QUESTION: The Gemara says that an oil lamp is forbidden to be moved on
Shabbos, even according to Rebbi Shimon who is lenient regarding Muktzah,
because it is "Huktzah le'Mitzvaso" -- it is set aside for the Mitzvah [of
lighting the Shabbos candles].
Why does the Gemara need to give the reason of "Huktzah le'Mitzvaso" to
explain why the lamp is forbidden to be moved even according to Rebbi
Shimon? Rebbi Shimon agrees that it is forbidden to move a lamp that is lit
because it is a "Basis le'Davar ha'Asur" (46b-47a; see Insights there). If
so, why does the Gemara have to give the reason of "Huktzah le'Mitzvaso" if
the reason of "Basis" already prohibits the lamp from being moved while it
is lit? (SEFAS EMES)
(It cannot be that the reason of "Huktzah le'Mitzvaso" is necessary to
prohibit the oil that drips out while the lamp is lit (see Tosfos) or to
prohibit taking oil from the lamp as it begins to go out (see Rashi 44a, DH
Min ha'Ner and DH Kavah; Insights to 44:1), because the Gemara implies
that, according to Rebbi Shimon, the person did not anticipate using any of
the oil before the candle went out, and therefore it is Muktzah Machmas
Isur and not just "Huktzah le'Mitzvaso" -- see Rashi DH k'Ein. Why, then
does the Gemara have to say that Rebbi Shimon prohibits the lamp because of
"Huktzah le'Mitzvaso?")
ANSWER: The ME'IRI answers that the proper text of the Gemara's conclusion
is "Ho'il v'Huktzah l'Mitzvaso *v'Huktzah* l'Isuro" (with the "Vav"), and
it means that there are, indeed, two different reasons making the lamp
forbidden. This also appears to have been the Girsa of the Ritva and Ramban
(See Girsa section).
RASHI appears to have had the text that appears in our Gemaras, "Ho'il
v'Huktzah le'Mitzvaso *Huktzah* le'Isuro" (without the "Vav"). However,
Rashi appears to understand the Gemara the same way as the Me'iri, and both
Isurim apply. He explains the words of the Gemara to mean that "for the
same amount of time that the lamp is Muktzah due to the Isur (i.e. it is
prohibited to move it because it is a "Basis l'Davar ha'Asur"), it is also
Huktzah l' Mitzvaso." Both Isurim are applicable. (This is also the
conclusion of the Sefas Emes.)
QUESTION: Rebbi Yochanan was asked if one is permitted to move a chicken's
nest, or roost, on Shabbos. He answered, "It is made only for the
chickens," and one may not move it.
The Gemara's initial assumption, explains Rashi (DH Ela le'Tarnegolin) is
that the coop is Muktzah because it is a Kli she'Melachto le'Isur, a
utensil whose primary use is for something that is forbidden to do on
Shabbos. The conclusion of the Gemara is that the coop has an inedible egg
resting in it which makes it a "Basis l'Davar ha'Asur." According to the
conclusion, why did Rebbi Yochanan say that "it is made only for the
chickens?" He should have simply said that it is forbidden because it has
an inedible egg in it, whether the nest it is made for chickens or not!
ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH d'Is Beh Beitzas) answers that one of the laws of Basis
l'Davar ha'Asur is that an object does not become a Basis unless a Muktzah
object was placed upon it *intentionally*. If a Muktzah object accidentally
landed there, it may be shaken off and the object beneath it is not a
Basis. Therefore, had it not been anticipated that an egg would be found in
the roost, the roost would not have been a Basis and the egg could have
been shaken off. Since "a roost is made only for the chickens," and it is
expected for eggs to be there, it is considered as if the owner placed the
egg there intentionally. Therefore, the roost is a Basis.