Daf 42

67) You can't put a utensil under a lamp on Shabbos to catch dripping oil, but you may put it there on Friday, as long as you don't have pleasure from the oil on Shabbos. [Tosfos says that the author is R' Shimon who doesn't forbid the oil only when it's lit. [Maharsha: since it's seems that it's only forbidden to partake in it, but not because it's Muktza.] Therefore, it's only forbidden while it's lit, since it's Muktza for the Mitzvah, it's Muktza for having to transgress a sin. (I.e., since it's designated for the Mitzva of Shabbos candles as long as the lamp is lit, it's also Muktza because it's designated to be in a position that it will take a sin to remove the oil, like here where you would transgress extinguishing on Shabbos when you remove oil from the lamp. Granted, once it dripped, it doesn't have that prohibition on it; but it remains Muktza as long as the light is lit.)

The reason you can't move the lamp is because the lamp, oil and wick are all Bosis, i.e., a base, for a Muktza; i.e., the flame. (However, you can't say because; it's Muktza for the Mitzvah, like the reason he forbids the oil; since moving it doesn't stop the Mitzvah from being done, which is not like when you remove some oil, which would stop the light from burning longer).]

Similarly, R' Chisda says that you can't put a utensil under a chicken to catch one of her eggs; but, if she laid one on the floor, you can overturn a bowl over it to protect it.

68) Rabbah explains the reason: we don't allow saving objects on Shabbos from uncommon perils. [Rashi explains: this applies only for Muktza. However, Tosfos says, it seems from the case later, that this Halacha applies to a barrel that we'll explain contains non-Muktza items. Rather, it applies even to non-Muktza items because we don't want him exerting effort on Shabbos for this.]

69) [Tosfos explains: even though dripping oil from a lamp is very common; still, since it's ultra-common, we expect someone to place the utensil to catch the oil on Friday afternoon. So, it's uncommon to need to place a utensil there on Shabbos. However, perils that are not as common, it's not common to set up something to rectify it on Friday for perhaps it might happen, but they're somewhat a common occurence; so you're allowed to save it on Shabbos.]

70) Although we allow, if a barrel breaks on your roof, to place a utensil underneath in order to catch its contents; that's only by a new barrel, which is more common to break. [Rashi explains that the contents are Tevel, and therefore, Muktza. However, Tosfos asks: the Braisa continues to say that; if you now invite guests (they may save extra for themselves to eat), so, it must be that they already separated the Trumah and Maasar.]

Daf 43

71) This, that we allow to place a utensil under a lamp to catch sparks, because sparks are common. This, that we allow to place a utensil over a lamp so that a beam shouldn't catch fire, refers to a house with a low ceiling where it's common to catch on fire. This, that we allow to bring a bench and place it against a broken beam so that it doesn't break more refers to a new beam that's common to break. This, that we allow bringing a utensil to catch a drip in the house also refers to a new house that's common to leak.

72) R' Yosef explains the reason why we can't put a utensil under the oil: (since the oil is Muktza, and when it will land in the utensil, the utensil will be the base of Mukzta, and will become the Muktza of Bosis); and it's forbidden to make a utensil Muktza on Shabbos. [Rashi explains: since you can't move it anymore, it looks like you fastened the utensil to the ground with cement. Tosfos says that Rashi at the end of the Mesechta says that it's like you demolished the utensil (since you can't move it like you could move regular utensils, and like you could move it before).]

73) Although we allow you to take a utensil and catch Tevel produce from a broken barrel, that's because Tevel is not really Muktza. After all, if someone would B'dieved transgress and fix it on Shabbos by separating Trumah and Maasar, it would be fixed and be regular produce. [Tosfos explains: of course, in the meanwhile, the Tevel is Muktza and can't be moved, as the Mishna says explicitly in the eighteenth Perek. However, it's not considered Muktza regarding this prohibition to make the utensil a base for Muktza.]

74) [Tosfos also explains: this, that we say it's permitted if someone separated Maasar only refers to a case where you don't have any other fruit that you can eat. However, if you have other fruit to eat, we don't allow eating the fruits that someone purposely transgressed separating Maasar. It's only permitted if he forgot that it's prohibited.]

75) [Tosfos says: although the case where the utensil caught a laid egg on Shabbos, if you would transgress and remove the Muktza egg, the utensil will also become not Muktza; still, since you can never move it while the egg is still in there, it's considered part of the prohibition of making a utensil Muktza on Shabbos. We only allow by Tevel, since, when Maasar is separated, you may move that basket with the original fruit inside.]

76) [Tosfos asked some unanswered questions on this Halacha that the fruits that were Tevel become not Muktza after separating Maasar: first of all, since it was Muktza during the Bein Hashmashes coming into Shabbos, the rule is that it remains Muktza for the whole day even after it becomes fit to eat. So, the same should apply to Tevel fruit. Also, we say later that you're not allow to check a Bechor animal if it has a permanent blemish on Yom Tov, and if you do check it and it's a blemish, it remains forbidden. So, why do we permit the fruit that Maasar was wrongfully taken off on Shabbos?]

