Rabbi Mendel Agranovich
Hello, dear readers!
Continuing our discussion of reheating food on Shabbat, let us address another practical question: are all forms of cooking identical?
Let us explain what we mean. We have already written that there is no “cooking after cooking,” and that this principle applies primarily to dry food. The basic rationale for permitting cooked food to be reheated is that the ingredients have already been made edible, so reheating adds nothing fundamental.
We also said that, based on Rashi’s view, we can draw the following conclusion: food preparation is not only the process of turning something inedible into something edible, but also a process whose purpose is to give food a new flavor, even though it is already essentially fit to eat. A striking example is baked apples, whose baking is prohibited by the Torah even though they can perfectly well be eaten raw. In other words, alongside the criterion of applying heat to food, there is clearly also a criterion of a substantially new flavor for most people.
Thus, there is another aspect to the definition of cooking—the process of achieving a fundamentally new flavor.
Another striking example is the medicine made from overcooked chicken described in the Talmud, which we discussed in the previous issue. Even though it was important to the person to continue cooking it on Shabbat to obtain its medicinal properties, this is permitted by the Sages of the Talmud. From this we can see that an individual’s interest in obtaining a new flavor does not determine whether something is prohibited or permitted; only the perception of most people does. In our example, the chicken is already fully cooked, and any further cooking is not significant for most people.
Is achieving a fundamentally new flavor always prohibited?
This question, too, became a subject of debate among our Sages: the author of “Sefer Yere’im,” Rav Eliezer of Metz, held that if food has been baked, cooking it afterward is prohibited by Torah law, because cooking then gives the food a fundamentally new flavor. Note that the source of this idea is found in a passage in the Talmud, tractate Pesachim (41a), which says that matzah cooked after baking is unfit for fulfilling the mitzvah at the Passover Seder. Even if it has retained its shape and appearance, it is still not considered baked, as required for the mitzvah of “eating matzah on the night of 15 Nisan.”
In turn, Rav Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi objected to the rabbi of Metz: this analogy is invalid, because with regard to matzah there is a requirement to taste a particular baked flavor, which cannot be said of all other situations.
Rav Yaakov ben Moshe of Coucy, the author of “Sefer Mitzvot Gadol,” offered evidence for the idea in “Sefer Yere’im,” writing that the same passage in the Talmud contains another example of a prohibition against cooking after roasting: the Passover offering (a lamb or kid roasted over an open flame). But one can also object to this example, because the Torah explicitly commands that the Passover offering be prepared only by roasting, and in no other way.
As for the period of the Rishonim, we do not know how the rabbi of Metz would have answered his opponents, but Rav David HaLevi (author of “Turei Zahav,” section 318, subsection 6) argued for his view exactly as we explained earlier: one aspect of the definition of cooking is that one may not produce a new, fundamentally different flavor on Shabbat.
The Shulchan Aruch cites the view of “Sefer Yere’im” and specifies that some hold this opinion, but Rav Karo did not cite the opposing views. The Rema formulated his opinion in such a way that the author of “Magen Avraham” understood him to disagree with Rav Karo and to follow Rav Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi. The author of “Turei Zahav,” in turn, held that the Rema agreed with Rav Karo and also accepted the view of “Sefer Yere’im.”
In practice, one should be stringent in accordance with the view of the rabbi of Metz (“Mishnah Berurah,” section 318, subsection 46). However, if food was accidentally (mistakenly) cooked after baking or roasting, it may be used on Shabbat (ibid.).
Conclusion: baked or roasted food may not be cooked, and cooked food may not be roasted or baked.
Here are some practical examples:
- one should not put cookies into a glass of hot tea, even if the tea is in a second vessel;
- it is prohibited to put oven-baked chicken into a pot or bowl of hot soup;
The authors of “Orchot Shabbat” point out that Sucrazit (a sugar substitute in tablet form) and powdered soups are generally baked rather than cooked at the factory. Therefore, before using them on Shabbat, one should find out exactly how they are made and consult a rabbi.
If they are not cooked but merely baked, they should not be put into a second vessel, while with regard to a third vessel one may be lenient based on the view of the Chazon Ish (“Orchot Shabbat,” chapter one, subsection 41).
What is considered cooked or baked? The definition given in “Orchot Shabbat” (p. 18, introduction) is as follows: with water—cooking; without water—baking.
With regard to cooking food in its own juices, the Chazon Ish was inclined to consider this cooking rather than baking.
With regard to roasting over a fire (without oil, over an open flame or coals, like kebabs) after baking (for example, pieces of challah dried near a fire), there is a disagreement between “Magen Avraham” and “Pri Megadim.” “Magen Avraham” holds that roasting over a fire and baking can be considered equivalent, while “Pri Megadim” prohibited roasting over a fire after baking.
Since this is a dispute over Torah law (rather than a rabbinic enactment), one should be stringent. However, if there is a need to toast rusks for someone who is ill or for a child, one should ask a rabbi. The author of “Shevitat HaShabbat” holds that this is permitted, and there are also the views of “Magen Avraham” and those who fundamentally disagree with “Sefer Yere’im,” so there is room for leniency. But since the authors of “Orchot Shabbat” did not permit it and merely referred to him, this author will not take it upon himself to be more lenient than they were.
Cooking in oil.
1. Food fried in a small amount of oil. After much debate, the view of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv—that it should be considered cooked—has been accepted (“Orchot Shabbat,” chapter one, note 60). Therefore, patties and schnitzels fried in oil are considered cooked.
2. Deep-fried food is considered cooked. (“Orchot Shabbat,” ibid.)
Therefore, shkedei marak (small dough croutons “deep”-fried in oil) may be put into hot soup even if the soup is in a second vessel.
Cooked chicken or meat became the subject of an interesting discussion. The “Mishnah Berurah” says that it is unclear why it may be reheated near a fire at a permitted distance (at which we are not concerned that the prohibition against stoking the coals will be violated—we will discuss this in future articles). In other words, why is reheating meat near a fire not considered roasting after cooking?
The “Mishnah Berurah” does not give an answer. On this basis, “Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah” prohibits doing so. In other words, according to this view, cold cooked meat may not be reheated on the lid of another pot. Yet throughout Jewish history, dozens of generations studied this example described in the Talmud, and no one raised this problem. Moreover, the “Mishnah Berurah” only asks the question; it does not necessarily hold that this must be prohibited.
On this basis, the Chazon Ish and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explained that this is permitted, because the piece of meat merely dries out and warms up, rather than becoming a kebab (with a new flavor).
It follows from the above that:
- a schnitzel fried in oil (considered cooked, see above) may be reheated in a dry frying pan on a “second level,” as we described in the previous article;
- cooked chicken or meat may be reheated in the same way, or on the lid of a pot standing over a fire.