re-soaking.

Chapter 3: Liquids

A. Distinction Between Reheating Liquids and Reheating Solids

The Rosh¹ quotes a dispute regarding the reheating of liquids. According to the strict view, attributed to Rashi, the mishnah² allows reheating only for solids, such as chicken, which is mentioned in the Talmud.³

The Beit Yosef⁴ notes that the Rambam, the Rashba and the Ran do not distinguish between solids and liquids, and presumably permit reheating liquids as well as solids. However, if our analysis of the Rambam's position on bishul achar bishul⁵ is correct, the Rambam's opinion is actually the opposite, and he prohibits reheating both solids and liquids.

B. Definition of "Reheating" for Liquids

The Shulchan Arukh⁶ rules strictly in terms of the positions cited in the Rosh, forbidding "cooking" liquids that have cooked off. The Mishnah Berurah,⁷ citing the Beit Yosef, Defines cooked off as being no longer yad soledet bo. If one's hand does not recoil from the heat, that heat is not considered hot enough to cook⁸ or to cause absorption of taste.⁹ Since it is not halakhically considered hot, an item at a temperature lower than yad soledet bo is viewed as cooked off, and may not be reheated.

C. Definition of Cooking Applied to Reheating Liquids vs. Solids

The possibility of a difference between solids and liquids in the permissibility of reheating may depend upon whether there is a distinction between solids and liquids in the definition of cooking. If liquids are basically the same as solids¹⁰ the leniency of ein bishul achar bishul should apply to liquids as well. However, if the definition of cooking for liquids is heating, as the Peri Megadim¹¹ suggests, then, if the liquid cools off, the cooking has disappeared and a subsequent cooking is prohibited presumably by Torah law.

In this vein, the Eglei Tal¹² compares liquids to metals. The Rambam¹³ rules that one who melts metal violates bishul, even though the metal was previously melted. We do not apply the rule ein bishul achar bishul in the case of metals, because the definition of bishul for metal is melting. Once metal hardens, the bishul has disappeared, and a subsequent bishul is a Torah violation. Similarly, if the definition of bishul for liquids is heating, then the bishul is cancelled when the liquids cool off, and a subsequent heating is a Torah violation. The Rambam's separate mention of heating water¹⁴ may imply this conclusion.

Interestingly, both the Pri Megadim and Eglei Tal suggest a distinction between water and other liquids. Water reverts completely to its original state when cooled; by contrast, cold soup is different than what it was originally before the cooking took place, and thus its cooking has not disappeared.¹⁵

D. Yad Soledet Bo

The Talmud¹⁶ prohibits heating liquids to the level of heat that the hand recoils from, yad soledet bo. The Talmud asks how we can determine what this level of heat is? Rashi explains the Talmud's question: some recoil from a low level of heat and others do not recoil. The Talmud provides an objective equivalent: heat from which the stomach of an infant is scalded. Since we are not sure how to define "scalded," the precise definition of yad soledet bo is unclear.

The Shemirat Shabbat KeHilkhatah,¹⁷ citing Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach,¹⁸ states that yad soledet bo is not less than 45 degrees Celsius, which is 113℉, while some allow up to 110℉ or 120℉.¹⁹ R' Eider states that the poskim (Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Aharon Kotler, respectively) reached their decisions about hte 110℉ and 120℉ levels by checking the temperature at which one's hand recoils.

The Mishnah Berurah,²⁰ citing Rashi,²¹ requires the objective definition of the TAlmud, that an infant's stomach is scalded. How, then, do the aforementioned poskim rule based on the temperature of the hand recoiling? Presumably, they experimented for that standard with many individuals, and found 110℉ or 120℉ to be the average level at which one's hand recoils, which is comparable to the temperature regarding the infant's stomach, and thus it is that temperature above which one may not heat liquids.

However, yad soledet bo may much higher. Iggerot Moshe²² requires 160℉ to be certain that yad soledet bo was reached in order to permit a subsequent reheating. Elsewhere,²³ he requires 180℉, as does the Or LeTziyon.²⁴ The Or LeTziyon also prohibits heating liquids above 104℉, claiming that an infant's stomach is scalded at that temperature. The Piskei Teshuvot²⁵ defines scalding as leaving a mark, which happens only at 113℉. Others consider 122℉ (50℃) to be certainly yad soledet bo.

The Rashba²⁷ states that a person does not drink or bath in "yad soledet bo" water. The Kaf HaChaim²⁸ adds that if a person does drink a cup of water, it is not considered yad soledet bo. On this basis, the Or LeTziyon requires liquid to have previously reached 180℉ in order to permit a subsequent reheating, since tea can be sipped util that temperature.

However, the Piskei Teshuvot²⁹ states that the Rashba's criterion that people "do not drink" yad soledet bo liquids refers to drinking uninterruptedly, as opposed to sipping tea or soup which is, in fact, done at yad soledet bo levels of heat. It is unclear how hot the average person would drink a liquid, such as tea or coffee, which cooled somewhat.

Some, however, have digital temperature adjustments on their showers. The average person can tolerate (based upon experimentation) about 113℉, confirming the view of the Shemirat Shabbat KeHikhatah, based on he Rashba and the Kaf HaChaim.

