אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה וְעָמַד וְאָמַר לֹא חָפַצְתִּי לְקַחְתָּהּ הָכָא נָמֵי וְהָא תַּנְיָא בֵּין יוֹשֵׁב בֵּין עוֹמֵד בֵּין מוּטֶּה Rav Ashi challenged him: However, if that is so, one should be required to stand while performing the ritual through which the brother-in-law frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza], as the verse states: “And if he stands and he says: I do not wish to take her” (Deuteronomy 25:8). Here must he also stand for the ceremony? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that ḥalitza may be performed whether the man is sitting, or standing, or reclining?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָתָם לָא כְּתִיב וְיַעֲמֹד וְיֹאמַר הָכָא כְּתִיב וַיָּקׇם וַיִּקְרַע He said to him: There, in the case of ḥalitza, it is not written: And he will stand and he will say, which would imply an obligation to stand; whereas here, in the case of rending, it is written: “Then Job arose, and rent his coat” (Job 1:20).
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מִנַּיִן לִקְרִיעָה שֶׁהִיא מְעוּמָּד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיָּקׇם אִיּוֹב וַיִּקְרַע דִּלְמָא מִילְּתָא יַתִּירְתָּא הוּא דַּעֲבַד דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי וַיָּגׇז אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ הָכִי נָמֵי Rami bar Ḥama said: From where is it derived that rending must be performed while standing? As it is stated: “Then Job arose, and tore his coat” (Job 1:20). The Gemara asks: Perhaps he did something extra beyond what is required, and actually there is no obligation to stand; as, if you do not say that he did more than what was required of him, then how do you explain the continuation of the verse: “And he shaved his head” (Job 1:20)? Is every mourner required to act in this manner also and shave his head?
אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא וַיָּקָם הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּקְרַע אֶת בְּגָדָיו וְדִלְמָא מִילְּתָא יַתִּירְתָּא עָבֵיד דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי וַיִּשְׁכַּב אָרְצָה הָכִי נָמֵי The Gemara concludes: Rather, this source must be rejected, and instead the halakha is derived from here, the verse that describes David’s mourning over his son: “Then the king arose, and rent his garments” (II Samuel 13:31). The Gemara asks: But perhaps he too did something extra beyond what is required, and he was not actually obligated to stand; as, if you do not say that he did more than what was required of him, then how do you explain the continuation of the verse: “And he lay on the earth” (II Samuel 13:31)? Is every mourner required to act in this manner also?
וְהָתַנְיָא יָשַׁב עַל גַּבֵּי מִטָּה עַל גַּבֵּי כִּסֵּא עַל גַּבֵּי אוּדְיָינִי גְּדוֹלָה עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע מִכּוּלָּן לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁלֹּא קִיֵּים כְּפִיַּית הַמִּטָּה But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a mourner sat on a bed,on a chair, on a large mortar [udyanei], or on the ground, he does not fulfill his obligation through any of them. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is because he did not fulfill his obligation to overturn his bed, even if he lay on the ground. This indicates that there is no requirement whatsoever to lie on the ground.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ כְּעֵין אַרְצָה Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: The verse does not mean that David actually lay on the ground. Rather, it was as if he were on the ground, since he overturned his bed and brought it closer to the ground. If this is the case, then Ameimar acted correctly, and a mourner should rend his garments while standing.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן וְאֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָבֵל אָסוּר בָּהֶן אָסוּר בִּמְלָאכָה וּבִרְחִיצָה וּבְסִיכָה וּבְתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה וּבִנְעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל וְאָסוּר לִקְרוֹת בְּתוֹרָה וּבַנְּבִיאִים וּבַכְּתוּבִים וְלִשְׁנוֹת בַּמִּשְׁנָה בַּמִּדְרָשׁ וּבָהֲלָכוֹת וּבַתַּלְמוּד וּבָאַגָּדוֹת וְאִם הָיוּ רַבִּים צְרִיכִין לוֹ אֵינוֹ נִמְנָע וּמַעֲשֶׂה וּמֵת בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּצִיפּוֹרִי וְנִכְנַס לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וְדָרַשׁ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ § The Sages taught: These are the activities that a mourner is prohibited from engaging in: He is prohibited from working, and from bathing, and from anointing himself with oil, and from engaging in sexual relations, and from wearing shoes. And he is prohibited from reading in the Torah, and in the Prophets, and in the Writings, and from studying in the Mishna, in the midrash, and in the halakhot, and in the Talmud, and in the aggadot. But if the public needs him to teach them these things, he need not refrain from doing so. There was an incident that the son of Rabbi Yosei died in Tzippori, and Rabbi Yosei entered the study hall and expounded there for the entire day.
רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אִיתְּרַעָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא סָבַר דְּלָא לְמִיפַּק לְפִירְקָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אִם הָיוּ רַבִּים צְרִיכִין לוֹ אֵינוֹ נִמְנָע סְבַר לְאוֹקוֹמֵי אָמוֹרָא עֲלֵיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב תַּנְיָא וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲמִיד תּוּרְגְּמָן It was related that a calamity, i.e., a death in the family, once befell Rabba bar bar Ḥana, and he thought not to go out to deliver his exposition. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Is it not taught that if the public needs him to teach them these things, one need not refrain from doing so? He then thought to place an interpreter alongside him, who would sound his words to the public, as was normally done for such an exposition. Rav said to him: It is taught in a baraita similarly: Provided that he does not place the disseminator alongside him.
