Siman 253

It has already been explained at the beginning of the previous siman that it is permitted to begin a labor on Erev Shabbat even though the labor is completed on Shabbat. Therefore, a person may place a pot with a cooked dish on the fire on Erev Shabbat close to darkness, or meat in an oven or upon coals, and they continue to cook on Shabbat. However, there are matters among these that the sages forbade doing so, due to a decree lest he rake the coals on Shabbat in order to hasten their cooking, because raking is done in a single moment, and in his desire for the food—it is a near thing that at that moment he will forget that today is Shabbat, and he will rake the coals and come to a Torah prohibition, because through his raking it will hasten to cook, and he would be cooking on Shabbat. Therefore, the sages made safeguards for this, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

And because there is a dispute of the great authorities in this matter, and also their manner of cooking was different from ours, it is therefore necessary to first explain their manner of cooking: Namely, that for them, the oven was not open from the side like ours, nor as large as our oven, and they had three types of ovens: a kirah, a kupach, and a tanur. And all of them were generally not attached to the ground, and their openings were at the top, and they would kindle at their bottom and the fire would rise upward, and they placed the pot upon the mouth of the kirah, the kupach, and the tanur, which is to say upon their rims, and the entire pot was over the hollow space. And the kirah was made to place two pots upon it, and it was long and narrow, and it was equal at the top and the bottom. And the kupach was also equal at the top and the bottom, only it was smaller than the kirah, which is to say for one pot. And consequently, since it was not long—it retained heat more than the kirah. And the tanur was also for one pot, and it was wide at the bottom and narrow at the top, and consequently it retained heat much more even than a kupach. And besides this, they would kindle in a tanur more than in a kirah. (Rashi, Bava Batra 20a: s.v. "uv'kirah". And it requires great study regarding the Tur, Choshen Mishpat, beginning of siman 155, who wrote in the name of the Rashbam that the opening of the kirah is from the side, see there. And also the Nimukei Yosef there brought this from the Yerushalmi there, which says that a kirah is made like a type of dovecote, see there. And I wonder, for this is the explanation—that it is equal at the top and the bottom like a dovecote, and not like a tanur which is narrow at the top.)

And their fueling was either with straw or stubble gathered from the field, from which the fire is very weak and in which there are only a few coals, or with gephet, which is the waste of olives or of sesame seeds. And that of olives, the fire was very strong and has many coals, and likewise that of sesame seeds, even though it is not as strong as that of olives, yet it is stronger than that of straw and stubble. And likewise with wood, the fire is very strong, and there is an abundance of coals in them. And they also fueled with the dung of animals, and it is stated in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of "Kira": That of small livestock is like gephet and wood, and that of large livestock is like straw and stubble, see there. And it is a wonder that the Rambam in chapter 3 wrote the opposite, as we will bring his words, and it must be said that his version of the text in the Yerushalmi was thus.

And behold, their way on Erev Shabbat was to leave the cooked foods in the pots, meaning to place them upon the kirah and the kupach and the oven so that they would remain in their heat until they ate the Shabbat meal at night, and they also did so for Shabbat day in the morning for the second meal. And this is called hasheyah, that is to say, that they left the pot upon the kirah, etc. And there are those who also on Shabbat, after they took the pot from the kirah and took from it a little cooked food, they returned it afterwards to its place upon the kirah, and this is called hazharah, that is to say, they took it and returned it. And this is much more stringent than hasheyah, for this they do on Shabbat itself, and hasheyah is on Erev Shabbat. And there are those who, after they took the pot from the kirah, they insulated it in flocking or in other things, they surrounded it above and below and from the sides, and this is called hatmanah, and these laws will be explained in siman 257. But in this siman there are only the laws of hasheyah and hazharah.

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 3, law 4: "A cooked dish that has not cooked sufficiently and hot water that has not heated sufficiently, or a cooked dish that has cooked sufficiently but as long as it shrinks it is beneficial for it—one may not leave it upon the fire on Shabbat even though it was placed there while it was still day, as a decree lest one rake the coals in order to complete its cooking or in order to shrink it. Therefore, if he raked the fire or covered the fire of the stove with ash or with fine flax tow, or if the coals grew dim for they are as if covered with ash, or if he fueled it with straw or with stubble or with the dung of small cattle for there are no burning coals there—it is permitted to leave it upon it, for he has diverted his mind from this cooked dish, and we do not decree lest he rake the fire." Thus far his words. That is to say, that he diverted his mind from this cooked dish regarding the matter of raking; since he performed an action to diminish the fire, we no longer concern ourselves with the fear lest he rake. (This is the intent of the Kesef Mishneh, and the difficulty of the Ramakh is answered; see there.) And it is not necessary to cover with ash until no fire is recognizable there at all; rather, any covering of ash whatsoever is sufficient (Ran, Beit Yosef, and Magen Avraham, subsection 3), for since he revealed his intent that he does not desire the coals, it is sufficient (ibid.). And therefore they said in the Gemara (37b) that even if he covered it with ash and it flared up, it is permitted to leave it, and even with coals of broom, which are intense in their heat as it is written: "coals of broom"—nevertheless it is permitted, since he revealed his intent that he has no need for raking. And the Rambam omitted this law, and similarly the Rif, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch did not mention this, and it requires further study, for behold, no one disagrees on this. And know, that there are those who say that "raked" does not mean that he rakes the coals out of the oven, but rather that he rakes them to one side of the oven (Ran and Meor) in the manner that we do, but the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch do not hold accordingly.

