1)

(a)Had Rav Yehudah (explaining Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids the use of the following for Shabbos-lights) only specified vessels that broke on Yom-Tov - we would have thought that Rebbi Yehudah is strict there because, whereas before it was a vessel, now it is a broken vessel (whereas with regard to date-pits, which remain unchanged, he will agree with Rebbi Shimon, and permit them to be moved); and had he told us the Din only by date-pits, we would have said that his Din applies also to date-pits which are initially covered and have now become uncovered (but when it comes to nut-shells, which are visible all the time, he will certainly agree with Rebbi Shimon, and permit them to be moved).

(b)According to Rebbi Shimon - it is permitted to move them in all three cases, because he does not hold of most kinds of Muktzah, whereas Rebbi Yehudah does.

2)

(a)It was Rebbi Chiya, Rav's uncle, who told Rav that, on Yom-Tov, it was forbidden to throw date-Pits into the oven because they were Muktzah. After Rav arrived in Bavel, he threw date-pits to the animals on Yom-Tov. This does not mean that he did not accept his uncle's opinion - because the date-pits which he threw into the oven on Yom-Tov were from a type of date which did not ripen properly, with the result that some of the fruit stuck to the pits. Consequently, the pits, which had bits of the fruit stuck to them, were not Muktzah (unlike the species of date to which Rebbi Chiya was referring - which were of a superior quality, and did not therefore, stick to the fruit).

(b)It is possible to maintain a fire, even one which was lit with vessels that broke on Yom-Tov - and which (according to Rebbi Yehudah) are Nolad - by adding fuel which was prepared (and therefore not Muktzah), and, provided there is a majority of fuel which is not Muktzah, one is permitted to stoke the fire (as Rav Masna has taught us).

3)

(a)Rav Hamnuna has a third way of explaining the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah (whether a folded garment is Tamei or not). According to him, we are speaking about 'Kulei Matlaniyos' which are less than three by three Tefachim. In the case of such a cloth, if the owner ...

1. ... threw away a cloth of less than three Tefachim by three Tefachim, then everybody agrees that it is no longer subject to Tum'ah.

2. ... put it in a box, they all agree that it is still Mekabel Tum'ah.

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua (like whom Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah follows) and Rebbi Eliezer argue when he hung it on a peg or threw it behind the door. Rebbi Eliezer holds that, since he did not throw it in the trash bin, he obviously wants to retain it (and it is still subject to Tum'ah as if he had put it in a box); whereas according to Rebbi Yehoshua, since he did not put the cloth in a box, it is clear that he no longer wants it, and it is as if he had thrown it away.

(c)Rebbi Eliezer refers to it as 'not designated' because, compared to putting it in a box, it is not designated; whereas Rebbi Yehoshua refers to it as 'designated', since, compared to throwing it into the trash-bin, it is indeed designated.

4)

(a)Rebbi Akiva initially differentiated between hanging the cloth on a peg and throwing it behind the door - in the former case he holds that a person is not Mevatel the cloth (like Rebbi Eliezer) and in the latter, that he is (like Rebbi Yehoshua).

(b)The Gemara concludes that Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah retracted to hold like Rebbi Yehoshua, and it infers this from the words 'Pesilas ha'Beged' -the use of the words 'Pesilas ha'Beged' rather than 'Pesilah shel Beged' suggests that, in spite of his having folded it, it is still a garment. Yet Rebbi Akiva says that folding it has nullified it from its initial use, so that it is no longer a cloth, as regards Tum'ah (like Rebbi Yehoshua).

5)

(a)It is not permitted to make a hole in an egg-shell, fill it with oil, and place it above the lamp, for the oil to drip into the lamp on Shabbos - because Chazal were afraid, that if it was, then, not realizing that the egg-shell has now become part of the lamp, one might come to siphon off some of the oil, thereby transgressing the law of extinguishing on Shabbos.

(b)'va'Afilu Hi shel Cheres' - teaches us that this Isur extends even to a an earthenware lamp which is ugly, and a person is less likely to siphon off oil from it on Shabbos, because people tend to keep their distance from ugly-looking vessels.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah permits such a contraption (even not by an earthenware lamp) - because, in his opinion, people know that it is all part of the lamp, and will therefore not come to siphon off any of the oil on Shabbos.

