Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Moed Katan, 7

1) FIXING THE WALL OF A "CHATZER" OR A "GINAH" ON CHOL HA'MO'ED

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that if a wall falls down on Chol ha'Mo'ed, it is permitted to repair it so that it is minimally effective, but not to rebuild it completely . During Shevi'is, it is permitted to rebuild the wall completely.

In the Gemara, Rav Chisda says that the Mishnah is referring to a wall around a Ginah (a planted garden); such a wall may not be rebuilt properly on Chol ha'Mo'ed. In contrast, if a wall around a *Chatzer* (private courtyard) falls down, it is permitted to rebuild it properly, even on Chol ha'Mo'ed, in order to prevent thieves from coming in (that is, the lack of a wall around one's Chatzer is a larger Davar ha'Aved than the lack of a wall around one's Ginah).

Rav Ashi adduces support for Rav Chisda's statement from the words of the Mishnah itself. The Mishnah says that it is permitted to rebuild a wall properly during Shevi'is. What type of wall does the Mishnah mean? It cannot be referring to the wall of a Chatzer, because there is no Isur of constructing a wall on Shevi'is! The only acts that are prohibited during Shevi'is are those which involve gardens or fields that are planted. Building a wall around a Chatzer, where produce does not grow, is not Asur. Rather, it must be that the Mishnah is referring to the wall of a Ginah, a planted garden. We might have thought that it is prohibited to rebuild during Shevi'is because it looks like one is building it in order to keep people away from the produce (which is Asur during Shevi'is), and therefore the Mishnah teaches that it is permitted.

How is this a support for Rav Chisda? Rav Chisda said that a wall of a *Chatzer* may be built *properly* even on Chol ha'Mo'ed; all the Mishnah is saying is that the wall of a *Ginah* may *not* be rebuilt properly on Chol ha'Mo'ed. The Mishnah discusses the wall of a Ginah, as opposed to a Chatzer, only in order to teach us a Halachah that applies during Shevi'is. Perhaps, though, the Mishnah would also prohibit properly rebuilding the wall of a Chatzer on Chol ha'Moe'ed! We do not see Rav Chisda's point -- that the wall of a Chatzer may be built properly -- from the Mishnah! (The RITVA raises this point.)

ANSWER: RASHI seems to have been bothered by this question. When Rav Ashi states that the Mishnah supports Rav Chisda, Rashi (DH Masnisin Nami) explains that Rav Ashi is bringing support for Rav Chisda's statement that one may *not* completely rebuild the wall of a *Ginah* on Chol ha'Mo'ed -- not that he proves from Mishnah that it is permitted to properly rebuild the wall of a Chatzer.

But why does the Gemara have to prove that the wall of a Ginah may not be completely rebuilt? Even if we understand the Mishnah to be addressing the wall of a Chatzer (and saying that even the wall of a Chatzer cannot be completely rebuilt on Chol ha'Mo'ed), then all the more so the wall of a Ginah may not be rebuilt properly on Chol ha'Mo'ed. (That is, we are always more stringent with regard to rebuilding the wall of a Ginah than with regard to rebuilding the wall of a Chatzer)!

The answer is that until hearing Rav Chisda's elucidation of our Mishnah, we would have thought that the Mishnah is referring *only* to a Chatzer and saying that even in a Chatzer one may not properly rebuild the wall on Chol ha'Mo'ed. This would have implied that the wall of a Ginah may not be rebuilt *at all* on Chol ha'Mo'ed, even in a temporary, make-shift manner. Rav Chisda's taught us that it is indeed permitted to rebuild the wall of a Ginah, albeit not in the normal fashion, on Chol ha'Mo'ed. This is the point Rav Ashi proves from the Mishnah. The Mishnah cannot be dealing exclusively with rebuilding the wall of a *Chatzer*, because then there would be no need to mention that it is permitted to build the wall on Shevi'is. It must be that the Mishnah is talking about a Ginah, and it is saying that it is permitted to repair a wall of a Ginah on Chol ha'Mo'ed as well as that of a Chatzer.

