Moed Katan

, OR ONE UNDER A BAN TO WHOM THE SAGES HAVE [JUST] GRANTED ABSOLUTION. AND LIKEWISE ONE WHO APPLIED TO A SAGE AND WAS ABSOLVED [BY HIM]. HAND-TOWELS, BARBERS’ TOWELS AND BATH-TOWELS [MAY BE WASHED]. MEN OR WOMEN [AFFECTED] WITH ‘THE FLUX’1 OR MENSTRUANTS,2 OR WOMEN AFTER CHILDBIRTH3 AND ALL THOSE EMERGING FROM [A STATE OF RITUAL.] IMPURITY4 TO [BEGIN] THEIR PURIFICATION ARE ALLOWED [TO WASH THEIR GARMENTS]; BUT ALL OTHER MEN ARE FORBIDDEN. GEMARA. What is the reason that all other men are forbidden? — As we learned: ‘Members of the ward on duty5 and [communal] Deputies at their Posts6 are forbidden [during their turn] to crop [their hair] or wash [their garments]. But on Thursday they are allowed, in honour of the Sabbath’. Now Rabbah b. Bar-Hana reporting R. Eleazar [as commenting on this] said: ‘What is the reason [they may on Thursday]? So that they should not enter [on the duty of] their Ward in a state of untidiness’. Here also the reason is that they do not enter upon the festival in a state of untidiness. R. Zera inquired: Suppose one had lost something on the day before the festival? [Do we say], since he was prevented [from attending to himself before] he may,7 or perhaps, as the reason is not obvious, he may not? — Said Abaye: [Obviously not], as people would then say: ‘[So] all Syrian [fancy] loaves are forbidden, but the Syrian [fancy] loaves of Boethus are allowed’?8 But admitting your argument [against], yet what about it. Assi's statement? who citing R. Johanan said: ‘Anybody who has but one tunic9 is allowed to wash it during the festival week’. Would not people say in that case, too: ‘[So] all Syrian [fancy] loaves are forbidden, but the Syrian [fancy] loaves of Boethus are allowed’? — Surely it has been stated in this connection: ‘Said Mar son of R. Ashi, His girdle10 proves his plight’.11 R. Ashi's comments on our Mishnah were [in this form]: R. Zera enquired, What if a craftsman12 had lost something on the day before the festival? Do we say that since he is a craftsman, the reason [why he is allowed] is obvious, or since the reason is not so obvious as in those other cases [mentioned in the Mishnah], he may not [attend to himself in the festival week]? Let this question stand [adjourned].13 [ONE ARRIVING HOME] FROM ABROAD [MAY CROP]. [The anonymous view of] our Mishnah is not that of R. Judah. For it is taught: R. Judah says, One arriving [home] from abroad may not crop himself [during the festival week] because he had set out [on his voyage] without the approval [of the Rabbis].14 Said Raba: ‘If he merely went on a tour all [authorities] are agreed that he is forbidden;15 if to seek his bread, all are agreed that he is allowed.15 Difference of opinion arises only in the case of a voyage for business profits, one master looking upon it as equivalent to [mere] travelling, and the other master looking upon it as equivalent to seeking his bread’. An objection was raised: ‘Said Rabbi: R. Judah's opinion seems apposite where he had set out without approval and the Sages’ opinion seems apposite where he had set out with approval’. Now, what is ‘without approval’? If I say for going on a tour, did you not say that all are agreed that he is forbidden?15 Again [should it mean] for seeking [his] bread; surely did you not say that [if with this object] all are agreed that he is allowed?16 It is obvious therefore that it means for profit-seeking.17 Now consider the latter clause: ‘And the Sages’ opinion seems apposite where he had set out with approval’; what is meant by ‘with approval’? If I say [approval to set out] for earning his bread, have you not said that all are agreed that he is allowed?16 Again, should it [rather] mean for profit [seeking]; but surely then, did you not say that’ R. Judah's [adverse] opinion seems apposite in this case [that he is forbidden]?18 — This is what he [Rabbi] meant to say: The Rabbis accept R. Judah's opinion where he had started out ‘without approval’, and what means it? For going on a tour; because, even the Sages disagree with him only on [the question of a voyage] for gaining profit, whereas in regard to going on a tour they concur with him.19 And again, R. Judah accepts the Rabbis’ opinion [that he may attend to himself]16 where he had set out ‘with approval’, and what means it? For seeking his bread; because even R. Judah disagrees with them only on [the question of a voyage] for gaining profit, whereas in regard to going out for seeking his bread he concurs with them.20 Samuel said: ‘If an infant is born during the festival [week] it is allowed to cut his hair21 during the festival [week] because there is no imprisonment22 more real than this’. [That is, only ‘if . . . born] during the festival [week]’ it may be done, but [if born] before then, it is [presumably] not allowed.23 R. Phineas raised all objection: ‘Every one of those mentioned [by the Sages] as being permitted to crop his hair during the festival [week] may [likewise] crop his hair during the [thirty]24 days of his mourning’;25 [which means conversely] that every one of those who is forbidden to crop his hair during the festival [week] is [likewise] forbidden to crop his hair during the [thirty]26 days of his mourning. Chron. XXIV, 1-19 (Priests) and 20-25 (Levites). Cf. Neh. XII, 44-47 and XIII, 29-31. Levites and lay Israelites to represent the community at the Temple service and they served for a week. While on duty the Deputies observed a daily fast during the day, from Monday to Thursday and in a side chapel recited Holy Writ. V. Ta'an. IV, 1; Talm. 26a and 27a. objected to fancy-shaped loaves for Passover use, as the shaping of the piece of dough may delay the baking to the point of leavening. R. Boethus b. Zonin suggested that the use of moulds might easily obviate this fear, which evoked the (proverbial) retort. exposure of his body. and his customers see him worried and hindered in his work. disapproval is probably on account of the risk of not arriving home in time for the festival. Cf. Shab. 19a and J. Shab. 1, 3. imperative for hygienic reasons there is no question. 17b.