Difference between revisions of "Shehiya"

From Halachipedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Protected "Shehiya" ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite)))
(No difference)

Revision as of 17:17, 6 January 2010

Basics

  1. The Rabbinic prohibition of Shehiya is to leave a pot of food that’s not cooked on a Kirah (stove) from before Shabbat because one might come to stoke the coals. [1]

For which foods?

  1. There’s a dispute in the Rishonim if one can do Shehiya only with food that is cooked fully (and if it’s continues to cook it worsens the more it cooks) or it’s permissible if it was cooked Machal Ben Dursai (a third cooked). For Ashkenazim, the Minhag is to be lenient like the latter opinion. For Sephardim, as long as it’s Machal Ben Dursai and the food is going to be eaten for Shabbat day not Friday night one can do Shehiya. [2]


With what stoves and how are they heated?

  1. Fires fueled with olive peals, wood chips, or charcoal need to be Garuf and Katum in order to leave something not cooked upon it. [3]
  2. There’s a dispute whether our stoves nowadays fueled by oil also have the issue of Shehiya or not. Because of the old Minhag to be lenient one has what to rely on to leave food on a gas fire if the food is cooked Machal Ben Dursai and the food is meant to be eaten the Shabbat day and not that night. [4]

Covering the fire

  1. One is permitted to leave food on a fire if there is a tray or metal sheet to cover the fire. Some adds that it’s preferable to also cover the knobs. [5]


