ודלמא טומאה מגואי ואילנות מבראי
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?
במסובכין ואיבעית אימא הא אמרן אין מרחיקין ציון ממקום טומאה שלא להפסיד את א"י
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.
ר' יהודה אומר עד שיהא שם זקן או תלמיד לפי שאין הכל בקיאין בדבר אמר אביי שמע מינה צורבא מרבנן דאיכא במתא כל מילי דמתא עליה רמיא
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.
אמר רב יהודה מצא אבן מצויינת תחתיה טמא שתים אם יש סיד ביניהן ביניהן טמא ואם אין סיד ביניהן ביניהן טהור
§ 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.
ואע"ג דליכא חורש והתניא מצא אבן אחת מצויינת תחתיה טמא שתים אם יש חורש ביניהן ביניהן טהור ואם לאו ביניהן טמא
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’t 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.
אמר רב פפא הכא כשהסיד שפוך על ראשיהן ומרודה לכאן ולכאן אי איכא חורש ביניהן ביניהן טהור דאימור מחמת חורש הוא דאיקפל ואי לא סיד דביני ביני הוא וטמא
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.
א"ר אסי מצר אחד מצוין הוא טמא וכל השדה כולה טהורה שנים הם טמאין וכל השדה כולה טהורה שלשה הם טמאין וכל השדה כולה טהורה ארבעה הן טהורין וכל השדה כולה טמאה
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.
דאמר מר אין מרחיקין ציון ממקום טומאה שלא להפסיד את א"י:
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.
ויוצאין אף על הכלאים:
§ 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.
ואכלאים בחולו של מועד נפקינן ורמינהו באחד באדר משמיעין על השקלים ועל הכלאים
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.
בחמשה עשר בו קורין את המגילה בכרכים ויוצאין לקווץ את הדרכים ולתקן הרחובות ולמוד המקואות ועושין כל צורכי רבים ומציינין את הקברות ויוצאין על הכלאים
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?
רבי אלעזר ורבי יוסי בר חנינא חד אמר כאן בבכיר כאן באפיל וחד אמר כאן בזרעים כאן בירקות
Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina 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’t 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.
א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא שאין ניצן ניכר אבל ניצן ניכר יוצאין עליהן
Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
מאי שנא בחולו של מועד דנפקינן אמר רבי יעקב אמר רבי יוחנן משום שכר פעולה דמוזלי גבן
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’akov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
אמר רב זביד ואיתימא רב משרשיא שמע מינה כי יהבינן להו שכר מתרומת הלשכה יהבינן להו דאי סלקא דעתך מדידהו יהבינן להו מאי נפקא לן מינייהו כל כמה דבעו ליתן להו
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.
ועד כמה אמר רב שמואל בר יצחק כאותה ששנינו כל סאה שיש בה
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 Yitzḥak said: The amount is like that which we learned in the mishna (Kilayim 2:1): Any se’a of seeds that contains