Moed Katan 5a — the Talmud in English

We learned in our Mishna: And they repair ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

the damaged water channels in the public domain

and dig them out.

And we deduced:

Digging out—yes.

But

digging—not.

Because it is exertion.

Rabbi Yaakov said that Rabbi Yohanan said: They taught

that digging is forbidden

only

in a place

where the many do not need them

—the water pits.

But

if the

many need them, even digging

of pits

is permitted

for the needs of the many on the intermediate days of the festival.

And we challenge Rabbi Yohanan:

And is it so

that when

the many need them—

is it permitted

to dig them?

But it was taught in a beraita: They dig out pits, cisterns, and caves

into which stones and pebbles have fallen, and clear them out. And even if the pits are

of an individual.

And it is not necessary to say

that they dig out pits

of the many.

But they do not dig pits, cisterns, and caves of the many.

And it is not necessary to say those of an individual

that it is forbidden.

And the Gemara deduces:

What, is it not

that this which we learned—that it is permitted to dig out and forbidden to dig in the case of those belonging to the many—means even

when the many need them?

And this is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who said that if the many need them, it is permitted even to dig.

And we answer:

No.

The beraita prohibited it only

when the many do not need them,

for then it is forbidden to dig even pits of the many.

And we ask: If the entire beraita is speaking when they do not need them, then

correspondingly

also

regarding an individual,

it is speaking when

the individual does not need them.

But when he does not need them,

is digging out permitted!?

But it was taught in a beraita: In the case of pits, cisterns, and caves of an individual: They collect water into them, but they do not dig them out and do not smooth

—they smooth and seal by this means—

their cracks.

And those of the many: They dig them out, and smooth

—smooth and seal—

their cracks

with lime, so that the water should not escape.

And from the fact that the tanna teaches here a distinction between pits of the many, which they dig out, and those of an individual, which they do not dig out, unlike the beraita above, it necessarily follows that above it is speaking when the individual needs the water pits; and therefore it is permitted. Whereas here it is speaking when he does not need them, and therefore it is forbidden.

For if you say that above as well it is speaking when he does not need the pit, and nevertheless they dig it out, why in this beraita was it taught that it is forbidden?

And again the difficulty returns:

Rather, what

is this which we learned—that they dig out a pit of an individual—speaking about? It is speaking

when the individual needs them,

and

correspondingly,

and similarly, this which was taught

regarding the many, that they do not dig, is when the many need them.

And it is difficult:

If

When the many need them—

is digging forbidden!?

But it was taught in a beraita: Pits, cisterns, and caves of an individual—

they collect water into them and dig them out.

But they do not smooth their cracks

, nor dig deeply into them

, nor coat them with lime.

And

if they are

of the many—

they dig them and coat them with lime.

We see that they dig pits for the many when the many need them.

And we conclude regarding the difficulty:

Rather, this first one remains difficult,

for it was taught there that they dig out those of an individual and of the many, but they do not dig those of an individual or of the many.

And it is difficult: whichever way you look at it, what is it speaking about? If they do not need them, then digging out should also be forbidden for an individual. And if they need them, then it should be permitted for the many even to dig.

And we answer:

Explain the wording thus,

the wording of the first beraita:

They dig out pits of an individual when the individual needs them.

And it is not necessary to say those of the many when the many need them, for even digging is permitted .

And again there is no difficulty for Rabbi Yohanan, who said that they taught that digging is forbidden only when they do not need them, as above.

But they do not dig pits, cisterns, and caves

even

of the many, when the many do not need them.

And it is not necessary to say those of an individual, for when the individual does not need them—

even digging out is also forbidden .

And this is what we find in the beraitot above: They do not dig pits of the many, and they do not dig out pits of an individual. For it is speaking when they do not need them.

Rav Ashi said: The Mishna as well is precise,

that even digging is permitted if the many need the pit.

For it teaches: They perform all the needs of the many!

And the wording

“all”

indicates

to include

another matter.

What, is it not—

to include digging,

when the many need it?

And we reject the deduction from the Mishna:

No.

This “all” comes for another matter.

To include that which was taught in a beraita:

They go out,

the agents of the court,

to clear

—to remove thorns—

the roads, and to repair the streets and the wide thoroughfares,

markets and large, open public roads.

And to measure the ritual baths.

And every ritual bath in which there are not forty se'a

of water—

they cause water to flow into it,

establishing that a water channel should flow into the ritual bath, so that it should not lack

forty se'a.

And from where

do we know that if the agents of the court do not go out

and perform all these things—

all blood that was spilled there,

on the roads and in the city, because of thorns and the hazards of the roads,

Scripture considers it as though they spilled it,

that they spilled it?

The verse states:

“And there shall be bloodguilt upon you.”

And the Gemara refutes the rejection:

And does the “all” of the Mishna come to include the laws in this beraita?

And

it explicitly teaches it,

these laws:

“And they repair the roads, the streets, and the ritual baths, and they perform all the needs of the many.”

And necessarily, “all”—

to include what?

Is it not to include digging,

which is permitted when it is for the needs of the many?

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it

that for the needs of the many it is permitted even to dig.

We learned in the Mishna:

They mark the graves.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: A hint for marking graves from the Torah—from where?

The verse states,

in the prophecy of Ezekiel, that in the future Israel will make markings at the places of the corpses of the nations cast down.