77) This, that we allow to place a utensil to catch sparks, that's because sparks don't have substance, so you're not left with Muktza in the utensil. This, that they allowed placing the bench by the broken beam is only when it's loose and you can always pull it out. This, that we allow placing the utensil under the drip, it refers to a drip that's fit to drink and is not Muktza.

78) This, that we allow overturning a utensil before a chicken coop to help chicks descend (although the chicks are Muktza) is because it's only forbidden when they're on it, but it wouldn't be Muktza after the chicks get off. [Tosfos says that this fits well if we say that there is no Muktza for half a Shabbos (i.e., if it wasn't Muktza Bein Hashmashes, but just halfway through Shabbos, if it becomes fit again, we don't say that it remains Muktza for the rest of Shabbos). However, if we say that there is Muktza for a half a Shabbos (and the utensil should remain Muktza for the rest of Shabbos even after the chick jumps off) we must say that the author is R' Shimon who never held of the concept that it remains Muktza the whole Shabbos even if it was Muktza Bein Hashmashes. Alternatively, even according to the one who holds that it's Muktza for half of Shabbos, that's only that it's Muktza from eating, but you can still move it.

Tosfos explains that this was never a question to Rabbah since it's a common occurence that you need to help the chick descend.]

79) [Even R' Shimon would agree to the prohibition of making a utensil Muktza although it won't make the utensil forbidden for the whole Shabbos. After all, many Gemaras asks simply on many Amoraim why their cases are not making utensils Muktza, even though they might have held like R' Shimon. Although he allows by the chick case; that's because it's within your hands to shu it off.]

80) That, which a Braisa says that the utensil is forbidden even after the chick gets off; that refers to it being on the bowl all Bein Hashmashes. Once it's Muktza Bein Hashmashes, it remains Muktza the whole day. [Tosfos asks: we see that anything that's unfit Bein Hashmashes, but a man has the ability to make it fit on Shabbos, it's not Muktza. Therefore, food that was raw and on the stove Bein Hashmashes is not Muktza since you could allow it to cook and it would be fit. Also, a boiling hot stew that can't be eaten is not Muktza, since you can allow it to cool down. If so, why isn't this utensil Muktza since you can shu away the bird? Tosfos answers; by the boiling hot pot case, if he would want to eat then, he would cool off the pot right away. Even in the case where the food's raw, if it would be possible for it to be fit Bein Hashmashes, like if the pot would cook right away, of course, the person would be happy. However, here the person wants the bird to be on top of it all Bein Hashmashes, and is happy that the Muktza is on it.]

81) R' Yitzchock argues with R' Chisda and holds that the reason you can't move the utensil to save the oil and egg since you can only move utensils in order to facilitate non-Muktza items. Therefore, you can't move a utensil in order to turn it over an egg. Although we see many Braisos that seem to permit this, they refer to cases where you originally moved the utensil because you needed the place that it was in. Once it's in your hands, you can move it to facilitate a Muktza item.

82) Although we permit spreading a mat over a beehive, it must refer to one that has honey in it. Even though it says that you may cover it in the winter to protect from the rain, we must refer to the two combs that are left there for the bees' winter food. Even though this is permitted even to R' Yehuda who holds of Muktza, and these combs are Muktza since you set them aside for the bees' food; we must explain the case was where you announced before Shabbos that you're designating them for humans. [Tosfos says: although it's forbidden to detach a honeycomb from the hive on Shabbos, i.e., it's forbidden from the Torah according to R' Eliezer, and a rabbinical prohibition according to the Rabanan; still, we can say the case is that you detached the honeycomb before Shabbos, and put it back for Shabbos. Alternatively, we're only referring to the honey that's floating above the combs.]

Even though R' Yehuda holds that an unintended Melacha is forbidden, and by spreading the mats over the hive, it seems that he's unintendingly capturing bees; we must say that he leaves a big enough space open that the bees can easily escape. [Tosfos says: the Chiddush is that you still need to leave a big space even though bees are not a specie that's usually captured (and thus, only rabbinically forbidden).]

83) We see R' Huna also holds that you can only move utensils to facilitate non-Muktza items. As he holds that if you have a corpse in the sun, and you want to provide shade for it, you bring two men to sit on each side of it. When they get hot sitting on the ground, they can bring beds to sit on. if it gets hot on top of them, they bring a mat to cover them. Then they can remove the beds and leave, and you'll have the mats now spread over the corpse giving it shade. [Tosfos points out: we only allow in that order, spreading the mat, and then removing the bed for the space underneath. By that way, you're making the tent from top first and then making the space for the bottom, the same way we allow making many tent like structures. The living people don't need to remain there to constantly show that it was made for living people, since they only required it at the time they were making it, but not after it was already made.

This, that we don't just say that they should originally bring beds to sit on; or just wait until they're hot below and above, and bring the bed and mat at the same time; since doing it one step at a time shows more that it's brought for the living men, since the bed is brought as soon as they need it.]

