Explanation: It seems that this is only for needs of the Moed. For naught, why should Chachamim permit, even through a Shinuy?!

However, we do not discuss Devar ha'Avud. We hold like R. Yosi, who does not require a Shinuy for Devar ha'Avud.

Implied question: If his garments or shoes are torn, and if he will leave them until after the Moed they will be ruined, I saw my Rebbeyim were not lenient at all, even through a Nochri;

This was based on what we say below (12a), that anything one may not do, he may not tell a Nochri to do it.

Answer #1: Perhaps [my Rebbeyim] did not consider it Devar ha'Avud.

Answer #2: Perhaps not every Devar ha'Avud is permitted without a Shinuy.

Support: In Pesachim (55b), it connotes that only Olei Regalim may fix shoes during the Moed.

Question: How is it permitted to do a Melachah without a Shinuy?!

Observation: It seems that also without this, we could have asked why R. Yosi said "if it is loose, he is Mematcho, but he may not be Mesareg d'Shesi va'Erev.

Even Shesi without Erev is forbidden!

Note: R. Yosef of Vilna explains that until the Gemara's answer, we assumed that surely, one may tighten. If Mematech is tightening, surely R. Yosi taught this Heter for the Diyuk that even Shesi without Erev is forbidden! The Rashash asked why the Gemara did not ask Tosfos' question, for which we do not have an answer. According to R. Yosef of Vilna, the Gemara's answer removes the entire basis for Tosfos' question.

Inference: This implies that it is permitted only for needs of the Moed.

Explanation: He (R. Yehudah) forbids a new mill. In the Gemara, he permits an old one.

Suggestion: Perhaps in the Gemara, he permits an old mill in the name of R. Eliezer, and here (in the Mishnah), he (R. Yehudah) teaches his own opinion [and forbids]!

Rejection #1: We should not make an argument without need.

Rejection #2: "L'Chatchilah" connotes a new one.

Question: Who mentioned Kivush? (The first Tana did not discuss it. Why does R. Yehudah mention it?)

Answer: The first Tana said that Ma'amidin (we erect a mill). He discusses a new mill. He connotes that even Kivush is permitted;

R. Yehudah forbids Kivush.

Alternative text: Some texts say "R. Yehudah says, Mechavshin a mill" without the word "l'Chatchilah". It means the same [as our text].

Question: However, according to this text it is even more difficult, who mentioned Kivush? Also the first Tana permits!

Answer: The first Tana permits merely erecting, which is not full Binyan. Similarly, he forbids Kivush, whether it is new or old. R. Yehudah permits Kivush if it is old.

Preference: My Rebbi prefers the original text.

Explanation #1: "Ma'amidin" means only erecting an oven. This is not Binyan from the beginning.

It was already made, just it was not attached to the ground. One must attach it and plaster it to the ground, like it says in Shabbos (125a);

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it (Ma'amidin) is (strengthening,) like it says in Beitzah (34a) regarding an oven on Yom Tov. We do not anoint it or smear it with a rag...

Here, during [Chol] ha'Moed, it is permitted.

Support (for both explanations): Also below in our Sugya (11a), we say that all agree that we may not build an oven l'Chatchilah.

Question: In the Yerushalmi, R. Chalifta says "as long as he is not Megale'ach it from the beginning." Tosfos did not know what is Gilu'ach.

Answer: I say that the text should say "[he may not be] Megadel (build) it."

Citation (Tosefta): This is for needs of the Moed.

Inference: One may not ride without a need.

Extrapolation: Tosfos explains that similarly, we may make irons (horseshoes), since the ground is hard, and [the horse's feet] get ruined.

There were no horseshoes in the days of Chachamim [of the Gemara], for they were not needed. It sufficed to cut their nails, for the ground was soft, like in Russia. Therefore, it was forbidden [to make horseshoes].

Explanation: These are kinds of Safsalim (benches). They are slightly different, like it says in Kidushin (70a);

[Rav Nachman offered to Rav Yehudah] "sit on a Kurfita." He responded "why don't you say Safsal, like Rabanan say, or Itzteva, like [common] people say?!"

Explanation: We discuss cures for animals that entail Melachah.

A cure that does not entail Isur Melachah, just Chachamim decreed against Refu'ah lest one grind spices, some permit even on Shabbos [for animals];

The Halachah follows the opinion that permits, like it says in Shabbos (53b);

Citation (53b): Rava expounded that the Halachah follows R. Yoshiyah, who does not decree lest one grind spices, regarding Refu'ah of animals.

Rashi's opinion: "Lisrukei Susya" is rubbing and cleaning a horse with a comb.

Rebuttal: We hold that both Kirod and Kirtzof (combing with a fine or coarse comb) are permitted (Beitzah 23a), according to R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven (a fine comb makes a wound), and the Halachah follows him!

Conclusion: Rather, it is another matter.

Rashi's opinion: This is strengthening through laundering. (I explain based on ha'Metargem. He says that Tosfos' text of Rashi is correct, unlike our text of Rashi.)

Opinion #2: Some say that it is ironing. (I explain based on Semak 195.)

Support: The word "Kiskus" supports this, like it says in Shabbos 141a about mud [on a garment], "he is Mekaskes it from the inside, but not from the outside."

The text: The text is "Biri" with a Reish, and not "b'Yedei" with a Dalet.

Explanation: Biri is like "Biris (a bracelet worn on the leg to hold up socks) is Tahor (Shabbos 63a, Bava Basra 54a).

Text #1: This is the text of R. Gershon.

Text #2: The Rif's text is opposite - Mulya b'Mulya v'Netzei b'Netzei a'Daita d'Ar'a Shakal Mulya v'Shada b'Netzei a'Daita d'Vei Dari.

Inference: Level land is needed more for plowing than for threshing.

Question: The opposite is more reasonable. Level land is needed more for threshing than for plowing!

Answer: Perhaps since they used to thresh with Morigin (boards with holes and pegs), they did not need such level land.

Alternative explanation: Some explain [that a'Daita d'Vei Dari means] in order to make a Dir (habitat) for animals [to fertilize the area. Maharsha - this supports R. Gershon's text. A Dir must be level.]

Pesak (Teshuvas Rabbeinu Yitzchak): R. Tam did not consider a loan [to Nochrim] with Ribis like Prakmatya (which is permitted only for Devar ha'Avud).

Implied question: People of Akra of Senu'asa owed [money] to Ravina. It was considered Prakmatya, and it was permitted [to collect it] only due to Devar ha'Avud!

Answer (R. Tam): It was business with wine, like it says in Bava Metzi'a (73b). Ravina gave money to people of Akra of Senu'asa [before the harvest] and they would give to him an extra measure;

However, fixed loans and changing money, it seems that this is considered Prakmatya.

Note: The Bach changes the text to say "it is not considered Prakmatya." The Rashash supports our text from OC 539:14, which forbids.

Explanation: This is something that if he does not sell it now, perhaps he will not sell it well another time, and he will lose from the principal.

However, if he will not lose from the principal, just he will not profit so much, this is not considered Devar ha'Avud.

All the more so, to buy merchandise, lest it be more expensive after the Moed [is not Devar ha'Avud].

However, one may buy Kosher wine during the Moed.

R. Yosef forbids. Even if he will not find [Kosher] wine for a cheap price, he will find it for an expensive price. This is not Devar ha'Avud.