Moed Katan 21a (כא.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, now:

regarding the verse written about a yavam who does not wish to perform yibbum with his yevama, but prefers to perform halitza with her: [

Deuteronomy 25] “

And he shall stand and say: I do not desire to take her!” —

is

likewise

to be understood that the yavam is required to say this specifically while standing!?

But it was taught

in tractate Yevamot that the mitzva of halitza applies

whether

the yavam is

sitting, standing, or leaning

to the side.

He said to him: There

in the case of the yavam,

it is not written “

And he shall stand and say,”

in the imperative form, which would have meant that he must perform all the procedures of halitza while standing, beginning with his declaration that he does not desire to perform yibbum.

Rather, it is written concerning him, “And he stood and said,” whose meaning is a report of events: when the yavam presents himself before the court and says this, the procedure of halitza begins in place of the mitzva of yibbum. But the verse does not mean that he must perform all the procedures of halitza while standing.

But

here,

in the case of Job’s tearing his garment, which was tearing for the dead,

it is written, “

And he arose and tore.”

This means that Job arose in order to tear, for when reporting an event concerning tearing, there is no reason to add the words “and he arose.” Thus it is proven that this is how one must act.

Rami bar Hama said: From where is it derived that tearing is performed while standing?

As it is stated [

Job 1]: “

And Job arose

after hearing of the deaths of his sons and daughters,

and tore.”

They challenged Rami bar Hama: From here, how do we know that one is required to tear while standing?

Perhaps he performed an additional act,

and Job’s rising for the purpose of tearing was something he added on his own!

For if you do not say so,

if we do not say that Job added a practice of his own, then regarding what is stated in the verse [Job 1], “

And he cut off

Job

the

hair of

his head,”

is

likewise

to be understood that a mourner must cut off the hair of his head!?

Rather, from here [II Samuel 13] we can learn that one must tear while standing, since we find that when King David learned of the death of his son [the son of Bathsheba], “

The king arose and tore his garments.”

“the king arose and tore his garments.”

And we ask:

And

from where do we learn from David’s conduct that one is required to do so?

Perhaps David performed an additional act

that is not required.

For if you do not say so,

rather, if everything David did was for the fulfillment of the mitzva of mourning, then concerning what is stated in that same verse, “

And he lay on the ground,”

is

likewise

to be understood that every mourner fulfills the mitzva of mourning by lying on the ground!?

But it was taught [according to the version in the Gemara below, 27a, based on the emendation of the Vilna Gaon] that the mitzva of mourning is not fulfilled by lying on the ground. As we learned in a beraita: If the

according to the version of the Gemara below, on 27a, based on the correction of the Gra, that the laws of mourning are not observed by lying directly on the ground. As we learned in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna: If

mourner slept

on a

bed

that was not overturned, or if he slept

on a chair or on an udiani

a

large

mortar, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

They said something even more stringent: Even if he slept

on the

ground —

he has not fulfilled his obligation.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: What is the meaning of “he has not fulfilled his obligation

”? —

He did not fulfill

the mitzva of

overturning the bed.

Rami bar Hama said to him, the one who raised the difficulty: In fact, everything described there accords with the laws of mourning. And when the verse says that David lay on the ground, it does not mean literally on the ground, but

in the manner of lying

as a form of

lying

on the ground: he overturned his bed and lay upon it.

The Sages taught: These are the matters that a mourner is prohibited from doing:

He is prohibited from engaging in work and from bathing,

, from anointing himself, from marital relations, and from wearing shoes.

And he is prohibited from reading Torah, Prophets, and Writings, from studying Mishna, Midrash, halakhot, Talmud, and aggadot.

But if many people require his services,

for his Torah,

he need not refrain

from delivering a discourse to the public.

And there was an incident: The son of Rabbi Yosei died in Tzippori, and he entered the study hall and delivered a discourse the entire day.

Rabba bar bar Hana suffered a misfortune; he thought that he should not go out to the public lecture,

so as not to go out to teach the public.

