Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 253 - Laws Governing Placement of Pots on Cooking Range & on Top of Oven on Friday

In the previous section, the Alter Rebbe established the principle that if one begins an activity on Friday and that activity will be completed on Shabbos without human intervention, there is no prohibition involved. As such, seemingly there would be no problem in placing food on a cooking surface on Friday and allowing it to cook on Shabbos. In this section, the Alter Rebbe explains that Rabbinic prohibitions were enacted out of concern that perhaps the person might stir the coals of the fire so that his food would cook faster. This is prohibited because, as explained in sec. 257:2, were a person to cause the glowing coals to flare, he would be liable for performing the forbidden labor of maavir, causing a fire to burn.

The first portion of this section (until subsection 14) deals with the laws applying to placing food on a cooking surface on Friday. The latter portion deals with the laws governing instances where food was left on a cooking surface before Shabbos, and a person desires to remove it and then return it to the cooking surface or to another source of heat on Shabbos.

Contemporary authorities have applied many of the laws of a kirah to electric or gas cooking ranges.

In the Talmudic era, these were usually earthenware utensils. Similar laws apply were such a cooking utensil to be made of other substances.

Shabbos 36b. See fig. 3 above.

See Shabbos 38b; Keilim 7:3.

Shabbos 47b. The term refers to the remnants that remain after olives were crushed for their oil. See also sec. 257:5. See Nimukei Shabbos,which questions whether this rule applies only to olive wastes or also applies to the wastes of other produce mentioned in sec. 257:5.

Nimukei Shabbos quotes Magen Avraham 253:26, which maintains that even if the person was wont to accept Shabbos early, as long as the food will reach the stage of maachal ben Derusai’i before nightfall, there is no difficulty in leaving the food on the range.

Shabbos 36b, 37b.

See sec. 254:11, which explains why the prohibition applies even though the food would be fully cooked by the next day even if he did not stir the coals.

See Rambam, Hilchos Mamrim 7:2 which when describing a ben sorer umoreh (a “wayward and rebellious son”) states: “He must eat meat that is raw, but not entirely raw, cooked but not entirely cooked, as is the practice of thieves.” See subsection 13 which defines this measure.

Shabbos 18b.

I.e., the embers that remain from the fuel used to heat the oven or range after they have already caught fire and burned for some time.

I.e., the fear is that he will forget that it is Shabbos (or forget that it is forbidden to stir the glowing coals), not that he will stir the coals in intentional violation of the Shabbos prohibitions. See sec. 254:1.

I.e., even when the food has not yet reached the stage of maachal ben Derusai’i.

The range is still useful since it maintains the heat of the food because of the heat remaining within it. See also subsection 5, which states that it is impossible to remove every trace of the fire.

Shabbos 36b. At present, covering a cooking range with a sheet of metal (a blech) fulfills the same function as covering the coals of a kirah. Some authorities say that the knobs controlling the fire or heat should be covered as well.

Ibid., 37a.

A hot plate with no heating controls has been equated with a range fueled by straw or stubble, since there is no way to alter its temperature. Similar laws apply to a Crock-Pot with just one temperature setting. See sources quoted in Shabbos KeHalachah 8:8; 11:24.

And the glowing coals were not removed or covered.

See subsections 20-21, which speak about placing a pot next to a range on Shabbos itself.

Shabbos 37a.

I.e., they share a common wall, so that the heat of one will certainly affect the other.

Shabbos 38b. See fig. 4 on opposite page.

The Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro (Orach Chayim 218:14) explains that this temperature is actually “so hot that the stomach of a baby would be burnt.” There are many opinions regarding what this temperature is, ranging from 40˚C (104˚F) to 45˚C (113˚F). See sources quoted in Shabbos Ke-Halachah, Vol. I, p. 24, footnote 4.

It is important to emphasize that the intent here is not that the food will become so hot that it reaches the temperature cited, but that the place where the pot is put down is that hot. See the Kuntreis Acharon (note 4), where the Alter Rebbe distinguishes between prohibitions enacted out of concern that food will be cooked on Shabbos and those (as mentioned here) enacted out of concern that perhaps the person will stir the glowing coals of the oven.

As evident from the wording of the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro (Orach Chayim 253:1), even if two factors that lead to leniency are present: the oven was heated with straw or stubble and the kindling fuel was removed or covered, it is forbidden to leave food on top of it – or even next to it – to keep warm. See Nimukei Shabbos, p. 18-19; Taamei HaShulchan, p. 16.

For he will be concerned about the food he left to cook on it.

I.e., the possibility of stirring coals that were covered was already explained in the previous subsection. The question arises only with regard to an oven from which the coals were removed.

Nimukei Shabbos emphasizes that the oven’s extreme heat explains why we are concerned that the person may stir the fire. It does not, however, serve as a reason why he cannot remove the fire entirely from the oven.

The pot may not, however, rest on the coals themselves. See sec. 257:1.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 1), the Alter Rebbe notes that Magen Avraham 253:9 questions whether it is necessary for an oven: a) to have the coals removed from it or for the coals to be covered; and b) for it not to be so hot that a hand would recoil from it. Ultimately, Magen Avraham requires both factors. The Alter Rebbe maintains that this applies only with regard to returning a cooked dish to the oven on Shabbos. With regard to placing food in the oven on Friday, it is sufficient that it not be hot enough to cause one’s hand to recoil. See Shabbos 37a.

