All right, gentlemen. Let’s go back to where we ended yesterday. The Bet Yosef brought down from Rabbenu Yonah and the Ran that it is a great stumbling block: people take hot water and pour it into the cooked dish on Shabbat, and that is a big problem. The Bet Yosef says it is a problem on two counts, as do the Early Authorities. Number one, the water might already have cooled off, and therefore you are cooking it. Number two, even if it has not cooled off, when you pour it into the air, it automatically becomes a second vessel. Therefore, either way, you are cooking it.
So the question is this: Maran brought this ruling down and said that one should protest. He said we have to protest against the people doing this. That was in 253, right? The Mishnah Berurah asks, “Why do you have to protest against the people?” He says the reason Maran gives is that the water might not be hot. That is Maran’s main reason. He does not go with the idea that pouring is considered a second vessel.
Proof number one: You see that Maran does not go with that, because in 318 he is going to tell me that I cannot pour hot water from a first vessel onto a spice, because it will cook it. If it is considered like a second vessel, it will not cook it. Rather, Maran must hold that pouring is like a first vessel. Furthermore, as we learned from the previous Mishnah Berurah, Maran does not distinguish between “it reduces and improves” and “it reduces and worsens.” In subsection 4 of 318, Maran says there is cooking, and there is cooking in liquid. He does not make that distinction between a lot and a little; he says it is forbidden. Although subsection 8 sounds as if he accepts the distinction between “it reduces and improves” and “it reduces and worsens,” that is not necessarily so. Here, it is specifically so.
So, since Maran does not make that distinction, how are you going to explain the Gemara? The Gemara asks, “What is the law if one transfers it from one kettle to another?” How do we understand the case? Here we are talking about the conditions for returning something to the heat. You have a kettle already on the fire, on the metal Shabbat covering, let’s say. You do not need any conditions to take it off. You need conditions to put it back. We said that, number one, it has to be in your hand, and it has to still be boiling; and you cannot put it down on the table. Well, what if I hang it? I did not put it on the table; I hung it in the air.
The question is: What if I took this kettle and transferred it from one kettle to another? It stayed hot, but it is not the same vessel. The Gemara asks whether that is a problem regarding returning it. Wait, slow down! It should be a problem with the transfer itself. If you hold that once it goes into the air it is already a second vessel, then when it goes from a second vessel to a first vessel, you are cooking it. But the Gemara had no problem with that! It asks about transferring it from one kettle to another; the issue is returning it. That is proof that there is no problem regarding the status of this vessel. It is not a second vessel; it is still considered a first vessel.
So basically, it came out of this kettle still a first vessel, and it is going into another first vessel. They are at the same temperature, the same heat. The question now is whether you can put it back on the metal covering, on the fire. That is a separate question about returning it. Maran has a whole Gemara in his pocket, and Chacham Ben Tzion says it is a nice Gemara to prove this.
And Maran himself, however, said one should protest. Why? Because maybe the water has cooled. Chacham Ben Tzion says Maran was talking about a case of insulating, where the water could cool down. But it is possible that Maran would say something different if both vessels are on the fire: the kettle is on the fire, and the hot food is on the fire, and I just pick up the kettle and pour. Then, hopefully, they are both hot! Whatever the heat is in one, it is the same heat in the other. I understand that if I have a cooked dish on the fire and a kettle that is insulated, they could be at different temperatures. That is what Maran was worried about.
So it is possible that when both are at the same temperature, you will not have this great stumbling block, and it will be permitted. Chacham Ben Tzion says, “You know something? Presumably, Maran holds that way. Therefore, those who want to be lenient have something to rely on.” If somebody says, “I have a kettle on the metal covering, and I have the hot food there too, next to the crockpot, or whatever you call it. I wake up in the morning and see that it has reduced; the water is going down. By the time I come out of the synagogue, it will be dry. So what do I do?” According to Chacham Ben Tzion, take the kettle and pour the boiling hot water in there. Make sure it is still hot food before you put the kettle back down, of course. Who is going to hold it while you put it back down? Someone else holds it, and you put it right back. It is not going to cool off in that one second. So I have returned the kettle, and I have no problem if you do not accept this second-vessel argument. If you want to be stringent, be stringent, but there is something to rely on.
