Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 28 - Highlights (Angel of Death)

The Mishna had stated: They never set down the biers of women in the street out of respect (blood might flow from them and it would be embarrassing). They said in Nehardea: This halacha applies only to a woman who dies in childbirth, but other women who die may be set down. Rabbi Elozar says: It applies to all women since it is derived from Scripture that women should be buried immediately after they die. (27b – 28a)

Rabbi Elozar said: Moshe, Aharon and Miriam earned the merit to die "by the mouth of G-d", which is referred to as 'death by a kiss'. When Miriam died, the Torah does not use that expression, since it is not respectful to Hashem to write such a thing. Nevertheless, Chazal derive from a Gezeirah shavah (one of the thirteen principles of Biblical hermeneutics - Gezeirah shavah links two similar words from dissimilar verses in the Torah) that Miriam died in the same way as her brother Moshe. (28a)

Rabbi Ami said: The Torah informs us of Miriam's death immediately after enumerating the laws of the "Parah Adumah", the red heifer whose ashes were used for purification.

Why is the death of Miriam juxtaposed to the laws of the Parah Adumah? This teaches that just as the Parah Adumah brings atonement, so too, the death of the righteous brings atonement.

Rabbi Elozar said: Why is the death of Aaron juxtaposed to the mentioning of the priestly clothes? This teaches that just as the priestly clothes bring atonement, so too, the death of the righteous brings atonement. (28a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: One who dies suddenly, he is said to have died an abrupt death; if the death was preceded by one day's sickness, it is a hastened death. Rabbi Chananiah ben Gamliel said: The latter case is termed death by a plague, as it is written [Yechezkel 24:16]: Son of man, behold, I will take away from you the darling of your eyes in a plague; and it is stated again [ibid: 18]: I told this to the people in the morning, and my wife died at evening. If it was preceded by a two days' sickness, it is a hurried death; if by a three days', it is a rebuke; if by a four days', a scorn; but if preceded by a five days' sickness, it is an ordinary death. Death at the age of fifty is Kares (cut off); at fifty-two, the age at which Shmuel the Ramathite died; at sixty, a death by the hands of Heaven.

Rabbah said: If one dies from fifty to sixty, it is also regarded as Kares; the reason why this is not stated in the braisa is because of the honor of Shmuel.

When Rav Yosef reached the age of sixty, he made a celebration for the students. He said: I have passed the age of Kares. Abaye said to him: It is true that the Master has passed the age of Kares, but has the Master already passed the day of Kares (referring to one who dies without being sick for five days)? Rav Yosef replied: Be content with at least half.
Rav Huna died suddenly, which caused the students great worry. A pair of scholars from Hadayab taught them the following braisa: Sudden death can be regarded as Kares only when the deceased has not reached the age of eighty; but if he has, it is, on the contrary, considered a death by a kiss. (28a)
Rava said: The length of one’s life, the amount of his children, and his sustenance are not dependent on merit, but rather on mazal (fate).

He cites proof to this from Rabbah and Rav Chisda who were both righteous rabbis as can be proven from the fact that one prayed and it began to rain and the other prayed and it began to rain. Rav Chisda lived ninety-two years and yet, Rabbah lived only forty. Rav Chisda’s house had sixty weddings, and yet, Rabbah’s house had sixty deaths. Rav Chisda’s house gave fine-flour bread to their dogs because they had so much; whereas Rabbah’s house gave barley flour to people and there wasn’t enough.

Rava said: Three things I prayed that Heaven should grant me. Two were granted, the third one not. I asked for the wisdom of Rav Huna and the wealth of Rav Chisda and both were granted to me, but I asked also for the humility of Rabbah bar Rav Huna and that was not given to me. (28a)

Rav Seorim, the brother of Rava, was sitting at the bedside of Rava when Rava was deathly ill. As Rava was about to die, he said: Let the Master tell him (the Angel of Death) not to pain me. He answered him: Is, then, the Master himself not a friend of him? Rava replied: As my fate was already delivered to him, he will not listen to me any more. Rav Seorim said to Rava: I would like that the Master should appear before me after he dies. After Rava died, he came to Rav Seorim and Rav Seorim asked him: Did the Master feel any pain? He answered: It resembled a puncture from a bloodletter’s lancet (there was very little pain).

Rava was sitting at the bedside of Rav Nachman when Rav Nachman was deathly ill. As Rav Nachman was about to die, he said: Let the Master tell him (the Angel of Death) not to pain me. Rava answered him: Isn’t the Master a prominent person? Rav Nachman replied: Who is esteemed, or awesome, or exalted? Rava said to Rav Nachman: I would like that the Master should appear before me after he dies. After Rav Nachman died, he came to Rava and Rava asked him: Did the Master feel any pain? He answered: It resembled the removal of hair from milk (it didn’t cause any pain); and yet, if the Holy One, blessed be He, would command me to return to the world, I would not be interested, for the fear of the Angel of Death is too great.

Rabbi Elozar was eating terumah when the Angel of Death appeared before him. Rabbi Elozar said to him: I am now eating terumah, is it not sacred? The moment passed and he was spared.

The Angel of Death presented himself to Rav Sheishes in the marketplace. Rav Sheishes said to him: Do you wish to take me when I am in the market, as if I were an animal? Come to my house.

The Angel of Death presented himself to Rav Ashi in the marketplace. Rav Ashi said to him: Wait thirty days in order that I will be able to review my studies, as it is said: Fortunate is the person who comes here with his studies in his hand. On the thirtieth day he appeared again, and Rav Ashi said to him: What is the rush? He answered him: You are interfering with (Rav Huna) Bar Nassan (as his time has come to take over your position), and the reign of one ruler may not impinge upon another, even as much as a hair.

Rav Chisda could not be overpowered (by the Angel of Death), since his mouth never ceased from studying Torah. The Angel of Death climbed up and sat on a cedar in front of Rav Chisda’s house of study. When the cedar broke down, Rav Chisda interrupted his study for a moment and the Angel of Death overpowered him at that moment.

Rabbi Chiya could not be overpowered (by the Angel of Death). One day he disguised himself as a pauper, and went and knocked on the door of Rabbi Chiya, and asked for a slice of bread. The household members gave him some bread. The Angel of Death said to him: Doesn’t the Master have mercy with a poor man? Why doesn’t the Master have mercy with me (and let me fulfill my mission)? He revealed himself to Rabbi Chiya, showing him a rod of fire and Rabbi Chiya surrendered his soul to him. (28a)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 27 - REPENTANCE IN THE SAME SITUATION

It is written [Yirmiyah 22:10]: Cry intensely for one who leaves, because he will not return again and see the land of his birthplace. Rav Yehudah said: This is referring to one who departs this world without children.

Rav Huna said: The verse is referring to a person who committed a sin and repeated it. The Gemora states: Rav Huna is following his reasoning stated elsewhere that one who commits a sin and repeats it; it has become permitted to him.

