are permitted to marry on the eve of the pilgrimage Festival. This poses a difficulty to all of the opinions, as a wedding celebration ordinarily extends for seven days, and the majority of the celebration will coincide with the Festival.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this baraita can be reconciled with all of the opinions. According to the one who said that one may not get married on the intermediate days of a Festival because of joy, i.e., because one must not mix one joy with another, or because one may not put aside the rejoicing of the Festival and occupy himself with rejoicing with his wife, this is not difficult, as the primary joy of a wedding is only one day, and after that, the joy of the wedding will not affect the joy of the Festival.

And according to the one who said that one may not marry on the intermediate days of a Festival due to the excessive exertion that the wedding preparations demand, it is not difficult, as the primary exertion is only one day. After the wedding, excessive exertion is not required. And according to the one who said that the reason is due to the neglect of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, there is no room for concern: Since there is only one day, the eve of the Festival, when he can get married and save money on the feast, a man will not delay his wedding in order to get married then, lest some unforeseen circumstance arise that will prevent him from getting married on that day. Therefore, according to all the reasons offered, there is no need to prohibit weddings on the eve of a Festival.

§ The Gemara asks: With regard to the principle that one may not mix one joy with another joy, from where do we derive it? The Gemara explains that the source is as it is written with regard to the dedication of the Temple: “So Solomon held the feast at that time, and all Israel with him, a great congregation, from the entrance of Hamath to the Brook of Egypt, before the Lord our God, seven days and seven days, fourteen days” (I Kings 8:65). And if it is so that one may in fact mix one joy with another joy, he should have waited until the festival of Sukkot, which was the second set of seven days, and made a feast of seven days for this and for that, i.e., for the dedication of the Temple and for the festival of Sukkot together. The fact that he did not do so indicates that one must not mix one joy with another.

The Gemara raises a question: Perhaps, however, it may be derived from here only that we may not delay a wedding to be on a Festival, just as King Solomon did not delay the Temple dedication to be on the Festival, but nevertheless, where it happens to occur that way, we may indeed prepare a feast to celebrate both occasions together. The Gemara answers: If this were permitted, Solomon should have left a small part of the Temple unfinished until the Festival, and thereby arranged for a joint celebration of the dedication of the Temple and the festival of Sukkot.

The Gemara responds: One may not leave any part of the building of the Temple undone, as a mitzva should be completed as quickly as possible. The Gemara modifies its previous opinion: Solomon should have left the cubit-wide plates with spikes, which were designed to eliminate the ravens, unfinished. The roof of the Temple was fitted with sharp metal spikes to deter the ravens, who were attracted by the smell of the sacrificial meat, from perching there. Although this was not considered a part of the building itself, delaying its installation would have allowed Solomon to delay the celebration of the Temple dedication.

The Gemara rejects this opinion as well: The cubit-wide plates with spikes to eliminate the ravens was a necessary element in the building of the Temple, and consequently Solomon could not delay its construction either. Rather, the proof is from the redundancy in the verse. Since it is written “fourteen days,” why do I need the verse to specify “seven days and seven days”? Learn from it that these seven days of celebrating the Temple dedication must be discrete, and similarly, these seven days of celebrating the Festival must be discrete, due to the principle that one may not mix one joy with another.

§ Apropos the discussion of the celebration at Solomon’s dedication of the Temple, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That year, the Jewish people did not observe Yom Kippur, as the seven-day celebration of the dedication of the Temple coincided with Yom Kippur and all seven days were celebrated with feasting. And the people were worried and said: Perhaps the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves, have become liable to be destroyed for the transgression of eating on Yom Kippur, which is punishable by karet. A Divine Voice issued forth and said to them: All of you are designated for life in the World-to-Come.

The Gemara asks: What derivation led them to conclude that it was permitted for them to eat on Yom Kippur? The Gemara explains that they based their ruling on an a fortiori inference: If at the dedication of the Tabernacle, whose sanctity is not a permanent sanctity, an individual’s offering, i.e., an offering of one of the tribal princes, overrides the prohibition of Shabbat, as the princes’ offerings were brought every day including Shabbat despite the attendant transgression of a prohibition that is punishable by stoning; then with regard to the dedication of the Temple, whose sanctity is a permanent sanctity and the offerings brought there were communal offerings, is it not all the more so clear that the dedication of the Temple overrides the prohibition of Yom Kippur, a violation that is punishable by the less severe punishment of karet?

The Gemara asks: But if they had firm basis for their behavior, why were they worried? The Gemara answers that one can refute this a fortiori inference as follows: There, at the dedication of the Tabernacle, Shabbat was desecrated only for the necessities of the Temple service to God on High, i.e., by sacrificing offerings. Here, at the dedication of the Temple, they desecrated Yom Kippur by eating and drinking, which was for the need of common mortals. Based on this distinction the Gemara suggests: Here too, at the dedication of the Temple they should have performed the rites of the sacrificial offerings and they should not have eaten or drunk. The Gemara answers: There is no complete rejoicing without eating and drinking.

With regard to the proof itself, the Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the offerings brought at the dedication of the Tabernacle overrode Shabbat? If we say it is as it is written with regard to the offerings brought by the tribal princes: “On the first day” (Numbers 7:12) and “on the seventh day” (Numbers 7:48), this is not a conclusive proof, as perhaps this refers not to the seventh day of the week but to the seventh day of sacrificial offerings. Perhaps they skipped Shabbat and did not sacrifice offerings connected to the dedication of the Tabernacle on that day. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The verse also states: “On the day of the eleventh day” (Numbers 7:72). The repetition of the word day indicates that just as a day is all one continuous period of time, so too, the eleven days were all one continuous period of time, with no break in the middle, even for Shabbat.

