Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 26, 2022 | 讻状讚 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘

This month鈥檚 shiurim are dedicated by Efrat Arnold in loving memory of Joshua Carr, Yehoshua Aryeh Leib ben Yonatan Chaim and Malka Esther HaCohen.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of their children and grandchildren.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Moed Katan 14

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Sondria Atkin in loving memory of her grandmother, Rochel bat Harry on her 39th yahrzeit.聽

Who is permitted to shave or launder during chol hamoed? Why it is forbidden to shave on chol hamoed? Rabbi Zeira asked: If due to circumstances beyond his鈥檚 control, he was not able to shave before the holiday, would he be permitted to shave on chol hamoed 鈥 should we say it wasn鈥檛 his fault or should we worry that others may not know that it wasn鈥檛 his fault and may learn from there that one could shave on chol hamoed? Abaye says, how can we distinguish between different people 鈥 if some cannot shave, then all cannot shave. Rav Ashi had a different version of Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 question and the answer that was given. The Mishna permits one who was abroad to shave on chol hamoed. The Mishna does not agree with Rabbi Yehuda who says one who was abroad did not leave with permission and therefore cannot shave. Rava limits the debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda to a case where one left to make a profit. A question is raised on Rava from a braita and is resolved. Shmuel taught that a child born on the holiday can get his hair cut on the holiday if it is needed. An inference is made and a question is raised against the inference. Rav Ashi resolves the issue. A different version of Shmuel鈥檚 statement and the ensuing discussion is brought. Mourning practices do not take place on the holiday whether or not they began before the holiday or after. Are excommunication laws practiced on the holiday? Rav Yosef brings a source to derive an answer but Abaye has a retort. Abaye brings our Mishna to answer the question, but Rava rejects his proof. Does a leper have to keep all the laws of distancing on the holiday? Abaye tries to prove it from our Mishna, but the proof is rejected. Rava brings his own source to find an answer.

讜诪谞讜讚讛 砖讛转讬专讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讻谉 诪讬 砖谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诐 讜讛讜转专

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.

诪讟驻讞讜转 讛讬讚讬诐 讜诪讟驻讞讜转 讛住驻专讬诐 讜诪讟驻讞讜转 讛住驻讙 讛讝讘讬谉 讜讛讝讘讜转 讜讛谞讚讜转 讜讛讬讜诇讚讜转 讜讻诇 讛注讜诇讬谉 诪讟讜诪讗讛 诇讟讛专讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗住讜专讬谉

Hand towels; and barbers鈥 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.

讙诪壮 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讗讚诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗住讜专讬谉

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?

讻讚转谞谉 讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 讜讗谞砖讬 诪注诪讚 讗住讜专讬谉 诇住驻专 讜诇讻讘住 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬 诪讜转专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讛砖讘转

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讻谞住讜 诇诪砖诪专转谉 讻砖讛谉 诪谞讜讜诇讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讻谞住讜 诇专讙诇 讻砖讛谉 诪谞讜讜诇讬谉

And Rabba bar bar 岣na 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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讘讚讛 诇讜 讗讘讬讚讛 注专讘 讛专讙诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讗谞讬住 诪讜转专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讜讻讞讗 诪讬诇转讗 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛住专讬拽讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 住专讬拽讬 讘讬讬转讜住 诪讜转专讬谉

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.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讞诇讜拽 讗讞讚 诪讜转专 诇讻讘住讜 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讬讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛住专讬拽讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 住专讬拽讬 讘讬讬转讜住 诪讜转专讬谉

Rabbi Zeira retorted: And according to your reasoning, that which Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬讝讜专讜 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜

The Gemara rejects this argument: Wasn鈥檛 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讜诪谉 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讜 讗讘讬讚讛 注专讘 讛专讙诇 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜诪谉 讛讜讗 诪讜讻讞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讜讻讞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讻讬 讛谞讱 诇讗 转讬拽讜

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.

诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讘讗 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞 诪驻谞讬 砖讬爪讗 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇砖讜讟 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讛专讜讬讞讗 诪专 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讻诇砖讜讟 讜诪专 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讻诇诪讝讜谞讜转

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻砖讬爪讗 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讻砖讬爪讗 讘专砖讜转 诪讗讬 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇砖讜讟 讜讛讗诪专转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 讜讗诇讗 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讛讗诪专转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讛专讜讬讞讗

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讻砖讬爪讗 讘专砖讜转 诪讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 讛讗 讗诪专转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 讜讗诇讗 诇讛专讜讬讞讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讛讗

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 you say in the first clause that the statement of Rabbi Yehuda seems more reasonable in this case? Therefore, according to Rava鈥檚 distinctions, there is an internal contradiction within the baraita.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘谞谉 讻砖讬爪讗 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诇砖讜讟 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讛专讜讬讞讗 讗讘诇 诇砖讜讟 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 讜谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻砖讬爪讗 讘专砖讜转 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 砖讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讞诇拽 注诇讬讛诐 讗诇讗 诇讛专讜讬讞讗 讗讘诇 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 诪讜讚讛 诇讛讜

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鈥檚 intent was not to decide between the opinions of the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda but to clarify their dispute.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽讟谉 讛谞讜诇讚 讘诪讜注讚 诪讜转专 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛 讘诪讜注讚 讗讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗

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鈥檚 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 驻谞讞住 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 诪讜转专 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 诪讜转专 诇讙诇讞 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇讜 讛讗 讗住讜专 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 讗住讜专 诇讙诇讞 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇讜

Rav Pine岣s 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.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 拽讟谉 讗讬转 讘讬讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 谞诪爪讗转 讗讘讬诇讜转 谞讜讛讙转 讘拽讟谉

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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪拽专注讬谉 诇拽讟谉 诪驻谞讬 注讙诪转 谞驻砖

Isn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗 讗住讜专讬谉 讚诇诪讗 讬砖 诪讛谉 讗住讜专 讜讬砖 诪讛谉 诪讜转专

Rav Ashi said: Is it taught explicitly in the first baraita cited by Rav Pine岣s 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.

讗诪讬诪专 讜讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽讟谉 诪讜转专 诇讙诇讞讜 讘诪讜注讚 诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讜诇讚 讘诪讜注讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讜诇讚 诪注讬拽专讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 诪讜转专 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 诪讜转专 诇讙诇讞 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇讜 讛讗 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讙诇讞 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇讜

Rav Pine岣s 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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 拽讟谉 讗住讜专 谞诪爪讗转 讗讘讬诇讜转 谞讜讛讙转 讘拽讟谉 讜转谞讬讗 诪拽专注讬谉 诇拽讟谉 诪驻谞讬 注讙诪转 谞驻砖

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗 讗住讜专讬谉 讚诇诪讗 讬砖 诪讛谉 讗住讜专 讜讬砖 诪讛谉 诪讜转专

Rav Ashi said: Is it taught explicitly in the first baraita cited by Rav Pine岣s 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鈥檚 statement.

讗讘诇 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗讘讬诇讜转讜 讘专讙诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖诪讞转 讘讞讙讱

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

讗讬 讗讘讬诇讜转 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讗 讗转讬 注砖讛 讚专讘讬诐 讜讚讞讬 注砖讛 讚讬讞讬讚 讜讗讬 讗讘讬诇讜转 讚讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 讗转讬 注砖讛 讚讬讞讬讚 讜讚讞讬 注砖讛 讚专讘讬诐

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.

诪谞讜讚讛 诪讛讜 砖讬谞讛讜讙 谞讬讚讜讬讜 讘专讙诇 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讚谞讬谉 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜讚讬谞讬 诪讻讜转 讜讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讗讬 诇讗 爪讬讬转 讚讬谞讗 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 谞讬讚讜讬讜 讘专讙诇 诪砖讜诪转 讜讗转讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讗转讬 专讙诇 讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗谞谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讚诇诪讗 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘讚讬谞讬讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讚拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚拽讟诇讬谉 诇讬讛

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?

讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讬诪谞注讬 诪砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇住谞讛讚专讬谉 (砖专讗讜 讘讗讞讚) 砖讛专讙讜 讗转 讛谞驻砖 砖讗讬谉 讟讜注诪讬谉 讻诇 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 注诇 讛讚诐

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: 鈥淵ou shall not eat with the blood鈥 (Leviticus 19:26). It is not appropriate to eat during the same day that they caused bloodshed.

讗诇讗 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘讚讬谞讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘讚讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 谞诪爪讗转 诪注谞讛 讗转 讚讬谞讜

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.

讗转讜 诪爪驻专讗 讜诪注讬讬谞讬 讘讚讬谞讬讛 讜注讬讬诇讬 讜讗讻诇讬 讜砖转讜 讻讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讜讛讚专 讗转讜 讘砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讜讙诪专讬谞谉 诇讚讬谞讬讛 讜拽讟诇讜 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 讜诪谞讜讚讛 砖讛转讬专讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 砖讛转讬专讜讛讜 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讛转讬专讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 拽转谞讬 讚讗讝诇 讜驻讬讬住讬讛 诇讘注诇 讚讬谞讬讛 讜讗转讬 拽诪讬 讚专讘谞谉 讜砖专讜 诇讬讛

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.

诪爪讜专注 诪讛讜 砖讬谞讛讬讙 爪专注转讜 讘专讙诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 讜讛谞讝讬专 讜讛诪爪讜专注 诪讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讟讛专转讜 讛讗 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜 谞讛讬讙

搂 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 if during the days of his impurity he must observe all of the ordinary practices, even during the Festival.

诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜 讚诇讗 谞讛讬讙 讗讘诇 诇讟讛专转讜 谞讬讙讝讜专 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讛 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜讛爪专讜注 诇专讘讜转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讛讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讚讻诇 讛砖谞讛 讻专讙诇 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚诪讬 讚转谞谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪拽专讬讘 讗讜谞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙 爪专注转讜 讘专讙诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rava said: Come and hear another source. The verse states: 鈥淎nd the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent鈥 (Leviticus 13:45). The extra emphasis of the phrase: 鈥淎nd the leper鈥 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.

讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘转住驻讜专转 诪讚拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 诇讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 专讗砖讬讻诐 讗诇 转驻专注讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗住讜专

搂 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: 鈥淟et not the hair of your heads go loose鈥 (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.

This month鈥檚 shiurim are dedicated by Efrat Arnold in loving memory of Joshua Carr, Yehoshua Aryeh Leib ben Yonatan Chaim and Malka Esther HaCohen.

And by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of their children and grandchildren.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Moed Katan 14: The Prison That Is The Womb

Chapter 3. Who can shave and take a haircut on Chol HaMoed? Who can do laundry? And what items can...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Does Joy Overcome Sadness? – Gefet 23

https://youtu.be/ndcVA7EDIz8 Does joy override sadness? I don鈥檛 think so, and neither does the Gemara鈥 Is mourning a Torah law or...
hulda drawing

On the Outs

Because of a detail in the Mishnah, the Gemara goes off on a long tangent about nidui, a form of...

Moed Katan 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Moed Katan 14

讜诪谞讜讚讛 砖讛转讬专讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讻谉 诪讬 砖谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诐 讜讛讜转专

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.

诪讟驻讞讜转 讛讬讚讬诐 讜诪讟驻讞讜转 讛住驻专讬诐 讜诪讟驻讞讜转 讛住驻讙 讛讝讘讬谉 讜讛讝讘讜转 讜讛谞讚讜转 讜讛讬讜诇讚讜转 讜讻诇 讛注讜诇讬谉 诪讟讜诪讗讛 诇讟讛专讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗住讜专讬谉

Hand towels; and barbers鈥 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.

讙诪壮 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讗讚诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗住讜专讬谉

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?