Now we get to Chacham Ovadia. You have the whole background. We have to see how Chacham Ovadia deals with the transfer from one kettle to another, which sounds like a clear proof for Maran. What does he do with the spice case, which sounds like a clear proof that it is not a second vessel? And what does he do with the Bet Yosef, which gives the reason that one of the vessels might have cooled off, as the Mishnah Berurah said? He brings both reasons in the Bet Yosef. Let’s see what he brings.
The question is: Is it permitted to pour boiling water on Shabbat into a cooked dish that is reducing, after the dish has been taken off the fire? Obviously, you cannot add anything once it is on the fire. You took it off the fire; it is still a first vessel, and now you want to add the hot water. Is that permitted or not?
The answer quotes Rabbenu Yonah in Igeret HaTeshuvah: “A great stumbling block is in the hands of some of the people, who insulate a kettle of hot water before Shabbat in order to put it into the pot on Shabbat when the cooked dish is reducing. Sometimes the water is not hot enough for a hand to recoil from it. When they pour it into a pot whose contents are hot enough for a hand to recoil from, the water cooks inside it, and it turns out that they are cooking on Shabbat.
“Furthermore, even if the hot water is boiling and hot enough for a hand to recoil from it, when they pour it from the kettle, its boiling stops immediately, and it can no longer cook, as they said in the Jerusalem Talmud, that pouring is not like a first vessel. It therefore has the status of a second vessel, which does not cook. The water does not cook inside it as it would in a first vessel, because water whose boiling has stopped is subject to the prohibition of cooking.” Rabbenu Yonah also wrote this in the Aliyot deRabbenu Yonah; see there.
So those are two reasons, and he brings both of them. I thought we were just explaining the issue, but if he brings both reasons himself, then we have to deal with the Jerusalem Talmud. At least every Early Authority rules that way? One hundred percent? He brings it again from the Aliyot deRabbenu Yonah: “He wrote all this in the Aliyot deRabbenu Yonah.” He also says it is in the Nimukei Yosef, at the end of Mo’ed Katan; see there, where he refers to and brings Rabbenu Yonah’s words.
The Ran brings Rabbenu Yonah’s words and disagrees with them. Rabbenu Yonah said what he said, but Rabbenu Nissim comes along and argues. What is his argument? “Because the established halachah in our hands is: Anything that was heated before Shabbat may be soaked in hot water on Shabbat, because there is no cooking after cooking, and we do not know of a distinction between cooked water and another cooked dish. The matter requires examination and checking.”
What is the question? The Gemara says that anything cooked before Shabbat may be soaked in hot water on Shabbat, because there is no cooking after cooking. That is the case here. Rabbenu Yonah says, “I hold that there is no cooking after cooking in liquid, so I do not know what you are talking about. Let’s say it becomes a second vessel. The water was cooked! It has already been through the process.” That is what the Ran says: “I do not know what he is talking about. There is no cooking after cooking in liquid. So what am I worried about if it becomes a second vessel? It is already cooked!” The matter requires examination and checking; see there.
Our teacher the Meiri, in the Beit HaBechirah, brings the words of “our master, the Rabbi,” who raised the issue of the practice of pouring boiling water into a pot of food on Shabbat. Even if both are hot enough for a hand to recoil from, he says, it is forbidden, because pouring is not like a first vessel, according to the Jerusalem Talmud. As soon as the water is lifted, its boiling stops immediately, and it becomes like a second vessel, which does not cook. It then cooks inside the pot, which is a first vessel, and water whose boiling has stopped is subject to the prohibition of cooking. The Meiri concludes, “These are correct statements.” Oh, he is very stringent. He agrees with the position of the Meiri and Rabbenu Yonah.
However, the Meiri also writes there in the name of the great authorities of the generations that water cooked the day before is no longer subject to the prohibition of cooking. That is like the case involving hot water being poured into hot water, as is stated in an unclear citation. But then the Meiri says, “There is no cooking after cooking in liquid,” so therefore there is no problem. For whatever reason, he seems to say that if there were cooking after cooking in liquid, you would have a good reason to prohibit it; but perhaps we hold that there is no cooking after cooking in liquid, and therefore there is no problem. So does he hold like the Rambam? He holds like the Rambam.
In any case, the Rashba, brought in the Bet Yosef, is lenient in this matter, as is Rabbenu Yonah—[the reference is unclear]. The Besamim Rosh also writes in its responsa that there is no law of cooking in water that was boiling before Shabbat; see there. The Orchot Chayim writes that the custom among women was to be lenient in this matter, provided they did not do it while the pot was on the fire. He also writes that Rabbenu Yonah said it is forbidden even if the water was very hot, and that the entire transgression has no prohibition in it; see there.
