1. The intentional transgressor

This article is an excerpt from

To purchase this Sefer, click here

1. The intentional transgressor:[1]

One who cooks on Shabbos, or did one of the other [Biblically prohibited[2]] actions, with prior knowledge of the prohibition, is forbidden for him to ever benefit from that action that was done, due to a fine.[3]

The law of the pot:[4] As well, the pot in which he cooked in is forbidden for him [to use] forever [until he kashers it[5]], being that it is absorbed with an item that is forbidden for him.

The other people:[6] However for others it is allowed [for them to benefit from] even the food [and let alone the pot] immediately after Shabbos without needing to wait the amount of time it took to cook it [on Shabbos], even if it was [originally] cooked [by the transgressor] on their behalf.[7]

The reason for not needing to wait until enough time passed after Shabbos to have been able to cook it is: because [the Sages] only required one to wait this amount [of time] by a gentile which does [a forbidden action] for a Jew, as in such a case if [the Jew] were to be allowed to benefit [from the food] immediately after Shabbos then there is room to worry that he may tell [the gentile] to do so on Shabbos in order so [the food] be ready for him immediately after Shabbos. [The reason that we suspect for this is] because the prohibition against telling a gentile [to do a forbidden action on ones behalf] is considered light in the eyes of people. Similarly [this decree as well applies] even when a Jew does [a forbidden action] in a case that he started from before Shabbos to do something that was forbidden to be started as was explained in chapter 253 [Halacha 1], as this prohibition too is light in the eyes of people and there is thus worry that one will transgress it in order so [the food] be ready [for him to eat] immediately after Shabbos. Therefore [in the above two cases the Sages] required even others to delay [benefiting from the food] until enough time has passed after Shabbos to have been able to cook it. [The decree even includes other people] due to a decree that [otherwise] one may tell another person to start [cooking it for himself and others] from before Shabbos. However [by other prohibitions done on Shabbos the Sages] were not worried at all that one may tell a Jew to do for him the prohibited action on Shabbos in order for him to be able to benefit from it immediately after Shabbos. Furthermore, [besides for the fact that we do not suspect a Jew of stooping so low to have another Jew transgress for him, even if a Jew were to ask another Jew to do so for him] the Jew would not listen to him being that people do not sin [on behalf of someone else] without self benefit.


May one who transgressed Bimeizid sell the food to others, or give it as a present?[8]

Sell: Some Poskim[9] rule it is forbidden to do so unless he dimishes the cooking profit from the food. Other Poskim[10], however, rule that the food is permitted in benefit and hence may be sold for any amount. Practically, one may be lenient.[11]

Present: Some Poskim[12] rule it is forbidden to give the food as a present and it rather must be disowned and then taken. Other Poskim[13], however, rule that the food is permitted in benefit and hence may given as a present or fed to ones dog. Practically, one may be lenient.



[1] 318:1; Michaber 318:1; Chulin 15; Kesubos 34; Baba Kama 71a

[2] Regarding Rabbinical actions, see Q&A 1

[3] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rebbe Yehuda in Gemara ibid

[4] Admur ibid; M”A 318 in name of Rashba

[5] P”M 318 A”A 1 that Hagala suffices for such a vessel, just like by Bishul Akum. The Tehila Ledavid 318:1 however questions that perhaps it requires Libun.

[6] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid

Why do we decree on everyone else by a Biblical pr ohibition if one would never ask his friend to transgress for him? See Rashi Chulin 15a that it is because an Aveira was done with the food. Also perhaps it is because one may ask another to cook for him and that person will also eat.

[7] Admur ibid; M”A 318:2; M”B 318:5

[8] On the one hand it says that it is forbidden in benefit, while on the other hand the food itself has worth even when raw and hence why should the entire food be forbidden? Perhaps however he may only sell it for its raw worth.

[9] Rav Poalim 3:17

[10] M”B 318:4; Shaar Hatziyon 318:7; Tehila Ledavid 318:2; Rashal, brought in Theila Ledavid; Baba Kama 71a

[11] The reasons:

  1. From Setimas Haposkim it is implied that the food may be given as a present as how else could it be given to others to eat. If such a stipulation of disowning the food would have been required then how would the Poskim omit such an important detail.
  2. It is ruled in the Poskim [Shulchan Aruch Harav 318:1; M”A 318:1; M”B 318] that the food is permitted even for others that it was cooked for, meaning even for family, and certainly the father receives benefit that his family can eat.
  3. The Gemara Baba Kama 71a explicitly writes that the fine was only on eating and the food remains permitted in benefit and is thus permitted to be sold and given as a present.
  4. The Tehila Ledavid 318:2 explicitly rules that the food is permitted in benefit, and may be given to dogs and the like.
  5. The Rashal, brought in Tehila Ledavid ibid, also agrees that the food may be given to his dog after Shabbos, and certainly this is considered benefit.
  6. The Rav Poalim himself rules that it may be sold, although one must diminish the worth of the cooking benefit from the food.

Summary: It is clear from the overwhelming majority of Poskim that the food may be benefited from by the transgressing Jew, and hence despite the ruling of the Rav Poalim, I would side that it is permitted to be given as Mishloach Manos if he so chooses, although I don’t know what Jew would enjoy eating such a food, irrelevant of the Halachic allowance.

[12] Rav Poalim 3:17

[13] Tehila Ledavid 318:2; Rashal, brought in Theila Ledavid; Baba Kama 71a

Was this article helpful?

Related Articles

Leave A Comment?

You must be logged in to post a comment.