Explanation: The Gemara establishes that the Mishnah is discussing a case where the figs are pounded into a cake of figs, and it is according to Rebbi Nechemyah who says that a vessel is only carried for its unique purpose. (In this case, the purpose is cutting figs. Since he may carry it to cut the figs, he also may carry it to break the barrel.)

Question: Rebbi finds this difficult from the Mishnah in Eiruvin (34b). The Mishnah states regarding an Eiruv Techumin that if it was put in a tall cabinet that was then locked, and he proceeded to lose the key, it is still an Eiruv. The Gemara asks, why is this so? Isn't he in one place and his Eiruv is in a different place? The Gemara answers that Rav and Shmuel both say that the case is regarding a cabinet made of bricks that had not yet been cemented (and the bricks can be removed to get to what is inside), and it is according to Rebbi Meir etc.

Question (cont.): Why does the case have to be regarding a cabinet made of bricks? Why did the Gemara in Eiruvin (ibid.) have this quandary at all? Can't he break and open the cabinet and take the Eiruv, just as in our Mishnah where he is allowed to break the barrel and take the figs?

Question (cont.): If you want to differentiate between taking the Eiruv and taking the figs, how can the Gemara in Eiruvin establish that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Meir?

Answer #1: It appears that in Eiruvin (ibid.) it is indeed forbidden to break the cabinet, and here it is permitted to break the barrel. This is because it is referring to Mustaki (see definition below), as established in Beitzah (33b).

Answer #1 (cont.): Rashi there explains that this is referring to a broken barrel whose broken pieces are stuck together using tree sap called Reishna that is used in making pitch. This is why this is specifically permitted regarding the barrel in our Mishnah (146a), as since it is a low quality item he does not care about it, and there is no suspicion he has intent to make it into a vessel. Our entire Gemara is dealing with this type of barrel.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that in Beitzah (33b) the Gemara only establishes the case of Mustaki according to Rebbi Eliezer, as the Gemara asks, "Doesn't Rebbi Eliezer hold of the Mishnah that says that a person breaks a barrel etc." and the Gemara answers that our Mishnah is referring to Mustaki. (How do we know that this is the opinion of the Rabbanan?)

Answer: It must be that this is also the opinion of the Rabbanan. The Rabbanan only argue on Rebbi Eliezer who says that it is forbidden to cut a (already detached) myrtle branch in order to smell it because Rebbi Eliezer holds that if one cuts it to form a toothpick he is liable to bring a Chatas.

Answer (cont.): If so (that the Rabbanan hold that making a toothpick is still a Rabbinic prohibition), if we do not establish that the Rabbanan are referring to Mustaki in Shabbos (146a), the Gemara should have asked on the Rabbanan, "Don't they hold of the Mishnah etc." (Why should making a toothpick be forbidden according to Rabbinic law while one is allowed to break a barrel? See Korban Nesanel (note Gimmel) on the Rosh (22:6) regarding why we cannot differentiate by saying that making a toothpick is making a vessel as opposed to merely ruining a barrel.) This is why we have to say that everyone agrees our Mishnah in Shabbos (146a) is referring to Mustaki, making our Gemara understandable.

Answer #2: In the Yerushalmi in ba'Kol Me'arvin I found that the Gemara answers (the question from Eiruvin 34b, see b above, by saying) that this is only regarding a cabinet of stone. However, regarding a wooden cabinet, it is similar to breaking a barrel in order to eat the figs inside.

Opinion: Rebbi says that from the Gemara in Eiruvin (34b) one can understand that when the Gemara in Beitzah (31b) says that one can undo the knot on a vessel, take apart the thickness of the rope, and cut it, it means that it was tied with a small rope.

Opinion (cont.): However, a lock of wood or metal is forbidden to break and undo. This is apparent from the Gemara's question there that the Eiruv should not be valid, as he is in one place and his Eiruv is in another. It is obvious to the Gemara that he cannot break open the lock and take the Eiruv, despite the fact that the "Migdal" (cabinet) discussed throughout the Gemara is considered a vessel.

Proof: This is apparent from the case of a person who hunts a deer and forces it into his house or he forces a bird into a cabinet. It is also apparent from the way the word is used earlier (122b).

