Moed Katan 20b — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rav: Until you ask about my father, why do you not ask about my mother, who is also your sister [from your mother]? Thus: Is it that

your mother

still

alive!?

Rabbi Hiyya said to him

Indeed, I am also asking about her: Is it that

your mother

of yours

alive?

He said to him,

Rav again answered Rabbi Hiyya, in the language of a question: Is

father

indeed

alive?

And Rabbi Hiyya understood from Rav’s evasion in answering his questions that his brother and sister had died.

Rabbi Hiyya said to

Rabbi Hiyya

to his attendant,

to his servant: A.

Remove my shoes,

and I shall observe mourning for my brother and sister for a short time, by removing the sandal upon hearing a distant report.

B.

And

immediately after removing the shoe

go after

the

vessel to the bathhouse,

and I shall bathe in it. And by this he intended to teach that a distant report applies only for one day, and part of the day is like all of it.

Learn from it

from Rabbi Hiyya’s conduct

three,

three halakhot:

A.

Learn from it: a mourner is forbidden to put on the sandal .

B.

And learn from it: a distant report applies only for one day .

C.

And learn from it,

the observance of mourning during

part of the day

is considered observance of mourning

throughout all of it .

And it is demonstrated that according to Rabbi Hiyya one should not observe seven and thirty days for a distant report, and there is a difficulty: How do we say that Rabbi Ahiya [whom the Gemara assumed to be Rabbi Hiyya] observed seven and thirty days for a distant report concerning his son!?

And the Gemara retracts its assumption that Rabbi Ahiya is Rabbi Hiyya.

And we answer:

Rabbi Hiyya —

—

separately, Rabbi Ahiya —

—

separately.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: If he heard a near report [

within thirty days]

on a Festival, and when the Festival ended it became a distant report [

after thirty days],

the Festival counts for him

to complete the thirty days, and the report is considered for him like a distant report;

and he does not

observe

mourning over it

except for one day .

Rabbi Adda of Caesarea taught before Rabbi Yohanan: If he heard a near report on Shabbat, and when Shabbat ended it became a distant report —

he observes only one day .

And the Gemara discusses a report that was near at the time of the Festival or on Shabbat, and once the Festival or Shabbat passed it became distant, for thirty days had already passed, and now it applies only for one day [according to the Tosafot]:

Does he

tear

for it over the dead,

or does he not tear?

Rabbi Mani said: He does not tear.

Rabbi Hanina said: He tears.

Rabbi Mani said to Rabbi Hanina: Granted, according to me, who say that he does not tear; this is because there is no mourning of seven,

and where there is no mourning of seven there is no tearing.

But according to you, who say that he tears,

over a distant report although it applies only for one day, this is difficult: Is there

tearing without seven —

is there such a thing?

And we raise an objection to Rabbi Mani’s assumption underlying his question:

And

is it that

we have not

found tearing without seven?

But it was taught,

for we indeed find that

Isi, the father of Rabbi Zeira — and some say the brother of Rabbi Zeira — before Rabbi Zeira

taught a beraita, and it says as follows:

One who does not have a garment to tear

, and one became available to him within seven —

he tears; after seven —

he does not tear .

And Rabbi Zeira answered after it,

Rabbi Zeira replied after they had taught the beraita before him:

When are these words applicable,

that after seven he does not tear?

With the five relatives for whom it is a mitzva,

with the five relatives among the seven relatives for whom it is a mitzva to mourn.

But for one’s father and mother —

he continues tearing

even after seven!

It is demonstrated that there is also tearing without seven; so what is Rabbi Mani’s astonishment?!

And we answer:

When that was taught

that he tears without seven, it is tearing

for the honor of one’s father and mother,

which applies even without seven; but ordinary mourning-related tearing applies only where one observes mourning of seven .

The Sages taught: All those mentioned in the passage concerning priests,

that is, all the relatives

for whom a koen becomes impure

upon their death —

a mourner mourns for them .

And these are

the seven relatives for whom one mourns by Torah law:

his wife, his father, his mother, his brother

from his father,

and his sister

who is an unmarried daughter of his father,

his son and his daughter.

