1)

(a)bar Hamduri Amar Shmuel rules that reeds from an old reed-mat that come apart are not Muktzeh.

(b)bar Hamduri told Rava that the reason for this is - because just as the mat was used to cover excrement or to prevent the dust from rising, so too, are the reeds fit to cover a mess, and are therefore not Muktzeh (see Tosfos DH 'Mechtzeles').

(c)Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav declared torn pieces of cloth, Muktzeh - assuming they are less than three by three Etzba'os, in which case they are not even fit to be used as a patch for a poor man's garment.

2)

(a)Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa says 'Shivrei Tanur Yashan, Harei Hu ke'Chol ha'Kelim ha'Nitlin be'Chatzer'. Rebbi Yehudah says - 'Ein Nitalin'.

(b)The opinion of - Rebbi Meir has the support of Rebbi Yossi testifying in the name of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov ...

(c)... who adds - that the cover of an old oven is not Muktzeh on Shabbos.

(d)Abaye tries to connect the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa with the Machlokes in our Mishnah, in which case they are arguing as to whether - the broken pieces need to retain their original use (Rebbi Yehudah) or not (Rebbi Meir).

3)

(a)Rava objects to Abaye's explanation, based on the fact that they are arguing over a broken oven, when - they should rather have argued over broken pieces of any vessel.

(b)So Rava tries to connect the Machlokes to the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim in the Mishnah in Kelim, where an oven is placed inside a pit or an enclosure (only at the top of the pit, so that its lower tip does not reach the floor of the pit) that broke. They ensure that the oven remains near the top without slipping down to the bottom of the pit - by wedging a stone between the wall of the oven and the wall of the pit.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah will concede that the broken pieces are Tamei - in the event that the oven is fixed in such a way that it is an integral part of the pit, in that it is heated automatically when the pit is heated (if for example, the stone is very small, so that the space between the walls of the pit and the oven is minimal, if the oven is narrow at the bottom and wide on top, or if the pit is wide at the bottom and narrow on top).

(d)He learns this from the Pasuk "Tanur ve'Kirayim Yutatz Temei'im Hem ... " - implying that only an oven that requires disconnecting from the ground is subject to Tum'ah, but not one that is already disconnected.

4)

(a)The Rabbanan learn from the (above) Pasuk "Temei'im Heim u'Temei'im Yih'yu Lachem" - that even an oven that is not fully connected to the ground is subject to Tum'ah too (as long as it can be heated).

(b)And they learn from the Pasuk "Tanur ... Yutatz" (not a Kula, but) a Chumra - that even though the oven is joined to the ground (and requires disconnecting) it is subject to Tum'ah.

(c)To answer the Kashya how Rebbi Yehudah will explain "u'Temei'im Yih'yu Lachem", we cite Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel. According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel (based on this Pasuk), Rebbi Yehudah will agree that the oven is Tamei 'even if it is hanging from the neck of a camel' - once the first time it was lit it was joined to the ground (and this is the second time).

(d)An earthenware oven will become Tahor - even according to Rebbi Yehudah, only if it is broken into pieces.

(e)Ula states that the first time the oven is lit 'whilst hanging from the neck of a camel', according to the Rabbanan - it becomes a K'li (both as regards Tum'ah and as regards Shabbos).

5)

(a)Rav Ashi's objection to Rava's interpretation of the Machlokes is - why Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah then argue over Shivrei Tanur and not over the oven itself (just as Rava asked on Abaye), since, seeing as Rebbi Yehudah holds that the entire oven is not a K'li, how much more so the broken pieces?

(b)He therefore establishes the Machlokes - like Abaye (like Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah).

(c)They are indeed arguing over a broken oven, whose pieces are 'Osin Ma'aseh Tafka' - meaning that they can be used like tiles (on which one can cook when they have been heated).

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir, who does not require the pieces to be used for a similar purpose to the one it was used for when it was whole, the Beraisa is not teaching us anything new. He asks Rebbi Yehudah - at least to agree with him that the pieces are considered a K'li, since they can be used to cook, just as the oven did, when it was whole.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah replied that the two uses are not the same - a. because an oven is heated on the inside, whereas a tile is heated on the outside, and b. because an oven heats whilst it is vertical, a tile, whilst it is horizontal.

7)

(a)Ravina described the ovens of Masa Mechsaya - as having no lids.

(b)They nevertheless established the custom to move them on Shabbos - like Rebbi Yossi in the name of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov (in the Beraisa that we just discussed).

8)

(a)'Even she'be'Kiruyah' - is a stone in a pumpkin, placed there to give the pumpkin weight.

(b)One is permitted to use the pumpkin (to draw water with) - provided the stone is tied to it (in which case, it becomes Bateil to the pumpkin); otherwise, the pumpkin merely becomes a Basis to the stone.

