Moed Katan 20a — the Talmud in English

Since

they had already occupied themselves with him

to console him

during the Festival,

[the consoling continues for] seven days.

The general rule: everything

that

is

observed

because of mourning—

the Festival interrupts it,

and he does not continue to observe his mourning during the Festival; rather, he must complete it after the Festival.

And anything that is because of the involvement of the public

in the consolation of mourners—

the Festival does not interrupt it,

but they continue to console him during the Festival.

And if

they buried him 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 many occupy themselves with him

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

Whereas during

three

of

the last days

of the seven days following the Festival—

many do not

occupy themselves with him

to console him, because

they had already occupied themselves

to console him

during the Festival

for three days.

And the beraita concludes with another law:

And the Festival—

counts for him

toward the count of thirty.

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not

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

about the latter clause,

about one who buries his dead during the Festival, so that the Festival counts for him toward the thirty, proving contrary to what Rabba said, that the Festival does not count for him?

And the Gemara rejects:

No.

Do not bring proof from here that the Festival counts for him! For the tanna is not speaking about the case in the latter clause, but

about the first clause: one who buries his dead before the Festival has the Festival count for him toward the thirty, since he had already begun observing mourning. There is no resolution here of Abaye’s question concerning one who buried his dead during the Festival, who did not begin observing mourning before the Festival, whether the Festival counts for him toward the thirty.

: 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 challenged

Rabba from another beraita:

For it was taught:

The Festival counts for him toward the thirty.

How?

If they buried him 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

many do not occupy themselves with him

to console him,

because they had already occupied themselves with him

to console him

during the Festival.

And the Festival counts for him!

And it is proven that the Festival counts for him toward the thirty even when he buried his dead during the Festival.

And we conclude: indeed, from here there is

a tiyuvta

against Rabba!

When Ravin came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: even if they buried him during the Festival,

the Festival counts for him toward the thirty.

And this is also what Uri

ruled:

Rabbi Elazar instructed Rabbi Pedat, his son: even if they buried him during the Festival.

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

he need not overturn it after the Festival, the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say: even if

he maintained the overturning of the bed

for one day

before the Festival,

and even for 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 overturning of the bed

for three days

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

and 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 to Rav Huna: even if

he overturned his bed

for one day, even for one hour

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

Rava said: The halakha is according to our tanna,

of our Mishna,

who says

that only if he overturned his bed

three

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

Ravina happened to come to Sura of the Euphrates, and 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, and even for one hour,

he no longer needs to overturn it after the Festival.

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

at the entrance

of Rabbi Yitzhak ben Elazar,

and

a matter emerged from among them,

and a teaching emerged from among them:

From where is it derived concerning mourning

that it is

seven

days?

For it is written [Amos 8],

“

And I shall turn your Festivals into mourning.”

The verse juxtaposed mourning with the Festival, and from here it may be learned:

Just as the Festival [A0186][Sukkot or Passover] is

[Sukkot or Passover] is

seven

days—

so mourning

is

seven

days.

And we refute:

And 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 that which Resh Lakish expounded.

For Resh Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a: From where is it derived concerning a distant report

about the dead,

that mourning is not observed

for it

except for one day—

for it is written: “

And I shall turn your Festivals into mourning.”

And we find Atzeret,

the Festival of Weeks,

which is called one day,

for even one day is called a

Festival, and from here they learned that there is also mourning of one day, and it is observed for 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 near report

as the beraita will explain below

is observed for seven and thirty

, whereas a distant report is observed only for one day.

What is a near one and what is a distant one?

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 near one—

within thirty

, a distant one—

after thirty, the words of Rabbi Akiva.

And the Sages say: both a near report and a distant report—

are observed for seven and thirty.

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Everywhere that you find an individual lenient and the many

stringent [A0295][or the many lenient and an individual stringent. Tosafot]—

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

the halakha follows the many

. Except for

the halakha

this,

of a distant report.

For although

the individual,

Rabbi Akiva, is lenient

in it,

and the Sages,

who are the many,

are stringent

in it—nevertheless

the halakha follows Rabbi Akiva.

And the reason for the matter is because

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

Rav Hanina received a report

about the death

of his father, from Bei Hozai [A0318][a place].

[a place name].

Rav Hanina came

Rav Hanina

before Rav Hisda

to ask how to observe this report.

Rav Hisda said to him:

A distant report is observed 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:

Behold, they said: A distant report is observed only for one day.

He challenged him

from a beraita:

When are these words applicable,

that a distant report is observed only for one day?

With regard to five relatives for whom there is a mitzva [A0340][five of the dead among the seven relatives for whom there is a mitzva to mourn].

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

But for one’s father and one’s mother,

even a distant report is observed

for seven and thirty!

He said to him:

This beraita is

an individual opinion,

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 and mother and one concerning the other relatives.

And we do not hold according to him,

the individual!

And this is the tanna who taught it:

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

[which is a distant report].

And he came and asked Elisha ben Avuya and the Elders

with him.

And they said

to him:

Observe seven and thirty.

And now the Gemara brings another opinion, that of Rabbi Ahiyya, who observed seven and thirty 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 mourning for him seven and thirty.

And the Gemara assumed that Rabbi Ahiyya is Rabbi Hiyya. Therefore the Gemara asks:

Is that so? But Rav,

who was

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

also

the son of Rabbi Hiyya’s maternal sister.

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

And Rabbi Hiyya’s paternal brother came and married Rabbi Hiyya’s maternal sister, since there was no sibling relationship between them, neither from the father nor from the mother.

And Rav was born from them.

Thus, Rav’s father was Rabbi Hiyya’s brother, and Rav’s mother was Rabbi Hiyya’s sister. And Rabbi Hiyya himself was Rav’s uncle both from his father and from his mother.

When he went up there,

when Rav went up to the Land of Israel from Babylonia and met Rabbi Hiyya, his uncle,

he said

to him,

Rabbi Hiyya asked him 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?