84) [Tosfos says: although we see R' Huna, at the end of the Mesechta, allows bringing mats to drop the Muktza (that your animal is carrying) on so it wouldn't break; we must say that he originally only moved the mat because he needed to use the place where the mat was stored. Alternatively, they made an exception here so you shouldn't suffer a big loss. When the Gemara says there "we only permit because it's a big loss," it means because of the prohibition of moving a utensil for a Muktza object.]

85) [Tosfos asks: in Eiruvin, R' Huna doesn't allow spreading out a sheet to cover the sheep unless you kept a Tefach of the sheet spread out from before Shabbos (so it would only be adding to a temporary tent, and not making it) and here we allow making this tent without a Tefach start. Tosfos answers: there is different, since there are partitions to the area, so it looks more like a tent, and here we don't have any partitions.

Although he allows there to cover them even though it's only facilitating Muktza, i.e., the livestock; perhaps he doesn't consider just spreading the sheet out more as a full-fledge moving. Alternatively, we refer to a case where a man was also sitting there, so it's done for the man. Alternatively, since we're afraid of a big loss (since some sheep may be damaged), we already said that it's permitted to move a utensil for Muktza if you would have a big loss.]

86) If you have a corpse in a bed (and it needs to be moved), if you have a bread or a child; you can move it along with the bread and child. If there is no bread or child; Rav holds that it's not permitted to move by dumping it from one bed to another until you get to the desired place. Shmuel permits it since it's an indirect moving.

87) The Gemara suggests that it depends on the following Tannaic argument: Tanna Kama doesn't allow saving a corpse from a fire and, R' Yehuda b. Lakish allows. (It's assumed that you can't move it directly) so they're arguing whether you can move it by dumping it from bed to bed. The Gemara rejects this and says that everyone agrees that you usually can't dump the corpse from bed to bed. They only argue if they made an exception here to allow moving Muktza to prevent the person from becoming too upset, and he might make a rash decision and extinguish the fire. [We only allow this by a corpse because he'll become rash and he'll might extinguish a fire. However, he's not allowed to save his money, since it's not as dear to him like the body of a dead relative, we don't allow saving it. We don't worry if we prevent you that you'll come to extinguish the fire. On the contrary, we're afraid that if you will start saving it, you'll be so involved that you might come to extinguish the flame.]

88) [Tosfos asks: it seems here that we Paskin that you can't dump it from bed to bed. After all, the Gemara didn't need to reject the Braisa that everyone forbids it, but it could have said that we refer to a case where you don't have a second bed and the only way to move it is directly. The reason the Gemara chooses to say they don't allow it is because it's the true Halacha. However, this seems like a contradiction to what we Paskin like R' Elazar b. Tudai that holds that you may move Muktza indirectly, and thus allowed to take out a radish stuck in dirt even though you would be moving the Muktza dirt. Even the Rabanan only disagree when it's buried deep in an you need to stick in a needle to remove it, but allows if some of the leaves are exposed, and you may grab on to it and remove it.

Tosfos answers: we only forbid here by the corpse since the reason you're moving it is to facilitate the Muktza. However, there, you're moving it to facilitate the radish, which is not Muktza.]

89) [That, which Shmuel forbade in the fourth Perek to remove a knife stuck between rows of bricks if it wasn't removed and stuck in a second time; it can't be because you're moving Muktza (since you're knocking out some of the cement) like Rashi explains there; since Shmuel allows here to indirectly move Muktza even to facilitate the Muktza. Rather, the reason he forbids is because you're widening the hole, which is a Tolda of building.]

Daf 44

90) Regarding the leftover oil in a lamp, or in a bowl (i.e. if you lit a wick in it, but it went out before all the oil was used); R' Yehuda forbids and R' Shimon permits. [Tosfos explains: R' Shimon only permits after the flame went out. However, he agrees that the oil is Muktza while the flame is still there. R' Shimon only needed to forbid the oil because of Muktza if it dripped out while the flame is still going, but it's forbidden anyhow to remove the oil that's still in the lamp since it's considered extinguishing when removing the oil from the reservoir of an ongoing flame.]

91) [Tosfos asks: why is this any different than a Chanuka lamp that it's forbidden to have pleasure from the leftover oil forever? Tosfos answers: there, because of the dearness of the miracle and to publicize the miracle; you completely set it aside for the Mitzvah and you don't at all hope for it to go out early to have any pleasure from it. However by the Shabbos candles; the whole purpose is to have pleasure from it, so he hopes that it may go out early so to have leftovers (so it's not completely set aside for the Mitzvah) and is permitted.]

92) [Tosfos asks: we allow to use the material of a wobbly hut from Friday that fell down on Shabbos, and, yet, here; R' Yehuda forbids the oil for the whole Shabbos, and even R' Shimon forbids when the oil is dripping out while it's lit. However, they seem to be the same case, since you're hoping for both of them, the hut and oil, that they'll become fit on Shabbos. Tosfos answers: there, the Sukka was up for many days earlier and wasn't specifically made for Shabbos. However, the Shabbos candles were specifically lit so that they would be lit throughout Bein Hashmashes, and you manually made it unfit for that time; it doesn't help that you want it to go out later.]

