Conclusion (cont. from previous Amud): Also the bed in the case of 'Purya' (the bed), unlike our beds which do not have walls, has walls.

Question: The Gemara in Shabbos (Daf 139:) forbids spreading a cloth over the entire top of a barrel', even though the walls were made earlier?

Answer: It is different there, because, since the barrel is extremely wide, it becomes an Ohel.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Rav Yehudah here holds like Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids Muktzah and 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven'; whereas we hold like Rebbi Shimon, who permits 'Davar She"Ein Miskaven'.

Refutation: However, it is a Dochek to establish all the current cases not like Rebbi Shimon.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that even Rebbi Shimon concedes that the current cases are Asur ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Since when Rebbi Shimon permits 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven' that is where one does something unintentionally, whereas here he intends to do what he is doing.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that that this Halachah goes according to those who hold of Muktzah, and that 'wood is only designated for for firewood'.

Explanation #1 (cont.): But we Pasken like Rebbi Shimon, who permits even a sharp branch that is wet.

Refutation: It is a Dochek however, to say that Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the P'sak of the Gemara.

Explanation #2: Even Rebbi Shimon agrees that even though wood is not necessarily designated for burning, that is only if it is fit for burning, but not when it is wet, when it is not.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he holds like Rebbi Yehudah, which explains why she is not permitted to go in to fetch a log, since wood is designated specifically for burning.

Refutation: Once again, it is a Dochek to say that the Gemara goes not according to the Halachah.

Explanation #2: It is therefore clear that even Rebbi Shimon rules that it is Asur, because it is akin to 'Tikunei Manah' (making a K'li).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that according to Rebbi Yehudah, it would be forbidden to take them to give to one's cat, since yesterday, it was prepared fo humans and not for dogs, and Rebbi Yehudah said that if it was not a Neveilah on Erev Yom-Tov, it is forbidden to feed to to one's dog.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Nor is it fit to give to a person, seeing as people do not tend to eat intestines on Yom-Tov, since they have plenty to eat without them.

Question: If, due to the fact that one does not eat them, they become Muktzah?

Question (cont.): Then how does the Gemara in Shabbos (Daf 128.) permit moving raw meat, because it is fit to chew. Seeing as people do not generally eat it since they have plenty to eat without it?

Explanation #2: It speaks where the meat has already gone off, in which case it is not fit for human consumption, and R' Yehudah would declare it Asur.

Conclusion: And the Gemara answers that it has become putrid - meaning that since it is bound to become putrid, the owner decides to feed it to his dogs.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'in front of him' is La'v Davka, and the same applies to taking from behind him, seeing as the Mishnah considers whatever is in the Chatzer to be 'Muchan.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Tana says 'in front of him' ...

Answer: Is on account of the Rabbanan who argue with him (Rebbi Eliezer) later, in that they permit to kindle exclusively, but not to pick one's teeth.

Question: The Gemara in 'ha'Motzi' (Shabbos, Daf 81: & 82.) that the Mishnah means 'in front of him' Davka, since the Gemara asks there whether one is permitted to carry stones for the bathroom up to the roof, and concludes that it is permitted.

Question (cont.): Then the Gemara asks from our Mishnah 'Rebbi Eliezer permits taking a splinter from in front of him - specifically from in front of him, but not from the entire Chatzer, and you allowed him to carry the stones up to the roof'?

Explanation #2: To be sure, Rebbi Eliezer means Davka (from in front of him), as is implied there.

Implied Question: And even though he says that 'Whatever is in the Chatzer is Muchan' ...

Answer: That (i.e. our Mishnah) is specifically with regard to eating, seeing as a person fixes the location where he eats, and he should have prepared it (but didn't).

Answer (cont.): But this argument does not apply to a fire, since there are times where does one not light a fire on Yom-Tov.

Support: And the Gemara there draws a similar distinction between stones and a splinter.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that they argue over two points - in that even to kindle, it is permitted specifically from the front, whereas to pick one's teeth, even that is forbidden, because wood is designated specifically for burning.

Question: But the Chachamim do not hold like the Halachah, since they are arguing over the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that the reason that the Rabbanan forbid picking one's teeth (with them) is due to a decree in case one comes to break them off (even according to Rebbi Shimon).

