1)

(a)We have already discussed the case of 'Meduchah' (cited by Rebbi Elazar as having been learned before Nechemyah revoked part of his decree). Rebbi Elazar rejects the explanations of Abaye ('le'Tzorech Mekomo') and Rava ('me'Chamah le'Tzeil') - because he considers it a Dochek (a forced answer).

(b)According to Rebbi Elazar, the case of ...

1. ... Kanim - refers to the half-canes that divided between the rows of Lechem ha'Panim, and which the Kohanim were neither permitted to put in place, nor to remove on Shabbos.

2. ... Maklos refers to - the sticks that a person bringing his Korban Pesach would place between his own shoulder and those of another Yisrael, and then proceed to skin it (assuming he could not find room on the posts in the Beis Hamitbachayim containing the hooks). When Erev Pesach fell on Shabbos however, the sticks were considered Muktzeh. Instead, they would place one arm on his friend's shoulder and suspend the lamb from there.

(c)Despite the onging miracle that occur each week, enabling the Loaves to remain hot for eight days (from Friday, when they were baked, till the following Shabbos) - they would place the Kanim for most of the week, because of the principle 'Ein Somchin al ha'Nes'.

(d)G'lustera is - a knob at one end of a peg (which renders it fit to be used for pounding [e.g. vegetables], and) which is hanging at the back of a door, where it is used as a bolt.

(e)Rebbi Tarfon permits moving it in the Chatzer like all Kelim. Rebbi Yehoshua rules that one may only drag it from one door to another, before hanging it on the second door.

2)

(a)Rabah refutes Rebbi Elazar's contention that all of the above were learnt before Nechemyah revoked part of his decree. According to him, they could all be speaking afterwards, and nevertheless, Chazal were stringent in all of the cases. The reason they were stringent by ...

1. ... Kanin is - because for the short time the Lechem ha'Panim remained without them (the old ones from Friday night till Shabbos afternoon, and the new ones from Shabbos afternoon until nightfall), they were unlikely to go moldy anyway, and were therefore dispensable.

2. ... Maklos is - because it is possible to skin the lambs using one's arms, as Rebbi Eliezer explained. Consequently, they did not want to.

3. ... G'lustera is - because, as Rebbi Yanai explained, the Tana is speaking by a courtyard which has no Eiruv. Consequently, it is forbidden to carry vessels which were in the houses when Shabbos entered, into the courtyard - and vice-versa.

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua holds that the space within the doorway is considered part of the house, in which case one is forbidden to carry the peg from one door to the other via the courtyard; whereas, according to Rebbi Tarfon, the doorway belongs to the courtyard, and carrying the peg in the courtyard is permitted.

(c)And the author of the Beraisa which forbids moving a Meduchah is - Rebbi Nechemyah, who forbids moving even a K'li she'Melachto le'Heter other than for the express purpose for which it was manufactured (as we shall now see).

3)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah rules 'Kol ha'Kelim Nitalin le'Tzorech ve'she'Lo le'Tzorech'. Rebbi Nechemyah - permits only 'le'Tzorech'.

(b)Both Rabah (or Abaye), and Rava agree that when the Tana Kama says 'le'Tzorech', he is referring to a K'li she'Melachto le'Heter. According to Rabah ...

1. ... 'le'Tzorech' means - le'Tzorech Gufo ...

2. ... 'she'Lo le'Tzorech' - le'Tzorech Mekomo.

3. ... 'le'Tzorech', according to Rebbi Nechemyah - 'le'Tzorech Gufo of a K'li she'Melachto le'Heter.

(c)Rava objects to Rabah's interpretation of 'she'Lo le'Tzorech' - inasmuch as it is not a befitting description of 'Tzorech Mekomo' (which is much 'le'Tzorech' as Tzorech Gufo)

(d)He therefore interprets ...

1. ... 'le'Tzorech' as - Tzarich Gufo and Tzorech Mekomo.

2. ... 'she'Lo le'Tzorech' as - me'Chamah le'Tzeil (to move from the sun to the shade in order to protect the article).

4)

(a)Still according to the Tana Kama, Rava say permits a K'li she'Melachto le'Isur - Tzorech Gufo and Tzorech Mekomo, but me'Chamah le'Tzeil.

(b)Rebbi Nechemyah - forbids moving a K'li she'Melachto le'Isur altogether ...

(c)... but concedes - that a K'li she'Melachto le'Heter is permitted le'Tzorech Gufo and le'Tzorech Mekomo (but not me'Chamah le'Tzeil).

