Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 17, 2022 | 讟状讜 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘

This month鈥檚 shiurim are dedicated by Efrat Arnold in loving memory of Joshua Carr, Yehoshua Aryeh Leib ben Yonatan Chaim and Malka Esther HaCohen.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of their children and grandchildren.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Moed Katan 5

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Rabbanit Sara Hene Rabinowitz Geffen on her yahrzeit. 鈥淪he and her husband Rav Tuvia Geffen, Rabbi of Shearith Israel in Atlanta, brought up their 8 children in a life of learning. Seven of her grandchildren live in Israel.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Talia Kirshenbaum in honor of Arielle Frankston Morris. 鈥淭hank you for encouraging and inspiring us to jump back on the daf yomi bandwagon for Masechet Megillah. Tizki le’Mitzvot!鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Vered Wexler in loving memory of her grandmother, Morti Margret Renta Sara Bat Lilu.

One can fix a water channel that is broken but can one dig a new one on chol hamoed if it is needed for the public? Rabbi Yaakov in the name of Rabbi Yochanan permits, however, a question is raised against him from a braita that clearly states that digging is not permitted. However, it is unclear if the braita is referring to a case where it is needed by the public or not.聽 There are different ways to read the braita. Can our Mishna provide support for Rabbi Yochanan as well? Where is the source in the Torah for the need to make a sign on a grave for kohanim to know not to pass over there? There are many different verses brought to answer this question. Places that have impurity that can be imparted by a tent need marking but not ones that only pass on impurity through touching or carrying. One cannot place markers on chol hamoed if it is clear to all there is a grave there. But if there is a doubt, such as overhanging trees and rocks, and a beit hapras, then markers can be put up on chol hamoed. What are the cases of overhanging trees and rocks and a beit hapras? There are three cases that can be considered a beit hapras. Rav Papa thinks that not all cases of a beit hapras require markers. Which one does not? Why?聽

拽讬诇拽讜诇讬 讛诪讬诐 砖讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讞讟讬讟讛 讗讬谉 讞驻讬专讛 诇讗

damaged water cisterns in the public domain and clean them out by removing the dirt and sediment that has accumulated in them. The Gemara infers: Cleaning out the cisterns of dirt and sediment during the intermediate days of a Festival is indeed permitted, but digging a new cistern is not permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讘诇 专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讞驻讬专讛 诪讜转专

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They taught that it is prohibited to dig new cisterns only when the public does not need them; but if the public needs them, even digging new cisterns is permitted.

讜讻讬 专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐 诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讜讟讟讬谉 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讞讜驻专讬谉 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐

The Gemara asks: And when the public needs them, is digging really permitted? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One may clean out cisterns, ditches, and caves of an individual during the intermediate days of a Festival, and, needless to say, one may clean out those of the public. But one may not dig new cisterns, ditches, or caves of the public during the intermediate days of a Festival, and, needless to say, one may not dig those of an individual. What, is it not so that this baraita is referring to a case where the public needs them, but nevertheless digging new cisterns, ditches, and caves is prohibited?

诇讗 讘砖讗讬谉 专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐

The Gemara rejects this opinion: No, this baraita is referring to a case where the public does not need them.

讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 讬讞讬讚 砖讗讬谉 讬讞讬讚 爪专讬讱 诇讛诐 讞讟讬讟讛 诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讻讜谞住讬谉 诪讬诐 诇转讜讻谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞讜讟讟讬谉 讜诇讗 砖驻讬谉 讗转 住讚拽讬讛谉 讜砖诇 专讘讬诐 讞讜讟讟讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜砖驻讬谉 讗转 住讚拽讬讛谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: It would follow that in the corresponding situation with regard to the cisterns of an individual, the baraita is referring to a case where the individual does not need them. But in that case, is cleaning them out really permitted? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One may gather water into the cisterns, ditches, and caves of an individual, but one may not clean them out or plaster their cracks; but for those of the public, one may indeed clean out and plaster their cracks? This indicates that on the intermediate days of a Festival, unneeded cisterns belonging to an individual may not even be cleaned out.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘砖讬讞讬讚 爪专讬讱 诇讛诐 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 专讘讬诐 讘砖专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐 讞驻讬专讛 诪讬 讗住讬专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讻讜谞住讬谉 诪讬诐 诇转讜讻谉 讜讞讜讟讟讬谉 讗讜转谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖驻讬谉 讗转 住讚拽讬讛谉 讜诇讗 讞讜讟讟讬谉 诇转讜讻谉 讜诇讗 住讚讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘住讬讚 讜砖诇 专讘讬诐 讞讜驻专讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜住讚讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘住讬讚

The Gemara rejects this difficulty: Rather, to what case does the first baraita refer? Is it referring to a case where the individual needs the cisterns? If so, then in the corresponding situation with regard to cisterns of the public, the baraita would be referring to a case where the public needs them. But in that case, is digging new cisterns really prohibited? Isn鈥檛 it taught in yet another baraita: One may gather water into cisterns, ditches, and caves of an individual, and one may clean them out, but one may not plaster their cracks, clear earth into them in order to fill in the cracks, or lime them with lime so that they hold water. But with regard to those of the public, one may even dig them out and lime them with lime. Therefore, in a case where the public needs them, it is permitted to dig out public cisterns.

讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讞讜讟讟讬谉 讘讜专讜转 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讘砖讬讞讬讚 爪专讬讱 诇讛诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖诇 专讘讬诐 讻砖专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讞驻讬专讛 诪讜转专

But if so, the first baraita, which states that one may not dig new cisterns even for the public, is difficult, as it is contradicted by this last baraita. The Gemara explains: Answer the difficulty and explain the first baraita as follows: One may clean out cisterns, ditches, and caves of an individual during the intermediate days of a Festival when the individual needs them; and needless to say, one may clean out those of the public when the public needs them, as even digging new cisterns is permitted when the public needs them.

讜讗讬谉 讞讜驻专讬谉 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讘砖讗讬谉 专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讚讻讬 讗讬谉 讬讞讬讚 爪专讬讱 诇讛诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讟讬讟讛 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

But one may not dig cisterns, ditches and caves for the public when the public does not need them. And needless to say, one may not dig them for an individual, as when an individual does not need the cisterns on the intermediate days of a Festival, even cleaning them out is prohibited. In this way all of the seemingly contradictory sources can be reconciled.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 注讜砖讬谉 讻诇 爪讜专讻讬 专讘讬诐 讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞驻讬专讛

Rav Ashi said: The wording of the mishna is also precise, indicating that when there is a public need for such cisterns, they may be dug even on the intermediate days of a Festival. As it teaches: One may tend to all other public needs. What does the word all come to add that was not stated explicitly? Does it not come to add the digging of cisterns, which is permitted?

