Question: What did the Makshan think? Just because Shmuel holds like R. Shimon regarding Davar she'Eino Miskaven, must he hold like him regarding Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah?!

Answer: Indeed, the Makshan thought that these depend on each other. Because R. Yehudah holds that one is liable for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, when he intends for it, Chachamim were stringent also about Davar she'Eino Miskaven;

However, according to R. Shimon, that mid'Oraisa he is exempt [for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah] even when he intends for it, he is not concerned to forbid mid'Rabanan when he does not intend, since the case of intent itself is forbidden only mid'Rabanan.

Explanation: In truth, they do not depend on each other, for even though Shmuel holds like R. Yehudah regarding Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, that he is liable, he permits when he does not intend.

Remark: According to R. Yehudah, it is forbidden also when he does not intend, even regarding dragging, for which the Isur when he intends is only mid'Rabanan, like we say below (46b).

Observation: In Zevachim (91b) Shmuel said that one who volunteers [a Korban of] wine brings it and sprinkles it on the fire [on the Mizbe'ach]. The Gemara asks that he extinguishes (one may not extinguish the fire on the Mizbe'ach, even on a weekday), and answers that he holds that Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted;

The Gemara asks like here, that Shmuel permits extinguishing a metal coal, but not a wooden coal.

Explanation (Rashba): We ask based on a Kal v'Chomer. Since Shmuel holds that one is liable for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, if so he holds that also regarding Shabbos, Davar she'Eino Miskaven is forbidden, for the Makshan there holds that one depends on the other, like the Makshan here;

Since on Shabbos Davar she'Eino Miskaven is forbidden [even though it is not Melachah Machasheves], all the more so in general!

Question: It connotes that if Shmuel held that one is exempt for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, it would be fine;

What is the reason? Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah in Isurim other than Shabbos, one is liable for it. Since [the Makshan] holds that they (Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah and Davar she'Eino Miskaven) depend on each other, why does it say there that is Davar she'Eino Miskaven permitted?

Explanation: This is even in a Kli Rishon. Hot water into cold does not cook, like I will explain;

One may not put cold water into hot, even in a Kli Sheni, for Beis Shamai decree a Kli Sheni due to a Kli Rishon;

Beis Hillel, who permit cold into hot, this is only in a Kli Sheni, like it teaches "what is the case? It is in a cup." This implies that in a Kli Rishon, Beis Hillel agree [that it is forbidden].

Suggestion: The Beraisa holds that Tatah Gavar (when hot and cold are mixed, the law depends on whatever is on bottom. Cooking occurs only if the bottom is hot.)

Rejection #1 (Rashi): If so, this [Beraisa] is difficult for the opinion that Ila'a Gavar (the law depends on whatever is on top. Cooking occurs only if the top is hot.)

Rejection #2: Also according to the opinion that Tatah Gavar, [when the top is hot] it cooks Kedei Klipah (the thickness of a layer that can be peeled off), like I will explain below (42b DH Aval), b'Ezras Hash-m.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): "Hot into cold" connotes that the cold on bottom is the majority. It is normal to put the minority into the majority. Therefore, the minority of hot water does not cook [the cold] at all, because it mixes with the majority of cold and its heat is nullified;

One may not put cold water into hot, for the hot water below is the majority, and the minority of cold water mixes with it and gets cooked.

Explanation: This bath discusses a Kli Sheni. It is unlike the bath above, about which it says "I wanted to put a flask in the bath", since it says "a bucket is unlike a bath";

You are forced to say that this bucket is a Kli Sheni, for if it were a Kli Rishon, why is it unlike a bath?! And similarly, the bath is a Kli Sheni.

Support: Also, if we discussed a bath that is a Kli Rishon, we would not say "bath", rather, kettle, which is for drinking, similar to a cup;

Since he mentioned a bath, this connotes that he discusses a Kli Sheni, and he comes to distinguish between a cup, which is for drinking, to a bath, which is very hot, and there is reason to decree. One who sees that it is so hot will think that it is a Kli Rishon!

Implied question: In our Mishnah he discussed a kettle, which is a Kli Rishon, one may not put [cold] water in it. He could have said a bath, which is a Kli Sheni, one may not put water in it!

Answer: Our Mishnah discusses drinking, and distinguishes between a kettle and a cup.

