Moed Katan 26
וְאֵלּוּ קְרָעִין שֶׁאֵין מִתְאַחִין: הַקּוֹרֵעַ עַל אָבִיו וְעַל אִמּוֹ, וְעַל רַבּוֹ שֶׁלִּימְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה, וְעַל נָשִׂיא וְעַל אָב בֵּית דִּין, וְעַל שְׁמוּעוֹת הָרָעוֹת, וְעַל בִּרְכַּת הַשֵּׁם, וְעַל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׂרַף, וְעַל עָרֵי יְהוּדָה וְעַל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְעַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. וְקוֹרֵעַ עַל מִקְדָּשׁ, וּמוֹסִיף עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם.
And these are the rents of mourning that may never be properly mended: One who rends his garments for the death his father, or for his mother, or for his teacher who taught him Torah, or for the Nasi, or for the president of the court; or upon hearing evil tidings; or hearing God’s name being blessed, which is a euphemism for hearing God’s name being cursed; or when a Torah scroll has been burned; or upon seeing the cities of Judea that were destroyed or the destroyed Temple or Jerusalem in ruins. This is the way one conducts himself when approaching Jerusalem when it lies in ruin: He first rends his garments for the Temple and then extends the rent for Jerusalem.
אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְרַבּוֹ שֶׁלִּימְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה מְנָלַן — דִּכְתִיב: ״וֶאֱלִישָׁע רֹאֶה וְהוּא מְצַעֵק אָבִי אָבִי רֶכֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל וּפָרָשָׁיו״. ״אָבִי אָבִי״ — זֶה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, ״רֶכֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל וּפָרָשָׁיו״ — זֶה רַבּוֹ שֶׁלִּימְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה.
The Gemara elaborates upon the halakhot mentioned in this baraita: From where do we derive that one must rend his clothing for his father, his mother, and his teacher who taught him Torah? As it is written with regard to the prophet Elijah, when he ascended to Heaven in a tempest: “And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and their horsemen” (II Kings 2:12). The Gemara interprets this verse as follows: “My father, my father”; this comes to teach that one must rend his garments for the death of his father or mother. “The chariots of Israel and their horsemen”; this comes to include also one’s teacher who taught him Torah.
מַאי מַשְׁמַע? כְּדִמְתַרְגֵּם רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי רַבִּי דְּטָב לְהוֹן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּצְלוֹתֵיהּ מֵרְתִיכִּין וּפָרָשִׁין.
The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this is referring to one’s teacher? The Gemara explains: As the verse was translated by Rav Yosef: My teacher, my teacher, who was better for the protection of the Jewish people with his prayers than an army with chariots and horsemen.
וְלֹא מִתְאַחִין מְנָלַן — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּחֲזֵק בִּבְגָדָיו וַיִּקְרָעֵם לִשְׁנַיִם קְרָעִים״, מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיִּקְרָעֵם״ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁלִּשְׁנַיִם? אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁקְּרוּעִים וְעוֹמְדִים לִשְׁנַיִם לְעוֹלָם.
And from where do we derive that these rents are never to be properly mended? As it is written: “And he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces” (II Kings 2:12). From the fact that it is stated: “And he rent them,” do I not know that he rent them in two pieces? Rather, when the verse adds that they were torn into two pieces, it teaches that they must remain torn in two pieces forever. Accordingly, this rent must never be properly mended.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵלִיָּהוּ חַי הוּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא רָאָהוּ עוֹד״, לְגַבֵּי דִידֵיהּ כְּמֵת דָּמֵי.
Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: But isn’t Elijah still alive? Why, then, did Elisha rend his garments for him? He said to him: Since it is written: “And he saw him no more” (II Kings 2:12), Elijah was considered dead from Elisha’s perspective, and so Elisha rent his clothing for him.
נָשִׂיא וְאַב בֵּית דִּין וּשְׁמוּעוֹת הָרָעוֹת מְנָלַן — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּחֲזֵק דָּוִד בִּבְגָדָיו וַיִּקְרָעֵם וְגַם כׇּל הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ. וַיִּסְפְּדוּ וַיִּבְכּוּ וַיָּצוּמוּ עַד הָעָרֶב עַל שָׁאוּל וְעַל יְהוֹנָתָן בְּנוֹ וְעַל עַם ה׳ וְעַל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי נָפְלוּ בֶּחָרֶב״.
