Implied question: This is unlike without makes a hole in a chicken coop. There, it is made for entrance and exit!

Answer: [Rav holds that] for any amount of Binyan, he is liable, like one who inserts a handle in a hoe blade, or quarries;

However, according to Shmuel, he is not liable for Binyan Mashehu. Why is he liable? This is not final Melachah!

Explanation: They are not proper to eat. If not, he is liable for a small Shi'ur, like it says above (76a) that one who is Motzi straw for a camel enough to fill a cow's mouth is liable.

Implied question: We cannot establish our Mishnah to be in a swamp [in which nothing will be grown. Our Mishnah discusses detaching from a tree!]

Answer (R. Tam): We discuss a dry tree. It does not fix anything.

Explanation #1 (Aruch, Erech Savar): Regarding a Pesik Reishei d'Lo Nicha Lei (the inevitable result does not please him), e.g. he does in another's land, e.g. he does not love the owner...

Or, one who cuts off Tzara'as while circumcising, which he does not benefit from it - it is permitted l'Chatchilah. There is not even an Isur mid'Rabanan.

Pesak: If a barrel was corked with flax, [the Aruch] permitted to remove the cork and draw wine from it on Shabbos, even though it is impossible that he will not squeeze when he removes the cork, and it is a Pesik Reishei. Since he does not benefit from the squeezing, for the wine falls to the ground, it is permitted.

Rebuttal #1: Puncturing an abscess to expel pus would be forbidden, if not due to bodily pain, even though he does not benefit at all from building the opening, and he does not intend at all to build an opening, just to make a hole!

Rebuttal #2 (Rashba): Taking a hand needle to remove a thorn - in Sanhedrin (84b) we establish it like R. Shimon, who exempts Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, and due to pain it is permitted;

Even though he does not benefit from the wound, it would be forbidden, if not due to bodily pain!

Implied question: It says "the case is, he does in another's land, e.g. he does not love the owner"! (Tosfos challenges the rebuttals. Since the Pesik Reishei is not Nicha Lei, it is permitted!)

Answer: This explains why he is not Chayav Chatas. However, it is forbidden.

Implied question: It says in Zevachim (91a) that one who volunteers wine [for the Mizbe'ach], he sprinkles it on the fire. The Gemara asks that he extinguishes, and establishes it like R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven! (It is a Pesik Reishei d'Lo Nicha Lei!)

Answer: We discuss when it is not a Pesik Reishei. He sprinkles fine drops, or onto limbs. It is possible that he will not extinguish the fire [at all].

Implied question: In Sukah (33b) regarding on Yom Tov, we do not diminish (berries on a myrtle branch, so it will have more leaves, to be Machshir it), they said in the name of R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon that we may diminish;

The Gemara asks that he fixes a "Kli", and answers that he gathered them for eating, and Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted;

It asks that Abaye and Rava both say that R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei (you cannot cut the head) and it will not die, and answers that the case is, he has another Kosher myrtle. This supports the Aruch, who says that when he does not benefit, it is permitted, even though it is a Pesik Reishei!

Implied suggestion: Since he has another Kosher myrtle, he does not fix anything!

Rejection: If so, why does it say that R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon holds like his father, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven?

Answer: That small fixing, like diminishing berries, is forbidden only mid'Rabanan. Chachamim did not decree when he does not benefit.

Explanation: [In his friend's land] it is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.

Explanation #1: This is "Aleph-Aleph" that they write in a Kami'a (amulet). Also R. Chananel explained like this.

Explanation #2: They write in Kemi'in "Aleph-Aleph" in place of Amen Amen.

Rebuttal: This is Notrikun (a letter in place of a word. R. Yehudah ben Beseira (104b) says that) he is liable even for one, and Rabanan who exempt, exempt even for two or three!

Implied question: This is not precise, for the first Tana exempts even two [different] letters from one name, unless he writes Shem (i.e. something that itself is meaningful) from Shimon!

Answer: It says so due to R. Shimon. He obligates even for this.

Observation: This is not precise. Rather, the Shi'ur is like it says explicitly above (79a, to make a Kami'a)!

It says "any amount" only to teach unlike R. Shimon, who says [that he is not liable] until he tans the entire hide.

Question: Why is weaving different than these? Here, R. Shimon obligates only after he fixes everything!

Answer: One who weaves makes something new that was not in the world. He is properly liable for two Batei Nirin ;

However, tanning is mere fixing the hide, and similarly scraping, or making a design on a Kli. R. Shimon requires that he fixes all of it.

Inference (R. Tam): It seems that one must bend the head of the "Tes" into itself, so it resembles a Pei.

Support: It is proven like this in Ta'anis (2b), and so it is in the great Mesores.

This is unlike Rashi, whose text in Sukah (47b) is "on the eighth."