讻讚转谞谉 讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 讜讗谞砖讬 诪注诪讚 讗住讜专讬谉 诇住驻专 讜诇讻讘住 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬 诪讜转专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讛砖讘转

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讻谞住讜 诇诪砖诪专转谉 讻砖讛谉 诪谞讜讜诇讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讻谞住讜 诇专讙诇 讻砖讛谉 诪谞讜讜诇讬谉

And Rabba bar bar 岣na 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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讘讚讛 诇讜 讗讘讬讚讛 注专讘 讛专讙诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讗谞讬住 诪讜转专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讜讻讞讗 诪讬诇转讗 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛住专讬拽讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 住专讬拽讬 讘讬讬转讜住 诪讜转专讬谉

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.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讞诇讜拽 讗讞讚 诪讜转专 诇讻讘住讜 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讬讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛住专讬拽讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 住专讬拽讬 讘讬讬转讜住 诪讜转专讬谉

Rabbi Zeira retorted: And according to your reasoning, that which Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讛讗 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬讝讜专讜 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜

The Gemara rejects this argument: Wasn鈥檛 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讜诪谉 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讜 讗讘讬讚讛 注专讘 讛专讙诇 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜诪谉 讛讜讗 诪讜讻讞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讜讻讞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讻讬 讛谞讱 诇讗 转讬拽讜

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.

诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讘讗 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诇讗 讬讙诇讞 诪驻谞讬 砖讬爪讗 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇砖讜讟 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讛专讜讬讞讗 诪专 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讻诇砖讜讟 讜诪专 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讻诇诪讝讜谞讜转

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻砖讬爪讗 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讻砖讬爪讗 讘专砖讜转 诪讗讬 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇砖讜讟 讜讛讗诪专转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 讜讗诇讗 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讛讗诪专转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讛专讜讬讞讗

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讻砖讬爪讗 讘专砖讜转 诪讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 讛讗 讗诪专转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专 讜讗诇讗 诇讛专讜讬讞讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讛讗

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 you say in the first clause that the statement of Rabbi Yehuda seems more reasonable in this case? Therefore, according to Rava鈥檚 distinctions, there is an internal contradiction within the baraita.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘谞谉 讻砖讬爪讗 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诇砖讜讟 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讛专讜讬讞讗 讗讘诇 诇砖讜讟 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 讜谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻砖讬爪讗 讘专砖讜转 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 砖讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讞诇拽 注诇讬讛诐 讗诇讗 诇讛专讜讬讞讗 讗讘诇 诇诪讝讜谞讜转 诪讜讚讛 诇讛讜

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鈥檚 intent was not to decide between the opinions of the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda but to clarify their dispute.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽讟谉 讛谞讜诇讚 讘诪讜注讚 诪讜转专 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛 讘诪讜注讚 讗讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗

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鈥檚 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 驻谞讞住 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 诪讜转专 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 诪讜转专 诇讙诇讞 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇讜 讛讗 讗住讜专 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 讗住讜专 诇讙诇讞 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇讜

Rav Pine岣s 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.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 拽讟谉 讗讬转 讘讬讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 谞诪爪讗转 讗讘讬诇讜转 谞讜讛讙转 讘拽讟谉

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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪拽专注讬谉 诇拽讟谉 诪驻谞讬 注讙诪转 谞驻砖

Isn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗 讗住讜专讬谉 讚诇诪讗 讬砖 诪讛谉 讗住讜专 讜讬砖 诪讛谉 诪讜转专

Rav Ashi said: Is it taught explicitly in the first baraita cited by Rav Pine岣s 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.

