Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 1, 2022 | 诇壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Moed Katan 20

Today鈥檚 learning is dedicated to Rabbanit Michelle Farber by the thousands of students around the world in honor of your birthday鈥 讘转 讞诪讬砖讬诐 诇注爪讛. In Masechet Shabbat, you taught us that 诪值讬诇指转指讗 讗址诇旨指讘值讬砖讈址讬职讬讛讜旨 讬址拽旨执讬专指讗. Fine wool is precious to she who wears it. That is, a student loves the teachings of her teacher. Rabbanit Michelle, we are honored and lucky to learn from you daily, we treasure and love all of your teaching. May we grow in learning with you from year to year for many more years to come. Happy Birthday!

According to Raba, if one is buried on the holiday, shiva starts after, but shloshim starts after the burial. Abaye raises a question on Raba from two different tannaitic sources. One is answered but the other difficulty remains. In the Tosefta, there is a tannaitic debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding how many days of mourning does one need to observe before the holiday for shiva to be canceled by the holiday – three days or one hour? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel also debated this issue. Amoraim also debate according to which opinion do we rule. Mourning being seven days is derived from the holidays that last seven days. Why is it not derived from Shavuot which is one day? One who hears about a relative who died a while ago, does one sit shiva for a week and observe shloshim or does one only observe one day of mourning. This is also a debate among tannaim. Is a distinction made between a parent who died and other relatives for whom one generally sits shiva? What is considered 鈥榓 while ago鈥 – shemua rechoka? What if it was within the time when one heard but it was a day of the holiday when one can鈥檛 sit shiva and when the holiday ends it is beyond the designated time? What if it was Shabbat? Does one tear kriya in a case of shemua rechoka? Can you have kriya in a case where there aren鈥檛 seven days of shiva? Are the two inherently connected? For which relatives do people sit shiva? It is learned from people that a kohen cannot become impure to; however, two additional cases were added – siblings who share the same mother (not father) and one鈥檚 sister who is married. There is a tannitic debate regarding shiva for relatives of those relatives. Is it only when in the presence of the relative? What does one do when one鈥檚 in-laws die? What is the difference between that case and one where one鈥檚 brother-in-law dies? Ameimar stood while tearing kriya when his son was sitting shiva.

砖讻讘专 谞转注住拽讜 讘讜 讘专讙诇 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘诇 专讙诇 诪驻住讬拽讜 讜讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 注住拽讬 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 专讙诇 诪驻住讬拽讜

for they already occupied themselves with him when they came to console him during the Festival. The general principle with regard to the matter is as follows: Any activity that is prohibited to the mourner because it is an expression of mourning is interrupted by the Festival and remains prohibited afterward. And anything that involves the public鈥檚 occupation with the mourner, e.g., coming to the mourner to offer him comfort and condolence, is not interrupted by the Festival, for people console the mourner during the Festival as well.

拽讘专讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讘住讜祝 讛专讙诇 诪讜谞讛 砖讘注讛 讗讞专 讛专讙诇 讗专讘注讛 讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 专讘讬诐 诪转注住拽讬谉 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讗讬谉 专讘讬诐 诪转注住拽讬谉 讘讜 砖讻讘专 谞转注住拽讜 讘专讙诇 讜专讙诇 注讜诇讛 诇讜

If he buries his relative three days before the end of the Festival, the mourner must count seven days of mourning after the Festival because his mourning never began. On the first four days of his mourning, the public must occupy themselves with him and come to console him. On the three last days, however, the public need not occupy themselves with him, as they already occupied themselves with him during the Festival. That is to say, they certainly came to console him during the Festival, although the period of mourning did not actually begin until afterward. And the Festival counts for him toward the thirty-day mourning period.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗住讬驻讗 诇讗 讗专讬砖讗

With regard to the statement of the baraita that the Festival counts toward the thirty-day period of mourning: What, is it not referring to the latter clause of that baraita, which speaks about a case where the burial was performed during the Festival itself? If this is the case, then a refutation of Rava鈥檚 opinion is stated explicitly, that the Festival counts toward the thirty-day mourning period, even if the deceased was buried on the Festival itself. Rava rejects this argument: No, it is referring to the first clause, which discusses a case where the burial was performed before the Festival, and since rites of mourning were observed already before the Festival, the Festival is counted toward the thirty-day period of mourning. Therefore, it is not a refutation of Rava鈥檚 halakha.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讙诇 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诇诪谞讬谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讻讬爪讚 拽讘专讜 讘转讞讬诇转 讛专讙诇 诪讜谞讛 砖讘注讛 讗讞专 讛专讙诇 讜诪诇讗讻转讜 谞注砖讬转 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 讜注讘讚讬讜 讜砖驻讞讜转讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讘爪谞注讗 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讗讬谉 专讘讬诐 诪转注住拽讬谉 讘讜 砖讻讘专 谞转注住拽讜 讘讜 讘专讙诇 讜专讙诇 注讜诇讛 诇讜 转讬讜讘转讗

Abaye raised an objection to Rava鈥檚 opinion from another baraita, in which it was taught: A pilgrimage Festival counts toward the thirty-day period of mourning. How so? If one buried his dead relative at the beginning of a pilgrimage Festival, he must count seven days of mourning after the Festival, and during this period his work is performed by others. And his menservants and maidservants perform this work in private inside his house, and the public need not occupy themselves with him and come to console him, for they already occupied themselves with him during the Festival. And the Festival counts for him. Here it is explicitly stated that the Festival counts toward the thirty-day period of mourning, even when the deceased was buried during the Festival itself. The Gemara concludes: This is indeed a conclusive refutation of Rava鈥檚 opinion.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讘专讜 讘专讙诇 讜讻谉 讗讜专讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇专讘讬 驻讚转 讘专讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讘专讜 讘专讙诇

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even if one buried his dead relative during the Festival, the Festival counts toward his thirty-day period of mourning. And, similarly, Rabbi Elazar ruled for Rabbi Pedat, his son: Even if one buried his dead relative during the Festival it counts towards his thirty days.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讬讬诐 讻驻讬讬转 讛诪讟讛 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 讛专讙诇 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讻驻讜转讛 讗讞专 讛专讙诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转

