one writes simply: Adar, whereas in Second Adar one writes: Second Adar.

§ The mishna taught that on the fifteenth of Adar they repaired the roads that were damaged in the winter, and the streets, and the cisterns. And they did all that was necessary for public welfare. The Gemara explains: These are the matters necessary for public welfare: They judge monetary cases, capital cases, and cases that involve the punishment of lashes. And the court also redeems valuations, consecrations of articles for Temple or priestly use, and consecrations for Temple maintenance or as offerings. And they give the sota to drink, and they burn the red heifer, to use its ashes for the ritual purification of those rendered impure by contact with the dead, and they break the neck of the heifer whose neck is broken, and they pierce the ear of a Hebrew slave, and they render the leper ritually pure. And they remove the locks that were placed over the water cisterns during the winter, as this water was for public use in the summer, and they do not replace them until the winter.

We learned in a baraita there that although it is prohibited to perform unnecessary work on the intermediate days of a Festival, during these days one may water an irrigated field, and one may mark the graves by painting lime on them. The Gemara asks: But didn't the court already mark the graves in Adar, as stated in the mishna here? Why was it necessary to mark them again during the Festival? The Gemara answers: It can be explained as referring to a situation where a downpour rained down after the graves were initially marked in Adar, and washed away the previous markings.

The mishna further taught that on the fifteenth of Adar, agents of the court would also go out to inspect the fields for diverse kinds of food crops. The Gemara asks: But didn't they already go out in the beginning of Adar to examine the fields for diverse kinds, as the mishna previously stated? The Gemara answers: It can be explained that the year was late [afila], i.e., the crops had not yet sprouted by the beginning of Adar, and the plants are not perceptible until later.

§ The Gemara asks: From where is the obligation of marking graves derived? Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Ya'akov bar bat Ya'akov in the name of Rabbi Ḥunya of Berat Ḥavrin, Rabbi Yosei said it was Rabbi Ya'akov bar Aḥa, in the name of Rabbi Ḥunya of Berat Ḥavrin, while Rabbi Ḥizkiya and Rabbi Uziel, son of Rabbi Ḥunya of Berat Ḥavrin, said it in the name of Rabbi Ḥunya of Berat Ḥavrin. These Sages said that the proof is from a verse: "And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose, and he shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry: Unclean, unclean" (Leviticus 13:45). The Gemara explains: This teaches that one must take measures in order that the ritually impure object, in this case the leper, calls to you verbally, as it were, and tells you: Separate yourself from it. Just as the leper warns everyone that he is ritually impure, one must likewise mark graves to warn passersby of their impure status. Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman cited a different verse in this regard: "And when they that pass through shall pass through the land, and anyone sees a man's bone, then shall he set up a sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamon-gog" (Ezekiel 39:15). This verse explicitly states that there is a need to mark graves. The Gemara adds that further halakhot can be derived from this verse. "Bone": from here it is derived that one marks bones. "A man": From here it is derived that one marks a spine and skull that were found. "Then shall he set up": From here it is derived that one marks the sign of ritual impurity on a fixed stone, for if you say that one may mark on a detached stone, that very stone is likely to move from that spot, and it will incorrectly mark another place as ritually impure. It is therefore necessary to use a stone that will not be moved. The verse further states: "By it": This is referring to a place of ritual purity. In other words, the marking should not be placed on the spot of ritual impurity itself, but in a nearby, ritually pure location. "A sign": From here we learn of the obligation to mark.

It was further taught with regard to the same issue: And if one found one marked stone, even though one should not establish it in this manner, i.e., one should not mark a place of ritual impurity with a single stone ab initio, but with two stones in order to delineate the extent of the impurity, nevertheless, one who covers it, i.e., places some part of his body in the space above it, is rendered ritually impure. In such a case I say, i.e., one ought to assume: There was a dead body marked here, and it was located underneath this stone. However, if there were two marked stones, the one who covers them with part of his body remains ritually pure, as the source of impurity is typically located between, not underneath, the two markers. And consequently, if he covered the space between the stones, he is ritually impure. And if there were plow marks between these two stones, they are considered like isolated stones with regard to this halakha. Therefore, if he covered the area between the stones with part of his body he is ritually pure, and if he covered the space surrounding the area where they are set he is impure, as it can be assumed there was a source of impurity under each stone.

It was taught in a different baraita that one does not mark on the location of the flesh of a corpse without any bones. Why not? Perhaps the flesh has decomposed, leaving less than the minimum size that confers ritual impurity by covering, which is an olive-bulk. If the mark is left there, the spot will permanently be treated as ritually impure. Rabbi Yusta bar Shunem wondered in the presence of Rabbi Mana: And doesn't he thereby render pure items ritually impure retroactively? If the flesh is not marked at all, pure items might pass over the spot before the flesh has decayed, rendering them ritually impure. He said to him: It is preferable that people are harmed by it temporarily, while the flesh is still there, and are not harmed by it permanently, by wrongly thinking that their pure foods contracted ritual impurity from this source.

Halakha 2 · MISHNA At the end of the last mishna it was stated that the court sends out agents on the fifteenth of Adar to inspect whether the owners of fields had indeed uprooted any diverse kinds of crops as instructed. Rabbi Yehuda said: At first those agents would uproot the diverse kinds of crops and cast them in front of the owners of the fields. When the number of transgressors who would not uproot diverse kinds in their fields increased, and the Sages saw that this tactic was ineffective, they would cast the uprooted crops onto the roads. Ultimately, they instituted that the entire field should be declared ownerless.

