L'chatchila and b'diavad in Hilchot Shabbat

B"H

When learning Hilchot Shabbat, it is important to distinguish clearly between what is mutar l'chatchila (permitted at the outset) and what is mutar b'diavad (permitted after the event). The ramifications are important when considering whether or not hana'ah (benefit) may be derived on Shabbat.


The starting point for this discussion is the machloket (argument) between Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yochanan HaSandlar in the Gemara in Chullin and elsewhere. The view of Rabbi Yochanan HaSandlar is not relevant for the purposes of this discussion. Rabbi Yehudah holds that if an issur (a forbidden action) is performed on Shabbat b'meizid (i.e. knowing that it is Shabbat and that the action is forbidden on Shabbat), the perpetrator cannot ever derive benefit, but others may derive benefit immediately after Shabbat. In the case of an issur b'shogeig (a forbidden action performed accidentally, i.e. without knowing that the action was forbidden on Shabbat or without knowing that it was Shabbat), Rabbi Yehudah holds that everyone, including the perpetrator, may derive benefit immediately after Shabbat. Rabbi Meir, however, holds that in the case of an issur b'meizid, everyone may derive benefit immediately after Shabbat and that in the case of an issur b'shogeig, everyone may derive benefit on Shabbat itself.

The Shulchan Aruch in Siman 318:1 rules in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehudah in the case of bishul (cooking), and the Rama adds that the same applies in the case of any other melachot (biblically prohibited categories of work). The Pri Megadim takes the view that we also rule in accordance with Rabbi Yehudah in the case of issurei d'rabbanan (matters which are rabbinically prohibited on Shabbat), but the Vilna Gaon proves from the Rambam that the halacha follows Rabbi Meir in the case of issurei d'rabbanan b'shogeig. The Chafetz Chaim agrees with the Vilna Gaon - see in particular the Biur Halacha at the beginning of Siman 318 on the word "ham'vasheil". (For advanced learning, read that Biur Halacha carefully to determine what the position might be in the case of issurei d'rabbanan b'meizid.)

The position at this point is that although an action is assur l'chatchila (forbidden at the outset) on Shabbat, benefit may be derived by everyone on Shabbat itself b'diavad (after the event, i.e. once the action has been performed. For an example of the use of the term b'diavad in this sense, see Mishna Berura Siman 318 seif katan 3.) if the action is rabbinically prohibited and is performed b'shogeig.

But there may be room to permit benefit b'diavad even in the case of issurei d'oraita b'shogeig in certain circumstances. One example of this is given in the Biur Halacha at the beginning of Siman 318 on the words "achat mish'ar melachot". The Chayyei Adam is cited there as authority for the proposition that there might be a distinction between a melacha which transforms the nature of the object (e.g. bishul - cooking) and a melacha which does not transform the nature of the object (e.g. hotza'ah - carrying.) In the former case, benefit is prohibited on Shabbat, but in the latter case, there may be grounds for permitting benefit on Shabbat provided that the melacha was performed b'shogeig. The conclusion there is that for all practical purposes, the only material distinction is between issurei d'oraita and issurei d'rabbanan, but nevertheless, in my humble opinion, there may be room to allow benefit to be derived b'diavad where Torah literature has been inadvertently carried by a Jew on Shabbos.

Taking it further, we will now consider the case where an issur d'oraita has been performed b'shogeig according to the accepted understanding of halacha, but there are rabbinical authorities (normally Rishonim - early halachic authorities) who would have permitted the action to be performed at the outset. The position of the Mishna Berura, as set out in Siman 318 seif katan 2, is that in such a case, although the action itself is assur l'chatchila, benefit may be derived b'diavad because although we rule stringently in relation to the biblically prohibited action itself, the prohibition of deriving benefit is rabbinical, and we rule leniently (i.e. permissively) in the case of rabbinical prohibitions. So, for example, if food has been cooked b'shogeig on Shabbat but it was already cooked k'ma'achal ben Derosai (i.e. one half cooked according to the Rambam, or one third cooked according to Rashi. But see the Piskei Teshuvot at the beginning of Siman 253 on the question of how to determine whether food is one half or one third cooked), the food may be eaten on Shabbat b'diavad because there is a substantial body of Rishonic opinion which holds that there is no issur bishul (prohibition of further cooking) once the food has been cooked k'ma'achal ben Derosai. See further Siman 318:4 and the Mishna Berura (seif katan 26 or 27?) and the Biur Halacha on the words "afilu b'odo roteiach".