The Gemora asks: Do you actually think that it is permitted? The Gemora answers: Rav Huna means that it becomes to him as if it was permitted.

The Gemora (Yoma 86b) explains that a true penitent is one who committed a sin in the past and then the opportunity for the same sins comes again a first time and a second time and he is saved from the sin on both occasions.

The Sefer Chasidim writes that a person should not put himself into a situation where he is tempted to sin, because he may not be able to withstand temptation.

The Tzlach questions the words of the Sefer Chasidim from the commentary of the Kli Yakar in Parshas Chukas, who writes regarding the phenomena of the Parah Adumah that the Parah Adumah was capable of rendering pure those that were impure and conversely, rendering impure those that were pure.

The Kli Yakar likens this idea to certain medicines that are beneficial for one who is ill but can prove fatal for one who is healthy. There is a parallel between remedying the body and remedying the soul. One who wishes to repent must be with the same woman that he sinned with the first time, at the same time of the year in which he had sinned, and at the same place where he sinned with her. Thus, the temptation to sin is particularly strong, as his Evil Inclination will entice him to respond exactly as he did before. By resisting the temptation, he demonstrates that he is a true penitent.

The Kli Yakar adds that this is what the Gemora (Brochos 34b) means when it states that in the place where penitents stand, the completely righteous do not stand, i.e. the completely righteous cannot stand in a place of temptation. Yet, according to the Sefer Chasidim, a righteous person is not permitted to endanger himself by entering into such a situation.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 27 - TRANSGRESSION COMMITTED ONLY ONCE

The Gemora states that if one commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes like it is permitted to him. Rav Shach was once giving rebuke and he questioned if there is any among us that have committed a sin and not repeated it. Woe is to us.

The Gemora states that if one commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes like it is permitted to him. The Mabit in Beis Elokim (shaar hateshuva ch 11) writes that our sages have said if one commits a transgression three times, it becomes like it is permitted to him. Did he have a different version in the Gemora than us? Our Gemora states this to be correct if a person commits a sin even twice.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 27 - Highlights

The Gemora cites a braisa: At what point do the mourners overturn their beds? Rabbi Eliezer says: When the coffin leaves the house. Rabbi Yehoshua said: When they seal the lid on the casket. (27a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: When do the mourners right the beds on Friday afternoon? The Gemora answers: From Mincha time (either a half hour after midday or two and a half hours afterwards). Rabbah bar Rav Huna interrupts and rules that the mourners are nevertheless prohibited from sitting on those beds until nightfall (since they are still required to be in a state of mourning until then). The braisa continues: They must overturn the beds on Motzei Shabbos even if there is only one more day of mourning left. (27a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: The mourners must overturn all the beds that are in his house and even if there are ten beds in ten different places of the house (other Rishonim – in other houses, as long as he uses them sometimes). Even if there are five brothers and one of them dies, they all are required to overturn their beds in their houses. If the bed is designated for containing utensils, it does not need to be overturned. (27a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: The mourner is not required to overturn a dargash (will be explained shortly) bed, rather, one should stand it up on its side (and lean it against the wall). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One should untie its straps and the bed will fall by itself.

Ula says: A dargash bed is a bed of good fortune.

The Gemora asks: If it is a regular type of bed, why does the Tanna Kamma maintain that it is not required to be overturned? The Gemora answers: This is not problematic; it is similar to a bed that is designated for containing utensils that does not need to be overturned (because it is not used for sleeping).

The Gemora asks: If it is a regular type of bed, why does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rule that one should untie its straps; a regular bed does not have straps, it has ropes attached to the frame?

The Gemora concludes that a dargash is a leather bed (its straps are attached on the inside through slits in the frame – even though it was used as a regular bed (for traveling noblemen), the Sages were lenient regarding it because overturning the leather sheet and placing it on the ground would cause damage to it). (27a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: We may sweep and sprinkle water on the ground within the mourner's house, and we may wash dishes, cups, jars and bottles, but we may not bring the incense and the nice-smelling spices into the house of the mourner.

The Gemora states: It is permitted to bring the incense and the nice-smelling spices into the room where the consolers are comforting the mourner. (27a)

The Mishna states: They may not bring the food to the house of the mourner on a tray, or in a large bowl, or with a large basket, but rather, the food should be brought in regular baskets.

They may not recite the mourners' blessing during Chol Hamoed, but they do form the row and console the mourner and they immediately dismiss the public.

They may not set down the bier in the street during Chol Hamoed in order not to promote eulogies (which are forbidden on Chol Hamoed). They never set down the biers of women in the street out of respect (blood might flow from them and it would be embarrassing). (27a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: Initially, when they brought food to the house of the mourner, a rich person would deliver it in containers of silver and gold, and poor people would deliver it in weaved willow baskets, and the poor people were ashamed. They enacted that everyone should deliver it in these simple weaved willow baskets, because of the honor of the poor people.

Initially, they served drinks in the house of the mourner, a rich person would serve it in white glass vessels and poor people would serve it in colored glass, and the poor people were ashamed. They enacted that all should serve the drinks in colored glass, because of the honor of the poor people.

Initially, they would expose the face of the rich person who died (thus inspiring people to cry) and cover the face of the poor people because their faces were blackened due to years of famine, and the poor people were ashamed. They enacted that they cover the faces of all, because of the honor of the poor people.

Initially, they would take the rich person who died out on a dargash and the poor people on a bier, and the poor people were ashamed. They enacted that all be taken out on a bier, because of the honor of the poor people.

Initially, they would place incense under those who dies with stomach illnesses, but those living with stomach illnesses became ashamed. They enacted that incense would be placed under all corpses, because of the honor of those living with stomach illnesses.

Initially, they would immerse utensils used by menstruating women before they died, but the living menstruants became ashamed. They enacted that they would immerse utensils from all women who died, because of the honor of the living menstruants.

Initially, they would immerse utensils used by zavim (men who became tamei because of a specific type of seminal emission) before they died, but the living zavim became ashamed. They enacted that they would immerse utensils from all men who died, because of the honor of the living zavim.

Initially, the taking out of the corpse was harder on his relatives more than his death (due to the costs involved), until the situation was such that his relatives would place him down and run away! Until Rabban Gamliel came and acted lightly with himself, by going out with linen clothing, and all the people followed his example to be buried in linen clothing.

Rav papa said: Nowadays, the custom is to use coarse canvas, which is worth only a zuz. (27a – 27b)

Rav Papa said: One is permitted to eulogize a Torah scholar during Chol Hamoed. It is certainly permitted on Chanukah and Purim. The Gemora qualifies this ruling: It is only permitted in the presence of the bier or on the day that they were informed of his passing. (27b)

Rabbi Yochanan said: A mourner, who has nodded his head (thus indicating that he has been consoled), the comforters are prohibited from sitting near him.

Rabbi Yochanan said: All are obligated to stand before the Nasi except for a mourner and a sick person. (27b)

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: If there is a dead person in a city, the citizens of the city are prohibited from working until after the burial.

