Shiur #09: X) Bishul Achar Bishul
LAWS OF SHABBAT: COOKING
By Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon
Shiur #09:
X) Bishul
Achar
Bishul
May one put cold soup on a hot plate?
Is one allowed to put soup that has started to cool on a hot plate?
May one heat up a food with its sauce on Shabbat?
Is it possible to prepare tea in a way that is permissible according to all
views?
Until this point, we have dealt
with uncooked foods.
We have seen that it is forbidden to put these items in a keli rishon
(primary vessel) even after it has been removed from the fire. We have seen that generally we are
stringent and avoid putting them even in a keli sheini (secondary
vessel), and there are those who are stringent even about a keli shelishi
(tertiary vessel), particularly when it comes to food items that are easily
cookable. Is the law different for
cooked foods? Is it forbidden to cook a food that
has been previously cooked?
The mishna (145b) rules:
Whatever was put into hot water before Shabbat may be steeped in hot water on
Shabbat.
Solid Foods There is no bishul achar bishul
Thus, any cooked item (was put into hot water) may be put in hot water on
Shabbat; from here we see that the prohibition of
bishul does not apply to previously
cooked items. Similarly, there is
another mishna (36b) that states that a pot that has been taken off the fire may
be returned under certain conditions since the food has already been cooked,
bishul no longer applies. This rule is known as ein bishul
achar bishul.
Rabbinical Prohibition
According to this, once an item is fully cooked, one may even put it in a
keli rishon. However, as we
shall see in a future shiur, there is
a rabbinical prohibition
to put cooked items in a keli rishon
while it is on the fire,
so that this lenient rule applies only to a keli rishon
that is off the fire,
or cases in which the Sages do not forbid (see
loc. cit.), such as putting the
item
on top of the pot
and the like.
Rashi,
Rabbeinu Yona: Yesh Bishul achar Bishul Be-lach
However, a number of Rishonim
limit ein bishul
achar
bishul, and they argue that one
should distinguish between liquids and solids.
As we shall see in a future shiur, there is a rabbinical
prohibition to insulate foods (hatmana) on Shabbat. The Gemara (34a) states the
rationale:
Why was it said that one must not insulate after nightfall even with a substance
that does not add heat? For fear
lest he make it boil.
Rashi
(ad loc.) explains:
It is a decree lest he find that it is cold when he comes to insulate and he
will heat it up first, and he will end up cooking on Shabbat.
In other words, before merely insulating it he will come to heat up on the fire
(so that it will be fully hot when he insulates it) and he will violate
the prohibition of bishul.
How is this possible if we are obviously talking about a
cooked food,
and we should apply the rule of ein
bishul achar
bishul! The
Rosh
(3:11) deduces that Rashis view is yesh bishul achar bishul (there is a
prohibition to cook even a previously cooked food item) when it comes to a
liquid that has cooled off:
Rashi says that it is a decree lest he heat up a pot that has cooled down
This teaches us that [the
prohibition of]
cooking is applicable even to an item that has been cooked and cooled, since
there is a liquid in it. That which we say, Whatever
was put into hot water before Shabbat may be steeped in hot water on Shabbat,
refers to a solid, like a chicken
There are Rishonim who write
explicitly that yesh bishul
achar
bishul for a liquid. This is what
Rabbeinu Yona
writes (Bava Batra 19a, s.v. Tenan hatam):
It is a great obstacle for some of the people: they insulate the urn of hot
water to put it in the pot on Shabbat while the food is able to be cooked
further, and sometimes one is yad soledet bo (scalding) and the other is
not [and one cooks the other], and it turns out that they cook on Shabbat.
The
Ran
(22a, Rif, s.v. Ve-harav Rabbeinu Yona) cites the words of
Rabbeinu Yona
and challenges them:
I do not know where he gets this from, because
Whatever
was put into hot water before Shabbat may be steeped in hot water on Shabbat
even though it is cold. What is the
basis of distinguishing between boiled water and any cooked item? This requires
investigation and analysis.
To the
Ran,
it is clear that ein bishul
achar
bishul applies to liquids as well:
the simple meaning of the mishna is that is does not differentiate between
different types of food. However,
Rabbeinu Yona
apparently believes that the mishna is speaking only of solids, but concerning
liquids, yesh bishul
achar
bishul.
The Nimukei Yosef (Bava Batra 10a, Rif) confirms the view of
Rabbeinu Yona,
that yesh bishul
achar
bishul for liquids, and Rabbeinu
Yerucham
(column 12, part 3, p. 69a) writes this as well.
Other Rishonim There is Never Bishul achar Bishul
In fact, almost all of the other Rishonim do not address this, implying that
ein bishul
achar
bishul is an absolute, ironclad rule,
and one may heat even cold soup. This is the view of the
Rambam, Ramban, Rashba, Remakh, Ran, Maggid Mishneh,
and more.
Shulchan Arukh
The
Shulchan Arukh
rules (318:4):
[The prohibition of] cooking applies to a fully-cooked food if it cools
But this is only so [that we apply
the prohibition of] bishul achar bishul to a food that has soup in it. However, that which has been cooked
and is solid may be steeped in hot water on Shabbat.
The
Shulchan Arukh
rules following the Roshs explanation of
Rashi
(against the
Rambam
and most Rishonim), that only concerning a solid do we say that
ein bishul
achar
bishul, even if it is cold,
but bishul does apply to a cooled
liquid.
The Reason
Below we will analyze the boundaries of the law and its practical ramifications. However, before we do this, we must
analyze the reasoning: why is a solid considered cooked even if it cools, while
a liquid loses its cooked status once it cools?
Liquids of the Type Not Eaten Cold
We may explain that the essence of bishul
is
to create a food by the application of heat,
and there is a distinction between dry and fluid items concerning their status
as food after they cool. Dry food,
once it has been prepared by bishul,
continues to be ready to eat even after it cools; almost every dry food can be
eaten cold. On the other hand, if a
liquid cools, it loses an essential element.
Most people will eat cold chicken, but not cold soup.
Naturally, a dry food retains its cooked status, while a fluid that is boiled
and cooled is considered
to have lost the nature of its bishul;
it is now uncooked once again, and its heating is considered cooking.
The problem with this is that sometimes the reality is different: there are
fluid things that are eaten cold, such as fruit soup or tomato soup; on the
other hand, there might be solid things that are not eaten cold (e.g., congealed
gravy; as we shall see in a future shiur,
it becomes clear that it is considered solid).
Nevertheless, we have not found that Rishonim and halakhic authorities
argue that these foods should have a different status (or that the Sages decreed
that we do not differentiate).
Liquid that has Cooled is Chemically Similar to its Original State
Still, we may explain the distinction between solids and liquids differently. It may be that the definition of
bishul is
changing a substance by way of heat.
For solids,
the essential
chemical change
that is accomplished through the cooking process remains after the food cools,
and therefore there is no prohibition to come back and cook it. In
fluids,
on the other hand, the central chemical change is that the molecules move
further apart, and from this point of view, when the fluids cool down they
return to their original status, and therefore it is prohibited to reheat them. When the fluid is mixed with more
dense items, such as in soup, the cooking process creates new links between the
fluid and the dense items, and these links continue to exist after the food
cools down. However, it is still
possible to explain that since an element of the chemical change returns to its
original state (distancing the molecules) there is a prohibition to cause this
change to happen anew.
According to this definition, the prohibition consists of
turning raw food into cooked food
(and this is the view of the certain sage cited by the
Shevitat Ha-Shabbat,
Mevashel, Beer Rechovot, 75),
and a cooled fluid is considered raw
because its chemical composition is close to what it had been originally (cf.
Chazon Ish
50:9, s.v. Ve-yesh).
When Re-heating a Liquid, the Change from Cooking Is Not Noticeable
With a slightly different formulation, one may explain that we do not
investigate whether the central chemical change remains as it is, but whether
the change done by bishul is
noticeable and evident. Generally,
when it comes to a solid, this change is noticeable even when the dish cools,
while in a cooled liquid, the change is less noticeable, and therefore once it
has cooled it is no longer considered cooked (Tehilla
Le-David
318:33).
What is considered to be cold?
Thus, a cooled liquid is no longer considered cooked.
At what temperature is this true? The
Shulchan Arukh
does not give an exact temperature (318:4):
[The prohibition of] cooking applies to a fully-cooked food if it cools.
Shulchan Arukh: Less than Yad Soledet Bo is Considered Cold
It is clear from other places that he is referring to the temperature of
yad soledet
bo. This is what arises from he writes
in the
Beit Yosef
(318, s.v. Afillu),
[1]
and this is implied by what he writes elsewhere in the Shulchan Arukh
(318:6): A vessel containing a food item that is yad soledet bo may be
put on top of an insulated pot on Shabbat
In other words, the temperature must still be at least
yad soledet bo for the
prohibition of bishul not to apply to
this act.[2]
This is also what many of the Acharonim write: anything that is no longer yad
soledet bo is considered col.