Question: This is difficult. Why don't we establish both Beraisos as being according to Rebbi Nechemyah? When it says, "he unties, lessens the thickness, and cuts" it can be referring to Yom Tov, and when the other says, "he unties but does not lessen the thickness or cut" it can be referring to Shabbos! There is indeed a Tana in Beitzah (32b) who holds that Rebbi Nechemyah holds this way.

Answer: It is better to say that one Beraisa is according to the Rabbanan than to say that both Beraisos are according to Rebbi Nechemyah (as we rule according to the Rabbanan).

Implied Question: There is also no reason to say it should be decreed to be forbidden because he might come to make another opening when there is no suspicion because he does not want small animals to enter. (Why don't we suspect that people will come to make more holes?)

Answer: We only make this decree due to suspicions regarding holes in chicken coops, and people would never think if they see a person widening a hole in a chicken coop (to the point where animals can come in) that he is making it to have air come in and bad air go out (as he would have left it the way it was).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that all of the area within four cubits around the house has the status of a grave.

Question: This did not appear correct to my grandfather, Rav Shimshon Zatz"al. Since the walls do not extend and there is no suspicion that he will go on top of the house and hover over it without knowing about the impurity, there is no reason for us to say that all four cubits around the house are deemed impure.

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara in Sotah (44a) that says that if a person stands in a yard that is in front of a burial cave, he is pure. The Gemara explains that this is regarding a yard of a cave, since the walls of the cave do not extend into the yard. However, a dead person in general causes a person standing (in the four cubits) next to him to become impure. This implies that even if a dead body is present, if there is a wall next to the body the impurity does not advance four cubits (i.e. past the wall).

Explanation #2: Rather, it seems to him that this is what our Gemara means. If there are ledges in that house that stick out from the walls on each side, and each of them has an opening of a Tefach (above them, i.e. a window), if the house is closed and there is still an apparent doorway the dead body does not cause impurity (outside of the house). This is because the dead body is generally supposed to exit through the entrance.

Explanation #2 (cont.): If the doorframe is broken and he rebuilds it as part of the wall and therefore there is no longer any door in this house, all of the area within four cubits around the house is impure, as each small opening might be the opening through which the dead body is going to be taken out of the house.

Implied Question: However, Rav Shimshon's question is not very difficult for Rashi to answer. (What is the answer to (b)?)

Answer #1: It is possible to say that the Chachamim did not differentiate regarding a dead person (and they held that all four cubits around him cause impurity even with a wall next to him).

Answer #2: It also seems that this Gemara in Sotah (ibid.) is not difficult according to Rashi's explanation. A house as well does not exactly have its walls end the impurity, as it causes a person who touches the walls to become impure even if he will not go on top of the house. This is similar to a grave that causes impurity to one who touches it, even if it is touched from the side (and the person is not over it in any way).

Proof: This is as the Beraisa states in the Sifri regarding the Parshah of the Parah Adumah, "or with a grave - this refers to a closed grave. Perhaps this refers to an open grave? You can say a Kal v'Chomer. If a tent that becomes impure does not cause impurity from all sides when it is open, certainly a grave that does not become impure should certainly not cause impurity from all sides when it is open!" This implies that when it is closed it does not cause impurity from the side.

Observation: Therefore, it is permitted Lechatchilah to a straw called a Razeil in a barrel.

Explanation #1: Rab Poras explains that this is so he should not come to put a gutter on his roof.

Question: This is difficult. If so, why don't we make this same decree forbidding a straw?

Explanation #2: Rather, it appears to Rebbi that Rashi's explanation is correct. He says that he should not come to create a "gutter" for his wine barrel so that his wine should flow for quite a distance. This is because a person who folds a myrtle leave to look like a gutter looks like he is making a gutter. However, since a person does not do anything to the straw, there is no reason to make a decree prohibiting it.

Explanation: He must have been brought felt that was somewhat hard and somewhat soft, as otherwise there would be no reason to infer Rav's position regarding such felt from this incident.

Text #1: The text (should read Nashru), implying that his clothing fell on the way.

Text #2: This is unlike Rashi's explanation earlier (65a, that it should read Nishru) that the clothes were soaked with rainwater.

Proof: This is because the Gemara says in Beitzah (35b) that the one who says the text is Manshirin did not make a mistake, as the Mishnah says, "someone whose clothes fell (Nashru) in water on the way," implying that the word Nashru is referring to falling. (This is the Maharsha's explanation of Tosfos.)