Sources

  1. S”A 253:1 based on Mishna Shabbat 36b with Rashi that the prohibition is based on stoking the coals.
  2. The Mishna in the third perek of Shabbat (36b) says that if a Kirah (stove that’s made to hold two pots (38b)) is heated with straw or stubble, one can put on it food to cook. But if it’s heated with wood or olive peals one can’t put on the Kirah a food unless one made a recognizable sign to prevent one from stoking the coals on Shabbat by having the coals Garuf (shoveled out) or Katum (covered with dust). The Gemara (36b) asks when the mishna says not to put a food on if heated by wood or olive peals (Lo Iten) whether the (Lo Yachzir) it’s forbids returning food to a stove on Shabbat and it’s totally permitted to do Shehiyah leave food on before Shabbat or rather (Lo Yish’heh) it’s forbidden to leave food on from before Shabbat unless it’s Garuf or Katum and certainly it’s forbidden to return food on Shabbat. There are no clear proofs in the Gemara concerning the Mishna but gives a few rulings on the issue. The Gemara has two rulings like the latter explanation, and then an opposing ruling supported by a Mishna which accords with the former explanation. Rif (16a) rules like the latter interpretation and so unless the stove was Garuf or Katum one can’t leave a food that wasn’t totally cooked on the stove before Shabbat. Rabbenu Yonah, Shiltot (Shlach 128), Rabbi Yehuda Barsiloni (Itim 19), Rambam (Shabbat 3:4), and Ramban (Milchamot 15b, Chiddushim 37a D”H Mahu) concur with Rif (16a). Rashi (37b D”H VeRav Sheshet) rules like the former interpretation because it’s supported by a Mishna. Razah (15b D”H Ule’inyan), Rosh (3:1), Tosfot (18b D”H Bashil), Rabbenu Chananel (quoted by Tosfot 37b D”H Amar), Ran (16b D”H Tu) in name of Rav Hai Goan, Rashba (38a D”H VeHatemiha), Smag (Lav 65:13), Smak (282 pg 285), Sefer HaTrumah (231), Hagot Maimon (Shabbat 3:2), Mordechai (Shabbat 3:299) in name of Or Zaruha (Erev Shabbat 8) concur with Rashi. S”A 253:1 quotes the opinion of Rambam of Rif that if the stove isn’t Garuf or Katum one only it on from before Shabbat if it’s fully cooked and worsens as it cooks and then the opinion of Rosh and Rashi that if it’s cooked Machal Ben Dursai one can leave it on from before Shabbat. Seemingly the S”A holds like Rif and Rambam since he wrote that opinion as the anonymous first ruling and not like the Rosh since he quotes it as “Yesh Omirim” (minority opinion). Interestingly, Minchat Cohen (Mishmeret Shabbat 5) says that S”A really holds like Rosh because he didn’t make his opinion clear in 253:1 but in 254:4 he rules on another issue in favor of the Rosh. However, Erech HaShulchan 253:3, Sh”t Shoel VeNishal (1:36, 5:32), and Mishna Brurah (Shaar Tzion 254:22 in name of Pri Megadim) argue that 254:4 is a ruling that everyone would agree to and so the Minchat Cohen has no proof. There are a few approaches in the Achronim to be lenient on this issue. Firstly, Rama 253:1 says that the Minhag is to be lenient like the Rosh. Sh”t Rashbatz 8 defends the Minhag to leave food that was cooked Machal Ben Dursai on a stove not Garuf or Katum because of a Safek Safeka whether halacha is like Rosh and even if not there are opinions that one can be lenient if the food is only going to be eaten Shabbat day because then there isn’t a concern of coming to stoke the coals. [Shibolei HaLeket 57 in name of Rabbenu Simcha says that Shehiya is permitted if a person has two pots and the one that’s cooking for Shabbat day is separate from the pot cooking for Friday night. Rabbenu Binyamin (quoted by Shibolei HaLeket), Mordechai (Shabbat 3:300), Rabbenu Yishaya HaRishon (Shabbat Bameh Tomnin), and Ravan (Shabbat 338) concerning Hatmana allow something that is set aside for the next day. However Bet Yosef 253:1(4) concludes that this seemingly goes against many of the Mefarshim that are brought in the following Siman.] Even though seemingly Bet Yosef should disagree with this idea of the Rashbetz, nonetheless, Bet Yosef 253:1(3) himself writes such a defense of the Minhag because of the opinion of Rashi and the possibility that one is allowed to do Shehiya for Shabbat day. Birkei Yosef 253:1 writes the same in the name of his grandfather and adds that’s it’s better to satisfy all opinions by adding a piece of raw meat (S”A 254:1) to the pot so it’s clear that the pot is cooking for the next day. Sh”t Zechur LeYitzchak (O”C 74 pg 113a) writes in name of Maharam Ben Chaviv that we are lenient like the Minhag against S”A, which Zechur LeYitzchak explains that since it’s a Minhag from before S”A and there’s an mitzvah of Oneg Shabbat to have hot food on Shabbat. Eretz Chaim (Klal 7) supports the Zechur LeYitzchak with the Shach Y”D 242 who says a Minhag can rely a Yesh Omrim against the anonymous ruling. Sh”t Ginat Veradim 3:4, Sh”t Pirchei Cohen O”C 34, Sh”t Divrei Chizkiya O”C 1:2, Yashkil Avdi O”D 3:10, and Sh”t Vayomer Moshe O”C 3 concur based on minhag. However Sh”t Shoel VeNishal 1:36, 5:36 argues that the Minhag is based on lack of knowledge and incorrect practices and so shouldn’t be kept. Nonetheless, Chazon Ovadyah (Shabbat 1 pf 48) concludes based on the minhag and Safek Safeka of the Rashbetz a Kirah that one can leave a food cooked Machal Ben Dursai on a stove that’s not Garuf or Katum.
