(Shimon bar Ba citing R. Chanina): (It's prohibited to recite an incantation on a wound on Shabbos, since it's considered healing on Shabbos. For it to be permitted,) he should pour oil from a utensil and recite it, but he may not apply it with his hand.

(R. Yaakov bar Idi/ R. Yochanan citing R. Yannai): He may even apply it with his hand.

What is the basis of their dispute? If pouring on his head from a utensil is disgusting. The one who permitted applying oil with his hand did so otherwise he would refrain from using oil, since he views pouring on the head as disgusting. The one who required pouring rather than applying with the hand, says that it's not disgusting, so it must be done in this unusual way (to avoid Uvdin D'Chol - weekday activity).

(R. Yona) (Difference #2): Ma'aser Sheni - the one who permitted it by hand or utensil (on Shabbos) is not concerned that one might do the same with Ma'aser Sheni oil, where it is prohibited. The one who only permitted pouring from a utensil is concerned about people permitting rubbing Ma'aser Sheni oil by hand.

Question (R. Yosi): Is everything that is permitted on Shabbos also permitted with Ma'aser Sheni and everything that is prohibited on Shabbos also prohibited with Ma'aser Sheni...?

(Baraisa): A woman may wash her dirty son with wine on Shabbos, but she may not use Terumah wine.

And Terumah and Ma'aser Sheni are the same (which shows that Shabbos and Ma'aser Sheni can be different)...?

So why then may one not recite an incantation on a wound after applying oils by hand? In order to avoid doing weekday activities on Shabbos (known as Uvdin D'Chol).

(The Mishnah taught (Bechoros 29(e)) that) if fish was cooked with Ma'aser Sheni turnips and they increased in value, they are redeemed according to the proportion of turnips.

(R. Hoshiya): This was said by R. Yehuda, as the Mishnah in Terumos (10:1) states that R. Yehuda permits pickled fish (if an uncut onion of Terumah had been left inside it and then removed) since the onion was only to absorb the bad fish flavor.

Question (Rabbanan of Kisarin): R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan said that for all prohibitions, we evaluate as if the prohibited item is an onion or a turnip. This is unlike R. Yehuda, as he says that an onion doesn't give any flavor to the fish. R. Yehuda agrees about an onion of Hekdesh and an onion of idolatry.

(R. Yochanan): (The Mishnah taught (see earlier Bechoros 29(d)) that if one added honey and spices to Maaser wine (outside Yerushalayim) and it increased in value, it is redeemed according to the proportion of wine.) Wherever the food has increased in volume on account of the Chulin, the appreciation is calculated proportionately. Wherever there was no increase, the appreciation is awarded to the Ma'aser Sheni.

(Shimon ben Lakish): Wherever the improved taste is recognizable, the appreciation is calculated proportionately. Wherever the improved taste is not recognizable, the appreciation is awarded to the Ma'aser Sheni.

Question (against R. Shimon ben Lakish): A dough of Ma'aser Sheni that was baked into bread, its appreciation is awarded to the Ma'aser Sheni...?

Answer: There, its improved taste was not recognizable.

Question (against R. Yochanan): If fish was cooked with leeks of Ma'aser Sheni and it appreciated (in value), the appreciation is calculated proportionately...?

Answer (R. Yosi citing R. Hoshiyah): The fish and the leeks were cooked and then left together, meaning that the volume increased (on account of the fish).

Question (R. Yona citing R. Hoshiyah): Think about it - if each was cooked separately and they were then mixed (to exchange flavor and were then later separated); the leeks only added mere flavor to the fish and vice-versa, (but they did not increase each other's volume, so the appreciation should be awarded to Ma'aser Sheni)? (The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.)

Question (against R. Yochanan)(Mishnah): If a woman borrowed from her friend spices, water and salt for her dough, the dough follow the legs of both of them (in terms of Techum Shabbos - going a certain distance outside of a town and the dough may only be taken to where both women may go.). (Here, there was no increase in volume from the salt, so according to R. Yochanan, the Techum should follow only the borrower's legs...?)

Answer (R. Ba): Techum Shabbos follows the laws of ownership. This can be proven from that which they say in Bavel in the name of Rav Chisda who either quoted from a tradition or from a Baraisa - (the Techum limitations apply) even to wood, even though the wood contributes nothing of any substance to the dough.

Question (against R. Shimon ben Lakish)(Tosefta): If a dish of Ma'aser Sheni was flavored with spices of Chulin, the appreciation is awarded to the Ma'aser Sheni (even though the spices gave a recognizable improvement to the flavor)?

Answer: The case is when the improvement of the spices was not recognizable.

Question (end of same Tosefta): A dish of Chulin that was flavored with spices of Ma'aser Sheni, the spices aren't annulled and must be redeemed proportionally to the dish (even though they didn't increase the volume. This is a question against R. Yochanan)?

Answer: According to R. Yochanan, he added a lot of spices that did increase the volume.

According to R. Shimon ben Lakish, their flavor was recognizable.