Previous daf

1)

(a) The Gemara asks whether Rebbi Shimon will not perhaps agree that objects which he actually pushed away with his hands (even though they are not unfit for use) will be Muktzah; such as grains of wheat which one sowed in the ground or eggs which he placed under a hen?

(b) With regard to the Sha'aleh concerning the grains of wheat, we are speaking within the first three days of sowing, when they have not yet taken root, and where there is no Isur of reaping either.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan replied that by an object which is fit, Rebbi Shimon holds of Muktzah only in the case of oil in a lamp which is still burning. Why is that? Because since it is Muktzah for its Mitzvah, it is also Muktzah for the Isur (that he may come to extinguish the flame whilst he is transporting it).

(a) The Gemara first thought that Rebbi Yochanan confined Rebbi Shimon's Din to a Mitzvah which has an Isur (such as that of extinguishing) attached; but from the point of view of the Mitzvah alone, Rebbi Shimon would not agree that it was Muktzah.

(b) The problem with that explanation is the Beraisa in Beitzah, which forbids one to take down the Succah decorations, until after Shemini Atzeres - even on Chol ha'Mo'ed, when there is no Isur of taking down a building. So the Isur can only be because of Muktzah.
And we know the author of the Beraisa to be Rebbi Shimon, because of a second Beraisa, which quotes Rebbi Shimon to that effect.

(c) The Gemara finally explains Rebbi Yochanan to say, that since the oil is forbidden for the Mitzvah, it remains forbidden for the duration that it is Asur, (i.e. until it goes out). Consequently, it is not only the oil in the lamp which is Asur, but any object which is Asur because of the Mitzvah - such as the Succah decorations.
Note: according to Rashi's explanation of the Sugya, this Gemara, which initially forbids the oil in the burning lamp - according to Rebbi Shimon - because of the Isur Kibuy, and concludes that it is 'Muktzah Machmas Mitzvah', appears to clash with the Gemara at the beginning of 47a, which forbids it because it is a Basis to the flame. Tosfos reconciles the two Gemaras by explaining our Sugya, not with regard to the oil *in the lamp*, concerning the conventional Muktzah of handling, but to the oil that has *dripped from it*, as regards using it for the duration of its Mitzvah; whereas the Sugya later, deals with the oil *in* the Menorah, with regard to the convential Din of Muktzah.

4)

(a) The wood of a hut is Muktzah on Yom-Tov, because of Setiras Ohel, which was Asur when Yom-Tov entered, and since it was Muktzah then, it remains Muktzah the whole of Yom-Tov.

(b) Bundles of wood that are only leaning against the wall of the hut are not Muktzah on Yom-Tov, because bundles of wood can be used on Yom-Tov for firewood, and the owner had his mind on them.

(c) The Gemara proves, as we explained above, that even Rebbi Shimon concedes that something that is Muktzah Machmas Mitzvah alone, is Asur.

(d) The Gemara preferred to prove its point from the first Beraisa, despite the fact that it still needed the second Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef to clarify it, because a Beraisa that is learnt by Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Oshaya is more authentic than one which is quoted by any other Amora.

(a) Rebbi Shimon also concedes that Muktzah of 'Gerogros ve'Tzimukim' is forbidden. This means that something that is both pushed away (i.e. taken on to the roof to dry), and stands to become unfit for human consumption in a short space of time, as they begin to rot, prior to their becoming dried fruits. That combination renders them Muktzah - even according to Rebbi Shimon.

(b) The author of the Beraisa which forbids even fruit that is fit to eat, and which he carried up to the roof to dry whilst one is in the process of partaking of them, is Rebbi Yehudah.

(c) The Gemara initially queries this, on the grounds that, since Rebbi Yehudah declares Muktzah even things that one did not deliberately push away with the hands to that extent (such as something that one places into a storehouse), why would he need to mention that fruit which he pushed away is Muktzah? Is that not obvious?

(d) The Gemara concludes that the author is indeed Rebbi Yehudah, and that Rebbi Yehudah needs to tell us, that despite the fact that he was actually eating from the fruit as he went up to the roof, the fruit is nevertheless Muktzah, and will require designating to become permitted.

6)

(a) 'Patzilei Temarim' are dates which were picked prematurely, which were placed in palm-branch baskets to ripen. The Sha'aleh is whether one may eat them before they become ripe. Maybe they are Muktzah too, since, like Gerogros ve'Tzimukim, they are unfit to eat.

(b) Patzilei Temarim, unlike Gerogros ve'Tzimukin, have not been pushed away with the hands. (See also Tosfos Yeshanim's note on Rashi.)

(a) They used to water the animals before slaughtering them, in order to facilitate the skinning process. The Shechitah of the Midbari'os is forbidden on Yom-Tov, because they are Muktzah.

(b) According to Rebbi, animals that return home, however seldom, are considered Baysos, Midbari'os are those animals which never return (not in the summer and not in the winter).

(c) From the fact that Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi ask his father whether, according to Rebbi Shimon, Patzilei Temarim are Muktzah or not, it appears that he heard from him that he followed the opinion of Rebbi Shimon. But how can that be, when Rebbi himself holds that the Midbari'os are Muktzah (even though they do not appear to be like Gerogros ve'Tzimukin?

(d) The Gemara answers either that, because the Midbari'os are inaccessible, they are considered unfit like Gerogros ve'Tzimukin, and of course, (like Gerogros ve'Tzimukin) they have been pushed away; or that Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi asked his father what Rebbi Shimon holds with regard to Patzilei Temarah, even though he knew that his father does not really hold like him.

(a) To establish Rebbi Yochanan statement which forbids (according to Rebbi Shimon) a chicken's nest, when there is a dead chick inside, assumes that Rebbi Shimon concedes Muktzah by animals which died on Shabbos. But what will he do according to those who disagree with that?

(b) A chick that dies on Shabbos is not fit for the dogs, because it was not prepared before Shabbos for dogs. Only an animal that was dangerously ill before Shabbos, and which he anticipated would die, is considered 'Muchan' for dogs - even according to Rebbi Shimon.

(c) The Gemara also rejects the answer that the nest is Muktzah because it contains a freshly-laid egg, on the basis of Rav Nachman, who said that whoever does not hold of Muktzah, does not hold of Nolad either.

(d) The Gemara finally establishes Rebbi Yochanan's statement with regard to a chickens' nest being Muktzah, speaks when there is a egg with an embryo of a chick inside, which is certainly Muktzah, since it is neither fit for human consumption, nor will dogs eat it, on account of the hard shell (See Tosfos Yeshanim quoted beside Rashi).

(a) 'Amru, Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon', suggests that they said that the Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon, but that Rebbi Yochanan himself does not hold like that.

(b) Rav Asi may well have refrained from picking up the Menorah which fell on to the coat, not because, like his Rebbe, he ruled like Rebbi Yehudah; but because Rebbi Yochanan forbids a metal lamp (even without knowing that he holds like Rebbi Yehudah by 'Muktzah Machmas Isur'). (What sort of metal lamp and why it is Muktzah will be discussed later.)

(c) Resh Lakish permitted one to pick up any small lamp that could be picked up with one hand.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rebbi Shimon, only with regard to an earthenware lamp, which Rebbi Yehudah forbids on account of its ugliness. There, Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Shimon, to permit it.