The Rambam wrote: "In what case are these words said? Regarding a kirah whose heat is minimal. But a tanur, even though one raked the fire or covered it with ash, or even if one fueled it with straw or stubble—one may not leave food inside it nor on top of it, nor lean against it a cooked dish that has not been fully cooked, or one that has been fully cooked but for which shrinkage is beneficial, since its heat is very intense—one does not divert his mind, and we fear lest he rake this minimal fire, even if it is of straw and stubble or covered. And why did they forbid leaving food in a tanur even though it is raked? Because one who rakes only rakes the majority and the essence of the fire, and it is impossible to rake all the fire until not a single spark remains; because its heat is intense—we fear lest he rake in order to kindle the sparks remaining in the tanur." Thus far his words. And even though covering with ash reveals his intent that he has no desire for raking—it can be said that this is only regarding a kirah whose heat is minimal, and when he covers it with ash it is close to being completely extinguished, and you have no greater revelation of intent than this. This is not the case regarding a tanur where the warmth is very great—this is no revelation of intent at all, for it is possible to say that the covering with ash was to quiet the fire from the greatness of its warmth so that it would not burn the cooked dish, and when he sees afterwards that the fire has quieted completely—he will rake in order to strengthen it a bit. And in truth, there are some of the great authorities who hold this way, that the prohibition regarding a tanur is only when raked and not when covered with ash, because he revealed his intent as I have written, and similarly when he fueled it with straw and stubble where the fire is weak—there is also no difference between a tanur and a kirah, (Kesef Mishneh in the name of the Ramak) but most of the poskim stand by the position of the Rambam, of blessed memory.

And he wrote further: "The kupach, its heat is greater than the heat of the kirah and less than the heat of the tanur. Therefore, if they fueled it with olive peat or with wood—it is like a tanur, and one may not leave food within it, nor upon it, nor may one place a dish adjacent to it if it has not cooked entirely or if it shrinks and it is beneficial for it, even though it is raked or he covered it with ash. And if they fueled it with straw or with stubble—it is like a kirah that they fueled with straw or with stubble, and one may leave food upon it, and it is permitted to place adjacent to the kirah from the eve of Shabbat, even though it is not raked or covered with ash." Thus far his words. Meaning, even if it was fueled with olive peat and wood, for they were not stringent regarding placing adjacent to a kirah. And "placing adjacent" is what it is called when they place the pot at the side of the kirah so that it will be heated by its walls, as with our kachlin. And some say that even a kupach is permitted for placing adjacent when it is raked or covered with ash, and the Gemara that forbade it—it is without raking or covering with ash. (Kessef Mishneh in the name of the Ramach) And the opinion of the Rambam is, that with olive peat and wood—the law of a kupach is entirely like the law of a tanur. And from the words of the Rambam it is explained, that "leaving" is what it is called whether they place the pot upon it or whether they place it within it as in our tanurim. And know, that the prohibition in all these matters is only when the hand is scalded by it inside the tanur and the kupach and the kirah. But if they cooled until the hand is not scalded by them, even if there are coals there—it is permitted to place upon them or within them in any manner. And it is not only necessary to say on the eve of Shabbat, but even on Shabbat, for behold they are not fit for cooking. (Magen Avraham, subsection 9)

And all that has been explained regarding the prohibition of hasheyah—this is when the cooked food is fit to be eaten at night, meaning that it was already cooked significantly while it was still day, but it requires the completion of its cooking or it is shrinking and it is beneficial for it. And even though his intention is for the next day—nevertheless, we concern ourselves that he might decide to eat it at night. But if there is proof that it is not fit to be eaten at night, such as placing raw food close to evening, such that by the time of the night meal it will not be cooked as required, and perforce he will leave it until the next day—in such a case, hasheyah is completely permitted even in an oven. And even though it will be cooked by three or four hours into the night—nevertheless, we do not concern ourselves that he will wait for the Shabbat evening meal such a long time, for it is the way of the Children of Israel to eat the Shabbat meal at the beginning of the night, as this is of the honor of Shabbat.

This is the wording of the Rambam there: "A raw dish that has not cooked at all, or one that has cooked for all its needs and is shrinking and it is bad for it—it is permitted to leave it upon the fire, whether on a kirah and a kupach or in an oven. And so too (even) any dish that has cooked but has not cooked for all its needs, or that has cooked for all its needs and is shrinking and it is good for it, if one threw into it a raw limb close to bein hashemashot—it all becomes like a raw dish and it is permitted to leave it on the fire, even though he did not rake and did not cover, because he has already diverted his mind from it and will not come to rake the coals." Thus far his words. Meaning, that until tomorrow there is plenty of time to cook, and why would he rake. And specifically raw meat which requires much time to cook, but a raw vegetable and the like which is quick to cook—it is forbidden. (Taz subsection 2 and Magen Avraham subsection 4)

And know that the things we permitted regarding shehiyah, such as a kirah or a kupach that were fueled with straw or stubble, or a cooked dish that is fully cooked and for which further shrinking is detrimental, or a raw dish or if one placed a raw limb into it which we permitted even in a furnace—this is only regarding shehiyah on Erev Shabbat close to sunset. However, regarding chazarah, meaning they removed it on Shabbat and wish to return it to the kirah, kupach, or furnace—it is forbidden, because when one returns it on Shabbat, it appears like one is cooking ab initio. And there are those who forbid chazarah even before nightfall, as long as it cannot be cooked while it is still day, (Tosafot at the beginning of Kirah, starting with "And Beit Hillel") but the opinion of the Rambam does not appear so.

