Moed Katan 14b — the Talmud in English

And if you say:

according to the words of Shmuel, that

a minor has in it

a dispute, that there is a distinction in the law of his shaving between one born before the festival and one born during the festival, and if he was born before the festival, it is forbidden to shave him during the festival. If so, it should be forbidden to shave a minor during his mourning, according to the principle that everyone whom it is forbidden to shave during the festival, it is forbidden to shave during his mourning.

meaning that there is a distinction regarding the minor’s haircut between one born before the Festival and one born during the Festival, and if he was born before the Festival, it is prohibited to cut his hair during the Festival—if so, it should be prohibited to cut a minor’s hair during his mourning period, in accordance with the principle that anyone whom it is prohibited to shave during the Festival is also prohibited to shave during his mourning period.

And now,

it follows that mourning applies to a minor,

with regard to the prohibition of shaving during his mourning.

And this is not possible. For:

And it was taught in a beraita: They tear for a minor

his garment of mourning —

because of distress!

They tear his garment in order to cause distress to those present, so that they will cry and increase the honor of the deceased. And it is proven that a minor does not observe mourning; rather, they tear his garment only because of distress.

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said: Does it teach

in the words of the beraita, which says, “All those whom they said it is permitted to shave during the festival, it is permitted to shave during their mourning,” also the opposite rule of prohibition, that

this,

all those who do not shave during the festival,

are forbidden

to shave during their mourning!?

Perhaps

those who do not shave during the festival are divided with regard to the prohibition of shaving during their mourning:

there are among them

who

are forbidden

to shave during their mourning,

and there are among them

who

are permitted

to do so. And a minor is included among those for whom it is permitted.

Ameimar—and if you prefer, Rav Shisha son of Rav Idi—teaches the sugya in this alternative formulation

with regard to the aforementioned sugya in different wording:

And so

Shmuel said: A minor is permitted to be shaved during the festival,

it makes no difference whether he was born during the festival or whether he was born originally,

before the festival.

And concerning this

Rav Pinchas said: We too have learned

in a beraita:

All those whom they said it is permitted to shave during the festival —

it is permitted to shave during their mourning. .

And we must infer:

this

those who

are forbidden to shave during the festival —

are forbidden to shave during their mourning.

And

if you say that a minor is forbidden

to be shaved during the festival —

it follows that mourning applies to a minor.

And this is not possible. For:

And

this

was taught: They tear for a minor because of distress.

And it is proven that they tear for a minor only because of distress, and not on account of mourning.

And concerning this

Rav Ashi said:

And is it so that

it teaches “

this,

all those who

are forbidden

to shave during the festival are forbidden to shave during their mourning”?

Perhaps some of them are forbidden and some of them are permitted.

And now the Gemara explains the law of a mourner during the festival, and its source:

A mourner does not observe his mourning during the festival,

since during the festival there is a positive mitzva to rejoice,

as it is stated [Deuteronomy 16], “

[Deuteronomy 16:14]: “

And you shall rejoice in your festival.”

And therefore:

If it is mourning from before,

that the mourner began observing his mourning before the festival —

there comes

the mitzva of

positive action

of rejoicing on the festival, which is a mitzva

of the many,

in which all Israel are commanded,

and it overrides the positive mitzva

of the mitzva of mourning, which is a mitzva

of an individual,

of the mourner.

And if it is mourning of the present,

that his deceased died during the festival —

the positive mitzva does not come

of mourning

of an individual

and override the positive mitzva

of rejoicing

of the many.

. And now the Gemara is uncertain: One who is ostracized —

what is the law

with regard to observing his ostracism during the festival?

Rav Yosef said: Come and hear

from what we learned in a beraita in the Tosefta:

They judge

during the Festival

capital cases, cases of lashes, and monetary cases.

And if he does not obey the judgment,

and if he does not obey the verdict—

we excommunicate him,

we excommunicate him during the Festival.

And the Gemara assumed that just as they judge during the Festival, so too, if he does not obey the verdict, they excommunicate him during the Festival.

