1) HALACHAH: MOVING MUKTZAH WITH DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BODY
OPINIONS: The Gemara says that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, even though one is not permitted to move the barrels of straw and grain in a storehouse if they were not prepared for use before Shabbos, one may nevertheless move the barrels with his feet as he walks in order to enter and exit.
The implies that one is permitted to move Muktzah with parts of his body other than his hands. Is this the Halachah? Is one permitted to move Muktzah with parts of his body in order to get it out of his way?
(a) The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 311:8) rules like the ROSH (43b) who quotes the Mishnah (141a) that teaches that one may move straw on a bed with his elbow (or some other part of his body that he usually does not use to move such items) in order to lie down, even though the straw is Muktzah. From that Mishnah, the Rosh deduces that one is permitted to move Muktzah with a part of the body other than the hands. The MISHNAH BERURAH (OC 308:13) rules like this as well.
(b) However, the CHAZON ISH (OC 47:13) cites proof from the Gemara here to the contrary. A person may move Muktzah objects in a storehouse with his feet while he walks in order to enter and exit. RASHI (DH b'Raglo) explains that "he moves it with his foot... while he walks." This implies that he may not move the Muktzah in a clearly intentional act, even if he does so with his foot.
How does the Chazon Ish explain the Mishnah later with regard to the bed of straw? The Chazon Ish explains, based on his interpretation of the RAMBAN (in Milchamos there) and the RAN (43b), that the Sugya there refers to moving the straw indirectly, by lying on the bed. The Mishnah there is similar to the Gemara here, which permits one to move Muktzah while he ostensibly performs another act. The Chazon Ish asserts that this is also the intention of the Rosh. (See Insights to Shabbos 141:1 for more on this subject.)
(It is not clear why the Chazon Ish mentions that he argues only with the Mishnah Berurah, when the Shulchan Aruch himself seems to rule the same way as the Mishnah Berurah.)
(c) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shabbos 26:15) appears to have an entirely different understanding of the Gemara. According to his understanding, the Gemara does not refer to moving the Muktzah with one's foot, but rather to smoothing the inconsistencies in the floor with one's foot. Accordingly, there is no proof from here that one may move Muktzah with one's foot in any manner.
2) THE IDENTITY OF "A CERTAIN CHASID"
QUESTION: The Gemara relates an incident involving "a certain Chasid" ("Ma'aseh b'Chasid Echad") who redeemed a girl from captivity. When he and his students traveled back with the redeemed girl, they lodged at an inn and the Chasid slept with the girl at his feet. In the morning, he immersed himself in a Mikvah. His students accurately judged him favorably when they assumed that he had immersed in order to purify himself from Keri that occurred to him as a result of the stress of traveling. RASHI points out that wherever the Gemara mentions "a certain Chasid," it refers to either Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava or Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Ila'i, as the Gemara elsewhere states (Bava Kama 103b, Temurah 15b).
Why does Rashi mention this fact here, and not in the other places in the Gemara where "a certain Chasid" is mentioned (such as in Berachos 18b)?
ANSWER: The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH (cited by the Gilyon ha'Shas) quotes an answer he heard from the PNEI YEHOSHUA. In the incident in the Gemara here, the Chasid immersed himself in a Mikvah because of Keri. Rashi was bothered by the fact that we rule like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah, who states that there is no obligation to immerse for Keri, because "Divrei Torah cannot become Tamei" (Berachos 22a). Rashi answers that this Chasid was Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Ila'i, who maintains that one must immerse for Keri (ibid.).
The RASHASH challenges this answer. In the next incident recorded in the Gemara, Rebbi Yehoshua immersed himself before he taught Torah to his students, because he had become Tamei by the spit of a Nochri woman, which has the status of the spit of a Zavah. Why did he find it necessary to go to the Mikvah? Even a Zav himself is permitted to learn Torah, according to all opinions! Only a Ba'al Keri is prohibited from learning Torah, according to some. It is obvious, therefore, that he must have immersed as a stringency, beyond the letter of the law. It is logical to assume that in the previous case as well, the Chasid immersed as a stringency, in which case that Chasid could have been Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah!