Rabbi Mendel Agranovich
Let us continue explaining the five conditions for returning food to the flame. For convenience, we will list them again. To return food to the flame, the following are required:
1. It must be fully cooked;
2. The person removing it from the flame must intend, at the moment of removal, to return it;
3. They must not let go of the pot;
4. They must not place it on the ground or the floor;
5. The flame must be banked or covered.
Clearly, the first condition is simply basic observance of the prohibition against cooking on Shabbat, because as long as the food is not fully cooked, removing it interrupts the cooking process, and returning it resumes that process.
As we have already written in our articles about the prohibition against cooking, completing the cooking of food on Shabbat is prohibited. According to the Shulchan Aruch and the Mishnah Berurah, this is a Torah prohibition (318, 4, and the Biur Halachah there—the explanation of the law written by the Chafetz Chaim).
Like the first condition, the fifth condition is also unequivocal and mandatory: The flame must be covered; otherwise, the action looks like cooking. In addition, the pot has cooled somewhat after being removed, and the person returning it may want to stir the coals. The views of the Rashba and Rabbeinu Tam are decisive for us on this issue—see our previous article (Mishnah Berurah, section 253, subsection 1, note 37, sources of the Mishnah Berurah, subsection 37).
The other three conditions share a common idea: The Sages prohibited returning a pot to the flame if its being on the flame had been interrupted, but permitted it if returning it continued its being left on the flame since Friday. In other words, if we removed it without intending to return it, placed it on the ground, or even placed it on a table but let go of it, we cannot speak of a continuation of the cooking process. This is already a new process—placing food on the flame on Shabbat—which the Sages prohibited because it looks like cooking (or, according to Rabbeinu Tam, because permitting it to be returned after even a brief interruption might lead to stirring the coals).
Thus, conditions no. 1 and no. 5 are mandatory and unconditional.
The Mishnah Berurah expressed uncertainty about condition no. 4. The authors of Orchot Shabbat clarify the conclusion reached by the Chafetz Chaim: A pot may not be returned from the ground, even if the person is still holding it and intended to return it when removing it.
Regarding conditions no. 2 and no. 3, we may say that if one of them was overlooked but the other two were observed, the pot may be returned to the flame, even if the person did not think of returning it or let go of it. This leniency after the fact is based on the Mishnah Berurah’s citation of different views of the Rishonim explaining the Talmudic passage that discusses the conditions for returning food. Ideally, we satisfy all the opinions, but after the fact, we may be lenient.
Why do we speak of placing the pot on the ground? What does the ground have to do with this? The setting is not a modern kitchen with work counters (a countertop—shaish), but the ground beside a stove called a “kirah.” In those times, placing food on the ground clearly expressed a desire to remove it from the flame for good. Today, where is the place of which we could say that if a pot is standing there, it has definitely been removed from the flame? Initially, the authors of Orchot Shabbat (2,42) wrote that a kitchen work counter is our equivalent of the ground. But after the fact, they agreed that it is not an unequivocal place for pots that have been removed from the flame, and therefore a pot may be returned from such a counter to the flame if all the other conditions are met.
Moreover, placing a pot only partly on the counter, rather than entirely on it, is permitted. This is relevant when you need to serve soup to a child on Friday night and then return the pot to the flame. If a woman is home alone, without her husband and older children, who have gone to the synagogue, how can she serve soup to her child? Ideally, she must keep holding the pot and not set it down anywhere, even on a counter. But that is impossible! You have set out a bowl and a ladle and placed the soup pot with part of its base on the counter and part suspended in the air. You hold it with one hand, while with the other you scoop up the soup and pour it into the bowl, then wipe the lid (if the drops on it have cooled) and return the pot. And you have done all of this alone, without anyone helping! But it is easier with two people: One holds the pot, the other serves the soup, and then the first returns it.
Thus, practical conclusions:
Ideally, all the conditions must be met. The best method is for two people to remove the pot: One holds it, and the other serves.
If a pot was placed on the ground, it may not be returned to a blech, but it may be returned to a hotplate (Orchot Shabbat, note 72, citing Rav Auerbach).
Ideally, a pot should not be placed on a work counter or an island (a work counter in the center of the kitchen rather than against a wall), but after the fact it may be returned from there.
A pot may be placed partly on a work counter or an island even in the first instance. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Rav Nissim Karelitz held that a work counter is not equivalent to the ground.
Rav Elyashiv and those who agree with him held that a pot may be returned after being placed on the countertop, while Rav Shmuel Wosner and Rav Shmuel Auerbach consider it necessary to be stringent and not place it on the countertop, because pots are placed there after being removed from the flame. But in the author’s opinion, even Rav Wosner would agree that when the pot is only partly supported in this way, it is clearly apparent that its being left on the flame since Friday has not been interrupted.
A chair—a pot may be returned from it. It is not a place for pots that have been removed from the flame (Orchot Shabbat 2,46).
According to the Chazon Ish, if a pot was removed and placed on a chair without any intention of returning it, but the person then changed their mind and decided it needed to be returned, this too is permitted. Although the Chazon Ish held that a hotplate and a blech do not constitute a covered flame (see our article), it is possible that these two views of the Chazon Ish are unrelated.