Question #3 (cont.): There, Rav establishes it when he forgot, but if he (intentionally) placed it (before Shabbos), it became a Bosis for Isur;

Here it is considered as if he forgot, since Shmuel permits. Even one who places something with intent to remove it on Shabbos and not leave it the entire Shabbos, is considered as if he forgot.

This is like the case in which he shakes the cover [of the pot insulated with tufts of wool], and [the tufts] fall, even though he intentionally covered with something that one may not move. (Our text (50a) says that he takes the cover.)

Even Rabanan of R. Elazar ben Tadai permit in a case like here, for they permit (123a) an unripe fig that was covered in straw, or a cake covered in coals, if it is partially exposed;

They argue in a case that it is totally covered. R. Eliezer ben Tadai permits even if it is totally covered. He inserts a spindle or Karkar (a Kli used with a loom) into it [and takes it].

Answer (Ri): We can distinguish. Here, the Tiltul is primarily for the sake of the Mes. It is unlike all of these (that Tosfos brought), in which the Tiltul is primarily for the pillow or barrel, and not for the sake of the coins or rock. Therefore, we do not bring the argument of R. Elazar ben Tadai and Rabanan.

Question #4 (Ri): Even regarding moving a Mes, which we should forbid more than other Tiltul Min ha'Tzad, like I explained, Shmuel permits;

Below (50b), Shmuel said that if a knife was inserted between rows of bricks [in a wall], removed and re-inserted [before Shabbos], it is permitted [to remove it and re-insert it on Shabbos]. If not, it is forbidden;

Rashi explained below that it is forbidden due to Tiltul Min ha'Tzad.

Question #5: Rav Huna said there (50b) that if Slikusta (an herb) was inserted [into moist earth], removed and re-inserted before Shabbos, it is permitted [to remove it and re-insert it on Shabbos]. If not, it is forbidden. This shows that he forbids Tiltul Min ha'Tzad;

Below (141a), Bei Rav says that Tiltul Min ha'Tzad is not considered moving, and we say that Bei Rav is Rav Huna, like R. Tam explains in Sanhedrin (17b)!

Answer (Ri): Rav Huna and Shmuel do not forbid there due to Tiltul Min ha'Tzad, rather, because he removes earth and widens the hole;

Since above (there), the Gemara discussed a cavity, [the Gemara] brought [the teachings of Rav Huna and Shmuel. Since the Sugya was discussing Tiltul Min ha'Tzad, Tosfos must explain why their teachings were brought there.]

[The Gemara] challenged them from [a Mishnah about] turnips or radishes, for Stam turnips or radishes were not inserted and removed [and re-inserted before Shabbos]. Therefore, the Gemara considers this a refutation;

Rav Huna and Shmuel knew the Mishnah. It is in Zera'im. They were forced to establish it when they were inserted and removed [before Shabbos]. The Gemara is not satisfied to establish it like this, and holds that they are refuted.

Implied question: Regarding property, we say oppositely! If you permit him [to save his money from a fire], he will come to extinguish (117b)!

Answer: This is because he is not pained over [loss of] his property like over his Mes. If you permit him, since he is obsessed with saving, he will forget that today is Shabbos and come to extinguish b'Shogeg;

However, he is pained exceedingly over his Mes. If you will not permit him, he will come to extinguish b'Mezid.

Explanation: After Shabbos it is permitted even according to R. Yehudah.

Support: A Beraisa below (45a) regarding Sukah decorations forbids consuming them until after the last Yom Tov, but afterwards, it is permitted.

Question (Ri): Why is this unlike Ner Chanukah? A Beraisa teaches that if it extinguished on the first night, he adds to it on the second night and lights with it. If it extinguished on the eighth night, he makes a bonfire [of the remaining oil and does not benefit from it], for it was Huktzeh to its Mitzvah!