Let’s keep going. At the bottom of the first paragraph, Maran, the Bet Yosef, writes that Rabbenu Yerucham’s view is to prohibit it, like Rabbenu Yonah. Rabbenu Yonah prohibited it, and he says Rabbenu Yerucham also prohibits it. He further writes that the great Rabbenu, Rabbi Yitzchak Abohab, answered the Ran’s question. What was the Ran’s question? “What are you talking about? There is no problem with putting in the water. There is no cooking after cooking in liquid.” What was his proof? Anything heated before Shabbat may be reheated on Shabbat, and the Gemara does not distinguish between liquid and dry food.
The Ran’s answer is: “That is not a problem.” Rabbi Abohab says that what they said about anything heated before Shabbat applies specifically to a dry item, such as Rabbi Abba’s chicken, which you cook before Shabbat and do not put into hot water on Shabbat to warm it. But a liquid item, such as hot soup or hot water whose boiling has stopped, is subject to the prohibition of cooking, as is explained explicitly in the Tur, and that is also the view of Rashi and the Rosh.
Maran, the Bet Yosef, concludes: “Therefore, it is proper to protest against those who practice leniency in this matter, since most of the authorities prohibit it.” The Bet Yosef says that since many halachic decisors prohibit cooking in liquid, we have to return to our protest against those people. Do not tell me it is all right to pour, because apparently, if there is cooking after cooking, there is a problem.
“So that is really the dispute,” someone says, “what they are talking about at this point: Is there cooking after cooking in liquid?” Correct. And there are two reasons. The question is which reason Maran is using. There are two reasons here: Either the water cooled off, and therefore it is cooking; or it did not cool off, but we are worried about the pouring. “That means it cooled down to a second vessel.” No, no. Either it cooled off, and then I do not care what you are doing; it cooled off, so it is cooking. Or it did not cool off, but I am concerned about the pouring.
Maran is telling me, first of all, that if you hold there is no cooking after cooking in liquid, you have no issue with this at all. So take that off the table. Maran says, “Gentlemen, we agree there is an issue.” Therefore, he writes in the Shulchan Aruch: “There are those who practice this, and one should protest against those who insulate a kettle of hot water before Shabbat and put it into a pot on Shabbat while the pot is reducing.” And it is clear that Maran prohibits it even if the water was boiling and hot enough for a hand to recoil from it, because immediately, as soon as it leaves the kettle, its boiling stops; pouring is not like a first vessel.
Chacham Ovadia is certain that Maran is using the second reason: that pouring is like a second vessel. As you know, Maran states explicitly in Yoreh De’ah that pouring cooks only to the depth of a peel. Oh! Pouring cannot be like a first vessel, because a first vessel cooks throughout, while pouring from a first vessel cooks only to the depth of a peel. So you see that pouring is not like a first vessel—not like a full first vessel. It is evident that the heat of the pouring is not complete like that of a first vessel, whose cooking is sufficient to cook the food fully.
Especially according to what the Ramban writes in his novellae, pouring that cooks to the depth of a peel does so only by rabbinic law. If you say that the Ramban says that pouring that cooks to the depth of a peel is only rabbinic, then by Torah law the first vessel is not cooking anything. Why? Because it is cold. I would say that the depth of a peel is only rabbinic. By Torah law, then, you are cooking when you put it into the hot stew, into the hot food. As the Jerusalem Talmud states, full cooking occurs only when the fire is beneath it.
Maharam ibn Chaviv writes in Kappot Temarim that pouring cooks only to the depth of a peel by rabbinic law. Darchei No’am agrees. This explains what we learned: If hot meat falls into cold milk, the milk does not need to be sixty times the amount of the peel, because the principal cooking by Torah law would plainly require sixty times the amount of its blood, as the Beit David writes.
The great Rabbi Yehoshua Bessis also brings what the Meiri wrote, and this explains the Mishnah below: If someone puts a spice in a bowl and pours hot liquid into it with a spoon, or pours from a first vessel onto the spice, or puts spice in a bowl by pouring from a second vessel, then, according to the view that a second vessel cooks it, it is forbidden to return it afterward to a boiling pot, even though it began to heat up in the bowl, because a second vessel does not cook. He writes about this that the Meiri’s words imply that according to the view that pouring is like a first vessel, it is permitted to return it to a boiling pot.
