Moed Katan 23b — the Talmud in English

These

sons of Judah

say: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location on the page")

There is mourning on Shabbat.

And these say: There is no mourning on Shabbat .

And the Gemara explains the reasoning of those who dispute:

As for the one who says that there is mourning on Shabbat

—because

it teaches

that Shabbat

counts

toward the tally of seven .

And

as for the one who says that there is no mourning on Shabbat

—because

it teaches

that Shabbat

does not interrupt.

And this proves that there is no mourning on Shabbat.

For

if it should enter your mind that there is mourning on Shabbat

—why is it necessary to say that Shabbat does not interrupt? For

now,

according to your words,

mourning applies

on Shabbat; if so, is

“does it interrupt?”

something that needs to be said—that it does not interrupt!? After all, according to your words mourning applies on Shabbat, so how could it enter your mind that Shabbat interrupts the mourning!?

Rather, from here it is proven that there is no mourning on Shabbat, and therefore there was room to say that it interrupts, and the tanna had to say that it does not interrupt.

But rather,

perhaps you will raise an objection that, on the other hand, it should be proven that mourning does apply on Shabbat, because

it indeed teaches: “counts”

that Shabbat counts toward the tally of seven! The answer is:

since

the tanna

needed

in our Mishna

to teach the latter clause:

Festivals interrupt and

do not count—

he taught

in the

first clause

that Shabbat

counts .

Теперь Гемара разъясняет основание мнения спорящих:

And now the Gemara explains the reasoning of those who dispute:

And according to the one who says that there is mourning on Shabbat,

the difficulty is:

it indeed teaches: “does not interrupt!”

And if there is mourning on Shabbat, why did the tanna need to say that Shabbat does not interrupt!?

Because he needed to teach the latter clause

that Festivals

interrupt—

he taught in the first clause

that Shabbat

does not interrupt.

Let us say

that the dispute whether there is mourning on Shabbat is

a dispute among tannaim?

For this is what we learned in Tractate Berakhot and in Tractate Semahot:

One whose dead lies before him—

eats in another house .

and eats. And he does not recline and eat, but sits and eats .

If he has no other house—

he eats in his friend's house.

If he has no friend's house—

he makes a partition for himself

in front of the dead, at a height of

ten handbreadths.

If he has nothing with which to make a partition—

he turns his face

to the side

and eats.

And he does not recline and eat,

but sits and eats .

And

since he is an onen,

he does not eat meat, and he does not drink wine,

because of his aninut ,

and he does not recite

the blessing over bread on behalf of others to discharge them from their obligation,

and he does not lead the zimmun,

the zimmun blessing , since he is exempt from all the mitzvot, as he is commanded at that time to occupy himself with the burial of the dead .

And

likewise

others do not recite a blessing on his behalf

to discharge him from his obligation ,

and they do not include him in a zimmun,

for he does not join them for a zimmun.

And he is exempt from reciting the Shema, from prayer, and from tefillin

, and from all the mitzvot stated in the Torah .

And

if his dead lay before him

on Shabbat—

he

reclines and eats, eats meat, and drinks wine

, and recites a blessing, and leads the zimmun, and others recite a blessing and lead the zimmun on his behalf.

And he is obligated in reciting the Shema and in prayer,

[and in tefillin] ,

and in all the mitzvot stated

in the Torah .

Rabban Gamaliel says: Since he became obligated in

all

these

mitzvot that are stated, he

became obligated

in all the mitzvot

of them all.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Conjugal relations

on Shabbat when he is an onen

is the difference between them: for Rabban Gamaliel it is permitted, whereas for the first tanna it is prohibited, and therefore he permitted only the mitzvot that are listed .

What? Is it not concerning this that they dispute:

For the one who said

Tanna Kama

held that there is mourning on Shabbat,

and he must refrain from marital relations on it while he is an onen on Shabbat.

And the other

Rabban Gamliel

held

that

there is no mourning on Shabbat

and therefore marital relations are permitted on it to an onen.

And we scrutinize:

From where

[do we know] that the dispute concerning an onen is connected with the question of whether there is mourning on Shabbat?

Perhaps Tanna Kama said there only

that the onen is forbidden marital relations

only because his dead is lying before him,

and because of his aninut he must refrain from marital relations, and not because of his mourning.

But here

concerning a mourner on Shabbat,

when his dead is not lying before him—

no

mourning applies on Shabbat.

And thus far Rabban Gamliel said there

that marital relations are permitted to him, only because

mourning has not yet taken hold of him.

For the obligation of mourning is only from the time of burial.

But here,

concerning mourning on Shabbat,

when mourning has taken hold of him—

likewise

there is mourning on Shabbat, and he will be forbidden marital relations.