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: One who grieves excessively over his dead will cry over another death. (27b)

It is written [Yirmiyah 22:10]: Cry intensely for one who leaves, because he will not return again and see the land of his birthplace. Rav Yehudah said: This is referring to one who departs this world without children.

Rav Huna said: The verse is referring to a person who committed a sin and repeated it. The Gemora states: Rav Huna is following his reasoning stated elsewhere that one who commits a sin and repeats it, it has become permitted to him.

The Gemora asks: Do you actually think that it is permitted? The Gemora answers: Rav Huna means that it becomes to him as if it was permitted. (27b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 26 - RENDING BECAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT

Rav Yehudah told me in the name of Shmuel: There is only a requirement to rend your garments if the Torah or tefillin was destroyed forcibly, however, if it happens through an accident, there is no requirement.

Rashi states that if one can prevent the destruction and he doesn’t, there is no requirement to rend his garments. Rashi would seem to indicate that if the sefer Torah was burned by accident, there is a requirement to rend one’s garments.

The other Rishonim (Ran, Meiri, Nimukei Yosef) disagree with this. They maintain that there is only a requirement to rend your garments when the destruction of the sefer Torah was with the intent to incite the Ribbono shel Olam, however, if the Torah was destroyed by accident (through a fire or a bird), there is no requirement.

The Chacham Tzvi (17) questions Rashi’s logic. It would emerge according to Rashi that if a fire would erupt suddenly and destroy the entire city in a manner where it was impossible to prevent the destruction of the sifrei Torah, one would be required to rend his garments; however, if a small fire would burn a sefer Torah, and one was capable of preventing its destruction, one would not be required to rend his garments. Why would that be?

The sefer Matzeves Moshe explains this according to the Maggid MiDubna. When there is a possibility according to natural law of preventing destruction, Hashem does not involve Himself and create a miracle, however, in a scenario where there is no possibility according to natural law of preventing destruction, Hashem does get involved, if He sees fit, and will produce a miracle to prevent the destruction.

Accordingly, when a preventable fire destroys a sefer Torah, it does not appear as if this was a Heaven-sent sign, and the fact that Hashem did not procure a miracle is not regarded as a desecration of His name for there was ample opportunity for the people themselves to prevent this occurrence; there is no requirement to rend one’s garment. However, when there is an enormous fire, one that is unpreventable and the only manner in which the sifrei Torah can be saved is through a miracle from Above; the lack of a miracle demonstrates that we were not deserving of one, thus resulting in a desecration of Hashem’s name and therefore there is a requirement to rend one’s garments.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 26 - Highlights

The Gemora cites a braisa: The following are cases that the garments must be rent and they may not be repaired: One who rends his garment because of the death of apparent; because of the death of his teacher; because of the death of the Nasi; because of the death of the Head of the Beis Din; upon hearing bad news; one who hears blasphemy; one who sees a sefer Torah being burned; one who sees the ruins of Yehudah; one who sees the ruins of the Beis Hamikdosh; one who sees the ruins of Yerushalayim. (25b – 26a)

The Gemora asks: Is there an obligation for one to rend his garments upon hearing bad news; there was an incident when Shmuel was informed that King Shapur killed twelve thousand Jews and he did not rend his garments? The Gemora answers: The obligation is only when most of the congregation has been killed (if most of the nation gathered to wage war and they suffered a devastating defeat). The Gemora asks: Did King Shapur kill any Jews; didn’t he say to Shmuel that he warrants a reward for never killing any Jews? The Gemora answers: He killed those twelve thousand because they rebelled against him; he was stating that he never killed any Jews for no reason. (26a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: The one who hears the blasphemy himself and the one who hears about it from someone who heard it initially are required to rend their garments. The witnesses are not required to rend their garments when they testify regarding the blasphemy in Beis Din since they already rent them when they heard the blasphemy. (26a)

Rabbi Chelbo said in the name of Rav Huna: One who sees a burned sefer Torah is required to rend his garments twice; once on account of the parchment and once because of the words written in the Torah.

The Gemora records an incident relevant to this: Rabbi Abba and Rav Huna bar Chiya were sitting together. Rabbi Abba stood up in order to relieve himself. He took off his tefillin and placed them on a cushion. An ostrich came and attempted to swallow the tefillin. Rabbi Abba proclaimed: If this would have occurred, I would have been required to rend my garments twice. Rav Huna asked him: How do you know this? A similar episode once happened to me and I asked Rav Masneh if I was required to rend, but he didn’t know. Rav Yehudah told me in the name of Shmuel: There is only a requirement to rend your garments if the Torah or tefillin was destroyed forcibly, however, if it happens through an accident, there is no requirement. (26a)

The Gemora explains the last halacha cited in the braisa above: If one witnesses the ruins of the Beis Hamikdosh, he is required to rend his garments; if subsequently he saw the ruins of Yerushalayim, he is not required to rend a second time, rather, he may extend the original one. If he witnesses the ruins of Yerushalayim first and then he sees the ruins of the Beis Hamikdosh, he is required to rend a second time; extending the original one will not be sufficient. (26a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Meir said: One must rend his garments at least a tefach (four fingerbreadths). If after concluding this mourning period, another relative dies, he may extend the original rent by three fingerbreadths. Rabbi Yehudah disagrees and states: An initial rent of three fingerbreadths is sufficient and the extended rent (if another relative dies) may be of any size. (26b)

The Gemora cites a braisa: If they informed him that his father died and he rent his garment, and afterwards (he concluded this mourning period) he was informed that his son died and he extends the initial rent, the bottom portion may be repaired but the top portion may not be repaired. If they informed him that his son died and he rent his garment, and afterwards he was informed that his father died and he extends the initial rent, the top portion may be repaired and the bottom portion may not be repaired. If they informed him that his father, mother, brother and sister died, he rends once for all of them.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira says: He is required to rend once for his father and mother and once for his other relatives since one cannot extend the rent that he did for his parents (it would seem that he rending again for his parents).

The Gemora asks: Why can’t he rend for his relatives first and then extend the initial rent for his parents? The Gemora answers: One cannot rend an extension rent for his parents (it would not be respectful to them). (26b)

Read more!

SEIZE THE MOMENT

We recite in the Haggadah: The wicked one, what does he say? "What is this service to you?!" He says 'to you', but not to him! By thus excluding himself from the community he has denied that which is fundamental. You, therefore, must blunt his teeth and say to him: "'It is because of this that G-d did for me when I left Egypt';'for me' — but not for him! If he had been there, he would not have been redeemed!"

The commentators ask: How are we so certain that he would not have been redeemed? Weren't there evil people in Egypt that were redeemed; the most famous being Dasan and Aviram?

We mention in the Haggadah: Had the Holy One Blessed Be He not have taken our ancestors out of Egypt, we and our sons and our grandchildren would still be subjugated to Pharaoh in Egypt. The commentaries question as to how we can make such an assertion. Surely the Jewish people would have left Egypt sometime in the future? Perhaps they may have been released? Or eventually the Egyptian empire would collapse or be overthrown?

