Moed Katan 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

Permitted

initially

to marry

on

the eve of the Festival,

even though the seven days of rejoicing will fall during the Festival, and they will hold the wedding feasts on the intermediate days.

This is difficult for all of them!

For he is combining one celebration with another, he is occupied with the celebration of his wife, he exerts himself, and he will also wait to hold these feasts during the Festival.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

According to the one who says that the reason is

that one may not combine one celebration with another

celebration—

we do not prohibit marrying on the eve of the Festival because of the other days of rejoicing that will take place during the Festival, since

the principal rejoicing is for one day,

namely, only the day of the wedding; and the remaining days do not constitute a combining of the wedding celebration with the Festival celebration.

And likewise, according to the one who says that he is occupied with the celebration of his wife, this applies only to the day of the wedding, which he held on the eve of the Festival.

According to the one who says

that the prohibition against marrying during the Festival is

due to exertion,

it is permitted on the eve of the Festival, because

the principal exertion is for one day,

and he does not exert himself greatly for the seven days; therefore, it is permitted during the Festival.

According to the one who says that the reason is neglect of the command to be fruitful and multiply,

since he cannot marry during the Festival, we are not concerned that he will wait specifically to marry on the eve of the Festival, because

a person does not postpone himself for a single day,

lest an incident occur that prevents him from marrying precisely on that day. And since they prohibited him from marrying during the Festival, he will not wait, and thus people will marry throughout the year.

And we inquire:

And

this general principle

that one may not combine one celebration with another—

from where do we derive it?

And we answer:

As it is written,

concerning the dedication of the First Temple and the altar: “

And Solomon held the Festival at that time, and all Israel with him, a great congregation, from the entrance of Hamath to the Brook of Egypt, before the Lord our God.”

Seven days

were the first Festival, for the dedication of the Temple,

and seven days

were additional days for the Festival of Sukkot, making

fourteen days in all.”

This proves that Solomon advanced the dedication of the Temple and held it seven days before the Festival of Sukkot, because one may not combine one celebration with another. For:

And if it is so that one may combine one celebration with another, he should have waited

He should have waited with the celebration of the dedication of the Temple

until the Festival

of Sukkot,

and held

it during the Festival

seven

days of rejoicing, so that there would be joy both

for this,

the dedication of the Temple,

and

for

this,

the joy of the Festival.

This proves that one may not combine an additional celebration with the joy of the Festival. And we challenge this: From where do we know that he advanced and held seven separate days for the dedication of the Temple because of the Festival?

Perhaps, we do not wait,

we do not wait for the Festival;

and

however,

when it happens

that the additional celebration falls during the Festival,

we hold it,

we hold it during the Festival.

Here too, with regard to a wedding, he should not deliberately wait for the Festival; but if the opportunity arises, it is permitted to marry during the Festival.

He should have left over a small amount.

King Solomon should have left a small portion of the construction of the Temple unfinished and completed it on the eve of the Festival of Sukkot, so that the days of the Festival would count for both celebrations. Since he did not do so, it may be learned that one may never combine one celebration with another.

We do not leave over a small amount of the construction of the Temple.

Once they completed the construction of the Temple, there is no permission to leave a small portion unfinished and set it aside for a later time. Thus, one still cannot prove that one may not combine celebrations when they happen to coincide.

And we answer: If he could have held the celebration during the Festival,

he should have

Solomon

left unfinished the cubit of the

“crow scarer,”

rather than completing the construction entirely. He could have left empty at the edge of the roof the place for the device made of iron and nails that was installed to prevent crows from settling on the roof of the Temple, and which was called a “crow scarer.”

He could have completed this device on the eve of the Festival, and then the dedication of the Temple would have happened to him during the Festival.

This proves that even when the opportunity arises, it is prohibited to combine another celebration with the joy of the Festival.

And we challenge this: Is

the cubit of the crow scarer

an essential

part of the construction of the Temple!?

Its entire function was to prevent crows from settling on the roof of the building; its absence does not constitute a deficiency in completing the building. Even if he had left it unfinished, this would not have prevented the celebration of the dedication of the Temple.

A source is still needed: From where do we know that it is prohibited to marry when the opportunity arises during the Festival?

Rather,

the proof should be derived from the verse concerning the dedication of the Temple in another manner:

From the redundancy of the verse.

From the redundant wording of the verse.

Now,

it is

written, “

fourteen days.”

If so, the specification

“seven days and seven days”—

why do I need it!?

Infer from it

that

these

days of rejoicing were

separate, and these

days of rejoicing were

separate.

Even if a celebration and a Festival happen to coincide, one may not hold them together during the Festival.

Rav Parnakh said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: That year

of the dedication of the Temple,

Israel did not observe Yom Kippur!

They did not fast on it, since it fell within the seven days of rejoicing for the dedication of the Temple, which were held before the Festival of Sukkot, and they held a feast on each of those days.

