עַד כַּמָּה עַד פַּרְסָה: Up to what distance are the ant holes considered to be adjacent such that a river is required in order to separate between them? Up to a parasang [parsa].
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשְּׂדֵה הָאִילָן כְּדַרְכּוֹ וּמִשְּׂדֵה הַלָּבָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכּוֹ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן כֵּיצַד כְּדַרְכּוֹ חוֹפֵר גּוּמָּא וְתוֹלֶה בָּהּ מְצוּדָה כֵּיצַד שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכּוֹ נוֹעֵץ שַׁפּוּד וּמַכֶּה בְּקוּרְדּוֹם וּמְרַדֶּה הָאֲדָמָה מִתַּחְתֶּיהָ § We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: In an orchard one may trap moles and mice in his usual manner, but in a field of grain, he may trap them only in a way that is not his usual manner. The Sages taught the following baraita: How does one trap in his usual manner? He digs a hole in the ground and hangs a trap in it. How does one trap in a way that is not his usual manner? He inserts a spit into the ground where the rodents are suspected of hiding, strikes it with a spade, and removes the earth from beneath it until he finds and kills the rodents.
תַּנְיָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר כְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ מִשְּׂדֵה לָבָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכּוֹ לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׂדֵה לָבָן הַסְּמוּכָה לָעִיר אֲבָל בִּשְׂדֵה לָבָן הַסְּמוּכָה לִשְׂדֵה הָאִילָן אֲפִילּוּ כְּדַרְכּוֹ שֶׁמָּא יֵצְאוּ מִשְּׂדֵה הַלָּבָן וְיַחְרִיבוּ אֶת הָאִילָנוֹת: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: When they said that one may trap moles and mice in a field of grain on the intermediate days of a Festival only in a way that is not his usual manner, they spoke only with regard to a field of grain that is adjacent to the city, where the damage is limited to that field and is not extensive. But in a field of grain that is adjacent to an orchard, one may trap even in his usual manner, lest the moles and mice leave the field of grain and destroy the trees in the adjacent orchard, causing great damage.
וּמְקָרִין אֶת הַפִּירְצָה בַּמּוֹעֵד כֵּיצַד מְקָרִין רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר בְּהוּצָא וְדַפְנָא § It is taught in the mishna: And one may seal a breach in the wall of his garden on the intermediate days of a Festival. The Gemara asks: How does one seal such a breach? Rav Yosef said: With palm branches [hutza] and the branches of a bay tree [dafna], which do not create a significant partition, but simply a temporary barrier.
בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא צָר בִּצְרוֹר וְאֵינוֹ טָח בְּטִיט אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא כּוֹתֶל הַגִּינָה אֲבָל כּוֹתֶל הֶחָצֵר בּוֹנֶה כְּדַרְכּוֹ It was taught in a baraita: One fills in the breach with stone, but he does not plasterthe stones with clay. Rav Ḥisda said: They taught that he may seal a breach but not build a wall in his usual manner only with regard to the wall of a garden, as no significant loss will be suffered if he delays building until after the Festival. However, with regard to the wall of a courtyard, which prevents the entry of strangers who are likely to steal from him, he may build a wall in his usual manner even on the intermediate days of a Festival.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ כּוֹתֶל הַגּוֹחֶה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים סוֹתֵר וּבוֹנֶה כְּדַרְכּוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה הָתָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports Rav Ḥisda’s statement: With regard to a wall that is leaning [goḥeh] toward the public domain and is likely to fall, one may demolish and rebuild it in his usual manner on the intermediate days of a Festival, due to the danger that it poses to passersby. The Gemara rejects this opinion: There, the reason is as the baraita explicitly teaches, i.e., it is due to the danger that the wall poses to passersby, and not due to the protection that it affords the courtyard.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי תָּא שְׁמַע כּוֹתֶל הַגּוֹחֶה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים סוֹתֵר וּבוֹנֶה כְּדַרְכּוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה אִין שֶׁלֹּא מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה לָא לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא And some say that this baraita was cited not to support Rav Ḥisda’s opinion but in order to refute it, as follows: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to a wall that is leaning toward the public domain and is likely to fall, one may demolish and rebuild it in his usual manner, due to the danger that it poses to passersby. The Gemara explains: The baraita indicates that if the need to build the wall is due to the danger that it poses, yes, he is permitted to rebuild the wall, but if the reason is not due to the danger, no, he is not permitted to do so. Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who says that one may build the wall of his courtyard in his usual manner, even if no danger is present?
אָמַר לְךָ רַב חִסְדָּא הָתָם סוֹתֵר וּבוֹנֶה הָכָא בּוֹנֶה וְלֹא סוֹתֵר The Gemara answers: Rav Ḥisda could have said to you: There, in the case where the existing wall poses a danger, he is even permitted to demolish the wall and build it from scratch. Here, in the case of an ordinary wall enclosing a courtyard, he is permitted to build the breached wall in the usual manner, but not to demolish it.