See subsection 21.

Shabbos 38b. I.e., in contrast to an oven which is narrow on top, but wide on the bottom, a kufach is of uniform width. Hence, its inner space is not as hot as an oven.

See subsection 2.

The Alter Rebbe is speaking about ovens that resemble ovens used to bake matzah and the like, which have a clearly identifiable heat source that can be covered. Our stove tops also meet this criterion.

With regard to today’s ovens in which the source of heat is frequently in or behind the walls and therefore the entire oven cavity is equally hot, there is extensive discussion as to whether it is possible to “cover” the heat. Moreover, there is an additional issue due to the thermostat which controls the oven’s temperature; opening the oven door can trigger the thermostat and cause the oven’s heat output to increase. Many halachic authorities require that the oven be turned off entirely or have a special Shabbos setting that keeps the heating element at a uniform heat regardless of the fluctuations in temperature within the oven. There are some authorities who are stringent and forbid leaving food in an oven on Friday to preserve its heat even under such conditions. See Shabbos KeHalachah 8:16-17. A Rav should be consulted with regard to actual practice.

More particularly, the Alter Rebbe is referring to meat, as he states at the end of the subsection. Specifically, the intent is a meat stew (cholent) or even a pot roast, as explained in sec. 254:1. Different laws apply to meat or fowl that is roasted over the fire itself, not in a pot, because it could cook in time for the evening meal if one would stir the fire. This is particularly true with regard to modern ovens, where meat or chicken can be thoroughly broiled or roasted in a short time. Indeed, some modern-day ovens and ranges can even thoroughly cook or roast stews, pot roasts, and the like in time for the evening meal, even if they are in a pot or roasting pan. Hence, there are those who rule stringently with regard to leaving raw meat in our ovens and ranges. See Shabbos KeHa­lachah 8:26-29.

See subsections 1 and 13 for a definition of this term.

Shabbos 18b.

In sec. 257:1, the Alter Rebbe emphasizes a further point: Even if the glowing coals will partially burn out overnight, there is still no concern that the person will stir the remaining coals in the morning to increase the temperature of the oven. The rationale: The pot is standing freely in the open space of the oven and not covered by insulating materials. Therefore stirring the coals would be of minimal benefit, since it would add little to the existing heat.

Even if the food will be ready to eat in the middle of the night, since most people will have concluded their meals by then, it is permitted to leave such food in the oven or on a range. It must be emphasized that in present times, when ovens and cooking ranges are able to generate consistently high temperatures for extensive periods of time, there are authorities who question this leniency, for it is possible that even raw meat placed in a pot on top of a range could be ready to eat in a few hours. Thus, if it was placed on a range before sunset, it could well be ready to eat in time for the evening meal. See Shabbos KeHalachah 8:28 (note 69).

The authorities question what is meant by “very close to nightfall.” By and large, the consensus is that it means that the pot will not have time to actually begin the cooking process before sunset.

The crock-pots and slow-cookers available today, which – even at their highest temperature – cannot possibly cook raw meat in time for the evening meal when it was put up directly before the onset of Shabbos, provide a contemporary application of this law: These devices are intended to cook food over an extended period of time. Hence, if one places the raw meat for a cooked dish (e.g., cholent) in such a device directly before the onset of Shabbos, it is permitted to partake of that food on Shabbos (Shabbos KeHalachah 8:31).

The Alter Rebbe clearly states that not only is it forbidden to place a partially cooked food that does not meet the necessary criteria on a range or in an oven before Shabbos, but there is also an obligation to remove such food from these cooking surfaces.

The time limit also applies when a person accepts Shabbos early. For example, if sunset is at 7:00 PM and a person accepts Shabbos at 6:00 PM, he may not place a pot on the fire a few minutes before 6:00, because by 7:00 it will be somewhat cooked and there is reason for concern that a person will stir the fire so that the food will be acceptable for the evening meal. Needless to say, once a person accepts Shabbos, he may not place food on a cooking surface even though nightfall is later.

According to our custom that women light candles and accept Shabbos some time before sundown, it is difficult to determine whether or not the meat has already begun to cook before sundown and therefore must be removed. This is another reason why some contemporary authorities question the application of this leniency in light of our custom.

See subsection 13 where the Alter Rebbe also mentions a more lenient definition of maachal ben Derusai’i. Possibly, only the more stringent opinion is mentioned here because, as he states in subsection 13, as an initial preference, the more stringent opinion should be followed, and here he is speaking before any action has been taken.

Compare with sec. 254:3, where the Alter Rebbe mentions only this second rationale.

Badei HaShulchan 71:10 states that some beans require extensive cooking and are therefore considered to be in the same category as meat. Nevertheless, sec. 254:13 states explicitly that beans are not placed in the same category as raw meat. On the other hand, if the vegetables take a short time to cook, it is possible that they will have reached the stage of maachal ben Derusai’i before the commencement of Shabbos. See the notes to sec. 254:4.

See sec. 254:6, 13; sec. 257:11.

The term metzamek viyafeh lo literally means “it is desirable for him that it contracts,” i.e., dries out in the cooking process. When, by contrast, further cooking will be detrimental to a cooked dish (metzamek vira lo), all authorities agree that it may be left on the fire (see sec. 254:2).

I.e., in subsection 8.