For example, the
Mishna Berura
writes (318:24):
[3]
If it cools i.e., it is not yad soledet bo, even though it may still
be somewhat warm. But if it is yad
soledet bo, even though it has cooled from its seething temperature, cooking
is not applicable to it anymore, because this is considered to still be in the
category of seething, and ein bishul achar bishul
This is the view of the
Shulchan Arukh.
This approach is clear and logical.
In a previous shiur we saw that one who takes an uncooked fluid and heats
it up until the level of yad soledet
bo violates the biblical prohibition of bishul. It makes sense, if so, that if we
say that a cold fluid has lost its cooked status, it is referring to the fact
that it has fallen below the level of yad
soledet bo.
Rema
However, the
Rema
(318:15) surprises us with a lenient view:
There are those who are lenient, saying that this is permissible for anything
not put on the fire or stove directly, but only close to it, even if it has
cooled. People are lenient about
this if it has not cooled fully, as I have written above, ch. 253.
In other words, as long as it has not cooled completely there is no prohibition
of bishul (as long as one avoids the problems of mechzi ke-mevashel
(the appearance of bishul) by not putting the food
directly on the fire). This ruling
requires explanation: as we have seen, the ruling of the
Shulchan Arukh,
that a liquid retains its cooked status as long as it is yad soledet bo,
is quite acceptable, because yad soledet
bo is the measure for defining a liquid as cooked. However, the qualification of if it
has not cooled fully is a new measure [or way to determine if an action
violates the prohibition of bishul], and what leads the
Rema
to adopt this new approach?[4]
We may explain the
Remas
view in a number of ways. We will
analyze two[5]
of them.
Eglei Tal
1.
The
Eglei Tal
(Ofeh, 14; 55:5)
understands that the
Rema
essentially adopts the stringent view of the Rishonim: a liquid that cools loses
its status as cooked and there is thus
a biblical prohibition of bishul
involved.
[6]
However, as long as the food has not fully cooled, it does not lose its
cooked status:
When it comes to the biblical prohibition, we follow the view of the stringent
authorities, but when the food has not cooled fully and some people will still
eat it due to its warmness, we need not be concerned about the biblical
prohibition, as it is no worse than a minimally-cooked solid (maakhal
ben Derusai,
see the first shiur in this series), that though it has not been fully
cooked, there is no biblical prohibition of cooking anymore.
In his view, a cooked liquid that has not fully cooled has the same status as a
solid food cooked to the level of
maakhal ben Derusai;
if one cooks it further, one does not violate a biblical prohibition.[7]
Difference between Initial Cooking and Cooling Off
However, we challenged this understanding above: how can it be that a liquid
that merely has some
warmth
is considered cooked, when we have seen that one does not violate the
prohibition of bishul for a liquid
unless it is raised to the temperature of
yad soledet bo! The Eglei Tal answers (Ofeh, 14, in the emended section)
that one should distinguish between the criterion for
creating the status of bishul
and the criterion for its
removal:
in order to define a cold liquid as cooked it needs to reach the level of
yad soledet bo; however after
the liquid reaches this level and has been defined as cooked, its status cannot
be nullified until it cools fully (being merely a degree below yad soledet bo
is not enough).[8]
Chazon Ish
2.
The
Chazon Ish
(37:13 and 31) takes the opposite view. According
to him, the
Rema
is following the view of most Rishonim
that the rule of ein bishul
achar
bishul applies even to a cooled
liquid:[9]
The
Rema
writes that we are lenient, following the view of the
Rashba
and the
Ran:
even for a cooled liquid, ein bishul achar bishul.
If so, why does he demand that the food needs to be a bit hot? The
Chazon Ish
responds:
To prevent one from being lenient about raw ones, our custom is not to be
lenient about items that have cooled to an extent that their warmth is not
[easily] discernible.
A Modicum of Warmth
In other words, by the letter of the law, it is permissible to heat even a
cooled liquid, but there is a concern that a person may warm a totally uncooked
item, and therefore we require that the food must remain somewhat warm from the
previous cooking; thus, it will be recognizable that this is a cooked item, and
people will not learn from it to be lenient about heating uncooked foods. On the other hand, a cooked solid
may be warmed even if it has totally cooled, since no one could err and miss the
fact that it has been cooked.[10]
Ramifications
In any case, even those who follow the
Rema
would not put a fully cooled liquid on a plata (hot plate), but rather
only a cooked liquid
that has not fully cooled.