5)

(a)Rav Safra ... asked, according to Rabah, on what grounds Rebbi Nechemyah will permit the removal of dirty dishes from the table on Shabbos. He himself answered - that it is permitted because it has the Din of a 'G'raf shel Re'i' (a full potty), which one may remove as we learned in 'Bameh Madlikin'.

(b)When Abaye asked Rabah the same Kashya - he cited Rav Safra's precious ruling.

(c)When Abaye queried Rava from the Beraisa forbidding moving a mortar unless it contains some ground garlic - he replied that the Tana is speaking about moving it from the sun to the shade, which is forbidden (in the case of a K'li she'Melachto le'Isur).

6)

(a)The Mishnah in Beitzah forbids using a block of wood on Yom-Tov , to support a pot or a door (even though it is fit to use as fire-wood), because Chazal decreed Yom-Tov because of Shabbos.

(b)The block of wood is not permitted on Shabbos itself, according to Rava, who permits even a Davar she'Melachto le'Isur, le'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo because a block of wood is not considered a K'li.

7)

(a)The Mishnah in Beitzah permits lowering fruit through a sky-light from the roof (where it is drying) on Yom-Tov (but not on Shabbos). Another Mishnah in Megilah rules - that there is no difference Shabbos and Yom-Tov other than what concerns Ochel Nefesh (seemingly clashing with the first Mishnah).

(b)Rav Yosef suggests that the author of the Mishnah in Beitzah is Rebbi Yehoshua, and of the Mishnah in Megilah, Rebbi Eliezer, who argue in a Beraisa which discusses a mother and baby animal that fell into a pit. Rebbi Eliezer permits bringing up one of them and Shechting it. The second one - he is permitted to look after there where it is, to prevent it from dying.

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua - permits taking one of them out of the pit with the intention of Shechting it, and then changing his mind, and taking out the second one, and Shechting whichever one is better.

(d)We reject Rav Yosef's suggestion that the author of the first Beraisa is Rebbi Yehoshua, the second one, Rebbi Eliezer - because ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer may well confine his stringent ruling to the case there, where it is possible to look after the animal in its place (in which case it is not necessary to take it out), but concede that elsewhere Yom-Tov is more lenient than Shabbos.

2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua confines his lenient ruling to the case there - because it is possible to do it Ha'aramah (i.e. conveying the impression that he only took the second animal out, because the first one was weak).

8)

(a)Rav Papa concludes that in fact, the author of the Mishnah in Beitzah is Beis Hillel, and of the Mishnah in Megilah, Beis Shamai, who argue in another Mishnah in Beitzah - whether one may carry anything but food (which the Torah specifically permits) on Yom-Tov (even a child, a Lulav or a Sefer-Torah) into the street (Beis Hillel) or not (Beis Shamai) ...

(b)... in which case the author of the Mishnah in Megilah is - Beis Shamai.

(c)We know that Beis Shamai is stringent with regard to Muktzeh (Tiltul, which is only an Isur de'Rabbanan) as well as carrying - because the reason that Chazal instituted Muktzeh is because it leads to carrying.

9)

(a)Rav said that one may not carry a spade (which is a 'Davar she'Malachto le'Isur') in order to protect it from thieves (which is similar to 'me'Chamah le'Tzeil') - from which we can extrapolate that 'le'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo' one may (like Rava).

(b)When Rav Kahana paid him a visit however, he asked for a trap (see Hagahos ha'Bach) specifically adding 'for Rav Kahana to sit on' - implying that it would have been forbidden to move it le'Tzorech Mekomo.

(c)We therefore amend Rav's statement (to conform with Rava). What Rav really said was - 'Remove the trap from in front of Rav Kahana' to enable him to sit down ('le'Tzorech Mekomo').

(d)Alternatively - the trap had been left lying in the sun, where it stood to become spoilt by the sun, and if Rav had not announced that he was bringing it in for Rav Kahana to sit on, people would have thought that he was permitting 'me'Chamah le'Tzeil'.

10)

(a)When Rav Mari bar Rachel asked Rava about moving a felt cushion from the sun to the shade, he replied - that he may (since a felt cushion is a K'li she'Melachto le'Heter).

(b)When he added ...

1. ... that he had another one to lean on - he replied that he could always use it for guests.

2. ... that he had enough to provide his guests with too, he replied - he now had to rule le'Chumra (even though for everyone else, it was permitted) ...

(c)... based on the fact that Rav Mari bar Rachel had demonstrated that he held like Rabah (that me'Chamah le'Tzeil is forbidden, even by a Davar she'Melachto le'Heter).