讗诪讬诪专 讜讗讬 转讬诪讗 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽讟谉 诪讜转专 诇讙诇讞讜 讘诪讜注讚 诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讜诇讚 讘诪讜注讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 谞讜诇讚 诪注讬拽专讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 诪讜转专 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 诪讜转专 诇讙诇讞 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇讜 讛讗 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讙诇讞 讘诪讜注讚 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讙诇讞 讘讬诪讬 讗讘诇讜

Rav Pine岣s 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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 拽讟谉 讗住讜专 谞诪爪讗转 讗讘讬诇讜转 谞讜讛讙转 讘拽讟谉 讜转谞讬讗 诪拽专注讬谉 诇拽讟谉 诪驻谞讬 注讙诪转 谞驻砖

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗 讗住讜专讬谉 讚诇诪讗 讬砖 诪讛谉 讗住讜专 讜讬砖 诪讛谉 诪讜转专

Rav Ashi said: Is it taught explicitly in the first baraita cited by Rav Pine岣s 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鈥檚 statement.

讗讘诇 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗讘讬诇讜转讜 讘专讙诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖诪讞转 讘讞讙讱

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

讗讬 讗讘讬诇讜转 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讗 讗转讬 注砖讛 讚专讘讬诐 讜讚讞讬 注砖讛 讚讬讞讬讚 讜讗讬 讗讘讬诇讜转 讚讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 讗转讬 注砖讛 讚讬讞讬讚 讜讚讞讬 注砖讛 讚专讘讬诐

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.

诪谞讜讚讛 诪讛讜 砖讬谞讛讜讙 谞讬讚讜讬讜 讘专讙诇 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 讚谞讬谉 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜讚讬谞讬 诪讻讜转 讜讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讗讬 诇讗 爪讬讬转 讚讬谞讗 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 谞讬讚讜讬讜 讘专讙诇 诪砖讜诪转 讜讗转讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讗转讬 专讙诇 讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗谞谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讚诇诪讗 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘讚讬谞讬讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讚拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚拽讟诇讬谉 诇讬讛

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?

讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讬诪谞注讬 诪砖诪讞转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇住谞讛讚专讬谉 (砖专讗讜 讘讗讞讚) 砖讛专讙讜 讗转 讛谞驻砖 砖讗讬谉 讟讜注诪讬谉 讻诇 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 注诇 讛讚诐

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: 鈥淵ou shall not eat with the blood鈥 (Leviticus 19:26). It is not appropriate to eat during the same day that they caused bloodshed.

讗诇讗 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘讚讬谞讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘讚讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 谞诪爪讗转 诪注谞讛 讗转 讚讬谞讜

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.

讗转讜 诪爪驻专讗 讜诪注讬讬谞讬 讘讚讬谞讬讛 讜注讬讬诇讬 讜讗讻诇讬 讜砖转讜 讻讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讜讛讚专 讗转讜 讘砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讜讙诪专讬谞谉 诇讚讬谞讬讛 讜拽讟诇讜 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 讜诪谞讜讚讛 砖讛转讬专讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 砖讛转讬专讜讛讜 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讛转讬专讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 拽转谞讬 讚讗讝诇 讜驻讬讬住讬讛 诇讘注诇 讚讬谞讬讛 讜讗转讬 拽诪讬 讚专讘谞谉 讜砖专讜 诇讬讛

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.

诪爪讜专注 诪讛讜 砖讬谞讛讬讙 爪专注转讜 讘专讙诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 讜讛谞讝讬专 讜讛诪爪讜专注 诪讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讟讛专转讜 讛讗 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜 谞讛讬讙

搂 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 if during the days of his impurity he must observe all of the ordinary practices, even during the Festival.

诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜 讚诇讗 谞讛讬讙 讗讘诇 诇讟讛专转讜 谞讬讙讝讜专 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讛 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜讛爪专讜注 诇专讘讜转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讛讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讚讻诇 讛砖谞讛 讻专讙诇 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚诪讬 讚转谞谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪拽专讬讘 讗讜谞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙 爪专注转讜 讘专讙诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rava said: Come and hear another source. The verse states: 鈥淎nd the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent鈥 (Leviticus 13:45). The extra emphasis of the phrase: 鈥淎nd the leper鈥 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.

讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘转住驻讜专转 诪讚拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 诇讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 专讗砖讬讻诐 讗诇 转驻专注讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗住讜专

搂 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: 鈥淟et not the hair of your heads go loose鈥 (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.

Scroll To Top