Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the reason is because a general loan is presumed to be for thirty days. Since this for a longer time than general borrowing, one may come to write down the transaction if he says it is a "loan."

Question: Rabeinu Tam has difficulty with this, as general borrowing is also thirty days.

Proof: This is as the Gemara says in Menachos (44a) that a borrowed Talis is exempt from Tzitzis for thirty days. The Gemara there similarly states that if someone is a guest in a house in Eretz Yisrael or he is renting a house in Chutz la'Aretz, he is exempt from having a Mezuzah for thirty days. After this time, he is obligated to have a Mezuzah. This implies that general borrowing is presumed to be for a thirty day period. This is why these things are exempt for thirty days, as we say they are borrowed. However, after thirty days they appear to be his.

Answer: However, it is possible to say according to Rashi that this is not because a person who demands his item back in Beis Din within thirty days cannot receive it back. Certainly Beis Din will rule that he must get it back immediately, as people definitely lend things for less than thirty days! However, they do not generally lend for more than thirty days. Therefore, until thirty days people assume that it is a borrowed item.

Explanation #2: The Ri explained to us that the reason why borrowing is different is because the item is supposed to come back whole. Therefore, one will not write down the transaction. However, the term "loan" is used regarding an item that is not supposed to come back whole, and therefore we suspect he will write it down.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that when a person borrows containers of wine and oil he will not give them back intact (as the point is to consume them). (If so, what does this explanation have to do with our Mishnah?)

Answer: Even so, since he is saying he wants to "borrow" the wine or oil, he will remember not to write the transaction down (since he is using a term that is never used for such a transaction, it is as if he is reminding the lender not to write down the transaction).

Text: In most Sefarim, this is not stated. It also does not appear in Rashi. It seems that it is supposed to appear in the text in Beitzah (30a).

Explanation #1: This is the explanation of Rashi in Beitzah (30a). "D'daru b'Duchka" means a burden that one person has difficulty carrying during the week. If he needs to carry such a thing on Yom Tov for the purpose of Yom Tov, for example a barrel or bag full of fruit, he should carry it on Yom Tov with a Digla. A Digla is an Atar, which we call a Forka. This is the way people who sell salt carry their salt. He must carry it this way in order to make a difference in a way that lightens his burden from how he would carry it during the week, in order not to increase difficult carrying on Yom Tov.

Explanation #1 (cont.): This Atar makes it easy to carry a heavy burden. When he uses it to carry a barrel that is normally carried on one's shoulder, he is making a change that makes it easier for him to carry.

Explanation #1 (cont.): "D'daru b'Digla" refers to carrying a very large barrel that is usually carried with a Digla. It should be carried with an Igra. This means that it should be carried on Yom Tov on a pole that rests on the shoulders of the two people carrying it. This is also a change that makes it easier to carry it.

Explanation #1 (cont.): "D'daru b'Igra" refers to something that is carried on a pole by two people. On Yom Tov, such a burden should be carried on an Akfa, meaning on a pole carried by people with their hands in order to show that they are changing the way they normally carry during the week. This is despite the fact that this does not ease the burden of the people carrying it. In any event, it does not increase the difficulty.

Explanation #1 (cont.): If something is normally carried using an Akfa, one should spread out a cloth over it while carrying it on Yom Tov with the Akfa. This is a light cloth that does not increase the burden, and it is merely a small change that is to hide what is being done. All of the above (explanation) is stated by Rashi.

Observation: Rashi implies that in all of the cases discussed one is merely carrying the same amount in a different way. He is not carrying more, just in a different fashion from the way he would carry (during the week).

Observation (cont.): This is Rashi's difficulty (i.e. why he does not explain that the Gemara is saying he should carry less). If we explain that in all of these cases he is carrying less than he would usually carry, the Gemara later that says we are concerned about a person walking more (i.e. making more trips) on Yom Tov would prove difficult.

Observation (cont.): It is also implied from his explanation that an Igra is carried easily by two people, and they carry what two people normally carry with a Digla. A Digla is carried by two people, as implied in Bava Metzia (83a).

