1) You may lower down fruit that's on a roof on Yom Tov through a skylight if rain is coming and will ruin them, but not on Shabbos since it's too much of a bother. Even on Yom Tov, you can't bring it from roof to roof, even if they're on the same level. You can't lower them down with ropes through a window (i.e., if there is a structure on the roof that's open to the house, you can't lift the fruit through the window) and you can't carry them down with ladders.
2) There's an inquiry if you can lower four or five baskets full like they allowed on Shabbos to clear out a storehouse to make room for people to learn? Do we compare them? Or do we say: maybe we're only lenient with that much fruit to make sure not to cancel the Beis Medrish, or since Shabbos in general is very stringent and people won't take it lightly if we give a big leniency, but not here. Alternatively, perhaps we can be more lenient here and permit more since there will be a loss of fruit.
3) There's another inquiry: we say by Shabbos that you got to make sure that you don't clean out the whole storehouse since you might end up leveling the holes in the dirt floor. Do we say the same over here by saving the fruit? Or do we say that we're only stringent by Shabbos, but you can be lenient by Yom Tov since it's more lenient, or we'll be more lenient here to prevent the loss of fruits? Or do we say the opposite: if we don't permit it in order not to cancel the Beis Medrish, of course, we shouldn't allow here either?
4) We have an inquiry regarding clearing out the storehouse on Shabbos: do we compare it to our case and not allow carrying from roof to roof, or to lift it into a window or carry it down ladders? Do we say that we should permit them since it's better than our case since it prevents canceling the Beis Medrish. Or do we say that, if we don't allow it to prevent the loss of the fruit, of course we won't allow in this case where there is no loss? All these inquiries are left unresolved.
5) You may cover the fruit to protect them from drips. Ullah even allows covering bricks that are piled up for building to protect from a drip even though they're Muktza. R' Yitzchok forbids moving any utensil for the use of something that's Muktza, like bricks and Tevel. [Tosfos says: although we say that Tevel is not really Muktza since it would become regular fruit if someone transgresses and separates the Trumah and Maasar; that's only that it's not Muktza after the Trumah and Maasar were separated. However, while it's still Tevel, it's Muktza. This is the reason the Mishna says that you can't remove it from a storehouse on Shabbos to make room for people to learn.]
6) Although we have a Braisa that allows to cover a beehive on Shabbos, not only during the summer where there is honey, but even during the winter where there is no honey; R' Yitzchok must say that it still has the two honeycombs left for the bees to eat. Even though R' Yehuda would hold that they're Muktza since they're set aside for the bees, we must say that we refer to a case where they decided from before Shabbos to use them for humans. Alternatively, the Braisa refers not to the days of rain and sun (winter and summer) but days that have both rain and sun, i.e., during the equinox; where there is also plenty of honey.
7) However, that which R' Yehuda holds that you can cover the beehive, it can't be in a way that it will trap the bees, but you need to leave a window opening for them to escape (even though they're not a specie that people trap). [Rashi says: it's only forbidden to R' Yehuda to completely cover it since he forbids unintended Melachos. However, R' Shimon who permits unintended Melachos will permit covering it completely. However, Tosfos disagrees since R' Shimon forbids it when it's a P'sik Reisha, i.e., will definitely happen. Rather, R' Moshe from Abrei explains: R' Shimon also requires a window, but only a small one to make sure that it's not a P'sik Reisha that they can't escape. However, R' Yehuda requires a much bigger hole so that the bees will notice and could enter and leave.]
8) You can place a utensil under a drip. (According to R' Yitzchok, it's only if the water is fit to drink, or else you can't put a utensil there for Muktza.) If it gets full, you can take it away and pour it out, and bring it back to catch the drip again. [Tosfos says: even Ullah, who understands this Braisa to mean that the water is unfit and Muktza, you can still carry it out when it gets full even though there is no other non-Muktza item on the utensil. After all, once it fills up and is spilling over, it's like a chamberpot (since it's disgusting), which they allowed to carry Muktza.]
9) If there is a drip on a mill, and you don't have enough utensils to cover it; and its clay is starting to dissolve; you may place your bed next to it in order that it should be like a chamberpot near your bed that you may carry it out. [Tosfos says: even though we don't allow L'chatchila to make disgusting items in order to allow carrying Muktza, we permit here since there is a loss, (since the mill might collapse). Alternatively, we don't consider this as making it L'chatchila since the drip already came into the house. This is not similar to the case where you can't invite a non-Jew since it will create such a disgusting item by his leftover cup of wine (that's Muktza since it became forbidden) that you'll need to clean up.]
