1)

(a)Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether Rebbi Shimon concedes Muktzah by grains of wheat that one sowed in the ground, or by eggs that one placed under a hen to be hatched - seeing as he actually pushed them away with his hands (even though they are not unfit for use).

(b)Removing the seeds from the ground will not be forbidden anyway, because of reaping - since we are speaking within the first three days of sowing, when they have not yet taken root, and where there is no Isur of reaping.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan replied - that by an object which remains fit for use, Rebbi Shimon holds of Muktzah only in the case of oil in a lamp which is still burning (due to the fact that since it is Muktzah for its Mitzvah, it is also Muktzah for the Isur [that he may come to extinguish the flame whilst he is transporting it]).

2)

(a)We initially understand Rebbi Yochanan's statement (to explain Rebbi Shimon) 'Ho'il ve'Huktzah le'Mitzvaso, Huktzah le'Isuro' to mean - that Rebbi Yochanan confined Rebbi Shimon's Din to a Mitzvah which has an Isur (such as that of extinguishing) attached; but from the point of view of the Mitzvah alone, Rebbi Shimon would not consider it Muktzah.

(b)The problem with this explanation is - the Beraisa in Beitzah, which forbids one to take down the Succah decorations, until after Shemini Atzeres - even on Chol ha'Mo'ed, when there is no Isur of taking down a building. So the Isur can only be because of Muktzah. And we know the author of the Beraisa to be Rebbi Shimon, because of a second Beraisa, which quotes Rebbi Shimon to that effect.

(c)We finally explains Rebbi Yochanan's statement to mean - that since the oil is forbidden for the Mitzvah, it remains forbidden for the duration that it is Asur, (i.e. until it goes out). Note: according to Rashi's explanation of the Sugya, this Gemara, which initially forbids the oil in the burning lamp - according to Rebbi Shimon (because of the Isur of Kibuy), and concludes that it is 'Muktzah Machmas Mitzvah', appears to clash with the Gemara at the beginning of 47a, which forbids it because it is a Basis to the flame. Tosfos reconciles the two Gemaras by explaining our Sugya, not with regard to the oil in the lamp, concerning the conventional Muktzah of handling, but to the oil that has dripped from it, as regards using it for the duration of its Mitzvah; whereas the Sugya later, deals with the oil in the Menorah, with regard to the convential Din of Muktzah.

3)

(a)An express condition (made before Yom-Tov) helps to permit the use of the Succos decorations on Yom-Tov - provided the condition takes the form of retaining one's ownership throughout the dusk period (as the Gemara explains in Beitzah).

4)

(a)The wood of a hut is Muktzah on Yom-Tov, because of 'Setiras Ohel' (demolishing) which was Asur when Yom-Tov entered, and since it was Muktzah then, it remains Muktzah the whole of Yom-Tov.

(b)One may take bundles of wood that are only leaning against the wall of the hut on Yom-Tov, because bundles of wood can be used for firewood on Yom-Tov, and the owner therefore had his mind on them.

(c)The Gemara proves, as we explained above, that even Rebbi Shimon concedes that something that is 'Muktzah Machmas Mitzvah' alone, is Asur.

(d)The Gemara preferred to prove its point from the first Beraisa, despite the fact that it still needed the second Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef to clarify it - because a Beraisa that is learnt by Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Oshaya is more authentic than one which is quoted by other Amora'im.

5)

(a)We learnt earlier that Rebbi Shimon concedes that Muktzah Machmas Mitzvah is forbidden. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel adds to this the Muktzah of 'Gerogros ve'Tzimukim' - which Rebbi Shimon also forbids. 'Gerogros ve'Tzimukim' are dried figs and raisins (in the making) that have both both been pushed away (i.e. taken on to the roof to dry), and also stand to become unfit for human consumption in a short space of time, as they begin to rot, prior to their turning into dried fruits. That combination renders them Muktzah - even according to Rebbi Shimon.

(b)The author of the Beraisa that forbids even fruit which was fit to eat, and which one carried up to the roof to dry whilst actually partaking of them - is Rebbi Yehudah.

(c)We initially reject this explanation - on the grounds that, since Rebbi Yehudah declares Muktzah even things that one did not deliberately push away with the hands to that extent (such as something that one places into a storehouse), why would he need to mention that fruit which he deliberately pushed away is Muktzah? Is that not obvious?

