Subscribe
Daily Daf Dose
The Mishna states: One may trap the ishus and the mice from a field of trees and from a grain field in the usual manner on Chol Hamoed and during Shemitah. The Chachamim maintain that one can trap them from a field of trees in a usual manner, but in an unusual manner from a grain field. (The potential loss in a grain field is relatively minor.) One may close a breach on Chol Hamoed, and during Shemitah, he may build in the usual manner. (6b)
The Gemora states that ishus is a creature that has no eyes (and burrows under the ground). (6b)
It was taught in a braisa: One may trap the ishus and the mice from a grain field and from a field of trees in the usual manner and one can destroy ant holes on Chol Hamoed. How do we accomplish that? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One should bring dirt from one ant hole and put it in the other and the ants will choke each other (by smelling the unrecognizable dirt).
Rav Yeimar bar Shlamya said in the name of Abaye: This method works only when the two holes are situated on two sides of a river, and only when there isn’t a bridge or a plank or a rope stretched across it. (Otherwise, the ants will recognize the dirt.) (6b)
It was taught in a braisa: What is considered trapping the rodents in a usual manner? One digs a hole and hangs a trap inside the hole. What is considered an unusual manner? One pierces a spit into the ground above their hideaway and hits it with a hammer. He then flattens the ground underneath it, which crushes them. (7a)
Rabbi Shimon ben Elozar taught in a braisa: One must trap the rodents from a grain field in an unusual manner only when the field is close to a city, however, if the field is close to a field of trees, one can trap them in a usual manner because otherwise, they might destroy the trees. (7a)
The Mishna states: One may close a breach on Chol Hamoed (but it cannot be built in a usual manner). Rav Chisda said: This is only regarding a garden wall but one can rebuild a courtyard wall (since otherwise, thieves may enter). (7a)
Rabbi Meir said in the Mishna: A Kohen is permitted to look at a negah tzaraas (erroneously described as leprosy, it is an affliction of the skin mentioned in the Torah) in order to rule leniently but he is not permitted to issue a strict ruling. The Chachamim disagree and maintain that a Kohen cannot look at the negah at all. (7a)
The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Meir said that a Kohen is permitted to look at a negah tzaraas in order to rule leniently but he is not permitted to issue a strict ruling. Rabbi Yosi says that he cannot look at all, not to issue a lenient ruling or a strict one, since if the Kohen looks at the negah hoping to issue a lenient ruling, he might be compelled to issue a strict ruling as well. (Once he looks at a negah, he must issue a ruling.) Rebbe said: Rabbi Meir’s words, that a Kohen can look at a negah, seems to be correct in regards to a confined metzora; and the words of Rabbi Yosi, that a Kohen cannot look at a negah, seems to be correct in regards to a confirmed one.
Rava said: If he was never looked at altogether, everyone agrees that the Kohen does not look at the negah during Chol Hamoed; if he is at the conclusion of the first confinement, everyone agrees that the Kohen does look at him; the argument is regarding a metzora who is at the conclusion of his second week of confinement. Rabbi Meir maintains that the Kohen can look at the negah because if it appears to be tamei, he has the option of remaining quiet and not ruling that he is a confirmed metzora. Rabbi Yosi holds that the Kohen must issue a ruling and therefore he should not look at all.
The Gemora asks from a braisa where Rebbe holds precisely the opposite of the original braisa. The Gemora answers that it is a matter of dispute how Rebbe holds. (7a – 7b)
The Gemora states that ishus is a creature that has no eyes (and burrows under the ground). (6b)
It was taught in a braisa: One may trap the ishus and the mice from a grain field and from a field of trees in the usual manner and one can destroy ant holes on Chol Hamoed. How do we accomplish that? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One should bring dirt from one ant hole and put it in the other and the ants will choke each other (by smelling the unrecognizable dirt).
Rav Yeimar bar Shlamya said in the name of Abaye: This method works only when the two holes are situated on two sides of a river, and only when there isn’t a bridge or a plank or a rope stretched across it. (Otherwise, the ants will recognize the dirt.) (6b)
It was taught in a braisa: What is considered trapping the rodents in a usual manner? One digs a hole and hangs a trap inside the hole. What is considered an unusual manner? One pierces a spit into the ground above their hideaway and hits it with a hammer. He then flattens the ground underneath it, which crushes them. (7a)
Rabbi Shimon ben Elozar taught in a braisa: One must trap the rodents from a grain field in an unusual manner only when the field is close to a city, however, if the field is close to a field of trees, one can trap them in a usual manner because otherwise, they might destroy the trees. (7a)
The Mishna states: One may close a breach on Chol Hamoed (but it cannot be built in a usual manner). Rav Chisda said: This is only regarding a garden wall but one can rebuild a courtyard wall (since otherwise, thieves may enter). (7a)
Rabbi Meir said in the Mishna: A Kohen is permitted to look at a negah tzaraas (erroneously described as leprosy, it is an affliction of the skin mentioned in the Torah) in order to rule leniently but he is not permitted to issue a strict ruling. The Chachamim disagree and maintain that a Kohen cannot look at the negah at all. (7a)
The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Meir said that a Kohen is permitted to look at a negah tzaraas in order to rule leniently but he is not permitted to issue a strict ruling. Rabbi Yosi says that he cannot look at all, not to issue a lenient ruling or a strict one, since if the Kohen looks at the negah hoping to issue a lenient ruling, he might be compelled to issue a strict ruling as well. (Once he looks at a negah, he must issue a ruling.) Rebbe said: Rabbi Meir’s words, that a Kohen can look at a negah, seems to be correct in regards to a confined metzora; and the words of Rabbi Yosi, that a Kohen cannot look at a negah, seems to be correct in regards to a confirmed one.
Rava said: If he was never looked at altogether, everyone agrees that the Kohen does not look at the negah during Chol Hamoed; if he is at the conclusion of the first confinement, everyone agrees that the Kohen does look at him; the argument is regarding a metzora who is at the conclusion of his second week of confinement. Rabbi Meir maintains that the Kohen can look at the negah because if it appears to be tamei, he has the option of remaining quiet and not ruling that he is a confirmed metzora. Rabbi Yosi holds that the Kohen must issue a ruling and therefore he should not look at all.
The Gemora asks from a braisa where Rebbe holds precisely the opposite of the original braisa. The Gemora answers that it is a matter of dispute how Rebbe holds. (7a – 7b)
0 comments:
Post a Comment