(1) These may shave during the intermediate days [of the festival]: one who arrives from a land [beyond] the sea, or from a house of captivity, or one released from prison, or an excommunicated person whom the Sages have released. So too, he who has consulted a Sage and been released [from a vow], the nazir [a person who vows to avoid corpse impurity, refrain from cutting his hair and abstain from all grape products], and the leper who has ascended from his [state of] impurity to [his state] of purity.

(2) These may launder on the intermediate days: one who arrives from a land [beyond] the sea, or from a house of captivity, or one released from prison, or an excommunicated person whom the Sages have released. So too, he who has consulted a Sage and been released [from a vow]. Hand towels, barber's towels, and bath towels [may be washed during the intermediate days]. The zavim [men who have certain types of atypical genital discharges, which render them impure], the zavot [women who have certain types of atypical genital discharges, distinct from their menses, which render them impure], the niddot [women who have menstruated and are thereby impure], those who have given birth, and all who ascend from impurity to purity these are permitted [to wash their garments]. But all other people are forbidden [to do so].

Mishnah. He who was twice flagellated [for two transgressions, and then sinned again,] is placed by beth din in a cell and fed with barley bread, until his stomach bursts. Gemara. Because he has been twice flagellated Beth din places him in a cell? — R. Jeremiah answered in the name of Resh Lakish: The reference is to flagellation for an offence punishable by extinction, so that he is already liable to death [at the hand of God], but the time of his death has not yet come: since, however, he abandoned himself [to sin, by transgressing a third time], we hasten his death. R. Jacob said to R. Jeremiah b. Tahlifa: 'Come, I will interpret it to you. This treats of flagellation for one sin involving extinction [which was twice repeated]: but [if he committed]two or three different sins each involving extinction, It may merely be his desire to experience sin, and not a complete abandonment thereto.' One who was twice flagellated. Twice, though not thrice; shall we say that the Mishnah does not agree with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? For if it did, does he not maintain, There is no presumption until a thing has happened three times? — Rabina said: It may agree even with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: The Mishnah is of the opinion that transgressions afford a basis for presumption. An objection was raised: If one committed an offence involving flagellation, the first and second time he is flagellated; on the third occasion he is placed in a cell. Abba Saul said: Even on the third occasion he is flagellated; but on the fourth, he is placed in a cell. Now presumably, both agree that flagellation affords a basis for presumption, and they differ on the lines of Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? — No. Both agree with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, but they differ on this question: One Master holds that transgression affords a basis for presumption, the other Master, that only flagellation affords it. But what of the following that has been taught, viz.: If he [the transgressor] was warned [of his liability to flagellation], but remained silent, or warned and nodded his head, — the first and second time he is to be warned, but on the third occasion he is placed in a cell. Abba Saul said: The third time too he is warned, but on the fourth, he is placed in a cell. Now there he is not flagellated: wherein then do they differ? — Rabina said: They differ as to whether one must be warned of the cell. And what was the form of the cell? — Rab Judah said: A chamber of his [the transgressor's] full height. And where is it alluded to? — Resh Lakish quoted: Evil shall slay the wicked. Resh Lakish also said: What is meant by, For man also knoweth not his time, as the fishes that are taken in an evil trap; what is 'an evil trap'? — Resh Lakish said: A hook. Mishnah. One who commits murder without witnesses is placed in a cell and [forcibly] fed with bread of adversity and water of affliction'. Gemara. How do we know [that he committed murder]? — Rab said: On a 'disjoined' evidence. Samuel said: Without a warning. R. Hisda said in Abimi's name: Through witnesses who were disproved as to the minor circumstances [of the crime], but not on the vital points. As we learned: It once happened that Ben Zakkai examined [the witnesses] as to the stalks of the figs. And fed 'bread of adversity and water of affliction'. Why does this Mishnah teach, And fed with bread of adversity and water of affliction', whilst the former teaches, He is placed by beth din in a cell and fed with barley bread until his stomach bursts? — R. Shesheth answered: In both cases he is fed with 'bread of adversity and water of affliction' for his intestines to shrink [thus blocking the passage], and then he is fed with barley bread until his stomach bursts.