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

May 28, 2022 | 讻状讝 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讘 | TODAY'S DAF: Yevamot 82 - Shabbat May 28

Today's Daf Yomi

January 18, 2022 | 讟状讝 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Yad Binyamin ladies for the refuah shleima of Asher ben Devorah Fayga.

    This month's learning is sponsored by Bracha Rutner in loving memory of her mother, Anna Rutner, Sarah bat Yom Tov and Rachel, on her 5th yahrzeit.

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Leora & Jonathan Kukin and Cynthia & Abe Steinberger in honor of Rella Feldman and Curtiss Pulitzer.

Moed Katan 6

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in honor of her son Tani Sterman who passed the bar exam!聽

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Shira Hannah Fischer in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber and all the amazing women learning every day.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Debbie Aschheim & Robert Weiss (NYC) For a refuah shleima for Jackie Bitensky – Yaacova Ariella Bat Fruma. 鈥淛ackie: Your very recent FB posts embody what Rabbi Abbahu taught on yesterday鈥檚 (Tu b鈥橲hevat) daf (Moed Katan 5a/Michelle Farber at 27:30 minutes) and provide an opportunity for the public to pray for mercy and healing on your behalf. May the prayers of multitudes, including those of the Hadran family, result in your speedy and complete recovery. Refuah shleima.鈥

Rabbi Yehuda says that one doesn鈥檛 assume a field had a body buried there that was plowed unless an elder or a Torah scholar says so. What do we learn from this about Torah scholars? If graves were marked by rocks and limestone, what can one learn from the particular formation about where the graves are located? The Mishna states that chol hamoed was a time when they would send messengers from the court to uproot diverse kinds that were growing in people鈥檚 fields that they themselves did not uproot. The Mishna in Shekalim says it was done on the 15th of Adar. What is each one referring to? Why specifically was this done on chol hamoed? What is the measurement for a diverse kind that needs to be uprooted? When the representative of the court come, what do they do? How did this change over time and why? The Mishna discusses debates between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the rabbis regarding certain watering issues – one can make a channel from one tree to another but not in a way that the whole field (a field that is usually sustained by rainwater) will get watered or is this also permitted? If a field is not used to being watered, does that mean that one cannot water is on chol hamoed as this may be defined as no financial loss? Rav Yehuda holds that even if one cannot water the whole field, if the field was moist but dried up, one can water it as it will be a loss. Can one sprinkle water on a field on chol hamoed? In the shmita year? Is it permissible to trap moles and mice so they don鈥檛 ruin the fields? On what does it depend?聽

讜讚诇诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讙讜讗讬 讜讗讬诇谞讜转 诪讘专讗讬

The Gemara asks: But perhaps the ritual impurity was on the inside and the trees were on the outside, and only the area between the trees was plowed, while the inner portion of the field with the grave was not plowed?

讘诪住讜讘讻讬谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讗诪专谉 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

The Gemara answers: The case is where the trees are scattered throughout the entire field, so that it is likely that the entire field was plowed. And if you wish, say instead: This is not a concern, as we said earlier that one does not distance the marker too far from the actual site of ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of Eretz Yisrael. As the marker is located near the trees, presumably the trees are close to the actual site of the grave, and the site of the grave was plowed.

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 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘诪转讗 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚诪转讗 注诇讬讛 专诪讬讗

It is taught in the baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One relies on these signs only when there is an Elder or a rabbinic scholar who can testify about the matter, as not all are well versed in this matter, and perhaps the field was not plowed at all. Abaye said: Learn from this statement of Rabbi Yehuda that when there is a Torah scholar in the city, all affairs of the city are thrust upon him, i.e., are his responsibility. Consequently, he is expected to know what has happened in the city.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪讗 讗讘谉 诪爪讜讬谞转 转讞转讬讛 讟诪讗 砖转讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 住讬讚 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讟诪讗 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 住讬讚 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讟讛讜专

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of marking graves. Rav Yehuda said: If one found a single marked stone, this indicates that the ground underneath it is ritually impure. If he found two marked stones, the following distinction applies: If there is lime on the ground between them, this indicates that the area between them is ritually impure and the two stones mark the boundaries of the impure area; and if there is no lime on the ground between them, this indicates that the area between them is ritually pure and each stone marks a separate area of ritual impurity.

讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 讞讜专砖 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪爪讗 讗讘谉 讗讞转 诪爪讜讬谞转 转讞转讬讛 讟诪讗 砖转讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讞讜专砖 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讟讛讜专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讟诪讗

The Gemara asks: And is the area between them deemed ritually pure even though there is no sign of plowing having taken place between the stones? But isn鈥檛 it taught otherwise in a baraita as follows: If one found a single marked stone, this indicates that the ground underneath it is ritually impure. If he found two marked stones, then the following distinction applies: If there is evidence of plowing having taken place between them, the area between the two stones is ritually pure; and if not, the area between them is ritually impure.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讻砖讛住讬讚 砖驻讜讱 注诇 专讗砖讬讛谉 讜诪专讜讚讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讞讜专砖 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讟讛讜专 讚讗讬诪讜专 诪讞诪转 讞讜专砖 讛讜讗 讚讗讬拽驻诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 住讬讚 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讛讜讗 讜讟诪讗

Rav Pappa said: The contradiction can be resolved by explaining that here, in the baraita, the case is where the lime used as a marker of ritual impurity had been poured on top of the stones, and it is spread thinly this way and that. In this case, if there is evidence of plowing having taken place between the stones, the area between them is ritually pure, as one can say that the lime was peeled off from the stones due to the plowing; originally the lime was only on top of the stones, to indicate that there is ritual impurity underneath them, but then fell into the area between them during the plowing. But if there is no evidence of a plow having passed between them, then it is most likely that the lime was meant to mark the ground between the stones, and the entire area between them is ritually impure.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 诪爪专 讗讞讚 诪爪讜讬谉 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖谞讬诐 讛诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖诇砖讛 讛诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛 讟讛讜专讛 讗专讘注讛 讛谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛 讟诪讗讛

Rabbi Asi said: If only one border of a field is marked, it is assumed that the border itself is ritually impure while the entire rest of the field is ritually pure. If two borders are marked, it is assumed that they are both ritually impure while the entire rest of the field is ritually pure. If three borders are marked, it is assumed that the three of them are ritually impure while the entire rest of the field is ritually pure. If all four borders are marked, the borders themselves are ritually pure, while the entire field enclosed by the borders is ritually impure.

讚讗诪专 诪专 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

As the Master said in the baraita: One does not distance the marker from the actual site of ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., not to increase the area into which people refrain from entering. Consequently, they marked all of the borders to indicate that the entire field is ritually impure.

讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讛讻诇讗讬诐

搂 It is taught in the mishna: And inspectors even go out on the intermediate days of a Festival to uproot the shoots of prohibited diverse kinds [kilayim] that grew in the fields during the rainy season.

讜讗讻诇讗讬诐 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 谞驻拽讬谞谉 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讘讗讞讚 讘讗讚专 诪砖诪讬注讬谉 注诇 讛砖拽诇讬诐 讜注诇 讛讻诇讗讬诐

The Gemara asks: Do they go out to uproot diverse kinds during the intermediate days of a Festival? The Gemara raises a contradiction from another mishna (Shekalim 1:1), which states: On the first of Adar the court issues a proclamation concerning the collection of the shekels, i.e., the yearly half-shekel contribution to the Temple treasury made by each adult male for the purpose of buying communal offerings. And the court also issues a proclamation with regard to the obligation to uproot diverse kinds from the fields.

讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讘讜 拽讜专讬谉 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讘讻专讻讬诐 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇拽讜讜抓 讗转 讛讚专讻讬诐 讜诇转拽谉 讛专讞讜讘讜转 讜诇诪讜讚 讛诪拽讜讗讜转 讜注讜砖讬谉 讻诇 爪讜专讻讬 专讘讬诐 讜诪爪讬谞讬谉 讗转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇 讛讻诇讗讬诐

On the fifteenth of Adar the Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, is read in the walled cities, and they go out to clear thorns from the roads, to repair the city streets, and to measure the ritual baths to ascertain that they have the requisite quantity of water. And they tend to all other public needs, and they mark graves with lime, and they go out to uproot the shoots of diverse kinds. If they already went out in Adar to uproot the diverse kinds, why would they go out again on the intermediate days of the festival of Passover?

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘讘讻讬专 讻讗谉 讘讗驻讬诇 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘讝专注讬诐 讻讗谉 讘讬专拽讜转

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina disagreed about this issue: One said: Here, in the mishna that states that they go out on the fifteenth of Adar, it is referring to the early crop, while there, in the mishna that states that they go out on the intermediate days of the Festival, it is referring to the late crop, which isn鈥檛 clearly recognizable until the intermediate days of Passover. And one said: Here, in the mishna that states that they go out on the fifteenth of Adar, it is referring to grains that are sown in the winter and have already grown tall by Adar, while there, in the mishna that states that they go out on the intermediate days of the Festival, it is referring to vegetables, which only grow later in the season.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 谞讬爪谉 谞讬讻专 讗讘诇 谞讬爪谉 谞讬讻专 讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They taught that court messengers go out to uproot diverse kinds in the middle of the month of Adar only in a case where the blossom was not yet recognizable at an earlier date, so it was still impossible to determine whether or not the seedling was from diverse kinds of seeds. But if the blossom was already recognizable at an earlier date, they go out at that time to uproot the shoots of diverse kinds of seeds.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讚谞驻拽讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讻专 驻注讜诇讛 讚诪讜讝诇讬 讙讘谉