93) R' Yehuda says that you can't move an old earthenware lamp on Shabbos (even if it wasn't lit this Shabbos) since it's disgusting (and he holds that disgusting vessels are Muktza). R' Meir permits it. R' Shimon allows moving it even if it was lit this Shabbos as long, as it's not lit now. R' Elazar b. Shimon even allows the dripping oil from a lit lamp.

94) R' Shimon agrees that, if it's in a lantern or bowl that's so big that's not expected to go out all Shabbos, he doesn't hope for it going out, and the oil is always forbidden even after it's extinguished.

95) R' Yehuda quotes Rav who says: if you designate a bed to hold money, it's Muktza after the first time you actually place money in it. [Tosfos explains: this is similar to the Muktza of a trumpet to R' Yehuda, since you don't plan to use the bed for any other use.] However, it's not Muktza if you hadn't placed money on it just like a new earthenware lamp is not Muktza according to R' Yehuda, even though an old one is Muktza because it's disgusting. [Tosfos explains: even though it's designated to be lit and to become disgusting; still, it's not Muktza since you can use it before you light it for other uses. So, of course, a bed is not Muktza before you use it for money since it wasn't designed originally to be used for money. However, a trumpet is Muktza even before you blow into it since it's not that fit for other uses.]

96) However, if you didn't designate the bed for money, it's permitted as long as the money wasn't on it all Bein Hashmashes, or, even if it wasn't on it Bein Hashmashes, it has to be also that it's not on it presently. [Tosfos explains: this last case must be that it was placed on the bed during Shabbos. After all, we can't just say that it was placed before Shabbos, but was forgotten there, (which doesn't make the bed Bosis for the whole Shabbos), since it wouldn't be Bosis at all, even for part of the Shabbos (and you may move it while the money is still on it). Rather, Tosfos explains: we refer to a case of ordering a non-Jew to place the money on it on Shabbos. According to the opinion that you have Muktza for half a Shabbos, (so, if something turns Muktza during Shabbos, it remains Muktza the rest of the Shabbos even after it became fit again. I.e., that it does not need to be Muktza during Bein Hashmashes to remain Muktza the whole Shabbos); we must say that you commanded the non-Jew or minor to remove it from the bed on Shabbos too. Therefore, it's never considered unfit since it's considered that a human can make it fit again. Alternatively, that opinion only considers it Muktza the rest of the Shabbos regarding that you can't eat it, but they still permit moving it.]

97) If you have a big box [Rashi explains that it's made for transporting humans. Tosfos disagrees. After all, then it's fit to be susceptible for Tumas Medris, and the Gemara in Bechoros says that it's susceptible for Tumah even if its volume is greater then forty Saah. Rather, it transports utensils.] Its 'Muchni' [Rashi explains: a wheel]; when it's detachable, if a Tamai person touches the box, it doesn't make the wheel Tamai. You also can't combine it to give it the volume of forty Saah not to be susceptible to Tumah. It also doesn't help protect from the Tumah of being in a tent with a corpse. [Tosfos explains it according to Rashi: although it's a wooden utensil and not an earthenware utensil, it still could protect as a tight lid utensil. Since it has the volume of forty Saah, it can't be susceptible to Tumah, so it protects like earthenware that is not susceptible to Tumah from the outside. However, it has a hole in its side that's a Tefach wide that would allow in the Tumah, but you have the wheel closing off enough of it that it's no longer a Tefach. So, if it's not detachable and meant to be left there, then it lessens the size of the hole to less than a Tefach and it protects from Tumah. However, if it's detachable (and not meant to be always attached), it doesn't protect unless it completely stuffs up the hole.] You also can't drag the wheel on Shabbos if it has money on top of it. [Tosfos explains: however, if the wheel would be part of the box; then the money was not on the main part of the object (which would be the box in our case), and is not Bosis.]

98) [However, Ri doesn't believe that a Muchni is a wheel since it's not common to leave money on top of it. Rather, it's a base that fits on the bottom of the box. If the box has a Tefach hole on its bottom, and when you place the base on it, it blocks off some of the hole (but doesn't block off the hole completely since the base also has a hole in it); only if you plan on leaving it attached does it lessen the hole to protect from Tumah. We also need to say that the box didn't travel over the grave, i.e., that the hole was directly above the grave, since the Tumah would enter the hole, even if it's the tiniest hole.]

99) Although you can move this Muchni when money is not on top of it at the moment, even though it implies that there was money on it throughout Bein Hashmashes; we must say that the author of the Mishna holds like R' Shimon. [Tosfos adds: however, you can't explain that we refer to a case where you forgot the money on it, and still, when you need to use it, you can't drag it with the money since you would need to shake the money off first. The reason you can't explain it that way: because; then you can move it while the money is on top of it if you need the place that it's on, (and you can't use the place if you drop the money there).]

However, Rav who says that it's Muktza the whole day when it's Muktza Bein Hashmashes holds like R' Yehuda [Tosfos: even regarding that something remains Muktza once it's Muktza Bein Hashmashes].

