(a)How does Rav Yosef explain Rav Chisda (who forbids the placing of a receptacle to receive the egg laid by the chicken, but who permits covering it with a dish to prevent it from becoming broken)? What is Rav Chisda's reason, according to him?

(b)How does Rav Yosef then explain the Beraisa which permits one to place ...

1. ... a receptacle under a broken barrel of Tevel wine?

2. ... a receptacle to receive the sparks?

3. ... a bench to support a sagging beam?

4. ... a receptacle underneath a leaking roof?

(c)Under which two conditions is it permitted to move an overturned basket onto which chickens have jumped?


(a)According to Rav Yosef, Rav Chisda's reason is because of 'Bitul K'li me'Heichano', the prohibition of negating a vessel from its use by designating it for a use on Shabbos, from which one will later be unable to move it. (Some ascribe this to its similarity to building, others to demolishing). That is why Rav Chisda forbids one to place a receptacle underneath a hen to receive the Muktzah egg, whereas he permits the placing of a vessel over the egg to protect it.

(b)The Beraisa nevertheless permits the placing of ...

1. ... a receptacle underneath a broken barrel to receive Tevel wine - because Tevel wine is not Muktzah, due to the fact that if (despite the Isur) one were to Ma'aser it on Shabbos, it would be effective, and the wine would be permitted; and in such a case, Chazal did not decree Muktzah;

2. ... a receptacle to receive sparks from a lamp - because sparks (like particles of dust)are not real entities, and are not therefore Muktzah.

3. ... a bench to support a sagging beam - only in such a way that the bench can be easily withdrawn (i.e. it is not really holding up the beam at all, but only preventing it from sagging further.

4. ... a receptacle underneath a leaking roof - only if the water is clean and drinkable, so that neither the water nor the receptacle are Muktzah.

(c)An overturned basket on which chickens have jumped is not Muktzah - provided the chickens were not on it during the entire dusk period, and provided they are not on it at the time that he wants to take it.


(a)Rav Yitzchok disagrees with Rav Chisda. According to him, even to cover a freshly-laid egg with an overturned dish (to prevent someone from breaking it) is forbidden. Why is that?

(b)Then how does Rav Yitzchak explain all of the Beraisos (quoted above) which permit the handling of vessels and receptacles for the various purposes described earlier?

(c)According to him, why does the Beraisa permit the spreading of mats to cover ...

1. ... stones?

2. ... bricks?


(a)According to Rav Yitzchak, one may not even take a dish to place over a freshly-laid egg - because in his opinion, one may only move a vessel to use for something which is itself not Muktzah, and a freshly-laid egg is.

(b)All the Beraisos, which permit one to take vessels for Tevel, for beams, for sparks etc. (even though they are all Muktzah), speaks when he picked up the vessel to remove it, because he needed the location of the vessel (for which reason one is permitted to move them even according to Rav Yitzchak). Since they are already in his hand, he may then use them even to protect other Muktzah objects.

(c)The Beraisa permits one to take mats to cover ...

1. ... stones which are not Muktzah i.e. sharp stones, which are fit for cleaning oneself in a bathroom.

2. ... bricks, which are also fit to be used to sit on, and which were left over from a building project and automatically designated for that purpose.



(a)When is a regular honey-comb not Muktzah?

(b)What do 'those two honey-combs' refer to, and what is special about them?


(a)A regular honey-comb is not Muktzah - when it contains honey.

(b)'Those two honey-combs' - refers to the two honey-combs which the owner would leave inside the beehive when he emptied it. Its purpose was to sustain the bees during the winter. They were the only two combs to remain in the beehive, and the only source of honey during the winter season.


(a)Having designated the honey for the bees, they are Muktzah? So according to Rav Yitzchak, how can the Beraisa allow one to cover those two honey-combs with a mat?

(b)What must he be careful about, when covering the honey-combs with the mats?

(c)Who must be the author of the Beraisa?

(d)In that case, what does the Tana mean when he writes 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Yiskaven la'Tzud? Doesn't Rebbi Yehudah hold 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven, Asur'?


