Moed Katan

And these are rents that are not [to be] sewed up: One who rends [his clothes] for his father or mother; or his master who taught him Wisdom,1 for a Nasi, or Ab Beth din;2 or on hearing evil tidings or [hearing] God's name blasphemed, or when a scroll of the law has been burnt; or at the [sight of the ruined] cities of Judea, the Holy Temple or Jerusalem. And one rends [first] for the Temple and then enlarges [the rent] for Jerusalem. ‘For his father or mother or for his master who taught him Wisdom’. Whence derive we [these rulings]? — From what is written: And Elisha saw it and he cried: My father. my father, the chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof.3 ‘My father, my father’, that is, [to rend on the loss of] one's father or mother. ‘The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof’, that is [for] a Master who taught one Torah. How exactly does it convey this [meaning]? — As R. Joseph rendered it [in Aramaic]: ‘My master, my master, who was better [protection] to Israel with his prayer than chariots and horsemen’. And whence that these rents are not [to be] reunited? — From what is written [in the same passage]: And he [Elisha] took hold of his own clothes and rent them in two pieces.3 Once it says ‘and he rent then;’, do I not know that he rent them in two [asunder]? It must be meant to teach that the severed parts ever remain rent [apart] in two.4 Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan: Elijah [however] is alive!5 — He replied, Since it is written there ‘And he saw ‘him no more,’ he was as dead to him [to Elisha]. ‘For a Nasi or Ab Beth din or on hearing evil tidings’. Whence do we derive [these rulings]? — From what is written: Then David took hold of his clothes and rent them,’ and likewise all the men that were with him. And they wailed and wept and fasted until even, for Saul and for Jonathan his son and for the people of the Lord and for the house of Israel, because they were fallen by the sword.6 Now ‘Saul’, that is the Nasi [Prince]; ‘Jonathan’, that is the Ab Beth din. ‘And for the people of the Lord and for the house of Israel’, that refers to ‘evil tidings’ [that reached them]. Said Rab b. Shabba to R. Kahana: Might not one explain that [they did] not [rend their clothes] until [after hearing] all those misfortunes [that had then happened]?7 He replied, The repetition of ‘for’ this ‘and for’ that ‘and for’ separate the items [from one another]. Yet do we [have to] rend [clothes] on hearing evil tidings? For when they informed Samuel that King Shapur had slain twelve thousand Jews at Caesarea-Mazaca,8 he did not [then] rend his clothes? — They [the Sages] did not say [it should be done] save where the misfortune involves the larger part of the Community resembling the typical instance.9 And is it a fact that King Shapur slew Jews? For [it is reported] that King Shapur said to Samuel,10 ‘May [ill] befall me if I have ever slain a Jew!’ — For there, it was they [the Jews] that had brought it on themselves, as R. Ammi said, that the noise of the harp-strings11 about Caesarea-Mazaca burst the wall of Laodicea. 12 ‘[Rents] on [hearing] God's name blasphemed’.13 Whence do we derive this? — From what is written: Then came Eliakim the son of Hilkiah who was over the household and Shebna the scribe and Joah the son; of Asaph the recorder to Hezekiah with their clothes rent and told him the [blasphemous] words of Rabshakeh.14 Our Rabbis taught: ‘It makes no difference whether one hears it [himself] or hears it from another who had heard it, he is in duty bound to rend [his clothes], but the witnesses arc not in duty bound to rend [again on reporting] as they have already rent at the time they heard [the blasphemy]’. [You say], ‘as they have already rent at the time they heard [the blasphemy]’, what matters it, since they do hear it now [again in reporting]? — Do not imagine such a thing. For it is written, And it came to pass, when the King heard it, that he rent his clothes:’15 the King [we are told], rent [his clothes], but they [who reported it] did not rend [again]. And whence [do we know] that these rents are not [to be] mended? — That is learnt from a comparison16 between the ‘rending’ [here] by King Hezekiah and ‘rending’ [elsewhere].17 ‘[Rents] when a scroll of the law has been burnt’. What is the source for this? — What is written: And it came to pass when Jehudi had read three or four columns that he cut it with a penknife and cast it into the fire that was in the brazier.18 What is the point of saying ‘[had read] three or four columns’? — They told [King] Jehoiakim that Jeremiah had written a book of Lamentations, [and] he said to them: What is written there? [They quoted] ‘How doth the city sit solitary’.19 — [The