Moed Katan 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

And it was taught

in a beraita as support for this distinction:

One may bring vessels from the craftsman’s house

if they are needed for the Festival,

such as a jug from the jug-maker’s house

(the craftsman who makes jugs),

and a cup from the glassmaker’s house.

But not

bring

wool from the dyer’s house,

as it is not needed for the Festival.

And

also

not

bring

vessels from the craftsman’s house,

when they are not needed for the Festival.

But if he does not have

the craftsman

anything to eat—

he gives him his wages

, and leaves it

the vessel

with him

in the craftsman’s house.

But if he does not trust him

the craftsman—

he leaves it in the house adjacent to his.

And if he is concerned about them, lest they be stolen

from the place adjacent to the craftsman’s house—

he brings them discreetly into his house .

It is clear from this beraita that whether it is permitted to bring the vessels depends on the craftsman’s trustworthiness.

The Gemara nevertheless asks: Granted, you have

answered

the question of why the Mishna in Pesachim said that they

bring

vessels from the craftsman’s house, whereas we learned in our Mishna that they do not bring them.

But the beginning of that Mishna still presents a difficulty, for we learned:

They lead

vessels to the craftsman’s house—

this is difficult!

For

in our Mishna

it teaches

that

they do not bring

from the craftsman’s house;

all the more so, they do not lead them

to the craftsman, since he would certainly be suspected of performing work, and leading the vessels to him is not a need of the Festival!

The Gemara therefore retracts the distinction based on the craftsman’s trustworthiness.

Rather, it is clear

that the distinction is

as we originally answered: on Chol HaMoed it is prohibited, whereas on the eve of Pesach it is permitted, even to lead the vessels to the craftsman.

work is prohibited on the intermediate days of a Festival, whereas it is permitted on the day before Passover, even when one is merely leading the utensils to the craftsman.

Mishna:

a.

One may cover dried figs with straw.

Figs that one spread in the field to dry may be covered with straw to protect them from rain .

Rabbi Yehuda says: One may even heap them

by covering them with a great deal of straw, making a thick covering.

b.

Merchants of produce, garments, and vessels may sell discreetly for the needs of the Festival .

c.

Hunters

of animals and birds,

and those who thresh,

people who thresh wheat for porridge,

and those who grind,

people who grind beans into groats—

perform

their work

discreetly,

even when they perform it only

for the needs of the Festival .

The reason for the obligation to work discreetly is that, since they work in large quantities for many people, people will say that he is engaged in his regular occupation rather than working for the needs of the Festival.

But one who is not a professional craftsman may work even publicly, since it is evident that he is working for the needs of the Festival.

Rabbi Yosei says: They

the professional craftsmen

took it upon themselves to be stringent,

and do not perform their work on Chol HaMoed even discreetly.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: one may cover dried figs.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi disagree.

And both of them

each stated his view

in the name of Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan.

One said: “Covering”

means

making it sparse,

covering them with straw stalks spaced far apart, so that the covering is light and incomplete.

Whereas what Rabbi Yehuda said,

“heaping,”

means

making it dense,

a thick covering of closely packed stalks.

And one said: “Covering”

means

both making it sparse and making it dense.

Whereas

“heaping”

means gathering all the dried figs into one place and

making it like a pile.

The Gemara brings a proof for the second explanation:

It was taught likewise: “Heaping”—he makes it like a pile; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

We learned in the Mishna:

Merchants of produce, garments, and vessels may sell discreetly.

Rabbi Yosei says: They took it upon themselves to be stringent.

They raised a dilemma:

In what way

did they take it upon themselves to be stringent?

Did they adopt a stringency beyond what the Sages stated, namely,

that they did not engage in the work at all?

Or perhaps,

Rabbi Yosei disagrees with the first tanna and says that all this—

that they worked discreetly—

is merely a stringency adopted by the craftsmen, and if they wish, they may work even publicly. Rabbi Yosei would therefore be lenient.

Come and hear,

that Rabbi Yosei said that they adopted a stringency beyond their obligation, from what we learned:

a.

Merchants of produce, garments, and vessels

on Chol HaMoed

may sell discreetly for the needs of the Festival.

Rabbi Yosei says: The merchants of Tiberias—

they took it upon themselves not to sell at all .

b.

Hunters of animals, birds, and fish

, may hunt discreetly for the needs of the Festival .

Rabbi Yosei says: The hunters of Akko took it upon themselves not to hunt at all.

c.

Those who thresh hulka, targis, and tisni—

which will be explained below—

may thresh discreetly for the needs of the Festival.

Rabbi Yosei says: The threshers of Tzippori took it upon themselves not to thresh at all.

It is clear from the beraita that Rabbi Yosei did not come to be lenient. Rather, he meant that the craftsmen adopted a stringency beyond what the Sages permitted them to do discreetly, and did no work at all on Chol HaMoed.

Abaye said,

what are the types of threshing mentioned in the beraita?

Hulka—

they break one wheat kernel

into two.

Targis—

one

kernel they break

into three.

Tisni—

one kernel into four.

When Rav Dimi came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said:

Hulka is

kunta,

buckwheat.

They raised an objection

to Rav Dimi from the Mishna in tractate Makhshirin [chapter 6, Mishna 2]:

Food becomes impure with “food impurity” only if it has been “prepared”—that is, rendered susceptible to impurity through liquid coming into contact with it.

