Moed Katan 8a — the Talmud in English

For the wood

in the unfinished parts of wooden vessels,

and

likewise

ordinary stones are not rendered impure.

And

if

here,

with regard to the afflictions of houses,

they are rendered impure. .

And since it is a novelty, it was also innovated with regard to it that one waits even for a matter of choice. Yet, on the other hand, you have in it

only its novelty, and we do not learn from it at all with regard to the afflictions of his body, for a person becomes impure through the other impurities.

And Rabbi says: It is necessary

to have the verse “on the day when it is seen on him,” in order to derive that one waits for him with regard to the afflictions of his body.

And although from the afflictions of houses we know that one waits for him for a matter of mitzva and for a matter of choice, this verse is not superfluous.

For if the Merciful One had written

only

“and on the day when it is seen on him,”

I would have said: for a matter of mitzva, yes,

but

for a matter of choice, no

one waits for him.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote

with regard to the afflictions of houses,

“and the priest shall command”

“and they shall clear out the house,” which is a matter of choice, and one waits for him.

And

still,

if the Merciful One had written

“and the priest shall command,”

I would have said: these

afflictions of houses,

yes, since they are not an impurity of his body

and therefore the Torah was lenient to wait for a matter of choice.

But with regard to an impurity of his body—

I would say: it is fitting to see it for him,

and one does not wait for him at all, and

it is necessary

to have the verse “on the day when it is seen on him,” in order to derive waiting for the need of a matter of mitzva.

And since we have found that one waits even with regard to the afflictions of the body, for a matter of mitzva, it is possible to learn from the afflictions of houses that one waits even for a matter of choice with regard to the afflictions of the body.

The Master said: There is a day on which you see, and there is a day on which you do not see.

And we inquire concerning it:

What is the indication?

Where is this exposition hinted at in the verse?

Abaye said: If so,

if the plain meaning is for the body of the matter,

let the Merciful One write “on the day.”

What

is this that it added and wrote,

“and on the day”?

Conclude from it

to teach:

there is a day on which you see, and there is a day on which you do not see.

Rava said:

We expound from the entire word “and on the day,” for

the entire verse is superfluous.

For if so, let the Merciful One write “and when it is seen,”

so that as soon as he sees it, he should go to the priest.

What

does the word

“and on the day”

teach?

To derive:

there is a day on which you see, and there is a day on which you do not see.

And we inquire concerning it:

And Abaye,

who derives it from the superfluous letter vav, what does he do with the word “on the day”?

And we answer:

that “on the day”

is

needed

to derive from it that only

during the day

do they inspect afflictions,

but not at night.

And we further inquire concerning it:

And Rava,

who derives from the entire word “and on the day” the days on which you do not see, this established law—that afflictions are inspected only

during the day and not at night—

from where does he derive it?

And we answer:

he derives it from

“according to all that the eyes of the priest see.”

He can see only during the day.

And Abaye,

why did he not learn it from that verse?

That

verse, “the sight of the eyes,”

is needed to exclude

a priest who is

blind in one of his eyes,

who is not fit to inspect afflictions.

And we object:

But Rava too,

how can he derive from it inspection during the day and not at night, since

it is needed for this,

for a priest who is blind in one of his eyes?

And we answer:

Indeed, so: he derives from “the eyes of the priest” that a blind man is disqualified from inspecting afflictions.

And if you return and raise the difficulty:

But rather, this fact—that afflictions are inspected

during the day and not at night—

from where does

Rava

derive it?

He derives it from

He derives it from the statement of the owner of the stricken house:

“It appears to me like an affliction in the house.”

And he expounds as follows:

“to me”

the affliction appears,

but not

that the affliction appears

“to my light.”

That is, the affliction renders the house impure only if it is visible in the light of day, which does not require a lamp; at that time the owner goes to call the priest.

And from here they learn that the priest sees it only during the day.

And we object:

And Abaye,

why does he not derive it from the verse “it appears to me”?

And we answer:

If from there, I would have said: this applies only

when an affliction is seen only during the day, with

an impurity that is not of the body,

which is written only with regard to the afflictions of houses.

But an impurity of the body—even by its

lamp’s light, and at night

also

it would be seen.

Therefore

it teaches us

that the Merciful One explicitly wrote in the word “on the day” that afflictions are inspected only during the day, and not at night.

Mishna:

And Rabbi Meir further said: A person may gather the bones of his father and mother

on the Festival.

In earlier times, people would bury the dead, and after a period of time had passed during which the flesh decomposed, they would open the grave and gather the bones from it into a small coffin, and they would lead the coffin with the bones to be buried in the graves of their fathers.

It is permitted to do this on the Festival

because it is a joy for him,

since he transfers the bones of his father and mother to the graves of their fathers.

Rabbi Yosei says:

He shall not do this on the Festival, since the day of gathering the bones is a day

of mourning for him. .

A person shall not rouse mourning for his dead,

who died one or two months before the Festival.

That is, he shall not hire a eulogizer who will go over all the relatives of the deceased to arouse them to weep with him.

And

likewise

he shall not eulogize him,

he shall not hire a eulogizer to eulogize his dead who died within thirty days before the Festival.

And all this they said—that he shall not rouse mourning for his dead and shall not eulogize him—

thirty days before the Festival,

for the reason that will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Meir says that it is permitted for a person to gather the bones of his father and mother on the Festival.

And he contrasts it

as a contradiction to his words, from what we learned differently in Tractate Semachot [chapter 12]:

One who gathers the bones of his father and mother—

he mourns for them the entire day, and toward evening he does not mourn for them. .

And

he added

Rav Hisda

to the words of the beraita:

even

if he did not himself gather the bones, but merely saw them after the gathering, when they were

bundled for him in his garment,

he mourns for them on that day.

But how did Rabbi Meir say that it is permitted for him to gather bones on the Festival because it is a joy for him!?

Abaye said: Say,

state Rabbi Meir’s words as follows: it is permitted for him to gather bones on the Festival

because the joy of the Festival is upon him,

and since he rejoices in the Festival, he does not suffer at the time of gathering the bones, and he does not mourn for them.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And he shall not rouse lamentation over his dead.”

And we raised it:

What

does

“he shall not rouse lamentation over his dead”

mean?

Rav said: When

he would go around,

the eulogizer in the West

after all the relatives of the deceased,

they would say

:

“Let all those embittered of heart weep with him!”

They would weep with him—all those whose hearts were embittered over the death of the deceased.

And he shall not do this

thirty days before the Festival.

And we raised it:

What is different about thirty days

during which he shall not rouse lamentation over the dead and shall not eulogize him?

Rav Kahana said that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said

: Because of an incident that occurred—

An incident occurred involving a certain man who gathered money to go up for the pilgrimage, and a eulogizer came and stood at the entrance of his house,

and requested money in order to eulogize the dead person who had died for them.

And his wife took them

—the money that had been prepared in the house for going up for the pilgrimage—

and gave them to him.

And he refrained,

that man,

and did not go up

for the pilgrimage, since the money for the travel expenses had been given to the eulogizer.

At that time they said: A person shall not rouse

for a

lamentation over his dead,

so that he should not hire a eulogizer who would go around after the relatives of the deceased,

and he shall not eulogize him before the Festival, thirty days

in order not to use money designated for going up for the pilgrimage for the purpose of the eulogy. And during the thirty days before the Festival, the money for going up for the pilgrimage is in a person’s possession .