Explanation: This is a field for which rain does not suffice. One must water it constantly. If one does not water it constantly, it is ruined;

Therefore, one may water it during Chol ha'Moed. Chachamim permitted, due to [avoiding] a loss, like we say in Chagigah (18a);

Citation (18a): Another Beraisa says "Sheshes Yomim Tochal Matzos uva'Yom ha'Shevi'i Atzeres la'Shem Elokecha" - just like the seventh day is Atzur (withheld), also [the first] six days are Atzurim;

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: Just like the seventh day is Atzur from all Melachah, also all six days are Atzurim from all Melachah!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: The "Hei" in ha'Shevi'i is extra, to teach that the seventh day is Atzur from all Melachah, but the six days are not Atzurim from all Melachah.

Conclusion: The Torah authorized Chachamim to teach which day is forbidden, and which is permitted, [and] which Melachah is forbidden, and which Melachah is permitted.

Explanation: If the pit was filled, one may dig to deepen it, for the earth is soft;

However, one may not dig initially, for the land is hard, and there is excessive exertion.

Explanation: There is no exertion.

Explanation: It is a Mitzvah to go out [to eradicate Kil'ayim], like the Gemara says;

This is unlike the other matter that we taught that we fix. This (Kil'ayim) is an obligation. This is clear from the Gemara.

Explanation: This means thirsty for water, like it says "Hirveisi Nefesh Ayefah."

Explanation: We find below that R. Meir argues with our Stam Mishnah. It is unlike R. Meir, unlike other Stam Mishnayos;

This is why the Gemara asked who taught our Mishnah.

Explanation: If there is water under this tree, one may be Moshech (dig a shallow furrow to draw) it during the Moed under another tree, for a tree is like a Beis ha'Shelachin. It needs more water.

Implied question: Why did the Tana teach Moshech, and not Mashkeh (watering)?

Answer: The Mishnah discusses a typical case. It is normal to water trees this way.

Explanation: He was more stringent, and even in a Beis ha'Shelachin he forbids to divert water, for it is an excessive exertion.

Explanation: This refers to a garden and Churvah of a Beis ha'Shelachin. "Garden" is a place that was seeded.

Opinion #1: Churvah is a place that became desolate of its trees, and it was plowed and seeded or planted [with young trees].

Perhaps a Churvah needs water more [than a Ginah]. The Mishnah taught not only this (it is forbidden for a Ginah), rather, even this (even a Churvah is forbidden).

Opinion #2: His house was destroyed, and he made the area into a garden. (This is a Churvah.) It needs water more than a [Stam] Beis ha'Shelachin. Since there is excessive exertion, it is forbidden.

Question: Why do we say that the Mishnah must be like R. Yehudah, rather than like R. Eliezer [ben Yakov]?

Just like we asked above according to R. Eliezer (perhaps he permits excessive exertion to avoid a loss), we ask according to R. Yehudah (perhaps he permits even Beis ha'Ba'al from an old spring).

Why does the Gemara hold that the Mishnah must be like R. Yehudah, rather than like R. Eliezer? (Why must we say that R. Yehudah is no more lenient about an old spring, so the Mishnah can be like him? We could say that R. Eliezer forbids excessive exertion to avoid a loss to make the Mishnah like him!)

Answer: We find two matters that R. Yehudah said exactly like the Mishnah;

He permits [to avoid] a loss, but not [for] profit. When there is a loss, he does not permit [excessive] exertion.

From R. Eliezer's words, we find only one matter [like the Mishnah], like above, that profit is forbidden.

Therefore, we prefer to establish the Mishnah like R. Yehudah, and not like R. Eliezer.

Question: Why didn't it teach an old spring, to teach the extremity of R. Yehudah, who is stringent?

Answer: The Tana prefers to teach the extremity of the lenient opinion.

Explanation: One is lashed or killed only through Hasra'ah, i.e. they warn him "do not do this Isur." We learn this from verses in Sanhedrin 41a;

They must explicitly explain the Isur.

Explanation: It depends on the primary Melachah. This resembles plowing;

Rav Yosef holds that even though the primary Melachah resembles plowing, the person's intent is not to soften the land.

Explanation (cont.): The argument is based on this. Rabah holds that it depends on the action, and not on the intent;

Rav Yosef holds that it depends on the intent. It is primary. We do not follow resemblance [of the action to a particular Melachah].

Inference: If he does not need the wood, he is not liable for reaping, for this is unlike reaping;

We reap for food, or for something needed for something, e.g. a Refu'ah or a similar need;

If he does not reap for the need of the matter itself [that he detaches], he is not liable even for a Toladah, for a Toladah must resemble the Av Melachah.

Explanation: This is difficult for Rabah, who follows the resemblance [of the action], for pruning does not resemble planting at all, and even so he is liable for planting;

This is difficult for Rav Yosef, for even if he does not intend for the vine to sprout, since surely it sprouts due to the pruning, he is liable for planting;

Rav Kahana taught Stam, even if he does not intend for planting.

Question: We say elsewhere (Kesuvos 37a) "we obligate a person for one evil, and not for two"!

Answer: That refers to a Chiyuv of Misah and lashes. However, if two Isurim that resemble each other both obligate lashes, they are considered one evil;

We do not exclude them due to "Rish'aso", for everything punishable by lashes is one evil.

Support: Also in Pesachim (24a), Abaye taught that if one ate a Putisa (a bug found in water), he receives four [sets of 39] lashes.

Implied question: Why do we ask from Rav Kahana, who was an Amora? (Rabah and Rav Yosef can argue with him!)

Answer: We challenge Rabah and Rav Yosef from Rav Kahana, for he was a great Chacham. We find in the episode with R. Yochanan that he was exceedingly sharp.

[However,] the text should not say "Kashya." Since he was not a Tana, he was not so esteemed, and they argue with him.

Note: Perhaps the text should say "Lo Chashuv Lehu", i.e. they did not esteem him so much.