Moed Katan 20a (כ.) — the Talmud in English

Since

they had already attended to him

to console him

during the Festival,

for seven days.

The general principle is: Anything

that

is

observed

because of mourning—

the Festival interrupts it,

and one does not continue observing the mourning during the Festival; rather, one must complete it after the Festival.

But anything that is because of the involvement of the public

in comforting mourners,

the Festival does not interrupt it;

rather, they continue to console him during the Festival.

And if

he buried his dead three days at the end of the Festival—

he counts seven after the Festival.

But only during

the first four days

after the Festival

do the public attend to him

to console him, thereby completing the seven days of consolation that began during the Festival.

Whereas during

the three

remaining

final days

of the seven-day mourning period following the Festival,

the public does not

attend to him

to console him, because

they had already attended

to console him

during the Festival for

three days.

The baraita concludes with another halakha:

And a Festival—

counts for him

toward the thirty-day count.

The Gemara analyzes this:

Is it not

that when the tanna said that “a Festival counts for him,” he was speaking

about the latter clause,

concerning one who buried his dead during the Festival, so that the Festival counts toward the thirty-day period? This would prove contrary to what Rabba said, that the Festival does not count for him.

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

you cannot bring proof from here that the Festival counts for him. The tanna was not speaking about the case in the latter clause, but rather

about the first clause: one who buried his dead before the Festival has the Festival count toward the thirty-day period, since he had already begun observing mourning. This does not resolve Abaye’s question concerning one who buried his dead during the Festival, who had not begun observing mourning before the Festival: does the Festival count for him toward the thirty-day period?

: one who buried his dead before the Festival counts the Festival toward the thirty days because he had already begun observing mourning. This does not resolve Abaye’s question concerning one who buried his dead during the Festival, before he had begun observing mourning: does the Festival count toward the thirty days?

He raised an objection

to Rabba from another baraita:

As it was taught:

A Festival counts for him toward the thirty-day period.

How so?

If he buried his dead at the beginning of the Festival,

on the first day—

he counts seven after the Festival; his work is performed by others, and his male and female slaves perform discreetly inside his house;

but

the public does not attend to him

to console him,

since they had already attended to him

to console him

during the Festival.

And the Festival counts for him!

Thus it is proven that the Festival counts toward the thirty-day period even when he buried his dead during the Festival.

And we conclude: Indeed, this is

a refutation

of Rabba!

When Ravin came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: Even if he buried his dead during the Festival,

the Festival counts for him toward the thirty-day period.

And Rabbi Elazar likewise instructed

Rabbi Pedat, his son:

Even if he buried his dead during the Festival.

The Sages taught: If he maintained the overturned bed for three days before the Festival—

he need not overturn it after the Festival, according to Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say: Even if

he maintained the overturned bed for

one day

before the Festival,

or even one hour,

he no longer needs to observe seven days of mourning after the Festival.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said:

This dispute—

these are the words of Beit Shammai, and these are the words of Beit Hillel.

For Beit Shammai say

that if he maintained the overturned bed

for three days

before the Festival, only then does he not need to overturn it after the Festival, while

Beit Hillel say even

if he maintained it for

one day

alone.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yohanan—and some say that Rabbi Yohanan said to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba and Rav Huna: Even if

he overturned his bed for

one day, or even one hour

before the Festival, he no longer needs to overturn it.

Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the tanna of our Mishna,

of our Mishna,

who says

that only if he overturned his bed

three

days before the Festival does he not need to overturn it after the Festival.

Ravina happened to come to Sura of the Euphrates. Rav Haviva said to Ravina: What is the halakha?

What is it?

He said to him: Even if

he overturned his bed before the Festival for

one day, or even one hour,

he no longer needs to overturn it after the Festival.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥ were sitting at the lodging

at the entrance

of Rabbi Yitzhak ben Elazar,

and

a matter emerged among them,

a Torah teaching emerged from their discussion:

From where is mourning

that is

seven

days derived?

As it is written [Amos 8:10], “

‘And I will transform your Festivals into mourning.’”

And I will turn your Festivals into mourning.”

The verse compares mourning to a Festival, and from this we learn:

Just as a Festival

[Sukkot or Passover] is

seven

days, so too

mourning

is

seven

days.

And we challenge this:

Let us say

that mourning is like the Festival of

Atzeret, which is one day

alone!?

And we answer:

That

comparison of mourning to Atzeret

is needed for the teaching of Reish Lakish.

For Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: From where do we know that

a distant report

does not entail

mourning

except for one day—

as it is written, “

And I will transform your Festivals into mourning.”

And we find Atzeret,

the Festival of Weeks,

which is called a single day,

for even one day is called a

Festival, and from this they learned that there is also mourning of one day, which applies in the case of a distant report.

, and from here they learned that there is also one-day mourning, which applies in the case of a distant report.

The Sages taught: A recent report

[as the baraita will explain below]

entails seven and thirty days

, while a distant report entails only one day.