This is the wording of the Rambam there: "Anything that is permitted to be left upon the fire, when one removes it on Shabbat—it is forbidden to return it to its place. And one never returns (even if it shrinks and it is bad for it, or a raw dish) except upon a kireh that is swept (for in this it does not appear like cooking), or in a kireh or a kupach that were fueled with straw or stubble (also for the reason that has been explained), and provided that he did not place the pot upon the ground. But once he has placed it upon the ground—one may not return it (for in this, in any case, it appears like cooking), even upon a kireh that is swept or covered. And one may not return it to a tannur, nor to a kupach that was fueled (so it must be said) with olive-peat or with wood (and in a tannur even with straw or stubble), even though he swept or covered it (and even if it shrinks and it is bad for it, and a raw dish), because their heat is very intense. And anything upon which one may not return—one may not lean against it on Shabbat." Thus far his words. And regarding leaning against a kupach, there are those who disagree and permit it, as I wrote in section 7. And all of this is the system of the Rambam, who stands by the system of the Rif, his teacher, and to this the Ramban, of blessed memory, agreed. (For the inquiry at the beginning of "Kireh" whether our Mishnah deals with leaving or with returning—the Rif proved that the conclusion is for stringency, that we learned "to leave," see there; and so wrote the Bahag, see there.)

But the approach of Rashi, Tosafot, the Rosh, and the Rashba, and so too hold Rav Hai Gaon and our teacher Chananel, is that all the prohibitions that were explained—they are only regarding returning [the food] and not regarding leaving [the food], and regarding leaving [the food] it is only prohibited if it has begun to cook but has not yet reached the food of Ben Drusai, which is one-third cooked according to Rashi and half cooked according to the Rambam. But anything that has reached this [state of] food, and even if it shrinks and it is beneficial for it—it is permitted, for we hold like Chananya (Shabbat 20a) that anything that is like the food of Ben Drusai—it is permitted to leave it upon a kirah, even though it is not swept or covered with ashes. And according to the approach of the Rambam, this is only regarding roasted meat, and it will be explained in siman 254, and not regarding a cooked dish in a pot. And according to the words of these, our teachers, the laws will change toward leniency, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.

And according to this view, the law is as follows: That whenever it has begun to cook but has not yet cooked to the extent of the food of Ben Drusai (who was a bandit and would eat with partial cooking) — it is forbidden to leave it upon a kirah that is not swept or covered with ash, and upon a furnace even if it is swept and covered with ash, and even if they heated it with straw or stubble. And a kirah that they heated with straw or stubble — it appears that it is permitted, and a kupach with straw or stubble — is like a kirah, and peat or wood — is like a furnace. (So it appears in my humble opinion, for according to this view, before it reaches the food of Ben Drusai — it is like the view of the Rambam, for from where do we have reason to say otherwise, since Chananya only disagrees regarding the food of Ben Drusai. And it is possible that according to this view, a kirah and a furnace are equal regarding leaving it, and nevertheless the primary view is as I have written, and so it is implied in the Ran, see there. And with a furnace — even to place it adjacent is forbidden, and with a kirah — it is always permitted to place it adjacent, and with a kupach there is a dispute as I wrote in section 7.)

And anything that has reached the stage of the food of Ben Drusai, even if it shrinks and it is beneficial for it—it is permitted to leave it upon a kirah and upon a tannur and a kupach, (Tosafot 38b, s.v. "tannur" and Maggid Mishneh ibid.) and even if it was fueled with olive-peat and wood, (ibid. in Maggid Mishneh) for since it was cooked like the food of Ben Drusai—it will cook on its own and we do not fear for stoking, for on account of shrinking one will not come to stoke, and all the more so with raw food, and with that which is completely cooked and shrinking is detrimental for it. And the distinction between a kirah and a tannur is regarding returning, for a kirah that was fueled with straw and stubble—it is permitted to return upon it even if it is not cleared or covered with ashes, and with olive-peat and wood—it requires clearing or covering with ashes, and a tannur—even if cleared and covered with ashes it is forbidden, and even if fueled with straw and stubble. And a kupach with straw and stubble—its law is like a kirah, and with olive-peat and wood—its law is like a tannur. And with a tannur—leaning is also forbidden for returning in all manners, and with a kirah—it is permitted in all manners, and with a kupach there is a dispute as I wrote in section 7.

Sometimes it is called semikha even when one places it on top of the kirah, such as two kirot that were built together and only a wall separates one from the other, and the wall is made of earthenware, and one is swept and covered with ash and the second is not swept and covered with ash—one may place it on the swept and covered one even though it was fueled with olive peat and wood, and the second one likewise. And the first one adds heat by means of the heat of the second one rising to it—nevertheless, it is only semikha and is permitted, (Gemara 37a). The Rambam and the Tur did not bring this, and it requires further study.

