Cooking with the Heat of the Sun on Shabbat

 

 

Translated and adapted by Rav Eliezer Kwass

 

 

            It is permissible according to the gemara (Shabbat 39a) to cook with the heat of the sun on Shabbat. The type of heat source used determines whether cooking is permissible or not, and whether it is a biblical or a rabbinic prohibition. The gemara distinguishes between four different heat sources: fire (eish), the sun (chama), and things heated by each of these respectively (toldot ha'eish and toldot hachama):

 

"Rav Nachman says: 'Everyone agrees that [cooking with] the sun is permitted and that it is prohibited to cook using something heated by fire (and obviously with fire itself).  [Rabbi Yossi and the other sages (Shabbat 38b)] differ as to whether it is permitted to cook with something heated by the sun.  One holds that the sages prohibited cooking through something heated by the sun because it is easily confused with something heated by fire, and the other holds that the sages did not make such a decree (and it is permitted).'" 

 

This statement is uncontested and is treated as an authoritative halakhic source. 

 

            The gemara does not explain why there should be any distinction between cooking with fire and cooking with the heat of the sun.  Rashi (in Shabbat) explains that cooking in the sun is permitted because "it is an irregular method of cooking."  Not the nature of the heat source, but the METHOD of cooking is crucial.  Consequently, NON-FIRE heat sources, if conventional, are still prohibited biblically.  There are poskim who, based on Rashi's approach, rule that alternative non-fire but widely used cooking methods - microwaves, for instance - are prohibited biblically.  Similarly, if solar water heaters become common they also become forbidden biblically. 

 

            It is likely that Rashi thought the following:  When comparing an action to a forbidden melakha, there are two possible fronts on which they can differ: a) the process involved, or b) the results created.  If the action is different enough from the melakha, then it is permitted.  Cooking with the heat of the sun seems to produce similar results to those of cooking with fire, and yet it is permitted (see, though, the Eglei Tal's comments, Ofeh 44:4).  Therefore, it is the process and not the result which is significant.  It is permissible because the cooking process is different enough from normal cooking. 

 

THE KEY ELEMENT OF COOKING 

 

            Rashi's explanation of why sun-cooking is permissible must be seen in context of a dispute among the rishonim about a similar issue, cooking in a "keli sheini" (lit., 'a second utensil' - cooking in liquid that, after being heated on the fire, was poured into a second container).  The mishna and gemara are clear that it is permissible to cook in a keli sheini.  Rishonim argue about the reasoning, and the two approaches presented are in line with our analysis above of the two ways through which melakhot become permissible. 

 

            The Rambam and Tosafot differ regarding cooking in a keli sheini.  The Rambam (Hilkhot Shabbat 9), following the Yerushalmi's conclusions, explains that the PROCESS of cooking in a keli sheini is so different from normal cooking that it is permitted.  He rules that on a biblical level cooking takes place only in a keli rishon on the fire, where the classical cooking process takes place.  The Tosafot (Shabbat 40b, s.v. "Ushma") hold that the only difference between a keli rishon and a keli sheini is how hot they are and, consequently, the cooking RESULTS they are able to bring about.  According to their approach, it is biblically forbidden to cook something in a keli sheini if one can acheive similar results to those of a keli rishon.  This is the law of "kalei habishul" (things easily cooked), biblically forbidden to cook even in a keli sheini, according to the simple reading of the mishna on Shabbat 145a.  [How the Rambam, based on the Yerushalmi, would relate to the issue of kalei habishul would demand a separate presentation.] 

 

            The Rashba (Shabbat 40b s.v. "Meivi") categorically restates the Tosafot's approach (as does the Sefer Hayerei'im), " … Why should it make any difference whether the hot liquid is in a keli rishon or a keli sheini?  As long as it cooks, it is forbidden.  The only reason they distinguish between a keli rishon and a keli sheini is because (generally) one cooks and the other does not."

 

Tosafot, the Rashba, and the Yerei'im agree that only cooking in a keli rishon on the fire is seen as a regular cooking process, yet still assert that results achieved in a keli sheini can be considered biblical-level cooking.  The following approach emerges from Tosafot, the Rashba and the Yerei'im:  cooking on a biblical level involves achieving the RESULTS of cooking despite the lack of a cooking PROCESS.

 

            In this light, Rashi's approach to cooking in the sun must now be re-examined.  He seems forced to take the Rambam-Yerushalmi view of cooking, that its key element is its PROCESS, and abnormal cooking cannot be biblically prohibited, despite perfectly normal results. 

