Shabbat 105b (קה:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

He made it

such that the garment was made

like a pocket,

not woven straight, but swollen and protruding like a pocket projecting from the weave. To straighten the garment, he must tear it below, roll it, thereby setting the seam properly, and then sew it in the place of the tear. For such a repair, he must make a tear in order to sew two stitches in the garment.

Mishna:

One who tears in his anger

out of anger,

and

one who tears

for his dead

out of grief.

And

likewise,

all those who perform a destructive act

in carrying out one of the primary labors —

are exempt.

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

such as one who tears, erases, or dismantles —

his measure

is

like that of one who repairs,

for he is liable only if he destroyed according to the measure required for the intended repair.

The measure for laundering

wool,

and for carding

it,

and for dyeing

it,

and for spinning

threads from it — all of which are primary labors — is: a thread whose length is

the full width of a sit, doubled.

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

And one who weaves two threads: his measure is the full width of a sit.

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

Gemara:

And we juxtapose

a beraita:

One who tears in his anger, in his mourning, or for his dead, is liable.

And although he desecrates Shabbat

when he tears for his dead,

he has fulfilled

the obligation of

tearing.

But in the Mishna we learned that one who tears in his anger or for his dead is exempt?

It is not difficult: This

case, in which the beraita teaches that one who tears for his dead is liable, is

when it is his own dead,

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

This

case, in the Mishna, is

when it is someone else’s dead,

for he is not obligated to tear for him, and it is therefore destructive [and below it will also answer the difficulty concerning tearing in anger].

We challenge this:

But

the Mishna also

teaches “his dead”!

And we answer:

Actually,

the Mishna is referring to

his own dead,

who is his relative and whom he is responsible for burying.

And in the case of those who are not subject to mourning,

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

We challenge this:

But if he is a Torah scholar,

the deceased,

he is obligated

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

As it was taught in a beraita: When a Torah scholar dies —

everyone is his relative.

We are astonished:

Everyone is his relative—is that conceivable?

And we answer:

Rather, say: Everyone is like his relative:

that is,

everyone tears for him, everyone bares his shoulder for him,

coming out before the bier with their garments torn until their shoulders are exposed [for according to the law of the Gemara they are obligated to do so for a father or mother. The Rema wrote in Yoreh De'ah 340:17 that this is not practiced nowadays],

everyone provides him a mourning meal in the open square,

eating the first meal after the funeral from food supplied by others [for a mourner may not eat the first meal from his own food; the neighbors bring him a meal, called the seudat havra'a, and they were accustomed to hold that meal in the city’s open street].

And we answer:

It is necessary to say this because the Mishna is dealing with a dead person

who

is not a Torah scholar.

We still challenge this:

But if he is a proper person, one is obligated

for each person to tear for him?

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 for a proper person.

We are astonished:

“So that he will cry”?

Is it because

a pledge is taken from him,

a collateral being taken from him before he sins?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what it means:

Because he did not cry and mourn for a proper person. For whoever cries over a proper person is forgiven for all his sins, on account of the honor he accorded him.

And we answer:

It is necessary to say this because the dead person

is not a proper person.

We still challenge this:

But if he is present at the departure of the soul, he is obligated

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

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One who stands beside the dead at the moment of the departure of the soul is obligated to tear for him. To what does this resemble?

To a Torah scroll that was burned,

for anyone who sees it is obligated to tear, and likewise a Jewish soul that is taken is comparable to a Torah scroll, for there is no empty person in Israel who is devoid of Torah and mitzvot.

And we answer:

It is necessary to say this because he is not present at the departure of the soul.

We still challenge this:

Granted, “his dead”

—with regard to “his dead,” the difficulty is resolved.

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

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

And we answer:

“His anger”—with regard to “his anger” too, it is not difficult. This is Rabbi Yehuda, and that is Rabbi Shimon.

this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

And we explain:

This

beraita is

Rabbi Yehuda,

who

says: One is liable for a labor not required for its own purpose.

This

Mishna is

Rabbi Shimon,

who

says: One is exempt for a labor not required for its own purpose.

Tearing in anger is a labor not required for its own purpose. A labor required for its own purpose means that one 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 object that was torn [see above, the end of page 74b]. But one who tears in anger does so for the sake of the person tearing, so that he will be relieved of his anger, or, according to the Gemara’s conclusion, in order to instill fear in the members of his household [according to Tosafot on page 94a, s.v. “Rabbi Shimon”].

We challenge this:

Granted, you have heard Rabbi Yehuda

say that he is liable

when it is a repair.

But

have you heard him say this with regard to a destructive act?

For one who tears in anger is performing a destructive act.

And we answer:

Rabbi Avin said: This too is a repair, for he brings satisfaction to his inclination,

as he calms his anger through the tearing.

We challenge this:

Is such a thing permitted,

to tear in anger?

And it was taught in a beraita:

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

For this 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 it.

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

Rabbi Avin said: What is the verse?

As it is stated:

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

And we interpret:

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

As it is written, “within you".

You must say: This is the evil inclination!

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

And we answer:

It is necessary only when he is doing

the tearing in order

to instill fear

and

in the members of his household, so that they will see that he is angry and fear him; and this tearing is a constructive act, and it is not considered destructive.

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

As in this incident involving Rav Yehuda, who pulled threads

out of a garment in his anger.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov broke defective vessels

—he broke damaged utensils.

Rav Sheshet poured fish brine over his maidservant’s head

—he poured fish brine on the head of his maidservant.

Rabbi Abba broke a jug cover

—the cover of a jug.

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

a proper person, the Almighty counts them and places them in His treasury, as it is stated

in Psalms:

“My wanderings [

i.e., my weeping, from the expression “to mourn for him"]

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

Rabbi Yehuda said that Rav said: Whoever is remiss in eulogizing 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 rose up against them to kill them

because they had not eulogized him properly.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whoever is remiss in eulogizing a sage will not live long. It is measure for measure.

He did not mourn that the sage’s days had been shortened; therefore, his own days will not be lengthened either,

as it is stated: “With measure, when You send it forth, You contend with it”

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

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

It is stated:

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

It follows that they lived long despite not having eulogized Joshua properly?

He said to him

—Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba—:

Babylonian! [

who had come up from Babylonia]

They lived out their days!

Their days were completed in goodness, but

they did not live out their years!

And we challenge this:

If that is so,

as it is written:

“So that

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

is it also the case that it means

days and not years?

And we answer:

A blessing is different.

Certainly, the intention is also that one’s years be lengthened.