Moed Katan: Greatest Hits

The mishna (see Shevi’it 2:1) additionally states: And until when may one plow a white field, i.e., a grain field, on the eve of the Sabbatical Year? One may plow until the residual moisture in the fields from the rain ceases and so long as people continue to plow their fields in order to plant cucumbers and gourds, which are planted at the end of the winter. Rabbi Shimon says: If it is so that no set time was established, then the Torah has given an individual measure of time into the hands of each and every individual. One may plow until a self-determined time, as he can always claim that he is plowing in order to plant during the sixth year. Rather, a fixed time must be established: In a white field one may plow until Passover, in an orchard one may plow until Shavuot, and Beit Hillel say: Until Passover. And Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Rabban Gamliel and his court discussed and then voted about the prohibitions of these two periods, i.e., from Passover or Shavuot until Rosh HaShana, and nullified them, thereby permitting plowing until Rosh HaShana, the actual beginning of the Sabbatical Year. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu, and some say that it was Reish Lakish who said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: How could Rabban Gamliel and his court nullify an ordinance instituted by Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, who were greater authorities than they were? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Eduyyot 1:5): A court cannot nullify the ruling of another court unless it surpasses it in wisdom and in number? Rabbi Abbahu “was astonished for a while” (Daniel 4:16), and then said to him: Say that when Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel established their decree, they stipulated among themselves: Anyone who later wishes to nullify this decree may come and nullify it.

It is taught in the baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One relies on these signs only when there is an Elder or a rabbinic scholar who can testify about the matter, as not all are well versed in this matter, and perhaps the field was not plowed at all. Abaye said: Learn from this statement of Rabbi Yehuda that when there is a Torah scholar in the city, all affairs of the city are thrust upon him, i.e., are his responsibility. Consequently, he is expected to know what has happened in the city.

The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna’im in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. One Sage, the author of the latter baraita, holds that the company of the world at large is preferable to the leper. Consequently, the priest may examine a confirmed leper during the Festival because the priest will either decide that the leper’s symptoms are still present, in which case the leper’s situation will be no worse than before, or the priest will declare that his symptoms have subsided, in which case the leper may reenter the community, which will bring him joy. And one Sage, the author of the baraita (7a), holds that the company of his wife is preferable to the leper. Consequently, the priest may not examine a confirmed leper on the Festival, because if he declares that his symptoms have subsided, the leper will begin his seven day purification process, during which time he is prohibited from engaging in conjugal relations with his wife. Due to the distress that this causes him, it is preferable that the priest not examine him at all during the Festival. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that a confirmed leper is permitted to engage in conjugal relations with his wife? The Gemara answers: Yes, and so too it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a leper who is counting his seven days, it is written: “But he shall remain outside his tent seven days” (Leviticus 14:8). This verse teaches that the leper is prohibited from engaging in conjugal relations, as the words his tent refer only to his wife, as it is stated: “Go, say to them: Return again to your tents” (Deuteronomy 5:27). Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse states: “And after he is cleansed, they shall count for him seven days” (Ezekiel 44:26), indicating that he is prohibited from having conjugal relations during the days of his counting, but not during the days of his confirmed leprosy.

§ The Gemara returns to the original dispute with regard to the priest’s examination of the symptoms of leprosy. Is this to say that the matter depends upon the discretion of the priest, i.e., the priest can decide whether to declare the affected person ritually pure or impure or whether to examine the leprous symptoms or not? The Gemara answers: Yes, and so too it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “But on the day it appears in him” (Leviticus 13:14), from which it may be inferred that there is a day when you examine the symptoms found in him and there is a day when you do not examine those symptoms. From here they stated: With regard to a bridegroom upon whom leprous symptoms came into being, we give him the seven days of the wedding feast before the examination that determines ritual purity or impurity. This ruling applies whether the leprous symptoms appeared upon him, upon his house, or upon his clothing. Similarly, if the symptoms of leprosy appeared upon an individual during a pilgrimage Festival, we give him the seven days of the Festival in order to avoid causing him distress during that time; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The ruling is correct, but there is no need to prove it from this verse, as a much simpler proof can be brought from a different source. It says: “Then the priest shall command that they empty the house before the priest goes into it to see the plague, so that all that is in the house be not made unclean” (Leviticus 14:36). If we delay the priest’s examination of the house in order to give the owner time to remove his utensils and prevent them from contracting ritual impurity, which is merely an optional matter, all the more so should we delay his examination for a matter of mitzva, e.g., so as not to detract from the bridegroom’s joy or from the joy of a Festival.

§ Apropos the discussion of the celebration at Solomon’s dedication of the Temple, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That year, the Jewish people did not observe Yom Kippur, as the seven-day celebration of the dedication of the Temple coincided with Yom Kippur and all seven days were celebrated with feasting. And the people were worried and said: Perhaps the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves, have become liable to be destroyed for the transgression of eating on Yom Kippur, which is punishable by karet. A Divine Voice issued forth and said to them: All of you are designated for life in the World-to-Come.

It was related that Rav Beivai had a daughter, and he spread lime on her limb by limb, which caused her hair to fall out and her skin to whiten. She became so beautiful that when marrying her off, he took four hundred dinars for her. There was a certain gentile in his neighborhood who also had a daughter and wanted to do this as well. He spread her entire body with lime all at once, and she died. That gentile said: Beivai killed my daughter. Rav Naḥman said: Rav Beivai, who regularly drinks beer, his daughters require that they be smeared with lime, as beer causes hair growth, but we who do not drink beer, our daughters do not require that they be smeared with lime, as they have little hair even without this treatment.

The Gemara asks: What is the halakha concerning one who is ostracized with regard to speaking words of Torah? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear that which was taught in the following baraita: One who is ostracized may teach Torah to others, and others may teach him Torah. Similarly, he may be hired for work by others, and others may be hired by him. One who has been excommunicated, which is a more severe form of ostracism, may not teach Torah to others and others may not teach him. He may not be hired by others, and others may not be hired by him. However, he may study by himself, so that he will not interrupt his study entirely and forget everything he knows. And he may build a small store for his livelihood, so that he can earn enough money to cover his most basic needs, but not more. And Rav said: What is the small store referred to here? This is referring to selling water in the valley of Aravot, where no water was to be found. One selling water there could earn a small income. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this baraita that one who is ostracized is permitted to study Torah. The Gemara asks: What is the halakha with regard to a leper speaking words of Torah? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: It is written: “And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children; the day that you stood before the Lord your God in Horeb” (Deuteronomy 4:9–10). Just as there, the revelation at Sinai was in reverence, fear, and trembling, so too, here, in every generation, Torah must be studied in a similar fashion. From here the Sages stated: Zavim, lepers, and those who had intercourse with menstruating women despite their severe ritual impurity are permitted to read the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and to study midrash, Talmud, halakhot, and aggada. But those who experienced a seminal emission are prohibited from doing so. The reason for this distinction is that the cases of severe impurity are caused by ailment or other circumstances beyond one’s control; as a result, they do not necessarily preclude a sense of reverence and awe as one studies Torah. However, a seminal emission usually occurs due to frivolity and a lack of reverence and awe, and it is therefore inappropriate for one who experiences a seminal emission to engage in matters of Torah. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that a leper is permitted to study words of Torah.