The Tur wrote: "A kirah that is swept or covered with ash and one removed the pot from upon it—even on Shabbat it is permitted to return it as long as it is boiling. And specifically upon its top, such as on its rim or on a cover that is over its cavity, and while it is still in his hand and his intention was to return it. But into the cavity of the kirah, or if he placed the pot upon the ground, or even if it is still in his hand but his intention was not to return it—it is forbidden. And even if he did not place it upon the ground but rather hung it on a staff or placed it upon a bed, or if they emptied it from vessel to vessel—it is forbidden." Thus far his words. And in this he was much more stringent than the Rambam, for the Rambam did not distinguish between upon the kirah and inside the kirah (see Beit Yosef and it requires further study), and the Gemara there explicitly follows the Tur, stating: "They only taught this regarding upon its top, but into its interior—it is forbidden," and we conclude that this law was stated regarding returning; see there. And the Rambam did not mention anything of this, and his reason seems clear to me, for the one who says this holds that our Mishnah deals with returning; see there. Therefore, since the Rambam ruled that it deals with leaving [shehiyah], this statement is nullified for him. And according to the Rambam, returning is permitted only in a kirah or kupach that was fueled with straw or stubble and is swept or covered with ash, as I wrote in section 11, and if so, in such cases it is not relevant to distinguish between its interior and its top, as is understood. But the Tur, who ruled that it deals with returning, correctly ruled according to that statement. And also in this he was more stringent than the Rambam, for the Rambam only forbade it when he placed it upon the ground, and also did not require that his intention be to return it, and the Tur was stringent in this. And in the Gemara there are two versions regarding this, and this is also for the reason we explained, for according to the Rambam, for whom returning is completely forbidden except in a kirah or kupach fueled with straw or stubble and swept or covered with ash—it is not relevant to be so stringent, which is not the case according to the Tur. (And this is clear with the help of Heaven.)

And know, that it is not called "its interior" unless the base of the pot stands upon the base of the kirah. However, when it does not touch the base of the kirah, even if most of the pot is within the kirah and it is held by its width from above upon the top of the kirah—this is called "upon it" and is permitted. (Magen Avraham, subsection 22) And our ovens, whose law is like a kirah as will be explained, and in them there is no "upon them," and one always places within them—there is no distinction in this, and "its interior" is like "upon it." (This is the intent of the Shiltei HaGibborim brought by the Magen Avraham there)

And that which has been explained, that it is permitted to return even on Shabbat—this is when the cooked food is fully cooked and has not yet cooled. But if it is not fully cooked or if it has cooled—it is obvious that it is forbidden to return it when the hand is scalded by it, for this is literally like cooking. And regarding that which is fully cooked and has not cooled—it is permitted to return it even to another kirah, and even if its heat is greater than the first, since there is no trace of cooking in this. And if it was not cooked or it has cooled—it is forbidden to return it even to the same kirah when the hand is scalded by it. And that which we permitted even to another kirah—this is because it is from shehiyah to shehiyah, and it is all one. But when the pot was in hatmanah and one wishes to place it upon a kirah—it is forbidden, and all the more so to take it from the kirah and place it in hatmanah is forbidden, as will be explained in siman 257; see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: "And some say that all this is only forbidden when one removed it from the kirah while it was still day, and did not return it until it was dark. However, if one took it from there after it was dark—it is permitted to return it even if one placed it on the ground, and so we are accustomed to be lenient with our ovens which have the status of a kirah, and they rely upon the words of those who are lenient, and it is good to be stringent. However, if it cooled down—according to everyone it is forbidden, and some say that if one removed food from the oven on Shabbat—it is forbidden to place it in pillows and blankets" thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that some say that the entire law of returning which the sages forbade is only when one removed it on the eve of Shabbat and returned it after it was dark, for then even if it was fully cooked and is boiling—it is forbidden, as this is like initially placing it to stay on Shabbat. But when one removed it on Shabbat and returned it on Shabbat—this is not the returning that the sages forbade, for cooking is not applicable to this, and also the concern of raking the coals is not present here, as it is boiling and fully cooked and it is like staying. And even if one placed it on the ground—the initial staying was not nullified. And upon this the world relies when they remove the pots from our ovens which are heated with wood, and were not raked or covered with ash, and they take a little food and return the pots to the oven. But in truth it is good to be stringent, because this is only a single opinion. (The Ran, of blessed memory) And when it has cooled down—it is obvious that it is forbidden. And that which he wrote: 'that it is forbidden to place it in pillows and blankets'—it is a simple matter, for even if they do not add heat it is forbidden on Shabbat, as written in siman 257, but because there were those who would do so because they thought that they only forbade hatmanah on Shabbat for the initial act of hatmanah, but when it stood on the kirah it is permitted, just as it is permitted to move it from kirah to kirah—he comes to teach us that it is forbidden. (So it appears to me to be his intention)

The Tur wrote: "And if it is not cleared or covered with ashes—it is forbidden to return it. Not only on Shabbat, but even while it is still day, after all the cooking of the pot is finished and he leaves it to stand on the stove until evening to preserve its heat, if he removed it from the stove—it is forbidden for him to return it even while it is still boiling, if it is so close to evening that there is no time remaining in the day for it to boil if it were cold, for we decree this on account of a case where he removed it on Shabbat, for if you permit returning it while it is still day—he will also come to return it when he removed it on Shabbat. But as long as it has not been cooked, or even if it has been cooked and there is time remaining in the day for it to boil if it had cooled down—it is permitted to return it. And in an oven, even if it is cleared or covered with ashes—it is forbidden to return it. And a kupach, if he fueled it with straw or chaff—its law is like a stove, with pomace or wood—its law is like an oven." Thus far his words.