The Shulchan Aruch writes that one should put his best and most ornate vessels on the table for the Seder. The Maharil had expensive ornamental vessels that he had accepted as collateral from the non-Jews to whom he lent money. He kept these vessels in storage for most of the year. For the Seder night, though, he would set them up in the dining area so as to make the Seder table appear extremely nice.

Most commentators explain the Maharil only to mean that the table was set with these utensils; they could not use them since that would be regarded as stealing.

The Chasam Sofer, however, offers a novel approach. When it came time for the Jews to depart from Egypt, they were commanded to ask their Egyptian neighbors for utensils of silver and gold, in fulfillment of Hashem's promise to Avraham Avinu many years earlier - that his descendants would leave Egypt with great wealth. the Chasam Sofer cites the words of Chazal that the Egyptians offered them more than they asked for. Why was this? It is well known that eating with utensils from a non-Jew that were not properly immersed in a ritual bath can result in grave danger and causes impurity to the one who eats from food cooked with these utensils. The Jews could not immerse the utensils that they borrowed from the Egyptians because they did not belong to them. The angel appointed on the Egyptians knew this and intended that the Jews should use these utensils and become spiritually impure. The abundance of sanctity that Hashem poured on the Jews on the night they departed from Egypt nullified the impurities contained in those utensils and they were able to use them without endangering themselves.

This level of sanctity returns every year on the night of the Seder. The intense desires displayed in the telling over of the exodus from Egypt accomplishes that no impurity can effect us and it is therefore permitted to set up the Seder table with the utensils from the non-Jews and even use them without any fear regarding the impurities contained in those utensils.

Yaakov said to his father, "I am Esav, your first-born; I have done as you have told me." Rashi explains: Yaakov did not lie; rather, he said I am who I am, Esav is your first-born. The Chasam Sofer states that even that explanation is inconsistent with what Yaakov Avinu stood for. He was the pillar of truth; how could he utter words that would appear to be an outright lie? He answers: It was only because of the influence he received from wearing the garments of Esav. One who dresses like a non-Jew talks like one,as well. It was only because that this occurred on the night of Pesach, the sanctity of that night protected Yaakov, and he was able to express himself in a manner that could be interpreted as the truth and because of that, he was able to receive the Blessings from his father Yitzchak.

(One should be extremely careful in regards to the clothing that he or she wears. Clothes that are considered 'goyishe' clothes should not be worn. Besides the fact that the halacha mandates that they are forbidden to wear, one will become effected by those clothes; he will begin to speak like a goy, think like a goy and eventually act like one too. Clothes that are against halacha can be regarded as clothes of a non-Jew.)

It is written [14:3]: Pharoah will say to the Children of Israel: they are wandering in the land and the desert closed in on them. Rashi explains that it means that he will say it about them because he could not possibly say it to them since they already left. Yonasan ben Uziel interprets this passage literally, explaining that Pharoah will tell Dasan and Aviram, who had remained in Egypt, that their fellow Israelites are lost. Dasan and Aviram did not leave together with the rest of the Jewish people. They stayed behind according to this interpretation.

Dasan and Aviram are a testimony to what would happen if the Jewish people would not have left at that precise moment. When Dasan and Aviram left soon afterwards, they witnessed the splitting of the sea, the drowning of the Egyptians, the giving of the Torah and many other miracles in the Wilderness. How could they not believe in Hashem and in Moshe, His servant? How could they have remained in such a wicked state? The answer is because once they sunk to the fiftieth level of impurity, there was no climbing out of that. Witnessing all the miracles could not have any effect on them. They were not capable of becoming inspired through the receiving of the Torah.

The Jewish people who did leave Egypt at that time merited the special sanctity of that night. Hashem instilled in them an abundance of sanctity in order to overcome their lack of spirituality and this enabled them to become inspired when witnessing the splitting of the sea and eventually prepared them for the ultimate prize, the receiving of the Torah.

This is what the Haggadah is informing us and this is what we tell the wicked son. If he would have been in Egypt, he would not have been redeemed together with the rest of the Jewish people. That would result in his sinking to the fiftieth level of tumah, a state which one cannot climb out of.

The lesson to us is a simple one: Seize the moment! Become inspired before it is too late.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 25 - POSITIONING RAV HUNA'S COFFIN UPRIGHT

INSIGHTS INTO THE DAILY DAF

brought to you by
Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim

Kollel Iyun Hadaf Archives


POSITIONING RAV HUNA'S COFFIN UPRIGHT
QUESTION:

The Gemara describes how Rav Chaga brought Rav Huna's coffin into the burial cave in which Rebbi Chiya and his sons, Yehudah and Chizkiyah, were buried. When Chizkiyah arose to make room for Rav Huna, a terrifying pillar of fire appeared. Rav Chaga, in his fright, erected the coffin of Rav Huna in an upright position and fled the burial cave. The Gemara adds that "the reason why he was not punished was because he positioned the coffin of Rav Huna in an upright position."

What does the Gemara mean when it says that Rav Chaga was not punished for this reason? On the contrary, he should have been punished for placing Rav Huna's coffin in such a disrespectful position. (Leaving the deceased in an upright position is disrespectful to the deceased, as the Gemara says in Bava Basra 101b.)

ANSWERS:
(a) RASHI here (and RASHI KESAV YAD) implies that Rav Chaga stood up Rav Huna's coffin in front of him so that the pillar of fire would not harm him. However, to protect oneself with the coffin of the deceased is also disrespectful. Why did it serve to protect him?

The BEN YEHOYADA explains that Rav Chaga did not attempt to shield himself with Rav Huna's coffin against the pillar of fire. Rather, Rav Chaga did not want to gaze at the pillar of fire. Gazing at the pillar of fire would have been disrespectful because the pillar of fire represented the glory of Hashem (see Chagigah 16a). His act of standing up Rav Huna's coffin was not an act of self-protection, but an act done out of honor for Hashem and for the deceased.

(b) RAV NISAN ZAKS in his notes to the PERUSH RABEINU GERSHOM ME'OR HA'GOLAH explains that Rav Chaga's action was not an attempt to protect himself from the fire. Rather, his intention was to protect the coffin of Rav Huna from the fire by standing it upright. When Rashi says that "he stood up the coffin before the pillar of fire so that it should not harm him," he means so that it should not harm Rav Huna.

(c) The Girsa of RABEINU CHANANEL differs slightly from the Girsa in our text. According to his Girsa, the Gemara cryptically says that "the reason why the members of the household of the Reish Galusa (d'Vei Reish Galusa) were not punished was because he stood up the coffin of Rav Huna in an upright position." This is also the Girsa of RABEINU TAM in SEFER HA'YASHAR (#513) and PERUSH RABEINU SHLOMO BEN HA'YASOM and other Rishonim. The DIKDUKEI SOFRIM (in Hagahos) writes that he does not know what the Gemara means according to this Girsa.

