Question: But did the Gemara not say earlier at the end of Perek ha'Meivi (Daf 34:) that 'Tevel is considered Muchan, because if one transgresses and rectifies it, it is rectified.

Question (cont.): In which case, one can still ask 'Tevel yes, a row of bricks, no'?

Answer: Ula will say to you that it is nevertheless considered as soemthing that cannot be moved on Shabbos ...

Source: As we learned in Perek Mefanin (Ibid., 126:) 'But (one can) not (move) Tevel'.

Clarification: Rashi explains - that the Gemara does not explicitly establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah ...

Clarification (cont.): Only since, when the Gemara asks 'But are they not Muktzos', it does not answer that the author is Rebbi Shimon, this implies that it goes according to Rebbi Yehudah?

Explanation #1: On condition, Rashi explains, that one does not cover all the windows, in which case it is forbidden according to Rebbi Yehudah, and permitted according to Rebbi Shimon.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And also initially, when the Gemara attempted to establish the Bersaisa like Rebbi Shimon, it implies that it speaks in all circumstances, even to make a sort of trap, to stop up all the windows.

Question: Rebbi Shimon concedes by 'P'sik Reisha ve'Lo Yamus', and here they will definitely be trapped?

Explanation #2: Rebbi Moshe from Aibra therefore explains that even according to Rebbi Shimon, it speaks when there is a small hole in the beehive, only it is not visible. In that case, it is not 'P'sik Reisha ve'Lo Yamus', and it is permitted according to Rebbi Shimon ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas Rebbi yedhudah, who forbids even a Davar she'Eino Miskaven, requires a hole that is large enough for the bees to exit the beehive that is visible to them.

Question: According to what the Gemara initially thought earlier, that it speaks about a leak that is not fit, on what basis is he permitted to move it, how does it differ from a basket which has a stone in it' ...

Question (cont.): About which the Gemara at the end of 'Kirah' (Shabbos, Daf 47. & 47:) says that if it does not contain fruit, it is forbidden?

Answer: It is permitted because it is like a 'G'raf shel Re'i' (a potty).

Answer (cont.): And this is also implied, since it cites the episode of Abaye here.

Implied Question: Even though we said earlier in Perek Yom-Tov (Daf 21: & 23.) that one is not permitted to make a G'raf shel Re'i Lechatchilah ...

Answer #1: Rabah nevertheless holds that it is permitted here, either due to the loss of the mill ...

Answer #2: Or because it is not considered Lechatchilah here, seeing as the rain was already beginning to drip into the house, like the case of 'Mezamnin le'Nochri' (Daf 21:).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that one takes canes and forms a sort of a barrel with which one swims.

Question: We learned (in Maseches Keilim, Perek 2, Mishnah 3) 'The following are Tahor among earthenware vessels: A board that does not have a rim and a barrel that is for swimming'.

Question #1: So we see that it is made of earthenware?

Answer: Tosfos therefore explains that it is an earthenware vessel that does not have an opening, which consequently is unable to sink in the water, seeing as water cannot enter it, and which therefore floats on the surface of the water.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it ought therefore have listed in the Seifa, together with the cases of Mitzvah.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And the Gemara answers that it is speaking where there is someone better than him to judge, and that consequently, it is not as big a Mitzvah as the cases in the Seifa.

Inferred Halachah: According to that, it may well be that it is forbidden, even where there is nobody better than him.

Precedent: And so Rashi explains with regard to the case of 'Lo Mekadshin' where on the Kashya 'Ha Mitzvah ka'Avid?' the Gemara answers that he has a wife and children - implying that it is forbidden even if he does not.

Question: The Gemara says in Perk Dinei Mamonos (Sanhedrin, Daf 35.) that one is forbidden to judge on Erev Shabbos and Erev Yom-Tov, because how should they do it? Should they judge the defendant on Erev Shabbos and kill him on Shabbos? The death-sentence does not override Shabbos.

Question (cont.): The Gemara does not answer 'because one cannot judge'.

Question (concl.): This implies that regarding the Sanhedrin, since there is probably nobody better than them, are allowed to judge?

Answer: The Gemara prefers to give a reason as to why it is Asur min ha'Torah, rather than why it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains 'de'Ha Mitzvah ka Avid?' so why did they issue a decree forbidding it? And it answers that 'It speaks where he has a wife and children', but if he didn't, he would be allowed to get engaged, seeing as he doing a Mitzvah.

Question #1: In the first Perek of Yoma, regarding the Din that one prepares for the Kohen Gadol another wife, the Yerushalmi asks that one is forbidden to acquire on Shabbos? And it answers 'Ein Sh'vus ba'Mikdash'.

Question #1 (cont.):Why does it not answer that he is performing a Mitzvah, because, seeing as his wife died, it is a Mitzvah to marry another one.

Question #2: Moreover, he is performing a Mitzvah by conforming with the Pasuk in Vayikra (16) "ve'Chiper Ba'ado u've'ad Beiso"?

Conclusion: This supports the explanation of Rashi.

Answer to Kashya from Sanhedrin: Nor is the Kashya from Sanhedrin a problem, since it gives the reason here as being 'In case one comes to write', which is not applicable here, seeing as they already convened on Erev Yom Tov, and wrote the words of those who declared him innocent and the words of those who declared him guilty before Yom-Tov came in, as the Gemara explains there ...

Answer to Kashya from Sanhedrin (cont.): There is nothing to decree.

Reinstating Explanation #2: It is also possible to learn like Rabeinu Tam, and the Kashya from the Kohen Gadol is not a problem, since perhaps the Gemara presents one of two reasons.

Acquiring on Shabbos: The Yerushalmi in Yoma, citing Rebbi Mona, concludes that someone who marries a widow should marry her before Shabbos ...

Acquiring on Shabbos (cont.): So as not to seemingly make an acquisition on Shabbos.

Marrying on Shabbos: The Yerushalmi at the beginning of Kesuvos also explains that before marrying a woman, one does not acquire the articles that she finds, or the work that she produces, nor may he nullify her Nedarim. But that he attains all these rights one he marries her.

Marrying on Shabbos (cont.): So it transpires (that if someone who gets married on Shabbos) it is as if he is making a Kinyan on Shabbos.

Marrying on Shabbos (concl.): That too, it is possible to establish where he already has a wife and children.

Getting Divorced on Shabbos (cont.): And just as one is forbidden to get married on Shabbos because it resembles a Kinyan, so too, it is forbidden to give a Get on Shabbos.