Moed Katan 21a — the Talmud in English

But if that is so:

with regard to that which is written concerning a yavam who does not wish to perform levirate marriage with his yevama, but prefers to perform halitza with her:

[Deuteronomy 25] “

And he shall stand and say: I have no desire to take her!” —

is it

also so

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

But it was taught

in Tractate Yevamot that the mitzva of halitza is

whether

the yavam

is sitting, whether standing, whether reclining

on his side.

He said to him: There

with regard to the yavam,

it is not written “

And he shall stand, and he shall say,”

in the language of a command, which would then mean that he must perform all the matters of halitza while standing, beginning with his saying that he does not desire to perform levirate marriage with her.

Rather, it is written concerning him, “And he shall stand and say,” whose meaning is a narration of events: when the yavam presents himself before the court and says this, then the procedure of halitza begins in place of the mitzva of levirate marriage. But the meaning of the words is not that he must perform all the matters of halitza while standing.

But

here,

with regard to Job’s rending, which was rending for the dead,

it is written, “

And he arose and rent.”

Its meaning is: Job arose in order to rend! For there is no way, in a narrative of events concerning rending, to add to the narrative the word “and he arose.” And it is thereby proven that this is how one must act.

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

As it is stated

[Job 1], “

And Job arose

after he heard of the death of his sons and daughters,

and he rent.”

And they raised an objection to Rami bar Hama: From where do we know from here that one is required to rend while standing?

Perhaps it was an additional matter that he did,

and arising for the purpose of rending was something that Job added on his own!

For if you do not say so,

for if we do not say this, that Job added a practice on his own, concerning that which the verse says [Job 1], “

And he cut off

Job

the

hair of

his head,”

is it

also so

that the mourner must cut off the hair of his head!?

Rather, from here

[II Samuel 13] we have to learn that one must rend while standing, since we find with regard to King David, when he learned of the death of his son [Bathsheba’s son], “

And the king arose and rent his garments.”

And we are astonished:

And

from where do we learn from David’s practice that this is what one is required to do?

Perhaps he performed an additional matter,

David, which is not required.

For if you do not say so,

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

And he lay on the ground,”

is it

also so

that every mourner fulfills the mitzva of mourning when he lies on the ground!?

But it was taught

[according to the version in the Gemara below, 27a, based on the Gra] that the mitzva of mourning is not fulfilled by lying on the ground. For so we learned in a beraita: If

the mourner slept

on

a bed

that was not overturned, or if he slept

on a chair, on a large mortar

of a

large

size, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

They said something even greater: 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.

He said to him

Rami bar Hama said to the one raising the objection: Actually, everything described there was in accordance with the laws of mourning, and when the verse said that David lay on the ground, it does not mean literally on the ground, but

in the manner 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 labor and from washing

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

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

And if the many require him

for his Torah —

he does not refrain

from expounding before the many .

And it happened that the son of Rabbi Yosei died in Sepphoris, and he entered the beit-midrash and expounded the entire day.

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

so as not to go out to expound before the public.

Rabbi Hanina said to him: If the many require him —

he does not refrain.

He thought to appoint an amora

an interpreter

over him,

so that Rabbi Hanina would sit and deliver the lesson in a low voice, while the interpreter would stand and state 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].

And then how should he act?

As in that which was taught: It happened that the son of Rabbi Yehuda bar Ila’i died, and he entered the beit-midrash. And Rabbi Hanania ben Akavya entered and sat beside him, and he whispered to Rabbi Hanania ben Akavya, and Rabbi Hanania ben Akavya to the interpreter, and the interpreter made it heard to the many .

The Sages taught: A mourner,

[according to Rashi’s version]

during the first two days, is prohibited from putting on

during them

tefillin,

because the first two days are the essence of the mourning.

And

from

the day

third and onward, and

the day

third also included —

it is permitted to put on tefillin.

And

even

if new faces arrived

to comfort him on the third day, he

does not remove

the tefillin that are upon him because of them. And he need not fear lest the new comforters, who see him now wearing tefillin, say that he also put on tefillin during the first two days [just as he puts them on now, on the third day],

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

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

on it

tefillin.

For only the first day is the essence of the mourning.

And

from

day

second, and

the day

second also included —

it is permitted to put on tefillin.

And if new faces arrived

to comfort him on the second day — he

removes them .

And the Gemara explains the reason for the disagreement: Rav Mattana said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that the essence of mourning is two days?

As it is written

[Deuteronomy 34], “

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

And the plural expression “days of” indicates two days.

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

As it is written

[Amos 8], “

And its end is like a bitter day.”

And it indicates that the essence of the bitterness of mourning is one day.

And we considered it:

And Rabbi Yehoshua too, is it not written, “

And the days

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

He can say to you: The mourning

over the passing of

Moses was different, for his mourning was severe.

For it was a strong mourning.

And Rabbi Eliezer too, is it not written, “

And its end is like a bitter day”!?

And we answer:

The essence of the bitterness —

is one day,

but the essence of the mourning is two days.

Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer concerning removal

of tefillin: if new faces arrive on the third day, he does not remove the tefillin.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua concerning putting them on,

for 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 decided the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, that he puts on tefillin on that day — if new faces arrive on the second day, does he

remove

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

or

with regard to removing 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, even though according to Rabbi Eliezer on the second day he does not even put them on?

Ta shma, Ulla said:

on the second day he

removes them

when new faces came to console him, and returns

and puts them back on

when they departed, and he does this

even a hundred times,

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

It was taught likewise; Yehuda ben Teima says:

on the second day

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

Rava said: Since he put them on

on the second day—

he no longer removes them .

And we object:

But Rava is the one who said

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

the halakha follows our tanna, who says that three

days are the essence 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 new faces did not come!?