The Sages taught the following baraita: If one fulfilled the obligation of overturning the bed for three days before the pilgrimage Festival, he is no longer required to overturn it after the Festival; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Rabbis say: Even if one overturned his bed for only one day, or even for only one hour, he is not required to overturn it after the Festival.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: This is the statement of Beit Shammai, and that is the statement of Beit Hillel. In other words, Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagreed about a matter that was the subject of an earlier dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, for Beit Shammai say: Three days, and Beit Hillel say: Even one day.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇砖讛

Rav Huna said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said, and some say a different version of this line of transmission: Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba and to Rav Huna: Even one day, even one hour. The Gemara cites Rava, who said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of our mishna, who said three days. Based on this, we rule that the mourning rites are not canceled after the Festival unless they were observed for at least three days before the Festival.

专讘讬谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇住讜专讗 讚驻专转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛诇讻转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转

Ravina happened to come to the city of Sura on the banks of the Euphrates River. Rav 岣viva said to Ravina: What is the halakha with regard to this issue? He said to him: Even one day, and even one hour.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗拽讬诇注讗 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 谞驻拽 诪讬诇转讗 诪讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讘讬诇讜转 砖讘注讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛驻讻转讬 讞讙讬讻诐 诇讗讘诇 诪讛 讞讙 砖讘注讛 讗祝 讗讘讬诇讜转 砖讘注讛

搂 It was related that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 were once sitting in the pavilion of Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elazar and were conversing. A matter emerged from among them: From where is it derived that the rites of mourning are observed for seven days? As it is written: 鈥淎nd I will turn your Festivals into mourning鈥 (Amos 8:10). Just as a Festival lasts for seven days, so too mourning lasts for seven days.

讜讗讬诪讗 注爪专转 讚讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 诪谞讬谉 诇砖诪讜注讛 专讞讜拽讛 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛驻讻转讬 讞讙讬讻诐 诇讗讘诇 讜讗砖讻讞谉 注爪专转 讚讗讬拽专讬 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讞讙

The Gemara asks: And say that perhaps mourning is like Shavuot, which is only one day. The Gemara rejects this argument: That derivation, from the one day of Shavuot, is required for what was stated by Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: From where is it derived that mourning in the case of distant tidings, i.e., when one hears that one of his relatives died a long time ago, applies for only one day? As it is written: 鈥淎nd I will turn your Festivals into mourning,鈥 and we find with regard to Shavuot that one day is also called a Festival.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诪讜注讛 拽专讜讘讛 谞讜讛讙转 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐 砖诪讜注讛 专讞讜拽讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 拽专讜讘讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 专讞讜拽讛 拽专讜讘讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 专讞讜拽讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 砖诪讜注讛 拽专讜讘讛 讜讗讞转 砖诪讜注讛 专讞讜拽讛 谞讜讛讙转 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐

The Sages taught the following baraita: In the case of recent tidings of a relative鈥檚 death, mourning applies for seven- and thirty-day periods. In the case of distant tidings, it applies only for one day. What are considered recent tidings and what are considered distant tidings? Recent tidings are news that arrives within thirty days of the person鈥檚 death. Distant tidings are news that arrives after thirty days; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: Both in the case of recent tidings and in the case of distant tidings, mourning applies for seven- and thirty-day periods.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讬讞讬讚 诪拽讬诇 讜专讘讬诐 诪讞诪讬专讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讝讜 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪拽讬诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讞诪讬专讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪拽讬诇 讘讗讘诇

Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Wherever you find an individual being lenient and the majority being stringent, the halakha is in accordance with the majority, except for this case, for even though Rabbi Akiva is lenient and the Rabbis are stringent, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. This is in keeping with the principle stated by Shmuel: The halakha follows the statement of the more lenient authority in matters relating to mourning.

专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讗转讬讗 诇讬讛 砖诪讜注讛 讚讗讘讜讛 诪讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜注讛 专讞讜拽讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讗转讗 诇讬讛 砖诪讜注讛 讚讗讬诪讬讛 诪讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 砖诪讜注讛 专讞讜拽讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘诇讘讚

It was related that Rav 岣nina received distant tidings of his father鈥檚 death from Bei 岣zai. He came before Rav 岣sda to ask what he should do. Rav 岣sda said to him: In the case of distant tidings, mourning applies for only one day. It was similarly related that Rav Natan bar Ami received a report about his mother鈥檚 death from Bei 岣zai. He came before Rava, and Rava said to him: They said that in the case of distant tidings, mourning applies for only one day.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讞诪砖讛 诪转讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讘诇 注诇 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讗诪讜 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐

Rav Natan raised an objection to Rava鈥檚 opinion based on what was taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement that mourning applies for only one day said? In the case of the other five close relatives, over whose death it is a mitzva to mourn, i.e., son, daughter, brother, sister, and spouse. But for one鈥檚 father or mother, one is required to mourn for seven and thirty days, even when the report of the parent鈥檚 death is received some time after the event.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讞讬讚讗讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讜诪转 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讘讙讬谞讝拽 讜讛讜讚讬注讜讛讜 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讘讗 讜砖讗诇 讗转 讗诇讬砖注 讘谉 讗讘讜讬讛 讜讝拽谞讬诐 砖注诪讜 讜讗诪专讜 谞讛讜讙 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐 讜讻砖诪转 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗讞讬讬讛 讘讙讜诇讛 讬砖讘 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐

Rava said to him: This is an individual opinion, and we do not hold in accordance with his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident and the father of Rabbi Tzadok died in the city of Ginzak, and they informed him of his father鈥檚 passing only after three years. He came and asked Elisha ben Avuya and the Elders with him what he should do. And Elisha ben Avuya said to him: Observe the rites of mourning for seven and thirty days. And when the son of Rabbi A岣yya died in the Diaspora, and Rabbi A岣yya was informed about his passing a long time afterward, he sat in mourning for seven and thirty days. Therefore, it is clear that this opinion was held only by a few individual Sages, but it was not generally accepted.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讘专 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讛讜讗 讘专 讗讞转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讬 住诇讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讗 拽讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that this is Rabbi A岣yya鈥檚 opinion? But Rav was the son of Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 brother and also the son of Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 sister, for Rav鈥檚 father, Aivu, was Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 paternal half brother, and Rav鈥檚 mother was Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 maternal half sister. When Rav went there, Eretz Yisrael, his uncle Rabbi 岣yya said to him: Is your father, Aivu, still alive?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 拽讬讬诪转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 拽讬讬诪转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讗 拽讬讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讞诇讜抓 诇讬 诪谞注诇讬 讜讛讜诇讱 讗讞专讬 讻诇讬 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓

Not wishing to deliver unfortunate news, Rav said to him: Is my mother still alive? In other words, why do you not ask me about my mother, who is your sister, whether she is still among the living? Rabbi 岣yya said to him: Is your mother still alive? Rav said to him: Is my father still alive? Rabbi 岣yya understood from Rav鈥檚 failure to provide him with straight answers that both his brother and his sister had passed away. Rabbi 岣yya immediately said to his servant: Remove my shoes as a sign of mourning, and afterward carry my clothes behind me, as I am going to the bathhouse.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘谞注讬诇转 讛住谞讚诇 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖诪讜注讛 专讞讜拽讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜

The Gemara comments: Learn three halakhot from this incident with Rabbi 岣yya. Learn from this that a mourner is prohibited from wearing shoes, and therefore Rabbi 岣yya removed his shoes upon hearing of the deaths of his brother and sister. And learn from this that in the case of distant tidings of a relative鈥檚 death, the mourning rites apply for only one day and no more. And learn from this that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, as immediately following the removal of his shoes, Rabbi 岣yya went to the bathhouse.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讞讜讚 专讘讬 讗讞讬讬讛 诇讞讜讚

In any case, Rabbi 岣yya observed only one day of mourning after receiving a belated report of his siblings鈥 passing, in contrast to Rabbi A岣yya, who observed seven and thirty days. The Gemara鈥檚 question assumes that Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi A岣yya are the same person. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, for Rabbi 岣yya is a discrete person and Rabbi A岣yya is a discrete person; despite the similarity between their names, these are two different people.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 砖诪注 砖诪讜注讛 拽专讜讘讛 讘专讙诇 讜诇诪讜爪讗讬 讛专讙诇 谞注砖讬转 专讞讜拽讛 注讜诇讛 诇讜 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讚讗 讚诪谉 拽住专讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诪注 砖诪讜注讛 拽专讜讘讛 讘砖讘转 讜诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 谞注砖讬转 专讞讜拽讛 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: If one received recent tidings of a relative鈥檚 death during a Festival, when it is prohibited to mourn, and after the Festival they became distant tidings, as after the Festival thirty days had already elapsed since the relative鈥檚 passing, the Festival counts for him toward the number of days that make it a belated report.And, consequently, after the Festival he observes only one day of mourning. Similarly, Rabbi Adda of Caesarea taught a baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: If one received recent tidings of a relative鈥檚 passing on Shabbat, and at the conclusion of Shabbat it became distant tidings, he observes only one day of mourning.

拽讜专注 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 拽讜专注 专讘讬 诪谞讬 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 拽讜专注 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽讜专注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诪谞讬 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬谞讜 拽讜专注 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讘讬诇讜转 砖讘注讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 拽讜专注 拽专讬注讛 讘诇讗 砖讘注讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗

搂 The Gemara asks: Upon receiving a belated report of a close relative鈥檚 passing, does one rend his garment or does he not rend it? Rabbi Mani said: He does not rend it, whereas Rabbi 岣nina said: He does rend it. Rabbi Mani said to Rabbi 岣nina: Granted, it makes sense that according to my position this is consistent, as I say that he does not rend his garment, and this is because there is no seven-day period of mourning. But according to you, who says that he does rend his garment, is there rending without a seven-day period of mourning afterward?

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬住讬 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇讜拽 诇拽专讜注 讜谞讝讚诪谉 诇讜 讘转讜讱 砖讘注讛 拽讜专注 诇讗讞专 砖讘注讛 讗讬谞讜 拽讜专注

The Gemara asks: Is there not? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita reported by Isi, father of Rabbi Zeira, and some say it was taught by the brother of Rabbi Zeira before Rabbi Zeira: If at first one did not have his own garment to rend, and he acquired one during the seven-day period of mourning, he should rend it then. But if he acquired it only after the seven-day period of mourning, he does not rend it.

注谞讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘转专讬讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讞诪砖讛 诪转讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讘诇 注诇 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讗诪讜 拽讜专注 讜讛讜诇讱

Rabbi Zeira explained the baraita after him, filling in a missing element: In what case is this statement that one does not rend his garment after the seven-day period of mourning said? In the case of the other five close relatives over whose death it is a mitzva to mourn, i.e., son, daughter, brother, sister, and spouse. But for one鈥檚 father or mother, one continues to be obligated to rend his garment if he receives the garment after the seven-day mourning period as well. This apparently contradicts Rabbi Mani鈥檚 statement that there is no rending without seven days of mourning.

讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜

The Gemara answers: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to a symbolic act meant to honor his father or mother. It is for one鈥檚 father or mother that he must rend his garment, even if it becomes available only after the seven-day period of mourning. Essentially, however, the obligation to rend one鈥檚 garments applies only when it is followed by a seven-day period of mourning.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻专砖转 讻讛谞讬诐 砖讻讛谉 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讛谉 讗讘诇 诪转讗讘诇 注诇讬讛谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讗砖转讜 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讗讞讬讜 讜讗讞讜转讜 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 讗讞讬讜 讜讗讞讜转讜 讛讘转讜诇讛 诪讗诪讜 讜讗讞讜转讜 谞砖讜讗讛 讘讬谉 诪讗讘讬讜 讘讬谉 诪讗诪讜

The Sages taught: With regard to all of the relatives mentioned in the Torah in the passage referring to priests, for which a priest becomes impure, a mourner must mourn for them. And they are: His wife, his father, and his mother, his brother and his unmarried sister from the same father, his son, and his daughter. The Sages added other relatives to this list: His maternal brother and his unmarried sister from the same mother, and his married sister, whether from the same father or from the same mother. One mourns for these relatives, although a priest would not become impure for them.