NYC code requires landlords to maintain hot water at 115-120℉. Higher than that can cause scalding, whereas lower than that is not hot enough for some people to shower or wash dishes. Since most of uss add some cold water to cool the shower temperature somewhat, the 113℉ temperature of the Shemirat Shabbat KeHilkhatah is a good approximation of yad soledet bo.

The Shulchan Arukh³⁰ prohibits one from placing a liquid even momentarily near a fire, if the liquid would eventually reach yad soledet bo in that place, since, as the Mishnah Berurah³¹ explains, it may be forgotten there and cooked.

E. Opening a Hot Water Faucet

The Shemirat Shabbat KeHilkhatah (1:39) prohibits opening a hot water faucet. When hot water comes out, cold water enters the boiler and is cooked immediately. This is a pesik reishei denicha lei, and inevitable consequence that is benificial, as more hot water is now available.

Rabbi Dovid Ribiat, in his work The 39 Melachos,³² describes an apartment building system as follows: "The entry pipe into the boiler can only contain an amount of water equivalent to the amount that enters the boiler through a single, open faucet." [Note: Other expert plumbers deny this fact. They state that the amount of water in the tank is always the same. For every drop that goes out, a drop of cold water come in. If so, the water is heated to 120℉ immediately, which is a Torah violation of cooking.] Since it is possible that a non-Jew has opened his hot water faucet, there is a doubt as to whether the Jew cooks water immediately when he opens the hot water faucet. Since some authorities permit a doubtful pesik rieshei³³ (i.e., if a fact is in doubt, it is comparable to a case where the outcome is in doubt, which is thus not a pesik reishei), it may be permissible to open the hot water faucet in an apartment building.

Assuming that ultimately the boiler will be refilled, this leniency must be based on the Shiltei HaGibborim,³⁴ who allows a pesik reishei when the inevitable consequence happens only later on. However, in this case, there is one long process of refilling the boiler, which has already begun when the Jew opens the hot water faucet. Moreover, the water which enters immediately can be attributed to the Jew's faucet as well as the non-Jew's. Thus, it is not comparable to the Shiltei HaGibborim's case where the fire does not increase at all until a later time. Therefore, even if there is not immediate increase in the amount of water entering the boiler, it is prohibited to open the hot water faucet.

F. Summary

The permissibility of reheating liquids is a matter of dispute. The Shulchan Arukh rules that liquids may not be reheated, because once a cooked liquid cools to a temperature below yad soledet bo, it is a s if the liquid has never been cooked at all. This is consistent with the Peri Megadim's contention that the definition of "cooking" for liquids is heating them, and is thus a different nature that the cooking of solids. However, according to those who equate the definition of cooking for both liquids and solids, it could be permissible to reheat liquids as well. Current practice is to prohibit reheating liquids (see below chapter 5, section B).

The temperature at which liquids are considered cooked is called yad soledet bo, which is defined as 113℉. It is thus prohibited to place a liquid near a fire if it will reach 113℉. It is also prohibited to turn on a hot water faucet on Shabbat, even in an apartment building, since the new water entering the boiler will reach the temperature of yad soledet bo.

Chapter 2

1. Shabbat 145b.

2. Shabbat #302.

3. Orach Chaim 318:4.

4. 318:4.

5. Shabbat 145b.

6. Hilkhot Shabbat 9:3.

7. Ofeh 19:8-9.

8. Hikhot Shabbat 3:10.

9. Orach Chaim 318:4.

10. Ibid., 22:8.

11. Hilkhot Shabbat 22:8.

12. See Machatzit HaShekel 318:14.

13. Hilkhot Shabbat 22:8.

14. Hilkhot Shabbat 22:10.

15. 3:23:4.

16. Be'ur HaGra 253:39.

17. Hilkhot Shabbat 4:6.

18. Ibid., #3.

19. Shabbat 145b, cited above (chapter 2, section A).

20. Shabbat 42a.

21. Shabbat 40b, and see below, chapter 11.

Chapter 3

1. Shabbat 3:10, 11.

2. 145b; cited above, chapter 2, section A.

3. Ibid.

4. O.C. 318:4.

5. Above, chapter 2, section B.

6. O.C. 318:4.

7. O.C. 318:24.

8. O.C. 318:14.

9. Yoreh De'ah 105:2

10. See Sha'ar HaTziyun, above, chapter 1, section B.

11. See above, chapter 1, section B.

12. Ofeh 11:6.

13. Hilkhot Shabbat 9:6.

14. See chapter 1, section A.

15. For further discussion of this possibility, see chapter 4, section C and chapter 5, below.

16. Shabbat 40b.

17. 1:1.

18. Fn. 3.

19. Hilchos Shabbos, fn. 19.

20. O.C. 318:89.

21. See Sha'ar HaTziyyun, #113.

22. Citing in Hilchos Shabbos, fn.19.

23. Yoreh Deah II:52.

24. Vol II, ch. 30, fn. 12.

25. P. 253, fn. 5.

26. Az Nidberu IX,14; see chapter. 7 Sec C.

27. Shabbat 42a.

28. O.C. 318:143.

29. P. 253 fn. 5.

30. O.C. 318:14.

31. O.C. 318:90.

32. P. 640 and fn. 264.

33. Taz 316:3.

34. Shabbat 45a, #2.