Explanation: All of the above Avodos apply both in a field, and in a vineyard.

Implied question: Nowadays people do not do some of these!

Answer: In their place they did so. It was normal to do so in a field and in a vineyard.

Explanation #1: We heard that R. Ila'a holds like this. Since the Prat is in a Lav, the last Klal does not remove the Prat from its connotation.

It is not a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal. Rather, we consider it a Klal u'Frat.

Objection #1: What is the source that R. Ila'a holds like this? We could say that the Prat, which is in a Lav, is Batel, but the Klal remains in its place, according to him!

Objection #2: Also, according to this, why did we answer that all argue with R. Avin? We could have answered that all hold like him!

The Gemara always does so. Whenever it can say that all hold like the Amora, we do not answer through saying that all disagree.

We should have said that all hold like R. Avin. We understand the one who says that he is not lashed;

The one who says that he is lashed holds like the Beraisa, which derives Toldos from a verse. He holds that it is not an Asmachta, rather, a proper Drashah.

Explanation #2: The suggestion that they argue about R. Avin's teaching is as follows:

There is only a Klal u'Frat, for the latter Klal is not considered [a Klal], since it is in another verse. It is considered a distant Klal, since it is not in the same verse.

This is clear from Pesachim 6b. There is an opinion that since they are in two verses, they do not join to a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal. Also here, it is only a Klal u'Frat.

Support - Citation (Yerushalmi in Kil'ayim): The one who says that he is lashed holds like R. Ila'a. It is not expounded as a Klal u'Frat, since the Prat is in a Lav. It is Batel, but the Klal remains in its place;

Citation (cont.): Therefore, he says that anyone who plows in Shevi'is is lashed.

Citation (ibid.): The one who says that he is not lashed holds unlike R. Ila'a. Rather, he expounds them like a Klal u'Frat. [One is liable only] for these, but not others.

Citation (cont.) Rejection: No, all hold like R. Ila'a. We understand the one who says that he is lashed;

Citation (cont.): The one who says that he is not lashed holds that Zemirah was included in Zeri'ah, and Betzirah... [to teach that these are the only Toldos for which one is liable].

Question: According to the one who says that he is lashed, why did the Torah write Zemirah and Betzirah?

Answer #1: Perhaps he holds that they teach extra Lavim [for these two Toldos].

Answer #2: He holds that we could not have learned a vineyard from a field. Therefore, the Torah needed to write both about a field, and about a vineyard.

Implied question: From here we could conclude that above (3a), R. Elazar holds that he is not lashed [for plowing in Shevi'is]!

Answer #1: We can say that R. Elazar did not hear what we say below that they permitted Tosefes Shevi'is. This is why he said so (that plowing is the addition for which one is not lashed);

He could not explain Rav Dimi to discuss anything other than plowing. However, R. Elazar himself forbids plowing and lashes for it. He disagrees [with what Rav Dimi heard].

Answer #2: Since R. Elazar explicitly says here that one is not lashed for plowing, the Gemara did not need to say "we may conclude that R. Elazar holds that he is not lashed";

The Gemara is not wont to say "we may conclude... " regarding something so explicit.

Question: How could there be lashes? No Lav is written regarding Tosefes. It is a mere Aseh, be'Charish uva'Katzir Tishbos!

Answer: Be'Charish uva'Katzir Tishbos teaches that one needs Tosefes, i.e. Shevi'is begins in the sixth year. The [addition in] the sixth year has all laws of Shevi'is;

The Torah says that Shevi'is begins before the seventh year. If so, it is like Shevi'is.

Assertion: This is more [than Beis Shamai permit, i.e. as long as it is good for the Peros].

Proof: Beis Shamai are always more stringent than Beis Hillel, except for the places listed in Idiyos (Perek 5).

Note: The Yerushalmi asked why this was not taught in Idiyos, and answered that in a dry year, Beis Hillel's Shi'ur is later. Tosfos ha'Rosh inferred that [normally,] Beis Shamai's Shi'ur is later!

Explanation: This teaches that Beis Shamai are only slightly more stringent than Beis Hillel. It explains this to teach about Beis Shamai's opinion.

Explanation: Perhaps the land will get ruined, and grain will not grow without plowing after this time;

They stipulated that [later Chachamim] will have power to permit those who need. They were concerned for a loss to the Rabim, not to cause evil to the world.

Inference: Since the Torah permits a young tree, this implies that an old tree is forbidden. This shows that a tradition from Sinai forbids Tosefes Shevi'is.

We would not need a tradition just to permit a young tree. What would be the source to forbid?!

Citation (Shevi'is 1:8 - Mishnah) Question: Until when are they considered Netiyos (young trees)?

Citation (cont.) Answer #1 (R. Elazar ben Azaryah): It is until Yachulu (when they become Chulin, i.e. lose Kedushas Orlah and Revai, i.e. in the fifth year);

Citation (cont.) Answer #2 (R. Yehoshua): It is when they are seven years old.

Citation (cont.) Answer #3 (R. Akiva): "Netiyah" is like the word connotes, a tree that was Nigmam.

Explanation: This means that it was cut and grew back [what was cut].

Citation (cont.) Answer #4 (R. Shimon): Below one Tefach is considered a Netiyah. Above one Tefach is considered an [adult] tree.

Implied question: Elsewhere (Shabbos 103b), we say that the extra Mem, Yud, Mem (in the words Niskeihem, Niskeha, k'Mishpatam, in the Korbanos Musaf of the second, sixth and seventh days of Sukos) teach Nisuch ha'Mayim from the Torah! (Why does our Gemara call it a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai?)

Answer: That is mere Asmachta, like R. Chananel explained.

Explanation: Afterwards (in the verse "Sadcha Lo Sizra..."), it says "Es Sefi'ach Ketzircha Lo Siktzor." This shows that we do not need Ketzirah (in the verse be'Charish uva'Katzir Tishbos, to teach about Shevi'is).

Question: We can say that we need Charishah (in be'Charish uva'Katzir Tishbos), for this is the only warning against it!

Answer #1: In any case, we do not need Ketzirah. According to the Drashah that learns Ketzirah, we learn [also] Charishah, since they were written together.

Answer #2: R. Akiva holds that like the opinion above (3a) that one is lashed for plowing. He holds like we explained above (we learn from a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal, unlike R. Avin);

Both of them (plowing and harvesting) are extra. The Gemara explains according to R. Akiva. He holds that since they are not needed for Shabbos, they teach about Shevi'is.

The verse connotes that it comes to teach a stringency, and not to be lenient. He does not expound like R. Yishmael, that it teaches a leniency of Shabbos. R. Akiva prefers his way (to expound a stringency of Shevi'is);

R. Yishmael prefers to establish it to discuss Shabbos, for the simple meaning of the verse discusses Shabbos, even though it is a leniency, rather than to discuss Shevi'is, which the verse was discussing, to be stringent.