Daf 45

100) We also see that Rav forbade leaving a lamp on a tree on Yom Tov since you might remove it, which would be transgressing the rabbinical prohibition of facilitating a tree on Yom Tov. However, it's permitted to leave it on Shabbos. So, he can't hold of R' Shimon, since, according to him, you have the same problem that you'll remove the lamp from the tree after the flame went out. (Only according to R' Yehuda are we sure you'll leave it there since the lamp is Muktza the whole Shabbos.)

101) Rav admits that you can remove on Shabbos the Chanuka Menorah and hide it from the Chavarim (a Persian nation that confiscated candles) because we can rely on R' Shimon in a time of need. [Tosfos explains: but they didn't need to move the Shabbos candles since the Chaveirim allowed them, since they were needed to eat.

Tosfos asks: why did they have the Chanuka Menorah out, since we say that, in time of danger, (assuming, like when the Chaveirim are searching for them), you're allowed to light on your table, so why do you need to move the Menorah? Tosfos answers: we refer to a case where he forgot and lit it in its regular place. Alternatively, they only allowed lighting by the table by a true danger, like there is a governmental decree not to light Menorah, and not just a danger like the Chaveirim.]

102) R' Shimon even permits moving items that you manually pushed it away from use, like placing a chicken on an egg, and to plant wheat; (you may still eat the egg or wheat on Shabbos if they come available). After all, R' Shimon only forbids oil in the lamp [Tosfos: while it drips out while it's lit. After all, you can't partake with it while it's still in the lit lamp since it's like you're extinguishing it.] Once it's Muktza (exclusively set aside) for its Mitzva, it's also Muktza for the time it's forbidden to remove from the lamp (because it's extinguishing). [However, Tosfos remains with an unanswered question: why doesn't the Gemara say, like we say later, that R' Shimon only forbids by raisins and dried figs, which seems to be more comparable to the egg and wheat than the oil in the lamp?]

103) However, we see R' Shimon agrees even if its set aside exclusively for a Mitzvah without a prohibition; like we see a Halacha by Sukka decorations that are forbidden all the days of the Chag until after Shmini Atzeres. [Tosfos points out: it's only forbidden on Shmini Atzeres since it was set aside for the Mitzvah Bein Hashmashes, since you would need to eat in a Sukkka that Bein Hashmashes for it may still be Sukkos; and once it's Muktza Bein Hashmashes it remains Muktza the whole day. However, we must say that R' Shimon argues with this aspect and permits it on Shmini Atzares, since he doesn't hold of the concept that something that's Muktza Bein Hashmashes remains Muktza the whole day.] We must say that R' Shimon agrees that the Sukka is forbidden, since there is a Braisa that, by a regular hut (a Sukka not during Sukkos); the Tanna Kama says it's forbidden to take wood from the Sukka, but you may take it from next to it. [Tosfos explains; that are leaning on the walls, since it's obvious it's not part of the Sukka, but not on top of the Schach, since it looks like one thick Schach, it's like you're demolishing from the Schach.] R' Shimon allows even taking from the Sukka (if it fell down). However, R' Shimon admits that a Sukka on Sukkos is forbidden, unless you made it on condition. [Tosfos adds: the condition only helps if it's been wobbly before Yom Tov, since you're hoping for it to fall down. Otherwise, R' Shimon agrees that it remains Muktza.] (So, it's Muktza even after it fell down and there is no prohibition to it).

The Gemara answers: are earlier statement should be: the oil in the lamp is only Muktza all the time there is a prohibition to extinguish it (i.e., while it's still lit, since it's only set aside for the Mitzvah only for the time it's lit, and not longer).

104) R' Shimon only holds that raisins and dried figs (when they're in the process of drying out) are Muktza. [Tosfos brings a Yerushalmi that explains: since they become so disgusting in the meanwhile, you decide not to eat it until it's totally ready.] Therefore, you're permitted to eat other drying fruits [that don't get that ruined.] Also, Rebbi says; according to R' Shimon, unriped dates aren't Muktza (and are permitted if they turn ripe on Shabbos), since you didn't manually make them unusable (like you did when you put out the grapes and figs to dry).

105) However, R' Yehuda forbids the other drying fruit, even if you brought them to the roof to dry while you're in middle of eating it, (which would show that your mindset is more to use them). [Tosfos implies: however, if the item doesn't get ruined at all, like in the case that he's just placing them in the storehouse (that R' Yehuda usually holds becomes Muktza), it's not Muktza if it was brought there while you were eating from them.]

106) We have a Braisa that the Tanna Kama says that you can't Shecht on Yom Tov animals that go out to pasture for long periods of time since they're Muktza, but you can Shecht the more domesticated ones. The Tanna Kama defines the ones that go out too long to pasture as those that go out by Pesach and don't return until the rains. Rebbi says that those are still considered domesticated ones that you can Shecht, and he only says that those who don't ever come back within the T'chum are Muktza. Anyhow, it would seem that Rebbi held like R' Yehuda that there is Muktza, so when he said earlier that R' Shimon allowed the unriped dates, it was only according to R' Shimon, but he doesn't personally hold like him. Alternatively, he really held like R' Shimon, but these animals that go out to pasture is on the same level of drying grapes and figs that even R' Shimon holds is Muktza. Alternatively, we may say that Rebbi personally held all the animals are not Muktza. However, he's saying to the Tanna Kama, even according to you who holds of Muktza should admit that an animal shouldn't be Muktza until he never comes back in the T'chum. [Tosfos asks; how can we be in doubt what Rebbi held since we'll say later that Rebbi Paskined like R' Shimon regarding a lamp.]