The Gemara asks: What is different about the intermediate days of a Festival that we specifically go out to uproot shoots of diverse kinds of seeds during that week? Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is due to the wages paid to the workers hired by the court to uproot the diverse kinds. On the intermediate days of the Festival it is prohibited for them to perform ordinary labor, and so they reduce their rates for us, i.e., for public works, as otherwise they would have no income at all.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 砖讻专 诪转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讚讬讚讛讜 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻诇 讻诪讛 讚讘注讜 诇讬转谉 诇讛讜

Rav Zevid said, and some say that it was Rav Mesharshiyya who said: Learn from this explanation that when we give the workers who uproot the diverse kinds their wages, we give it to them from the funds of the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. Since they are paid with consecrated money, an attempt is made to minimize the expenses. As, if it enters your mind that we pay them from theirs, i.e., the court forces the owners of the fields where the diverse kinds are found to pay the workers who uproot them, what benefit would we derive from saving the expense? However much the workers desire, they should pay them.

讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讻诇 住讗讛 砖讬砖 讘讛

Concerning the issue of uprooting diverse kinds, the Gemara asks: And how much of another species must be mixed in with a crop in order to be considered diverse kinds that must be uprooted by these workers? Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: The amount is like that which we learned in the mishna (Kilayim 2:1): Any se鈥檃 of seeds that contains

专讜讘注 讝专注 诪诪讬谉 讗讞专 讬诪注讟

a quarterkav or more of seeds of a different type, i.e., one twenty-fourth of the mixture is a type of seed other than the main type, one must reduce the other type of seeds in the mixture by uprooting the shoots.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 诪驻拽讬专讬谉 讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 转拽谞讛 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 转拽谞讛

With regard to the halakha that inspectors must go out and uproot the shoots of diverse kinds of seeds that grew in the fields, the Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the Sages ordained that they should pronounce the crop of the entire field in which diverse kinds was found ownerless, rather than uprooting the diverse kinds? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, in the mishna, where it says that the inspectors go out and uproot the diverse kinds, it is referring to the time before the institution of the new ordinance; there, in the baraita, where it says that the entire field is pronounced ownerless, it is referring to the time after the institution of that ordinance.

讚转谞讬讗 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 注讜拽专讬谉 讜诪砖诇讬讻讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪转谉 讜讛讬讜 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 砖诪讞讬谉 砖转讬 砖诪讞讜转 讗讞转 砖诪谞讻砖讬谉 诇讛诐 砖讚讜转讬讛谉 讜讗讞转 砖诪砖诇讬讻讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪转诐

The Gemara explains this ordinance as it is taught in another baraita: At first, the agents of the court would uproot the diverse kinds and cast them before the livestock belonging to the owners of the fields. However, the property holders would rejoice for two reasons: One, that the agents of the court weeded their fields for them when they uprooted the plants of the other type; and another one, that they cast the diverse kinds before their livestock, thereby saving them from having to feed them. Accordingly, the field owners took no steps to keep their fields free of diverse kinds of seeds.

讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 注讜拽专讬谉 讜诪砖诇讬讻讬谉 注诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讜 砖诪讞讬谉 砖诪讞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 砖诪谞讻砖讬谉 砖讚讜转讬讛谉 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 诪驻拽讬专讬谉 讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛

The Sages, therefore, ordained that the agents of the court should uproot the diverse kinds and cast them on the roads. Yet the property holders would still greatly rejoice that the agents of the court weeded their fields free of charge. Finally, the Sages ordained that they should pronounce the crop of the entire field in which diverse kinds was found ownerless.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诪讜砖讻讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 诪讗讬诇谉 诇讗讬诇谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬砖拽讛 讗转 讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讝专注讬诐 砖诇讗 砖转讜 诇驻谞讬 讛诪讜注讚 诇讗 讬砖拽诐 讘诪讜注讚 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: In a field that is filled with trees, one may draw water via channels from one tree to another tree on the intermediate days of a Festival because trees are in dire need of water. And this is permitted provided that in doing so he does not water the entire field. With regard to plants that were not watered prior to the Festival, one may not water them on the intermediate days of the Festival because they do not need the water. But the Rabbis permit watering in this case, i.e., trees, and that case, i.e., plants.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讚讛 诪讟讜谞谞转 诪讜转专 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讻砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇讛砖拽讜转谉 讘诪讜注讚 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘讝专注讬诐 砖诇讗 砖转讜 诪诇驻谞讬 讛诪讜注讚 讗讘诇 讝专注讬诐 砖砖转讜 诇驻谞讬 讛诪讜注讚 诪讜转专 诇讛砖拽讜转谉 讘诪讜注讚

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said: If the field was moist [metunenet] before the Festival but in the meantime it dried up, it is permitted to water the entire field even according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. That ruling is also taught in a baraita: When they said that it is prohibited to water them on the intermediate days of a Festival, they said this only with regard to plants that were not watered at all before the Festival. However, with regard to plants that were already watered before the Festival and had begun to grow, it is permitted to water them on the intermediate days of the Festival because failure to water them would lead to substantial financial loss.

讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讚讛 诪讟讜谞谞转 诪讜转专 讜讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讚讛 讙专讬讚 讘诪讜注讚 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛

And if the field was moist before the Festival, it is permitted to water it even if the field had not been watered prior to the Festival. And one may not water a dry field on the intermediate days of a Festival. But the Rabbis permit watering this and that, i.e., plants that were not watered before the Festival and a dry field.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 转专讘讬爪讗 砖专讬 诇转专讘讜爪讬 讘讞讜诇讗 讚诪讜注讚讗 砖讚讛 讙专讬讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗驻诇讗 诪砖讜讬 诇讛 讞专驻讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗驻诇讗 诪砖讜讬 诇讛 讞专驻讗

Ravina said: Learn from here that one is permitted to sprinkle a garden [tarbitza] with water on the intermediate days of a Festival. Ravina explains how he arrived at this conclusion: What is the reason that the Rabbis permit one to water a dry field despite the fact that the plants will not die from a lack of moisture? This is because watering the field in advance turns a late crop into an early crop. It can be understood from this that the late ripening of a crop is considered a substantial financial loss that serves as a reason to permit labor that would otherwise be prohibited on the intermediate days of a Festival. Here too, in the case of a garden, sprinkling it with water turns a late crop into an early crop, and so it is permitted on the intermediate days of a Festival.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪专讘讬爪讬谉 砖讚讛 诇讘谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讜注讚

The Sages taught the following baraita: One may sprinkle water in a field of grain during the Sabbatical Year, but not on the intermediate days of a Festival.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诪专讘讬爪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘诪讜注讚 讘讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: One may sprinkle water in a field of grain both on the intermediate days of a Festival and during the Sabbatical Year? Rav Huna said: This is not difficult. This baraita that prohibits sprinkling water in a field of grain on the intermediate days of a Festival is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, who prohibits watering an entire field. That baraita that permits it is in accordance with the more lenient opinion of the Rabbis.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诪专讘讬爪讬谉 砖讚讛 诇讘谉 注专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讗讜 讬专拽讜转 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诪专讘讬爪讬谉 砖讚讛 诇讘谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讗讜 讬专拽讜转 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转

It is taught in another baraita: One may sprinkle water in a white field on the eve of the Sabbatical Year so that vegetables will sprout during the Sabbatical Year; and not only that, but one may sprinkle water in a field of grain even during the Sabbatical Year itself, so that vegetables will sprout upon the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year. Since sprinkling water is not regarded as full-fledged agricultural labor, it is permitted as long as the sprinkling and the sprouting of the vegetables do not both occur during the Sabbatical Year itself.

诪转谞讬壮 爪讚讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬砖讜转 讜讗转 讛注讻讘专讬诐 诪砖讚讛 讛讗讬诇谉 讜诪砖讚讛 讛诇讘谉 讻讚专讻讜 讘诪讜注讚 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讚讛 讛讗讬诇谉 讻讚专讻讜 讜诪砖讚讛 讛诇讘谉 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讜

MISHNA: One may trap moles [ishut] and mice in an orchard and in a field of grain in his usual manner, i.e., as he would trap them all year round, both on the intermediate days of a Festival and during the Sabbatical Year. But the Rabbis say: In an orchard he may trap them in his usual manner, but in a field of grain, where there is no danger of substantial financial loss, he may only trap them in a way that is not his usual manner.

讜诪拽专讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专爪讛 讘诪讜注讚 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讘讜谞讛 讻讚专讻讜

And one may seal a breach in the wall of his garden on the intermediate days of a Festival, and during the Sabbatical Year one may even build a wall in his usual manner, as this is not considered an agricultural labor. Consequently, despite the fact that this benefits the garden by offering it protection, it is not prohibited during the Sabbatical Year.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬砖讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 注讬谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讬诪专 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讻诪讜 砖讘诇讜诇 转诪住 讬讛诇讱 谞驻诇 讗砖转 讘诇 讞讝讜 砖诪砖

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is meant by the term ishut? Rav Yehuda said: An ishut is a creature that has no eyes, a rodent that digs holes in the ground and can cause damage to roots and vegetables. Rava bar Yishmael said, and some say that it was Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya who said: What is the verse that indicates the identity of the ishut? 鈥淎s a snail that melts and disappears; like the fall of a young mole [eshet] that has not seen the sun鈥 (Psalms 58:9). It is understood that this creature has not seen the sun because it does not have eyes.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 爪讚讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬砖讜转 讜讗转 讛注讻讘专讬诐 诪砖讚讛 讛诇讘谉 讜诪砖讚讛 讛讗讬诇谉 讻讚专讻讜 讜诪讞专讬讘讬谉 讞讜专讬 谞诪诇讬诐 讻讬爪讚 诪讞专讬讘讬谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讘讬讗 注驻专 诪讞讜专 讝讛 讜谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 讞讜专 讝讛 讜讛谉 讞讜谞拽讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

