Shabbat 42b — the Talmud in English

But he may give

spices

into the bowl or into the serving dish,

for they are a secondary vessel, because a secondary vessel does not cook.

Rabbi Yehuda says: For every

thing

he may give

spices,

except for a thing in which there is vinegar and fish-brine

[a liquid that comes out of fish], for one does not place spices in it when it is boiling, because it cooks the spices.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: For every thing he may give spices, except for a thing in which there is vinegar and fish-brine.

They raised a dilemma before them: Does Rabbi Yehuda stand on the first clause,

do his words refer to the law of the pan and the pot that we learned in the first clause, for according to the first tanna it is forbidden to place spices in them because they are a primary vessel, and Rabbi Yehuda comes to permit placing spices in them [unless there is vinegar and fish-brine in them],

and leniently?

Or perhaps,

Rabbi Yehuda

stands on the final clause,

concerning the law that we learned in the final clause: He places [spices] into the bowl and the serving dish because they are a secondary vessel. And Rabbi Yehuda says: In a thing in which there is vinegar and fish-brine, it is forbidden to place spices in it, even if it is a secondary vessel,

and stringently.

Come and hear: For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Into every pan he may give

spices, and likewise

into every boiling pot

which is a primary vessel,

he may give, except for a thing in which there is vinegar and fish-brine.

It follows that Rabbi Yehuda permits placing spices into a primary vessel, and learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda stands on the first clause and is leniently.

We learned in the Mishna: But he may place [it] into the pot or into the fish-brine, and the reason is because they are a secondary vessel, and a secondary vessel does not cook.

Rav Yosef thought to say,

that the law of

salt is like that of spices: In a primary vessel it cooks,

it is cooked,

and in a secondary vessel it does not cook,

it is not cooked.

Abaye said to him: Rabbi Hiyya taught: Salt is not

like spices,

but it is more stringent than it,

for it also cooks in a secondary vessel,

because it is among those things that cook easily.

And it disagrees:

Rabbi Hiyya disagrees with

Rav Nahman.

For Rav Nahman said:

Salt is not among those things that cook easily, but, on the contrary,

salt requires cooking—

like the meat of an ox.

Salt requires much cooking, like the meat of an ox. Therefore it is permitted to place salt even in a primary vessel that has been removed from the fire, since it does not cook quickly. And all the more so, it is permitted to place the meat of an ox in a primary vessel.

And some say: Rav Yosef thought to say,

that the law of

salt is like that of spices: In a primary vessel it cooks; in a secondary vessel it does not cook.

Abaye said to him: Rabbi Hiyya taught: Salt is not like spices, for it does not cook even in a primary vessel.

And this is what Rav Nahman said: Salt requires cooking like the meat of an ox.

Mishna:

One may not place a vessel beneath the lamp

that is burning in order

to receive the oil

that drips from the lamp while the oil is burning.

There may be two reasons for the foundation of this prohibition [see Rashi]:

The first: because the oil that drips from the lamp while the wick in the lamp is burning is muktze [and, as will be explained below in the Mishna and the Gemara, on account of what it is muktze], and the tanna of our Mishna holds the principle that “a vessel may not be moved on Shabbat except for the sake of a thing that may be moved.” Therefore it is impossible to move the vessel for the sake of placing it beneath the oil, because the oil is muktze while the lamp is burning, and at that time may not be moved.

And the second: because “it is forbidden to render a vessel unavailable for its designated use,” the meaning of which is that one may not cause a vessel to become fixed in the place where it stands, without permission to move it and use it.

The prohibition against rendering a vessel unavailable for its designated use is because the matter resembles a labor, as though one fixes the vessel and attaches it to its place with mortar.

And since the oil is muktze at that time, if he places the vessel beneath it and the oil drips into it, the vessel becomes a base for muktze, and he will again be unable to move it from its place at that time.

And if he placed it before the day—

it is permitted.

The tanna intends to say that it is permitted to place the vessel before the day, even though on Shabbat the oil will drip onto it.

And the tanna returns once more to the preceding law, concerning oil that dripped from the burning lamp:

And one may not benefit from it,

one may not derive benefit from oil that dripped while the lamp is burning, because it is muktze,

since it is not prepared

from the eve of Shabbat for use of benefit. For on the eve of Shabbat it was kindled for the purpose of the Shabbat lamp, and it was then set aside for kindling and not for another use. [

And Tosafot added that even Rabbi Shimon, who permits benefiting from the oil after the lamp has gone out, agrees that while it is burning one may not benefit from it at that time].

Gemara:

Rav Hisda said: Even though they said: One may not place a vessel beneath a hen

that is located on a slope, in order

to receive its egg

that is destined to be born on Shabbat, despite the fact that the egg may roll away and break. This is because the egg is muktze, according to the law of something “born” on Shabbat [for something “born” on Shabbat is muktze because it was not “prepared” for human use at the onset of Shabbat]. And it is like one does not place a vessel beneath oil that drips on Shabbat, on account of the two reasons explained concerning it.

But he may overturn over it

over the egg, after it has been born,

a vessel,

in order to prevent people from stepping on it, and thereby to protect it

so that it will not break.

For the Sages permitted rescuing the egg, despite the fact that they decreed that “a vessel may be moved only for the sake of a thing that may be moved.”

Rabba said: What is the reason of Rav Hisda,

who was stringent not to take a vessel for the purpose of rescuing the egg before its birth, since it is a thing that may not be moved, whereas he was lenient to take the vessel to rescue it after it was born?

He holds: A hen is accustomed,

it is usual for it,

to lay its egg in a garbage heap, and it is not accustomed to lay its egg in a sloping place.

And

therefore, for the sake of

a common rescue—

they permitted

moving a vessel for the sake of a thing that may not be moved.

And

by contrast,

an uncommon rescue,

such as a hen laying in a sloping place, or oil dripping from a lamp—

they did not permit

moving a vessel for its sake, for the sake of a thing that may not be moved.

Abaye raised an objection

to Rabba:

And

is it so that for the sake of

an uncommon rescue they did not permit

moving a vessel for a thing that may not be moved?

But it was taught: If one’s barrel of untithed produce broke on the roof,—

he brings a vessel and places it beneath it,

in order to rescue what drips from the barrel, despite the fact that what is in the barrel is muktze because it is untithed produce.

But this is not common—that the barrel should break—and nevertheless they permitted him to move a vessel in order to rescue a muktze thing that may not be moved!?

And Rabba answered him: This beraita is speaking

of gulfai,

which are barrels

new

new ones,

that are accustomed to break,

which commonly break, and their rescue is common; therefore they permitted moving a vessel for the sake of a thing that may not be moved.

He raised an objection:

We learned in a beraita:

One places a vessel

beneath the lamp to receive sparks,

fire, in order to save from a conflagration, even though sparks are muktze and are not common.

And we answer:

Sparks too are common.