## Shabbat Daf 38a

###### Shabbat 38a:1
[Shabbat 38a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/38a:1)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Shabbat 38a:2
[Shabbat 38a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/38a:2)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Shabbat 38a:3
[Shabbat 38a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/38a:3)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Shabbat 38a:4
[Shabbat 38a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/38a:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Shabbat 38a:5
[Shabbat 38a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/38a:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Shabbat 38a:6
[Shabbat 38a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/38a:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Shabbat 38a:7
[Shabbat 38a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/38a:7)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Shabbat 38a:8
[Shabbat 38a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/38a:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shabbat 38a:9
[Shabbat 38a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/38a:9)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Shabbat 38a:10
[Shabbat 38a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/38a:10)

בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף מַחְזִירִין. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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**