And behold, regarding that which he wrote: "for if you permit it while it is still day, one will also come to return it when he removed it on Shabbat" — this is not according to the "there are those who say" brought by our teacher, the Rema, that if one removed it on Shabbat, it is permitted to return it. However, we have already written in section 19 that this is a minority opinion, and the Tur does not hold accordingly. Yet even according to this opinion, there is reason to decree lest he remove it on Erev Shabbat and return it on Shabbat. (And according to this, that which the Rema also brought this settles well, and examine this carefully.) And also that which he wrote: "that when there is time in the day for it to boil, it is also permitted" — this settles well, for in such cases it is not appropriate to call it "returning" but rather "leaving," for if not so, we would forbid returning it every day on Erev Shabbat. However, that which he wrote "that even when it has not been cooked, it is permitted to return it" — this is not understood. And the commentators wrote the reason that in such cases we do not decree that he will do so on Shabbat, for he certainly will not cook on Shabbat. (Magen Avraham sub-section 26 and see Taz sub-section 15.) And this is certainly difficult, for we decree lest he forget that today is Shabbat and rake the coals, and in truth there are poskim who disagree on this, (see Magen Avraham ibid. and Bach) and also our teacher, the Rema, did not bring this, see there. And the reason of the Tur appears to me to be that when it has not yet been cooked, it is not appropriate to call it "returning" but rather "leaving," and the proof is that they permit "returning" even on Shabbat as has been explained, and on Shabbat it is obvious that we do not return in such cases. And the summary of the matters is that the term "returning" applies only to something that has been completely cooked.

Our teacher, the Rema, brought this as well, and this is his wording: "There are those who say that whenever it is close to darkness, or close to Barechu, which is the acceptance of Shabbat for us, if it is so close that if the pot cooled down it would be impossible to boil it while it is still day—its law is like on Shabbat itself. And there are those who are lenient in this, and the custom is to be lenient, but it is good to be stringent in a place where there is not such a great need. And specifically on top of a kira itself, but to place it near—even near the fire in a place where the hand is scalded by it is permitted, even close to darkness, and in an oven there is no difference between returning it upon it or placing it near it. And specifically in a place where the hand is scalded, but if the hand is not scalded there—it is permitted even on Shabbat, as I wrote below in siman 318." Thus far his words. And regarding placing it near, it is permitted even if it cooled down completely, (Magen Avraham subsection 29) for if not so, even on Shabbat it would be permitted to place it near, as below in siman 318. (ibid.) And know, that regarding what he wrote: that close to Barechu is like close to darkness—there are those who disagree with him, for one should not be stringent in a matter that is only a decree lest one rake the coals close to Barechu, for even if one rakes close to Barechu—there is no Torah prohibition here, and therefore one should be lenient in this. (ibid. subsection 26) And this is according to their custom, as they would hasten to pray the evening service of Shabbat while the day was still long.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote at the end of section 1: "And all this is regarding shehiya, where the pot sits on an iron stand or on stones and does not touch the coals. But hatmana upon coals—according to everyone it is forbidden." Thus far his words. That is to say, when the pot touches the coals, as in our ovens, this is not shehiya but hatmana, and it is forbidden in every case. And according to this, there is no permission for us to place the pots on Friday close to nightfall, unless it is garuf and katum, and many are not careful in this. If so, there is no permission in our ovens at all according to this opinion, but our teacher, the Rema, disagrees on this as will be explained.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: "And some say that even if the pot is standing directly on the fire, as long as it is uncovered on top—it is not called hatmanah and is permitted, and such is the custom, except that they are careful to detach it slightly from the fire before the Shabbat so that an Israelite can remove it from there. And if he did not detach it from the fire and found it on top of the fire on Shabbat—it should be removed from there by a non-Jew. And if there is no non-Jew—it is permitted for an Israelite to remove it from there, and he should be careful to take it from there gently and not shake the coals, and then even if he shakes them slightly—an unintended act is permitted." Thus far his words. And according to his words, in our case it is not called hatmanah, for specifically when the walls of the oven are attached to the pot all around—this is called hatmanah, like one who performs hatmanah in wool-flock and the like, which surround the pot all around and cover it also from above, and this is not applicable to placing pots in our ovens, and this is nothing other than shehiyah. However, regarding what he wrote: that the Israelite himself may remove it from the fire—it is a great leniency, and one should not do so except in a case of pressing need. However, if the coals are placed around the pot—it is obvious that it is forbidden for the Israelite to remove it himself, as he moves the coals and kindles the upper ones and extinguishes the lower ones, and it is close to reaching a Torah prohibition, and even by means of a non-Jew it is difficult to be lenient. But by means of a non-Jew—one should be lenient, for we do not tell him to turn over the coals but rather to take the pot, and if he extinguishes or kindles—he does this on his own. (Magen Avraham, subsection 18)

