One who transgressed and cooked a food on Shabbos-May the food be eaten?

May the food be eaten on Shabbos:^[1]

If one transgressed and caused a food to be cooked on Shabbos [in a way that is forbidden according to all opinions, as explained throughout this chapter], then the food is forbidden to be eaten by anyone on Shabbos, whether for the transgressor or his household or for any other person.^[2] This applies whether the transgression was done innocently [i.e. Beshogeig] or due to negligence or lack of care of the prohibition [i.e. Meizid].^[3] [However, by a Rabbinical prohibition, we are lenient to permit the food to be eaten on Shabbos if the transgression was done Beshogeig.[4]]

The law in a scenario that the cooking prohibition is under debate:^[5] In all cases in which there is a debate amongst the Poskim [whose opinions are recorded in Shulchan Aruch^[6]] as to whether the heating of a certain item consists of the cooking prohibition [See examples below], then even if the final ruling of the debate is to be stringent and prohibit doing so on Shabbos, nonetheless, after the fact if one already did so the food remains permitted to be eaten [so long as the Chazarah restrictions were not transgressed, as explained in Chapter 5 Halacha 9].

Reheated liquid that had cooled off: Despite the above ruling, if one reheated a cold liquid on Shabbos to the point of Yad Soledes, then even if the liquid was cooked before Shabbos and since became cold [in which case it is subject to debate as to whether reheating it on Shabbos consists of a prohibition], the custom is to prohibit to eat the liquid on Shabbos.^[7] If, however, a gentile heated it, then Bedieved one may be lenient to eat it on Shabbos.^[8]

Examples of cooking transgressions of which the food becomes forbidden to eat on Shabbos:

1. One cooked raw food on a flame, or other source of heat.
2. One replaced a non-fully cooked food onto the flame, or source of heat, as explained in the Q&A.
3. Keli Rishon:^[9] If one placed uncooked food into a Keli Rishon then the food is forbidden to be eaten on Shabbos. The above is with exception to spices [i.e. salt] added to a Keli Rishon dish, in which case the dish may be eaten even though it was Yad Soledes, and even if the pot was on the fire. However, there are opinions^[10] which argue and prohibit even by spices.^[11]
4. Iruiy Keli Rishon:^[12] If one poured from a Keli Rishon onto an uncooked food, then the outer layer of the food is forbidden to be eaten on Shabbos.

Examples of cooking transgressions of which the food remains permitted:

1. Bishul Achar Afiyah Utzelia-Placed a baked or roasted food in a Keli Rishon or Sheiyni:^[13] If one transgressed and placed a baked or roasted food in a Keli Rishon [that is off the fire] or Keli Sheiyni, then the food remains permitted to be eaten on Shabbos.
2. Afiyah Utzelia Achar Bishul-Heated a cooked food opposite a flame:^[14] If one transgressed and heated a cooked food opposite a visible flame [from a distance^[15]], and the solid food was dry of its liquid, then one may be lenient like the opinions which hold that it does not contain a roasting/baking prohibition, and thus it may be eaten on Shabbos.
3. Melted a congealed food: One who transgressed and heated a precooked congealed food on Shabbos [i.e. cold gravy of fish or chicken] to the point that it melted, it is nevertheless permitted to be eaten on Shabbos, [so long as the Chazarah restrictions were not transgressed, i.e. warmed it on top of a pot that is over the fire, as explained in Chapter 5].^[16] [Seemingly, this applies even if the food was heated to the point of Yad Soledes, so long as it did not contain actual cold liquid.^[17]]
4. Keli Sheiyni:^[18] If one placed an uncooked food into a Keli Sheiyni, the food is permitted to be eaten.