The commentaries to the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch debate whether the Alter Rebbe – as do other authorities – considers it pre­ferable to be stringent and follow this latter opinion. See the Kuntreis Acharon to sec. 254 (note 1).

I.e., the rulings in subsections 8-9. Moreover, the leniencies mentioned in laws 1-7 also do not apply when a pot is resting on coals.

The laws in this subsection apply to an oven or a range that is heated with glowing coals from other fuels. They do not apply to contemporary ovens or ranges heated by gas or electricity. Since there are no coals in such ranges and ovens, there is room for leniency (Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah, ch. 1, note 195).

The term toman, the root of the term hatmanah, literally means “hide.” By and large, hatmanah refers to insulating food, “hiding” it in other substances to keep it warm for the Friday night Shabbos meal. Nevertheless, by extension, the term is also used to refer to placing food on sources of heat as mentioned here.

See the Kuntreis Acharon to sec. 257 (note 2), which elaborates in explanation of both of the approaches mentioned here. See also the Mahadura Basra to sec. 259, in which the Alter Rebbe writes extensively in support of the first, more stringent position.

As explained in that source (see also the Kuntreis Acharon to sec. 257 [note 3]), the fundamental basis for this position is that the prohibition of hatmanah is a decree lest one insulate food in remetz (“a mixture of coal and ash”). Therefore, this prohibition applies when a pot is surrounded by a substance that resembles such a mixture, i.e., a substance that can be moved and is touching the sides of the pot.

Here, in contrast to subsection 11, the Alter Rebbe states that it is absolutely inevitable that the coals will be stirred when the pot is removed, since the coals are piled around the walls of the pot.

The Talmud(e.g., Shabbos 75a, 103a, 120b, et al.) frequently uses the expression p’sik raishah vilo yamus, “If its head is severed, will it not die?” – i.e., this is the inevitable and inescapable result of the person’s prior activity. As such, although one is generally liable only for the purposeful performance of an activity on Shabbos – and in this instance, the person did not intend to stir the coals, only to remove the pot – since his removal of the pot will inevitably result in the stirring of the coals, it is considered as if he purposefully stirred the coals. See also sec. 337:1, et al.

See sec. 243:1; sec. 307:6.

I.e., he tells him to remove the pot, which is a permitted act; he does not at all mention stirring the coals.

Hence, the fact that he stirs the coals is of no consequence.

And that did not occur in this instance, for the Jew did not in- struct the non-Jew to stir the coals.

The Alter Rebbe’s explanation here serves as a fundamental principle with regard to the prohibition against giving instructions to a non-Jew when an activity is forbidden to be performed by a Jew. See sec. 259:7; sec. 277:5, et al.

See sec. 308:14.

See sec. 309:6 and sec. 311:14. See also sec. 259:2 and the Kuntreis Acharon there (note 3), which applies this principle to the concept of hatmanah.

In this instance, there is further reason to allow the leniency mentioned in subsection 10, because – as the Alter Rebbe proceeds to explain – it is not inevitable that the glowing coals will flare up.

Here too the Alter Rebbe uses the term p’sik raishah. See note 52.

There is no prohibition involved when performing a permitted act causes a forbidden act to be performed – e.g., walking on one’s lawn, which may result in unwittingly causing some of the grass to be severed – because one did not intend to perform the forbidden act, provided that it is not an inevitable consequence of his action (see sec. 302:4). See also sec. 277:1 and the Kuntreis Acharon (note 1) to that section.

Shabbos 38a. Generally, violating a Rabbinic prohibition of the Shabbos laws unwittingly does not make the use of the object on Shabbos prohibited after the fact (see sec. 339:7). Nevertheless, here stringency is required, lest one purposely leave uncooked food on a range on Friday and then excuse himself by saying that he merely forgot it there. See Nimukei Shabbos. Note, however, the leniency granted in sec. 254:8 with regard to one who has no other food for Shabbos.

In sec. 318:1, the Alter Rebbe writes that this extra time is required lest one violates what he thinks is a minor transgression so that the food is ready immediately on Saturday night.

The halachic authorities mention two ways of determining the third and half measures mentioned here. One possibility is to measure by time, e.g., if the food would normally take 120 minutes to cook, maachal ben Derusai’i would be 60 (or 40) minutes. (It should be noted that according to this opinion, the time period begins once the food begins cooking, not when it is first placed on the fire.) Others maintain that these are not measures of time, but of taste. In many instances, the actual cooking process of food is slower when it is first put on the fire, and then proceeds at a faster pace. See Shabbos KeHalachah, ch. 8, biurim 12. According to the principle mentioned here by the Alter Rebbe, it would seem that one should be strict according to both opinions, i.e., even if half of the time has passed, if it is not yet half-cooked, one should not consider it half-cooked until it actually tastes like it is half-cooked. Conversely, even if it tastes half-cooked, if half of the cooking time has not passed, one should wait until it has.

And the prohibition against partaking of food left to cook on Shabbos is merely a Rabbinic decree.

See Avodah Zarah 7a.

Such as placing a piece of raw meat in the pot just before Shabbos.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 2), the Alter Rebbe explains that since the prohibition is merely an extra stringency, adopted because of the severity of the observance of the Shabbos, after the fact, one may rely on the more lenient views. Among the arguments he offers in support of this position are:

a) A majority of the Rishonim support the more lenient position.

b) Magen Avraham 254:11 rules that when there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis, even when the more stringent opinion is accepted as halachah, after the fact, one may rely on the more lenient view. Certainly, that applies in this instance, where the more lenient view has widespread support.

c) The Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro accepts the more lenient view in Yoreh Deah 113:8, and rules more stringently here only because of the severity of the observance of Shabbos.