If one were to put a fully cooled liquid dish on a plata, then according
to the explanation of the
Eglei Tal
(and similarly according to the
Shulchan Arukh),
this involves a biblical prohibition, while according to the explanation of the
Chazon Ish in the Rema,
this would involve a rabbinical prohibition only. This distinction may be relevant in
cases of
doubt,
and we will discuss this in the future.
May a Non-Jew Heat Soup?
An additional ramification of this argument is whether a
non-Jew
may reheat soup on Shabbat. If the
prohibition is biblical, one may not be lenient about it. However, if it is a rabbinical
prohibition, one may be lenient for the sake of the Shabbat meal, if there is no
other way to heat the soup. The
Mishna Berura
rules stringently (259:26;
Beiur Halakha,
253:5, s.v. Lehachem, end), but the
Chazon Ish
(37:21) and the
Chayei Adam
(Nishmat Adam 20:10) are lenient.
Summary
If
Sefardim
take soup off the hot plate and want to return it, they must be careful that it
not go below the temperature of yad
soledet bo
(there are also other laws of hachzara, returning items to a heat source,
as we shall see in a future shiur).
Ashkenazim,
on the other hand, may return the soup even if it has fallen below this
temperature, as
long as it has not cooled fully. (If it has cooled fully, it is
certainly forbidden, but Acharonim argue the correct way to understand the view
of
Rema,
whether the prohibition is biblical or rabbinical.[11])
Defining Fully Cooled
The
Rema
does not define the term fully cooled, and instead just refers us to ch. 253. There (5) he writes:
One may not tell a non-Jew to heat up a pot that has cooled, and if one does so,
one is forbidden to eat it, even when it is [again] cold. However, if it has not fully cooled,
and it is still fit to eat,
and a non-Jew heats it, one may eat it.
Shulchan Arukh Ha-Rav
The
Rema
mentions and it is still fit to eat.
In light of this, the
Shulchan Arukh Ha-Rav
writes (318:9) that the definition of not fully cooled is still warm enough
to eat. However, there is some
reason to doubt this, because the
Rema
is dealing with
benefit from a non-Jews act,
and it may be that a high temperature is required, so that a Jew will not have
material benefit from the non-Jews actions.[12]
Chazon Ish
According to the
Chazon Ishs
understanding of the view of the
Rema,
that the need for the food to be not fully cooled is to prevent one from
erring and cooking something totally uncooked, it makes sense that the
definition is that
its warmth is still noticeable
(even if it is not warm enough to eat at this temperature). This is what the
Chazon Ish
himself writes (37:13, s.v. Ve-katav).
Apparently, one may challenge the view that believes that one must be able to
eat it, because
one may eat cold soup as well.
Rav Feinstein
explains (OC, part IV, 74, bishul, 2) that the definition is that the
food must be fit to eat
for those want to eat hot food. Rav
S.Z. Auerbach
(cited in Maor Ha-Shabbat, Vol. II, p. 36) adds that we define not fully
cooled here by the way most people eat the food; in other words, we require
sufficient heat that most people who are interested in eating the food
specifically when it is hot would still be willing to eat it.
Cooled, Then Heated
If a cooked liquid that has fully cooled is heated somewhat afterwards (e.g.,
pouring on it from a keli
sheini), may one continue to heat it? Apparently, one should allow this,
since heating a cooked liquid that is somewhat warm is allowed. However, according to both of the
above-mentioned explanations, it makes sense that one would not allow this.
According to the
Eglei Tal,
it is clear that one should not allow it, because at the time the liquid cools,
the former cooking is annulled,
and heating it now will not help at all.
According to the
Chazon Ish,
it makes senses that one should not be lenient about this, because
the warmth is supposed to be a sign that the food has already been cooked,
while after it cools, there is no significance to the initial heating, and there
is no sign of the previous bishul.
The Eglei Tal, in his responsa (Avnei
Nezer,
OC
129:6), is asked about people who do so, and he concedes that the questioner is
correct to condemn this practice (in accordance with his previously-expressed
view). This is what Rabbi Akiva
Eger writes (addressing
Magen Avraham,
253:41). This is also the ruling of
the
Chazon Ish
(37:13, end).[13]
Translated by
Rav Yoseif Bloch
[1]
The Tur (ad loc.) also writes: [The
prohibition of] cooking applies if it has already cooled down, but not while it
is still seething. If so, the
opposite of cooled is seething, and cooled does not refer to something
that is actually cold. (Indeed,
they may be simply using Rashis
language, as cited above.)