10) You're allowed to take out a chamberpot, or a cistern, and empty it. When you return it to the house, you need to fill it up with water so that it will be carried along with something that's not Muktza.
You're allowed to even move a disgusting Muktza object by itself, even not in a utensil, as they allow carrying a mouse by its tail.
11) You can't climb a tree on Yom Tov, since you might come to detach a fruit. You may not ride an animal since you might detach a branch to prod it to go. (However, we don't need to worry that, perhaps, he might go out of the T'chum, since T'chum is only a rabbinical enactment.) You can't swim on the water since you might make a floating device.
12) You can't clap, dance or bang your thigh since you might come to fix a broken musical instrument.
13) You can't do a rabbinical prohibition on Yom Tov that has some Mitzvah to it, like you can't judge. (However, it's not a real Mitzvah if there is someone that can judge better than you.) Also, you can't make Kiddushin (which is not such a Mitzvah if you had a wife and kids and you already fulfilled P'ru U'rivu. However, it's somewhat of a Mitzvah since we say that “you shouldn't leave it in your later life.”) You can't perform Chalitza and Yibum, (which is not such a Mitzvah if you have an elder brother, since the main Mitzvah is to be done by the eldest.) [Rashi says: it's forbidden to do these activities even when they're the main Mitzvah (i.e., if he's the greatest to judge). As we see that the Yerushalmi had it problematic for the Kohein Gadol to marry a woman on Yom Kippur (when his wife dies) even though it's a complete Mitzvah (since he doesn't have another wife, and he also needs a wife to perform the Avodah); if it wasn't for the rule that there is no rabbinical prohibitions in the Mikdash. (He holds that the Gemara in Sanhedrin (that forbids judging capital cases on Friday since they would need to finish the judgment on Shabbos and you can't kill him right away) is not a proof against this that it doesn’t say the reason is because you can't judge on Shabbos despite being the Sanhedrin who are the best to judge; it's because you can judge by a real Mitzvah. Rather, the Gemara used the reason to forbid it from the Torah. Alternatively, the reason they forbade judging on Shabbos since they might write. Therefore, it's not applicable here on the second day of the trial, since all the claims were written on the first day of the trial.)
However, R' Tam permits to do it when it's a real Mitzvah from the Gemara in Sanhedrin. (He held the Yerushalmi is not difficult to him, since the Gemara gave one out of two reasons to permit the Kohein Gadol to marry, and the Gemara could have also answered it's permitted since it's a real Mitzvah.) When the Yerushalmi says that you can't marry a widow on Shabbos, it only refers to someone who already had a wife and children.]
14) There are somethings that are rabbinically forbidden even if they're full Mitzvos, like you can't make items Hekdesh since it's similar to doing business. [Tosfos explains: since Hekdesh is also having items transferring from one person's possession to some other possession. Business is forbidden on Shabbos and Yom Tov because the Pasuk “you should refrain from pursuing your wants etc.” Alternatively, it's forbidden because you might come to write. We don't consider this as a double Geziera (i.e., we forbid Hekdesh because of business, and business because you'll come to write, and we don't decree double Geziros); we must say that they're all one Gezeira.]
15) You can't separate Trumah on Yom Tov even in order to give the Trumah to the Kohein, (even though it doesn't look like you're trying to fix the rest of the produce for yourself, but just making Trumah available to give to a Kohein). However, this is only items that were Tevel from the day before, but items that became Tevel today, like a dough made today that became Tevel for Challah, you may separate on Yom Tov.
16) Beis Shammai says that there is no difference between Shabbos and Yom Tov [Tosfos: regarding rabbinical prohibitions] except things that are regarding food preparation. Since they hold that you can't carry out a Luluv and child on Yom Tov, they hold of the exact prohibition to moving items like they have on Shabbos. However, Beis Hillel held you can carry those items, so they were more lenient with what you can move on Yom Tov than what you can move on Shabbos, like we allow lowering the fruit from the roof only on Yom Tov and not on Shabbos. [Rashi explains: since they decreed not moving certain items since you'll might come to carry them out. After all, you can't carry them out if you can't move them. However, they couldn't decree not to move all utensils and foods for that reason, or else it will reduce the Oneg Shabbos and Simchas Yom Tov.]
17) Animals and utensils has the T'chum of their owners. If they hand the animal over to a shepherd on Yom Tov, it still only has the T'chum of the owner. However, this is only if you had a choice of two shepherds that you could have handed it over to; but if there was only one, and you know for sure that you'll hand it over to him, it has that shepherd's T'chum.
