The Talmud records a dispute as to the nature of the liability for smoothing rocks, for making a hole in a chicken coop, and for driving a peg into the handle of a hoe. According to Rav, one who does these actions is liable for “Boneh” (building). According to Shmuel, he is liable for “Makeh b'Patish”.

As R. Asher Weiss (Minchat Asher, Shabbat, 83:2) discusses, commentaries differ as to the thrust of their dispute. Both potential melakhot may be at the center of the issue: perhaps Rav’s position is driven by the belief that “Makeh B’Patish” is inapplicable in this case; while Shmuel’s position may be motivated by the understanding that “Boneh” is inapplicable.

The first possibility, that Makeh B’Patish is inapplicable, has in itself a few possible explanations. As understood by some rishonim (see Meiri, Yereim #112, Mordechai), Makeh B’Patish only applies to adding a finished touch to an already functioning product. An act that completes the object itself would not qualify as Makeh B’Patish. According to the Chazon Ish (51:14), though, the issue is that Boneh and Makeh B’Patish are mutually exclusive: Makeh B’Patish applies only when Boneh doesn’t, and vice versa; thus, the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. Boneh itself is a controversial topic, when applied to utensils rather than buildings: the question of whether Boneh is relevant to utensils is one debated in several places in the Talmud, and perhaps here as well (see Rabbeinu Chananel).