Explanation: The marking is from Sid (plaster), like it says in Ma'aser Sheni (5:1, brought in Bava Kama 69a).

Question: I do not know the Shi'ur of "if there is plaster in between" (how much is needed to say that it is Tamei).

Clarification of text: This is the correct text. I found a Perush that "Cheres" (earthenware) is like Charsis (clay). It is not white like plaster.

Explanation: If there is clay in between, it seems that they mark it to inform that it is Tahor.

Until there is not a cemetery since there is no white in between.

Explanation #1: Surely, when there is no plaster and clay, they are Tahor. However, when it (plaster) is flattened, and it is spilled on top, then we require clay;

If there is clay, we can assume that he put clay to the sides of the stone, and the plaster joined to it. The plaster on top joined with it;

If there is no clay, the plaster is for a marking in between.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): The text says "even though there is no plowing." He explains that in between is Tahor, for the Tum'ah was uprooted. It is a grave that was plowed. (Tosfos' text of Rashi was unlike ours - Keren Orah.)

Question: Even though it is Tahor from Tum'as Ohel, it is not Tahor. It is like a field in which a grave that was plowed!

Answer #1: Perhaps it means that it is Tahor from [Tum'as] Ohel.

Answer #2: It is totally Tahor through [much] trampling or through blowing.

Answer #3: In between there are many Sefekos, so it is permitted;

It is a Safek whether there is a sign of Tum'ah in between, or not. And even if there is a sign of Tum'ah, it was plowed.

Explanation #3: Now, we are thinking that if it was plowed in between, it is Tahor, for surely, there was no Tum'ah there;

If there were Tum'ah in between, no one would have plowed it!

Question: Why don't we ask that the first Beraisa taught "if there is plaster in between, it is Tamei', [i.e.] even if it was plowed;

The latter Beraisa taught "if it was plowed in between, it is Tahor", even if there is plaster!

Answer: We are thinking that the latter Beraisa is when there is no plaster. If there was plaster, it is never Tahor. We mark only for Tum'ah;

Even though it was plowed, it is not [totally] Tahor.

This is why we ask only from the Seifa of the first Beraisa, which discusses when there is no plaster.

Explanation #1: The Tosefta explains like this.

Explanation #2: Rashi and texts of the Gemara that I found say "Ein Ma'amidin Tziyun..." (we do not mark...)

According to this, we do not answer at all why the entire field is Tamei. Rather, we explain why underneath is Tahor, for we do not put markers in the place of the Tum'ah.

When there are one, two or three markers, we can say that underneath them is Tamei, for the Tum'ah is no less than the marker;

Note: R. Akiva Eiger did not understand this. Perhaps Tosfos means that the Klal "we do not put markers in the place of the Tum'ah" is only when it is marked on all four sides, for then inside is Tamei. When it is marked on at most three sides, inside is Tahor, so surely the markers are in the place of the Tum'ah, and are no wider or longer than the place of the Tum'ah.

However, when there are four, we attribute the Tum'ah to the entire field, therefore underneath them is Tahor.

Reference: In the Mishnah, I explained why we do not ask about the other matters [which we fix in Adar, and again during Chol ha'Moed].

Note: I did not see this in our Tosfos. Tosfos ha'Rosh explains that we can say that we initially begin fixing the other matters in Adar, and fix them even during Chol ha'Moed. However, Yotz'im Al ha'Kil'ayim connotes that this is when we first go to fix it.

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: Why do we mark graves during Chol ha'Moed? They were already marked!

Citation (cont.): The case is, a torrential rain fell and washed off the markings.

Implied question: Why didn't we teach on the 14th, which is when we read in other cities (without a wall from the days of Yehoshua)?

Answer: Since the 15th is the time for other matters, such as fixing the roads... [we discussed reading the Megilah also on the 15th].

Question: Granted, according to the opinion (13a) that permits wages of a worker who lacks what to eat, we understand why they may take wages;

However, according to the opinion (13a) that forbids, why may we hire workers during the Moed?

Answer: Perhaps for these Mitzvos they (Chachamim) permitted.

Question: (How can they take from Terumas ha'Lishkah?) Me'ilah applies to it! :

Answer: Lev Beis Din Masneh Alaihu (Chachamim stipulate from the beginning that the money may be used for this. It was never totally Kodesh.)

Support: In Kesuvos (106a) there are many matters paid for from Terumas ha'Lishkah.

Explanation: This is when one wants to seed, for in the Seifa, R. Yosi says Yavor (he must remove all of the other species). This does not apply if it was already seeded.

We bring this in Bava Basra (94a). However, in our Sugya, we discuss when it was already seeded. We can say that they do not argue about this.

Note: The Maharsha asks that Bava Basra connotes that R. Yosi argues also when it was seeded already! (Chazon Ish, Moed 135 6a - our Mishnah teaches that Sheluchim go out to be Mevatel the Kil'ayim. This was before the enactment that we make the entire field Hefker.)