讜讻砖诐 砖诪转讗讘诇 注诇讬讛诐 讻讱 诪转讗讘诇 注诇 砖谞讬讬诐 砖诇讛诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪转讗讘诇 讗诇讗 注诇 讘谉 讘谞讜 讜注诇 讗讘讬 讗讘讬讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 砖诪转讗讘诇 注诇讬讜 诪转讗讘诇 注诪讜

Just as one mourns for them, so too he mourns for their relatives鈥 relatives, who are his second-degree relatives. That is to say, just as one is required to mourn over his close relatives, so too he is required to mourn over his relatives鈥 close relatives, which are known as second-degree relatives. For example, if his father鈥檚 father, his son鈥檚 son, his brother鈥檚 son, or the like passed away, he must join his relatives in their mourning; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: He mourns only over his son鈥檚 son and his father鈥檚 father, but not over the other relatives of his relatives. And the Rabbis say: Any relative over whom one would mourn if that person died, one mourns with him when he is in mourning.

讞讻诪讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 注诪讜 讘讘讬转 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讘讗驻讛 谞讛讜讙 讗讘讬诇讜转讗 讘诇讗 讗驻讛 诇讗 转讬谞讛讜讙 讗讘讬诇讜转讗

The Gemara asks: The statement of the Rabbis is identical to the statement of the first tanna, Rabbi Akiva. What does their statement add? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to whether one mourn with him only in the same house. According to the Rabbis, one is required to mourn with his relative only while he is with him in the same house, whereas according to Rabbi Akiva, he is required to observe mourning even when he is not with him. This is like what Rav said to his son, 岣yya, and it is similarly like what Rav Huna said to his son Rabba, when the latter鈥檚 wife was in mourning: In her presence practice mourning, but out of her presence do not practice mourning.

诪专 注讜拽讘讗 砖讻讬讘 诇讬讛 讘专 讞诪讜讛 住讘专 诇诪讬转讘 注诇讬讛 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐 注诇 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪讜讚谞讬讬转讗 讘注讬转 诇诪讬讻诇 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讻讘讜讚 讗砖转讜 讗诇讗 讞诪讬讜 讜讞诪讜转讜

It is related that the son of Mar Ukva鈥檚 father-in-law, i.e., Mar Ukva鈥檚 brother-in-law, died, and Mar Ukva thought to sit in mourning over him for the seven- and thirty-day periods of mourning. Rav Huna went into his house, found him observing the rites of mourning, and said to him: Do you desire to eat mourners鈥 food [tzudaniyyata]? The Sages said that one should observe mourning in honor of his wife only when she is in mourning over the death of his father-in-law or his mother-in-law.

讚转谞讬讗 诪讬 砖诪转 讞诪讬讜 讗讜 讞诪讜转讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇讻讜祝 讗转 讗砖转讜 诇讛讬讜转 讻讜讞诇转 讜诇讛讬讜转 驻讜拽住转 讗诇讗 讻讜驻讛 诪讟转讜 讜谞讜讛讙 注诪讛 讗讘讬诇讜转 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 砖诪转 讞诪讬讛 讗讜 讞诪讜转讛 讗讬谞讛 专砖讗讛 诇讛讬讜转 讻讜讞诇转 讜诇讛讬讜转 驻讜拽住转 讗诇讗 讻讜驻讛 诪讟转讛 讜谞讜讛讙转 注诪讜 讗讘讬诇讜转

As it is taught in a baraita: One whose father-in-law or mother-in-law died may not force his wife to paint [ko岣let] her eyelids or put rouge [pokeset] on her face while she is in mourning. Rather, he should overturn his bed, and observe the rites of mourning with her. And similarly, when her father-in-law or mother-in-law dies, she may not paint her eyelids or put rouge on her face. Rather, she should overturn her bed and practice the rites of mourning with him.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇讻讜祝 讗转 讗砖转讜 诇讛讬讜转 讻讜讞诇转 讜诇讛讬讜转 驻讜拽住转 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 诪讜讝讙转 诇讜 讗转 讛讻讜住 讜诪爪注转 诇讜 诪讟讛 讜诪专讞爪转 诇讜 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬

And it was taught in another baraita: Even though the Sages said that a husband may not force his wife to paint her eyelids or put rouge on her face when she is in mourning, i.e., that she may not treat her mourning lightly, actually, they said that she may pour his cup of wine, make his bed, and wash his face, hands, and feet, as these activities are expressions of affection between husband and wife rather than unnecessary adornment or a belittlement of the mourning. These two baraitot contradict each other: The first baraita indicates that the husband must practice the rites of mourning together with his wife, whereas the second one bars him only from forcing her to treat her own mourning lightly.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 讘讞诪讬讜 讜讞诪讜转讜 讻讗谉 讘砖讗专 拽专讜讘讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讻讘讜讚 讗砖转讜 讗诇讗 讞诪讬讜 讜讞诪讜转讜 讘诇讘讚

Rather, must one not conclude from this as follows: Here, where one is required to observe the halakhot of mourning together with his wife, the baraita is referring to the death of his father-in-law or mother-in-law. There, where one is not required to mourn, the baraita is referring to the death of his wife鈥檚 other relatives for whom she is required to mourn. The Gemara summarizes: Conclude from this that this is the case. This is also taught in a baraita: The Sages said that one is required to observe the rites of mourning in honor of his wife only when she is in mourning over his father-in-law or his mother-in-law.

