Shabbat

What  if one forgot a pot on the stove and [thus] cooked it on the Sabbath? He was silent and said nothing to them [his questioners]. On the morrow he went out and lectured to them: If one cooks [food] on the Sabbath unwittingly, he may eat [it]; if deliberately, he may not eat [it];  and there is no difference. What is meant by, 'and there is no difference'? — Rabbah and R. Joseph both explain it permissively: only he who cooked it, thus performing an action, may not eat if it was deliberate; but this one  who did no action may eat even if it was deliberate. R. Nahman b. Isaac explained it restrictively: only one who cooks may eat if it was done unwittingly, because he will not [thereby] come to dissemble;  but this one, who may come to dissemble,  may not even eat if it was unwitting. An objection is raised: if one forgot a pot on the stove and [thus] cooked it on the Sabbath: unwittingly, he may eat [thereof]; if deliberately, he may not eat. When is that said? In the case of hot water insufficiently heated or a dish insufficiently cooked; but as for hot water sufficiently heated or a dish sufficiently cooked, whether unwitting or deliberate, he may eat [thereof]: thus said R. Meir. R. Judah said: Hot water sufficiently heated is permitted, because it boils away  and is thus harmed;  a dish sufficiently cooked is forbidden, because it shrinks and is thereby improved, and whatever shrinks and is thereby improved, e.g., cabbage, beans, and mincemeat, is forbidden; but whatever shrinks and thereby deteriorates, is permitted. At all events, a dish insufficiently cooked is mentioned.  As for R. Nahman b. Isaac, it is well, there is no difficulty: here  it is before [the enactment of] the preventive measure;  there  it is after the preventive measure.  But [on the view of] Rabbah and R. Joseph who explain it permissively, if before the preventive measure,  'deliberate' is a difficulty;  if after the preventive measure, even unwitting' too is a difficulty.  That is [indeed] a difficulty. What was the preventive measure? — For R. Judah b. Samuel said in the name of R. Abba in the name of R. Kahana in Rab's name: At first it was ruled: One who cooks [food] on the Sabbath unwittingly, he may eat [thereof], if deliberately, he may not eat; and the same applies to one who forgets.  But when those who intentionally left [it there] grew numerous, and they pleaded, We had forgotten [it on the stove], they [the Sages] retraced their steps and penalized him who forgot. Now, R. Meir is self-contradictory, and R. Judah is [likewise] self-contradictory? — R. Meir is not self-contradictory: the one means at the outset; the other, if done.  R. Judah too is not self-contradictory: there it means that it [the stove] was swept or covered with ashes;  here, that it was not swept or covered with ashes. The scholars propounded: What if one transgressed and deliberately left it? Did the Rabbis penalize him or not? — Come and hear: For Samuel b. Nathan said in R. Hanina's name: When R. Jose went to Sepphoris, he found hot water which had been left on the stove, and did not forbid it to them; [he also found] shrunken eggs,  and forbade them to them. Surely it means for that Sabbath? — No: for the following Sabbath. Now, this implies that shrunken eggs go on shrinking and are thereby improved? — Yes. For R. Hama b. Hanina said: My Master and I were once guests in a certain place, and eggs shrunk to the size of crab-apples were brought before us, and we ate many of them. BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE MAY REPLACE [IT] TOO. R. Shesheth said: On the view of him who maintains