Explanation: He is liable for Dash, like Rashi explained. The Beraisa is like R. Yehudah, who says that Dishah applies [even] to what did not grow from the ground, like I explained above (73b).

Support (Ri): Surely it is like R. Yehudah, for Chachamim forbid sprinkling water [to prevent dust from rising] mid'Rabanan, and R. Shimon permits below even l'Chatchilah.

Question: You are forced to say that it is not a Pesik Reishei of evening craters. If it were a Pesik Reishei, how could R. Shimon permit below l'Chatchilah? R. Shimon agrees that you cannot cut the head and it will not die (therefore, it is considered Davar she'Miskaven)!

Since it is not a Pesik Reishei, why does R. Eliezer obligate a Chatas?

It says in Yoma (34b) regarding Tziruf of hunks of [hot] metal (putting them in cold water, which solidifies them) that R. Yehudah permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven mid'Oraisa, for it is not Meleches Machasheves!

Answer: They argue about the following. R. Eliezer holds that it is a Pesik Reishei, and Rabanan hold that it is not.

Implied question: Why does it say "now that we hold like R. Shimon, it is permitted l'Chatchilah"? Perhaps R. Shimon holds that it is a Pesik Reishei!

Answer: Even so, the Gemara holds like Rabanan, that it is not a Pesik Reishei. Therefore, it is permitted l'Chatchilah, since we hold like R. Shimon. (See Tosfos Sanhedrin 85a, who say that R. Eliezer agrees that it is not a Pesik Reishei. He obligates for Binyan for a small improvement, even without evening craters, just like he obligates for braiding and Pokeses due to Binyan.)

Question (Ri): Why is he is lashed on Yom Tov according to R. Eliezer? And also Rabanan argue only because they do not consider it a Melachah!

A Mishnah in Megilah (7b) says that the only difference between Yom Tov and Shabbos is Ochel Nefesh. R. Yehudah says, even Machshirei Ochel Nefesh (things done to enable preparation of food, are permitted on Yom Tov)!

The Gemara says that the first Tana's reason is because it says "Hu Levado Ye'aseh Lachem" - Hu (Ochel Nefesh) is permitted, but not Machshirin;

R. Yehudah [disagrees, for] it is written "Hu" (an exclusion), and it is written "Lachem" (to permit)! [The exclusion] is for Machshirin that could have been done from before Yom Tov, and [the Heter] is for Machshirin that could not [have been done from before Yom Tov].

Inference: R. Yehudah permits Ochel Nefesh even if it could have been done [before Yom Tov]. It connotes that Rabanan argue only about Machshirin, but not about Ochel Nefesh.

Strengthening of question: This Beraisa is like R. Yehudah, like I explained [in the previous Tosfos. Therefore, it is difficult even if Rabanan argue about Ochel Nefesh!]

Strengthening of question: Below (137b), we say that R. Eliezer holds like R. Yehudah, and [permits] even more than R. Yehudah. [R. Eliezer] permits even [Machshirin] that could have been done before Yom Tov!

Suggestion: We discuss one who removes honey for the sake of a weekday.

Rejection: In any case, it is difficult for the opinion who holds Ho'il (since) if guests would come (it would be permitted to cook for them, even if they do not come, one who cooks is not lashed), in Pesachim (46b)!

Strengthening of rejection: R. Eliezer himself holds there that we say Ho'il!

Answer #1 (Ri): We can establish [the Beraisa] to discuss close to dark. It is not proper to give to guests. (I.e. he can see in all directions that there is no one who could come before dark. If he merely removed more than guests can consume before dark, he would not be lashed for this. Also, many guests could consume it before dark! Even if it is after sunset, perhaps children will come, who may eat before Havdalah - PF.)

Answer #2: It discusses honey that is spoiled, or forbidden to benefit from it. It is not proper to eat.

Question (Ri): Since the Torah permits to make cheese on Yom Tov, even if he could have [made before Yom Tov], even if mid'Rabanan it is permitted only when it was not possible [before Yom Tov], if so, if his house fell on Yom Tov, it should be permitted to build it on Yom Tov!

Mitoch (since) building was permitted for a need [of Ochel Nefesh], for making cheese is [forbidden] due to building, like it says below, it is permitted also not for a need [of Ochel Nefesh], as long as it is some need of the day, to eat in [the house], so great heat and the sun not strike him!

Answer: It is forbidden mid'Rabanan, for it is Uvda d'Chol (a weekday action), just like we forbid grinding and sifting on Yom Tov.

