ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 46
(a) Rebbi may have ruled by a Menorah leniently, like Rebbi Shimon ruled by
an old earthenware one; or he may have ruled by a Menorah strictly, and by
an old earthenware lamp like Rebbi Shimon.
(b) Rebbi Avahu himself must follow the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who holds
that a Menorah is *not* Muktzah (otherwise he would not have moved one
under any circumstances). However, in Rebbi Yochanan's territory he
declined to do so, in deference to Rebbi Yochanan, who declares it Muktzah.
(a) Rav Yehudah permitted moving an earthenware oil-lamp after it had gone
out, because he holds like Rebbi Shimon with regard to 'Muktzah Machmas
Mi'us'. Nevertheless, he forbade a lamp that was lit with paraffin,
because, due to its bad smell, it is not fit to be used for any other
purpose, unlike an oil lamp, which *is*.
(Note: The lamps in those days were probably flat, rather than tall, like
ours' usually are.)
(b) Rabbah and Rav Yosef permit even a paraffin lamp, because it can be
used to cover vessels - in spite of its rather repugnant smell.
(c) No! One may not pick up stones - even to cover vessels with - since
they are not called vessels, like an oil lamp is; and all raw materials are
(d) The Beraisa permits one to carry various rings and bracelets in a
court-yard (but not in the street), despite the fact that Chazal forbade
them to be worn, and they have no other regular use (in the way that a
hammer has - See Tosfos Yeshanim at foot of page).
Rava was upset with Rav Ivya for placing his dirty shoes on his bed. So he
set out to humiliate him by asking him difficult questions, which, he
assumed, Rav Ivya would be unable to answer. Rav Ivya however, was on the
ball, and he answered all the questions correctly. That is what Rav Nachman
bar Yitzchak meant when he said 'Blessed be Hashem who did not allow Rav
Ivya to be put to shame!'
(a) Rebbi Shimon permits the oil that remains in a lamp because the owner
actually anticipates using the remaining oil when the lamp goes out.
Whereas a person is unlikely to anticipate on Erev Yom-Tov that his healthy
animal is going to become blemished on Yom-Tov. And besides, who says that
he will find a Chacham to inspect the animal and declare it blemished?
(b) When a woman makes a Neder, she has in mind that it will only stand if
her husband upholds it, and that, should he not wish to do so, he will
annul it. Therefore the fruit which she forbade on herself, is not Muktzah,
should her husband nullify the Neder.
(c) To inspect a first-born animal requires a Chacham, who is not always
available when one wants him. Whereas, when it comes to releasing a vow,
true, it may be difficult to find a Chacham to do that, but it should not
be so difficult to find three ordinary Jews, who are authorized to stand in
for the Chacham, and release the vow.
(a) The Gemara initially thinks that Rebbi Shimon's reason for the
prohibition of moving a lamp whilst it is alight, is because he might
extinguish the light whilst transporting it.
The Tzenu'im used to hold the garment over themselves on a stick, so that
they would not derive benefit from the garment - even inadvertently.
(b) To extinguishing a lamp deliberately involves a Chiyuv Kares
(notwithstanding the fact that it is usually a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah
le'Gufah - since Chazal were strict with regard to the Melachah of
Mechabeh, treating it like a Melachah d'Oraysa). That is why Chazal forbade
one to move the lamp in case one comes to extinguish it inadvertently.
Whereas someone who drags a bench along the ground, will not be Chayav even
if he deliberately makes a furrow, since it is a most unconventional method
to dig furrows, which constitutes a 'Melachah ke'le'Achar Yad', for which
one is Patur. Therefore they did not issue any decrees, but permitted it
(c) This answer however, is unacceptable, in view of the Mishnah in
Kil'ayim, which permits salesmen of clothes which contain Kil'ayim, to wear
them in order to demonstrate them to potential customers, provided they do
not specifically intend to derive benefit from them in sunny or rainy
weather. So we see that, even in a case when, if someone did it
intententionally, he would be *Chayav d'Oraysa* (for wearing Kil'ayim),
Chazal nevertheless permitted a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven'.
(d) The author of this Mishnah must be Rebbi Shimon, because the criterion
of whether one may or may not wear the garment, is whether one derives
benefit from the garment or not, and the proponent of this criterion is
The Gemara concludes that Rebbi Shimon's reason for prohibition moving the
lamp whilst it is alight is because the lamp, the oil and the wick are a
Basis (like the English word 'basis') to the flame, which is certainly
Muktzah because it is not a K'li (a category of Muktzah known as 'Muktzah
(Refer also to note on 45a, at the conclusion of review answer 2.)