Moed Katan 5b (ה:) — the Talmud in English

It was read by

Rabbi Yannai

about him, about that student:

about that student, “

And I will show him the way—

I will show him the salvation of God.”

Since that student was calculating at which point it was appropriate to raise a difficulty and at which point it was not.

[And the Ritva explained that he calculated that the loss incurred by embarrassing his fellow was greater than the reward he would receive from this learning, and all the more so since he could ask afterward.]

The Sages taught:

a burial place

is not marked

for an olive-bulk of a corpse, nor for a barley-grain-sized bone, nor for an object that does not convey ritual impurity

through a tent.

However, one marks the spinal column and the skull,

or

the majority of the structure

of the bones of the corpse’s skeleton—for example, large bones—even though they are not the majority by number of its bones.

And

or

the majority by number

of the

corpse’s

bones, even though they are not the majority of the skeleton’s structure.

And one does not mark certain places,

that is, a place where it is clear and known to everyone that there is impurity. For ritually pure items are not carried there, and therefore there is no need to mark it.

But one marks doubtful places.

And these are the doubtful places

that must be marked, such as

overhanging branches, protruding stones, and a bet ha-peras.

The meanings of these terms will be explained below.

And one does not set up

the

marking at the place

of the

impurity

itself, but beside it, in order

not to cause the loss of ritually pure items.

For if he marked only the place of the impurity itself, a person would not notice it while walking until he reached the marking, and the pure items would become impure. Therefore, he makes the marking around the impurity, close to it, so that when he reaches the marking he will notice it and refrain from approaching the impurity.

But

one does not place the marking farther from the place of the impurity

than absolutely necessary, in order

not to cause the loss of the Land of Israel.

This is so that an unnecessary portion of the Land of Israel should not be considered presumptively impure, since people keep away from the place of the marking out of concern for impurity.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

since

an olive-bulk of a corpse does not convey impurity through a tent,

and therefore one does not mark an olive-bulk?

But didn’t we learn in a Mishna: These are the objects that convey impurity through a tent: An olive-bulk from a corpse!?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: Here,

where the ruling is that one does not mark it,

we are dealing with an exact olive-bulk.

An olive-bulk does indeed always convey impurity through a tent. However, when an exact olive-bulk is buried in the ground, since

ultimately it is bound to become deficient

within the grave and will then no longer convey impurity, we say:

It is preferable that they burn because of it

now

teruma and consecrated offerings

that will become impure through the olive-bulk because they were not cautious concerning it, since its location was not marked, but that the possibility of becoming impure through it should exist only

for a short time,

as long as there is an exact olive-bulk, until it becomes less than an olive-bulk in the grave and no longer conveys impurity.

Rather than that they should burn because of it

teruma and consecrated offerings

forever.

For if they marked its location, they would burn because of it forever in the future without need, since it would already have become less than an olive-bulk.

And although because of the marking people would keep away and would not become impure, we are concerned that he might pass over it at night and not see it. In the morning, when he realizes that he passed there, he will burn the teruma unnecessarily, since it has already become less than an olive-bulk. But if they do not mark it, he will not burn it in the future.

And we explain the latter clause of the beraita:

And these are the doubtful places: overhanging branches and protruding stones.

Overhanging branches

are

a tree that overhangs the ground,

with the impurity of a corpse located beneath one part of the tree’s foliage, and with gaps between the parts of the tree. But since it is not known where the impurity is located, the entire area is marked, so that people will keep away because of the doubt.

Protruding stones

are

rough stones protruding from the wall,

one in one direction and another in another direction, and one does not know beneath which stone the grave is located. Therefore, all of them are marked because of the doubt.

A bet ha-peras—

as we learned in a Mishna: One who plows a grave creates a bet ha-peras—

because through plowing in every direction the area of the grave spreads, and impurity is present throughout every place where there is concern that the plow may have carried a barley-grain-sized bone from the grave.

And how much does he make?

A full furrow,

the full length of one furrow made by the plow, up to a distance of

one hundred cubits

from the grave, since we are concerned that the plow carried a barley-grain-sized bone as far as one hundred cubits. In each direction we are concerned about one hundred cubits from the grave, even if he plowed farther [but if he plowed less, we are concerned only with the length of a furrow in the area that was plowed].

And we raise a difficulty:

And a bet ha-peras—

does it convey impurity through a tent,

such that it must be marked?

But Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person may blow through a bet ha-peras and proceed

to slaughter his Paschal offering. For if there is a barley-grain-sized bone there, it will be dispersed by the blowing and will not render him impure through movement. He need not be concerned that a corpse might still be buried there and that he might become impure by walking over it through the impurity conveyed by a tent.

And

so too is implied by

Rav Yehuda bar Ami in the name of Ulla,

who

said: A bet ha-peras that has been trodden

by animals or a person, even though it was not plowed, is

pure.

From both of these statements we see that we are concerned only about contact with or movement of a barley-grain-sized bone, and not about impurity conveyed through a tent. If so, the difficulty is: Why is it necessary to mark a bet ha-peras!?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: It is not difficult.

Here,

where we learned that a bet ha-peras must be marked, it is

a field in which a grave was lost

and the field was not plowed. The doubt concerning this bet ha-peras is indeed one of impurity conveyed through a tent, since we do not know where the grave is located.

Here,

where we learned that one who goes to slaughter his Paschal offering may blow and proceed, and likewise where we learned that a field that has been trodden is pure, we are dealing with

a field in which a grave was plowed,

where there is no concern about impurity conveyed through a tent, since the plowing broke up the grave. Therefore, it need not be marked.

And we are puzzled:

And

if

a field in which a grave was plowed is called “

a bet ha-peras,”

is that what it is called!?

And we answer:

Yes!

And

this is what

we learned in a Mishna: There are three

types of

bet ha-peras: a field in which a grave was lost, a field in which a grave was plowed, and a field of mourners.

And we explain:

What is a “

field of mourners”?

Rav Yehoshua bar Abba said in the name of Ulla: A field in which the dead are dismissed.

People who brought corpses from a distant place for burial elsewhere part from them there. Near the city, the local people receive them, wash them, and bury them, while those who brought them take their leave and depart.

And what is the reason

that impurity is suspected in this place?

Avimi said: They became involved with it because of the owners’ abandonment.

We are concerned that, since they came from a distant place, a limb may have become detached from the corpse and fallen in the place where they handed it over to the townspeople. The bearers relied on those who received it, and the recipients relied on the bearers, and they left it there.

Therefore, we are uncertain about the purity of the place, and it is marked because of those who eat teruma.

And we raise a difficulty against Rav Pappa, who said that only a field in which a grave was lost must be marked, but not one in which a grave was plowed:

And

if

a field in which a grave was plowed does not require a marking,

but it was taught

in the Tosefta that a plowed bet ha-peras is also marked?

For it was taught:

If one found a marked field, and its nature is unknown,

whether it is a field in which a grave was plowed, in which case he may blow and pass through it, or a field in which a grave was lost, in which case blowing will not help, since it conveys impurity through a tent, as stated above—the Sages gave that field a sign by which to know its law:

If

there are trees in it, it is known that a grave was plowed there,

since it is necessary to plow the field in order to maintain the trees. He may pass through it if he blows as he proceeds.

And if

there are no trees in it, it is known that a grave was lost there.

And it was not plowed, and it imparts impurity through tenting, and blowing does not help in it .

Rabbi Yehuda says:

A field is never presumed to have had a grave plowed through it

until there is an elderly person or a disciple

a sage who knows that a grave was plowed through it.

Since not everyone is expert in this matter .

We see, at any rate, that even when a grave was plowed through it, the place is marked. But this is difficult for Rav Pappa, who said: When it was plowed, it need not be marked, since it does not impart impurity through tenting.

And we answer: Rav Pappa said:

A beit hapras that was plowed indeed does not require marking.

But

when that

beraita in the Tosefta states “a marked field” whose nature is unknown, the uncertainty is not whether it was merely plowed or whether a grave was merely lost in it. Rather, it certainly refers

to a field in which a grave was lost, for

that reason

they marked it.

The entire uncertainty is whether, after they marked it, it was also plowed, and the marking was made because a grave had previously been lost in it. Therefore they placed this sign in it: if

there are trees in it, it is known that

after it was marked

a grave was plowed through it

, and if there are no trees in it, it is known that a grave was lost there

and it was not subsequently plowed; therefore it is prohibited without blowing.

And we challenge this:

But let us be concerned

even in a field that has trees. For perhaps they plowed for the sake of the trees only between the trees themselves; and

perhaps

there were

trees inside

the field, and the plowing took place only there,

and if the

grave

was

outside

outside

the area of the trees, and the location of the grave was not plowed at all!

That is to say, it is possible that the grave was lost in the area of the field outside, around the trees, and was not plowed at all. Therefore it is prohibited to pass through it by means of blowing. What proof is there from the presence of trees that the entire grave was plowed?

And we answer:

As Ulla said,

in tractate Nedarim 42b concerning the Sabbatical year:

when they stand at the boundaries.

Here too,

the discussion is

when they stand

the trees

at the boundaries.

The entire field marked as a beit hapras lies between them. Therefore we say that a grave was plowed through it for the sake of the trees.