Implied question: Why does it need to say that the oil is a Bosis for Isur?

Answer: If not, it would not be forbidden to move [the Ner], for it would be a Bosis for something forbidden and something permitted, and one may move it, like it says below "when we were in Rav Nachman's academy, we moved an incense pan due to ashes (they are Heter, for one may cover spit or excrement with them), even though there are broken pieces of wood (Isur) inside.

Question: Why does it say that the wick is a Bosis for Isur? It itself is Asur, like it says below "they agree that if there are broken wicks inside, one may not move [the Ner]!

Answer: Broken wicks are broken Kelim. They are like pebbles. However, a complete wick, which is a Kli, would be permitted [l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo] if not that it is a Bosis for Isur.

Explanation: Now we are thinking that ashes of the incense pan are Muktzah.

Question: We should ask without R. Yochanan's teaching, from our Mishnah (below, 142b)! It says that coins on a pillow, one shakes the pillow and they fall. Similarly, a rock on a barrel, one tilts [the barrel] on its side and it falls. However, one may not move [the pillow or barrel] normally (without shaking off the coins or rock)!

Answer (Ri): One might have thought that coins are different, for they are important, and they are not Batel. A rock on a barrel, one might have thought that it discusses when it was adjusted to seal the barrel and the barrel needs it. Therefore, it is not Batel.

Explanation (R. Tam): This is only regarding Tum'as Midras, which depends on designation, but other Tum'os do not depend on designation;

Even if it was in the wasteheap, we include from "veha'Beged" that three by three [fingers] receives Tum'ah, both for poor and rich, for the verse does not distinguish at all.

Source (R. Tam): A Mishnah (Kelim 27:2) teaches that a garment three by three [Tefachim] receives Tum'as Midras, and if it is three by three [fingers] it receives Tum'as Mes;

You are forced to say that this discusses Ashirim, for it teaches there (28:8) that Bigdei Aniyim, even though they are not three by three [Tefachim], receive Tum'as Midras.

Question: Here [Abaye] asked from the Beraisa. Why didn't he ask from the Mishnah in Kelim (28:8) that I brought?

Answer (Ri): Had he brought the Mishnah, one might have thought that Bigdei Aniyim are garments like Sak, which are primarily made for Aniyim, and even in the hand of Ashirim, it need not be three by three [Tefachim]...

However, other garments require three by three [Tefachim], for they are destined only for Ashirim!

Therefore, he brought the Beraisa. One cannot explain it like this.

Explanation: Kenuna is an incense pan. This is "Machtah with its ashes" taught above, i.e. along with its ashes. It was ignited from before Shabbos. They (the ashes) are Muchan, for they are proper to cover spit or excrement.

Question: It connotes that it is permitted only with ashes. If not, it is a Bosis for Isur;

In Beitzah (21b), regarding "we do not invite a Nochri [to a meal] on Shabbos due to leftover [wine] in his cup (it is Muktzah)", the Gemara asks "he should be able to move it along with the cup! Didn't Rava teach that in Rav Nachman's house, we would move a pan due to ashes, even though there are broken pieces of wood inside?!"

What was the question? A pan is different, for it is moved along with ashes, but a cup [with a Nochri's leftover wine] has only Isur!

Answer (Ri): Remnants in a cup are not important so that the cup would be Batel to them, even though there is no Heter with them in the cup. They are inferior to broken pieces of wood with ashes in a pan. (If the broken pieces of wood are Batel, all the more so the leftovers should be Batel!)

Assertion (R. Tam): Broken pieces of wood are more important than a rock in a basket.

Source #1: If not, what is the Chidush?

Source #2: [If not,] rather than challenging [Rava] from the Beraisa, [the Makshan] should support him from the Mishnah of a basket with a rock inside!

Conclusion: Rather, broken pieces of wood are more important [than a rock], and we should compare broken pieces of wood regarding ashes, to broken wicks regarding oil.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Broken wicks are important in Galil, for linen garments are not common there.

Rebuttal (R. Tam): We say in Bava Kama (118b) that one may buy from women wool garments in Yehudah and linen garments in Galil (we are not concerned lest she stole from her husband). This implies that linen is very common there!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): This was taught in Galil, where they had much oil. Therefore, broken wicks are not Batel to the oil.

Support #1: It connotes like this in Sanhedrin (11b) regarding "take this letter, and write 'to our brothers in Upper and Lower Galil... the time for Bi'ur has come. You must tithe the baskets of olives.'"

Support #2: It says in Nazir (31b) "this was taught in Galil, where wine was preferable to oil";

They had much wine, like it says below (78a) regarding [the Shi'ur to be liable for Hotza'ah of] water is enough to dissolve into Kilor (to cure eyes);

[Abaye] said that this refers to Galil. Healing with water was more common there than drinking [water], for they had much wine, and everyone drank wine. (Presumably, children drank grape juice - PF.) Even so, wine was preferable to oil, for oil was cheaper.

Implied question: Rashi explained there (78a) that due to poverty [in Galil] they used water to heal, and they used wine only for drinking. Therefore, it was common to heal with water. (If so, there is no proof that wine and oil were common!)

Answer: His explanation is wrong. Since they did not have enough wine to rub the potion in it and dissolve it, if so drinking water was more common!