1. Eating the food after Shabbos: ^[31]

After Shabbos, the food is permitted to be eaten by anyone immediately after Shabbos, including the transgressor if he did so Beshogeig^[32] [without needing to wait Kdei Sheyasu, as explained below] with exception to the following cases:

1. Yom Tov falls on Motzei Shabbos:^[33] When Yom Tov falls on Motzei Shabbos, then any food that was cooked on Shabbos and became prohibited to be eaten on Shabbos remains prohibited to be eaten until Motzei Yom Tov [i.e. Sunday night].
2. Transgressed Bemeizid:^[34] One who transgressed and cooked the food on Shabbos with prior knowledge of the prohibition [i.e. Bemeizid] then the food is forbidden in benefit forever for the transgressor^[35], and the pot is considered Treif and is forbidden in use [unless it is Kashered^[36]].^[37] Nevertheless, even in such a case that the transgressor cooked the food Bemeizid on Shabbos, the food is permitted to be eaten by all others, including the household of the transgressors for whom he did the cooking for^[38], immediately after Shabbos, and the pot remains Kosher without needing to be Koshered.^[39]

Kdei Sheyasu:^[40] Food that was cooked on Shabbos, whether Beshogeig or Bemeizid, may be eaten immediately after Shabbos [by all people, other than the transgression when done Bemeizid, as explained above], and there is no requirement to wait “Bikidei Sheyasu^[41]” after Shabbos to be allowed to eat.^[42] However, foods that were heated on Shabbos in a prohibited way without having the cooking prohibition transgressed, as explained in chapter 5, is forbidden even after Shabbos until the amount of time of “Kidei Sheyasu” has passed. See chapter 5 Halacha 9 for the full details of this matter. Likewise, foods that were left over a flame into Shabbos in a prohibited way, as explained in chapter 2, is forbidden even after Shabbos until the amount of time of “Kidei Sheyasu” has passed. See chapter 2 Halacha 6 for the full details of this matter.

1. Taaruvos-The law if food that was cooked on Shabbos became mixed with other foods:^[49]

Became mixed on Shabbos-The law on Shabbos:^[50] If food that was cooked on Shabbos [i.e. Issur], and hence became prohibited to be eaten, got mixed with other foods on Shabbos [i.e. Heter], then the entire mixture of food becomes forbidden to be eaten by anyone until after Shabbos, irrelevant of ratio of the Issur to Heter, as the food that was cooked on Shabbos is not nullified even in 1000x. This applies whether the person who transgressed and cooked the food did so innocently due to lack of knowledge of the prohibition [i.e. Beshogeig] or did so Bemeizid [i.e. with prior knowledge of the prohibition].

Became mixed on Shabbos-The law after Shabbos: If food that was cooked on Shabbos [i.e. Issur], and hence became prohibited to be eaten, got mixed with other foods on Shabbos [i.e. Heter], then although the entire mixture is forbidden to be eaten by anyone on Shabbos, as stated above, nonetheless, it becomes permitted to be eaten immediately after Shabbos. This however carries one exception: If the transgressor cooked the food Bemeizid, then although the mixture becomes permitted for anyone else to eat immediately after Shabbos, nonetheless, the entire mixture remains forbidden forever for the transgressor, irrelevant of the ratio of the Issur to Heter.^[51] However, if the transgression was done Beshogeig, then it is permitted for him to eat it immediately after Shabbos, as is the law regarding others.

Became mixed after Shabbos by one who transgressed Bemeizid:^[52] If food that was cooked Bemeizid on Shabbos [i.e. Issur], and hence became prohibited to be eaten forever by the transgressor, got mixed with other foods after Shabbos [i.e. Heter], then the Issur food is nullified in majority. Hence, if in the mixture of food there is a majority of food that was not cooked on Shabbos, then the food is permitted even for the Meizid transgressor.^[53] [Regarding people other than the transgressor, in any event the Issur food itself becomes permitted immediately after Shabbos, and hence the entire question is irrelevant.]

