Moed Katan 22b (כב:) — the Talmud in English

But

for his father and mother

he reduces

his commercial activity.

For all other dead, if he wishes

he uncovers

his shoulder—that is, he lowers the garment and exposes the shoulder—

if he wishes

he need not uncover it.

But

for his father and mother

—

he uncovers it.

And there was an incident involving one of the great men of the generation whose father died, and he wished to uncover

his shoulder;

and another

great man of the generation who was with him

wished to uncover

it together with the mourning great man of the generation.

And

the mourning great man of the generation

refrained and did not uncover it

for his father, out of respect for the other great man, who had wished to uncover it together with him.

Abaye said: The great man of the generation

in that incident

was Rabbi.

And

the great man of the generation who was with him

was

Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha, who wished to uncover his shoulder for his father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, but he did not uncover it so that Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha would not uncover his shoulder together with him.

And some say: The great man of the generation

in that incident

was Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha.

Whereas

“the great man of the generation who was with him”

was

Rabbi.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this: Granted, according to the one who says

[some say] that

“the great man of the generation who was with him”

was

Rabbi

, while the mourning great man of the generation was Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha, it is well:

this is

the reason

he refrained—

Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha—

and did not uncover his shoulder

, so that Rabbi would not uncover his shoulder together with him.

But according to the one who says

[Abaye] that “the great man of the generation who was with him” [with Rabbi]

was

Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha, while Rabbi was mourning his father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi did not uncover his shoulder for his father so that Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha would not uncover his shoulder together with him, the following difficulty arises:

Why did Rabbi refrain

and

not uncover his shoulder

for his father, so that Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha would not have to uncover his shoulder together with him? After all, Rabbi’s father,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

was the Nasi! And everyone is obligated to uncover his shoulder

when a Nasi dies!

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is difficult!

We learned further in Tractate Semahot:

For all the dead

who are relatives,

he may cut his hair after thirty days.

For his father and mother

he may not cut his hair

until his colleagues rebuke him

and tell him to cut it.

For all the dead

he enters a house of celebration after thirty days; for his father and mother—

after twelve months.

Rabba bar bar Hana said: And regarding a gathering of friends

, which is not a major celebration but merely the celebration of companions, this is what we learned: For all the dead, he enters after thirty days.

However, he may not enter a wedding celebration, which is an especially great celebration, even after thirty days.

Meytivi

from a baraita in which we learned:

For a celebration and a gathering of friends

he may not enter during the mourning period for other dead relatives—

thirty days!?

And we conclude:

It is difficult.

Ameimar taught it in this manner:

Rabba bar bar Hana said: And regarding a gathering of friends—

it is permitted to enter immediately.

And we challenge this:

But it was taught: For a

meal of

celebration

, he enters after

thirty, and

so too

for a

meal of

friends

, he enters after

thirty days!?

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

This

refers to one who enters a meal of friends only after thirty days,

when it is a rotating arrangement

, in which the companions customarily each prepare a meal in turn, with one of them preparing it for everyone each time. Consequently, he does not lose anything by failing to participate in the meal during the thirty-day period.

This

refers to one who enters a meal of friends immediately, even within thirty days—

when it is a shared-loss arrangement

. Each of the companions is obligated to pay his share at every meal, and if he does not participate in the meal, he must pay even if he does not eat there. Consequently, he suffers a loss, paying for a meal at which he does not eat.

We learned further in Tractate Semahot:

For all the dead

all—

he makes a tear one handbreadth wide; for his father and mother—

until he exposes his heart.

Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the verse?

From here: [II Samuel 1] “

And David grasped his garments, and tore them.”

And grasping

is not possible

with less than a handbreadth.

For all the dead, even if he is wearing ten garments—

he tears only

the garment

that is uppermost

, and that suffices.

For his father and mother—

he tears all of them.

And

the tearing of

his apikarsut

[which covers his head]

does not invalidate the tearing.

Both the man and the woman

are obligated to tear.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The woman,

because of modesty,

tears

first

the

lower garment,

and turns it behind her,

so that her body remains covered the entire time,

and

only afterward

returns and tears the upper garment .

In their time, people wore a garment that covered the entire body and was open only around the neck. The edge of the garment

—the imra

—was circular, surrounding the neck opening.

The early authorities disputed the explanation of the tearing described below in the beraita.

According to Rashi here, the garment may be torn in either of the following two ways:

The first is to tear the neck opening, including the edge of the neck, in which case the tear does not appear to be a tear in the garment; rather, it appears only as an enlargement of the neck opening.

The second is to tear the garment below its edge, in which case the garment appears torn. Since the surrounding edge remains intact, the tear does not appear to be an enlargement of the neck opening.

According to the other early authorities, however, and this is the ruling established

in the Shulchan Arukh, the two ways of tearing described in the Gemara below are as follows:

The first is tearing the edge of the garment, and after the edge has been torn, continuing to tear the garment itself.

