A mishnah on yesterday’s daf taught that even though one who purposefully slaughters an animal on Shabbat or Yom Kippur is subject to execution, or karet, the slaughter is effective — the meat can be consumed. The Gemara brought a statement in the name of Rav that the animal cannot be eaten until Shabbat ends, which led to a lengthy discussion around the rules of hachana (preparation) and muktzeh (“set aside”), which require that something be already “prepared for usage” going into Shabbat or Yom Tov. Apropos this discussion, today’s daf cites a beraita about one who cooks on Shabbat:
With regard to one who cooks on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat what he cooked. If he acted intentionally, he may not eat what he cooked. — This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yehuda says: If he cooked the food unwittingly, he may eat it at the conclusion of Shabbat. If he cooked it intentionally, he may never eat from it.
Rabbi Yohanan HaSandlar says: If he acted unwittingly, the food may be eaten at the conclusion of Shabbat by others, but not by him. If he cooked the food intentionally, it may never be eaten, neither by him nor by others.
The opinions escalate in stringency. Rabbi Meir, the most lenient, thinks that if one cooks on Shabbat unwittingly — either not knowing that it’s Shabbat or not knowing that cooking is forbidden — they can even eat the food on that day. Rabbi Yehuda, who is stricter, thinks they can eat the food, but not until Shabbat ends. Rabbi Yohanan HaSandlar, who holds the most stringent opinion, thinks that one can never consume the product of something they cooked on Shabbat, even after Shabbat ends, even if he acted unwittingly. If he purposefully violated Shabbat by cooking, even others may never eat it.
Later on the daf, we read:
The tanna taught a beraita before Rav: One who cooks on Shabbat unwittingly may eat the food that he cooked; if he did so intentionally, he may not eat the food that he cooked. And Rav silenced him.
We’ve seen this position already. In the earlier beraita, it was attributed to Rabbi Meir. But in this beraita, it has no attribution. So what’s going on? The word “tanna” has two meanings. Most of the time, we use it to mean an early rabbi, from the period during which the Mishnah was in development, and in contrast to an “amora” who dates to a later rabbinic period during the formulation of the Talmud, after the Mishnah was finalized. But it also has a second meaning: In the study houses of the amoraim, there were “tannaim” whose job was to memorize and recite mishnahs and beraitas. In this case, the tanna (reciter) recounts a beraita and Rav cuts him off! The Gemara asks why:
What is the reason that Rav silenced him? If we say it is because Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the tanna taught the beraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, can it be that merely because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda he silences one who teaches a beraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir?
Even if Rav holds like Rabbi Yehuda, who is more stringent, that’s not sufficient reason to cut off the recitation of a legitimate tannaitic opinion that differs. And furthermore, it’s not clear that Rav holds like Rabbi Yehuda:
Doesn’t Rav Hanan bar Ami say: When Rav issues a ruling to his students, he issues a ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and when he teaches in his public lecture delivered on the Festival, he teaches in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, due to his concern for the ignoramuses?
Rav actually appears to hold like Rabbi Meir with regard to one who accidentally cooks on Shabbat! However, he only shares this view with his inner circle. When he is teaching a larger audience, he teaches Rabbi Yehuda’s more stringent opinion, because he is worried that some of the audience might be less scrupulous in their observance. So if Rav holds like Rabbi Meir, why would he cut off a tanna who recites an opinion that agrees with him?
Ultimately, the Gemara goes on to argue that the tanna in fact taught not about consuming food cooked on Shabbat, but consuming food slaughtered on Shabbat, connecting back to the subject of our mishnah. Rav thinks that even Rabbi Meir wouldn’t permit consumption of something slaughtered on Shabbat, and therefore the tanna was not representing a legitimate tannaitic opinion.
Read all of Chullin 15 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on May 15, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world. With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
