Bishul 1

Haofeh - [to be an Av it needs to have been in the Creation of the Mishkan. So where was it?] It was not in the creation of the mishkan since it can only be done to make bread, and bread was not used to make the mishkan. Though the whole set of melachos 1-11 all were there [making them Avos] in the preparation of the dyes: blue, crimson, and scarlet. In the gemara we ask, why did the Tanna leave out the word cooking and use baking instead?...

(1) One who bakes [something] the size of a dried fig is liable. It is the same whether he bakes bread, cooks a food or herbs or heats up water – it all has one function. The [requisite] amount of heating water is enough to bathe a small limb. And the [requisite] amount of cooking herbs is enough that they be fit for the purpose for which they are being cooked.

(3) One who cracks an egg on a hot garment or sand or dirt of the roads which are hot because of the heat of the sun is exempt, even though it gets roasted. For the effects of the sun are not like the effects of fire [regarding that which is defined as cooking]. But they decreed about them [to forbid them] on account of the effects of fire. Likewise one who cooks with the hot springs of Tiberius or that which is similar to them is exempt. One who cooks something that is totally cooked or something that does not need to be cooked at all on the fire is exempt.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The opinion of the first tanna is to prohibit doing so. He explains the dispute in the following manner: According to the first tanna, with regard to oil, even if the heat is not so great that the hand spontaneously recoils from it, it is prohibited to heat it. He holds that oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking, and warming it is tantamount to cooking it. And Rabbi Yehuda came to say, leniently, that warming it is not tantamount to cooking it. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and to say that oil is subject to the prohibition of cooking, and warming it is tantamount to cooking it. The Gemara questions: According to this explanation, the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is identical to the opinion of the first tanna. What is the difference between them? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where this is done in a backhanded manner, i.e., not as it is typically done. According to the first tanna, it is totally prohibited to heat the oil, whereas according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is permitted to heat the oil in a backhanded manner. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said that the halakha is: With regard to both oil and water, heating either one to the point where the hand spontaneously recoils from it is prohibited. Heating either one to the point where the hand does not spontaneously recoil from it is permitted. The Gemara asks: And what are the circumstances in which a hand spontaneously recoils from it? Not all hands are equal in their sensitivity to heat. The Sage, Raḥava, said: Any water that could cause a baby’s stomach to be scalded is considered water from which the hand spontaneously recoils.

If one cooks - Whether one cooks food or dyes or water [meaning even though water is fit to drink without cooking, and all the more so milk, still it is forbidden because it improves through cooking]...

(2) Magen Avraham 13 - "raw apples are forbidden to be roasted" - I don't know what "all the more so..." can be said here? Here it is worse in terms of bishul it is forbidden on the Torah level to cook (see what I wrote on the margin in the beginning of Siman 368) rather over here it is only Rabbinically forbidden since they are eaten raw and they don't need cooking as the Rambam writes (Shabbos 9,3) though either way the cook is a proper cooking for in general if one did this [to something which needed to be cooked] it would be forbidden to do so on the Torah level....

...the amount of these [Melachos] [meaning the amount of item that you need to affect to be punished for transgressing the issur] is the size of a fig, with the exception of plowing, which is punishable even for a little bit as explained later on (on daf 103a).

Moist ones - which are fit for man; the size of a fig, for this is the measure for all human food issues of Shabbos...

(1) One who bakes [something] the size of a dried fig is liable. It is the same whether he bakes bread, cooks a food or herbs or heats up water – it all has one function. The [requisite] amount of heating water is enough to bathe a small limb. And the [requisite] amount of cooking herbs is enough that they be fit for the purpose for which they are being cooked.

(1) The amount for one who heats something up etc - the Ramach writes "I don't know where he got this from and it needs further research".

... Rabeinu Shmuel writes that it is permitted to place apples near the fire close to nightfall [at the start of Shabbos] even though it will not be able to roast while it is still day [ie before Shabbos begins] for they are more commonly eaten raw than a food which is cooked mb'd which is permitted. Even though in the first perek (13b) the Mishnah states that one may not roast meat, an onion, or an egg unless they will be roasted while it is still daytime, even though sometimes onions are eaten raw, still it is not as fit to eat as a [raw] apple so he wants to blunt the sharpness and to sweeten [the onion] by cooking it. If one insulate apples with a pot it is forbidden to place pillows or blankets on the pot that they [the apples] are with, or to add to the pillows, even though if there weren't any apples it would be permitted to put back the pillows and blankets as it says in the mishnah (51a) if he covered it and it became uncovered one is permitted to cover it. To add to the covering we also say in the gemara "if one wants to add [pillows] he may add. [Though] when there are apples with the pot it is forbidden for if he would return the insulation before they cooked he would be cooking on Shabbos [since the insulation that he added would cause the cooking of the apples to be completed.]......