Moed Katan

He replied, ‘Mother’1 is alive’. [Again] he asked ‘Is mother2 alive’? He replied: ‘Father is alive’.3 R. Hiyya thereupon said to his attendant: ‘Take off my shoes and bring along my things after me to the [public] baths’. Now from this instance we learn three lessons: We learn that a mourner is forbidden to don shoes;4 that distant tidings [entail formal mourning] but for one day; and that part of the day is [deemed] as all entire day's [mourning]!5 [In fact], R. Hiyya is one person and R. Ahiyya [whose son died in the Diaspora] is another person.6 Said R. Jose b. Abin: [If] one received near tidings on a festival and by the [time of its] termination it became distant tidings, [the festival-time] enters into the counting and [accordingly] he observes but one day [of formal mourning]. R. Adda7 of Caesarea recited in the presence of R. Johanan: If one hears near tidings on a Sabbath day and by the termination of the Sabbath it has become distant tidings, he observes but one day [of formal mourning]. Does one [in such a case] rend his garment, or does he not rend his garment? — R. Mani said: He does not [need to] rend his garment; R. Hanina said, He does rend [his garment]. Said R. Mani to R. Hanina: My view that he does not rend [his garment] is consistent with the fact that there is no [observance of] ‘seven’. But according to your view that he [should] rend his garment, tell me, is there a rending of [one's garment] without [the observance of] the seven [days of mourning]? But is there not? Surely, Isi, father of R. Zera — or as sonic say, R. Zera's brother, recited in the presence of R. Johanan: If one had no tunic8 to rend [at the time] and he obtained one during the seven [days], he should rend it then; [if it became available] after the seven days, he does not rend it! [Thereupon] R. Zera chimed in after him: ‘When does this ruling apply? In the case of the [other] five nearest-of-kin [for whom mourning is] obligatory,9 but in the case of father or mother one always rends one's garment!’ — What you cited [in fact] refers to the deference to be shown to one's father or mother.10 Our Rabbis taught: For all [nearest-of-kin] mentioned in the Priest's Section11 for whom a priest is to defile himself, a mourner is to observe [formal] mourning, namely, these: [For] his wife, father or mother, brother or [single] sister, son or daughter. To these they added: His brother or single sister from the same mother,12 as well as his married sister, be it from the same mother or the same father.13 And just as he observes [formal] mourning for these, he likewise observes [formal] mourning for their relatives in the second degree:14 this is R. Akiba's ruling. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: [Extended, formal] mourning is not observed except for one's son's child and a father's father,15 and the Sages say [by way of definition]: Whomever he mourns for he should also mourn with.16 Is not the Sages’ view [practically] the same as that of the former Tanna?17 — Not [quite]; there is a [practical] difference between them, whether [we require him to be, that is to say when he is] with him in the [same] house,18 as Rab19 said to his son Hiyya, and as R. Huna likewise said to his son Rabbah:20 ‘In her presence observe mourning; away from her presence do not observe mourning’. [When] Mar Ukba's father-in-law's son died, he thought of sitting for him21 seven [days of mourning] and [continuing to] thirty. R. Huna going to his house found him [in formal mourning]. ‘Do you desire’, said he, ‘to eat of mourners’ fare?’22 They [the Sages] did not say that [one should observe formal mourning] out of deference to his wife only in the case of [the death of] his father-in-law or his mother-in-law,23 as it is taught: ‘If his father-in-law or mother-in-law died the husband may not compel his [mourning] wife to put on kohl or do her hair24 [as usual], but he should overturn his [own] couch and observe [formal] mourning with her; and likewise she, when her fatherin-law or mother-in-law dies, may not put on kohl or do her hair [as usual]; but she should overturn her couch and observe [formal] mourning with him’. And another Baraitha taught: ‘Although it was stated [that] he may not compel his wife to put on kohl or do her hair [as usual] it is — said they — indisputably correct25 that she [may] mix his wine for him, make his bed and wash his face, hands and feet’.26 [Now the regulations in] the two citations contradict each other.27 Hence infer from this that the one Baraitha refers to [the death of] a father-in-law or mother-in-law,28 while the other to [the death of] other near of kin.29 — This proves it.30 It is also taught thus [explicitly]: ‘They did not lay down [that one should observe formal mourning] out of deference to his wife, save [at the death of] his father-in-law or his mother-in-law alone’. Amemar lost his son's son, and he rent [his garment]. Thereupon his son came and he [again] rent [his garment] in his [son's] presence. He then recollected that he had done it while sitting; he rose and relit [his garment again] standing. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: Whence do we derive that the rending [of a garment] is [to be done] standing? From the text: Then Job rose31 and rent his mantle.32 Aha of Kafri. alive, but nothing about it. Hiyya's mother, Aha's wife. This is according to R. Hananel. Rashi and Tosaf. s.v. uchht offer different interpretations. V. Pes. 4a (Sonc. ed. p. 11.) doffing the shoes, are enough; as soon after R. Hiyya went to the baths, which is forbidden to a mourner for a recent bereavement. Cf supra p. 101. differently on two occasions, at receiving belated distant news of the loss of a son and again of the loss of parents. They are two different persons. respect for his parents; v. Nimmuke Yosef.] sympathy) with his son who loses a child. numerous callers come to condole with her; kohl was used for the eye-brows. mourner (Tosaf.).] latter, it implies that the husband need not.