Explanation #1 (Rashi 154b): It is forbidden because it looks like he destroys [the Kli].

Explanation #2 (Rashi here): It is forbidden because it is as if he attaches it [to the ground] with plaster.

Implied question: It is forbidden to move [Tevel], like the Mishnah below (126b) teaches!

Answer: Even so, it is not considered Mevatel Kli mi'Heichano, because if he transgressed and fixed (tithed the Tevel), it is fixed (he may move it and eat it).

Question (Rashba): A Mishnah in Terumos (2:3), brought in Gitin (54a) says that if one tithed on Shabbos b'Shogeg, he may eat it. If he was Mezid, he may not eat it;

The expression here "if he transgressed and fixed it" connotes Mezid, since it did not say "if he was Shogeg and fixed it"!

Answer: It seems that it said "if he transgressed" in a case that he has no other Peros. It says in Beitzah (17b) that [in such a case] even if he was Mezid, he may eat it.

Question (Rashba): Below (154b), a Beraisa says that if his animal was laden with Tevel and Asasiyos (glass lanterns), he breaks the ropes and the sacks fall, even though they break;

Inference: One may not put pillows and blankets under them. This teaches that Tevel is not Muchan!

Answer (Ri): "Even though they will break" does not refer to the Tevel. It refers only to the glass.

Question (Rashba): Just like it says that if he transgressed and fixed it, it is fixed, similarly when he puts a Kli under a hen to catch its egg, we should say that if he transgressed and removed the egg, one may move the Kli;

If so, this negates the law of Mevatel Kli mi'Heichano! (Only when the Kli holds the Muktzah, one may not move it, and then it is forbidden even without the law of Mevatel Kli mi'Heichano.)

Answer: This is not difficult. The Kli with the egg (while it is inside) has no Heter, but Tevel has a Heter through fixing it.

Question #1 (Rashba): When he has other Peros, if he was Shogeg, why may he eat? We should say that since it was Muktzah Bein ha'Shemashos, it is Muktzah for the entire day!

Question #2 (Rashba): Why is it different here, that if he fixed it, it is fixed, and in Beitzah (26b) regarding a Bechor according to R. Shimon, who says that we do not inspect Mumim on Yom Tov, if he transgressed and inspected it, it is not inspected?

Ada bar Uchmi, who says that b'Shogeg, it is inspected, we say there that this is not so. He erred! (Sefas Emes - Tevel is destined to eat, just there is an Isur. An animal is not destined to be eaten while it is alive, therefore it is more stringent even after we rule that it has a Mum and one may slaughter it. Pnei Yehoshua gives another answer.)

Explanation: He could not have asked this above, for it is a common Hatzalah.

Explanation: After [the chicks] descended [from the basket], one may move it.

Assertion (Ri): He holds that there is no Muktzah for half (part) of Shabbos, for according to the opinion that there is Muktzah for half of Shabbos, one may not move it even after they descended.

Question (Rashba): According to the opinion that there is Muktzah for half of Shabbos, why may we turn a basket on its side in front of chicks? He is Mevatel Kli mi'Heichano!

We hold that it is forbidden to be Mevatel, for below (47b) the Stam Gemara asks "he is Mevatel Kli mi'Heichano!"

Similarly, below (128b, we ask this), and (on 154b) we ask this according to Rav Huna, even though we do not find that [Rav Huna] holds [that one may not be Mevatel]. This connotes that all forbid to be Mevatel Kli mi'Heichano! So I will explain below.

Answer #1: According to the opinion that there is Muktzah for half of Shabbos, he establishes [the Mishnah that permits] inverting the basket like R. Shimon;

According to him, surely one may move the basket after they descended, for he does not even hold that what was Muktzah Bein ha'Shemashos is Muktzah for the entire day, for he permits using [oil] from a Ner that extinguished!

Answer #2: There is Muktzah for half of Shabbos, i.e. for eating, but not for moving.

Question: Rav Yosef, who explains that our Mishnah is due to Bitul Kli me'Heichano, holds that our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon, for according to him, he is not Mevatel Kli mi'Heichano, since he permits after it extinguishes;

This is like here, that we do not consider inverting a basket to be Bitul Kli, because it is permitted after they descend!

Answer: It is different. Here, surely it is not considered Bitul Kli, for once they come on the basket, he is able to chase them from there.

