Study Moed Katan folio 6A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud 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?
The Talmud 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 impur
It is taught in the baraita that R' 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 R' Yehuda
§ The Talmud 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 indic
The Talmud 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 impur