The Gemara expands upon the halakha recorded in the mishna. The Sages taught the following baraita: One may trap moles and mice in a field of grain and in an orchard in his usual manner, and one may destroy ant holes so that the ants will cause no damage. How does one destroy ant holes? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One brings soil from this ant hole and places it in that ant hole, and since the ants from the two nests are not familiar with each other, they strangle each other.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讬诪专 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讜讛讜讗 讚拽讗讬 讘转专讬 注讘专讬 谞讛专讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讙砖专讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讙诪诇讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诪爪专讗

Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya said in the name of Abaye: And this advice works only in certain circumstances: When the ant holes are located on two opposite sides of a river, when there is no bridge connecting the two sides, when there is not even a plank bridge over the water, and when there is not even a rope stretched taut across the river. If there is any connection whatsoever between the two sides of the river, the ants from the two nests are likely to recognize each other and not fight.

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Yad Binyamin ladies for the refuah shleima of Asher ben Devorah Fayga.

    This month's learning is sponsored by Bracha Rutner in loving memory of her mother, Anna Rutner, Sarah bat Yom Tov and Rachel, on her 5th yahrzeit.

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Leora & Jonathan Kukin and Cynthia & Abe Steinberger in honor of Rella Feldman and Curtiss Pulitzer.

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 6: Accidental Kilyaim

In an agricultural society, the farm makes sense as the focus of Chol HaMoed activity... Including uprooting kilayim - but...
6

Introduction to Moed Katan

Watch the video introduction or listen to the podcast below.  

Moed Katan 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Moed Katan 6

讜讚诇诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讙讜讗讬 讜讗讬诇谞讜转 诪讘专讗讬

The Gemara asks: But perhaps the ritual impurity was on the inside and the trees were on the outside, and only the area between the trees was plowed, while the inner portion of the field with the grave was not plowed?

讘诪住讜讘讻讬谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讗诪专谉 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

The Gemara answers: The case is where the trees are scattered throughout the entire field, so that it is likely that the entire field was plowed. And if you wish, say instead: This is not a concern, as we said earlier that one does not distance the marker too far from the actual site of ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of Eretz Yisrael. As the marker is located near the trees, presumably the trees are close to the actual site of the grave, and the site of the grave was plowed.

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 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘诪转讗 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚诪转讗 注诇讬讛 专诪讬讗

It is taught in the baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One relies on these signs only when there is an Elder or a rabbinic scholar who can testify about the matter, as not all are well versed in this matter, and perhaps the field was not plowed at all. Abaye said: Learn from this statement of Rabbi Yehuda that when there is a Torah scholar in the city, all affairs of the city are thrust upon him, i.e., are his responsibility. Consequently, he is expected to know what has happened in the city.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪讗 讗讘谉 诪爪讜讬谞转 转讞转讬讛 讟诪讗 砖转讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 住讬讚 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讟诪讗 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 住讬讚 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讟讛讜专

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of marking graves. Rav Yehuda said: If one found a single marked stone, this indicates that the ground underneath it is ritually impure. If he found two marked stones, the following distinction applies: If there is lime on the ground between them, this indicates that the area between them is ritually impure and the two stones mark the boundaries of the impure area; and if there is no lime on the ground between them, this indicates that the area between them is ritually pure and each stone marks a separate area of ritual impurity.

讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 讞讜专砖 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪爪讗 讗讘谉 讗讞转 诪爪讜讬谞转 转讞转讬讛 讟诪讗 砖转讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讞讜专砖 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讟讛讜专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讟诪讗

The Gemara asks: And is the area between them deemed ritually pure even though there is no sign of plowing having taken place between the stones? But isn鈥檛 it taught otherwise in a baraita as follows: If one found a single marked stone, this indicates that the ground underneath it is ritually impure. If he found two marked stones, then the following distinction applies: If there is evidence of plowing having taken place between them, the area between the two stones is ritually pure; and if not, the area between them is ritually impure.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讻砖讛住讬讚 砖驻讜讱 注诇 专讗砖讬讛谉 讜诪专讜讚讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讞讜专砖 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讟讛讜专 讚讗讬诪讜专 诪讞诪转 讞讜专砖 讛讜讗 讚讗讬拽驻诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 住讬讚 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讛讜讗 讜讟诪讗

Rav Pappa said: The contradiction can be resolved by explaining that here, in the baraita, the case is where the lime used as a marker of ritual impurity had been poured on top of the stones, and it is spread thinly this way and that. In this case, if there is evidence of plowing having taken place between the stones, the area between them is ritually pure, as one can say that the lime was peeled off from the stones due to the plowing; originally the lime was only on top of the stones, to indicate that there is ritual impurity underneath them, but then fell into the area between them during the plowing. But if there is no evidence of a plow having passed between them, then it is most likely that the lime was meant to mark the ground between the stones, and the entire area between them is ritually impure.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 诪爪专 讗讞讚 诪爪讜讬谉 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖谞讬诐 讛诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖诇砖讛 讛诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛 讟讛讜专讛 讗专讘注讛 讛谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛 讟诪讗讛

Rabbi Asi said: If only one border of a field is marked, it is assumed that the border itself is ritually impure while the entire rest of the field is ritually pure. If two borders are marked, it is assumed that they are both ritually impure while the entire rest of the field is ritually pure. If three borders are marked, it is assumed that the three of them are ritually impure while the entire rest of the field is ritually pure. If all four borders are marked, the borders themselves are ritually pure, while the entire field enclosed by the borders is ritually impure.