Furthermore, even if the action is assur l'chatchila (forbidden at the outset) according to everyone, there are cases where benefit may be permitted on Shabbat b'diavad. The Mishna Berura Siman 318 seif katan 7 points out that the Vilna Gaon, relying on Tosafot and others, rules in accordance with the view of Rabbi Meir even in the case of an issur d'oraita. The Mishna Berura says that in the case of bishul b'shogeig (and we can assume that this also applies to other melachot, having regard to the Rama at the beginning of Siman 318:1), benefit may be derived by everyone on Shabbat itself in a case of need. A note of caution must be sounded here. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach holds that this heter (permissive ruling) must not be taken lightly, and in the case of bishul, it only applies where there is no other cooked food available or where the food which has been cooked on Shabbat in error is necessary for one's enjoyment of Shabbat.

Thus far, we have assumed that b'diavad always refers to deriving benefit after a forbidden action has been performed. This is true in most cases, including the case of sh'hiya (allowing a pot of food to remain on the cooker once Shabbat has started) according to the Biur Halacha's understanding of the Rama to Siman 253:1 (Biur Halacha on Siman 253:1 on the words "v'nahagu l'hakeil kis'vara acharona", but contrast this with Shulchan Aruch HaRav 253:13 and the Chazon Ish).

In the case of chazara (returning a pot of food to the blech), however, there are two levels of b'diavad. The first is where the pot of food can be returned to the blech b'diavad even though not all the conditions of chazara have been satisfied, and the second is where the food can be eaten on Shabbat b'diavad even though the pot of food should not have been returned to the blech, even b'diavad. In order to to understand this, we need to be familar with the conditions which need to be satisfied in order for a pot of food to be returned to the blech l'chatchila. (Note that the differences in halacha in this respect between Sephardim and Ashkenazim are summarised well by the Yalkut Yosef.) Those conditions are as follows:
1. The heat source must be covered by a blech. For this purpose, a hotplate or warming tray is equivalent to a blech. (A treatment of the different opinions relating to hotplates and warming trays is beyond the scope of this article!)
2. The food must be fully cooked at the time it is removed from the blech.
3. The food must still be warm when it is returned to the blech. According to the Shulchan Aruch, the food must be piping hot, but according to the Rama and many other halachic authorities, it is sufficient if the food is still warm enough to be eaten as a warm food.
4. The pot of food must be continuously held in one's hand. The pot can be placed on a counter whilst it is still being held. This condition is not mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch. The Shulchan Aruch simply states that the pot must not be placed on the ground.
5. When the pot was removed from the blech, the person removing it must have had the intention to return it. This condition is not mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch.
6. According to the Magen Avraham and Shulchan Aruch HaRav, the food must not be transferred into another, previously empty, pot. It would then seem as if the food was being placed on the fire for the first time.

For Ashkenazim, all the above conditions (with the possible exception of condition 6) must be satisfied to enable the pot of food to be returned to the blech l'chatchila. But if either condition 4 or 5 is not satisfied, i.e. the pot was continuously held but there was no intention to return it or the pot was released but the person removing it did have the intention to return it, the pot may be returned b'diavad.

There are rabbinical authorities who hold that if conditions 1, 2 and 3 are satisfied, the pot may be returned b'diavad in a case of need. In my very humble opinion, however, having regard to the Mishna Berura, I would respectfully suggest that the better view is that the food should not be returned b'diavad but may be eaten b'diavad if it was returned in error. I would go further, based on the Biur Halacha to Siman 318:4 on the words "afilu b'odo roteiach", and suggest that if food which is only cooked k'ma'achal ben Derosai (one half or one third cooked - see above) is returned to the blech in error when the food is still warm enough to be eaten as a warm food, then it may be eaten b'diavad.

I hope that this article has given you some food for thought. Please note that the article has been written entirely from memory, and I apologise for any inaccurate or imprecise citations. All comments are welcome.

Regards from Leeds, England.

Yechiel Conway.

Muktzeh - Catching rainwater

Rabbi Moishe Brandeis sent the following question to Rav Ostroff:

While in Manchester on shabbos visiting my parents, my father raised the following point.

What is the difference between air conditioning water and rainwater, where we find that you may move a kli to catch the leak. Rainwater, says my father (the chemical engineer), has exactly the same process as a dripping air conditioner unit.

I hazarded a guess at bidei shomayim and bidei odom, but am not sure. Please will you enlighten me.

Rav Ostroff replied:

I'll try. The gemora says that rain is in the clouds and condensed air is not. It could well be that they are both the same, but as far as appearance goes, rain seems to come from somewhere, which is a reason to remove muktzeh, whereas condensed air is from vapor - as if from nowhere.

Shlomo Amar commented:

Maybe the rain was made before Shabbos in the clouds and therefore no issue of nolad, while the AC water was nolad on Shabbos.

Rav Ostroff replied:

Correct, the rain is in the clouds before Shabbos, whereas the AC water is "put together" on Shabbos.

Muktzeh - Moving a Lamp

The following question was sent by one of the Chabura to Rav Ostroff:

I want to ask about a common issue in which there is a dispute of opinions on.

May one on Shabbos move an electric lamp with a cord from one room to another room? The cord is taped to the wall and will not come out. The case is where one light went out and it was dark and I was learning with friends Friday night. I wanted to move the lamp that was still on to the room where the light went off.

I remember Rav Bluth taught me that Rav Moshe Feinstein would do it in his apartment. What are all the opinions and final conclusion that you follow?

Rav Ostroff replied:

Indeed Rav Shlomo Zalman held that halachically one is permitted to move such a lamp, being that it is made to move, but ruled that one must not.

I discussed the issue of moving a radiator, which is basically the same idea - it has an element that heats oil and is made to move around - on wheels, and he said that in Yiddish we say that one must "run from fire like fire" ...and since an element is aish, it must be treated as such and is always a bosis and ossur to move.

So I would only move such an item with my foot.

Borer - Seforim

The following question was sent by one of the Chabura to Rav Ostroff:

If I have the five chumashim lying on top of each other on a table, would putting them in order (Breisheis, Shmos, etc.) on the bookshelf constitute borer (assuming the five chumashim piled up is a mixture)? On one hand they are being ordered; on the other hand they are all independent. Would it change the answer if they were already on the bookshelf, but in a mixed up order?

Rav Ostroff replied:

The first case is borer because you are sorting the seforim. Each one is noticeable, and besides, it is not really a mixture. If it is, let's compare it to a knife, fork and spoon sitting next to each other and you leave them like they are but in a different order. I don't think it's borer.

Borer - Toys

The following question was sent by one of the Chabura to Rav Ostroff:

If my childen's toys are strewn about the room, and the different toys have their designated place, are these toys considered a mixture?

Rav Ostroff replied:

Yes they are.

Usually the toys are not in a pile, which from what we have learned would make it OK to separate them. However, when looking at the messy room from a distance, the haphazard toys are all jumbled up. I was wondering if this would constitute a mixture, or because when looking closer they are really separate?

Even though they are separate, they are a mixture. My friend Rav Chanan Cohen (an expert in borer) says that when you have a platter with assorted cakes that are placed haphazardly on the tray, not in order, and you sort them out, type by type, even though they are not touching, it is borer.

Borer - Ochel from P'soles with a K'non or Tamchui

I heard the following chakirah from a Shiur given by Rabbi Assaf Bednarsh of Yeshiva University. The Shiur (among hundreds of others) can be downloaded from the YU Torah Web Site at http://www.yutorah.org/halacha.cfm

In Siman 319:2 the Mechaber writes:

הבורר אוכל מתוך הפסולת, בידו, להניחו אפילו לבו ביום, נעשה כבורר לאוצר וחייב

to which the Mishna Berura Seif Katan (9) comments:

אוכל מתוך הפסולת - דפסולת מתוך האוכל אפי' לאלתר חייב וכדלקמיה ומש"כ בידו ה"ה בקנון ותמחוי

The difficulty is his comment that ומש"כ בידו ה"ה בקנון ותמחוי

In Siman 319:1 the Mechaber writes:

הבורר אוכל מתוך פסולת או שהיו לפניו שני מיני אוכלים ובורר מין ממין אחר, בנפה ובכברה חייב; בקנון ובתמחוי, פטור אבל אסור.

Clearly, borer with a k’non or a tamchui is only assur mid’Rabbanan, so why does the Mishna Berura write that where the borer is ochel from p’soles, but not l’alter, it is assur mid’Oraissa if done with a k’non or a tamchui?

וצריך עיון

Rav Ostroff has sent me the following comment on the above:

I think the answer is that a k'non and tamchui will only be d'Rabbanan when done l'alter and ochel from p'soles, but p'soles from ochel is d'Oraisso , because even when separated by hand it is d'Oraisso, being that it is derech beraira.

Bichdei Shyasuhu

Where does BS"Y start?
Lets say that a A"Y bought chips from the store two blocks away from ones house, but there is another store down the block. Does one have to wait the time it takes to drive and buy the chips from the actual store or can one wait the amount of time it takes to go to the closest store?