Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: Why did Chachamim permit him? He was negligent, for not coming in front of Chachamim before the Moed to permit him!

Citation (cont.) Answer: The case is, his 30 days of Niduy finished during the Moed. Niduy is not less than 30 days.

Similarly, the Yerushalmi establishes the case of one who asked a Chacham [to permit his vow] when it came during Chol ha'Moed (Maharsha - the vow took effect then. We do not permit vows until they take effect - Nedarim 90a), or before the Moed he did not find a Pesach (reason to regret the vow and show why it was a mistake).

Opinion #1: Also shaving the head is forbidden during the Moed. The Gemara says that they should not enter the festival unkempt. There is nothing more unkempt than this (entering unshaven)!

Opinion #2: Perhaps the Gemara's reason refers only to the others, but shaving the head is forbidden due to Melachah, even in a case of Ones (he could not shave before the Moed).

The Gemara asks why other shaving is forbidden, i.e. shaving for beauty. We should have permitted this for needs of the Moed, even though it is Melachah;

However, shaving the entire head is forbidden due to Melachah. These [people in our Mishnah], e.g. a Nazir and Metzora, are permitted due to Mitzvah.

Consequence: Based on this, it is forbidden to shave the head during the Moed.

Opinion #3: [Any]one may shave the head during the Moed.

Question: [If so,] what is the Chidush of [permitting] a Nazir and Metzora?

Answer: One might have thought that it is forbidden [mid'Rabanan], lest they delay bringing their Korbanos. The Mishnah teaches that it is permitted.

Implied question: The Gemara wanted to say that the Mishnah discusses only when he did not have time [before the Moed. Why is this, if everyone is permitted?]

Answer: It means that a Nazir and Metzora are permitted only if they become Tahor now, but if they became Tehorim before the festival, they are forbidden.

Explanation #1: Even though it is Melachah, we should have permitted it for needs of the Moed.

Explanation #2: Even though there are Melachos forbidden during the Moed without exertion, such as business, in any case this, which is for beauty, it is proper to permit it for honor of the Moed.

Explanation #3: Some say that this refers to shaving the head, which we forbid due to exertion. In any case, we ask that we should have permitted it for needs of the Moed.

Rebuttal: This seems wrong, based on what I explained in the Mishnah that shaving the entire head is an absolute Melachah, and it is forbidden.

Question: How can he launder it during the Moed? If so, he will remain during the Moed without a shirt [to wear] while laundering it;

Similarly, he could have laundered it before the Moed, and he would be without a shirt while laundering it!

Suggestion: The Mishnah discusses one who laundered it before the Moed. Therefore he may launder it during the Moed.

Rejection: If so, even if one has two shirts, if they became dirty, why do we forbid him? He was not negligent!

Answer: It suffices to have one shirt for Yom Tov Rishon, and one for Yom Tov Acharon.

Citation (Yerushalmi): One may launder children's clothes during the Moed. It is recognized that they are small and dirty. This is like one who has only one shirt.

Rashi's opinion: We ask about a professional. People of the city, even though they have no other professional, surely they are forbidden.

Note: Our text of Rashi did not explicitly say that there is no other professional. If only he can [shave people], all know that everyone was Ones! Perhaps most can shave themselves, just not as good as the professional, and it is not known who cannot do so himself. Sefas Emes suggests that Rashi holds that obviously, others are permitted, and we asked about the professional himself.

Question: I am unsure about one was sick and healed, whether he may shave. Is [his Ones] as evident as these [who are permitted in the Mishnah]?

Question: Why don't we establish it even like R. Yehudah, and for Mezonos, even R. Yehudah agrees!

Answer: Perhaps since R. Yehudah says "one who comes...", this implies that he comes to argue with the Mishnah.

Tosfos' text: It seems that the text does not say "v'Od mi'Chlal d'Pligi Rabanan Afilu l'Mezonos";

In Chulin (12a) regarding "R. Yehudah's opinion seems correct regarding one who found [a slaughtered animal] in the wasteheap", the text does not say "v'Od".

Inference: This connotes that there is an Aseh mid'Oraisa of Avelus, since he did not say that an Aseh mid'Rabanan overrides.

Implied question: Above (11b), we said "not only the days of Avelus, which are mid'Rabanan..."!

Answer: That refers to [the Isur of] doing Melachah, which we learn (15b) from an Asmachta "v'Hafachti Chageichem l'Evel."

Avelus itself is mid'Oraisa.

Retraction: However, it seems that also Simchas ha'Regel is mid'Rabanan, and "v'Samachta" refers to [eating] Shelamim [offered for the Mitzvah] of Simchah, like it says in Chagigah (8a). (If so, the inference is not justified.)

Question (ha'Rav): There is only an Aseh. An Aseh is not Docheh an Aseh!

Strengthening of question: There is not even an Aseh. Ezra decreed, like we say below (16a).

Answer #1: This is not difficult. Niduy overrides the Isur of cursing one's fellowman, which is a Lav! Perhaps we learn from Sotah. (The Kohen curses her if she was defiled.

Note: R. Yosef of Vilna asks that one may curse one who does not act like your nation! Kovetz Ha'aros (70:1) says that one who transgressed Ervah is still called "your brother" [and Niduy applies for matters no more severe than this]. Rather, Mitzvos Bein Adam l'Chavero are permitted for a need.

Answer #2: Since he transgressed the judges' words, there is an Aseh of the Rabim.

Question: We should say that if he does not comply with the verdict, we take his property!

Answer: However, [in any case] the Gemara asked a proper question.

Question (Tosfos Rabbeinu): Why does he ask only about refraining from Simchas Yom Tov of eating and drinking, but he is not concerned about the execution itself, which is a Melachah?

Answer #1: Since the Torah forbids burning a Bas Kohen on Shabbos, this implies that it is permitted during the Moed (Yom Tov).

Answer #2: Since it is a Mitzvah, this is called a need of Yom Tov.

Question: In Sanhedrin (35a), in the Sugya of "therefore we do not judge on Erev Shabbos", it is clear that Inuy Din (delaying the verdict) applies only if they delay [execution] after the final verdict!

Suggestion: Here, "investigating" means a final verdict, but they do not kill him until after the Regel.

Objection: If so, why did we ask? Perhaps it is merely to investigate, without a final verdict, and they will not give a final verdict until after the Moed!

Answer (defense of Suggestion): [They would not do so, lest] they forget.

Implied question: [We should not be concerned for forgetting, for] scribes of the judges write everyone's words!

Answer: In any case, the reasoning in the heart is forgotten.

Support: This is why we say there that we do not judge on Erev Shabbos, for [the reasoning in] the heart of people is forgotten.

Explanation: This is like Abaye's opinion. He refuted [above the proof that Niduy applies during the festival], and said "perhaps they merely investigate the case." He does not consider the proof [of Rav Yosef] to be a proof.

Implied question: Abaye said "if you will not say so" (to prove that we must say like his refutation), but this was rejected!

Answer #1: Abaye did not accept the rejection of his refutation.

Answer #2: Even if Abaye accepted the rejection of his reason why his refutation is more reasonable [than Rav Yosef's understanding], in any case we can say that they merely investigate the case, even without a source that it is more reasonable [than Rav Yosef's understanding that they totally judge the case].

Inference: If a Menudah does not observe laws of Niduy during the festival, likewise a Kohen Gadol does not observe laws of Niduy at all.

Question: A Kohen Gadol judges and is judged. If he does not comply with the verdict, we excommunicate him!

Answer: According to what I explained above, that we can say that we take from his property, this is fine.