Chananya, beginning of perek 3

How do we “find our hands and feet in the beis midrash”?
1) We seem to poskin that yesh bishul achar bishul for food that is ma’achal ben drusai; cooking it on Shabbos would be chayav chatas (Rambam, Shulkhan Arukh 318).
2) Ashkenazim poskin like Chananya on the first Mishnah in the third perek. Sefardim don’t, but they also at least have to be able to read the Mishnah according to Chananya. According to him, the Mishnah says, “…If heated with peat or wood, you may do shehiyah (with food that is ma’achal ben drusai), even if the kirah is not garuf or katum. But, you may not do chazarah unless the kirah is garuf or katum.” The simple reading surely is that, if the kirah is garuf or katum chazarah is permitted with food that is ma’achal ben drusai.[Otherwise, the Mishnah would be changing the case in the middle.]
3) All rishonim except for Rashi seem to hold that garuf v’katum doesn’t stop the kirah from cooking, but serves as some kind of a heker or barrier, preventing the person from stirring the coals. Or, that without garuf v’katum, it “appears to be cooking” (מחזי כמבשל). But all these rishonim must hold that a kirah that is garuf v’katum is still fully capable of cooking.
So how is possible to read the Mishnah according to Chananyah?

I've been asking this question of people for years.

By the way, the same question seems to apply on the beginning of the mishnah: With קש וגבבה (straw and stubble), you may "place" food on the kirah. According to Chananya, that means doing chazarah, and with food that is מאכל בן דרוסאי, only partially cooked. How is that possible, if the straw and stubble add enough heat to cook?

One suggestion I thought was interesting was to use something the Beis Yosef brings in the Tur, Orach Chaim 253:
He brings a Rishon who says that you can do chazarah, but the food must be מאכל בן דרוסאי while it's still day. The Beis Yosef is hard-pressed to find a reason for the din, as the chazarah happens later on Shabbos.
I'm wondering if this Rishon is coming to answer my question: He holds that you aren't allowed to cook food that's partially cooked on Shabbos, so Chananya must be talking about fully cooked food. How then does he read the mishnah allowing chazarah on מאכל בן דרוסאי (if the kirah is garuf v'katum)? The state of the food before Shabbos - the same as the food needs to be to allow shehiyah without garuf v'katum.

R' Michael,

I am of course not holding in this sugya, so I am violating the maamar of R' Chiya in Shabbos :ג. In any event, it seems possible to try and answer your question by saying that there are many Rishonim who hold (such as the Rashba) that Maachal Ben Drosai is considered fully cooked, and Chazara would therefore be permitted. In fact, there is a Yerushalmi that says this. There are others who hold that the Bishul at this point is only De'Rabbanan. This seems to be the majority opinion. A minority opinion is that Bishul is still De'Oraysa (such as the Rambam apparently).

According to the first opinion, you will surely have no problem. Chazara is fully permitted after Maachal Ben Drosai. According to the 2nd opinion, it's possible to say that Chazara is permitted, because Chazara is a form of Bishul De'Rabbanan that the Rabbanan permitted under tightly controlled circumstances. In fact, the Eglei Tal says this in מלאכת האופה י. Here's an excerpt of what he writes there in ס"ק י.
וכן צ"ל לדעת תוס' שכתבו ריש פרק כירה דסתם חמין ותבשיל אפילו לא בישל כל צרכו ובמשנה שם תני ב"ה אומרים אף מחזירין אפילו בשבת ומוכח דמשהגיע למאכל בן דרוסאי אין בו משום בישול דבר תורה דאל"כ איך הותר להחזיר בשבת
He further writes: וע"כ דאינהו מחלקים דמן התורה אין בו עוד משום בשול וע"כ מותר להחזיר. מאחר דאין בו משום בשול מן התורה מהני טעמא דחזרה

Now as to the last opinion, that Bishul is still De'Oraysa, there are at least 2 possible answers. One answer is that this is a Psak, but as a Pshat in Chananya, they will learn like the other Poskim that after Maachal Ben Drosai it is either Mutar or at worst an Issur De'Rabbanan. A 2nd possible answer would be to say that your assumption is incorrect. In fact, Chananya holds that Chazara is forbidden unless the food is fully cooked. After all, he does not say explicitly what is allowed to be returned to the fire. We know that by Shehiya he requires Maachal Ben Drosai. But by Chazara, he does not state what he requires, and although it is certainly logical that the 2 cases are parallel, it is not necessarily so.

I don't know if this is of any help, because as I said, I am not holding in that sugya right now.

Kol Tuv.

Tzvi

Thank you, R' Tzvi. The Eglei Tal is very interesting. I did mention earlier the idea of someone who read Chananya as dealing with fully cooked food, brought by the Beis Yosef. I did also see the Biur Halacha in O"H 318 ד"ה אפילו בעודו רותח; he lists a bunch of rishonim who he says hold יש בישול אחר בישול for food that's only מאכל בן דרוסאי, and he even claims that they must hold that it's מדאורייתא, though I wasn't clear why; on that I guess he argues with the Eglei Tal.