107) Also, R' Yochanan held like R' Shimon. Although he doesn't allow moving a bird's nest, we must say that it's in a case where there's a dead chick in it. [Tosfos quotes a R' Yosef who says that it wouldn't be Muktza if a live chick is in it, since a live chick isn't Muktza since you can give it to a crying child to play with and make him quiet. However, Tosfos asks: if so, why is a overturn bowl before a chicken coop to help chicks descend is Bosis if the chicks aren't Muktza? Rather, we must say that it's simple that live chicks are Muktza, and they're so set aside, we consider it as the same level of Muktza like drying raisins and figs and is worse than raw meat that may not be Muktza since it's fit to feed to the dogs.] The Gemara asks: according to the opinion that R' Shimon holds that animals that die on Shabbos are not Muktza, what would you say? The Gemara answers: we refer to a case where there's a fertilized egg that a chik is growing inside resting in the nest. [Tosfos explains: which is Muktza like drying raisins and figs. Since the whole nest was designated for this, we consider the chicken laying the egg in there as if you had put the Muktza egg in there on purpose, and is Bosis.]

108) [Tosfos explains: the Gemara couldn't bring a proof that R' Yochanan holds of the concept of "once it's Muktza Bein Hashmashes, it remains Muktza for the whole Shabbos" from the fact that he forbids a Sukka on Shmini Atzeres since it was Muktza the Bein Hashmashes before. After all, there may be different since, if you would start taking away from the Sukka, you would stop having the Mitzva. However, this is no proof to the Shabbos candles since you would still have the Mitzvah if you would move the lamp a little bit.]

109) [Tosfos qualifies: even according to R' Shimon who holds a lamp is not Muktza] that's only by a lamp, but he would admit that it's forbidden to move a candelabra. Reish Lakish says that you can't move it if it's too big to move with one hand, and you need both hands to carry it. R' Yochanan forbids even those that can be moved with one hand. We can't say that it's forbidden since it's very big and people designate a place to leave it and they don't move it from there, so it's Muktza. That can't be. After all, they allow setting up a canopy bed although people also designate to leave it in one place. [Tosfos qualifies: that it's designated to leave it in one place at the same level as one would leave a candelabra. However, we see that they did hold of Muktza for weaving machinery that people strongly designate a place for it.]

Rather, the problem with the candelabra is that you may drop it and it would fall apart, and you'll come to put it back together.

Daf 46

110) The Gemara qualifies this: there is no argument if the candelabra was made of separate pieces that it's forbidden no matter how small it is. [Tosfos says: even though the Gemara in Beitza says that Beis Hillel allows setting up a candelabra; according to the opinion later that allows placing a leg into a bed loosely, we can say that Beis Hillel allows placing the pieces in loosely, and we're afraid by the broken candelabra that you'll tighten the pieces. However, according to the opinion that you can't even return the leg into the bed loosely, we must say that Beis Hillel only allows if the pieces of the candelabra were attached, but they're adjustable and they're sometime folded up, and, in other times, set up.]

111) They only argue in a case where it's not made of separate pieces, but just have scratches and notches that are designed into it and is made to look as they're from separate pieces, they decreed it to be forbidden because you may come to move a candelabra that's truly from separate pieces. Therefore, Reish Lakish held that you don't need to make this decree by small candelabras since they're rarely made from separate pieces. However, R' Yochanan decided that we should make the decree in all cases.

112) R' Yehuda (the Amorah) says that an oil lamp is permitted to move, but a Neft lamp is forbidden (since it's very disgusting). Rabbah and R' Yosef says that even a Neft lamp is permitted. [Rashi says that we refer to a lamp that was lit on Shabbos and it's permitted according to R' Shimon. Tosfos says that it can be even according to R' Yehuda if it wasn't lit. Therefore, R' Yehuda (Amorah) held that Neft is forbidden even to R' Shimon who usually holds something is not Muktza when it's disgusting because Neft is exceedingly disgusting. However, Rabbah and R' Yosef held that it's not Muktza even like R' Yehuda who holds an old earthenware lamp is Muktza since it's disgusting, but Neft is not really disgusting but just very foul smelling.]

113) you can move a Neft lamp since you can use it for a permitted use; to cover other vessels. This is similar to what we allow carrying jewelry in the courtyard even though it's forbidden to wear on Shabbos. [Tosfos asks: R' Yehuda Nesiah wore a signet ring in a courtyard and brought a proof that it's permitted from this jewelry case, even though the Braisa infers that you're not allowed to wear it. Tosfos answers: this signet ring is not an ornament, and therefore, even when it's on your finger, it's not considered as wearing it. This is why one is Chayiv a Chatos for wearing it out into the Reshus Harabim.] However, the Gemara concludes: this is not similar to a stone, that though it's also fit to use as a cover of a vessel, it's forbidden to move since it's not a utensil like the lamp.