And they were concerned,

the people of Israel,

and said: Perhaps the enemies of Israel have been sentenced to destruction [the reference to “the enemies of Israel” is a euphemistic way of referring to Israel itself].

A Divine Voice emerged and said to them: You are all invited to life in the World to Come!

A Divine Voice emerged and said to them: You are all invited to life in the World to Come!

The Gemara explains how they permitted themselves to eat on Yom Kippur:

What did they derive!?

Surely they did not do so without a source from the Torah.

Rather, since we find that the princes brought offerings at the dedication of the Tabernacle and the altar on Shabbat, even though the offering of a prince is an individual offering,

they said

and derived from this by means of a

kal va-chomer:

And if, concerning the Tabernacle, whose sanctity is not eternal sanctity,

since it stood only in the wilderness for a limited period of time,

and

on the other hand, the offering brought by the princes was only an

individual offering,

nevertheless, for the sake of dedicating the Tabernacle and the altar, we find that the princes’ individual offering

overrides Shabbat,

which is extremely stringent,

for

its prohibition is an

offense

for which one is liable to

stoning,

then all the more so for the dedication of the

Temple, whose sanctity

is more stringent than that of the Tabernacle, as it is

eternal sanctity.

And

likewise, the offerings brought throughout the days of the dedication of the Temple had the status of

communal offerings.

And conversely,

the prohibition against eating on

Yom Kippur

is less severe than desecrating Shabbat,

as one is punished

for desecrating Yom Kippur only with

karet.

And if so,

all the more so

it should be permitted to eat on it for the sake of the celebration of the dedication of the House.

And on the basis of this kal va-chomer, they ate even on Yom Kippur.

We raise an objection:

Rather,

if so,

why were they worried?!

They had permission based on a kal va-chomer! And we explain: They were worried because there was room to refute the kal va-chomer, as follows:

There,

at the dedication of the Tabernacle, the princes’ sacrifices were

a need of Heaven,

and on that basis they overrode Shabbat. Whereas

here,

at the dedication of the Temple, eating the meals was

a human need,

and therefore they were concerned that they should not have permitted eating on Yom Kippur on the basis of a kal va-chomer.

And we object: If so,

here too,

in the Temple, they should only

perform the work;

they needed only to perform the service and offer the sacrifices.

But

to eat—

they should not have eaten or drunk!

Why, in fact, did they also make a feast on Yom Kippur?!

And we answer: Since

there is no joy without eating and drinking.

For the sake of the joy of the dedication of the House, they needed to hold a feast, and they derived by a kal va-chomer from the Tabernacle that the prohibition punishable by karet of eating at the dedication of the eternal House was permitted.

We inquire:

And

the dedication of the

Tabernacle

itself,

which overrode

the sacrifice of an individual

Shabbat—

from where do we know this?

Perhaps the princes did not offer their sacrifices on Shabbat?!

If you say it is from the fact that it is written

concerning the princes’ sacrifices, “And it was that the one who offered”

“on the first day,”

and

similarly, concerning each and every prince it is written that he offered on the following day, such as “on the second day,” and so on,

and

also concerning the prince who offered on the seventh day it is written that he offered

“on the seventh day,”

which indicates that they offered on every day consecutively, including the seventh day, which was Shabbat, and Shabbat was overridden for the dedication of the Tabernacle.

This is no proof, for

perhaps

“on the seventh day” means only that it was the

seventh day of the sacrifices;

he offered the sixth on Friday, and he offered the seventh on the Sunday after Shabbat. Therefore, one cannot learn from here that Shabbat is overridden for the dedication of the altar.

Rather,

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

From that which

the verse says,

“On the eleventh day.”

And from the superfluous word “day”—for the verse already begins with “on the day,” and there was no need to say “day” again—we derive:

Just as a day,

which is one unit of time, is

entirely

a complete day

consecutively,

so too, the eleven

days

were all consecutive.

They did not skip the offering of a prince’s sacrifice on Shabbat.

And we object:

Perhaps

they offered only on the

days suitable

for offering during those eleven days, and they did not offer on Shabbat?!

And we answer:

Another verse is written,

following the verse concerning the eleventh day, and from it we learn that the offering took place on all the consecutive days, as it is written:

“On the twelfth day.”

And we derive:

Just as the entire day is consecutive,

so too, all twelve days were consecutive.

And we still object:

Perhaps here too,

the reference to the twelve days is only to

days suitable

for offering; and how is the proof from the verse concerning “the twelfth” superior to the proof from the verse concerning “the eleventh”?

And we answer:

If so,

if both verses refer only to days suitable for offering,

why do I need

two verses in which the word “day” is repeated

?!

It must be to teach that they offered on consecutive days, and therefore overrode Shabbat.