As Rashi writes, the Mishnah does not support Rav Chisda entirely, since we cannot infer from the Mishnah that it is permitted to properly rebuild the wall of a Chatzer. But it does support Rav Chisda's statement that it is permitted to slightly repair the wall of a Ginah.

QUESTION: Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi dispute whether it is permitted for a Kohen to inspect the Nega of a Metzora on Chol ha'Mo'ed. Rebbi Meir says that it is permitted, but the Kohen may not rule that it is Tamei if he sees that it shows signs of Tum'ah (rather, he should remain silent, and after the festival passes he may declare it Tamei), since such a ruling would distress the Metzora and detract from his Simchah during the festival. Rebbi Yosi says that a Kohen may not inspect a Metzora at all on Chol ha'Mo'ed, because if he sees that the Nega is Tamei, he is required to declare it as such, thus causing distress to the Metzora.

The Gemara adds that both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi agree that if the person is Tahor completely right now, the Kohen may not inspect him on Chol ha'Mo'ed, because he only stands to lose. If the Metzora had already waited for one week to see what happens to his Nega (Metzora Musgar after the first week of Hesger), everyone agrees that the Kohen may inspect him, because there is nothing for him to lose; he can only gain. The argument concerns inspecting the Metzora at the end of the second week of his Hesger, when it is possible for him to either gain (by becoming Tahor) or lose (by becoming Tamei, or Metzora Muchlat).

The Gemara's statements concerning a Metzora Musgar are very unclear. Why are we certain that he cannot lose after the first week of Hesger, and thus he may be inspected? In order to answer this question, we must briefly review the laws of the Metzora:

When a person develops a mark that looks like Tzara'as, a Kohen must ascertain whether or not it is a Nega Tzara'as. If it is indeed a Nega Tzara'as, the Kohen tentatively pronounces him Tamei for one week, making him a Metzora Musgar (Hesger Rishon). The Kohen returns after a week to see if any changes occurred to the mark. If there are no changes, the person remains a Metzora Musgar (Hesger Sheni) and the Kohen returns after the second week. If there are still no changes after the second week, the Kohen pronounces the person to be Tahor. If the Kohen *confirms* the Tum'ah of the Metzora after either the first or second week due to the appearance of Simanei Tum'ah in the mark, the Kohen pronounces him a Metzora Muchlat. A Metzora Muchlat remains Tamei until his Simanei Tum'ah go away. (The Simanei Tum'ah that can make a Metzora Tamei, or Muchlat, when marks of Tzara'as on his skin (Nig'ei Basar) are: 1. if the mark spreads (Pisyon); 2. at least two white hairs (Se'ar Lavan) grow on the mark; or 3. a patch of healthy skin (Michyah) appears in the middle of the affected skin.)

If so, it is clear that a Metzora Musgar after the first week of Hesger stands to lose if he is inspected. Although he might remain the same, he might also be declared Tamei if he develops Simanei Tum'ah! (TOSFOS DH Hesger)

An obvious solution immediately presents itself. Perhaps the Gemara means that we do not take into account the possibility of a new development occurring -- his Nega developing Simanei Tum'ah. We have no reason to assume that such Simanim will appear, if they were not there earlier. That is why the Gemara assumes that the Metzora has nothing to lose by being inspected, for we take into account only two possibilities -- he will become Tahor, or he will remain the same. This suggestion, however, is untenable. If it is true that we do not take into account the possibility of a new development, then why -- after the second week of Hesger -- does the Gemara say that the Metzora *does* stand to lose? If we do take into account the possibility that the Metzora will develop Simanei Tum'ah, then even after the second week of Hesger the Metzora has nothing to lose by being inspected. Whether the Tzara'as remains the same or recedes, the Metzora will become Tahor!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS and other Rishonim explain that although it is true that if the Kohen is Metamei the Metzora after the first Hesger, it certainly will cause him distress, nevertheless Rebbi Yosi permits inspecting a Metzora after the first week. The reason is because Rebbi Yosi agrees that the reasoning of Rebbi Meir applies to the case of a Metzora after the first week of Hesger: the Kohen has the prerogative to be silent (if he sees Simanei Tum'ah).

