Moed Katan 9a — the Talmud in English

Permitted

ab initio

to marry

on the

eve of the festival, even though the seven days of celebration will fall during the festival and they will make the banquets on the intermediate days of the festival.

This is difficult for all of them!

For he is mixing one celebration with another, and he is occupied with the celebration of his wife, and he toils, and he will also wait to make these banquets during the festival.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

According to the one who says

that one does not mix one celebration with

another—

we do not prohibit marrying on the eve of the festival because of the other days of celebration that will be during the festival, since

the principal celebration is one day,

namely only the day of the marriage, while the other days do not constitute mixing one celebration with the celebration of the festival.

And likewise, according to the one who says that he is occupied with the celebration of his wife, this refers only to the day of the marriage, which he made on the eve of the festival.

According to the one who says

that the prohibition of marriage on the intermediate days of the festival is

because of exertion,

on the eve of the festival it is permitted, because

the principal exertion is one day,

and for the seven days he does not toil greatly, and it is permitted during the festival.

According to the one who says that it is because of neglecting procreation, since he cannot marry during the festival, we are not concerned that he will wait to marry specifically on the eve of the festival, because

a person does not postpone himself for one day,

lest an occurrence happen to him whereby he will be unable to marry precisely on that day; and since they prohibited him from marrying during the festival, he will not wait, and thus they will marry women throughout the entire year.

And we inquire about it:

And this principle

that one does not mix one celebration with another—

from where do we derive it?

And we answer:

For it is written, concerning the dedication of the First Temple and the altar: “

And Solomon made the festival at that time, and all Israel with him, a great congregation, from the approach to Hamath until the Brook of Egypt, before the Lord our God.”

Seven days

the first ones were a festival for the dedication of the Temple,

and

seven days

additional ones were for the Festival of Sukkot, which together were

fourteen days.”

And it is proven from this that Solomon preceded and made the dedication of the Temple seven days before the Festival of Sukkot, because one does not mix one celebration with another, for:

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

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

until the festival,

and made

and made during the festival

seven

days of celebration, so that they would be a celebration both

here,

for the dedication of the Temple,

and

both

here,

for the celebration of the festival.

And it is proven from here that one does not mix an additional celebration with the celebration of the festival. And we challenge this: From where do we know that he preceded and made 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,

but

when it happens

we do it,

we do it during the festival.

And here too, concerning marriage, he should not intend to wait for the festival; but if it happens for him, it is permitted to marry during the festival.

He should have left over a little.

King Solomon should have left over a little of the construction of the Temple and completed it on the eve of the Festival of Sukkot, so that the days of the festival would count for both purposes. And from the fact that he did not do so, one should learn that one never mixes one celebration with another.

We do not leave over a remnant of the construction of the Temple.

Once they completed building the Temple, there is no permission to leave over a little of it and leave it for a later time. Thus, one cannot again prove that one does not mix one celebration with another when they happen to occur together.

And we answer: If he could have made the celebration during the festival,

he should have,

Solomon should have

left over the cubit of the

crow-deterrent,

for he would not have completed the construction entirely, but would have left an empty space at the edge of the roof for the place of the device made of iron and nails, to prevent crows from perching on the roof of the Temple, which was called “the crow-deterrent.”

And he could have completed this device on the eve of the festival, and then the dedication of the Temple would have happened for him during the festival.

And from here it is proven that even if it happens for him, it is forbidden to mix another celebration with the celebration of the festival. And we ask: Is the cubit of the crow-deterrent— a need of the construction of the Temple!? But its entire function is to prevent crows from perching on the roof of the building; yet its absence is not a deficiency in completing the building, and even if he had left it over, this would not have prevented the celebration of the dedication of the Temple.

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.

A source is still needed: from where do we derive that it is forbidden to marry when the opportunity arose for him during the festival?

Rather,

one should prove it from the verse concerning the dedication of the Temple in another manner:

Since the verse is superfluous.

From the superfluity 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

to teach that

these

days of celebration are

separate, and these

days of celebration are

separate.

For even if the celebration and the festival happened to occur together, it is forbidden to make them together during the festival.

these

days of rejoicing were

separate, and these

days of rejoicing were

separate.

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 celebration of the dedication of the Temple, which took place during the seven days before the Festival of Sukkot, and they made a feast during each day. And they were worried about this, and said: Perhaps the enemies of Israel have been sentenced to destruction [this was an expression of euphemism, as though it referred to the enemies of Israel].

A heavenly voice went forth and said to them: You are all invited to life in the World to Come!

And the Gemara explains how they permitted themselves to eat on Yom Kippur,

What did they expound!?

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, despite the fact that a prince’s offering is an individual offering,

They said

and derived from this a

kal va-chomer:

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

for it was only in the wilderness, for a limited period,

and

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

individual offering,

Yet for the sake of the dedication of the Tabernacle and the altar, we find that the individual offering of the princes

overrides Shabbat,

which is especially stringent,

for its prohibition is an

offense

for which one is liable to

stoning,

How much more so for the dedication of the

Temple, whose sanctity

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

an eternal sanctity.

And

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

a communal offering.

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 of eating on

Yom Kippur

is less severe than desecrating Shabbat,

for one is punished

for desecrating Yom Kippur only with

karet.

And if so,

all the more so

that it is permitted to eat on it for the sake of the joy of the dedication of the House .

And by virtue of this kal va-chomer they also ate on Yom Kippur.

And we raise an objection:

Rather,

if so,

why were they worried?!