Answer (Ri): Ner Chanukah is primarily not for benefit, rather, to publicize the miracle. Due to dearness of the miracle, he does not anticipate that it will extinguish [and he will use the remaining oil]. Rather, he totally designates it [for the Mitzvah];

However, Ner Shabbos is for benefit. He anticipates that it will extinguish. Therefore it is permitted.

Question: R. Yehudah forbids moving a lamp that extinguished. Why is it different than a fragile regular Sukah (not for the Mitzvah)? A Tenai helps for it, like it says below in our Sugya (45a) that if he stipulated about it, it is according to his Tenai!

In Beitzah (30b) we establish this to discuss a regular Sukah that was fragile. He intends for it from before [Shabbos] that it will fall;

Also a lamp, he intends for it that it will extinguish. Why doesn't his Tenai help to consume the leftover oil?

Also according to R. Shimon, a Tenai should help to consume the oil that drips while it is burning!

Answer: There, a regular Sukah was made a long time ago. Now, Bein ha'Shemashos, he does not refrain from it. He sits and anticipates when it will fall;

However, a lamp, its primary designation was Bein ha'Shemashos. He overtly cast it off for the need of Shabbos. It is more stringent, and a Tenai does not help for it.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This means according to R. Meir.

Question: What is the Chidush? R. Meir explicitly forbids a lamp in which they lit this Shabbos!

Answer: One might have thought that this is only regarding a lamp of Cheres, which has two [reasons to forbid] - it is Muktzah Machmas Mi'us, and due to Isur;

[R. Zeira] teaches that even a metal lamp, which is not repulsive, and it is only Muktzah Machmas Isur, R. Meir forbids.

Objection (R. Tam): According to this, the conclusion that all agree that it is forbidden, is only R. Meir and R. Yehudah, whom [R. Zeira] discusses, but not R. Shimon!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam and R. Chananel): According to the one who permits, i.e. R. Shimon, here he forbids regarding a Pamut (candlestick). A Pamut is big, like a cup, bowl or lantern, like the Pamutos of Beis Rebbi below (121b);

According to the one who forbids, i.e. R. Meir and R. Yehudah, who forbid a lamp of Cheres in which one lit that Shabbos, [theyfbd] only a lamp of Cheres, which has two [reasons to forbid] - Muktzah Machmas Mi'us, and due to Isur. However, they permit a metal lamp.

We conclude that R. Meir forbids even a metal lamp.

Support: We say so in Chulin (15a). We find that R. Meir permits [the result] only if one cooked, for he could have eaten [the food] raw, but not if he slaughtered (for one could not have eaten the meat without Shechitah. I.e. he forbids Muktzah Machmas Isur, even without Mi'us.)

Assertion: It is forbidden even l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo. Since he designated it for coins, we do not use it for anything. It is like a trumpet, which R. Yehudah forbids moving even l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo;

According to R. Shimon, no Muktzah is forbidden l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo, except for Muktzah Machmas Chisaron Kis.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He infers from the fact that it taught "but not an old [lamp]." This implies only old, but new, even if he designated it (it is permitted).

Question (Ri): We conclude that a bed that he designated [for coins] and placed coins on it [is forbidden]. He should challenge [Rav] from a metal lamp, which R. Yehudah permits, even if he designated it, [in the Beraisa] above (44a), since he taught "except for a lamp that they lit in it that Shabbos" (i.e. they lit on Erev Shabbos so it will burn on Shabbos);

However, if they did not light in it that Shabbos, even though he designated it and lit in it during the week, it is permitted!

Answer (Ri): He does not infer at all from "but not old." Rather, only for a lamp of Cheres he says "it is made for this";

From the beginning it was made for lighting, and this is like designation, that once they light in it once, it is repulsive and not proper for another use;

Therefore, its initial formation was only for lighting, even though it is proper for other uses between its formation and lighting, in any case they do not make it for this (other uses), since it is only a short time;

However, a metal lamp is not only for lighting. It is always proper for another use.

