שָׁכַח קְדֵירָה עַל גַּבֵּי כִּירָה וּבִשְּׁלָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת, מַהוּ? אִישְׁתִּיק וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. לִמְחַר נְפַק דְּרַשׁ לְהוּ: הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יֹאכַל, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֹאכַל, וְלָא שְׁנָא.
If one forgot a pot on Shabbat eve atop a stove and it cooked on Shabbat, what is the ruling in that case? Is one permitted to eat that food, or not? He was silent and did not say a thing to him. The next day, he emerged and publicly taught them the following halakha: With regard to one who cooks on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat it, and if he cooked intentionally, he may not eat it; and the halakha is no different.
מַאי ״וְלָא שְׁנָא״? רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ לְהֶיתֵּירָא: מְבַשֵּׁל הוּא דְּקָא עָבֵיד מַעֲשֶׂה בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֹאכַל, אֲבָל הַאי דְּלָא קָא עָבֵיד מַעֲשֶׂה — בְּמֵזִיד נָמֵי יֹאכַל. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר לְאִיסּוּרָא: מְבַשֵּׁל הוּא דְּלָא אָתֵי לְאִיעָרוֹמֵי, בְּשׁוֹגֵג יֹאכַל, אֲבָל הַאי דְּאָתֵי לְאִיעָרוֹמֵי — בְּשׁוֹגֵג נָמֵי לָא יֹאכַל.
The last part of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s statement is unclear. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic meaning of the phrase: And it is no different? Rabba and Rav Yosef both said to interpret the phrase permissively in the following manner: One who cooks is one who performs an action. If he did so intentionally, he may not eat what he cooked. However, this one who forgot the pot on the stove, who does not perform an action, even if he intentionally left the pot on Shabbat eve, he may also eat the food. However, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that the phrase: And it is no different, should be interpreted restrictively in the following manner: It is one who cooks who will not come to deceive, as there is no room for suspicion that a person will intentionally cook on Shabbat. Therefore, if one cooks unwittingly, he may eat it. However, one who would come to deceive, intentionally leaving the pot on the stove and saying: I forgot it, the Sages penalize him and decree that if he did so unwittingly as well, he may not eat it.
מֵיתִיבִי: שָׁכַח קְדֵירָה עַל גַּבֵּי כִּירָה וּבִישְּׁלָה בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יֹאכַל, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֹאכַל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּחַמִּין שֶׁלֹּא הוּחַמּוּ כׇּל צוֹרְכָּן וְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁלֹּא בִּישֵּׁל כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ, אֲבָל חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ כׇּל צוֹרְכָּן וְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד — יֹאכַל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
The Gemara raises an objection to this statement from that which was taught in a baraita: One who forgot a pot atop a stove and it cooked on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat it; if he did so intentionally, he may not eat it. In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the pot contains hot water that was not yet completely heated, and the same applies to cooked food that was not yet completely cooked. However, if it contains hot water that was already completely heated and cooked food that was already completely cooked, whether the pot was left there unwittingly, or whether the pot was left there intentionally, one may eat it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ כׇּל צוֹרְכָּן — מוּתָּרִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּצְטַמֵּק וְרַע לוֹ. וְתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ — אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ, וְכׇל הַמִּצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ, כְּגוֹן כְּרוּב וּפוֹלִים וּבָשָׂר טָרוּף — אָסוּר, וְכׇל הַמִּצְטַמֵּק וְרַע לוֹ — מוּתָּר.
Rabbi Yehuda says that there is a distinction: Hot water that was already completely heated is permitted because, in that case, the longer it remains on the fire, the more it shrivels, i.e., evaporates, and deteriorates. In that case, one would certainly not come to increase the heat because he would not want to lose more water through evaporation. However, cooked food that was completely cooked, it is prohibited to leave it on the fire because it shrivels and improves. There is room for concern that he will stoke the coals to increase the heat under the food. And there is a general principle: Anything that shrivels and improves, e.g., cabbage, and beans, and meat cut into small pieces is prohibited; and anything that shrivels and deteriorates is permitted.
קָתָנֵי מִיהָא תַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁלֹּא בִּישֵּׁל כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ. בִּשְׁלָמָא לָרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן קוֹדֶם גְּזֵרָה, כָּאן לְאַחַר גְּזֵרָה. אֶלָּא רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי לְהֶיתֵּירָא, אִי קוֹדֶם גְּזֵרָה — קַשְׁיָא מֵזִיד. אִי לְאַחַר גְּזֵרָה — קַשְׁיָא נָמֵי שׁוֹגֵג. קַשְׁיָא.
In any event, it was taught in that baraita that in the case of cooked food that was not completely cooked, if it was cooked unwittingly, it is permitted. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, this is not difficult. Although there is an apparent contradiction, as he prohibits eating from a pot that was unwittingly forgotten on the stove, and the baraita prohibits it only when it was left intentionally, he could explain the following: Here, the baraita, which permits eating it, was taught prior to the decree that was issued lest a person act deceitfully, whereas there, the halakha of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, was taught after the decree, which prohibited eating food even if it was forgotten unwittingly. However, according to the opinion of Rabba and Rav Yosef, who said to interpret the phrase permissively, whether he left it on the stove unwittingly or he did so intentionally, it is difficult. If this baraita was taught prior to the decree, the ruling with regard to when he did so intentionally is difficult, as Rabba and Rav Yosef permit eating the food even in that case. If this baraita was taught after the decree, the ruling with regard to when he did so unwittingly is also difficult, as Rabba and Rav Yosef permit eating the food in every case. No answer was found to this objection and the Gemara concludes: It is indeed difficult.
