1. The Gemara at the bottom of 40b quotes Rebbis as argung with the Rabanan over the definition of Midbariyos. It is infered that Rebbi holds of Muktsah.
2. The Gemara then quotes the question of the basket of dates which Rebbi answered. This suggests that Rebbi holds like R' Shimon ans Les leh Mukzah.
3. The germara then gives 3 answers. In 2 of these it is shown that Rebbi may hold like R'Shimon and in one like R' Yehuda.
4. My question is. This appears to contradict Dab 2b where R' Nachman demonstrates using Stam Mishnas that Rebbi:
Does not hold of Mukzah on Shabbos,
and does hold of Mukzah on Yom Tov.
5. I think Maharshah anticipates this question and he says that Rab Nachman could have answered the question in the Gemara (point 1) by establishing midbaryos on Yom Tov and the Basket of dates on Shabbos. The Gemara on daf 40 is according to Amoraim other than R' Nachman.
6. My question on Maharsha. What do these Amoraim do with the stam mishnas quoted on Daf2?
7. Pnei Yehoshua demonstrates that the basket of dates case on 40a must be referring to Yom Tov and the Gemara on 40 can be according to R'Nachman.
8. My question on Pnei Yehoshua. The answers given by the gemara on 40b suggest Rebbi can hold like R' Shimon on Yom Tov. This contardicts R'Nachman on 2b.
9. I have seen a possible answer to my problems in the commentary to the Mevo on Talmud by R'Shmuel Hanaggid. (printed in Brachos)In the 3rd paragraph the commentary says that we find stam mishnas that contradict each other. Rebbi changed his mind about them but they were all ready being taught. I think this can explain how Amoraim other than R'Nachman explain daf40. However commentary suggests that this is what is answered by the gemara on 2b which is not the case.
Thank you for your attention.
Alan Rubin, Edgware, Middx. UK
1. As for your main question (#4, #8: How the Gemara can be uncertain of Rebbi's opinion if the Gemara on 2b asserts that he wrote "Stam" Mishnayos demonstrating that the Halachah is like R. Shimon on Shabbos and R. Yehudah on Yom Tov), let me first add to your question. The Rishonim in a number of places (see TOSFOS Beitzah 26a DH Tanu Rabanan and Shabbos 45b DH l'Devarav) discuss at length whether it can be inferred from anywhere in Shas what Rebbi really holds with regard to Muktzah, yet none of them mention the Gemara in the beginning of Beitzah.
The SIMCHAS YOM TOV (Rav Arye Leib Tzuntz) here simply notes that it is apparent from our Gemara that we cannot infer Rebbi's own opinion from the way he was "Sosem" (anonymosized) the Mishnayos. What he means is that even though each Tana may have had personal opinions on Halachic matters, they always ruled in accordance with the majority, even if it did not concur with their own opinion. The Gemara here is discussing Rebbi's own opinion; the one in the beginning of Beitzah is discussing the Halachic ruling that Rebbi arrived at, based on the Tanaitic consensus in his days.
This concept is clear from many places in Shas (see, for example, Berachos 9a regarding the Halachic ruling of Raban Gamliel contrary to his own opinion). Rebbi Eliezer was even placed in Niduy for insisting on putting his opinion into practice against the ruling of the majority (Bava Metzia 59a).
I think that the Maharsha (and the other Acharonim) understood this as well, and he was not addressing your question in his comment.
2. As for your question on the Maharsha (#6: How do Rav Nachman's contendors reconcile the "Stam Mishnayos"): The Gemara in the end of Shabbos (157a) asks a similar question on Rebbi Yochanan (who does not agree with Rav Nachman), and answers that according to Rebbi Yochanan's Mesorah, the "Stam Mishnah" quoted from Beitzah 31a (like Rebbi Yehudah on Yom Tov) was not a Stam Mishnah at all. It was said in the name of Rebbi Yosi bar Yehudah.
As for the "Stam Mishnah" in Shabbos (like Rebbi Shimon), that Mishnah can certainly be learned otherwise from the way Rav Nachman suggests. TOSFOS Beitzah 2b (DH Gabei Shabbos) gives two good reasons why we should not determine the Halachah based on that Mishnah. (Even though Tosfos answers why Rav Nachman did not accept those reasons, the other Amora'im may well have accepted them, as the Acharonim point out, see KIKAYON D'YONAH 2b.)
3. Your point (#9) in the name of the commentary to the Mevo ha'Talmud would not seem to be pertinent to our Gemara, since (as explained above, 1) this Gemara is discussing the personal opinion of Rebbi, and not the Halachic ruling that Rebbi arrived at, while the commentary is discussing Rebbi's Halachic conclusion.
The commentary's source might be in the words of Tosfos 2b (mentioned above), who writes that when there is a contradiction between Stam Mishnayos, some "outweigh" others, causing the less important Stam Mishnayos to be ignored (see also Tosfos Bechoros 32b DH Pesak, etc.). Presumably, the reason for this is because the "more important" Stam Mishnayos represent Rebbi's final ruling, while the other ones represent an earlier ruling of his. We indeed find countless places in which the Gemara encounters contradictions between Stam Mishnayos and does not attempt to answer them (see Shabbos 157a etc.).
I hope this helps you. Best wishes,