Shabbos 36b. If the coals were not removed or covered, it is always prohibited to return the pot to there on Shabbos, lest one stir the coals.

As mentioned above, with regard to leaving food on these warming surfaces, a hot plate or a Crock-Pot that has only one setting is considered equivalent to a range whose coals were removed or covered. Similar laws apply to a stovetop covered with a sheet of metal (a blech). (See footnote 152.) If, however, such heating devices have several settings, the control for those settings should be covered according to some contemporary authorities.

The Alter Rebbe now introduces the second subject of this section, the discussion of which continues until the closing subsections in this section: Under what conditions may food that was cooking on a range before Shabbos be returned to a range or other sources of heat.

In sec. 315:19, the Alter Rebbe mentions this law in a discussion concerning the prohibition of making a shelter on Shabbos, i.e., returning the pot to the range could be considered as making a roof for a shelter (for the walls of the range could be considered the shelter’s walls). He explains why that prohibition does not apply in this instance.

He need not hold the pot in the air; holding it while it is supported by a table or counter is also permitted (see Rama, Orach Chayim 253:2). Shabbos KeHalachah, ch. 9, sec. 16 maintains that the pot must be held in a manner whereby the person’s hands are necessary to keep it from falling. See also subsection 19 and footnote 101 below.

If he removed the food from the pot in which he originally cooked it, he may not return it to that pot and then place it back on the range. He may, however, remove food or water from a pot that was on a covered range and directly add it to another pot that is on the range. See Shabbos KeHalachah, ch. 9, note 45.

See subsection 18 where the Alter Rebbe adds a fourth condition: that the food has not entirely cooled.

Shabbos 38b. Needless to say, he is able to return it to the range before Shabbos if the conditions mentioned in the previous subsections are met.

See Shabbos KeHalachah, ch. 9, sec. 7, which emphasizes that one must have the specific intent of returning the pot to the range when he removed it; it is not sufficient that one’s intent was undefined at the time of removal. This applies even if he was holding the pot the entire time.

The authorities maintain that if a pot slips off the range on its own accord, it may be returned to the range as long as it is still warm. Since the person did not intend to remove it, its original placement on the range is not considered to have been nullified (Shabbos KeHalachah, ch. 9, sec. 9).

Unlike the views of some other authorities, according to the Alter Rebbe, if the person released it from his hand, he is forbidden to return it to the range, regardless of the type of surface on which he placed it, even one on which it is not common to place pots.

This restriction applies even when further cooking would be detrimental to the food (see subsection 16).

The fact that it was cooked to the extent of maachal ben Derusai’i is not sufficient. See subsection 18.

Sec. 318:9.

Our bracketed additions were included on the basis of sec. 318:24, which emphasizes that the intent is that one is returning the pot to a place where the pot can reach a temperature so high that a hand would recoil from contact with it, while the place itself may well be far hotter. See footnote 112 which speaks of similar concepts.

See Shabbos KeHalachah, ch. 9, note 11, which clarifies that the intent is not that others may see him place it there and think that he is cooking on Shabbos, but that the activity itself is one that resembles cooking and is therefore forbidden. See Kuntreis Acharon (note 8).

From the Alter Rebbe’s wording, a leniency is derived. If one puts a pot on a surface on which food is not usually cooked – e.g., one puts a pot on another pot which is on the surface of a covered range – these conditions need not be met. See subsection 26.

Talmud Yerushalmi, Shabbos, the conclusion of ch. 1.

As stated in the Mahadura Basra to sec. 259, since this is an ineffective manner of preserving a pot’s heat, there is no prohibition against employing it on Shabbos. See Shabbos KeHa­lachah, ch. 11, biurim 19. See also the notes to subsection 10.

See subsections 1, 5, and 8.

Shabbos 38b. As mentioned in subsections 4-5, the heat of an oven is far greater than that of a range. Therefore, the Sages were more stringent.

Even according to the authorities who rule stringently in subsection 9, in this instance, seemingly there would be room for leniency, nevertheless, doing so is prohibited.

See subsection 6.

Eglei Tal (melaches haofeh 115:3) questions why the Alter Rebbe (and his source, Magen Avraham 253:26,) mentions the rationale that there is concern that the person might stir the coals. Seemingly, the reason for the prohibition is that when one returns the food to the cooking appliance, it appears that he is initially cooking the food on Shabbos. In resolution, Nimukei Shabbos explains (based on Rabbeinu Tam’s Sefer HaYa­shar, sec. 191) that both factors are significant. Since the food might have cooled when it was removed from the cooking appliance, we are concerned that the person will stir the coals to raise the temperature of the cooking appliance.

It is possible to explain that the Alter Rebbe did not mention the prohibition against returning a pot to an oven explicitly – but only in this context – to highlight that the prohibition was instituted out of concern that one would stir the coals.

This law has a contemporary application regarding a Crock-Pot, which consists of an inner pot for the food, which is placed inside an outer vessel containing the heating elements in its walls. There are a number of issues:

1) If the walls of the inner pot are completely within the outer vessel, it is like returning food to an oven and therefore prohibited. See footnote 93 below.

