1)

(a)The problem with our Mishnah, which allows carrying in the courtyard, a basket of fruit with a stone in it is - why the basket is not a Basis le'Davar ha'Asur.

(b)To answer the Kashya, Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Mishnah (which allows carrying in the courtyard, a basket of fruit with a stone in it) - where the basket is full of fruit (in which case it is a Basis le'Davar ha'Asur u'le'Davar ha'Mutar).

(c)He is not obligated to empty the basket of all its contents and return the fruit to the basket, to carry the fruit without the stone, because of Rebbi Ila'i Amar Rav, who establishes the case by soft fruit that will become spoilt if it is thrown on the ground.

(d)And Rav Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav explains that he is not obligated to shake the fruit to the side, and tip the stone out of the basket- because it speaks when the stone is actually stopping up a gap in the basket, and is needed.

(e)On the other hand, the stone is not Batel to the basket (and therefore permitted under all circumstances) - because it is not tied there (as we learnt above in Perek Kol ha'Kelim).

2)

(a)Rav Chisda qualifies our Mishnah, which permits carrying a container of Terumah Tehorah together with Terumah Temei'ah - by establishing it when the Terumah Tehorah is underneath, and the Terumah Temei'ah on top. But if the Terumah Tehorah is on top, then he will have to take the Terumah Tehorah and carry it on its own.

(b)We cite Rebbi Ila'i Amar Rav, who establishes the Mishnah by Terumah Temei'ah that is soft, and that will get spoilt if thrown on to the ground - because otherwise, he would be obligated to spill it on to the ground (even when it is on top), and carry the basket containing only the Terumah Tehorah.

3)

(a)We query Rav Chisda however, from a Beraisa, where the Tana rules - that even where the Terumah Temei'ah is underneath and the Terumah Tehorah on top - it is permitted to carry the basket.

(b)Rav Chisda therefore establishes the Mishnah - where the owner requires the fruit, and the Beraisa, where he requires the location (and staking the Terumah Tehorah or spilling the Terumah Temei'ah from the basket will not achieve any purpose.

(c)Rava proves that Rav Chisda was forced to explain our Mishnah like this, on account of a statement by Rabah bar bar Chanah in connection with the Seifa of the Mishnah - which requires shaking the money off the cushion in order to use the cushion.

(d)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan commented on that - that the Mishnah must be speaking where he needed the cushion, because had he needed the location (i.e. the bed) he would be allowed to move the cushion with the money still on it.

4)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Yehudah permitting the removal of one Sa'ah from a basket of a hundred Sa'ah of Chulin into which one Sa'ah of Terumah fell - is that this constitutes Tikun (since the mixture - known as 'Dimu'a' is forbidden until the Sa'ah has been removed).

(b)We initially presume that Rebbi Yehudah holds like Rebbi Eliezer, who says 'Terumah be'Eina Machsa' - meaning that if a Sa'ah or more of the mixture then falls into another pile of Chulin, it remains intact (i.e. we consider as if it was the Sa'ah of Terumah that fell in, and if there is less than a hundred Sa'ah of Chulin apart from it, the entire pile of Chulin becomes forbidden. In other words, Rebbi Eliezer considers the Sa'ah of Terumah as if it was separate from the Chulin into which it fell. And that also appears to be the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who goes on to say that, for the same reason, one is permitted to eat the rest of the original mixture, even without separating the Sa'ah, which explains why he does not consider separating it a Tikun.

(c)The Chachamim will then hold - that if some of the first mixture falls into another mixture, it becomes forbidden proportionately (in other words) we only count as Terumah, the percentage of the mixture that fell into the first mixture (e.g. if one Sa'ah of Terumah fell into ninety Sa'ah of Chulin, then we reckon nine-tenths of whatever fell into the second mixture, as Chulin, and only one tenth as Terumah).

(d)We refute this answer however, on the grounds - that Rebbi Eliezer considers the Sa'ah of Terumah to be separate only le'Chumra, but not le'Kula (in which case separating it constitutes a Tikun, like we asked).

5)

(a)So we suggest that Rebbi Yehudah holds like Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa. The Tana Kama there forbids a mixture consisting of a hundred Sa'ah of Chulin into which a Sa'ah of Terumah fell, if a second Sa'ah that fell into the mixture before he had removed the required Sa'ah. Rebbi Shimon rules - that if a second Sa'ah fell into the mixture before he had removed the required Sa'ah, he is permitted to remove it ...

(b)... because we think - Rebbi Shimon considers the first Sa'ah that fell in to be separate from the Chulin (even le'Kula), and that is why Rebbi Yehudah permits separating the Meduma on Shabbos, as we explained.

(c)We refute this suggestion too however - by ascribing Rebbi Shimon's to the fact - that the first Sa'ah became Batel in one hundred of Chulin, and the second, in a hundred and one.

(d)Whereas the Rabbanan will hold - that the two Sa'in are considered as if they had fallen into the mixture simultaneously, in which case they cannot become Batel.