(a)According to Rav Yitzchak, the Beraisa must be speaking when he designated those two honey-combs for his own consumption - before Shabbos.

(b)One must take care, when covering the honey-combs, not to trap any bees.

(c)The author of the Beraisa cannot be Rebbi Shimon, who does not hold of Muktzah. it must therefore be Rebbi Yehudah, who does.

(d)When the Tana writes 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Yiskaven la'Tzud (which would not really help according to Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven' is Asur - what he means is that he must take care not to actually trap the bees (by leaving a little gap for the bees to escape, in which case, it will not even be a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven'.


(a)Rav Ashi dispenses with the need to establish the Beraisa by those two honey-combs, because he takes note of the Lashon of the Beraisa 'be'Chamah' and 'u'vi'Geshamim'. What does he deduce from there?

(b)How does he therefore explain the Beraisa?


(a)Rav Ashi dispenses with the need to establish the Beraisa by those two honey-combs, because he takes note of the Lashon of the Beraisa 'be'Chamah' and 'u'vi'Geshamim'. He infers from the Beraisa, which does not write 'bi'Yemos ha'Chamah ... u'vi'Yemos ha'Geshamim', but 'be'Chamah ... u'vi'Geshamim', which suggests that it is not talking about the summer or the winter, but about a time of year when there is sun and rain.

(b)The Beraisa therefore speaks, according to him - in the months of Nisan and Tishri, when there is sunshine and rain - and, above all, there is honey! Consequently, the honey-combs are not Muktzah.


(a)How does one go about protecting a corpse from the sun?

(b)Why is it necessary to hold the mats aloft, before standing up the stretchers to support them?

(c)How is this a proof for Rav Yitzchak (mentioned on the previous Amud)?


(a)To protect a corpse from the sun - two people need to sit down on the ground beside the corpse. When the ground becomes hot, they bring two stretchers to sit on. Then, when it the sun beats down on them, they bring two mats which they hold over their heads. At that point, they are permitted to lift up the two stretchers to support the mats which they are already holding aloft, and which will now serve to protect the corpse.

(b)The reason that the mats must be held aloft before the stretchers are placed underneath them, is because - otherwise, it is forbidden to make an 'Ohel Arai' (a temporary Ohel), from the bottom to the top; it is permitted only if one begins and builds Ohel first and then the walls.

(c)This Beraisa (the fact that the stretchers were only permitted to be brought for the people to sit on, and not for the corpse) is a proof for Rav Yitzchak, who forbids one to pick up a vessel to use for something which is itself Muktzah.


(a)What method is there of actually moving the corpse out of the sun - if one does not have a loaf of bread or a baby to place on it?

(b)What is the reason of those who do not agree with this method?

(c)Rebbi Yehudah ben Lakish permits the removal of a corpse to save it from a fire. What are the two possible reasons for this Heter?


(a)Even if one does not have a loaf of bread or a baby available to place on the corpse, it is possible to move it by tipping it from one bed on to another ('Tiltul Min ha'Tzad') - without actually touching the corpse, until it reaches the shade.

(b)Not everyone agrees that 'Tiltul min ha'Tzad' (moving Muktzah in this way) is permitted; others maintain that this is called moving, and is forbidden on Shabbos.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah ben Lakish permits moving a corpse, either because he agrees with the opinion that holds 'Tiltul min ha'Tzad' is not considered Tiltul; or because, in his opinion, Chazal permitted 'Tiltul min ha'Tzad' by a corpse which is threatened by a fire, because, due to the confusion that is bound to affect someone whose dead is about to be burned, we are afraid that he is liable to extinguish the fire - in order to save his dead relative from being burned.


(a)There is a Machlokes whether one may move the oil that remains in a lamp after it has gone out or not. Which Tana'im argue over this point?


(a)There is a Machlokes whether one may move the oil that remains in a lamp after it has gone out or not - according to the Tana Kama, it is forbidden to move the oil that remains in the lamp once it has gone out. Whereas Rebbi Shimon permits it.