מַאי גְּזֵירְתָא? דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר רַב: בַּתְּחִילָּה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יֹאכַל, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֹאכַל, וְהוּא הַדִּין לַשּׁוֹכֵחַ. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ מְשַׁהִין בְּמֵזִיד וְאוֹמְרִים ״שְׁכֵחִים אָנוּ״, חָזְרוּ וְקָנְסוּ עַל הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ.
With regard to the matter itself, the Gemara asks: What is the decree that was discussed above in terms of the distinction between before the decree and after the decree? The Gemara says: This is the decree that Rav Yehuda bar Shmuel said that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Kahana said that Rav said: Initially, they would say: With regard to one who cooks on Shabbat, if it was unwitting, one may eat it; if it was intentional, one may not eat it. And the same is true with regard to one who forgets the pot atop the stove before Shabbat and it cooks on Shabbat. When the number of those who leave their pots intentionally and say we forgot to justify their actions, increased, the Sages then penalized those who forgot. Even one who forgets unwittingly may not eat it.
קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה! דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא לְכַתְּחִילָּה, הָא דִיעֲבַד. דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — בִּגְרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה, כָּאן — בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ גְּרוּפָה וּקְטוּמָה.
In the Tosefta cited earlier, which deals with one who forgot a pot atop the stove and the food cooked on Shabbat, Rabbi Meir ruled leniently and permitted both hot water that was completely heated and cooked food that was completely cooked, even when it was left on the stove intentionally. Rabbi Yehuda ruled stringently and distinguished between different cases. However, in the Tosefta cited at the beginning of the chapter, it was taught that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to the opinions of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai as far as leaving food on the stove on Shabbat is concerned. Rabbi Meir says that it is completely prohibited to leave cooked food on the stove ab initio, even according to Beit Hillel who rule leniently. Rabbi Yehuda said that Beit Hillel ruled leniently and permitted doing so. There is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Meir and the other statement of Rabbi Meir, and there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara responds: Between one statement of Rabbi Meir and the other statement of Rabbi Meir there is no contradiction. That which we learned: Rabbi Meir prohibits leaving cooked food under any circumstances, is speaking ab initio; whereas this, where he permits eating the food even if it was left on the stove intentionally, is speaking after the fact. Between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda there is also no contradiction. There, where he permitted leaving the food on the stove, it is referring to the case of a stove that was swept and covered with ashes, whereas here, where he prohibited doing so, is referring to the case of a stove that is not swept and covered with ashes.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: עָבַר וְשִׁהָה מַאי? מִי קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן, אוֹ לָא? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נָתָן אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כְּשֶׁהָלָךְ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְצִיפּוֹרִי מָצָא חַמִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּהוּ עַל גַּבֵּי כִּירָה וְלֹא אָסַר לָהֶן, בֵּיצִים מְצוּמָּקוֹת שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּהוּ עַל גַּבֵּי כִּירָה, וְאָסַר לָהֶן. מַאי לַָאו לְאוֹתוֹ שַׁבָּת? — לָא, לְשַׁבָּת הַבָּאָה.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: One who transgressed and left his pot on the fire on Shabbat, what is his legal status? Did the Sages penalize him and prohibit him from eating the food, or did they not penalize him? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which Shmuel bar Natan said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: When Rabbi Yosei went to the city of Tzippori, he found hot water that was left on the stove, and he did not prohibit them from drinking it. He found eggs shriveled from overcooking that were left on the stove on Shabbat and he prohibited them from eating them. Is this not referring to permitting and prohibiting their consumption for that same Shabbat? If so, apparently he prohibits eating cooked food that was intentionally left on the stove on Shabbat. The Gemara immediately rejects this assumption: No. Rather, he prohibited them from doing so ab initio the following Shabbat, but he did not prohibit them from eating the eggs on that same Shabbat.
מִכְּלָל דְּבֵיצִים מְצוּמָּקוֹת — מִצְטַמְּקוֹת וְיָפֶה לָהֶן נִינְהוּ? אִין. דְּאָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: פַּעַם אַחַת נִתְאָרַחְתִּי אֲנִי וְרַבִּי לִמְקוֹם אֶחָד וְהֵבִיאוּ לְפָנֵינוּ בֵּיצִים מְצוּמָּקוֹת כְּעוּזְרָּדִין וְאָכַלְנוּ מֵהֶן הַרְבֵּה.
The Gemara is surprised: From this statement it can be inferred that eggs shriveled from overcooking shrivel and improve when left on the fire for a long time, and that is the reason that Rabbi Yosei made a distinction between hot water, which he permitted leaving on the stove, and eggs, which he prohibited leaving on the stove. The Gemara replies: Yes, overcooking improves the eggs. As Rav Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: One time Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and I were guests in the same place, and they brought before us overcooked eggs that shriveled to the size of crab apples [uzradin] and we ate many of them. Apparently, extended cooking improves eggs. Therefore, when they are left on the fire on Shabbat there is room for concern lest one stoke the coals in order to shrivel them more.
בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף מַחְזִירִין. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר
We learned in the mishna: Beit Hillel say that one may even return a pot taken off the stove to the stove on Shabbat. Rav Sheshet said: According to the one who says