Moed Katan 14

ומנודה שהתירו לו חכמים וכן מי שנשאל לחכם והותר

and one who had been ostracized and the Sages released him from his decree of ostracism; and similarly, one who had vowed not to launder his clothes and he requested from a Sage to dissolve his vow and was released from it on the intermediate days of a Festival.

מטפחות הידים ומטפחות הספרים ומטפחות הספג הזבין והזבות והנדות והיולדות וכל העולין מטומאה לטהרה הרי אלו מותרין ושאר כל אדם אסורין:

Hand towels; and barbers’ towels, which are used to cover a person having a haircut; and body-drying towels, all of which get quickly soiled, may be laundered on the intermediate days of a Festival. Zavim, men suffering from an impure venereal emission; zavot, women who experience a flow of menstrual-type blood on three consecutive days during a time of the month when they do not expect to experience menstrual bleeding; menstruating women; women who have just given birth; and all others who leave a state of ritual impurity for a state of ritual purity on the intermediate days of the Festival, these people are all permitted to launder their clothes in order to purify themselves. But all other people are prohibited from laundering during the intermediate days of the Festival.

גמ׳ ושאר כל אדם מאי טעמא אסורין

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that all other people are prohibited from performing these actions during the intermediate days? Why are these actions not included in the category of actions that are permitted in deference to the Festival?

כדתנן אנשי משמר ואנשי מעמד אסורין לספר ולכבס ובחמישי מותרין מפני כבוד השבת

The Gemara answers: As we learned in a mishna (Taanit 15b): Both the members of the priestly watch whose week it is to serve in the Temple and the members of the non-priestly watch who accompanied the members of the watch to Jerusalem are prohibited from cutting their hair or laundering their clothes during that week. But on the Thursday of that week they are permitted to do so in deference to Shabbat.

ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי אלעזר מאי טעמא כדי שלא יכנסו למשמרתן כשהן מנוולין הכא נמי כדי שלא יכנסו לרגל כשהן מנוולין

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: What is the reason that the members of the priestly and non-priestly watch are prohibited from cutting their hair and laundering their clothes? It is in order that they not enter their watch when they are untidy. If it were permitted for them to cut their hair and launder their clothes during the week of their watch, they would leave their haircuts and laundry until the middle of that week and begin their service in a disorderly state. Here, too, ordinary people are prohibited from cutting their hair or laundering their clothes on the intermediate days of a Festival, in order that they complete all necessary preparations beforehand and not enter the Festival when they are untidy.

בעי רבי זירא אבדה לו אבידה ערב הרגל כיון דאניס מותר או דלמא כיון דלא מוכחא מילתא לא

Rabbi Zeira asks: If one lost an item on the eve of a Festival and he was busy searching for it and had no time to cut his hair or launder his clothes before the Festival commenced, can one say that since he was a victim of circumstances beyond his control, which prevented from taking care of these matters prior to the Festival, he is permitted to cut his hair and launder his clothes on the intermediate days of the Festival? Or perhaps since it is not clearly evident to others that he failed to cut his hair or launder his clothes due to unavoidable circumstances, he is not permitted to perform these actions during the Festival week.

אמר אביי יאמרו כל הסריקין אסורין סריקי בייתוס מותרין

Abaye said, in answer to this question, that there is a principle of the Sages that applies here. They prohibited the baking of decorated Syrian cakes for Passover, lest people tarry in their preparation of these elaborate cakes and the cakes become leavened. When Baitos ben Zunen wished to prepare the cakes in a way that would not lead to a violation of any prohibition, the Sages nevertheless prohibited it. They explained that were they to permit him to do so, others would say: All the decorated Syrian cakes are forbidden, but the Syrian cakes of Baitos are permitted? This teaches that the Sages do not permit exceptions when the reason for leniency is not clearly evident, like in the case of one who was busy looking for a lost item.

ולטעמיך הא דאמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן כל מי שאין לו אלא חלוק אחד מותר לכבסו בחולו של מועד התם נמי יאמרו כל הסריקין אסורין סריקי בייתוס מותרין

Rabbi Zeira retorted: And according to your reasoning, that which Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who has only one shirt is permitted to launder it on the intermediate days of a Festival, there too, one should apply the principle that others will say: All the decorated Syrian cakes are forbidden but the Syrian cakes of Baitos are permitted. There, too, it is not clearly evident that the reason for leniency is that one has only one shirt.

