(R. Avahu citing R. Yosi ben Chaninah): One who braids hair is liable for building.

This is like R. Yochanan said in the name of R. Beniyah - in our locale, they call braiding building.

(R. Ze'ira): It is not reasonable to say that it is not (i.e. surely it is) due to weaving.

Question: R. Ze'ira contradicts himself! There, R. Ze'ira said in the name of R. Chiya citing R. Yochanan that one who braids three hairs for a person [to wear], it receives Tum'ah due to Arig (something woven);

Objection (R. Ze'ira, to R. Chiya): [Hair] is not spun. Can you call this Arig?!

Summation of question: Here, he says so (braiding is liable for weaving)?!

Answer: Here (it is considered weaving) for a large amount [of hair. Then, it is normal to twine together many hairs before braiding; it is as if it is spun]. Here (it is considered Arig) for a small amount.

Limitation: [Arig is Mekabel Tum'ah,] this is for a person. For an animal, it is Tahor. (We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.)

Support: This is like it was taught (Tosefta Kelim Bava Basra 4:4), one who makes a woven belt for [covering] the heart or fetus [of an animal], to brace sacks or hang on the neck of an animal, it is Tahor.

Note: Our text of the Tosefta says that if it is to brace sacks, it is Tamei.

Limitation: This is if they are straight, but if they are folded, whether they are for a person or animal, they are Temei'im.

One who paints eyes is liable for writing. One who is Pokeses (applies a mudpack) is liable for dying.

(Yitzchak bar Uriyon): They argue when he did uprooted [from an Atzitz Nakuv] not opposite the hole, but if he uprooted opposite the hole, even R. Shimon agrees [that he is liable].

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If an Atzitz was totally in Eretz Yisrael, and the hole was in Chutz la'Aretz [what is the law? Is it considered to be growing in Eretz Yisrael?]

Observation: What R. Yirmeyah asked about, was obvious to Yitzchak bar Uriyon. (He holds that the place of the hole is primary. If it is in Eretz Yisrael, it is considered to be growing in Eretz Yisrael. If the hole is in Chutz la'Aretz, R. Shimon and Rabanan argue about this.)

(Beraisa): The only difference between an Atzitz Nakuv and Atzitz she'Eino Nakuv is Hechsher Zera'im (whether or not what grows in it Mekabel Tum'ah).

This is according to R. Shimon. According to Rabanan, there are other differences. An Atzitz Nakuv is Mekadesh (forbids) in a vineyard. She'Eino Nakuv is not Mekadesh in a vineyard.

Atzitz Nakuv is not Machshir Zera'im. Atzitz she'Eino Nakuv is Machshir Zera'im.

(Mishnah): If one detaches from an Atzitz Nakuv, he is liable; from she'Eino Nakuv, he is exempt;

R. Yosah said [the following] Stam, and R. Chananyah leaned to say it in the name of R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak - the Torah was greatly Metaher Zera'im. (Therefore, for this R. Shimon agrees that it is considered to be growing in the ground.)

What is the source? "V'Chi Yipol mi'Nivlasam Al Kol Zera Zaru'a Asher Yizare'a'' (the extra words include even if it is not planted properly, i.e. in the ground).