Maseches Shabbos. In the previous Mishnah we learned that during a fire a person is limited in the amount of food he may carry out, as a decree that will keep him from coming to extinguish the flames. The permitted amount was fixed according to the number of meals he still has to eat, and Rabbi Yose held that a person may always rescue three meals. Our Mishnah discusses a case in which a large quantity of food is all contained in a single unit.
Rescuing in one vessel and in one unit:
The Mishnah rules: "Matzilin sal malei kikaros ve'af al pi she'yesh bo me'ah se'udos" - one may rescue a basket full of loaves even though it contains a hundred meals. Since the carrying is done in a single basket, we are not particular about the quantity of food inside it. The limit of three meals was stated specifically regarding carrying out separate units. The same applies to other large units:
"Iggul shel develah" - a large round cake of pressed figs.
"Vechavis shel yayin" - an entire barrel of wine.
Even though each of these is worth many meals, since they constitute a single unit they may be carried out on Shabbos during the fire. The determining factor is not the amount of food but the number of times he carries out.
"Ve'omer la'acherim bo'u vehatzilu lachem":
Until now the Mishnah dealt with the homeowner himself and the amount he may carry out. Now the Mishnah permits him to tell others to come and rescue food for themselves. This means that the homeowner is declaring his property ownerless, since he himself is limited in what he may carry out, and therefore others are permitted to rescue it for themselves. Regarding the scope of this permission for others there are two understandings:
They too may carry out only what they need, or their status is the same as explained at the beginning of the Mishnah - in one vessel or in one unit a large quantity may be carried out.
Since they are not the owners, they may carry out as many times as they wish and are not limited at all, for there is no concern that they will become preoccupied and come to extinguish the fire.
"Ve'im hayu pikchin osin imo cheshbon le'achar haShabbos":
"Pikchin" - those who are well versed in halachah. The Gemara explains that they know there is no problem of s'char Shabbos in taking payment for this work, since by law the food belongs to them entirely and they would have been entitled to keep all of it. Nevertheless, they do not wish to profit from their fellow's loss and take money that was declared ownerless only under the pressure of the moment, while on the other hand they rightfully seek payment for their effort.
Therefore they make an accounting with him after Shabbos: they keep only the equivalent of ordinary wages for their work and return the rest to him, and this does not constitute s'char Shabbos.
"Leheichan matzilin osan?":
To where may these items be carried out, and is there any leniency in this regard?
Tanna Kamma: "Lechatzer hame'ureves" - to a courtyard that has an eruv. There is no leniency here. One may carry out only to an adjacent courtyard in which an eruv chatzeiros was made. This ruling differs from the first Mishnah in the chapter, where it was stated that sacred writings may be rescued even to an alleyway in which no shituf mevo'os was made. There they were lenient, and here they are not.
Ben Beseira: "Af leshe'eino me'orav" - even to one that has no eruv. He disagrees and rules leniently, that the meals may be carried out even to a courtyard in which no eruv chatzeiros was made.
In summary: in this Mishnah we learned that the limit of three meals applies only to separate units, whereas in one vessel or in one unit even a large quantity may be rescued; that the homeowner may tell others to rescue food for themselves, and there are two understandings of the scope of the permission granted to them; that those who are well versed make an accounting with him after Shabbos and take only ordinary wages; and finally that Tanna Kamma and Ben Beseira disagree whether one may rescue only to a courtyard that has an eruv or even to a courtyard that does not.