§ From where do we derive that one must rend his clothing for the death of the Nasi or the president of the court and upon hearing evil tidings? As it is written, when David heard about the defeat of Israel and the death of Saul and his sons: “Then David took hold of his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him: And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until evening, for Saul and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword” (II Samuel 1:11–12).
״שָׁאוּל״ — זֶה נָשִׂיא, ״יְהוֹנָתָן״ — זֶה אַב בֵּית דִּין, ״עַל עַם ה׳ וְעַל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל״ — אֵלּוּ שְׁמוּעוֹת הָרָעוֹת.
The Gemara explains how the aforementioned halakhot are derived from the verse: “Saul”; this is a reference to the Nasi, as Saul was king of Israel. “Jonathan”; this is a reference to the president of the court. “For the people of the Lord, and for the house of the Israel”; these are a reference to evil tidings.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב בַּר שַׁבָּא לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: וְאֵימָא עַד דְּהָווּ כּוּלְּהוּ! אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״עַל״ ״עַל״ הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן.
Rav bar Shaba said to Rav Kahana: But perhaps you can say that one need not rend his clothing until all these calamities occur together, and that rending clothing is performed only over a tragedy of this magnitude. He said to him: The repetition of the word “for”: “For Saul,” “for Jonathan,” and “for the people of the Lord” divides the matter and teaches that each individual misfortune is sufficient cause to rend one’s garments.
וּמִי קָרְעִינַן אַשְּׁמוּעוֹת הָרָעוֹת? וְהָא אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל: קְטַל שַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא תְּרֵיסַר אַלְפֵי יְהוּדָאֵי בִּמְזִיגַת קֵסָרִי, וְלָא קְרַע! לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּרוֹב צִבּוּר וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה.
The Gemara asks: But do we actually rend our clothing upon hearing evil tidings? But didn’t they say to Shmuel: King Shapur killed twelve thousand Jews in Mezigat Caesarea, and Shmuel did not rend his clothing?The Gemara answers: They said that one must rend his clothing upon hearing evil tidings only in a case where the calamity involved the majority of the community of Israel and resembles the incident that occurred when Saul was killed and the entire nation of Israel suffered defeat.
וּמִי קְטַל שַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא יְהוּדָאֵי? וְהָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ שַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל: תֵּיתֵי לִי דְּלָא קְטַלִי יְהוּדִי מֵעוֹלָם! הָתָם אִינְהוּ גָּרְמִי לְנַפְשַׁיְיהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: לְקָל יְתֵירֵי דִּמְזִיגַת קֵסָרִי, פְּקַע שׁוּרָא דְלוּדְקִיָּא.
The Gemara tangentially asks: Did King Shapur really kill Jews? But didn’t King Shapur say to Shmuel: I have a blessing coming to me, for I have never killed a Jew? The Gemara answers: King Shapur never instigated the killing of Jews; there, however, they brought it upon themselves, as Rabbi Ami said in an exaggerated manner: Due to the noise of the harp strings of Mezigat Caesarea, the walls of Laodicea were breached, for the residents of the city celebrated when they rebelled against King Shapur. Because they rebelled against him and threatened his rule, he was forced to kill them.
עַל בִּרְכַּת הַשֵּׁם מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּבֹא אֶלְיָקִים בֶּן חִלְקִיָּה אֲשֶׁר עַל הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁבְנָא הַסּוֹפֵר וְיוֹאָח בֶּן אָסָף הַמַּזְכִּיר אֶל חִזְקִיָּהוּ קְרוּעֵי בְגָדִים״.
§ The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita: From where do we derive that one must rend his garments upon hearing God’s name being blessed, i.e., cursed? As it is written with regard to the blasphemous words said by Rab-shakeh: “Then came Eliakim, son of Hilkiya, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, son of Asaph, the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes rent” (II Kings 18:37).
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֶחָד הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ מִפִּי הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ — חַיָּיב לִקְרוֹעַ. וְהָעֵדִים אֵינָן חַיָּיבִין לִקְרוֹעַ, שֶׁכְּבָר קָרְעוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ.
