Previous daf

1)

(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, an *old* earthenware lamp is Muktzah because, due to its ugliness, one pushes it aside (the literal meaning of 'Maktzeh', which describes the person, whilst 'Muktzah' describes the article), in a form of unspoken decision not to use it for anything else.
On the other hand, a *new* earthenware lamp, which is fit to use for other purposes, and is not disgusting, one is not Maktzeh, so its remains fit for use, and is not Muktzah.

(b) Rebbi Shimon agrees that a lamp that is actually burning is Muktzah, because one may, in the process of moving it, extinguish it (in spite of the fact that, even if the lamp were to go out, he would have transgressed no more than an Isur de'Rabbanan, this is not considered a Gezeirah li'Gezeira, because Chazal were more stringent by the Melachah of 'Mechabeh' than by other Melachos de'Rabbanan. This in turn, is because of its closeness to a d'Oraysa).

(c)

1. Although Rebbi Meir disagrees with the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, who forbids an old earthenware lamp, even when it was not lit that Shabbos, he nevertheless does not go as far as Rebbi Shimon, who permits any lamp that is not actually burning. Rebbi Meir forbids a lamp that was lit that Shabbos, even though it is no longer alight. The reason for this is because it is 'Muktzah Machmas Isur' - meaning that, the moment that he lit it, the lamp became Muktzah because it was forbidden to extinguish, and so it remains Muktzah the whole Shabbos, because of 'Migu de'Isketza'i le'Bein Hashsmashos, Isketza'i le'Kula Yoma' (something that is Muktzah at dusk, remains Muktzah the whole of Shabbos - a principle with which Rebbi Shimon does not agree, and which is the basis of their dispute).
2. Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon maintains that a lamp which is actually burning, is also not Muktzah, which is why he permits even the oil that drips from the lamp whilst it is burning, whilst his father permits the lamp and the oil to be moved, only after it has gone out.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah (who is also the Tana Kama of our Mishnah), forbids an old earthenware lamp even after it has gone out, because of its ugliness.

(b) If the author of the Seifa of the Beraisa had been Rebbi Yehudah, then why did it write '*Aval* Kos.' etc. Rebbi Yehudah is stringent in the Reisha too, so the word 'Aval' is inappropriate.

(c) Consequently, the Gemara concludes, the author of the Seifa must be Rebbi Shimon, who is lenient in the Reisha, but who now concedes that lamps with large oil containers remain Muktzah - even after they have gone out.

(d) When Rebbi Shimon permits the oil that remains in the lamp after it has gone out, that is only the oil in a 'small' lamp-holder, which is not Muktzah because a person has in mind, that, when the lamp blows out, he will use the oil. But oil in a large lamp-holder, which the owner expects to burn through Shabbos, he designates for the Mitzvah for the entire duration of Shabbos, and so, it remains Muktzah.

(a) How can Rebbi Zeira say that Rebbi Yehudah permits a metal lamp (in other words, that he holds of 'Muktzah Machmas *Mi'us*', but not 'Machmas *Isur'*? That cannot be correct, in view of the Beraisa that we learnt above, in which Rebbi Yehudah forbids metal lamps that were lit that Shabbos - which goes to prove that Rebbi Yehudah holds of 'Muktzah Machmas Isur', too.?

(b) What Rebbi Zeira actually said is that, a metal lamp that *was* lit on that Shabbos, is Muktzah according to everyone; whereas if it was *not*, they all agree that it is not Muktzah.

4)

(a) If a (new) *lamp*, which is made for lighting, does not become forbidden through designation, (even according to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds of Muktzah) unless it has actually been used for that purpose, then how can Rav forbid a *bed* (or a *couch*) that one designated to put money on it, to become Asur through designation alone - when a bed was *not* initially made for that purpose?

(b) According to the final version of Rav, placing money on a couch renders the couch permanently Muktzah, provided it was also designated for that purpose - the two conditions together render the couch Muktzah.

(c) The couch becomes Muktzah, even if it was not designated for money, if there was money on it during the dusk period of that Shabbos - even if the money was subsequently removed during the course of that Shabbos, because of the principle 'Migu de'Isketza'i le'Bein Hashemashos, Isketza'i le'Kula Yoma'.

(d) The author of the Mishnah which permits the wheel as long the money is not actually on it (even if it *was* on it during dusk), is Rebbi Shimon, who does not hold of most kinds of Muktzah - including 'Migu de'Iskatza'i' etc.

(a) Rav *must* hold like Rebbi Yehudah, because he permits the placing of a lamp on a date-palm before Shabbos, where it will continue to burn on Shabbos. Why? Because, since the lamp will remain Muktzah on Shabbos (even after it goes out - like Rebbi Yehudah), he will not be able to remove it (to transgress the Isur of using a tree); whereas on Yom-Tov, he forbids it, because, since a lamp is not Muktzah on Yom-Tov, we are afraid that he may come to remove it from the tree, which is forbidden on Yom-Tov.

(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, who permits the lamp even on Shabbos once it has gone out, Rav would have forbidden placing the lamp on the tree even on Erev Shabbos as well, for fear that he may remove it on Shabbos.

(c) Nevertheless, the Gemara explains, Rav permitted the removal of a Chanukah-Menorah, even according to Rebbi Yehudah, because of the danger of being discovered by the Chavrei, which involved an element of danger.

(d) The decree of the Chavrei may have been the prohibition of lighting the Chanukah-lights, or it may have been the prohibition to kindle any lights at all on the day of their festival.

1. 'The detachable wheel of a wagon is not considered joined to the wagon' - means that if the one has contact with Tum'ah, the other remains Tahor. And that even if the wagon is too large to receive Tum'ah (as we learnt above on 35a), the wheel can nevertheless become Tamei.
2. 'Nor is it measured together with it' - means that although (with regard to the Din that we just mentioned) the wagon is measured from the outside, we do not incorporate the wheel in the measurements, so that, if the wagon is less than forty Sa'ah be'Lach - without the wheel - it is subject to Tum'ah.
3. 'And it does not save together with it in an Ohel ha'Mes' - means that if the wagon is more than forty Sa'ah be'Lach (or two Kur be'Yavesh - which is itself not subject to Tum'ah) it serves as an Ohel to divide between graves in a graveyard and objects that are above it - to prevent them from becoming Tamei. The detachable wheel however, will not prevent objects that protrude from the top of the wagon over the wheel, from becoming Tamei (even when the wheel is actually attached).