Moed Katan 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that one tears his garment over the death of a person only for his relatives.

And we raised a difficulty:

And

if

even

the deceased was

a sage,

does one tear for him only when he is a relative?

And it was taught in a beraita: When a sage dies

everyone is his relative.

There is an apparent difficulty in the wording of the beraita: Is it conceivable

that everyone

is

the relative

of a sage?

Would it enter your mind

to say so?

Rather,

this is what the beraita means to say:

everyone

is considered

like his relatives—

everyone tears for him, everyone bares his shoulder for him, and everyone provides him with the mourner’s meal in the broad thoroughfare!

This question is well explained even according to the first interpretation. Although our Mishna is discussing the intermediate days of a Festival, one can nevertheless learn from its wording that the obligation to tear one’s garment and remove one’s shoes applies only to relatives, whereas other people are not obligated to do so. Therefore, they were not permitted to tear their garments or remove their shoes during the intermediate days of a Festival. By contrast, this baraita states that there is an obligation to tear one’s garment even for a sage who is not his relative. And the Ritva discusses whether there is also an obligation to observe mourning for a sage, in addition to the obligations to tear one’s garment and provide the mourner’s meal, since reason indicates that there is no mourner’s meal without mourning. This is also stated below regarding one’s teacher, for whom one observes mourning for one day. Or perhaps the law of mourning applies specifically to one’s teacher. In any event, one provides the mourner’s meal for a sage, because the obligation to provide that meal is not dependent on mourning. [This question depends to some extent on the dispute cited in the previous note regarding providing a mourner’s meal during a Festival, when mourning is not observed.] And the Ramban maintains that there is no law of mourning for a sage. The Ritva also inferred from the wording of the baraita, “everyone is like his relatives,” that one is obligated to tear his garment specifically when he hears of the sage’s death within the period defined as a close report, but if he hears of it after that period, he does not tear his garment, as is the law regarding a report of the death of other relatives. This applies specifically to a sage who is not his teacher. But if the deceased is his teacher, he tears his garment even upon receiving a distant report, as he does for his father and mother.

And since everyone is considered his relatives and everyone must tear for him, why does the Mishna say that one tears for the deceased only when he is a relative?

And we answer:

It is necessary

as our Mishna is speaking of a deceased person

who is not a sage.

We raise another difficulty:

And if he is a proper person,

everyone is obligated

to

tear.

As it was taught in a beraita: Why do a person’s sons and daughters die when they are young?

So that he will cry and mourn over a proper person .

And we were astonished: Is it so that, in order that

The Ritva wrote that it is obvious that there is no obligation of mourning for a proper and upright person [even if one maintains that there is an obligation to mourn for a sage]. Nevertheless, one is obligated to tear his garment for him, in order to arouse weeping and eulogizing. But the Ran the Ran Shabbat 105] wrote that some maintain that there is no obligation to tear one’s garment for a proper and upright person, since only weeping is mentioned regarding him. Even so, it is proper to tear one’s garment for him. According to this view, the passage here should be explained as follows: Since it is proper to tear one’s garment for him, even though this tearing is not obligatory, one has at least avoided the prohibition against wanton destruction. the Rema wrote [in Orach Chaim] that one relies on this to be lenient not to tear over a chacham who died, when he is not his teacher. Specifically concerning one’s teacher that is definite, who learned most of his Torah from him; but concerning a teacher who is not definite, people do not practice tearing. Thus wrote the Rema. ] The Rema Yoreh De'a 340:6] wrote that people relied on this view to be lenient and not tear their garments for a proper and upright person. The early authorities raised the following difficulty: Since there is an obligation to tear one’s garment even for a proper and upright person [according to those who dispute the Ran above], why did the tanna, a sage of the Mishnaic period, need the baraita cited earlier to teach that there is an obligation to tear one’s garment for a sage? A sage is certainly no less worthy of this than a proper and upright person. The Ramban answered that one is obligated to tear his garment for a proper and upright person only when he is in his presence, whereas for a sage one tears even when he is not in his presence. The Rosh gave a similar answer: One tears for a proper and upright person when he learns of the death from the time of death until the burial, even if he is not in the deceased’s presence; but after the burial he does not tear. In contrast, for a sage he tears in every case. The Ritva answered that regarding a proper and upright person, the obligation applies only to those who are lesser than him in Torah knowledge, whereas those equal to him are not obligated. For a sage, by contrast, even those equal to him tear their garments. Nevertheless, those who are greater than him in Torah knowledge are not obligated. The Ritva further wrote that a person is considered proper and upright only if he studied some Torah, even if he did not attain the level of a “student of the sages.” But if he did not study at all, he is not included in this category, since one who is not a person of Torah cannot truly be considered a proper and upright person. See also the Shakh [Yoreh De'a 340:11]. And we were astonished: Is it so that, in order that

And we question this: Is it

so that he will cry and mourn

over a proper person in the future that a person’s sons die? Is it that

he takes collateral from him—

does one take collateral from him in advance for this?

