Rabbi Mendel Agranovich
Is it correct that the prohibition against returning food to the flame applies not only on Shabbat, but also on Friday?
At first glance, the prohibition against returning food to the flame applies only on Shabbat, while on Friday we can speak of a prohibition against leaving food on the flame, but not against returning it. Indeed, this is the view of most of the Rishonim, but Tosafot and the Rosh hold the opposite view, cited by the Rema in the Shulchan Aruch. Let us discuss it.
The ruling in the Mishnah reads: “Beit Hillel say: ‘It may be returned.’”
The Gemara’s discussion of this ruling begins with a statement by Rav Sheshet: “Those who hold that it may be returned say that this may be done even on Shabbat.”
Rashi and Tosafot ask what the word even is meant to tell us. In other words, not only at some other time (an unknown X), but even on Shabbat. What, then, is the X hidden in this formula?
Rashi answered as follows: Food may be returned not only on Friday evening, but also on Shabbat morning. But what is the difference? Why does the Talmud find it necessary to clarify and tell us that food may be returned even on Shabbat morning?
Because we might have assumed that the Sages permitted returning it in the evening, since a person’s intention to return the pot to the flame is taken for granted (it contains his roast for both the evening and the morning).
(Incidentally, it is clear that people in earlier times did not have cholent for the morning and an assortment of delicacies for the evening. There were only two pots: one with hot water and one with a “stew”—a hot meat dish that we loosely call a “roast.” It would be interesting to find out when the custom of having a separate menu for each meal began.)
But in the evening, when removing the pot, a person clearly understands that he wants to return it and has no intention of interrupting its “being left on the flame” since Friday. In the morning, however, his intention to return it is far from obvious. Therefore, without the Talmud’s clarification, without Rav Sheshet’s statement, we would have said that it may be returned only in the evening, but certainly not in the morning. This is precisely why the Gemara tells us that this assumption is incorrect: If all the conditions are met, food may also be returned on Shabbat morning, not only in the evening. This is Rashi’s view.
Tosafot understood it differently. They disagreed with Rashi because they held that if his assertion that X means “on the evening of Shabbat” were correct, Rav Sheshet should have said: “It may be returned even on Shabbat morning or during the day.” But that is not what he said; he simply said: “even on Shabbat.” This means that there is a prohibition against returning food to the flame even outside Shabbat. Under certain conditions, this prohibition does not apply, and it does not apply not only before Shabbat, but also on Shabbat itself (provided all the other conditions are met). Rav Sheshet’s statement then becomes very clear: “Food may be returned to the flame not only before Shabbat, but even on Shabbat itself.” This is Tosafot’s reasoning.
Thus, Rashi and Tosafot disagree about how to understand Rav Sheshet’s statement, and the difference between these two approaches is clear: There is a time X on Friday when placing a pot on the flame is no longer considered “leaving it” before Shabbat, but “returning it” to the flame. In other words, even if the food is fully cooked, it may be placed only on a covered flame, rather than being left even on an uncovered flame, as the law of “leaving food on the flame” permits.
But Tosafot then asked how to establish the cutoff point on Friday after which a pot is considered to be returned to the flame. Clearly, if it was placed there on Friday morning, this is “leaving it,” rather than “returning it.” Tosafot therefore drew the line as follows: As long as a pot placed on the flame at that moment would reach the temperature at which “the hand recoils” (that is, 45 degrees) before Shabbat begins, this is “leaving it.” After that point, however, it is already “returning it,” because the person is now relying on his food being heated on Shabbat and may therefore wish, on another occasion, to return it on Shabbat itself. This is a broad decree (Rosh, Shabbat, chapter 3, paragraph 2).
An important and interesting point is that, when returning food on Friday, only the requirement to return it to a covered flame matters. This is the position of the Rosh, the Vilna Gaon, and the Mishnah Berurah (Mishnah Berurah 253, subsection 72). If we bear in mind that Rabbeinu Tam was one of the main proponents of the view that the prohibition against returning food applies on Friday as well, and that he also held that the reason for this prohibition was the concern that the pot had cooled after being removed and that the flame beneath it would need to be increased when it was returned, the connection between returning food on Friday and on Shabbat becomes clear.
Both on Friday and on Shabbat, a person returning the pot wants to stir the coals so that the somewhat cooled pot can be returned to a stronger flame. On Shabbat, this act violates the Torah’s prohibition against kindling a fire. Therefore, if the desired result (a boiling pot [a temperature of 45 degrees already counts as boiling]) will not be achieved before Shabbat begins, the person is already relying on heating it on Shabbat itself. The Sages therefore decreed a safeguard against stirring the coals and permitted returning food only to a covered flame.
Within Tosafot’s approach, there is also a disagreement about whether the prohibition against returning food on Friday applies to food that is not fully cooked. Returning such food on Shabbat violates the Torah’s prohibition against cooking, so there can be no question of a broad rabbinic decree. This is the view of the Rosh and the Tur. The Smag (Sefer Mitzvot HaGadol), however, held that even if the food is not fully cooked, returning it to the flame on Friday is prohibited, out of concern that a person will return it in the same way on Shabbat and violate Torah law. Thus, according to the Smag, from time X onward, food may not be returned to the flame at all on Friday.
In practice: The Shulchan Aruch did not cite Tosafot’s view, although it was explained in detail in the Beit Yosef (the commentary on the Tur that Rav Yosef Karo himself regarded as the principal source of halachah, while he regarded the Shulchan Aruch merely as a book for reviewing the entire Torah in one month). We may conclude from this that he did not adopt this view in practice. All the more so since this law is not mentioned in the codes of the Rif and the Rambam.
The Rema, however, cited this view with the wording: “There are those who hold.” “And the custom is to be lenient, but it is preferable to be stringent when there is no need (to be lenient).”
Practical Conclusions
1. Ideally, food should be left on a covered flame.
2. If food placed on an uncovered flame will not have time to heat up from a cold state before we accept Shabbat, then ideally it should be placed only on a covered flame, even if it is fully cooked, rather than simply left on an uncovered flame. If the pot can reach a temperature of 45 degrees before Shabbat, then even according to Tosafot it may be left on an uncovered flame (Mishnah Berurah, 253, 70- 74, Orchot Shabbat 2, 57).
3. All of this concerns only the requirement to return food to a covered flame; none of the other conditions must be met in this case (ibid.).
4. The heating time is calculated using the highest flame, from a completely cold state to the temperature of 45 degrees required for the cooking process of any dish to begin, even if we are now placing partially warm food on a low flame. In other words, this is solely a measure of time (Orchot Shabbat, citing Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Chaim Kanievsky, note 96).
5. If necessary, food may be left on an uncovered flame even after this time, relying on the views of Rashi and those who agree with him (Orchot Shabbat, ibid., based on the Rema).
6. When food is left on a hotplate or a blech, this requirement is already fulfilled. It is relevant only when we wish to leave food on an uncovered flame (ibid., 57).