诇讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇拽讜讜抓 讗转 讛讚专讻讬诐 讜诇转拽谉 讗转 讛专讞讜讘讜转 讜讗转 讛讗住讟专讟讗讜转 讜诇诪讜讚 讗转 讛诪拽讜讗讜转 讜讻诇 诪拽讜讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪专讙讬诇讬谉 诇转讜讻讜 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛

The Gemara rejects this opinion: No, the word all comes to add that which is taught in the following baraita: On the intermediate days of a Festival, agents of the court go out to clear thorns from the road, and to repair the city streets and highways [isterata鈥檕t], and to measure the ritual baths to ascertain that they have the requisite quantity of water. And if any ritual bath does not contain forty se鈥檃, the minimal measure for ritual purification, they direct [margilin] a stream of water into it, such that it flows over the ground before entering the bath, so as not to disqualify the water as drawn water until it holds forty se鈥檃 of water.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 诇讗 讬爪讗讜 讜注砖讜 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讻诇 讚诪讬诐 砖谞砖驻讻讜 砖诐 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讛诐 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讛诐 砖驻讻讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 注诇讬讱 讚诪讬诐

And from where is it derived that if agents of the court did not go out and do all these repairs, that with regard to any blood that is shed there on account of their negligence, the verse ascribes to them guilt as if they had shed it? The verse states with regard to the cities of refuge that offer protection to someone who committed inadvertent manslaughter: 鈥淭hat innocent blood be not shed in your land, which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, and so blood be upon you鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:10). The Gemara maintains that the mishna uses the word all to allude to the cases mentioned in this baraita, and not to the digging of public cisterns.

讛讗 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讜诪转拽谞讬谉 讗转 讛讚专讻讬诐 讜讗转 讛专讞讜讘讜转 讜讗转 讛诪拽讜讗讜转 讜注讜砖讬谉 讻诇 爪讜专讻讬 专讘讬诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞驻讬专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara questions this: But these additional cases are explicitly taught in the mishna: One may repair the roads, streets, and ritual baths, and one may tend to all other public needs. What does this last phrase come to add? Does it not come to add the digging of cisterns needed by the public? The Gemara agrees: Conclude from this that the mishna means to permit the digging of new cisterns when they are needed by the public.

诪爪讬谞讬谉 讗转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 专诪讝 诇爪讬讜谉 拽讘专讜转 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜专讗讛 注爪诐 讗讚诐 讜讘谞讛 讗爪诇讜 爪讬讜谉

搂 It was taught in the mishna: One may mark graves on the intermediate days of a Festival so that passersby will know to avoid them and not become ritually impure. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to the marking of graves? The verse states: 鈥淎nd when they that pass through shall pass through the land, and any see a man鈥檚 bone, then shall he set up a sign by it鈥 (Ezekiel 39:15). Ezekiel prophesies that at some future time, the Jewish people will erect signs over the strewn remains of the dead so that others will know to avoid ritual impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬转讬 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪讗谉 讗诪专 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 诪转讜专转 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诪讚讘专讬 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讘谉 讘讜讝讬 诇诪讚谞讜 讻诇 讘谉 谞讻专 注专诇 诇讘 讜注专诇 讘砖专 诇讗 讬讘讗 讗诇 诪拽讚砖讬 诇砖专转谞讬

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Before the prophet Ezekiel came and alluded to this obligation, who said that graves must be marked? Even before the time of Ezekiel, people were careful with regard to ritual impurity. Rav Ashi responded: And according to your reasoning, that Ezekiel was introducing a new halakha, the same question can be raised with regard to this statement that Rav 岣sda said. As Rav 岣sda said with regard to the halakha that one who is uncircumcised or an apostate may not serve in the Temple: This matter we did not learn from the Torah of Moses our teacher, but rather, we learned it from the words of the prophet Ezekiel ben Buzi, who said of such individuals: 鈥淣o stranger, uncircumcised in heart, or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary to serve Me鈥 (Ezekiel 44:9).

诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬转讬 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪讗谉 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讜讗住诪讻讛 讗拽专讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讜讗住诪讻讛 讗拽专讗

Here too, one can ask: Before Ezekiel came, who said that such individuals cannot serve in the Temple? Rather, you must say that originally they learned it as a tradition and it was an accepted halakha for generations, and then Ezekiel came and based it on a verse. Here too, with regard to the obligation to mark graves, they originally learned it as a tradition, and then Ezekiel came and based it on a verse.

专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讟诪讗 讟诪讗 讬拽专讗 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讜专讗讛 诇讜 讜讗讜诪专转 诇讜 驻专讜砖 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 注讜讝讬讗诇 讘专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 注讜讝讬讗诇 专讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讜专讗讛 诇讜 讜讗讜诪专转 诇讜 驻专讜砖

Rabbi Abbahu said: An allusion to the marking of graves may be derived from here: 鈥淎nd the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose, and he shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry: Impure, impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:45). This verse teaches that impurity cries out to the passerby and tells him: Remove yourself. The leper must inform others of his status so that they know not to come into contact with him and thereby maintain their ritual purity. So too, in our case, graves must be marked so that others will know to avoid them and prevent contracting ritual impurity. And similarly, Rabbi Uzziel, grandson of Rabbi Uzziel the Great, said: Impurity cries out to the passerby and tells him: Remove yourself.

讜讛讗讬 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讟诪讗 讟诪讗 讬拽专讗 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 爪注专讜 诇专讘讬诐 讜专讘讬诐 诪讘拽砖讬谉 注诇讬讜 专讞诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: But with regard to this verse, does it come to teach this idea? That verse is needed for that which is taught in the following baraita: 鈥淎nd he shall cry: Impure, impure鈥; this teaches that the leper must inform the public of his distress, and the public will pray for mercy on his behalf.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 讜讟诪讗 讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 讜讟诪讗 讟诪讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: If it is so that the verse comes to teach only one idea, let it write: And he shall cry: Impure. What is to be derived the repetition of impure, impure? Learn from this reiteration two ideas: First, that the leper must inform the public of his pain so that others will pray on his behalf, and second, that he must warn the public to stay away so that they avoid coming into contact with him and contracting ritual impurity.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖讜诇 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讜讗诪专 住诇讜 住诇讜 驻谞讜 讚专讱

Abaye said: An allusion to the marking of graves may be learned from here, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not put a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14). Rav Pappa said the obligation is alluded to in the verse: 鈥淎nd He will say: Pave, pave, clear the way, take up the stumbling block out of the way of My people鈥 (Isaiah 57:14), which indicates that roads must be cleared of all obstacles and hazards.

