Implied question: Why didn't R. Yochanan rule like R. Meir? He holds like R. Meir totally, for he permits Muktzah Machmas Mi'us, and forbids Muktzah Machmas Isur!

Answer #1: He mentioned R. Yehudah, for he is always mentioned regarding [forbidding] Muktzah.

Answer #2: We do not find that R. Meir forbids Muktzah Machmas Isur alone. [We find that he forbids] only regarding an old lamp, which has two reasons to forbid - due to repulsiveness, and Isur.

Question (Rashba): It connotes that [R. Yochanan] answered that regarding a Menorah, we do not hold like R. Shimon, but R. Shimon permits a Menorah;

According to what [Rabah and Rav Yosef] explain that the reason [to forbid] a Menorah is because a person fixes a place for it, how can R. Shimon permit?

We say below (123a) that all agree about Sichi, Ziri and Mezori (dying or weaving tools.) Since people are adamant about them, they fix a place for them (so one may not move them)!

Explanation #2: R. Yochanan rules like R. Yehudah regarding Muktzah Machmas Mi'us, and all the more so regarding Muktzah Machmas Isur, like is proven below (157a);

[Rav Acha or Ravina] said that in all of Shabbos, the Halachah follows R. Shimon, except for Muktzeh due to Mi'us, and [the other of Rav Acha and Ravina] said that the Halachah follows R. Shimon also regarding Muktzah Machmas Mi'us, but not regarding Muktzah Machmas Isur, i.e. he lit in the lamp this Shabbos.

Implied question: Why did [R. Yochanan] say "regarding a lamp, we hold like R. Shimon"? (This connotes that he holds like him!)

Answer: He does not hold like him regarding a lamp. Rather, we have no one who permits more than a lamp, even R. Shimon who is lenient. He forbids a Menorah.

Support (and Answer #3 to Question (a)): Now, [R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua ben Levi] discuss the same Beraisa, and [R. Yochanan] could not have said that the Halachah follows R. Meir.

Explanation (Rashba): [We ask that] a person fixes a place for it, like a Menorah, and even so, Shmuel permits!

Rather, surely fixing [a place for the canopy] and for a Menorah is not considered fixing, only when he totally designated a place, like it says below (123a).

Question (Ri): In Beitzah (21b), a Mishnah teaches that R. Gamliel is stringent like Beis Shamai about three matters, and it counts "we do not erect a Menorah." It connotes that Beis Hillel permit;

The Gemara explains there (23a) that here we discuss a Menorah of rings, because it looks like building. Beis Shamai hold that building and destroying apply to Kelim, and Beis Hillel hold that building [and destroying] do not apply...

Inference: Beis Hillel permit returning a Menorah of rings!

Question #2: The one who permits below (47b) to return a bed of rings when it is loose, we can establish that similarly, [Beis Hillel permit a Menorah of rings that] is loose. However, according to the opinion that forbids [below, even if it is loose], it is difficult!

Answer (Ri): There (Beitzah 21b) we discuss when the rings are joined together and do not come apart. Sometimes one tilts them, and sometimes he erects them.

Question: Why didn't [the Gemara] say also "or, perhaps he permitted a Menorah, like R. Shimon [permits] a lamp, and he does not hold like R. Shimon regarding a lamp!

We find like this in Chulin (56b). [R. Simai and R. Tzadok] ruled about a [removed] womb, like Rebbi rules about a [removed] crop;

Citation (56b) Question: Did they rule about the womb Tereifah, and permitted a crop like Rebbi? Or, did they rule about a womb Kosher, like Rebbi rules about the crop, but they do not hold like Rebbi regarding the crop!

Answer #1: Here we cannot attribute a Menorah to a lamp, like we attribute a womb to a crop. Here, there is not one reason for both of them. [The reason to forbid] a Ner is due to Muktzah, and a Menorah is due to building.

Answer #2: [The Gemara] does not want to say that Rebbi does not hold like R. Shimon regarding a lamp, because R. Yehoshua ben Levi rules above like R. Shimon.

Question: In Chulin, why didn't we say that [perhaps they ruled like] both of them leniently, like we say here? "Perhaps they permitted a womb, and also permitted a crop, like Rebbi!"

Answer: Even without this [question, Meforshim] change the text and omit from the text "they rule that a womb is Tereifah", for all permit this;

Citation (56b - Beraisa): "Em" (womb) is the Tarpachas and it is the Shalchufis. A case occurred in which the womb was removed, and R. Tarfon [ruled that it is Tereifah, and they] fed the animal to dogs, and he said "Tarfon, you lost your donkey" [when he heard that it is Kosher, and thought that he must pay for his mistake]!

Citation (cont.): R. Akiva told him "you erred about Devar Mishnah (a clear mistake, so you are exempt)";

The text there says they ruled to permit a [missing] womb, and permitted a crop like Rebbi...

Explanation (Rashi): He permitted a Menorah, like R. Shimon [permits] a lamp. It was one ruling.

Rebuttal #1: We should not attribute a Menorah to a lamp.

Rebuttal #2: We should still ask that perhaps he permitted both of them!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Even R. Shimon [forbids moving a kerosene lamp, according to Rav Yehudah].