הָתָם נָמֵי לִיסְתּוֹר וְלָא לִיבְנֵי אִם כֵּן מִימְּנַע וְלָא סוֹתַר The Gemara asks: There too, in the case of the leaning wall, let us say that he is permitted to demolish it and thereby remove the danger, but not to rebuild it until after the Festival. The Gemara answers: If so, he might refrain even from demolishing it, as demolishing the wall would leave his courtyard unprotected. Therefore, to eliminate the danger posed by the leaning wall, he is permitted not only to demolish it, but to rebuild it as well.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא דְּקָתָנֵי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית בּוֹנֶה כְּדַרְכּוֹ Rav Ashi said: The wording of the mishna is also precise and indicates that it is referring to the wall of a garden, as understood by Rav Ḥisda, as it teaches: During the Sabbatical Year one may even build in his usual manner.
דְּהֵיכָא אִילֵּימָא דְּחָצֵר צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר אֶלָּא לָאו דְּגִינָּה וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמִיחֲזֵי כְּמַאן דְּעָבֵיד נְטִירוּתָא לְפֵירֵי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: The Gemara clarifies: Where is the wall to which the mishna refers? If we say that the mishna is referring to the wall of a courtyard, need it be said that it may be built during the Sabbatical Year? Only agricultural labors are prohibited during the Sabbatical Year, but construction is permitted. Rather, is it not referring to the wall of a garden, and it was necessary to state that this wall may be built during the Sabbatical Year to indicate that even though he appears as one who is building a protection for his produce, he isnevertheless permitted to do so. This proves that the mishna’s discussion pertains to building the wall of a garden. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that Rav Ḥisda’s interpretation is indeed the correct understanding of the mishna.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר רוֹאִין אֶת הַנְּגָעִים בַּתְּחִילָּה לְהָקֵל אֲבָל לֹא לְהַחְמִיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים לֹא לְהָקֵל וְלֹא לְהַחְמִיר: MISHNA: When symptoms of leprosy appear, they must be examined by a priest, who determines whether or not the symptoms qualify as leprosy. Rabbi Meir says: A priest may initially examine an individual showing symptoms of leprosy on the intermediate days of a Festival in order to be lenient, i.e., he may pronounce the individual to be free of leprosy, but not in order to be stringent; he may not pronounce the individual to be impure. The individual does not become ritually impure until the priest pronounces him to have leprosy, and therefore the priest may remain silent and thereby prevent causing the afflicted individual distress during the Festival. And the Rabbis say: The priest may not examine the symptoms in order to be lenient or in order to be stringent.
גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר רוֹאִין אֶת הַנְּגָעִים לְהָקֵל אֲבָל לֹא לְהַחְמִיר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר לֹא לְהָקֵל וְלֹא לְהַחְמִיר שֶׁאִם אַתָּה נִזְקָק לוֹ לְהָקֵל [אַתָּה] נִזְקָק לוֹ אַף לְהַחְמִיר GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: A priest may examine an individual showing symptoms of leprosy on the intermediate days of a Festival in order to be lenient, but not in order to be stringent. Rabbi Yosei says: The priest may not examine the symptoms to be lenient or to be stringent. The reasoning behind Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is that if you attend to the individual with the symptoms of leprosy to be lenient, you must attend to him even to be stringent. If the priest sees that the symptom is in fact leprosy, he must declare the affected person ritually impure rather than remain silent. Consequently, in order to avoid declaring that he has leprosy on the Festival, the priest should not examine him at all.
אָמַר רַבִּי נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמוּסְגָּר וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּמוּחְלָט Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Meir appears to be correct with regard to the case of a quarantined leper. In this case, the priest may reexamine him at the end of the week even on the intermediate days of a Festival, because if he declares the individual to be pure, he will cause him to rejoice, and if he declares that the individual must be quarantined for another week, his situation is no worse than it was previously. On the other hand, the statement of Rabbi Yosei appears to be correct with regard to the case of a confirmed leper, one who has already been declared conclusively impure by a priest. The Gemara (7b) will explain the reason for this statement.
אָמַר רָבָא בְּטָהוֹר כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא חָזוּ לֵיהּ בְּהֶסְגֵּר רִאשׁוֹן דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּחָזֵי לֵיהּ כִּי פְּלִיגִי Rava said: With regard to an individual with symptoms of leprosy who is still ritually pure, i.e., who has not yet been examined by a priest, everyone agrees that the priest does not examine him, as his status can only worsen due to the examination. With regard to a suspected leper who is in his first week of quarantine, everyone agrees that the priest examines him, as the priest may declare him pure if his symptoms have subsided, and even if his symptoms remained as they were, he will simply be quarantined for another week. When they disagree