Question: Since he is able to chase them off [the basket], this is Gamro bi'Ydei Adam (man can complete its preparation). We should not say that since it was Muktzah Bein ha'Shemashos [it is Muktzah for all of Shabbos], like is proven in Beitzah (26b);

R. Zeira asked according to the opinion that there is Muktzah for half of Shabbos, beans and lentils that cook on Yom Tov, initially they were proper to eat them raw. When he put them in a pot, they were cast off. When they finish cooking, they are permitted!

Abaye responded, according to you, you should ask about all pots, for pots of Shabbos, Bein ha'Shemashos they are boiling, and at night we eat them!

Rather, he did not ask about Gamro bi'Ydei Adam. He asked about Gamro bi'Ydei Shamayim!

Answer: Pots are different, for if he needed them Bein ha'Shemashos, he would cool them off. Similarly, beans and lentils, he wants them to cook without any obstacle;

However, here he wanted the chicks to ascend on the basket. This is why he inverted it! For a time, he cast it off for their needs. Since it was Muktzah Bein ha'Shemashos, it should be Muktzah for the entire day!

Observation: Also the case of putting a Kli under a drip, we can answer that the dripping water is proper for use, like we answered above. In Beitzah (36a), R. Yitzchak answers like this.

Question (Ri): Why is oil different, that [the Mishnah] taught we may not put a Kli [to catch it], and for sparks, we may put? Regarding both, it could have taught that we may put when we need the place, or for both we may not put, when we do not need the place!

Answer #1 (Ri): Initially, it teaches that one may take a Kli only for something that may be moved on Shabbos. Regarding sparks, afterwards, it teaches that when he needs the place, it is permitted.

Answer #2: Also R. Yitzchak holds that one may not be Mevatel Kli mi'Heichano. Therefore, regarding oil, one may not put a Kli even when he needs its place;

Below, we will explain that also Rav Huna (who holds like R. Yitzchak - 43b) holds like both of these - one may take a Kli only for something that may be moved, and one may not be Mevatel Kli mi'Heichano.

Observation: If we will say that according to Rav Yosef, our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon, since he permits after it extinguishes, it is not considered Bitul Kli...

If so, we can say that even Rabah holds that one may not be Mevatel Kli mi'Heichano. He needed to say that Chachamim did not permit an uncommon Hatzalah in order to establish our Mishnah like R. Shimon.

Question: Why do we need all of these Mishnayos to teach that when he needs the place, it is permitted?

Answer: Regarding sparks, it needed to teach that we should not say even when he needs its place, it is forbidden lest he come to extinguish. Similarly, [for this reason] we need the Mishnah of putting a bowl so fire will not catch...

The Rashba says that we need the Mishnah of a beam that broke to teach that we are not concerned lest he raise it. It is forbidden to raise it, like the Mishnah (151b) teaches "and similarly, a beam [that broke], we may support it, not to raise it, but so it will not fall more."

Implied question: All these questions, surely the Makshan knew that one can answer that he needs the place!

Answer: He wanted to know if one can answer differently.

Explanation: This is like it says below (124b) "these bricks left over from building, one may move them."

Question: One may not remove them, like a Beraisa teaches below (95a) that one who scrapes loaves of honey [off the wall of a hive] b'Shogeg is Chayav Chatas. R. Eliezer says so;

Rabanan hold that there is an Isur mid'Rabanan. [All agree that] one may not move it!

Answer #1: We discuss [loaves of honey] that were scraped off the wall and are resting in the hive.

Answer #2: Normally there is honey floating on the loaves. It need not be scraped off the wall.

Question: What is the Chidush? Obviously, if he makes it like a trap, it is forbidden. [We cannot say that it teaches that it is forbidden even without intent, for] the Beraisa does not connote that even though he does not intend it is forbidden!

Answer: It says in Beitzah (36b) that the Chidush is that a species normally trapped is forbidden, and a species not normally trapped is permitted.

Explanation #1: Presumably, Rav Ashi answered so immediately to Rav Ukva when he asked him, just the Gemara arranged its answer first.

Explanation #2 (Rashba): Rav Ashi answered both of them, for in Beitzah the text says 'he said to him "it is needed only for those two loaves"', and in the answer [that Rav Ashi gave] here, the text says "alternatively, it did not teach in winter..."

Observation: In Bava Basra (154b) it connotes that also Rav Huna forbids to be Mevatel Kli mi'Heichano, for it challenges his words there!