2) If one places an object inside the outer vessel to elevate the inner pot, so that part of its walls are above the walls of the outer vessel, one must take into account whether the Crock-Pot has more than one temperature setting. If it has multiple settings, one must cover the inside walls of the outer vessel with aluminum foil or the like to separate it from the inner pot.

3) In that case, the foil should not be so thick that it becomes attached to the inner pot, because that would create a prohibition of hatmanah.

Shabbos 36a. According to the wording of the Alter Rebbe, it seems that it is forbidden to return a pot to a rack positioned in the middle of the inner space of a range, in contrast to certain authorities who maintain that the prohibition applies only when the pot is placed on the bottom of the range. See Shabbos KeHalachah, ch. 9, biurim 16.

Similarly, it is forbidden to return food to present-day ovens, even if they have a special Shabbos setting and opening the door to the oven will not cause the oven to reach a higher temperature.

See subsections 5 and 21, which mention stringencies regarding the inner space of a range. Subsection 21 states that even if the cooked pot will not become so hot as to cause a hand to recoil, it is still forbidden to place it inside an oven or a range. Note, however, the leniencies mentioned in subsection 19.

Here it appears that the reason for the stringency is that it looks like one is cooking (Nimukei Shabbos).

I.e., cooking ranges like our contemporary stove-tops.

See sec. 318:10.

See sec. 318:25 and notes with regard to reheating food containing a liquid that has cooled.

Thus, returning it to the range would be forbidden, because it would appear like he is cooking.

See sec. 318:9, 24.

Provided it did not cool off entirely, as the Alter Rebbe proceeds to state.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 8), the Alter Rebbe states that the custom is to follow this lenient approach. Nevertheless, later in the subsection, he advises following the stringencies mentioned previously.

If, however, the food has cooled off entirely, it is forbidden to return it to a range, even if the food is entirely dry, as stated in subsection 18. See Kuntreis Acharon (note 9) and footnote 131 below.

I.e., according to this perspective, if one removed the food from the inner space of a range after nightfall, it may be returned there. The Alter Rebbe advises that one act stringently and not follow this leniency.

A stew left to simmer overnight.

Subsection 1.

Shabbos 37a.

Subsection 3. As explained there, the rationale is that when the food is outside the oven or range, stirring the coals will hardly be effective in heating the food.

In the main text, the Alter Rebbe had accepted the position followed by most Rishonim: that the laws governing placing food next to a fire are more lenient than those governing returning food to a cooking utensil, and none of the conditions required to return food are necessary with regard to placing it next to it. In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 3), he cites support for that ruling from Talmudicand Rabbinic sources.

I.e., it is entirely dry; if it contains liquid, it must still be somewhat warm. Otherwise, placing it near a fire where it can become hot to the extent that a hand would recoil from its touch is forbidden, because one is actually cooking the food.

I.e., a fire used to warm a home.

If, however, the glowing coals were removed or covered, even the more stringent opinion permits placing food next to the cooking utensil.

In the main text, the Alter Rebbe (in parentheses) defined the term yad soledes bo as a place so hot that “that if the food that the person was placing there was cold, it would heat up until [it reached a temperature that would cause] a hand to recoil from its touch.” There are two far-reaching aspects to that definition:

a) The term yad soledes bo does not refer to the temperature of the place where the food was put, but to the temperature the food itself would reach were it placed there.

b) It refers to cold food; even though warm food could be heated to the extent that a hand would recoil from its touch, however, since cold food would not become heated to that extent, the place is not included in this category.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 4), the Alter Rebbe reviews and explains this position, stating that it is based on the rulings of Rav Yosef Caro in his Beis Yosef (sec. 318, s.v. mutar litain) and his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 318:14), and the statements of Magen Avraham in his Klallei Shehiya VeHatmanah at the end of sec. 259. The Alter Rebbe, however, questions their statements – and thus his own ruling here – stating that perhaps they were referring only to the prohibition of cooking and not to the question of whether one may place food next to a fire. With regard to cooking (the subject of the discussion in sec. 318), the Alter Rebbe continues, it is reasonable to say that unless the food itself will reach a temperature that will cause a hand to recoil from its touch, the prohibition against cooking does not apply. With regard to the subject being discussed here, i.e., placing previously cooked food next to a source of heat so that it warms, it can be said that as long as the place where the food will be put down is warm enough that a hand will recoil from its touch, it is possible that one will stir the coals to increase the temperature. Hence, there is a need for a safeguard. (If, however, the place is not that hot, there is no concern that one will stir the coals, because stirring will not be very effective.) Accordingly, in the instance at hand, the phrase yad soledes bo should be interpreted as referring to the place where the food will be placed, as reflected in the ruling of Rama (Orach Chayim 253:2). As such, the Alter Rebbe concludes, the interpretation offered in the parentheses of the main text should be erased.

For this reason, there are authorities who grant permission to place food on a hot plate with one setting or a range covered with a sheet of metal (a blech) on Shabbos, as long as the food will not reach a temperature that will cause a hand to recoil (see Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim, Vol. 4, responsum 74). According to the Alter Rebbe’s understanding explained in the previous footnote, the hot plate or blech itself must not reach that temperature.

See subsections 5 and 19.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 5), the Alter Rebbe discusses the two laws stated here: a) for it to be permitted to return the food to the top of the range that is warm enough to cause a hand to recoil from its touch, the coals must have been removed or covered, and that b) it is forbidden to return food to the inner space of a range or oven under all circumstances – even if the coals were removed or covered, and even if the temperature is not so hot that a hand would recoil from its touch.

