Shabbat 38a (לח.) — the Talmud in English

According to the one who says that the Mishna teaches the law of leaving food to remain on the stove, and that one may not leave food on an un raked stove, if

one forgot

before Shabbat

a pot on the stove, and it cooked on Shabbat, what is the ruling,

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

he remained silent and said nothing to him.

The next day, Rabbi Hiyya went out,

and

expounded to them

as follows: This is what we learned in the Mishna:

“One who cooks on Shabbat,”

this is his ruling: If he cooked

unintentionally, it may be eaten,

but if he cooked it

intentionally, it may not be eaten.

And

Rabbi Hiyya added that the distinction between an unintentional act and an intentional act applies only when one cooks on Shabbat itself. But if one forgot a pot on the fire from before Shabbat,

there is no distinction.

There is no distinction between an unintentional act and an intentional act.

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Hiyya’s statement:

What is the meaning of “there is no distinction”?

It implies that if one forgot a pot on the fire from before Shabbat, there is no distinction between an unintentional act and an intentional act. If so, what is the ruling? Is the food permitted in both cases, or perhaps prohibited in both cases?

The amoraim disagree over the meaning of the statement of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba:

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say:

The “there is no distinction” stated by Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba means

that it is permitted,

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

The reason is that specifically

one who cooks

on Shabbat

is

the one of whom we say that if he cooked intentionally, the food is prohibited to eat, since

he performed an act

of transgression

intentionally;

therefore, he was penalized so that he

may not eat it. But in this case,

where he left his pot on the stove before Shabbat,

he performed no act,

and therefore even if he left it there

intentionally, he may nevertheless eat it.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak said:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba holds that whether the act was unintentional or intentional, there is no distinction

and it is prohibited,

and this is not comparable to one who cooks on Shabbat, where the food is permitted when he cooked unintentionally and prohibited only when he cooked intentionally.

The reason is that

one who cooks

on Shabbat unintentionally

is

the one whose food they permitted to eat, since

he will not come to employ subterfuge: The Jewish people were not suspected of intentionally violating Shabbat and then claiming that they had acted unintentionally. Therefore, if he cooked

intentionally,

unintentionally, it may be eaten,

and he was not penalized out of concern that he might cook intentionally and claim that he had acted unintentionally.

But in this case,

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

that he might employ subterfuge. If they permit one to eat a dish that had unintentionally remained on the fire, people will come to leave food there intentionally and claim that they had acted unintentionally. Therefore, the Sages penalized one who left a pot on the fire from before Shabbat, so that even if he did so

unintentionally,

unintentionally, he may nevertheless not eat it.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Hiyya’s statement, whether it is interpreted according to Rabba and Rav Yosef or according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak, from a Tosefta:

An objection was raised: One forgot a pot

that he had placed before Shabbat

on a stove

that had not been raked and covered,

and it cooked on Shabbat;

since he had left it there on Shabbat only

unintentionally, he may eat it;

the dish is permitted to eat on Shabbat. But if he had placed it there

intentionally

before Shabbat so that it would remain there on Shabbat,

he may not eat it.

It follows that even with regard to the law of leaving food on the stove, we find a distinction between an unintentional act and an intentional act, contrary to Rabbi Hiyya, who said “there is no distinction.” Whether his statement is interpreted as permitting both cases, according to Rabba and Rav Yosef, or as prohibiting both cases, according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak, the beraita explicitly states that the unintentional act is permitted and the intentional act is prohibited.

The Gemara cites the continuation of the beraita:

In what case is this statement said

that there is a distinction between an unintentional and an intentional act?

With hot water that was not heated fully, and with a dish that was not fully cooked,

for in that case the hot water and the dish continue cooking on Shabbat; consequently, one who acted intentionally was penalized, whereas an unintentional act is permitted.

But with hot water that was heated fully, and with a dish that was fully cooked,

since they do not continue cooking on Shabbat,

whether

one forgot and left it there

unintentionally, or

transgressed and left it there

intentionally, he may eat it;

the dish is permitted to eat, since it did not cook on Shabbat,

this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Hot water and a dish that were not heated or cooked fully are, when left there unintentionally, permitted, and when left there intentionally, prohibited, in accordance with Rabbi Meir. But with regard to food that was fully cooked, there is a distinction between hot water and a dish: Specifically,

hot water that was heated fully is permitted,

even when left there intentionally,

because further reduction is detrimental to it, and

whereas

a dish that was fully cooked,

if it was left there intentionally,

is prohibited, because further reduction improves it;

but when left there unintentionally, it is obviously permitted.