And if it enters your mind

that an excommunicated person

does not observe his excommunication on the Festival,

how is it possible that they excommunicate on the Festival?

But if one who was already

excommunicated from before,

who comes to the Festival while excommunicated, you say that

the Festival comes and

and

pushes it away

from observing the laws of an excommunicated person.

This one, whom they had not yet excommunicated before the Festival—

now,

on the Festival,

shall we excommunicate him!?

And shall we now excommunicate him and obligate him from now to observe the laws of an excommunicated person on the Festival, and the Festival will not push aside the beginning of his conduct as an excommunicated person!?

Rather, from here there is proof that one who was excommunicated before the Festival observes his excommunication on the Festival, and therefore they also excommunicate on the Festival.

Abaye said to

Rav Yosef:

But perhaps

the intent of the beraita, which says that they judge during the Festival, is to say that the court sits during the Festival

to examine his case.

But they do not decide during the Festival whether he is acquitted or liable.

And if so, one cannot learn from the beraita that they excommunicate during the Festival, for if they do not decide the verdict, there is no one who refuses to carry it out, and no one who becomes liable to excommunication for disobeying the judgment.

For if you do not say so—

the capital cases that it teaches,

which are also stated in the beraita as being judged during the Festival—

is it likewise that they kill him

who is condemned to death through them on the Festival itself?

This is impossible. For:

but these judges refrain

these judges

from the joy of the Festival

.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Akiva says: From where is it derived concerning a Sanhedrin that killed a person

according to their verdict,

that they do not taste

any food or drink

that entire day—

the verse says [

Leviticus 19]: “

You shall not eat over the blood” .

Rather,

necessarily, all the discussion of capital cases in court during the Festival is only

to examine his case,

whether he is liable or acquitted.

If so,

here too,

in monetary cases the court sits only

to examine his case.

Rav Yosef said to

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

If so,

that they only examine his case during the Festival but do not decide it, saying that he is liable or acquitted—

you will have caused his judgment to be afflicted!

For after they have already examined it, the litigant awaits knowledge of the verdict, and delaying until after the Festival to hear his judgment causes him the distress of delayed judgment.

Rather,

necessarily, they judge and conclude the judgment during the Festival, both in capital cases and in cases of lashes and monetary cases. And from this it follows that if he does not obey the judgment, they also excommunicate him during the Festival.

And as for what you asked: if so, in capital cases, since the judges are required to fast on the day on which they killed the person, this will prevent the judges from rejoicing on the Festival—there is a remedy for the matter: they should do it in a manner in which they will not fast.

For example:

they come,

the judges come

from the morning,

from the morning,

and examine his case,

but they do not decide it immediately. Rather, the judges leave for their homes,

and enter, eat, and drink the entire day,

and fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing on the Festival.

And afterward they come,

and they return to the court

at sunset,

at the end of the day,

and we conclude

then

his case, and kill him.

And the delay throughout the day does not involve the prohibition of delayed judgment.

Abaye said: come and hear

a contrary proof from our Mishna, that an excommunicated person does not observe his excommunication during the Festival . For we learned in it:

And an excommunicated person whom the Sages released.

And it is implied that the intent of the Mishna is every excommunicated person: because of the Festival, the Sages released him from observing his excommunication.

Rava said: Does it teach

in our Mishna the wording

“whom the Sages released”,

so that you would learn from this wording that the Sages released every excommunicated person from observing his excommunication on the Festival!?

For it teaches: “the excommunicated person

whom the Sages released”

it teaches.

And it implies that it is speaking only of a particular excommunicated person, whom the Sages of his generation happened to release from his excommunication. For example, he had been excommunicated because of a claim by his litigant,

who went

the excommunicated person

and appeased his litigant.

And he came before the Sages,

and the excommunicated person came before the Sages after appeasing his litigant,

and they released him,

and released him from his excommunication.

But one cannot learn from here that every excommunicated person is permitted to conduct himself as not excommunicated on the Festival.