Regarding our ovens, our teacher, the Rema, ruled in section 1 that their status is like a kirah, for the reason that they are very large, their opening is from the side, and the air escapes. There is one who questions this (Tiferet Shmuel in the name of the Maharshal, see there), but we have only the words of our teacher, the Rema, and so wrote the Kol Bo and other Rishonim, and the senses testify to this. For how can we compare it to the oven in the time of the Gemara which held only one pot and was narrow at the top, and by placing the pot on the opening of the oven, which was closed on all sides, the strength of the fire dominated the entire pot all around? What comparison is there to our ovens? It is sufficient that we judge them as a kirah. Similarly, our "plitas" are certainly like a kirah, for the pots stand on top and it is made for several pots, and it is equal from top to bottom, and this is literally like a kirah and not like an oven. And our "kachlach," which is when they make a hollow in the walls of the oven with a small iron door—this is literally the "smikhah" that has been explained. Similarly, on top of the oven is also "smikhah," and similarly in front of the oven, which is called a "kaminak" and is in front of the mouth of the oven, and some call it a "yamka"—and this is also like "smikhah."

Our custom is that on Friday before evening, those cooked foods that are needed to be eaten at night—one removes them from the oven and places them before the oven or on top of the oven or on the stove-tiles. And it is obvious that to place it adjacent to a kireh is permitted even if it is not cleared of ash or covered with ash according to all opinions, as has been explained. And the cooked foods for the next day, which are called "cholent," one places in the oven and clears the fire to one side of the oven, and some also place ash upon the coals. And the pots are placed inside the oven in a location where there are no coals at all, and it is customary to plaster the opening of the oven with clay or with ash or with worn rags that were soaked in water, and this is what is called "sealing the oven," for they attach the door of the oven to the oven itself with a strong attachment, until the next day it is necessary to open it with great force; and see what I wrote in siman 254, section 4.

And behold, according to our custom it is permitted even according to the view of the Rambam, as they said in the Gemara (18b) that when the mouth of the oven is sealed - we do not fear the raking of coals, and it will be explained in siman 254. And the reason is that we only fear the concern of raking when one can rake in a moment, and he will forget that today is Shabbat. But for something that requires time - surely until he performs the raking he will remember that today is Shabbat. And behold, even if they did not seal the mouth of the oven, if they placed a raw pot close to evening - it has already been explained that it is permitted according to all views even in an oven; and if they placed it about an hour before nightfall, such that by nightfall it did not reach the status of the food of Ben Drusai - it is forbidden according to all views in a kirah that is not swept or covered with ash. And behold, if they placed ash upon the coals - this is "covered with ash," and it is also permitted according to all views. And if they did not place ash - it is not called "swept" according to most poskim, and only according to the view of the "there are those who say" in section 5 is it called "swept," see there. And if they placed it two or three hours before nightfall, such that by nightfall it reached the status of the food of Ben Drusai, in this case according to the view of Rashi and Tosafot - it is permitted, for they permit leaving it on a kirah that is not swept or covered with ash; and according to the Rif and the Rambam - it is forbidden, if we do not consider it swept or covered with ash. Therefore, if they placed ash - it is permitted even according to their view, and if they did not place ash - it is not permitted according to their view, except according to the view of the "there are those who say" in section 5. And Israel are holy, and they perform all the stringencies, for they sweep the coals to one side and place ash and seal the oven. And the laws of returning have also already been explained by us, that according to the view of Rashi and Tosafot - returning is permitted on a kirah that is swept and covered with ash, and according to the Rif and the Rambam - it is forbidden unless it is completely cooked, and it shrinks and it is bad for it, and on a kirah that is swept and covered with ash. And in our regions we stoke with wood and not with straw or stubble, and the prohibition of returning is only in a place where the hand is scalded.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 3, law 9: "Any cooked food that is forbidden to leave [on the fire], if one transgressed and left it—it is forbidden to eat it until the conclusion of Shabbat, and he must wait the time it takes to prepare. And if he forgot it: if it is a cooked food that was not fully cooked—it is forbidden until the conclusion of Shabbat; and if it is a cooked food that was fully cooked and it shrinks and it is improved by it (meaning even if it shrinks and it is improved by it)—it is permitted to eat it immediately on Shabbat." Thus far his words. The Tur equates one who transgressed and left it to one who forgot, see there, and our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, ruled without qualification like the Rambam in section 1, see there. And when it is forbidden—it is forbidden to everyone, even to others (Magen Avraham, subsection 11), and there is one who permits it to others, but it is not the primary view (ibid.). And if a non-Jew returned it on Shabbat to the oven for the sake of the Jew—its law is like one who forgot and left it, for if it was not fully cooked—it is forbidden, and if it was fully cooked—it is permitted. And if the Jew returned it on Shabbat in a place where it is forbidden, even inadvertently—its law is like one who transgressed and left it, for even if it was fully cooked—it is forbidden if it shrinks and it is improved by it, for regarding returning, which is done on Shabbat—they were stringent even in an inadvertent case. But regarding food fully cooked that shrinks and it is detrimental to it—it is obvious that it is permitted in any case, for he has spoiled it by leaving it or by returning it. And there is one who says that regarding returning it inadvertently—it is permitted to others immediately (ibid., subsection 14).