The suggestion that the rishon might hold that this issue is a machlokes between the ת"ק and חנניה is interesting. But I'd imagine that we don't want to have two independent machlok'sim; we'd want to somehow read the sugya that that is itself the source of the visible machlokes in the mishnah. I'd like to see how that would be done.

One reason we don't usually see this question is that the rishonim that most of us will see when learning the sugya b'iyun: Tosefos, the Rashba, the Ramban, the Ran - all the ones who explain the sugya, every one of them holds that אין בישול אחר בישול for מאכל בן דרוסאי, as the Biur Halacha says in his list.

I don't think it is unreasonable to say that there is no Machlokes between Chananya and the Rabbanan in Chazara, but only in Shehiya. And that is why Chananya never discusses what is permitted for Chazara. Not because it is the same category as for Shehiya, but because there is no Machlokes, and it is clear what is permitted and not permitted for Chazara. If we don't want to increase the Machlokes, then I think that this is the logical answer.

I saw the Dibros Moshe on Maseches Shabbos in Siman 18 and Siman 27 talks about these Inyanim. In Siman 18, he has 3 approaches to understanding the Rabbanan. The 3rd approach is that the Rabbanan hold like the Rambam, while Chananya holds like the Rosh and the Rashba that there is no Bishul DeOraysa after Maachal Ben Drosai. This would be the other answer to your question that I mentioned before.

Interestingly, in Siman 27, he also mentions an idea that I had mentioned to you in talking, that Chazara is a continuation of Shehiya, under the tightly controlled circumstances where it is permitted. Here is a short excerpt to that effect, but he mentions the idea more than once:

ואם נימא דמה שמותר להחזיר בגרופה וקטומה הוא משום שלא נתבטלה השהיה אין מקום לחלק בין תוכה לעל גבה כלל דכיון דנחשב כלא נתבטלה השהיה יש להתיר גם תוכה

Kol Tuv.

Tzvi

Thanks very much for the reference to the Dibros; I'll try to look at it.

I didn't understand your first paragraph (maybe I had trouble with the sentence with the triple negative?) What was this referring to and what does it answer? And what do you mean that Chananya never discusses the permission of chazarah: that is all that he does discuss; his din of shehiyah is what is inferred in the gemara. I think I'm not following.

In the last comment, that chazarah is a continuation of shehiyah, I had understood that as being implicit in the gemara 38b that gives the requirements for chazarah: still in his hand, not on the ground, etc. The idea seemed to be that he has to preserve the connection to the original shehiyah or this will be a הטמנה לכתחילה בשבת. However, there are at least two other types of requirements for chazarah: First, some general conditions that don't apply to shehiyah, for instance that it be on top of the kirah, not inside, and that the kirah be garuf v'katum (even where that's not necessary for shehiyah). And second, I would have thought it's obvious (and not really mentioned) that you can't be cooking the food! According to many rishonim, if it's מאכל בן דרוסאי, that won't be a problem, unless there's some din d'rabanon as you mentioned from the Eglei Tal. But if you hold יש בישול אחר בישול, that requirement would become an issue.
After all of these issues are taken care of, then comes the third issue from 38b, that the shehiyah was not interrupted.

But you and I had been discussing a big chiddush: the idea that the issur of cooking (the second problem I mentioned) can be taken care of by keeping connection to the original shehiyah - even if the food isn't fully cooked. As if I'm not cooking it, I'm just reverting to the original cooking from before Shabbos. That's a really big chiddush, and (at least from the quote) I don't know that R' Moshe is discussing it.

I apologize that my first sentence was unclear. A triple negative is easier to understand if you remove the first 2, which cancel each other out. I think that the gist of that paragraph was to say that I had presented 2 possible answers to your question. One was that Chananya does not argue at all by Chazara, only by Shehiya. That was what I was trying to say in that paragraph.

A 2nd possible answer that I had suggested earlier was that the Rambam would say that Chananya argues on the Rabbanan and permits Chazara after Maachal Ben Drosai, but that he (the Rambam) poskens like the Rabbanan. Rav Moshe in the Dibros Moshe seems to say something like this, as I said earlier.

A 3rd possibility, which we have discussed, is that Chazara is a continuation of Shehiya. I believe that Rav Moshe raises this idea as well.

By the way, Chananya seems to be talking about Shehiya, not Chazara, unless I am missing it. He says:

תניא חנניא אומר כל שהוא כמאכל בן דרוסאי מותר לשהותו ע"ג כירה ואע"פ שאינה גרופה ואינה קטומה.

See also my post on Shehiyah and Chazarah here, where I suggest an approach to an answer to some of this.
https://gemaraboards.forumotion.com/t50-shabbos-perek-3-shehiyah-and-chazarah-paper