Shabbat 38a — the Talmud in English

According to the one who says that the Mishna teaches the law of leaving [a pot on the stove], and one may not leave [a pot] on a stove that has not been swept clear [of its coals], if

he forgot

on the eve of Shabbat

a pot upon a stove, and it cooked on Shabbat, what is [the law]?

What is the status of the food? Rabbi Hiyya did not answer them immediately; rather,

he was silent and did not say anything to him.

The next day, Rabbi Hiyya went out

Rabbi Hiyya, and

expounded to them

as follows is what we learned in the Mishna:

“One who cooks on Shabbat,”

this is his law: if he cooked

unintentionally, he may eat

the dish; but if he cooked it

intentionally, he may not eat it.

And

Rabbi Hiyya added that the distinction between unintentional and intentional applies only to one who cooks on Shabbat itself, but if he forgot a pot upon the fire from the eve of Shabbat,

it makes no difference.

There is no distinction between unintentional and intentional.

The Gemara discusses Rabbi Hiyya’s words:

“What does ‘it makes no difference’ mean?”

For it implies that if he forgot a pot on the fire from the eve of Shabbat, there is no difference between unintentional and intentional; if so, what is the law? Is it permitted in both cases, or perhaps forbidden in both cases?

The amoraim disagree concerning the explanation of the words of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba:

Rabba and Rav Yosef both said:

“It makes no difference,” which Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said, means

for leniency:

whether he forgot the pot on the fire unintentionally or transgressed and left it there intentionally, the dish is permitted for eating.

For specifically

one who cooks

on Shabbat

is the one

about whom we say that if he cooked intentionally, the dish is forbidden for eating, since

he performs an act

of transgression

intentionally,

and therefore they penalized him that he

may not eat it. But this one,

who left his pot on the eve of Shabbat,

does not perform an act,

so even if he left it

intentionally, he too may eat it.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba holds that whether it was unintentional or intentional, it makes no difference

for stringency,

and it is not comparable to one who cooks on Shabbat, where it is permitted when unintentional and forbidden only when intentional.

The reason is that

one who cooks

on Shabbat unintentionally

is the one

whom they permitted to eat, since

he will not come to act deceitfully,

for the Jewish people were not suspected of intentionally desecrating Shabbat and saying, “We were unintentional.” Therefore, if he cooked

unintentionally, he may eat

the dish, and they did not penalize him lest he cook intentionally and say, “I was unintentional.”

But this one,

leaving a dish upon the fire, is only a rabbinic prohibition, and the Sages were concerned

that he would come to act deceitfully.

For if they permit eating a dish that remained on the fire unintentionally, people will come to leave [dishes] intentionally and say, “We were unintentional.” Therefore, the Sages penalized [him], so that if he left a pot on the fire from the eve of Shabbat, even

unintentionally, he too may not eat it.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Hiyya’s words, whether we explain his words like Rabba and Rav Yosef or whether we explain them like Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak, from a Tosefta:

It was raised as an objection: One forgot a pot

that he had placed on the eve of Shabbat

upon a stove

that had not been swept clear and covered,

and it cooked on Shabbat;

since he left it on Shabbat only

unintentionally, he may eat it,

the dish is permitted for eating on Shabbat. But if he placed it

intentionally

on the eve of Shabbat so that it would remain there on Shabbat,

he may not eat it.

From here, we also find a distinction between unintentional and intentional in the law of leaving [a pot], unlike Rabbi Hiyya, who said “it makes no difference”—whether we explain that both are permitted, like Rabba and Rav Yosef, or that both are forbidden, like Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak: in the beraita it is explicit that unintentional is permitted and intentional is forbidden.

The Gemara cites the continuation of the beraita:

In what case are these words said

that there is a distinction between unintentional and intentional?

With regard to hot water that was not heated sufficiently, and a dish that he did not cook sufficiently,

for then the hot water and the dish continue cooking on Shabbat; and if he was intentional, they penalized him, while when he was unintentional it is permitted.

But hot water that was heated sufficiently, and a dish that he cooked sufficiently,

since they do not continue cooking on Shabbat,

whether

he forgot and left it

unintentionally, whether

he transgressed and left it

intentionally, he may eat it,

the dish is permitted for eating, since it did not cook on Shabbat,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Hot water and a dish that were not heated or cooked sufficiently: when unintentional, they are permitted, and when intentional, they are forbidden, like Rabbi Meir. But with regard to something fully cooked, there is a distinction between hot water and a dish, for specifically

hot water that was heated sufficiently is permitted

even when left intentionally,

because it becomes reduced and this is bad for it, and

but

a dish that he cooked sufficiently,

if he left it there intentionally,

it is forbidden, because it becomes reduced and this is good for it,

but when unintentional, it is obvious that it is permitted.

And everything that becomes reduced and this is good for it, such as cabbage, beans, and pounded meat,

is forbidden

to leave it on a stove that has not been swept clear and covered; and if he transgressed and left it there, it is forbidden for eating.