Question: In Pesachim (64a), a Mishnah teaches "just like [Korban Pesach] is offered on a weekday, also on Shabbos, just Kohanim rinse the Azarah, and Chachamim disapprove";

The Gemara explains that "Chachamim disapprove" means that R. Eliezer disapproves. Rabanan hold that it is Shevus (forbidden mid'Rabanan), and there is no Shevus in the Mikdash (needs of Avodah override Shevus), like a Beraisa teaches "one who sweeps or sprinkles water..."

Inference: Since it establishes our Beraisa like R. Eliezer, this implies that he obligates mid'Oraisa, even though there is a [stone] floor in the Azarah. Here it connotes that evening cavities does not apply when there is a floor!

Answer #1: Evening cavities applies more in rinsing, for they used to fill cavities between layers of stone.

Answer #2: Also in the Azarah R. Eliezer forbids only mid'Rabanan, due to where there is no floor, and there is a Chiyuv Chatas according to R. Eliezer. This Shevus is stringent, and applies even in the Mikdash. We find several Shevusim in the Mikdash in Eruvin (102b);

However, according to Rabanan, this Shevus is not stringent, since even without a floor they hold that it is forbidden only mid'Rabanan. Therefore it does not apply in the Mikdash.

Opinion #1: Bahag permits sweeping for this reason, even with [brooms from] date trees.

Rebuttal (Ri): Below (124b), R. Eliezer said that even brooms from date trees, one may move them;

The Gemara asked "if it is from the sun to the shade, would R. Eliezer permit even from date trees?!"

Inference: This implies that obviously, no one permits, even according to R. Shimon, for it is Melachto l'Isur. If one may sweep, it is Melachto l'Heter!

Opinion #2: Rather, surely all forbids sweeping, for he moves earth from its place. Here we permit only sprinkling, according to R. Shimon.

Question: What was the question? Also in this Beraisa, it teaches like in our Mishnah, that in every way Nakuv (a flowerpot with a hole) is like Eino Nakuv (without a hole), except for Hechsher of Zera'im!

Suggestion: [Abaye or R. Chiya bar Rav] asks why Shabbos is unlike Hechsher of Zera'im.

Rejection: If so, without our Mishnah he should question the Beraisa itself! Why regarding Hechsher Zera'im, Nakuv is considered like attached, and for other matters, it is considered detached?

Answer #1 (R. Tam): He asks as follows. Since regarding Shabbos, Nakuv is considered like Eino Nakuv, even though it is a leniency, and he is exempt, and similarly regarding Kil'ayim (Kil'ayim 7:8)...

All the more so, regarding Hechsher Zera'im, we should consider Nakuv like Eino Nakuv, for this is a stringency - but the Beraisa teaches that Nakuv is considered like attached regarding Hechsher Zera'im, that it is not Machshir!

The Beraisa means as follows. There is no difference between Nakuv and Eino Nakuv. For everything Nakuv and Eino Nakuv are the same, and we are stringent;

When detached is a stringency, we consider both of them like detached. If attached is a stringency, like for Shabbos and Kil'ayim, we consider both of them like attached;

Only Hechsher Zera'im [is an exception]. They were not stringent to consider Nakuv like detached, as if it was Eino Nakuv. Rather, they left it on its law, to be considered like attached.

Consequence: According to this, we must say that according to R. Shimon, we do not take Terumah from [Peros of a] Nakuv to exempt Peros that grow from the ground, just like [we do not take from Peros of a] Eino Nakuv, for we are stringent.

Answer #2 (Ri): He asks as follows. R. Shimon says that the only difference between Nakuv and Eino Nakuv is Hechsher Zera'im. Since regarding Hechsher Zera'im, Nakuv is considered like attached, even though it is a leniency and they are not Huchshar, this shows that mid'Oraisa it is considered like attached;

If mid'Oraisa it were considered like detached, how could Rabanan be Metaher when Tum'ah touches them, since they received Hechsher mid'Oraisa?

If so, this that the Reisha of the Beraisa taught, that there is no difference between Nakuv and Eino Nakuv, you are forced to say that it means that both are like attached, and not that both are like detached, since mid'Oraisa Nakuv is considered like attached;

For everything, Nakuv and Eino Nakuv are like attached, except for Hechsher Zera'im alone. Rabanan were stringent to be Metamei when it is not Nakuv.

Support: Now, the Gemara properly answers "Tum'ah is different...", for there the Torah explicitly wrote that Nakuv is considered attached, but for everything else, it is considered like detached. Therefore, our Mishnah exempts.

