Shabbat 105b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

That he made it —

the garment was made

like a pouch,

that it was not woven in a straight form, but swelled and protruded like a pouch protruding from the woven fabric; and for the purpose of straightening the garment one must tear it below, roll it, thereby settle the sewing, and afterward sew it in the place of the tear. And for such a repair one must make a tear in order to sew two stitches in the garment.

Mishna:

One who tears in his anger

out of his anger,

and

one who tears

over his dead

out of sorrow.

And

likewise

all those who perform a destructive act

in performing one of the primary labors —

are exempt.

But one who performs a destructive act in order to repair,

such as one who tears, or erases, or dismantles —

his measure

is

like that of one who repairs,

for he is liable only if he destroyed according to the measure in order to repair according to the measure.

The measure for one who whitens

the wool,

and one who fluffs

it,

and one who dyes

it,

and one who spins

threads from it, all of which are primary labors, their measure is: one thread whose length is

the full width of a doubled span.

That is, double the measure of the distance between the index finger and the middle finger.

And one who weaves two threads, its measure is: the full span.

For although he did not weave across the entire width of the garment, but only across the width of a full span [not doubled], he is liable.

Gemara:

And we juxtapose a contradiction:

It was taught:

One who tears in his anger, and in his mourning, and over his dead, is liable.

And although he desecrates Shabbat

when he tears over his dead,

he has fulfilled

the obligation of

tearing.

Whereas in the Mishna we learned that one who tears in his anger and over his dead is exempt?

It is not difficult: this

that the beraita teaches that he is liable when tearing over his dead is

for his own dead,

for whom he is obligated to tear, and this tearing is a repair.

This

of the Mishna is

for someone else’s dead,

for whom he is not obligated to tear, and it is a destructive act [and below it answers also the question from “in his anger”].

And we object:

But

the Mishna too

teaches, “his dead”?

And we answer:

Actually,

the Mishna is

for his own dead,

who is his relative and whom he is responsible to bury.

And in those who are not people subject to mourning,

but who are not among the relatives for whom he is obligated to mourn and tear [only those enumerated at the beginning of the portion of Emor, for whom the koen becomes impure, are mourned over].

And we object:

And if he is a sage,

the dead man,

he is indeed obligated

to tear over him even though he is not his relative; why, then, does the Mishna teach that he is exempt with regard to Shabbat, since it is a repair?

For it was taught: When a sage dies —

everyone is his relative.

And we are astonished:

Everyone is his relative, could this enter your mind?

And we answer:

Rather, say: everyone is like his relative,

that is,

everyone tears over him, everyone bares the shoulder over him,

going out before the bier with their garments torn until their shoulder is exposed [for according to the law of the Gemara they are obligated to do so over a father or mother. And the Rama wrote in Yoreh Deah, section 340, subsection 17, that this is not customary nowadays],

everyone feeds him the mourning meal in the public square,

eating the first meal after the funeral from others [for a mourner is forbidden to eat the first meal from his own food, and the neighbors bring him a meal, called the “meal of consolation”; they were accustomed to make this meal in the street of the city].

And we answer:

It is necessary; the Mishna deals with a dead man

who

who is not a sage.

And we still object:

And if he is a proper person, he is indeed obligated,

each person to tear over him?

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

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

And we are astonished:

“So that he will weep”?

And is it that

a pledge is taken from him,

that they take collateral from him before he sins?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what it says:

Because he did not weep and mourn over a proper person. For everyone who weeps over a proper person, all his sins are forgiven him, on account of the honor that he showed.

And we answer:

It is necessary: that he is not a proper person.

And we still object:

And if he is standing at the time of the departure of the soul —

he is obligated

to tear over him even if he is not a proper person?

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One who stands over the dead at the time of the departure of the soul is obligated to tear over him. To what does this resemble?

To a Torah scroll that was burned,

for everyone who sees it is obligated to tear, and likewise the soul of a Jew that is taken is similar to a Torah scroll, for there is no empty person in Israel who has no Torah and mitzvot.

And we answer:

It is necessary: that he was not standing at the time of the departure of the soul.

And we still object:

Granted, “his dead”

with regard to “his dead” there is no difficulty.

But “in his anger,” with regard to “in his anger,” there is a difficulty,

for in the Mishna it teaches that one who tears in his anger is exempt, whereas in the beraita it teaches that he is liable?

