Clarification: Rashi explains that it resembles Mekach u'Memkar (a business transaction) since one takes it out of one's own domain and places it in the domain of Hekdesh ...

Reason #1: And Mekach u'Memkar is forbidden, from the Pasuk (in Yeshayah) "mi'Metzo Cheftz'cha ve'Daber Davar".

Reason #2: Alternatively, Mekach u'Memkar leads to the writing of documents of sale.

Question: But this is a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah' (a decree on a decree)?

Answer: It is all one decree.

Question #1: We learned in the Gemara in Megilah (Daf 7:) that the only difference between Shabbos and Yom-Tov is with regard to food. Why does the Gemara not query that from 'Mashilin'?

Question #2: Why does the Gemara there not immediately ask from Beis Hillel, who permits carrying unnecessarily on Yom-Tov, whereas on Shabbos, it is forbidden?

Answer: The Gemara there declines to ask from the Mishnah (of Mashilin) because it knew that it is possible to refute it by confining the Gemara there to things that are d'Oraysa; and that when it comes to things that are de'Rabbanan, there are many differences between them.

Answer (cont.): And here it is speaking about a Sh'vus de'Rabbanan. Which explains why it does not cite carrying, which is an Isur d'Oraysa.

Implied Question: Nevertheless, the Gemara correctly will state shortly 'That is Beis Shamai'?

Answer: Because this is how the it compares them - Since Beis Shamai is strict concerning carrying unnecessarily, so too, are they strict concerning moving mi'de'Rabbanan (Muktzah), as the Gemara concludes 'Muktzah is forbidden on account of carrying.

Clarification: Since he does not hold of 'B'reirah'.

Question: In Perek Mi she'Achzo (Gitin, Daf 75:) Shmuel instituted to write in the Get of a Sh'vhiv-M'ra (a man on his death-bed) 'If he dies, it will be a Get, and if he doesn't, it won't' ...

Question (Cont.): And if he dies, the Get is valid. So we see that he holds 'B'reirah'?

Precedent: And the Gemara makes he same inference at the beginning of 'Kol ha'Get' (Ibid. Daf 25: & 26;).

Answer: That applies specifically to where one relies on others, but where he relies on himself, as is the case here, he does not hold of 'B'reirah'.

Explanation #1: We are witnesses that each one takes his mind away from the other one's portion, so that if they wanted to eat it here, it would not be forbidden on account of Muktzah.

Explanation #1 (cont.): To say that each one's portion feeds from that of his friend ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): And you want to forbid each man to carry to his border on account of this feeding? If you are, then you also ought to worry about Muktzah? (Rashi).

Question: How does feeding of Muktzah apply here, seeing as he is allowed to eat his friend's portion, should he give him permission to do so?

Source: As we learned earlier 'One may send on Yom Tom-Tov an animal, a Chayah or a bird, irrespective as to whether they are alive or Shechted'?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Sh'mu'el therefore explains 'le'Isur Muktzah' to mean that the animal grew and added some fat on Yom-Tov, yet you did not forbid them on account of it, even though you hold like Rebbi Yehudah regarding Muktzah ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Will you forbid them on account of the Isur of Techumin, where each one feeds and grows from that of his friend'?