Why, though, should the Metzora after the first week of Hesger be different then after the second week, when Rebbi Yosi says that the Kohen may not be silent? A number of approaches are offered in the Rishonim:

1. TOSFOS HA'ROSH cites the RASHBAM who explains that the words "l'Taharo O l'Tam'o" (Vayikra 13:59), from which Rebbi Yosi derives that the Kohen must declare the Metzora to be Tamei if he sees signs of Tum'ah, do not apply to a Metzora after the first week, because after the first week there are *three* possibilities: to make him Tahor, to make him Tamei, or to leave him as he is for a second week of Hesger. The verse is referring to a situation when there are only two possibilities -- to make him Tahor or to make him Tamei. Therefore, the verse does not apply to the Metzora after the first week of Hesger. It applies only after the second week of Hesger, when there are indeed only two options -- to make him Tahor or to make him Tamei (Muchlat).

2. TOSFOS HA'ROSH and CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN cite the RA'AVAD who explains that after the first week, if the Kohen sees that the Tzrara'as spread but remains silent, the Metzora does not become Tahor, but remains Musgar for another week (as if the Tzrara'as had not spread). A Metzora Musgar retains many laws of Tum'ah. Therefore, if the Kohen sees signs of Tum'ah and remains silent, the Metzora remains Musgar and that itself is a fulfillment of the verse, "l'Taharo O l'Tam'o!" Since the Metzora does not become Muchlat, he has nothing to lose by seeing the Kohen.

3. TOSFOS says that the "first week" means the *beginning* of the first week, when the afflicted person comes to the Kohen for the first time to have his affliction inspected. Since there is nothing to be Metaher (since he is not Tamei yet), the verse "l'Taharo O l'Tam'o" cannot apply in this situation. It only applies when there is some sort of existing Nega, as in the case of a Musgar or Muchlat. (RASHASH -- it should be pointed out that Tosfos clearly did not have our Girsa that "a person who is Tahor certainly cannot be inspected by a Kohen." Indeed, the DIKDUKEI SOFRIM omits that line, see footnote #1 there.)

(b) RASHI, though, does not seem to take any of these approaches. Rashi (DH b'Hesger) says that even if the Kohen is not Metamei the Metzora Musgar, he does not lose, because he just continues to be Musgar for another week. Rashi might be following his opinion in his commentary on the Torah in Vayikra (13:6). Rashi there explains that a Metzora Musgar does not become Tahor automatically after two weeks if no change occurs. He only becomes Tahor if the Nega gets lighter in color than it was before (see Insights to Megilah 8b). Thus, according to Rashi, a Metzora Musgar is declared to be Tamei and Muchlat *even if his Nega does not develop Simanei Tum'ah*, but simply does not become lighter.

Accordingly, Rashi here might be understanding the Gemara as saying that we do not suspect that a Nega will develop Simanei Tum'ah. That is why, after the first week, the Metzora has nothing to lose by being inspected -- because we do not assume that he will develop Simanei Tum'ah. But after the second week, *even without Simanei Tum'ah developing*, the Musgar might be made into a Muchlat -- if the Nega does not become lighter! Therefore, after the second week, the Musgar stands to lose if inspected.

(c) In HAGAHOS HA'GRA, the Vilna Ga'on reverses the Girsa of our Gemara. After the second Hesger, everyone agrees that the Metzora may be inspected. The argument is only in the case of a Metzora after the *first* week of Hesger. Apparently, with this change in the Girsa, the Vilna Ga'on is suggesting a different solution to our question.