הא אתמר עלה אמר מר בר רב אשי איזורו מוכיח עליו

The Gemara rejects this argument: Wasn’t it already said about this that Mar, son of Rav Ashi, said: His belt is proof for him, as when he launders his only shirt he will have to wear his outer garment tied with his belt so that his body is not exposed, and everyone will understand that he has no other shirt to wear.

רב אשי מתני בעי רבי זירא אומן שאבדה לו אבידה ערב הרגל מהו כיון דאומן הוא מוכחא מילתא או דלמא כיון דלא מוכחא מילתא כי הנך לא תיקו:

Rav Ashi taught a different version of this passage, as follows: Rabbi Zeira asks: With regard to a craftsman who lost an item on the eve of a Festival and was busy searching for it, what is the halakha? Is it permitted for him to launder his clothes and cut his hair on the intermediate days of the Festival because he had been unable to do so before the Festival? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Can one say that since he is a craftsman, it is clearly evident why he did not launder his clothes and cut his hair before the Festival, as many people would have come to his place of work and seen that he was busy looking for his lost article? Or perhaps since the special circumstances are not as clearly evident as in those cases in the mishna, it is not permitted for him to cut his hair or launder his clothes during the intermediate days of the Festival. The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ממדינת הים: מתניתין דלא כרבי יהודה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר הבא ממדינת הים לא יגלח מפני שיצא שלא ברשות

§ The mishna taught: One who comes from a country overseas on the intermediate days of a Festival is permitted to cut his hair. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One who comes from a country overseas on the intermediate days of a Festival must not shave or cut his hair, due to the fact that he left his home without permission.

אמר רבא לשוט דברי הכל אסור למזונות דברי הכל מותר לא נחלקו אלא להרויחא מר מדמי ליה כלשוט ומר מדמי ליה כלמזונות

The Gemara continues to explain the definition and parameters of leaving without permission. Rava said: If one left Eretz Yisrael to travel, all agree that it is prohibited for him to shave during the intermediate days of the Festival because he left on his own initiative, and this is not considered an unavoidable circumstance. If he left for basic sustenance, i.e., due to financial difficulty, all agree that it is permitted for him to shave upon his return because he is regarded as having left due to circumstances beyond his control. They disagree only with regard to the case where he left to earn greater profit, i.e., he had enough to live on in Eretz Yisrael, but he left in order to increase his income. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, compares him to one who left to travel, and the other Sage, the Rabbis of the mishna, compare him to one who left for basic sustenance.

מיתיבי אמר רבי נראין דברי רבי יהודה כשיצא שלא ברשות ודברי חכמים כשיצא ברשות מאי שלא ברשות אילימא לשוט והאמרת דברי הכל אסור ואלא למזונות והאמרת דברי הכל מותר אלא פשיטא להרויחא

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda seems more reasonable in a case when he left without permission, and the statement of the Rabbis seems more reasonable when one left with permission. The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by without permission? If we say that it means that he left to travel, didn’t you say that in this case all agree that it is prohibited for him to cut his hair upon his return? Rather, say that it means that he left for basic sustenance. But didn’t you say that all agree that it is permitted for him to cut his hair in such a case? Rather, it is obvious that it means that he left in search of greater profit.

אימא סיפא נראין דברי חכמים כשיצא ברשות מאי ברשות אילימא למזונות הא אמרת דברי הכל מותר ואלא להרויחא והא אמרת נראין דברי רבי יהודה בהא

Say the latter clause of the baraita as follows: The statement of the Rabbis seems more reasonable in a case when one left with permission. The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by with permission? If we say that he left for basic sustenance, didn’t you say that all agree that it is permitted for him to cut his hair upon his return? Rather, say that it means that he left for greater profit. But didn’t you say in the first clause that the statement of Rabbi Yehuda seems more reasonable in this case? Therefore, according to Rava’s distinctions, there is an internal contradiction within the baraita.