The Gemara asks: But perhaps this refers only to days that are fit for an individual’s offerings, i.e., the offerings were sacrificed on eleven consecutive days that were suitable for sacrificing the offerings of an individual, but not on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: In another verse it is written: “On the day of the twelfth day” (Numbers 7:78), indicating that just as a day is all one continuous period of time, so too, the twelve days were all one continuous period of time.

The Gemara asks again: But perhaps here too this is referring to days that are fit for sacrificing the offerings of an individual? The Gemara rejects this opinion: If so, why do I need two verses, the verse with regard to the eleventh day and the verse with regard to the twelfth day, to teach the same principle? The fact that the Torah uses repetitive phraseology in both verses indicates that all the days were consecutive, without a break for Shabbat.

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the feasting at the time of the dedication of the Temple overrides Yom Kippur, so that the people did not have to fast? If we say it is derived from that which is written: Fourteen days, perhaps this is referring to days that are fit for feasting, to the exclusion of Yom Kippur. The Gemara answers: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word “day” mentioned in this context and the word “day” mentioned there, with regard to the dedication of the Tabernacle. Just as there the days were consecutive, without a break for Shabbat, so too here, the days were consecutive, without a break for Yom Kippur.

It was stated above that a Divine Voice issued forth and said to them: All of you are designated for life in the World-to-Come. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that God pardoned them for this sin? The Gemara answers: The Sage Taḥlifa taught in a baraita that the verse states: “On the eighth day he sent the people away, and they blessed the king, and went to their tents joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that the Lord had done for David His servant and for Israel His people” (I Kings 8:66).

This verse may be expounded as follows: The words “to their tents” indicate that they went and found their wives in a state of purity, as the terms tent and house often denote one’s wife. The term “joyful” is referring to the fact they had enjoyed the splendor of the Divine Presence, as there was a revelation of the Divine Presence when the offerings were sacrificed in the Temple. The phrase “and glad of heart” refers to the fact that each of their wives conceived a male child. The words “for all the goodness” indicate that a Divine Voice issued forth and said to them: All of you are designated for life in the World-to-Come, which is the ultimate good.

The aforementioned verse stated: “For all the goodness that the Lord had done for David His servant and for Israel His people.” The Gemara asks: Granted, when the verse mentions the goodness that God did for Israel His people, this is referring to the fact that He pardoned them the sin of eating on Yom Kippur that year; but what is the goodness that God performed for David His servant?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: When Solomon sought to bring the Ark into the Temple the gates clung together and could not be opened. Solomon uttered twenty-four songs of praise, and his prayer was not answered. He began and said: “Lift up your heads, O you gates, and be lifted up, you everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in” (Psalms 24:7), but once again his prayer was not answered, and the Temple gates remained closed.

Once he said: “Now therefore arise, O Lord God, into your resting place, You, and the Ark of Your strength; Let your priests, O Lord God, be clothed with victory and let Your pious ones rejoice in goodness. O Lord God, do not turn away the face of Your anointed; remember the faithful love of David Your servant” (II Chronicles 6:41–42), he was immediately answered. At that moment the faces of David’s enemies turned dark like the charred bottom of a pot, and all knew that the Holy One, Blessed be He, forgave him for that sin involving Bathsheba, as they saw that it was only in his merit that the gates of the Temple opened.

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yonatan ben Asmai and Rabbi Yehuda, son of converts, studied the portion dealing with oaths in the study hall of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. After completing their studies, the disciples took leave of their master in the evening, but did not yet leave the city. In the morning they went back and took leave of him a second time. He said to them: Did you not already take leave of me yesterday in the evening?

They said to him: You have taught us, our teacher, that a disciple who takes leave of his teacher and then stays overnight in the same city must take leave of him an additional time, as it is stated at the conclusion of the dedication of the Temple: “On the eighth day he sent the people away, and they blessed the king” (I Kings 8:66), and elsewhere it is written: “And on the twenty-third day of the seventh month he sent the people away” (II Chronicles 7:10). The eighth day in the verse is referring to the Eighth Day of Assembly, the twenty-second of the month of Tishrei, yet it says that he sent the people away on the next day, the twenty-third of the month.

Rather, it can be derived from here that a disciple who takes leave of his teacher and then stays overnight in the same city must take leave of him an additional time, just as the Jewish people took leave of Solomon an additional time on the day after the Festival, on the twenty-third of Tishrei.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said to his son: These two people, Rabbi Yonatan ben Asmai and Rabbi Yehuda, son of converts, are men of noble form [tzura] i.e., wise and learned individuals; go to them so that they will bless you. He went and found them deep in discussion, raising apparent contradictions between verses as follows: It is written: “Make level the path of your feet, and let all your ways be established” (Proverbs 4:26), indicating that when one has the opportunity to perform more than one mitzva, he must evaluate which of them is most important. And elsewhere it is written: “Lest you level out the path of life,” (Proverbs 5:6), indicating that one must perform each mitzva as the opportunity arises, without considering its relative importance.

They explained that it is not difficult: Here, in the first verse cited above, it is discussing a mitzva that can be done by others, and therefore one must consider what is most worthwhile for him to perform himself and what he will leave to others.