And from where do we derive that we ostracize one who does not obey a court summons? As it is written: “Curse Meroz” (Judges 5:23), who was ostracized for not coming to battle after having been summoned. From where is it derived that the ostracized person must be told that it was the decision of a great man to ostracized him? As it is written: “Curse Meroz, said the messenger of the Lord” (Judges 5:23). And from where do we derive that, if he fails to mend his ways, we excommunicate such a person more harshly, putting him under the most severe form of excommunication? As it is written: “Curse Meroz…curse bitterly its inhabitants” (Judges 5:23), implying that one curse is followed by another, i.e., lesser ostracism is followed by harsh excommunication. From where is it derived that the curse applies to anyone who eats or drinks with, or stands within, four cubits of the ostracized person? As it is written: “Curse bitterly its inhabitants” (Judges 5:23), in reference to all those sitting together with Meroz. And from where do we derive that we detail his sin in public? As it is written: “Curse bitterly its inhabitants, because they did not come to the help of the Lord” (Judges 5:23). And Ulla said: Barak ostracized Meroz with the blowing of four hundred shofarot due to his failure to come. As for the identification of Meroz, some say that he was a great man and that he was ostracized because he did not join in the war effort. And others say that the reference is to a star and not a human being, and that it did not aid the Jewish people in their battle, as it is stated: “The stars fought from heaven; in their courses they fought against Sisera,” (Judges 5:20). This star, which did not help the Jewish people, was cursed. And from where do we derive that the court may declare the property of one who does not obey its orders as ownerless? As it is written: “And that whoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the Elders, all his substance shall be forfeited [yaḥoram] and himself separated from the congregation of the exiles” (Ezra 10:8). “Shall be forfeited” is referring to excommunication. And from where do we derive that we may contend with such a person, and curse him, and beat him, and pull out his hair, and make him take an oath in order to prevent him from sinning? As it is written: “And I contended with them, and cursed them, and beat some of them, and pulled out their hair, and made them take oath by God” (Nehemiah 13:25). And from where do we derive that we may shackle his hands and feet, chain him, and apply pressure? As it is written: “Whether it be for death, or for banishment [lishroshi], or for confiscation of goods, or for imprisonment” (Ezra 7:26). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word “lishroshi,” translated here as banishment? Adda Mari said that Neḥemya bar Baruch said that Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav Yehuda said: This is pressure. Since this expression is also unclear, the Gemara asks: What is pressure? Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav that this term refers to the following series of actions: They ostracize him immediately, and then once again after thirty days, and if he still does not repent, they excommunicate him after sixty days. Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said to him: Rav Ḥisda said as follows: Before excommunicating a person, the court warns him three times, on Monday, Thursday, and the following Monday. The Gemara notes: This applies in a case where one ignores a monetary judgment that was issued against him. He is warned three times that he must repay his debt. But in a case where one behaves disrespectfully toward a Torah scholar, he is immediately ostracized.

Once again, on another occasion, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi decreed that students not be taught in the marketplace but only in a study hall. What verse did he expound to serve as the basis for this decree? The verse states: “Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of an artist” (Song of Songs 7:2). Just as a thigh is ordinarily hidden and kept covered with clothes, so too, the words of Torah, which are “the work of the hands of an artist,” i.e., God, must remain hidden in the study hall. Despite Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s decree, Rabbi Ḥiyya went out and taught his two nephews, Rav and Rabba bar bar Ḥana, in the marketplace. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard what he had done and became angry with him. When Rabbi Ḥiyya came at some later date to visit him, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mockingly said to him: Iyya, who is calling you outside? By asking this question Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was intimating that Rabbi Ḥiyya should leave his house. Rabbi Ḥiyya understood that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had taken the matter to heart and was insulted, and so he conducted himself as if he had been admonished, as a self-imposed punishment, for thirty days. On the thirtieth day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sent him a message, saying: Come and visit me. However, he later reversed his opinion and sent him another message, telling him not to come. The Gemara asks: At the outset what did he hold, and ultimately what did he hold? Initially, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi held that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, and since the thirtieth day already begun, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s time of admonition had ended. But ultimately he held that with regard to this issue we do not say that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day. In the end Rabbi Ḥiyya came on that same day. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi asked him: Why have you come? Rabbi Ḥiyya responded: Because you, Master, sent me a message that I should come. He said to him: But I sent you a second message that you should not come. He responded: This messenger that you sent, i.e., the first one, I saw him and I did as he said, but that messenger, i.e., the second one, I did not see. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi read the verse about Rabbi Ḥiyya: “When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Proverbs 16:7), as it was clear to him that Rabbi Ḥiyya had merited divine assistance. § Concerning the issue with which the entire incident had begun, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi asked Rabbi Ḥiyya: What is the reason that you, the Master, acted as you did, ignoring my instructions not to teach Torah in the marketplace? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: As it is written: “Wisdom cries aloud in the streets” (Proverbs 1:20), which implies that Torah should be publicized in the streets. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: If you read this verse once, you certainly did not read it a second time in greater depth; and if you read it a second time, you certainly did not read it a third time; and if you read it a third time, then it was not adequately explained to you, as it is clear that you do not understand it properly. The words: “Wisdom cries aloud in the streets,” should be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rava. As Rava said: With regard to everyone who occupies himself with Torah study inside the privacy of his home, his Torah knowledge will proclaim his greatness outside, as it will be revealed to the masses and they will see his greatness. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “From the beginning I have not spoken in secret” (Isaiah 48:16), implying that the Torah should be taught and proclaimed in public? The Gemara answers: That verse is referring to the days of the kalla, the gathering for Torah study held during Elul and Adar, when many people come to listen to Torah discourses. During this time, it is not only permitted but even recommended to teach Torah to the masses. In this way, the verse can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara asks: And what did Rabbi Ḥiyya do with this verse: “Your rounded thighs are like jewels”? How did he understand it? This verse implies that the Torah must be kept hidden in the study hall and not publicized in the marketplace. The Gemara explains: He interprets it not as a reference to Torah, but as referring to acts of charity and loving-kindness, which should certainly be performed in private. This incident demonstrates that, apparently, admonition of those who live in Eretz Yisrael lasts for thirty days and not for seven days. The Gemara answers that this is not a conclusive proof, since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the Nasi. The admonition of the Nasi of the Sanhedrin is different i.e., more severe, than the admonition of anyone else.