The Meiri said that if you poured from a second vessel onto spices before Shabbat, you cannot take those spices and cook them on Shabbat, because they are not cooked. But it is implied that if you poured from a first vessel onto them before Shabbat, then you could reheat them. That is what is implied. He says, however, that this implication from the Meiri—that according to the view that pouring is like a first vessel, it is permitted to return it to a boiling pot because pouring from a first vessel cooks—is not applicable to us, since we hold that pouring cooks only to the depth of a peel.
When you return it to a boiling pot, even though you have taken it off the fire, it cooks fully. Rather, it seems that the Meiri holds that, according to the view that pouring is like a first vessel, it cooks throughout, as the Tosafot write in Zevachim. But we do not rule that way; it cooks only to the depth of a peel. That is the end of the passage. See also the Rashba’s novellae, which discusses the depth of a peel and that it does not cook. All right, continue.
“Therefore, when he pours hot water into a hot cooked dish, he cooks the water again, since we hold that there is cooking after cooking in liquid.” That is Maran’s position. However, I see… Good. So he wants to say that Maran goes according to the second reason. Do not tell me that pouring cooks: talk to me about the depth of a peel first of all. That is the regular rule, and according to many Early Authorities it could be only rabbinic.
Our whole proof was what? You see that Maran does not call it a second vessel, because if it were a second vessel, how would it cook the spice? So how can he say that? Maybe it is not called a second vessel, but you cannot call it a full first vessel either, because if it were a full first vessel, it would cook throughout. It cooks only to the depth of a peel, and according to many rabbis that is only a rabbinic enactment. By Torah law, it does not cook at all. And therefore it can get cooked. It can get cooked. Strong, strong—it can get cooked. You see?
He says, “However, I see in Eglei Tal that he writes that if the water is still genuinely hot when it leaves the vessel, one cannot say that it has left a first vessel. Maran also agrees that it is no longer subject to the prohibition of cooking.” Chacham Ben Tzion says that although Rabbenu Yonah explicitly wrote that there is cooking even in this case, and although the Bet Yosef brings him, the Shulchan Aruch does not bring Rabbenu Yonah’s words at all, either in section 253 or in section 318. He relied on this in Or LeTzion, part 2, page 25.
So he is saying that the Eglei Tal followed the first reason. He says Maran never mentioned the second reason, that this is considered a second vessel, and that is an open question. Therefore, Chacham Ben Tzion followed the Eglei Tal. The rabbi comes along and says, “With all due respect, however, it seems that this is not so.” What does “with all due respect” mean? “With all due respect to his honor.” He says: “Since the Bet Yosef brought the source of Rabbenu Yonah’s words together with the explanation of our great master, Rabbi Yitzchak Abohab—that with water we say there is cooking after cooking—it is certain that Maran intended this in the Shulchan Aruch as well. As soon as the water leaves the first vessel, its boiling stops, and there is a prohibition of cooking. Wherever Maran states a ruling in the Shulchan Aruch without further qualification, he certainly means what he wrote in the Bet Yosef, as the Chida wrote.”
So he is saying, “You are right that Maran did not mention that reason in the Shulchan Aruch. But he assumed that when you learn the Shulchan Aruch, you will read the Bet Yosef, which explains it.” How did he bring it down in the Bet Yosef? He brings down the two reasons. He brings down the reason that it becomes a second vessel. Then he asks, “What do I care if it becomes a second vessel? It was already cooked. There is no cooking after cooking in liquid.” Then he answers, “No, we hold that there is cooking after cooking in liquid, and therefore we have a problem.” He brought down that whole reason. Even though he does not state that reason in the Shulchan Aruch—and, by the way, the Shulchan Aruch does not state any reasons; we have to figure them out.
“However, there are places outside the Land of Israel where people had the custom to be lenient in this matter, pouring hot water on Shabbat into a cooked dish, relying on the position of the Rashba and the Ran that there is no cooking after cooking in liquid.” Rabbi Avraham ibn Tavah writes this in the responsa Chut Hameshulash, at the end of the responsa collection Tashbetz. After bringing the dispute between the Rambam and the Ran, he writes: “It seems to me that this is also logical. The Sages stated simply, ‘Anything that was heated before Shabbat,’ without distinguishing between liquid and dry food. The burden of proof is on the one who prohibits, who would have to show why a distinction should be made.”