And anything whose further reduction improves it, such as cabbage, beans, and minced meat,

is prohibited

from being left on a stove that has not been raked and covered, and if one transgressed and left it there, it is prohibited to eat.

But anything whose further reduction is detrimental to it is permitted

even if it was left there intentionally.

The Gemara returns and explains its objection to Rabbi Hiyya’s statement:

It nevertheless teaches

that according to both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, if one forgot

a dish that was not fully cooked

on an un raked stove on Shabbat, when left there unintentionally he may eat it, and when left there intentionally he may not eat it. This is contrary to Rabba and Rav Huna, who both said that it is permitted, and contrary to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak, who said that both cases are prohibited.

The Gemara resolves Rabbi Hiyya’s statement according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak:

According to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak, this is understandable,

as it is possible to distinguish:

Here—

the beraita of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir was stated

before the enactment,

when they enacted that those who forgot would be prohibited from eating their food on Shabbat. Therefore, they said that when left there unintentionally it is permitted, whereas when left there intentionally it is prohibited. But

here—

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba’s statement was made

after the enactment,

and therefore he said that even an unintentional act is prohibited.

But

according to

Rabba and Rav Yosef, who say

that whether one forgot unintentionally or left the food there intentionally, it is

permitted,

since he performed no act, there is a difficulty either way—

For

if,

we interpret Rabbi Hiyya as permitting the food

before the enactment,

then

there is a difficulty

from the statement in the beraita that if one left the food there

intentionally

it is prohibited. The beraita must certainly be speaking of the period before the enactment, since it states that an unintentional act is exempt.

If,

we interpret Rabbi Hiyya as saying that it is permitted

after the enactment, there is likewise a difficulty with regard to an unintentional act,

since after the enactment we find that even those who acted unintentionally were penalized, as will be stated below.

And we conclude:

There is a difficulty

with Rabba and Rav Yosef.

The Gemara explains:

What is this enactment?

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

thereby violating a prohibition by Torah law,

when acting unintentionally may eat it, and when acting intentionally may not eat it; and the same law applies to one who forgot

and left a dish on the fire: When he did so unintentionally, he may eat it, and when intentionally, he may not eat it.

But

when those who left food on the stove intentionally became numerous and said, “We are forgetful,” they reversed

the ruling, and the Sages

penalized one who forgot,

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

The Gemara returns to discuss the words of the Tosefta.

There is a difficulty between one statement of Rabbi Meir and another statement of Rabbi Meir,

for earlier, folio 37a, Rabbi Meir said in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel that one may leave only hot water on a raked stove, implying that a dish is prohibited; whereas here Rabbi Meir says that one may place on an un raked stove hot water and a dish that have been fully cooked.

There is a difficulty between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Earlier, there, Rabbi Yehuda said that one may leave hot water—whose further reduction is detrimental—and a dish—whose further reduction improves it—that have been fully cooked on a raked stove, whereas here Rabbi Yehuda says that hot water is permitted and a dish prohibited.

The Gemara answers:

The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Meir and another

is not difficult,

because

that

which he said earlier, that one may leave only hot water on the stove, refers

to the outset.

Whereas

that

which he said here, that one may also leave a fully cooked dish on the stove, refers

after the fact:

If one left it there, he may eat it.

The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another is likewise not difficult,

because

here,

the earlier statement in which Rabbi Yehuda permitted hot water and a dish, even when further reduction improves the dish, was because the case involved

a raked and covered stove.

Whereas

here

he prohibited leaving a dish whose further reduction improves it because the case involved

a stove that had not been raked and covered.

They raised a question: If one transgressed and left food there

intentionally,

what is the ruling? Did the Sages penalize him

so that he may not eat it on that Shabbat,

or did they not

penalize him?

Come and hear: As Shmuel bar Natan said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: When Rabbi Yosei went to Sepphoris, he found hot food that had been left from the eve of Shabbat

on the stove,

and he did not prohibit it for them.

And he found

eggs that had contracted and been left on the stove, and he prohibited them for them,

because they are food that continues to contract and thereby improves.

What, is it not the case that

Rabbi Yosei prohibited the eggs for them

for that Shabbat,

and from here one can bring proof that on that same Shabbat it is prohibited to eat food that continues to contract and thereby improves?

The Gemara rejects this:

No;

he did not prohibit the eggs for them on that Shabbat. Rather, he instructed them not to do so

for the following Shabbat.

And the Gemara infers: Since he prohibited the eggs for them,

it follows that eggs that have contracted are food that continues to contract and thereby improves.

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

eggs that had contracted like azaradin,

which are a delicate food,

and we ate many of them,

because, having contracted, they are pleasant to eat.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Hillel say: One may also return it.