Moed Katan 7a (ז.) — 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 opposite side?

A parasang.

A distance of at least one parasang.

But at a distance of less than a parasang, even though a river separates them, they nevertheless recognize the smell of the earth in the holes on the opposite side.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: From an orchard,

one may hunt in

the ordinary manner, and from a white field

one may hunt

in an uncustomary manner.

The Sages taught: How

does one hunt

in the ordinary manner?

He digs a pit,

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

and he suspends a trap in it,

a snare in which the pests are caught.

How

does one hunt

in an uncustomary manner?

He drives a stake

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

And

likewise,

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

and they perish without being caught in a trap. [And the Ran explained similarly, and wrote that they die because they have no strength to move through loose soil.]

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: When the Sages said

that one may hunt

from a white field

only

in an uncustomary manner—

they did not say

that it is forbidden to hunt in the ordinary manner,

but

only

in a white field adjacent to the city,

where the damage is caused only to this field.

But in a white field adjacent to an orchard—

it is permitted to hunt

even in the ordinary manner,

since we are concerned

lest

the pests

leave the white field and destroy the trees in the orchard, and in a case of substantial loss they permitted hunting in the ordinary manner.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may fence a breach during the intermediate days of the festival.

And we explain:

How does one fence it?

Rav Yosef said:

It is permitted to fence it only

with palm branches—

branches of a palm tree—

and

with

laurel branches,

branches of a laurel tree; 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

building

stones

stone upon stone,

placing one on top of another.

But he does not plaster it with clay,

as labor is forbidden on the intermediate days of the festival except to the extent necessary to protect his garden from loss.

Rav Ḥisda said:

This that we learned, “One may fence a breach, but he may not build in the ordinary manner”—

they taught this only

with regard to

a garden wall,

since he is concerned only that people should enter it, and the damage there is minor; therefore, he was not permitted to build a proper wall there.

But a courtyard wall

that has fallen,

he may build

a proper wall in its place during the intermediate days of the festival

in the ordinary manner.

For in the courtyard he is concerned that thieves may enter and steal his property, and in a case of substantial loss they permitted it.

Can it be said that this supports

Rav Ḥisda—that a courtyard wall that has fallen may be built in the ordinary manner—from a beraita in the Tosefta?

As it was taught:

A wall

that is leaning,

that projects

and inclines

toward the public domain—

he demolishes

it

and builds

a new wall in its place during the intermediate days of the festival,

in the ordinary manner, because of the danger.

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

And we reject this:

There,

with regard to a projecting wall, the permission to build it

is in accordance with the stated reason,

that he must demolish it

because of the danger; therefore, he was permitted to rebuild 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 has fallen may be rebuilt in the ordinary manner.

But there is no proof from here that one may also rebuild a wall that collapsed in the usual manner.

Some say: Come and hear,

from here a proof that it is forbidden to build a courtyard wall that has fallen in the ordinary manner.

And this is how they infer it: Only

a wall projecting toward the public domain is demolished and rebuilt in the ordinary manner because of the danger.

And it implies:

Because of the danger—

yes!

But

when it is not because of the danger—

no,

he was not permitted to rebuild it in the ordinary manner.

Can it be said that it constitutes a refutation of Rav Ḥisda—from the Tosefta concerning the projecting wall, against

Rav Ḥisda’s

statement that a courtyard wall may be built in the ordinary manner even without danger?

And we reject this:

Rav Ḥisda could say to you: There,

with regard to the projecting wall, both

demolition and

rebuilding

are involved.

Therefore, a reason of “because of the danger” was necessary.

But

here,

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

he builds but does not demolish.

It is forbidden to demolish it during the intermediate days in order to rebuild it. Only when it has fallen was he permitted to rebuild it in the ordinary manner because of concern for a substantial loss.

And we challenge this:

There too,

with regard to the projecting wall,

in the case of a leaning wall,

let him demolish it but not rebuild it!

After all, he demolishes it only because of the danger, while rebuilding it is not necessary to save him from danger.

And we answer: If so,

he would not permit rebuilding it immediately—

he would refrain and not demolish it,

and there would be danger. Therefore, the construction too is indirectly for the purpose of removing the danger.

Rav Ashi said: Our Mishna

—

our Mishna—

also demonstrates

the view of Rav Ḥisda, that during the intermediate days of the festival there is a distinction between a garden wall and a courtyard wall.

As it teaches

in its latter clause:

And during the Sabbatical Year, he builds in the ordinary manner.

And this must be examined: With regard to

which wall

is it speaking?

If you say

it is a wall

of a courtyard,

is it necessary to say

that it is permitted to build it during the Sabbatical Year? It has no benefit for agricultural work or produce, so what connection does it have to the prohibition of the Sabbatical Year?

Rather, is it not

a wall

of a garden,

where fruits and vegetables grow,

and the Mishna’s innovation is that

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

and it should therefore be prohibited, since the produce must be declared ownerless, the Mishna informs us that it is permitted to fence it because of the loss to the field.

even though it appears as though he is guarding the produce,

which should be prohibited because he must declare the produce ownerless, the Mishna teaches us that it is permitted to fence the breach because of the potential loss to the field.

Infer from this

that the halakha is in accordance with Rav Ḥisda: The garden wall discussed by the Mishna may only be fenced, while a courtyard wall that has fallen may be built in the ordinary manner during the intermediate days of the festival.

Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: The priests examine

the

afflictions

during the intermediate days of the festival. And they tell the afflicted person his status only when his status is

to be lenient: When the priest sees that he is pure, he says to him, “You are pure.”

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

But not in order to be stringent,

for if the priest sees that he is impure, he does not render him impure by saying to him, “You are impure,” since this causes the afflicted person distress, and the Merciful One said: “You shall rejoice in your festival.”

And the Sages

disagree and

say:

One does not examine an affliction during the intermediate days of the festival

neither in order to be lenient nor in order to be stringent.

Their reason is explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Meir says: One examines afflictions in order to be lenient, but not in order to be stringent.

Rabbi Yosei says: Neither in order to be lenient nor in order to be stringent.

And the reason is:

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

Since the priest examines him, he tells him what his status is, whether impure or pure, because the priest is not permitted to remain silent and fail to render impure one whose affliction he sees as an impure affliction.

Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Meir appear

to me

with regard to a

leper who is

confined,

for he is examined.

And

the words of Rabbi Yosei

appear with regard to a

leper who is

confirmed,

for he is not examined.

For if he tells him that he is pure, he thereby forbids him from then on to engage in marital relations, which had been permitted to him during the period when he was confirmed, and this causes him distress [as will be explained in the Gemara].

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

In this regard, Rabbi Meir holds that he may tell him whether he is impure or pure, since Rabbi Meir holds that companionship with the world is more beneficial for the leper than his wife.

Rava said:

The tanna’im in the Mishna were not speaking

about a pure person

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

everyone agrees that he is not examined.

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

And conversely, with regard to a metzora who has already been confined

during the first confinement, everyone agrees that he may be examined .

For if he declares him pure, 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, since from that point he will merely be confined in a second confinement, and will not yet be declared definitively impure.