Implied Question: This is despite the fact that hanging a jug on a hook is not even forbidden according to Rabbinic law. (Why, then, is this Uvda d'Chol?)

Answer: Regarding Rabbinic prohibitions one can make a distinction between the two cases. However, if it would be a Torah prohibition we would not be able to make this distinction.

Opinion #1: This is not what Rashi says it is. Rashi says it is a portable folding chair similar to the portable folding bed mentioned earlier (47b), and that this is prohibited because he might put it together permanently.

Question: This is because our Gemara is clearly discussing the prohibition regarding making tents (as opposed to making vessels).

Opinion #2: Rather, it is similar to a bed that has leather stretched over it, and it is forbidden due to making a tent when one first puts down the frame of the bed and then stretches the leather out over it. This is because it is made in the normal way that a tent is made, which is making walls first and then a roof. This is prohibited, as stated in Beitzah (33a) that one cannot make such a bed by putting down the frame and then making the top.

Explanation #1: There is a piece of leather that a person uses when he wants to sit by stretching it over the four legs of the chair, as explained by Rashi. The case is when the leather is attached to the chair permanently.

Explanation #1 (cont.): If this would not be the case it would be forbidden to stretch it out. This is as Rav Yehudah states in Beitzah (32b) that a bonfire can be built top down. This means that one normally puts the wood on each side and then puts long pieces of wood across the width of the first pieces. If one first brings the top pieces of wood and only afterwards (after the top pieces are being held in place) slides the bottom pieces of wood underneath them it is not considered the normal way to make a tent to make a roof first and then the walls, and therefore it is permitted. This is called "top to bottom." "Bottom to top" is prohibited.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rav Yehudah continues to state in Beitzah (33a) that the same is true regarding eggs. He means that one normally puts eggs on top of a Gardeil (metal cap-like item used for roasting items on top of it), but if he holds the eggs until he brings the Gardeil under them this is permitted as it is called "top to bottom."

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rav Yehudah continues (ibid.) that this is also true regarding a pot. While a person normally puts a pot over two barrels, to avoid transgressing making an Ohel he must hold it in place and afterwards slide the barrels underneath it.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rav Yehudah continues (ibid.) that this is also true regarding a barrel. While a person normally puts organizes barrels by stacking one on top of two of them, to avoid transgressing making an Ohel he must hold it in place and afterwards slide the barrels underneath it.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rav Yehudah continues (ibid.) that this is also true regarding a bed. He must spread out the leather sheet first and then bring the bed underneath it to avoid transgressing making an Ohel.

Explanation #2: However, it is possible to explain the Gemara regarding leather that is not attached to the chair, and the case is when he makes the chair from top to bottom.

Implied Question: However, the Gemara implies it is referring to this being permitted in any way that the chair is set up.

Observation: Rabeinu Tam explains that all of the aforementioned cases that are forbidden in Beitzah (32b-33a) are specifically regarding things that have walls (i.e. sides) that reach the ground. However, to put a pot over a Tarpid (tripod holding up a pot) on Yom Tov is permitted even when done "bottom to top," meaning to set down the Tarpid and then put the pot on. The same applies to putting tables on a bench.

Observation (cont.): It must be that the aforementioned items in Beitzah (32b-33a) have walls.

Observation: Rebbi does not understand the Gemara's answer.

Observation: You should not ask a question from our Gemara on the Gemara earlier (74a), as I explained there (DH "Borer v'Ochel").

Explanation #1: The case is where he left a Tefach beforehand, as it would not be permitted in any other way. This is as we find in Eiruvin (102a) that he rolled up the blanket and left a Tefach (before Shabbos). The next day he rolled it out, as he was merely adding onto a temporary tent.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, tying a thread or string helps without leaving a Tefach.

Explanation: The Ri understands that he asked him in general regarding all canopies (small tents where people slept) if they are permitted, and he answered that even some beds are forbidden. He then asked if all beds are forbidden, and he answered that there are even some canopies that are permitted. He then asked that if you are equating canopies and beds, can we say that they are the same inasmuch that when it is forbidden regarding one it will also be forbidden regarding the other? He answered that the canopy will be forbidden but the bed will be permitted.

