Explanation: The Aruch explains that "Sichi" means pegs that are used to comb silk.

Proof: Indeed, we find the Targum of "Yeseidos" is "Sichi."

Explanation (cont.): "Zeiri" are wooden vessels like beams that are used to press clothes (after they are washed), as discussed in the Mishnah later (141a) "the press of homeowners."

Expanation (cont.): "Mizuri" is a wooden vessel that the launderer uses to hit the clothes when they are on the stones in order to cause them to become white (i.e. take away stains).

Explanation (cont.): A person is careful not to cause these vessels to be bent or dented in order that the clothes and silk should not become ruined, and therefore he removes any intent of carrying them on Shabbos (even for a permitted purpose).

Explanation (cont.): This is also the explanation of the Yerushalmi. It states: "Zeiri" that is used to drain the water, "Mezura" that is used to hit the clothes.

Explanation #2: According to Rashi who explains that "Mezuri" is the upper and lower beam used in weaving, it appears that he holds like the opinion that forbids them in the Gemara earlier (113a).

Observation: Even so, one is allowed to carry it on Yom Tov to cut meat on it.

Observation: It is logical that he retracted, as the Gemara later (141a) states that in the study house of Rav they taught unlike this opinion of Rav Nachman.

Explanation: The case is when he put it there in order to retrieve it at any moment. However, if he put it there for the entire Shabbos it is considered a Basis l'Davar ha'Assur.

Proof: This is as stated later (142b) regarding a stone placed on top of a barrel that this is only if he forgot it there (that the barrel is not Muktzah). However, if he put it there on purpose (that it should be there for the entire Shabbos), the barrel becomes a Basis l'Davar ha'Assur and is Muktzah.

Question: What is the case involving a radish? If he put it there on purpose (to stay there for the entire Shabbos), what is the reasoning of the opinion that if the wide part of the radish is being pulled (as it is sticking out of the ground) that it is permitted? It is not even permitted to shake the dirt by hitting the radish. Certainly it is not going to be permitted if the moving of the earth is done by directly pulling the radish!

Question (cont.): If he forgot it there, what is the reason of the opinion that says it is forbidden? Even normal carrying of the radish is permitted for a purpose, even though it is going to cause the dirt to be moved when the radish is moved.

Proof: This is evident from the Gemara later (142b) regarding money that is on a pillow, and the space of the pillow is required. The Gemara says one is allowed to carry the pillow normally when the money is still on the pillow. One is similarly allowed to carry a barrel that has a stone on it, and then tip the barrel so that the stone falls off. Certainly he is allowed to carry it normally and cause a Muktzah thing that is not attached to it to be moved!

Answer: The case is where he put it there to remove it at any time.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that this is like a case of forgetting, similar to a case where a person insulated or covered food with something that cannot be carried on Shabbos, regarding which we say (51a) that the item can be shaken off the permitted food (by carrying the food and shaking off the Muktzah item) because he did not mean for it to be there for the entire Shabbos.

Implied Question (cont.): Similarly, regarding bones and peels, the Gemara in Beitzah (2a) says that Beis Hillel permits taking off the plate and shaking off the bones or peels. (How, then, can our case be ruled Muktzah?)

Answer: Even so, he shouldn't have put something there in a manner that would require moving Muktzah from the side. Bones and peels are different, as it is unavoidable that they will be on the table. There is no question from insulating or covering with Muktzah items, as since it is possible to shake them off, they do not even require moving from the side.

Question: This is difficult. The Mishnah later (124b) says that all vessels that are carried can have their broken pieces carried as well, even though regarding impurity the vessel is no longer considered a vessel once it is broken unless it is designated as such according to Rashi (95b).

Answer: The Gemara means as follows. Since regarding impurity it is not considered a vessel even through designating it as such in a case where the hole of the needle or the point of the needle is missing, regarding Shabbos it is also not considered a vessel.

Answer (cont.): However, where it is a vessel regarding impurity if he designates it as such, it is possible to say it is a vessel regarding Shabbos even without special designation, as it can be a vessel regarding impurity.

Proof: This is also implied later where Abaye answers according to Rava that the case is where there is the body of a needle before the hole is made, as a person will sometimes change his mind to use it as a vessel in a different capacity (i.e. taking out thorns). This implies that it is permitted to carry it even though it is pure because he still did not decide to use it as a needle, and it can be designated as a vessel the way it is.

Explanation: This is not the same thing as "Lefufi Yenuka" that is permitted later (66b, 147b), which means wrapping the child in clothing and tying a wide belt around him. This is also the explanation of "Lefufi Yenuka" given by Rashi (129b, DH "Melafifin").

Proof: This is in order that there should not be a contradiction in the position of Rav Nachman, as he permits "Lefufi Yenuka" but forbids our Gemara's case of "Asuvi Yenuka."

Explanation (cont.): The Mishnah (147a) says that one cannot be "Meatzev" - "form" the minor. The Gemara then asks that Lefufi Yenuka is permitted, and it answers that the case of the Mishnah is regarding a slipped disk in the back (that is not causing a danger to the life of the child) that appears like Boneh.

Question: This is difficult, as Rav Nachman proves this from the fact that we do not do Apiktozin which helps a person (causes a person to throw up and enable him to eat more, unrelated to medicine) as explained by Rashi. He should have proved this from the law of "not forming a minor" as this is also fixing a minor, and is more similar to Asuvi Yenuka as it is also regarding a baby.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that indeed the intent of Rav Nachman is that his proof is from the beginning of the Mishnah regarding Apiktozin through the law of not forming a minor.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to a knife used by butchers to cut meat.

Explanation #2: Some say this refers to a knife used to slaughter, as one is careful (not to use it for other purposes so) that it should not be dented.

Opinion: One should be careful not to carry it at all to even to cut something, as it is like the peg of the plow that even Rebbi Shimon agrees is Muktzah, as stated later (157a).

Explanation: It only discusses vessels that have no inside, as it is obvious that cups, bowls, and plates are carried.

Explanation: (Abaye is asking) It is understandable according to me, as I understand that this Beraisa is referring to a case where he requires its place.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have answered the Beraisa is according to Rebbi Nechemyah, as it answered earlier. Abaye also knew this potential answer, as Rabah answered him with it earlier. (If so, why does Abaye bother to ask this question, and why doesn't the Gemara give this answer?)

Answer: Abaye asked this question to Rava to see if he would give a different answer. Rava did not want to say this Beraisa was according to Rebbi Nechemyah, as the Halachah does not follow his opinion.

Implied Question: Rabah earlier did give an answer that a Beraisa was according to Rebbi Nechemyah. (Why did he give this answer?)

Answer: This is because he understands the Beraisa meant it cannot be carried for any reason.

Implied Question: The Gemara said it was used in order to cut meat on it, even though it would be permitted for doing any usage with it or if the space it was on was needed. (Why did it specifically say to cut meat?)

Answer: This is to teach us that even in this case Beis Shamai argues, as they do not permit it to be used for the reason of Simchas Yom Tov.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that there is no Rabbinic prohibitions of Shabbos that are upheld in the Mikdash. (Why, then, is the prohibition of Muktzah enforced in the Mikdash?)

Answer: We do find many Rabbinic prohibitions that are upheld in the Mikdash. The Rabbanan in some instances decreed they should be upheld, such as in our case regarding the sticks and poles, because they would otherwise come to desecrate Shabbos.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that this was taught before the permission to use vessels. (How, then, can it say it is permitted like all vessels?)

Answer: It is possible to answer that when it says it is like "all of the vessels" it means cups and bowls.