 

            However, according to the Tosafot, Rashba, and Yerei'im, we must find an alternate explanation as to why cooking in the heat of the sun is permitted.  Based on the keli sheini model, it should have been prohibited to cook in the sun because one can achieve normal cooking results.  The Eglei Tal also raises an important question - Why is cooking in the sun PERMITTED?  Why is it not, like other activities considered abnormally done and therefore although not biblically prohibited, at least PROHIBITED RABBINICALLY?

 

SUN COOKING - A SPECIAL EXCEPTION

 

            We seem compelled therefore, to view the type of heat source used for cooking as an independent essential element of melekhet bishul.  Rashi is working with the halakhic category of melekhet machshevet, doing melakhot in the way they were done in the construction of the mishkan.  One aspect of this requirement, common to all melakhot, is that the melakha be done normally.  When the gemara permitted cooking by the sun, Rashi explained that this is because it is abnormal cooking.  We now suggest, according to the Tosafot, Rashba and Yerei'im, that when one uses the sun to cook, one is not only doing a melakha abnormally (a category that applies to all melakhot), but missing an essential unique ingredient of melekhet bishul.

 

            In order to understand what sun-cooking lacks we must get a better understanding of what is included in the Torah's prohibition against doing melakha on Shabbat.  As a general rule, the activities prohibited on Shabbat involve human creativity.  On Shabbat the Jew is to refrain from all activities that involve changing the physical world by using human creativity and craftsmanship.  An act that does not involve human creativity is not prohibited on Shabbat even if it brings about a change in an object. 

 

            Sun-cooking transforms the food through the forces of nature, not by human craftsmanship.  The deficiency of sun-cooking is not only that it is done irregularly, but that it does not fall into the category of cooking that the Torah forbids on Shabbat.  To say that a melakha is done irregularly and therefore is not prohibited on a biblical level implies that it is essentially an act within the category of that melakha but it lacks the characteristic of "normality."  Only melakhot done normally, the way they were done in the construction of the Mishkan, are prohibited biblically.  Yet, sun-cooking lacks something more fundamental.  Using the forces of nature does not desecrate Shabbat.  Shabbat involves moving away from affecting nature through human creativity.  For six days man creates, forms the world, acts on it; on Shabbat he steps back and rests, letting the forces of nature continue to work.  It is not prohibited, therefore, to allow the forces of nature to act on their own on Shabbat. [Agricultural melakhot, however, seem to be exceptions to this rule.  Some agricultural activities, especially planting (zoreia) and winnowing (zoreh), involve placing something in a situation where nature can run its course.] 

 

            Cooking with fire differs fundamentally from cooking with the sun.  Fire is given over to man as an agent with which to change his world, as a tool for craftsmanship and technology.  Using tools and making them using with fire is one of the key elements that distinguishes man from the animals.  When the prophet Yishayahu (54:16) wants to find an image that highlights the distinction between God's infinite powers and man's limited ones he says, "Behold I have created the craftsman, the smith blowing on coals of fire, bringing a vessel into existence for his use . . ."  In contrast, man does not control or direct the power of the sun, he only takes advantage of it.  Nature is not given over into man's hands but exists as an independent force.  Man is fortunate if he can benefit from nature, if he is able somehow to tap into what is happening outside of his control. However, that is not where man expresses himself as a creative craftsman.  Man has harnessed fire and uses it as a tool, he LIGHTS a fire; man can only take advantage of the power of the sun, not harness it.  Cooking with fire is man expressing himself as a creative being, using his tools to alter the world; cooking with the sun is not a melakha because man merely taps into the forces of nature. 

 

            Based on this, it is clear why cooking with the heat of the sun is permitted even though we often forbid acheiving the results of a melakha.  The (forbidden) results of melakha must be those that express man's creative use of craftsmanship.  This allows us to answer the Eglei Tal's question about the rabbinic prohibition against doing an irregularly done melakha.  Even the remaining rabbinic prohibition relates to a melakha whose only deficiency is its normality, not to one which lacks a fundamental aspect of melakha. 

 

R. YOSSI VS. RABBANAN

           

It is quite possible that this issue is the basis of a dispute amongst the tannaim.  R. Yossi and the Rabbanan differ regarding the prohibition against the people of Teveria heating water on Shabbat with the water of the hot springs found there. 

 

"It happened that the people of Teveria ran a pipe of cold water through a channel of hot spring water.  The sages told them that on Shabbat this is considered like water heated on Shabbat and it is forbidden to drink and to wash with it" (Shabbat 38b).