专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 讛专讬诪讜 诪讻砖讜诇 诪讚专讱 注诪讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 讜讛讜讚注转 诇讛诐 讗转 讛讚专讱 讗砖专 讬诇讻讜 讘讛

Rav 岣nnana said: This may be derived from the end of that very same verse: 鈥淭ake up the stumbling block from the way of My people鈥 (Isaiah 57:14). Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, said: This may be derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall show them the way in which they must walk鈥 (Exodus 18:20), i.e., you must properly repair the roads, which includes marking graves.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 讜讛讝专转诐 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讟讜诪讗转诐 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 诪砖诪专转讬 注砖讜 诪砖诪专转 诇诪砖诪专转讬

Mar Zutra said that an allusion to this obligation is found in the verse 鈥淭hus you shall separate the children of Israel from their impurity鈥 (Leviticus 15:31), which indicates that people must be warned to stay away from that which could cause them to become ritually impure. Rav Ashi said it is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall keep My charge鈥 (Leviticus 18:30), which means that you must establish a safeguard for My charge, i.e., protective measures must be enacted to prevent people from transgressing halakha, a task that includes distancing people from ritual impurity by marking off graves, so that they not come to convey ritual impurity to teruma or other consecrated items.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讜砖诐 讚专讱 讗专讗谞讜 讘讬砖注 讗诇讛讬诐

And finally, Ravina said: This obligation is alluded to by the verse 鈥淎nd to him who orders his way, I will show the salvation of God鈥 (Psalms 50:23), meaning that one must mark the pathways that are ritually pure and upon which it is appropriate to walk.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讛砖诐 讗讜专讞讜转讬讜 讝讜讻讛 讜专讜讗讛 讘讬砖讜注转讜 砖诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖诐 讚专讱 讗诇 转拽专讬 讜砖诐 讗诇讗 讜砖诐 讚专讱 讗专讗谞讜 讘讬砖注 讗诇讛讬诐

With regard to the verse from Psalms cited above, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whoever appraises his ways in this world and contemplates how to act in the most appropriate way possible merits seeing the salvation of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd to him who orders his way.鈥 Do not read it as vesam, who orders; rather, read it as vesham, and appraises. With this reading, the verse indicates that one who appraises his ways, him will I show the salvation of God.

专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 转诇诪讬讚讗 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讛 诪拽砖讬 诇讬讛 讘砖讘转讗 讚专讬讙诇讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪拽砖讬 诇讬讛

Rabbi Yannai had a certain student who would raise difficulties with his teachings every day as they were learning. On Shabbat of a Festival, when the broader public would come to hear the lesson, the student would not raise any difficulties, lest Rabbi Yannai lack an immediate answer and suffer embarrassment.

拽专讬 注诇讬讛 讜砖诐 讚专讱 讗专讗谞讜 讘讬砖注 讗诇讛讬诐

Rabbi Yannai read this verse about him: 鈥淎nd to him who orders his way, I will show the salvation of God鈥 (Psalms 50:23), for he considered his conduct and determined when it was inappropriate to challenge his master.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪爪讬谞讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 讜诇讗 注诇 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讗讘诇 诪爪讬谞讬谉 注诇 讛砖讚专讛 讜注诇 讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转 注诇 专讜讘 讘谞讬谉 讜注诇 专讜讘 诪谞讬谉 讛诪转

搂 With regard to the halakhot of marking graves, the Sages taught the following baraita: The courts do not mark the area of an olive-bulk of a corpse; nor of a bone that is the size of a barleygrain-bulk; nor of any item that imparts impurity only through physical contact but does not impart ritual impurity by means of a tent to an individual or object that it overshadows, or that is overshadowed by it, or that is found together with it under the same structure. But they do mark the area of the spine of a corpse, the skull, or the bones that comprise the majority of the skeletal structure or the majority of the number of bones in the body.

讜讗讬谉 诪爪讬谞讬谉 注诇 讛讜讜讚讗讜转 讗讘诇 诪爪讬谞讬谉 注诇 讛住驻讬拽讜转 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛住驻讬拽讜转 住讻讻讜转 讜驻专注讜转 讜讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 爪讬讜谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 诇讛驻住讬讚 讗转 讛讟讛专讜转 讜讗讬谉 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 爪讬讜谉 诪诪拽讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 诇讛驻住讬讚 讗转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

And furthermore, they do not mark the area of certain ritual impurity, i.e., a place that is known to all as ritually impure, but they do mark a place of uncertain ritual impurity. And these are the places of uncertain ritual impurity: Overhanging boughs, protrusions, and a beit haperas. And they do not erect the marker directly over the site of the ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of ritually pure food items, as one who is carrying such food might inadvertently walk up to the site of ritual impurity and only then notice the marker, after the food has already contracted impurity. Similarly, they do not distance the marker from the actual site of ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., so as not to increase the area into which individuals refrain from entering.

讜讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讗诇讜 砖诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讛诇 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转

The Gemara begins to analyze this baraita by asking: Is it really so that an olive-bulk of a corpse does not impart ritual impurity by means of a tent? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Oholot 2:1): These are the items that impart ritual impurity by means of a tent, and among other items this list includes an olive-bulk of a corpse?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘讻讝讬转 诪爪讜诪爪诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讚住讜祝 住讜祝 诪讬讞住专 讞住专 诪讜讟讘 讬砖专驻讜 注诇讬讜 转专讜诪讛 讜拽讚砖讬诐 诇驻讬 砖注讛 讜讗诇 讬砖专驻讜 注诇讬讜 诇注讜诇诐

Rav Pappa said: Here, we are dealing with a case where the piece of flesh is exactly an olive-bulk, which, as it decays, will ultimately diminish in size to less than an olive-bulk. Accordingly, it is preferable that teruma and consecrated items be burned because of it for the time being, in a case where one inadvertently encounters this impurity because it was not marked and consequently one must burn any teruma or consecrated items that became ritually impure, and not be burned because of it forever afterward. After some time the piece of flesh will be less than an olive-bulk, yet if the area is marked, people will continue to burn teruma or consecrated items because of it, as, due to the marking, they will assume that ritual impurity was imparted by means of a tent.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛住驻讬拽讜转 住讻讻讜转 讜驻专注讜转

The Gemara continues to explicate the baraita: And these are the places of uncertain ritual impurity: Overhanging boughs, and protrusions, and a beit haperas.

