Explanation: Based on this, we should forbid placing coals under a pot. Even if he will put ashes on them, one may not insulate a pot on them, for the coals bring heat above, like Gefes of olives (the waste, after the oil was extracted).

Question: Why may we insulate on our ovens, which are called Ishtra? Even though they sweep [the coals out of] it, [the oven] adds heat, like Gefes of olives!

Answer #1 (Ri): We can justify the custom. Regarding Gefes, there is concern lest he insulate the entire [pot] in [Gefes]. However, our ovens, such concern does not apply.

Remark: Also, some dig a big cavity and make a building of bricks around it on every side and below, and heat it well and sweep [out the coals] and insulate the pot in it;

This is unlike one who insulates in something that adds heat. They forbade only when he insulates and sticks around the pot, similar to hot coals;

However, an oven, or a cavity with air between the walls and the pot, we should forbid more than [we forbid] Shehiyah, even though the entire pot is in the oven.

Answer #2 (R. Baruch): We should distinguish between Gefes that adds heat, and our ovens that add heat;

This is because a Kirah's heat is not due to a fire [burning now], and it constantly cools off, but Gefes adds heat by itself.

Pesak (Rashbam): One may put apples by a fire close to dark, even though they cannot roast before Shabbos, for they are eaten raw more than a Tavshil is eaten cooked k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai, which is permitted.

Implied question: A Mishnah above (13b) teaches that we may roast meat, an onion or egg only if there is time for it to roast before Shabbos, even though sometimes an onion is eaten raw!

Answer: In any case it is not proper to eat an onion raw like apples [are proper raw], just he wants to blunt their sharpness and sweeten them through cooking.

Pesak: If one insulated apples with a pot, it is forbidden to return pillows and blankets on the pot with them, or to increase pillows on them, even though if there are no apples there, one may return;

This is like the Mishnah below (51a) says, if he covered it and it became exposed, he may cover it. Also adding [insulation], we say in the Gemara (51a) "if he wants to add, he may add";

When there are apples with the pot, it is forbidden, for if he returns before they were cooked, it turns out that he cooks on Shabbos.

Implied question: The custom is to remove the pot from the Kirah and put it on the ground until sweeping out the Kirah [and then he returns it]!

Answer: Perhaps we hold like the version above (38b) that Chizkiyah permits in the name of Abaye when he put it on the ground if he intends to return it.

Question (Ri): In the Beraisa itself below (51b), that permits a kettle on a kettle, it explicitly teaches "not so the water will get hot, rather, so [its heat] will be guarded"!

Answer (Ri): [R. Zeira, the Makshan,] had not heard [the Beraisa]. He did not ask based on the Beraisa, rather, on common practice to put a kettle on a kettle.

Question: What is the case? If it is Yad Soledes Bo, how did [R. Zeira] think to permit, even though it cooks? Didn't he know that something hot due to a fire, is like fire!

A Mishnah (38b) teaches that we do not put an egg next to a kettle, and it says that [if he did and] it roasted, he is Chayav Chatas!

Also, a Mishnah (41a) teaches that if one was Mefaneh a kettle (removed it from a fire, or emptied out the water), one may not put cold water in it!

Summation of question: And if [we discuss putting a kettle on a kettle so that the top will] get warm, how can we conclude that it is forbidden?

A Beraisa (above, 40b) says that one may put a flask of water next to a bonfire, not so it will get hot, rather, to blunt its chill, i.e. to get warm, like is proven in the Sugya there.

Also Rav Yehudah said there that water and oil have the same law. Yad Soledes Bo is forbidden, and not Yad Soledes Bo is permitted.

Suggestion: We can distinguish. Regarding a bonfire, he is careful not to cook, since it is near the fire, but here, even not Yad Soledes Bo, it is forbidden, lest he come to err and leave it until it cooks!

Rejection: Regarding a kettle, we permit putting much water in it to warm it. We do not decree due to a small amount of water, even though it is not by the fire!

Answer (Rashba): We permit putting a flask of water opposite a bonfire, i.e. far from the bonfire so it can never come to cook;

However, close is forbidden, even to warm it, lest he forget and come to leave it there until it cooks.

This is why we conclude here that it is forbidden. "Not so it will get hot' that was taught there means in a place that it can come to get hot.

Disclaimer: The wording is slightly difficult.

Explanation (R. Chananel): Rava said below (139b) that one may stretch a scarf across half the opening of a barrel to cover it, for this is not an Ohel, and we are not concerned lest he squeeze.