The Alter Rebbe cites the statements of Magen Avraham in his Klallei Shehiya VeHatmanah at the end of sec. 259 as support for the first ruling. He notes that there is another statement of Magen Avraham 253:9 that appears to permit returning food to the upper surface of a range from which the coals were not removed or covered, but explains that, based on Magen Avraham’s later statements, it appears that the leniency was merely a preliminary hypothesis that he later retracted. With regard to the second ruling, the Alter Rebbe cites the statement of Magen Avraham 253:35, from which it is apparent that it is forbidden to return food to the inner space of an oven or range, even if the coals were removed or covered.

I.e., in a situation where the community accepts Shabbos before nightfall.

Provided the food was cooked to the extent of maachal ben Derusai’i –or cooked entirely and further cooking would cause its flavor to deteriorate, according to the more stringent views in subsection 9.

See subsection 14ff. Some maintain that, according to this view, food should not be placed on a hot plate or a covered range (blech) directly before nightfall on Friday. Others, however, explain that this stringency applies only when food was removed from the range or oven on Friday without the intent to reheat it for Shabbos. If that was not the case, the laws mentioned in subsection 1ff. apply.

I.e., even if the person would accept Shabbos earlier, as long as there is sufficient time for the pot to come to a boil before the actual commencement of Shabbos, it is acceptable.

I.e., the opinion permitting one to return food to the range without the conditions that apply to returning the food on Shabbos.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 6), the Alter Rebbe explains that this stringency applies even though the oven has a covering on it that acts as a separation between the fire and the pot. Since the covering is part of the oven itself, it is not considered as a distinct entity placed between the oven and the food. See also the conclusion of subsection 26.

See the conclusion of subsection 26. Putting that entity between the pot and the heating device is a deviation from the norm that will remind the individual not to stir the coals on Shabbos.

This subsection supplements the previous one. There, it was stated that it is desirable to be stringent and not return food to a range directly before nightfall. In this subsection, the Alter Rebbe grants two leniencies concerning: a) placing food close to the fire, and b) placing food that is entirely raw on the range itself.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 7), the Alter Rebbe explains the basis for his statements in the main text: The authorities (Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi and Rambam), who rule stringently regarding placing food near a fire on Shabbos, do not impose any stringencies on returning food to a range on Friday. The authorities (Tosafos and those who accept their position), who are stringent with regard to returning food to a range on Friday, do not forbid placing food near a fire on Shabbos. Based on the general principles of halachic interpretation expounded by Sifsei Cohen, Yoreh Deah, sec. 242, general principle 38 (see also Sifsei Cohen, Choshen Mishpat 28:19), since only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, the stringencies of both positions are not combined (see Kenishta d’Bei Rav).

As mentioned in subsection 20.

I.e., a fireplace used to heat a home, not to cook food.

It is permissible to place foods in such a place on Friday, even though, on Shabbos, it would be forbidden to place foods that could be cooked in such a place. The rationale is that, as explained in subsection 20, we are only concerned that he will stir the fire when the food was placed there on Shabbos itself.

Based on the subsection 8 and notes, we are forced to say that here the Alter Rebbe is referring to a dish that contains meat.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 8), the Alter Rebbe explains that there are two reasons why it is forbidden to return food to a range: a) one may mistakenly stir the coals – this does not apply with regard to raw meat; and b) it appears that one is cooking food on Shabbos for the first time. According to this rationale, it still seems appropriate to prohibit returning uncooked food to a range on Friday directly before Shabbos as a safeguard lest one return food to a range on Shabbos, creating the impression that one is initially cooking it on that day. The Alter Rebbe gives two reasons for leniency even according to the latter rationale:

a) The primary exponent of the stringency forbidding returning food because it appears that one is initially cooking on Shabbos is Rabbeinu Nissim, and Rabbeinu Nissim does not accept the stringency of prohibiting the return of food to a range on Friday.

b) Moreover, Rabbeinu Nissim rules leniently even with regard to returning food to a range on Shabbos itself when one removed it at nightfall; he only prohibits removing the food on Friday and returning it on Shabbos. Hence, his ruling should not be used to impose stringencies with regard to returning food on Friday.

Subsection 8.

For such stirring will prove ineffective in preparing the food for the evening meal, and there is sufficient time for it to become fully cooked for the day meal without any stirring.

In his parenthetic statement in the main text, the Alter Rebbe states that the prohibition against partaking of food that was returned to a cooking surface on Shabbos applies only when all authorities agree that it is forbidden. Implied is that if there are authorities who maintain that it is permitted to return food to the given surface, although their opinion is not accepted as halachah, it may be relied on after the fact, and the food is not prohibited. In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 9), the Alter Rebbe debates this issue, and questions whether that conclusion is correct, for perhaps this leniency is not accepted with regard to questions involving Scriptural Law, or perhaps it is not even followed with regard to questions involving Rabbinic Law. {As is well known, often the Alter Rebbe placed a statement in parentheses when he sought to revisit the matter and review it again (Shaar HaKollel).}

The Alter Rebbe does not come to a conclusion here. Nevertheless, from his ruling in sec. 318:9, that cold food which contains liquid that is reheated is forbidden even after the fact, one may conclude that he rules stringently – at least in questions involving Scriptural Law (Kenishta d’Bei Rav). See subsection 25 and footnote 143 below.