After all, they had permission by means of a kal va-chomer! And we explain: They were worried because there was room to refute the derivation by kal va-chomer, for:

There

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

a need of Heaven,

and by virtue of this they overrode Shabbat, whereas

here,

at the dedication of the Temple, the eating of the feasts was

a human need,

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

And we ask: If so,

here too

in the Temple, only

they should do the doing,

they should have needed only to perform and offer the sacrifices.

But

to eat

they should not have eaten, nor should they have drunk!

And why in truth did they also make a feast on Yom Kippur!?

And we answer: Since

there is no joy without eating and drinking.

And for the sake of the joy of the dedication of the House they required a feast, and by kal va-chomer from the Tabernacle they derived permission to violate the prohibition carrying karet of eating at the dedication of the eternal House .

And we consider it:

And

the dedication of the

Tabernacle

itself,

which overrode

the individual’s sacrifice

Shabbat—

from where do we know it? Perhaps the princes did not offer on Shabbat!?

Perhaps the princes did not offer their sacrifices on Shabbat!

If you say, from what is written

regarding the sacrifices of the princes, “And it came to pass that the one who offered

on the first day,”

and

so regarding every prince it is written the day after it, such as “on the second day,” and so on,

and

also regarding the prince who offered seventh it is written that he offered

on the seventh day,

and it implies that they offered on every day consecutively, including the seventh day, which is 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 with respect to the sacrifices,

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

Rather,

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

From that which

the verse says,

“On the eleventh day.”

And from the redundancy of “day” [for it is written at the beginning of the verse “on the day,” and it is unnecessary to say “day” again], we derive:

Just as a day,

which is one unit of time, is

entirely

a complete day

consecutive—

so too the eleventh

day:

all of them consecutive.

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

And we ask:

Perhaps

they offered only on the

days fit

for offering within the eleven days, and they did not offer on Shabbat!?

And we answer:

Another verse is written,

after the verse of the eleventh day, and from it we learn that it refers to offering on all the consecutive days, for it is written,

“On the twelfth day.”

And we derive:

Just as the entire day is consecutive—

so too the entire twelfth day is consecutive.

And we still ask:

But perhaps here too,

regarding the twelfth day, it refers only to

days fit,

and what advantage does the proof from the verse of “the twelfth” have over the verse of “the eleventh”?

And we answer:

If so,

if both of them refer only to days fit—

why do I need two verses

in which the word “day” is repeated,

!?

It must be to say that they offered on consecutive days, and they override Shabbat.

And

as for that which we say, that we see from the days of the feast that Solomon made at the dedication of the House, that the dedication of the

Temple, which overrides

the prohibition of eating on

Yom Kippur,

we consider it:

From where do we know

that they overrode it!?

If you say, from what is written,

that they made the festival

fourteen days—

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

And perhaps

they made a feast only on

the days suitable

for a feast, and not on Yom Kippur!?

And we answer: The source that they overrode Yom Kippur is learned by gzerah shavah:

“Day, day” is derived

from there,

from the sacrifices of the princes at the dedication of the Tabernacle, regarding which we derived that “day” means consecutive, including on Shabbat.

And if so, also during the consecutive days of the feast, at the dedication of the House, they overrode Yom Kippur.

We learned in the beraita above:

A divine voice went forth and said to them: All of you are invited to the life of the World to Come!

And

we consider it:

From where do we know

how it is hinted in the verse

that He forgave them,

that they were forgiven!?

And we answer: From that which

Tahlifa taught:

It is written after the fourteen days of rejoicing,

“On the eighth day

of the festival of Sukkot,

Solomon sent

the people,

and they blessed

the king.

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

And we expound:

“To their tents”

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

“Joyful”

over

having enjoyed the radiance of the Divine Presence.

“And good of heart”

—that each and every one’s wife became pregnant with a male child.

“Over all the goodness”

—that a divine voice went forth and said to them: All of you are invited to the life of 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,”

that is the goodness He did with them,

that He forgave them the sin

of eating on

Yom Kippur.

But “for David His servant”

what

is the goodness that the Lord did with him?

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: When

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

of the Holy of Holies

to one another,

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

Solomon said twenty-four supplications

written 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 on.

But he was not answered.

But

when he said

“O Lord God, do not turn away the face of Your anointed; remember the kindnesses of David Your servant”

he was immediately answered!

And everyone saw that he was answered only by virtue of King David.

At that moment the faces of David’s enemies were turned

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

like the dregs 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

of Bathsheba.

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

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

of the tractate

Nedarim in the presence of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai.

They took leave of him in the evening,

they parted from him with greetings at night.

In the morning, they again took leave of him,

they returned and parted 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: A student who takes leave of his teacher,

to set out on his way,

and spends the night in the same city

as his teacher,

must take leave of him another time.

As it is stated

in the verse above,

“On the eighth day

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

Solomon sent

the people,

and they blessed the king.”

And it is written

in 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.”

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

Rather, from here: A student who takes leave of his teacher and spends the night in the same city,

who

must take leave of him once

again .

He said to him,

Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai

to his son: My son, these people,

whose conduct is so excellent,

are men of form,

sages;

go to them so that they may bless you.

He went and found them arguing over verses against one another,

he found them raising difficulties from one verse against another:

It is written:

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

That is, weigh the mitzvot and examine 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.”

And it implies that every mitzva that comes to your hand, you should perform it, and you should not weigh it to distinguish between the great and the small, nor abandon a small one because of a great one.

And we answer:

There is no difficulty.

Here,

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

refers to a mitzva that can be performed by others,

and therefore regarding it you should make level the path of your foot: you should perform the greater mitzva yourself, while the lesser mitzva should be performed by others.