One who rises early in the morning and saw that his cooked food was overcooked and fears lest it overcook further, and his desire is to place it upon another pot to distance it from the heat of the kirah—he may remove it and place an empty pot upon the kirah, and place this pot upon the empty pot, provided that it is an old pot, for if it were a new pot—there is a concern of libun in this, as I wrote later in siman 502. And even though our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled there to be lenient—that is when it contains cooked food, but an empty one—there is a concern of libun. (Ibid. subsection 30) And he should also be careful not to place the removed pot upon the ground and that it remains boiling, for if not so—it is forbidden to return it on Shabbat. However, it has already been explained in section 19 that the world is accustomed to be lenient even if he placed it upon the ground, for they hold that regarding one who took it on Shabbat and returned it on Shabbat—this is not the "returning" that they forbade; see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: "One must protest against those who are accustomed to hide a kettle of hot water while it is still day, and they place them into the pot on Shabbat when the cooked food is diminishing." Thus far his words. And our teacher wrote to see siman 318, and his intention is that we do not hold accordingly, for the reason of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is because sometimes one is at the temperature that the hand recoils from it and one is at a temperature that the hand does not recoil from it, and they are cooked with one another, and this is according to the view of those who hold that in such cases there is cooking after cooking. However, according to what will be explained later in siman 318, that as long as it has not cooled down completely, cooking does not apply to it, and it is a daily occurrence that people place legumes or kasha into the bowl and they become a kli sheni, and they pour broth over them from a kli rishon, and likewise if first they place the broth and afterwards they place the legumes or the kasha upon it, and it is a solid mass and extremely hot, and we are not concerned for this—if so, we also do not hold like the ruling of our teacher, the Beit Yosef. (See Magen Avraham subsection 32, and what he wrote that one should not stir with a spoon—he himself wrote there in subsection 44 that the custom is to permit it, and there it will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven.)

It is permitted to place upon the opening of a hot pot on Shabbat, even if it is standing near the fire, a dry food that was fully cooked from the eve of Shabbat, such as pasties similar to our "teigachs" and "kugel" and the like, in order to heat them, because this is not the manner of cooking even if it cooled down completely, for in this everyone agrees in siman 318 that a dry item that was fully cooked from the eve of Shabbat is no longer subject to the prohibition of cooking. Therefore, dry meat and dry "kasha" are permitted in such a manner, but if there is much congealed fat in it, it is forbidden, because when the fat melts it becomes "nolad," as will be explained there with the help of Heaven.

And that which we said to place it upon the opening of a hot pot, we only permitted in such a manner. However, to place it upon a stove or inside the stove is forbidden, for even though there is no issue of cooking in this—nevertheless, initially placing it to stay on Shabbat is forbidden even with a boiling liquid where further reduction is detrimental to it. (The Gra) Therefore, to place it into our ovens at a time when the oven is very hot and the hand recoils from it is a complete prohibition, and likewise on the plates—it is forbidden to place any food while it is very hot. And that which occasionally toward evening in the winter they place fish or meat or dough-pastries into the oven—this is when there is no great heat in the oven, but only a small amount of heat as is the way of our ovens, that after midday the great heat has departed from them. But on the tiled stoves—it is permitted to place, for leaning is permitted on a stove as has been explained, and likewise on the oven or before the oven. Therefore, we only permitted to place it upon a hot pot, for in this it does not appear like cooking nor like staying, since the pot intervenes. Therefore, if upon the pot there are garments with which they insulated the pot—it is forbidden to place the food under the garments, for this is insulation and is forbidden on Shabbat. (And the prohibition to place into the oven or on the stove applies even if it is swept or covered with ash, for even though we permitted returning, we did not permit initially placing it to stay on Shabbat; and examine this carefully.)

And there are those who permit placing the food into an oven in which they baked during the day, and did not entomb cooked dishes in it for Shabbat. For since they did not entomb in it but only baked in it during the day—certainly there is only a small amount of trapped heat in it, and there is no concern for cooking. And this is when they place it on Shabbat morning, for then in such an oven there is not much heat. But at night—it is obvious that there is much warmth in it and it is forbidden. However, even in this, the permission is only when it has not cooled down completely, for if it has cooled down completely—it is like shehiyah, and perhaps the hand would still be scalded there. And there are those who are stringent even if it has not cooled down completely, if only the hand would be scalded there, for in this too it is like shehiyah initially on Shabbat. And it is simple that if the hand would not be scalded there—it is permitted in all manners, and many times we have explained this, that when the hand is not scalded—there is no prohibition at all to place a cooked dish there, even a liquid one so that its chill may dissipate, and all the more so a dry food.