讗诪讬诪专 砖讻讬讘 诇讬讛 讘专 讘专讬讛 拽专注 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗转讗 讘专讬讛 拽专注 讘讗驻讬讛 讗讬讚讻专 讚诪讬讜砖讘 拽专注 拽诐 拽专注 诪注讜诪讚

It was further related that the son of Ameimar鈥檚 son died, and Ameimar rent his garment over him. His son came before him, and he rent his garments again in the presence of his son, as an expression of empathy with the his son鈥檚 pain and grief. Later, he remembered that when he rent his garments in his son鈥檚 presence he rent them while sitting, and therefore he stood up and rent his garment again while standing.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 拽专讬注讛 讚诪注讜诪讚 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬拽诐 讗讬讜讘 讜讬拽专注 讗转 诪注讬诇讜

With regard to this issue, the Gemara reports that Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: From where do we derive that rending must be done while standing? He responded: As it is written about the deaths of Job鈥檚 sons: 鈥淭hen Job arose, and rent his coat鈥 (Job 1:20).

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Moed Katan 20: When Bad News Makes Its Way Home

How does the mitzvah of rejoicing on the holidays align with the sorrow during a period of mourning? And how...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Can You Pay a Shiva Call on a Holiday? Gefet 24

https://youtu.be/R29hF6J-NKE Last week, we addressed the encounter between mourning and rejoicing. We saw that the festival cancels mourning. Of course,...

Moed Katan 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Moed Katan 20

砖讻讘专 谞转注住拽讜 讘讜 讘专讙诇 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘诇 专讙诇 诪驻住讬拽讜 讜讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 注住拽讬 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 专讙诇 诪驻住讬拽讜

for they already occupied themselves with him when they came to console him during the Festival. The general principle with regard to the matter is as follows: Any activity that is prohibited to the mourner because it is an expression of mourning is interrupted by the Festival and remains prohibited afterward. And anything that involves the public鈥檚 occupation with the mourner, e.g., coming to the mourner to offer him comfort and condolence, is not interrupted by the Festival, for people console the mourner during the Festival as well.

拽讘专讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讘住讜祝 讛专讙诇 诪讜谞讛 砖讘注讛 讗讞专 讛专讙诇 讗专讘注讛 讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 专讘讬诐 诪转注住拽讬谉 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讗讬谉 专讘讬诐 诪转注住拽讬谉 讘讜 砖讻讘专 谞转注住拽讜 讘专讙诇 讜专讙诇 注讜诇讛 诇讜

If he buries his relative three days before the end of the Festival, the mourner must count seven days of mourning after the Festival because his mourning never began. On the first four days of his mourning, the public must occupy themselves with him and come to console him. On the three last days, however, the public need not occupy themselves with him, as they already occupied themselves with him during the Festival. That is to say, they certainly came to console him during the Festival, although the period of mourning did not actually begin until afterward. And the Festival counts for him toward the thirty-day mourning period.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗住讬驻讗 诇讗 讗专讬砖讗

With regard to the statement of the baraita that the Festival counts toward the thirty-day period of mourning: What, is it not referring to the latter clause of that baraita, which speaks about a case where the burial was performed during the Festival itself? If this is the case, then a refutation of Rava鈥檚 opinion is stated explicitly, that the Festival counts toward the thirty-day mourning period, even if the deceased was buried on the Festival itself. Rava rejects this argument: No, it is referring to the first clause, which discusses a case where the burial was performed before the Festival, and since rites of mourning were observed already before the Festival, the Festival is counted toward the thirty-day period of mourning. Therefore, it is not a refutation of Rava鈥檚 halakha.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讙诇 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诇诪谞讬谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讻讬爪讚 拽讘专讜 讘转讞讬诇转 讛专讙诇 诪讜谞讛 砖讘注讛 讗讞专 讛专讙诇 讜诪诇讗讻转讜 谞注砖讬转 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 讜注讘讚讬讜 讜砖驻讞讜转讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讘爪谞注讗 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讗讬谉 专讘讬诐 诪转注住拽讬谉 讘讜 砖讻讘专 谞转注住拽讜 讘讜 讘专讙诇 讜专讙诇 注讜诇讛 诇讜 转讬讜讘转讗

Abaye raised an objection to Rava鈥檚 opinion from another baraita, in which it was taught: A pilgrimage Festival counts toward the thirty-day period of mourning. How so? If one buried his dead relative at the beginning of a pilgrimage Festival, he must count seven days of mourning after the Festival, and during this period his work is performed by others. And his menservants and maidservants perform this work in private inside his house, and the public need not occupy themselves with him and come to console him, for they already occupied themselves with him during the Festival. And the Festival counts for him. Here it is explicitly stated that the Festival counts toward the thirty-day period of mourning, even when the deceased was buried during the Festival itself. The Gemara concludes: This is indeed a conclusive refutation of Rava鈥檚 opinion.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讘专讜 讘专讙诇 讜讻谉 讗讜专讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇专讘讬 驻讚转 讘专讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讘专讜 讘专讙诇

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even if one buried his dead relative during the Festival, the Festival counts toward his thirty-day period of mourning. And, similarly, Rabbi Elazar ruled for Rabbi Pedat, his son: Even if one buried his dead relative during the Festival it counts towards his thirty days.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讬讬诐 讻驻讬讬转 讛诪讟讛 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 讛专讙诇 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讻驻讜转讛 讗讞专 讛专讙诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转

The Sages taught the following baraita: If one fulfilled the obligation of overturning the bed for three days before the pilgrimage Festival, he is no longer required to overturn it after the Festival; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Rabbis say: Even if one overturned his bed for only one day, or even for only one hour, he is not required to overturn it after the Festival.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: This is the statement of Beit Shammai, and that is the statement of Beit Hillel. In other words, Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagreed about a matter that was the subject of an earlier dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, for Beit Shammai say: Three days, and Beit Hillel say: Even one day.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇砖讛

Rav Huna said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said, and some say a different version of this line of transmission: Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba and to Rav Huna: Even one day, even one hour. The Gemara cites Rava, who said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of our mishna, who said three days. Based on this, we rule that the mourning rites are not canceled after the Festival unless they were observed for at least three days before the Festival.