(e)Despite the fact that the Sa'ah is Batel according to Rebbi Yehudah, removing it is still considered a Tikun - because it is obligatory.

6)

(a)We finally establish Rebbi Yehudah like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar - who permits eating from Meduma from one side, whilst looking at the other side without actually separating the Sa'ah that fell in.

(b)Consequently - taking out the Sa'ah is not a real Tikun.

(c)In fact, Rebbi Yehudah is even more lenient than Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who permits eating Dimu'a from one side and eating from the other, but not to actually separate the Sa'ah that fell in - whereas Rebbi Yehudah in the case cited in the Beraisa holds that, since it is not necessary to separate them, separating them is not a Tikun, and is therefore permitted.

(d)We therefore conclude - that Rebbi Yehudah agrees with Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar but goes one step further than him.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah permits carrying a barrel of wine with a stone on it, before tipping it for the stone to fall off - if it is situated among other barrels, which are liable to break should it hit them when he tips it off.

(b)Rav Huna Amar Rav establishes the Mishnah where he forgot the stone on the barrel. If he left it there on purpose - the barrel would become a Basis le'Davar ha'Asur and not only would he not be permitted to tip the barrel, but there would be no point in doing so either, since the barrel would be Muktzeh.

8)

(a)Rabah bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes our Mishnah like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in the Mishnah in Beitzah, which discusses Bereirah on Yom Tov. Beis Shamai hold that one must remove the Ochel from the Pesoles. Beis Hillel - allow him to pick whatever suits him.

(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - confines their Machlokes to where the Ochel exceeds the Pesoles. In the reverse case, he maintains, Beis Hillel will concede - that one is obligated to take the Ochel.

(c)That explains why the Tana in our Mishnah - requires removing the barrel and not the stone directly.

(d)We circumvent the problem that in our case, the Ochel (the wine) exceeds the Pesoles (the stone) in which case one ought to be allowed to remove the stone directly - by pointing out that one cannot get to the wine without removing the stone, which gives it the Din of Ochel Merubeh al ha'Pesoles.

9)

(a)

1. Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa rules - that if the barrel in our Mishnah is situated among other barrels or if there are glass vessels lying underneath it - then one may carry it away to another location before tipping off the stone (like we learned earlier).

2. Rav Chiya bar Ashi rules that if in our Mishnah, the owner placed the money on the cushion deliberately - then the cushion becomes a Basis (as we explained earlier).

3. And Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that, assuming that he needed the bed (and not just the cushion) - then he may remove the cushion together with the money ...

(b)... and this is borne out by a Beraisa.

10)

(a)Both Rebbi Oshaya and Rav Yitzchak issued similar rulings. The one allowed someone who forgot a purse in a Chatzer, the other, a brick - to place a loaf of bread or a small child on it and to carry them together.

(b)When someone forgot a container full of coins in a Reshus ha'Rabim, they went and asked Rebbi Yochanan what to do. He issued them with the same ruling ...

(c)... permitting them to carry in the Reshus ha'Rabim less than four Amos at a time (due to the large losses involved).

(d)Mar Zutra concurred with all the above rulings. Rav Ashi however, maintained - that the Heter of a loaf of bread is confined to a corpse, which the Chachamim allowed because of Kavod ha'Meis.

11)

(a)The earlier Amora'im held like Mar Zutra (who permitted moving Muktzeh that one had left lying there inadvertently). The problem Rav Yosef had with Abaye, who moved sheaves by placing a ladle on them, and with Rava, who moved a young Shechted dove by placing a knife on it was - that Mar Zutra only permitted where they left the object on top of the Muktzeh inadvertently, whereas they placed it there deliberately.

(b)When he referred to them as 'sharp' - he meant that they considered themselves sharp.

(c)Actually - both Abaye and Rava were being strict with themselves (as we shall see), because they were important people and did not want others to draw wrong conclusions from what they saw.

(d)In reality, said ...

1. Abaye - sheaves are considered a Kli - since they are fit to sit on, and he was strict with himself to place a ladle on them, as we explained.

2. Rava - a young goose is fit to eat raw ... .

(e)We extrapolate from the fact that Rava would only have permitted the dove because it could be eaten raw - that he holds like Rebbi Yehudah regarding Muktzeh.

12)

(a)We query Rava from another ruling of his - where he once instructed his servant to throw the stomach of a goose that he asked him to roast.

(b)This indicates - that he holds like Rebbi Shimon.

(c)We refute the proof however - inasmuch as, bearing in mind that the stomach would go off by Sunday, the owner obviously designated it for cats already before Shabbos (even according to Rebbi Yehudah).

(d)We finally prove that Rava really holds like Rebbi Yehudah from yet another ruling of his, where he forbids ...

1. ... a woman - to take a piece of wood from a wood store (to use as a poker) on Yom Tov (because Yom Tov came in it was designated for firewood and is therefore Nolad).

2. ... a poker that broke on Yom Tov - to be used as firewood (based on the principle that 'one may set fire to Kelim, but not to Kelim that broke on Yom Tov'), since they too, are Nolad.