1)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan cited Rebbi, who permitted Rebbi Rumnus to move a dust-pan with ashes on it. The Gemara initially thinks that this is because the pan itself is not Muktzah (even though the ashes are). The problem with this statement of Rebbi Yochanan is that, regarding a Mishnah (in 'Notel') which permits one to carry a basket which has a stone in it Rebbi Yochanan himself comments that it speaks when the basket is full of fruit, otherwise it will be a 'Basis le'Davar he'Asur'. From here we see, that it is not the stone that becomes Batel to the basket, but the basket that becomes a Basis to the stone. By the same token, the dust-pan should become Asur, due to it becoming a Basis to the ashes.

(b)We cannot answer that there was also a grain of frankincense left over from the fire, on the pan, which was still fit to smell - because a grain of frankincense was hardly significant in the eyes of Rebbi, who was an extremely wealthy man.

(c)Nor can we answer that (even it it was of no value to Rebbi) if the grain of frankincense was significant to other people - because we have already learnt, that clothes of three by three finger-breadths, which are only fit for a poor man, remain Muktzah to someone who is wealthy.

(d)Abaye wanted to permit the pan because of its similarity to a babies' potty (which one is permitted to take out of the room because it is disgusting). However, that answer is not acceptable either - for two reasons: firstly, because a pan with ashes is not repulsive (like a potty is), and secondly, because a pan of ashes was normally covered (in those days), whilst a potty is not.

2)

(a)Rava finally resolve Rebbi's ruling with Rebbi Yochanan's Chidush of Basis - by explaining that ashes (which were commonly used to cover dirt) were not Muktzah. Rebbi's Chidush is - that although there were also pieces of wood (which were definitely Muktzah) on the pan, it was permitted to carry the pan because of the ashes (since it now became a 'Basis le'Davar ha'Asur u'le Davar ha'Mutar' - because the pieces of wood become Batel to the ashes).

(b)This is difficult from the Beraisa however, which writes 've'Shavin she'Im Yesh Bah Shivrei Pesilah, she'Asur Letaltel' - because, if the used, broken wicks that remain in a lamp render the lamp Muktzah, and do not become Batel to the lamp, then why should the pieces of wood be Batel to the ashes?

(c)Normally, we answer, the used, broken wicks are Batel to the lamp. However, we are speaking in the Galil, where linen garments (whose worn out strands they would use for wicks) were rare, so they would re-use old wicks to light their lamps, explaining why these wicks did not become Batel to the lamps, like the wood to the ashes.

3)

(a)A 'Mitah shel Terasim' - is the portable bed of coppersmiths, who would take it apart and transport it when they went to work. According to Rav and Shmuel, someone who puts it together is Chayav because of 'Makeh ba'Patish' - completing a task (not because of 'Binyan', since there is no 'Binyan' by vessels).

(b)A 'Kaneh shel Sayadin' was - a long extendible pole, to which one attached a cloth, with which to lime walls. The pole could be extended or shortened by adding or removing sections. One was never Chayav for extending the pole, since the pole was meant to be extended and shortened continually, so that there was no stage at which the job was completed.

(c)A 'Keren Agulah' and a 'Keren Peshutah' - were both musical instruments. The former was more of a professional instrument, whose parts were assembled firmly, which is why one was Chayav - the latter less professional, because its parts were put together loosely, for which one was not Chayav.

(d)The same Beraisa rules that someone who puts together the branches of a lamp is Chayav, a proof for Rav and Shmuel. Those Amora'im who permit putting together a coppersmith's bed however - follow the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who permits putting together the branches of the lamp loosely (according to some, only if that is the way it is normally assembled).

4)

(a)We just learnt that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits one to assemble a Menorah or a coppersmith's bed loosely. The Tana Kama speaks about putting together 'Milbenos ha'Mitah' and 'Levachim shel Sachivas' - hollow legs, into which one fitted the legs of a bed, to prevent them from rotting. 'Levachim shel Sachivas' were small boards that were made to fit onto a bow, and along which they would draw the arrows.

(b)The Tana Kama maintains that someone who assembles them is Patur Aval Asur.

(c)Someone who fits them together firmly will be Chayav Chatas.

5)

(a)They asked Rava (Rav Chama, according to Rabeinu Chananel - whose text would appear to be more accurate) how he permitted putting together a Mitah G'lalnisa (which is similar to a coppersmith's bed). They referred to 'Binyan min ha'Tzad'. What they meant to ask him was - how the members of Rav Chama's family could assemble a Mitah G'lalnisa on Yom-Tov even loosely (which is what they meant here by 'Binyan min ha'Tzad'). Even if it was not an Isur d'Oraysa, they argued, it should certainly be an Isur de'Rabbanan.

(b)He answered that he (Rav Chama) followed the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who permits assembling it, provided it was assembled loosely.

6)

(a)Placing a receptacle under a lamp to receive the sparks that fall from it, not considered 'Mevatel K'li me'Heichano' - because sparks, like specks of dust, are not tangible, and are therefore not Muktzah.

(b)Our Mishnah forbids one to place water into a lamp, even on Erev Shabbos, to extinguish the flame when it reaches the level of the water. Is The reason for this is because the Tana of our Mishnah holds like Rebbi Yossi in Perek 'Kol Kisvei', with regard to 'G'ram Kibuy' - causing a fire to become extinguished (e.g. placing something which contains water in front of an advancing fire, so that, when the fire reaches the water, it will automatically be extinguished). Rebbi Yossi (in 'Kol Kisvei') holds that G'ram Kibuy is forbidden.

(c)The author of our Mishnah however, cannot be Rebbi Yossi - because Rebbi Yossi only forbids G'ram Kibuy on Shabbos itself, whereas our Mishnah forbids placing water in a lamp even on Erev Shabbos.

(d)The Tana Kama in our Mishnah forbids placing water in the lamp on Erev Shabbos - not because of G'ram Kibuy, but because it is actual Kibuy. This is because, whereas Rebbi Yossi in 'Kol ha'Keilim' is speaking about placing vessels full of water in the line of the fire, our Tana is speaking about placing water below the flame, to extinguish the flame when it reaches that point. That is not G'ram Kibuy, but Kibuy itself (on Shabbos, that is - see Tosfos DH 'Mipnei', and Chazal decreed Erev Shabbos on account of Shabbos).

7)

(a)The waste of olives, manure, salt, lime, sand; straw, grape-skins, soft woolen strands and grass (which are all wet) - all increase the heat of whatever one wraps them with. Consequently, it is forbidden to wrap hot foods with them ...

(b)... even on Erev Shabbos.

(c)It is permitted to wrap with straw, grape-skins, soft woolen strands and grass - when they are dry.

(d)Sand increases the heat whether it is wet or dry. Therefore - both are forbidden.

8)

(a)Sesame (or sunflower) seeds, like the waste of olives, increase the heat of whatever they are being wrapped in. Consequently - it is forbidden to wrap with them even on Erev Shabbos.

(b)They differ however, inasmuch as - whereas the heat from the waste of olives rises, that of the sesame (or sunflower) seeds does not. Consequently if one places a cooked pot in a box, it is forbidden to place that box on top of the waste of olives, but one may place it on top of sesame (or sunflower) seeds.