הכי קאמר נראין דברי רבי יהודה לרבנן כשיצא שלא ברשות ומאי ניהו לשוט שאפילו חכמים לא נחלקו עליו אלא להרויחא אבל לשוט מודו ליה ונראין דברי רבנן לרבי יהודה כשיצא ברשות ומאי ניהו למזונות שאפילו רבי יהודה לא נחלק עליהם אלא להרויחא אבל למזונות מודה להו

The Gemara resolves the difficulty: This is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda seems more reasonable to the Rabbis in the case where one left without permission. And what is meant by without permission? It means a case where one left to travel, as even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda only when one left for greater profit, but when one left to travel they agree with Rabbi Yehuda that it is prohibited for one to shave and cut his hair. And the statement of the Rabbis seems more convincing to Rabbi Yehuda in the case where one left with permission. And what is meant by with permission? It is a case where one left for basic sustenance, as even Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis only when one left for greater profit, but when he left for basic sustenance Rabbi Yehuda concedes to them that it is permitted for him to shave and cut his hair. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s intent was not to decide between the opinions of the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda but to clarify their dispute.

אמר שמואל קטן הנולד במועד מותר לגלח במועד שאין לך בית האסורין גדול מזה במועד אין מעיקרא לא

§ Shmuel said: If a baby was born on a Festival and he has long hair that is bothering him, it is permitted to cut his hair on the intermediate days of the Festival, as there is no greater prison than this, the womb of his mother, due to which his hair could not have been cut prior to the Festival. A precise reading of Shmuel’s statement indicates that if the child was born on the Festival, yes, his hair may be cut. However, if he was born before the Festival, but for some reason his hair was not cut, no, it is not permitted to cut it on the intermediate days of the Festival because there was time to do so before the Festival.

מתיב רב פנחס כל אלו שאמרו מותר לגלח במועד מותר לגלח בימי אבלו הא אסור לגלח במועד אסור לגלח בימי אבלו

Rav Pineḥas raised an objection from that which is taught in a baraita: All of those about whom the Sages said: It is permitted to shave and cut his hair on the intermediate days of the Festival, it is also permitted to shave and cut his hair during the days of his mourning. But from this it follows that one who is prohibited from shaving and cutting his hair on the intermediate days of a Festival is also prohibited from shaving and cutting his hair during the days of his mourning.

ואי אמרת קטן אית ביה פלוגתא נמצאת אבילות נוהגת בקטן

And if you say that with regard to a baby there is a distinction between being born before the Festival and being born on it, and in some cases it is prohibited to cut the hair of a baby, then you find that mourning is practiced even with a minor.

והתניא מקרעין לקטן מפני עגמת נפש

Isn’t it taught in a baraita: One rends the clothes of a minor whose relative has passed away, due to the desire to bring about feelings of grief among those who see him? However, there is no inherent requirement for the minor to observe any of the halakhot of mourning.

אמר רב אשי מי קתני הא אסורין דלמא יש מהן אסור ויש מהן מותר

Rav Ashi said: Is it taught explicitly in the first baraita cited by Rav Pineḥas that if it is prohibited for one to have a haircut during the Festival, it is likewise prohibited to have a haircut during the week of mourning? That was merely an inference. Perhaps there are those among them, i.e., those listed in the mishna, for whom it is prohibited, while there are others among them for whom it is permitted, and the halakhot of mourning do not apply to a baby.

אמימר ואי תימא רב שישא בריה דרב אידי מתני הכי אמר שמואל קטן מותר לגלחו במועד לא שנא נולד במועד ולא שנא נולד מעיקרא

Ameimar, and some say it was Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, taught that statement in this manner. Shmuel said: With regard to a baby, it is permitted to cut his hair during the Festival. It is no different whether he was born during the Festival, and it is no different whether he was born beforehand.

אמר רב פנחס אף אנן נמי תנינא כל אלו שאמרו מותר לגלח במועד מותר לגלח בימי אבלו הא אסורין לגלח במועד אסורין לגלח בימי אבלו

Rav Pineḥas said: We, too, learn in the baraita a support for this statement: All of those about whom the Sages said: It is permitted to shave and cut his hair on the intermediate days of the Festival, it is also permitted to shave and cut his hair during the days of his mourning. But from this it follows that one who is prohibited from shaving and cutting his hair on the intermediate days of a Festival is also prohibited from shaving and cutting his hair during the days of his mourning.