Explanation: This is only according to what Rav Yosef thought initially. According to what we conclude, that a bucket is not like a bath, he refers to the Seifa, regarding a cup;

R. Shimon ben Menasiya holds like Beis Hillel, that even cold into hot is permitted. Our Mishnah, which permits into a cup, is like the Halachah, for the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Menasiya.

Question: According to the Havah Amina that he refers to the Reisha, and forbids cold into hot in a cup, what is Rav Yosef's Chidush that a bucket is like a bath? Also a cup is like a bath according to R. Shimon ben Menasiya, whom the Halachah follows!

Answer: Rav Yosef comes to teach that Beis Hillel permit in a cup.

Question #1: Why don't we bring the Beraisa above, that a bucket is unlike a bath?

Question #2: Why did R. Chiya need to teach both Beraisos? (Once we know that a bucket is unlike a bath, surely one may put water inside!)

Answer #1: Now (the latter) teaches that both hot into cold and cold into hot [are permitted];

[If we had only the first Beraisa, that a bucket is unlike a bath, one might have thought that it refers to R. Shimon ben Menasiya, who forbids in a bath even hot into cold, and [the Beraisa] says about this that a bucket is unlike a bath, and permits hot into cold, but cold into hot, one might have thought that it is forbidden.

Answer #2: Perhaps the Beraisa above is this Beraisa here, just it was abbreviated, and adopted the wording of Rav Yosef, on which it was brought.

Question: It says above (40b) "take in a Kli Sheni and put (the flask of oil), but not in a Kli Rishon, even though a Kli separates (the oil from the hot water)!

Answer: There [he wanted to put] in a Kli Rishon. Here (putting) in a Kli Sheni, [perhaps] it is different (when a Kli separates).

Suggestion: We can infer from here that Iruy (pouring, from a Kli Rishon) is like a Kli Sheni, since it taught "one may not put in it spices", and it did not teach a bigger Chidush, that one may not pour [from a Kli Rishon] on a bowl with spices inside!

Rejection: Just the contrary, we can infer from the Seifa (that it is like a Kli Rishon) "but he may put in a bowl", and it did not teach that one may pour on a bowl with spices inside!

Opinion #1: The Rashbam brought a proof that Iruy is like a Kli Sheni, from this that we hold that Tatah Gavar.

Opinion #2: The Ri brought a proof that Iruy is like a Kli Rishon from Zevachim (95b);

Citation (95b - Beraisa): "Asher Tevushal Bo" teaches only [that one must break a pot] in which [Chatas] was cooked. What is the source for [a pot] into which boiling [Chatas] was poured? "Asher Tevushal Bo Yishaver."

Inference: Iruy is considered cooking!

Support - Citation (Yerushalmi): May one put spices below and pour on them from above? R. Yonah forbids, for Iruy is like a Kli Rishon;

Citation (cont.): R. Yonah learns from the following. The same applies to [a pot] in which [Chatas] was cooked, and [a pot] into which boiling [Chatas] was poured.

Citation (cont.): R. Yosi rejects this. There, a Kli Cheres absorbs. Spices do not get cooked [through Iruy].

Citation (cont.) Rebuttal (R. Yosi bar Bun) - Beraisa: What is the source for a copper Kli? It says "v'Im bi'Chli Nechoshes Bushalah." Will we say that a copper Kli absorbs?!

Explanation: He asks, does it absorb through Iruy?! If [Iruy] does not cook, it does not get absorbed. This shows that the conclusion is that Iruy is like a Kli Rishon!

Opinion #3: Iruy is not like a Kli Rishon, and not like a Kli Sheni. Rather, it cooks Kedei Klipah.

Source: We hold like Shmuel, who says that Tatah Gavar, for a Beraisa in Pesachim (76a) is like him;

In any case [Iruy] cooks Kedei Klipah, for it says there "a Beraisa supports Shmuel. Hot into cold, or cold into cold (one of them is forbidden, or they are meat and milk), he rinses."

The Gemara asks, if hot fell into cold, before [the cold] cooled off [the hot], it absorbed! Rather, [the Beraisa should say] "if hot fell onto cold, one peels [off a layer]. If cold fell onto cold, he rinses them."

Support: It connotes like this in Avodah Zarah (76a). It says that Mar Ukva bought a big pot from a Nochri. He put dough around the brim, [filled it with water] and boiled it, for the same way it absorbs, it emits. Just like it absorbed [Isur] through (boiling) drops that splash [on top of the brim], it emits them through drops that splash;

If Iruy is like a Kli Rishon, why must we say that it absorbed through drops that splash? Even if it absorbed full absorption, it is emitted through drops that splash, which is Iruy!