The Sages taught a baraita with regard to this issue: Both one who actually hears the curse and one who hears from the mouth of the one who heard the curse are obligated to rend their garments. But the witnesses who testify against the person who uttered the blasphemy are not obligated to rend their clothing when they testify as to what they heard because they already rent their clothing when they heard the curse the first time.
בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ מַאי הָוֵי? הָא קָא שָׁמְעִי הַשְׁתָּא! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי כִּשְׁמוֹעַ הַמֶּלֶךְ חִזְקִיָּהוּ וַיִּקְרַע אֶת בְּגָדָיו״, הַמֶּלֶךְ קָרַע וְהֵם לֹא קָרְעוּ.
The Gemara asks: What difference does it make that they rent their garments when they heard the curse the first time? Didn’t they hear it again now? The Gemara rejects this argument: This will not enter your mind, as it is written: “And it came to pass, when King Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes” (II Kings 19:1). This indicates that the king rent his garments, but those who reported the blasphemy to him did not rend theirs, as they had already rent their garments the first time.
וְלֹא מִתְאַחִין מְנָלַן — אָתְיָא ״קְרִיעָה״ ״קְרִיעָה״.
And from where do we derive that these rents may not be properly mended? This is derived by way of a verbal analogy between the verb rending used here with regard to Hezekiah and the verb rending used in the case of Elijah and Elisha.
סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׂרַף מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי כִּקְרֹא יְהוּדִי שָׁלֹשׁ דְּלָתוֹת וְאַרְבָּעָה וְיִקְרָעֶהָ בְּתַעַר הַסּוֹפֵר וְהַשְׁלֵךְ אֶל הָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר אֶל הָאָח וְגוֹ׳״. מַאי שָׁלֹשׁ דְּלָתוֹת וְאַרְבָּעָה?
§ From where do we derive that one must rend his garments when a Torah scroll has been burned? As it is written: “And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he would cut it with a penknife, and cast it into the fire that was in the brazier” (Jeremiah 36:23). With regard to the verse itself the Gemara asks: What is meant by “three or four leaves,” and why did he cut the book only at that point?
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לִיהוֹיָקִים: כָּתַב יִרְמְיָה סֵפֶר קִינוֹת. אֲמַר לְהוּ: מָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ? ״אֵיכָה יָשְׁבָה בָּדָד״. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲנָא מַלְכָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״בָּכֹה תִבְכֶּה בַּלַּיְלָה״. אֲנָא מַלְכָּא. ״גָּלְתָה יְהוּדָה מֵעוֹנִי״. אֲנָא מַלְכָּא. ״דַּרְכֵי צִיּוֹן אֲבֵלוֹת״. אֲנָא מַלְכָּא.
The Gemara explains: They said to Jehoiakim: Jeremiah has written a book of Lamentations over the future downfall and destruction of Jerusalem. He said to them: What is written in it? They read him the first verse: “How does the city sit solitary” (Lamentations 1:1). He said to them: I am king, and this does not apply to me. They read him the second verse: “She weeps sore in the night” (Lamentations 1:2). He said to them: I am king, and this does not apply to me. They read him the third verse: “Judah is gone into exile due to affliction” (Lamentations 1:3). He said to them: I am king. They read to him: “The ways of Zion do mourn” (Lamentations 1:4). He said to them: I am king. These are the four leaves, or verses, that he read first.
״הָיוּ צָרֶיהָ לְרֹאשׁ״. אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַאן אַמְרַהּ? ״כִּי ה׳ הוֹגָהּ עַל רוֹב פְּשָׁעֶיהָ״. מִיָּד קָדַר כׇּל אַזְכָּרוֹת שֶׁבָּהּ, וּשְׂרָפָן בָּאֵשׁ. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא פָחֲדוּ וְלֹא קָרְעוּ אֶת בִּגְדֵיהֶם״, מִכְּלַל דִּבְעוֹ לְמִיקְרַע.
They read him an additional verse: “Her adversaries have become the chief” (Lamentations 1:5), i.e., the reigning king will be removed from power. Once he heard this, he said to them: Who said this? They said to him: This is the continuation of the verse: “For the Lord has afflicted her for the multitude of her transgressions” (Lamentations 1:5). Immediately, he cut out all the names of God from the book and burned them in fire. This is as it is written: “Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words” (Jeremiah 36:24). By inference, this shows that they were required to rend their clothing when they saw this.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אֵימַר מִשּׁוּם שְׁמוּעוֹת הָרָעוֹת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁמוּעוֹת רָעוֹת בְּהָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא מִי הֲווֹ?!
