Talmud for Moed Katan 3:5
הַקּוֹבֵר אֶת מֵתוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים קֹדֶם לָרֶגֶל, בָּטְלָה הֵימֶנּוּ גְּזֵרַת שִׁבְעָה. שְׁמֹנָה, בָּטְלָה הֵימֶנּוּ גְּזֵרַת שְׁלֹשִׁים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ, שַׁבָּת עוֹלָה וְאֵינָהּ מַפְסֶקֶת, רְגָלִים מַפְסִיקִין וְאֵינָן עוֹלִין:
If one buries his dead one three days before the festival [i.e., If one of his kin died before the festival, and he observed mourning three days before the festival, the decree of shivah ("the seven days") falls off, [but not that of shloshim ("the thirty days"), i.e., the interdict of cutting his hair, so that after the festival he counts (until) thirty days including the three that he had already observed. The halachah is that if one buries his dead one even one moment before the festival, the decree of shivah falls off.] (If he buries him) eight [days before the festival], the decree of shloshim falls off. [Since one of the days of (interdicted) shaving (of the shloshim) preceded the festival, the festival comes and cancels the others entirely.] For they said: Shabbath is included [The Shabbath within the days of his mourning is included in the seven (of shivah)] and does not interrupt [It does not cancel the rest, but he sits in mourning after Shabbath.]; festivals interrupt and are not included. [If he observed mourning before the festival, the festival interrupts and cancels the decree of shloshim. And if he did not observe mourning before the festival, but began his mourning on the festival, the days of the festival are not included in the shivah, but they are included in the shloshim. The reason that Shabbath is included in the shivah is that "private" mourning obtains therein, such as the interdict against cohabitation and against uncovering the head (i.e., taking off the mourner's wrap) and bathing in warm water, these being forbidden on Shabbath. But on the festival no laws of mourning obtain, for which reason it interrupts it entirely. And if no mourning at all began before the festival, as when he buried his dead one in the midst of the festival, it is not included in the shivah, and he begins to count shivah after the festival.]
Jerusalem Talmud Nazir
Something happened7A close relative died. By rabbinic convention, the mourner cannot leave his house for the first seven days after burial; he does not shave for thirty days. R. Immi considered the 30 days’ period of the nazir as a paradigm for the 30 day period of the mourner. to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 30th day, and something happened to Rebbi Immi and he shaved on the 31st day8He was inconsistent in his actions.. Rebbi Zeriqa said, Rebbi Immi learned this from the Mishnah, as we have stated there9Mishnah 2.: “If somebody vowed two neziriot, he shaves for the first on the 31st day, for the second on the 61st day10The argument is from the part of the Mishnah which is not quoted: “But if he shaved for the first on the 30th day, he shaves for the second on the 60th” (cf. Note 6)..” Rebbi Yose said, there when it happened, here from the start11R. Yose criticizes R. Immi. The Mishnah requires the nazir to shave on his 31st day; it only legitimizes shaving on the 30th after the fact. But R. Immi shaved on the 30th on his own initiative. R. Zeriqa seems to hold that what is acceptable after the fact in biblical rules is permitted from the start in rabbinic usage.. Rebbi Jeremiah instructed Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshia, and some say, Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav Isaac Aṭoshia, to shave on the 30th day, following the Mishnah12Mo‘ed qaṭan 3:5. “If somebody buried his relative three days before a holiday, the seven-day rule is waived for him. Eight days, the 30 day rule is waived for him, as they said: Sabbath is counted but does not interrupt, holidays interrupt but do not count.” If somebody was mourning for three days before the holiday, he does not have to continue the intense mourning period after the holiday; he continues with the remainder of the 30-day period. Similarly, if he was keeping at least one day of mourning after the seven-day period, the holiday cancels the remainder of the 30-day mourning period. (The Babli, Mo‘ed qaṭan 19b, reduces the 8 day period to 7 since “part of a day is like a whole day” and the 30-day period starts on the seventh.): “Eight days, the decree of 30 days is waived for him.” The eighth has the same status as the 30th day13The argument here goes as follows: If the 8th day of mourning was holiday eve, the mourner can shave in the afternoon in preparation for the holiday. The time elapsed from dawn to the afternoon is counted as a full day for him. Therefore, the person who shaves on the 30th day can nevertheless count the entire 30th day as being part of his mourning period.. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference; there they permitted in order to honor the holiday. You should know this, since Rebbi Ḥelbo bar Ḥuna said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his eighth day falls on the Sabbath, he shaves Sabbath eve. If you say that they did not permit in order to honor the holiday, then even if his 30th day falls on the Sabbath, he should shave Sabbath eve14Nobody allows the mourner to shave on the 29th day. (Quoted by Tosaphot Mo‘ed qaṭan 19b, s. v. הלכה).. In addition, from what Rebbi Joḥanan had said15Mo‘ed qaṭan 3:5 (82b 1. 10), 3:8 (83d 1. 23); Babli 22b.: “For all deceased16Except for father and mother. The first sign of mourning required is to tear one’s garment. For the seven-day period, the mourner is required to wear the torn garment. He can stitch together the tear after the end of the seven-day period (after 30 days for father or mother) and invisibly mend it after thirty days (never mending invisibly for father or mother.) Why does one not allow stitching or mending on the last day of a period if “part of the day is counted as a whole day”? he stitches together after seven days and mends after 30.” Why should he not stitch on the seventh day and mend on the 30th day? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this has been transmitted in this way and that has been transmitted in that way16Except for father and mother. The first sign of mourning required is to tear one’s garment. For the seven-day period, the mourner is required to wear the torn garment. He can stitch together the tear after the end of the seven-day period (after 30 days for father or mother) and invisibly mend it after thirty days (never mending invisibly for father or mother.) Why does one not allow stitching or mending on the last day of a period if “part of the day is counted as a whole day”?.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot
