Summation of question: [The Gemara there] asks "even if it has [a rim, one may move it, for] a Mishnah teaches that if one stores turnips..."

If the text says "some of them are exposed", what was the question? This is unlike a basin with a rim!

Answer (Ri): We can say that in planting, there is very hard earth, and it sticks very much. [The Makshan] compares this to a basin with a rim.

Question: According to the Aruch, what was the question against Shmuel? He can say that this Mishnah holds that Tiltul Min ha'Tzad is not Tiltul, like R. Eliezer ben Tadai;

It mentioned that some of them are exposed due to the other matters (Kil'ai ha'Kerem, Shemitah, and Ma'aser), but not due to Shabbos, and Shmuel holds like Rabanan (who forbid Tiltul Min ha'Tzad)!

Answer: We can say that [the Makshan] understood that it mentioned that some of them are exposed also due to Shabbos, since he did not teach explicitly "one may take it on Shabbos even if it is covered";

This teaches that when it is covered it is forbidden like Rabanan, and even so when part it exposed it is permitted.

Explanation (Ri): Likewise, it is permitted to overtly expose [the pot], and return to cover it, just like it is permitted to take the pot and return it.

Implied question: Why does [the Mishnah] say that he covered it and it became exposed?

Answer: This is because it discusses when it became exposed before Shabbos, similar to the Reisha, in which he did not cover it before Shabbos. It teaches that one may cover it after dark;

However, if he overtly exposed it before Shabbos in order to cover it after dark, it is forbidden to cover it after dark, for this is like insulating l'Chatchilah [on Shabbos].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [R. Yosi would have been submissive to Rebbi] because Rebbi was the Nasi, for R. Yosi was greater than Rebbi, like is proven in Nidah (14b);

R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi said to Rav Chama bar Bisna "should I tell you Rebbi's opinion, or my father's? Rav Chama asked to hear Rebbi's.

R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi: Do they say that this (Rav Chama) is a great Chacham? He abandons the Rebbi's opinion, and hears the Talmid's!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Surely, initially Rebbi was the Talmid of R. Yosi. However, afterwards Rebbi became [a bigger Chacham], like it says there that Rav Chama held that [since] Rebbi was Rosh Yeshivah, Rabanan were frequently by him, and his teachings are sharp.

Assertion (Ri and Rav Pores): The text does not say "how does he do?", for R. Shimon ben Gamliel argues with the first Tana, who permits only to add, but forbids changing;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel permits even changing, and all the more so to take and return the same [insulating] matter, for it is not so much [like] initial Hatmanah on Shabbos.

This is what it says "and so R. Shimon ben Gamliel used to say", i.e. he had another leniency about Hatmanah.

Implied question: Why is this unlike [the Gemara in Perek] Kirah? Above (38b, Rav Ashi) asked "if he emptied [water] from one kettle to another, what is the law?"

Answer: There, he wants [the water] to be warm. Therefore, we should forbid when it is cold;

However, here, regarding Hatmanah, the colder it is, the better, like it says above that Rebbi permitted to insulate what is cold.

Question: Rebbi, who did not know above that it is permitted to insulate what is cold, had he not heard from his father, who permits here?

Answer: Only here it is proven that he intended to cool, for he emptied from one kettle to another. However, a flask of water, it is not proven at all, it should be forbidden to insulate. This is from Tosfos Rabbeinu Yehudah.

Question (Rashi): He should clear out around [the pot] and hold it by its walls and lift it and tilt it on its side, like the Mishnah below (142b) teaches - [if a barrel with a rock on top of it] was amidst barrels, he lifts it...

Answer (Rashi): We establish [the Mishnah] there when he forgot [the rock], but if he placed it, [the barrel] becomes a Bosis for Isur. (Also here, the pot is a Bosis for Isur.)

Question #1: If here he is considered like one who placed, if so, when part is exposed, how can he take it and return? Why is this unlike a rock on a barrel? When he placed it, we forbid even to tilt it on its side!

Question #2 (R. Tam): A Mishnah (49a) says that one shakes the cover and they fall, even if part is not exposed!

Explanation #2: He is not considered like one who placed, since he intends to take it on Shabbos.

Support: Also below (143a) a Mishnah says that Beis Shamai say that he lifts off the table bones and peels, and Beis Hillel say that he removes the tabletop and shakes it. Beis Hillel do not consider him like one who placed!

Explanation #2 (cont.): Here we discuss a cover like a Kli Cheres that they put on a pot. The pot is enveloped in it, and it is impossible to shake the cover unless he lifts [the cover] a little. (Maharam, Maharsha - the cover is not a Kli, therefore one may not take it l'Tzorech Mekomo.)

Explanation #3 (Ri): The case is, he insulated the pot in a box in something that may be moved, and above the pot he filled the entire box with something that may not be moved;

It is impossible to reach the pot unless he will move something that he may not move with his hands.

Explanation (Rashba): This is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says (142b) that whenever there is Isur and Heter, we toil with the Heter, and not with the Isur;

However, Rabanan who argue with him there, they permit when it is totally covered to take with his hands something that may not be moved.

Source: Below (142b), the Mishnah of a barrel [with a rock on top of it] amidst barrels, he lifts it and tilts it on its side, we establish it like R. Shimon ben Gamliel. This implies that Rabanan of R. Shimon ben Gamliel permit to move the rock itself.

Consequence: Based on this, one must be careful not to wash his hands with snow or hail on Shabbos.

Water that is freezing, and there is ice mixed with it, one should not wash with it, for it is impossible that he will not crush ice. One who is careful about this will be blessed.

Explanation: A person is commanded that his animal rest - "Lema'an Yanu'ach..."

Distinction: The Lav "Lo Sa'aseh Melachah Atah u'Vehemtecha" is only when he makes his animal work, like is proven below (153a).

Reference: In Nedarim (2b, the Gemara) is meticulous about here and all the [Mishnayos] above. In some places the Tana teaches (explains) first the last matter mentioned (e.g. in what may we insulate, and in what may we not insulate? We may not insulate in... - 47b). And in some places the Tana teaches first the first matter mentioned (e.g. our Mishnah here).

Explanation (R. Tam): "Luva" is Mitzrayim, for it says "Put v'Luvim Hayu b'Ezrasecha."

Support: We say in the Yerushalmi 'converts who come from Luv, must we wait three generations [before permitting them to marry Yisraelim]?" We bring regarding this that Mitzri beans, people scream about it "Luv"!

Question: We should resolve from our Mishnah, which teaches "Luvdakim go out with Prumbi'a (an iron bit)", even though a halter suffices, like a Beraisa says below that a donkey of Luv or a camel may go out with a halter;

Prumbi'a is a better [Shemirah] than a halter, for it says below "an evil donkey like this - may it may go out with a Prumbi'a on Shabbos? This implies that it is better than a halter!

Answer: This is not excessive guarding. It is normal, and it is not considered a load.

Inference: We show honor on the road.

Support #1: Also in Yoma (57a), we say that if three were walking on the road, the greatest is in the middle, the greater [of the other two] is on his right, and the smaller is on his left.

Support #2: We find like this regarding the angels who came to visit Avraham...

Question (R. Tam): In Brachos (47a), we conclude that we honor only at an opening proper for a Mezuzah!

Answer (R. Tam): That discusses when they are not going together in one group, rather, each goes for his own need;

However, when they go together in one group, they honor everywhere.