Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rav Yosef, Rav Chisda's reason is because of 'Bitul K'li me'Heichano', the prohibition of negating a vessel from its use by designating it for a use on Shabbos, from which one will later be unable to move it. (Some ascribe this to its similarity to building, others to demolishing). That is why Rav Chisda forbids one to place a receptacle *underneath* a hen to receive the Muktzah egg, whereas he permits the placing of a vessel *over* the egg to protect it.

(b) The Beraisa nevertheless permits the placing of ...

1. ... a receptacle underneath a broken barrel to receive Tevel wine - because Tevel wine is not Muktzah. Why not? Because if (despite the Isur) one were to Ma'aser it on Shabbos, it would be effective, and the wine would be permitted; and in such a case, Chazal did not decree Muktzah;
2. ... a receptacle to receive sparks from a lamp - because sparks (like particles of dust)are not real entities, and are not therefore Muktzah.
3. ... a bench to support a sagging beam - only in such a way that the bench can be easily withdrawn (i.e. it is not really holding up the beam at all, but only preventing it from sagging further.
4. ... a receptacle underneath a leaking roof - only if the water is clean and drinkable, so that neither the water nor the receptacle are Muktzah.

(c) An overturned basket on which chickens have jumped is not Muktzah - provided the chickens were not on it during the entire dusk period, and provided they are not on it at the time that he wants to take it.

(a) According to Rav Yitzchak, one may not even take a dish to place over a freshly-laid egg - because in his opinion, one may only move a vessel to use for something which is itself not Muktzah, and an egg *is*.

(b) All the Beraisos, which permit one to take vessels for Tevel, for beams, for sparks etc. (even though they are all Muktzah), speaks when he picked up the vessel to remove it, because he needed the location of the vessel (which is certainly permitted by vessels which are not intrinsically Muktzah). Since they are already in his hand, he may then use them even to protect other Muktzah objects.

(c) The Beraisa permits one to take mats to cover ...

1. ... stones which are not Muktzah i.e. sharp stones, which are fit for cleaning oneself in a bathroom.
2. ... bricks, which are also fit to be used to sit on, and which were left over from a building project and automatically designated for that purpose.

3)

(a) A regular honey-comb is not Muktzah, when it contains honey.

(b) 'Those two honey-combs' refers to the two honey-combs which the owner would leave inside the beehive when he emptied it. Its purpose was to sustain the bees during the winter. They were the only two combs to remain in the beehive, and the only source of honey during the winter season.

(a) According to Rav Yitzchak, the Beraisa must be speaking when he designated those two honey-combs for his own consumption - before Shabbos.

(b) One must take care, when covering the honey-combs, not to trap any bees.

(c) The author of the Beraisa cannot be Rebbi Shimon, who does not hold of Muktzah. it must therefore be Rebbi Yehudah, who *does*.

(d) And as for 'taking care not to trap' (which would not really help according to Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven' is Asur, what the Beraisa means, is that he must must take care not to actually trap the bees - by leaving a little gap for the bees to escape, in which case, it will not even be a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven'.

(a) The reason that we established the Beraisa by the two honey-combs is because otherwise, why should the bee-hive not be Muktzah in the winter (incorporated in the Beraisa in the words 'bi'Geshamim', and when there is normally no honey in the combs). Rav Ashi infers from the Beraisa, which does not write *'bi'Yemos ha'Chamah ... u'vi'Yemos ha'Geshamim'*, but *'ba'Chamah ... u'vi'Geshamim'*, which suggests that it is not talking about the summer or the winter, but about a time of year when there is sun and rain.

(b) The Beraisa speaks, according to Rav Ashi, in the months of Nisan and Tishri, when there is sunshine and rain - and, above all, there is honey!

(a) To protect a corpse from the sun, two people need to sit down on the ground beside the corpse. When the ground becomes hot, they bring two stretchers to sit on. Then, when it the sun beats down on them, they bring two mats which they hold over their heads. At that point, they are permitted to lift up the two stretchers to support the mats which they are already holding aloft, and which will now serve to protect the corpse.

(b) The reason that the mats must be held aloft before the stretchers are placed underneath them, is because otherwise, it is forbidden to make an 'Ohel Arai' (a temporary Ohel), from the bottom to the top; it is permitted only if one begins and builds Ohel first first and then the walls.

(c) This Beraisa (the fact that the stretchers were only permitted to be brought for the people to sit on, and not for the corpse) is a proof for Rav Yitzchak, who forbids one to pick up a vessel to use for something which is itself Muktzah.

(a) Even if one does not have a loaf of bread or a baby available to place on the corpse, it is possible to move it by tipping it from one bed on to another ('Tiltul Min ha'Tzad') - without actually touching the corpse - until it reaches the shade.

(b) Not everyone agrees that 'Tiltul min ha'Tzad' (moving Muktzah in this way) is permitted; others maintain that this is called moving, and is forbidden on Shabbos.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah ben Lakish permits moving a corpse, either because he agrees with the opinion that holds 'Tiltul min ha'Tzad' is not considered Tiltul; or because, in his opinion, Chazal permitted 'Tiltul min ha'Tzad' by a corpse which is threatened by a fire, because, due to the confusion that is bound to affect someone whose dead is about to be burned, we are afraid that he is liable to extinguish the fire - in order to save his dead relative from being burned.

Next daf