The Mishnah had taught: One may repair a broken fence Chol Hamoed.

He can do this by putting one stone on another and one pebble on another (rather than the regular way which is a pebble on a stone or vice-versa).

On Sheviis, he may build in the regular fashion with a stone on a pebble and vice-versa.

We are referring to a breach that was not blocked up with dirt, but if it was, he may not fix it, since his fruit is already protected.

Support (Beraisa): Any breach that was blocked up with dirt may not be fixed in Sheviis and vice versa.

This applies when it will not damage the public. But if it might damage the public (by collapsing), even if he blocked it up with earth, he may fix it in Sheviis.

For example, if the wall is leaning, he may demolish and rebuild it.

Question: Let him demolish it but not rebuild it (since the danger is gone)?

Answer (R. Chananya quoting R. Yochanan): They permitted the end because of the beginning - if we would not permit him to rebuild it, he would not demolish. This would cause potential danger for the public.

(Mishnah): R. Meir - One may view (possible) leprosy to declare a person pure but not to declare a person impure.

Chachamim: Neither to declare pure nor impure.

R. Meir: One may collect the bones of his parents, since it is a joy for him.

R. Yosi: It is an act of mourning for him.

One may not arouse himself (to mourn) nor eulogize within 30 days of the festival.

(Gemara - Mishnah in Negaim): If a Baheres the size of a Gris spread the amount of a Gris, and a Michyah or white hair appeared in the spreading and the original spot disappeared, R. Akiva says that it is impure and the Chachamim say that it should be viewed as if it is new.

Question: R. Akiva said that it is confirmed to be impure and the Rabbanan said that it should be viewed as new and confirmed (as impure). If so, what is the difference between them?

Answer (R. Yochanan): (According to R. Meir) On the eve of the festival...

R Akiva: It is the same spot as before and we need to rule on it, whether to be lenient or stringent.

Rabbanan: It is a different spot and the original one is Tahor.

Question: About which spot do we apply the law that we do not view the "2nd'' and it therefore remains Tahor until after the festival?

R. Yosa quoting R. Acha: The lone opinion here corresponds to the unnamed opinion there and the lone opinion there corresponds with the unnamed opinion here...

The lone opinion here corresponds to the unnamed opinion there - R. Akiva says that it is the same spot as before and we need to rule on it, whether to be lenient or stringent.

The lone opinion there corresponds with the unnamed opinion here - The Rabbanan say that it is a different spot and the original one is Tahor. And our Mishnah teaches - R. Meir says that one may view leprosy to declare it pure but not to declare it impure.

R. Yosi bei R. Bun quoting R. Acha: Both the lone opinion here and the Rabbanan here agree to the Rabbanan there that we view leprosy to rule leniently but not to rule stringently.

There (Maseches Negaim), the original spot disappeared; but here (our Mishnah), the accompanying signs disappeared and the original spot is still present.

Rebbe: R. Yosi's ruling appears correct in the case of a Musgar (quarantined due to his doubtful leper status) and R. Meir's ruling appears correct in the case of a Muchlat (confirmed leper).

R. Zeira: The difference between them is the days of the festival. R. Akiva says that it is the original spot, and he can come into the Temple courtyard. Rabbanan say that it is a different spot and he may not enter the Temple courtyard.

Question: R. Akiva ruled that it is to be confirmed as impure. Rabbanan say that it should be viewed as if it is new, thereby also confirming the leper's status...So what is the difference between them?

Answer #1 (Shmuel): Eruption. R. Akiva says that since it is the same original spot, when it erupted (i.e. spread) from Tumah, it is Tahor. Rabbanan say that since it is a different spot, when it erupts from Tahor, it is Tameh. (If a leper was Muchlat or even Musgar with one of the signs of Tumah and afterwards the spot erupted over his entire body, he is Tahor. But if he was Musgar and a sign of Tumah did not appear, so he was declared Tahor and then afterwards the leprosy erupted over his entire body, he is Tameh Muchlat.)

Answer #2 (in the name of Shmuel): The cases of eruption and incurable boils (that cannot be declared as leprosy) are differences between them...

R. Akiva says that since it is the same original spot, if a Tameh spot erupts over the entire body, it is Tahor.

Rabbanan say that since it is a different spot, it is an eruption from Tahor and it is Tameh.

This difference between R. Akiva and Rabbanan is the subject of a dispute between R. Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbanan - if an incurable boil erupted over the entire body, R. Yochanan said that it is Tahor (like R. Akiva) and R''SBL said that it is Tameh (like the Rabbanan).