And

concerning that which we said, based on the days of the feast that Solomon held at the dedication of the House, that the dedication of the

Temple overrode

the prohibition against eating on

Yom Kippur,

we inquire:

From where do we know

that they overrode it?!

If you say it is from the fact that it is written

that they celebrated the festival for

“fourteen days”—

from where do we know that Yom Kippur was among them?

Perhaps

they held a feast only on the

days suitable

for feasting, and not on Yom Kippur?!

And we answer: The source that they overrode Yom Kippur is derived through a gzera shava:

“day, day,”

from there,

from the sacrifices of the princes at the dedication of the Tabernacle. There we derive that “day” means consecutive days, including Shabbat.

And if so, the consecutive days of the feast at the dedication of the House likewise included Yom Kippur.

We learned in the beraita above:

A Divine voice emerged and said to them: “You are all invited to life in the World-to-Come!”

And

we inquire:

From where do we know

how it is hinted in the verse

that He pardoned them,

that they were forgiven?!

And we answer: From that which

Taḥlifa taught:

It is written that after the fourteen days of rejoicing,

“On the eighth day”

of the festival of Sukkot,

Solomon sent

the people away, and they blessed

the king,

“and they went to their tents, joyful and good-hearted, because of all the goodness that the Lord had done for David His servant and for Israel His people.”

“And they went to their tents, joyful and good-hearted, because of all the goodness that the Lord had done for David His servant and for Israel His people.”

And we interpret:

“To their tents”—

they went and found their wives in a state of ritual purity.

“Joyful”—

because

they had enjoyed the radiance of the Divine Presence.

“And good-hearted”—

each and every one’s wife had conceived a male child.

“Because of all the goodness”—

a Divine voice emerged and said to them: “You are all invited to life in the World-to-Come.”

And the Gemara explains the end of the verse:

“For David His servant and for Israel His people.”

Granted, “for Israel His people”—

this refers to the goodness that He did for them,

for He pardoned them the sin

of eating on

Yom Kippur.

But “for David His servant”—

what

was the goodness that the Lord did for him?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: When

Solomon sought to bring the Ark into the Temple, the gates

of the Holy of Holies

clung to one another,

and they would not allow the Ark to enter its place.

Solomon said the twenty-four supplications

recorded in Solomon’s prayer in the section concerning the dedication of the House,

but he was not answered.

He began and said:

“Lift up your heads, O gates,”

and so forth.

But he was not answered.

But

when he said,

“O Lord God, do not reject Your anointed one; remember the kindnesses of David Your servant,”

he was immediately answered!

And everyone saw that he was answered only through the merit of King David.

At that moment, the faces of David’s enemies were transformed

—the families of King Saul, Shimei ben Gera, and others—

like the bottom of a pot,

like the blackened underside of a pot,

and everyone knew that the Holy One, blessed be He, had forgiven

David

for that sin,

the sin concerning Bathsheba.

And this was the goodness that the Lord did for David at the dedication of the House.

Rabbi Yonatan ben Asmai and Rabbi Yehuda ben Gerim taught the section

of the tractate

Nedarim in the study hall of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai.

They took leave of him in the evening,

parting from him peacefully at night.

In the morning, they again took leave of him,

returning to part from him once more.

He said to them: “And

did you

not take leave of me

yesterday

in the evening,

at night?!

They said to him: “Our teacher, you taught us: When a student takes leave of his teacher

in order to set out on his journey

and spends the night in the same city

as his teacher,

he must take leave of him once again.

As it is stated

in the verse cited above:

“On the eighth day”

of the festival of Sukkot, which is the twenty-second day of the month,

Solomon sent

the people away,

“and they blessed the king.”

And it is written

in the Book of Chronicles concerning the conclusion of the days of the dedication of the House:

“And on the twenty-third day of the seventh month he sent the people away.”

And we see that they took leave of the king twice.

Rather, from here we learn that a student who takes leave of his teacher and spends the night in the same city,

that he

must take leave of him once

again. .

Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai said

to

his son: “These people,

whose conduct is so exemplary,

are men of stature,

wise men;

go to them so that they may bless you.”

He went and found them engaged in reconciling contradictory verses,

raising difficulties from one verse against another:

It is written:

“Make level the path of your foot, and let all your ways be firmly established.”

That is, weigh the mitzvot and consider which of them is greater, and perform the greater one among them.

And

conversely,

it is written,

apparently the opposite:

“Do not weigh the path of life.”

This indicates that whenever a mitzva comes to your hand, you should perform it, and you should not weigh it in order to distinguish between a greater mitzva and a lesser one, nor should you neglect a lesser mitzva because of a greater one.

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

Here,

where it is written, “Make level the path of your foot,”

it is referring to a mitzva that can be performed by others;

therefore, you should weigh your path in its regard, performing the greater mitzva yourself, while the lesser mitzva is performed by others.