And after the Gemara brought the dispute between Rav Yosef and Abaye concerning the observance of excommunication by an excommunicated person during the Festival, the Gemara brings a similar question concerning the law of a person with tzaraat:

A person with tzaraat—

what is the law: may he observe

the laws of

his tzaraat,

not entering the camp and not shaving his hair,

on the Festival?

That is, does the mitzva of the Festival override the mitzva of observing the laws of the person with tzaraat, in those practices that conflict with the joy of the Festival?

Abaye said: Come and hear

to resolve this question from our Mishna, for we learned in it:

and the nazirite and the person with tzaraat

who is ascending

from his impurity to his purity during the Festival may shave during the Festival, since he was unable to shave before it.

during the festival may shave during the festival, since he was unable to shave before it.

And Abaye infers: only because the person with tzaraat ascended from impurity to purity during the Festival is he permitted to shave then.

But

as long as the person with tzaraat is still

in the days of his impurity—

he observes

he observes the prohibition against shaving even during the Festival.

And the Gemara rejects the proof: it is possible that the wording

“it is not necessary”

is what

the tan-nay in our Mishna

“it is not necessary”,

there is no need to say

during the days of his impurity

of the person with tzaraat

that he does not observe

the prohibition against shaving on the Festival, since the mitzva of rejoicing on the Festival overrides it.

But

in the case of a person with tzaraat who ascended from his impurity

to his purity during the Festival, and he is obligated by Torah law to shave,

during the festival, although he is required by Torah law to shave,

let us decree

upon him a prohibition against shaving during the Festival, since from the moment he shaves he is obligated to bring offerings for his purification, and there is concern

lest he delay his offerings

and not bring them until the final Festival day, and offer them then, whereas it is forbidden to offer an individual’s offerings on the Festival.

It teaches us this: they did not decree this, and he is permitted to shave during the Festival when he ascends from impurity to purity. And even when he is still impure he is permitted to shave, since the mitzva of rejoicing on the Festival overrides the prohibition against shaving.

that they did not issue such a decree, and he is permitted to shave during the festival when he rises from impurity to purity. Even while he is still impure, he is permitted to shave, since the commandment to rejoice on the festival overrides the prohibition against shaving.

Rava said: Come and hear

from the beraita that expounds the verse in Leviticus [chapter 13]

“And the person with tzaraat”—

to include the High Priest ,

for he too is required to observe the laws of a person with tzaraat if he contracts tzaraat.

And Rava infers:

But the High Priest, whose entire year

entirely is

like

the time of

the Festival, according to everyone.

Nevertheless, he observes the practices of a person with tzaraat when he contracts it.

For we learned: A High Priest offers

the offerings even when he is

an acute mourner, and he does not eat

Whereas any other person who is an acute mourner is forbidden even to send his offerings to be offered in the Temple while he is an acute mourner, since he does not rejoice during his acute mourning, and this is a deficiency in the “wholeness of the person.” For the mitzva of offering an offering applies only to a “whole person.” And so the Sages expounded: “peace-offerings”—when he is whole, but not when he is an acute mourner.

But on a Festival, the person in acute mourning sends his offerings, since the mitzva of the joy of the Festival overrides the mitzva of conducting himself in acute mourning.

And since the entire year is considered for the High Priest as the time of the Festival, for he offers his offerings throughout the entire year even when he is in acute mourning [just as the person in acute mourning sends his offerings on a Festival], and nevertheless we find that the High Priest observes the laws of tzaraat .

Infer from it

that every person afflicted with tzaraat

observes his tzaraat on a Festival .

And we conclude: Indeed, infer from it.

And now the Gemara explains the law of haircutting for a mourner:

But a mourner -

is forbidden in haircutting .

And the source of the law is:

from the fact that the Merciful One said to

Eleazar and Ithamar,

the sons of Aaron,

at the time when their brothers Nadab and Abihu died [Leviticus 10]: “

Do not let the hair of your heads grow wild” [

and “wild” means the growth of hair],

infer from this

that Scripture prohibited them from growing their hair during their mourning, but rather commanded them specially to grow their hair—you learn,

that according to everyone it is forbidden

for them to cut the hair of their heads during their days of mourning .