There was a certain Torah scholar who gained a bad reputation due to rumors about his conduct. Rav Yehuda said: What should be done? To excommunicate him is not an option. The Sages need him, as he is a great Torah authority. Not to excommunicate him is also not an option, as then the name of Heaven would be desecrated. Rav Yehuda said to Rabba bar bar Ḥana: Have you heard anything with regard to this issue? He said to him: Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek Torah at his mouth; for he is a messenger [malakh] of the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:7)? This verse teaches: If the teacher is similar to an angel [malakh] of the Lord, then seek Torah from his mouth, but if he is not pure and upright, then do not seek Torah from his mouth; even if he is knowledgeable about Torah, do not learn from him. Based on this statement, Rav Yehuda ostracized that Torah scholar. In the end, after some time had passed, Rav Yehuda took ill and was on the verge of death. The Sages came to inquire about his well-being, and the ostracized scholar came along with them as well. When Rav Yehuda saw him, that scholar, he laughed. The ostracized scholar said to him: Was it not enough that you excommunicated that man, i.e., me, but now you even laugh at me? Rav Yehuda said to him: I was not laughing at you; rather, I am happy as I go to that other world that I did not flatter even a great man like you, but instead I treated you fairly in accordance with the halakha. Rav Yehuda died. The ostracized scholar came to the study hall and said to the Sages: Release me from the decree of ostracism. The Sages said to him: There is no man here as eminent as Rav Yehuda who can release you from the ostracism. Rather, go to Rabbi Yehuda Nesia in Eretz Yisrael, as only he can release you. That scholar came before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Rabbi Ami: Go and examine his case. If it is necessary to release him from his decree of ostracism, release him on my behalf. Rabbi Ami examined his case and thought at first to release him from his ostracism. But Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani rose up on his feet and said: If the maidservant in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once ostracized another person, and the Sages did not relate frivolously to her decree of ostracism and did not revoke it until three years had passed, all the more so, with regard to a decree of ostracism placed by Yehuda our colleague, we must take it seriously and not release this scholar. Rabbi Zeira said: What caused this Elder, Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, to come before us in the study hall today though for many years he did not come, and now he comes precisely during this discussion. Learn from this that it is not necessary to release him from his decree of ostracism, as this combination of events is certainly not a coincidence. Rather, it should be viewed as an instructive sign from Heaven. Consequently, Rabbi Ami did not release him from the ostracism, and the ostracized scholar left in tears. A wasp came and stung the ostracized scholar on his penis and he died. Because he was a great Torah scholar, they took him into the caves in which the pious are interred in order to bury him there, but the caves did not accept him. A snake stood at the entrance of the caves and did not let them pass. They then took him into the caves of the judges, and they accepted him. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he was accepted there? The Gemara answers: Even though he sinned, he still acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ilai says: If a person sees that his evil inclination is gaining control over him and he cannot overcome it, then he should go to a place where he is not known. He should wear black, and he should wrap his head in black, as if he were a mourner. Perhaps these changes will influence him, so that he not sin. Even if these actions do not help, he should at least do as his heart desires in private and not desecrate the name of Heaven in public. Although this person had sinned, he did so in private and in a manner that did not publicly desecrate God’s name, and therefore it was fitting that he be given an honorable burial. The Gemara asks: What is the story mentioned by Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani involving the maidservant in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It was related that the maidservant in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s house saw a certain man who was striking his adult son. She said: Let that man be excommunicated, due to the fact that he has transgressed the injunction: “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), as it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind,” and the verse speaks here of one who strikes his adult son, as the son is likely to become angry and strike his father back, thereby transgressing the severe prohibition against hitting one’s parent. Similarly, it was related that Reish Lakish was guarding an orchard for payment when a certain man came and ate some figs that were growing there. Reish Lakish raised his voice and yelled at him, but this man paid no attention to him and kept eating. Reish Lakish said: Let that man be in a state of excommunication. The man eating the figs said to him: On the contrary, let that man, i.e., Reish Lakish, be in a state of excommunication, for even if I have become liable to you for payment, as I have eaten of the figs without permission, have I become liable to you for excommuncation? With that statement, the man left. Reish Lakish went to the study hall to inquire about the halakha with regard to this man. The other Sages said to him: His decree of ostracism is valid, but your decree of ostracism is not. In other words, that man was correct and Reish Lakish should not have ostracized him in response to his actions. Reish Lakish then asked: If so, what is the remedy for this decree of ostracism? The Sages answered him: Go to him so that he may release you from it. Reish Lakish replied: I do not know him. They said to him: Go then to the Nasi, so that he may release you from the ban, as it is taught in a baraita: If one was ostracized, but he does not know who ostracized him, he should go to the Nasi, and the Nasi may release him from his decree of ostracism. The Gemara continues: Rav Huna said that in Usha it was enacted: If the president of the court sinned, he is not ostracized. Although this would be the appropriate punishment, he is not ostracized, so as not to cause a desecration of God’s name. Rather, they say to him the words of the verse: “Keep your honor and stay at home” (II Kings 14:10). That is to say, to preserve your dignity, it would be best if you were to stay at home, resign your position, and refrain from further public appearances. If he sins again, he is ostracized, due to the desecration of God’s name that would ensue were people to think that he was spared his rightful punishment due to his high position. The Gemara comments: This opinion disagrees with that of Reish Lakish, for Reish Lakish said: If a Torah scholar sins, he is not ostracized at all in public, as it is stated: “Therefore, shall you fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with you in the night” (Hosea 4:5). This is explained to mean: If a prophet or any other important person sins, his offense should be concealed like the night and not punished in public. With regard to this issue, it was related that when a Torah scholar would become liable to be punished with excommunication before Mar Zutra the Pious, Mar Zutra would first excommunicate himself as a mark of respect for the Torah scholar, and afterward he would ostracize the Torah scholar. This self-imposed excommunication was meant only as a show of honor to the other Torah scholar, and therefore when Mar Zutra would enter his house of lodging, he would release his own excommunication, and afterward he would release the other’s excommunication. Rav Giddel said that Rav said: A Torah scholar may ostracize himself, and he may similarly release himself from self-imposed ostracism. Rav Pappa said: I have good coming to me, for I am praiseworthy, as I have never ostracized a Torah scholar. The Gemara asks about this: If so, when a Torah scholar was liable to be ostracized, what would he do? The Gemara answers: He did as they do in the West, Eretz Yisrael, where they appoint a court to give a Torah scholar lashes, but they do not appoint a court to ostracize him. That is to say, lashes were preferred over ostracism. The Gemara proceeds with a discussion that explains the severity of the punishment of excommunication: What is the meaning of the word excommunication [shamta]? Rav said: This word is a contraction of the expression there is death [sham mita], alluding to the deathly aspect of excommunication. And Shmuel said: Shamta means that he will be a desolation [shemama yiheyeh], and it is effective upon him like fat smeared on an oven. Just as some of the fat will always remain absorbed in the walls of the oven, so too some aspect of the curse contained in the excommunication will continue to adhere to him even after the excommunication has been nullified. The Gemara comments: And this opinion disagrees with the opinion of Reish Lakish, for Reish Lakish said: Just as ostracism enters the two hundred and forty-eight organs of one’s body when it is first pronounced, so too when it leaves, it leaves from his two hundred and forty-eight organs. The following allusion is offered in support of the opinion of Reish Lakish: When it enters, it enters all the organs, as it is written: “And the city shall be a curse [ḥerem]” (Joshua 6:17), and the numerical value [gimatriyya] of the word ḥerem, a concept similar to ostracism, is two hundred and forty-eight. Therefore, the verse alludes to the fact that a decree of ostracism penetrates one’s two hundred and forty-eight organs. When it leaves, it leaves all the organs, as it is written: “In wrath remember mercy [raḥem]” (Habakkuk 3:2), and the numerical value of the word raḥem is also two hundred and forty-eight, thereby teaching that when the decree of ostracism is revoked, it disappears entirely. The Gemara continues discussing the power of a ban. Rav Yosef said: Cast an excommunication on the tail of a dog and it, the excommunication, will do its work and harm the dog. It was related that there was a certain dog that would eat the shoes of the Sages, and they did not know who it was causing this damage. They thought that it was a person, and so they excommunicated whoever was doing it. Soon thereafter, the dog’s tail caught fire and got burnt. This shows that excommunication can have a harmful effect even on a dog. It was further related that there was a violent person who caused suffering to a certain Torah scholar. This Torah scholar came before Rav Yosef to ask what he should do. Rav Yosef said to him: Go and ostracize him. This Torah scholar said to him: I am afraid of him, that he will harass me even more. Rav Yosef said to him: Take out, i.e., publish a written ostracism against him. The Torah scholar said to him: All the more so I am fearful of him, for if I publicize the matter he will certainly come after me. Rav Yosef said to him to do as follows: Take the written ostracism and place it in a jug, and set it down in a cemetery, where nobody is found, and sound a thousand, i.e., many, shofar blasts over the course of forty days. That man went and did this. The jug burst and the violent man died. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that shofarot are sounded when a decree of ostracism is pronounced? The shofarot allude to the fact that they extract punishment [shenifra’in] from the excommunicated person. The Gemara asks further: What is the reason that broken blasts are sounded on the shofar when the excommunication is pronounced? Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: It breaks tall buildings, i.e., a decree of ostracism can harm and break even the high and mighty, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Wherever it says that the Sages set their eyes in anger upon a particular person, it causes either death or poverty.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: But with scissors [genustera] specifically for nail cutting it is prohibited, i.e., the mourner should cut his nails in an alternate manner. Rav Shemen bar Abba said: I once stood before Rabbi Yoḥanan in the study hall during the intermediate days of a Festival, and he cut his nails with his teeth and threw them down. The Gemara comments: Learn from this incident of Rabbi Yoḥanan three halakhot: Learn from this that it is permitted to cut one’s nails on the intermediate days of a Festival. And learn from this that nails have no prohibition due to the fact that they are repulsive, i.e., there is no prohibition against biting them on that basis. Inasmuch as one is prohibited from placing something repulsive in his mouth, this incident teaches that nails do not fall into this category. And also learn from this that it is permitted to throw nails away. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Three things were said about nails: One who buries them in the ground is deemed righteous. One who burns them is even better, as he is considered pious. One who merely throws them away is regarded as wicked. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that it is prohibited to throw away nail clippings? This is prohibited lest a pregnant women pass over them and miscarry, for the Sages had a tradition that it is dangerous for a pregnant woman to walk over fingernails. The Gemara answers: A woman is not usually found in the study hall, and therefore Rabbi Yoḥanan was not concerned about throwing his nail clippings there. If you say that sometimes the nails are gathered together when the floor is swept and then thrown outside where a pregnant woman may walk over them, this is not a problem. Once their place has changed the nails themselves change and are no longer harmful.

