Bishul 5

(16) 16. It is permitted to place an Empanada [this is a type of layered bread with slivers of fat within] close to fire in a place that is Yad soledes bo even though the congealed fat within will melt. RAMA: all the more so a pot that has congealed gravy inside [may be heated], for when the fat melts it is unnoticeable. (Rabbeinu Yerucham). Some authorities are stringent (R"an, Perek Bameh Tomnin), and that is the custom. However, when necessary one may rely on the first opinion.

In a place where it is yad soledes - The Levush writes that this is an error and it should say "in a place where it won't reach yad soledes", for if it would reach yad soledes there it is forbidden because of cooking like the Beis Yosef writes by oil. Though it seems to me [the Magen Avraham] that they are not the same; for here since it was already cooked and it is dry there is no issur of cooking like the Shluchan Aruch writes in seif 15. And see Siman 253 seif 5 where it says this explicitly....

... the reason it is permitted [to put this item near the fire] is that since it is dry, even though it cooled off, [the issur of] cooking does not apply to it any more, like we say in seif 15. Even though the fat will liquify, it is still called "dry" since at the time it is placed near the fire the fat is still in it's solid ["dry"] form.

(16) 16. It is permitted to place an Empanada [this is a type of layered bread with slivers of fat within] close to fire in a place that is Yad soledes bo even though the congealed fat within will melt. RAMA: all the more so a pot that has congealed gravy inside [may be heated], for when the fat melts it is unnoticeable. (Rabbeinu Yerucham). Some authorities are stringent (R"an, Perek Bameh Tomnin), and that is the custom. However, when necessary one may rely on the first opinion.

It is permitted - that is only with regards to the issur of Nolad which does not apply to it, but the issur of cooking is more strongly applicable here than earlier, for the sauce is a liquid, and a liquid which cools down is a problem to cook [again] like the Shulchan Aruch writes in seif 15. Therefore, we must say, that it is permitted here only if you place the pot in a place where it is not yad soledes.

Rav Kahana said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that boiling after roasting nullifies the previous act of roasting. As it was taught in a baraita: One can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with a wafer that has been soaked in water or with a boiled wafer that has not yet dissolved; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: One can fulfill his obligation with a wafer that has been soaked in a cooked dish but not with a boiled wafer, even if it has not dissolved. Evidently, Rabbi Yosei maintains that food that was initially baked and subsequently boiled is no longer categorized as baked, and the same presumably applies to meat that was roasted and then boiled.

It is Rabbi Yosi - who says that cooking something which has already been baked is [the issur of] cooking.... Even though it was already baked in an oven since you went ahead and cooked it again, it loses the status of bread.

(5) 5. There is an opinion that an issur of Bishul (cooking) will be violated if a baked or roasted item is subsequently cooked in a liquid. It is therefore forbidden to put bread even in a Keli Sheini [liquid] that is Yad soledes bo. (However), there are opinions that permit it. RAMA: (to be placed) into a Keli Sheini. There are those who are lenient and allow it to be placed even in a Keli Rishon. The accepted custom is to be careful not to put bread even in a Keli Sheini while it is Yad soledes bo.

There are those who say etc - See in the Mishnah Berurah that so too there is "roasting after cooking". See the Pri Megadim who brings from the gemara in Pesachim 41a that the status of the first cooking is not removed, which would then allow you to soak this item in hot water on Shabbos [meaning in a case where one cooked it and then roasted it before Shabbos, he could then soak it in hot water on Shabbos because the original status of cooked remains the dominant status] like any other cooked item. It would seem that according to him if one roasted it first and then cooked it [before Shabbos] it would be permitted on Shabbos to place it in the oven on Shabbos without sauce [liquid] even though it will now get roasted, because the original status of "roasted" will remain dominant.... Though I think that the Pri Megadim's rule is not correct, for while it is shown there that the first status is not nullified, the second status is certainly [also] around and we could correctly call it now cooking after roasting. But this does seem correct to me; if one cooked it and then roasted it before Shabbos, it would be permissible to place it in the oven on Shabbos, for the last action determines the status more [strongly] and it would be called roasted after roasted [and permitted the same way that there is no cooking after cooking.]

(15) 15. One is permitted to place fully cooked dry food, with no liquid, near a fire, even in a place that is Yad soledes bo, RAMA: even if it is now cold, but if it is hot, even if liquid is present it is permitted. Some authorities are lenient and say that even if the food has cooled down it is permitted to place next to fire, as long as it is not placed above a fire or Kirah. (HaMagid, Perek 22). The custom in this matter is to be lenient as long as it has not completely cooled down, as I have written in Siman 253.

And it is dry etc - this needs further study for earlier in Seif 5 he [the Shulchan Aruch] brought the opinoin of the Re'em and see there in the Magen Avraham, that according to his opinion, there is also roasting after cooking, so how can he simply claim it is permitted here? ...