——————————————————————–

[1] Admur 318:1 “If [the forbidden action] was done [even] by mistake, then it is forbidden [to be benefited from] on Shabbos even by others, as since he did a Biblical prohibition [the Sages] were stringent to fine [from benefiting from it] on Shabbos just as if it was on purpose in which case it is forbidden also for others.”; Michaber 318:1

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that in a time of need one may be lenient to allow the food to be eaten by even the transgressor on Shabbos if it was done Beshogeg. [M”B 318:7; Gr”a 318; Rebbe Meir in Gemara ibid]

[2] The reason: As since he did a Biblical prohibition [the Sages] were stringent to fine [from benefiting from it] on Shabbos just as if it was on purpose in which case it is forbidden also for others. [Admur ibid]

[3] The reason: The reason for this decree even by an unintentional transgression is due to a decree that [otherwise] one may intentionally cook it and then say that it was done unintentionally. [Admur ibid]

[4] See Q&A!

[5] Admur 253:24 “If one transgressed and returned a pot on Shabbos to an area which (according to all opinions–So rules also) is forbidden for one to return there”; Admur 253:25 “(If a Jew himself) heated a food of which there are opinions which permit this to be done even initially, such as to place a food that was completely cooked but has liquid which has completely cooled down, and [by placing it near the fire] it heated up there until it became Yad Soledes, then even though [transgressing such a prohibition] makes one liable to bring a Chatas offering (for the Jew) [if the Jew placed the food there], nevertheless, since there are opinions which allow this to be done even initially, [therefore based on the letter of the law] one may rely on their words after the fact (to not forbid the food).” [Parentheses are in the original. See Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 3 which says that Admur was in doubt in this ruling]; M”B 318:2; 318:27; Biur Halacha 253 “Veim Hichziru Yisrael” based on M”A 253:14; See Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 3 based on Admur 253 KU”A 9

[6] Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 3 rules based on Admur 253 KU”A 9 that this leniency of after the fact only applies to prohibitions which have been brought in the Shulchan Aruch with dissenting opinions, and have not been fully ruled upon, in which case even though we may be accustomed to being stringent one may be lenient after the fact. However, if in the Shulchan Aruch it plainly rules like the stringent opinion, then one must be stringent even after the fact, despite that there are other opinions brought down in Shulchan Aruch which rule leniently. Thus, if one were to further cook a food that was already cooked to the point of Ben Drusaiy it would be forbidden to eat on Shabbos. 

[7] Admur 318:9“If the liquid completely cooled down, we are accustomed like the first opinion even regarding a case that one already heated it [and thus the food would be forbidden to be eaten] as was explained in chapter 253 [Halacha 25].” Vetzaruch Iyun as there the Alter Rebbe rules in parentheses that even if a Jew himself heats up liquid food it is allowed to be eaten being that there are opinions which permit this even initially. Meaning the above allowance applies even if the Jew himself placed it there, and certainly if a gentile placed it there based on his command. Perhaps however there in 253:25 the Alter Rebbe is mentioning the letter of the law, that it is permitted, while there he is mentioning the custom, which is to be stringent.

[8] Admur 253:25 “(even if the Jew commanded the gentile to return it) if he returned it (even the Jew himself) to an area where there are opinions which permit this to be done even initially, such as to place it near an oven that is not swept or covered, or next to a bonfire, food that was completely cooked but has liquid which has completely cooled down, and [by placing it near the fire] it heated up there until it became Yad Soledes, then even though [transgressing such a prohibition according to some opinions] makes one liable to bring a Chatas offering (for the Jew) [if the Jew placed the food there], nevertheless, since there are opinions which allow this to be done even initially as will be explained in 318, [therefore] one may rely on their words after the fact (to not forbid the food placed on by the gentile, even if the Jew commanded him to do so).”; See M”B 318:2 in name of Peri Megadim

[9] See Admur 318:17 “If one transgressed and placed salt even in Keli Rishon, even if it is on the fire, in which case he transgressed a prohibition [according to all], nevertheless the food is permitted [to be eaten on Shabbos] as the salt is nullified against the food.”; Rama 318:9