Assertion (Ri): Above (36a), R. Yehudah forbids moving a trumpet. This is even if he did not blow it;

A trumpet is proper only for blowing. We do not distinguish based on whether or not he blew in it. However, a bed and lamp are proper for other uses.

Explanation: You are forced to say that he placed [coins on it intentionally], for if he forgot, a Mishnah below (142b) teaches that he shakes the pillow and they fall;

We discuss one who placed on Shabbos, for if he placed before Shabbos, and they were on it Bein ha'Shemashos, even if there are not coins on it [now], one may not move it, like it says at the end (after we fix Rav's teaching).

Question: How can he put intentionally on Shabbos?!

Answer: The case is, a Nochri or child placed according to an [adult] Yisrael's will.

Question: Why didn't the Gemara prove from here, in Beitzah (26b), that there is no Muktzah for half of Shabbos? (There we resolved only Gamro bi'Ydei Adam!)

Answer #1: We can establish it when he left them according to a Yisrael's will, in order to remove them after a while. This is like Gamro bi'Ydei Adam.

Answer #2: According to what I explained above (43a DH b'Odan) that there is Muktzah for half of Shabbos only for eating, but not for moving, this is fine.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The Mishnah (Kelim 18:1) teaches this regarding a chest made for men and women to ride in.

Objection (Ri): If it is proper for Midras (to sit or lie on it). Measure does not apply (even if its volume exceeds 40 Sa'im, it is Mekabel Tum'ah), for it is not equated to Sak. We do not require that it is moved empty and full, like is proven in Bechoros (38a);

The Gemara asks "is a Kli Shetef without an interior Mekabel Tum'ah? We require that it is like a Sak!" It answers that those that are proper for Midras [need not be like a Sak].

Explanation #2: The chest is for Kelim.

Implied question: It says below (64a) that there are three [kinds of] boxes. If its opening is on the side, it [receives] Tum'as Midras. [If its opening is] on top, it [receives] Tum'as Mes, i.e. but not Midras, for they say [to one who sits on it] "get up, and we will do our work (we need to open it)!";

If it is big enough, it is totally Tahor. I.e. it is above 40 Sa'im.

Answer (Ri): We must say that [the last clause] does not refer to [the Reisha, in which] its opening is on the side. Since it is proper for Midras, even if it is big, it is Tamei, like I explained. (Rather, it refers only to when the opening is on top.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is in a cemetery. The Kelim are on the walls of the chest.

Question: What will bring Tum'ah on the Kelim?

Explanation #2 (Riva): The chest is in Ohel ha'Mes, and it is surrounded with a Tzamid Pasil (it is covered without any gaps).

Implied question: A Kli Etz does not save (its contents from Tum'ah) via a Tzamid Pasil!

Answer: When it holds 40 Sa'im, it saves, since it is not Mekabel Tum'ah, like the Mishnah in Kelim (10:1) "the following save via a Tzamid Pasil - Kelim of dung... and Tahor Klei Etz";

We need not say that the wheel has a receptacle. Rather, it is a Pashut Kli Etz (has no interior), and there is a hole in the side of the chest and Kelim in the chest, and the wheel is housed there, and diminishes the hole until there is not an open [square] Tefach;

[The Gemara] says that since the wheel can come off, it does not diminish [the opening. Therefore, Tum'ah can enter.] Only when he is Mevatel (decides to permanently leave) it there, it diminishes in a window, like is proven in Bava Basra (20b);

The Gemara challenges the teaching that a Kli Cheres diminishes [the opening] in a window - "it is proper for him!" I.e. he is not Mevatel it. How can it diminish?!

It answers that it is dirty. We discuss when it does not seal the entire hole. If it sealed the entire hole, even if he is not Mevatel it there, it seals [and blocks Tum'ah], like it says below (157a), in the days of Aba Sha'ul ben Bitnis they plugged up a Ma'or (window opening) with a flask;

There, they were not Mevatel it, for if they were Mevatel on Shabbos, he would be liable for building, for he adds to the building! Rather, surely it discusses without Bitul. Even so, it seals [and blocks Tum'ah].