(d)We finally explain the Chidush of Rebbi Yehudah as being - that the fruit is nevertheless Muktzah, and will require designating to become permitted, despite the fact that he was actually eating from it as he ascended to the roof.

6)

(a)Rebbi insists that Rebbi Shimon holds of Muktzah only by Gerogros ve'Tzimukin, and not by Patzilei Temarah - which are dates that were picked prematurely, and which were then placed in palm-branch baskets to ripen. The Sha'aleh is whether one may eat them before they become ripe. Maybe they are Muktzah too, since, like Gerogros ve'Tzimukim, they are unfit to eat.

(b)Patzilei Temarim are not, in fact, Muktzah - because, unlike Gerogros ve'Tzimukin, have not been pushed away with the hands. (See also Tosfos Yeshanim's note on Rashi.)

7)

(a)The Mishnah in Beitzah writes that one may water and Shecht 'Baysos' on Yom-Tov, but not 'Midbariyos' - because they are Muktzah. Watering is mentioned together with the Shechitah - because they used to water the animals before slaughtering them, in order to facilitate the skinning process.

(b)The Tana Kama explains that Baysos return each night, whereas the Midbariyos remain in the desert until the rain season in Mar-Cheshvan. According to Rebbi - animals that return home, however seldom, are still considered Baysos, Midbari'os are those animals which never return (neither in the summer nor in the winter).

(c)From the fact that Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi asked his father whether, according to Rebbi Shimon, Patzilei Temarim are Muktzah or not, it appears that he heard from him that he followed the opinion of Rebbi Shimon. But how can that be, when Rebbi himself holds that the Midbari'os are Muktzah (even though they do not appear to be like Gerogros ve'Tzimukin?

(d)We answer - either that, because the Midbari'os are inaccessible, they are considered unfit like Gerogros ve'Tzimukin, and of course, (like Gerogros ve'Tzimukin) they have been pushed away; or that Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi asked his father what Rebbi Shimon holds with regard to Patzilei Temarah, even though he knew that his father does not really hold like him.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan (we initially believe) rules like Rebbi Shimon. The Gemara attempts to reconcile this with Rebbi Yochanan elsewhere, who rules that the place where a chicken roosts is Muktzah, by establishing the latter case when there is a dead chick in the nest. We reject this answer - because quoting Rava, it presumes that Rebbi Shimon concedes Muktzah by animals which died on Shabbos. But what will we do according to those who quote Rava to the contrary?

(b)A dead chick (and consequently the nest) is not permitted - despite the fact that it is now fit for dogs) - because it was not prepared before Shabbos for dogs. Only an animal that was dangerously ill before Shabbos, and which he anticipated would die, is considered 'Muchan' for dogs.

(c)We then answer that the Beraisa speaks when there was a freshly- laid egg in the nest - which is Muktzah (even according to Rebbi Shimon), because it is Nolad. We object to this answer however, on the basis of a statement of Rav Nachman - who said that whoever does not hold of Muktzah, does not hold of Nolad either.

(d)We finally reconcile Rebbi Yochanan's second statement (declaring the place where a chicken roosts to be Muktzah) with Rebbi Shimon's opinion -by establishing it when there is a egg with an embryo of a chick inside, which is certainly Muktzah, since it is neither fit for human consumption, nor will dogs eat it, on account of the hard shell (See Tosfos Yeshanim quoted beside Rashi).

9)

(a)Some maintain that Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rebbi Shimon - regarding Muktzah (as we just saw); others, that he holds like Rebbi Yehudah. Rabbah bar bar Chanah quotes Rebbi Yochanan as saying 'Amru, Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon' - suggesting that Rebbi Yochanan quotes others who rule like Rebbi Shimon, but that he himself does not hold like that.

(b)Although we conclude that Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rebbi Yehudah, there is no proof that he does, from Rebbi Asi, his Talmid, who refrained from picking up a lamp that fell onto a coat, on Shabbos - because that may have been because of Rebbi Yochanan, who also considers a metal lamp to be Muktzah (for reasons that will be discussed later).

(c)Resh Lakish - permits one to pick up any small lamp that can be picked up with one hand.

(d)Rebbi Yochanan certainly holds like Rebbi Shimon - with regard to an earthenware lamp, which Rebbi Yehudah forbids on account of its ugliness. There, Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Shimon who permits it.