Implied Question: When the Gemara asks regarding the incident involving Shmuel in Eiruvin (94a) why Shmuel had to put up the wall as each can carry etc. (until the wall), it is not because it would have understood had Shmuel held like Rav that one could only carry four cubits (unless there was a wall).

Implied Question (cont.): It would still be difficult to understand how he ordered that this wall should be made, as since this wall allows people to carry in the yard it is like making a temporary tent which is forbidden, as I have explained earlier.

Implied Question (cont.): This is indeed why Rav was stringent regarding making this wall, as he holds one cannot carry four cubits in this domain when the wall is down. (What, then, is the meaning of the Gemara's question on Shmuel?)

Answer: Rather, the Gemara knew that Shmuel holds one can carry until the wall, and it therefore asked why putting up a sheet was necessary (as it is permitted to carry anyway).

Explanation: Rabeinu Tam understands that this is not referring to a fixing of action, but rather his thoughts are that it should be for this.

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara later that says he holds like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who says that it is prepared even though it is not tied. This means his thoughts are that it should be used for this.

Explanation (cont.): It seems that he completely holds like Rabban Shimon, as only regarding Rebbi Yochanan's opinion does the Gemara say later that he holds like him in one matter but not in the other.

Explanation (cont.): When Rebbi Yirmiyah asks, why not say that it is whether it is hanging or not as long as it is tied, this is according to Rebbi Yehudah who requires tying. His reason is due to carrying, not building. If it was because of building, what proof is there from the peg that needs to be tied to a window stopper? Regarding a window stopper there is no building, and there is only adding on to a temporary tent. The Rabbanan permit adding onto a temporary tent without tying, as is apparent from the Gemara in Eiruvin (44a).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that when he puts it in on Shabbos he is building, and it is a Torah prohibition.

Question: The Gemara does not imply it is a Torah prohibition, since he does not intend to keep it there.

Explanation #2: Rather, it appears to Rabeinu Tam that the only prohibition regarding the peg used to lock the door is Mukztah. This is similar to the Tosefta regarding the stalk that the homeowner set aside to open and close with, as the issue there (as well) is Muktzah.

Implied Question: Even so, Rebbi Elazar requires tied and hung regarding these things, as opposed to most other vessels that are not Muktzah simply because they have been designated and they have a household use. (Why?)

Answer: This is because they are similar to coverings for the (holes in the) ground that Chazal say require a handle.

Implied Question: This peg was forbidden in the Mikdash, even though Muktzah is only a Rabbinic prohibition on Shabbos (and there is a general rule that Rabbinic prohibitions were not enforced in the Mikdash). (How can Rabeinu Tam say this was forbidden in the Mikdash?)

Answer: Carrying it was forbidden in the Mikdash just like the sticks (of the Lechem ha'Panim) and rods (for skinning the Pesach) mentioned earlier (see Tosfos 123b, DH "Lo"). However, there is no prohibition here regarding building, even according to Rabbinic law.

Question: This is difficult according to Rabeinu Tam. How do we know that Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan argue regarding the addition of a temporary tent? Since they argue regarding Muktzah, perhaps they only argue regarding Muktzah!

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers in Sefer Hayashar that if this were the case, it should have said they argue regarding a matter which is not relative at all to adding to a temporary tent, for example like the peg that is dragging on the floor. Since they established the argument regarding a window stopper which indicates it is regarding adding to a temporary tent, it must be that this is the subject of their argument.

Implied Question: One cannot say that they specifically argue regarding temporary tents and not regarding carrying. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because the case of the peg only pertains to Muktzah, and the Rabbanan and Rebbi Eliezer still argue about it.

Proof: We are forced to say that the Tana Kama of the case of the peg is Rebbi Eliezer. If the Rabbanan permit a window stopper, they will certainly permit a peg that does not have to do with building a tent and only has to do with Muktzah.

Answer: Rather, they must argue regarding both cases. Rebbi Eliezer forbids regarding the window stopper due to Muktzah when it is not considered a real vessel. Even if it is, for example if it has a handle, even so it is forbidden due to adding onto a temporary tent since he leaves it in the stopper. The Rabbanan permit it even if it is not a real vessel, as they do not hold this is a problem of Muktzah or building a tent.