“Even though there are [marks] on his body and his clothing.” Did one not state: From where that if your fellow man is lost, you return him both body and property57The verse to which this refers is not indicated; it probably refers to Deut. 22:2 where the obligation to return a find is extended to include helping a person who is lost, since the end of the verse may be read “return him to himself.” The essence of the verse is interpreted to mean that the obligation to return property exists only after the person who claims to be the owner was examined as to the validity of this claim (Sifry Deut. 223; Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 2:7); in Midrash Tannaïm (Midrash Haggadol Deut, ed. S. Fisch, p. 486) the implication is that one is required the look after the medical needs of indigents and travelers.. These sources imply that examination of marks on bodies and property is accepted in biblical law. Then the question is how the Mishnah here can declare this kind of investigation as invalid. The answer given here (and in the Babli, 120b and Baba Meṣi‘a 27b) is that after death, bodily marks will rapidly change. The Babli in Baba Meṣi‘a adds that clothing or documents found on a corpse are no proofs of identity since they may belong to someone else.? There is a difference, because marks are apt to change.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Nazir
“They shall fall away, for his vow of nazir is impure.179Num. 6:12.” From here that the days of impurity fall away180The days of certified skin disease cannot count as days of nezirut even though the sufferer from skin disease is also required to let his hair grow.. Then should he invalidate181The Mishnah states that a nazir who develops skin disease simply waits until he is healed and then finishes his count. Why does he not start anew as in the case of impurity of the dead?? He invalidates only the days of [impurity of] the dead182The biblical law is quite clear that only the impurity of the dead makes him lose the earlier days of his count.. Why should they not be counted? If you say that days in which he causes [impurity to] couch and seat are counted, days in which he does not cause [impurity to] couch and seat are certainly counted183Mishnah Kelim 1:4 states that the impurity of the sufferer from skin disease is more severe than the impurity of the female sufferer from flux. For the latter, it is stated explicitly (Lev. 15:26) that any couch and any seat used by her becomes a source of original impurity. No direct biblical source exists for declaring the sufferer from skin disease to cause this kind of impurity; it is derived indirectly in Sifra Meṣora‘ Parashah 2(6). This derivation is accepted at face value by Maimonides both in his Mishnah Commentary (Kelim 1:4) and in his Code (Turn‘at Ṣara‘at 10:11). The commentators of the Babli (Rashi, Pesaḥim 67b s. v. זב, Ravad, Commentary to Sifra) have difficulties in accepting the Sifra since it seems to contradict the Babli Pesaḥim 67b, but a student of the Yerushalmi does not have to consider this, in particular since Ravad does not object to Maimonides’s ruling in his Code. For impurity there is no difference between a sufferer from skin disease in quarantine and one positively declared infirm (Mishnah Megillah 1:7, Nega‘im 8:8).
The argument given here refers to Mishnah Nega‘im 14:2 which states that the healed sufferer from skin disease in his days of counting, between the preliminary and the definitive purification, is free from all severe impurities and does not cause more impurity than a dead reptile (the slightest of impurities, Mishnah Kelim 1:1). It does not seem to make any sense to accept the days of the severely impure quarantined but not to accept the slightly impure counting sufferer from skin disease (cf. Note 144).! What did you see to say that they are not counted? Rebbi []184There are no sources which would permit filling in the lacuna. said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “For a wild growth of his head’s hair”185Num. 6:5.. Days of hair growth are counted, days preparing for shaving186For the final purification of the sufferer from skin disease. are not counted. So far in his days of counting; in the days of his definite status? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “Please do not let her be like a corpse187Num. 12:12, speaking of Miriam who was punished for calumniating Moses by becoming a clear sufferer from skin disease (v. 10), not a case of quarantine..” Since the days of a corpse are not counted, the days of quarantine are not counted. A student quoted this saying cf Rebbi Joḥanan’s before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said to him: Here, you call it quarantine, but there, you want to call it absolute; you cannot do that. For Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Please do not let her be like a corpse; let her be quarantined188Num. 12:14..” Just as the days of the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven189While the case of Miriam was clearly not one of quarantine, the verse treats it as such by (1) calling her exclusion from the camp “quarantine” and (2) exempting her from the cleansing ritual which is required of the absolute sufferer but not the quarantined (Mishnah Megillah 1:8, Nega‘im 8:8). The verse cannot be applied to the absolute sufferer..
