Assertion: We do not mean only wood and rocks;

A Mishnah (Nega'im 12:5) says that according to R. Yehudah, even bundles of Kash and Teven (straw that remains attached, or is harvested with the grain, respectively) [are Mekabel Tum'ah]. If so, we must say that also Rebbi agrees to R. Yehudah.

Note: Our text of that Mishnah says "bundles of wood and Kanim (sticks or reeds)."

Support: The Gemara connotes like this, for we do not conclude that Rebbi holds like R. Shimon, who argues there (with R. Yehudah).

Explanation: Abaye holds that R. Yehudah expounds the Vav.

Support: Also in Sanhedrin (14a), regarding "v'Shoftecha", and in Bava Metzi'a (27a) regarding "u'Matzasa" [R. Yehudah expounds a Vav].

Question: R. Yehudah himself does not expound the Vav "v'Im Hamir Yamir" (Temurah 2b), and in Yoma 45a regarding "veha'Ish"!

Answer: Perhaps he expounds it for another Drashah.

Question: Here it is more difficult. Since [elsewhere] R. Yehudah expounds a Vav, why didn't Rava say that also here he expounds the Vav?

Why does Rava learn unlike Abaye? The Gemara should have mentioned [if he uses it for another Drashah - Rashash]!

Answer: Perhaps Rava means that even if R. Yehudah does not expound the Vav here for this Drashah, we can resolve his opinion.

Question: Above, Rava said that according to R. Yehudah, it (Tzara'as of houses) is a Chidush, and we do not learn from it! (How can he learn from it that we do not inspect Tzara'as of people during the day?)

Answer #1: According to what I explained (Sof 7b) that this is based on R. Yehudah's opinion, that he requires "u'Finu" for wood and stones, this is fine;

Only regarding emptying out the house it is a Chidush (that everything inside is Mekabel Tum'ah).

Answer #2: Since he cannot see through the house's light without a Ner, this shows that [impaired] vision disqualifies;

We learn from this, for we find also elsewhere (Tzara'as of people) that the Torah is more particular about seeing than regarding the Mitzvah of entering the Mikdash on the festivals [so it is not a Chidush];

He (a Kohen who sees Tzara'as) must have two eyes, and it cannot be a cloudy day.

Question: Here, it seems that Rava excludes night from this verse ("k'Nega Nir'ah Li"). In Sanhedrin (34b), he brings the verse "uv'Yom Hera'os Bo", from which Abaye learns!

Answer: The Gemara often brings the most simple Drashah [even if it is not the one from which we learn];

Perhaps had the Torah not written k'Nega Nir'ah Li, we would have established uv'Yom Hera'os to exclude night.

Support #1: In Megilah (20a), we expound that we circumcise only during the day from "uva'Yom ha'Shemini", and not at night;

In Shabbos (132a), we expound "b'Yom", even on Shabbos, and from "Ben Shemonas Yomim" we expound during the day, and not at night.

Support #2: In Bava Kama (87a), we bring that Shevach Ne'urim (money that a Na'arah receives) goes to her father from "bi'N'ureha Beis Aviha";

In Kidushin (3b) we establish the verse to discuss only annulling vows. We learn from Shevach Ne'urim from "v'Chi Yimkor" (one may sell his daughter to be a slave).

Support #3: In Kidushin 3b, we learn that only a document can divorce from "Sefer Kerisus";

In Gitin (21b), Rabanan learn this from "v'Chasav Lah." They need Sefer Kerisus for another Drashah.

Question: However, how can we resolve the Sugya in Sanhedrin 34b according to Rava?

We bring there that the end of Din (the final verdict) must be during the day, from Nega'im.

Granted, if we learn from uv'Yom Hera'os Bo [like Abaye does], we can say that it discusses the end of Din. However, if we learn from k'Nega Nir'ah Li [like Rava], this is the beginning of Din!

Question: Above, it connotes that Abaye does not hold that "mi'Gufei" is a proper challenge, for he holds that the Tana'im argue only about how to expound;

Inference: R. Yehudah, who does not expound from "u'Finu" could very well have expounded it [also for Tzara'as of the body];

Rather, he expounds it to teach about bundles of straw and wood [that they are Mekabel Tum'ah in a house with Tzara'as - Tosfos 7b DH Mashma'os]. Therefore, he expounds uv'Yom Hera'os [to teach delaying seeing Tzara'as].

Answer: Therefore, I explain above [Abaye's words] "they argue only about how to expound", i.e. Rebbi needs uv'Yom Hera'os Bo for another Drashah, i.e. during the day, and not at night, like I explained above;

R. Yehudah holds that we expound both of them [to postpone seeing Tzara'as], just like Rebbi does [according to Rava (Maharsha). Surely, Abaye holds that Rebbi expounds uv'Yom Hera'os for another Drashah, like Tosfos said above.]