 

The gemara explains that according to the sages the use of Teveria's hot springs is forbidden based on the rabbinic decree against cooking with things heated by the sun, since it is hard to distinguish between that heated by the sun and that heated by fire (for example, a plate of metal heated in the sun looks exactly the same as one heated in fire and is therefore prohibited rabbinically to cook with).  R. Yossi claims that the Teverian hot springs can not be categorized as objects heated by the sun, because [they are heated when] "they pass by the opening of Gehinom."  The Teverian hot springs are therefore heated by fire and biblically forbidden to cook with. 

 

            Their dispute about cooking with the water of hot springs is rooted in our fundamental distinction between cooking with the heat of the sun and with fire.  The hot springs are obviously not a tool in man's hands the way a standard cooking fire is.  They are part of the forces of nature that stand outside of man's control but can, through some ingenuity, be taken advantage of.  If, as we presented above, the distinction between cooking in the sun and cooking with fire is that of man expressing himself as a craftsman using his technological tool, fire, as opposed to merely tapping into the forces of nature, the Teverian hot springs should be categorized as sun-cooking.  If, however, the distinction between the sun and fire is based on a formal definition of the heat source of cooking, we are open to define the water of hot springs as heated by fire.  This limitation, prohibiting only cooking with fire, might be based on the model of cooking as it was done in the construction of the Mishkan or on what is the standard, normal heat source used in cooking. 

 

            Based on the above, the Rabbanan view cooking with Teverian hot springs as they would view cooking with things heated with the sun and not biblically prohibited.  Cooking using objects heated by the forces of nature is not prohibited on a biblical level.  In R' Yossi's conception of melekhet bishul, cooking must be done with something that can be defined as FIRE.  This enables him to prohibit cooking with the hot springs since it can be defined as cooking by fire.  Rav Chisda (40b) rules according to the Rabbanan and this became the authoritative ruling. 

 

            We have seen that the talmudic passage records two different disputes between R. Yossi and the Rabbanan:

 

1. whether cooking with the water of the Teverian hot springs is considered biblical level cooking;

2. whether there is a rabbinic prohibition against cooking with things heated by the sun - toldot hachama (e.g. to take a plate of metal that stood outside in the hot sun and bring it inside and cook an egg on it). 

 

According to the Rabbanan there is a rabbinic prohibition against cooking with things heated by the sun and the Teverian hot springs are considered something heated by the sun.  According to R. Yossi there is no Rabbinic prohibition against cooking with toldot hachama and the Teverian hot springs are considered toldot ha'eish, heated by fire (of Gehinnom).  Are these simply two separate coincidental disputes between the Rabbanan and R. Yossi?  Did two separate arguments about similar topics end up in the same talmudic passage or might they be tied together?

 

            Perhaps the two disputes are linked together.  If, as the Rabbanan hold, the prohibition against cooking on Shabbat does not include using the forces of nature (the sun, the hot springs), there is a clear distinction being made between the sun itself and things heated by the sun. The sun is part of nature, transmitting its heat to the world, outside of man's control.  Man merely places the food in the presence of the sun and allows the forces of nature to take effect.  However, using an object heated by the sun to cook with, is much more akin to cooking with fire, classical human craftsmanship, than it is to cooking with the sun itself.  Man takes the energy of nature, harnesses it, stores it in a controlled way, and then uses it for his own designs.  Storing and reusing energy are standard human technological activities.  The Rabbanan both consider cooking with hot springs tantamount to cooking with the sun and prohibit cooking with those things heated by the sun because of its similarity to cooking with fire - bringing energy into the realm of human existence, storing it and reusing it to change an object. 

 

            R. Yossi's two opinions are also connected.  Fire is a type of substance, not, as the Rabbanan define it, harnessed energy at man's disposal.  Be it the fires of Gehinnom or a cooking fire, fire is fire and prohibited biblically to cook with.  The sun is a fundamentally different heat source and permitted to cook with.  But anything heated by the sun is certainly fundamentally different from those heated by fire and is definitely permitted to cook with.  The hot springs are therefore biblically prohibited to cook with, but it is totally permitted to cook with toldot hachama. 

 

SUMMARY

           

This then explains the talmudic passage we opened with.  One of the tannaitic opinions holds that we make a rabbinic decree against cooking with toldot hachama because of their similarity to toldot ha'eish.  Storing and reusing the energy of the sun is closer to cooking with fire than with cooking with the sun itself and therefore is open to a rabbinic decree.  This decree is based either on this fundamental similarity or on the ease with which people might mix up the two.  According to R. Yossi, who views the distinction between fire and the sun much differently, there is no reason to make a rabbinic decree; on the contrary, toldot hachama are even more removed from fire than the sun itself.

 

[This article orignially appeared in Daf Kesher #472, Tevet 5755, vol. 5, pp. 294-296.]