The Gemara offers another support for Shmuel: Come and hear that which a Sage of the school of Shmuel taught in the following baraita: One may betroth a woman on the intermediate days of a Festival, but he may not marry her, nor may he make a betrothal feast, nor may he perform levirate marriage, because that would be a joyous occasion for him, and one may not mix the joy of a wedding with the joy of the Festival. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this a support for Shmuel’s opinion. The Gemara raises a question about the ruling itself: And did Shmuel actually say that we are concerned that perhaps another man will come and betroth the woman first? But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: Every day a Divine Voice issues forth and says: The daughter of so-and-so is destined to be the wife of so-and-so; the field of so-and-so will belong to so-and-so? If this is the case, why should one be concerned lest another betroth her first? It is predestined that he will marry his designated mate. Rather, Shmuel’s statement should be understood as follows: Perhaps another man will come and betroth her first by means of praying for divine mercy. In other words, Shmuel is concerned that the rival may beseech God to cancel the decree of the Divine Voice, and therefore the first man needs to hurry and betroth the woman before the other one has a chance to pray that he should take her from him. This is like this incident, in which Rava heard a certain man asking for mercy, i.e., praying, who said: Grant me so-and-so as a wife. Rava said to him: Do not pray and ask for mercy in this way. If she is fit for you, and it has been decreed that she will be your wife, she will not go away from you. And if she is not destined to be your wife, you will come to deny the Lord when you see that your prayer is not answered. After the man married this woman, Rava heard him say in prayer: Please either let him die before her or let her die before him. He was speaking about himself and his wife because he had grown to hate her so much. Rava said to him: Did I not say to you not to pray for this matter? Rav said in the name of Rabbi Reuven ben Itzterobili as follows: From the Torah, and from the Prophets, and from the Writings; it implies that the decree that a specific woman is destined to be married to a specific man is from God. From where is this derived? It is from the Torah, as it is written: “Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said: The thing comes from the Lord, we cannot speak to you either bad or good” (Genesis 24:50). From the Prophets, as it is written: “But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the Lord” (Judges 14:4). From the Writings, as it is written: “House and riches are the inheritance of fathers; but a prudent woman is from the Lord” (Proverbs 19:14).