As stated in sec. 318:1, the prohibition against partaking of the food before the time it would take to reheat the food passes is a Rabbinic penalty, instituted so as to insure that the Shabbos prohibitions are regarded with the proper gravity.

Even if the food is entirely fit to be eaten before it is returned to the range, since returning it improves its flavor, it is forbidden (Nimukei Shabbos).

See sec. 257:1, where the Alter Rebbe mentions a similar prohibition with regard to hatmanah, and sec. 405:9, where the Alter Rebbe also distinguishes between instances where further cooking is beneficial to the food and where it is detrimental.

Nimukei Shabbos concludes that the Alter Rebbe’s wording here im- plies that he is speaking about food that is already warm. Other- wise, the person will have benefited from reheating the food, because people prefer warm food over cold food. See the following subsection.

And thus one is not actually benefiting that much from forbidden labor performed on Shabbos. See next subsection.

I.e., the ruling that the food is forbidden to be eaten on Shabbos.

Thus, we are speaking of permitting food despite being warmed by a shvus d’shvus – a Rabbinic prohibition that reinforces yet another Rabbinic prohibition. For returning fully cooked warm food to a range is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law and instructing a non-Jew to perform a forbidden activity is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law. In such a situation, the food does not become forbidden. It must be emphasized that it is forbidden to have a shvus d’shvus performed initially unless a mitzvah is involved. See sec. 306:5.

The Alter Rebbe’s wording seems to imply that even if the food was dry, and thus, only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, it is still forbidden to be eaten. Based on the logic mentioned in the previous note, it would seem appropriate for it to be permitted. Indeed, Tehilah LeDavid 253:9 questions the rationale for the Alter Rebbe’s ruling here.

See footnote 131 which discussed Kuntreis Acharon (note 9).

His silence implies acceptance of the non-Jew’s actions.

And thus there is no longer any benefit from the forbidden action.

For the Jew knows that it is forbidden to do so and the food will become prohibited.

The Alter Rebbe inserted this parenthetic statement (see Kuntreis Acharon [note 9]) according to the view that even when the possible violation of a Scriptural prohibition is involved, if there are Rabbinic authorities who rule leniently, their opinion may be relied on after the fact. As mentioned (see footnote 131), it appears that the Alter Rebbe ultimately did not accept this view.

I.e., it is considered as a violation of the Scriptural prohibition not to perform work on Shabbos.

In that source, the Alter Rebbe cites two opinions with regard to reheating fully cooked food. Although he accepts the more stringent view, the more lenient view is significant in the present context.

See subsections 2 and 8.

See footnote 152 regarding whether one must follow the guidelines in subsection 14 when he removes the pot from the range.

The intent is not a pot that was used that day, but a pot that had been used once before. Different laws apply when a pot had never been used before. See footnote 151.

The second pot should, however, rest on the rim of the pot covering the range; it may not enter its inner space. See the end of Kuntreis Acharon (note 10).

In this way, the food will remain warm, but will not burn further.

In that source, the Alter Rebbe explains that heating a pot for the first time strengthens it and makes it fit for use; this action (referred to as makah b’patish) is one of the 39 forbidden labors. See the Rebbe’s Igros Kodesh, Vol. 10, p. 336.

As will be explained, with regard to placing food on top of a pot of food cooking on the range, the Alter Rebbe does not state that one must fulfill the conditions necessary to return food to a cooking utensil on Shabbos (that one have the intent to return it, that he hold it the entire time, etc.). With regard to the present instance as well (see the end of Kuntreis Acharon [note 10]), many understand the Alter Rebbe as ruling leniently and not requiring that the person fulfill these conditions. Others understand that he is strict and requires these conditions when the pot is empty. They are lenient only when the pot underneath contains food.

To relate the above to a contemporary situation: Some consider a metal sheet (blech) to be like an empty pot; therefore, according to the strict interpretation of the Kuntreis Acharon, the above conditions are required in order to return the pot. Others consider the blech to be analogous to the case of the covering of an oven, in which instance these conditions are not required. See Kitzur Halachos, miluim, p. 29ff. and Mamleches Kohanim, pp. 47-51. All agree that it is permitted on Shabbos to turn a pot upside down on a metal sheet (blech) covering a range, or on a hot plate, and then place on it food to which the prohibition against cooking does not apply. None of the conditions required to return food to a cooking surface must be met. Covering the range with the metal sheet alone, however, does not suffice to permit this leniency according to those who rule strictly. According to the strict opinion, all the conditions mentioned above must be met. Common custom is to follow this stringent view.

If the cholent has not been fully cooked and the pot containing it is not covered, all authorities agree that it is forbidden to cover it with another pot, because by doing so, one will hasten its cooking. Moreover, even if the pot containing the cholent is covered, if it is not fully cooked, there are authorities who maintain that it is forbidden to place a pot on it, because increasing the pressure on it will cause it to cook faster.

I.e., none of the conditions required for returning a pot to a range were met.

See sec. 318:15-16.

As mentioned in subsection 14.

I.e., a countertop is placed above the metal or earthenware top of the oven.

To cite a contemporary application of this principle: It is permitted to place a pot of food to which the prohibition against cooking does not apply on a radiator to warm (Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim, Vol. 4, responsum 74).

