Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yehudah permits trapping pests from a field field of trees in the normal manner, and from a corn-field in an unusual manner (i.e. with a Shinuy) - because the former entails a tremendous loss, whereas in the case of the latter, the loss is relatively small (as we have already explained).

(b)

1. 'In the normal manner' entails - digging a shaft in their habitat, and suspending a trap in it.
2. 'In an unusual manner' - piercing a spit-rod into the ground, and banging on it with a hammer until the earth loostens, falls on top of them and squashes them.

(c) It is permitted to trap pests in the normal manner even from a corn-field - if it is adjacent to a field of trees, so that they have easy access from the former to the latter.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that one is permitted to effect unprofessional repairs to a breach in a wall on Chol ha'Mo'ed. According to Rav Yosef, this constitutes a wall made of laurel branches interwoven with Lulav-leaves. The Tana of the Beraisa defines it - as making a wall of stones, without cementing them.

(b) Rav Chisda (explaining our Mishnah) establishes our Mishnah by the wall of a *garden* - but if the wall of a *courtyard* caves in, one may repair it normally (because of the likelihood of robbers taking advantage of the breach).

(c)

1. On the one hand, there is no proof (that one should be permitted to reconstruct the wall of a courtyard in the normal manner) from the Beraisa, which permits a wall that is leaning over the street to be pulled down and re-built - because the Tana only permits it because of the danger involved (as the Tana specifically writes).
2. On the other hand, we can not deduce from there (seeing as the Beraisa actually concludes 'Mipnei ha'Sakanah'), that if not for the danger aspect, it would be forbidden to rebuild it normally (a Kashya on Rav Chisda) - because that refers to the *demolition* of the wall, but not to its *reconstruction*.

(d) The reason that the Tana permits the reconstruction of the wall - is because, if Chazal would not have allowed it, the owner would not demolish it.

(a) In the Sh'mitah, our Mishnah permits repairing a breach in a wall in the normal manner. This can only refer to the wall of a *garden* (because what can possibly be wrong with repairing the wall of a courtyard in the Sh'mitah)?

(b) Had the Tana not permitted repairing a breach in the wall of a garden in the Sh'mitah, we would have thought that it is forbidden to do so - because it looks as if he is building it in order to guard the fruit (which would be forbidden).

(c) Rav Ashi proves Rav Chisda right from here - because as we just proved, the Tana is referring to the wall of a garden, and not to that of a courtyard (just as Rav Chisda explained).

(a) The Chachamim in our Mishnah forbid the Kohanim to examine Nega'im at all on Chol ha'Mo'ed - Rebbi Meir permits the actual examination, but allows them only to declare the 'Metzora' Tahor, and not, Tamei.

(b) The Chachamim is Rebbi Yossi - who maintains that, once the Kohen examines a Metzora, he is obligated to finalize his status, one way or the other.

(c) Rebbi makes a compromise. He rules like Rebbi Meir - by a Musgar (who is forbidden to be with his wife - see Tosfos DH 'Amar' - and who can only therefore benefit from the Kohen's examination - seeing as a Muchlat is permitted to be with his wife); and he rules like Rebbi Yossi - by a Muchlat (who is permitted to be with his wife - until the seven days during which he becomes Tahor).

(a) Rava restricts the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi to only one out of three possibilities. According to him, if a 'Metzora' ...

1. ... who is still Tahor arrives by the Kohen for the first time on Chol ha'Mo'ed - even Rebbi Meir will agree that the Kohen is not permitted to examine him (because there is nothing to be gain by doing so).
2. ... who is a Musgar Rishon, whom the Kohen is seeing for the second time - arrives by the Kohen on Chol ha'Mo'ed - then he is permitted to examine him (because if he declares him Tahor, then he will certainly make him happy, and if he does not, then it makes no difference, because he will simply continue being a Musgar for another seven days - see Tosfos DH 'be'Hesger').

(b) They argue in the case of a Musgar Sheini, who stands either to become Tahor, or a Muchlat.

(c) Rebbi Yossi disagree with Rebbi Meir (the Kohen cannot just remain silent if he considers the man Tamei) - because the Torah writes in Tazri'a "le'Taharo O le'Tam'o" (implying that he has to rule either one way or the other).

6)

(a) We learned earlier that Rebbi accepts Rebbi Yossi's ruling by a Muchlat and Rebbi Meir's by a Musgar (Sheini) - because, he maintains, a Muchlat, who is permitted to his wife, is happier both than a Musgar Sheini and than a Muchlat who becomes Tahor, both of whom are forbidden to their wives. Note: According to Rashi, Rava on the previous Amud, does not hold like Rebbi, because, in his opinion, Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi do not argue by a Musgar Sheini.

(b) Others invert Rebbi's ruling (that he accepts Rebbi Meir's opinion by a Muchlat and Rebbi Yossi's by a Musgar) - because a Muchlat who becomes Tahor has the advantage of being permitted to live with people, whereas as long as he is a Muchlat, he is forbidden to enter the town.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Yashav mi'Chutz le'Ohalo Shiv'as Yamim" - that a Muchlat (before he begins with the Taharah process) is permitted to be with his wife.
2. ... "Lech Emor Lahem, 'Shuvu Lachem le'Oholeichem!' - that "Ohel" means a wife.

(d)

1. Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "Shiv'as Yamim Yisperu Lo" - the same as the Tana Kama learns from "ve'Yashav mi'Chutz le'Ohalo Shiv'as Yamim" (that it is only during the days of Taharah that he is forbidden to be with his wife, but not as not as long as he is a Muchlat.
2. His son Rebbi Yossi maintains - that if he is forbidden to his wife during the days of Taharah, then how much more so whilst he is a Muchlat.

(a) Rebbi Chiya declared in front of Rebbi - that Yosam, the son of Uziyah, who was a Metzora, can only have been conceived during the period that Uziyah was a Muchlat (a proof for the Tana Kama or Rebbi Yehudah).

(b) Rebbi replied that Rebbi Chiya was merely echoing his own thoughts.

(c) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (in the previous question) Darshens a Kal va'Chomer (from Musgar to Muchlat). Rebbi Yehudah (and Rebbi) says that, since the Torah writes the Isur of being with his wife apecifically by the days of Taharah, it is clear that during the days that he is a Muchlat, he is permitted (see also Tosfos DH 'Mai').

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "*u've'Yom* Heira'os Bo ... " - that there are certain days on which the Kohen may not examine Tzara'as (i.e. a Chasan during the seven days of Sheva B'rachos, and on any of the Yamim-Tovim).

(b) Rebbi learns this from another source by Tum'as Batim - where the Kohen has to wait for the owner to clear all his vessels out of the house before he may examine it. Now if he has to wait on account of monetary considerations, then how much more so for a Mitzvah.

(c) According to Abaye, the Machlokes has no ramifications. Each one has his source, but they do not argue Halachically. Rava disagrees. According to him - Rebbi Yehudah (who says that the Kohen must wait for a Chasan and on Yom-Tov), will not extend this ruling to matters that are not a Mitzvah; whereas according to Rebbi, who learns it from Tum'as Batim, the Kohen will even have to wait for a reason that is no Mitzvah.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah declines to learn from "ve'Tzivah ha'Kohen u'Finu es ha'Bayis" - because the entire Din there (i.e. that plain wood and stones are Metamei at all), is a Chidush, and we cannot learn from something that is s Chidush.

Next daf