Explanation: Rav Porat explains that to fold up in a cloak means here even if he wants to fold it up in a cloak. This is because Rebbi Abba does not differentiate between folding up and saving, as even regarding saving in a different courtyard Rebbi Abba only permits saving an amount of food for three meals.

Implied Question: However, it does not appear correct to say that it is permitted to save even one hundred meals in a different yard even according to Rebbi Abba. (Why?)

Answer: If so, we should have established both cases of the Mishnah as being in a different yard, and we could have said that one case is where he is folding a cloak and one is where he is saving.

Explanation: The Rashbam explains that this does not literally mean that he puts the water on the Talis, as we hold in Zevachim (94b) that soaking is its cleaning. I explained this earlier (111a).

Question: The Mishnah says that this applies whether they are full or empty. What novelty is there in them being full over being empty besides where they often break?

Answer: The Gemara thinks at this point that it is discussing vessels that do not normally break. The novelty is that we do not make a decree due to vessels that do normally break.

Explanation #1: The case is where there is no oil in the candle. If there is oil in the candle he is liable, as he is spilling out from it and is like one who is using it, which makes him liable for extinguishing as stated in Beitzah (22b).

Explanation #2: The Yerushalmi establishes that the case is regarding a candle that was extinguished. The Beraisa does not say that if it was extinguished, it was extinguished. It is coming to teach us the leniency that one is permitted to carry through shaking off the Muktzah item according to Rebbi Yehudah who forbids carrying a candle that was extinguished.

Explanation #3: Alternatively, this even according to Rebbi Shimon's opinion regarding Muktzah. The case is regarding a large candle such as a bowl or lantern, as Rebbi Shimon agrees in such a case as stated earlier (44a). Alternatively, the case could be where there remain ashes and coals, and only the flame has been extinguished.

Explanation: This is despite the fact that this moves the candle and distances the oil from the flame or causes the oil to come closer, causing the fire to extinguish or burn brighter.

Implied Question: However, one cannot say the problem is that the wind blows out the flame.

Answer #1: This is because there is no flame behind the door.

Answer #2: Additionally, if so it should have said, "A person can open his door opposite a candle" as stated later regarding "opposite a fire."

Answer #3: Additionally, it would be understandable that one cannot open, but why should he not be able to close? What is he transgressing? Rather, it is as I have explained.

Implied Question: If the reason is not extinguishing or burning, there is no reason to forbid due to carrying Muktzah. (Why not?)

Answer #1: This is because locking a door is not considered carrying, and there is also no problem of the door being a Basis l'Davar ha'Assur as a house is important, and the door is nullified to the house.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the case could be where a person forgot the candle there, and it is therefore not a Basis at all.

Opinion: Therefore, one must make sure that he does not open the door opposite a fire even when there is a normal wind, as Abaye cursed a person who does this, and Abaye is a later (and therefore primary) opinion. This is when the fire is somewhat close to the door.

Explanation: This does not literally mean the opposite, as Rebbi Yosi in the Beraisa shares the opinion of our Mishnah that forbids when it normally breaks. Rather, "the opposite" meant in our Gemara is that in our Mishnah Rebbi Yosi is more stringent than the Rabbanan, and he is more lenient in the Beraisa.

Question: One could still ask that in the Mishnah the Rabbanan only forbade new earthenware, while in the Beraisa they even forbid old earthenware. This is apparent from the fact that they mentioned metal vessels.

Answer: It is possible to explain that the Beraisa says metal vessels because there is no difference between whether they are old or new. The same applies to old earthenware.

Question: Why don't we say that the opinions in Beraisa should be switched? It is more understandable to say this regarding the Beraisa than to say it regarding the Mishnah. Rabah bar Tachlifa's statement would also be understandable. We would say that the Rabbanan's statement is according to the opinion of Rebbi Yosi, and that they hold that it is even permitted regarding a new earthenware vessel.

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Gemara is only saying that even if you were to switch the opinions in the Mishnah it would not work out. It must be that we should answer the Beraisa. Since we have reached this point we do not need to switch it, but rather we can say that it is missing words.

Explanation: Even without this the Rabbanan apparently contradict themselves. However, because the Gemara is now asking from logic that is a Kol she'Kain, is says "if so." (In other words, because it introduced a new element to the question it reverts to a regular way to ask a question.)