אֲבָל נוֹתֵן הוּא לְתוֹךְ הַקְּעָרָה אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַתַּמְחוּי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לַכֹּל הוּא נוֹתֵן, חוּץ מִדָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חוֹמֶץ וָצִיר.
However, one may place the spices into a bowl or into a tureen [tamḥui], which is a large bowl into which people pour the contents a stew pot or a pot. Bowls and tureens are both secondary vessels and food placed into them does not get cooked. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may place spices into anything on Shabbat except for a vessel that has in it something containing vinegar or brine of salted fish.
גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי — וּלְקוּלָּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא אַסֵּיפָא קָאֵי — וּלְחוּמְרָא.
GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yehuda referring to the first clause of the mishna and being lenient? According to that possibility, the mishna prohibits placing spices into any boiling pot and Rabbi Yehuda holds that this only applies if there is fish brine or vinegar inside the pot. Or perhaps he is referring to the latter clause of the mishna and is being stringent? The Rabbis said that one is permitted to place spices into a bowl or a tureen, and Rabbi Yehuda came to add a stringency and say that if the bowl or tureen contains vinegar or brine, it is prohibited to place spices into it.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לְכׇל אִילְפָּסִין הוּא נוֹתֵן, לְכׇל הַקְּדֵירוֹת רוֹתְחוֹת הוּא נוֹתֵן, חוּץ מִדָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חוֹמֶץ וָצִיר.
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught explicitly in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Into all stew pots one may place spices on Shabbat; into all pots, even those that are boiling, one may place spices, except for one that contains vinegar or brine. The baraita clearly indicates that Rabbi Yehuda disputes the first clause of the mishna and is being lenient.
סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר מֶלַח הֲרֵי הוּא כְּתַבְלִין, דְּבִכְלִי רִאשׁוֹן — בָּשְׁלָה, וּבִכְלִי שֵׁנִי — לָא בָּשְׁלָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא, מֶלַח אֵינָהּ כְּתַבְלִין, דְּבִכְלִי שֵׁנִי נָמֵי בָּשְׁלָה! וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: צְרִיכָא מִילְחָא בִּישּׁוּלָא כְּבִשְׂרָא דְתוֹרָא.
Rav Yosef thought to say that salt is like a spice whose legal status is: In a primary vessel that was on the fire, salt gets cooked and therefore it is prohibited to place salt into it on Shabbat. And in a secondary vessel, into which the contents of a primary vessel were poured, salt does not get cooked. Abaye said to him: Didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya already teach that salt is not like a spice? Certainly he meant that in a secondary vessel it also gets cooked. And the Gemara remarks that this conclusion disputes the statement of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman said: Salt requires cooking for as long as the meat of an ox does, i.e., it requires extensive cooking.
וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר מֶלַח הֲרֵי הוּא כְּתַבְלִין, דְּבִכְלִי רִאשׁוֹן — בָּשְׁלָה, בִּכְלִי שֵׁנִי — לָא בָּשְׁלָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא מֶלַח אֵינָהּ כְּתַבְלִין, דְּבִכְלִי רִאשׁוֹן נָמֵי לָא בָּשְׁלָה, וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: צְרִיכָא מִילְחָא בִּישּׁוּלָא כְּבִישְׂרָא דְתוֹרָא.
And some say a very different version of this: Rav Yosef thought to say that salt is like a spice, i.e., in a primary vessel it gets cooked, whereas in a secondary vessel it does not get cooked. Abaye said to him: Didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya already teach that salt is not like a spice, meaning that in a primary vessel, it also does not get cooked? And that is precisely what Rav Naḥman said: Salt requires cooking for as long as the meat of an ox does.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין נוֹתְנִין כְּלִי תַּחַת הַנֵּר לְקַבֵּל בּוֹ אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן. וְאִם נְתָנוּהָ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם — מוּתָּר, וְאֵין נֵיאוֹתִין מִמֶּנּוּ לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִן הַמּוּכָן.
MISHNA: From a discussion of the halakhot of insulation and preparation for Shabbat followed by a brief tangent dealing with the prohibited labor of cooking on Shabbat, the mishna proceeds to briefly discuss prohibitions relating to set-aside [muktze] items in terms of Shabbat lamps. One may not place a vessel beneath the oil lamp, the vessel containing the oil and the wick, on Shabbat in order to receive the oil that drips from the wick. And if one placed the vessel on Friday while it was still day, it is permitted. However, in any case, one may not make use of the oil on Shabbat because it is not from the oil prepared from Shabbat eve for use on Shabbat. The oil in the lamp was already set aside and designated solely for the purpose of lighting the lamp.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ אֵין נוֹתְנִין כְּלִי תַּחַת תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת לְקַבֵּל בֵּיצָתָהּ, אֲבָל כּוֹפֶה עָלֶיהָ כְּלִי שֶׁלֹּא תִּשָּׁבֵר. אָמַר רַבָּה: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא? קָסָבַר, תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת עֲשׂוּיָה לְהַטִּיל בֵּיצָתָהּ בָּאַשְׁפָּה, וְאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְהַטִּיל בֵּיצָתָהּ בִּמְקוֹם מִדְרוֹן. וְהַצָּלָה מְצוּיָה הִתִּירוּ, וְהַצָּלָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה — לֹא הִתִּירוּ.
GEMARA: Rav Ḥisda said: Although the Sages said that one may not place a vessel beneath a hen preparing to lay an egg on Shabbat on an inclined surface, in order to receive its egg and prevent it from breaking when it falls; however, they permitted overturning a vessel onto an egg on Shabbat so that it will not be trampled and break. Rabba said: What is Rav Ḥisda’s reason? He holds that a hen is likely to lay its egg in a garbage dump and people or animals will oftentimes step on it, but it is not likely to lay its egg on an inclined surface where the egg could roll down and break. And in a common case of preservation, the Sages permitted overturning a vessel onto the egg that is located in the garbage dump to protect it from being broken. And in an uncommon case of preservation, i.e., placing a vessel beneath a hen to receive its egg so that it would not roll down an inclined surface, they did not permit doing so.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהַצָּלָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה לֹא הִתִּירוּ?! וְהָתַנְיָא: נִשְׁבְּרָה לוֹ חָבִית שֶׁל טֶבֶל בְּרֹאשׁ גַּגּוֹ, מֵבִיא כְּלִי וּמַנִּיחַ תַּחְתֶּיהָ! — בְּגוּלְפֵי חַדְתֵי דִּשְׁכִיחִי דְּפָקְעִי.
Abaye raised an objection to Rabba’s opinion from a baraita: And is it so that in an uncommon case of preservation they did not permit taking steps to protect the object on Shabbat? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One whose barrel of untithed produce [tevel], which may not be eaten until it is tithed, broke on top of his roof on Shabbat, may bring a vessel and place it beneath the barrel so that the untithed produce is not lost. Even though eating untithed produce is prohibited on Shabbat, they permitted carrying a vessel to preserve it even in the uncommon case of a barrel that breaks. Apparently, even in an uncommon case of preservation the Sages permit taking the necessary steps. Rabba answered: This too, is a common case of preservation because it is an instance of new barrels [gulfei], which commonly break.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: נוֹתְנִין כְּלִי תַּחַת הַנֵּר לְקַבֵּל נִיצוֹצוֹת? — נִיצוֹצוֹת נָמֵי שְׁכִיחִי.
Abaye raised another objection to Rabba’s opinion from the last mishna in this chapter: One may place a vessel beneath the oil lamp in order to receive burning sparks of oil that drip from the burning wick even though this is not common. Rabba answered: Sparks are also common and therefore, it is a common case of preservation.