Moed Katan 26a (כו.) — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught:

And these are the rents that are not sewn together:

One who rends his garment over

the death of

his father, his mother, his teacher who taught him Torah, a Nasi, or the head of the court.

And

likewise, one who rends his garment

over evil tidings, or over

hearing

"the blessing"

of the Name [a euphemistic expression].

And

likewise, one who rends his garment

over [seeing]

a Torah scroll that was burned.

And

likewise

over [seeing]

the cities of Judea, the Temple, and

Jerusalem

in their destruction.

And one rends his garment over

seeing the

Temple, and increases

the rent

over Jerusalem.

The Gemara explains the source of the laws stated in the beraita:

The mitzva of rending one’s garment over

one’s father and mother, and

over

one’s teacher who taught him Torah—

from where do we derive this?

From

as it is written [II Kings 2], concerning Elijah’s ascension to Heaven: “

And Elisha s

a

w

Elijah the prophet ascending to Heaven.

And he cried out: ‘

My father, my father! The chariot of Israel and its horsemen!’” “

My father, my father”—

this refers to his father and mother. “

The chariot of Israel and its horsemen”—

this refers to his teacher who taught him Torah.

And he rent his garment over his passing.

The Gemara explains:

What is the indication—

from where do we know from this verse that one must also rend his garment over the death of his teacher?

As Rav Yosef translates

the verse:

“My teacher, my teacher, for he is better for Israel”

because he is beneficial to Israel

through his prayer,

through his prayers on their behalf,

than chariots and horsemen,

which can benefit them.

Thus, Scripture called him “my teacher,” and over this Elisha rent his garment.

The Gemara continues its explanation of the laws stated in the beraita:

And the rents are not sewn together

the rents—

from where do we derive this?

As it is written

concerning the rent that Elisha made over the passing of his teacher Elijah [II Kings 2]: “

And he grasped his garments and rent them into two rents.”

From the implication of what is stated, “

and he rent them,”

and is it not obvious that

he rent them

?

Into two?

Rather, this teaches that

the garments must remain

rent and left as two separate parts—

forever!

Said

Reish Lakish raised an objection

to Rabbi Yohanan:

But

Elijah

was still

alive, so how could Elisha have rent his garment over him with the rent required over the dead!?

He said to him: Since it is written, “

And he did not see him again,”

then

with regard to him,

Elisha,

he is considered like the dead. .

The Gemara continues its explanation of the laws of the beraita:

Rending one’s garment over a Nasi or the head of the court

who died,

and

rending one’s garment over

evil tidings—

from where do we derive this?

As it is written

concerning the rent David made when he received the news of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan [II Samuel 1]: “

And David grasped his garments and rent them, and so did all the men who were with him,”

they rent their garments.

And they mourned, wept, and fasted until evening—

for Saul, for Jonathan his son, for the people of the Lord, and for the House of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.”

Saul—

this is a Nasi,

because he was a king and his law is like that of a Nasi.

Jonathan—

this is the head of the court.

For the people of the Lord and for the House of Israel—

these are evil tidings.

Rav bar Shava said to Rav Kahana: But say

that one rends his garment only

until all of them are present!?

He said to him: The word “

for”

stated in the verse regarding each matter separately

separates the matters. .

And we raised a difficulty: Do we really rend our garments over evil tidings?

But they said to Shmuel: “King Shapur killed

the king of Persia

twelve thousand Jews at Mezighat Kesari,”

and he did not rend his garment

over the evil tidings!?

And we answer:

They said

that one rends his garment over evil tidings

only

when they occurred

to the majority of the community

of Israel,

as in the incident that occurred

with Saul and Jonathan.

Therefore, Shmuel did not rend his garment over the news that King Shapur had killed twelve thousand Jews, because this did not involve the majority of the community of Israel.

And we question this:

Did King Shapur really kill Jews?

But King Shapur said to Shmuel: “May I benefit from this,

may good come to me,

that I did not kill

since I did not kill

a Jew ever.”

And we answer:

There,

they

the Jews who were there

caused their own deaths,

since they rebelled against him. And when King Shapur said to Shmuel that he had never killed a Jew, he meant that he had never killed a Jew without cause.

As Rabbi Ami said: To the sound of the extra strings,

the strings stretched across the harps

of “

Mezighat Kesari,”

with which the Jews proclaimed the rebellion,

the wall broke

its walls were breached

of

the city

of Ludkia.

This law, that one rends one’s garment

over

hearing “

the blessing”

of the Name—

from where do we derive it?

As it is written [II Kings 18]: “

And Eliakim son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebna the s

c

ribe, and Joah son of Asaph the recorder, came to Hezekiah, with their garments rent.”

They rent their garments when they heard the blasphemy and abuse of Rabshakeh, the emissary of the king of Assyria, who had besieged Jerusalem.

The Sages taught: Whether one hears

the “blessing” of the Name from the “one who blesses,”

or whether one hears it from someone who heard it,

such as one who hears it from the witnesses,

he is obligated to rend his garment.

But the witnesses

themselves

are not obligated to rend their garments

when they hear themselves at the time of their testimony,

because they already rent their garments when they heard it.

We raise a difficulty: If they rent their garments

when they heard it,

what of it?

They are hearing it now

again, as they hear themselves at the time of their testimony, and everyone who hears it is obligated to rend his garment!

And we answer:

No,

do not say, as

you might have thought,

that the witnesses too must rend their garments when they testify and hear the matter again [in their own testimony]. Since

it is written [II Kings 19],

«

“And it was, when King Hezekiah heard

when they told him the words of Rabshakeh’s blasphemy and abuse against the Lord, the emissary of the king of Assyria—

the king

rent

his garments.”