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Perhaps you can say that they should have rent their garments due to the evil tidings contained in the scroll and not because of the destruction of the book? Abaye said to him: Were they evil tidings at that time? This was a prophecy and not an account of current events.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָרוֹאֶה סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּקְרַע — חַיָּיב לִקְרוֹעַ שְׁתֵּי קְרִיעוֹת: אֶחָד עַל הַגְּוִיל וְאֶחָד עַל הַכְּתָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַחֲרֵי שְׂרוֹף הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת הַמְּגִלָּה וְאֶת הַדְּבָרִים״.
Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Huna said: One who sees a Torah scroll that was torn is obligated to make two rents, one for the parchment that was damaged and one for the writing, as it is stated: “Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, after the king had burned the scroll and the words” (Jeremiah 36:27). This implies that a separate rent must be made for each of them, both the parchment and the writing.
רַבִּי אַבָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא הָווּ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא. בְּעָא לְאִפַּנּוֹיֵי, שַׁקְלֵיהּ לְטוֹטֶפְתֵּיהּ אַחֲתֵיהּ אַבֵּי סַדְיָא. אֲתַאי בַּת נַעָמִיתָא בְּעַא לְמִיבְלְעֵיהּ.
It was related that Rabbi Abba and Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya were sitting before Rabbi Abba. Rabbi Abba needed to relieve himself. He removed his phylacteries from his head and placed them on the cushion on which he was sitting. An ostrich came and wanted to swallow the phylacteries.
אֲמַר: הַשְׁתָּא כִּי חַיְּיבַן לִי שְׁתֵּי קְרִיעוֹת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְנָא לָךְ הָא? וְהָא בְּדִידִי הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא, וַאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב מַתְנָה וְלָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ. אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, וַאֲמַר לִי, הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בִּזְרוֹעַ, וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה.
He said: Now, had it succeeded to swallow it, I would have been obligated to make two rents. He said to him: From where do you derive this? There was an incident in which I was involved and I came before Rav Mattana asking what to do, but he did not have an answer readily available. I then came before Rav Yehuda, and he said to me: Shmuel said as follows: They said that one is obligated to rend his clothing only when a Torah scroll or some other sacred book is torn by force, and it resembles the incident that occurred with Jehoiakim.
עָרֵי יְהוּדָה מְנָלַן — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּבֹאוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִשְּׁכֶם מִשִּׁילוֹ וּמִשֹּׁמְרוֹן שְׁמוֹנִים אִישׁ מְגוּלְּחֵי זָקָן וּקְרוּעֵי בְגָדִים וּמִתְגּוֹדְדִים וּמִנְחָה וּלְבוֹנָה בְּיָדָם לְהָבִיא בֵּית ה׳ וְגוֹ׳״.
§ From where do we derive that one must rend his garments upon seeing the cities of Judea in ruin? As it is written: “There came certain men from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria, eighty people, their beards shaven, and their clothes rent, and having cut themselves, with offerings and incense in their hand, to bring to the house of the Lord” (Jeremiah 41:5). This indicates that they rent their garments upon seeing the destruction.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אָמַר עוּלָּא בִּירָאָה אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הָרוֹאֶה עָרֵי יְהוּדָה בְּחוּרְבָּנָן, אוֹמֵר: ״עָרֵי קׇדְשְׁךָ הָיוּ מִדְבָּר״, וְקוֹרֵעַ. יְרוּשָׁלַיִם בְּחוּרְבָּנָהּ, אוֹמֵר: ״צִיּוֹן מִדְבָּר הָיָתָה יְרוּשָׁלִַם שְׁמָמָה״, וְקוֹרֵעַ. בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּחוּרְבָּנוֹ, אוֹמֵר: ״בֵּית קׇדְשֵׁנוּ וְתִפְאַרְתֵּנוּ אֲשֶׁר הִלְלוּךָ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ הָיָה לִשְׂרֵיפַת אֵשׁ וְכׇל מַחֲמַדֵּינוּ הָיָה לְחׇרְבָּה״, וְקוֹרֵעַ.
Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Ulla Bira’a said that Rabbi Elazar said: One who sees the cities of Judea in their desolation says: “Your sacred cities are become a wilderness” (Isaiah 64:9), and then rends his garments. One who sees Jerusalem in its desolation says: “Zion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation” (Isaiah 64:9), and then rends his garments. One who sees the Temple in its desolation says: “Our sacred and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised You, is burned with fire; and all our pleasant things are laid waste” (Isaiah 64:10), and then rends his garments.
קוֹרֵעַ עַל מִקְדָּשׁ, וּמוֹסִיף עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. וּרְמִינְהוּ: אֶחָד הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֶחָד הָרוֹאֶה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְצוֹפִים — קוֹרֵעַ, וְקוֹרֵעַ עַל מִקְדָּשׁ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ!
It was taught in the baraita: He first rends his garments for the Temple and then extends the rent for Jerusalem. And they raise a contradiction from another baraita that states: Both one who hears that Jerusalem is in ruin and one who sees the destruction, once he reaches Mount Scopus [Tzofim], rends his garments. And he rends his garments for the Temple separately and for Jerusalem separately.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּפָגַע בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּרֵישָׁא. הָא דְּפָגַע בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בְּרֵישָׁא.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, which states that instead of making a separate rent for Jerusalem one may extend the first rent that he had made for the Temple, is referring to the case where one reached the Temple first, before seeing the rest of Jerusalem, and saw it in ruin. That baraita, which states that one must make separate rents for Jerusalem and for the Temple, is referring to the case where one reached Jerusalem first, and only afterward the Temple.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: וְכוּלָּן רַשָּׁאִין לְשׁוֹלְלָן וּלְמוֹלְלָן וּלְלוֹקְטָן וְלַעֲשׂוֹתָן כְּמִין סוּלָּמוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא לְאַחוֹתָן.
§ The Sages taught the following baraita: And all of these rents, one may tack them together with loose stitches, and hem them, and gather them, and fix them with imprecise ladder-like stitches. But one may not mend them with precise stitches.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא:
Rav Ḥisda said:
וּבְאִיחוּי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִי.
And the reference here is to the Alexandrian method of mending, a type of sewing performed in Alexandria, which is considered to be of exceptional quality and after which the tear is no longer visible.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַקּוֹרֵעַ מִתּוֹךְ הַשְּׁלָל מִתּוֹךְ הַמְּלָל מִתּוֹךְ הַלֶּקֶט, מִתּוֹךְ הַסּוּלָּמוֹת — לֹא יָצָא. מִתּוֹךְ הָאִיחוּי — יָצָא. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: וּבְאִיחוּי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִי.
The Sages taught the following baraita: One who rends his garment in a place that had been loosely tacked together, or from the hem of the garment, or on the gathering, or on the ladder-like stiches has not fulfilled his obligation to rend it. But if he rends it in a place that had been carefully mended, he has fulfilled his obligation, because such a garment is regarded as whole. Rav Ḥisda said: And here, too, the reference is to the Alexandrian method of mending and not to ordinary sewing.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: רַשַּׁאי לְהוֹפְכוֹ לְמַטָּה וּלְאַחוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹסֵר לְאַחוֹתוֹ, וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר אָסוּר לְאַחוֹתוֹ — כָּךְ הַלּוֹקֵחַ אָסוּר לְאַחוֹתוֹ. וּלְפִיכָךְ מוֹכֵר צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ לַלּוֹקֵחַ.
The Sages taught another baraita: One is permitted to turn a garment that was rent on the upper edge upside down and then mend it in a precise fashion. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar prohibits careful mending in this case as well. And if one wishes to sell a garment that he had previously rent in mourning, just as the seller, who had rent the garment, is prohibited from carefully mending the garment, so too the buyer, who purchases it from him, is prohibited from mending it. The seller must therefore inform the buyer that the rent was made on account of mourning and may not be mended.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תְּחִילַּת קְרִיעָה — טֶפַח, וְתוֹסֶפֶת — שָׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: תְּחִילַּת קְרִיעָה — שָׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת, וְתוֹסֶפֶת — כׇּל שֶׁהוּ.