住讻讻讜转 讗讬诇谉 讛诪讬住讱 注诇 讛讗专抓

The Gemara explains: Overhanging boughs is referring to a tree that hangs over the ground next to a cemetery, and under one of its branches there might be a corpse. If there is a corpse there, the branch overhanging it creates a tent and therefore imparts ritual impurity to anyone who passes underneath it.

驻专注讜转 讗讘谞讬诐 驻专讜注讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讜转 诪谉 讛讙讚专

Protrusions is referring to protruding stones that jut out from a wall and are not flush with it, under which there might be a corpse. Once again, if the stones protrude over a corpse, they create a tent and impart ritual impurity to anyone who passes underneath.

讘讬转 讛驻专住 讻讚转谞谉 讛讞讜专砖 讗转 讛拽讘专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讻诪讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪诇讗 诪注谞讛 诪讗讛 讗诪讛

The definition of a beit haperas is as we learned elsewhere in a mishna (Oholot 17:1): One who plows a field containing a grave, thereby raising concern that bones may have become strewn throughout the field, renders the field a beit haperas. And how much of the field does he render a beit haperas? The full length of a furrow, which is a hundred cubits.

讜讘讬转 讛驻专住 诪讬 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞驻讞 讗讚诐 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱

The Gemara asks: Does a beit haperas really impart ritual im-purity by means of a tent? But didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: If a person is carrying ritually pure items or wishes to remain ritually pure so that he may consume consecrated items, yet he must cross a beit haperas, he may blow upon the earth in the beit haperas before each step to clear away any small bones that may have become strewn across the field and proceed to walk across the area, thereby remaining ritually pure. This indicates that there is no concern about contracting ritual impurity by means of a tent in a beit haperas; otherwise, it would be prohibited to cross in this way, as it is possible that in the course of blowing one may already have contracted ritual impurity by leaning over the bones or by passing over bones that are buried beneath the surface.

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讬讚砖 讟讛讜专

Similarly, Rav Yehuda bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: A beit haperas that was trampled, i.e., a well-trodden beit haperas, is ritually pure, as passersby have certainly cleared away any bones with their feet. If a beit haperas were to impart ritual impurity by means of a tent, there should be a concern that the bones may have been trampled upon and buried in the ground. Both these sources prove that a beit haperas does not impart impurity by means of tent, posing a contradiction to the mishna.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讚讛 砖讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专 讻讗谉 讘砖讚讛 砖谞讞专砖 讘讛 拽讘专

Rav Pappa said: It is not difficult, as a distinction can be made between different types of beit haperas: Here, where the baraita states that a beit haperas must be marked because it imparts tent impurity, it is referring to a field in which a grave was lost, i.e., a field that was known with certainty to contain a grave, though its precise location can no longer be recalled. There, where it ruled that a beit haperas does not convey tent impurity, it is a case of a field where a grave was plowed and it is not at all clear whether there are bones strewn across the field. In that case ritual impurity is not imparted by means of a tent, and so it need not be marked.

讜砖讚讛 砖谞讞专砖 讘讛 拽讘专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讛谉 砖讚讛 砖谞讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专 讜砖讚讛 砖谞讞专砖 讘讛 拽讘专 讜砖讚讛 讘讜讻讬谉

The Gemara asks: But is a field where a grave was plowed called a beit haperas, such that one must be concerned about its ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: Yes, and so we learned in a mishna (Oholot 18:2鈥4): There are three types of beit haperas through which those who eat teruma and consecrated items are prohibited to walk: A field in which a grave was lost and its precise location is no longer known, a field in which a grave was plowed and bones may have been scattered about, and a weepers鈥 field.

诪讗讬 砖讚讛 讘讜讻讬谉 专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讘专 讗讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 砖讚讛 砖诪驻讟讬专讬谉 讘讛 诪转讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is meant by a weepers鈥 field? Rav Yehoshua bar Abba said in the name of Ulla: A field where those escorting the deceased would take leave of the deceased, handing the corpse over to those who would perform the actual interment.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讬讗讜砖 讘注诇讬诐 谞讙注讜 讘讛

And what is the reason that one must be concerned about ritual impurity in a weepers鈥 field? Avimi said: It is due to the possible despair by the owners of recovering bones that the Sages touched upon it. There is a concern that in transporting the deceased from far away, a loose limb may have fallen from the corpse into the field, and unseen by those transporting the deceased, it was abandoned there. Since over time many corpses passed through this weepers鈥 field, it is assumed that ritual impurity might be found in many places throughout the field.

讜砖讚讛 砖谞讞专砖 讘讛 拽讘专 诇讗 讘注讬 爪讬讜谉 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诪爪讗 砖讚讛 诪爪讜讬谞转 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 诪讛 讟讬讘讛 讬砖 讘讛 讗讬诇谞讜转 讘讬讚讜注 砖谞讞专砖 讘讛 拽讘专 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讬诇谞讜转 讘讬讚讜注 砖讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专

The Gemara asks: And does a field in which a grave was plowed not require marking? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If one encountered a field that was marked due to ritual impurity, and it is no longer known what the nature of the ritual impurity was, if there are trees in the field, it is known that a grave was plowed in it, as it is permitted for one to plant trees in such a field. If there are no trees in the field, it is known that a grave was lost in it, as it is prohibited for one to plant trees in such a field. If a field is suitable for planting trees and yet there are none, clearly it is because a grave was lost in it.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 砖诐 讝拽谉 讗讜 转诇诪讬讚 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讻诇 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘讚讘专

Rabbi Yehuda says: We do not rely on these signs unless there is an Elder or a rabbinic scholar who can testify about the subject, as not all are experts in this matter, and perhaps the field was not plowed at all. In any case, this baraita teaches that a field in which a grave was plowed is also marked.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘砖讚讛 砖讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专 讚爪讬讬谞讜讛 讬砖 讘讛 讗讬诇谞讜转 讘讬讚讜注 砖谞讞专砖 讘讛 拽讘专 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讬诇谞讜转 讘讬讚讜注 砖讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专

The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa said: When that baraita concerning a marked field is taught, it is taught with regard to a field where a grave was certainly lost and they immediately marked it. However, if there are trees in the field, it is known that a grave was later plowed in it, i.e., it was forgotten that a grave had been lost in the field and so it was inappropriately plowed and prepared for planting. But if there are no trees in the field, we know that a grave was lost in it and it was not later plowed.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗讬诇谞讜转 诪讙讜讗讬 讜拽讘专 诪讘专讗讬

The Gemara raises a question about this ruling: But let us be concerned that perhaps the trees were located inside the field and the grave was located outside of it, and the actual site of the grave was never plowed but simply lost? How then can one rely on the presence of trees to indicate that the grave had been plowed in the field?