And everything that becomes reduced and this is bad for it is permitted

even if he left it intentionally.

The Gemara returns and explains its difficulty concerning Rabbi Hiyya’s words:

In any event, it teaches:

both according to Rabbi Meir and according to Rabbi Yehuda, if he forgot

a dish that he did not cook sufficiently

upon a stove that had not been swept clear on Shabbat, when unintentional he may eat it, and when intentional he may not eat it. This is unlike Rabba and Rav Huna, who both said for leniency, and unlike Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak, who said that both are for stringency.

The Gemara answers Rabbi Hiyya’s words according to Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak:

According to Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak, it is understandable; there is no difficulty,

for it is possible to distinguish:

here—

the beraita of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir was stated

before the decree,

when they decreed that those who forgot must have their dishes forbidden on Shabbat; therefore, they said that when unintentional it is permitted and when intentional it is forbidden. Whereas

here—

the words of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba were stated

after the decree,

and therefore he said that even when unintentional it is forbidden.

But

according to the words of

Rabba and Rav Yosef, who said

that whether he forgot unintentionally or left it intentionally it is

for leniency,

since he performed no act, it is difficult either way—

For

if

we explain that Rabbi Hiyya permitted it

before the decree,

then

there is a difficulty

from what is stated in the beraita: if he left it

intentionally

it is forbidden; and the beraita certainly speaks before the decree, since it states that when unintentional he is exempt.

If

we explain that Rabbi Hiyya said that it is for leniency

after the decree, there is also a difficulty concerning unintentional,

since after the decree we find that even those who were unintentional were penalized, as will be stated below.

And we conclude:

there is a difficulty

for Rabba and Rav Yosef.

The Gemara explains:

“What decree?”

For Rav Yehuda bar Shmuel said in the name of Rav Abba in the name of Rav Kahana in the name of Rav: At first they would say: One who cooks on Shabbat,

and transgresses a prohibition from the Torah,

when unintentional he may eat it; when intentional he may not eat it—and the same law applies to one who forgot

and left the dish on the fire: when unintentional he may eat it, and when intentional he may not eat it.

But

when those who left [their pots] intentionally became numerous and said, “We are forgetful,” they went back

the Sages

and penalized the one who forgot,

so that if he left it unintentionally, he may not eat it.

The Gemara returns to discuss the words of the Tosefta.

The statement of Rabbi Meir contradicts the statement of Rabbi Meir,

for above [37a] Rabbi Meir said, according to the view of Beit Hillel, that one may leave only hot water upon a swept-clear stove, implying that a dish is forbidden; whereas here Rabbi Meir says that one may place upon a stove that has not been swept clear hot water and a dish that were fully cooked?

The statement of Rabbi Yehuda contradicts the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Above [there] Rabbi Yehuda said that one may leave hot water [which becomes reduced and this is bad for it] and a dish [which becomes reduced and this is good for it] that were fully cooked upon a swept-clear stove, whereas here Rabbi Yehuda says that hot water is permitted and a dish is forbidden.

The Gemara answers:

With regard to Rabbi Meir contradicting Rabbi Meir

there is no difficulty,

for

this

which he said above, that it is permitted to leave only hot water, means

as an initial matter.

Whereas

this

which he said here, that it is permitted to leave also a dish that is fully cooked, means

after the fact,

that if he left it, he may eat it.

With regard to Rabbi Yehuda contradicting Rabbi Yehuda as well, there is no difficulty,

for

here,

above, where Rabbi Yehuda permitted hot water and a dish even when the latter becomes reduced and this is good for it, it is because the case concerns

a swept-clear and covered stove.

Whereas

here

he forbade leaving a dish that becomes reduced and this is good for it, because the case concerns

one that has not been swept clear and covered.

They raised a question before them: One transgressed and left [it]

intentionally—

what is [the law]? Did the Rabbis penalize him

so that he may not eat it on that Shabbat,

or did they not

penalize him?

Ta shma: For Shmuel bar Natan said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: When Rabbi Yose went to Tzippori, he found hot water that had been left

from the eve of Shabbat

on a stove, and he did not forbid it to them.

And he found

eggs shriveled by continued cooking that had been left on a stove, and he forbade them to them,

because they improve by continued cooking.

Is it not so,

that Rabbi Yose forbade the eggs to them

for that Shabbat,

and from here proof can be brought that it is forbidden to eat on that Shabbat food that improves by continued cooking.

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

he did not forbid the eggs to them for that Shabbat; rather, he instructed them not to do this

for the following Shabbat.

And the Gemara infers: since he forbade the eggs to them,

it follows that shriveled eggs improve by continued cooking.

And we conclude:

Yes. For Rav Hama bar Hanina said: Once I and Rabbi were guests in one place, and they brought before us

on a weekday

shriveled eggs like fruit of the azaradh tree,

which are a delicate thing,

and we ate many of them,

since, being shriveled, they are pleasant to eat.

We learned in the Mishna:

The House of Hillel says: They may also return [the pot to the stove].