Question: (What is the proof from here that there is a covenant to fulfill what one says?) Perhaps [Yitzchak returned] because Hash-m's Midah for good is greater [than His Midah for punishment]!

The Gemara should have brought Ula's general teaching (Berachos 19a) that one should not open his mouth to the Satan (suggest that something bad might occur), for it says "Shim'u Devar Hash-m Ketzinei Sedom..."

The Aruch's opinion: Ginostri is a Kli for cutting nails. This is its name.

Inference: "Ginostri is Asur" connotes that he permits [cutting nails in other ways, e.g.] with a razor or scissors, and not only using the teeth.

Rejection: However, the Gemara says that R. Yochanan cut [his nails] with his teeth. This connotes it is permitted only with the teeth.

Question: Above, we say that all agree that the Halachah follows R. Yosi regarding [Chol] ha'Moed!

Answer: Perhaps R. Yochanan holds that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah. He explains that we are more stringent about Moed than Avelus;

This is unlike Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi, who says that [some] things permitted during the Moed are forbidden during Avelus.

R. Tam's opinion: Just like one may cut his nails with his teeth, he may cut them on another fingernail;

All this is considered a Shinuy (deviation, which exempts) regarding Shabbos (Shabbos 94b).

R. Shimshon's opinion: Women may cut nails during Chol ha'Moed.

Source: Regarding [the Mishnah] "a woman may do her ornaments during the Moed", the Yerushalmi lists cutting her hair and nails.

This requires investigation.

Bahag's opinion: Also Bahag permits a woman to remove hair after Shivah.

Assertion: It seems that he permits only a married woman, and refers to putting Serak on her face, and a mudpack of plaster. This is adornment, lest she be repulsive to her husband;

However, a proper haircut is forbidden.

Rabbeinu Chaim's opinion: I also heard in the name of Rabbeinu Chaim that he permitted cutting nails during the Moed.

Bahag's opinion: Bahag forbids cutting nails with Ginostri during Shivah, but permits with his teeth. After Shivah, he permits even with Ginostri.

Question: What is his source that the Beraisa discusses during Shivah?

Suggestion: It says "b'Yemei Evlo (in the days of his Avelus)."

Rejection: It says "b'Yemei Evlo" also regarding shaving, which applies all of Sheloshim, and it says "just like he may not shave b'Yemei Evlo, he may not cut his nails b'Yemei Evlo"!

Inference: These apply to all of Sheloshim.

Suggestion: Bahag holds like R. Yosi.

Rejection: If so, he should totally permit!

Answer #1: He holds like R. Yosi, and reasons that even R. Yosi would forbid with Ginostri within Shivah, similar to during the Moed.

Note: The Maharsha did not understand why it was obvious to Tosfos that R. Yosi forbids with Ginostri during the Moed.

Answer #2: Perhaps the episode with Shmuel connotes slightly that he cut his nails and threw them in his brother's face, i.e. within Shivah.

Implied question: What is the source that it was within Shivah, and with his teeth?

Answer: We say afterwards that Ginostri is forbidden. This implies that Shmuel did not cut with Ginostri;

We find that he forbids only within Shivah, when Rav Pinchas came to console him.

Explanation: We can explain that he cuts through a Shinuy, like fingernails.

Assertion: It seems that here, this is only after Shivah.

Implied question: Why didn't we do not answer here "what is the case? It is when he did not launder before the Regel;

Continuation of suggested answer: We permit one who has only one cloak only if he laundered it before the Regel, but not if he did not, for he was negligent;

Answer: [Since we did not answer this.] this implies that one who has only one cloak is permitted even if he was negligent and did not launder it before the Moed.

Tosfos' opinion: It seems like this to me. [Another] Tosfos was unsure about this.

Support for our Tosfos: The Gemara connotes like this, for it did not distinguish.

Assertion: It seems that regarding Avelus, we do not permit one who has only one cloak.

Source: Even if he (an Avel) had laundered garments, he may not wear them. This does not apply to the Regel.

Question: If a Kohen's Mishmar finished during the Regel, may he launder, according to the Tana above (17b) who taught "Kohen and Avel" (may shave during the Regel)? This requires investigation.

Even according to our Tana, [who says that] if [an Avel's] third day fell on Erev Yom Tov he may not bathe until evening...

Rashi (19b DH she'Asur) explains that at night he may bathe in cold water, or during Chol ha'Moed he may bathe in cold water, but he may not bathe on Erev Yom Tov;

However, when his seventh day is on Erev ha'Regel, he may not launder or bathe the entire day, [so] he may launder during the Regel.

Question: If indeed [our Tana] permits, why didn't he teach this?

Explanation: This refers to [smocks for] a haircut, i.e. for those whom Chachamim permitted.

Note: The written Hebrew text has no vowels, so it could be read "Seforim", i.e. covers for Kisvei ha'Kodesh.

Support: Some texts say [like ours] barbers' [smocks] and bathing towels.

Citation (Yerushalmi): One may not launder Mitpechos ha'Seforim (alternatively - ha'Saparim) in urine, due to honor.

Suggestion: This proves that we discuss [covers for] Kisvei ha'Kodesh.

Rejection: Even if it discusses a barber, there is concern for honor of those whose hair is cut. They put the smocks on their faces, and when their hair is cut, it is dishonorable if the smocks are filthy.

Explanation: We discuss a Metzora, for a Metzora may not launder, like we said above (15a);

Question: Does the same apply to one who became Tahor from Tum'as Mes or Nevelah, for he must wash his clothes?

Or, perhaps this is only for a Metzora, since he was forbidden to launder all his clothes.

Question: The first opinion explained that we discuss a Metzora. If we say that [Isurim of] a Metzora do not apply during the Regel, why do we permit only if he became Tahor?

Even when he has Tzara'as, he may launder during the Regel!

Suggestion: The Mishnah permits "not only when he is Tamei, rather, even when he becomes Tahor", like we said above (14b, regarding the Heter to shave).

Rejection: If so, [there is no reason to think why he should be forbidden after Taharah;] there is no concern for delaying Korbanos;

Granted, shaving is done when he offers the Korban. [If he may shave during the Regel, he might delay the Korban until then, even if he became Tahor beforehand]. However, laundering has no connection to the Korban!

Answer: [Indeed,] also laundering pertains to the Korban. (He would not want to bring a Korban in dirty clothes.)

Implied question: Abaye himself answered above how R. Yochanan can explain the Mishnah! (Why does he challenge the support for R. Yochanan?)

Answer: Abaye himself does not hold like he answered for R. Yochanan.

Explanation: It seems that all of these are Devar ha'Avud (if they are not written, one might lose):

Perhaps the giver, witnesses, or Beis Din will die, or go overseas.

Explanation #1: The Yerushalmi explains that they are letters of Shalom (greetings).

Explanation #2: Some explain that they are commands of the ruler, like it says (Avos 1:10) "do not become known to Reshus (authorities)."

Opinion #1: [Another] Tosfos explains that the same applies to documents of sale, for they were not taught with what is permitted during the Moed.

Rebuttal (our Tosfos): They were not taught because we write a sale document only on land, and we sell houses only for the need of the Moed (13a);

If it is needed for the Moed, obviously it is permitted!

Assertion: The same applies if he sold before the Moed, and wants to write the document now. It is permitted during the Moed, for also this is Devar ha'Avud;

However, this is only if he had an Ones, and could not write it before the Moed.

Reference: This is explained in Kesuvos 102b.

Question: Why don't we answer that we are concerned lest another marry her first regarding Zivug Sheni, but not regarding Zivug Rishon, like we say in Sanhedrin (22a) and Sotah (2a)?