Moed Katan 5b — the Talmud in English

It is read

Rabbi Yannai

upon it, concerning that student: “

about that student” “

And he who sets his way—

I shall show him the salvation of God.” Since that student was calculating at what time it was fitting to raise an objection and at what time it was not. [

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: because he calculated that the loss of embarrassing his fellow was greater than the reward he would have from this learning, and all the more so since he could ask afterward.]

The Sages taught: One does not mark

a place of a grave,

neither over

an olive-sized portion from the dead, nor over a barley-grain-sized bone, nor over something that does not impart impurity

through a tent.

But one does mark over the spine and over the skull,

or

over the majority of the structure

of the bones of the skeleton of the dead, such as large bones, even though they are not the majority of the number of his bones.

And

or

over the majority of the number

of the bones of

the dead,

even though they are not the majority of the structure of the skeleton.

And one does not mark over certainties,

which is a place where it is clear and known to everyone that there is impurity. For pure things are not carried there, and therefore it is not necessary to mark it.

But one does mark over doubts.

And these are the doubts

that must be marked, such as

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

And below it will be explained what they are.

And one does not place

the

marking in the place

of the

impurity

itself, but beside it, in order

not to cause the pure things to be lost.

For if he marks only the very place of the impurity, he will not notice it while walking until he reaches the marking, and the pure things will become impure. Therefore he makes the marking around, close to the impurity; and when he reaches it, he will notice and refrain from approaching the impurity.

But

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

more than any amount, in order

not to cause the Land of Israel to be lost.

So that a portion of the Land of Israel should not be considered impure without necessity, since from the place of the marking they withdraw out of fear of impurity.

And we raise an objection:

and

for

does an olive-sized portion from the dead not impart impurity through a tent,

and therefore one does not mark over an olive-sized portion?

But we learned: These are the things that impart impurity through a tent: an olive-sized portion from the dead!?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: Here,

where one does not mark—

we are dealing with an exact olive-sized portion.

An olive-sized portion does indeed impart impurity through a tent. However, an exact olive-sized portion buried in the ground, since

in any event it will ultimately be lacking

in the grave and will again not impart impurity, therefore we say:

It is preferable that they burn over it

now

pure food and consecrated things

that will become impure from the olive-sized portion, because they were not careful concerning it since its place was not marked, but that the possibility of impurity from it should exist only

for the time being,

for as long as it contains an exact olive-sized portion, until it becomes less than an olive-sized portion in the grave, and again does not impart impurity.

And let them not burn over it

pure food and consecrated things

forever.

For if they mark its place, they will burn over it in the future forever without necessity, since it has already become less than an olive-sized portion.

And although because of the marking people withdraw and do not become impure, we are concerned that he may pass over it at night and not see it. And in the morning, when he notices that he passed there, he will burn the teruma without necessity, since it has already become less than an olive-sized portion. But if they do not mark it, he will not burn in the future.

And we explain the latter clause of the beraita:

And these are the doubts: overhanging branches and protruding stones.

Overhanging branches

is

a tree spreading over the ground,

and the impurity of a dead person is found beneath one part of the foliage of the tree, with a space between the parts of the tree. But since it is not known which is the place of the impurity, he marks all of it, so that they withdraw because of the doubt.

Protruding stones,

these are

loose stones projecting from the fence,

one in this direction and one in that direction, while he does not know beneath which stone the grave is found; therefore he marks all of them because of the doubt.

A beit ha-peras—

as we learned: One who plows a grave thereby makes a beit ha-peras,

for through his plowing in every direction the place of the grave spreads, and the impurity is in every place concerning which we are concerned that perhaps the plow carried a barley-grain-sized bone from the grave.

And how much does he make?

A full furrow,

the full length of one furrow of 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 up to one hundred cubits; and in every direction we are concerned for one hundred cubits from the grave, even if he plowed farther [but if he plowed less, we are concerned only for the full furrow at the place of the plowing].

And we raise an objection:

And a beit ha-peras—

does it impart impurity through a tent,

that we need to mark it?

But Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A person may blow through a beit ha-peras and proceed

to slaughter his Paschal offering. For if there is a barley-grain-sized bone there, it will be scattered by the blowing and will not make him impure through moving it. And he is not concerned that perhaps a dead person is still buried there and will make him impure by walking over it through the law of impurity through a tent.

And

so it is also implied from

Rav Yehuda bar Ami in the name of Ulla,

who

said: A beit ha-peras that has been trodden

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

pure.

And from both of them we see that we are concerned only for contact with or moving of a barley-grain-sized bone, and not for impurity through a tent. If so, it is difficult: why do we need to mark a beit ha-peras!?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: It is not difficult.

Here,

where we learned that a beit ha-peras must be marked—

in a field in which a grave was lost

and the field was not plowed. And the doubt of this beit ha-peras is indeed concerning impurity through a tent, since we do not know where the grave is.

Here,

where we learned concerning one who goes to slaughter his Paschal offering, that he blows and proceeds, and likewise where we learned that a field that was trodden is pure, it is speaking

of a field in which a grave was plowed,

where we are not concerned for impurity through a tent, since the plowing broke up the grave; therefore it is not necessary to mark it.

And we are astonished:

and

for

a field in which a grave was plowed—“

a beit ha-peras”

is it called!?

And we answer:

Yes!

And

so

we learned: There are three

kinds of

a beit 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 in the name of Ulla said: A field in which the dead are dismissed.

People who brought dead persons from a distant place for burial in another place part from them there; near the city, the local people receive them, wash them, and bury them. And those who brought them take leave and go.

And what is the reason

that they are concerned for impurity in this place?

Avimi said: Because the owners’ despair was involved in it.

We are concerned that perhaps, since they came from a distant place, a limb became detached from the dead person and fell in the place where they transferred them to the people of the city; and the bearers relied upon the recipients, and conversely, and they left it there.

And for this reason we are uncertain concerning the purity of the place, and we mark it because of those who eat teruma.

And we raise an objection 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

for

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

But it was taught

in the Tosefta that one also marks a plowed beit ha-peras.

For it was taught:

If one found a marked field, and it is not known what its nature is,

whether it is a field in which a grave was plowed, through which one may blow and pass, or a field in which a grave was lost, where blowing is of no avail since it imparts impurity through a tent, as above—the Sages gave that field a sign, to know its law:

If

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

since for the maintenance of the trees it is necessary to plow the field. And one 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 in it.

And it was not plowed, and it conveys impurity through a tent, and blowing does not avail in it .

Rabbi Judah says:

A field is never established as having had a grave plowed in it

until there is there an old man or a scholar

who knows that a grave was plowed in it.

Because not everyone is expert in the matter .

We see from this, at any rate, that even when a grave was plowed in it, they mark it. And this is difficult for Rav Pappa, who said: When it was plowed, it does not require marking, since it does not convey impurity through a tent.

And we answer: Rav Pappa said:

A beit ha-peras that was plowed never requires marking.

And

when that beraita was taught

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

of a field in which a grave was lost, for

because of that

they marked it.

And the entire uncertainty is perhaps, after they marked it, it was also plowed, and the marking is because a grave had previously been lost in it, and therefore they placed the sign in it: if

there are trees in it, it is known that

after they marked it

a grave was plowed in it

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

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

And we challenge:

But let us be concerned

even in a field in which there are trees. For perhaps they plowed for the sake of the trees only between the trees themselves, and

perhaps

there were

trees inside,

inside the field, and only there was the place of the plowing,

and

if the

grave

was

outside, outside the place of the trees, and the place 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 it was not plowed at all; therefore it is prohibited to pass through it by means of blowing. And what proof is there from the fact that there are trees in it that the grave was plowed throughout it?

And we answer:

That is, it is possible that the grave was lost in the area of the field outside and surrounding the trees, and that this area was not plowed at all. Therefore, it is prohibited to pass through it by means of blowing. So what proof is there from the fact that there are trees that the entire field containing the grave was plowed?

As Ulla said,

in tractate Nedarim 42b concerning the Sabbatical year:

when they stand at the boundaries.

Here too,

it is speaking of

standing

the trees

at the boundaries.

And the entire field marked as a beit ha-peras lies between them. Therefore we say that a grave was plowed in it for the sake of the trees.