Perhaps the Gemara according to this Girsa means as follows. The disgrace shown to Rav Huna in his burial (by being interred vertically) served as an atonement not only for him but also for his descendants who comprised the family of the Reish Galusa (as Tosfos points out, Rabeinu Chananel maintains that "Rav Huna" here refers to Rav Huna the Reish Galusa). Accordingly, the meaning of the Gemara is clear when it says, "The reason why the members of the household of the Reish Galusa were not punished was because he stood up the coffin of Rav Huna in an upright position."

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 25 - Highlights

The Mishna states: Only a mourner of a close relative may rend his garments, reveal their shoulders or get served the mourner’s meal. The mourner’s meal is served on an upright bed (the people who are comforting the mourner). (24b)

The Gemora states that the laws discussed in the Mishna apply to a Torah scholar that passes away, as well.

The Gemora asks: The halacha is that we rend our garments on the loss of a righteous person, as well; it is written in a braisa: One who cries and mourns over a righteous person will have all his sins forgiven; why does the Mishna state the halacha of rending garment only by a close relative? The Gemora answers: The Mishna is referring to a case where the deceased was not a righteous person.

The Gemora qualifies the Mishna further: The Mishna is referring to a case where the people were not there at the time the soul departed, for otherwise, they would be obligated to rend their garments. (25a)

When Rav Huna departed, they intended to place a sefer Torah on his bier (as if to say: He has fulfilled what was written here). Rav Chisda said to them: Shall we now act against his will? Has not Rav Tachlifha said: I once observed when Rav Huna wanted to sit down on a cot on which a sefer Torah was lying, and he turned over a pitcher on the ground, placing the sefer Torah on it and only then did he sit down? It is evident that he was of the opinion that one must not sit on a cot on which a sefer Torah is placed?

When the bier was to be removed from the house, they realized that it could not pass through the door; and they intended to remove it through the roof opening. Rav Chisda said to them: We have a tradition from Rav Huna that the proper respect for a deceased Torah scholar demands that he be removed through the door opening. They then wanted to place him on a bier of smaller dimensions, but Rav Chisda again remarked: We have a tradition from him that the proper respect for a deceased Torah scholar demands that he be removed in the first bier he was placed on. They broke open the doorway, and passed him through.

Rabbi Abba began the following eulogy: Our teacher was worthy that the Heavenly Presence should rest upon him, but the fact that he resided in Bavel prevented it. (The Gemora asks from Yechezkel who received prophecy outside Eretz Yisroel. The Gemora answers that this was an exception to the rule or that he was initially in Eretz Yisroel.)

When his corpse arrived in Eretz Yisroel, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi were informed that Rav Huna had arrived. They said (under the impression that he was alive): When we were in Bavel, we could not raise our heads on account of him (we were embarrassed of ourselves on the account of his great learning), and now he has followed us here. They were then told: His coffin has arrived. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi went out (to accompany the coffin). Rabbi Aila and Rabbi Chanina remained behind (they continued their studying). Others, however, said that only Rabbi Chanina remained. What was the reason of those who went out? The Gemora cites a braisa: When a coffin is being removed from one place to another, those present must form a row and must pronounce the mourning benediction and the words of consolation. The reason, however, of those who did not go out is from the following braisa: When a coffin is being removed from one place to another, those present need not form a row and they are not required to pronounce the mourning benediction and the words of consolation. The Gemora asks: These two braisos contradict each other? The Gemora answers: One braisa refers to a case where the skeleton is still intact; the other where it does not. Rav Huna's skeleton was still intact but they were not aware of that.

They then began to deliberate where to bury him and they concluded to place him alongside of Rabbi Chiya. They said: Rav Huna disseminated Torah as much as Rabbi Chiya.

The question arose: Who should enter Rabbi Chiya’s crypt in order to bury Rav Huna? Rabbi Chaga said to them: I will do it, for I was an established student at the age of eighteen. I never experienced a seminal emission, and I have served Rabbi Chiya and know his deeds. It once happened that one of his tefillin straps turned over without him realizing and he fasted forty days because of it.

Rabbi Chaga brought in the coffin into the crypt, he noticed that Yehudah, Rabbi Chiya’s older son was lying at the right of his father and Chizkiyah, Rabbi Chiya’s younger son at his left. He heard Yehudah say to his brother: Rise, for it would not be proper for Rav Huna to stand and wait to be buried. When Chizkiyah arose, a pillar of fire arose with him. Rabbi Chaga became frightened, lifted up the coffin of Rav Huna to protect himself from the fire and then left the crypt. (25a)

When Rabbah bar Huna and Rav Hamnuna died in Bavel, they were brought on camels to Eretz Yisroel. They came to a narrow bridge, where the two camels could not pass at once, the camels remained standing. An Ishmaelite merchant was surprised and asked the sages to explain to him why the camels stopped. They told him: Each of the deceased wishes to respect the other and let him go first. The merchant said: My opinion is that Rabbah bar Huna should have preference because his father was Torah scholar, as well. He had hardly concluded his remarks, when the camel bearing Rabbah bar Huna passed the bridge. As a punishment for not paying proper respect to Rav Hamnuna, the molars and front teeth of the Ishmaelite fell out. (25a – 25b)

The Gemora quotes two eulogies which were said in honor of Rabbah bar Huna and Rav Hamnuna. (25b)

Rav Ashi asked Bar Papik the eulogizer: What will you say about me when I die? He replied: I will say: If upon cedar trees a flame has fallen, what shall the hyssops of the wall do? A Livyasan was lifted from the sea with a fish hook; what shall the small fry do? Into a rushing stream dryness descended; what shall the stagnant pond waters do?

Another eulogizer, named Bar Avin, said to Bar Kipuk: Heaven forbid that a fish hook or a flame should be used in orations over the righteous. Bar Kipuk asked Bar Avin: What, then, would you say? Bar Avin replied: I would say: Weep for the mourners but not for the lost (deceased), for he is destined to go to Gan Eden and the mourners will be left sighing.

Rav Ashi felt discouraged (for one eulogizer used the words fish hook and flame and the other used the word lost, when in fact the soul of the righteous is not lost at all), and as a result, their feet became inverted. When Rav Ashi died, neither of these eulogizers came to eulogize him.