Rather,

this is what should be said: A person’s young sons die

because he did not cry and mourn over a

proper person.

For anyone who cries and mourns over a proper person

is forgiven all his sins, on account of the honor he showed him.

And we answer: Our Mishna is speaking of a deceased person

who is not a proper person.

And we raise another difficulty:

If he was standing there,

if a person who was not a relative of the deceased was standing there

at the time of the soul’s departure,

he is obligated

to tear as well, despite not being a relative of the deceased. Why, then, does the Mishna say that only relatives tear?

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One who stands over the deceased at the time of the soul’s departure

is obligated to tear. To what is this comparable?

To a Torah scroll that was burned, for which one is obligated to tear

when he sees it being torn apart .

--- And we answer: Our Mishna is speaking of a case

where he was not standing there,

where no person who was not a relative of the deceased was standing there

at the time of the soul’s departure.

When Rav Safra’s soul departed, the Sages did not tear for him.

They said: We did not learn

Torah

from him,

from him .

--- Abaye said to them: Is it taught

“When a teacher dies,

everyone is like his relatives”?

After all,

“When a sage dies,

everyone is like his relatives”

is what is taught.

And furthermore,

after all,

every day his teachings

the teachings of Rav Safra

are on our lips

in our mouths as we study

in the house of study.

Thus, we are learning from him even if we are not his direct students .

They thought that there was no remedy for their failure to tear, because they reasoned

that the Sages thought there was no remedy for their failure to tear, since

what happened

happened.

There was no possibility of tearing after the passage of time.

Abaye said to them: We learned: For a sage, as long as the eulogizing is taking place

one is obligated to tear

for him.

They thought they should tear immediately

without a eulogy.

Abaye said to them: It was taught: For a sage,

his honor is in his eulogy,

and you should wait to tear until the time of the eulogy .

When Rav Huna’s soul departed, they thought of placing

placing

a Torah scroll on his bier,

on his bed, in order to say about him, “This one fulfilled what is written in this one.”

Rav Hisda said to them: A matter

a matter

that during his lifetime

during Rav Huna’s lifetime

he did not hold,

he thought that this should not be done—should we

now

now

arise and do it for him,

stand and do for him something that he himself thought should not be done?

As Rav Taḥlifa said: I saw

him

Rav Huna, who wanted to sit on a bier,

who wanted to sit on a bed,

and a Torah scroll was placed upon it.

And he overturned a jug onto the ground,

Rav Huna turned a jug upside down,

and placed

and placed the

Torah scroll upon it,

on top of it, because he held that it is forbidden to sit on a bed upon which a Torah scroll is lying .

Apparently, he held

Rav Huna

that it is forbidden to sit on a bed upon which a Torah scroll is placed.

The bier could not be taken out through the gate.

The bed could not be taken out through the gate.

They thought of lowering it through the roofs.

Rav Hisda said to them: This is what I learned from him: A sage—

his honor

requires that they take out his bier

through an entrance.

They thought of changing him

to transfer him

from the broad bier

from the broad bed on which he had been lying

to the narrow bier,

a narrow one.

Rav Hisda said to them: This is what I learned from him: A sage—

his honor

requires that they take him out

on the first bier

that was placed beneath him.

As Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: From where is it derived that a sage’s honor is in the first bier?

As it is stated

[II Samuel 6]: “They placed the Ark of God upon a new cart” .

And they placed the Ark of God upon a new cart.”

Rashi explains that the same cart on which the Philistines sent the Ark of the Covenant was used by David to bring the Ark to Kiriath-jearim. The commentators raised the following difficulty: It is explicitly stated in the verse [I Samuel 6] that immediately after the cart arrived from the field of the Philistines, they chopped up its wood and offered it as fuel to the Lord. In Ta'ama deKra it was answered that they chopped up only part of the wood, while the rest of the cart remained intact. The Maharsha noted that it is indeed stated in Sota [35] that David erred by carrying the Ark on a cart, since it was meant to be carried on the shoulders. Nevertheless, the Gemara proves its point from the fact that he carried it on that same cart, since it is a matter of honor not to transfer it from one cart to another.