Explanation (R. Tam): This is in Kesuvos (6a).

Question: What was [Rav Ada's] question? A Mishnah (49a) teaches that one may insulate in wool shearings, and we do not move them, i.e. even if he insulated [in them]!

(The Mishnah) teaches explicitly "how does he do? He shakes the cover and they fall."

When [the Gemara] brings a Beraisa to support him, it should bring the Mishnah! We could not reject the Mishnah like we reject the Beraisa (that the Beraisa forbids moving them when one did not insulate in them)!

Suggestion: We can establish our Mishnah to discuss of Heftek (it is stored to be sold), like Ravina establishes it below (50a).

Rejection: You are forced to say that the Sugya here does not hold like Ravina, since it does not establish the Beraisa that it brings to discuss of Heftek! (This would have been a better answer.)

Answer (Ri): Wool shearings are more important than tufts, and there is a greater Isur to move them. (Therefore, we cannot learn from the Mishnah to forbid tufts, which Abaye discusses.)

Implied question: Below (49b), Rava said that even wool shearings, if he insulated in them, he may move them! (All the more so, he would permit tufts!)

Answer #1: It is not difficult if he argues with Abaye here, since Rava's teaching does not persist (we say that really, Rava said that if he designated wool for Hatmanah, he may move it).

Implied question: Ravina resolves Rava (like we said initially, that if he insulated in wool shearings, he may move them). He establishes our Mishnah to discuss wool of Heftek, and Rava discusses not of Heftek. If so, Rava argues with Abaye!)

Answer #2 (Rashba): Also here [Abaye] discusses tufts of Heftek. Rava does not argue with Abaye.

Question: What was the response below "one might have thought that it is proper to lie on them"? Since they are of Heftek, how could one think to permit moving them because they are proper to lie on them?! (Maharsha - the one who questioned the rejection of the support for Abaye, he supports Abaye, and establishes the Beraisa to discuss Heftek, lest it be difficult for Rava. If the Beraisa discusses not of Heftek, it is difficult for Rava, but all the more so it supports Abaye. However, the opinion that rejects the support for Abaye, he establishes the Beraisa to discuss not of Heftek. It is a proper Havah Amina that one may move it them because it is proper to lie on them! The Maharsha explains why Tosfos did not want to learn like this.)

Explanation: This refers to tufts, but not to wool shearings, for wool shearings, even if one insulated in them, he may not move them. (This is clear from the Mishnah 49a).

Explanation (Ri): If strings [used to close the neck opening] of a cloak came out, if the hole [through which they are inserted] is wide, and one can insert them without toil, it is permitted [to return them], since it is old, as long as he puts them in a way that he need not be concerned lest he be Toke'a. (Usually, Toke'a is to insert forcefully. It seems that here, it means to insert permanently);

In a way that is common to be Toke'a and tie, it seems that one may not return, like we forbid below (122b) returning [doors of also chest, box or tower], which is a decree lest he be Toke'a.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): A Beraisa below (146a) says that R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that one slices off the top and leaves it in front of guests.

Objection (Ri): If so, what was the answer "this is connected, and this is not connected"? Also there it is connected, for R. Shimon ben Gamliel permits slicing off even the top of the barrel itself with the plug, like is proven there!

Citation (146b): They asked Rav Sheshes "may one pierce (a barrel) with a spear [on Shabbos]"? He answered "he intends for an opening, so it is forbidden";

The Gemara asks from R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who permits slicing off the top with a sword, and answers that there, surely he intends to be generous. Here, if he wanted to be generous, he would have opened it (removed the plug)!

This that [Rav Sheshes] forbids piercing a barrel is in the barrel itself. "Chavisa" connotes the barrel itself.

Also, [piercing] the plug is permitted, for the Mishnah teaches that R. Yehudah forbids puncturing the plug of a barrel, and Chachamim permit. This connotes that R. Shimon ben Gamliel permits even in the barrel itself, for he intends to be generous;

Summation of objection: [Rava] should have answered like this in our Sugya! Here, he intends for an opening. There, he intends to be generous!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): [Rav Kahana asked] what is the difference between this and puncturing a barrel? A Mishnah (146a) teaches that R. Yehudah forbids puncturing the plug of a barrel, and Chachamim permit.

Question: There, all agree that he is not Chayav Chatas, like it says there in the Gemara. Every opening that is not made for entrance and exit is not an opening. However, here the neck opening is made for entrance and exit. If so, what was his question?!