§ Apropos a teaching of Rabbi Reuven ben Itzterobili, the Gemara states that Rav said in the name of Rabbi Reuven ben Itzterobili, and some say that it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Reuven ben Itzterobili said: A man is suspected of having done something wrong only if he has indeed done so. And if he did not do it wholly, then probably he did it partly. And if he did not do it even partly, then probably he thought in his heart to do it. And if he did not even think to himself to do it, then certainly he saw others doing it and was happy. Suspicions do not arbitrarily arise about a person; therefore there is certainly some basis for them. Rabbi Ya’akov raised an objection: Does the verse not say: “And the children of Israel fabricated matters that were not right against the Lord their God” (II Kings 17:9), which indicates that it is possible to make up stories about someone else even though they are entirely baseless. The Gemara answers: There they did it in order to anger God, but they did not actually think that what they were saying was true. Come and hear a challenge from a different source: The verse states: “And they were jealous of Moses in the camp, of Aaron the Lord’s holy one” (Psalms 106:16). Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: This verse teaches that every man warned his wife against seclusion with Moses because he was jealous. This implies that every man thought that his wife had secluded herself with Moses and sinned, although this was certainly not the case. This demonstrates that it is possible to suspect an absolutely innocent person. The Gemara answers: There they did it out of hatred for Moses. They did not actually suspect him of wrongdoing. Instead, their goal was to degrade him by leveling these false accusations against him. The Gemara raises another challenge, based on yet another source: Come and hear that which Rabbi Yosei said: May my portion in the future world be with one who is suspected of a certain wrongdoing but is innocent, as the pain that such a person experiences atones for his sins. This statement also appears to imply that it is possible to suspect an absolutely innocent person. And Rav Pappa said: They suspected me of a certain wrongdoing but I was not guilty. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. This is referring to a rumor that stops, and therefore it is possible that it is groundless, whereas that is referring to a rumor that does not stop, and in that case there must be a factual basis for the suspicion. The Gemara asks: To be considered a rumor that does not stop, for how long must it persist? Abaye said: My nurse told me: Local gossip lasts for a day and a half, and then it is deemed to be a rumor that does not stop. The Gemara comments: This applies only if the rumor did not stop in between, during the day and a half, but if it stopped in between then we have no problem with it, and it is not a persistent rumor. And if the rumor stopped in between, we said that it is considered baseless only if it stopped of its own accord and not out of fear, i.e., because the suspect is violent and therefore people are afraid to speak badly about him. But if the rumor stopped out of fear, then this dispensation does not apply, and it is still assumed that there must be some basis to the rumor. And we said that a rumor that stopped is assumed to be baseless only if it did not arise again. But if it arose again, then this does not apply. And we said that a rumor that does not stop must be taken seriously only if the slandered person has no enemies. But if he has known enemies, then it can be assumed that it was the enemies who disseminated the rumor.

The Sages taught the following baraita: When a Sage dies, his study hall ceases its regular study as a sign of mourning over him. When the president of the court dies, all of the study halls in his city cease their regular study, and everyone enters the synagogue and changes their places there as a sign of mourning over him. Those who ordinarily sit in the north should sit in the south, and those who ordinarily sit in the south should sit in the north. When a Nasi dies, all study halls cease their regular study. On Shabbat, the members of the synagogue enter the synagogue for public Torah reading, which requires a congregation of ten, and seven people read from the Torah. And then they leave and pray on their own. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: It is not that they stroll afterward in the marketplace, but rather they sit at home in silent mourning. And furthermore, one may not speak about halakha or aggada in a house of mourning, as this is an activity that brings people joy. It was said of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel that he would speak about halakha and aggada in a house of mourning.

The Sages sat before Rav Pappa and said in the name of Shmuel: A mourner who engaged in sexual relations during his days of mourning is liable to receive the death penalty at the hand of Heaven. Rav Pappa said to them: It was said that sexual relations are prohibited, but not that the offender is guilty of a capital crime. And the ruling was said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and not in the name of Shmuel. And if you heard a statement on this issue in the name of Shmuel, then you heard as follows: Rav Taḥlifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: A mourner who did not let his hair grow wild and did not rend his garments is liable to receive the death penalty at the hand of Heaven, as it is stated following the deaths of Nadab and Abihu concerning the surviving sons of Aaron: “Let not the hair of your heads go loose, neither rend your clothes, that you not die” (Leviticus 10:6). They were instructed not to mourn, so as not to interfere with the dedication of the Tabernacle. From here it may be deduced that any other mourner who did not let his hair grow wild or rend his clothes is liable to receive the death penalty. Rafram bar Pappa said: A Sage taught in Evel Rabbati, a separate tractate devoted to the halakhot of mourning: A mourner is prohibited from engaging in sexual relations during his days of mourning. There was an incident with one who engaged in sexual relations during his days of mourning and he was punished, for after his death pigs dragged away his corpse.

§ The mishna taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: Since the Temple was destroyed, Shavuot is like Shabbat with regard to mourning. Rabban Gamliel says: Even Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur are considered like Festivals. The Gemara comments that Rav Giddel bar Menashya said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. And some teach this ruling of Rav Giddel bar Menashya as referring to the following case: It is taught in a baraita: Within the first thirty days after birth, an infant that dies is taken out for burial in one’s bosom, that is to say, he is carried to his grave in one’s arms, not in a coffin. And he is buried by one woman and two men, there being no need for a quorum of ten men. But he should not be taken out by one man and two women, because it is prohibited for one man to seclude himself with two women. Abba Shaul says: The infant may be taken out even by one man and two women, for there is no concern with regard to seclusion in a time of mourning. And for such an infant, people do not stand in a line to offer their condolences to the mourners, as is ordinarily done after a burial; nor do others recite over him the mourners’ blessing, which is recited in the courtyard of the graveyard after the burial; nor is the usual formula for the consolation of mourners recited during the seven days of mourning. A thirty-day-old infant that dies is taken out for burial in a coffin [deluskema]. Rabbi Yehuda says: Not in a small coffin that is carried on one’s shoulder, but rather in a coffin that is carried in the arms of two people. And for such an infant, people stand in a line to offer their condolences to the mourners. And others recite the mourners’ blessing at the cemetery. And people recite the consolation of mourners during the week of mourning. A twelve-month-old infant is taken out for burial on a bier, just as an adult is. Rabbi Akiva says: This halakha applies if the infant that dies is one year old and his limbs are like those of a two year old, so that he looks older, or if he is two years old and his limbs are like those of a one-year-old. Only then he is taken out on a bier. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: For one that is taken out on a bier, the public should grieve [matzhivin]. For one that is not taken out on a bier, the public need not grieve. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The halakha is as follows: If the infant was known to the public, because he regularly left the house and many people knew him, the public must occupy themselves with him and participate in his burial. If he was not known to the public, the public need not occupy themselves with him. And what is the status of deceased infants with regard to eulogy? Rabbi Meir said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The children of the poor are eulogized from the age of three, whereas the children of the wealthy are eulogized from the age of five. This is because a child is the sole source of joy for the poor, and so the pain and grief of the poor over the death of a child is greater than that of the wealthy. Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The children of the poor are eulogized from the age of five, whereas the children of the wealthy are eulogized from the age of six. And the children of the elderly are treated like the children of the poor, for the death of a child is particularly painful for an older person.