Since the custom in Fez was to be lenient from earlier generations, it is appropriate to leave them to their custom, since they practiced this in the presence of great authorities and they did not protest. So he is saying that in Morocco, they were lenient. In Fez they held that there is no cooking after cooking in dry food, and no cooking after cooking in liquid. By the way, the Gemara says, “Anything that was heated before Shabbat may be soaked on Shabbat.” It says “anything”; it does not say dry or liquid. You want to say it applies only to dry food? Bring proof that it applies only to dry food. I thought you could not go to the Meiri, to the Beit HaBechirah? All right, bring proof.
So those rabbis over there wanted to be lenient, and therefore there is no problem pouring the water. He also writes this in the responsa Kapei Aharon, Mayim Chayim by Messas, Mikveh HaMayim, and the responsa Shemesh U’Magen. These all reflect the principal Moroccan custom: Moroccans practiced leniency in this matter.
There is a further discussion in the responsa Mikveh HaMayim. He says that, according to the practice of putting both the hot water and the pot of food in the same place on the warming plate, Maran also agrees that one can be lenient, since both have the same degree of heat. Like Chacham Ben Tzion wanted to say, in accordance with the Gemara. I agree with that. We wanted to say yesterday that Maran was stringent only in the insulating case. But if you put them both at the same temperature—
“In any case, when the water is poured from a first vessel, its force of boiling immediately stops, so it no longer has the status of a first vessel.” Once you go with the second reason, what do I care if they are both hot? It does not matter. When you pour it, it becomes a second vessel. “But they are both on the warming plate.” As soon as I lift it to pour, it hits the air. “But didn’t we say before that we are talking about a case where you took it off the warming plate and are pouring?” When is this pouring taking place? What is the case: both on the warming plate, or did we take it off?
The point is that Maran was stringent only in the insulating case, because it might have cooled off. On the warming plate, however, however hot this is, that is how hot this is; they are at the same temperature. The rabbi says you are wrong if you follow those Early Authorities. But we have not yet proved that Maran holds the second reason, have we? We have the Yoreh De’ah as proof. Yoreh De’ah says it is only to the depth of a peel, and that may be only rabbinic. Nevertheless, look, gentlemen: “Nevertheless, one should not do this in our place, because we have accepted Maran’s rulings in all that he says. Maran ruled according to Rabbenu Yonah, the Rosh, the Tur, and the Ran, that there is cooking after cooking.”
“All the more so according to what the great authority from Sochatchov wrote in the book Eglei Tal: Even the Rambam, who holds there is no cooking after cooking in liquid, such as gravy and soup, nevertheless holds that with water—whose boiling is its cooking, as he ruled elsewhere—there is cooking after cooking. This is Rabbenu Yonah’s view.” The great authority from Sochatchov wants to say that the Rambam holds there is cooking after cooking in water. Wow. Water is special.
“He also wrote in a sefer whose title begins Chemdat… And one should not say that the residents of Morocco who practiced leniency should continue to do so once they merited to come to the Land of Israel.” That is the famous thing. He takes all the customs away from the Moroccans. That is what Rabbi Ovadia did, you know what I am saying. Now that the Moroccans came to the Land of Israel, you are not Moroccan anymore; now you follow Maran. You left the place of the holy Or HaChaim and entered the place of Maran.
The Moroccan sages—Messas spent his whole life fighting this point. “Who are you to tell us we lost our whole tradition? You came here with the…” So, “Leave Morocco, boys; you are now under the authority of Maran.” It drove him crazy. “Who is this Iraqi rabbi coming and telling us, ‘Leave Morocco’?” They fought him on this. In fact, we do not kick him out of Morocco. But, in fact, he is the head of Syria. Israel always had two chief rabbis, right? Nobody said he was not like that too. He was not only against the Moroccans. He held like Maran. It is not just Morocco; Morocco simply had different customs. He holds like Maran.
Anyway, gentlemen, someone asks: “Regarding the depth of a peel in cooking, if you leave it there for more than a second, is it already cooked? We all look at the vessel. One of the proofs is from Yoreh De’ah. If you say it cooks only to the depth of a peel, is that just for the first second? After that, it is so hot that it will be cooked?” No. The halachic rule is that it cooks only to the depth of a peel. It cannot go beyond the depth of a peel. Take 100,000 gallons of water: it is still only to the depth of a peel. That is how it is ruled in Yoreh De’ah. That is what it is.