And know, that everything that is forbidden for us to do ourselves—it is also forbidden to tell a non-Jew to do it, for telling a non-Jew is a shevut, and even regarding a rabbinic prohibition, telling a non-Jew is forbidden. (The Gra) However, regarding a rabbinic prohibition that is a shevut d'shevut in a place of a mitzvah—the sages did not decree, and if the cooked food is needed for the honor of Shabbat—it is possible that it is permitted, and it seems that some are accustomed to act so and they have that upon which to rely. And according to this, one must know what is from the Torah and what is rabbinic, and it is simple that anything in which there is a concern of cooking—it is from the Torah, and anything where the concern is because of shehiyah or chazarah or hatmanah—it is rabbinic.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema, in section 5: "And all the things that it is forbidden to do—it is forbidden to tell a non-Jew to do. Therefore, it is forbidden to tell a non-Jew to heat the pot if it has cooled down, and if he did so, it is forbidden to eat it even cold. However, if it has not cooled down so much, such that it is still fit to eat, if the non-Jews heated it, they are permitted to eat. Therefore, the custom is that the non-Jews remove the pots from the ovens in which they are insulated, and they place them near the winter-house oven or upon it, and the maidservant subsequently stokes that oven, and through this the pots return to a boil. But by means of an Israelite, it is forbidden in such a manner. But if the pots are still hot, it is permitted to place them near the winter-house oven, since it has been explained that our ovens have the law of a kirah, and placing adjacent to a kirah that is not cleared of ash or covered with ash is like the law of one cleared of ash or covered with ash regarding placing upon it. And it has already been explained that the custom is to be lenient regarding returning on Shabbat even if one placed it upon the ground, and the same law applies to placing adjacent to an oven that is not cleared of ash or covered with ash, since the pot is still hot and fully cooked, and such is the simple custom to permit, and see below siman 318." Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words is that it is forbidden to tell a non-Jew to heat the pot if it has cooled down, for this is a prohibition according to the Torah. Therefore, if he did so, it is forbidden to eat even cold, where one does not benefit from his labor; nevertheless, they penalized him that he must wait until evening for the time it takes to be made, because the non-Jew performed labor through his command. Therefore, if the non-Jew did so without his command, it is permitted to eat it cold. However, if it had not cooled down so much, if the non-Jew heated it, even through his command, wherein he committed a prohibition—nevertheless, one should not penalize him for this to forbid the food for eating. And know, that all this is even regarding a dry item where there is no concern of cooking—nevertheless, there is a prohibition of shehiyah in it, as has been explained. And in the Agudah it is written: "An incident occurred where the maidservant insulated hot food after dark, and they forbade the cooked dish which was cold, and they permitted the meat which was fit to be eaten cold." (Magen Avraham, subsection 39) And know, that when the Israelite sees that the non-Jew is doing so, he must rebuke him, and he fulfills his obligation with this. And even though he will not obey, nevertheless it is his duty to protest against him, since he is doing it for the sake of the Israelite. But when he does it for himself, it is obvious that he does not need to protest against him, and then the Israelite may also eat, according to the law of anything that a non-Jew does on Shabbat for himself, which an Israelite is permitted to benefit from, as I have written in siman 325.

And he says further: "Therefore, it is the custom that the non-Jews remove the pots from the ovens and place them near the winter-house etc." That is to say, since it has been explained that it is forbidden to tell a non-Jew to heat the cooked food, therefore the custom is that the non-Jew removes the pot from the oven and places it on the oven of the winter-house before the oven is heated, for then he is still doing nothing, and afterward he heats the winter-house oven, and the cooked food is heated automatically. And there is no prohibition in this, for behold, his intention is to heat the winter-house, which is permitted, as all are considered ill in the presence of cold, and the cooked food is heated automatically. And even though there is an element of artifice in this, behold, the non-Jew performs the artifice, and what of it. Therefore, even if the cooked food was cold and became very hot—it is permitted to eat it, whether it is dry food or liquid food. (And perhaps they may tell the non-Jew to do so, meaning to heat the winter-house oven, even though through this the cooked food is heated. But to tell him to place the cooked food there before the heating—it is obvious that it is forbidden.)

And all this is when the non-Jew does it, but an Israelite who does so, who places the pots that are cooling down upon the winter house oven, and afterwards when the non-Jew stokes the oven they become heated—it is a complete prohibition, and it is close to a Torah prohibition, like one who provides the fire and one who provides the water, where both are liable. However, this is when the pots are cold, but if the pots are still hot—it is permitted for the Israelite himself to place them upon the winter house oven, because it has already been explained that our ovens have the status of a kirah, and placing upon the oven is considered smikhah, and smikhah on a kirah that is not swept or covered with ashes is like the law of shehiyah or hazharah on one that is swept or covered with ashes. And this matter has already been explained, that we permit hazharah on Shabbat even if he placed it on the ground, as I wrote in section 23, and consequently the same law applies to smikhah on one that is not swept or covered with ashes, that it is permitted, since the pot is still hot and fully cooked, and so is the simple custom to permit, and see below siman 318 where the primary laws of cooking are explained. (This is the intention of the Rema)

And know, that this entire permission is regarding our ovens, for placing upon the oven is considered "leaning." But on the plates, which are called "English kitchens," where the primary cooking is through placing the pots upon them—it is forbidden in any manner. And it is not only that the Israelite himself may not place the pot upon it based on the fact that the non-Jew will stoke it afterward, for this is complete cooking and he is liable for a chatat, but even through a non-Jew—it is also forbidden, for this is shehiya and returning upon a stove that is not swept or covered with ash, and this is also shehiya ab initio on Shabbat which is forbidden according to all opinions, whether the cooked food is hot or whether it is cold, and furthermore, in this case the intent of the non-Jew is certainly to cook them, for such is the way of their cooking, and therefore Heaven forbid to do so. And to place a samovar before Shabbat and to drink from it at night—it is forbidden, unless there are no burning coals in it, as we learned in the Mishnah: (41a) "A swept muliar, one may drink... but not one that is not swept." (And our samovar is like a muliar and not like the antichi in the Mishnah of course, and all this is according to the commentary of Rashi there and not according to the commentary of the Tosafot see there)