What is considered a recent report, and what is considered a distant report? ]

Maharam of Rothenburg and the Rosh disagreed concerning a minor whose relative died, and who then came of age during the thirty-day period. According to Maharam, when he comes of age he must observe the seven-day decree, like a recent report [similar to one who buries his dead during a Festival: at the time of burial he was not obligated in the seven-day decree, but after the Festival he observes the law of a recent report]. The Rosh maintains that since at the time of burial, when the obligation of mourning took effect, he was exempt, he is entirely exempt from this mourning. [This is not comparable to one who buries his dead during a Festival, where the impediment resulted from an external factor, whereas in the case of a minor, the reason for his exemption is inherent in himself, since the person is not subject to the obligation.] The Kehilot Yaakov [Berakhot 9] explained the foundation of their dispute. According to Maharam, the law of a recent report is not a law of completion of mourning; rather, it is an essential law of mourning: throughout the first thirty days, it remains possible to fulfill the mourning. Certainly, ideally he is obligated to observe mourning during the first seven days and not postpone it until later, but if the first days passed without his observing it, he must fulfill the essential obligation within thirty days. Therefore, although he was a minor at the time of burial and was not then obligated in mourning, nevertheless, once he comes of age within the thirty-day period, the seven-day decree takes effect upon him at that time. The Rosh, however, maintains that the obligation of mourning takes effect only at the time of burial, and that the foundation of the law of a recent report is the law of completion: the Sages granted one who did not fulfill his essential obligation the possibility of completing it until thirty days [like a person who failed to pray one prayer and has the possibility of making it up in the following prayer]. Consequently, when he was exempt at the time the obligation took effect because he was a minor, it is no longer possible for him to become obligated later in completing it. See further the Rosh, who also discusses this in terms of postponement of mitzvot. And in the Tur [394] there are additional details concerning the opinion of the Rosh: even if he comes of age on one of the days of the seven, he is not obligated to observe mourning at all. The Kehilot Yaakov explained that the obligation of the seven-day decree does not take effect on each day separately; rather, at the outset, at the time of burial, the obligation of mourning for all seven days takes effect. Therefore, when he was not obligated at that time, it is no longer possible to obligate him later, as in the case of the mitzva of appearing at the Temple. See Hagiga 9a. See there also the novellae of Rabbi Akiva Eiger [end of Moed Katan 46b].

A recent report—

within thirty days

, a distant report—

after thirty days, according to Rabbi Akiva.

And the Sages say: Both a recent report and a distant report—

entail seven and thirty days.

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Wherever you find an individual who is lenient and the majority

are stringent

[or the majority are lenient and an individual is stringent; Tosafot]—

the halakha follows the majority.

Except for

this halakha

concerning

a distant report.

For even though

the individual,

Rabbi Akiva, is lenient

in this matter, while

the Sages,

who are the majority,

are stringent

in it, nevertheless

the halakha follows Rabbi Akiva.

The reason is that

Shmuel said: The halakha follows the opinion of the one who is lenient in matters of mourning.

Rav Hanina received a report

concerning the death

of his father, from Bei Hozai

[a place name].

Rav Hanina came

Rav Hanina

before Rav Hisda

to ask how to conduct himself with regard to this report.

Rav Hisda said to him:

A distant report entails mourning only for one day.

Rav Natan bar Ami received a report

concerning the death

of his mother from Bei Hozai.

He came before Rava.

Rava said to him

Rava:

They said: A distant report entails mourning only for one day.

He raised an objection

from a baraita:

When are these words applicable,

that a distant report entails mourning for only one day?

With regard to five categories of the dead for whom there is a mitzva

[five of the seven close relatives for whom one is obligated to mourn].

But for one’s father and mother,

even a distant report entails mourning for

seven and thirty days!

He said to him:

This baraita is

the opinion of an individual,

a single tanna taught it, and it was not taught by Rabbi Akiva, for according to Rabbi Akiva there is no distinction between a report concerning one’s father or mother and one concerning the other relatives.

And we do not hold in accordance with him,

the individual!

And this is the tanna who taught it:

As it was taught: It happened that Rabbi Tzadok’s father died in Ginzak, and they informed him after three years

[which constitutes a distant report].

And he came and asked Elisha ben Avuya and the elders

who were with him.

And they said

to him:

Observe seven and thirty days.

The Gemara now brings another opinion, that of Rabbi Ahiyya, who observed seven and thirty days for a distant report even concerning his son.

And when Rabbi Ahiyya’s son died in the Diaspora,

and a distant report reached him,

he sat in mourning for him for seven and thirty days.

The Gemara assumes that Rabbi Ahiyya was Rabbi Hiyya. It therefore asks:

Is that so? But Rav,

who was

Rabbi Hiyya’s brother’s son, for he was also

the son of

Rabbi Hiyya’s sister.

Rabbi Hiyya had a paternal brother [who was not his maternal brother], and Rabbi Hiyya also had a maternal sister who was not his paternal sister.

Rabbi Hiyya’s paternal brother married Rabbi Hiyya’s maternal sister, since they were not related to each other either through their father or through their mother.

Rav was born to them.

Thus, Rav’s father was Rabbi Hiyya’s brother, and Rav’s mother was Rabbi Hiyya’s sister. Rabbi Hiyya himself was Rav’s uncle both paternally and maternally.

When he went up there,

when Rav went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael and met his uncle Rabbi Hiyya there,

he said

to him,

Rabbi Hiyya asked about the welfare of Rav’s parents [who, as stated, were Rabbi Hiyya’s brother and sister], and asked him as follows:

Is your

father

[who is my paternal brother] still

alive?