He also learns that we do not have reason to suspect that the Metzora will develop Simanei Tum'ah. Therefore, after the second week, he has nothing to lose by being inspected. We do not suspect that he will be declared Tamei, and the only other option is to make him Tahor; remaining Musgar for a third week is not a possibility. After the *first* week, though, even if he does not develop Simanei Tum'ah, he might remain Tamei (in the state of Hesger) for a second week. If the Kohen declares him to remain Tamei for another week, he will experience distress because his state of uncertainty is prolonged for a second week (see next Insight, (b)). Consequently, the Kohen may not inspect him after the first week of Hesger since he may prolong the Hesger, but he may inspect him after the second week because we do not assume that the Metzora will develop Simanei Tum'ah and become Tamei for a further week.

7b

QUESTION: The Mishnah and Beraisa (7a) record an argument between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi whether it is permitted for a Kohen to inspect the Nega of a Metzora on Chol ha'Mo'ed. Rebbi Meir says that it is permitted, but the Kohen may not rule that it is Tamei if he sees that it indeed shows signs of Tum'ah (rather, he should remain silent, and after the festival passes he may declare it Tamei), since such a ruling would distress the Metzora and detract from his Simchah during the festival. Rebbi Yosi says that a Kohen may not inspect a Metzora on Chol ha'Mo'ed, because if he sees that the Nega is Tamei, he is required to declare it as such.

The Beraisa quotes Rebbi who rules -- according to the first version -- that we follow Rebbi Meir in the case of a Metzora Musgar, and Rebbi Yosi in the case of a Metzora Muchlat. The second version of Rebbi's ruling says that the we follow Rebbi Meir in the case of a Muchlat, and Rebbi Yosi in the case of a Musgar.

It is clear that, essentially, Rebbi holds like Rebbi Yosi, that when a Kohen inspects a Metzora, he must declare him either as Tahor or as Tamei; he cannot remain quiet and delay declaring him Tamei until after the festival, as Rebbi Meir holds. Rebbi argues with Rebbi Yosi, though, and maintains that the Kohen *is* permitted to inspect a Metzora on Chol ha'Mo'ed in certain cases, because even though he might have to declare him Tamei, this will not cause him distress and will not detract from his Simchah during the festival. The Gemara explains how this works according to each version of Rebbi's ruling.

Let us look specifically at the section of the discussion dealing with a Meztora Musgar. The Gemara says that the version that says the Kohen may not inspect a Metzora Musgar holds "Tzavta d'Alma Adif" -- a person prefers to be able to be with his friends. If the Kohen inspects him, he might be found Tamei and lose the companionship of his friends. The other version that says the Kohen *may* inspect a Metzora Musgar holds "Tzavta d'Ishto Adif" -- a person prefers to be able to be with his wife (rather than with his friends). If the Kohen inspects him, he might gain the companionship of his wife, and therefore it is permitted to inspect him.

In what way will a Metzora Musgar who is inspected lose the companionship of his friends, and gain the companionship of his wife?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI explains that if he becomes Muchlat he loses the companionship of his friends because he is sent out of the city, while until now, as a Musgar, he was not sent out of the city.

At the same time, if he becomes Muchlat, he is gaining companionship with his wife. While he was a Musgar, he was prohibited to be with his wife, but when he becomes a Muchlat, he is permitted to be with his wife. (Even though he also has to be sent out of the city, he has a net gain because it is more important for him to be with his wife than to be with his friends.)

(b) RASHI KESAV YAD agrees with the second statement, that a Metzora Muchlat gains companionship with his wife, but he rejects the first statement that he loses companionship with his friends, because the Gemara in Megilah (8b) says clearly that a Metzora Musgar is also sent out of the city! We find no opinion that argues with the Gemara in Megilah.