And we answer:

“In his anger,” with regard to “in his anger,” is also not difficult. This is Rabbi Judah; this is Rabbi Shimon.

this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

And we explain:

This

of the beraita is

Rabbi Judah

and

he says: For a labor not required for its own purpose, one is liable.

This

of the Mishna is

Rabbi Shimon

and

he says: For a labor not required for its own purpose, one is exempt.

And tearing in one’s anger is a labor not required for its own purpose. For a labor required for its own purpose means that he performs the labor for the same purpose for which it was performed in the Tabernacle, and tearing was performed in the Tabernacle for the sake of the thing being torn [see above, the end of page 74b]. But one who tears in his anger does so for the sake of the person who tears, so that he will calm down from his anger, or, according to the Gemara’s conclusion, in order to instill fear in the members of his household [according to Tosafot, page 94a, section beginning “Rabbi Shimon”].

And we object:

You may say that you heard Rabbi Judah

obligate him

in the case of one who repairs.

But

in the case of one who performs a destructive act, did you hear him,

and one who tears in his anger is performing a destructive act?

And we answer:

Rabbi Avin said: This too is one who repairs, for he gives satisfaction to his inclination,

as he assuages his anger through the tearing.

And we object:

Is such a thing permitted,

to tear in his anger?

And it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Hilfa bar Igra, who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: One who tears his garments in his anger, and one who breaks his vessels in his anger, and one who scatters his money in his anger — let him be in your eyes like one who worships idolatry.

For such is the craft of the evil inclination: today it says to him, “Do this,” and tomorrow it says to him, “Do that,” until it says to him, “Worship idolatry!” And he goes and worships.

Since he does not overcome his anger, he accustoms the evil inclination to come to him.

Rabbi Avin said: What is the verse?

As it is stated,

“There shall be no strange god among you, and you shall not bow down to a foreign god.”

And we expound:

What is the “strange god” that is within a person’s body?

As it is written, “in you”

—you must say: This is the evil inclination!

For if it is found within you, in the end you will bow down to a foreign god.

And we reconcile:

It is necessary [to state this]: where he performs

the tearing in order

to cast fear

to instill fear

upon the members of his household,

so that they will see him angry and fear him; and this tearing is a repair and is therefore not [considered] destroying.

As in that [incident] of Rav Yehuda, who pulled threads from a garment

he removed threads from the garment in his anger.

Rav Aha bar Yaakov broke defective vessels

he broke defective utensils.

Rav Sheshet poured fish brine upon the head of his maidservant

he poured fish brine on the head of his maidservant.

Rabbi Abba broke a jug-cover

the cover of the jug.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Whoever sheds tears over

a fit person, the Holy One, blessed is He, counts them and places them in His treasuries, as it is stated

in Psalms:

“My wanderings [

namely, my weeping, from the expression “to nod to him”

You have counted; place my tears in Your flask; are they not in Your account?”

Rabbi Yehuda said that Rav said: Whoever is negligent in the eulogy of a Sage deserves to be buried alive, as it is stated

concerning Joshua:

“And they buried him within the boundary of his inheritance in Timnat-Serah, which is in the hill country of Ephraim, north of Mount Gaash.” This teaches that a mountain was stirred up against them to kill them

because they had not eulogized him properly.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Whoever is negligent in the eulogy of a Sage does not live long. It is measure for measure.

He did not mourn that the Sage’s days had been shortened; likewise, his own days will not be lengthened,

as it is stated: “With measure, when she sends it forth, You contend with it.”

The verse is speaking about Egypt, and “with measure” is from the expression se’a, for in the same measure in which they afflicted Israel, they were punished when they sent them out. And from here there is proof that punishments are measure for measure.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan:

It is stated,

“And the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders who prolonged their days after Joshua.”

It follows that they prolonged their days, despite the fact that they did not eulogize Joshua properly?

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan said to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba:

Babylonian! [

who had come up from Babylonia

They prolonged days!

For they completed their days in goodness, but

they did not prolong years!

And we raise an objection:

But from now on,

that which is written,

“So that

your days and the days of your children may be increased,”

is it also so—

days but not years?

And we reconcile:

A blessing is different.

For certainly the intention is also that years be lengthened.