18) If two people borrow an item for Yom Tov, you can't carry the item but to a common area to both their T'chums. Therefore, if one made an Eiruv two thousand Amos to the east, and the other had an Eiruv that's two thousand Amos to the west, you can't move the item at all.
19) If you have two people who own a barrel, or an animal, and they split on Yom Tov (in the case of the animal, after they Shechted it); Shmuel held that they can't carry their share but to an area that's common to both of their T'chums. After all, he doesn't hold of Breira, so we don't say that their share was always destined to be theirs in order to say that they owned that share going into Yom Tov. [Tosfos explains: this is only when the Breira depends on what he eventually chooses, but Shmuel holds of Breira when the outcome is not dependent on his own decision.] Rav permits moving your share of wine anyplace in your own T'chum but not your share in the animal since, when the animal was alive Bein Hashmashes, the different pieces absorb from each other, so there is some of your partner's share in your own share. However, the Gemara remains with a difficulty; if so, since Rav held like R' Yehuda to forbid Muktza, this should render all the shares Muktza and forbidden because of the absorptions. [Rashi explains: since he sets aside from using his friend's share, it's Muktza. Tosfos asks: you can't say that your friend’s food is Muktza, or else you wouldn't be able to accept food packages from another person. Rather, we're only concerned about the extra fattiness that grew on the animal on Yom Tov before Shechita, that it should be forbidden because of Nolad.]
20) R' Hoshiya allows moving your share to anyplace in your T'chum. In truth, he doesn't hold of Breira for Torah prohibitions, as we see that he holds that, if a corpse is in the house, all the potential openings that you may carry it out from is Tamai. However, if you decide to carry it out one of the openings; Beis Hillel says that it makes all the other openings Tahor even if you decided after he died; R' Hoshiya explains: they're not Tahor retroactively and we don't hold of Breira rather, they're only Tahor from this time and on. Still, he holds of Breira by rabbinical prohibitions.
21) R' Yochanan doesn't hold of Briera. Not only doesn't he hold of it for Torah prohibitions; as we see that he holds that brothers that split up an estate, we consider it as if they bought out their share from the brothers, and not as if they were destined to inherit that share through Breira, and the shares of land revert back to the middle on Yovel and they need to redivide it. However, he also doesn't hold of it for rabbinical prohibitions. As we say that he can't make two Eiruvs in two directions and make a condition that the Eiruv of the side that a rabbi comes to say a Drasha will take effect unless the rabbi arrived there the day before. [Tosfos explains: he doesn't differentiate between if the choice of the Breira is dependent on you, or on someone else.] Therefore, he forbids by the divided barrel of wine. However, the Halacha is like R' Hoshiya, that there's no Breira by Torah laws, but only by rabbinical laws.
22) If you have a fattened ox (that you sell to the public), it has the T'chum of anyone who buys it. However, by a regular animal from a shepherd, it only has the T'chum of anyone who lives in the T'chum. [Rashi explains: it's normal for people outside the T'chum to come with an Eiruv to buy from the fatten ox, but not from regular animals, so the shepherd doesn't have in mind that it will be given to anyone from outside the T'chum.] Therefore, the owner had placed it in the possession of whoever will buy it from the day before.
23) If you have an estate; if there are utensils that are designated for any given brother, it has his T'chum. Otherwise, it needs to only be carried to an area common to all the brothers' T'chum.
24) If someone borrows a utensil from a friend on Erev Yom Tov, even though he doesn't pick it up until after Yom Tov started, it has the borrower's T'chum, since the owner already put it in his possession for Yom Tov.
25) However, if he doesn't borrow it Erev Yom Tov, even though he usually borrows it, it has the T'chum of the owner. After all, he doesn't put it Erev Yom Tov in the borrower's possession since he's not too sure that he'll come and borrow it. After all, since he didn't borrow it yet, perhaps, he found someone else to borrow it from.
