Moed Katan 14a — the Talmud in English

And one who was ostracized and whose ostracism the Sages released

during the festival [since all the time that he was ostracized he was forbidden to launder].

And likewise one who asked

during the festival

a sage

about his vow, by which he prohibited himself from laundering,

and it was released

for him by the sage, now, during the festival.

Handcloths

towels

of the hands,

with which one dries the hands, and which became soiled from extensive use .

And handcloths

of

the barbers,

which they customarily place over the people who are having their hair cut, during the haircut. And people who are permitted to have their hair cut during the festival had their hair cut, and the handcloths became soiled .

And bath towels,

the towels in which one dries himself after bathing, and which are soiled.

And likewise handcloths

of men with discharges and women with discharges ,

and menstruants, and women after childbirth .

And

likewise

all those who ascend from impurity to purity —

these are permitted

to launder, to immerse their garments, and thereby purify them.

But all other people —

are forbidden

to shave and launder during the festival.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “But all other people are forbidden to have their hair cut and to launder during the festival.”

And

we raised the matter:

all other people —

for what reason are they forbidden?

But hair cutting and laundering are needs of the festival, and they should be permitted, even though they are labors!?

And we answered: the reason for the prohibition is that the Sages were concerned lest people become negligent and leave the labors of shaving and laundering to perform them during the festival, when they are idle from their work, and thus enter the festival disgracefully, without shaving and wearing soiled garments.

And we find an example of this, that they are concerned lest people postpone laundering and hair cutting and remain disgraced:

As we learned:

the priests who are

members of the division,

who serve in the Temple during the time of their fixed division in the Temple service.

And

likewise the Israelites,

“members of the station,”

who are representatives of the people of Israel who stand over the communal offerings at the time of their sacrifice, and who change every week; during that week they do not engage in their work —

are forbidden to have their hair cut and to launder

during that week.

And

only

on

the day

Thursday are they permitted

to have their hair cut and to launder,

for the honor of Shabbat .

And Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Elazar said: For what reason

are members of the division and members of the station forbidden to have their hair cut and to launder during the time of their service?

In order

that they not become negligent and not postpone the hair cutting and laundering until this week, during which they are idle from their work —

so that they should not enter their division when they are disgraced .

Here too,

with regard to hair cutting and laundering during the festival, the Sages decreed that they be prohibited,

so that they should not enter the festival

when they are disgraced .

Rabbi Zeira raised a question:

A person who

lost a lost object on the eve

of the festival,

and did not launder and did not have his hair cut before the festival because he was occupied with searching for his lost object:

since he was prevented by circumstances,

for he was not negligent,

is it permitted

for him to have his hair cut and launder during the festival?

Or perhaps, since the matter is not evident,

for the people who see him having his hair cut and laundering during the festival do not know that he was not negligent—

they did not

permit him!

Abaye said:

Indeed, they decreed even concerning one who was not negligent, because of those who see.

And similarly we find concerning the baking of matzot for Passover, that the Sages decreed not to make designs in them, because of the concern that perhaps they would delay while making the designs and come to cause the matzot to become leavened.

And they prohibited even the people of “the House of Baitos,” who had molds for making designs for matzot and did not delay at all when placing the dough into the molds, from making matzot with designs, because there is concern that people who do not know the manner of the House of Baitos’s work will wonder and

say: All the serikin

—designed matzot with a special matza structure, so called because they “comb” them—

are prohibited, but the serikei Baitos are permitted!?

And we challenge Abaye:

And according to your reasoning,

that there is concern for those people who see him performing labor and do not know that it is being performed permissibly,

if so,

this that Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Anyone who has only one garment—

is permitted to launder it during the intermediate days of the festival.

There too,

surely they will say: All garments are prohibited, but this person’s is permitted! Just as according to your words there is reason to be concerned regarding the matza, that

they will say: All the serikin are prohibited, but the serikei Baitos are permitted!

And we answer:

It was stated concerning it,

concerning the words of Rabbi Yohanan, who permits laundering for one who has only one garment:

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: His belt

—the belt of one who launders his only garment, whom the Sages obligated to be girded with it over his upper garment at the time of laundering—

proves it!

That is, the Sages obligated him to gird a belt over the upper garment that he wears while laundering the garment, so that it would be a sign to everyone that he is laundering permissibly, since he has only one garment.

Rav Ashi taught

the question of Rabbi Zeira in this manner:

Rabbi Zeira raised a question:

A

professional barber,

who cuts the hair of the masses on the eve of Yom Tov,

who lost a lost object on the eve of the festival,

and the many who come to him to have their hair cut see him taking trouble to search for his lost object, and therefore he was prevented by circumstances and did not manage to cut his own hair—

what is the law?

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Since he is a professional,

and many people are found with him on the eve of the festival,

the matter is evident,

that he was prevented by circumstances from cutting his own hair because of his lost object, and therefore it is possible to permit him to have his hair cut during the festival.

Or perhaps, since the matter is not evident

to everyone

like these,

like the cases enumerated in the Mishna for permission, in which everyone knows that they were prevented by circumstances from cutting their hair before the festival—

they did not

permit him to shave, because of those who see him and do not know of his compulsion!?