וְאֶלָּא הֵיכִי עָבֵיד כִּי הָא דְּתַנְיָא מַעֲשֶׂה וּמֵת בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אִילְעַאי וְנִכְנַס לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וְנִכְנַס רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא וְיָשַׁב בְּצִדּוֹ וְלָחַשׁ הוּא לְרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא וְרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא לְתוּרְגְּמָן וְתוּרְגְּמָן הִשְׁמִיעַ לָרַבִּים The Gemara asks: But how, then, should he act so that he can be heard? The Gemara answers: It is like that which is taught in a baraita: There was an incident and the son of Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai died, and Rabbi Yehuda entered the study hall. And Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya entered after him and sat by his side. Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai then whispered his lecture to Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya, and Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya whispered it to the disseminator, and the disseminator sounded to the public what had been told to him. In this way, it became known that Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai was in mourning.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן אָבֵל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים אָסוּר לְהַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין מִשְּׁלִישִׁי וְאֵילָךְ וּשְׁלִישִׁי בַּכְּלָל מוּתָּר לְהַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין וְאִם בָּאוּ פָּנִים חֲדָשׁוֹת אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵץ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר אָבֵל שְׁנֵי יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים אָסוּר לְהַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין מִשֵּׁנִי וְשֵׁנִי בַּכְּלָל מוּתָּר לְהַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין וְאִם בָּאוּ פָּנִים חֲדָשׁוֹת חוֹלֵץ § The Sages taught the following baraita: For the first three days, a mourner is prohibited from donning phylacteries. From the third day and on, and including the third day, he is permitted to don phylacteries. And if new faces, i.e., people who had not yet come to console him, come, he need not remove them, although these people may falsely conclude that he had also donned phylacteries during the first two days of his mourning; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: For the first two days, a mourner is prohibited from donning phylacteries. From the second day, and including the second day, he is permitted to wear phylacteries. But if new faces come in to console him, he must remove his phylacteries.
אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דִּכְתִיב וַיִּתְּמוּ יְמֵי בְכִי אֵבֶל מֹשֶׁה אָמַר רַב עֵינָא מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דִּכְתִיב וְאַחֲרִיתָהּ כְּיוֹם מָר Rav Mattana said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? As it is written: “And the days of weeping and mourning for Moses ended” (Deuteronomy 34:8). The plural term “days” implies a minimum of two, and it indicates that the main portion of the mourning period is the first two full days. Rav Eina said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua? As it is written: “And I will make it as the mourning for an only son, and its end as a bitter day” (Amos 8:10), i.e., a single “day.”
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נָמֵי הָא כְּתִיב וַיִּתְּמוּ יְמֵי וְגוֹ׳ אָמַר לָךְ שָׁאנֵי מֹשֶׁה דְּתַקִּיף אֶבְלֵיהּ וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָמֵי הָא כְּתִיב וְאַחֲרִיתָהּ כְּיוֹם מָר עִיקַּר מְרִירָא חַד יוֹמָא הוּא The Gemara asks: But also for Rabbi Yehoshua, isn’t it written in the Torah: “And the days of weeping and mourning for Moses ended,” thereby implying that this period lasts for two days? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that Moses was different, because the mourning for him was more intense, and the people mourned for him longer than usual. The Gemara asks: But also for Rabbi Eliezer, isn’t it written in the Torah: “And its end as a bitter day”? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that the main bitterness is only one day, but the severity of the mourning lasts for two days.
אָמַר עוּלָּא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בַּחֲלִיצָה וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּהַנָּחָה Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the removal of phylacteries. A mourner need not remove them when new people come in to console him. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to the donning of phylacteries, and so a mourner may already don phylacteries on the second day.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ בַּשֵּׁנִי לְעוּלָּא חוֹלֵץ אוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵץ A dilemma was raised before the scholars: According to Ulla, who rules in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua that a mourner may don phylacteries on his second day of mourning, is the mourner required to remove them if new people arrive on that day, or is he not required to remove them?
תָּא שְׁמַע אָמַר עוּלָּא חוֹלֵץ וּמַנִּיחַ אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי יְהוּדָה בֶּן תֵּימָא אוֹמֵר חוֹלֵץ וּמַנִּיחַ אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים The Gemara answers: Come and hear what Ulla said explicitly: One removes his phylacteries when new people come to console him, and he dons them again when they leave, even if he must don and remove them a hundred times. This is also taught in a baraita: Yehuda ben Teima says: He removes his phylacteries and dons them again, even if he must do so a hundred times.
רָבָא אָמַר כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִנִּיחַ שׁוּב אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵץ וְהָא רָבָא הוּא דְּאָמַר הֲלָכָה כְּתַנָּא דִּידַן דְּאָמַר שְׁלֹשָׁה Rava said: Once he dons his phylacteries, he does not remove them again. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it Rava himself who said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of our mishna, who said that the most serious period of mourning is three days? How then does he rule in accordance with the baraita that a mourner may don phylacteries during these days?