Explanation #1: With an Asar that is called 'a fork', that is made in the shape of a foot.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Should carry it 'be'Agra' - two people should carry it on a pole on both their shoulders, which is a change, and which makes it easier, as Rashi explains.

Question: At the end of Perek ha'Umnin (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 83.) it implies that a heavy burden is easier to carry 'be'Rigla' than 'be'Agra'?

Explanation #2: Consequently, even if it weighs heavier, it doesn't matter, as long as one changes from the way that one carries it on weekdays.

Support: And Rashi (himself) explains like that with regard to 'Someone who carries be'Igra' should carry be'Achpa'.

Conclusion: Even though it is not easier, nevertheless it is a Shinuy.

Question: Why does the Gemara ask that it increases the distance, bearing in mind that this doesn't matter, provided one does it by means of a Shinuy, as we learned earlier?

Answer: Because besides the fact that one increases the distance, there is no Shinuy either, seeing as one does that during the week as well.

Question: Did we not just say that one should spread a cloth over it', and were not concerned about squeezing it?

Answer #1: That Gemara is speaking about a barrel that it completely closed on top, with only a narrow opening, and that is why we are not concerned about squeezing.

Answer #2: Moreover, the Gemara here is talking about squeezing water, which is forbidden on account of Libun (washing clothes), and we are therefore concerned that if water falls on the cloth, we are afraid that one will come to squeeze it ...

Answer #2 (concl.): Whereas the Gemara earlier is speaking about wine, where squeezing is forbidden on account of Dash (threshing). Consequently, when the wine falls on the ground, it goes to waste, and we are not worried that one may come to squeeze it.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains because of music or because of mourning.

Refutation: But this is not correct, because then it ought to be forbidden because of sadness, which is forbidden even on Chol ha'Mo'ed.

Explanation #2: Later, on Daf 36: the Gemara explains that it is because one might come to make an instrument.

Clarification: Rashi explains that one may come to manufacture an instrument.

Halachah: Nowadays however, it is permitted, because it is only then, when they were experts in manufacturing instruments that the decree was applicable; but today, when we do not know how to do so, it is not applicable.

Inference: It implies that Tosefes Yom ha'Kipurim has a Shi'ur, since they obviously did not eat right to nightfall (seeing as it is impossible to gauge the exact moment) ...

Inference (cont.): Nevertheless, the Gemara says that 'It is better that Yisrael should be Shogeg than Meizid'.

Problem: The Gemara does not however, clarify what the Shi'ur is.

Conclusion: Consequently, one should take care to stop whilst it is still day.

Clarification: Neither is it fit for animal fodder, only for burning; nevertheless, Rebbi Yehudah concedes (that it is permitted).

Question: In what way is this different than wood in a storehouse, which Rebbi Yehudah forbids, even though it is fit for burning?

Answer: The cases are not comparable, since in the current case, the owner is only Maktzeh the wood from what it is now designated - i.e. animal fodder, leaving it fit to be used as firewood (which he was not Maktzeh).

Conclusion: Whereas in the case of the storehouse, he is Maktzeh the wood from what it is now fit - i.e. firewood.

Clarification: Until a weekday begins.

Introduction to Question: We can understand why on the eighth day (Shemini Atzeres) it is Muktzah, since it is a Safek seventh day, and even on the ninth day (Simchas Torah) it is Muktzah, since it was Muktzah during Bein-ha'Shemashos, it remains Muktzah the entire day.

Introduction to Question (cont.): And we do say Muktzah on account of the previous day with regard to Muktzah Machmas Mitzvah (See Daf 4. DH 'Neima'), like here regarding the wood of the Succah.

Question: The Minhag however is, that when the ninth day falls on Erev Shabbos, one does not use the items of the Succah on Shabbos, which is the tenth day. Why is that?

Question Cont.): If it is a question of demolishing an Ohel, this does not apply to fruit?

Question Cont.): And if it is because it was Muktzah during Bein-ha'Shemashos of the ninth day, we do not apply two Migu's in this way, where even on the ninth day it was only Asur due to 'Migu'?

Answer: It is Asur on account of Hachanah, because, since it was Asur on Erev Shabbos (the ninth day) which was Yom-Tov, if it would be permitted to eat it, on Shabbos, it would be a matter of Yom-Tov preparing for Shabbos, which is a sort of Nolad, since it only becomes fit now and was not fit on Yom-Tov.

Elaboration: And by the same token, some people are careful, when when Simchas Torah falls after Shabbos, not to eat their Esrog on that day, since on Shabbos it was Asur.

Elaboration: Moreover, it would be fit to recite a B'rachah over, in the event that Eliyahu would come and announce that Ellul was a full month.

Conclusion: Consequently, if one were to eat it on Simchas Torah, Shabbos would be preparing for Yom-Tov.

Implied Question: The Gemara could also ask why, according to the current thinking, that it is Muktzah Machmas Isur, it will not help to stipulate.

Answer: It doesn't bother to do so however, since it does not remain with this S'vara in the Maskana.

Question: It implies here that the wood of the Succah is Asur on account of Muktzah.

Support: And so it would seem from the Gemara in Shabbos (Daf 45. & 45:), which says 'Since it is Muktzah for its Mitzvah, it is also Muktzah for its Isur'.

Support (cont.): Whereas earlier we learned that 'Succah, just like Yom-Tov, is for Hashem'.

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam answers that when the Gemara says 'Succah, just like Yom-Tov, is for Hashem', it is referring to the Shi'ur Succah i.e. two walls and the third, even if it is merely a Tefach.

Answer #1 (cont.): But if one made a Succah with complete walls which is larger that the minimum size Succah, that we do not learn from the Pasuk, and it is on that excess that the Gemara forbids because of Muktzah.

Answer #2: The Ri explains that, to be sure as long as the Succah is standing, the comparison of Succah to Chag is applicable, but not once it falls down.

Answer #2 (cont.): Consequently, one could answer here, that when the Gemara earlier forbids the the wood of the Succah on account of 'Mah Chag la'Hashem ... ', that speaks when the Succah is still standing, but oncve it falls, it is permitted.

Conclusion: Only it says truthfully, that when it falls, it is still forbidden because of Muktzah.

Clarification: La'v Davka 'immediately' ...

Source: Since the Esrog is Asur the entire first day until the next day, and Rav and Rav Asi are only arguing over the subsequent days.