The Sages added them

to also

his brother

from his mother,

and

his

unmarried sister from his mother, and

his

sister

the

married one, whether from his father or from his mother .

And just as he mourns for them -

And just as he mourns for them -

so he mourns for "

two"

of theirs; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva.

That is, he practices mourning together with his relatives when they themselves are mourners. For example, if his father's father dies and his father practices mourning, he too practices mourning with him, and it follows that he mourns for his father's father, who is at the level of a “second” in relationship to him.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

not all the “second” relatives are mourned for, and

he does not

mourn except for his son's son and his father's father .

.

And the Sages say: for anyone for whom he mourns -

he mourns with him

when he is a mourner. That is, for all the second relatives.

And we challenge:

the Sages -

is this not the first tanna

of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar [Rabbi Akiva]!?

And we resolve:

there is a difference between them

whether to practice mourning only when he sits

with him

together

in the house.

According to the first tanna, he practices mourning with his mourning relatives in every circumstance. But according to the Sages, he practices mourning only when he sits with them in the house.

As in that which Rav said to his son Hiyya,

when Rav Hiyya's wife was mourning,

and likewise Rav Huna said to his son Rabba,

when Rabba bar Rav Huna's wife was mourning:

In her presence,

in her presence, that is, when you are in the house together with her -

practice mourning,

for your wife is one of the relatives for whom one mourns. But

not in her presence,

not in her presence, when you leave the house -

do not practice mourning .

That is, his wife's brother, the son of his father-in-law, died.

.

Mar Ukva's wife's brother's son died for him.

His father-in-law's son, his wife's brother, died.

He considered sitting for him for seven and thirty.

Because Mar Ukva's wife practiced mourning over the death of her brother.

Rav Huna came to him,

he went up to visit Mar Ukva,

he found him,

he found him sitting shiva.

He said to him

Rav Huna to Mar Ukva: Is it that

a mourner's meal

is what

you wish to eat,

and therefore you are sitting shiva!? But

they said

that one must practice mourning

for the honor of his wife only

for

his father-in-law and mother-in-law

alone, and not for her brother .

The proof that this is what they said is from the contradiction between the beraitot below and from the necessity to distinguish between them.

For it was taught in a beraita: One whose father-in-law or mother-in-law died -

he is not

permitted to compel his wife to paint her eyes and arrange her hair,

and thereby refrain from mourning,

but

on the contrary, he too

overturns his bed,

like her,

and practices mourning with her. And likewise, when her father-in-law or mother-in-law dies -

here -

she is not permitted to paint her eyes and arrange her hair; rather, she overturns her bed and practices mourning with him.

And it was taught in another [beraita]: Even though they said that he is not permitted to compel his wife to paint her eyes and arrange her hair, in truth they said: she pours him his cup, makes his bed, and washes his face, his hands, and his feet .

.

with regard to the other relatives,

They contradict one another!

For in the first beraita it was said that he overturns his bed, whereas in the second beraita it was said that she makes his bed .

Rather, is it not so? Learn from this

that one must distinguish between the relatives:

here -

with his father-in-law and mother-in-law,

he overturns his bed;

here -

with other relatives,

she makes his bed.

And Rav Huna concludes:

Learn from this.

It was taught likewise: They said that he practices mourning with his wife

when he practices mourning with his wife

for the honor of his wife -

only his father-in-law and mother-in-law .

for him. His son came, Amemar's son, the father of the deceased, came, and Amemar tore again in his presence. He remembered afterward, Amemar remembered that while he was sitting he had torn, and one tears only while standing. He arose, Amemar, and tore

.

Ameimar's son's son died for him,

his son's son died,

Ameimar tore

Ameimar

for him.

His son came,

Ameimar's son, the father of the deceased, came, and

Ameimar tore

Ameimar

in his presence,

in his presence .

He remembered

afterward Ameimar remembered

that

when he was

seated he had torn,

and one tears only while standing.

Ameimar rose

and

tore

for the third time,

while standing.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: The tearing that

must be performed when he is

standing -

from where do we know this?

For it is written [Job 1],

“

And Job arose and tore his robe.”