专讘讬谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇住讜专讗 讚驻专转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛诇讻转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转

Ravina happened to come to the city of Sura on the banks of the Euphrates River. Rav 岣viva said to Ravina: What is the halakha with regard to this issue? He said to him: Even one day, and even one hour.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗拽讬诇注讗 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 谞驻拽 诪讬诇转讗 诪讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讘讬诇讜转 砖讘注讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛驻讻转讬 讞讙讬讻诐 诇讗讘诇 诪讛 讞讙 砖讘注讛 讗祝 讗讘讬诇讜转 砖讘注讛

搂 It was related that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 were once sitting in the pavilion of Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Elazar and were conversing. A matter emerged from among them: From where is it derived that the rites of mourning are observed for seven days? As it is written: 鈥淎nd I will turn your Festivals into mourning鈥 (Amos 8:10). Just as a Festival lasts for seven days, so too mourning lasts for seven days.

讜讗讬诪讗 注爪专转 讚讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 诪谞讬谉 诇砖诪讜注讛 专讞讜拽讛 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛驻讻转讬 讞讙讬讻诐 诇讗讘诇 讜讗砖讻讞谉 注爪专转 讚讗讬拽专讬 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讞讙

The Gemara asks: And say that perhaps mourning is like Shavuot, which is only one day. The Gemara rejects this argument: That derivation, from the one day of Shavuot, is required for what was stated by Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: From where is it derived that mourning in the case of distant tidings, i.e., when one hears that one of his relatives died a long time ago, applies for only one day? As it is written: 鈥淎nd I will turn your Festivals into mourning,鈥 and we find with regard to Shavuot that one day is also called a Festival.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诪讜注讛 拽专讜讘讛 谞讜讛讙转 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐 砖诪讜注讛 专讞讜拽讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 拽专讜讘讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 专讞讜拽讛 拽专讜讘讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 专讞讜拽讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 砖诪讜注讛 拽专讜讘讛 讜讗讞转 砖诪讜注讛 专讞讜拽讛 谞讜讛讙转 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐

The Sages taught the following baraita: In the case of recent tidings of a relative鈥檚 death, mourning applies for seven- and thirty-day periods. In the case of distant tidings, it applies only for one day. What are considered recent tidings and what are considered distant tidings? Recent tidings are news that arrives within thirty days of the person鈥檚 death. Distant tidings are news that arrives after thirty days; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: Both in the case of recent tidings and in the case of distant tidings, mourning applies for seven- and thirty-day periods.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讬讞讬讚 诪拽讬诇 讜专讘讬诐 诪讞诪讬专讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讝讜 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪拽讬诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讞诪讬专讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪拽讬诇 讘讗讘诇

Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Wherever you find an individual being lenient and the majority being stringent, the halakha is in accordance with the majority, except for this case, for even though Rabbi Akiva is lenient and the Rabbis are stringent, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. This is in keeping with the principle stated by Shmuel: The halakha follows the statement of the more lenient authority in matters relating to mourning.

专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讗转讬讗 诇讬讛 砖诪讜注讛 讚讗讘讜讛 诪讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜注讛 专讞讜拽讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讗转讗 诇讬讛 砖诪讜注讛 讚讗讬诪讬讛 诪讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 砖诪讜注讛 专讞讜拽讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘诇讘讚

It was related that Rav 岣nina received distant tidings of his father鈥檚 death from Bei 岣zai. He came before Rav 岣sda to ask what he should do. Rav 岣sda said to him: In the case of distant tidings, mourning applies for only one day. It was similarly related that Rav Natan bar Ami received a report about his mother鈥檚 death from Bei 岣zai. He came before Rava, and Rava said to him: They said that in the case of distant tidings, mourning applies for only one day.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讞诪砖讛 诪转讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讘诇 注诇 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讗诪讜 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐

Rav Natan raised an objection to Rava鈥檚 opinion based on what was taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement that mourning applies for only one day said? In the case of the other five close relatives, over whose death it is a mitzva to mourn, i.e., son, daughter, brother, sister, and spouse. But for one鈥檚 father or mother, one is required to mourn for seven and thirty days, even when the report of the parent鈥檚 death is received some time after the event.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讞讬讚讗讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讜诪转 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讘讙讬谞讝拽 讜讛讜讚讬注讜讛讜 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讘讗 讜砖讗诇 讗转 讗诇讬砖注 讘谉 讗讘讜讬讛 讜讝拽谞讬诐 砖注诪讜 讜讗诪专讜 谞讛讜讙 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐 讜讻砖诪转 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗讞讬讬讛 讘讙讜诇讛 讬砖讘 注诇讬讜 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐

Rava said to him: This is an individual opinion, and we do not hold in accordance with his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident and the father of Rabbi Tzadok died in the city of Ginzak, and they informed him of his father鈥檚 passing only after three years. He came and asked Elisha ben Avuya and the Elders with him what he should do. And Elisha ben Avuya said to him: Observe the rites of mourning for seven and thirty days. And when the son of Rabbi A岣yya died in the Diaspora, and Rabbi A岣yya was informed about his passing a long time afterward, he sat in mourning for seven and thirty days. Therefore, it is clear that this opinion was held only by a few individual Sages, but it was not generally accepted.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讘专 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讛讜讗 讘专 讗讞转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讬 住诇讬拽 诇讛转诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讗 拽讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that this is Rabbi A岣yya鈥檚 opinion? But Rav was the son of Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 brother and also the son of Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 sister, for Rav鈥檚 father, Aivu, was Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 paternal half brother, and Rav鈥檚 mother was Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 maternal half sister. When Rav went there, Eretz Yisrael, his uncle Rabbi 岣yya said to him: Is your father, Aivu, still alive?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 拽讬讬诪转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 拽讬讬诪转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讗 拽讬讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讞诇讜抓 诇讬 诪谞注诇讬 讜讛讜诇讱 讗讞专讬 讻诇讬 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓

Not wishing to deliver unfortunate news, Rav said to him: Is my mother still alive? In other words, why do you not ask me about my mother, who is your sister, whether she is still among the living? Rabbi 岣yya said to him: Is your mother still alive? Rav said to him: Is my father still alive? Rabbi 岣yya understood from Rav鈥檚 failure to provide him with straight answers that both his brother and his sister had passed away. Rabbi 岣yya immediately said to his servant: Remove my shoes as a sign of mourning, and afterward carry my clothes behind me, as I am going to the bathhouse.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讘谞注讬诇转 讛住谞讚诇 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖诪讜注讛 专讞讜拽讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 讻讻讜诇讜

The Gemara comments: Learn three halakhot from this incident with Rabbi 岣yya. Learn from this that a mourner is prohibited from wearing shoes, and therefore Rabbi 岣yya removed his shoes upon hearing of the deaths of his brother and sister. And learn from this that in the case of distant tidings of a relative鈥檚 death, the mourning rites apply for only one day and no more. And learn from this that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, as immediately following the removal of his shoes, Rabbi 岣yya went to the bathhouse.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讞讜讚 专讘讬 讗讞讬讬讛 诇讞讜讚

In any case, Rabbi 岣yya observed only one day of mourning after receiving a belated report of his siblings鈥 passing, in contrast to Rabbi A岣yya, who observed seven and thirty days. The Gemara鈥檚 question assumes that Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi A岣yya are the same person. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, for Rabbi 岣yya is a discrete person and Rabbi A岣yya is a discrete person; despite the similarity between their names, these are two different people.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 砖诪注 砖诪讜注讛 拽专讜讘讛 讘专讙诇 讜诇诪讜爪讗讬 讛专讙诇 谞注砖讬转 专讞讜拽讛 注讜诇讛 诇讜 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讚讗 讚诪谉 拽住专讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诪注 砖诪讜注讛 拽专讜讘讛 讘砖讘转 讜诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 谞注砖讬转 专讞讜拽讛 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: If one received recent tidings of a relative鈥檚 death during a Festival, when it is prohibited to mourn, and after the Festival they became distant tidings, as after the Festival thirty days had already elapsed since the relative鈥檚 passing, the Festival counts for him toward the number of days that make it a belated report.And, consequently, after the Festival he observes only one day of mourning. Similarly, Rabbi Adda of Caesarea taught a baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: If one received recent tidings of a relative鈥檚 passing on Shabbat, and at the conclusion of Shabbat it became distant tidings, he observes only one day of mourning.

拽讜专注 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 拽讜专注 专讘讬 诪谞讬 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 拽讜专注 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽讜专注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诪谞讬 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬谞讜 拽讜专注 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讘讬诇讜转 砖讘注讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 拽讜专注 拽专讬注讛 讘诇讗 砖讘注讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗

搂 The Gemara asks: Upon receiving a belated report of a close relative鈥檚 passing, does one rend his garment or does he not rend it? Rabbi Mani said: He does not rend it, whereas Rabbi 岣nina said: He does rend it. Rabbi Mani said to Rabbi 岣nina: Granted, it makes sense that according to my position this is consistent, as I say that he does not rend his garment, and this is because there is no seven-day period of mourning. But according to you, who says that he does rend his garment, is there rending without a seven-day period of mourning afterward?

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬住讬 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇讜拽 诇拽专讜注 讜谞讝讚诪谉 诇讜 讘转讜讱 砖讘注讛 拽讜专注 诇讗讞专 砖讘注讛 讗讬谞讜 拽讜专注

The Gemara asks: Is there not? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita reported by Isi, father of Rabbi Zeira, and some say it was taught by the brother of Rabbi Zeira before Rabbi Zeira: If at first one did not have his own garment to rend, and he acquired one during the seven-day period of mourning, he should rend it then. But if he acquired it only after the seven-day period of mourning, he does not rend it.

注谞讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘转专讬讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讞诪砖讛 诪转讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讘诇 注诇 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讗诪讜 拽讜专注 讜讛讜诇讱

Rabbi Zeira explained the baraita after him, filling in a missing element: In what case is this statement that one does not rend his garment after the seven-day period of mourning said? In the case of the other five close relatives over whose death it is a mitzva to mourn, i.e., son, daughter, brother, sister, and spouse. But for one鈥檚 father or mother, one continues to be obligated to rend his garment if he receives the garment after the seven-day mourning period as well. This apparently contradicts Rabbi Mani鈥檚 statement that there is no rending without seven days of mourning.

讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜

The Gemara answers: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to a symbolic act meant to honor his father or mother. It is for one鈥檚 father or mother that he must rend his garment, even if it becomes available only after the seven-day period of mourning. Essentially, however, the obligation to rend one鈥檚 garments applies only when it is followed by a seven-day period of mourning.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻专砖转 讻讛谞讬诐 砖讻讛谉 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讛谉 讗讘诇 诪转讗讘诇 注诇讬讛谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讗砖转讜 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讗讞讬讜 讜讗讞讜转讜 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 讗讞讬讜 讜讗讞讜转讜 讛讘转讜诇讛 诪讗诪讜 讜讗讞讜转讜 谞砖讜讗讛 讘讬谉 诪讗讘讬讜 讘讬谉 诪讗诪讜

The Sages taught: With regard to all of the relatives mentioned in the Torah in the passage referring to priests, for which a priest becomes impure, a mourner must mourn for them. And they are: His wife, his father, and his mother, his brother and his unmarried sister from the same father, his son, and his daughter. The Sages added other relatives to this list: His maternal brother and his unmarried sister from the same mother, and his married sister, whether from the same father or from the same mother. One mourns for these relatives, although a priest would not become impure for them.

