Moed Katan

How much [apart]? — Up to a parasang.1 R. JUDAH2 SAYS: IN THE TREE-FIELD IN THE USUAL WAY AND IN THE WHITE FIELD NOT IN THE USUAL WAY. Our Rabbis taught: How is the usual way? He digs a hole and suspends a trap in it. How is the unusual way? He drives a stake [into the spot] or strikes it with a pick and flattens out the soil underneath.3 It is taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar4 says, When they5 said, [‘And in the white field not in the usual way’], they said it only in reference to a white field situate near the city; but in a white field that is situate near a tree-field [they may trap them] even in the usual way, lest these [pests] come away from the white field and destroy the tree-field. AND A BREACH IS BLOCKED UP DURING THE FESTIVAL [WEEK]. How is it ‘blocked up’? — Said R. Joseph: With [a hurdle made of] twigs and daphne stakes. In a Baraitha it is taught: ‘Loose rubble is piled up without being plastered with clay.6 Said R. Hisda, This7 is taught only with regard to a garden wall,8 but the wall of a court9 is built in the usual way. Might one suggest that the following supports him: A wall that is bulging out into the public domain may be pulled down and built in the usual way, because it constitutes a danger [to the passers-by]!10 — [Not necessarily]. There the reason is as stated: ‘Because it constitutes a danger’. Some [put the argument] as follows: Come and hear: A wall that is bulging out into the public domain may be pulled down and built in the ordinary way, because it constitutes a danger. That is, where it constitutes a danger he may, but if it is not a danger he may not build. May we see in this a confutation of R. Hisda? — [Not necessarily], as R. Hisda might reply: There11 he may ‘pull down and build’, whereas here12 he may build13 but not pull down. Then let one in that case11 likewise [merely] pull down14 and not build!15 — If so, he might refrain even from pulling down.16 R. Ashi said: Our Mishnah, here, gives an indication to the same effect,17 for it states: BUT IN THE SABBATICAL YEAR, ONE BUILDS IN THE ORDINARY WAY. Now of what is it [that he may block up the breach]? If it means [the wall of] his courtyard, does this need to be stated?18 It can only be, therefore [a breach in] his garden [wall] although he might seem to be doing it in order to safeguard his fruits.19 You can infer it [from this]. MISHNAH.20 R. MEIR SAYS: AN [INITIAL]21 INSPECTION OF LEPROUS SYMPTOMS MAY BE MADE [DURING THE FESTIVAL ‘WEEK]22 FOR [THE PRIEST TO MAKE] A LENIENT PRONOUNCEMENT23 [ON THE FINDINGS], BUT NOT TO MAKE A SEVERE24 PRONOUNCEMENT; BUT THE SAGES SAY: [IT IS TO BE MADE] NEITHER FOR A LENIENT NOR FOR A SEVERE PRONOUNCEMENT.25 GEMARA. It is taught: R. Meir says that an inspection is made [during the festival week] to make a lenient pronouncement but not for a severe one. R. Jose says: Neither for making a lenient nor a severe pronouncement;26 as, if you arrive at the necessity of having to make a lenient pronouncement [on the findings] you are [likewise] bound to make a severe pronouncement. Said Rabbi: R. Meir's statement seems appropriately applied to the case of an [observational] detention27 and R. Jose's to that of a decided leper.28 Said Raba, In the case of one who is [as yet nominally] ‘clean’,29 all are agreed that he is not examined.30 In regard to one under preliminary [observational] detention, all agree that he is examined;31 where a difference of opinion arises is by straying. Hananiah in the name of R. Johanan (said), They permitted the last act thereof by reason of the first (the danger)’. (biblical) leprosy and the treatment of the patient are the following: (a) The diagnosis may be made by any expert, priest or layman, ‘save that the pronouncement of "cleanness" or "uncleanness" is assigned to the priest: if the priest be told that the man is "clean", he pronounces him clean; if he be told the man is "unclean", he pronounces him unclean’. Neg. III, 1. (b) On the findings of the first inspection the priest pronounced the patient either (i) as ‘clean’ and discharged, or as ‘unclean’, to be isolated; and (ii) in some cases of doubt, to be remanded for seven days’ observational detention. Cf. Lev. XIII, 2-4ff; Neg. III, 3-4. (c) After a second inspection in doubtful cases, the priest pronounced the patient either ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’ as before, or if still in doubt a further remand for seven days’ observational detention. Cf. Lev. ibid. 5-8; 13-17; Neg. ibid. 5-6. (d) On the third and final inspection he declared him ‘clean’ and discharged or ‘unclean’ to be isolated, until he recovered from his affection. During these periods the patient was allowed to consort with his wife. (e) On his recovery the patient went through two ritual purifications, (i) a preliminary, outside the town and returned home for seven days, during which, however, he was not to consort with his wife; cf. Lev. XIV, 2-8; Neg. XIV, 1-2. He then went through a second ritual purification which admitted him to the sanctuary for the sacrificial rites. Lev. XIV, 9ff; Neg. ibid. 3 and 7ff. Asheri and commentaries of Alfasi, although our editions of Alfasi as well as the Mishnah texts (Babylonian and Palestian) have it. V. Heller, Tosaf. Yom Tob and particularly Dr E. Baneth's full critical examination in his commentary on the Mishnah, Berlin,, 1925, Pt. II, p. 161, n. 26. festival. confirmed ‘unclean’ leper. Cf. supra, n. 11, b, c, and d.