אי אמרת קטן אסור נמצאת אבילות נוהגת בקטן ותניא מקרעין לקטן מפני עגמת נפש

If you say that with regard to a baby it is prohibited to cut his hair, then you find that mourning is practiced even with a minor. And it was taught in a baraita: One rends the clothes of a minor whose relative has passed away due to the desire to bring about feelings of grief among those who see him. However, there is no inherent requirement for the minor to observe any of the halakhot of mourning.

אמר רב אשי מי קתני הא אסורין דלמא יש מהן אסור ויש מהן מותר

Rav Ashi said: Is it taught explicitly in the first baraita cited by Rav Pineḥas that if it is prohibited for one to shave during the Festival, it is likewise prohibited to shave during the week of mourning? That was merely an inference. Perhaps there are those among them for whom it is prohibited, while there are others among them for whom it is permitted. If so, there is no clear support from this baraita for Shmuel’s statement.

אבל אינו נוהג אבילותו ברגל שנאמר ושמחת בחגך

§ A mourner does not practice the halakhot of his mourning on a Festival, as it is stated: “And you shall rejoice in your Festival” (Deuteronomy 16:14).

אי אבילות דמעיקרא הוא אתי עשה דרבים ודחי עשה דיחיד ואי אבילות דהשתא הוא לא אתי עשה דיחיד ודחי עשה דרבים

The Gemara explains: If it is a mourning period that had already begun at the outset of the Festival, the positive mitzva of rejoicing on the Festival, which is incumbent upon the community, comes and overrides the positive mitzva of the individual, i.e., the mourning. And if the mourning period began only now, i.e., the deceased died during the Festival, the positive mitzva of the individual does not come and override the positive mitzva of the community.

מנודה מהו שינהוג נידויו ברגל אמר רב יוסף תא שמע דנין דיני נפשות ודיני מכות ודיני ממונות ואי לא ציית דינא משמתינן ליה

The Gemara asks: With regard to one who was ostracized, what is the halakha? Must he observe the practices of ostracism, or are they overridden by the mitzva to rejoice on the Festival? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear an answer from that which is taught: During the Festival the court judges cases of capital law, cases of lashes, and cases of monetary law. It is known that if one does not listen to and follow the judgment, among the possibilities of enforcement is that we ostracize him until he accepts the verdict.

ואי סלקא דעתך אינו נוהג נידויו ברגל משומת ואתי מעיקרא אתי רגל דחי ליה השתא משמתינן ליה אנן

And if it enters your mind that one does not observe the practices of ostracism during the Festival, the following a fortiori argument can be made: If, for one who has already been ostracized at the outset of the Festival, the Festival comes and overrides his observance of that status, is it reasonable that now we, the court, should ostracize he who does not listen to the judgment of the court during the Festival itself? Rather, it must be that one does observe the practices of ostracism, even during the Festival.

אמר ליה אביי ודלמא לעיוני בדיניה דאי לא תימא הכי דיני נפשות דקתני הכא נמי דקטלין ליה

Abaye said to him: There is no proof from here, as perhaps when the baraita states that the court judges cases, what it meant is that it deliberates in judgment on the Festival, but it does not actually reach a verdict. Therefore, the court never ostracizes someone during the Festival. Accordingly, there is no a fortiori argument proving that one observes the practices of ostracism during the Festival. Because if you do not say so, that the baraita is referring to deliberation, then in the cases of capital law that are taught, here too, would we put someone to death on the Festival?

והא קא מימנעי משמחת יום טוב דתניא רבי עקיבא אומר מנין לסנהדרין (שראו באחד) שהרגו את הנפש שאין טועמין כל אותו היום תלמוד לומר לא תאכלו על הדם

But if so, the judges would be prevented from rejoicing on the Festival, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: From where is it derived with regard to the Sanhedrin who put someone to death that they may not taste any food or drink for the entire rest of the day? The verse states: “You shall not eat with the blood” (Leviticus 19:26). It is not appropriate to eat during the same day that they caused bloodshed.

אלא לעיוני בדיניה הכא נמי לעיוני בדיניה אמר ליה אם כן נמצאת מענה את דינו

Rather, the statement of the baraita, that the court judges cases of capital law, must be referring to deliberating in judgment and not actually reaching a verdict. Here too, in cases of monetary law and of lashes, it is referring to deliberating in judgment, without the possibility of ostracizing anyone during the Festival. Rav Yosef said to him: If so, if only deliberations are conducted during the Festival, you find a perversion of justice by delaying his verdict.