Now we get to the politics. Rabbi Moshe Levi, who has passed away, writes in the responsa Tefillah le-Moshe, part 1, about pouring boiling water on Shabbat into a dish whose contents are sitting in an unclear location. He writes in the wording that I had previously published in my book Yechaveh Da’at, prohibiting it, in accordance with Maran’s ruling. Chacham Ovadia wrote in Yechaveh Da’at that it is forbidden, as the Shulchan Aruch says, and that one should protest against those who are lenient. He discusses the Bet Yosef’s words, saying that it is a great stumbling block and a loss to the people who do this on Shabbat, because even if the water is hot, as soon as they pour it into the cup, its status changes. The rest of the passage is unclear.
“Therefore, Maran’s words stand as they are.” In the note to my approval, I wrote to him—meaning, when he asked me for an approval for his book, I wrote in the approval, “But what you wrote in this responsum…” That is the greatness of Chacham Ovadia. He gave an approval; he did not just say, “I agree, all right, good luck.” He read the book! He read it and said, “Listen, you are a good guy, however…” And he had a stamp. What was the stamp? The “HaMelekh HaKadosh” stamp and the “HaMelekh HaMishpat” stamp.
Every siddur they printed, he gave an approval. “First, give me my stamp.” Here is the stamp, with a big form on it. What does it say? All the answers about “HaMelekh HaMishpat” say that you have to go back according to Maran. He stamps it: “You are wrong about ‘HaMelekh HaKadosh.’” Chacham Ovadia had certain automatic stamps. When somebody came with a book, he knew those were the hot points, the buttons. He looked: What does he say about “HaMelekh HaMishpat”? What does he say about the wig? What does he say about “Lo Techonem”? Those kinds of things. Every time he gave an approval, boom: “You are wrong about this; you are wrong about that.” He was giving an approval and saying, “You are wrong about this and that.” This was one of them, when he came after Chacham Moshe Levi.
Listen to what Chacham Moshe says: “One can explain my intention in accordance with Rabbenu Yonah as referring specifically to hot water that is exactly at the measure at which a hand recoils from it. Consequently, when one pours it out of the kettle, its heat drops below that measure, and it is no longer fit for cooking; it has the status of a second vessel. When Rabbenu Yonah writes that while the water is pouring, it is boiling, but its boiling has already stopped immediately, he does not mean that it is still boiling after it has left the vessel. Rather, he means that it was boiling before it was poured, and his wording is inverted. Accordingly, if the water was hotter than the measure at which a hand recoils from it, it is permitted to pour it from a first vessel…” That is the end of his words.
Oh, wow. Chacham Moshe wants to make it sound compact. He says: You know why it becomes a second vessel in the air? Because the water he is talking about is exactly at the point at which a hand recoils from it. Once it goes into the air, it drops below the threshold. If it was hotter than that, then even Rabbenu Yonah would say there is no problem with it becoming a second vessel. Let’s say 100 degrees is the threshold and 99 is a problem. The water is exactly at 100; the second it goes into the air, it reaches 99. Where does he get this from? Hold on. If it is 110, it goes into the air and becomes 109; big deal. It still has its own force. Therefore, he says there is no problem if you heat it very hot. So basically, as long as it is at the threshold, I can do whatever I want? More than the threshold. Keep it hotter. More than that. Enough margin of error. That is considered cooked once it is fully cooked.
Chacham Ovadia says, “But where does he get this from?” He says, “I am utterly astonished at his words.” He is bewildered at the highest level. “Besides the tremendous strain in interpreting Rabbenu Yonah’s words, there is also a distortion of his wording.” He has to distort the text. Why? Look at Rabbenu Yonah’s wording: “When they pour the water, even though it is boiling, immediately its force of boiling stops.” The other interpretation would be: “He does not mean that it is still boiling after it has left the vessel; rather, he means that it was boiling before it was poured.” All right, it was hot before. That means it was very hot. He is saying that you took it off the fire, and even though it was hot before, now when you pour it, it goes from hot to the status of a second vessel. But if it went from very hot to hot, then it would be all right. Chacham Ovadia asks, “Where do you see that?”