Proof: And this is precisely how the Gemara concludes.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - 'You gave me 'large' answer to my question, since I even queried 'Patur Aval Asur', how much more so 'Chayav Chatas'!

Explanation #1 (cont.): However it is not really a Kashya, since there it speaks where they are hard, and not therefore fit for animal consumption.

Question #1: Why is he so lengthy ('Since I even queried 'Patur Aval Asur' ... '? Why did he not simply answer that it speaks there where they are hard?

Question #2: Moreover, it implies that where they are hard, Rav Yehudah forbids even to smell it, whereas he will shortly permit it - when he says that 'He broke off a branch and gave it to us'?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore has the text 'Amar leih' (instead of 'Ela').

Explanation #2 (cont.): And this is the explanation: Rav Yehudah answered Rav Kahana that the Beraisa was obviously learned erroneously, since, seeing he held that it is completely Mutar, he even had a problem with 'Patur Aval Asur' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): So now that the Beraisa said 'Chayav Chatas', it must certainly have been learned in error?

Explanation #2 (cont.): To which Rav Kahana replied that as far as he was concerned, he could have answered him that the Beraisa speaks where the Besamim is hard, in which case it is unfit for animal consumption. Consequently, if it is to smell, he is Patur Aval Asur, whereas if it is to pick his teeth, he is Chayav Chatas.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Only according to him (Rav Chisda) the Kashya remains, since he permits smelling even hard ones, as he specifically says 'He broke off a branch and gave it to us'?

Conclusion: Nevertheless, Rav Yehudah did not agree with him (Rav Kahana), because he held that to pick one's teeth, one is Patur Aval Asur, and to smell, is Mutar.

Clarification: It speaks where it is to smell, as the Gemara concludes - because he holds like the Rabbanan who say there that, if is to pick one;s teeth, one is Patur Aval Asur, whereas to smell is permitted even Lechatchilah, and they did not decree becuase of 'Shema Yiktom' (One may break of a twig).

Question: Why, when Yom-Tov falls on Motza'eu Shabbos, do we refrain from smelling Besamim?

Reason #1: If it is because of 'Shema Yiktom' ...

Refutation: We are not worried about that, as is clear from Rav Yehudah here, who holds like the Rabbanan.

Reason #2: Neither can the reason be because of the fire of Gehinom, which begins to burn and to cause a putrid smell, which is the reason that we recite the B'rachah every Motza'ei Shabbos. And when Yom-Tov falls on Motza'ei Shabbos, when the fire does not resume burning and causing a smell, there is no reason to recite the B'rachah, since it rests on Yom-Tov too.

Refutation: If that were so, why do we not recite the B'rachah on Besamim on Motza'ei Yom-Tov as well?

Reason #3: Nor can we explain that we recite the B'rachah on Motza'ei Shabbos because of the Neshamah Yeseirah which departs, and we smell the Besamim in order revive ourselves after the loss, and when Yom-Tov falls on Motza'ei Shabbos, one does not lose the Neshamah Yeseirah - because it is there on Yom-Tov too ...

Refutation: Because in that case, why do we not recite the B'rachah over Besamim on Motza'ei Yom-Tov?

Question (cont.): So if it is not because of any of these reasons, why do we recite the B'rachah over Besamim on Motza'ei Shabbos?

Answer: The reason that we do is because of the departure of the Neshamah Yeseirah, which is there on Shabbos but not on Yom-Tov.

Question: Then why do we not recite the B'rachah over Besamim on Motza'ei Shabbos when it falls on Yom-Tov?

Answer: Because, since we eat Chashuv and good food on Yom-Tov, we are automatically revived, and smelling Besamim is not necessary.

Clarification: Tarred and unsteady.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that we are not concerned about 'Tikun K'li (repairing a vessel), because, since the barrel is very unsteady, he will have pity on it in case it gets spoiled, so he will make the hole as small as he possibly can.

Explanation #2: Whereas Rebbi Yitzchak explains in Maseches Eruvin (Daf 34: and 35. DH 'Amai'), that since they are stuck together with tar and the pieces are not complete, there is no question of Tikun K'li anyway.