Moed Katan 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

Shmuel said:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who permits cutting one’s nails on the intermediate days of the festival,

and

permits cutting one’s nails

during mourning.

And with regard to mourning, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, because

Shmuel said: The halakha follows the lenient opinion with regard to mourning .

Pinḥas, the brother of Mar Shmuel, experienced an incident,

in that one of his relatives died.

When

he entered

Shmuel

his brother Pinḥas in order

to inquire of him about the reason,

to speak words of comfort to him and console him.

He saw

Shmuel saw

the nails

of Pinḥas

that were long,

as they had grown long.

He said to him,

Shmuel said to Pinḥas:

Why did you not cut them?

Why did you not cut your nails?

He said to him,

Pinḥas said to Shmuel:

If it had been with him,

[with him, meaning with you]

there had been

mourning—

would you have treated it with such contempt,

cutting your nails during the period of mourning?

This was

this statement of Pinḥas [Ecclesiastes 10]

like “

a mistake that proceeds from before the ruler,”

and an incident occurred to Shmuel,

in that one of his relatives died.

When

he entered to Shmuel,

Pinḥas, his brother, came to inquire

about the reason from him.

To console him.

He cut his nails,

Shmuel cut his nails,

and threw them in his face,

and cast them away in great anger. [But he then gathered them up again, because one who throws away his nails is called wicked. Rashi] .

He said to him,

Shmuel said to his brother Pinḥas: Why did you open your mouth to say, “If mourning had been with me,” and do you not know the principle of

“Is there not for you

a covenant sealed with the lips”!?

For a person’s words come to pass. And so we find with Abraham our forefather.

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that there is a covenant sealed with the lips,

that a person’s words come to pass?

As it is stated [Genesis 22]:

“

And Abraham said to his young men: Remain here with the donkey, while I and the lad will go there, worship, and return to you.”

And

indeed,

the matter came to pass, for the two of them returned,

and Isaac was not slaughtered .

They thought:

Nails

of the hand—

yes,

they are permitted to cut during his mourning because they are repulsive; but nails

of the foot—

no,

he may not cut them during his mourning, since they are not repulsive.

Rav Anan bar Taḥlifa said: Shmuel explicitly explained it to me: It makes no difference whether they are of the hand or of the foot,

it is permitted to cut them during his mourning .

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: And with a gnustera,

with scissors,

it is prohibited

to cut them; he may cut them only with his nails .

Rav Shaman bar Abba said: I was standing before Rabbi Yoḥanan in the beit-midrash on the intermediate days of the festival, and he cut his nails

and removed his nails

with his teeth and threw them away.

Infer three conclusions from this: Infer from it that it is permitted to cut one’s nails on the intermediate days of the festival .

And infer from it

from the fact that he cut them with his teeth

that they are not considered repulsive.

And infer from it: It is permitted to throw them away.

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But was it not taught in a beraita: Three things were said with regard to nails: One who buries them—

is righteous; one who burns them—

is pious

, and one who throws them away—

is wicked.

And

what is the reason

that one who throws them away is called wicked? Because

perhaps a pregnant woman will pass over them and miscarry,

her fetus, since there is a property attributed to discarded nails that causes the fetus of a woman who passes over them to be miscarried .

If so, this is difficult: How could we have said that it may be inferred from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s act that it is permitted to throw them away!?

And we answer:

A woman

in the

beit-midrash is not commonly found.

Therefore, in that place it is permitted to throw them away .

And if you would say, sometimes they are gathered up,

so that the nails are collected from the floor of the beit-midrash,

and thrown outside,

and they might then cause harm, there is no concern for this, because

once they have been moved

from the place to which they were initially thrown, they are

changed,

and they no longer cause harm in the second place .

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A pair came from Ḥamat

before Rabbi.

And Mar Zutra taught

this matter as a beraita:

A pair came from Ḥamat before Rabbi.

And they asked him

to permit, during mourning, the cutting of

nails—

and he permitted it for them .

And

I knew Rabbi’s opinion concerning the law of shaving the mustache, that it is permitted to shave it during mourning. [Shaving the mustache does not involve the prohibition against shaving the corners of the beard, Rashi.] Therefore,

if they asked him

to cut the

mustache,

he permitted it for them.

And Shmuel said: They also asked him

for permission to shave the

mustache

[the upper lip],

and he permitted it for them.

Avitul the scribe said in the name of Rav:

During mourning, it is permitted to shave the

mustache from one corner

of the mouth to

the corner

opposite it, since the hairs of the mustache interfere with eating and drinking and cause repulsiveness.

Rabbi Ami said: And he permitted shaving only a mustache that interferes

with eating and drinking, but not the entire mustache .

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: For me,

as I am delicate in my sensibilities, the entire mustache

like “

a mustache that interferes with eating”

seems to me.

And Avitul the scribe said in the name of Rav: Pharaoh who lived in the days of Moses—he,

his body, was

a cub

and his beard

was

a cub

and his organ,

his penis, was

a cub and a handbreadth.

To fulfill that which is stated [Daniel 4]:

“

And the lowliest of men—

He will raise over it.”

And Avitul the scribe said in the name of Rav: Pharaoh who lived in the days of Moses—

was a magus.

And in tractate Shabbat [75a], Rav and Shmuel disagreed concerning the meaning of “magus”: whether it means a sorcerer, or a heretic devoted to idolatry who habitually blasphemes.

As it is stated [Exodus 7]:

“

Behold, he goes out to the water,”

etc.

His purpose in going out to the Nile was for sorcery, according to the one who says that he was a sorcerer; or to blaspheme and revile, saying, “The Nile is mine, and I made myself,” according to the one who says that he was a blaspheming heretic.

We learned in the Mishna:

And these are permitted to launder on the intermediate days of the festival —

one who came from overseas.

Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: One who has only one garment—

is permitted

to

launder it on the intermediate days of the festival.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection

from our Mishna:

These are permitted to launder on the intermediate days of the festival: One who came from overseas, etc.

And one should infer from here: Only

these—

yes,

they are permitted to launder, but

one who has only one garment—

no,

he was not permitted to launder it!

Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Yirmeya:

I will answer and

explain

and explain

to you

as follows:

Our Mishna,

in which we learned “these are permitted to launder,” does not come to exclude laundering by one who has only a single garment.

Rather, its intention is to say that one whom they permitted to launder during the festival is

permitted, even though he has two

garments

that have become soiled,

to launder them.

Likewise, one who has only a single garment is permitted to launder it during the festival .

Rav Yitzchak bar Yaakov bar Giyori sent in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Linen garments ,

that tend to become soiled,

may be laundered during Chol HaMoed .