Badei HaShulchan 124:48 states that even after food is fully cooked, the prohibition against baking may still apply. Therefore, in the present instance, one must be careful that the food which was entirely dry cannot become so hot that a hand would recoil from it, for that would be considered as baking. See, however, Shabbos KeHalachah, ch. 3, biurim 18.

In the main text, the Alter Rebbe rules that none of the conditions necessary to return food to a cooking utensil on Shabbos (that one have the intent to return it, that he hold it the entire time, etc.) are required when placing food to warm on top of a pot on the range or on top of an oven that has a covering above it. In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 10), the Alter Rebbe explains that his ruling is based on the approach of Magen Avraham 253:31 and 318:26 which rules more leniently than the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro (253:3; note also 253:5). The fundamental basis for the leniency of Magen Avraham and the Alter Rebbe is that all the requirements instituted with regard to returning food to a cooking utensil were instituted so that it not appear that one is cooking (i.e., placing a pot on a cooking utensil to initially cook on Shabbos). Therefore, those requirements are not relevant in the instances mentioned in this subsection – placing a pot on top of another pot or on the covering of an oven. Since one does not cook in such a manner, it will never appear that one is initially cooking. See footnote 152 above.

See the summary of the laws of shi’ah and hatmanah at the conclusion of sec. 259.

For example, a sheet of metal (a blech).

See subsection 20. There, the Alter Rebbe rules that if there is no pressing need, it is preferable to be stringent when the coals were not removed or covered.

For if the liquid is cold, reheating it is considered a violation of the prohibition against cooking on Shabbos. If, however, the food being reheated is dry, it may be reheated even if a hand will recoil from the heat there.

See footnotes 23 and 112 above for the definition of this term.

See subsection 21.

In that source, it is explained that in cold climates, the leniency of lighting the oven that warms the house is granted because of the danger to people’s health, for everyone is sensitive to extreme cold and considered ill because of it.

I.e., if the food has become entirely cold and contains liquid.

Beitzah 34a; see sec. 318:9.

See footnote 52 above.

Subsection 10. As stated there, leniency is granted because one is instructing the non-Jew to perform a permitted action and the forbidden act is accomplished as a matter of course.

Baal nefesh in the original, literally, “a master of soul.”

See Hilchos Shehiyah Vehatmanah BeKetzarah at the conclusion of sec. 259, where the Alter Rebbe rules leniently without qualification.

The oven described here is a hearth in which a fire would be kindled to heat the house. A pot was often permanently affixed in or over the hearth to use for cooking. When the hearth was heated and the pot was empty, the pot was in danger of breaking because of the intense heat. Therefore, it was necessary to place water in it. The subsection deals with the question of whether it is permitted to use that water on Shabbos. One might say that it is forbidden, because it was heated on Shabbos. On the other hand, as the Alter Rebbe explains, it was not heated in violation of any prohibition.

As evident from sec. 254:15, generally, people would not drink the water heated in this pot, but they would use it to wash dishes and the like.

I.e., even those who ruled stringently in the previous sub- section.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 11), the Alter Rebbe elaborates in explanation of the leniency granted to instruct a non-Jew to place water in the pot although a Jew is forbidden to do so. He questions why this leniency should be granted. Seemingly, even a non-Jew should be prohibited against placing water in that pot lest a Jew stir the coals under it on Shabbos, as Magen Avraham 254:26 rules in a similar instance. The Alter Rebbe offers three possible ways of explaining why Magen Avraham does not mention a similar concern in this instance:

a) Possibly it can be explained that sec. 254 is speaking about an instance where the oven was already kindled, while in the instance at hand, the oven has not yet been kindled and we do not worry about the possibility that after the oven is kindled, the coals will be stirred.

b) When a non-Jew places the water in the pot, there is no concern that a Jew will stir the coals.

c) Even though the non-Jew’s actions would result in cooking the water, a Scriptural prohibition, nevertheless placing the water in the pot is still allowed because the non-Jew intends to heat the house rather than cook the water. Hence, our Sages did not institute a Rabbinic prohibition against telling the non-Jew to place water there lest one stir the coals.

In this Kuntreis Acharon, the Alter Rebbe also speaks about the ruling of Magen Avraham 253:32, that when one transfers beans and liquid from one pot to another, one should transfer the beans first and then the liquid. The Alter Rebbe does not accept this ruling, for as the Sifsei Kohen (Yoreh Deah 94:30; 105:8) rules, the status of a solid article (in this instance, the beans) is not downgraded to that of a k’li sheni, a secondary vessel, when it is transferred. Instead, the solid article is always considered as having the status of a k’li rishon, a primary vessel. Hence, it is preferable to remove the beans with a spoon, place them in a bowl, and then pour the liquid over them.

Moreover, it is permitted to benefit from the water in this instance.

For it to be permitted to place water in the pot before Shabbos, it must be placed there so that it boils before Shabbos.

Putting water in the pot is prohibited based on the teaching (see the end of subsection 27) that if one person fills a pot with water and another kindles a fire under it, even the one who filled the pot violates a Rabbinic prohibition.

I.e., the leniency the Alter Rebbe mentioned at the beginning of the subsection would be accepted by all authorities. Here, he is speaking of a leniency that would be accepted only by the more lenient view.

Even though, in fact, the non-Jew will be cooking the water on Shabbos.

This is a safeguard so that the Jew will not benefit from instructing the non-Jew to perform a forbidden activity.