Answer: He asks that since you obligate a Chatas for one who opens the neck opening, because it is made for entrance and exit, if so, also regarding a plug, if it is made for entrance and exit, he would be Chayav Chatas;

Therefore, also now that it is made only for exit, we should forbid mid'Rabanan!

[Rava] answered "this is connected, and this is not connected." The plug is not part of the barrel, and even if he would make a hole in the plug for entrance and exit, he would not be Chayav Chatas. Therefore, Rabanan permitted.

Explanation: This connection is for Tum'ah (if Tum'ah touches one, all become Tamei), but not for Haza'ah (if they were Tamei Mes, sprinkling on one does not help for the others), like a Mishnah in Parah (12:9) teaches.

Question: Why didn't [R. Yirmeyah] bring the Mishnah in Parah?

Answer: It does not say "until he begins to untie", so we could not have proven from it that also not at the time of Melachah, they are connected.

Explanation: This refers to clothes tied together for the sake of laundering. Also Rashi explained like this;

The case of a stick [used for an ax handle], perhaps even R. Shimon would agree. Since the ax needs the stick, it is connected.

Explanation: Also regarding clothes tied together for laundering, there is a Heker (indication that mid'Oraisa it is not connected), i.e. it is not connected for Haza'ah;

Here, regarding a Kirah, this Heker does not apply, for Haza'ah does not apply it [a Tamei Kli Cheres cannot become Tahor].

Question (Ri): Also regarding clothes tied together for the sake of laundering, we can ask this. If it is connected, it should be connected even for Haza'ah! If it is not connected, also for Tum'ah it should not be connected!

Also Rava, who said that mid'Oraisa at the time of Melachah it is connected both for Tum'ah and Haza'ah, why doesn't he say that both at the time of Melachah and not at the time of Melachah, Rabanan decree Tum'ah, like the case of clothes tied for laundering?

Answer #1 (Ri): Surely, clothes tied for laundering are connected only mid'Rabanan, even at the time of Melachah, for [the garments] do not need each other. Therefore [Rav] compares this to a receptacle [in the wall of a Kirah or lamp] for oil or spices, for each has a use by itself;

Therefore, it is not connected for Haza'ah, since mid'Oraisa it is not connected.

However, detachable scissors, obviously at the time of Melachah it is connected mid'Oraisa, for together they serve one use and they need each other at the time of Melachah;

This does not apply to clothes tied together. The use of one garment does not need the other at all.

Implied question: Why did [the Gemara] ask "if it is not connected, it should not be connected even for Tum'ah!"? (This connotes that the law of scissors was not obvious!)

Answer: This is not precise. The primary question is why it is not connected for Haza'ah.

Answer #2 (Rashba): Regarding clothes tied together, it is fine, even though it is not connected for Haza'ah, for it is not connected mid'Oraisa. Rabanan decreed that it is connected for Tum'ah, since each garment is Tamei by itself mid'Oraisa;

However, he asks properly about detachable scissors. If they are not connected mid'Oraisa, why did Chachamim decree Tum'ah about them at all? Each blade by itself is Tahor mid'Oraisa according to Rabanan;

A Mishnah in Kelim (13:1) says that if a scissors was divided into two, R. Yehudah is Metamei and Chachamim are Metaher.

Disclaimer: We could say that there, they discuss scissors that are not detachable.

Consequence: Based on this, this that it said that small scissors and a pair of scissors, even if they were divided, they are Temei'im, this is like R. Yehudah. This is difficult.

Implied question: Why does it say that they decreed about Haza'ah at the time of Melachah due to Haza'ah not at the time of Melachah? Not at the time of Melachah it is totally Tahor, and it does not need Haza'ah at all!

Answer: In any case, when they return to do Melachah, (if it did not receive Taharah), it returns to its old Tum'ah. Chachamim were stringent about old Tum'ah, that Haza'ah not help not at the time of Melachah, since mid'Oraisa it is not connected;

They decreed about Haza'ah at the time of Melachah due to Haza'ah not at the time of Melachah. The Rashba said so.

Question: What is this different than a Muchni? It says above (44b) that when it can come off, it is not connected!

Answer: We must distinguish. (Meginei Shlomo says that the Muchni is an independent, important Kli, therefore it is not Batel. Sefas Emes says that the Mishnah of Muchni is like R. Shimon, who holds also here that they are not connected.)