Moed Katan 22b — the Talmud in English

But

for his father and for his mother —

he diminishes

in commerce.

For all the other dead, if he wishes —

he bares

his shoulder, meaning that he lowers the garment and exposes the shoulder,

if he wishes —

he does not bare it. .

But

for his father and for his mother —

—

he bares it.

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

his shoulder,

and he wished

also

that another great man of the generation who was with him should bare

together with the mourning great man of the generation.

And the mourning

great man of the generation

refrained and did not bare

for his father, because of the honor of the other great man, who had wished to bare 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 bare himself for his father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, but he did not bare himself so that Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha would not bare himself 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 an objection concerning this: Granted, according to the one who says

[there are those who say]

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

was

Rabbi,

and the mourning great man of the generation was Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha,

we have

the reason

that he refrained

Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha

and did not bare himself,

so that Rabbi would not bare himself 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, and Rabbi was the one mourning for his father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi did not bare himself for his father so that Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha would not bare himself together with him, this is difficult:

Why did Rabbi refrain

and

not bare himself

for his father so that Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha would not have to bare himself together with him? For Rabbi’s father,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel —

was the Nasi! And everyone was obligated to bare himself

for a Nasi who died!?

And we conclude: Indeed

it is difficult!

We learned further in tractate Semahot:

For all the dead

who are relatives,

one cuts his hair after thirty days.

For his father and for his mother —

he does not cut his hair

until his companions reprimand him

to cut it.

For all the dead —

he enters the house of feasting after thirty days; for his father and for his mother —

after twelve months.

Rabba bar bar Hana said: And for a gathering of friends,

which is not an abundant joy, but merely the joy of friends, it is this that we learned: for all the dead, he enters after thirty days.

But for a wedding celebration, which is an excessive joy, he does not enter even after thirty days.

Meitivi

from a beraita in which we learned:

And for a celebration and for a gathering of friends

he does not enter for the other dead —

thirty days!?

And we conclude:

it is difficult.

Ameimar taught it this way:

Rabba bar bar Hana said, and for a gathering of friends —

it is permitted to enter immediately.

And we ask:

But it was taught: For a

meal of

joy,

he enters after

thirty,

and likewise

for a

meal of

a gathering of friends,

he enters after

thirty!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

—that he enters a meal of friends only after thirty days—

is in an arrangement of turns,

where the friends customarily make a meal each according to his turn, and each time one makes it for everyone; consequently, he does not lose if he does not participate in the meal within thirty days.

This

—that he enters a meal of friends immediately, even within thirty days—

is in a system of shared misfortune.

For each of the friends 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 at it; consequently, he loses, paying for a meal at which he does not eat.

We learned further in tractate Semahot:

For all the dead

all of them —

he tears a handbreadth; for his father and for his mother —

until he exposes his heart. .

Сказал Рабби Авау: каков стих?

Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the verse? From here: [II Samuel 1]

From here: [II Samuel 1] “

“And David grasped his garments, and tore them.”

And grasping

is

not less than a handbreadth. .

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

he tears only

the garment

uppermost,

and that is sufficient.

For his father and mother—

For his father and for his mother —

he tears all of them. .

And the tearing of

his apikarsuto

[which covers his head]

does not prevent. .

Both man and 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 is covered all the time,

and

only afterward

returns and tears the upper garment .

In their time they wore a garment that covered the entire body and was open only in the area of the neck. The edge of the garment

[the imra]

was circular, around the neck opening.

The Rishonim disagreed in explaining the tearing described below in the beraita.

According to Rashi here, the tearing of the garment can be done in either of the following two ways:

The first: to tear the neck opening, including the edge of the neck, and then the tear does not appear as a tear in the garment, but only appears as an enlargement of the neck opening.

The second: to tear the garment below its edge, and then the garment appears torn. For the edge surrounding it remains intact, and the tear does not appear as an enlargement of the neck opening.

But according to the other Rishonim, and this is also the ruling established

in the Shulhan Arukh, the two ways of tearing explained in the Gemara below are as follows:

The first: tearing the edge of the garment, and after the edge has been torn, he continues tearing the garment itself.

And the second: 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 tearing is evident, because the two parts of the garment, between which there is a complete tear, are separated from one another. But if the edge is left intact, and only the fabric of the garment beyond the edge is torn, the tearing is not evident, since the garment remains joined by means of the edge, which remained intact.

Below we will explain the beraita first according to Rashi, and afterward according to the other Rishonim.

For all the other dead,

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 sefa”

of his,

the fabric found beyond the edge; and through this the tearing is evident, for it is not an enlargement of the neck opening, since 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 this is sufficient for him, even though then the tear appears only as an enlargement of the neck opening and not as the tearing of the garment into two separate tears.

But

for his father and 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 Judah says: Every tearing

of a garment

that does not separate

in the tearing also

the

“kemei sefa”

of it, but tears only the neck opening,

is merely a tear of frivolity,

that is, a tear without significance, and he has not fulfilled through it the obligation of tearing, since the garment does not appear torn, but only as though they enlarged the neck opening in the garment.

Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the reason of Rabbi Judah?

Because

it is written [II Kings 2]:

“

And he grasped his garments, and tore them into two tears.”

From the implication of what is stated,

“and he tore them,”

and is it not the case that

I know that they are

torn

into two?

Rather, he tore in them a tear

that

appears torn as two.

That is, he also separated the fabric in the garment itself, and not only the neck opening .

This is the explanation according to Rashi.

But according to the other Rishonim, the explanation is as follows:

For all the dead, he need not tear the edge of the garment; rather, it is sufficient for him to make a tear in the garment, and the garment will not be divided into two parts, since the edge of the garment remains intact and joins the two parts.

But for his father and mother, he must also tear the edge of the garment called “kemei sefa,” so that the tear divides the garment into two.

For all the other dead—

he stitches loosely,

joining them temporarily, with uneven stitching,

after seven.

And he reunites it,

joining the tear by means of even and permanent stitching,

after thirty .

But

for his father and his mother—

he stitches loosely

only

after thirty

and he never reunites it.

And the woman stitches it loosely

for the tear

immediately, because of her honor,

her modesty .

When Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan said: For all the other dead, 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 by the tearing .

But

for his father and his mother—

he tears specifically

by hand.

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: For all the other dead—

he tears the garment

from within,

and need not show others that he is tearing.

For his father and his mother—

he tears from outside,

so that others will see the tearing.

Rav Hisda said: And likewise for a prince

he must tear from outside.

We object

to 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 prince]

with his father and his mother

with regard to the other laws that are distinctive to his father and his mother,

but only with regard to reuniting,

for also in their case one does not reunite the tear ever, just as one does not reunite a tear over his father and mother; but with regard to the other matters, such as tearing from outside, they were not equated with his father and his mother.

What, is it not—

even for a prince

one does not tear from outside? And how, then, did Rav Hisda say, “And likewise for a prince, one tears from outside”?

And we answer:

No!

The intention of the beraita is only with regard to one’s teacher and the head of the court,

apart from the prince,

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

It once happened that

a prince died,

he died.

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

turn over the mortar so that you can stand upon it in a high place,

and stand upon it,

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

and show

and display the

tear

that you made over the prince

to the public,

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

For a sage

who died,

he bares

his shoulder

on the right ,

whereas

for the head of the court

who died, he bares his shoulder

on the left .

For a prince—

he bares both his shoulders,

from here and from here .

The Sages taught: If a sage dies—

his beit-midrash is suspended.

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

If the head of the court dies—

all the study halls in 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 .

If a prince dies—

all the study halls are suspended,