Open the gate,

widen the gate,

and take it out.

Rabbi Abba began his eulogy for him: It was fitting that our master should have had the Divine Presence rest upon him, but Babylonia prevented it from resting upon him

by preventing it from resting upon him.

Rav Naḥman bar Hisda objected, and some say it was Rav Ḥanan bar Hisda:

It is written in the Book of Ezekiel [chapter 1],

“The word of the Lord came repeatedly to Ezekiel son of Buzi the priest in the land of the Chaldeans.”

This proves that the Divine Presence rests even in Babylonia!?

His father tapped him with his sandal. He said to him:

Is it that

I did not tell

you

not to disturb the world

with questions?

What is the meaning of

“came

the word of the Lord”?

It had already come,

for the Divine Presence had rested upon him when he was in the Land of Israel .

When they brought him up there, they said to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: Rav Huna is coming.

They understood that he was arriving alive, because they had not told them of his death.

They said,

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi:

When we were there,

in Babylonia,

we could not raise our heads before him.

We could not raise our heads because of his greatness. But now that

we have come here,

now that we have come to the Land of Israel,

he has come after us?

He has come after us?

They said to them: His coffin has come!

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi went out

to accompany it.

Rabbi Ila and Rabbi Hanina did not go out.

Some say: Rabbi Ila went out, and Rabbi Hanina did not go out.

The one who went out—

what is his reason?

As it was taught in a beraita: When a coffin is being transferred from place to place

people stand before it in a line, and they recite over it the blessing of mourners and the consolation of mourners .

wrote The Ramban wrote that this law applies specifically when the deceased was already buried elsewhere and his bones were later gathered and transferred from place to place. In such a case, since the laws of mourning are observed for him on that day, as we learned above [8], words of consolation for mourners are also appropriate. The same applies when he is still within the seven days following his burial, even if it is not the day on which his bones were gathered. [The same law applies when he has not yet been buried and they come to bury him in this place, as the Ritva wrote.] But when the relatives are not subject to the laws of mourning, there is certainly no basis for reciting words of consolation for mourners and the like.

The one who did not go out—

what is his reason?

As it was taught in a beraita: When a coffin is being transferred from place to place

people do not stand before it in a line, and they do not recite over it the blessing of mourners or the consolation of mourners.

These statements contradict one another!

It is not difficult.

Here,

it is referring to a case in which the skeleton remains intact.

Here,

it is referring to a case in which the skeleton does not remain intact.

And as for Rav Huna,

his skeleton remained intact.

And this is the reason that he

did not go out—

they did not finish explaining it to him,

that his skeleton remained intact.

They said: Where shall we lay him,

in whose grave?

Rav Huna disseminated Torah in Israel, and Rabbi Hiyya had disseminated Torah in Israel.

Rav Huna’s place was beside Rabbi Hiyya.

They said:

Who will bring him in

to bury him beside Rabbi Hiyya?

Rav Haga said to them: I will bring him in, for I established my students in their learning when I was eighteen years old, and I never experienced a seminal emission.

And I would relate it before him,

I would relate traditions before Rav Huna,

and I knew his deeds.

And I recognized his great deeds, such as:

One day, the strap of his tefillin became inverted,

so that the black side was facing his body,

and he sat in observance of forty fasts .

He brought him in

Rav Haga, to bury him.

He was lying

there in the burial cave,

Judah

son of Rabbi Hiyya,

to his father's right, and Hezekiah

his son,

to his left.

Judah said to Hezekiah: Rise from your place, for it is not proper that Rav Huna be standing,

as Rav Huna was standing .

As Judah was standing,

Judah—

a pillar of fire arose alongside him.

Rav Haga saw it; some say,

he was frightened by the pillar of fire,

he raised

and stood

Rav Huna's bier

between himself and the pillar of fire, so that it would intervene between them and not harm him,

and he went out and came away.

And the reason Rav Haga was not punished

for having succeeded in escaping from the pillar of fire was only—

because he raised Rav Huna's bier

so that it would intervene between them.

When Rav Hisda died, they thought to place a Torah scroll on his bier,

to place a Torah scroll on his bed.

Rabbi Yitzhak said to them: Shall we perform for him an act that his master did not hold to be proper!?

They thought not to loosely stitch their torn garments

over him.

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Ami said to them: In the case of a sage, once they have turned their faces away from the bier—

they may loosely stitch .

When Rabba bar Huna and Rav Hamnuna died—

When Rabbah bar Rav Huna and Rav Hamnuna died—

they brought them up there,

to Eretz Yisrael.