Question: This is difficult. When the Gemara asks earlier that it should have said, "Whatever I cannot say I cannot wait for by the Techum," it implies that if it would have said this there would be no question, even though it is saying that waiting by the Techum is dependent on what one can say!

Answer: This (saying that waiting by the Techum is dependent on what one can say) would not be difficult, as the difference is that it would not make a stated law dependent on a law that is not explicitly stated. The prohibition against saying this was stated earlier, as the Mishnah said that a person cannot tell his friend to hire workers. However, our Gemara's current question is that (if Aba Shaul is referring to the Seifa) it is making a stated law depend on a law that is not stated, as the leniency regarding what one can say is not explicitly stated while the leniency of waiting is explicitly stated!

Explanation: Even though he cannot go watch them, he can tell his friend to watch them. Our Mishnah means as follows: Whatever I am allowed to say, for example to deal with the needs of a bride or a dead person, and I can say to my friend to do these things tomorrow, I am allowed to wait by the Techum for these things as well.

Explanation (cont.): Certainly, if a person is allowed to say to someone that he should do something today, for example that it is permitted to ask someone to guard fruit that is in that person's Techum even though the person who is asking cannot go there as it is not in his Techum, he is allowed to wait for this by the Techum.

Text #1: Some Sefarim have the text "one can wait until dark," as if there would be small huts extending the Techum, he could walk and bring it.

Text #2: However, the text of the Tosefta is indeed that one cannot wait until dark. (Why is this prohibited?)

Proof: It is referring to an animal that cannot walk on its own feet, such as a small lamb, and it must be carried. Even if there would be walls he would not be allowed to bring it within these walls, as it is forbidden to carry live animals as they are Muktzah.

Opinion #1: The correct explanation is not that of Rashi who says that they can never be used.

Question: Since the Gemara asks regarding the statement that a Jew can buried in a coffin or in a grave that was made on Shabbos, "Why don't we say here as well that he has to wait after Shabbos for the amount of time that it would take to make these things after Shabbos?" Why would it say "also" if it wouldn't be referring to the case of the flutes (and that they are eventually permitted)?

Opinion #2: It therefore appears that when the Mishnah says that a Jew should not use them for eulogizing it means for the time after Shabbos that it would take to bring them from wherever they had been brought. This is because most flutes are not brought for one person but rather for the use of many people.

Question: Rebbi asks, why does it help that they came from a place close by? He brought them through a public domain! Why is there a difference between a coffin and grave that were made on Shabbos and flutes that were brought through the public domain?

Answer: If they brought them from a place that was close by, they did not help very much by bringing them.

Question: This is difficult. How is it apparent from our Mishnah that if there is a doubt it is permitted? We established that the case of the Mishnah is where the grave is in a public place, which clearly indicates it was dug for a Nochri!

Answer: Rebbi answers that we do not have the text, "If they made him a coffin etc." and we do not have the text that the Beraisa is like Rav. Rashi also does not have this text. Rather, the text should read as follows. "There is also an inference from the Mishnah that says that in a city where Jews and Nochrim live etc." This is a Mishnah in Machshirin (2:5) where Rebbi Yehudah says that if there is (Nochri) ruler, one can wash right away. This implies that we assume it is for the Nochri. Similarly, regarding flutes, we should presume leniently that they were within the Techum.