“Furthermore, how could Rabbenu Yonah criticize this practice? Who measured the water and knew that it was exactly at the temperature at which a hand recoils from it, when it is impossible to be that precise? Did he go and measure the water? Perhaps it was a little hotter than that threshold, so that even after it left the vessel it was still hot enough; would there then be no prohibition? Surely not.” Rabbenu Yonah is criticizing the people’s custom. Did he go into their homes with a thermometer? How did he know how hot the water was? Maybe it was very, very hot. How do you know what they are pouring?
“The main question on Rabbenu Yonah’s words is no question at all. Whenever the water is hot while it is still in a first vessel, even if its boiling has weakened, as long as it is still hot enough for a hand to recoil from it, it has the status of a first vessel, as the Minchat Kohen wrote based on Rabbenu Yonah’s words. But when it leaves a first vessel, since there are those who say that pouring has the status of a second vessel, and even according to the view that pouring is like a first vessel, one can say that this is a rabbinic stringency, then even if it is still hot enough for a hand to recoil from it…”
Ah! Even though when you pour it out it is still hot enough for a hand to recoil from it, that is what Rabbenu Yonah’s wording sounds like. Rabbenu Yonah says, “When they pour the water, even though it is boiling…” They want to say that he means it was boiling previously. That is not what his wording implies. It implies that even while you are pouring it, it is still boiling. So Chacham Ovadia says, “If it is still boiling, then what is the problem?” He is going to tell you: No, it is still a problem. When it is in a first vessel, that boiling continues. This one goes into the air, and its boiling is already on the way down.
He says: “Even if it is still boiling, once its force of boiling from the first vessel has stopped, when they put it back into the pot, it cooks again, and it is subject to the law of cooking. For this reason, people are accustomed not to pour hot water from a second vessel.” Here, take a regular case. Someone asks, “Take a first vessel with hot water in the pot. Does it cook?” Yes. “Can I drop an egg into it?” No. It is a first vessel. “Can I pour it into a second vessel?” A second vessel does not cook. All right, take a thermometer and measure the first vessel: 150 degrees. Measure the second vessel: 150 degrees. What is the difference? It is on its way to cooling. Exactly.
We say that with a second vessel, its boiling has already stopped. The first vessel maintains its heat. Part of cooking is that the heat is sustained. Here, once it is a second vessel, its boiling has already stopped, and therefore it does not cook. It is the same with the air. It is still going to be hot, as Rabbenu Yonah wrote, but its boiling has stopped. “What about a small amount of liquid?” someone asks. “What are you talking about, pouring? You are pouring the whole thing, pouring a lot. What if I pour just a little from a big pot? Is that the small-amount-of-liquid case?” He says that case is talking about the liquid in the food itself. It is not the water you are adding.
He continues: “What the Rabbi of Tefillah le-Moshe wrote, permitting it on the basis of a double doubt…” A double doubt: Perhaps the halachah follows the one who says pouring is like a first vessel; and Maran holds that hot water does not become a second vessel. So perhaps the halachah follows the Rambam, who says there is no cooking after cooking in liquid. Nice. A double doubt: First, who says it becomes a second vessel? Maybe it remains a first vessel. But if you hold that it becomes a second vessel, there is no cooking after cooking in liquid.
The problem is that you are setting up Maran as disagreeing with both positions. You cannot make a double doubt against Maran in both cases. Chacham Ovadia says: “With all due respect, it certainly did not escape Maran’s attention that this case involves this double doubt for stringency. If all that is so, he nevertheless ruled stringently, according to Rabbenu Yonah.” In other words, you are right that if Maran had not explicitly written this, I might make a double doubt. Someone would ask me the question and I might say, “It is like this.” But Maran says, “One should protest!” Why would he protest if there were a double doubt? Clearly, Maran was not concerned about the double doubt. Otherwise, why did he say one should protest?
“So what will a double doubt do for us in this case?” How will it help us when Maran himself discusses two separate laws? Let’s say Maran had written that there is cooking after cooking in liquid, and somewhere else he had written that pouring is like a second vessel. Somebody comes to ask me, “What if I have water that was cooked before Shabbat? Can I pour it into the hot food?” Maybe I could say there is a double doubt in this case, because perhaps Maran was stringent only when those two issues are separate. When I bring them together, perhaps Maran would be lenient. Maran was stringent about cooking after cooking, and Maran was stringent about pouring; perhaps, when you combine cooking in liquid with pouring, he would be lenient.
But in this case he wrote it. He said, “Do not do it.” Otherwise, there would be a double doubt. But he said not to do it. Is there a difference? If he writes not to do it, you cannot make a double doubt. And then, especially if you follow Igrot Taharah, which says that even the Rambam is stringent with water, your double doubt goes out the window. It is finished.
