Moed Katan 5a (ה.) — the Talmud in English

We learned in our Mishna: “And they repair”

the damage to the water channels that are in the public domain:

and they clear them out.

And we infer:

clearing out, yes.

But

digging, no,

because it entails exertion.

Rabbi Yaakov said that Rabbi Yohanan said: They taught

that digging is prohibited

only

in a place

where the public do not need them,

the water pits.

But

if

the public do need them, even digging

of pits

is permitted

for public needs during the intermediate days of the festival.

And we raise an objection to Rabbi Yohanan:

And

when

the public do need them—

is it permitted

to dig them?

But isn’t it taught in a beraita: “They clear out pits, cisterns, and caves

into which stones and pebbles have fallen, and they remove them? And even when the pits are

the property of an individual.

And it is not necessary to say

that they clear out pits

belonging to the public.

But they may not dig pits, cisterns, or caves belonging to the public.

And it is not necessary to say that they may not dig those belonging to an individual,

which is prohibited.

And the Gemara infers:

What, is it not

that the ruling we learned—that it is permitted to clear out and prohibited to dig pits belonging to the public—applies even

when the public need them?

This would be difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who said that if the public need them, it is permitted even to dig.

And we answer:

No.

The beraita prohibited it only

when the public do not need them,

for then it is prohibited to dig even pits belonging to the public.

And we ask: If the entire beraita is speaking of a case where they do not need them, then

similarly,

also

with regard to an individual,

it is speaking of a case

where the individual does not need them.

But when he does not need them,

is clearing them out permitted?!

But isn’t it taught in a beraita: “In the case of pits, cisterns, and caves belonging to an individual, one may collect water into them, but one may not clear them out or smooth over

the cracks and seal them by doing so

?

And in the case of those belonging to the public, one may clear them out and smooth over

the cracks and seal them

by smoothing them over

with lime, so that the water will not escape.

Since the tanna here distinguishes between pits belonging to the public, which may be cleared out, and those belonging to an individual, which may not be cleared out, unlike the earlier beraita, it is necessarily the case that the earlier beraita is speaking of an individual who needs the water pits; that is why clearing them out is permitted. Whereas this beraita is speaking of one who does not need them, and therefore it is prohibited.

For if you say that the earlier beraita, too, is speaking of one who does not need the pit, and nevertheless permits clearing it out, why does this beraita teach that it is prohibited?

And the difficulty returns:

But rather, what

is the meaning of the ruling we learned, that one may clear out a pit belonging to an individual? It is speaking

when the individual needs them,

and

similarly,

the corresponding ruling taught in this beraita

with regard to the public, that one may not dig, is speaking when the public need them.

And it should be difficult:

If

the public need them,

is digging prohibited?!

But isn’t it taught in a beraita: “In the case of pits, cisterns, and caves belonging to an individual—

one may collect water into them and clear them out.

But one may not smooth over their cracks

, nor clear out their interior

, nor coat them with lime.

But

if they belong

to the public,

one may dig them and coat them with lime.

We see that one may dig pits for the public when the public need them.

And we conclude concerning the difficulty:

Rather, this initial beraita is difficult,

as it teaches that one may clear out pits belonging to an individual or to the public, but may not dig pits belonging either to an individual or to the public.

And the difficulty is, whichever way one looks at it: What case is it discussing? If they do not need them, then clearing out should also be prohibited for an individual. And if they do need them, then digging should be permitted for the public as well.

And we answer:

Explain the wording

of the first beraita as follows:

One may clear out pits belonging to an individual when the individual needs them.

And it is not necessary to say that one may clear out those belonging to the public when the public need them, as even digging is permitted.

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

And one may not dig pits, cisterns, or caves

even

those belonging to the public, when the public do not need them.

And it is not necessary to say that this applies to those belonging to an individual, for when the individual does not need them—

even clearing them out is also prohibited.

And this is the meaning of what we find in the earlier beraitot: one may not dig pits belonging to the public, and one may not clear out pits belonging to an individual. They are speaking of cases where they do not need them.

Rav Ashi said: The Mishna also supports this inference,

as it indicates that even digging is permitted if the public need the pit.

For it teaches: “They perform all public needs!”

And the expression

“all”

implies

to include

something additional.

What, is it not

to include digging,

when the public need it?

And we reject the inference from the Mishna:

No.

This “all” refers to another matter.

It comes to include that which is taught in a beraita:

The agents

of the court

go out to remove

the thorns

from the roads, and to repair the streets and the highways,

the markets and the broad, open public thoroughfares.

And they measure the ritual baths.

And any ritual bath that does not contain forty se’a

of water

is supplied with water,

arranging for a water channel to flow into the ritual bath, so that it will not lack

forty se’a.

And from where do we know that if

the agents of the court

did not go out and perform all these tasks, then

the verse considers all blood that was spilled there,

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

as though they themselves had spilled it,

that is, spilled that blood?

The verse states:

“And blood will be upon you.”

And the Gemara refutes this answer:

Does the “all” in the Mishna really come to include the laws found in this beraita?

For

it explicitly teaches them,

these laws:

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

And necessarily, “all”—

what does it come to include?

Is it not to include digging,

which is permitted when it is for public needs?

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from this

that for public needs it is permitted even to dig.

We learned in the Mishna:

They mark the graves.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: From where is there an indication in the Torah for marking graves?

The verse states,

in Ezekiel’s prophecy, that in the future the Jewish people will place markers at the sites of the corpses of the gentiles who will be cast there.

And the verse states:

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

This is not a command, because gentiles do not impart ritual impurity through a tent, and therefore there is no obligation to mark their graves. Rather, the concept of a “marker” for a grave is mentioned in this verse.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This

law concerning marking graves,

before Ezekiel came,

before Ezekiel came and stated it—

who stated it?

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

And we answer:

According to your reasoning,

we find a similar case in

that which Rav Hisda said: “This matter,”

that an uncircumcised priest whose brothers died as a result of circumcision is prohibited from performing the Temple service,

we did not learn from the Torah of Moses our teacher

whether it is permitted or prohibited. Rather, only

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

who said:

“Any foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh—

he shall not enter

My Sanctuary to serve Me.”

And we derive from this that one who performed idolatrous service, whose deeds made him estranged from his Father in Heaven and who is uncircumcised in heart, as well as one whose brothers died as a result of circumcision and who is uncircumcised in flesh, is prohibited from performing the Temple service.

And concerning this matter as well you should wonder:

Before Ezekiel came—

who stated

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

Rather,

the explanation of these laws must be

that they were received as a tradition,

that these laws were learned through tradition, as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, transmitted from one person to another.

And

afterward

Ezekiel came, and

in his prophecy

supported it—the halakha given to Moses at Sinai—

the halakha given to Moses at Sinai

with a verse.

Here too,

with regard to marking graves,

it was received as a 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 a leper:

“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 must make signs indicating 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

[the elder] said:

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

And if so, here too, with regard to the impurity of a corpse, one must provide a sign and mark it, so that people will recognize the impurity and separate themselves from it.

And we raise an objection:

And

does

this

verse concerning a leper

come for this purpose? Does it come to obligate him to mark himself for the public, so that they will separate themselves from him?

But

surely

that

verse

is needed for that which is taught in a beraita:

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

this teaches that he

must publicize his distress, and the public will pray for mercy on his behalf!

From where, then, do we know that he must provide a sign indicating the impurity of a leper, from which marking graves is derived?

And we answer: If this verse came only to teach that the leper should publicize his distress,

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

What is the meaning of

“impure, impure,”

which is written twice?

Learn from this two things: he must provide a sign indicating his impurity, and he must publicize his distress.

that he must place a sign indicating his impurity and that he must inform the public 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 one must make the place of impurity conspicuous, so that those carrying teruma and items of ritual purity will not stumble over it.

Rav Pappa said: From here

we derive it:

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

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

Rav Hinnana said:

We derive it from the latter part of this verse, as it is written:

“Remove the obstacle from the way of My people.”

Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, said:

We derive it from:

“And you shall inform them of the way in which they shall walk.”

Mar Zutra said:

From:

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

For the Aramaic translation of “and you shall separate” is “and you shall cause them to keep apart.” Through the sign, they separate themselves from the impurity.

Rav Ashi said:

From:

“And you shall observe 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 protect them so that they do not come to become impure.

Ravina said:

“And he who sets a way—

I shall show him the salvation of God.”

The explanation is that one should mark which path they should take.

And concerning this verse

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: “Whoever evaluates his ways”

in this world, meaning that he weighs the loss incurred by a mitzva against its reward, and the reward of a transgression against its loss [“sets a way” is understood as an expression of evaluation]—

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

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

As it is stated:

“And he who sets a way.”

Do not read

“and he who sets” as

“and he who evaluates”

[with the letter shin pronounced with the left articulation],

but

“and he who sets

[with the letter shin pronounced with the right articulation]

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 plain 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,

asking questions.

But

on the Shabbat of the Festival,

when a large crowd came to hear the lecture,

he would not raise difficulties to him.

For he was concerned that perhaps Rabbi Yannai would not know how to answer, and would be embarrassed before the public.