Rabbi Hanina said to him: If many people require his services —

he need not refrain.

He thought of appointing a meturgeman

an interpreter

for him,

so that Rabbi Hanina would sit and deliver the lesson in a low voice, while the interpreter would stand and repeat his words to the public in a loud voice.

Rav said to him: It was taught: Provided that he does not appoint an interpreter [

that is, an amora].

But then, how should he act?

As in that which was taught: There was an incident in which the son of Rabbi Yehuda bar Ila'i died, and he entered the study hall. Rabbi Hananya ben Akavya entered and sat beside him, and he whispered to Rabbi Hananya ben Akavya, and Rabbi Hananya ben Akavya whispered to the interpreter, and the interpreter made it heard to the public.

The Sages taught: A mourner,

according to Rashi’s version,

during the first two days is prohibited from putting on

during them

tefillin,

since the first two days are the primary period of mourning.

And

from

the

third day onward, and

the

third day is included —

it is permitted to put on tefillin.

And

even

if new people came

to comfort him on the third day,

he need not remove

the tefillin he is wearing on their account. He need not fear that the newly arrived comforters, seeing him now wearing tefillin, will say that he also put on tefillin during the first two days [just as he is putting them on now, on the third day],

the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: A mourner is prohibited from putting on tefillin on the first day,

on that day

tefillin,

since only the first day is the primary period of mourning.

And

from

the

second day onward, and

the

second day is included —

it is permitted to put on tefillin.

And if new people came

to comfort him on the second day —

he removes them.

The Gemara explains the reason for the dispute: Rav Mattana said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that the primary period of mourning is two days?

As it is written [

Deuteronomy 34]: “

And the days of weeping and mourning for Moses came to an end.”

The plural expression “days” indicates two days.

Rav Eina said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua?

As it is written [

Amos 8]: “

And its end is like a bitter day.”

This indicates that the primary bitterness of mourning is one day.

And we discuss this:

But Rabbi Yehoshua too, is it not written, “

And the days

of weeping and mourning for Moses came to an end”!?

He could say to you: The mourning

for the passing of

Moses was different, for his mourning was intense.

It was a particularly severe mourning.

But Rabbi Eliezer too, is it not written, “

And its end is like a bitter day”!?

And we answer:

The primary bitterness

is for one day,

but the primary period of mourning is two days.

Ulla said: The halakha follows Rabbi Eliezer regarding removing

tefillin: If new people come on the third day, he need not remove his tefillin.

And the halakha follows Rabbi Yehoshua regarding putting on

tefillin: It is permitted to put them on already on the second day.

They raised a dilemma:

A mourner who put on tefillin

on

the

second day, according to

the ruling of

Ulla,

who ruled halakhically in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua that he puts on tefillin on that day — if new people come on the second day, does he

remove

the tefillin, in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, who requires him to remove them,

or

regarding the removal of tefillin does he rule even on the second day in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who

does not remove them, just as he rules in accordance with him on the third day, when he does not remove them, although according to Rabbi Eliezer he may not even put them on during the second day?

just as he rules in accordance with him on the third day, when he does not remove them, even though according to Rabbi Eliezer on the second day he does not even put them on?

Come and hear, Ulla said:

on the second day he

removes them

when new faces come to comfort him, and returns

and puts them on

when they depart, and does this

even a hundred times,

since he removes them each time new faces come, and returns and puts them on when they depart .

It was taught likewise in a beraita: Yehuda ben Teima says:

On the second day

he removes them and puts them on even a hundred times.

Rava said: Once he has put them on

on the second day—

he no longer removes them .

And we challenge this:

But it was Rava who said

above [20a], concerning overturning the bed, that

the halakha is in accordance with our tanna, who says that three

days are the primary period of mourning.

And if so, here too he must refrain from putting on tefillin on the second day; and it is obvious that if he put them on, he must remove them, even if no new faces came!?