[2]
This is based on the assumption that the requirement that the pot be hot is
because of bishul. We will see in a later shiur
that the Magen Avraham (253:36)
holds that there is a requirement that the pot be hot because of issues of
hachzara, returning foods to the fire, but the
Beiur Halakha (ad loc. 5, s.v. U-vilvad
she-lo nitztanen) disputes this.
[3]
This is how the other Acharonim rule, including the
Minchat Kohen (II, 2),
Magen Avraham (253:19),
Eliya Rabba (253:19),
Chayei Adam (20:8) and
Kaf Ha-chayim (318:53).
[4]
However, in the
Chiddushim Ha-myuchasim La-Ran
(40b, s.v. Shemen) we find an approach similar to that of the
Rema: Now, we have something to
say to allow putting hot water into hot food on Shabbat
even though it may not
be so hot anymore, as long as it is not yet cold, there is no issue of cooking
This means that as long as a food
has not fully cooled, there is no prohibition of
bishul. It may be that this is the
Remas source, but the idea is
still not fully understandable.
[5]
Other approaches are mentioned by the
Tehilla Le-David (318:33) and the
Chayei Adam (Nishmat Adam 20:8, 10).
[6]
This is what the Magen Avraham
(253:37), Shulchan Arukh Ha-Rav (253:25, also Piskei Ha-siddur, Hilkheta
Rabbeta Le-Shabbeta) and the Beit
Meir (318:12). This is also implied by the
Chiddushim Ha-myuchasim La-Ran cited
above (n. 4), that as long as the food has not cooled,
there is no issue of cooking; this implies that if it cools, there is a
biblical prohibition of bishul.
[7]
This is also what arises from the words of the
Terumat Ha-deshen (ch. 66).
However, according to the view of many Rishonim, there is a prohibition to take
something that is minimally cooked (maakhal ben Derusai) and cook
it further (see note 8 in our first shiur), and this is what the
Shulchan Arukh rules (318:4);
however, in the view of the Eglei Tal,
this prohibition is only rabbinical, and naturally the doubt here would be of a
rabbinical nature, and we may rely on the lenient views that
ein bishul
achar
bishul applies to liquids even if
they have totally cooled.
[8]
This is indicated by Rabbi Akiva Eger (on
Magen Avraham, 253:41).
[9]
This is stated by the Minchat Kohen
(II, 2, s.v. Ha-tenai ha-rishon),
the Arukh Ha-shulchan (318:31),
the Ketzot Ha-shulchan (ch. 124;
Baddei Ha-shulchan, 103); Rav
Moshe Feinstein (2, 5); Rav S.Z.
Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat
Ke-hilkhata, ch. 1, n. 114); and the
Shevet Ha-Levi (Vol. V. Ch. 31,
1). The view of the Mishna Berura
in this case is not clear: see 318:99 and
Beiur Halakha 318:4, s.v. Im
nitztanen.
[10] The
Chazon Ish goes on to write that
it may be that the stringency about a liquid that totally cooled stems from the
laws of hachzara, but since we are
totally lenient regarding a solid it appears that he does not accept this
understanding.
[11] Is
it appropriate for Ashkenazim to be stringent and follow the Sefardic ruling? The
Mishna Berura (253:84) implies
that it is good for Ashkenazim to be stringent and to follow the
Shulchan Arukhs view that once
a liquid is no longer yad soledet bo, it is halakhically uncooked. However, in other places, the
Mishna Berura indicates that
Ashkenazim should be lenient, and this is what appears to be the ruling of other
authorities as well.
[12]
According to this explanation, the Rema
does not speak only of a situation in which a non-Jew performs an act of
bishul, but even a situation in which
there is no issue of bishul (because
the food is not cold). However
there is still a rabbinical prohibition, one of returning a cooked food to the
fire (the specifics of this prohibition will be discussed in a future shiur);
regardless, one may not benefit from the non-Jews actions.
[13] However, the
Chazon Ish does imply another
interpretation. He indicates that we follow the Rishonim who believe that
yesh bishul
achar
bishul for liquids is a stringent
custom that we have accepted upon ourselves, and this implies that
fundamentally there is no problem.
He also indicates that one should only be stringent about a cold item on Shabbat
itself, but one who takes a cooled liquid and heats it a bit before Shabbat
would be allowed to continue to heat it on Shabbat, though this is an
innovation not mentioned by other halakhic authorities.