讻讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘注讜诪讚讬谉 注诇 讛讙讘讜诇讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘注讜诪讚讬谉 注诇 讛讙讘讜诇讬谉

The Gemara answers: It is as Ulla said elsewhere. This is a case where the trees are standing along the field鈥檚 boundaries, next to a public domain, as the grave is certainly not outside the trees in the public domain, since people do not bury a corpse in the public thoroughfare. Rather, the grave must be between the trees, and was therefore plowed. Here too, then, this is a case where the trees are standing along the borders.

This month鈥檚 shiurim are dedicated by Efrat Arnold in loving memory of Joshua Carr, Yehoshua Aryeh Leib ben Yonatan Chaim and Malka Esther HaCohen.

And by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of their children and grandchildren.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Moed Katan: 2-6 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will start Moed Katan. We will start with an overview of the Masechet and understand some of...
talking talmud_square

Moed Katan 5: Public Works

More on cisterns... And their role in serving the public need for water as compared to an individual's need. So...
alon shvut women

Moed Katan 5

Moed Katan, Daf 5, Teacher: Tamara Spitz https://youtu.be/Q7RbjASJjAc
6

Introduction to Moed Katan

Watch the video introduction or listen to the podcast below.  

Moed Katan 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Moed Katan 5

拽讬诇拽讜诇讬 讛诪讬诐 砖讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讞讟讬讟讛 讗讬谉 讞驻讬专讛 诇讗

damaged water cisterns in the public domain and clean them out by removing the dirt and sediment that has accumulated in them. The Gemara infers: Cleaning out the cisterns of dirt and sediment during the intermediate days of a Festival is indeed permitted, but digging a new cistern is not permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讘诇 专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讞驻讬专讛 诪讜转专

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They taught that it is prohibited to dig new cisterns only when the public does not need them; but if the public needs them, even digging new cisterns is permitted.

讜讻讬 专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐 诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讜讟讟讬谉 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讞讜驻专讬谉 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐

The Gemara asks: And when the public needs them, is digging really permitted? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One may clean out cisterns, ditches, and caves of an individual during the intermediate days of a Festival, and, needless to say, one may clean out those of the public. But one may not dig new cisterns, ditches, or caves of the public during the intermediate days of a Festival, and, needless to say, one may not dig those of an individual. What, is it not so that this baraita is referring to a case where the public needs them, but nevertheless digging new cisterns, ditches, and caves is prohibited?

诇讗 讘砖讗讬谉 专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐

The Gemara rejects this opinion: No, this baraita is referring to a case where the public does not need them.

讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 讬讞讬讚 砖讗讬谉 讬讞讬讚 爪专讬讱 诇讛诐 讞讟讬讟讛 诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讻讜谞住讬谉 诪讬诐 诇转讜讻谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞讜讟讟讬谉 讜诇讗 砖驻讬谉 讗转 住讚拽讬讛谉 讜砖诇 专讘讬诐 讞讜讟讟讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜砖驻讬谉 讗转 住讚拽讬讛谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: It would follow that in the corresponding situation with regard to the cisterns of an individual, the baraita is referring to a case where the individual does not need them. But in that case, is cleaning them out really permitted? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One may gather water into the cisterns, ditches, and caves of an individual, but one may not clean them out or plaster their cracks; but for those of the public, one may indeed clean out and plaster their cracks? This indicates that on the intermediate days of a Festival, unneeded cisterns belonging to an individual may not even be cleaned out.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘砖讬讞讬讚 爪专讬讱 诇讛诐 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 专讘讬诐 讘砖专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐 讞驻讬专讛 诪讬 讗住讬专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讻讜谞住讬谉 诪讬诐 诇转讜讻谉 讜讞讜讟讟讬谉 讗讜转谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖驻讬谉 讗转 住讚拽讬讛谉 讜诇讗 讞讜讟讟讬谉 诇转讜讻谉 讜诇讗 住讚讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘住讬讚 讜砖诇 专讘讬诐 讞讜驻专讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜住讚讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘住讬讚

The Gemara rejects this difficulty: Rather, to what case does the first baraita refer? Is it referring to a case where the individual needs the cisterns? If so, then in the corresponding situation with regard to cisterns of the public, the baraita would be referring to a case where the public needs them. But in that case, is digging new cisterns really prohibited? Isn鈥檛 it taught in yet another baraita: One may gather water into cisterns, ditches, and caves of an individual, and one may clean them out, but one may not plaster their cracks, clear earth into them in order to fill in the cracks, or lime them with lime so that they hold water. But with regard to those of the public, one may even dig them out and lime them with lime. Therefore, in a case where the public needs them, it is permitted to dig out public cisterns.

讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讞讜讟讟讬谉 讘讜专讜转 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讘砖讬讞讬讚 爪专讬讱 诇讛诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖诇 专讘讬诐 讻砖专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讞驻讬专讛 诪讜转专

But if so, the first baraita, which states that one may not dig new cisterns even for the public, is difficult, as it is contradicted by this last baraita. The Gemara explains: Answer the difficulty and explain the first baraita as follows: One may clean out cisterns, ditches, and caves of an individual during the intermediate days of a Festival when the individual needs them; and needless to say, one may clean out those of the public when the public needs them, as even digging new cisterns is permitted when the public needs them.

讜讗讬谉 讞讜驻专讬谉 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讘砖讗讬谉 专讘讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讚讻讬 讗讬谉 讬讞讬讚 爪专讬讱 诇讛诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讟讬讟讛 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

But one may not dig cisterns, ditches and caves for the public when the public does not need them. And needless to say, one may not dig them for an individual, as when an individual does not need the cisterns on the intermediate days of a Festival, even cleaning them out is prohibited. In this way all of the seemingly contradictory sources can be reconciled.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 注讜砖讬谉 讻诇 爪讜专讻讬 专讘讬诐 讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞驻讬专讛

Rav Ashi said: The wording of the mishna is also precise, indicating that when there is a public need for such cisterns, they may be dug even on the intermediate days of a Festival. As it teaches: One may tend to all other public needs. What does the word all come to add that was not stated explicitly? Does it not come to add the digging of cisterns, which is permitted?

