The Gemara explains that the halakha of leprous symptoms on a house constitutes a novelty, as by Torah law, wood and stones are generally not susceptible to ritual impurity, yet here in the case of house leprosy they are susceptible to ritual impurity.

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: It was necessary for the Torah to state both verses: “But on the day it appears in him” (Leviticus 13:14), as well as: “Then the priest shall command that they empty the house” (Leviticus 14:36). As, if the Merciful One had written only: “But on the day it appears in him,” I would have said that for a matter of mitzva, yes, one may delay the priest’s examination of the leprous symptoms, but for an optional matter, no, one may not, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Therefore the Merciful One wrote: “Then the priest shall command,” in order to teach that one may delay his examination even for an optional matter.

And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only: “Then the priest shall command,” I would have said that for these utensils that are found in the house, yes, one may delay the priest’s examination, as this is not a case of impurity of the individual’s body but only that of his possessions; but in a case of impurity of the individual’s body, I would say that the priest must examine it immediately. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to state that even in this case, one may delay his examination.

§ The Gemara proceeds to analyze the aforementioned baraita. The Master said that as the verse states: “But on the day it appears in him,” it may be inferred that there is a day when you examine the symptoms found in him and there is a day when you do not examine those symptoms.

The Gemara asks: From where in this verse may it be inferred? Abaye said: If it were so that the priest must always examine the symptoms immediately, the Merciful One should have written simply: On the day it appears in him. What is implied by the actual formulation of the verse: “But on the day”? Learn from here, i.e., from the seemingly superfluous word “but” at the beginning of the phrase, that this is not an absolute halakha, but a conditional one, depending upon other factors: There is a day when you examine the leprous symptoms found in him and there is a day when you do not examine those symptoms.

Rava offered a different explanation and said: The entire phrase “but on the day,” is superfluous. As, if it were so that the priest must always examine the symptoms immediately, the Merciful One should have written simply: And when it appears. What is the meaning of the additional words “but on the day”? Learn from here that the issue is dependent upon other factors, as there is a day when you examine the symptoms of leprosy in him and there is a day when you do not examine them.

The Gemara explains: And according to Abaye, who derives the halakha from the word “but,” why does the verse include the phrase “on the day”? That phrase is necessary in order to teach that the priest examines the symptoms of leprosy only during the day, but not at night.

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rava derive the halakha that the examination is performed during the day but not at night? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: “As far as the priest’s eyes can see” (Leviticus 13:12), which indicates that the priest must be able to carry out a careful examination of the leprous symptoms; this cannot be done at night, when his vision is limited. And Abaye could say that this verse is necessary to exclude a priest who is blind in one eye from inspecting symptoms of leprosy, as it says “eyes,” in the plural.

The Gemara asks: But Rava also requires this verse to teach this halakha, i.e., that a priest who is blind in one eye is unfit to examine symptoms of leprosy. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; he agrees that this verse is the source of the halakha concerning a priest who is blind in one eye, and it is not the source of the halakha that the priest may only view leprous symptoms by day.

If so, from where does Rava derive the halakha that a priest examines leprous symptoms during the day but not at night? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse that quotes a homeowner saying to a priest: “There seems to me as it were a plague in the house” (Leviticus 14:35), which emphasizes that the leprous symptom is seen by me, and not by way of my light, i.e., that this takes place during the day. When the next verse states that the priest comes to view the leprous symptom, it means that this also takes place by day.

And why does Abaye require the proof that he adduces when it would seem that the verse that Rava brings offers sufficient proof? The Gemara explains: According to Abaye, if the source was derived from there, I would have said that this halakha, that one must wait until the light of day to examine the symptom, applies only to leprous symptoms on a house, which is an impurity that is not related to the individual’s body. However, in a case of impurity of the individual’s body, perhaps the priest may conduct his examination even by artificial light, as it is a more severe impurity. Therefore the verse teaches us: “But on the day,” to indicate that even in the case of impurity of the body the priest may perform the examination only during the day by natural sunlight, and not by any artificial light.

MISHNA: Rabbi Meir also stated another leniency concerning the halakhot of the intermediate days of a Festival: A person may gather the bones of his father and mother from their temporary graves on the intermediate days of a Festival. In ancient times, it was customary to first bury a corpse in a temporary grave. After the flesh had decomposed, the bones would be collected, placed in a coffin, and buried in a vault together with the bones of the deceased individual’s ancestors. This is permitted on the intermediate days of a Festival because the fact that one merited to bring the bones of his deceased parents to the graves of their ancestors is a source of joy for him.

Rabbi Yosei says: One does not gather these bones on the intermediate days of a Festival, because it is a source of mourning for him. Even though he is happy to be able to bury his parents’ bones in their ancestral graves, he is still pained by the memory of their death.

And all agree that a person may not arouse [ye’orer] lamentation for his deceased relative, and he may not eulogize him during the thirty days before a pilgrimage Festival.

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a contradiction to Rabbi Meir’s opinion that gathering the bones of one’s parents is considered an occasion of joy, based on what is taught in a baraita: One who gathers the bones of his father or his mother mourns for them the entire day, but he does not mourn for them in the evening. And Rav Ḥisda said: And even in a case where he does not gather the bones from a temporary grave, but where he had them bundled up in his sheet, when he buries them he mourns for them all day. This indicates that gathering one’s parents’ bones is an occasion of mourning rather than joy.

Abaye said: Say that Rabbi Meir means that collecting and reinterring the bones of one’s parents is permitted on the intermediate days of a Festival, not because it causes one joy, but rather because the joy of the pilgrimage Festival is upon him. The pain of gathering the bones of his parents is overpowered by the joy of the Festival.

§ It is taught in the mishna: One may not arouse lamentation for his deceased relative during the thirty days before a Festival. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: One may not arouse lamentation for his deceased relative? Rav said: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, whenever a professional eulogizer would circulate and ply his trade, they would say: Let all those of bitter heart weep with him. When they would say this, all those who had recently suffered losses would recall their pain and lament their losses.

It is taught in the mishna that one may not arouse lamentation or eulogize his relative for thirty days before a pilgrimage Festival. The Gemara asks: What is different about thirty days, that it is prohibited for one to lament the dead for specifically that amount of time before the Festival?

Rav Kahana said that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving a certain man who saved up money to ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival. A professional eulogizer came and stood at the opening to his house and the man’s wife took the money that he had saved and gave it to the eulogizer for his services. As a result, the man did not have enough money and he refrained and did not ascend to Jerusalem for the Festival. At that time, they said: One may not arouse lamentation for his deceased relative, nor may he eulogize him during the thirty days before a pilgrimage Festival.

And Shmuel said: