Moed Katan 20

שכבר נתעסקו בו ברגל כללו של דבר כל שהוא משום אבל רגל מפסיקו וכל שהוא משום עסקי רבים אין רגל מפסיקו

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’s 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.

קברו שלשה ימים בסוף הרגל מונה שבעה אחר הרגל ארבעה ימים הראשונים רבים מתעסקין בו שלשה ימים האחרונים אין רבים מתעסקין בו שכבר נתעסקו ברגל ורגל עולה לו

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.

מאי לאו אסיפא לא ארישא

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’s 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’s halakha.

איתיביה רגל עולה לו למנין שלשים כיצד קברו בתחילת הרגל מונה שבעה אחר הרגל ומלאכתו נעשית על ידי אחרים ועבדיו ושפחותיו עושין בצנעא בתוך ביתו ואין רבים מתעסקין בו שכבר נתעסקו בו ברגל ורגל עולה לו תיובתא

Abaye raised an objection to Rava’s 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’s opinion.

כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן אפילו קברו ברגל וכן אורי ליה רבי אלעזר לרבי פדת בריה אפילו קברו ברגל

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

תנו רבנן קיים כפיית המטה שלשה ימים קודם הרגל אינו צריך לכפותה אחר הרגל דברי רבי אליעזר וחכמים אומרים אפילו יום אחד אפילו שעה אחת

§ 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.

אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון הן הן דברי בית שמאי הן הן דברי בית הלל שבית שמאי אומרים שלשה ימים ובית הלל אומרים אפילו יום אחד

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.

אמר רב הונא אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן ואמרי לה אמר ליה רבי יוחנן לרבי חייא בר אבא ולרב הונא אפילו יום אחד אפילו שעה אחת רבא אמר הלכה כתנא דידן דאמר שלשה

Rav Huna said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said, and some say a different version of this line of transmission: Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.

רבינא איקלע לסורא דפרת אמר ליה רב חביבא לרבינא הלכתא מאי אמר ליה אפילו יום אחד ואפילו שעה אחת

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

יתיב רבי חייא בר אבא ורבי אמי ורבי יצחק נפחא אקילעא דרבי יצחק בן אלעזר נפק מילתא מבינייהו מנין לאבילות שבעה דכתיב והפכתי חגיכם לאבל מה חג שבעה אף אבילות שבעה

§ It was related that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa were once sitting in the pavilion of Rabbi Yitzḥak 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: “And I will turn your Festivals into mourning” (Amos 8:10). Just as a Festival lasts for seven days, so too mourning lasts for seven days.

ואימא עצרת דחד יומא ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדריש לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש משום רבי יהודה נשיאה מנין לשמועה רחוקה שאינה נוהגת אלא יום אחד דכתיב והפכתי חגיכם לאבל ואשכחן עצרת דאיקרי חד יומא חג

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: “And I will turn your Festivals into mourning,” and we find with regard to Shavuot that one day is also called a Festival.

תנו רבנן שמועה קרובה נוהגת שבעה ושלשים שמועה רחוקה אינה נוהגת אלא יום אחד איזו היא קרובה ואיזו היא רחוקה קרובה בתוך שלשים רחוקה לאחר שלשים דברי רבי עקיבא וחכמים אומרים אחת שמועה קרובה ואחת שמועה רחוקה נוהגת שבעה ושלשים

The Sages taught the following baraita: In the case of recent tidings of a relative’s 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’s 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.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל מקום שאתה מוצא יחיד מקיל ורבים מחמירין הלכה כרבים חוץ מזו שאף על פי שרבי עקיבא מקיל וחכמים מחמירין הלכה כרבי עקיבא דאמר שמואל הלכה כדברי המקיל באבל

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

רב חנינא אתיא ליה שמועה דאבוה מבי חוזאי אתא לקמיה דרב חסדא אמר ליה שמועה רחוקה אינה נוהגת אלא יום אחד רב נתן בר אמי אתא ליה שמועה דאימיה מבי חוזאי אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר ליה הרי אמרו שמועה רחוקה אינה נוהגת אלא יום אחד בלבד

It was related that Rav Ḥanina received distant tidings of his father’s death from Bei Ḥozai. He came before Rav Ḥisda to ask what he should do. Rav Ḥisda 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’s death from Bei Ḥozai. He came before Rava, and Rava said to him: They said that in the case of distant tidings, mourning applies for only one day.

איתיביה במה דברים אמורים בחמשה מתי מצוה אבל על אביו ועל אמו שבעה ושלשים

Rav Natan raised an objection to Rava’s 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’s father or mother, one is required to mourn for seven and thirty days, even when the report of the parent’s death is received some time after the event.

אמר ליה יחידאה היא ולא סבירא לן כוותיה דתניא מעשה ומת אביו של רבי צדוק בגינזק והודיעוהו לאחר שלש שנים ובא ושאל את אלישע בן אבויה וזקנים שעמו ואמרו נהוג שבעה ושלשים וכשמת בנו של רבי אחייה בגולה ישב עליו שבעה ושלשים

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’s 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 Aḥiyya died in the Diaspora, and Rabbi Aḥiyya 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.

איני והא רב בר אחוה דרבי חייא דהוא בר אחתיה דרבי חייא כי סליק להתם אמר ליה אבא קיים

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

אמר ליה אימא קיימת אמר ליה אימא קיימת אמר ליה אבא קיים אמר ליה לשמעיה חלוץ לי מנעלי והולך אחרי כלי לבית המרחץ

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 Ḥiyya said to him: Is your mother still alive? Rav said to him: Is my father still alive? Rabbi Ḥiyya understood from Rav’s failure to provide him with straight answers that both his brother and his sister had passed away. Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.

שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה אבל אסור בנעילת הסנדל ושמע מינה שמועה רחוקה אינה נוהגת אלא יום אחד ושמע מינה מקצת היום ככולו

The Gemara comments: Learn three halakhot from this incident with Rabbi Ḥiyya. Learn from this that a mourner is prohibited from wearing shoes, and therefore Rabbi Ḥiyya 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’s 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 Ḥiyya went to the bathhouse.

רבי חייא לחוד רבי אחייה לחוד

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

אמר רבי יוסי בר אבין שמע שמועה קרובה ברגל ולמוצאי הרגל נעשית רחוקה עולה לו ואינו נוהג אלא יום אחד תני רבי אדא דמן קסרי קמיה דרבי יוחנן שמע שמועה קרובה בשבת ולמוצאי שבת נעשית רחוקה אינו נוהג אלא יום אחד

§ Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: If one received recent tidings of a relative’s 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’s 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 Yoḥanan: If one received recent tidings of a relative’s passing on Shabbat, and at the conclusion of Shabbat it became distant tidings, he observes only one day of mourning.

קורע או אינו קורע רבי מני אמר אינו קורע רבי חנינא אמר קורע אמר ליה רבי מני לרבי חנינא בשלמא לדידי דאמינא אינו קורע היינו דלא איכא אבילות שבעה אלא לדידך דאמרת קורע קריעה בלא שבעה מי איכא

§ The Gemara asks: Upon receiving a belated report of a close relative’s passing, does one rend his garment or does he not rend it? Rabbi Mani said: He does not rend it, whereas Rabbi Ḥanina said: He does rend it. Rabbi Mani said to Rabbi Ḥanina: 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?

ולא והתניא איסי אבוה דרבי זירא ואמרי לה אחוה דרבי זירא קמיה דרבי זירא מי שאין לו חלוק לקרוע ונזדמן לו בתוך שבעה קורע לאחר שבעה אינו קורע

The Gemara asks: Is there not? But isn’t 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.

עני רבי זירא בתריה במה דברים אמורים בחמשה מתי מצוה אבל על אביו ועל אמו קורע והולך

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’s 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’s statement that there is no rending without seven days of mourning.

כי תניא ההיא לכבוד אביו ואמו

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’s 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’s garments applies only when it is followed by a seven-day period of mourning.

תנו רבנן כל האמור בפרשת כהנים שכהן מיטמא להן אבל מתאבל עליהן ואלו הן אשתו אביו ואמו אחיו ואחותו בנו ובתו הוסיפו עליהן אחיו ואחותו הבתולה מאמו ואחותו נשואה בין מאביו בין מאמו

§ 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.

וכשם שמתאבל עליהם כך מתאבל על שניים שלהם דברי רבי עקיבא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אינו מתאבל אלא על בן בנו ועל אבי אביו וחכמים אומרים כל שמתאבל עליו מתאבל עמו

Just as one mourns for them, so too he mourns for their relatives’ 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’ close relatives, which are known as second-degree relatives. For example, if his father’s father, his son’s son, his brother’s 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’s son and his father’s 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.

חכמים היינו תנא קמא איכא בינייהו עמו בבית כי הא דאמר ליה רב לחייא בריה וכן אמר ליה רב הונא לרבה בריה באפה נהוג אבילותא בלא אפה לא תינהוג אבילותא

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, Ḥiyya, and it is similarly like what Rav Huna said to his son Rabba, when the latter’s wife was in mourning: In her presence practice mourning, but out of her presence do not practice mourning.

מר עוקבא שכיב ליה בר חמוה סבר למיתב עליה שבעה ושלשים על רב הונא לגביה אשכחיה אמר ליה צודנייתא בעית למיכל לא אמרו לכבוד אשתו אלא חמיו וחמותו

It is related that the son of Mar Ukva’s father-in-law, i.e., Mar Ukva’s 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’ 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.

דתניא מי שמת חמיו או חמותו אינו רשאי לכוף את אשתו להיות כוחלת ולהיות פוקסת אלא כופה מטתו ונוהג עמה אבילות וכן היא שמת חמיה או חמותה אינה רשאה להיות כוחלת ולהיות פוקסת אלא כופה מטתה ונוהגת עמו אבילות

As it is taught in a baraita: One whose father-in-law or mother-in-law died may not force his wife to paint [koḥelet] 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.

ותניא אידך אף על פי שאמרו אינו רשאי לכוף את אשתו להיות כוחלת ולהיות פוקסת באמת אמרו מוזגת לו את הכוס ומצעת לו מטה ומרחצת לו פניו ידיו ורגליו קשיין אהדדי

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.

אלא לאו שמע מינה כאן בחמיו וחמותו כאן בשאר קרובים שמע מינה תניא נמי הכי לא אמרו לכבוד אשתו אלא חמיו וחמותו בלבד

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’s 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.

אמימר שכיב ליה בר בריה קרע עילויה אתא בריה קרע באפיה אידכר דמיושב קרע קם קרע מעומד

It was further related that the son of Ameimar’s 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 his son’s pain and grief. Later, he remembered that when he rent his garments in his son’s presence he rent them while sitting, and therefore he stood up and rent his garment again while standing.

אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר קריעה דמעומד מנלן דכתיב ויקם איוב ויקרע את מעילו

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’s sons: “Then Job arose, and rent his coat” (Job 1:20).