Moed Katan Chart #2
Chart for Moed Katan Daf 6a
THE STATUS OF THE AREA BETWEEN TWO STONES UPON WHICH ARE
MARKERS (LIME, OR "SID") INDICATING THE PRESENCE OF TUM'AH
THE AREA BETWEEN
THE STONES HAS NOT
BEEN PLOWED (1)
THE AREA BETWEEN
THE STONES HAS
|1||THERE IS LIME (SID)
|Tamei (2)||Tamei (3)|
|2||THERE IS NO LIME
(SID) BETWEEN THEM
|Excess lime: Tamei (4)
No excess: Tahor
Chart for Moed Katan Daf 6b
IS ONE PERMITTED TO WATER (L'HASHKOS) OR TO SPRAY (L'HARBITZ)
A "SADEH HA'BA'AL" ON CHOL HA'MO'ED AND DURING SHEVI'IS?
(IN OUR TEXTS)
BY TOSFOS (6)
|REBBI ELIEZER BEN YAKOV|
|1)||SHEVI'IS||Hashka'ah (7)||Harbatzah (8)||Asur (9)|
|4)||CHOL HA'MO'ED||Hashka'ah (10)||Hashka'ah (10)||Asur (11)|
(1) "Choresh" (plowed) refers to the area between the two stones (RASHI). TOSFOS, however, has a different Girsa which reads "Cheres." According to Tosfos, the Gemara means that the area between the stones was also marked but not with a bright white marker such as lime, but with a darker white such as that of Cheres (Charsit; potsherd cement), in order to indicate that the area between the stones does not contain the grave and is not Tamei. This is also the Girsa of the Rambam, although he explains that "Cheres" refers to pieces of potsherds between the stones which indicate that the excess of lime was not meant to mark a grave between the two stones but is leftover from a structure that was once built between the stones and was destroyed.
(2) It is the practice of those who make markers for graves to mark the entire area above the grave with lime. Only in a field do they mark around the field, due to its large size (TOSFOS HA'ROSH).
(3) The lime between the stones indicates that a known source of Tum'ah is certainly there. (With regard to an unquestionable source of Tum'ah, the Chachamim were not lenient to say that it is not Metamei b'Ohel if it was plowed over. See TOSFOS, and Insights to 5:2).
(4) The Gemara uses the word "Merudad" which means that some of the lime has spilled down the sides of the stones and now covers part of the area between the stones, making it look as though the entire area is a marker for Tum'ah. The Rishonim argue about why the area between the two stones is Tamei when there is a spillover of lime, unless that area is plowed over:
a) RASHI and the RA'AVAD (Hilchos Tum'as Mes 8:11) explain that "Choresh" means that the area between the stones was plowed over. Since the lime does not cover all of the ground between the stones, we may assume that the lime which spilled over fell from the stones as a result of the plowing, and the only place which is Tamei is the area directly beneath the stones.
b) TOSFOS' text reads "Cheres," as explained above (footnote 1). Tosfos explains that a darker-colored cement (potsherd cement, as opposed to lime) between the two stones indicates that the area between them is not Tamei, and we may assume that the person spilled an excess of lime down the sides of the stones so that it would fuse with the rest of the cement and form a strong covering for the entire area, but not so that it would indicate the presence of a grave in that area.
c) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Tum'as ha'Mes 8:11), whose text also reads "Cheres," explains that potsherds between the stones is a sign that the abundant lime was spilled on the stones in order to strengthen a structure that was originally built upon the two stones, and not to indicate any grave. The Rambam's words imply that in the presence of potsherds, the entire area -- even the area beneath the stones -- is Tahor (since the lime covered neither the stones alone nor the entire area between the stones, but rather the stones and some of the area between them).
(5) This is also the conclusion of Tosfos here (as well as the opinion of Tosfos in the name of Rashi on 2a, except that Tosfos writes that Rashi retracted his view in the Sugya here). According to this explanation, "Harbatzah" is the same as "Hashka'ah," except that one is done for vegetables or for a Beis ha'Ba'al (Harbatzah) and one is done for a field of grain (Hashka'ah).
(6) This is what Tosfos writes in the name of Rashi (see previous footnote), and this is also the opinion of the RITVA. RASHI KESAV YAD mentions three explanations for the term "Harbatzah." The first is the same as the explanation Rashi in our text gives (that Harbatzah and Hashka'ah both mean watering, except that Harbatzah refers to watering a vegetable garden while Hashka'ah refers to watering a field of grain). The second explanation is that Harbatzah and Hashka'ah are the exact same thing. The third explanation is like that of Tosfos in the name of Rashi (that Harbatzah means sprinkling just a little water, while Hashka'ah means a full-fledged watering of the field.)
(7) Hashka'ah is permitted because there is no prohibition against watering a Beis ha'Ba'al during Shevi'is, even mid'Rabanan. Watering is not a Melachah of "working the ground" such that it should be prohibited on Shevi'is (see Beraisa earlier, 3a, and see Insights to 2:1).
(8) Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov maintains that the Rabanan prohibited Hashka'ah during Shevi'is even though the Torah permits it (as Rava (3 a) derives from the verses earlier). Nevertheless, Harbatzah -- which is not a full Hashka'ah -- is permitted (see footnote 2 above).
(9) The Mishnah in Shevi'is (2:10) clearly states that Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov prohibits Harbatzah of a field (Beis ha'Ba'al) during Shevi'is (see HAGAHOS HA'GRA, who changes the Girsa of the Gemara because of this, and CHESHEK SHLOMO). Accordingly, when the second Beraisa states that Harbatzah "is the same during both Shevi'is and during Chol ha'Mo'ed" -- it means, according to the Rosh, that Harbatzah is prohibited during both. (This is in contrast to the view of Rashi, who says that it means that Harbatzah is permitted during both, and the Beraisa is expressing the view of the Rabanan). Thus, even Harbatzah -- and certainly Hashka'ah -- are prohibited mid'Rabanan during Shevi'is. (The Girsa of the Rosh in the second Beraisa omits what appears, in our text, to be the first word of the Beraisa, "Marbitzin." This is also the Girsa of the DIKDUKEI SOFRIM, and the Girsa and explanation of the RA'AVAD (cited by the CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN) and the RASH in Shevi'is 2:10.)
(11) According to the Rosh (based on the Yerushalmi), the Chachamim of the Mishnah here also prohibit Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed for the sake of Harvachah, like the Mishnah at the beginning of the Perek. The reason why they permit watering (Hashka'ah) the entire field of trees, as well as watering seeds which received no water before Chol ha'Mo'ed, is because they maintain that these two cases are considered "Davar ha'Aved" (see Insights).