Moed Katan 7a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

how far?

What is the distance between them, such that because of the distance the river, without a bridge, is effective in causing the ants on its two sides not to recognize the smell of the earth in the holes on the other side?

A parasang.

A distance that is at least a parasang.

But at less than that, although there is a river separating them, nevertheless they recognize the smell of the earth in the holes on the other side.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says: From an orchard

he hunts

in the usual manner, and from a grain field

he hunts

in an unusual manner.

The Sages taught: How

does he hunt

in the usual manner?

He digs a pit,

and places food in it so that many ichneumons or mice will gather,

and hangs a trap in it,

a snare in which the pests are caught.

How

does he hunt

in an unusual manner?

He drives a stake

into the place where he sees that they are found, and crushes them by pressing the earth in their place.

And

likewise

he strikes with a hoe and flattens the earth beneath it,

and they perish without being caught in a trap. [And the Ran explained this in this manner, and wrote that they die because they do not have the strength to walk in loose earth.]

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: When they said

that the Sages hunt

from a grain field

only

in an unusual manner—

they did not say

that it is forbidden to hunt in the usual manner,

but

only

in a grain field adjacent to the city,

where they cause damage only to this field.

But in a grain field adjacent to an orchard—

it is permitted to hunt

even in the usual manner,

since we are concerned

lest they emerge

the pests

from the grain field and destroy the trees

in the orchard, and for a substantial loss they permitted hunting in the usual manner.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one patches a breach during the intermediate days.

And we explain:

How does he patch it?

Rav Yosef said,

it is permitted to patch it only

with palm branches

—branches of a palm tree—

and

with

laurel branches,

branches of a laurel tree, and he makes the fence from the laurel wood and interweaves it with palm branches.

In a baraita it was taught

that it is also permitted in the manner of

fencing

stones

with stones,

placing one upon another.

But he does not plaster with clay,

for labor is forbidden on the intermediate days except for the need to protect his garden from loss.

Rav Hisda said:

This that we learned, “one patches, but does not build in the usual manner,”—

they taught this only

with

a garden wall,

where he is concerned only that they might enter it, and the damage in it is slight; therefore he was not permitted to build a superior wall there.

But a courtyard wall

that fell,

he builds

a superior wall in its place during the intermediate days

in the usual manner.

For in a courtyard he is concerned about the entry of thieves, who might steal his property, and in a place of substantial loss they permitted it.

Shall we say that this supports him—Rav Hisda—that a courtyard wall that fell is built in the usual manner, from a beraita in the Tosefta:

For it was taught:

As it was taught:

A wall

that is leaning,

bending

—tilting—

toward the public domain—

he demolishes

it

and builds

a new wall in its place during the intermediate days,

in the usual manner because of the danger.

And we initially thought that he builds in the usual manner because it is a courtyard wall.

And we reject this:

There,

with regard to the bending wall, the permission to build it is

as its reason states,

that he is obligated to demolish it

because of the danger,

and therefore he was permitted to build it, so that he would not refrain from demolishing it as required by law.

But there is no proof from here that even a wall that fell may be built in the usual manner.

And there are those who say: Come and hear,

from there proof that it is forbidden to build a courtyard wall that fell in the usual manner.

And this is the precise inference: specifically,

a wall bending toward the public domain—he demolishes and builds it in the usual manner because of the danger.

And it implies:

because of the danger—

yes!

But

not because of the danger—

no,

he was not permitted to build it in the usual manner.

Shall we say that it is a refutation of his view

from the Tosefta concerning the bending wall, against this

of Rav Hisda,

who said that a courtyard wall, even without danger, is built in the usual manner?

And we reject this:

Rav Hisda could say to you: There,

with regard to the bending wall, there is both

demolishing and

also

building.

Therefore it was necessary to state the reason “because of the danger.”

But

here,

with regard to building a courtyard wall during the intermediate days,

he builds and does not demolish.

And it is forbidden to demolish it during the intermediate days in order to build. Only if it fell was he permitted to build it in the usual manner because of concern for a great loss.

And we raise an objection:

There too,

with regard to the bending wall,

let him demolish it but not build it!

For he demolishes it only because of the danger, whereas the building is not necessary to save from danger.

And we answer:

If so,

if they did not permit him to rebuild it immediately—

he would refrain and not demolish it,

and there would be danger. Therefore the building too is performed indirectly for the sake of removing the danger.

Rav Ashi said: The Mishna

our Mishna

also precisely indicates

in accordance with Rav Hisda, that during the intermediate days there is a distinction between a garden wall and a courtyard wall.

For it teaches

in its latter clause:

And in the Sabbatical year he builds in the usual manner.

And one must consider: With regard to a wall

of where

does it speak?

If you say

a wall

of a courtyard,

and is it necessary to say

that it is necessary

to teach that it is permitted to build it in the Sabbatical year? It has no benefit for cultivation of the land or for produce, so what connection does it have to the prohibition of the Sabbatical year?!

Rather, is it not

a wall

of a garden,

in which fruits and vegetables grow,

and

the innovation of the Mishna is that

even though it appears as though he is providing protection for produce,

and it should therefore be forbidden, the Mishna teaches us that it is permitted to patch it because of the loss of the field.

Infer from this

in accordance with Rav Hisda, that the garden wall with which the Mishna is concerned is only patched, whereas a courtyard wall that fell is built in the usual manner during the intermediate days.

Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: They inspect

the priests

the afflictions during the intermediate days. And they tell the afflicted person his ruling only if his ruling is

during the intermediate days of a festival. They tell the afflicted person his status only if the ruling will be

to be lenient,

for when the priest sees that he is pure, he says to him, “You are pure.”

But not to be stringent,

for if the priest sees that he is impure, he does not declare him impure by saying to him, “You are impure,” since the afflicted person is distressed by this, and the Merciful One said, “You shall rejoice on your Festival.”

And the Sages

dispute and

say:

They do not inspect an affliction during the intermediate days

neither for leniency nor for stringency.

And their reason is explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

It was taught: Rabbi Meir says: They inspect afflictions for leniency, but not for stringency.

Rabbi Yosei says: Neither for leniency nor for stringency.

And the reason is:

For if you attend to him to be lenient, you attend to him also to be stringent.

For since the priest sees him, he tells him what his status is, whether impure or pure, since the priest is not permitted to remain silent and not declare impure one whose affliction he has seen as an impure affliction.

Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Meir appear

to me

with regard to a

leper who is

quarantined,

that they inspect him.

And

the words of

Rabbi Yosei appear with regard to a

leper who is

declared afflicted, that they should not inspect him.

For if he tells him that he is pure, he now forbids him marital relations, which had been permitted to him during the days of his being declared afflicted, and he is distressed by this [and it will be explained in the Gemara].

But if he tells him that he is impure, he does not distress him, since he remains in his previous state.

And in this Rabbi Meir holds that he may tell him whether he is impure or pure, since Rabbi Meir holds that companionship with the world is preferable for the leper to his wife.

Rava said:

The authorities in his Mishna did not speak

about one who is

pure,

who is concerned about a new affliction and comes to a priest, for concerning him

everyone agrees that they may not inspect him.

For even if he declares him pure, he will not rejoice him, since he will not bring him from impurity to purity, as no impurity has yet taken effect upon him before the priest establishes that he is afflicted.

And conversely, a metzora who has already been confined

in the first confinement—for everyone agrees that it is permitted to see him .

For if he purifies him, he will rejoice when he emerges from his confinement.

And even if he declares him impure, he does not make him more impure than his present state, for from now on he will only be confined in a second confinement, and will still not be decided.