Dear Daf yomi,
The first teretz you give of the Rashba (as far as I can remember-I don't have a copy to hand) is in the footnotes of the 'Mossad HaRav Kook' edition of the Rashba and not the Rashba himself. It is the Chasam Sofer . Also there is a typing error at the end of the fourth line.
Regards to Yisroel. Hatzlochoh Rabo and Kol Tuv.
Yitzchok Jaeger
Rabbi Jaeger,
Thanks for your He'oros, and correction.
I still believe, though, that the Rashba means to say what we attributed to him in our Insights (and what you attributed to the Chasam Sofer); he holds (like Rashi) that there is no Binyan u'Setirah at all for Kelim, unlike Tosfos.
Although the Rashba first writes there that Rashi permitted Mekalkel because it was "l'Tzorech Mitzvah," he later refutes that based on the Gemara in Beitzah about breaking and smelling twigs. In addition, he asks from the case in Eruvin 34b, in which an Eruv was left in a Migdal.
He eventually concludes that there is never a Chiyuv of Binyan and Setirah for Kelim (the only Chiyuv is Makah b'Patish), and he points out that Rashi himself writes this in Eruvin (ibid.).
I understood from this that the Rashba changed his mind about what Rashi means in our Sugya, and according to his final analysis Rashi is l'Shitaso in Eruvin, and holds that there is not Isur of Setireah of Kelim at all. If so, his conclusion is identical to that of the Chasam Sofer you quoted.
-Mordecai