This is what Rav Ashi meant when he said: Neither Bar Kipuk nor Bar Avin are fit to perform the ceremony of chalitza. (since the Gemora Yevamos 103a states that those who have inverted feet are not fit to perform chalitza). (25b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 24 - Highlights

The students were sitting in front of Rav Papa and they said over in the name of Shmuel: A mourner who engages in marital relations during the period of mourning is liable to death (through the hands of Heaven). Rav Papa said: It is forbidden (but he will not be liable to death). Rav Papa continued: If you heard a law regarding mourning in the name of Shmuel, perhaps this is what you heard: A mourner who does not let his hair grow or does not rend his garments is liable to death. (24a)

Rav papa issued various rulings regarding a mourner on Shabbos: A mourner is obligated to uncover the wrappings from his head on Shabbos; he must turn his torn garments to the back; he should turn his bed the right side up on Shabbos (otherwise, these activities would be considered displaying mourning in public and that is prohibited on Shabbos). It is optional for a mourner to adhere to the following prohibitions on Shabbos: wearing leather shoes, engaging in marital relations and washing his hands and feet with hot water (that was heated prior to Shabbos) on Shabbos. Rav said: Uncovering the wrappings from his head is also optional (since others appear in that manner, as well). Shmuel maintains that a mourner must cover his head in the same manner that the Ishmaelites cover their head (and therefore it would be recognizable that he is a mourner). (24a)

Shmuel said: In order to fulfill the obligation of rending his garments, it must be done on the day of the relative’s death.

The Gemora asks on Shmuel by citing certain incidents where we see that an Amora rent his garments many days after the death of his teacher.

The Gemora answers: The death of a teacher is different since every day their teachings are mentioned (the loss is felt every day) and it is considered like the day of the death. (24a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: A mourner displays his rent garment in the front during the shiva period and if he wishes to change his garments, he may do so, but he is required to rend the new garment, as well. On Shabbos, the rent garment should show in the back and if he wants to wear a new garment, he may do so, but he should not rend the new garments.

This braisa is seemingly inconsistent with Shmuel who maintains that the rending must be done on the day of the relative’s death. The Gemora answers: The braisa is referring to the death of a parent, where Shmuel agrees that one can rend his garments even on days after the death.

The Gemora presents a dispute if the garments which were rent to honor his parent (the first day, there is an obligation; afterwards, it is done to honor them) may be sewn together afterwards or not. (24a)

The Mishna had stated: Rabbi Eliezer says: Once the Beis Hamikdosh was destroyed, the festival of Shavuos (which is only one day) has the same halachos as Shabbos (in regards to the days of mourning). Rabban Gamliel says: Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur (even though they are both only for one day) have the same halachos as the other festivals. The Chachamim maintain that Shavuos has the halachos of a festival (since one can offer the festival korbanos for seven days after Shavuos) and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur have the same halachos as Shabbos.

Rav Gidel the son of Menashye said in the name of Shmuel: The halacha follows the opinion of Rabban Gamliel.

The Gemora cites another version of Rav Gidel the son of Menashye’s statement.

The Gemora presents a dispute among the Tannaim in regards to death of a child.

A baby under 30 days old is carried out for burial in someone's arms (without a bier or coffin). The burial does not require ten men present; it is sufficient with one woman and two men. One man and two women should not bury him (the cemetery was generally outside the city and would be regarded as a forbidden seclusion). Abba Shaul does permit this (they are preoccupied with the mourning and it will not result in sin – Tosfos). They do not form a row to console the mourners; they do not recite the mourners’ blessing and they do not comfort the mourners.

If the child was over thirty days old, he is carried out for burial in a coffin. Rabbi Yehudah says: It should not be a coffin that is carried on the shoulders, but rather, one that is carried in their arms. They form a row to console the mourners; they recite the mourners’ blessing and they comfort the mourners.

If the child was over twelve months old, he is carried out for burial in a bier. Rabbi Akiva maintains that he is carried out for burial with a bier only if he is either actually two years old or developed like a two-year old. Rabbi Shimon ben Elozar says: If the child is carried out for burial in a bier, the people grieve over him; otherwise, they are not required to grieve. Rabbi Elozar ben Azarya says: If the child was known to people in his lifetime, they are required to come to the burial and comfort the father; otherwise, they are not required to get involved.

The braisa continues: When do we eulogize a child? Rabbi Meir said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: If the deceased child came form a poor family, he is eulogized if he was over three years old. If the deceased child came form a rich family, he is eulogized if he was over five years old. Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: If the deceased child came form a poor family, he is eulogized if he was over five years old. If the deceased child came form a rich family, he is eulogized if he was over six years old. The children of the elderly are regarded as children from a poor family.

Rav Gidel the son of Menashye said in the name of Rav: The halacha follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah who said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael. (24a – 24b)

Rabbi Anani bar Sasson expounded in front of the house of the Nasi: If one day of mourning was observed prior to Shavuos and then Shavuos passes, it is considered that mourning has been observed for fourteen days.

Rabbi Ami heard of this and he became angry. He said: Is this his own? This was stated by Rabbi Elozar in the name of Rabbi Oshaya.

A similar incident occurred when Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha expounded in front of the house of the Exilarch and Rav Sheishes heard of this and he became angry. He said: Is this his own? This was stated by Rabbi Elozar in the name of Rabbi Oshaya.

Rabbi Elozar said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: One is obligated to bring a shelamim offering on the first day of Shavuos (similar to the other festivals). He cites a Scriptural verse that there is a seven day compensation period for anyone that didn’t bring the korban. (24b)

Rav Papa accompanied Rav Avia the elder and expounded: If one day of mourning was observed prior to Rosh Hashanah and then Rosh Hashanah passes, it is considered that mourning has been observed for fourteen days.

Ravina said: Accordingly, one day prior to Sukkos, and then Sukkos and Shmini Atzeres passes, it is considered that mourning has been observed for twenty-one days. (24b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 23 - Simcha on Shabbos

Tosfos states that on Shabbos, the laws of mourning can apply because Scripture does not write regarding Shabbos that it is a day of simcha, happiness and therefore mourning will not be in direct contrast to the Shabbos. There is an obligation to rejoice on a festival and that is why the laws of mourning do not apply then.

Tosfos in Kesuvos (7b) writes that one should enhance the Shabbos with rejoicing and feasting. This would indicate that there is an obligation of simcha on Shabbos.

The Nimukei Yosef (19a) states explicitly that there is an obligation for oneg, pleasure on Shabbos but not simcha. The Gemora Shabbos (62b) states that there is a clear distinction between oneg and simcha.

The Sifri in Parshas Bahaloscha expounds on the verse U’veyom simchaschem, this is referring to Shabbos. The Zohar constantly refers to Shabbos as a yuma d’chedvasa, a day of happiness. The Taz (O”C 688:8) cites a Yerushalmi that one has an obligation to conduct himself with simcha on Shabbos.