[10] Admur ibid “There are opinions who argue and prohibit the food until after Shabbos.”; [Seemingly this refers to both the opinion of the Taz and M”A brought next which both write different limitations to the above ruling of the Rama. Admur does not specify anything of the ruling of the M”A here and hence seems to imply he holds that according to the Rama the salt is nullified in all cases.] Some Poskim rule the food is forbidden even if one placed a small amount of salt in the food. [Taz 318:15] Others rule it is forbidden only if one had not placed salt in the food before Shabbos, or if one placed so much salt that it alone is able to salt the food without the help of yesterday’s salt. [M”A 318:31; M”B 318:73]

[11] The reason: As the entire allowance of the Rama is because of the rule of Zeh Vizeh Gorem, and we do not say the rule of Zeh Vizeh Gorem when the two items are not working simultaneously. [Taz ibid] Alternatively, we only say the rule of Zeh Vizeh Gorem when there was a limited amount of salt added. [M”A and M”B ibid]

[12] Admur 318:19; M”A 318:32; M”B 318:74

[13] Admur 318:12 “However, if one did so it is permitted [to be eaten on Shabbos] even [if one placed it] in a Keli Rishon, as rules the latter opinion.”; M”B 318:46

[14] Admur 318:12; M”B 318:46

[15] However, to heat it very close to an open fire is prohibited due to the Chazarah restrictions, as explained in Chapter 5 Halacha 9, and thus possibly even Bedieved if one heated it very close to a visible flame, such food would be prohibited from being eaten on Shabbos, as explained in Chapter 5 Halacha 10.

[16] Admur 318:27 in his final ruling “although once the fat has already melted one may be lenient like the second opinion.”; M”A 318:42; M”B 318:106

Other opinions in Admur: Some Poskim rule that if [the fat] already [melted] then the fat that had melted on Shabbos is forbidden [to be eaten]. [1^st opinion in Admur 318:25; M”A 318:42; 320:14] The reason for this is as this is the law with juice that has flowed on Shabbos from fruits that are designated to be used for juice which are forbidden [to be drunk] due to a decree that [if this were to be allowed then] one may come to squeeze the fruits on Shabbos [in order to make juice] being that these [fruits] are designated for this purpose as will be explained there [in chapter 320 Halacha 3]. This [suspicion] likewise applies to this fat [that has melted on Shabbos] as since it is common for [the fat] to be liquidly and transparent therefore when it is congealed it is similar to fruits that are designated to be juiced, of which the juice that flows from it on Shabbos is forbidden until night [i.e. after Shabbos]. [Admur ibid; Ran 51b in answer to question of Ramban against Sefer Hateruma] This however only applies if one transgressed Molid in the process. [So can be learned from fact Admur permits even Lechatchila to place the food near an oven that will be turned on by a gentile. See P”M 318 A”A 42 and Iglei Tal Dash 36:12; However according to those that hold of the reason of Nolad-Muktzah, seemingly this would not help. Veztaruch Iyun. See Shabbos Kehalacha 3 17:3 and 29]

[17] As whether it is permitted to reheat a previously cooked congealed food which will melt upon being heated is under debate in the Poskim, and even Admur in his Shulchan Aruch 318:27 rules that there is no cooking prohibition involved, and rules regarding the melting prohibition that Bedieved one may be lenient. Now, although in his Siddur, Admur rules stringently that it is Biblically forbidden to reheat congealed liquids, nonetheless, it does not escape the fact that it is under legitimate debate and therefore Bedieved, the future remains permitted, based on the rule Admur ruled above that all transgressions which are under debate are permitted after the fact.

