20 Moed Katan 11b

MISHNA: The mishna discusses one who had already turned over his olives as part of the process of preparing them for pressing, and mourning for a close relative befell him and as a result he was prohibited from engaging in work, or some other unavoidable accident occurred, or his workers misled him, promising to come but failing to do so, so that he could not press his olives before the Festival. Under these circumstances, during the intermediate days of the Festival, he may place the olives in the press and load the beam with weights for the initial pressing of the olives and leave it this way until after the Festival; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: He may press the olives and complete the process and then plug each barrel of oil in its usual manner. Since delay can entail financial loss, the Sages did not require him to alter the normal process of extracting the oil. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: The tanna opens the mishna with a case of mourning and ends it with the halakhot of the intermediate days of the Festival, leaving the connection between them unclear. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: That is to say: Actions that are permitted on the intermediate days of a Festival are prohibited during the days of one’s mourning. Therefore, if a mourning period befell one before the Festival, and he could not prepare properly for the Festival due to the prohibition against performance of labor by a mourner, he is permitted to perform labor during the intermediate days of the Festival to avoid financial loss. Rav Ashi said that the tanna of the mishna is speaking utilizing the didactic style of: It is not necessary, and he is teaching two separate halakhot, one about mourning and the other about the Festival: It is not necessary to state that during the days of his mourning, when the prohibition against labor is rabbinic, it is permitted to perform labor that, if delayed, could cause serious loss; but even on the intermediate days of the Festival, when the prohibition against performing labor is by Torah law, performing such labor is permitted because in a case of a loss the Sages permitted it. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi: These are actions that others perform for the mourner during the days of his mourning: If his olives have already been turned over, they may load them for him into the olive press, and likewise if his cask needs to be plugged, or if his flax needs to be lifted out of the soaking pool where it will rot if not removed in time, or if his wool needs to be lifted from the cauldron into which it was placed for dyeing, they perform all these actions for him. They also irrigate his field when his turn for water arrives, as in many places, each field would receive water in turn according to a prearranged schedule. If one does not utilize the water when his turn arrives, he loses that water. This supports Rav Sheisha’s opinion that the prohibition against performing labor is waived in cases of loss only on the Festival. Under such circumstances, labor is prohibited to a mourner and in cases of loss may only be performed for him by others. The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: They also sow for him a plowed field or a field set aside for flax, where the time of sowing is critical. If the field is sown later, it will cause a loss. The Sages said to him: If that field is not sown in the early season, it can be sown in the later season; and similarly, if it is not sown with flax, it can be sown with another species. Therefore, this is not considered a great loss, and the Sages did not permit it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If his olives have already been turned over and there is no skilled worker available who knows how to press them properly but him, or his cask needs to be plugged and there is no skilled worker available but him, or his flax needs to be lifted out of the soaking pool, or his wool needs to be lifted from the cauldron, and there is no skilled worker available but him, he may perform all of these actions himself in private. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said further: If this mourner was a craftsman who serves the public, providing a necessary service, or a barber or a bath attendant for the public, and the time of the Festival arrived, i.e., it was the eve of a Festival, and there is no other skilled worker available but him, then he may perform the labor even in public, as the needs of the public takes precedence over the mourning of an individual. The baraita continues: Tenant farmers, who farm others’ land in exchange for a certain percentage of the crop, and leasers, who work the land in exchange for a fixed amount of the crop, and contractors, who work the land in exchange for a set amount of money, are included amongst those for whom others may perform their labor when they are in mourning. In contrast, donkey drivers, camel drivers, and sailors are those for whom others may not perform their work during their mourning periods. However, if they or their animals were leased or hired out to others, then they may perform work, because they were hired personally and cannot be replaced without loss. A day laborer, even if he is in a different city where his mourning status is not public knowledge, may not perform his work. If a commission for others was his responsibility, even if it was by contract and he was paid not by the day but upon its completion, he may not perform that labor. The statement in the baraita that one may not perform a task for others even if it was by contract implies that it is not necessary to state that if it was not by contract the work is prohibited to a mourner. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, when he works by contract it is considered as though it were his own work, since he simply receives payment for the completed task. Non-contracted labor, where he is paid for the time he works, is not viewed as his own and it is conceivable that it would be permitted during his mourning period. The Gemara concludes: Rather, emend the text and say that the baraita should read: If a commission for others was his responsibility, whether by contract or not by contract, he may not perform it. The baraita continues: If he commissioned others to perform his work, then if it was in his house they may not perform the work, but if it was in another house they may perform it. The Gemara relates that Maryon, son of Ravin, and Mar, son of Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, held a team of two oxen in partnership between them, one ox apiece. An event, i.e., a death in the family, befell Mar, son of Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, and he detached his ox from the team, preventing any work from being performed by the team, because he did not want work performed with his animal during his days of mourning. Rav Ashi said: A distinguished man like Mar, son of Rav Aḥa, is behaving this way? Granted, he is not concerned about his own loss, but is he not concerned about the loss of others, i.e., his partner? Isn’t it taught in the baraita cited above: If they or their animals were hired out or leased to others, then they may perform their work? In that case, why not allow the partner to work with the animal of Mar, son of Rav Aḥa? The Gemara explains: But Mar, son of Rav Aḥa, maintains: An important person is different. Even if strictly speaking something is permitted, an important person must be more rigorous with himself, so that people learn not to take the halakha lightly.