Support #1: [Rav Yehudah] permits moving an oil lamp, i.e. according to R. Shimon.

Support #2: Below, Rava questions Rabah and Rav Yosef "why is this different than pebbles in the Chatzer?" If R. Shimon permits an oil lamp, this is difficult for everyone, according to R. Shimon!

Conclusion: This is why Rashi said that here we discuss according to R. Shimon.

Implied question: Rav forbids Muktzah regarding a bed designated for coins, and also Rabah holds like this, like Abaye said "[Rabah] did everything like Rav [except for three matters";

Also Rav Yosef connotes that he forbids Muktzah below (142b. Abaye would put a spoon on top of sheaves to permit carrying them, and Rava would put a knife on top of a raw, unsalted dove.) Rav Yosef said "these youngsters think that they are so sharp! Chachamim permitted for one who forgot. Did they permit l'Chatchilah?!

Answer: Here, [Rabah and Rav Yosef] teach according to R. Shimon, but they do not hold like him.

Explanation #2: It seems that here we discuss also according to R. Yehudah. We do not discuss when he lit in it this Shabbos;

[Rav Yehudah] says as follows. A metal oil lamp, one may move it even according to R. Yehudah, like the Beraisa above teaches (44a) "one may move all metal lamps. A kerosene lamp is forbidden, even according to R. Shimon, for it is more repulsive than an old lamp;

Rabah and Rav Yosef permit even according to R. Yehudah, for it is not repulsive, just it has a bad smell, and it is proper to cover a Kli;

However, an old lamp, he casts it out of his mind totally because it is repulsive, and even to cover a Kli [he would not use it. See Tosfos Menachos 41b, who says that perhaps Rabah and Rav Yosef discuss a metal lamp, or Rabah does not always rule like Rav when other Chachamim [not just Shmuel] argue. He concludes "this requires investigation."]

Explanation: We need to explain the reason, because it connotes that this Tana holds like the opinion below (64b) that forbids to adorn [with these ornaments] in the Chatzer, since it teaches "they are like all Kelim that may be taken in the Chatzer."

I.e. they are like all Kelim that Melachtan l'Isur. They are permitted l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo;

Therefore, Ula explains that they have Toras Kli.

Question (Ri): It says in Mo'ed Katan (12b) that R. Yehudah Nesi'ah (the grandson of Rebbi) went out with Chumreta d'Medusha (a metal ring with a wood stamp). R. Ami was upset;

Citation (12b - Rav Yosef) Question: Why was he upset? A Beraisa teaches that chains and rings...

What did [Rav Yosef] ask from the Beraisa? Just the contrary, it connotes that one may not go out with them, like I explained. There it says "he went out with", with connotes in the way of wearing!

Answer (Ri): There, R. Yehudah Nesi'ah went out with a wooden ring, like Rashi's Rebbeyim explained, and not of Almog, like Rashi explained, for in Rosh Hashanah (23a) it explains that Almogin is Kesisa (coral), and here it says Medusha!

Rather, it is a different wood called Medusha. It is not considered an ornament, and when one goes outside wearing it, it is not decoration, rather, carrying;

Therefore, Rav Yosef knew that R. Ami was upset only due to carrying.

Support: Now, he properly proves from this Beraisa that one may move l'Tzorech Gufo or l'Tzorech Mekomo, like any Kli she'Melachto l'Isur, which is taken l'Tzorech Gufo or l'Tzorech Mekomo;

[R. Yehudah Nesi'ah] went out to a Chatzer, but in Reshus ha'Rabim it is forbidden, like it says in Eruvin (69a) that a man went out with Chumreta d'Medusha. He saw R. Yehudah Nesi'ah, and covered it. [R. Yehudah Nesi'ah] said "someone like this (who is ashamed to be Mechalel Shabbos in front of me) can be Mevatel Reshus, according to R. Yehudah." (If he did not join in the Eruv, he can nullify his property so that he will not forbid others from carrying in the Chatzer.)

Question (Ri): What was the question? You are forced to say that R. Shimon's reason is not due to Muktzah, rather, because he holds that we do not see Mumim on Yom Tov;

Source: R. Yehudah, who forbids Muktzah more, holds there in Beitzah (25b) that if a Bechor fell into a pit, an expert may descend and inspect. If there is a Mum, they raise it and slaughter it. If not, they may not slaughter.

Answer: [The Makshan] infers from the fact that it did not teach "R. Shimon forbids, for we do not inspect Mumim on Yom Tov." This would imply that l'Chatchilah it is forbidden, but b'Di'eved it is checked;

Since he taught "it is not Muchan", this connotes that it is Muktzah, and even if one inspected it, it is not inspected.