[18] Biur Halacha 318 “Asur Litein”; Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 23

[19] Bris Olam Shehiya 58 based on P”M 325 A”A 23

[20] Bris Olam ibid; Kesav Sofer 50

^[21] Admur 339:7; Mishneh Terumos 2:3

^[22] Implication of 339:7; 405:9; Gr”a; Chayeh Adam; M”B 318:3 and in Biur Halacha “Hamivashel”; and is implied from Admur in the Halacha here that the fine only applies to a Biblical prohibition. [Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 2]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that a Rabbinical transgression has the same law as a Rabbinical transgression. [P”M 318 brought in Biur Halacha ibid]

To note: There is a story noted with the Chofetz Chaim [as told over by Rav Shmuel Chaim Kublanken, who was eating by the Chofetz Chaim that Shabbos, to the author of the Ketzos Hashulchan] regarding that he, the Chofetz Chaim, had forgotten and accidently salted radishes prior to adding oil to it [which is possibly forbidden according to the Rambam, as well perhaps he did not have oil in which case it is forbidden according to all] and when he remembered he pushed the radishes away and avoided eating them. Nevertheless, one must say that this was a mere stringency of the Chofetz Chaim in order to follow those opinions [Peri Megadim] which are also stringent by Rabbinical prohibitions to forbid the food. This however is not the actual Halachic ruling. As well one must say that the Chofetz Chaim added some liquid to the radishes as otherwise he would in truth have transgressed the salting prohibition according to the second opinion. [Ketzos Hashulchan 128 footnote 5]

[23] Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 3 based on Admur 253 KU”A 9

Background: The Mishneh Berurah 318:27 rules that in all scenarios where an opinion exists which permit one to heat a certain food on Shabbos then if one transgressed the stringent ruling and heated it, nevertheless it remains permitted to be eaten on Shabbos. Thus, if food was already cooked to Ben Drusaiy from before Shabbos, then even if one transgressed and further cooked it on Shabbos it is permitted. The Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 3, however, rules based on Admur 253 KU”A 9 that this leniency of after the fact only applies to prohibitions which have been brought in the Shulchan Aruch with dissenting opinions, and have not been fully ruled upon, in which case even though we may be accustomed to being stringent one may be lenient after the fact. However, if in the Shulchan Aruch it plainly rules like the stringent opinion, then one must be stringent even after the fact, despite that there are other opinions brought down in Shulchan Aruch which rule leniently. Thus, if one were to further cook a food that was already cooked to the point of Ben Drusaiy it would be forbidden to eat on Shabbos. 

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule the food is permitted. [M”B 318:27]

[24] See previous Q&A; Furthermore, if the food would have anyways been cooked without this mixing one has not really benefited at all from the mixing and is hence similar to the ruling that one may benefit from Maaseh Shabbos if he would have been able to regardless receive the same benefit without the action being done. [See Admur 276:14; Piskeiy Teshuvos 276:16; Igros Moshe 3:47] On the other hand perhaps the Sages prohibited benefiting from the action of a Jew even if no benefit was received. See 253:24 regarding a dispute in this matter in a case that one returned a pot without fulfilling the Chazara conditions. Vetzaruch Iyun.

[25] See Admur 276:1

[26] See Admur 276:1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 253:11

[27] This is similar to one who mixed the food while it is on the fire of which we wrote earlier the different sides in this matter.

[28] Piskeiy Teshuvos 253:11 based on Mahrshag 2:130; Imrei Yosher 1:129; Michzeh Eliyahu 1:53; Migdanos Eliyahu 2:150; 3:1

[29] However, regarding if the person mixed the food, see previous Q&A regarding if it is forbidden for the perpetrator himself.

[30] If the food was not fully cooked and was returned then according to Admur seemingly the food would be forbidden for all even it was already half cooked as explained in the previous Q&A. Vetzaruch Iyun as perhaps if the food would have anyways been cooked without this mixing one has not really benefited at all from the mixing and is hence similar to the ruling that one may benefit from Maaseh Shabbos if he would have been able to regardless receive the same benefit without the action being done. [See Admur 276:14; Piskeiy Teshuvos 276:16; Igros Moshe 3:47]

[31] Admur 318;1 “However, in the evening [after Shabbos] it is immediately permitted [to be benefited from] even by the transgressor himself [who did it Beshogeig] and he does not need to wait until enough time has passed after Shabbos to have been able to cook it for the reasons explained [above].”

