Moed Katan 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

And we still challenge this:

Perhaps

we should suppose the opposite:

perhaps

the

impurity was inside,

in the center of the field, while the

trees were

outside,

around the field, and the place of the impurity was not plowed; only the area near the trees was plowed.

And we answer:

They were interspersed. The trees were not standing only around the boundaries, but were planted without order throughout the field, and the entire field had to be plowed for their sake. Therefore, the whole field may be rendered permitted by blowing, since the trees demonstrate that the lost grave in it was plowed over.

Alternatively, if you wish, say:

Since they marked the entire field,

we said

above:

One does not distance a marker from the place of impurity

in order

not to forfeit the Land of Israel;

it necessarily follows that the impurity is located throughout the entire field.

And this is why it is considered like a field in which a grave was plowed over: since they are adjacent to the impurity, the place was certainly plowed for their sake, and the area of the grave spread out.

It was taught in the earlier Tosefta:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Until there is an elder or a Torah scholar there, since not everyone is

knowledgeable in the matter.

Abaye said: Learn from this:

Since it says that not everyone is knowledgeable, and a Torah scholar is needed to testify concerning the grave that had been there,

when there is a Torah scholar

in the city—

everything

everything that is done and that takes place

in the city—

is imposed upon him,

meaning that he bears responsibility to know about it and to act.

Rav Yehuda said: If one found a stone

one

marked

with plaster—only the place

beneath it is impure. Since the stone rises above the ground, it is possible to place a marker at the site of impurity, because a person approaching the stone sees the marker before reaching it.

And when we say that one makes a marker adjacent to the impurity so that pure items will not become impure if one does not notice it, that applies when one marks the ground itself.

And if he found

two

marked stones,

if there is plaster

on the ground

between them,

the area also

between them is impure, since the entire area constitutes a marker.

But if there is no plaster between them,

only the area beneath them is impure, while

the area between them is pure.

And even though there is no plowing, meaning that the area between them was never plowed, the area between them is pure if there is no plaster there.

And we challenge this:

But wasn’t it taught

in a Tosefta:

If one found a single marked stone, the area beneath it is impure?

If he found

two, if there is plowing between them, the area between them is pure .

But if not,

meaning that it was not plowed

between them, it is impure,

even if there is no plaster between them, since when he marked both sides, he was not concerned to mark the middle as well.

We see that it is only because there is plowing between them that we say the area between them is pure, contrary to Rav Yehuda!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: Here,

in the Tosefta, which teaches that even when there is no plaster between them the area between them is impure, we are dealing

with plaster poured over the tops

of the stones

that spread

and divided

in both directions.

Therefore, only

if there is plowing between them, the area between them

is pure,

because

we may say: It peeled off because of the plowing: The plaster peeled off because of the plowing carried out between the stones, and it is this plaster that fell between them; it does not constitute a marker for impurity.

But

if not,

meaning that the area between them was not plowed—

It is plaster that was between them!

The plaster came to be between them because of the marking of the impurity,

and

therefore the area between them is

impure.

Rav Yehuda is speaking of a case in which there was no plaster between them at all; therefore, the area is pure.

Rav Asi said: If he found only

one

marked boundary—

it is impure, while the entire field is pure,

for one does not distance a marker from the place of impurity.

And likewise, if he found

two

marked boundaries—

they are impure, while the entire field is pure.

Likewise, if he found

three

marked boundaries,

they are impure, while the entire field is pure.

But if he found a field whose

four

boundaries were marked,

they are pure,

because the marker was made adjacent to the impurity, rather than over it,

and

if so,

the entire field is impure. This is why all its boundaries were marked around it.

And the reason that the entire field is impure, rather than saying that those who marked it distanced the markers from the impurity and that the edges of the field are therefore pure, is as follows:

For the Master said: One does not distance a marker from the place of impurity, in order not to forfeit the Land of Israel.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they go out even concerning diverse kinds.

And we challenge this:

And

why,

concerning diverse kinds—

do we go out on the intermediate days of the Festival?

And we juxtapose a contradiction,

from what we learned in Tractate Shekalim, where a different time was established for going out on their account.

On the first of Adar—

They announce concerning the shekels.

The court proclaims that people should bring shekels to the Temple for the communal offerings.

And concerning diverse kinds,

meaning that the court announces that they must be uprooted, since by then the plants have grown somewhat and it is discernible where diverse kinds are present.

On the fifteenth of that month,

Adar—

They read the Megilla in the walled cities,

those walled from the days of Joshua, son of Nun.

And they go out to clear the roads and repair the streets,

since the rainy season has ended and they begin preparing for the arrival of the pilgrims.

And to inspect the ritual baths,

so that they do not lack the requisite measure, and to clean them of the mud of winter.

And they carry out all the needs of the public.

And they mark the graves.

And they go out concerning diverse kinds.

This indicates that they uproot them already on the fifteenth of Adar; why, then, do they go out again on the intermediate days of the Festival? [

The Gemara’s question concerns diverse kinds that had already been uprooted, since the other public needs and the repairs to the roads and ritual baths could deteriorate again in the interim. Therefore, they return to attend to them on the intermediate days of the Festival—Rashi.]

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina

disagreed in their answers to the question:

One said: Here,

where they go out on the fifteenth of Adar, it is

early growth,

which grows early, while

here,

where they go out on the intermediate days of the Festival, it is

late growth,

which grows late.

And one said: Here,

where they go out on the fifteenth of Adar, it is

grain,

the crop that grows before vegetables, while

here,

where they go out on the intermediate days of the Festival, it is

vegetables,

which grow during the period of Passover.

Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

As for what we learned, that they go out only in Adar and Nisan,

they taught this only when the bud is not discernible

before then.

But when the bud is discernible, they go out concerning them,

even before the periods in Adar and Nisan.

The Gemara explains:

What is different

that specifically

on the intermediate days of the Festival do we go out,

when the buds are already discernible at the beginning of Nisan?

Rabbi Yaakov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Because of the wages of the labor,

since the court must hire workers. It is preferable to hire them on the intermediate days of the Festival, because

they lower their prices for us,

as there is no other work available, and because of the lack of demand the workers are hired cheaply.

Rav Zevid, and some say Rav Mesharshiyya, said: Learn

from this,

from the fact that it is necessary to hire workers for the court at a low wage, that

when we give them wages

for uprooting diverse kinds,

we give them from the chamber collection,

and therefore it is necessary to economize with consecrated funds.

If it enters your mind that we pay them from their funds,

that everyone with kilayim in his possession must pay the wages of the workers who uproot it—

what difference does it make to us what happens to them!?

We need not be concerned about the money of the sinners; rather, let the agents go out on weekdays, and the owners of the kilayim—

however much they demand,

the workers

will have to pay them!

And

this that we require kilayim to be uprooted—

up to what measure

is its measure for rendering the field forbidden through its mixture?