The Toras Chaim (at the end of Chulin) concludes that there is no obligation to be b’simcha physically on Shabbos (such as eating and drinking), but there is an obligation for a spiritual simcha. The Sefer Chasidim writes that this can be accomplished through the studying of Torah as it is written Pikudei Hashem yeshrim mesamchei leiv.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 23 - Highlights

The Gemora cites a braisa: If a Torah scholar dies, his Beis Medrash should stop its regular classes. If the head of the Beis Din dies, all the places of learning in his city should stop their regular classes and when they enter the synagogues, they should all change their seats from where they usually sit. If the Nasi dies, all of the places of learning should stop their regular classes and they should enter the synagogues on Shabbos to read the Torah (they would not pray together with a minyan, but rather, they would each pray in their own house). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah said: The people would not stroll in the market, but rather, they would stay at home and remain silent. They would not discuss Torah matters in a house of mourning, (but rather, they would sit and remain silent). It was said regarding Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel that he did discuss Torah matters in a house of mourning. (22b – 23a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: A mourner should not leave his house during the first week of mourning. The second week, he is permitted to leave, but he should not sit in his regular place (but rather, in the place reserved for mourners – Meiri, nowadays the custom is to move his seat to another place). The third week, he may sit in his regular place, but he should not talk publicly. During the fourth week, he should conduct himself like a regular person.

Rabbi Yehudah says: It is not necessary for the Chachamim to rule regarding the first week that he shouldn’t leave his house since that is the week that everyone comes to console him; rather it is the second week that he shouldn’t leave his house. The third week, he is permitted to leave, but he should not sit in his regular place. The fourth week, he may sit in his regular place, but he should not talk publicly. During the fifth week, he should conduct himself like a regular person. (23a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: A mourner should not marry during the sheloshim. If it is his wife that died, he should not get married until after three festivals (in order that he shouldn’t forget the love for his first wife – Tosfos). Rabbi Yehudah maintains: He is permitted to marry after the second festival has passed. If he did not yet have any children, he is permitted to marry immediately since otherwise, he would be neglecting the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying. If he has young children, he is also permitted to marry immediately in order for the children to have a woman to sustain them. (23a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: The mourner is prohibited from wearing pressed clothing during the sheloshim, whether they are new clothes or old ones. Rebbe says: The prohibition is only applicable to new clothes. Rabbi Elozar the son of Rabbi Shimon says: It is only applicable to new, white clothes. (23a)

The Gemora presents a dispute between the people of Yehudah and the people from the Galil whether the laws regarding private expressions of mourning apply to the Shabbos during the shiva period.

The Gemora attempts to prove that this argument is in fact a dispute among the Tannaim. The Gemora cites a braisa: One whose deceased relative lies before him (to be buried – he is now an onein) has the following halachos: He should eat in another room (eating in front of the dead is tantamount to mocking them); if no other room is available to him, he should eat in a friend’s house; if that is not an option, he should build a separating wall in the height of ten tefachim and eat there; if that cannot be accomplished, he should turn around (away from the deceased) and eat there. When he is eating, he should not recline (reclining was a symbol of royalty and it is not proper to display royalty while he is an onein); he should not eat meat or drink wine; he should not recite the blessing before the meal or afterwards; others should not recite the blessings for him; he should not participate in the zimun (three people join together to recite the blessing after the meal); he is exempt from reciting krias shema, shemoneh esrei, donning tefillin or any other mitzva.

The braisa continues: On Shabbos, he may recline in his usual manner and eat meat or drink wine; he can recite the blessings before the meal and afterwards; he may participate in a zimun; he is obligated to recite krias shema, Shemoneh Esrei, don tefillin and all other mitzvos. Rabban Gamliel says: Once he is obligated in these mitzvos, he is obligated in all other mitzvos, as well.

The Gemora proceeds to explain the dispute between the Tanna Kamma and Rabban Gamliel. The argument must be if it is permitted for the mourner to engage in marital relations during the Shabbos of shiva. The dispute is dependent on whether there is an obligation to observe the laws of mourning on Shabbos or not.

The Gemora rejects this explanation: Perhaps the Tanna Kamma prohibited the mourner from engaging in marital relations only because the deceased is lying before him; and perhaps Rabban Gamliel permitted it because it was before the burial and the laws of mourning did not yet take effect. (23b)

Rabbi Yochanan inquired of Shmuel: Is a mourner obligated to observe the laws of mourning on Shabbos? Shmuel responded: The laws of mourning should not be observed on Shabbos, even in the privacy of his home. (24a)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 22 - GROWING HAIR FOR THREE MONTHS

The Gemora states: If one is mourning for a parent, he should not take a haircut until his friends criticize him on account of his long hair.

The Rama (O”C 390:4) cites that there is a dispute among the poskim as to how long a mourner should wait until he takes a haircut. The custom is to wait three months.

Reb Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Y”D 3:156) explains: Even though it would seem from the Gemora that the mourner must wait until his friends criticize him on the account of his long hair, this is just an indicator as to how long he should let his hair grow.

If his friends criticize him before three months, he may take a haircut then. (The Mishna Berura and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch agree to this ruling of Reb Moshe. There are those that argue.)

Maharam Schick (371) writes: The three months do not commence at the time of death, rather, it begins from his last haircut. He explains: The three months of growing his hair is not a measurement of mourning, rather it is an indicator to the length of his hair.

He concludes that the poskim do not specifically say this and therefore he cannot rule leniently in this matter unless there are other reasons to combine with this one.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 22 - Highlights

The Gemora cites a braisa discussing the laws of a mourner arriving at the place where the other mourners are sitting shiva within the first three days of mourning: If he was within a days distance when he heard about the death, he may count the days of shiva together with them; if he came from a faraway place, he must count the days of shiva himself. If he arrives after three days, he must count the days of shiva himself. Rabbi Shimon says: If he was within a days distance when he heard about the death, he may count with them even if he arrives on the seventh day of shiva.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: The arriving mourner can count together with the other mourners only when the senior member of the family is sitting shiva already.

The Gemora states: If the senior member of the family went to the cemetery and returned to the rest of the family within the first three days of mourning, he counts together with them; if he returns after three days, he counts by himself. (21b – 22a)

Rabbi Shimon had stated: If he was within a days distance when he heard about the death, he may count with them even if he arrives on the seventh day of shiva. Rabbi Chiya bar Gamda said in the name of Rabbi Yosi ban Shaul in the name of Rebbe: This is the halacha provided that there are still people consoling the mourner on the seventh day. The Gemora rules that the halacha follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. (22a)

The Gemora states distinctions between the burying and mourning of one’s parent and the burying and mourning for other relatives.

One is considered praiseworthy if he buries his relatives quickly; however, if he buries his parents quickly, that is regarded as degrading (since he should eulogize them abundantly).

If it was on a Friday or the day prior to the festival, or it was raining, it is considered praiseworthy if he buries them quickly since he is doing that out of respect for his parents.

One who is mourning for other relatives is not required to limit his business activity (if he is working in order to prevent a loss); however, if he is mourning for a parent, he should limit his business activity.

One who is mourning for other relatives is not required to reveal his shoulder after rending his garment; however, if he is mourning for a parent, he should reveal his shoulder.

One who is mourning for other relatives may take a haircut after the sheloshim; however, if he is mourning for a parent, he should not take a haircut until his friends criticize him on account of his long hair. (22a – 22b)

One who is mourning for other relatives is permitted to enter a house of celebration after the sheloshim; however, if he is mourning for a parent, that is prohibited until after twelve months.

