Taanit 34

כרבי מכלל דרבנן אסרי מ"ט מהרה יבנה בית המקדש ובעינן כהן הראוי לעבודה וליכא הכא אפשר דמספר ועייל

From this may be inferred that the Rabbis forbid [priests to drink wine], why? Perhaps the Temple may speedily be rebuilt and the need will arise for priests to do service therein and there will be none available; and so here too [in the case of letting the hair grow long] the Temple may speedily be rebuilt and the need will arise for priests fit for service and there will be none available]? - [This difficulty cannot arise] here this latter case] since it is always possible for a priest to cut his hair and then enter [the Temple].

אי הכי שתוי יין נמי אפשר דגני פורתא ועייל כדרמי בר אבא דאמר רמי בר אבא דרך מיל ושינה כל שהוא מפיגין את היין לאו מי איתמר עלה אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא כששתה שיעור רביעית אבל שתה יותר מרביעית כל שכן שדרך מטרידתו ושינה משכרתו

If that then priests who are intoxicated could first sleep a little and then enter [the Temple],in accordance with the statement of Rami B'Abba who said: A mile walk or a little sleep drives away the effects of drink? - Has it not been stated in connection with this [statement]: This only holds good where a man has drunk a quarter of a log, but where he has drunk more than a quarter of a log walking renders him all the more tired, and sleep all the more drunk. R'Ashi replied: The Rabbis have decreed against those who are drunk because they profane [thereby] the service, but against those who perform the service with their hair long they did not decree because they do not [thereby] profane the service.

רב אשי אמר שתויי יין דמחלי עבודה גזרו בהו רבנן פרועי ראש דלא מחלי עבודה לא גזרו בהו רבנן

An objection was raised against this: The following [priests] incur the penalty of death,those who are intoxicated with wine and those whose hair has grown long. With regard to those who are intoxicated with wine, it is expressly stated, Drink no wine nor strong drink,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. X, 9.');">¹</span>

מיתיבי ואלו שהן במיתה שתויי יין ופרועי ראש בשלמא שתויי יין בהדיא כתיב בהו (ויקרא י, ט) יין ושכר אל תשת אלא פרועי ראש מנלן

but whence do we adduce that this also applies to those who grow their hair long? For it is written, Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLIV, 20.');">²</span>

דכתיב (יחזקאל מד, כ) וראשם לא יגלחו ופרע לא ישלחו וכתיב בתריה ויין לא ישתו כל כהן בבאם אל החצר הפנימית ואיתקוש פרועי ראש לשתויי יין מה שתויי יין במיתה אף פרועי ראש במיתה

and the next verse states, Neither shall any priest drink wine when they enter into the inner court; thus, those who grow their hair long are likened to those who are drunk with wine, just as those who are drunk with wine incur the penalty of death so too those who grow their locks long. Now can we not carry the comparison even further [and say] that just as those who are drunk with wine profane the service, so too should those who grow their hair long profane the service?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is in opposition to R. Ashi who holds that priests with long hair do not profane the service.');">³</span>

ומינה אי מה שתויי יין דמחלי עבודה אף פרועי ראש דמחלי עבודה (לא כי איתקוש למיתה הוא דאיתקוש אבל לאחולי עבודה לא איתקוש)

- (No; [the two] are likened only with regard to the penalty of death but not with regard to the rendering of the service profane).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The bracketed words, which appear in brackets also in the original, stand in contradiction to the parallel passage in Sanh. ');">⁴</span> Rabina asked R'Ashi:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M.: 'said R. Ashi to Rabina' on which reading what follows is R. Ashi's reply to the objection cited against him; v. p. 84, n. 1.]');">⁵</span>

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי הא מקמי דאתא יחזקאל מאן אמרה א"ל וליטעמיך הא דאמר רב חסדא דבר זה מתורת משה לא למדנו ומדברי קבלה למדנו (יחזקאל מד, ט) כל בן נכר ערל לב וערל בשר לא יבוא אל מקדשי (לשרתני) הא מקמי דאתא יחזקאל מאן אמרה

Who taught it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That those who perform service with long hair are punishable by death.');">⁶</span> before Ezekiel's time? - He replied: And according to your reasoning how will you explain the statement of R'Hisda, who said: The rule forbidding an uncircumcised priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Zeb. 18b.');">⁷</span>

אלא גמרא גמיר לה ואתא יחזקאל ואסמכה אקרא הכא נמי גמרא גמיר לה ואתא יחזקאל ואסמכה אקרא (כי גמירי הלכה למיתה לאחולי עבודה לא גמירי):

to do service we have learnt not from the Law of Moses but from the prophets [where it is written], No alien uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLIV, 9.');">⁸</span> But who stated it?