Also, we say elsewhere (Chulin 83a) that in Galil also on Erev Yom Kipur they used to have big Seudos [and slaughter many animals]. This connotes that they were rich! (See also Tosfos Chagigah 25b. Rebbeinu Meir added that because they drank so much wine, their eyes hurt, so it was common to use water to heal eyes.)

Explanation #1: Also above (47a, R. Aba, Rav Huna bar Chiya and Rav Yehudah) discuss when it was loose.

Question #1: How do they argue so much - [Rav Yehudah] obligates a Chatas, and [the others] permit even l'Chatchilah!

Question #2: Building and destroying do not apply to Kelim! (How can Rav Yehudah obligate if it is loose?)

Question #3: We should challenge Rav Yehudah from this Beraisa, for no Tana obligates a Chatas [for returning]!

Explanation #2: Above, [Rav Yehudah] means as follows. Both Rav and Shmuel say that one who returns a bed of Tarsiyim on Shabbos is Chayav Chatas when it is not loose. If so, when it is loose, it is unreasonable to permit l'Chatchilah.

Implied question: We could have said "also according to you (the Makshan, it is difficult)!" R. Yosi himself said (120a, that one may not put a new Kli Cheres full of water in front of a fire, for it will break and extinguish) only regarding a fire (that is consuming property), for a person is frantic about his property. If you permit him [to save his property through causing the fire to extinguish], he will come to [overtly] extinguish. The Gemara explains like this below (120b);

However, here there is no need to decree, for there is a Kli under the lamp, and he is not frantic!

Answer: In several places the Gemara could have said "also according to you", and it does not say so.

Explanation #1: We decree about [putting water] on Erev Shabbos, lest he do so on Shabbos, and on Shabbos he can come to extinguish, if he lifts the Kli while the spark is falling.

Question: Why is this unlike soaking ink and ingredients, and spreading a trap, which we permit above (17b) until sundown, and here we forbid from before Shabbos, lest he come to do so on Shabbos?

Answer (Rav Pores): There, there is no concern lest he do so on Shabbos, for it is an Av Melachah;

However, here there is concern, for it does not seem like such an Isur to put a Kli under the sparks, and there is concern lest he come to extinguish, that he will put the water before the sparks fall, and before he finishes putting, they will fall and he overtly extinguishes, or he will lift the Kli with water towards the spark, like I explained.

Implied question: There is no Chiyuv Chatas in this extinguishing according to R. Shimon, since it is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah! They were stringent due to extinguishing for which one is liable a Chatas. This is a decree to protect a decree! (Normally, we do not make a decree for a decree.)

Answer: Here, Rabanan knew that here it is proper to decree more.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): [Putting water on Shabbos] is absolute extinguishing.

Remark: This is not precise. Rather, he can come to extinguish.

Alternative text: R. Tam's text says like in R. Chananel's Perush, that he makes it extinguish sooner. There (120a, R. Shimon ben Nanas) permits to make a barrier from Kelim with water inside, for he does not extinguish anything until the Kelim break;

However, here there is no interruption between the water and the sparks. They extinguish immediately when they fall in the Kli, and it is like a Mechitzah of water, which is forbidden, e.g. a wall of snow or hail.

Question #1: The Yerushalmi establishes our Mishnah like R. Yosi, but according to Rabanan, even a wall of water is permitted!

Question #2: Also below (120b), Rabanan of R. Yosi hold that if one side of a Talis caught fire, one may put water from the other side, and if it extinguished, it extinguished!

Answer #1: According to the Bavli, we can distinguish. With a wall of water, even though nothing interrupts, it is permitted, for the fire does not overtly fall into the water. Here, the water is under the sparks and hastens extinguishing them more [than there].

Note: Tosfos Yeshanim (at the end of our Tosfos) was copied into our Tosfos (Birkas Shamayim). It does not belong here. The coming question pertains to Answer #1.

Implied question: People often put water in a glass lamp and put oil on top on Erev Shabbos. (This causes extinguishing!)

Answer: This is not causing extinguishing, since he does not intend to extinguish at all, just to raise the oil. It is not applicable to decree lest he do so on Shabbos. It is permitted even according to R. Yosi, and all the more so according to Rabanan.

If not, even without water it would be forbidden, for the sparks fall in the oil [and extinguish].

Note: The following comment is from Tosfos Yeshanim.

Answer #2 (to Questions #1,2): We can say that the Bavli forbids a wall of water according to Rabanan. Therefore, it establishes our Mishnah like R. Yosi, and it argues with the Yerushalmi;

This is unlike one side of a Talis that caught fire. [He puts water from the other side] only so the fire will not spread.

Explanation #1 (R. Yosef in the name of the Rashbam): We discuss when it is partially cooked. However, a pot of raw or cooked food, we permit above (18b).

Rebuttal #1 (R. Tam): We should establish our Mishnah to discuss Stam pots, which are cooked Bein ha'Shemashos!

Rebuttal #2: Presumably, our Mishnah discusses a similar case to the Mishnah of Kirah (the beginning of the previous Perek - 36b), which discusses food cooked k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): We can distinguish between Shehiyah (leaving on a fire) and Hatmanah (insulating). Surely, Shehiyah is permitted when it is k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai, for a little stoking will not help, since it is exposed, and air rules over it (takes away heat);

However, Hatmanah that is done for the next day, and it is insulated, there is concern lest he stoke, for a little stoking helps it to retain its heat;

They decreed [not] to insulate in anything that adds heat. This is a decree lest he insulate in hot coals and stoke.