Because it (i.e., the Mishnah) states "נוהגין עליו חומרי מקום שיצא משם" which implies that if he went from a place where they don’t do a particular thing to a place where they do it, he does not do it. He made a condition and said that this law is not universal/common, but rather, the [general] principle is: :"אל ישנה אדם מפנה המחלוקת", and that we made it necessary to obligate him to rest in the place that they do it because it doesn’t appear in this a change that causes a dispute (see Tractate Pesahim 51b –“go out and see how many idle individuals there are in the marketplace) but it would appear as a change if he did it and they do not do it, or that he did something opposite what they do, or that he prohibits them from doing so. But the resting does not appear as a change.

The principles of this law were already explained in the ninth chapter of Tractate Sheviit. And the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

It is forbidden to sell a large animal to a non-Jew, whether he would worship idolatry or whether he would not worship idolatry. And the reason for this prohibition is lest he rent it (i.e. animal) to him or lend it to him and he would work with it on Shabbat (see Tractate Avodah Zarah 15a), and it is stated in the Torah (Exodus 23:12): “[Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor,] in order that your ox and your ass may rest,” and third, lest he sell it (i.e., the animal) to him on Friday, and it is not pleasing in his eyes and its Israelite owner cries out regarding it in order that it would walk before the purchaser and it (i.e., the animal) would walk in front of him on account of his screaming at her, and she recognizes his words, and it is found that he becomes aggravated over his animal on Shabbat (see The Laws of Shabbat, Chapter 2, Halakha 3 and the explanation of [Maimonides of] Tractate Avodah Zarah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 6 – and the fact that a person who becomes aggravated over his animal is liable for a sin-offering, but we are lenient like Rabbi Yehuda who stated that he is exempt, as we find in Tractate Shabbat 154a). And therefore, it is permissible for a person to give his animal to a middleman/go-between who will sell it to a non-Jew that is not in his presence (note: this condition is not found in Maimonides’ commentary on Tractate Avodah Zarah), because of all of these reasons we renounce it, for the middleman cannot lend or rent it out for it is surely not his, and also, the animal does not recognize his words that she will walk out of his anger as we have explained But Rabbi Yehuda permitted to sell an animal with broken hand or foot because it is not for a burden, but his words are shaky, because it is impossible to tie it up to draw water or to a millstone to move them. But Ben Beteira permitted to sell the known horse to משא הנץ and to things similar to it from the living creatures that hunt because he holds that the living carries itself, whether a person or an animal, wildlife and fowl, and these birds are not a burden on the horse. But the Sages state that a living human being alone is not a burden and on him we say that the living carries himself. But the Halakha is not according to Ben Beteira.

The reason that they (i.e., the Rabbis of the Mishnah) prohibit the eating of roasted meat on the night of Passover is in order that a the person who sees it would not think that it is the sheep/lamb of Passover and that it is like eating Holy Things outside [the Temple courtyard] (see Tractate Pesahi 54a). And it will be explained in Tractate Kippurim (i.e., Yoma 73b) that on om Kippur it is prohibited to engage in sexual relationships. There are those people who say that the lighting of a candle brings one to look at his wife and that he will come into the state of having sex. But others say that the light will bring a person into the state of embarrassment. But if there won’t be light, it will bring him in to a state of impure fantasies and he will engage in sex [with her] (see also The Laws of Resting on the Tenth [of Tishrei], Chapter 3, Halakha 10).

The Halakha is not according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

Because a general principle had already been stated [above, concerning the beginning of this chapter] a place which had the practice and a place which did not have this practice, it announces to us two known places – in one that they had the practice to do it and in another, they didn’t have the practice to do ti.

It will be explained to you in Tractate Moed [Katan 13a] that the untrained tailor sews. And similarly, a person who leaves from prison cuts his hair and washes his clothing. And therefore, the Sages permitted him to begin the performance of these three forms of work on the fourteenth [of Nisan], and specifically in a place where they had the custom/practice. But Rabbi Meir states that even in a place where they had the practice/custom, he should not begin work at all. But Rabbi Yossi states: אף הרצענין/even the shoe-makers/leather-workers because he states that those who go up to make Pilgrimage [to Jerusalem] on the Festivals prepare their shoes and sandals to go up for the Festival on the Intermediate Days/Hol HaMoed. And the Halakha is according to the Sages (see The Laws of Yom Tov, Chapter 8, Halakha 19).

It is stated [in the Mishnah]: "תרנגולת שברחה מחזירין אותה למקומה"/a chicken that fled, they return it to its place – this is during Hol HaMoed (see Pesahim 55b) and one does not have to say on the fourteenth [of Nisan] for surely it said “they set another”, all the more so that they return. And the matter of "מושיבין אחרת תחתיה" is that if the chicken already sat on the eggs for three days for the eggs began already to be spoiled, if she (i.e., the mother hen) died, they bring another to brood on the eggs.