Instead, he explains that the reason he loses by becoming Muchlat is because until the Kohen sees him, he has hopes of returning to normal society, since he was only a Metzora Musgar, a status which passes automatically after two weeks (unless he is found to have signs of Tum'ah). Now that the Kohen makes him Muchlat, he loses the chance to return to society after a given date (because now he his return depends on the signs of Tum'ah disappearing), and in that sense his loss of companionship is being extended when he is declared to be Tamei. That is the distress that he will experience on Chol ha'Mo'ed, and that is why the Kohen may not inspect him.

Tosfos (7a, DH Amar Rebbi) suggests the same logic. He adds that the Metzora indeed loses the companionship of his friends as well if he becomes Muchlat, but not because he is sent out of the city. Rather, since a Metzora Muchlat must do Peri'ah and Perimah (grow his hair long and tear his clothing), his friends will not want to associate with him.

(c) TOSFOS agrees with Rashi Kesav Yad regarding the distress that the Metzora Musgar will feel due to the loss of being with his friends. However, he rejects the explanation of Rashi (in both the printed version and the Kesav Yad) regarding how the Metzora Musgar gains companionship with his wife if he is declared to be Tamei.

Rashi assumes that a Musgar is prohibited to be with his wife (like a Muchlat during his seven-day count). Tosfos says that this is baseless. We find in Megilah (8b) that both Musgar and Muchlat are identical with regard to everything except with regard to Peri'ah and Perimah!

Therefore, Tosfos explains that he does *not* gain companionship with his wife, because he was always permitted to be with her as a Metzora Musgar, and now as a Metzora Muchlat he is also permitted to be with her. Rather, the version of Rebbi's ruling which holds that it is permitted to inspect a Metzora Musgar on Chol ha'Mo'ed maintains that a person *does not care* about the companionship of his friends, and therefore if he is declared to be Tamei he does not experience distress at that loss. (Tosfos is consistent with his view that the loss of companionship is not that the Metzora must be sent out of the city, for -- as a Musgar -- he was already sent out. Rather, since he has long hair and torn clothes, people do not want to associate with him. Alternatively, his loss is that he loses hope of uniting shortly with his friends. Since there is no tangible loss right now, it is not considered as though he is actually losing something by being declared Tamei.)

Rashi's explanation is indeed peculiar. What is Rashi's source for suggesting that a Musgar is not sent away from the city (unlike the Gemara in Megilah) and that he is prohibited to his wife? The TOSFOS HA'ROSH and RITVA suggest a novel approach to Rashi, that makes his explanation much easier to accept. Rashi, they explain, understood that the word "Musgar," literally "closed in" implies that a Metzora Musgar must be put into quarantine and remain *inside of his house*. This is what the Gemara in Megilah means when it says that a Musgar is "sent away." He is not banished from the city, but rather, he must remain in his house, where he cannot mingle with his friends and associates. On the other hand, he *can* hear the sound of his friends outside of the house, since they are right next to him, as opposed to a Muchlat who is banned from entering the city and cannot even *hear* his friends or associate with them in any way. In that sense, Rashi says that when he is Musgar the Metzora can indeed associate himself with his friends.

This explains Rashi's source that a Musgar is prohibited to his wife as well. Since he must be closed away in a private house, he obviously cannot be with his wife. He is not *prohibited* to be with his wife per se, but he cannot be with her since he is in quarantine. When he is Muchlat, he is no longer in quarantine, and therefore he may reunite with his wife.

(d) The RITVA and TOSFOS HA'ROSH suggest another explanation for why Rebbi, according to one version, allows the Kohen to see a Metzora Musgar. If the Kohen makes the Metzora into a Muchlat, he no doubt will be saddened. Nevertheless, according to this version of Rebbi's ruling Rebbi holds that it *is* the Kohen's prerogative to remain silent -- like Rebbi Meir. (See also HAGAHOS REBBI ELAZAR MOSHE HOROWITZ, who suggests the same explanation as the Tosfos ha'Rosh.)