Implied question: In several places we find that Rav holds like R. Yehudah. He forbids a bed designated for coins, and he placed coins on it;

According to R. Shimon this is permitted, for he permits trumpets, even if he blew in it several times, and mats put on merchandise (above, 19b)!

Answer: He wants to prove that Rav holds like R. Yehudah regarding "since it was Muktzah Bein ha'Shemashos..."

Explanation: On the [Chaverim's] festival, they did not allow a lamp [to burn] except in the house of idolatry.

Implied question: Why does [Rav] ask about Ner Chanukah more than about Ner Shabbos?

Answer: They allowed [a lamp] for the sake of eating.

Implied question: At a time of danger, we say (above 21b) that they permitted to leave [Ner Chanukah] on one's table, and this suffices!

Answer #1: Here we discuss if it occurred that he did not leave it on his table.

Answer #2 (Ri): Above, "at a time of danger" is not danger due to Chaverim, rather, when [the kingdom] decreed not to light Ner Chanukah.

Implied question: R. Shimon permits a lamp that extinguished, even though he overtly was Docheh (showed that he will not use it on Shabbos)!

Answer: There is different, for his Dichuy already ceased (it is no longer burning). Here (wheat in the ground or an egg under a hen), they are Dechuyim as long as they are there.

Explanation: He does not truly mean [oil] in a lamp. It is forbidden [to take such oil] due to extinguishing, like it says in Beitzah (22a) "one who takes from it is liable for extinguishing"! Rather, he discusses what dripped from a lamp.

Observation: The Isur [to move] a burning lamp is not due to Muktzah for its Mitzvah, like I explained above (42b DH v'Ein, since this does not Mevatel it from its Mitzvah). Rather, it is like it says below (47a), because it is a Bosis for something forbidden (the flame).

Question (Ri): Why does he mention oil in a lamp? It would be better to say that R. Shimon holds that the only Muktzah is dried figs and raisins, which more resemble wheat in the ground. They are not cast off due to Mitzvah, and not due to Isur!

Suggestion: R. Yochanan holds that R. Shimon holds that dried figs and raisins are not Muktzah.

Rejection: Rebbi says below that R. Shimon holds that dried figs and raisins are Muktzah. Presumably, [R. Yochanan] does not argue [with Rebbi].

Question (R. Tam): On the last day of Yom Tov, it is forbidden only because it was cast off Bein ha'Shemashos, due to the previous day. R. Shimon permits leftover oil in a lamp, even though it was cast off Bein ha'Shemashos for its Mitzvah, due to the coming day!

Answer (Ri): This that the Beraisa forbids the last day of Yom Tov, is unlike R. Shimon.

Reference: In Beitzah (30b), the text in the Mishnah says "only from what is nearby", and the Gemara asks "he destroys an Ohel!", and answers that "from what is nearby" means near the walls;

Observation: Now, if the text in the Beraisa here is "only from what is nearby", it means near the walls. If the text is "not from what is nearby", it refers to what is on the Sechach, and the reason is because he destroys an Ohel, like it says there.

Reference: In Beitzah (30b), the Gemara asks "he destroys an Ohel!", and establishes it to discuss a Sukah that fell, and it was fragile, so he intended for it from before [Yom Tov, that it will fall and he will use it].

Explanation (Yerushalmi): They get spoiled in between (before drying out). Since they are so ruined, he does not intend to take them until they are properly fixed (dry).

Explanation: Even though they do not get so ruined, he casts them out of his mind.

Examples: This is in a case like the Mishnah (below, 126b - we may clear out... boxes of straw or grain.... but one may not clear out a storehouse), or (156b) R. Yehudah says that if an animal was not a Neveilah before Shabbos [and died on Shabbos], one may not [cut it up in front of dogs].

Explanation: Since it mentions [that he was] eating regarding Muktzah that he overtly cast off, it seems that if he was eating, R. Yehudah permits regarding Muktzah that he did not overtly cast off, like regarding a storehouse.

Inference: He was unsure if Rebbi holds like R. Shimon.

Question #1: Why isn't it proven from below (46a) that he holds like R. Shimon? [R. Yehoshua ben Levi] said that once, Rebbi went [to a certain place] and ruled about a Menorah, like R. Shimon regarding a Ner!

Question #2: [It is proven] also from the Beraisa brought in Beitzah (26a), that if a Tam Bechor fell into a pit [on Yom Tov], R. Yehudah ha'Nasi says that an expert about Mumim descends and inspects it. If it has a Mum, they bring it up and slaughter it...!

Observation: This that it permits to inspect a Mum [on Yom Tov] is unlike R. Shimon. [He holds like R. Shimon] regarding that he permits Muktzah.

Answer (to Question #2): Rashi's text does not say "a Tam Bechor", rather, "a Bechor that fell into a pit." Now it can be like R. Yehudah. He will inspect it [only] it had this blemish from before Yom Tov (i.e. if an expert did not rule about it before Yom Tov).

Explanation #1 (R. Yosef): It did not mention a live chick, for it is useful to silence a crying child [via giving it to him].

Rebuttal #1: Regarding inverting a basket in front of chicks (above, 43a), it connotes that one may not move [a live chick]!

Rebuttal #2: If a live chick is permitted, why does it say below that R. Shimon agrees that living beings that died are forbidden?

Explanation #2: Rather, surely living beings are Muktzah, like dried figs and raisins. He casts them out of his mind also from [giving to] dogs;

Implied question: This should be like unsalted meat, which R. Shimon permits!

Since it asks below (128a) about Rav Huna, who permits "he was a Talmid of Rav, and Rav holds like R. Yehudah!", this connotes that R. Shimon permits!

Answer: [Unsalted meat is different,] for he does not cast out of his mind from [giving to] dogs, like he does [cast out] living beings.

Explanation: It is forbidden due to Nolad.

Question: This requires investigation. R. Yochanan himself explains that an egg [laid on Yom Tov] is forbidden due to [a decree lest people permit] liquids that flowed from food. (It is not due to Nolad);

Perhaps for this reason, R. Shimon would not forbid moving it, only eating it!

Note: It seems that Tosfos is unsure. Maharam explains that perhaps R. Yochanan taught the reason of liquids that flowed to forbid eating even when Nolad does not apply, e.g. a hen destined to be eaten, but normally (a hen for eggs) he agrees that it is Nolad, and forbids moving it.

Explanation (Ri): It is forbidden according to R. Shimon because since it has a chick, it is like dried figs and raisins;

The elder of Kiruya asked whether one may move it through shaking out the egg. Is this considered like one who placed [Muktzah inside], or like one who forgot?

R. Yochanan answered that [the nest] is made only for hens. He is not like one who forgot, rather, like one who placed.

Question: Why isn't it proven from R. Yochanan's teaching (Sukah 46b) that a Sukah is forbidden even on Shemini Atzeres? This shows that he holds that since it was cast off [Bein ha'Shemashos]... like R. Yehudah!

Answer (Ri): A lamp is not Muktzah for its Mitzvah to forbid moving it, for there is no Bitul of its Mitzvah through moving it;

It is unlike a Sukah, which was cast off Bein ha'Shemashos due to Mitzvah. Therefore, he cannot prove from a Sukah to a lamp.

Question: Perhaps Rav Asi holds like his Rebbi, i.e. Rav, like it says above regarding Ner Chanukah! Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav "is this the Halachah?"

Answer: Rav Asi above is not R. Asi here. The one above was the colleague of Rav Kahana, and the one here is the colleague of R. Ami.

Explanation #1: [R. Yochanan rules like R. Shimon] regarding Muktzah Machmas Mi'us, i.e. an old lamp that he did not light in this Shabbos.

Above, he rules like R. Yehudah, i.e. when he lit in it this Shabbos. It is Muktzah Machmas Isur.

Implied question: Below (156b), he rules like R. Shimon regarding cutting a Neveilah in front of dogs [on Shabbos], even though a Neveilah is Muktzah Machmas Isur, like R. Tam explained (above, 19b)!

Answer: There, he did not overtly cast it off. Here that he overtly cast it off, he holds like R. Yehudah.

Consequence: According to this, R. Yochanan, who rules like R. Yehudah, and R. Yehoshua ben Levi, who rules like R. Shimon, do not discuss the same Beraisa!

R. Yochanan discusses the Beraisa "one may move all metal lamps...", but what R. Yehudah said in the Beraisa above "one may move it a new lamp, but not an old lamp", R. Yochanan does not hold like him;

R. Yehoshua ben Levi discusses the Beraisa "one may move it a new lamp", for in that Beraisa R. Shimon permits a lamp in which he lit this Shabbos.