Observation: In Eiruvin, the Gemara concludes that Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel that the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehudah.

Question: The Ri asks that Shmuel himself holds earlier (50a) regarding branches of a palm tree that were originally cut down to be used for wood that one can designate them as seats by merely thinking this intention. The Gemara (ibid.) says that Rav taught they must be tied, while Shmuel says he can merely think he wants to use them for sitting. The Gemara there says that Shmuel holds like Rabban Shimon who says that in this case one does not have to tie them.

Question (cont.): If so, how can he say the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehudah who requires tying due to Muktzah? Muktzah, not building, is the problem regarding the door stopper. Rebbi Yehudah requires tying (thinking is not enough) due to Muktzah, as I explained (at the end of Tosfos #2 above)!

Answer: One cannot explain that Rebbi Yehudah requires tying regarding a door stopper to take away a problem of building, but not because of Muktzah, and that he would admit thinking is good enough regarding Muktzah as is the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. (Why not?)

Question: If so, what is the answer of Rebbi Abba bar Kahana to Rebbi Yirmiyah that I say like this Tana etc.? Perhaps Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only requires preparation even without it being tied because there is only a prohibition of Muktzah? This case is certainly not regarding building, as it is referring to a reed used by a homeowner for opening and closing!

Question (cont.): Since it says opening and closing, it implies he does not close with the same reed that he opens, as otherwise it should have said, "that he prepared to close with." Rather it implies that it is like our keys, where some of them pull the lock here and there. Similarly, the reed pulls the lock. However, the reed itself is not instead of the lock. If so, it is obvious that in such a case the reed has nothing to do with building. It can only be a question of Muktzah!

Implied Question: There is no proof from here that this is the type of reed being discussed, just because the Beraisa states "he locks and opens." (Why not?)

Answer: The Tosefta says that packages of wood and a Sukah of thorns that were made into a door for an opening or courtyard, if they were tied and hanging one can use them to open and close. If not etc. (The Tosefta doesn't merely say "Noalin" even though it is meant to be used as a door, not a way to open the door, see 4. above.)

Question (cont.): However, the Ri says that even if we would say that the case of the reed prepared to be used is a problem of building and it is the lock itself, and that this is why Rebbi Abba bar Kahana holds like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who says that when it is prepared even though it is not tied it is not included in the prohibition of building, it would still not be understandable.

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara later that says, "And if you will say that the case here as well is where they are considered a vessel," doesn't the Beraisa say that palm branches etc.

Proof (cont.): How would it be apparent from the case of palm branches? When the Gemara says that it is prepared even though it is not tied, this means when it is not yet considered a vessel and it is merely thought of (to be used for sitting). Perhaps Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only requires preparation of thought for Muktzah, but regarding the prohibition of building he requires an actual action of preparation, that he should physically prepare it for this usage in order that it should be considered a vessel?

Answer: It therefore appears to the Ri that Rebbi Abba bar Kahana argues with Rebbi Yochanan here and Rav Yehudah in Eiruvin (102a) regarding the following matter. They hold that the case of the peg is only a problem of Muktzah.

Answer (cont.): Rebbi Abba holds that it is a problem of building, and this is why it needs to be tied, in order so that it should not be a problem of building. Our Gemara now is understandable, as it is not discussing building regarding the peg or the reed, and the reed is an issue of Muktzah.

Explanation #1: This means that the top of it is hanging, and the bottom of it is on the ground, as explained by Rashi.

Explanation #2: The Rashba understands that even if both heads are on the ground, as long as it is tied it is permitted in the Mikdash. The reason why the Gemara used such terminology is to teach that even in such a case it is forbidden outside the Mikdash.

Explanation #2 (cont.): It is now understood that when the Mishnah states that if it is resting it is forbidden both in the Mikdash and outside it, it means that it is not tied and it is not hanging at all.

Proof: If you say that it specifically said that its (bottom) head has to reach the ground, but if both heads (bottom and top) were on the ground it would be forbidden in the Mikdash even though it is tied, the case where it is resting on the ground would have to be different for Rebbi Yehudah and the Tana Kama.