The Gemara challenges: But if one was standing there at the time of the soul’s departure, i.e., at the time of death, he is also obligated to rend his clothes. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One who stands over the deceased at the time of the soul’s departure is obligated to rend his clothes. To what may this be likened? To a Torah scroll that is burned, for which anyone present is obligated to rend his clothes. The Gemara answers: The mishna must be referring to a person who was not standing there at the time of the soul’s departure but who heard that someone who is not a close relative died, and the deceased was neither a Torah scholar nor an upright person. § The Gemara relates that when Rav Safra passed away the other Sages did not rend their garments over him. They said: We did not learn from him, as he did not disseminate his Torah knowledge to the public. Abaye berated them and said to them: Is it taught in the baraita: If one’s teacher died? It is taught: If a Torah scholar died, and Rav Safra was certainly a Torah scholar. And furthermore, every day his teachings are in our mouths in the study hall, so that even if we did not learn directly from him, we should still be considered his students. The other Sages thought that what was done was done, and it was now too late for them to rend their garments. Abaye said to them: We learned: With regard to a Torah scholar, as long as they are engaged in eulogizing him, then people are obligated to rend their garments, even after the time of his death. They then thought to rend their garments immediately. Abaye said to them: It is taught in a baraita: A Torah scholar’s honor is at the time of his eulogy, and so you should wait until the time of the eulogy before rending your garments. § The Gemara relates another incident: When Rav Huna died they thought to place a Torah scroll on his bier, as was commonly done after the death of a Torah scholar, as if to say that the deceased fulfilled everything written in the scroll. Rav Ḥisda said to them: This is a practice that he did not hold with during his lifetime; now should we stand up and do it for him when he is dead? As Rav Taḥlifa said: I myself saw Rav Huna, who wished to sit on his bed, and there was a Torah scroll placed on it. And he turned a jug over and placed the Torah scroll on it so that he could then sit on the bed. Apparently he holds that it is prohibited to sit on a bed upon which a Torah scroll lies. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to lay a Torah scroll next to his body after he died. When they tried to remove his corpse from his house for the burial, the bier would not fit through the narrow door. They then thought to lower the bier from the roof. Rav Ḥisda said to them: This I learned from him, Rav Huna himself: A scholar’s honor is for him to be taken out through the main opening, and not in any other manner. They then thought to move him from his bier to a narrower bier so that it would fit through the door. But Rav Ḥisda said to them: I learned from him, Rav Huna himself, as follows: A scholar’s honor is for him to be taken out on the first bier. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: From where is it derived that a scholar’s honor is for him to be taken out on the first bier? As it is stated: “And they set the Ark of God upon a new cart” (II Samuel 6:3). When taking the Ark to Jerusalem, King David had it placed back on the cart upon which it had been returned by the Philistines, and a Torah scholar is considered to be similar to the Ark of the Covenant. When they saw that there was nothing else that they could do, they broke the doorway and took him out through it. Rabbi Abba opened his eulogy for him: Our Rabbi was worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon him, except for the fact that Babylonia caused it not to rest. In other words, it was only because he lived in Babylonia and not in Eretz Yisrael that the Divine Presence did not rest upon him. Rav Naḥman bar Ḥisda raised an objection against this, and some say that it was Rav Ḥanan bar Ḥisda: Is it not stated: “The word of the Lord came [hayo haya] to Ezekiel the priest, son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans” (Ezekiel 1:3), thereby implying that a prophet can prophesy outside of Eretz Yisrael? His father tapped him with his sandal on his foot, thereby hinting to him that he should be quiet. He said to him: Have I not told you not to trouble everyone with questions in the middle of a eulogy? The Gemara answers the question: What is the meaning of the doubling of the word “came [hayo haya]”? It implies that it had already come before, i.e., that Ezekiel had already begun to prophesy in Eretz Yisrael, and his prophecy in Babylonia was merely a continuation of that prophecy. § The Gemara relates that when they took Rav Huna there, to Eretz Yisrael, for burial they said to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: Rav Huna has come, and they misunderstood and thought that he was still alive. They said: When we were there, in Babylonia, we did not have strength to lift our heads before him. Now that we have come here, has he come after us? They said to them: His coffin has come. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi went out to meet his funeral procession. Rabbi Ila and Rabbi Ḥanina did not go out. Some say that Rabbi Ila went out, but Rabbi Ḥanina did not go out. The Gemara asks: Those who went out, what is the reason that they went? As it is taught in a baraita: When a coffin is passing from place to place, the people stand in a line to show respect for the deceased, and they recite the mourners’ blessing and the consolation of the mourners over it. Those who did not go out, what is the reason that they did not? As it is taught in another baraita: When a coffin is passing from place to place, they do not stand in a line to show respect for the deceased, and they do not recite the mourners’ blessing or the consolation of the mourners for him. The Gemara asks: If so, these two tannaitic statements contradict each other. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult: Here, the baraita is referring to a case where the skeleton of the deceased is still intact, and the mourning practices must be observed. And there the baraita is referring to a case where the skeleton of the deceased is no longer intact, and it is not necessary to observe the customs of mourning. And Rav Huna’s skeleton was still intact. The reason that the one Sage did not go out was that they did not confirm for him that the skeleton was still intact. The Sages of Eretz Yisrael said: Where shall we bury him? They concluded: Rav Huna disseminated Torah to the people of Israel, and similarly Rabbi Ḥiyya disseminated Torah to the people of Israel; therefore, it is appropriate to bury Rav Huna next to Rabbi Ḥiyya. They asked: Who will take him in to Rabbi Ḥiyya’s burial cave, as few are fit to enter it? Rav Ḥagga said to them: I will take him into the cave, for I presented my studies before him when I was just eighteen, never having experienced a seminal emission. And so too I attended to him and knew his great deeds. For example, one day one of the straps of his phylacteries turned around, the unpainted side being turned outward, and he observed forty fasts for this, as he had acted negligently, allowing the black side to face inward. Rav Ḥagga took him in. The body of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s son Yehuda lay buried to the right of his father, and the body of his other son Ḥizkiyya lay to his left. The spirit of Yehuda said to the spirit of Ḥizkiyya: Rise from your place, as it is not proper conduct to remain lying when the body of Rav Huna is standing here. When Ḥizkiyya’s corpse stood up, a pillar of fire rose with him. When Rabbi Ḥagga saw this, he was frightened by what he saw, and so he stood up Rav Huna’s coffin and went away. The Gemara comments: And he was not punished or harmed by this pillar of fire because he set up Rav Huna’s coffin as protection for himself.