11)

(a)Rebbi Aba ... Amar Rav permits moving 'Mechabdos shel Milsa' - small table brushes, but forbids 'Mechabdos shel Temarah' - brooms made of Lulav branches.

(b)He forbids moving the latter -because - it is forbidden to sweep the floor on Shabbos (in case one comes to fill in holes), rendering it a K'li she'Melachto le'Isur (Note, that nowadays, since most of the floors are covered with tiles, sweeping is permitted and brooms are considered a K'li she'Melachto le'Heter).

(c)Rebbi Elazar - permits moving even the latter.

(d)Rav cannot be speaking about Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo - because we have already proved that he permits even a K'li she'Melachto le'Isur le'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo.

(e)In that case, he must be speaking about me'Chamah le'Tzeil, in which case we are forced to amend Rebbi Elazar's ruling to - ve'Chein Amar Rebbi Elazar.

12)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah -permits moving a large broken dish to cover a barrel or a broken glass to cover a jar?

(b)Rebbi Yehudah is more stringent - he forbids unless the broken vessel can still serve a similar function like it did before.

(c)In order to be permitted, Rebbi Yehudah might require ...

1. ... a broken earthenware dish - to contain a hot stew.

2. ... a broken glass dish - to pour oil into.

13)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel initially established the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Tana Kama by vessels that broke before Shabbos. But in the event that they broke on Shabbos - both Tana'im will permit moving them (since they were Kelim when Shabbos entered).

(b)Rav Zutra'i queries this however, on the basis of a Mishnah in Beitzah - which permits lighting a fire on Yom-Tov with vessels, but not with broken vessels (as we already learned in Bameh Madlikin).

(c)The vessels there must have broken on Yom-Tov and not on Erev Yom-Tov - because why would anyone forbid using vessels that broke on Erev Yom-Tov (since they are automatically eligible to be used as firewood).

14)

(a)We therefore conclude that according to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - the Tana'im are arguing over whether vessels that broke on Shabbos are permitted (the Tana Kama) or not (Rebbi Yehudah ...

(b)... who holds of Isur Nolad (whereas the Rabbanan don't).

(c)Both will agree however - that vessels that broke on Erev Shabbos are permitted.

15)

(a)To reconcile the following three Beraisos, we establish the Beraisa ...

1. ... 'Masikin be'Kelim, ve'Ein Masikin be'Shivrei Kelim' - like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds both of Muktzeh (which is not applicable to ordinary Kelim on Yom-Tov) and of Nolad - which is.

2. ... 'Kesheim she'Masikin be'Kelim, Kach Masikin be'Shivrei Kelim' - like Rebbi Shimon, who does not hold of Muktzeh either.

3. ... 'Ein Masikin Lo be'Kelim ve'Lo be'Shivrei Kelim' - like Rebbi Nechemyah, who only permits vessels to be used for the function for which they were originally intended.

(b)Bricks that remain from a building project are permitted - because they are fit to sit and lean on (as we have learned before).

(c)They are Muktzeh however - if the owner piled them up, indicating that he intends to use them for another building project.

16)

(a)A broken piece of clay in a courtyard is not Muktzeh - because one can cover vessels with it.

(b)According to Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel it is Muktzeh in a Karmelis, since one does not normally find vessels there to cover. Rav Nachman however, argues - that people tend to sit and relax in a Karmelis, in which case, the piece of clay is fit to cover spittle.

(c)Rav Nachman concedes however - that the piece of clay is Muktzeh in the street, since neither of the above regular uses is applicable there.

(d)Rava disagrees. When the Rabbanan shouted at his servant for picking up a piece of clay in the street to clean himself, Rava commented - that not satisfied with being ignorant of the Halachah, they also want to teach others their mistakes.

(e)... because he maintains that if a piece of clay is fit for use in a courtyard - and is therefore called a Kli, then it is a Kli in the street, too (as long as it has some use [see Tos. DH 've'Rava Amar']).

17)

(a)The pieces of a broken barrel and its lid do not become Muktzeh - because they are still fit to be used as lids for other barrels or vessels.

(b)A Beraisa supports Rav Yehudah's ruling. The Tana rules that ...

1. ... fixing a broken piece to make it fit to cover a vessel - is forbidden because of Tikun Manah.

2. ... the lid, once the owner throws it into the trash heap - is Muktzeh.

(c)Rav Papa objects to this latter ruling - because by the same token, a coat that one throws away on Shabbos ought to become Muktzeh too.

(d)Rav Papa therefore amends the Beraisa to read - that he threw it away (not on Shabbos, but) on Erev Shabbos, demonstrating that it is no longer a K'li (see Tos. DH 'Im Zarkah').