Moed Katan 20b (כ:) — the Talmud in English

He said to him:

Rav: “Since you are asking about my father, why are you not asking about my mother, who is also your sister [on your mother’s side], as follows: Is your

mother

still

alive?!”

Rabbi Hiyya said to him:

“Indeed, I am also asking about her: Is your

mother

still

alive?”

He said to him,

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

your father

indeed

alive?

Rabbi Hiyya understood from Rav’s evasive responses to his questions that his brother and sister had died.

Rabbi Hiyya said to

Rabbi Hiyya

his attendant,

his servant: A.

Remove my shoes,

and I will observe mourning for my brother and sister briefly, by removing my sandal on hearing a distant report of death.

B.

And

immediately after removing his shoe,

take

the

utensil to the bathhouse,

and I will bathe with it. By doing so, he intended to teach that mourning upon hearing a distant report applies for only one day, and that part of a day is considered like the entire day.

Infer from this

from Rabbi Hiyya’s conduct

three

three halakhot:

A.

Infer from this: A mourner is prohibited from wearing sandals .

B.

And infer from this: Mourning upon hearing a distant report applies for only one day .

C.

And infer from this:

observing mourning during

part of the day

is considered observing mourning

for the entire day .

This proves that according to Rabbi Hiyya one does not observe seven or thirty days upon hearing a distant report, and it is difficult: How can we say that Rabbi Ahiya [whom the Gemara assumed was Rabbi Hiyya] observed seven and thirty days upon hearing a distant report concerning his son?!

The Gemara retracts its assumption that Rabbi Ahiya was Rabbi Hiyya.

And we answer:

Rabbi Hiyya—

—

is one person; Rabbi Ahiya—

—

is another person.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: If one hears a near report [

within thirty days]

during a Festival, and when the Festival ends it becomes 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 for it

except for one day .

Rabbi Adda of Caesarea taught before Rabbi Yohanan: If one hears a near report on Shabbat, and when Shabbat ends it becomes a distant report—

he observes only one day .

The Gemara discusses a report that was near at the time of the Festival or on Shabbat, but which became distant when the Festival or Shabbat passed, since thirty days had already elapsed and now mourning applies for only one day [according to Tosafot]:

Does he

tear

for the deceased,

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 seven-day mourning,

and where there is no seven-day mourning, there is no tearing.

But according to you, who say that he tears,

for a distant report despite the fact that mourning applies for only one day, the difficulty is: Is there such a thing as

tearing without seven days—

is there?

We challenge the premise underlying Rabbi Mani’s question:

And

is it the case that

no

tearing without seven days is found?

But it was taught,

for we find that

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

a beraita, and it states:

One who does not have a garment to tear

, and obtains one within the seven days—

he tears; after the seven days—

he does not tear .

Rabbi Zeira responded to it,

Rabbi Zeira answered after the beraita had been taught before him:

When are these words said,

that after the seven days he does not tear?

With regard to the five categories of mitzva-related mourners,

the five relatives, out of the seven relatives for whom it is a mitzva to mourn.

But for one’s father and mother—

he continues tearing

even after the seven days!

This proves that there is also tearing without seven days. What, then, is Rabbi Mani’s objection?!

And we answer:

When that was taught

that one tears without seven days, it refers to tearing

in honor of one’s father and mother,

which applies even without seven days. Ordinary mourning-related tearing, however, applies only where the seven-day mourning period is observed .

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

that is, all the relatives

for whom a priest becomes impure

when they die—

a mourner mourns for them .

And these are

the seven relatives for whom one mourns by Torah law:

his wife, his father, his mother, and his brother

on his father’s side,

and his sister

who is an unmarried daughter of his father,

his son and his daughter.

The Sages added to them

the also

brother

on his mother’s side,

and

his

unmarried sister on his mother’s side, and

his

sister

who is

married, whether on his father’s side or on his mother’s side .

And just as he mourns for them -

so he mourns for "

two"

of theirs, the words of Rabbi Akiva.

That is, he observes mourning together with his relatives when they themselves are mourners. For example, if his father's father dies, and his father observes mourning, he too observes mourning with him. Thus, he mourns for his father's father, who is in the category of a "second-degree" relative to him.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: He does not mourn for all the "second-degree" relatives, and he does not

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

And the Sages say: Anyone for whom he mourns - mourns with him when he is a mourner. That is, for all the second-degree relatives.

does not

mourn except for his grandson and his grandfather

.

And we challenge this:

the Sages -

is that not the first tanna

of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar [Rabbi Akiva]!?

And we resolve: there is a difference between them whether he observes mourning only when he sits

—is this not the first tanna

of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar [namely, Rabbi Akiva]!?

with him

together

in the house.

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

As in that which Rav said to Hiyya his son,

when Rav Hiyya's wife was a mourner,

and similarly Rav Huna said to Rabba his son,

when Rabba bar Rav Huna's wife was a mourner:

In her presence,

in front of her; that is, when you are together with her in the house -

observe mourning,

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

not in her presence,

when you are not in front of her, when you leave the house -

you shall not observe mourning.

not in her presence

, when you leave the house,

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

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

He thought of sitting mourning for him for seven and thirty days.

Because Mar Ukva's wife was observing 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 said to Mar Ukva: Are you perhaps

wanting to eat a mourner's meal,

a meal of mourning,

and therefore you are sitting shiva!?

But

they did not say

that one must observe mourning

for the honor of his wife except for

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

alone, and not for her brother.

The proof that this is what they said comes from the contradiction between the beraitot below and the necessity of distinguishing between them. As it is taught in a beraita: When one's father-in-law or mother-in-law dies - he is not permitted to compel his wife to apply eye makeup and arrange her hair, so that she thereby refrain from mourning, but on the contrary, he too overturns his bed, like her,

for

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

, but not for her brother

and observes mourning with her. And similarly, when her father-in-law or mother-in-law dies,

she is not permitted to apply eye makeup and arrange her hair, but she overturns her bed and observes mourning with him.

And it is taught in another beraita: Although they said that he is not permitted to compel his wife to apply eye makeup and arrange her hair, they actually said: She pours him a cup, makes his bed, and washes his face, his hands, and his feet.

permitted to compel his wife to apply eye makeup or arrange her hair

, thereby refraining from mourning,

but

They contradict one another!

In the first beraita it is stated that he overturns his bed, whereas in the second beraita it is stated that she makes his bed.

Rather, can one not conclude from this

that a distinction must be made between the relatives:

here -

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

he overturns his bed;

here -

with regard to the other relatives,

she makes his bed.

And Rav Huna concludes:

Conclude from this.

It is likewise taught in a beraita: They said

that he observes mourning with his wife

for the honor of his wife -

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

here

the case is his other relatives,

and she makes his bed.

And Rav Huna concludes:

It may be concluded from here.

Amemar's grandson died for him,

that is, his son's son died,

he tore

Amemar

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 grandson died for him,

that is, his son’s son died.

He tore

his garment,

for him.

His son came,

the father of the deceased, and Ameimar again

tore

his garment

in his presence,

in the son’s presence

for the third time, while

standing.

Rav Ashi said to Amemar: The tearing that

must be performed while he is

standing -

from where do we know this?

As it is written [Job 1]: "

And Job arose and tore his robe."

tore

his garment a third time, while

standing.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: That the tearing

must be done while he is

standing

—

from where do we know this?

As it is written [Job 1]: “

Job arose and tore his robe.”