Objection (to both explanations): It says "this shows that R. Shimon considers Nakuv like Eino Nakuv." This implies that he needs to bring from the Beraisa that he does not equate Nakuv to Eino Nakuv, and this is not true!

Explanation #3: It means as follows. "This shows that R. Shimon considers Nakuv like Eino Nakuv." [A Beraisa] contradicts this... just the contrary, he considers Eino Nakuv like Nakuv!

Explanation #4 (Ri): There is no difference between Nakuv and Eino Nakuv regarding Ma'aser, Pe'ah, and Kil'ayim. Since it is written regarding them "Sadcha" and "Karmecha", and similarly regarding Ma'aser it is written "ha'Yotzei ha'Sadeh Shanah Shanah", they are considered detached, whether it is Nakuv or Eino Nakuv;

The only difference is regarding Hechsher Zera'im and all that resembles it, e.g. Shabbos, which do not depend on something that is considered a field, rather, on detached or attached. For these, Nakuv is not like Eino Nakuv.

Support: According to this, it is fine that it says "this shows that R. Shimon considers Nakuv like Eino Nakuv." We ask a contradiction [from the Beraisa,] which does not equate Nakuv to Eino Nakuv.

Explanation: It has a hole the size of Motzi Zayis (olives leave through it). A Stam Kli Cheres is for food, and the Shi'ur is k'Motzi Zayis.

Assertion (Ri): The reason [why R. Shimon] admits is because it is Batel to the ground when it has a hole enough to be Metaher it.

Limitation: This is only when it has a hole k'Motzi Zayis. However, a Kli special for liquids, even though it becomes Tahor through a hole that is Kones Mashkeh (through which liquid enters), we do not say that it is Batel;

Even according to Rabanan, it is not considered like attached due to a hole that is Kones Mashkeh. Rather, it must be the size of a small root, like [Rava] says below.

Explanation: All the more so it is Tahor from receiving Tum'ah, if it was designated for liquids.

Inference: A Kli Cheres must be punctured [in order to be Machshir Zera'im].

Observation: This is unlike Rashi explained in Gitin (7a). He explained that a boat of Cheres, since it is made of earth, is considered punctured [and it is Machshir Zera'im even if it has no hole]. It is proper to be succinct now.

Question #1 (Ri): Where does it say that it is totally Tahor? If he designated it for a shard, it is Mekabel Tum'ah, like Rashi explained!

Surely his Perush is correct, for even if it broke into small pieces, the pieces receive Tum'ah like a shard, when the pieces have the Shi'ur specified in Kelim (2:2), and brought in Chulin (54b);

Citation (2:2): Small earthenware Kelim - they, their bottoms and their walls, if [they broke, and] they can stand unsupported, their Shi'ur [to be Mekabel Tum'ah] is to hold enough [oil] to anoint a baby's [small toe]. This is the Shi'ur (of a shard) if the Kli initially held until a Log (before it broke. If it initially was) from one Log until a Se'ah, [the shard must hold] a Revi'is...

Question #2 (Rashba): He could have said that there are six Midos of Klei Cheres!

Answer: When it broke totally, the pieces are proper for a shard. However, when the Kli is whole, just it was punctured k'Motzi Rimon, it is not proper for a shard, and even if he designated it [for a shard], Batla Daito Etzel Kol Adam (we ignore his designation, since normal people do not do so).

Remark: Rashi's Perush connotes that when it was punctured k'Motzi Rimon, it is proper for a shard! He explained that it is totally Tahor from [Tum'as] Kli, unless he stores it for a shard.

Question: If so, why didn't [Rava] say that there are six Midos?

Answer: He discusses only when one can use them normally. When it was punctured k'Motzi Rimon, it is proper [for use] only if he tilts it on its side.

Question (Ri): Perhaps he heard about a Kli designated for pomegranates, and he needed to teach unlike R. Eliezer, who taught below (96a) that if it was punctured k'Motzi Zayis, it has no Tum'ah...!

Answer: It connotes that he discusses a Stam Kli Cheres, without designation.

Implied question: Perhaps he heard about Hechsher Zera'im, like the opinion below (96a) that the Shi'ur is k'Motzi Rimon, according to Rashi, who explained that they argue about Hechsher Zera'im!

Answer #1: If so, why did he mention Kli Cheres? The same applies even to Kli Etz!

Answer #2: Rava holds that the Shi'ur for Hechsher Zera'im is like a small root.