They argue about the following. R. Yehudah holds that we inspect Mumim on Yom Tov. Therefore it is not Muktzah. We discuss when it had a Mum from before Yom Tov, like it establishes it there;

R. Shimon holds that we do not inspect. Therefore, even if he inspected it, it is not inspected, due to Muktzah.

Question: In Beitzah, it connotes that Abaye holds like Ada bar Uchmi, who says that R. Shimon says that if it had a Mum from before Yom Tov, if he inspected it, it is inspected;

Source: Abaye said there that presumably, Rabah bar Rav Huna is correct, since the Beraisa taught three clauses;

If so, the distinction between when if it had a Mum Kavu'a from before Yom Tov, and when a Mum Kavu'a arose on Yom Tov, is because when a Mum arose on Yom Tov, there are three "who says?" (reasons why he did not expect to be able to slaughter it), like it says below, and when it had a Mum from before Yom Tov, there is only one "who says?", i.e. that he will get a Chacham to check it...

[If so,] what was the question from a lamp that extinguished? There are not so many "who says?"!

Answer: Abaye retracted, and ceased to hold like this Beraisa after he heard Rav Oshaya's Beraisa, for Ada bar Uchmi taught an errant version, for one may infer from the Mishnah there like [the Beraisa of] Rav Oshaya, like [the Gemara] explains there.

Assertion: All these "who says?" that Rabah said are not precise, for R. Shimon forbids even when a Mum Kavu'a (a proper Mum that permits Shechitah) came before Yom Tov, and now there is only one "who says?", i.e. that he will get a Chacham to check it;

Source: He comments on R. Yehudah's opinion, who permits only when there was a Mum Kavu'a before Yom Tov, for regarding R. Yehudah's words "if not, he may not slaughter" he asks "this is obvious!", and answers that the case is, there was a temporary Mum, and now there is a Mum Kavu'a;

One might have thought that since he intended for it, he may slaughter it. [R. Yehudah] teaches that this is not so.

Consequence: His teaching "if it has a Mum, they raise it and slaughter it", you are forced to say that a Mum Kavu'a came before Yom Tov;

Even Ada bar Uchmi, who says that R. Shimon permits b'Di'eved when there is one "who says?", even so, when there was a temporary Mum from before Yom Tov, and there are two "who says", it seems there that he forbids;

Therefore, it seems that [all of these "who says?"] are not precise. Even one suffices [for R. Yehudah to forbid].

Support: This is proven from the challenge of Rami bar Chama, who asks from one "who says."

Implied question: The Peros she vowed from are not Muktzah to forbid moving them, for they are permitted to other people!

Answer #1: Even so, we should say that since they were Huktzah Bein ha'Shemashos from eating them, they are Huktzeh the entire day.

Answer #2: We discuss her Peros, and she forbade them to all people.

Question: There is different! There, surely a Chacham will not accede [to inspect the Bechor], for we do not inspect Mumim on Yom Tov. Here, there is no Isur, so the husband will accede [to annul her vow], so we should not say "who says?"!

Source: According to R. Yehudah, who holds that we see Mumim on Yom Tov, we do not say "who says?"!

Answer: Also the husband is not pleased to accede, for sometimes he permits vows that she vowed for a Mitzvah.

Implied question: In Chulin (18b) Rav Yehudah said in the name of R. Yirmeyah, who was unsure whether he heard from Rav or Shmuel, that three [commoners] can permit a Bechor where there is no expert! (If so, this is just like Hataras Nedarim!)

Answer: That is only for blatant Mumim, e.g. its eye was blinded, its foreleg was cut off, or its hind leg was broken, like it says in Bechoros (36b).

Implied question: We could have said "who says that three commoners will accede [to inspect it?]" Surely they will not, for we do not inspect Mumim on Yom Tov!

Answer #1: It mentioned a Chacham acceding, for a Chacham can permit based on any Mum.

Note: The following comment is from Tosfos Yeshanim.

Comment - Answer #2: According to this (the simple reading of the Gemara, unlike Tosfos), it is fine regarding Tevel that it says (above, 43a) "if he transgressed and fixed it, it is fixed." We say here only that a Chacham will not accede, but we do not say "who says?" regarding three commoners. (Commoners are prone to transgress.)

Question: According to what Tosfos wrote, that we could have said ["who says?" also regarding three commoners], Tevel is difficult, like [Tosfos] explained above (43a Sof DH Tevel, that if he fixed it, it is fixed)...

Answer #2 (cont.): It mentioned a Chacham, for a Chacham can permit based on any Mum. (Commoners would accede to inspect, but in most cases they cannot permit.) The primary reason (why Bechor is unlike a vow) is because here (inspecting a Mum) there is an Isur, and there (permitting vows), there is no Isur.

Implied question: Why does it say "if a Chacham will not accede [to permit the vow], three commoners suffice"? (There is no reason for the Chacham to refuse!)

Answer: Even though it is permitted [for a Chacham to permit], if three commoners did not suffice, it would be considered Muktzah (it is not always easy to find a Chacham).

Explanation: This is the style of the Gemara. Even though it could have brought the Reisha, which explicitly taught "except for a lamp burning on Shabbos", it brings the Seifa and infers from it.

Question: Here, regarding extinguishing, there is no Isur mid'Oraisa according to R. Shimon, for it is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah!

Answer: It means as follows. When he intends, there is an Isur Torah, e.g. a wick that he needs to singe.

Remark (Rav Pores): Even though this is a weak answer, even without this [question], we properly challenge [and refute the answer that distinguishes mid'Oraisa from mid'Rabanan].