And the verse says:

“And he sees a human bone and builds a marker beside it.”

And this is not a command, for gentiles do not impart impurity through a tent, and therefore they are not obligated to mark their graves; but a remembrance of the concept of a “marker” for a grave is mentioned in this verse .

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This,

the law of marking graves,

before Ezekiel came,

before Ezekiel came and stated it—

who stated it?

And if it is from the Torah, the Holy One, blessed be He, should have informed us of it, so that all the generations before Ezekiel would also know it.

And we answer:

And according to your reasoning,

we find something similar in

that which Rav Hisda said: This matter,

that an uncircumcised man whose brothers died because of circumcision is forbidden to perform the Temple service,

we did not learn from the Torah of Moses our teacher

whether it is permitted or forbidden. Only

from the words of Ezekiel son of Buzi did we learn,

who said:

“Every foreign son, uncircumcised of heart and uncircumcised of flesh—

he shall not enter

My Sanctuary to serve Me.”

And we derive from it that one who performed idolatrous service, whose deeds made him estranged from his Father in Heaven and who became uncircumcised of heart, and likewise one whose brothers died because of circumcision and who is uncircumcised of flesh, is forbidden to perform the service in the Temple.

And regarding this matter as well you must wonder:

Before Ezekiel came—

who stated

this!? And why did the Holy One, blessed be He, not inform us of this law before Ezekiel arrived?

Rather,

the explanation of these laws is necessarily that

they were received by tradition,

that these laws were learned through tradition, a law given to Moses at Sinai, which passed from one person to another.

And

afterward

Ezekiel came, and

in his prophecy

supported it

—the law given to Moses at Sinai—

with a verse .

Here too,

in the matter of marking graves,

it was received by tradition.

And Ezekiel came and supported it with a verse.

Rabbi Abbahu said: From here

we derive the marking of graves from the Torah:

It is written concerning one afflicted with scale disease:

“And he shall call out: Impure, impure.”

And we explain:

“The impurity calls out to him and says to him: Separate yourself!”

That is, he should make signs that he is impure, so that people will notice him and separate themselves from him .

And likewise Rabbi Uzziel bar the son of Rabbi Uzziel the Great said [

the great]:

“The impurity calls out to him and says to him: Separate yourself.”

And if so, here too, regarding corpse impurity, one must provide a sign and make a marker for it, so that people will notice the impurity and separate themselves.

And we challenge:

And

is

this

verse concerning one afflicted with scale disease

coming for this?

Is it coming to obligate him to mark it for the public, so that they should separate themselves from him?

But

that

verse

is needed for that which was taught in a beraita:

“And he shall call out: Impure, impure”—

it teaches that he

must inform the many of his distress, and the many will request mercy for him!

And from where do we know that he must provide a sign for the impurity of one afflicted with scale disease, from which the marking of graves is learned?

And we answer: If this verse came only to teach that the one afflicted with scale disease should inform the many of his distress,

then it should have written, “And the impure shall call out.”

What is

“impure, impure”

written twice?

You learn from it two things:

that he should provide a sign for his impurity, and that he should inform the many of his distress.

Abaye said: From here

we derive the marking of graves:

“And before the blind you shall not place a stumbling block.”

And from here it may be learned that they must make the place of impurity conspicuous, so that those carrying teruma and pure items should not stumble over it .

Rav Pappa said: From here

we derive it:

“And he shall say: Clear, clear, make the way.”

That is, one must prepare a clear path on which those who eat teruma can walk, because they require a path clear of impurity.

Rav Hinena said:

From the latter part of this verse we derive it, for it is written:

“Raise up the stumbling block from the way of My people.”

Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, said:

We derive it from

“And you shall make known to them the way in which they shall walk.”

Mar Zutra said:

From

“And you shall separate the Children of Israel from their impurity.”

For the translation of “and you shall separate” is “and you shall cause to separate.” And through the sign they separate themselves from the impurity.

Rav Ashi said:

From

“And you shall guard My charge.”

And we expound:

“Make a safeguard for My safeguard.”

That is, make a safeguard for those who eat teruma, concerning whom it is written, “the safeguard of My teruma,” and guard them so that they do not come to impurity.

Ravina said:

“And he who places a way—

I shall show him the salvation of God.”

And its explanation is that one must place a sign indicating on which way they should walk.

And concerning this verse

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whoever evaluates his paths

in this world, meaning that he weighs the loss of a mitzva against its reward and the reward of a transgression against its loss [“and he who places” is an expression of valuation]—

merits and sees the salvation of the Holy One, blessed be He,

for certainly he is completely righteous, and no sin comes through his hand [Ritva].

As it is stated:

“And he who places a way.”

Do not read

“and he who places”

[with the letter shin pronounced as sin],

but

but

“and he who evaluates”

[with the letter shin pronounced as shin]

a way—

“I shall show him the salvation of God.”

That is, he sees the salvation that God brings about for Israel.

Or, according to its simple meaning, since the salvation of Israel is the salvation of the Holy One, blessed be He [Ritva].

Rabbi Yannai had a certain student who every day would raise difficulties to him

—questions.

But

on the Shabbat of the festival lecture,

when a large public came for the discourse,

he would not raise difficulties to him.

For he was concerned lest Rabbi Yannai not know how to answer and be embarrassed before the public .