诇讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇拽讜讜抓 讗转 讛讚专讻讬诐 讜诇转拽谉 讗转 讛专讞讜讘讜转 讜讗转 讛讗住讟专讟讗讜转 讜诇诪讜讚 讗转 讛诪拽讜讗讜转 讜讻诇 诪拽讜讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 诪专讙讬诇讬谉 诇转讜讻讜 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛

The Gemara rejects this opinion: No, the word all comes to add that which is taught in the following baraita: On the intermediate days of a Festival, agents of the court go out to clear thorns from the road, and to repair the city streets and highways [isterata鈥檕t], and to measure the ritual baths to ascertain that they have the requisite quantity of water. And if any ritual bath does not contain forty se鈥檃, the minimal measure for ritual purification, they direct [margilin] a stream of water into it, such that it flows over the ground before entering the bath, so as not to disqualify the water as drawn water until it holds forty se鈥檃 of water.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 诇讗 讬爪讗讜 讜注砖讜 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讻诇 讚诪讬诐 砖谞砖驻讻讜 砖诐 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讛诐 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讛诐 砖驻讻讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 注诇讬讱 讚诪讬诐

And from where is it derived that if agents of the court did not go out and do all these repairs, that with regard to any blood that is shed there on account of their negligence, the verse ascribes to them guilt as if they had shed it? The verse states with regard to the cities of refuge that offer protection to someone who committed inadvertent manslaughter: 鈥淭hat innocent blood be not shed in your land, which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, and so blood be upon you鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:10). The Gemara maintains that the mishna uses the word all to allude to the cases mentioned in this baraita, and not to the digging of public cisterns.

讛讗 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讜诪转拽谞讬谉 讗转 讛讚专讻讬诐 讜讗转 讛专讞讜讘讜转 讜讗转 讛诪拽讜讗讜转 讜注讜砖讬谉 讻诇 爪讜专讻讬 专讘讬诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞驻讬专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara questions this: But these additional cases are explicitly taught in the mishna: One may repair the roads, streets, and ritual baths, and one may tend to all other public needs. What does this last phrase come to add? Does it not come to add the digging of cisterns needed by the public? The Gemara agrees: Conclude from this that the mishna means to permit the digging of new cisterns when they are needed by the public.

诪爪讬谞讬谉 讗转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 专诪讝 诇爪讬讜谉 拽讘专讜转 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜专讗讛 注爪诐 讗讚诐 讜讘谞讛 讗爪诇讜 爪讬讜谉

搂 It was taught in the mishna: One may mark graves on the intermediate days of a Festival so that passersby will know to avoid them and not become ritually impure. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to the marking of graves? The verse states: 鈥淎nd when they that pass through shall pass through the land, and any see a man鈥檚 bone, then shall he set up a sign by it鈥 (Ezekiel 39:15). Ezekiel prophesies that at some future time, the Jewish people will erect signs over the strewn remains of the dead so that others will know to avoid ritual impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬转讬 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪讗谉 讗诪专 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 诪转讜专转 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诪讚讘专讬 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讘谉 讘讜讝讬 诇诪讚谞讜 讻诇 讘谉 谞讻专 注专诇 诇讘 讜注专诇 讘砖专 诇讗 讬讘讗 讗诇 诪拽讚砖讬 诇砖专转谞讬

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Before the prophet Ezekiel came and alluded to this obligation, who said that graves must be marked? Even before the time of Ezekiel, people were careful with regard to ritual impurity. Rav Ashi responded: And according to your reasoning, that Ezekiel was introducing a new halakha, the same question can be raised with regard to this statement that Rav 岣sda said. As Rav 岣sda said with regard to the halakha that one who is uncircumcised or an apostate may not serve in the Temple: This matter we did not learn from the Torah of Moses our teacher, but rather, we learned it from the words of the prophet Ezekiel ben Buzi, who said of such individuals: 鈥淣o stranger, uncircumcised in heart, or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary to serve Me鈥 (Ezekiel 44:9).

诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬转讬 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪讗谉 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讜讗住诪讻讛 讗拽专讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讜讗住诪讻讛 讗拽专讗

Here too, one can ask: Before Ezekiel came, who said that such individuals cannot serve in the Temple? Rather, you must say that originally they learned it as a tradition and it was an accepted halakha for generations, and then Ezekiel came and based it on a verse. Here too, with regard to the obligation to mark graves, they originally learned it as a tradition, and then Ezekiel came and based it on a verse.

专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讟诪讗 讟诪讗 讬拽专讗 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讜专讗讛 诇讜 讜讗讜诪专转 诇讜 驻专讜砖 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 注讜讝讬讗诇 讘专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 注讜讝讬讗诇 专讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讜专讗讛 诇讜 讜讗讜诪专转 诇讜 驻专讜砖

Rabbi Abbahu said: An allusion to the marking of graves may be derived from here: 鈥淎nd the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose, and he shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry: Impure, impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:45). This verse teaches that impurity cries out to the passerby and tells him: Remove yourself. The leper must inform others of his status so that they know not to come into contact with him and thereby maintain their ritual purity. So too, in our case, graves must be marked so that others will know to avoid them and prevent contracting ritual impurity. And similarly, Rabbi Uzziel, grandson of Rabbi Uzziel the Great, said: Impurity cries out to the passerby and tells him: Remove yourself.

讜讛讗讬 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讟诪讗 讟诪讗 讬拽专讗 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 爪注专讜 诇专讘讬诐 讜专讘讬诐 诪讘拽砖讬谉 注诇讬讜 专讞诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: But with regard to this verse, does it come to teach this idea? That verse is needed for that which is taught in the following baraita: 鈥淎nd he shall cry: Impure, impure鈥; this teaches that the leper must inform the public of his distress, and the public will pray for mercy on his behalf.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 讜讟诪讗 讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 讜讟诪讗 讟诪讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: If it is so that the verse comes to teach only one idea, let it write: And he shall cry: Impure. What is to be derived the repetition of impure, impure? Learn from this reiteration two ideas: First, that the leper must inform the public of his pain so that others will pray on his behalf, and second, that he must warn the public to stay away so that they avoid coming into contact with him and contracting ritual impurity.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜诇驻谞讬 注讜专 诇讗 转转谉 诪讻砖讜诇 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讜讗诪专 住诇讜 住诇讜 驻谞讜 讚专讱

Abaye said: An allusion to the marking of graves may be learned from here, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not put a stumbling block before the blind鈥 (Leviticus 19:14). Rav Pappa said the obligation is alluded to in the verse: 鈥淎nd He will say: Pave, pave, clear the way, take up the stumbling block out of the way of My people鈥 (Isaiah 57:14), which indicates that roads must be cleared of all obstacles and hazards.