And we hold that fine flour, when it has not been mixed with water, becomes susceptible to impurity only if it belongs to the inhabitants of the walled cities, since they soak it in water in order to clean it, and it thereby received the required “preparation” for impurity.

But villagers do not care that their flour be clean, and in their case it does not become susceptible to impurity, since it was not prepared for impurity through liquid coming into contact with it.

But

hulka, targis, and tisni—

are impure everywhere.

For hulka, targis, and tisni cannot be made without first soaking them in water; therefore, they become susceptible to impurity even in the villages.

The Gemara now explains its objection to Rav Dimi:

Granted, according to the one who says,

Abaye above, that hulka, targis, and tisni are the division of one kernel

into two, three, and four parts—it is understandable that

it is understandable that

for that reason they are impure everywhere,

since

they were prepared,

as they were soaked in water in order to divide them into parts.

But according to the one who says,

Rav Dimi, that hulka is

kunta

[buckwheat], the following difficulty arises:

why are

the ground buckwheat kernels

impure everywhere?

They were not prepared!

For buckwheat can be threshed even without soaking it in water!

And we answer: In fact, hulka is buckwheat.

The case in which it must be soaked in water and becomes susceptible to impurity is

where it has been peeled,

buckwheat whose husks were removed from the kernels; in that case, the buckwheat kernels were certainly prepared through contact with water,

for if it had not soaked them

the buckwheat kernels

in water,

they would not have been peeled.

And why does he call it

buckwheat

“hulka”?

After all, buckwheat is not broken and divided; it is threshed!

Because he removes its husks,

taking away the husks so that the kernels become smooth.

They raised another objection

to Rav Dimi, who said that hulka is buckwheat, from what we learned in tractate Nedarim [55b]:

One who vows to abstain from grain—

is prohibited even from dry Egyptian beans, but is permitted

to eat Egyptian beans

when moist, and is permitted to eat rice, hulka, targis, and tisni.

Granted, according to the one who says,

Abaye, who said above that hulka, targis, and tisni are the division of one kernel

into two, one into three, and one into four—

that is well,

that they are permitted to one who vowed to abstain from grain.

For,

since they were divided and transformed,

they have departed from the status of grain

from which he vowed to abstain, and he may eat them.

But according to the one who says,

Rav Dimi, that hulka is

kunta—

why are they permitted after threshing? After all,

it is genuine grain,

as buckwheat is one of the five species of grain!

And we conclude:

The difficulty remains unresolved.

Rav Huna permitted those spice merchants

to sell spices

and go out to sell them

on Chol HaMoed

in their usual manner, in the marketplace.

Rav Kahana raised an objection

to Rav Huna: How is it permitted to sell publicly? Did we not learn in a beraita in the Tosefta:

A shop

that is

open onto the colonnade,

onto a street corner beside the public domain—

he opens and closes

his shop on Chol HaMoed

in his usual manner,

because it is not like the shops that open directly onto the public domain.

But a shop that is

open onto the public domain—

he opens

one door

and closes the other,

so that opening the shop will not be done in the usual weekday manner.

And on the eve of the final Festival day

of Sukkot —

he takes out produce and decorates the city’s markets for the honor of the final Festival day.

Rav Kahana infers: Only

for the honor of the final Festival day, yes—they permitted taking out produce, decorating the markets, and selling publicly. But

that they permitted taking produce out, decorating the marketplaces, and selling publicly. But

not for the honor of the Festival day, no,

they did not permit it! This is difficult for Rav Huna, who permitted selling publicly on Chol HaMoed .

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

This

case in which they prohibited selling in the usual manner refers to

produce,

as there is concern that people will suspect that the purchaser is buying it for use throughout the year.

Whereas

this

case in which they permitted it refers to

spices,

as everyone knows that they are for the needs of the Festival, since they are not fit to be kept for a long time; therefore, he may sell them publicly.

This is the reason for Rav Huna’s permission even regarding perfumes, as it is evident that they are for the festival.

We will return to you, chapter “One Who Turned Over.”

It is forbidden to shave during Chol HaMoed, even if the shaving is intended to improve one's appearance during Chol HaMoed.

This matter is a decree of the Sages, so that a person should not enter the Festival in a disgraceful state, that is, unshaven. For the Sages were concerned that a person might postpone shaving until Chol HaMoed, when he is free from work, with the result that he would enter the Festival unshaven.

Therefore, the Sages decreed that people may not shave during Chol HaMoed.

However, they excluded from their decree those who were prevented by circumstances and were unable to shave on the eve of the Festival.

Mishna:

And these may shave during Chol HaMoed:

One who comes

from the road,

from overseas ,

and was unable to shave while he was on the road .

And

one who comes

from captivity, or one released from prison,

where they were unable to shave .

And one who was placed under a ban and whom the Sages released

from his ban during Chol HaMoed, and one who is under a ban is forbidden to shave .

And likewise, one who consulted a sage

during Chol HaMoed concerning his vow that he had taken not to shave,

and was released

from his vow during Chol HaMoed .

And a nazirite

who became impure,

and

likewise

a leper

who was cured and is now ascending

from his impurity to his purity,

and must shave, may shave during the Festival, since he did not have the opportunity to do so before the Festival .

The Sages likewise decreed a prohibition against laundering, even for the needs of Chol HaMoed, and permitted it only for one who was unable to launder before Chol HaMoed:

And these may launder during Chol HaMoed: One who comes from overseas, one who comes from captivity, and one released from prison