Daf Yomi Moed Katan 20b: Mourning because of his wife's honor

I initially found this gemara troublesome, but I think the answer is apparent. I thought to write down my thoughts, though, and to point out the obvious.

Moed Katan 20b:

ולא אמרו בכבוד אשתו אלא חמיו וחמותו אבל אחי אשתו או אחותו לא
דתניא מי שמת חמיו וחמותו אינו רשאי לכוף את אשתו להיות כוחלת ולהיות פוקסת אלא כופה מטתו ונוהג עמה אבלות וכן היא שמת חמיה וחמותה אינה רשאה להיות כוחלת ולהיות פוקסת אלא כופה מטתה ונוהגת עמו אבלות
ותניא אידך אף על פי שאמרו אינו רשאי לכוף את אשתו באמת אמרו מוזגת לו את הכוס ומצעת לו את המטה ומרחצת פניו ידיו ורגליו
קשיאן אהדדי אלא לאו ש"מ כאן בחמיו וחמותו וכאן בשאר קרובים שמע מינה
תנ"ה לא אמרו בשביל כבוד אשתו אלא חמיו וחמותו בלבד

And they only said that {he should maintain mourning} for his wife's honor regarding {the death of} his father-in-law and mother-in-law, but for his brother-in-law or sister-in-law, no.
For they learnt {in a brayta}: One whose father-in-law or mother-in-law died is not permitted to force his wife to apply kohl to her eyes or to arrange her hair, but rather he overturns his mattress and practices mourning with her. And so too she, where her father-in-law or mother-in-law died, is not permitted to apply kohl to her eyes or to arrange her hair, but rather she overturns her mattress and practices mourning with him.
And another brayta states: Even though they said that he is not permitted to force his wife {to apply kohl, etc.}, in truth {often = halacha lemoshe miSinai} they said that she mixes for him the cup and arranges for him the bed, and washes his face, hands, and feet.
These appear to contradict one another? Rather do we not derive from this that here it is for his father-in-law and mother-in-law, and here is for other relatives. We indeed so deduce.
A brayta also says so: They only said {he should maintain mourning} for his wife's honor for his father-in-law and mother-in-law.

This is the setama digmara's resolution of the difficulty. But the resolution is hard to swallow, for the second brayta explicitly makes mention of the laws of the first, stating "Even though they said that he is not permitted to force his wife..." The resolution would be that it is talking about a different list of activities, not that it is talking of mourning for different people!

This is only if you don't read it carefully, though. The contradiction the setama is pointing out is not whether one forces his wife to apply kohl to her eyes, etc., but rather what he himself is doing in terms of keeping mourning. In the first brayta, it states אלא כופה מטתו ונוהג עמה אבלות, "but rather he overturns his mattress and practices mourning with her." In the second brayta, he once again may not force her to apply kohl, etc., but he clearly is not practicing mourning with her, and indeed, they said מוזגת לו את הכוס ומצעת לו את המטה ומרחצת פניו ידיו ורגליו, "that she mixes for him the cup and arranges for him the bed, and washes his face, hands, and feet." Thus he is not keeping mourning. Perhaps it is really a machloket. But given that other brayta that made the distinction between her parents and other relatives, such that only for her parents does he keep mourning for his wife's honor, it is a pretty safe bet that the other brayta was working from a base case of the death of one of her other relatives.

This is pashut peshat and no chiddush, but just something I wanted to speak it out.

Update: Though perhaps one can make a distinction based on the content rather than identities. In the first perek of Taanit we learn:

והלכתא אבל אסור בין בחמין בין בצונן ופניו ידיו ורגליו בחמין אסור בצונן מותר ולסוך אפילו כל שהוא אסור להעביר את הזוהמא מותר:

This that they said that he is forbidden to wash, there is no distinction between washing with hot or washing with cold, for we learned in Taanit, in the first perek: And the halacha is that a mourner is forbidden {to wash his body}, whether with hot or cold, and his face, and his face, hands and feet, with hot it is forbidden and with cold it is permitted. And to anoint, even any amount, is forbidden; to remove the sweat, it is permitted.

Thus the washing of his face, hands and feet, is perhaps permitted him assuming she did it with cold water. On the other hand, she is setting up his bed as opposed to him overturning his bed. This is perhaps the best proof that not, for that is the only direct contradiction. In terms of mixing his drink, perhaps that it not one of the things forbidden him in this sympathetic mourning. The simplest, though, is as the setama suggests, based on identity rather than actions.