The Sages taught a baraita: The initial rending is a handbreadth in length, and the extension, if one is obligated to rend his garment for other deceased relatives and he wishes to use the same rent for this purpose, is three fingerbreadths; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The initial rending is three fingerbreadths in length, and its extension is any amount, with no minimum measure.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בִּקְרִיעָה, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּתוֹסֶפֶת. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: תְּחִילַּת קְרִיעָה — טֶפַח, וְתוֹסֶפֶת — כׇּל שֶׁהוּ.
Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that the initial rending is one handbreadth in length, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that an extension can be any length. The Gemara comments: That is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: The initial rending is one handbreadth, and the size of the extension is any minimal amount. By tradition, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei when he disagrees with any one of his colleagues.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אָמְרוּ לוֹ מֵת אָבִיו וְקָרַע, מֵת בְּנוֹ וְהוֹסִיף, תַּחְתּוֹן — מִתְאַחֶה, עֶלְיוֹן — אֵינוֹ מִתְאַחֶה.
The Sages taught the following baraita: If they first said to a person that his father died, and he rent his garment, and afterward they told him that his son died, and he added to the same rent, in such a case the lower portion of the rent that had been made for his son may be mended. This is because, after completing the period of mourning, one is permitted to mend a rent made for relatives other than one’s parents. However, the upper portion of the rent may not be mended, as a tear made for one’s father may never be carefully sewn back together.
מֵת בְּנוֹ וְקָרַע, מֵת אָבִיו וְהוֹסִיף, עֶלְיוֹן — מִתְאַחֶה, תַּחְתּוֹן — אֵינוֹ מִתְאַחֶה.
If, on the other hand, they said to him first that his son died, and he rent his garment, and afterward they told him that his father died, and he added to the same rent, then in that case the upper portion of the rent, which had been made for his son, may be mended, but the lower portion of the rent, which had been made for his father, may not be mended.
מֵת אָבִיו, מֵת אִמּוֹ, מֵת אָחִיו, מֵתָה אֲחוֹתוֹ — קוֹרֵעַ קֶרַע אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה אוֹמֵר: עַל כּוּלָּן קֶרַע אֶחָד, עַל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ קֶרַע אֶחָד, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל קֶרַע אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ.
If they said to him all at one time that his father died, his mother died, his brother died, and his sister died, then he may make one rent for all of them. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: For all of his other relatives he makes one rent, and for his father and mother he makes another rent, as one must not add to a rent made for his father and mother.
מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן בְּתוֹסֶפֶת.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira’s opinion that one may not add to the rent torn for a mother or father? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Because they cannot be added; one has only one father and one mother and cannot add others.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה. וּמִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּאֵבֶל! אֲבֵילוּת לְחוּד, קְרִיעָה לְחוּד.
Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say this? But didn’t Shmuel say the principle is that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the lenient Sage with regard to mourning; yet here he rules in accordance with the more stringent opinion. The Gemara answers: The halakhot of mourning are discrete and the halakhot of rending are discrete, and it is only with regard to the halakhot of mourning that Shmuel rules consistently in accordance with the lenient opinion.
עַד הֵיכָן קוֹרֵעַ — עַד טִיבּוּרוֹ, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: עַד לִבּוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לְדָבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְקִרְעוּ לְבַבְכֶם וְאַל בִּגְדֵיכֶם״.
It was taught in a baraita: Until where may he rend his garment, if he continues to rend the same garment for additional relatives? He may continue rending until the point where the garment covers his navel. Some say: Until the point where the garment covers his heart. Although there is no absolute proof for the matter that one may rend the garment until this point, there is an allusion to this matter, as it is stated: “And rend your hearts, and not your garments” (Joel 2:13), thereby intimating that one may extend the rent in his garment only until he reaches the point where the garment covers his heart.
הִגִּיעַ לְטִיבּוּרוֹ — מַרְחִיק שָׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת וְקוֹרֵעַ. נִתְמַלֵּא מִלְּפָנָיו — מַחְזִירוֹ לַאֲחוֹרָיו. נִתְמַלֵּא מִלְּמַעְלָה — הוֹפְכוֹ מִלְּמַטָּה. וְהַקּוֹרֵעַ מִלְּמַטָּה וּמִן הַצְּדָדִין — לֹא יָצָא. אֶלָּא שֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל פּוֹרֵם מִלְּמַטָּה.
