is permitted, since one did not intend to perform that prohibited labor.
לְמֵימְרָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְכַבִּין גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יִזּוֹקוּ בָּהּ רַבִּים, אֲבָל לֹא גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁל עֵץ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁל עֵץ נָמֵי!
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Shmuel, who permits adding water even in an amount sufficient to harden a vessel, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one may perform an action that inadvertently results in a prohibited labor? Didn’t Shmuel say: One may extinguish a piece of white-hot metal in a public area on Shabbat so that the masses will not be injured? That is because the piece of white-hot metal is not actual fire and extinguishing it is prohibited by rabbinic decree, not Torah law. The Sages did not issue decrees in situations where there is concern for public safety. However, one may not extinguish a red-hot wood coal because extinguishing it is prohibited by Torah law. And if it would enter your mind that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it should even be permitted to extinguish wood as well. When one extinguishes the coal, he intends neither to perform a prohibited labor nor to derive any benefit. He merely intends to prevent the coal from causing injury. Extinguishing the coal is a labor not necessary for its own sake. Rabbi Shimon says that one who performs a labor not necessary for its own sake is exempt.
בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בִּמְלָאכָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְגוּפָהּ סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר רָבִינָא: הִלְכָּךְ קוֹץ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מוֹלִיכוֹ פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וּבְכַרְמְלִית אֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא.
The Gemara responds: In the case of an unintentional act, Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. In the case of labor not necessary for its own sake, he holds that he is liable, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Ravina said: Therefore, a thorn in the public domain that is liable to cause injury, one may move it from there in increments, each less than four cubits, on Shabbat. Although the Torah prohibits carrying an object four cubits in the public domain on Shabbat, carrying less than four cubits is prohibited only by rabbinic law. From Shmuel’s statement, it is clear that the Sages did not issue a decree in any case where there is a threat to the masses. And, therefore, if the thorn was in a karmelit, where the prohibition to carry is by rabbinic law, one is permitted to carry it even more than four cubits.
אֲבָל נוֹתֵן כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נוֹתֵן אָדָם חַמִּין לְתוֹךְ הַצּוֹנֵן, וְלֹא הַצּוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ הַחַמִּין, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין חַמִּין לְתוֹךְ הַצּוֹנֵן וּבֵין צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ הַחַמִּין מוּתָּר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּכוֹס, אֲבָל בְּאַמְבָּטִי — חַמִּין לְתוֹךְ הַצּוֹנֵן, וְלֹא צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ הַחַמִּין. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹסֵר. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא.
We learned in the mishna: However, one may place water into an urn in order to warm it. The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may place hot water into cold water, but not cold into hot; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. In their opinion the cold water becomes heated by the hot water beneath it. And Beit Hillel say: Both hot into cold and cold into hot are permitted. However, Beit Hillel did not permit this in all cases. In what case is this said? It is in the case of a cup. However, in a bath with a lot of water, it is permitted to pour hot into cold but not cold into hot. And Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya prohibits even putting hot into cold. Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya in this matter.
סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר סֵפֶל הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאַמְבָּטִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: סֵפֶל אֵינוֹ כְּאַמְבָּטִי. וּלְמַאי דִּסְלֵיק אַדַּעְתָּא מֵעִיקָּרָא דְּסֵפֶל הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאַמְבָּטִי, וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא, אֶלָּא בְּשַׁבָּת רְחִיצָה בְּחַמִּין לֵיכָּא!
Rav Yosef thought to say that the legal status of a basin [sefel], which is a vessel used for washing, is like that of a bath, and it is prohibited to pour water into it. Abaye said to him that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught a baraita: A basin is not like a bath in terms of pouring water into it. The Gemara asks: And according to what entered Rav Yosef’s mind initially, that a basin is like a bath with regard to this halakha, and Rav Naḥman said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya in this matter, does that mean that on Shabbat there is no possibility of washing with hot water? No all-encompassing prohibition of washing with hot water on Shabbat was ever taught.
מִי סָבְרַתְּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַסֵּיפָא קָאֵי? אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי: וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין בֵּין חַמִּין לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן וּבֵין צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ הַחַמִּין, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹסֵר צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ חַמִּין. לֵימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא דְּאָמַר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? — הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּדָבָר זֶה.
The Gemara replies: Do you think that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya is referring to the latter clause of the mishna? No, he is referring to the first clause of the mishna, where we learned that Beit Hillel permit both hot water into cold and cold water into hot, and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya prohibits placing cold water into hot. The Gemara asks: If so, say that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. Isn’t the halakha generally established according to Beit Hillel? The Gemara explains: He said the following: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute this matter. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya had a different tradition with regard to the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: חֲזֵינָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא דְּלָא קָפֵיד אַמָּנָא — מִדְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: נוֹתֵן אָדָם קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם לְתוֹךְ סֵפֶל שֶׁל מַיִם, בֵּין חַמִּין לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן וּבֵין צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ חַמִּין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּמַפְסֵיק כְּלִי! אָמַר לֵיהּ — ״מְעָרֶה״ אִיתְּמַר: מְעָרֶה אָדָם קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם לְתוֹךְ סֵפֶל שֶׁל מַיִם, בֵּין חַמִּין לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן, בֵּין צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ חַמִּין.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I saw that Rava was not strict in the case of a vessel and made no distinction between cold and hot. From where did he derive this leniency? From a baraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: A person may place a jug of water into a basin of water, both hot into cold and cold into hot. Rav Huna said to Rav Ashi: There is a weakness in this proof, as perhaps there it is different because the vessel forms a partition between the hot and cold water. He is not pouring cold water into the basin itself but is placing a jug whose sides form a partition into the basin. He said to him: The term pour was stated in that baraita. This is the correct version: A person may pour a jug of water into a basin of water, both hot into cold or cold into hot. Therefore, there is no room to distinguish between the two cases.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאִילְפָּס וְהַקְּדֵרָה שֶׁהֶעֱבִירָן מְרוּתָּחִין — לֹא יִתֵּן לְתוֹכָן תַּבְלִין.
MISHNA: In continuation of the discussion of vessels where the prohibition of cooking applies even though the vessels are not actually on the fire itself, the mishna establishes: A stew pot [ilpas] and a pot that were removed from the fire while they were still boiling, even if they were removed before Shabbat, one may not place spices into them on Shabbat itself. Even though the pot is not actually standing on the fire, the spices are still cooked in it because the pot is a primary vessel, i.e., a vessel whose contents were cooked on the fire.