讚讗诪专 诪专 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

As the Master said in the baraita: One does not distance the marker from the actual site of ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., not to increase the area into which people refrain from entering. Consequently, they marked all of the borders to indicate that the entire field is ritually impure.

讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讛讻诇讗讬诐

搂 It is taught in the mishna: And inspectors even go out on the intermediate days of a Festival to uproot the shoots of prohibited diverse kinds [kilayim] that grew in the fields during the rainy season.

讜讗讻诇讗讬诐 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 谞驻拽讬谞谉 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讘讗讞讚 讘讗讚专 诪砖诪讬注讬谉 注诇 讛砖拽诇讬诐 讜注诇 讛讻诇讗讬诐

The Gemara asks: Do they go out to uproot diverse kinds during the intermediate days of a Festival? The Gemara raises a contradiction from another mishna (Shekalim 1:1), which states: On the first of Adar the court issues a proclamation concerning the collection of the shekels, i.e., the yearly half-shekel contribution to the Temple treasury made by each adult male for the purpose of buying communal offerings. And the court also issues a proclamation with regard to the obligation to uproot diverse kinds from the fields.

讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讘讜 拽讜专讬谉 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讘讻专讻讬诐 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇拽讜讜抓 讗转 讛讚专讻讬诐 讜诇转拽谉 讛专讞讜讘讜转 讜诇诪讜讚 讛诪拽讜讗讜转 讜注讜砖讬谉 讻诇 爪讜专讻讬 专讘讬诐 讜诪爪讬谞讬谉 讗转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇 讛讻诇讗讬诐

On the fifteenth of Adar the Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, is read in the walled cities, and they go out to clear thorns from the roads, to repair the city streets, and to measure the ritual baths to ascertain that they have the requisite quantity of water. And they tend to all other public needs, and they mark graves with lime, and they go out to uproot the shoots of diverse kinds. If they already went out in Adar to uproot the diverse kinds, why would they go out again on the intermediate days of the festival of Passover?

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘讘讻讬专 讻讗谉 讘讗驻讬诇 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘讝专注讬诐 讻讗谉 讘讬专拽讜转

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina disagreed about this issue: One said: Here, in the mishna that states that they go out on the fifteenth of Adar, it is referring to the early crop, while there, in the mishna that states that they go out on the intermediate days of the Festival, it is referring to the late crop, which isn鈥檛 clearly recognizable until the intermediate days of Passover. And one said: Here, in the mishna that states that they go out on the fifteenth of Adar, it is referring to grains that are sown in the winter and have already grown tall by Adar, while there, in the mishna that states that they go out on the intermediate days of the Festival, it is referring to vegetables, which only grow later in the season.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 谞讬爪谉 谞讬讻专 讗讘诇 谞讬爪谉 谞讬讻专 讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They taught that court messengers go out to uproot diverse kinds in the middle of the month of Adar only in a case where the blossom was not yet recognizable at an earlier date, so it was still impossible to determine whether or not the seedling was from diverse kinds of seeds. But if the blossom was already recognizable at an earlier date, they go out at that time to uproot the shoots of diverse kinds of seeds.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讚谞驻拽讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讻专 驻注讜诇讛 讚诪讜讝诇讬 讙讘谉

The Gemara asks: What is different about the intermediate days of a Festival that we specifically go out to uproot shoots of diverse kinds of seeds during that week? Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is due to the wages paid to the workers hired by the court to uproot the diverse kinds. On the intermediate days of the Festival it is prohibited for them to perform ordinary labor, and so they reduce their rates for us, i.e., for public works, as otherwise they would have no income at all.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 砖讻专 诪转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讚讬讚讛讜 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻诇 讻诪讛 讚讘注讜 诇讬转谉 诇讛讜

Rav Zevid said, and some say that it was Rav Mesharshiyya who said: Learn from this explanation that when we give the workers who uproot the diverse kinds their wages, we give it to them from the funds of the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. Since they are paid with consecrated money, an attempt is made to minimize the expenses. As, if it enters your mind that we pay them from theirs, i.e., the court forces the owners of the fields where the diverse kinds are found to pay the workers who uproot them, what benefit would we derive from saving the expense? However much the workers desire, they should pay them.

讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讻诇 住讗讛 砖讬砖 讘讛

Concerning the issue of uprooting diverse kinds, the Gemara asks: And how much of another species must be mixed in with a crop in order to be considered diverse kinds that must be uprooted by these workers? Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: The amount is like that which we learned in the mishna (Kilayim 2:1): Any se鈥檃 of seeds that contains

专讜讘注 讝专注 诪诪讬谉 讗讞专 讬诪注讟

a quarterkav or more of seeds of a different type, i.e., one twenty-fourth of the mixture is a type of seed other than the main type, one must reduce the other type of seeds in the mixture by uprooting the shoots.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 诪驻拽讬专讬谉 讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 转拽谞讛 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 转拽谞讛

With regard to the halakha that inspectors must go out and uproot the shoots of diverse kinds of seeds that grew in the fields, the Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the Sages ordained that they should pronounce the crop of the entire field in which diverse kinds was found ownerless, rather than uprooting the diverse kinds? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, in the mishna, where it says that the inspectors go out and uproot the diverse kinds, it is referring to the time before the institution of the new ordinance; there, in the baraita, where it says that the entire field is pronounced ownerless, it is referring to the time after the institution of that ordinance.

讚转谞讬讗 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 注讜拽专讬谉 讜诪砖诇讬讻讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪转谉 讜讛讬讜 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 砖诪讞讬谉 砖转讬 砖诪讞讜转 讗讞转 砖诪谞讻砖讬谉 诇讛诐 砖讚讜转讬讛谉 讜讗讞转 砖诪砖诇讬讻讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪转诐

The Gemara explains this ordinance as it is taught in another baraita: At first, the agents of the court would uproot the diverse kinds and cast them before the livestock belonging to the owners of the fields. However, the property holders would rejoice for two reasons: One, that the agents of the court weeded their fields for them when they uprooted the plants of the other type; and another one, that they cast the diverse kinds before their livestock, thereby saving them from having to feed them. Accordingly, the field owners took no steps to keep their fields free of diverse kinds of seeds.

讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 注讜拽专讬谉 讜诪砖诇讬讻讬谉 注诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讜 砖诪讞讬谉 砖诪讞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 砖诪谞讻砖讬谉 砖讚讜转讬讛谉 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 诪驻拽讬专讬谉 讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛

The Sages, therefore, ordained that the agents of the court should uproot the diverse kinds and cast them on the roads. Yet the property holders would still greatly rejoice that the agents of the court weeded their fields free of charge. Finally, the Sages ordained that they should pronounce the crop of the entire field in which diverse kinds was found ownerless.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诪讜砖讻讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诐 诪讗讬诇谉 诇讗讬诇谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬砖拽讛 讗转 讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讝专注讬诐 砖诇讗 砖转讜 诇驻谞讬 讛诪讜注讚 诇讗 讬砖拽诐 讘诪讜注讚 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: In a field that is filled with trees, one may draw water via channels from one tree to another tree on the intermediate days of a Festival because trees are in dire need of water. And this is permitted provided that in doing so he does not water the entire field. With regard to plants that were not watered prior to the Festival, one may not water them on the intermediate days of the Festival because they do not need the water. But the Rabbis permit watering in this case, i.e., trees, and that case, i.e., plants.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讚讛 诪讟讜谞谞转 诪讜转专 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讻砖讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇讛砖拽讜转谉 讘诪讜注讚 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘讝专注讬诐 砖诇讗 砖转讜 诪诇驻谞讬 讛诪讜注讚 讗讘诇 讝专注讬诐 砖砖转讜 诇驻谞讬 讛诪讜注讚 诪讜转专 诇讛砖拽讜转谉 讘诪讜注讚

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said: If the field was moist [metunenet] before the Festival but in the meantime it dried up, it is permitted to water the entire field even according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. That ruling is also taught in a baraita: When they said that it is prohibited to water them on the intermediate days of a Festival, they said this only with regard to plants that were not watered at all before the Festival. However, with regard to plants that were already watered before the Festival and had begun to grow, it is permitted to water them on the intermediate days of the Festival because failure to water them would lead to substantial financial loss.

讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讚讛 诪讟讜谞谞转 诪讜转专 讜讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 砖讚讛 讙专讬讚 讘诪讜注讚 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛

And if the field was moist before the Festival, it is permitted to water it even if the field had not been watered prior to the Festival. And one may not water a dry field on the intermediate days of a Festival. But the Rabbis permit watering this and that, i.e., plants that were not watered before the Festival and a dry field.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 转专讘讬爪讗 砖专讬 诇转专讘讜爪讬 讘讞讜诇讗 讚诪讜注讚讗 砖讚讛 讙专讬讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗驻诇讗 诪砖讜讬 诇讛 讞专驻讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗驻诇讗 诪砖讜讬 诇讛 讞专驻讗