Question: Rebbi has difficulty with this explanation. The Gemara implies in Bava Metzia (ibid.) that an Igra is not used to carry a load carried by two people. It says that if a worker carried an item using an Igra and the Igra broke, he should pay half. Why? It is too much for one person to carry, yet it is two little for two people to carry. It is therefore similar to both negligence and forced circumstance. If he was using a Digla (usually carried by two people), he pays for the entire thing. This implies that the load of a Digla is not considered a small load for two people.

Explanation #2: It appears that carrying with an Igra is considered to look less like work only done during the week when compared to carrying with a Digla. This is why any item normally carried with a Digla should be carried instead with an Igra, even though it causes more walking while carrying. The change should still be made, since it looks less like carrying done during the week.

Explanation #2 (cont.): It is now understandable why a load carried with an Igra should be carried with an Akfa. Even though he is certainly making it more difficult for himself as it is harder to carry the load with his hands than when it is on his shoulders, even so since it does not look as much like work done during the week as carrying with an Igra he should do so.

Proof #1: This is similar to what we find regarding an animal that a person thinks is going to die. The Mishnah in Beitzah (25a) says that if he slaughters it in the field he should not bring it in on a rod, but rather he should bring it with his hand limb by limb.

Proof #2: The Mishnah also states in Beitzah (29b) in the chapter starting, "One who brings jugs of wine" that he should not bring them in a basket or box, but rather he brings them on his shoulder or by holding them in front of him (with his hands). This shows that even though he must walk more while carrying these items, since he does not carry as he does during the week he should change (to do so).

Explanation: The Gemara's case later (on our Daf) regarding a person who fills a small or big pail of water (in order to carry to his house) is a case where it looks like work done during the week. There is no difference whether the person is carrying a big or small pail, as he is carrying in the same way. Therefore, he does not have to change what he is doing by carrying less or more, as the Gemara explains.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara earlier (127a) is not relative to work done during the week, as he is only carrying something in his house from one corner to another corner.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rashi explains the Gemara regarding slaughtering the animal in the field in a different manner in Shabbos (127a). His explanation here is the main explanation.

Question: I have another difficulty with Rashi's explanation. If something is carried with an Akfa, why spread a cloth over it? The Gemara should instead say that he should carry it with an Igra, since this does not make it more difficult to carry than carrying it with an Akfa, as is implied by Rashi's explanation. According to the explanation of Rebbi above, this is understandable.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam proves from this Gemara that it is not possible to squeeze out wine and oil, as I explained earlier (111a, DH "Hai Mesuchraisa").

Question: Rashi's explanation is incorrect. If he was correct, why should this be stated regarding Yom Tov? It should even be prohibited on Chol ha'Moed!

Proof: This is as the Mishnah states in Moed Katan (28b) that women can wail but cannot beat their chests.

Explanation: Rather, Rebbi understands that because they are happy they normally clap and beat their chests while singing, and this is forbidden lest one come to fix a musical instrument (to enhance the enjoyment with musical instruments), as explained in Eruvin (104a).

Observation: Rather, it seems to be like the opinion of the Rabbanan who argue on him in Bava Metzia (75a). We indeed rule like them.

Opinion: The law follows Rabah over Rav Yosef. Rav Avya and Rabah bar Ula were being stringent for themselves (but not ruling that the law follows Rav Yosef). This was found in other Sefarim.

Explanation: This is despite the fact that he can only ask for this loan by saying "Hashileini" and not "Halveini" because "Hashileini" implies an informal loan as opposed to formal borrowing. (Even though the sages said he should specifically use this term to avoid writing a loan document on Shabbos, Rav Yosef still is worried that if one can demand the informal loan back he will come to write up a document about the loan on Shabbos.)

Explanation: Rav Yosef was only discussing a case where it was certainly either Shabbos or Yom Tov.

Text: Rabeinu Porat in the name of Rabeinu Shmuel states that this question should not appear in the text.

Proof #1: Firstly, how can we ask a question from being part of an optional group to being part of an obligatory group?

Proof #2: Additionally, the Gemara in Beitzah (27b) explains, "What does it mean that one cannot be counted as part of a group? It means one cannot state an amount that he is giving to buy an animal on Yom Tov. He cannot state that he is buying one or two Sela worth of the animal, but he can say he would like to have a third or a quarter of a partnership in the animal."