Explanation (cont.): This is also how we can explain the Gemara in Chulin (53a) where he asked, does a cat cause an animal to be called a Derusah (i.e. is an animal that was pounced upon by a cat considered a Derusah which is forbidden)? He answered, even a fox causes an animal to be a Derusah. He asked, does a fox cause a Derusah? He answered, even a cat does not cause an animal to be a Derusah. He asked, do cats and foxes cause animals to be Derusos? He answered, a cat does while a fox does not.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara explains this to mean that regarding goats and sheep a cat can cause them to be considered a Derusah, while a fox cannot. Regarding large sheep, even a cat cannot cause them to be considered a Derusah. Regarding birds, even a fox causes them to be considered a Derusah.

Explanation (cont.): One can explain this (seemingly odd give and take) as does Rabeinu Yitzchak be Rebbi Meir that when he was dealing with sheep he was asked if a fox causes a Derusah (which is why he said even a cat does not, as it does not cause this regarding large sheep). (The same can apply to the rest of the questions in both Gemaros, meaning that the questions were asked while the Rav was dealing with a particular category and he answered accordingly.)

Implied Question: It would seem that we could have answered as the Gemara later states that this is referring to the canopy tents of the house of Rav Huna (that are permitted). (Why didn't the Gemara give this answer?)

Answer: The truth is that the canopies from the house of Rav Huna had strings attached to the cover, relying on the leniency of Rami bar Yechezkel.

Question: This is very bewildering. How can this be? What is it good for if the entire slant is not even one Tefach wide?

Answer #1: One can answer that the case is where the sheet spread over the canopy is supposed to rest on many poles. However, they did not spread the sheet well, and parts of it fell between each pole making it look like a row in between each two poles. This causes the sheet to slant between each pole that is less than a Tefach. This is a forced explanation.

Answer #2: Some explain that this means that from the area where the slant starts to be a Tefach wide to the ground there is not ten Tefachim. This is not considered a tent, as stated in Sukah (10a) that one is allowed to even sleep in such a tent inside the Sukah. This is as Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel that it is permitted to sleep in a bridegroom canopy even if it has a roof, as long as it is not ten Tefachim tall.

Question: This does not appear to be correct to the Ri. Even though it is certainly not considered a tent regarding the laws of Sukah or Kriyas Shema as stated there (ibid.), regarding Shabbos it is considered a tent and it should be forbidden.

Question (cont.): This is apparent from the fact that a strainer (our Mishnah), putting eggs on a place where eggs are roasted, a pot where pots are placed, and a barrel where barrels are stacked (all cases in Beitzah 32b-33a) are forbidden due to making a tent, and there is no implication that they are ten Tefachim tall (see end of Tosfos on 138a DH "Kisai Traskal" that some say they are ten Tefachim tall).

Question #2: There is an additional question on this explanation from the Gemara later regarding a basket made from palm fronds (where the implication is that even one Tefach is considered an Ohel - Maharam).

Text: In the name of Rabeinu Shmuel it is said that we do not have the text in our Gemara, "the slant of tents is like the tent" at all ("at all" means that even if we would have a good explanation of a useful tent without a slant that is a Tefach wide, we would not say this - Ben Aryeh).

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara in Sukah (19b) where we conclude that the slant of a tent is not like the tent.

Question: This Gemara in Sukah (ibid.) is not a reason to change the text, as we can explain that there the slant indeed was not a Tefach, while here it is (the Gemara says that the slant is like the tent if it has a slant of a Tefach).

Explanation: Rabeinu Chananel explains that it does not bend, and it therefore appears like a tent. "d'Lo Mehadek" means that it does bend, and it therefore does not appear to be like a tent.

Explanation: This is as the Pasuk says regarding the seventy year exile (between the first and second Batei Mikdash), "for the end of the word of Hash-m (the seventy year exile that was prophesized) from the mouth of Yirmiyah" (Ezra 1:1).