(c)Similarly, one is permitted to draw water with a jar on the end of a vine-branch - provided the branch is tied to the jar.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer permits placing a window-stopper into a window on Shabbos - provided it is both tied there and hanging on the back of the door (but not if it is dragging on the floor).

(e)According to the Chachamim - it is permitted anyway.

9)

(a)Rabah Amar Rebbi Ami Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Mishnah in 'Noteil' which permits tipping a barrel to shake off the stone that covers it by Shogeg. Had it been placed there deliberately, he says - the barrel would have become a Basis le'Davar ha'Asur (in which case it would have been forbidden even to tip it).

(b)Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rabah, although he too, establishes the Mishnah in Notel by Shogeg. According to him, had the stone been left on the barrel be'Meizid - it would have become a lid for the barrel, and it would have been permitted to remove it directly.

(c)

1. Rabah reconciles his ruling with our Mishnah, which permits moving a pumpkin with a stone fixed inside, even though he placed it there deliberately - by establishing it where the stone is fixed inside the pumpkin, rendering it part of the pumpkin.

2. Whereas Rav Yosef reconciles his explanation with our Mishnah, which forbids the pumpkin when the stone is not fixed, even though he placed it there deliberately - by establishing it where he did not tie the stone to the inside of the pumpkin, in which case, it does not become part of the pumpkin; whereas the stone on the mouth of the barrel makes a fine cover, so there is no reason why it should be Muktzeh.

10)

(a)The basis of the Machlokes between the two opinions is - whether placing is sufficient to turn a stone into a K'li (Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Asi) or one needs to actually rectify the stone for that purpose (Rabah Amar Rebbi Asi).

(b)We connect the previous Machlokes with the Machlokes between the same Amora'im (Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi) in the following case (cited by Rav Dimi [or Rebbi Zeira] when he arrived in Bavel) citing Rebbi Chanina. When Rebbi arrived at a certain place - he found a pile of bricks designated for building that was suitable for seating.

(c)According to Rebbi Chanina, Rebbi instructed his Talmidim to - have in mind on Erev Shabbos to use the bricks as seats on Shabbos.

(d)Rebbi Yochanan however, maintained - that having in mind was not sufficient, and that some sort of Ma'aseh was required to prepare the bricks for that purpose.

11)

(a)According to Rebbi Ami, the Ma'aseh referred to by Rebbi Yochanan was 'Tze'u ve'Lamdum' - meaning 'Go and pile them up'.

(b)Rebbi Asi said - that he told them to clean the bricks (since as long as they were dirty, they were not fit to sit on).

(c)We have now proved - that Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi (cited by Rabah and Rav Yosef above) both follow their own opinions in the second case.

12)

(a)According to Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul, the above episode took place not with bricks, but with a load of beams. Rebbi Yochanan ben Shaul says - that it was long ships' poles (which were used to gauge the depth of the water in front of the ship).

(b)The latter opinion certainly agrees with the former. The former does not however agree with the latter - because in the opinion of Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul, the poles were valuable, and were Muktzeh Machmas Chesaron Kis (even according to Rebbi Shimon), in which case designation does not help to remove the Din Muktzeh.

13)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah requires the jar to be tied to the vine-branch, in order to become Bateil to it. We suggest that the author of the Mishnah cannot be Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who considers Machshavah sufficient to permit using palm branches that have been cut for fire-wood, for sitting on - whereas the Chachamim require it to be tied.

(b)Rav Sheshes reconciles Raban Shimon ben Gamliel with our Mishnah, by establishing the latter when the branch is still attached to the vine - in which case it would be Muktzeh if it was not tied.

(c)The prohibition of using whatever is joined to the ground however, does not apply - because we establish the case with regard to a branch that is growing within three Tefachim from the ground, in which case the prohibition does not apply to it.

(d)Rav Ashi establishes the ruling in our Mishnah even by a detached vine-branch - because Raban Shimon ben Gamliel will concede there that it requires tying, for fear that otherwise, upon discovering that it is too long, one will come to cut it to size on Shabbos (for which one will be Chayav because of Tikun Manah).

14)

(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan forbids making a temporary Ohel ...

1. ... even on Yom-Tov, how much more so ...

2. ... on Shabbos.

(b)And the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan in our Mishnah (with regard to replacing a window stopper is - whether one may replace an Ohel Arai (a temporary Ohel [the Rabbanan]) or not (Rebbi Eliezer).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan is speaking about a horizontal Mechitzah. He permits putting up a vertical one for Tzni'us purposes on Shabbos.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer is nevertheless stringent in our Mishnah, even in the case of a vertical Mechitzah - because it is part of a permanent Mechitzah (which he treats like a vertical one).