114) The Gemara asks: why does R' Shimon allow the leftover oil in a lamp and doesn't allow a Bechor that got a permanent blemish on Yom Tov? The Gemara answers: by the lamp, you're looking forward to when your lamp will go out so you can use the oil. However, by a Bechor, your not looking forward to it becoming permitted since, who said it would get a blemish? Even if it gets a blemish, who said that it would be permanent? Even if it's permanent, who says that you'll find a Chachum to permit it? [Tosfos explains: you don't need all three "who says" for R' Shimon to forbid. After all, we see he has an argument with R' Yehuda if a Bechor is permitted, and R' Yehuda would only permit if it had a permanent blemish from before Yom Tov or else he would hold that it's Muktza. Therefore, we must say that R' Shimon forbids in that case with one "who says"; i.e., who says a Chachum would permit it? R' Yehuda doesn't hold that to be a problem since he allows a Chachum to check blemishes on Yom Tov, but R' Shimon forbids him. Therefore the owner is not confident that a Chachum would check it out.]

115) That, which we allowed a husband to annul his wife's vow on Shabbos and we don't say "who says that her husband will annul it?" [Tosfos explains: and we already explained that the items are Muktza with one "who says." Tosfos asks: why would I assume that the fruit she vowed from should be Muktza like the Bechor, since other people may partake in it, even if she cant? Tosfos answers: even though it would be permitted to move, but it would be Muktza for her to eat it just as it was forbidden, i.e., Muktza, to her to eat during Bein Hashmashes. Alternatively, we're referring to a case where it was her fruit, and she made a vow to forbid it to everyone, so it wasn't edible for anyone Bein Hashmashes.

Tosfos explains: although the reason we say "who says that the Chachum would check the Bechor" is because of the prohibition of checking it on Yom Tov, which doesn't apply to annulling a vow; still, perhaps the husband won't want to annul it so quick since the vow might be somehow strengthening a Mitzvah, and he doesn't want it to be annulled.] The Gemara answers: since the wife relies on her husband to annul her vows (he makes himself available to annul it), as we say; all women vow only with their husband's consent (i.e., to annul it if they feel that the vow shouldn't have been made).

116) This, that we allow a Chachum to uproot a vow on Shabbos and we don't say "who says that a Chachum will uproot it" since, if you don't have a Chachum, then any three regular men may annul it. [Tosfos says: even though they allow three regular people to permit a Bechor if you don't have a Chachum, that's only by an obvious blemish like a broken leg. However, even by an obvious blemish, we wouldn't allow on Shabbos because "who says you'll be able to get three regular men" since there is a prohibition to check the Bechor. However, there is no prohibition by uprooting a vow.]

117) That, which R' Shimon forbids moving a lit lamp on Shabbos, it's not because there is a chance that it might go out. After all, we see that R' Shimon allows dragging a chair or bench, although it might make a trench, since it's an unintended Melacha. And not only in that case that's only a rabbinic prohibition, since the digging is done in a strange way, but even by the light going out which is a Torah prohibition [Tosfos: if you need the wick scorched, or else R' Shimon would exempt it because it's a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo] as we see R' Shimon allows garment merchants to wear their Shatnez wares to show their length as long as they don't intend to wear them to protect them from the elements.

Daf 47

118) Rather, the reason why R' Shimon forbids it is: the lamp, wick and oil are all Bosis to the flame. [Tosfos says: the reason we need to say that the oil is also Bosis to the flame or else the lamp wouldn't be Bosis either, since it's Bosis to both Muktza and non-MIuktza (since it holds the non-Muktza oil).]

119) [Tosfos says: the wick is a utensil, and that's the reason it would be permitted to move if it wasn't Bosis to the flame. We only forbid later a broken wick (that's not fit to light anymore), which has the status of a broken utensil that's Muktza like a pebble.]

120) If something is Bosis both to Muktza and non-Muktza, but the non-Muktza is not something important in that house (i.e., they're rich people who don't use such small quantity); it's Muktza. As we see: that only clothes that are fit for the rich (i.e., at least three Tefachim squared) are susceptible to Tumah for rich people, even though those that are fit for the poor (three fingers squared) are susceptible to Tumah for poor people. [Tosfos says: this is only regarding being susceptible to Tumas Medris (when a Zav sits on it) but there is a Gezeiras Hakasuv that a three fingers squared cloth is susceptible to Tumah of a corpse even if found in a garbage heap.]

121) If it's Bosis for Muktza and non-Muktza; you may move it. Therefore, you can move an incense pan because of the ash that's in it [Tosfos: that was burnt from Friday and is now designated to use to cover spit and other disgusting items] even though there is still unburnt wood inside it [Tosfos: even though it's somewhat an important item. Therefore, we couldn't just extrapolate it from what the Mishna says we can move a basket (of fruit) with a stone in it , since the stone doesn't have any importance.]

