Clarification: Without Rebbi Elazar who forbids placing one's finger in water (on Tish'ah be'Av), it is necessary to say that the Tana is listing a series of leniencies ...

Reason: Since on Tish'ah be'Av it is at least forbidden to wash one's whole body even with cold water, whereas on a Ta'anis Tzibur, washing in cold water is permitted, as is evident in Ta'anis (Daf 13.)

Clarification: According to Rebbi Meir, who holds that it is a Minhag, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel do not argue over this matter ...

Reason: Because a Machlokes is not applicable to a Minhag, seeing as one only needs to see what the Minhag is.

Clarification: One cannot make the same inference from our Mishnah, to say that since the Tana Kama calls it a Minhag, the Chachamim must mean that it is an Isur (See Maharam) ...

Reason: This is because regarding the Mishnah, we can say that both Tana'im hold Minhag, and what the Chachamim are saying to the Tana Kama is - 'Why do you speak vaguely? Why don't you explain yourself and say that in the Galil one does not do it, whereas in Yehudah one does.

Conclusion: The Beraisa however, one cannot explain in this way.

Question: Then why does he not plant it in the dry area - Mah Nafshach; if it takes root within three days then the Omer will permit it, and if it doesn't, it will not take root at all, in which case it does not require a Heter, like wheat in a jar (Bava Metzi'a 56a)?

Answer #1: In a dry area, it takes longer than three days to take root.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we suspect that when he sees that it is not taking root, he will re-plant it in a location of wheat after the Omer.

Clarification: The Gemara could have answered like it answered earlier - that 'even these too, which are for the needs of Yom-Tov, one may only conclude, but not start from the befinning'.

Reason: Only the Gemara prefers to refute the proof in a way that not resolve the She'eilah at all.

Reason (cont.): Since now we can say that if it is for the need of Yom-Tov, one is even allowed to do it from the beginning.

Inference: From here it is clearly implied that one may not repair shoes on Chol ha'Mo'ed, seeing as they only permitted it for the Olei Regalim.

Refuting Refutation: Neither can one say that it causes a loss (a Davar ha'Aveid, which is permitted on Chol ha'Mo'ed), since they might tear more.

Refutation: Seeing as one can purchase new ones.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Perek Mi she'Hafach (Mo'ed Katan 13.) cites this Beraisa, nd asks 'A Sofer ought to be permitted to write on Chol ha'Mo'ed, seeing as he writes Gitei Nashim and receipts, as we learned in the Mishnah in 'Eilu Megalchin'? And the Gemara answers appropriately.

Clarification: Since it is not possible to place them neither in his own house nor in the house that is nearest to him, the Chachamim did not require him to place them in a third house. They preferred that he brings it discreetly to his house.