专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 讛专讬诪讜 诪讻砖讜诇 诪讚专讱 注诪讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 讜讛讜讚注转 诇讛诐 讗转 讛讚专讱 讗砖专 讬诇讻讜 讘讛

Rav 岣nnana said: This may be derived from the end of that very same verse: 鈥淭ake up the stumbling block from the way of My people鈥 (Isaiah 57:14). Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, said: This may be derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall show them the way in which they must walk鈥 (Exodus 18:20), i.e., you must properly repair the roads, which includes marking graves.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 讜讛讝专转诐 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讟讜诪讗转诐 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 诪砖诪专转讬 注砖讜 诪砖诪专转 诇诪砖诪专转讬

Mar Zutra said that an allusion to this obligation is found in the verse 鈥淭hus you shall separate the children of Israel from their impurity鈥 (Leviticus 15:31), which indicates that people must be warned to stay away from that which could cause them to become ritually impure. Rav Ashi said it is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall keep My charge鈥 (Leviticus 18:30), which means that you must establish a safeguard for My charge, i.e., protective measures must be enacted to prevent people from transgressing halakha, a task that includes distancing people from ritual impurity by marking off graves, so that they not come to convey ritual impurity to teruma or other consecrated items.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讜砖诐 讚专讱 讗专讗谞讜 讘讬砖注 讗诇讛讬诐

And finally, Ravina said: This obligation is alluded to by the verse 鈥淎nd to him who orders his way, I will show the salvation of God鈥 (Psalms 50:23), meaning that one must mark the pathways that are ritually pure and upon which it is appropriate to walk.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讛砖诐 讗讜专讞讜转讬讜 讝讜讻讛 讜专讜讗讛 讘讬砖讜注转讜 砖诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖诐 讚专讱 讗诇 转拽专讬 讜砖诐 讗诇讗 讜砖诐 讚专讱 讗专讗谞讜 讘讬砖注 讗诇讛讬诐

With regard to the verse from Psalms cited above, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whoever appraises his ways in this world and contemplates how to act in the most appropriate way possible merits seeing the salvation of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd to him who orders his way.鈥 Do not read it as vesam, who orders; rather, read it as vesham, and appraises. With this reading, the verse indicates that one who appraises his ways, him will I show the salvation of God.

专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 转诇诪讬讚讗 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讛 诪拽砖讬 诇讬讛 讘砖讘转讗 讚专讬讙诇讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪拽砖讬 诇讬讛

Rabbi Yannai had a certain student who would raise difficulties with his teachings every day as they were learning. On Shabbat of a Festival, when the broader public would come to hear the lesson, the student would not raise any difficulties, lest Rabbi Yannai lack an immediate answer and suffer embarrassment.

拽专讬 注诇讬讛 讜砖诐 讚专讱 讗专讗谞讜 讘讬砖注 讗诇讛讬诐

Rabbi Yannai read this verse about him: 鈥淎nd to him who orders his way, I will show the salvation of God鈥 (Psalms 50:23), for he considered his conduct and determined when it was inappropriate to challenge his master.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪爪讬谞讬谉 诇讗 注诇 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 讜诇讗 注诇 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讗讘诇 诪爪讬谞讬谉 注诇 讛砖讚专讛 讜注诇 讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转 注诇 专讜讘 讘谞讬谉 讜注诇 专讜讘 诪谞讬谉 讛诪转

搂 With regard to the halakhot of marking graves, the Sages taught the following baraita: The courts do not mark the area of an olive-bulk of a corpse; nor of a bone that is the size of a barleygrain-bulk; nor of any item that imparts impurity only through physical contact but does not impart ritual impurity by means of a tent to an individual or object that it overshadows, or that is overshadowed by it, or that is found together with it under the same structure. But they do mark the area of the spine of a corpse, the skull, or the bones that comprise the majority of the skeletal structure or the majority of the number of bones in the body.

讜讗讬谉 诪爪讬谞讬谉 注诇 讛讜讜讚讗讜转 讗讘诇 诪爪讬谞讬谉 注诇 讛住驻讬拽讜转 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛住驻讬拽讜转 住讻讻讜转 讜驻专注讜转 讜讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 爪讬讜谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 诇讛驻住讬讚 讗转 讛讟讛专讜转 讜讗讬谉 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 爪讬讜谉 诪诪拽讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇讗 诇讛驻住讬讚 讗转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

And furthermore, they do not mark the area of certain ritual impurity, i.e., a place that is known to all as ritually impure, but they do mark a place of uncertain ritual impurity. And these are the places of uncertain ritual impurity: Overhanging boughs, protrusions, and a beit haperas. And they do not erect the marker directly over the site of the ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of ritually pure food items, as one who is carrying such food might inadvertently walk up to the site of ritual impurity and only then notice the marker, after the food has already contracted impurity. Similarly, they do not distance the marker from the actual site of ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., so as not to increase the area into which individuals refrain from entering.

讜讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讗诇讜 砖诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讛诇 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转

The Gemara begins to analyze this baraita by asking: Is it really so that an olive-bulk of a corpse does not impart ritual impurity by means of a tent? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Oholot 2:1): These are the items that impart ritual impurity by means of a tent, and among other items this list includes an olive-bulk of a corpse?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘讻讝讬转 诪爪讜诪爪诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讚住讜祝 住讜祝 诪讬讞住专 讞住专 诪讜讟讘 讬砖专驻讜 注诇讬讜 转专讜诪讛 讜拽讚砖讬诐 诇驻讬 砖注讛 讜讗诇 讬砖专驻讜 注诇讬讜 诇注讜诇诐

Rav Pappa said: Here, we are dealing with a case where the piece of flesh is exactly an olive-bulk, which, as it decays, will ultimately diminish in size to less than an olive-bulk. Accordingly, it is preferable that teruma and consecrated items be burned because of it for the time being, in a case where one inadvertently encounters this impurity because it was not marked and consequently one must burn any teruma or consecrated items that became ritually impure, and not be burned because of it forever afterward. After some time the piece of flesh will be less than an olive-bulk, yet if the area is marked, people will continue to burn teruma or consecrated items because of it, as, due to the marking, they will assume that ritual impurity was imparted by means of a tent.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛住驻讬拽讜转 住讻讻讜转 讜驻专注讜转

The Gemara continues to explicate the baraita: And these are the places of uncertain ritual impurity: Overhanging boughs, and protrusions, and a beit haperas.

住讻讻讜转 讗讬诇谉 讛诪讬住讱 注诇 讛讗专抓

The Gemara explains: Overhanging boughs is referring to a tree that hangs over the ground next to a cemetery, and under one of its branches there might be a corpse. If there is a corpse there, the branch overhanging it creates a tent and therefore imparts ritual impurity to anyone who passes underneath it.

驻专注讜转 讗讘谞讬诐 驻专讜注讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讜转 诪谉 讛讙讚专

Protrusions is referring to protruding stones that jut out from a wall and are not flush with it, under which there might be a corpse. Once again, if the stones protrude over a corpse, they create a tent and impart ritual impurity to anyone who passes underneath.