All of these six things were not acceptable to the Sages (according to Rabbi Yehuda in Tractate Pesahim 56a), other than on three of them and they are the first ones that the Sages did not protest. But the three that are enumerated at the end, they protest. The first ones that they would graft palm trees all of the fourteenth [of Nisan], and that is that would graft the male on the palms. And this is well-known among those workers of the ground. And this is the matter of when it states [in the Mishnah]: "מרכיבין דקלים"/they grafted palms.

כורכין את שמע (they recited the confession of faith – Deuteronomy 6:4 – simultaneously - without the proper pauses – or without inserting: “Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom – between verses 4 and 5 – see Tractate Pesahim 56a) – that they would not recite: “Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom” at the time of the recitation of the Shema.

ומתירית גמזיות (branches used for caprification – they considered as permitted the use of branches of – carob or sycamore – trees belonging to the Temple treasury) -that they would permit to eat the growth of that dedicated to the Temple treasury, for only the fruit that is dedicated is prohibited by itself, but that which grows afterwards in the field of Temple property is permitted.

ואוכלין מתחת הנשרים – that they would consume fruit that is found fallen underneath the trees on Shabbat and Festivals, even though they are doubtful and it is not known if they fell from Friday and they are permitted, or on Shabbat and they are forbidden like it will be explained in the Tractate Yom Tov (i.e., Betzah 24a – see also the Tosafot there folio 3a, s.v. גזרה ).

And it has already been explained to you in Tractate Peah (Chapter 1, Mishnah 4), that from a condition of things that are liable in Peah (i.e., whatever is edible, privately owned, grown from the ground, harvested as a crop and can be preserved in storage – is subject to designation as Peah. Grain and legumes are included in this general principle) but vegetables are not.

This Halakha is a Tosefta (Having searched the Bar Ilan Responsa Project, it is not found in the Tosefta, but rather in the Minor Tractates, Avot DeRabbi Natan/Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, Version Aleph, Chapter 2 – besides being mentioned in this Mishnah) but I saw to interpret it also because it has uses/profit.

ספר רפואות – There was a book that had in it the order of remedies of what is not according to the law (i.e., talismans) to be treated with it, such as what those practitioners of talismans (i.e., charms and incantations) imagine, that if they make a talisman in a certain fashion, it is beneficial to a certain sick individual and things similar to this from those things that are forbidden, but from his friend he did not attach/fasten it other than through learning in the substance/nature of reality not in order to use something from what is included in it, and this is permitted like it will be explained to you, that things that God warned from doing them, it is permitted to learn/study them and to know them, for God stated you shall not learn to do them (Deuteronomy 18:9: “[When you enter the land that the LORD your God is giving you,] you shall not learn to imitate/לא תלמד לעשות [the abhorrent practices of these nations])” and through out accepted tradition it comes, but you may study to understand and to teach (see Tractate Sanhedrin 68a) and when people became corrupted and became cured through it, he (i.e., Hezekiah) hid it. And it is possible that there was a book that has in it the inoculation/vaccination of drugs that cause damage such as a certain drug that they inoculate him as such and have him drink as such and which causes this or that illness, and its healing is through this and that, that when the physician who sees these illnesses knew that they administer to him to drink a certain drink and give him contradictory/contrary things that it will save him, but when people became corrupted and they will kill with it, he (i.e., Hezekiah) hid it. But I have not prolonged to speak on this matter, but rather because I heard and also it was explained to me that [King] Solomon composed a book of healing (this is brought by Nachmanides in his Introduction to the Commentary on the Torah) – that if a person became ill with whichever illness that he turned to him and he (i.e., the infirm individual) did like he says he is healed, and Hezekiah saw that the people did not trust in God (see Rashi’s commentary to Tractate Sanhedrin 56a, s.v. "וגנז") in their illness but rather on this book of remedies, he stood up and hid it. And besides the futility/insignificance of this matter and what it has from the delusions/superstitions, here they attributed to Hezekiah and to his adherents that they agreed on the foolishness of this that one cannot attribute its example other than to the worst of the crowd. And according to their confused and stupid imagination, if a person is hungry and turns to the bread and eats it that it will cure him from that great pain without any doubt, shall we say that he has removed his trust from God, and he would say to them that they are fools, for just as I give thanks to God at the time that I eat that He (i.e., God) furnished/provided me to remove my hunger and to keep me alive and preserve me, so too, we should thank Him that He furnished a medicine that cures my illness, and I would not have to contradict this terrible explanation were it not for its popularity.

And it will be explained that it is permitted to intercalate the year every Adar and we make that year with two Adars, and from the general principles that we have, the Adar that is adjacent to Nisan always is lacking (i.e., it has only twenty-nine days – see Tractate Rosh Hashanah 19b) if we rely on the calculation. But if there were two Adars, the first would be thirty days. And Hezekiah came on the thirtieth of Adar and intercalated the year and made the entering month the Second Adar, for if he had not intercalated that year, that thirtieth day of Adar would be the first day of Nisan as we have explained, for surely he intercalated the year on the day that was appropriate to be the beginning of Nisan, and this is prohibited because the general principle among us is that we don’t intercalate the year on the thirtieth of Adar since it is appropriate to establish it as Nisan, and he does not hold by this law meaning to say, that is appropriate to establish it as Nisan (see Tractate Sanhedrin 12b).