כל הכתוב במגילת תענית דלא למיספד לפניו אסור לאחריו מותר: תנו רבנן אלין יומיא דלא להתענאה בהון ומקצתהון דלא למיספד בהון מריש ירחא דניסן ועד תמניא ביה איתוקם תמידא דלא למיספד בהון מתמניא ביה עד סוף מועדא איתותב חגא דשבועיא דלא למיספד בהון

It must therefore [be assumed] that it was a tradition and then Ezekiel came and gave it a Scriptural basis. Here too [of long hair profaning the service] there was a tradition and then Ezekiel came and gave it a Scriptural basis.

אמר מר מריש ירחא דניסן עד תמניא ביה איתוקם תמידא דלא למיספד למה לי מריש ירחא לימא מתרי בניסן ור"ח גופיה יו"ט הוא ואסור אמר רב לא נצרכה אלא לאסור יום שלפניו

.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [These bracketed words, bracketed also in the original, are omitted in MS.M. and are difficult to explain in this context. Accepting, however, the reading of MS.M. cited supra p. 83, n. 5, these words conclude R. Ashi's argument which runs thus: Since Ezekiel merely provides here a basis for laws that are essentially based on tradition, there is no warrant for the suggested analogy between intoxicated priests and those with long hair. While the former do profane the service, there is no tradition for this to apply to the latter.]');">⁹</span> THE RESTRICTION AGAINST MOURNING ON THE DAYS ENUMERATED IN THE SCROLL OF FASTS APPLIES TO THE PRECEDING DAY BUT NOT TO THE DAY FOLLOWING.

ושלפניו נמי תיפוק ליה דהוה ליה יום שלפני ראש חדש ר"ח דאורייתא הוא ודאוריית' לא בעי חיזוק

Our Rabbis have taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Megillath Ta'anith.');">¹⁰</span> These are the days on which fasting is not permissible, and on some of them mourning also is forbidden.

דתניא הימים האלה הכתובין במגילת תענית לפניהם ולאחריהם אסורין שבתות וימים טובים הן אסורין לפניהן ולאחריהן מותרין ומה הפרש בין זה לזה הללו דברי תורה ודברי תורה אין צריכין חיזוק הללו דברי סופרים ודברי סופרים צריכין חיזוק

From the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth of the month mourning is not permissible because the Daily offering was established;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A dispute lasting from the first to the eighth day of Nisan took place between the Pharisees and the Sadducees with regard to the Daily offering (Num. XXVIII, 3) . The Pharisees were of the opinion that it could be brought only out of public funds (i.e., from the Temple treasury) and the Sadducees maintained it might also be defrayed by private funds. The Pharisees gained the day. V. Megillath Ta'anith, ch. 1; Men. 65a.');">¹¹</span> from the eighth day of the same month until the end of the festival [of Passover] mourning is not permissible since the date of the observance of the Feast of Weeks was then definitely fixed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There was also a dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees with regard to the fixing of the date of Pentecost. The dispute turned on the ,cav ,rjnn interpretation of the words (Lev. XXIII, 15) . The Pharisees took the view that the 'Omer had to be brought on the second day of Passover, while the Sadducees maintained that these words meant the morrow of the first Sabbath of the Passover week and from that day forty-nine days had to be counted to Pentecost. V. Megillath Ta'anith, ch. 1; Men. 65a.');">¹²</span>

אמר מר מתמניא ביה עד סוף מועדא איתותב חגא דשבועיא דלא למיספד למה לי עד סוף מועד לימא עד המועד ומועד גופיה יום טוב הוא ואסור אמר רב פפא כדאמר רב לא נצרכא

The Master said: From the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth of the month mourning is not permissible because the Daily offering was established. Why does it state, 'from the New Moon'? Let it state from the second of Nisan and as New Moon itself is a festive day mourning is in any case forbidden thereon! - Rab replied: This is necessary in order to extend the restriction to the preceding day. But should not the restriction in any case apply to it seeing that it is the day before New Moon? - New Moon is a biblical ordinance, and a biblical ordinance needs no [additional] strengthening. For it has been taught: Mourning is forbidden before and after the days enumerated in the Megillath Ta'anith; as for Sabbaths and Festivals mourning is forbidden on the day before their incidence but not after their incidence. Why this differentiation between the two? The latter are biblical ordinances and need no [additional] strengthening, but the former are ordinances of the Soferim and ordinances of the Soferim need [additional] strengthening. The Master said: 'From the eighth of the same month until the end of the festival [Passover] mourning is not permissible since the date of the observance of the Feast of Weeks was then definitely fixed.' Why does it state, 'until the end of the festival'? Let it state 'until the festival' and the festival itself being a hol ipso facto be a forbidden period for mourning? - R'Papa replied: [The answer is] as Rab who said: This was necessary