26) If a woman borrows spices, water and salt for her dough, or spices and water for her stew; you can only carry the concoction to an area that has a common area to both the borrower and lender's T'chums. We don't say that those minor ingredients are Batul to the dough. [Tosfos says: even though the prohibition of T'chum will eventually become permitted, and we say that those prohibitions are never Batul even in a thousand; that's only when it's mixed in the same type of food, but not in a different type of food. We see this differentiation in the Yerushalmi. Alternatively, this is not similar to other prohibitions that depend on whether the prohibition gives taste in the food it's mixed in, but the T'chum depends on ownership, since the item gets the T'chum of its owner. Therefore, we should say that, since the dough is only known as owned by the one who owned the flour, and not on the ownership of the salt and water, it should have the T'chum of the owner of the flour.] R' Avuhu explains why it's not Batul: we don't say that someone's Kav of wheat is Batul in nine Kavs of his friend's (and now all the wheat belongs to his friend. Therefore, ownership is not Batul.) [Tosfos explains: therefore, since T'chum depends on ownership, the name of the owner of the water and salt doesn't get removed from the mixture.] This, he compares to the case where one separates all the pebbles from someone's granary, (that he damaged him since you can sell the grain with the natural impurities (and it's for the buyer to separate) and now he can't sell but the pure wheat, so the separator needs to pay for the volume he loss in wheat. Therefore, actual money is definitely not Batul, like the water and salt. This is even true when the owner is not claiming it from him, since T'chum is not dependent on the owners claiming it, as we see that R' Yochanan b. Nuri holds that Hefker items gets a T'chum. [Tosfos says: even the Rabanan who argue with R' Yochanan b. Nuri will agree that, if the item has an owner, it gets a T'chum even if the owner is not claiming it.]
27) R' Oshiya held: even if the ownership is not Batul, the prohibition of T'chum that's within it can be Batul. Therefore, you can't forbid because of T'chum even if the ownership of the minor ingredients is still on the items.
28) Rather, the reason it's not Batul; Abaya says: it's a decree that, if we allow here, they'll be lenient if they make the dough in total partnership. Rava says that spices are not Batul since they're made to give taste. [Rashi says: they don't argue, but Abaya explains why it's forbidden by a dough, and Rava explains why it's forbidden by a stew. Tosfos argues since Abaya's answer works for stew, since they might make a stew together. Also, Rava's answer works for dough, since salt gives taste, and the main part of the dough is the water.]
29) R' Ashi explains why they're not Batul: since it's something that will be eventually permitted. [Tosfos says: granted that we explained that it's Batul if it's not the same type of food, T'chum is different, since they're forbidden because of being somebody's property, we're stricter as if they're one type. Alternatively, since the dough is kneaded through water, and the spices give taste to the stew, their mixture is like being the same type of food.]
30) R' Yehuda held you don't need to worry about the water's T'chum in a dough, or a thick stew since it doesn't exist anymore, but you do need to worry if the stew is still liquid. You don't need to worry about [Rashi: thin] Sedom salt, but you need to worry about [thick] Istrokis salt.
31) A coal has the T'chum of its owner, but the flame can be brought anyplace (since it has no substance). You transgress Meila if you take pleasure from Hekdesh's coal, but not if you take pleasure from the flame, but it's rabbinically forbidden to take pleasure from it (since you might come to take pleasure from the coal). A coal that was worshiped as an idol is forbidden, but its flame is permitted. Even though the rabbis forbade it by Hekdesh, they didn't feel it necessary by an idol since it's disgusting, people naturally separate themselves from these items. [Tosfos says: even though we usually say that people separate themselves from Hekdesh too, and that's why, if you find Hekdesh's Chametz on Pesach, you don't need to cover it since you won't come to eat it since you separate yourself from it. We must say that, in contrast to regular people's items, people separate themselves from Hekdesh, but they don't separate themselves from Hekdesh as they separate themselves from idols.]
32) If someone carries out a coal to a Reshus Harabim on Shabbos, he's Chayiv, but not if he carries out the flame. However, this is only if you fan the flame and it jumps over the fence when it's not attached to anything, but you're Chayiv if you carry it out attached to an object, even if that object is not large enough by itself to be Chayiv. [Tosfos says: however, if it is large enough to be Chayiv by itself, you would be Chayiv for it alone, and it's not like carrying out an item that's less than a Shiur in a utensil, that you're even exempt on the utensil since it's Batul to the item it's carrying, since the object can't be Batul to the fire since the fire has no substance. According to one answer in Rashi, it's an argument between R' Sheishes and Abaya if you carry out a lit toothpick. After all, perhaps you're only Chayiv if you carry fire that won't go out so fast.]
33) If you make a vow not to have pleasure from your friend, you're forbidden to have pleasure from his coal, but you can have pleasure from the flame.
34) The water in an individual's well has the same T'chum as that individual. However, this is only if it's enclosed, but running water doesn't get a T'chum (since it's never settled in one place) and anyone can take water and carry it to wherever he can go. A city's well has the T'chum of the people of that city.