Ravina said: Learn from here that one is permitted to sprinkle a garden [tarbitza] with water on the intermediate days of a Festival. Ravina explains how he arrived at this conclusion: What is the reason that the Rabbis permit one to water a dry field despite the fact that the plants will not die from a lack of moisture? This is because watering the field in advance turns a late crop into an early crop. It can be understood from this that the late ripening of a crop is considered a substantial financial loss that serves as a reason to permit labor that would otherwise be prohibited on the intermediate days of a Festival. Here too, in the case of a garden, sprinkling it with water turns a late crop into an early crop, and so it is permitted on the intermediate days of a Festival.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪专讘讬爪讬谉 砖讚讛 诇讘谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讜注讚

The Sages taught the following baraita: One may sprinkle water in a field of grain during the Sabbatical Year, but not on the intermediate days of a Festival.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诪专讘讬爪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘诪讜注讚 讘讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: One may sprinkle water in a field of grain both on the intermediate days of a Festival and during the Sabbatical Year? Rav Huna said: This is not difficult. This baraita that prohibits sprinkling water in a field of grain on the intermediate days of a Festival is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, who prohibits watering an entire field. That baraita that permits it is in accordance with the more lenient opinion of the Rabbis.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诪专讘讬爪讬谉 砖讚讛 诇讘谉 注专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讗讜 讬专拽讜转 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诪专讘讬爪讬谉 砖讚讛 诇讘谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讻讚讬 砖讬爪讗讜 讬专拽讜转 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转

It is taught in another baraita: One may sprinkle water in a white field on the eve of the Sabbatical Year so that vegetables will sprout during the Sabbatical Year; and not only that, but one may sprinkle water in a field of grain even during the Sabbatical Year itself, so that vegetables will sprout upon the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year. Since sprinkling water is not regarded as full-fledged agricultural labor, it is permitted as long as the sprinkling and the sprouting of the vegetables do not both occur during the Sabbatical Year itself.

诪转谞讬壮 爪讚讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬砖讜转 讜讗转 讛注讻讘专讬诐 诪砖讚讛 讛讗讬诇谉 讜诪砖讚讛 讛诇讘谉 讻讚专讻讜 讘诪讜注讚 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讚讛 讛讗讬诇谉 讻讚专讻讜 讜诪砖讚讛 讛诇讘谉 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讜

MISHNA: One may trap moles [ishut] and mice in an orchard and in a field of grain in his usual manner, i.e., as he would trap them all year round, both on the intermediate days of a Festival and during the Sabbatical Year. But the Rabbis say: In an orchard he may trap them in his usual manner, but in a field of grain, where there is no danger of substantial financial loss, he may only trap them in a way that is not his usual manner.

讜诪拽专讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专爪讛 讘诪讜注讚 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讘讜谞讛 讻讚专讻讜

And one may seal a breach in the wall of his garden on the intermediate days of a Festival, and during the Sabbatical Year one may even build a wall in his usual manner, as this is not considered an agricultural labor. Consequently, despite the fact that this benefits the garden by offering it protection, it is not prohibited during the Sabbatical Year.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬砖讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 注讬谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讬诪专 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讻诪讜 砖讘诇讜诇 转诪住 讬讛诇讱 谞驻诇 讗砖转 讘诇 讞讝讜 砖诪砖

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is meant by the term ishut? Rav Yehuda said: An ishut is a creature that has no eyes, a rodent that digs holes in the ground and can cause damage to roots and vegetables. Rava bar Yishmael said, and some say that it was Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya who said: What is the verse that indicates the identity of the ishut? 鈥淎s a snail that melts and disappears; like the fall of a young mole [eshet] that has not seen the sun鈥 (Psalms 58:9). It is understood that this creature has not seen the sun because it does not have eyes.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 爪讚讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬砖讜转 讜讗转 讛注讻讘专讬诐 诪砖讚讛 讛诇讘谉 讜诪砖讚讛 讛讗讬诇谉 讻讚专讻讜 讜诪讞专讬讘讬谉 讞讜专讬 谞诪诇讬诐 讻讬爪讚 诪讞专讬讘讬谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讘讬讗 注驻专 诪讞讜专 讝讛 讜谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 讞讜专 讝讛 讜讛谉 讞讜谞拽讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

The Gemara expands upon the halakha recorded in the mishna. The Sages taught the following baraita: One may trap moles and mice in a field of grain and in an orchard in his usual manner, and one may destroy ant holes so that the ants will cause no damage. How does one destroy ant holes? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One brings soil from this ant hole and places it in that ant hole, and since the ants from the two nests are not familiar with each other, they strangle each other.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讬诪专 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讜讛讜讗 讚拽讗讬 讘转专讬 注讘专讬 谞讛专讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讙砖专讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讙诪诇讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诪爪专讗

Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya said in the name of Abaye: And this advice works only in certain circumstances: When the ant holes are located on two opposite sides of a river, when there is no bridge connecting the two sides, when there is not even a plank bridge over the water, and when there is not even a rope stretched taut across the river. If there is any connection whatsoever between the two sides of the river, the ants from the two nests are likely to recognize each other and not fight.

Scroll To Top