From u'Finu we would learn only Tum'ah not of his body. Uv'Yom teaches unlike this;

From uv'Yom we would learn only for a Mitzvah. U'Finu teaches unlike this (even not for a Mitzvah).

According to this, [Abaye holds that] all [Tana'im] agree that we delay for Reshus, for both of them expound u'Finu, like I explained;

[According to R. Yehudah,] something that could be learned from a Kal va'Chomer, the Torah toiled to write it [anyway, i.e. uv'Yom], i.e. [that we delay for] a Mitzvah.

Question: This is difficult for R. Yehudah. From a stringency that is a Chidush, we may not learn a leniency!

He said here that it is a Chidush, for wood and stones are not [usually] Mekabel Tum'ah, so we can learn from this only something similar (another stringency).

Strengthening of question: We say in Chulin (108a) that meat and milk is a Chidush.

Explanation (R. Tam): If one soaks meat the entire day in milk, it is permitted, but if he cooks them, they are forbidden.

The Chidush is not from the Isur, that together they are forbidden, but each by itself is permitted, for also Kil'ayim, each is permitted by itself, but together they are forbidden, like we conclude in Pesachim (44b)!

Inference: When the Isur is a Chidush, we do not learn a leniency from it.

Note: The Maharsha did not understand this, for in Chulin we seek to learn a stringency! Karnei Re'em answers that just like we do not learn a stringency from a Chidush leniency, we do not learn a leniency from a Chidush Isur.

Support: From this reason, Ritzva resolved the Chidush of Edim Zomemim.

Note: "From this reason" refers to R. Tam's explanation of the Chidush of meat and milk. Tosfos ha'Rosh (Sanhedrin 27a DH Ein) asked what is the Chidush to disqualify Edim Zomemim according to the opinion that whenever two groups of witnesses disagree, both are disqualified. Ritzva answered that it is a Chidush to be Machshir the Mezimim. Therefore, it is also a Chidush to disqualify the Zomemim, for why should we believe one pair more than the other? Similarly, since meat soaked in milk is permitted, it is a Chidush that cooking them together forbids them.

Reference: This is in Maseches Semachos (Perek 12).

Note: The closest I found in Perek 12 to the Beraisa is Halachah 4. In some versions of Maseches Semachos, the Beraisa appears precisely in 3:14).

Observation: We could have answered that it is like R. Yosi, who says in the Mishnah "it is mourning for him."

Implied question: It was a good question [even] without Rav Chisda!

Answer: The Gemara often brings a Perush on a Beraisa by the way (even if it is not needed for the question).

Explanation #1: Even if they are wrapped in his sheet, he does not mourn over them at night.

Explanation #2: Some say that Rav Chisda teaches about the Reisha. Even if they are wrapped in his sheet for many days, he must mourn as long as he sees them.

Question: The first explanation is better. However, according to the first Perush, this (Rav Chisda's teaching) is not so relevant here, for we can challenge the Mishnah only from the Reisha [of the Beraisa)!

Answer: We must say that we bring the Seifa by the way, and Rav Chisda's teaching by the way of what is brought by the way.

Pesak: It seems that the Halachah follows Rav in Isurim.

Support: Even according to Shmuel, we can say that it is forbidden only through a eulogizer, but he himself is permitted;

One can restrain himself from his pain more through crying out, and afterwards he is happy.

Rashi's opinion: He does them for the sake of Mesim, even if there is no need now, like a Mishnah teaches (Bava Basra 100b);

Citation (100b): One who sells a place to make a Kever, makes the interior of the cave...

However, for the need of a Mes who already died, it is permitted even on Yom Tov Sheni to cut shrouds and myrtle, like it says in Beitzah (6a), and all the more so during Chol ha'Moed;

Implied question: We can distinguish! Chol ha'Moed is mid'Oraisa, but Yom Tov Sheni is only mid'Rabanan, e.g. the second day of Shavu'os, and Yom Tov Sheni of the seventh day of Pesach and of Shemini Atzeres! (They are not Chol ha'Moed.)

Answer #1: It seems that in Beitzah, we permit every Yom Tov Sheni (even if it is Chol ha'Moed).

Answer #2: In every respect, we are more stringent about Melachah on Yom Tov Sheni than on Chol ha'Moed.

R. Chananel's opinion: Just like Rashi explained that we discuss digging before the person died, also R. Chananel explained so, but after death it is permitted;

Implied question: Why does the Mishnah permit Kuchin (cavities for coffins in burial caves) and [above ground] graves even not near the Mes, but permits a casket only near the Mes?

Answer: Perhaps when he digs, it is normal to dig in the house, and it is recognized that he digs [outside] for the sake of a Mes. So it seems to me.

Question: Why here, R. Yehudah permits only with boards cut from Erev Yom Tov, and there he permits cutting shrouds and myrtle [on Yom Tov]?

Answer #1: Perhaps one can find many cut boards, but he will not find prepared shrouds and myrtle.

Answer #2: Perhaps sawing boards makes noise and great publicity.

