Rashi's opinion: These are Melachos mid'Rabanan in the land. Removing thorns is not an Avodah in the land.

Contradiction: In Gitin (44b), Rashi said that removing thorns is an Avodah in the land!

Answer: We must say that [here] we discuss detached thorns. If they were attached, any [detaching] is mid'Oraisa.

Proof: In Shabbos (103a), we say that one who detached endives or pruned reeds, if it was to improve the ground, he is liable for any amount.

Even though we say there that if he did not intend to improve, he is exempt for Shabbos, e.g. in another's land, regarding Shemitah, we do not require an intended Melachah [in order to forbid].

Rashi's opinion: This is [fertilizing with] animal dung.

R. Chananel's opinion: This is excessive plowing. The Yerushalmi explains like this.

Assertion: The Torah does not forbid this.

Question #1: In Bechoros (34b), how do we resolve from this the question about [whether we fine the son of] one who nicked the ear of a Bechor? That is mid'Oraisa!

Question #2: Also, in Gitin (44a), regarding one who sold an Eved [Kena'ani to a Nochri], all agree that uprooting him from Mitzvos is more stringent [than other Isurim mid'Rabanan. How did we resolve this from the fact that we did not fine the son regarding Netaiva?]

Answer #1 (to both questions - R. Tam): We are stringent about Shemitah, like it says in Kidushin (20a) "how harsh is the dust (light Isurim of) Shevi'is!" Therefore, we can resolve all these cases. (If we did not fine the son regarding Shemitah, we did not fine also there.)

Answer #2: It is proper to be stringent [about Shemitah] more than anywhere else, because they used to disgrace it, like it says in Gitin (54a) that people were suspected about Shemitah;

Therefore, it is a proper proof from Shemitah.

Rabbeinu Yosef's opinion: The same applies to other matters. They must be needed for the Moed [in order to permit], for one may sell Peros only if needed for the Moed!

Note: There is an implied question. If so, why did the Mishnah mention specifically these?

Answer: [It mentioned these] for a Chidush. Even these, which are publicized, are permitted if needed for the Moed.

Question: This requires investigation if these must be [sold] covertly, like Peros, garments and Kelim (13b).

Above (12b), the Gemara stipulates that entering Peros must be done covertly, even though the Mishnah did not specify [this].

Citation (Yerushalmi): One may bring from another house to his house, for a person enjoys living in his own [house].

Implied question: Why didn't we ask from the Reisha, which says that a store open to Reshus ha'Rabim opens one door and closes one? Rav Huna permits normally in the market!

Answer: We could have established the Reisha to discuss Yom Tov, and not Chol ha'Moed;

Therefore, we asked from the Seifa, which discusses Chol ha'Moed, for Erev Yom Tov ha'Acharon is Chol ha'Moed.

Rashi's opinion: This is cabbage and leeks.

Question #1 (Tosfos Rabbeinu Peretz): Cabbage and leeks are not considered spices. We say (Chulin 6a) that spices are for taste, and they are not Batel even in 1000 parts [of Heter];

Turnips and leeks, one needs to estimate only that there are 60 [times as much as Heter], like it says in Chulin 96b.

Question #2: Also, a Mishnah (Beitzah 14a) teaches that spices are crushed normally. If so, it is not cabbage!

Opinion #2: The Aruch says that they are kinds of fragrances.

Explanation: Because the other Perakim taught matters that letter of the law are permitted for needs of the Moed, e.g. selling Peros, we taught [here] also matters done for the Moed that should not be done [according to letter of the law].

Explanation: He cannot shave before the Moed, for they do not let him shave;

Even if they let him shave, a person is not pleased to shave in jail. The Yerushalmi says so.