Rav Huna said there that if one's animal was carrying [Muktzah] glass Kelim, he puts pillows and blankets underneath [and unties the ropes, so the sacks fall]. We ask that he is Mevatel Kli me'Heichano, and answer that he discusses small loads. (Afterwards he can remove the pillows and blankets.)

Question: Still, we can challenge Rav Huna there, for here he holds that one may take a Kli only for the sake of something that may be moved!

Answer: He discusses when he needs the place of the Kli.

Question: When we ask there from the case of an animal carrying Tevel or Asasiyos, we should answer that he does not need the place of the Kli!

Answer #1: We could have answered so. Likewise, we could have answered that we discuss big loads. (If he would put pillows and blankets, afterwards he could not remove them.)

Answer #2 (Ri): The Isur that one may take a Kli only for the sake of something that may be moved, it is permitted when there would be a big loss.

Support: It connotes like this there. It says "I might have thought that [Chachamim] were concerned for a big loss..."

Inference: They were concerned and permitted to move even for the sake of something that may not be moved. What were they concerned to permit, if not this Isur?!

Question #1: Even without heat, what Isur is there for each to bring a bed to sit on it?

Question #2: Why do they first bring a bed, and afterwards a mat? They should wait until it is hot for them also above, and bring bed and mats together!

Answer: Rabanan were stringent to make an indication that it is being done for the living, as much as it is possible to do.

Explanation: Only like this [is permitted], like Rashi explained, but from below to above (erecting the walls and then the roof) is forbidden, due to Ohel;

Source: In Beitzah (32b), Rav Yehudah said that one may arrange [wood for] a bonfire from above to below, but from below to above is forbidden, due to Ohel. The same applies to an egg (it is roasted while resting on a tripod or hollow Kli), pot or barrel (its ends rest on barrels below it) or bed (the hide on which one lies is placed on the side boards).

Implied question: It says in Eruvin (102a) regarding Rav Huna's rams (they needed air at night and shade during the day) that he came in front of Rav. [Rav] said "[before Shabbos,] roll up a mat and leave a Tefach (spread). On Shabbos day, spread out [the mat]";

This is adding to a temporary Ohel; it is fine. However, if he did not leave [a Tefach spread before Shabbos] it is forbidden!

Answer: That is because the lower walls were already made, and if he would spread on them, he would make an Ohel in the normal way. (Therefore he needed to leave a Tefach before Shabbos.)

Implied question: Here, Rav Huna holds that one may take a Kli only for the sake of something that may be moved!

Answer #1: This that he added the next day is not considered moving.

Answer #2: Perhaps they sat a person there (so they move the mats also for his sake).

Answer #3: It is permitted to avoid a big loss, like I explained above (DH Kevar).

Question (Ri): Here we permit only for the sake of the living;

In Eruvin (44a), a Beraisa says that he erects the bed and spreads a sheet so the sun will not beat down on the Mes or food;

There we establish it to discuss the fourth wall. The Sukah was Kosher without it. It is merely adding to a temporary Ohel;

However, in any case, how may the Kli be taken for the Mes?!

Answer #1: Also there, it is permitted only like it says here, that he does for the sake of the living.

Answer #2: There is the food with the Mes.

Explanation: He need not remain under the Ohel in order that it will appear that he did so for the living, since at the time he made it, it appeared that it was for the living.

Assertion (Ri): This is the Halachah, since it did not say "all hold that it is not considered moving", e.g. there is no loaf or infant, and he has only one bed (so Tiltul Min ha'Tzad does not apply), and R. Yehudah ben Lakish's reason is because a person is frantic about his Mes (if we do not permit him to move it, he might extinguish, which is a Torah Isur);

Rather, because the Halachah is that it is considered moving, we said so (that all agree to this).

Question #1 (Ri): Below (123a), Rav Nachman rules like R. Elazar ben Tadai, who holds that it is not considered moving!

Question #2: Rav contradicts himself! Here he holds that it is considered moving, and below (141a) Bei Rav says that Tiltul Min ha'Tzad is not considered moving!

Elsewhere, we ask from Rav against what was said in Bei Rav, and in Bava Metzi'a (102b) and Bava Basra (105b) we show why Rav's teaching and Bei Rav's teaching are needed! (This shows that we attribute Bei Rav's teachings to Rav.)

Question #3: Why does Rav forbid Tiltul Min ha'Tzad here? A Mishnah (below, 142b) teaches that coins on a pillow, one shakes the pillow and they fall, and a rock on a barrel, one tilts [the barrel] on its side...