This proves that only

the king

Hezekiah alone

rent his garments

when he heard these words from them

, and

had

they,

the witnesses who had come to testify before him,

not rent their garments. .

And

this is the reason that

the rents are not sewn together

the rents made over such tidings remain so forever—

from where do we derive this?

It is derived

by means of a gzerah shavah,

“rending, rending.”

The law of “rending” stated here, concerning Rabshakeh’s blasphemy, is derived from the “rending” stated concerning Elisha at Elijah’s departure, which remains forever.

The obligation to rend one’s garment over

a Torah scroll that was burned—

from where do we derive it?

As it is written [Jeremiah 36]: “

And it was, when Jehudi read

the words of the lamentations in the scroll before King Jehoiakim,

three columns and four,”

three or four verses,

the king tore it

King Jehoiakim

with the scribe’s knife, and cast it into the fire that was in the hearth,” and so on.

The Gemara explains:

What is meant by “

three columns and four”?

They said to Jehoiakim

the king:

Jeremiah wrote a scroll of lamentations

about the destruction, which he prophesied would occur.

He said to them,

Jehoiakim:

What is written in it,

in the scroll of lamentations?

They recited the first verse to him [Lamentations 1]: “

Alas, she sits alone.”

He said to them,

Jehoiakim:

I am the king,

I am the king, and nothing negative is said about me in the scroll.

They said to him the second verse: It is written in it, “

She weeps bitterly in the night.”

He said to them:

I am the king,

and this does not refer to me.

They recited the third verse to him: It is written in it, “

Judah has gone into exile because of affliction.”

He said to them:

I am the king.

They recited the fourth verse to him: It is written in it, “

The roads of Zion mourn.”

He said to them:

I am the king.

When they reached the fifth verse and told him that it states, “

Her adversaries have become—

the head!,”

and this verse indicates that Jehoiakim’s reign was destined to pass away and that the adversaries would take his place as leaders,

he said to them,

Jehoiakim:

Who said it?

In whose name did Jeremiah say this verse?

They said to him: “

For the Lord has afflicted her for her many transgressions.”

Immediately he cut

Jehoiakim

all the mentions of the Name

of the Lord

that were in it,

in the scroll of Lamentations,

and burned them in the fire.

And this is what is written [Jeremiah 36]: “

And they were not afraid, nor did they rend their garments.”

By inference,

we learn from here

that they should have rent their garments,

for they should have rent them when they saw the mentions of the Name being burned in the fire.

He said to him,

raised this objection

Rav Pappa to Abaye:

From where do we know that they should have rent their garments over seeing the mentions of the Name being burned?

Say

that they should have rent their garments

because of the evil tidings

contained in the scroll of Lamentations!?

He said

in answer

to him,

Abaye: Were these

evil tidings—

present at that time?

It was still before the destruction. These were not tidings concerning events that had already occurred, but merely a description of what would occur in the future, and one is not obligated to rend his garment over that.

Rabbi Helbo said that Rav Huna said: One who sees a Torah scroll that has been torn must make two rents.

He makes

one rent in the parchment, and

one

rent in the writing.

As it is stated [Jeremiah 36]: “

After the king had burned the scroll,

the parchment,

and the words,

the writing.”

Rabbi Abba and Rav Huna bar Hiyya were sitting before Rabbi Abba. He wanted

Rav Huna bar Hiyya [according to the reading of Rav Hai Gaon]

to relieve himself,

to go to the lavatory.

He removed his head-tefillin,

taking off the tefillin,

and placed them beneath the bed,

placing them outside the lavatory, on an object called “beneath the bed.”

The daughter of the ostrich came,

the ostrich,

and wanted to swallow them.

He said: Now,

if it were to take and swallow the tefillin,

I would become obligated in two rents,

one in the parchment and one in the writing, since the ostrich’s swallowing of the tefillin, including their mentions of the Name, is equivalent to burning them!

Rabbi Abba said to him,

Rabbi Abba:

From where do you have this?

But I had a similar incident,

a similar incident occurred to me,

and I came before

him,

Rav Mattana,

to ask him how to act,

and he did not have an answer.

Afterward

I came before Rav Yehuda, and he said to me: This is what Shmuel said: They said that one must rend his garment

over the swallowing of tefillin

only

when the event occurs

through the

force of the

arm,

when there is no possibility of saving them,

as in the incident that occurred

with King Jehoiakim, when those who saw it had no possibility of saving the scroll. But if there is a possibility of saving it and preventing the loss, one is not obligated to rend his garment.

Concerning

the cities of Judea

from where

that they tear their garments?

As it is written [Jeremiah 41]: “

And there came men from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria, eighty men, with shaven beards, torn garments, and having gashed themselves.

And they had meal-offering and frankincense in their hands, to bring to the House of the Lord.”

Etc.

It says .

Rabbi Helbo said that Ulla Bira’a said that Rabbi Elazar said: One who sees the cities of Judea in their destruction says: [Isaiah 64] “

Your holy cities have become a wilderness.”

And he tears his garment.

One who sees

Jerusalem in its destruction

says: [there] “

Zion has become a wilderness; Jerusalem desolate.”

And he tears his garment .

One who sees

the Temple in its destruction

says [there]: “

Our holy and glorious House, where our fathers praised You, has been consumed by fire, and all our precious things have become ruins.”

And he tears his garment.

He tears for the Temple, and adds to the tear for Jerusalem.

And we raise a contradiction: One who hears

and one who sees, once he reaches the Tzofim lookout —

tears, and tears separately for the Temple and separately for Jerusalem.

It is not difficult.

This—

when he encountered the Temple first .

This—

when he encountered Jerusalem first .

The Sages taught: And all of them may fasten the tears, gather them,

and make them into ladder-like stitches, [types of stitching that do not constitute complete sewing],

but they may not sew them up .