Conclusion: Rather, surely [Iruy] cooks only Kedei Klipah.

Consequences: If boiling Iruy was done on a chicken, one must peel off a layer. If a Kli was used through Iruy, e.g. bowls, one may Kasher it through Iruy, for the same way it absorbs, it emits. However, a Kli in which Isur was cooked, Iruy does not suffice for it.

Implied question: In Avodah Zarah (74b), Rava taught that we use boiling [water] to Kasher a Gas. Presumably, this was through Iruy! (It is infeasible to boil water in it.)

Answer: There is different, for the winepress did not absorb through boiling [liquids].

Assertion: He argues only about spices, but he agrees that a Kli Rishon cooks other matters even when it was removed from the fire.

Opinion #1 (Rashi): Whenever there are versions that argue, for Torah laws we follow the stringent version. For mid'Rabanan laws we follow the latter version.

Opinion #2 (R. Tam): For mid'Rabanan laws we follow the lenient version.

Opinion #3 (Riva): The latter version is always secondary to the first, which is primary. (We always follow the first version.)

Assertion: All of these opinions agree that here, the Halachah follows the latter version, for according to the first version, R. Chiya's Beraisa argues with Rav Nachman, and according to the latter version [the Beraisa] is like Rav Nachman.

Consequence: Due to this, the Rashbam permitted on Shabbos to put salt in a Tavshil even in a Kli Rishon that was removed from the fire.

Remark: One who is stringent like the first opinion, and does not put salt in a bowl as long as it is Yad Soledes Bo, he will be blessed.

Remark: The wording is awkward. It should have said "but one may put during the day."

Explanation: We can establish this like R. Shimon, who permits the excess oil in a lamp. "We may not benefit from it" that was taught here is as long as it is burning;

R. Shimon agrees about Muktzah due to a Mitzvah, like it says below (45a) that according to R. Shimon, the only Muktzah is oil in a lamp when it is burning. Since it was Huktzeh (set aside) for its Mitzvah, it is Huktzeh for its Isur.

Explanation: He does not refer to oil in the lamp itself. That is forbidden even without [Muktzah due to a Mitzvah], due to extinguishing, like it says in Beitzah (22a) that one who takes from it is liable for extinguishing;

Rather, he means oil that drips from a lamp. (It is forbidden because it is not Muchan.)

Explanation: We do not forbid moving the lamp itself due to Muktzeh for its Mitzvah. It is forbidden only because it became a Bosis for Isur, like we say below (47a);

Citation (47a): The lamp oil and wick are different, since each became a Bosis [for the flame].

Observation: It would not be forbidden to move it due to Muktzah to its Mitzvah, since moving it is not Mevatel it from its Mitzvah.

Implied question: [Rav Chisda] should have said "we may not put a Kli under the Ner to catch the oil", which our Mishnah taught. [We know that we may not put] a Kli to catch an egg only from an inference from our Mishnah!

Answer: He mentioned an egg because he wanted to teach "but one may cover it with a Kli."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Chachamim did not permit an uncommon case of Hatzalah (saving)] something one may not move [on Shabbos].

His text in Abaye's question below is "if a barrel of Tevel broke on his roof", for one may not move Tevel [on Shabbos].

Question #1 (Riva): If the text says Tevel, why did he challenge Rav Yosef (43a) from a different Beraisa [which does not mention "on the roof]? He should have asked from this Beraisa!

Question #2: Below (117b) it explicitly connotes that the text of this Beraisa does not say "Tevel", for it does not discuss Tevel. The Seifa teaches "if guests came, he brings another Kli [to save from the broken barrel, to feed to them]"!

Explanation #2 (Riva): [Chachamim] did not permit an uncommon case of Hatzalah, to toil for anything, even something that one may move, due to exertion. (Tosfos ha'Rosh cites Riva to say "anything not needed for Shabbos." Presumably, Tosfos agrees. If not, why do we permit another Kli when guests come? - PF)

Implied question: Why may we not put a Kli under a lamp to catch oil?

Answer: This is considered uncommon, for people usually put a Kli underneath from before Shabbos.

Implied question: Below, we say that sparks are common! (If so, it should be forbidden to put a Kli underneath for sparks, just like to catch oil.)

Answer: It is not so common that one would be concerned to put a Kli from before Shabbos. Therefore, it is considered a common Hatzalah.