The bier of the deceased is not set down in the street during the intermediate days of a Festival so as not to encourage eulogies. On an ordinary weekday, people would gather in the street around the bier to eulogize the deceased, but this should be avoided during the intermediate days of the Festival. And the biers of women are never set down, even if it is not the intermediate days of a Festival, due to their honor. Blood might drip from their bodies, and it would cause them dishonor if their blood stained the street. GEMARA: The Sages taught the following baraita: At first, the meal after the burial would be brought to the house of the mourner in various ways. The wealthy would bring the meal in baskets of silver and gold, and the poor would bring it in baskets of peeled willow branches. And the poor were embarrassed, as everyone would see that they were poor. The Sages instituted that everyone should bring the meal in baskets of peeled willow branches, due to the honor of the poor. The Sages taught a similar baraita: At first, they would serve wine in the house of the mourner during the first meal after the burial; the wealthy would do so in cups made from white glass, and the poor would serve this wine in cups of colored glass. And the poor were embarrassed, as everyone would see that they were poor. The Sages instituted that all should serve drinks in the house of the mourner in colored glass cups, due to the honor of the poor. Furthermore, at first they would uncover the faces of the wealthy who passed away and cover the faces of the poor, because their faces were blackened by famine. And the poor were embarrassed because they were buried in a different manner. The Sages instituted that everyone’s face should be covered, due to the honor of the poor. Additionally, at first the wealthy would take the deceased out for burial on a dargash, and the poor would take the deceased out on a plain bier made from poles that were strapped together, and the poor were embarrassed. The Sages instituted that everyone should be taken out for burial on a plain bier, due to the honor of the poor. Similarly, at first they would place incense under the beds of those who died with an intestinal disease, because the body emitted an especially unpleasant odor. And those who were alive with an intestinal disease were embarrassed when they understood that they, too, would be treated in this manner after their death, and that everyone would know the cause of their death. The Sages instituted that incense should be placed under everyone, due to the honor of those with an intestinal disease who were still living. Moreover, at first they would ritually immerse all the utensils that had been used by women who died while menstruating, which had thereby contracted ritual impurity. And due to this, the living menstruating women were embarrassed. The Sages instituted that the utensils that had been used by all dying women must be immersed, due to the honor of living menstruating women. And, at first they would ritually immerse all the utensils that had been used by zavin, men suffering from gonorrhea, who died, as the utensils had thereby contracted ritual impurity. And due to this the living zavin felt embarrassed. The Sages instituted that the utensils that had been used by all men must be immersed, due to the honor of the living zavin. Likewise, at first taking the dead out for burial was more difficult for the relatives than the actual death, because it was customary to bury the dead in expensive shrouds, which the poor could not afford. The problem grew to the point that relatives would sometimes abandon the corpse and run away. This lasted until Rabban Gamliel came and acted with frivolity, meaning that he waived his dignity, by leaving instructions that he be taken out for burial in linen garments. And the people adopted this practice after him and had themselves taken out for burial in linen garments. Rav Pappa said: And nowadays, everyone follows the practice of taking out the dead for burial even in plain hemp garments [tzerada] that cost only a dinar.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: When a person dies in a city, all of the residents of that city are prohibited from performing work until he has been buried. The Gemara relates that when Rav Hamnuna once happened to come to a place called Darumata he heard the sound of a shofar announcing that a person had died in the town. When he saw some people doing work he said to them: Let these people be under an excommunication. Is there not a dead person in town? They said to him: There are separate groups in the town, each one responsible for its own dead. Knowing that the deceased was not from our group, we continued our work. He said to them: If so, it is permitted to you, and he revoked his excommunication. And Rav Yehuda said further in the name of Rav: Anyone who grieves excessively over his dead and does not allow himself to be consoled will in the end weep for another person. The Gemara relates that a certain woman who lived in the neighborhood of Rav Huna had seven sons. One of them died and she wept for him excessively. Rav Huna sent a message to her: Do not do this. But she took no heed of him. He then sent another message to her: If you listen to me, it is well, but if not, prepare shrouds for another death. But she would not listen and they all died. In the end, when she continued with her excessive mourning, he said to her: Since you are acting in this way, prepare shrouds for yourself, and soon thereafter she died. The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that states: “Weep not for the dead, neither bemoan him” (Jeremiah 22:10): “Weep not for the dead” is referring to excessive mourning; “neither bemoan him” more than the appropriate measure of time. How so? What is the appropriate measure? Three days for weeping, and seven for eulogizing, and thirty for the prohibition against ironing clothing and for the prohibition against cutting hair. From this point forward the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Do not be more merciful with the deceased than I am. If the Torah commands one to mourn for a certain period of time, then that suffices. It is stated in the continuation of the verse: “Weep sore for him that goes away.” Rav Yehuda said: This is referring to one who leaves the world without children to survive him, since mourning for him is much more intense. It was related that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would go to a house of mourning only for one who passed away without children, as it is written: “Weep sore for him that goes away; for he shall return [yashuv] no more, nor see his native land” (Jeremiah 22:10). Rav Huna disagreed with the interpretation of the verse and said: “Him that goes” is one who committed a transgression and then repeated it, i.e., one who sins constantly and does not repent [yashav], and therefore loses his portion in the World-to-Come, his “native land.” The Gemara notes that Rav Huna conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav Huna said: Once a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes permitted to him. The Gemara questions the wording used here: Does it enter your mind that it is actually permitted? How could it possibly be permitted for him to sin? Rather, say instead: It becomes as though it were permitted, for after doing it twice he no longer relates to his action as the violation of a serious prohibition. Rabbi Levi said: A mourner during the first three days of his mourning should see himself as though a sword were lying between his two thighs, meaning that he too may be facing imminent death. During this period he should live in dread. From the third to the seventh days he should conduct himself as if the sword were lying opposite him in the corner, but still threatening him. From this point forward it is as if the sword was moving before him in the marketplace, and the fear is not as great. § The mishna teaches: And the biers of women are never set down, due to their honor. The Sages of Neharde’a say: They only taught this with regard to a woman who died in childbirth, and therefore continues to bleed. But the biers of other women may be set down in the street. Rabbi Elazar said: Even the biers of other women must not be set down in the street, as it is written: “And Miriam died there and was buried there” (Numbers 20:1), which teaches that the site of her burial was close to the place of her death. Therefore, it is preferable to bury a woman as close as possible to the place where she died. With regard to that same verse Rabbi Elazar said further: Miriam also died by the divine kiss, just like her brother Moses. What is the source for this? This is derived through a verbal analogy between the word “there” stated with regard to Miriam and the word “there” mentioned with regard to Moses. With regard to Moses it says: “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab by the mouth of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 34:5). For what reason was it not explicitly stated with regard to her, as it is stated with regard to Moses, that she died “by the mouth of the Lord”? It is because it would be unseemly to say such a thing, that a woman died by way of a divine kiss, and therefore it is not said explicitly. Rabbi Ami said: Why was the Torah portion that describes the death of Miriam juxtaposed to the portion dealing with the red heifer? To tell you: Just as the red heifer atones for sin, so too, the death of the righteous atones for sin. Rabbi Elazar said: Why was the Torah portion that describes the death of Aaron juxtaposed to the portion discussing the priestly garments? This teaches that just as the priestly garments atone for sin, so too, the death of the righteous atones for sin.