And we conclude:

teyku .

We learned in the Mishna: One who comes

from an overseas country,

is permitted to shave during the festival.

And the Gemara explains:

The Mishna—

is not in accordance with Rabbi Judah

!

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Judah says: One who comes from an overseas country—

may not shave, because he left without permission.

He was not compelled to leave because he was under the authority [permission] of others; rather, he left of his own will.

Rava said:

If he left with no need whatsoever, but only in order to travel and

sail

around the wide world—

everyone

[the Sages and Rabbi Judah]

agrees that it is prohibited

for him to shave during the festival, for he is not compelled by circumstances at all.

And if he left

for

the purpose of bringing

sustenance

for subsistence—

everyone agrees it is permitted,

for this is considered leaving under compulsion, and he is permitted to shave.

They did not disagree

—the Sages and Rabbi Judah—

except

in the case of one who has enough for his sustenance in his place, and leaves

for profit,

to increase his property and earn more.

One master,

Rabbi Judah,

likens it to one who sails,

and prohibits him from shaving during the festival.

And one master,

the Sages,

likens it to one who goes

out

for sustenance ,

for he leaves under compulsion, and they permit him to shave during the festival.

Meitivi

from a beraita in the Tosefta for Rava, for it was taught:

Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Judah appear [correct]

—the one who forbids one who came from overseas to shave during the festival—

when he left without permission.

And

the words

of the Sages

who permit him to shave appear [correct],

when he left with permission.

And the Gemara infers:

What

is the manner in which Rabbi said that the words of Rabbi Judah appear [correct], to forbid one who left

without permission?

If you say

that it is one who left

for pleasure.

This cannot be. For:

But you said

—Rava indeed said that, in the case of one who left for pleasure,

everyone agrees that it is forbidden

for him to shave during the festival. And how did Rabbi say that in this case the words of Rabbi Judah “appear [correct]”?!

Rather

perhaps you will say that, to Rabbi, the words of Rabbi Judah appear [correct] to forbid one who left

for provisions.

This too cannot be. For:

But you said

—Rava indeed said that, in the case of one who left for provisions,

everyone agrees that it is permitted!

Rather, it is obvious

that one must say that, to Rabbi, the words of Rabbi Judah appear [correct] in the case of one who left

for gain.

If so, according to Rava, Rabbi’s words in the first clause contradict Rabbi’s words in the latter clause.

For

say the latter clause: The words appear [correct]

to Rabbi—

the words of the Sages—

to permit

when he left with permission.

What does “he left

with

with permission” mean?

If you say

that it is one who left

for provisions—

you said that everyone

[and also Rabbi Judah]

permits it!

Rather

necessarily, Rabbi’s view is that permitting it like the Sages applies to one who left with permission

for gain!

If so, there is a difficulty:

But you said

in the first clause that

the words appear [correct]

to Rabbi—

the words of Rabbi Judah in this case—

one who left for gain, to forbid!

It follows that, according to Rava, Rabbi’s words in the first clause contradict his words in the latter clause: in the first clause, it appears correct to Rabbi to forbid one who left for gain, in accordance with the words of Rabbi Judah, whereas in the latter clause he permits this, in accordance with the words of the Sages!

Rather, necessarily, the explanation is not like Rava—that they disagreed only regarding gain—but rather they disagreed regarding one who left for pleasure and one who left for provisions!

And we answer: Rabbi did not at all intend to state his own view as to where it is permitted and where it is forbidden. Rather, he came only to explain the views of the disputants.

And

this is what

Rabbi says in this beraita:

The words of Rabbi Judah appear [correct] to the Sages

to forbid

when he left without permission.

And what is that—

for pleasure.

For even the Sages disagreed with him

to permit

only

in the case of one who left

for gain.

But

in the case of one who left

for pleasure—

they agree with him

to forbid it, in accordance with Rabbi Judah.

And the words of the Sages appear [correct] to Rabbi Judah

to permit

when he left with permission.

And what is that—

one who left

for provisions.

For even Rabbi Judah did not disagree with them

to forbid

only

in the case of one who left

for gain, but

in the case of one who left

for provisions—

he agrees with them

to permit it.

Samuel said: A minor born during the festival—

it is permitted to shave

him

during the festival .

Because

you have no

one who came out of a

prison

greater than he.

For the fetus had been confined in its mother’s womb, and he was under duress .

And the Gemara infers from Samuel’s words: if the minor was born

during the festival—

yes,

only then is it permitted to shave him during the festival. But if the minor was born

earlier,

before the festival, and they did not shave him—

no,

they may not shave him during the festival, since they could have shaved him before the festival.

Rabbi Phinehas raised an objection

to Samuel from a beraita in the Tosefta, in which we learned:

All those about whom they said

that the Sages said, “

It is permitted to shave during the festival”—

it is permitted to shave during his mourning period.

And Rabbi Phinehas infers the prohibition from the permission:

but

everyone about whom the Sages said that it is

forbidden

for him

to shave during the festival—

it is forbidden

for him

to shave during his mourning period.