Question: Would Shmuel's limitation (allowing moving even four or five boxes on Shabbos only when that does not completely clear the storehouse, lest he come to smooth the newly uncovered earth) apply to our Mishnah?

On the one hand, perhaps Shabbos is more stringent than Yom Tov.

On the other, perhaps monetary loss is even more cause for leniency than Bitul Beis Medrash.

Question: Would R. Nachman's restriction in our Mishnah (prohibiting moving from one roof to another, even on the same level) apply to the Mishnah in Shabbos?

On the one hand, we need not protect Shabbos from disrespect to the same extent as Yom Tov.

On the other, it should certainly apply where there is no loss involved.

Question: Would the Chumra in our Mishnah of not lowering the fruit by means of a rope or using a ladder apply to the Mishnah in Shabbos?

On the one hand, perhaps it would be permitted if there were Bitul Beis Medrash.

On the other, perhaps an instance where there is no monetary loss would be even more stringent.

Answer (to all of the above): Teiku

(Ula): The permission to cover fruit in our Mishnah extends even to a pile of bricks.

(R. Yitzchak): The permission only applies to fruit which may be moved on Yom Tov, but one may not move a vessel to cover something which may itself, not be moved.

Question (on Ula): Our Mishnah says fruit implying but not a row of bricks!?

Answer: The Tana mentions fruit because of the Reisha.

Question (again on Ula): Were it true that bricks could be covered, then the Tana who listed wine barrels taught less than his intended Chidush!?

Answer: Kadei Yayin and Kadei Shemen add the case of covering Tevel, which is forbidden and therefore the same as a row of bricks.

The Tana might include them anyway, even if they are not Tevel.

Barrels would come to permit covering even where the loss is relatively small.

Questions (on R. Yitzchak): The Mishnah permits placing a vessel underneath a leak!?

Answer: This speaks of a leak which is fit for an animal.

Question: The Beraisa permits placing a mat on top of bricks!?

Answer: This speaks of bricks which remain after the building has been completed, (fit for seating).

Question: The Beraisa permits placing a mat on top of stones (that are designated for building purposes)!?

Answer: This speaks of stones that have been sharpened, and are fit for use in a bathroom.

Question: But the Beraisa permits placing a rain-cover on a beehive (provided that he does not intend to thereby trap the bees)!?

Answer: This speaks where there is honey in the hive.

Question: What about in the rainy season when there is no honey (and yet the Beraisa permits protecting the hive from both sun and rain)!?

Answer: He always leaves two honeycomb loaves inside the hive as food for the bees for the duration of winter.

Question: Then the Beraisa should not permit covering them with a mat!?

Answer: It speaks of a case where the owner had in mind to take them for himself.

Question: Then what would be the Halachah had he not designated the loaves to be taken?

Answer: It would be Asur to move the mat.

Question: Then the Beraisa should have made that distinction within its permission to cover the hive with a mat!?

Answer: The Beraisa is prohibiting all cases except when he does not intend to trap.

Question: We are forced into an inconsistency whereby the Reisha of the honeycomb Beraisa is R. Yehudah (who considers the Muktzah issue) while the Seifa is R. Shimon (who permits the unintended outcome [trapping] of a permitted act [protecting the honey loaves])!?

Answer: The Beraisa is the view of R. Yehudah, and the case is where the hive has a window (preventing the bees from being trapped) and thus should the Beraisa be read.

Question: But that prohibition is obvious!?

Answer: We might have permitted trapping creatures which one does not, as a rule, tend to trap.

Answer (R. Ashi): The language of the Beraisa may be understood to refer not to the seasons of rain and sun, but to times of rain and sun!

At both times (sun-Tishrei and rain-Nisan) there is also honey in the hive.

It is permitted to (even repeatedly) empty and replace the bucket.

Rabah instructed Abaye to bring his bed into his disintegrating mill, thus permitting its removal as a Geraf Shel Re'i.

Question (Abaye): But one may not intentionally create a Geraf Shel Re'i!?

Abaye's mill caved in and he declared that it served him right for contravening his Rebbe's orders.

(Shmuel): One may take out a Geraf Shel Re'i as well as returning the empty pans with water in them.

His students assumed that the pans could be moved, but the Re'i could not be moved directly.

The Beraisa wherein R. Ashi permitted carrying the mouse disproves this understanding.

All categories of prohibitions (Shevus, Reshus and Mitzvah, each as enumerated) apply to Yom Tov and all the moreso to Shabbos.

Only Ochel Nefesh distinguishes Yom Tov from Shabbos.

Climbing a tree on Shabbos or Yom-Tov may lead one to break off branches.

Question: Shall we infer from the riding prohibition that Techumim are d'Oraisa?

Answer: Not necessarily, riding might lead one to break off a twig from a tree to use as a whip.

Swimming may lead one to fashion a swimmer's barrel.

Hand-clapping and dancing may lead one to fashion a musical instrument.

Question: Why is judging not a permitted Mitzvah!?

Answer: We are speaking when there is a greater expert than oneself.

Question: Betrothal should be considered a Mitzvah!

Answer: We are speaking where one is already married and has children.