Rabbah bar bar Chanah qualifies this ruling to be referring to a celebration for friendship; however, it will be forbidden for a mourner to participate in a joyous celebration, like a wedding even after the sheloshim.

The Gemora cites a braisa which indicates that a mourner can participate in a joyous celebration, like a wedding after the sheloshim.

Ameimar cites another version: Rabbah bar bar Chanah qualifies this ruling to be referring to a joyous celebration: however, for a celebration for friendship, the mourner can participate immediately.

The Gemora asks that this is inconsistent with the braisa which states that mourner can participate in a friendship celebration or a joyous celebration after the sheloshim.

The Gemora answers: The mourner must wait until after the sheloshim to participate in a celebration for friendship; however, it is permitted for him to host the reciprocal celebration (all the friends hosted this celebration on a rotating basis). (22b)

One who is mourning for other relatives is obligated to rend his garment for the length of a tefach; however, if he is mourning for a parent, he should rend his garment until he reveals his heart.

One who is mourning for other relatives is obligated to rend only his outside garment; however, if he is mourning for a parent, he is obligated to rend all his garments.

One who is mourning for other relatives may temporarily repair the rent garment after the shiva and sew it completely after the sheloshim; however, if he is mourning for a parent, he should not repair the garment until after the sheloshim and it should never be sewn together.(22b)

Ravin says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: One who is mourning for other relatives may rend his garments with his hand or with a utensil; however, if he is mourning for a parent, he is obligated to rend his garments with his hands.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: One who is mourning for other relatives may rend his garments on the inside (in privacy); however, if he is mourning for a parent, he is obligated to rend his garments in public view. (22b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 21 - A MOURNER STUDYING TORAH

The Gemora states that a mourner is forbidden from studying Torah. Rashi explains: The studying of Torah makes one happy and a mourner is required to be in a state of anguish.

The Ramban asks: Doesn’t every person have an obligation to learn everyday? He answers: One can fulfill this mitzva with the recital of krias shema in the morning and in the evening. .

The Ritva is uncertain whether a mourner is permitted to learn those topics (Iyuv, certain parts of Yirmiyah) that one is allowed to learn on Tisha b’Av. He cites from Rabbeinu Yitzchak that he is permitted. Tosfos HaRosh writes that it is customary for a mourner to study Moed Katan where it discusses the laws regarding a mourner.

The Meiri cites an opinion that a mourner is forbidden from studying any Torah since he is required to remain silent and it is not dependant on learning which results in joy to the heart. He adds that it is also permitted for a mourner to glance at seforim which lead a person to repentance.


The Chacham Tzvi rules that if someone is accustomed to reciting Mishnayos by heart and he is concerned that he will forget them if he interrupts this learning, he may continue to do so.

The Aruch Hashulchan cites a Yerushalmi: If someone is literally sick without studying Torah, he is permitted to learn. He concludes: the poskim do not bring this down because it is highly unlikely in our generations. The Rogatchover Gaon applied to himself.

It is said that the Chasam Sofer wrote his teshuvos regarding mourning while sitting shiva for his mother.

Chazal say that Esau was waiting for Yitzchak to die until he would kill Yaakov. The Keli Yakar explains: Esau understood that Yaakov will be protected by the studying of Torah; once Yitzchak dies, Yaakov will be mourning and will be forbidden to learn and this would be the opportunity he was anxiously awaiting for.

The Beis Yisroel asks: Couldn’t Yaakov be protected with the learning of the topics that are permitted to learn? He answers: It is the joy from the learning that protects a person and a mourner doesn’t have that joy.

[Once again, thanks to Hagaos Yosef Anonymous for his Daf blurbs.]

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Moed Katan 21 - Highlights

The Gemora cites a Scriptural source establishing that the mourner must rend his garments while he is standing. (20b – 21a)

The Gemora cites a braisa which delineates the laws of the mourner. A mourner is forbidden to engage in labor; nor can he wash or anoint himself; he cannot have marital relations; he cannot wear leather shoes; he is forbidden from studying Torah, Prophets, Writings, Mishna, Medrash, halachos, Talmud and Aggadah. If the public needs him, he should not refrain from teaching them. There was an incident and the son of Rabbi Yosi from Tzipori’s son died and he went to the Beis Medrash and taught Torah to his students the entire day.

The Gemora states: Although we allow a mourner to teach Torah if the public needs him, he should not set up an interpreter (to demonstrate that he is in mourning). (21a)

The Gemora states: Rabbi Eliezer said: A mourner is forbidden to don tefillin the first three days of mourning. From the third day and on, he is permitted to don tefillin and even if a new person arrives (and he might think that this is the mourner’s first day), he is not required to remove the tefillin. Rabbi Yehoshua said: A mourner is forbidden to don tefillin the first two days of mourning. From the second day and on, he is permitted to don tefillin and even if a new person arrives, he is required to remove the tefillin. The Gemora cites the Scriptural sources for these halachos.

Ula states: The halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer regarding the removal of the tefillin (if a new person arrives from the third day and on, he is not required to remove the tefillin) and the halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua regarding the donning of the tefillin (from the second day and on, he is permitted to don tefillin). The Gemora concludes according to Ula: If a new person arrives on the second day, he is required to remove the tefillin.

Rava rules: Once he dons the tefillin on the second day, he is not required to remove them. The Gemora asks: Isn’t Rava the one who holds that the primary mourning period lasts three days? The Gemora answers: Since it is a mitzva to wear tefillin, we allow him on the second day of mourning to wear them and he is not required to remove them. (21a – 21b)

The Gemora cites several braisos that discuss the stringencies of the first three days of the mourning period: He is prohibited from working even if he is a poor person who is sustained through charity. Afterwards, he may work in private. A poor woman mourner, after the third day, may spin with her spindle in private.

A mourner does not leave his house the first three days of mourning even to comfort another mourner. Afterwards, he may go out to comfort them, but he sits together with the mourners and not with the consolers.

A mourner during the first three days of mourning should not greet his friend and should not respond to his friends greeting. From the third day of mourning through the seventh day, he may respond to his friends greeting but he may not greet them. Afterwards, he may greet them in the usual manner.

The Gemora cites an incident with Rabbi Akiva where he greeted the public who attended the eulogy for his sons. The Gemora answers: This was permitted for he was displaying respect to the public. (21b)

The Gemora cites a braisa: After sheloshim, one can greet mourner in a regular way, but he should not console him. The Gemora cites another braisa which contradicts this: One may console a mourner during the first twelve months but he should not offer greetings, afterwards, he should greet him but he should not console him. The Gemora answers: The latter braisa is referring to a person who is mourning on the loss of his father or mother; the period of mourning lasts longer and the mourner should not be greeted until a year after the death. The former braisa is referring to a person who is mourning on the loss of other relatives; he may be greeted in the regular way after the sheloshim. (21b)

Read more!