122) [Tosfos asks: in Beitza, the Gemara compares a cup that a non-Jew drank from to this incense pan; to suggest you can move the cup even though there is leftovers from the non-Jew's drink (which is Muktza, since the non-Jew drank from the wine and made it forbidden). However, how can you allow there since there is no non-Muktza item in the cup like there is in the pan (i.e., the ash)? Tosfos answers: since the leftover wine is worthless, the cup is not secondary to it, therefore, you can move the cup without anything else in it. However, since these pieces of wood have some importance, the pan would be secondary to it if it wasn't that there was another item that wasn't Muktza in it.]

123) Even though it's forbidden to move a lamp that has a broken wick in it despite having leftover oil in it too; we must say that this was taught in Galil. [Rashi explains that they were poor and they didn't have much linen, so the leftover linen wick is greater than the oil. However, Tosfos disagrees since, it seems, that they were rich, and had plenty of linen. Rather, they had such an abundance of oil that it wasn't considered much to them, and that's why the wick was considered that much greater than the oil.]

124) R' Abbah and R' Huna b. Chiya allow putting together a makeshift bed. R' Yehuda quotes Rav and Shmuel who say that you're Chayiv Chatos if you do. [Tosfos explains: R' Huna and R' Abba refer to putting it together loosely, and Rav and Shmuel refer to putting it together tightly. However, they must argue with R' Huna, for if you're Chayiv for tightening it, the rabbis wouldn't allow you to attach it loosely either. However, you can't be Chayiv for putting it together loosely, (although you're Chayov for building loosely) since you can't do the Melacha of building on utensils.] This is also a Tannaic argument. R' Shimon b. Gamliel permits it when it's loose and the Tanna Kama forbids it. if you nail it in, you're Chayiv Chatos.

125) The Tanna holds that you're Chayiv for replacing a reed in a Menorah, but exempt by adding reeds (to extend the handle) of a lime applicator (since it's meant to be constantly taken apart and rebuild to adjust the length). R' Simai says: if you replace the pieces of a circular musical instrument, since it needs a skilled worker to insert it, you're Chayiv if you did. However, if it's a straight instrument, and anyone can insert the pieces, you're exempt from a Chatos if you insert them.

126) you're allowed to put a utensil under a lamp to catch the falling sparks on Shabbos. You don't have the problem of making the utensil Muktza on Shabbos since sparks don't have any substance (to say that the utensil is Bosis to it).

127) However, it's forbidden to put water in a utensil and place it under the lamp even on Friday. This is not like R' Yossi's opinion who forbids causing extinguishing indirectly, since he only forbids placing water on Shabbos, but not on Friday, [Tosfos: and he only forbids when the house is on fire since he might become very nervous about losing his money, and if we allow him to get involved with ways to save the money, he'll make a rash decision to directly extinguish the fire, and that doesn't apply to our case.]

128) Rather, the reason it's forbidden since you're making the spark being close to extinguishing. [Tosfos explains: we decreed not to put the utensil out on Friday, since you might come to put it out on Shabbos, which is forbidden since you might put it out exactly when a spark is landing into it. Alternatively, you might come to pick up the utensil as the spark is falling to catch it, and you'll directly extinguish it. Even though R' Shimon considers this a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo, they forbade it so that he shouldn't come to do a Torah prohibited extinguishing.

This is not similar to what we allow to do all Melachos on Friday even though it will continue into Shabbos. After all, there you know it to be a Melacha, and just because we permit you to do it on Friday, you won't come to do it on Shabbos. However, here, putting water underneath a lamp doesn't look like a Melacha. Therefore, if we allow it on Friday, they'll come to do it even on Shabbos. Although this seems like a double decree, we must say that they held to make a double decree in this instance.]

129) [R' Tam held that R' Chananel's text is correct: "since the extinguishing is close." (The item that will extinguish it {the water} is close {without separation}). This is forbidden even according to the Rabanan who argue with R' Yossi. After all, they only permit causing indirect extinguishing when you place the water in utensils, where you have the wall of the utensil separating between the water and the fire. However, they would agree that it's forbidden if there is no separation, like to make a wall of snow, or to have open water underneath the spark.

However, Tosfos disagrees. After all, the Yerushalmi says that our Mishna is R' Yossi, but the Rabanan permit with a wall of snow even without a separation. Also, we see by the case where a Talis is on fire, that you may spill liquid around the fire even though there is no separation. However, we can push off these proofs: first of all, perhaps our case of water is worse since the spark falls directly into the water, and doesn't need to travel like it does to the wall of snow. Also, perhaps the Bavli argues with the Yerushalmi. Also, perhaps the Talis case is no proof since you're only allowed to spill the liquid around the fire to prevent its spreading, not to extinguish it.]

130 [Tosfos says: you may put water in the glass lamps in order to lift the oil since it's not placed in it to extinguish the sparks. A proof to that is: you can definitely put in oil and you don't need to worry that the oil will put out the sparks either.]