35) The well designated by those who come up from Bavel has the T'chum of the one who draws it. If he draws water to give it to his friend; R' Sheishes says that it has the T'chum of the drawer, and R' Nachman says that it has the T'chum of who it was drawn for. They both agree that this well has the status of Hefker, and not that they're all partners in it. After all, if someone makes a vow not to have pleasure from his friend, he's permitted to wash from the well designated by those who come up from Bavel, but not from a partnered well. We can't say that drawing is different, and the reason of R' Nachman is that we consider whatever you get was always destined to be yours because of Breira, since we see that R' Nachman doesn't hold of Breira. Rather, they argue if you pick up a Hefker lost object for your friend, if your friend acquires it, or not. [Rashi asks that R' Nachman usually holds that his friend doesn't acquire it. Therefore, he has the text that they argue about “picking up a Hefker lost item” but not if your friend acquires it, since they both hold that the friend doesn't acquire it. However, R' Nachman holds that the one who picks it up didn't acquire it either, so there was no acquisition of this water until he gives it over to his friend, and then it gets his friend's T'chum. However, R' Sheishes says that drawer acquires it, so it gets his T'chum. However, Tosfos asks: it's pushed to change the text. Also, why would R' Sheishes hold that the one who picked it up acquires if he didn't intend to do so?
Tosfos brings Rashbam who has the text “if you pick up a Hefker lost object for your friend, if your friend acquires it.” Although we find that R' Nachman generally holds that he doesn't acquire it; but that's just regularly, where it's detrimental to other people (since you prevent them from having a chance to acquire it), but not here, by the well, where it's not detrimental to anybody since there's enough water in the well for everybody. R' Tam explains: R' Sheishes holds that his friend acquires it when he picks it up. However, since the friend only acquires it through his acquisition of picking up since he has the right to acquire it for himself; it first belongs to him and then it's transfers to his friend, so it gets the drawer's T'chum. However, R' Nachman holds that he doesn't acquire it for his friend, so there is no acquisition until his friend receives it, so it gets the friend's T'chum.]
36) According to the opinion that holds of Breira, it's only if the brothers are splitting equal objects, like if you split two young goats, but if one takes a young goat, and the other takes a lamb in exchange, it was never considered as always destined to be that way, and we only consider it his from this point and on.
37) If someone's fruit is in a different city, the people can't bring it to him if he's out of the T'chum (if they made an Eiruv) since it rested outside the T'chum of the owner (unless the owner also made an Eiruv). You're not allowed to give portions for guests to bring home if they came from out of the T'chum through an Eiruv since it has the T'chum of the owners, and not of the guests, unless he got someone to acquire it for the guests on Erev Yom Tov. [Tosfos says: it's not enough to just set it aside for them then, just like the borrowed item has the T'chum of the borrower even though he didn't pick it up until Yom Tov; since the borrower is expecting to get the item more than the guests are expecting to receive portions to bring home.]
38) If someone gave fruit to his friend to watch; Rav says that they have the T'chum of the one watching it, unless he put it in a corner that he designates for the owner, or if he had someone acquire it back for the owner. (Even though it's in the watchman's guard after the acquisition, and it should be back to his T'chum), an acquisition is the equivalent to designating a corner. Alternatively, the acquisition is a sign that he wants it to have the T'chum of the owner. Shmuel says it always has the T'chum of the owner.
39) You should give animals to drink before you Shecht them since “Sircha Dimishcha” [Rashi: that it makes it easier to skin, so that the skin shouldn't be very tight on the meat.]
40) You can't Shecht your animals that are in the 'wilderness,' since they're Muktza, but you can Shecht those that are by the house.
41) The Tanna Kama defines the 'wilderness' animals that they go out to graze by Pesach, and don't come back until the first rains. The 'house' animals are those who graze outside the T'chum, and then come back to go to sleep within the T'chum. Rebbi says that both are defined as 'house' ones. 'Wilderness' ones are defined that they always graze in the swamp and don't return, not during the winter or summer.
42) This would seem that Rebbi held of Muktza, but we have a statement from him that he says that R' Shimon doesn't hold of Muktza but for raisin and dried figs (if they weren't finished the day before) since they're not fit Bein Hashmashes and you pushed it off from being fit. We can reconcile: the 'wilderness' ones are also on the status of Muktza like raisins and dried figs. Alternatively, he just said that statement according to R' Shimon, but he doesn't agree with it. Alternatively, he holds like R' Shimon and he permits even ones from the wilderness. However, he's telling the Tanna Kama that even you should permit animals that come some time during the year into the T'chum.