Talmud for Ketubot 67:2

Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden⁶⁸The two parts must be parallel, the difference between “intentional” and “unintentional” can be only in the mind of the agent. There are two possibilities, either that he forgot that it was Sabbath or that he was unaware that cooking is forbidden on the Sabbath.. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden⁶⁹Since intentionally he must have known that it was Sabbath, the unintentional case must be the same.. It was stated⁷⁰Tosephta Šabbat 2:15; Babli Ketubot 34a, and partially in Šabbat38a, Beẓah 17a, Baba Qama 71a, Ḥulin15a, Giṭṭin 52b. From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Šabbat 3:1, fol. 5d.: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian⁷¹A student of R. Aqiba, Tanna of the fourth generation. It seems that the name Sandlar already then meant “Alexander’s”. said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr⁷²Rav stated the exact rules to his students as theory. But in public he followed more restrictive rules. In Babli Ḥulin 15a, Rav is reported to publicly proclaiming R. Jehudah’s rule., in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana⁷³A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation, student of R. Aḥa. His appearance as reporting Rav’s direct instructions to his students seems anachronistic. said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated⁷⁴Tosephta Šabbat 2:16.: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering⁷⁵Cooking on the Sabbath., if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due⁷⁶Tithing on the Sabbath.; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state⁷⁷The first sentence here, without the introductory “in earlier times they said”, is the first sentence of Tosephta Šabbat 2:14. The remainder of that Tosephta, in the name of R. Jehudah, parallels the tannaitic text in the next paragraph.: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.