Inference: Regarding Tum'ah, Rava holds like Rav Ada bar Ahavah's answer. (Rav Ada holds that they discuss a cloth exactly three by three fingers, and argue about whether or not it is still considered a Kli after folding it.)

Question: Below (29b), it connotes that [Rava] holds like the answer of Rav Hamnuna, who says that this is a leniency of rags [less than three by three Tefachim], and R. Akiva retracted to hold like R. Yehoshua!

Answer: Here, the text says "Rabah", and below it says "Rava."

Remark: There is no reason for the custom to light the wick and extinguish it [before Shabbos], so it will be singed.

Reason #1: [Even according to Rabah,] the Halachah does not follow R. Eliezer, for he is Shemuti (from Beis Shamai)!

Reason #2: We say below "here we discuss a wick that needs to be singed." This implies that one may light with a wick that was not singed.

Question: Since the Tana taught that even a wick that was not singed, one may not light with it, all the more so one may not light with rags that were not singed!

Answer: However, the text in the Tosefta is "and not with rags, even if they were singed."

Question (Ri): Below (142b), it says "this teaches that Rava holds like R. Yehudah." I.e. he forbids a Neveilah that died on Shabbos;

[We ask that Rava] told his servant "roast a goose for me, and throw its intestines to a cat"! We answer that since [the intestines] would spoil [before nightfall], from before Yom Tov he intended [to feed them to a cat].

Inference: Since he intended from before Yom Tov, to give them to a cat when they will spoil tomorrow, it is permitted, even though as long as they did not spoil, they are proper for people, because it is considered that he prepared them from before Yom Tov for a cat;

Also here, he intended to remove the pits when he eats the dates tomorrow! Why is this considered Nolad more than the intestines of a goose?

Answer: There, the goose was slaughtered before Yom Tov. The intestines do not need the goose. Since before Yom Tov he intended to give them to a cat if they will spoil, it is considered a proper preparation;

However, here the pits need the food, and they are considered like the food itself, until he eats the dates. Therefore, he considers them Nolad, and it does not help that he intended for them from yesterday.

Implied question: It is obvious that Rav forbids Nolad, like R. Yehudah, regarding mats used to cover merchandise (above, 19b)!

Answer: We bring a proof that even regarding pits, that we could say "initially they were pits, and now they are pits", R. Yehudah forbids.

Question: Regarding [shells of] nuts, which were initially revealed and are now revealed, what is the source that they are forbidden?

Answer: Even though from this reason we make a Tzerichusa (reason why he needed to teach all the cases), in truth he does not hold that it is a reason to distinguish between them.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): According to R. Eliezer, Muchan is in a box. Not Muchan is when he hung it on a peg or left it in back of the door. Muchan of R. Yehoshua is when he hung it on a peg or left it in back of the door. Not Muchan is when he threw it to the wasteheap. Muchan of R. Akiva is when he hung it on a peg. Not Muchan is when he left it in back of the door.

Question #1 (Ri): Now, Muchan and not Muchan of this Tana are unlike of the other Tana!

Question #2: Why should [R. Eliezer and Yehoshua] mention a box and a wasteheap, since they do not argue about them!

Question #3: Below (39b), we call R. Akiva a Machri'a (an intermediate opinion). Why is this? R. Eliezer and Yehoshua did not reveal in their words that one can distinguish hanging on a peg from in back of the door!

Explanation #2 (Ri): All of them hold that Muchan is when he hung it on a peg. Not Muchan is when he left it in back of the door.

[The Gemara asks] "why does he call it not Muchan?" I.e. why does R. Eliezer call leaving it in back of the door not Muchan, since it is Tamei?

It answers that compared to in a box, it is not Muchan.

[The Gemara] did not want to say that compared to on a peg, [in back of the door] is not Muchan, because on a peg is not so much better (more Muchan) than in back of the door, that he should call [the latter] not Muchan compared to the former.

Similarly, [the Gemara] asks according to R. Yehoshua, "why does he call on a peg 'Muchan', since it is Tahor? It answers that compared to in a wasteheap, it is Muchan.

It did not say that compared to in back of the door, it is Muchan, because in back of the door is not so much worse (less Muchan) than on a peg, that [the former] should be called not Muchan compared to the latter.

Implied question: It says below (95a) that Ameimar permitted sprinkling in the house in Mechuza. He explained that Chachamim forbade this lest one even out hollows [in an earth floor]. Here, there are no hollows. Rashi explained that all of Mechuza had [stone] floors.

Answer: There, we do not decree in Mechuza due to other cities. However, within one city we decree about this Aliyah (upper story) due to another Aliyah.

Assertion: The text does not say [but regarding big Kelim,] all forbid.

Source: In Pesachim (20b) it connotes that it is permitted more when it is impossible (without dragging) than when it is possible.

Explanation: We require that it is not a Pesik Reishei (inevitable consequence) [that he will benefit], e.g. he was wearing other clothes to protect him from the sun or cold.