King] replied: I am the King.20 They then cited to him [the second verse]: She weepeth sore in the night. He replied [again]: I am the King. [They then cited the third verse]: Judah is gone into exile because of affliction. [Again he replied]: I am the King. [They continued with verse four]: The ways of Zion do mourn. I am the King [he replied]. [They continued with the fifth verse]: Her adversaries are become the head. He asked: Who said that? — [They continued with that same verse]: For the Lord hath afflicted her for the multitude of her transgressions. Forthwith he [began to] cut out all the names of God mentioned therein and burnt them in the fire; hence it is written [in the report there]: Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, neither the King, nor any of his servants that heard all these words,21 which implies that the [bystanders] should have rent [their clothes]. Said Abaye to R. Papa: Might it not be suggested that the reason [why they should have rent was] for hearing evil tidings?22 — He replied: [Hardly, for] were there at that time any evil tidings as yet? Said R. Helbo, as citing R. Huna: One who witnesses a scroll of the law being torn23 is in duty bound to make two rents: one on account of the [injury to the] parchment24 and one for [the injury to] the writing, as [may be gathered] from what is said: Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah after that the King had burned the roll and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah.25 ‘The roll,’ that is, the parchment and ‘and the words’, that is, the writing. 26 R. Abba and R. Huna b. Hiyya were once sitting together. R. Abba got up to [go and] relieve himself. He took off his head phylactery and put it down on a pillow, when a young ostrich came and wanted to swallow it.27 Said he [R. Abba]: [If that had been swallowed] I should now have had to make two rents.28 Said the other:29 Whence do you derive this? A similar thing happened to me and I came to R. Mattenah [asking for guidance] and he had none to give me. I then came to Rab Judah and he told me: Thus said Samuel: ‘The [Rabbis] taught [that one should rend] only where [a sacred text is torn or burnt] by force majeure30 and as in the example cited’.31 ‘Or at the [sight of the ruined] cities of Judea: the Holy Temple or Jerusalem’. Whence do we learn this? — From what is written: And it came to pass the second day after he32 had slain Gedaliah and no man knew it that there come certain men from Shechem, front Shiloh and from Samaria, even fourscore men, having their beards shaven and their clothes rent and having cut themselves, with meal-offerings and frankincense in their hand to bring them in the house of the Lord.33 Said R. Helbo. as citing ‘Ulla of Berai who reported R. Eleazar: One who sees the cities of Judah in their [state of] ruin, recites the verse: Thy holy cities are become a wilderness,34 and rends his garment. [On seeing] Jerusalem in its [state of] ruin, one recites: Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised Thee, is burned with fire and all our pleasant things are laid waste, 35 and rends his garment. ‘He [first] makes a rent for the Holy Temple and then enlarges [the rent] for Jerusalem’. [In contrast to this] some cited [the following Baraitha]: ‘It is all the same whether one hears [that Jerusalem is fallen into ruin]36 or sees [Jerusalem in ruin he is] in duty bound to rend [his garment].36 As soon as he reaches the Scopus he rends; and he rends for the holy Temple separately and for Jerusalem separately’? — This [seeming discrepancy] is not difficult [to explain]. The former ruling obtains where he first [of all] encounters the site of the [ruined] Sanctuary37 and the latter, where he encounters Jerusalem [ruins] first [and afterwards the Sanctuary]. Our Rabbis taught: ‘And all these [rents] they may tack together,38 baste or pick up [the frayed edges]39 or with a ladderstitch, but may not reunite the edges [by a sewn seam]’.40 Said R. Hisda: this be the guiding instance for a ruling on a loss by death? main roads leading to the East, in 260 C.E. after he defeated the Emperor Valerian. It is said that there were then four hundred thousand inhabitants. Cf. Enc. Brit. (11th ed.) IV, 943a. The date 260 however makes this statement rather difficult, as Samuel died in 252 and Papa bar Nasr of Palmyra (Odenath) destroyed Nehardea 259. The occasion must therefore have been earlier, after the murder of Gordian III at Zaitha in 244 when Philip the Arab (of Hauran) made the best terms he could with Shapur [V. Graetz MGWJ 1852, p. 512 and Hoffmann D. Mar Samuel, p. 48.] instance or entering at dusk. He then rends first for the ruined Sanctuary and enlarges the rent on beholding the ruins of Jerusalem.