אתו מצפרא ומעייני בדיניה ועיילי ואכלי ושתו כולי יומא והדר אתו בשקיעת החמה וגמרינן לדיניה וקטלו ליה

Rather, the judges come in the morning as usual and deliberate in judgment. They then enter their homes and eat and drink all day, i.e., as much as they desire, in order to rejoice fully on the Festival. Then they come back to the courthouse close to sunset and complete his judgment, i.e., they dispense the verdict, and if necessary, they kill him. In this manner, they are not prevented from enjoying the Festival properly.

אמר אביי תא שמע ומנודה שהתירו לו חכמים

Abaye said: Come and hear another support from a baraita: And it is the case with regard to one who is ostracized, that the Sages permitted him to get a haircut during the intermediate days of the Festival. This indicates that one who is ostracized need not observe the practices of ostracism during the Festival.

אמר רבא מי קתני שהתירוהו חכמים שהתירו לו חכמים קתני דאזל ופייסיה לבעל דיניה ואתי קמי דרבנן ושרו ליה

Rava said: Is it taught in the baraita: That they permitted it, which would indicate that the Sages permitted all those who were ostracized to cut their hair on the intermediate days of the Festival? Rather, it is taught: They permitted him. This indicates that it is referring to an individual case, where one went and appeased his opposing litigant and the Sages came and released him from his decree of ostracism.

מצורע מהו שינהיג צרעתו ברגל אמר אביי תא שמע והנזיר והמצורע מטומאתו לטהרתו הא בימי טומאתו נהיג

§ The Gemara asks a similar question: With regard to a leper, what is the halakha? Must he observe the practices of his leper status, or are they overridden by the mitzva to rejoice during the Festival? Abaye said: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: And both the nazirite and the leper who transfers from his state of ritual impurity to his new state of purity may shave on the intermediate days of the Festival. This implies that during the days of his impurity he must observe all of the ordinary practices, even during the Festival.

לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא בימי טומאתו דלא נהיג אבל לטהרתו ניגזור שמא ישהה קרבנותיו קמשמע לן

The Gemara rejects this proof: The baraita is speaking employing the didactic style of: Needless to say. Needless to say, during the days of his impurity on the Festival, he does not observe the practices of ostracism. However, with regard to one who regains his state of purity during the intermediate days of the Festival, one might think that we should issue a decree that he not be permitted to shave, lest he delay sacrificing his offerings until the last day of the Festival, when it is prohibited to sacrifice offerings of an individual. Perhaps prohibiting him from shaving will prevent this possibility. Therefore, because one might have thought that shaving should be prohibited, the baraita teaches us that it is, in fact, permitted for him to shave during the intermediate days of the Festival.

אמר רבא תא שמע והצרוע לרבות כהן גדול והא כהן גדול דכל השנה כרגל לכולי עלמא דמי דתנן כהן גדול מקריב אונן ואינו אוכל שמע מינה נוהג צרעתו ברגל שמע מינה

Rava said: Come and hear another source. The verse states: “And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent” (Leviticus 13:45). The extra emphasis of the phrase: “And the leper” comes to include the High Priest, teaching that all the halakhot of the leper apply to him. And the status of the High Priest during the entire year is like that of everyone on a Festival, as we learned in a mishna (Horayot 12b): The High Priest sacrifices animals when he has the status of an acute mourner, i.e., before the burial of a close relative who died, but he may not eat of the offering. Learn from it that a leper practices the customs of his leprosy during the Festival. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is so.

אבל אסור בתספורת מדקאמר להו רחמנא לבני אהרן ראשיכם אל תפרעו מכלל דכולי עלמא אסור

§ The source for the halakha that it is prohibited for a mourner to receive a haircut is derived from the fact that the Merciful One states to the sons of Aaron: “Let not the hair of your heads go loose” (Leviticus 10:6). It was prohibited for them to let their hair grow long during their period of mourning over the death of their brothers, Nadav and Avihu. By inference, it is teaching that for everyone else, i.e., non-priests, it is prohibited to cut their hair during the period of mourning.