[32] What is defined as an unintentional transgression-Shogeg? If one committed [a transgression] due to the instructions of a Scholar which [he now knows] has made a mistake, then this is considered unintentional. The same applies for one who forgot that it was Shabbos or [forgot] that [the act that was done] is forbidden. [Admur 318:2; M”A 318:3; M”B 318:6]

[33] Admur 318:3 “If Yom Tov falls out on the evening after Shabbos, then [food which was cooked on Shabbos] is forbidden until after Yom Tov, because [on] Shabbos [one] is not allowed to prepare for Yom Tov. …. One should suspect for the first opinion [and thus not eat it until after Yom Tov].”

Other opinions in Admur: There are opinions which say that there is no preparation involved in this case for the reasons that will be explained in chapter 501 [Halacha 18]. [Admur ibid] Practically, one should suspect for the first opinion [and thus not eat it until after Yom Tov]. [Admur ibid]

[34] 1^st opinion and final ruling in Admur 318:1 “One who cooks on Shabbos, or did one of the other [Biblically prohibited] actions, with prior knowledge of the prohibition, then it is forbidden for him to ever benefit from that action that was done, due to a fine”; Michaber 318:1; Chulin 15; Kesubos 34; Baba Kama 71a

[35] The reason: This is due to a fine [enacted onto him by the Sages]. [Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rebbe Yehuda in Gemara ibid]

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

[37] Admur ibid “As well, the pot in which he cooked in is forbidden for him [to use] forever [until he kashers it], being that it is absorbed with an item that is forbidden for him.”; M”A 318 in name of Rashba

The reason: As the pot absorbed food which forbidden for him. [Admur ibid]

[38] Admur ibid; M”A 318:2; M”B 318:5

[39] Admur ibid “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.”; Michaber ibid

Why do we decree on everyone else by a Biblical prohibition 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.

[40] Admur 318:1; Michaber 318:1

[41] This refers to the amount of time that it would have taken one after Shabbos to cook the food. In certain cases, in addition to the prohibition against benefiting from the food on Shabbos itself, one must also delay benefiting from the food even after Shabbos until the amount of time has passed for one to have prepared the food.

[42] The reason for not needing to wait Kdei Sheyasu after Shabbos: The reason one is not required 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. [Admur ibid]

[43] 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.

[44] Rav Poalim 3:17

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

[46] 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.

[47] Rav Poalim 3:17

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

[49] Admur 318:4

[50] Admur 318:4“However, if it became mixed on Shabbos, then since on that day it is considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin for those other than the cook, to whom it is [therefore] now not nullified in majority, [therefore] it is considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin also for the person who cooked it”; Magen Avraham 318:2; First understanding in P”M 102 S.D. 15;

Other opinions-Permitted for cook even on Shabbos if transgressed Bemeizid: Some Poskim rule that the food is only considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin for those for whom the food will become permitted to be eaten after Shabbos. However, by one who transgressed and cooked the food Bemeizid, then since it is forbidden for him forever it even after Shabbos, it does not have the status of DSL”M, and even if it became mixed with other foods on Shabbos it is nullified in majority. [Simple reading in Rama Yoreh Deah 102:4; Peri Megadim 102 S.D. 15; Chavas Daas Chidushim 102:14 and Biurim 102:18;Kreisy Upleisy 102:10; Tosefes Shabbos] However, for others it is considered a DSL”M on Shabbos since it will be permitted for them after Shabbos. This this opinion learns the wording of the Rama literally, that the Issur must become permitted for the person that it is currently forbidden for in order for the Issur to be considered a DSL”M. Admur and M”A ibid however learn the Rama Y.D. 102:4 to mean that the Issur must become permitted for even one person that it is currently forbidden for, in order for the Issur to be considered a DSL”M, and in such a case it is considered a DSL”M even for a person who the food will never become permitted for. However, a food which is permitted forever for some Jews and forbidden forever for other Jews, such as food which was cooked on Shabbos Bemeizid and became mixed after Shabbos then it is not considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin. 