  3. The Mishna 36b and S”A differentiate between a Kirah heated by stubble and straw which don’t make coals (that can later be stoked) and a Kirah heated by olive peals, wood chips that make coals. Mishna Brurah 253:4 in name of the Kol includes charcoal in the second category of fuels.
  4. Our stove nowadays fueled with gas or oil which don’t leave over coals seemingly shouldn’t be included in the laws of Shehiya. However some argue that since the flame that can be raised it’s forbidden because of the Gezerah just like a fire fueled with wood chips. Sh”t Panim Meirot 1:84 says a portable stovetop with a real flame which can be raised by manipulation is forbidden because of the Gezerah. Sh”t Maharsham 3:165, Sh”t Amrei Yosher 2:171, Sh”t Maharam Brisk 2:76, Sh”t Esei HaLevanon O”C 11, Sh”t Shoel VeNishal 1:36, Sh”t Vayomer Boaz 18, Sh”t Divrei Chizkiya 1:2 pg 12 quoting Mahari Sharim, and Shaarei Teshuva 254 (D”H Mipneh) concur. Second source to forbid: Bear Yitzchak (Introduction to Kodshim) writes that he asked the Goan MeBrisk about leaving a container of water by an oil stove and he was answered that it’s totally forbidden as by the hot water container mentioned in Yerushalmi (Shabbat 3:3e), that forbids it since the walls of the container remain hot. Bear Yitzchak continues that Rav Zonenfeld asked Rav Yacov Elishor why he didn’t protest the Minhag some Sephardim had to leave a container of water by an oil stove and was answered that he didn’t have the power to protest this bad Minhag. Those who don’t apply the Gezerah to a modern stove: 1)Sh”t Maharshag 2:50 argues that since Chazal didn’t make a Gezerah about the case of a flame fueled by oil we shouldn’t make a Gezerah. Chazon Ovadyah (Shabbat 1 pg 48) quotes Yadei Chaim pg 200 who explains that even if something is very similar to a modern example we can’t extend the Gezerot of Chazal like the Rishonim were able to, thus modern day stoves such be permissible. Sh”t Tzitz Eliezer 2:7 (quoting Rav Tzvi Peasch Frank) based on a Yerushalmi (Shevit 2:4) concurs. 2) Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 1:93 distinguishes between stoking the coals for which the Rabbis made a Gezerah and adding more fuel which the rabbis didn’t make a Gezerah, and so a oil stove isn’t an issue of stoking coals and the issue of increasing the fire is permitted. This idea is applied elsewhere in Sh”t Yacheve Daat 6:20. 3) Additionally, Gedolei Tzion 9:11 (quoted by Sh”t Tzitz Eliezer 7:16(3) and Sh”t Yachave Daat 6:20) and Sh”t Kochavei Yitzchak 3:37(4) say that the Gezerah only applies to coals which constantly flicker and get close to going out, but an oil stove where the fire is constant there shouldn’t be a Gezerah. Sh”t Tzitz Eliezer 7:15(3) writes that even the Chazon Ish (Sefer Moed Siman 37) who forbids a modern stove by Chazarah didn’t even entertain the idea of forbidding it for Shehiyah. Rejection of the second source: On the other hand, Chazon Ovadyah (Shabbat 1 pg 49) rejects the proof from the Yerushlami based on Ritva (Shabbbat 41a; I searched and was unable to find this Ritva, but found it that quote in the Chiddushei Ran), who explains that water that’s totally cooked is even allowed to be left on a Kirah or a Tanur but the problem of a water container is that it was made of metal pieces and if the water evaporates one may come to add more water in fear that the fire will make the container fall apart. So writes Maginei Shlomo (Shabbat 41a) in name of Rashi. Chazon Ovadyah concludes that had Rav Yacov Elishor seen the Ritva and Poskim who permit he would have rejoiced to defend the Minhag! Sh”t Tzitz Eliezer 7:15(1) (quoting Sh”t Maharsham 3:165) also rejects the proof from the Yerushalmi because we don’t pasken like the Yerushalmi since it’s not mentioned in the Bavli.
  5. Magan Avraham 253:31 permits Shehiya in modern day ovens because the fire is covered based on S”A 253:3 permits leaving on the fire if there’s an empty vessel separating between the fire and the food. This leniency is sourced in the Maharil (Minhagei Maharil pg 36; see 318:15), Agudah, and Tashbetz 27 in name of Maharam MeRotenberg. Eliyah Rabba 253:31, Tosefet Shabbat 253:40, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 253:26, Mishna Brurah 253:81, and Chazon Ovadyah (Shabbat 1 pg 50). Chazon Ovadyah extends this to a stove and so one can cover the stove flame with a metal sheet based on Rashba and Ramban (Shabbat 36b) that partial covering of a fire is sufficient. Sh”t Zera Emet O”C 26, Sh”t Maharam Brisk 2:76, Sh”t Tefilah LeMoshe 1:37, Shem Chadash (on Yereyim 1 pg 58), Kaf Hachaim 253:11, Sh”t Maharshag 2:50, Sh”t Divrei Chizkiyah 1:2 in name of Mahari Shari, Sh”t Yashkil Avdi O”C 3:10(2), and Sh”t Ohel Yosef Parid 10 concur. Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 1:93 and Sh”t Tzitz Eliezer 7:17(3) adds that besides covering the flame it’s preferable to cover the knobs also. However Chazon Ish 37:9 argues on the Mishna Brurah from Rashi (Shabbat 37a D”H Gaba; quoted by Tur) who requires a covering over an empty space. Thus, a covering on our modern stove would still be forbidden. Chazon Ovadyah (pg 51), Sh”t Shevet Levi O”C 91, Toldot Zev (Shabbat 2 pg 192) argue on the Chazon Ish that Rashi is referring to a cooking on Shabbat in a way that’s unusual and so it would need to be a covering over an empty space but by Shehiya one only needs a reminder not to stoke the coals. See Bach 253:14 D”H VeDavka and Sh”t Maharam Shik O”C 117 who also make this distinction.