GEMARA: With regard to what Rabbi Yehuda said in the mishna, i.e., that there were three stages of the Sages' decree, the Gemara elaborates as it was taught in a baraita. Rabbi Yehuda said: At first the agents of the court would uproot the diverse kinds of crops and cast them in front of the owners, and those owners would doubly rejoice. One reason for their happiness was that others were weeding their fields for them, and the other reason was that they would derive benefit from these diverse kinds, which they would feed to their animals. The baraita continues: When the number of transgressors who maintained diverse kinds in their fields increased, they would cast the uprooted crops onto the roads, so that passersby should trample on them and render them unfit for any use. Even so, the owners still rejoiced that those agents were weeding their fields. Therefore, the Sages instituted that the entire field should be declared ownerless, which would deter people from maintaining diverse kinds in their fields.

The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that property declared ownerless by the court is in fact ownerless? As the mishna states that the court rendered the fields ownerless, clearly they had the power to do so. What is the source for their having this power? The Gemara answers: As it is written, with regard to the proclamation of Ezra and his court to all the people to gather in Jerusalem, where he instructed those who had married foreign women to divorce them: "And that whosoever came not within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of the captivity" (Ezra 10:8). This shows that the court has the power to render ownerless the property of anyone who violates its commands. The Gemara further asks: From where is it derived that this ownerless field is exempt from tithes, like a field rendered ownerless by its owner? Rabbi Yonatan, son of Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Aḥa, learned the halakha of this case from this baraita: One may not intercalate the year, by adding the month of Second Adar, neither in the Sabbatical Year nor in the year after the Sabbatical Year. And if they transgressed and intercalated it, the year is intercalated. Rabbi Yonatan explains how exemption from tithes of a field that was declared ownerless by the court can be derived from this baraita: And yet with regard to that one month that he adds, i.e., the month to intercalate the year, which is added to the Sabbatical Year, aren't the crops harvested in that additional month exempt from tithes? These crops are Sabbatical produce and as such exempt from tithes, but that status is only a result of the decree of the court to extend the year. This proves that the court has the power to render a field exempt from tithes. The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita. Until here it is clear why the Sabbatical Year should not be intercalated, as it extends the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year. However, what is the reason that the year after the Sabbatical Year should not be intercalated? Rabbi Bun said: The reason is so as not to increase the period of the prohibition of new grain. In the year after the seventh year people are still relying on the produce of the sixth year until the new crop sprouts in the spring of the eighth year. Since the food supply is liable to run out, the sooner the new grain can be eaten, the better. It is only permitted after the bringing of the omer offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, and therefore it is preferable not to extend the year, which would delay the beginning of Nisan. Rabbi Ze'eira says in the name of Rabbi Elazar: That which you say, that one may not intercalate the Sabbatical Year or the following year, applied until the time that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted one to import vegetables from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael. Beforehand there was a danger of insufficient food, and the court needed to refrain from lengthening either year. However, from the time when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted one to import vegetables from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, and there was enough food for all, the Sabbatical Year is like other years of the Sabbatical cycle, i.e., it is permitted to intercalate any year.

It was taught in the baraita that one may not intercalate the year following the Sabbatical Year. Rabbi Mana said: This matter which you say: It applied at first, when the seasons of the years proceeded in their proper manner, i.e., the new grain was ripe in time and could be eaten immediately after the sixteenth of Nisan. However, now, when the seasons of the years do not proceed in their proper manner, and the grain is not ready until later anyway, there is no problem delaying Nisan, so the Sabbatical Year is like other years of the Sabbatical cycle. The Gemara adds: It was taught in a baraita that the court of the house of Rabban Gamliel intercalated the year immediately after the Sabbatical Year, in the first month of that year. Rabbi Yonatan previously proved from the court's ability to extend the Sabbatical year that the court has the power to declare property ownerless, to the extent that its produce is exempt from tithes. With regard to this, Rabbi Avun said: If your proof is from this, you cannot learn anything from it. Rabbi Avun explains: The Torah says: "Observe [guard] the month of the spring, and keep the Passover unto the Lord your God; for in the month of the spring the Lord your God brought you forth out of Egypt by night" (Deuteronomy 16:1). This means that one should guard it so that the month of Nisan arrives in the spring of the new year, i.e., in Nisan of the lunar year, which is roughly eleven days shorter than the solar year. If the festival of Passover is scheduled to arrive too early, due to the difference between the solar and lunar years, that year must be intercalated. Since the intercalation of the year is a Torah requirement, the extra month added to a Sabbatical Year is exempt from tithes by Torah law. Therefore, the extension of the year by intercalation is not merely a power of the court, and therefore cannot function as a source for the court's power to declare property ownerless and exempt it from tithes.

But this other mishna (Pe'a 5:1) does state this halakha, that a field declared ownerless by the court is exempt from tithes. With regard to a pile of grain under which gleanings have not been gathered by the poor, who are entitled to the lone stalks that fall during a harvest, all the kernels that are touching the ground belong to the poor. And about this mishna Rabbi Ami said