Answer #3: Some say that one may not dig even after death, similar to Chinuch (adjustment) of a grave, which it seems is after death;

The Gemara says that if it was long, he shortens it. It is not normal to do so before death, for he does not know who will be buried in it!

Answer #4: We can explain that he does (digs) for himself, or someone else [alive], like [Rashi] explained, that they used to do.

Implied question: In Beitzah (6a) why do we permit cutting shrouds and myrtle [more than digging, which is forbidden even after death]?

Answer: We permit only like I explained, when he will not find shrouds and myrtle prepared from Erev Yom Tov;

However, one can find many Kuchin and graves. They used to dig caves before death.

For this reason, perhaps it is permitted nowadays, since they do not dig caves before death.

Question: What is this needed for during the Moed? One may not launder during the Moed!

Answer #1: It is for those whom Chachamim permitted to launder during the Moed! (below 13a)

Answer #2: It is to bathe a Mes or shrouds.

Citation (Yerushalmi - Rav Mana): This refers to a Mes that is not famous. If he is famous, we build a casket for him even in the market.

Citation (cont.): R. Chanina the colleague of Rabanan died during Chol ha'Moed, and they built a casket for him in the market.

Assertion: Since we have small congregations, it seems that for us, every Mes is considered famous.

R. Chananel's opinion: This is Chamtzan and Nadyan mentioned in Bava Basra 19a.

Rejection: The Mishnah says that we distance the Nivreches three Tefachim. The Gemara says that this is only from the Chamtzan, but from the Nadyan, we must distance four Amos;

Note: Rashi there says that Chamtzan is a ditch in which the clothes are soaked. Nadyan is a ditch in which one rubs them.

The Tosefta says that we distance the Nivreches and the Beki'ah three Tefachim. (Therefore, neither can be the Nadyan, which we must distance four Amos.)

Inference: It is forbidden in public.

Implied question: Why is this unlike what we say (Shabbos 146b, in the name of Rav) that anything forbidden due to Mar'is ha'Ayin (lest people say that one transgresses, we forbid even in private)?

[Why does] this resemble more the case of a drainage pipe that became clogged (Kesuvos 60a? One may covertly squash the clogging matter on Shabbos with his foot.)

Note: Tosfos there says that when there is suspicion about a Torah Isur, we forbid even in private. This excludes unclogging a drain in an unskillful way. Tosfos holds that Melachah on Chol ha'Moed is mid'Oraisa (above, DH Ein). Some say that Rav would forbid covertly fixing a clogged pipe on Shabbos (in Ritva 60a DH Tzinor).

Explanation: The Yerushalmi says that this is only from Nisu'in, i.e. he divorced her after Nisu'in, and remarried her, but not [if he divorced her] from Eirusin.

Source #1: This is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv, like we expound below (9a) from the verse about [Chanukas Beis ha'Mikdash through] Shlomo.

Source #2: The Yerushalmi expounds from "Malei Shavu'a Zos" (Lavan told Yakov to marry Rachel only after the seven days of feasting over his Nisu'in to Leah).

Explanation: It seems that the reason is like "we do not do Mitzvos in bundles". We require that his heart be free (totally dedicated) to one Mitzvah [at a time], and he not divert himself from it;

Likewise, we do not mix Simchos, so his heart will be free to one Simchah [at a time].

Assertion: This is a primary Drashah. It is not a mere Asmachta.

Proof: In Chagigah (8b), we ask 'what does Rav Ashi expound from "b'Chagecha"?'

Explanation: The Mishnah means "because it is Simchah for him, and [therefore] he toils for it too much."

Explanation: The Mishnah means "because it is Simchah for him, and he willingly delays it until the festival, so he will be happy, or he will be free.

Implied question: Why do we permit Machazir Gerushaso?

Answer: This is not [so much] Simchah for him. Mixing Simchos does not apply, and not abandoning Simchah of the festival, and there is no toil;

Also, there is no Bitul of Peru u'Rvu, for he already had a wife, and in the normal case, he has children. Also, it is not common to delay this until the festival.

Opinion #1: One may make Seudas Bris Milah during Chol ha'Moed, for this is not Simchah.

Support: We say in Kesuvos (8a) that we do not bless "sheha'Simchah bi'M'ono" [at Seudas Bris Milah] due to pain of the baby.

Opinion #2: Since the time is fixed, one should not be Mevatel it (Seudas Bris Milah) due to this (the festival).

Question: Is Seudas Pidyon ha'Ben permitted during the Moed? This requires investigation.

Suggestion: Since the time is fixed [it should be permitted]!

Rejection: This applies only when it is in the proper time (the 30th day). How can it be permitted not in its time?

Answer #1: It seems that we hold like Rav Ashi, who expounds (Chagigah 8b) "[v'Samachta] b'Chagecha", and not in your wife. He does not forbid mixing one Simchah with another.

Answer #2: Further, it seems that the only case of mixing one Simchah with another is Seudas Nisu'in.