If he tore his garment until he reached the point where it covers his navel, he should not continue rending in the same place. Instead, he should move away a space of three fingerbreadths from the first rent and make a new rent. If the garment became full of rents in the front, he should turn the garment front to back and make a rent on the other side. If it became full of rents above, he should turn it top to bottom and make a rent on what used to be the bottom. But one who rends his garment at the bottom or at the sides has not fulfilled his obligation, as rending may be done only at the top of the garment. The High Priest, however, who is prohibited from rending his garments in mourning, may tear his garment at the bottom to mark his mourning in a symbolic manner.
פְּלִיגוּ בַּהּ רַב מַתְנָה וּמָר עוּקְבָא, וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל וְלֵוִי. חַד אָמַר: כֹּל שִׁבְעָה קוֹרֵעַ, לְאַחַר שִׁבְעָה — מוֹסִיף. וְחַד אָמַר: כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים קוֹרֵעַ, לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים — מוֹסִיף.
Rav Mattana and Mar Ukva disagreed about the following issue, and both of them stated their respective opinions in the name of Shmuel’s father and Levi. One said: During all seven days of mourning, if the mourner hears that another relative of his passed away, he makes a new rent; after seven days of mourning he merely adds to the first one. And one said: During all of the first thirty days he makes a new rent; after thirty days he merely adds to the first one.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: מַאן דְּאָמַר כׇּל שִׁבְעָה קוֹרֵעַ, אַמַּאי — דְּלֹא נִיתַּן לְשׁוֹלְלוֹ, אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר מָר: הָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹלַלְתּוֹ לְאַלְתַּר, הָכָא נָמֵי?!
Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this: According to the one who said that during all seven days of mourning he makes a new rent, why is it not enough to add to the first one? It is because he may not tack it until the end of the seven-day period of mourning, and therefore if he adds to the rent it will look like a continuation of the previous tear. But then, with regard to that which the Master said in the baraita: After a woman rends her garment, she may tack the tear immediately, would you say that here also she may add to the first rent for a new bereavement during the seven-day period of mourning?
הָתָם מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד אִשָּׁה הוּא.
The Gemara answers: There the woman is permitted to tack the rent due to the woman’s honor, as it would be dishonorable for her to be seen wearing torn garments. However, halakhically the rent is considered as if it still exists, and therefore she must make a new rent for a new bereavement and not merely add to the previous one.
מַאן דְּאָמַר כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים קוֹרֵעַ, אַמַּאי — דְּלֹא נִיתַּן לְאַחוֹתוֹ. אֶלָּא לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ, דְּלֹא נִיתַּן לְאַחוֹתוֹ לְעוֹלָם, הָכִי נָמֵי?!
Rabbi Zeira asked further: According to the one who said that all thirty days of mourning one must make a new rent rather than add to the existing tear, why does he say this? It is because during the thirty days one is not given permission to properly mend the garment, and so it still appears to be torn. But then, in a case of a rent made for one’s father or mother, for which he is not given permission to ever properly mend it, would you say that he should so too be forever barred from adding to the rent for a new bereavement and is instead obligated to make a new rent?
הָתָם מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ הוּא.
The Gemara answers: There he may not properly mend the rent due to the honor due to his father and mother. Essentially, however, the tear is considered as if it had been sewn up after the thirty-day period, and therefore the son may extend it in the case of a new bereavement.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַיּוֹצֵא בְּבֶגֶד קָרוּעַ לִפְנֵי הַמֵּת — הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹזֵל אֶת הַמֵּתִים וְאֶת הַחַיִּים.