Explanation: We say so also regarding a Kli Etz. Megilah (26b) discusses a Beis ha'Keneses of Romans (Yisraelim) that was open to a room with a Mes. Kohanim wanted to enter to pray there. They told Rava;

Rava: Move the Aron to the opening, for it is a Kli Etz made to be stationary.

Presumably, they were not Mevatel it there, for the Sefer Torah is placed in it!

Distinction: However, straw and dried figs do not have the law of Kelim. Even if they seal the entire window, they need Bitul, like is proven in Bava Basra (19b).

Question (R. Tam): "Muchni" is not a wheel. It is not normal to put coins on a wheel! It was taught "we may not drag it when there are coins on it."

Answer (R. Tam): "Muchni" is a base of a chest, like "the laver and Kano (its base)", and "Mechonos" in Melachim (1:7). I.e. it is the pedestal on which the chest rests;

There is a hole in the bottom of the chest in line with the Muchni. It is in the cemetery. The Tum'ah enters through the hole in the chest, and the Muchni does not save, since it comes off, and they are not Mevatel it there;

Also, we discuss when it does not seal the entire hole. It only diminishes it from an open Tefach, like I explained above.

Explanation: We must say that the Tum'ah is not in line with the hole. When the Tum'ah is in line with the hole, even if there is not an open Tefach, the Tum'ah breaks through and ascends;

This is like it says in Sukah (18a) "a skylight in a house without an open Tefach, if the Tum'ah is in line with the skylight, the entire house is Tahor, because [the Tum'ah] breaks through and ascends."

Similarly, in Ohalos, and it is brought in Chulin (125b), ropes of the bed or poles of window... if they were stretched in the air over a Mes, one who touches (puts his hand) in the airspace over a hole between ropes or poles is Tamei. One who touches not over a hole is Tahor.

There, the holes do not have an open Tefach, for the Reisha teaches that it blocks [Tum'ah from passing] from the house to the upper story.

Explanation (Ri): When it comes off, it is a Kli unto itself, but when it does not come off, one may drag it;

Even though there are coins on it, since they are not on the chest, which is the primary Kli, it is permitted.

Question (Rashba): What was the question? We should establish it when he forgot, therefore when there are not coins on it, even if there were coins on it all of Bein ha'Shemashos, it is permitted, like it says below (112b);

When there are coins on it, one may not drag it, even if he forgot, which is absolute Tiltul. The Chidush is, when it does not come off, one may drag it, i.e. proper Tiltul!

Answer: You are forced to say that we discuss when he [intentionally] placed it, for "one may not drag it" connotes even l'Tzorech Mekomo. If he forgot, we say (below, 112b) "this is only l'Tzorech Gufo, but l'Tzorech Mekomo, one may move it while the coins are still on it."

Note: Maharam says that the rest of this Dibur is a comment on Tosfos. Maharshal deletes it. Maharsha says that it belongs at the end of the coming Tosfos.

Distinction: However, a bed that he designated and placed coins on it, we can say that R. Shimon agrees that since he was adamant about it, he fixes a place for it, like we say below (123a) all agree that since he was adamant about it, he fixes a place for it. R. Tam explains that "all agree", means even R. Shimon.

Implied question: Why did we ask above from a lamp?

Answer: This is because we can distinguish between a bed and other matters only when he placed coins on it. (Designation alone does not help.)

Consequence: According to this, there is no difficulty against Rashi, who explained that we inferred from the fact that it taught "but not an old [lamp]."

Note: At the top of this Amud, the Ri challenged Rashi. We conclude that Rav forbids a bed that was designated for coins and he placed coins on it. R. Yehudah permits a metal lamp, even if he designated it! Now, this is not difficult. If a bed was designated and he placed coins on it, it is more stringent, for he fixes a place for it, unlike a lamp.