[51] Admur ibid “However, if it became mixed on Shabbos, then since on that day it is considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin for those other than the cook, to whom it is [therefore] now not nullified in majority, [therefore] it is considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin also for the person who cooked it and this mixture [thus] becomes forbidden to him forever.”; One understanding in Magen Avraham in 318:2 [Others  however hold that even according to the Magen Avraham the food becomes permitted for the cook after Shabbos-Elya Raba 318:3; Rav Poalim 17; M”B in Shaar Hatziyon 318:13; Kaf Hachaim 318:15 and 102:34; See P”M 102 S.D. 15 which leaves this matter in doubt]; First understanding in P”M 102 S.D. 15

The reason: Since on that day it is considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin for those other than the cook, to whom it is [therefore] now not nullified in majority, [therefore] it is considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin also for the person who cooked it and this mixture [thus] becomes forbidden to him forever. [Admur ibid] See Yoreh Deah 102 that a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin is never nullified.

Other opinions-Permitted for cook even on Shabbos if transgressed Bemeizid: Some Poskim rule that the food is only considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin for those for whom the food will become permitted to be eaten after Shabbos. However, by one who transgressed and cooked the food Bemeizid, then since it is forbidden for him forever it even after Shabbos, it does not have the status of DSL”M, and even if it became mixed with other foods on Shabbos it is nullified in majority. [Simple reading in Rama Yoreh Deah 102:4; Understanding of some Poskim in Magen Avraham 318:2; Peri Megadim 102 S.D. 15; Chavas Daas Chidushim 102:14 and Biurim 102:18; Kreisy Upleisy 102:10; Tosefes Shabbos; Elya Raba 318:3; Rav Poalim 17; M”B in Shaar Hatziyon 318:13; Kaf Hachaim 318:15 and 102:34; See P”M 102 S.D. 15 which leaves this matter in doubt] However, for others it is considered a DSL”M on Shabbos since it will be permitted for them after Shabbos. This this opinion learns the wording of the Rama literally, that the Issur must become permitted for the person that it is currently forbidden for in order for the Issur to be considered a DSL”M.

Background-The ruling of the Rama: The Rama states that a food is only considered a DSL”M if it will eventually become permitted for the person that it is currently forbidden to be eaten by. If, however, it will remain forbidden forever for this individual then it is never considered a DSL”M even if it is currently permitted for others. Thus, rules the Rama, that if one cooked food on Shabbos [advertently-Bemazid-Shach 102:15], in which case the food is forbidden for the cook forever, even after Shabbos, the food does not have the status of DSL”M, even though it is permitted for others after Shabbos. Thus, if this food becomes mixed with other foods it is nullified. Now, there is a dispute amongst the Achronim as to the intent of the Rama. The simple meaning seems to imply that even if the food that was cooked became mixed on Shabbos, the food is not considered a DSL”M and hence is nullified. As since it will never become permitted for the cook even after Shabbos it therefore is not considered a DSL”M. Others however rule that this only refers to if the food became mixed after Shabbos, while on Shabbos the food is considered a DSL”M since it will eventually become permitted for some people after Shabbos.

[52] Admur ibid “If one intentionally cooked [food on Shabbos] and after Shabbos that food got mixed into other foods, then it is nullified in majority [of the Kosher food].”

[53] The reason that the food is not considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin: It is not considered Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin, meaning [that we do not say that since] other people can eat this mixture without any  prohibition at all, even without [the food that was cooked on Shabbos] being nullified in majority, [therefore it is considered a food that has a permitted side], because something is only categorized as having a permitted side if [the food] will become permitted for the person that it was forbidden for. However here without it being nullified in majority it is only permitted for other people to which the food was never prohibited for them at all from after Shabbos and onwards. [Admur ibid]