Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi may have ruled by a Menorah leniently, like Rebbi Shimon ruled by an old earthenware one; or he may have ruled by a Menorah strictly, and by an old earthenware lamp like Rebbi Shimon.

(b) Rebbi Avahu himself must follow the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who holds that a Menorah is *not* Muktzah (otherwise he would not have moved one under any circumstances). However, in Rebbi Yochanan's territory he declined to do so, in deference to Rebbi Yochanan, who declares it Muktzah.

(a) Rav Yehudah permitted moving an earthenware oil-lamp after it had gone out, because he holds like Rebbi Shimon with regard to 'Muktzah Machmas Mi'us'. Nevertheless, he forbade a lamp that was lit with paraffin, because, due to its bad smell, it is not fit to be used for any other purpose, unlike an oil lamp, which *is*.
(Note: The lamps in those days were probably flat, rather than tall, like ours' usually are.)

(b) Rabbah and Rav Yosef permit even a paraffin lamp, because it can be used to cover vessels - in spite of its rather repugnant smell.

(c) No! One may not pick up stones - even to cover vessels with - since they are not called vessels, like an oil lamp is; and all raw materials are initially Muktzah.

(d) The Beraisa permits one to carry various rings and bracelets in a court-yard (but not in the street), despite the fact that Chazal forbade them to be worn, and they have no other regular use (in the way that a hammer has - See Tosfos Yeshanim at foot of page).

3) Rava was upset with Rav Ivya for placing his dirty shoes on his bed. So he set out to humiliate him by asking him difficult questions, which, he assumed, Rav Ivya would be unable to answer. Rav Ivya however, was on the ball, and he answered all the questions correctly. That is what Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak meant when he said 'Blessed be Hashem who did not allow Rav Ivya to be put to shame!'

4)

(a) Rebbi Shimon permits the oil that remains in a lamp because the owner actually anticipates using the remaining oil when the lamp goes out. Whereas a person is unlikely to anticipate on Erev Yom-Tov that his healthy animal is going to become blemished on Yom-Tov. And besides, who says that he will find a Chacham to inspect the animal and declare it blemished?

(b) When a woman makes a Neder, she has in mind that it will only stand if her husband upholds it, and that, should he not wish to do so, he will annul it. Therefore the fruit which she forbade on herself, is not Muktzah, should her husband nullify the Neder.

(c) To inspect a first-born animal requires a Chacham, who is not always available when one wants him. Whereas, when it comes to releasing a vow, true, it may be difficult to find a Chacham to do that, but it should not be so difficult to find three ordinary Jews, who are authorized to stand in for the Chacham, and release the vow.

(a) The Gemara initially thinks that Rebbi Shimon's reason for the prohibition of moving a lamp whilst it is alight, is because he might extinguish the light whilst transporting it.

(b) To extinguishing a lamp deliberately involves a Chiyuv Kares (notwithstanding the fact that it is usually a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah - since Chazal were strict with regard to the Melachah of Mechabeh, treating it like a Melachah d'Oraysa). That is why Chazal forbade one to move the lamp in case one comes to extinguish it inadvertently. Whereas someone who drags a bench along the ground, will not be Chayav even if he deliberately makes a furrow, since it is a most unconventional method to dig furrows, which constitutes a 'Melachah ke'le'Achar Yad', for which one is Patur. Therefore they did not issue any decrees, but permitted it Lechatchilah.

(c) This answer however, is unacceptable, in view of the Mishnah in Kil'ayim, which permits salesmen of clothes which contain Kil'ayim, to wear them in order to demonstrate them to potential customers, provided they do not specifically intend to derive benefit from them in sunny or rainy weather. So we see that, even in a case when, if someone did it intententionally, he would be *Chayav d'Oraysa* (for wearing Kil'ayim), Chazal nevertheless permitted a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven'.

(d) The author of this Mishnah must be Rebbi Shimon, because the criterion of whether one may or may not wear the garment, is whether one derives benefit from the garment or not, and the proponent of this criterion is Rebbi Shimon?

7) The Gemara concludes that Rebbi Shimon's reason for prohibition moving the lamp whilst it is alight is because the lamp, the oil and the wick are a Basis (like the English word 'basis') to the flame, which is certainly Muktzah because it is not a K'li (a category of Muktzah known as 'Muktzah Machmas Gufo').
(Refer also to note on 45a, at the conclusion of review answer 2.)

Next daf