The argument given here refers to Mishnah Nega‘im 14:2 which states that the healed sufferer from skin disease in his days of counting, between the preliminary and the definitive purification, is free from all severe impurities and does not cause more impurity than a dead reptile (the slightest of impurities, Mishnah Kelim 1:1). It does not seem to make any sense to accept the days of the severely impure quarantined but not to accept the slightly impure counting sufferer from skin disease (cf. Note 144).! What did you see to say that they are not counted? Rebbi []184There are no sources which would permit filling in the lacuna. said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “For a wild growth of his head’s hair”185Num. 6:5.. Days of hair growth are counted, days preparing for shaving186For the final purification of the sufferer from skin disease. are not counted. So far in his days of counting; in the days of his definite status? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “Please do not let her be like a corpse187Num. 12:12, speaking of Miriam who was punished for calumniating Moses by becoming a clear sufferer from skin disease (v. 10), not a case of quarantine..” Since the days of a corpse are not counted, the days of quarantine are not counted. A student quoted this saying cf Rebbi Joḥanan’s before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said to him: Here, you call it quarantine, but there, you want to call it absolute; you cannot do that. For Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Please do not let her be like a corpse; let her be quarantined188Num. 12:14..” Just as the days of the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven189While the case of Miriam was clearly not one of quarantine, the verse treats it as such by (1) calling her exclusion from the camp “quarantine” and (2) exempting her from the cleansing ritual which is required of the absolute sufferer but not the quarantined (Mishnah Megillah 1:8, Nega‘im 8:8). The verse cannot be applied to the absolute sufferer..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot
HALAKHAH: Who277This entire discussion belongs to the third chapter of tractate Moëd Qaṭan (Halakhah 5, fol. 62d). There are some textual differences between the two texts, an occurrence rare in the Yerushalmi. But in fact the deviations of the text here from its original in Moëd Qaṭan are all scribal or printer’s errors, as is shown from the Rome ms. and the Genizah fragments. Therefore, the text here follows the Moëd Qaṭan text wherever there is manuscript evidence from Berakhot to support that version. stated that the mourner is forbidden to take a bath during the entire seven days? Rebbi Nathan278Usually known as Nathan the Babylonian, a Babylonian from the Davidic family, second in the Synhedrion under Rabban Simeon ben Gamliël.. Something happened to Rebbi Ammi279A close relative of Rebbi Ammi died, for whom he had to mourn for seven days., he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who instructed him “all seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. Something happened to Rebbi Yose280The fourth generation Amora. It seems that Rebbi Yose felt uncomfortable with the prohibition of bathing; he sent one of his students to ask Rebbi Aḥa, the greatest authority in Lydda, in Judea. In the next section, it will be seen that in the South, in Judea, one did not follow Rebbi Nathan and allowed bathing for the mourner. Nevertheless, Rebbi Aḥa did not want to interfere with the prohibition accepted in Galilee and answered not with his own opinion but with a note that Rebbi Yose himself had taught about two cases where the question had come up in Galilee and was answered in the sense of Rebbi Nathan.; he sent Rebbi Abba bar Cohen to Rebbi Aḥa; he said to him: Rebbi, did you not so teach us that something happened to Rebbi Ammi, he asked Resh Laqish281Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; the abbreviation “Resh Laqish” is standard in the Babli but very infrequent in the Yerushalmi. The abbreviation probably is that of a lazy copyist. who instructed him “all seven days following Rebbi Nathan”. He said to him282Rebbi Yose to Rebbi Aḥa, that maybe this was only one occasion reported under two different names and, therefore, represents only the opinion of one teacher and not a generally accepted rule that would need at least two supporting authorities., maybe these were two separate incidents, we say it in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, you say it in the name of Resh Laqish. And also from the following283This is Rebbi Aḥa’s answer: Even if you do not agree that Rebbi Ammi asked twice, for two different cases of mourning, and was given the same answer by two different authorities, I have a completely independent occurrence in which Galilean rabbis gave the same ruling and, therefore, you have to accept it.: Something happened to Rebbi Ḥama284He is the third generation Amora, father of Rebbi Oshaya the second., father of Rebbi Oshaya, he asked the rabbis and they forbade it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy