(The Mishnah (Chulin 63(h)) taught that if a person immersed vessels on Shabbos - if it was Shogeg, he may use them; if it was Mezid, he may not use them.) The Mishnah was discussing large vessels, but for small vessels, he may immerse them in a scheming way (as if he is drawing water with it).

Baraisa (R. Hoshiya): A person may fill a Tamei vessel from the pit thereby immersing it in a scheming way.

Baraisa: If a person's bucket or his vessels fell into the pit, he may scheme and thereby have immersed them.

Two Amoraim disagreed - one said that this technique may be used even if the vessels received Tumah from an Av HaTumah (which is a Torah Tumah). The other one said only if it received it from a Rabbinic Tumah such as a Rishon L'Tumah.

Question (2nd opinion to 1st opinion): A vessel with a Torah Tumah must not be used until nightfall after it is immersed, so how could he immerse it on Shabbos for Shabbos use?

Answer: The requirement to wait only applies to using it with Terumah and Kodshim, but for Chulin, it can be used immediately.

(R. Yirmiyah/ R. Zeira citing R. Chiya bar Ashi): (It is prohibited to Merabetz on Shabbos - sprinkle water to prevent dust from rising) A clever woman will wash a cup here, a bowl there, and a pot there - thereby being Merabetz the entire house on Shabbos.

(R. Shmuel citing R. Abahu): (When the Mishnah taught that if a person immersed vessels on Shabbos - if it was Shogeg, he may use them - even if he didn't know that immersing vessels was forbidden, it's considered Shogeg (as proven by the fact that the phrase is taught together with the intentional case).

(R. Yosi): This can be seen in the Mishnah itself, as it continues to teach (Chullin 63(i)) that if a person tithed or cooked on Shabbos - if it was Shogeg, he may eat it; if it was Mezid, he may not eat it. (Certainly here, the Shogeg knew that he was cooking, but didn't know it was prohibited; the same understanding applies to the one immersing.

(Baraisa): If a person cooked on Shabbos...

(R. Meir): If it was b'Shogeg, he may eat it (even on Shabbos); b'Mezid, he may not eat it (until after Shabbos).

(R. Yehuda): B'Shogeg he may not eat (until after Shabbos); b'Mezid he may never eat it (but others may eat it after Shabbos).

(R. Yochanan HaSandler): B'Shogeg, others may eat it after Shabbos (but not him); B'Mezid, no-one may eat it.

Shmuel ruled like R. Yochanan HaSandler.

When Rav ruled for his students, he would rule like R. Meir. In public, he ruled like R. Yochanan HaSandler.

(R. Shimon bar Barsana): Rav ruled for us like R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben Berokah...

Baraisa (R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben Beroka): Any act that is punishable with Kares when done B'Mezid and is liable a Chatas offering when done B'Shogeg - if one did it on Shabbos, whether B'Shogeg or B'Mezid, the product is (permanently) prohibited both to him and to others. Any act that does not have these punishments (as it is a Rabbinic prohibition), if it was done b'Shogeg, others may eat it after Shabbos; b'Mezid, nobody may eat it.

Question (to R. Yochanan): What is the Halacha for one who cooks on Shabbos?

Answer: I can only follow (our) Mishnah (Chulin 63(i) that follows the view of R. Meir) - If a person tithed or cooked on Shabbos - if it was Shogeg, he may eat it; if it was Mezid, he may not eat it (until after Shabbos).

Rav Chisda heard this and said that it will cause Shabbos to be viewed lightly in peoples' eyes.

(Rav Chisda continues...) (Rav Huna citing Rav/ R. Chiya's Baraisa): Originally they said that one who forgets his pot cooking on the stove coming into Shabbos (which is a Rabbinic prohibition known as Shehiyah) - if it was b'Shogeg he may eat it; if b'Mezid he should not eat it. Once people became suspected of intentionally leaving it and claiming that they forgot it there, they prohibited the food even if it was forgotten there. So how could we rule leniently like R. Meir?

Rebuttal (R. Hila): They were suspected of leaving pots on the stove coming into Shabbos (which is Rabbinic and does not involve any prohibited act on Shabbos itself) but they weren't suspected of cooking on Shabbos. Therefore they penalized one who accidently leaves it coming into Shabbos but not one who accidently cooked on Shabbos.

(Conclusion of R. Chiya's Baraisa): They later said that only a dish that improves with further cooking becomes prohibited (even if accidentally left on the stove coming into Shabbos) but if extra cooking is detrimental to it, it is permitted to eat.

Which foods improve with further cooking? Cabbage, beans and small pieces of meat.

(R. Tanchum bar Ila): Even turnip and small onion heads are considered foods that improve with further cooking.

Question: In which category are eggs?

Answer (R. Yosi citing R. Yishmael/ R. Yirmiyah/ R. Chanina citing R. Yishmael bei R. Yosi): My father (R. Yosi) went home and found eggs (that had been left on the stove coming into Shabbos) and he prohibited them; he found hot water and permitted it.

(R. Shmuel bar Nasan citing R. Chama bar Chanina): My father and I went to Chamas Gader and they served us eggs that were cooked until they were as small as sorb apples and they tasted as good as Pinkrisin.

(Baraisa): A woman should not fill a pot with beans and put it in the oven just before Shabbos. If she did, they are prohibited until long enough after Shabbos to be able to cook them.

(R. Acha): The Baraisa is a case of Mezid and follows R. Meir.

(R. Yosi disagrees): It's a case of Shogeg and follows R. Yehuda.

(R. Mana): R. Yosi is correct, as we see in the following Baraisa...

Support (Baraisa): One who plants a sapling on Shabbos - B'Shogeg, he may leave it; B'Mezid he must uproot it. If he planted it in Sheviis, whether B'Shogeg or B'Mezid, he must uproot it.

(R. Yehuda): It's the opposite - in Sheviis, B'Shogeg he may leave it; B'Mezid he must uproot it. On Shabbos, whether B'Shogeg or B'Mezid, he must uproot it, so that he won't benefit from Melacha done on Shabbos.

Conclusion of proof: Here also, when the pot was put on before Shabbos and he was required to wait until long enough after Shabbos to be able to cook them, it was also in order to avoid benefitting from anything done on Shabbos, like the opinion of R. Yehuda.

What is the Rabbanans' reasoning (in this Baraisa)? People are suspected of transgressing Sheviis but not Shabbos. Alternatively, people will count the years of Orlah of a sapling and conclude that it must have been planted in Sheviis and mistakenly learn from it. This isn't relevant with Shabbos.

What's the difference between these reasons? If he planted less than 30 days before Sheviis and then Sheviis arrived, if you are concerned for suspicion, it doesn't apply here. If you are concerned for 'counting' it would apply here. If he planted less than 30 days before the end of Sheviis and the 8th year arrived, there is a concern for suspicion but according to the one who is concerned for 'counting', they penalized inadvertent for intentional transgression.