Proof (cont.): The case where it is resting according to Rebbi Yehudah must be that it is not tied or hanging from something, and he takes it away and leaves it in a corner. If you say that it is the same case as that of the Tana Kama where both heads are resting on the ground but they are tied, how can Rebbi Yehudah say that if it is resting on the ground it is only permitted in the Mikdash? It is even permitted outside the Mikdash, as Rebbi Yehudah did not forbid this outside the Mikdash unless it is not tied at all (as is apparent from the Beraisa)!

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it can be used for a different purpose.

Question: Rabeinu Tam does not think this is correct, as why should we require that it be useful for another purpose if it is still fitting to be used for this purpose?

Explanation #2: Rather, it appears according to Rabeinu Tam that "having a Toras Kli" means that it was prepared and an action was done to prepare it for this purpose. Since it was prepared to be used in this fashion it is considered a vessel, even though it is not fitting to be used for anything else.

Explanation #2 (cont.): This is like palm branches that are not fitting to be used for any other purpose besides for sitting. Even so one can prepare them for this and to carry them on Shabbos. The same applies to stones, as we said earlier, "go out and sand them down" (so they should be ready to be used for Shabbos).

Proof: Additionally, if they are considered a regular vessel this would be obvious, as any vessel can be carried for its purpose.

Implied Question: Rav Nechumi in Eiruvin (102a) asks, "if someone makes a handle for a peg that is dragging, what is the law? Abaye answered, "Do you mean a grinder (for wheat and spices)?" Abaye means that it is permitted. However, it is not permitted because if it were not also like a grinder due to this handle (meaning that the peg could be used to grind spices) it would be forbidden. Even if it were not fit for anything else, since he did an action to prepare it this would make it permitted even without a handle! (What, then, is the Gemara's answer that it is like a grinder?)

Answer #1: Rather, it appears to the Ri that the Gemara in Eiruvin (ibid.) is referring to a case of Nikmaz (see below) stated earlier in the Gemara there, and is because it is an appearance of building. Nikmaz means that he inserts the peg into a hole in the threshold (floor of the doorway) until it is in the earth, as explained by Rashi there. When Rav Nechumi asked Abaye this question, he was asking regarding making a handle for this peg that goes in the threshold.

Answer #2: Alternatively, Shmuel is according to his reasoning that the reason of Rebbi Yehudah is due to building even without putting the peg into the ground.

Observation: This (second) answer appears more correct, since Nikmaz does not really mean that it is stuck into the ground but rather that it is similar to being stuck into the ground. It is like it is taken away (the rope it was hanging from ripped) but not exactly, as is apparent from the Beraisa quoted earlier that says that if a peg is completely taken away it is forbidden, but if it is Nikmaz it is permitted. Rebbi Yehudah says Nikmaz, even though it is not taken away. The exact explanation of Nikmaz is not clear.

Observation (cont.): The text of the Yerushalmi reads that the peg of Rebbi Eliezer was tied with rope. If it broke, it was forbidden. If it was Nikmaz, Rebbi Yaakov bar Acha ruled with the heads of his fingers. (See the text in our Yerushalmi in Eiruvin (10:10) which reads, "he would measure with the heads of his fingers," and see the Korban ha'Eidah and Shiyurei ha'Korban regarding to the explanation of our Tosfos.)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that one does not leave a pail used to draw water from a well to serve this function as he does a peg to be used with his door. This is similar to what we say in Sukah (28a) regarding a sheet (that it is not considered as nullified to the Sechach because it is going to be taken away). (What is the proof from the peg to the pail?)

Answer: One can say that the pail is left there more permanently than the sheet.

Implied Question: One cannot say that the stopper used for a Mitzvah is different, as stated later (157b) regarding measuring. (Why not?)

Answer: The case there does not involve a serious prohibition, and the only problem is that is like work done during the week (that should therefore not be done on Shabbos). However, a stopper that is a problem due to adding onto a temporary structure and it is therefore like building cannot be permitted just because it is used for a Mitzvah.

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains the size of these containers, as we learned regarding three boxes of three Sa'ah each.