The Sages taught the following baraita: One who goes out before the deceased in a rent garment that he had previously torn over another bereavement, thereby giving the appearance of having rent his garment for him, steals from the dead, as he did not rend a garment for him. And he similarly steals from the living, who see him and think that he made the tear in honor of the deceased, when in reality he is deceiving them.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: הַשְׁאִילֵנִי חֲלוּקְךָ וְאֵלֵךְ וַאֲבַקֵּר אֶת אַבָּא שֶׁהוּא חוֹלֶה, וְהָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁמֵּת — קוֹרֵעַ וּמְאַחוֹ, וּכְשֶׁיָּבֹא לְבֵיתוֹ מַחֲזִיר לוֹ חֲלוּקוֹ, וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי קִרְעוֹ. וְאִם לֹא הוֹדִיעוֹ — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִגַּע בּוֹ.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the case of one who says to his fellow: Lend me your cloak and I will go and visit my father because he is sick, and he goes and finds that his father has died, he rends the cloak and may then mend it in the proper manner. And when he returns home, he returns the cloak to his fellow and pays him the value of the rent, i.e., the depreciation in the value of the cloak that resulted from the tear. The assumption is that the lender considered the possibility that the sick father might die, and lent the garment anyway, understanding that he might have to tear it. But if one did not inform his fellow that he was going to visit his sick father, he must not touch it, as he was not granted permission to tear the garment belonging to someone else.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חוֹלֶה שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת — אֵין מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁמֵּת, שֶׁמָּא תִּטָּרֵף דַּעְתּוֹ עָלָיו. וְאֵין מְקָרְעִין בְּפָנָיו, וּמְשַׁתְּקִין אֶת הַנָּשִׁים מִפָּנָיו.
The Sages taught the following baraita: When a relative of a sick person dies, those around him do not inform him that this relative died, lest he lose control of his mind due to his emotional state and his grief exacerbate his physical health. And other people may not rend their garments in his presence, so that he will not know that one of his relatives passed away. And we silence the women who weep in his presence, so that he will not know that his relative is no longer alive.
וּמְקָרְעִין לַקָּטָן מִפְּנֵי עׇגְמַת נֶפֶשׁ. וְקוֹרְעִין עַל חָמִיו וְעַל חֲמוֹתוֹ, מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד אִשְׁתּוֹ.
And the relatives rend the garment of a minor child when there is mourning in his family in order to arouse grief. Although a minor is not required to rend his garments, this will add to the grief of those who see that even the garments of children are rent. And one rends his garment for his father-in-law or mother-in-law, although he is not required to mourn for them, due to the honor of his wife, to show her that he joins in her mourning.
וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, תָּנָא בְּאֵבֶל רַבָּתִי: אָבֵל לֹא יַנִּיחַ תִּינוֹק בְּתוֹךְ חֵיקוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּבִיאוֹ לִידֵי שְׂחוֹק, וְנִמְצָא מִתְגַּנֶּה עַל הַבְּרִיּוֹת.
And Rav Pappa said: A Sage taught in Evel Rabbati: A mourner should not place a young child in his lap because the child will bring him to laughter, and he will be disgraced in the eyes of other people because he laughed while in mourning.
וְאֵין מַבְרִין עַל מִטּוֹת זְקוּפוֹת. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַהוֹלֵךְ לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל, אִם הָיָה לִבּוֹ גַּס בּוֹ — יַבְרוּהוּ עַל מִטּוֹת כְּפוּיוֹת. וְאִם לָאו — יַבְרוּהוּ עַל מִטּוֹת זְקוּפוֹת.
§ The mishna taught: And the consolers provide the first meal after the burial only while the mourner sits on an upright bed and not on one that is overturned. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who goes to the house of the mourner, if he is confident in his friendship with him because they are close friends, they provide him with the meal of comfort while both he and the mourner sit on overturned beds. And if he is not confident in his friendship with him, both he and the mourner should be fed on upright beds.
רָבָא אִיתְּרַע בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא, עַל לְגַבֵּיהּ אַבָּא בַּר מָרְתָא, דְּהוּא אַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי. רָבָא זָקֵיף, אַבָּא בַּר מָרְתָא כָּפֵי. אֲמַר: כַּמָּה לֵית בֵּיהּ דַּעְתָּא לְהַאי צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara relates that something unpleasant happened to Rava, i.e., one of his close relatives died, and Abba bar Marta, who was also known as Abba bar Minyomi, entered to visit him. Rava stood the bed upright, treating him like any other person who came to comfort him. Abba bar Marta overturned the bed because he saw himself as being on very familiar terms with Rava. Rava said: How lacking in sense is this Torah scholar. Rava had shown from the outset that he did not consider Abba bar Marta to be a close friend, yet the latter ignored this message and viewed himself as being exceptionally close to Rava.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַהוֹלֵךְ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם
The Sages taught a baraita: If one who was going from place to place learned of the death of a close relative, so that he must now observe the rites of mourning,