讜讻砖诐 砖诪转讗讘诇 注诇讬讛诐 讻讱 诪转讗讘诇 注诇 砖谞讬讬诐 砖诇讛诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪转讗讘诇 讗诇讗 注诇 讘谉 讘谞讜 讜注诇 讗讘讬 讗讘讬讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 砖诪转讗讘诇 注诇讬讜 诪转讗讘诇 注诪讜

Just as one mourns for them, so too he mourns for their relatives鈥 relatives, who are his second-degree relatives. That is to say, just as one is required to mourn over his close relatives, so too he is required to mourn over his relatives鈥 close relatives, which are known as second-degree relatives. For example, if his father鈥檚 father, his son鈥檚 son, his brother鈥檚 son, or the like passed away, he must join his relatives in their mourning; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: He mourns only over his son鈥檚 son and his father鈥檚 father, but not over the other relatives of his relatives. And the Rabbis say: Any relative over whom one would mourn if that person died, one mourns with him when he is in mourning.

讞讻诪讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 注诪讜 讘讘讬转 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讘讗驻讛 谞讛讜讙 讗讘讬诇讜转讗 讘诇讗 讗驻讛 诇讗 转讬谞讛讜讙 讗讘讬诇讜转讗

The Gemara asks: The statement of the Rabbis is identical to the statement of the first tanna, Rabbi Akiva. What does their statement add? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to whether one mourn with him only in the same house. According to the Rabbis, one is required to mourn with his relative only while he is with him in the same house, whereas according to Rabbi Akiva, he is required to observe mourning even when he is not with him. This is like what Rav said to his son, 岣yya, and it is similarly like what Rav Huna said to his son Rabba, when the latter鈥檚 wife was in mourning: In her presence practice mourning, but out of her presence do not practice mourning.

诪专 注讜拽讘讗 砖讻讬讘 诇讬讛 讘专 讞诪讜讛 住讘专 诇诪讬转讘 注诇讬讛 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐 注诇 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪讜讚谞讬讬转讗 讘注讬转 诇诪讬讻诇 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讻讘讜讚 讗砖转讜 讗诇讗 讞诪讬讜 讜讞诪讜转讜

It is related that the son of Mar Ukva鈥檚 father-in-law, i.e., Mar Ukva鈥檚 brother-in-law, died, and Mar Ukva thought to sit in mourning over him for the seven- and thirty-day periods of mourning. Rav Huna went into his house, found him observing the rites of mourning, and said to him: Do you desire to eat mourners鈥 food [tzudaniyyata]? The Sages said that one should observe mourning in honor of his wife only when she is in mourning over the death of his father-in-law or his mother-in-law.

讚转谞讬讗 诪讬 砖诪转 讞诪讬讜 讗讜 讞诪讜转讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇讻讜祝 讗转 讗砖转讜 诇讛讬讜转 讻讜讞诇转 讜诇讛讬讜转 驻讜拽住转 讗诇讗 讻讜驻讛 诪讟转讜 讜谞讜讛讙 注诪讛 讗讘讬诇讜转 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 砖诪转 讞诪讬讛 讗讜 讞诪讜转讛 讗讬谞讛 专砖讗讛 诇讛讬讜转 讻讜讞诇转 讜诇讛讬讜转 驻讜拽住转 讗诇讗 讻讜驻讛 诪讟转讛 讜谞讜讛讙转 注诪讜 讗讘讬诇讜转

As it is taught in a baraita: One whose father-in-law or mother-in-law died may not force his wife to paint [ko岣let] her eyelids or put rouge [pokeset] on her face while she is in mourning. Rather, he should overturn his bed, and observe the rites of mourning with her. And similarly, when her father-in-law or mother-in-law dies, she may not paint her eyelids or put rouge on her face. Rather, she should overturn her bed and practice the rites of mourning with him.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇讻讜祝 讗转 讗砖转讜 诇讛讬讜转 讻讜讞诇转 讜诇讛讬讜转 驻讜拽住转 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 诪讜讝讙转 诇讜 讗转 讛讻讜住 讜诪爪注转 诇讜 诪讟讛 讜诪专讞爪转 诇讜 驻谞讬讜 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬

And it was taught in another baraita: Even though the Sages said that a husband may not force his wife to paint her eyelids or put rouge on her face when she is in mourning, i.e., that she may not treat her mourning lightly, actually, they said that she may pour his cup of wine, make his bed, and wash his face, hands, and feet, as these activities are expressions of affection between husband and wife rather than unnecessary adornment or a belittlement of the mourning. These two baraitot contradict each other: The first baraita indicates that the husband must practice the rites of mourning together with his wife, whereas the second one bars him only from forcing her to treat her own mourning lightly.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 讘讞诪讬讜 讜讞诪讜转讜 讻讗谉 讘砖讗专 拽专讜讘讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讻讘讜讚 讗砖转讜 讗诇讗 讞诪讬讜 讜讞诪讜转讜 讘诇讘讚

Rather, must one not conclude from this as follows: Here, where one is required to observe the halakhot of mourning together with his wife, the baraita is referring to the death of his father-in-law or mother-in-law. There, where one is not required to mourn, the baraita is referring to the death of his wife鈥檚 other relatives for whom she is required to mourn. The Gemara summarizes: Conclude from this that this is the case. This is also taught in a baraita: The Sages said that one is required to observe the rites of mourning in honor of his wife only when she is in mourning over his father-in-law or his mother-in-law.

讗诪讬诪专 砖讻讬讘 诇讬讛 讘专 讘专讬讛 拽专注 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗转讗 讘专讬讛 拽专注 讘讗驻讬讛 讗讬讚讻专 讚诪讬讜砖讘 拽专注 拽诐 拽专注 诪注讜诪讚

It was further related that the son of Ameimar鈥檚 son died, and Ameimar rent his garment over him. His son came before him, and he rent his garments again in the presence of his son, as an expression of empathy with the his son鈥檚 pain and grief. Later, he remembered that when he rent his garments in his son鈥檚 presence he rent them while sitting, and therefore he stood up and rent his garment again while standing.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 拽专讬注讛 讚诪注讜诪讚 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬拽诐 讗讬讜讘 讜讬拽专注 讗转 诪注讬诇讜

With regard to this issue, the Gemara reports that Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: From where do we derive that rending must be done while standing? He responded: As it is written about the deaths of Job鈥檚 sons: 鈥淭hen Job arose, and rent his coat鈥 (Job 1:20).

Scroll To Top