Explanation: This is Beis ha'Ba'al, since it is normally dry. The word Garid ends with a Dalet. Also the Aruch says so;

Alternatively text: However, the text of Tosfos of the Rav is Garir, with a Reish, like "wine is Garir" (arouses appetite).

Observation: The two arguments in this Beraisa are like the argument in our Mishnah and the first Tana here, who is R. Eliezer ben Yakov [who forbids for profit].

Question #1: We hold that the teachings of R. Eliezer ben Yakov are sparse but clean (the Halachah always follows him)!

Question #2 (Tosfos): Ravina himself said above (4a) that one may draw water to water Yerakos in order to eat them, but not to improve them. This shows that he forbids profit!

Answer #1 (Tosfos): Tarvitza is light watering.

Explanation: I.e. even R. Eliezer ben Yakov permits watering a garden lightly;

Just like Rabanan permit even to make Peros develop early, also R. Eliezer ben Yakov permits light watering.

Answer #2: Alternatively, perhaps he (Ravina) holds like R. Eliezer [ben Yakov] regarding watering, but argues about light watering. (Mishmeres Kehunah -this answers also Question #1. Only in Mishnayos, the Halachah always follows R. Eliezer ben Yakov.)

Answer #3: Some say that the argument about a dry field is unlike the argument in our Mishnah, in which R. Eliezer ben Yakov and Chachamim argue about making crops develop earlier;

The first Tana considers this profit, and forbids. Rabanan hold that this is not profit, for some prefer late crops. They are more finished and well ripened.

Answer #4 (R. Chananel): Ravina derived that Tarvitza [is permitted], i.e. a field that is not yet seeded. It was already watered before. One may water it during the Moed in order to seed is after the Moed;

He holds like R. Eliezer ben Yakov, who says that Zera'im that drank before the Moed [one may water them during the Moed], and he holds that Tarvitza is like Zera'im that drank before the Moed.

It is called Tarvitza because Harbitzuhu (they lightly watered it) before the Moed.

Explanation: The Gemara challenges [Ravina]. A dry field is forbidden, for if we water it now, its Peros will develop earlier, but there will not be a loss [if we refrain];

Also Tarvitza, if we water it now, its Peros will develop earlier, but there will not be a loss [if we refrain! This was not answered.]

Conclusion: According to this, we (the Stam Gemara, which challenged Rabah) hold like R. Eliezer ben Yakov. R. Chananel explained like this.

Rashi's opinion: Regarding Shevi'is, we discuss light watering.

Explanation: He retracted from what he explained in the Mishnah that one may water a Beis ha'Shelachin during the Moed, and regarding Shevi'is even Beis ha'Ba'al is permitted.

Note: I did not find this in our text of Rashi.

Tosfos' opinion: I explained in the Mishnah that also regarding Shevi'is, only Beis ha'Shelachin is permitted, like Rashi explained here.

Question: Perhaps here we discuss total watering. R. Eliezer ben Yakov and Rabanan argue about during the Moed. Their argument [in the Mishnah] is about a big watering.

Strengthening of question: It seems that we discuss a total watering, but regarding a Beis ha'Shelachin, which requires irrigation, it is called Mashkin, and regarding Beis ha'Ba'al it is called Harbatzah!

Conclusion: Rashi's opinion in the Mishnah is primary. According to his Perush here, we must say that total watering is forbidden in Beis ha'Ba'al, and a light watering is permitted, in Shevi'is;

During the Moed, R. Eliezer ben Yakov forbids even a light watering, and Rabanan permit even total watering.

Question: What is the Chidush that this is permitted in Shevi'is? This is not Avodas Karka! And why does R. Yehudah forbid normally?

Answer: One must remove rocks from the field when he clears out the Ishus;

Citation (Shevi'is 3:7) Mishnah: One who removes rocks from his field [in Shevi'is] removes the top rocks, and leaves the bottom ones that touch the ground. The same applies to a mound of pebbles.

The Yerushalmi explains that Ishus is a Chuldah.

Note: The Bavli says that it has no eyes, and it damages orchards. Rashi explains that it digs in the ground. Surely, this refers to a mole. (Perhaps it does not damage grain fields, for it digs deep, below the roots of grain.) It seems that Tosfos cites the Yerushalmi because it argues. It also cites the verse "Bal Chazu Shemesh." Korban ha'Edah explains that it dwells in foundations of houses [and never goes outside to see the sun. Perhaps even those in fields always remain underground.] It seems that it is a rat or weasel. A Mishnah (Pesachim 1:2) connotes that it is common in houses, but could go another city. The Bavli (Pesachim 10b) says that it could fit a mouse and a loaf in its mouth at once. Pnei Moshe connotes that it is a mole. Perhaps Tosfos cited the Yerushalmi because it was commonly called "Chuldah".