The Gemara discusses the significance of death at different ages: If one dies when he is fifty years old, this is death through karet, the divine punishment of excision, meted out for the most serious transgressions. If he dies when he is fifty-two years old, this is the death of Samuel from Ramah. If he dies at the age of sixty, this is death at the hand of Heaven. Mar Zutra said: What is the verse from which this is derived? As it is written: “You shall come to your grave in a ripe age [bekhelaḥ]” (Job 5:26). The word “ripe age” [bekhelaḥ] has the numerical value of sixty, and it is alluded to there that dying at this age involves a divine punishment. One who dies at the age of seventy has reached old age. One who dies at the age of eighty dies in strength, as it is written: “The days of our years are seventy, or if by reason of strength, eighty years” (Psalms 90:10). Rabba said: Not only is death at the age of fifty a sign of karet, but even death from fifty to sixty years of age is death by karet. And the reason that all of these years were not counted in connection with karet is due to the honor of Samuel from Ramah, who died at the age of fifty-two. The Gemara relates that when Rav Yosef turned sixty he made a holiday for the Sages. Explaining the cause for his celebration, he said: I have passed the age of karet. Abaye said to him: Master, even though you have passed the karet of years, have you, Master, escaped the karet of days? As previously mentioned, sudden death is also considered to be a form of karet. He said to him: Grasp at least half in your hand, for I have at least escaped one type of karet. It was related that Rav Huna died suddenly, and the Sages were concerned that this was a bad sign. The Sage Zuga from Hadayeiv taught them the following: They taught these principles only when the deceased had not reached the age of strength, i.e., eighty. But if he had reached the age of strength and then died suddenly, this is death by way of a divine kiss. Rava said: Length of life, children, and sustenance do not depend on one’s merit, but rather they depend upon fate. As, Rabba and Rav Ḥisda were both pious Sages; one Sage would pray during a drought and rain would fall, and the other Sage would pray and rain would fall. And nevertheless, their lives were very different. Rav Ḥisda lived for ninety-two years, whereas Rabba lived for only forty years. The house of Rav Ḥisda celebrated sixty wedding feasts, whereas the house of Rabba experienced sixty calamities. In other words, many fortuitous events took place in the house of Rav Ḥisda and the opposite occurred in the house of Rabba. In the house of Rav Ḥisda there was bread from the finest flour [semida] even for the dogs, and it was not asked after, as there was so much food. In the house of Rabba, on the other hand, there was coarse barley bread even for people, and it was not found in sufficient quantities. This shows that the length of life, children, and sustenance all depend not upon one’s merit, but upon fate. Apropos Rav Ḥisda’s great wealth, the Gemara reports that Rava said: These three things I requested from Heaven, two of which were given to me, and one was not given to me: I requested the wisdom of Rav Huna and the wealth of Rav Ḥisda and they were given to me. I also requested the humility of Rabba bar Rav Huna, but it was not given to me. The Gemara continues its discussion of the deaths of the righteous. Rav Seorim, Rava’s brother, sat before Rava, and he saw that Rava was dozing, i.e., about to die. Rava said to his brother: Master, tell him, the Angel of Death, not to torment me. Knowing that Rava was not afraid of the Angel of Death, Rav Seorim said to him: Master, are you not a friend of the Angel of Death? Rava said to him: Since my fate has been handed over to him, and it has been decreed that I shall die, the Angel of Death no longer pays heed to me. Rav Seorim said to Rava: Master, appear to me in a dream after your death. And Rava appeared to him. Rav Seorim said to Rava: Master, did you have pain in death? He said to him: Like the prick of the knife when letting blood. It was similarly related that Rava sat before Rav Naḥman, and he saw that Rav Naḥman was dozing, i.e., slipping into death. Rav Naḥman said to Rava: Master, tell the Angel of Death not to torment me. Rava said to him: Master, are you not an important person who is respected in Heaven? Rav Naḥman said to him: In the supernal world who is important? Who is honorable? Who is complete? Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Master, appear to me in a dream after your death. And he appeared to him. Rava said to him: Master, did you have pain in death? Rav Naḥman said to him: Like the removal of hair from milk, which is a most gentle process. But nevertheless, were the Holy One, Blessed be He, to say to me: Go back to that world, the physical world, as you were, I would not want to go, for the fear of the Angel of Death is great. And I would not want to go through such a terrifying experience a second time. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Elazar was once eating teruma, when the Angel of Death appeared to him. He said to the Angel of Death: I am eating teruma; is it not called sacred? It would be inappropriate for me to die now and thereby defile this sacred teruma. The Angel of Death accepted his argument and left him. The moment passed, and he lived for some time afterward. It was similarly related that the Angel of Death once appeared to Rav Sheshet in the marketplace. Rav Sheshet said to the Angel of Death: Shall I die in the market like an animal? Come to my house and kill me there like a human being. So too, the Angel of Death appeared to Rav Ashi in the marketplace. Rav Ashi said to the Angel of Death: Give me thirty days so that I may review my studies, for you say above: Fortunate is he who comes here to Heaven with his learning in his hand. On the thirtieth day the Angel of Death came to take him. Rav Ashi said to the Angel of Death: What is all of this? Why are you in such a hurry to take me? Why can you not postpone my death? He said to him: The foot of Rav Huna bar Natan is pushing you, as he is ready to succeed you as the leader of the generation, and one sovereignty does not overlap with its counterpart, even by one hairbreadth. Therefore, you cannot live any longer. The Angel of Death was unable to take Rav Ḥisda because his mouth was never silent from study. So the Angel of Death went and sat on the cedar column that supported the roof of the study hall of the Sages. The cedar cracked and Rav Ḥisda was silent for a moment, as he was startled by the sound. At that point the Angel of Death was able to take him. The Angel of Death could not come near Rabbi Ḥiyya, owing to his righteousness. One day the Angel of Death appeared to him as a poor person. He came and knocked on the door. He said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Bring out bread for me, and he took out bread for him. The Angel of Death then said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Master, do you not have mercy on a poor person? Why, then, do you not have mercy upon that man, i.e., upon me, and give me what I want? The Angel of Death then revealed his identity to him, and showed him a fiery rod in order to confirm that he was the Angel of Death. At this point Rav Ḥiyya surrendered himself to him.

And Rabbi Levi said: Anyone who leaves from the synagogue and goes to the study hall or goes from the study hall to the synagogue, i.e., he goes from the mitzva of prayer to the mitzva of Torah study or vice versa, merits to receive the Divine Presence, as it is stated: “They go from strength to strength, every one of them appears before God in Zion” (Psalms 84:8). With regard to the same verse, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Torah scholars have no rest, even in the World-to-Come, as even there they remain in constant movement and ascent, as it is stated: “They go from strength to strength, every one of them appears before God in Zion.” Even when they are in the World-to-Come, they continue to go from strength to strength, until the final redemption will arrive in the end of days and God will appear in Zion.