The second is leaving the edge of the garment intact and tearing the garment only beyond the edge, while the edge itself remains intact.

When the edge itself is also torn, the tear is discernible, because the two parts of the garment, which are completely separated by the tear, are distinct from one another. But if the edge is left intact and only the fabric of the garment beyond the edge is torn, the tear is not discernible, since the garment remains connected by means of the edge, which has remained intact.

We shall first explain the beraita according to Rashi, and afterward according to the other early authorities.

For all other deceased persons,

if

he wishes,

he does not tear the edge of the neck, but leaves it intact around the neck, and tears and

separates

the

“kemei safah”

of his garment,

the fabric located beyond the edge. In this way the tear is discernible, since it is not an enlargement of the neck opening; the edge of the neck remains intact.

And if

he wishes,

he does not

tear and

separate

the fabric before the edge of the neck, but tears only the neck opening, and that is sufficient, even though then the tear appears merely as an enlargement of the neck opening and not as the tearing of the garment into two separate parts.

But

for his father or his mother,

he must tear and

separate

the fabric of the garment beyond the neck opening, so that the tear in the garment will be visible.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Any tear

in a garment

that does not separate

in the tearing also

the

“kemei safah”

of the garment, but tears only the neck opening,

is merely a tear of frivolity,

that is, a tear without significance. He has not fulfilled the obligation of tearing with it, since the garment does not appear torn; rather, it appears only as though the neck opening in the garment had been enlarged.

Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda?

Because

it is written

[II Kings 2]:

“He grasped his garments and tore them into two tears.”

From the implication of the statement

“and he tore them,”

is it not

known that they were

torn

into two?

Rather,

he made in them a tear

that made them appear torn as two.

That is, he also separated the fabric of the garment itself, and not merely the neck opening .

This is the explanation according to Rashi.

But according to the other early authorities, the explanation is as follows:

For all other deceased persons, one need not tear the edge of the garment; it is sufficient to make a tear in the garment, and the garment need not be divided into two parts, since the edge of the garment remains intact and connects the two parts.

But for one’s father or mother, one must also tear the edge of the garment, called the “kemei safah,” so that the tear divides the garment into two.

For all other deceased persons—he

may temporarily join

the two sides, by uneven stitching,

after the seven days.

And he may permanently mend

the tear by means of even, permanent stitching

after thirty days .

But

for his father or his mother, he

may temporarily join it

only

after thirty days

, but may never permanently mend it.

And the woman may temporarily join it

the tear

immediately, for the sake of her dignity,

her modesty .

When Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan said: For all other deceased persons, if he wishes—

he tears by hand; if he wishes—

he tears with an implement,

with a knife, so that the garment will not be damaged more than necessary by the tearing .

But

for his father or his mother,

he tears specifically

by hand.

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: For all other deceased persons—

he tears the garment

from the inside,

and need not show others that he is tearing.

For his father or his mother—

he tears from the outside,

so that others will see the tear.

Rav Hisda said: And the same applies to a Nasi

—he must tear from the outside.

Meytivi

against Rav Hisda from a beraita:

They were not equated

all those mentioned in the beraita [such as one’s teacher, the head of the court, and the Nasi]

with one’s father and mother

in the other laws specific to one’s father and mother,

but only with regard to permanently mending the tear,

since one may never permanently mend the tear for them, just as one may never permanently mend a tear for one’s father or mother. But with regard to other matters, such as tearing from the outside, they were not equated with one’s father and mother.

Does this not mean—

even for a Nasi

one does not tear from the outside? If so, how did Rav Hisda say, “And the same applies to a Nasi—one tears from the outside”?

And we answer:

No!

The beraita refers only to one’s teacher and the head of the court,

excluding the Nasi,

for the Nasi is equivalent to one’s father and mother with regard to tearing from the outside.

It once happened that

the Nasi died,

he died.

Rav Hisda said to Rav Nahman bar Ami: Turn over the mortar

so that you can stand on it in a high place,

and climb up on it,

and stand on it in a manner that everyone will see you,

and show

the

tear

you made for the Nasi

to the public,

so that they would know that everyone must tear for him .

For a Sage

who died, he

uncovers

his shoulder

on the right ,

whereas

for the head of the court

who died, he uncovers his shoulder

on the left .

For a Nasi—

he uncovers both shoulders,

both on this side and on that side .

The Sages taught: When a Sage dies—

his beit-midrash is suspended.

Those students who were accustomed to study with him now cease their regular study .

When the head of the court dies—

all the batei-midrash of his city are suspended, and they enter the synagogue and change their places: Those who sit in the north

sit in the south, and those who sit in the south

sit in the north .

When a Nasi dies—

all the batei-midrash are suspended,