Now, gentlemen, we have one more paragraph. This is an important piece. Look at the top paragraph. It says: “According to this, there is no double doubt here. My dear son, Yalkut Yosef, has already written at length, with correct and proper arguments.” That is a son getting a pat on the back. The Chazon Ish also writes this, based on Rabbenu Yonah’s words. Or, what the Chazon Ish wrote in his notes there, challenging Rabbenu Yonah’s words with the case of transferring it from one kettle to another. That is a problem.
“But it must necessarily be that we are discussing returning it in a situation where it is hot enough for a hand to recoil from it. Otherwise, even more would be permitted from the outset. The effort to explain that we are talking about a dry cooked dish is strained.” There is no need for that explanation; the question is no question at all. The Aruch HaShulchan also explains that the case is talking about a dry cooked dish. That is what I said at the end of yesterday’s class: a dry cooked dish. You cannot build a foundation on a question, because every question has an answer. You make the whole thing out of transferring it from one kettle to another—“You see, pour the water into the water, so it is…” But it was a dry cooked dish. That is it. And the issue is only about returning it. You do not have a cooking issue there, from dry food to the other case. That is the point.
To draw out the next subject, he says: “It is clear that we should not take the temperature of the hot water into account. In a second vessel, even if the temperature is 100 degrees, it is not considered cooked; in a first vessel, anything hot enough for a hand to recoil from it, even 45 degrees, cooks properly.” Wow, he says it better. Let’s say the second vessel is hotter than the first vessel. Still. How would that happen? Let’s say you heated the first vessel to the minimum amount. What is 45 Celsius? About 110 or 115. So let’s say it is 113 in the first vessel, and in the second vessel it is 215. The second vessel is not considered to cook? Right. We do not judge it by the temperature.
“But how do you get to that temperature? What is the hottest water can get?” A hundred degrees Celsius. “But how do they get it over 200?” Fahrenheit is 212. Let’s say you had a first vessel at 120, 112, whatever, and a second vessel at 200. This one cooks; this one does not. That is the rule. “Even though in reality the second vessel is hotter?” Yes, but again, it is the inevitable consequence, like you said: trajectory. It is not about the heat; it is the direction it is headed.
“So, hot is this, hot Moshe…” The phrase is unclear. “If you want to say, ‘peace be upon him’—no, that was borderline. It is borderline.” But if it is very hot, then when it is in the air it is still all right? Chacham Ovadia says, “What do I care if it is hot? If it is very, very hot, once it goes into the air, that is the inevitable consequence. Finished! That is the rule. Do not start making distinctions between levels of heat.” Therefore, even if the water is much hotter than the temperature at which a hand recoils from it, it is forbidden to pour it.
And therefore, what I wrote in Yechaveh Da’at, I stand by. Chacham Ovadia holds that it is forbidden, not merely that it is better to be stringent. That is Maran’s opinion, anyway. He took apart every piece of the puzzle.
“So you do not like transferring from one vessel to another? Hot food into dry hot food?” Even though hot food is usually liquid—like a roast, usually liquid—anyway, he brings the Chazon Ish. The Chazon Ish leaves the question of whether it was liquid. First of all, it only cooks the peel, and that might be something rabbinic. Leave that aside. What else are you worried about? Maran did bring that reason in the Bet Yosef. Whichever way you turn, here is the answer.
Someone says: “We had a similar case yesterday, and I wanted to know why Ben Tzion was not lenient altogether.” So here you have a case where Chacham Ovadia is stringent, and Chacham Ben Tzion says there is room to be lenient. What is wrong if Chacham Ovadia went ahead and ruled that way? Either way, you can decide. “So do not pour it.” If someone asks me, “Chacham, I have my kettle on the metal covering. Can I pour it into the hot food?” “No.”
“So what is the answer we sent? Put a bag of water in there before Shabbat, with no hole. If you need it, puncture the bag on Shabbat, and it goes in.” “And that is all right because the bag itself is not considered a vessel?” It never became a vessel; it never went through pouring. Where was there pouring? It went straight in. There is no pouring. It went straight into the water, into the pool; it went straight in. It is still under water, right. It never hit the air. Exactly! It did not hit the air. Strong and well done. That is permitted according to everyone. That is for sure. That is the way out. That is the only way out.