(d)The Rabbanan concede that it is permitted - if the lamp was initially manufactured like that. In fact, the word 'initialy' is not Dafka (specifically so). All the Mishnah means when it writes 've'Im Chibrah ha'Yotzer mi'Techilah, Mutar', is that if it was professionally fitted, it is permited - even if the owner did it himself later.

6)

(a)The Mishnah means to add the case where the dish containing the oil is placed beside the lamp, and not above it - to teach us that Rebbi Yehudah permits even in such a case. Otherwise, we would have thought that Rebbi Yehudah only permits the contraption when it is on top of the lamp, because then, there is nothing between the egg-shell and the lamp, and he will realize that the egg-shell is part of the lamp and will not siphon off any oil from the lamp. But if he places his feeder-dish next to the lamp, in which case he now has a dish in between the oil in the feeder-dish and the lamp, and he might not realize that the feeder-dish is part of the lamp, even Rebbi Yehudah will agree that it is forbidden.

(b)According to the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Tarfon and the Chachamim did not object when they brought an egg-shell up to the attic of Beis Nitzeh and arranged precisely in the way that they (the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehudah) prohibit - because, the maintained, the members of Beis Nitzeh's household were different inasmuch as they were 'Zerizin' (alert in the performing of Mitzvos), so the worry that they might take oil out of the lamp did not apply to them.

(c)When Avin from Tzipori dragged a bench across a marble floor, Rebbi Yitzchak ben Elazar told him - that he was obligated to protest, and could not remain silent like the Rabbanan were silent to Rebbi Yehudah, because that would cause people to sin.

(d)This is because those who forbid dragging a bench across an earth floor for fear that he might make a groove (see next question), extended the prohibition even to a marble one (decreeing the one because of the other) -

7)

(a)According to Rebbi Yirmiyah Rabbah, even Rebbi Shimon only permits dragging heavy bench across the floor, but not a light one - because, in his opinion, Rebbi Shimon only permits a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven' when there is no alternative.

(b)In the opinion of Ula, Rebbi Yehudah will agree that a large bench is permitted, and they argue by a small one - because he maintains that Rebbi Shimon permits a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven' even when there is.

(c)'Rebbi Shimon Omer, Gorer Adam Mitah, Kisei ve'Safsal, u'Vileved she'Lo Yiskaven La'asos Charitz' (with which Rebbi Yehudah argues in Beitzah). Clearly, the Tana mentions 'Mitah' (a large vessel), to teach us that, even there, Rebbi Yehudah forbids, and 'Kisei' (a small vessel) to teach us that even there, Rebbi Shimon permits - which appears to go neither like Rebbi Yirmiyah Rabah nor like Ula.

(d)Rebbi Yirmiyah answers that Kisei, like Mitah, is speaking about a heavy one (but by a light one, even Rebbi Shimon will agree is forbidden). Ula says the opposite - according to him, Mitah, like Kisei, is speaking about a light one (but a heavy one, even Rebbi Yehudah will agree that it is permitted).

8)

(a)We prove Rebbe Yirmiyah Rabbah wrong from the Mishnah in Kil'ayim, where the suit-vendors are permitted to wear the suit that contains Sha'atnez to show the potential purchasers how it looks - despite the fact that he could have shown the purchasers on a stick on their back, in the way that the Tzenu'in used to do.

9)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, someone who extinguishes a lamp for fear of being seen by gentiles, or robbers, because he is possessed by an evil spirit, or to enable a sick person to sleep is Patur. He will be Chayav for extinguishing it - if his intention is in order to save either the lamp the oil, or the wick.

(b)When the Tana writes 'frightened of gentiles' - he is referring to the Persians, who strictly forbade anyone to kindle a light at home on the day that they celebrated a festival.

(c)The only case that Rebbi Yossi renders a person Chayav for extinguishing a light, is when his intention is to spare the wick, because then it is a case of a 'Melachah she'Tzerichah le'Gufah', which will be explained in the Gemara.