讘讬转 讛驻专住 讻讚转谞谉 讛讞讜专砖 讗转 讛拽讘专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讻诪讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪诇讗 诪注谞讛 诪讗讛 讗诪讛

The definition of a beit haperas is as we learned elsewhere in a mishna (Oholot 17:1): One who plows a field containing a grave, thereby raising concern that bones may have become strewn throughout the field, renders the field a beit haperas. And how much of the field does he render a beit haperas? The full length of a furrow, which is a hundred cubits.

讜讘讬转 讛驻专住 诪讬 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞驻讞 讗讚诐 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱

The Gemara asks: Does a beit haperas really impart ritual im-purity by means of a tent? But didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: If a person is carrying ritually pure items or wishes to remain ritually pure so that he may consume consecrated items, yet he must cross a beit haperas, he may blow upon the earth in the beit haperas before each step to clear away any small bones that may have become strewn across the field and proceed to walk across the area, thereby remaining ritually pure. This indicates that there is no concern about contracting ritual impurity by means of a tent in a beit haperas; otherwise, it would be prohibited to cross in this way, as it is possible that in the course of blowing one may already have contracted ritual impurity by leaning over the bones or by passing over bones that are buried beneath the surface.

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讬讚砖 讟讛讜专

Similarly, Rav Yehuda bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: A beit haperas that was trampled, i.e., a well-trodden beit haperas, is ritually pure, as passersby have certainly cleared away any bones with their feet. If a beit haperas were to impart ritual impurity by means of a tent, there should be a concern that the bones may have been trampled upon and buried in the ground. Both these sources prove that a beit haperas does not impart impurity by means of tent, posing a contradiction to the mishna.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讚讛 砖讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专 讻讗谉 讘砖讚讛 砖谞讞专砖 讘讛 拽讘专

Rav Pappa said: It is not difficult, as a distinction can be made between different types of beit haperas: Here, where the baraita states that a beit haperas must be marked because it imparts tent impurity, it is referring to a field in which a grave was lost, i.e., a field that was known with certainty to contain a grave, though its precise location can no longer be recalled. There, where it ruled that a beit haperas does not convey tent impurity, it is a case of a field where a grave was plowed and it is not at all clear whether there are bones strewn across the field. In that case ritual impurity is not imparted by means of a tent, and so it need not be marked.

讜砖讚讛 砖谞讞专砖 讘讛 拽讘专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讛谉 砖讚讛 砖谞讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专 讜砖讚讛 砖谞讞专砖 讘讛 拽讘专 讜砖讚讛 讘讜讻讬谉

The Gemara asks: But is a field where a grave was plowed called a beit haperas, such that one must be concerned about its ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: Yes, and so we learned in a mishna (Oholot 18:2鈥4): There are three types of beit haperas through which those who eat teruma and consecrated items are prohibited to walk: A field in which a grave was lost and its precise location is no longer known, a field in which a grave was plowed and bones may have been scattered about, and a weepers鈥 field.

诪讗讬 砖讚讛 讘讜讻讬谉 专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讘专 讗讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 砖讚讛 砖诪驻讟讬专讬谉 讘讛 诪转讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is meant by a weepers鈥 field? Rav Yehoshua bar Abba said in the name of Ulla: A field where those escorting the deceased would take leave of the deceased, handing the corpse over to those who would perform the actual interment.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讬讗讜砖 讘注诇讬诐 谞讙注讜 讘讛

And what is the reason that one must be concerned about ritual impurity in a weepers鈥 field? Avimi said: It is due to the possible despair by the owners of recovering bones that the Sages touched upon it. There is a concern that in transporting the deceased from far away, a loose limb may have fallen from the corpse into the field, and unseen by those transporting the deceased, it was abandoned there. Since over time many corpses passed through this weepers鈥 field, it is assumed that ritual impurity might be found in many places throughout the field.

讜砖讚讛 砖谞讞专砖 讘讛 拽讘专 诇讗 讘注讬 爪讬讜谉 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诪爪讗 砖讚讛 诪爪讜讬谞转 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 诪讛 讟讬讘讛 讬砖 讘讛 讗讬诇谞讜转 讘讬讚讜注 砖谞讞专砖 讘讛 拽讘专 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讬诇谞讜转 讘讬讚讜注 砖讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专

The Gemara asks: And does a field in which a grave was plowed not require marking? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If one encountered a field that was marked due to ritual impurity, and it is no longer known what the nature of the ritual impurity was, if there are trees in the field, it is known that a grave was plowed in it, as it is permitted for one to plant trees in such a field. If there are no trees in the field, it is known that a grave was lost in it, as it is prohibited for one to plant trees in such a field. If a field is suitable for planting trees and yet there are none, clearly it is because a grave was lost in it.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 砖诐 讝拽谉 讗讜 转诇诪讬讚 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讻诇 讘拽讬讗讬谉 讘讚讘专

Rabbi Yehuda says: We do not rely on these signs unless there is an Elder or a rabbinic scholar who can testify about the subject, as not all are experts in this matter, and perhaps the field was not plowed at all. In any case, this baraita teaches that a field in which a grave was plowed is also marked.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘砖讚讛 砖讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专 讚爪讬讬谞讜讛 讬砖 讘讛 讗讬诇谞讜转 讘讬讚讜注 砖谞讞专砖 讘讛 拽讘专 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讬诇谞讜转 讘讬讚讜注 砖讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专

The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa said: When that baraita concerning a marked field is taught, it is taught with regard to a field where a grave was certainly lost and they immediately marked it. However, if there are trees in the field, it is known that a grave was later plowed in it, i.e., it was forgotten that a grave had been lost in the field and so it was inappropriately plowed and prepared for planting. But if there are no trees in the field, we know that a grave was lost in it and it was not later plowed.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗讬诇谞讜转 诪讙讜讗讬 讜拽讘专 诪讘专讗讬

The Gemara raises a question about this ruling: But let us be concerned that perhaps the trees were located inside the field and the grave was located outside of it, and the actual site of the grave was never plowed but simply lost? How then can one rely on the presence of trees to indicate that the grave had been plowed in the field?

讻讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘注讜诪讚讬谉 注诇 讛讙讘讜诇讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘注讜诪讚讬谉 注诇 讛讙讘讜诇讬谉

The Gemara answers: It is as Ulla said elsewhere. This is a case where the trees are standing along the field鈥檚 boundaries, next to a public domain, as the grave is certainly not outside the trees in the public domain, since people do not bury a corpse in the public thoroughfare. Rather, the grave must be between the trees, and was therefore plowed. Here too, then, this is a case where the trees are standing along the borders.

Scroll To Top