״אֵין פֶּרֶץ״ – שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא סִיעָתֵנּוּ כְּסִיעָתוֹ שֶׁל דָּוִד שֶׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנּוּ אֲחִיתוֹפֶל, ״וְאֵין יוֹצֵאת״ – שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא סִיעָתֵנּוּ כְּסִיעָתוֹ שֶׁל שָׁאוּל שֶׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנּוּ דּוֹאֵג הָאֲדוֹמִי, ״וְאֵין צְוָחָה״ – שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא סִיעָתֵנּוּ כְּסִיעָתוֹ שֶׁל אֱלִישָׁע שֶׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנּוּ גֵּחֲזִי, ״בִּרְחוֹבוֹתֵינוּ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לָנוּ בֵּן אוֹ תַּלְמִיד שֶׁמַּקְדִּיחַ תַּבְשִׁילוֹ בָּרַבִּים, כְּגוֹן יֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי.

“There is no breach”; that our faction of Sages should not be like the faction of David, from which Ahitophel emerged, who caused a breach in the kingdom of David. “And no going forth”; that our faction should not be like the faction of Saul, from which Doeg the Edomite emerged, who set forth on an evil path. “And no outcry”; that our faction should not be like the faction of Elisha, from which Geihazi emerged. “In our open places”; that we should not have a child or student who overcooks his food in public, i.e., who sins in public and causes others to sin, as in the well-known case of Jesus the Nazarene.

״שִׁמְעוּ אֵלַי אַבִּירֵי לֵב הָרְחוֹקִים מִצְּדָקָה״. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, חַד אָמַר: כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ נִזּוֹנִין בִּצְדָקָה – וְהֵם נִזּוֹנִין בִּזְרוֹעַ; וְחַד אָמַר: כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ נִזּוֹנִין בִּזְכוּתָם, וְהֵם – אֲפִילּוּ בִּזְכוּת עַצְמָן אֵין נִזּוֹנִין; כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב,

Having cited a dispute with regard to the interpretation of a verse where we are uncertain whether the dispute is between Rav and Shmuel or Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar, the Gemara cites another verse with regard to which there is a similar dispute. It is said: “Hear Me, stubborn-hearted who are far from charity” (Isaiah 46:12). While both agree that the verse refers to the righteous, Rav and Shmuel, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar, disagreed as to how to interpret the verse. One said: The entire world is sustained by God’s charity, not because it deserves to exist, while the righteous who are far from God’s charity are sustained by force, as due to their own good deeds they have the right to demand their sustenance. And one said: The entire world is sustained by the merit of their righteousness, while they are not sustained at all, not even by their own merit, in accordance with the statement that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said.

דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּכָל יוֹם וָיוֹם בַּת קוֹל יוֹצֵאת מֵהַר חוֹרֵב וְאוֹמֶרֶת: כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ נִזּוֹנִין בִּשְׁבִיל חֲנִינָא בְּנִי, וַחֲנִינָא בְּנִי – דַּי לוֹ בְּקַב חָרוּבִין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת.

As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Every day a Divine Voice emerges from Mount Horeb and says: The entire world is sustained by the merit of Ḥanina ben Dosa, my son, and for Ḥanina, my son, a kav of carobs is sufficient to sustain him for an entire week, from one Shabbat eve to the next Shabbat eve.

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, דַּאֲמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מַאן ״אַבִּירֵי לֵב״ – גּוֹבָאֵי טִפְּשָׁאֵי. אֲמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: תֵּדַע, דְּהָא לָא אִיגַּיַּיר גִּיּוֹרָא מִינַּיְיהוּ.

And this exegesis disagrees with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda said, who are the stubborn-hearted? They are the foolish heathens of Gova’ei. Rav Yosef said: Know that this is so, as no convert has ever converted from their ranks.

אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי: בְּנֵי מָתָא מְחַסְיָא אַבִּירֵי לֵב נִינְהוּ, דְּקָא חָזוּ יְקָרָא דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא תְּרֵי זִמְנֵי בְּשַׁתָּא וְלָא קָמִגַּיַּיר גִּיּוֹרָא מִינַּיְיהוּ.

Similarly, Rav Ashi said: The heathen residents of the city Mata Meḥasya are the stubborn-hearted, as they witness the glory of the Torah twice a year at the kalla gatherings in Adar and Elul, when thousands of people congregate and study Torah en masse , yet no convert has ever converted from their ranks.

״חָתָן אִם רוֹצֶה לִקְרוֹת וכו׳״.

We learned in our mishna that if a groom wishes to recite Shema on the first night of his marriage, he may do so, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel prohibited doing so because of the appearance of presumptuousness.

לְמֵימְרָא, דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל חָיֵישׁ לְיוֹהֳרָא וְרַבָּנַן לָא חָיְישֵׁי לְיוֹהֳרָא – וְהָא אִיפְּכָא שָׁמְעִינַן לְהוּ! דִּתְנַן: מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְּתִשְׁעָה בְּאָב – עוֹשִׂין, מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹת – אֵין עוֹשִׂין, וְכָל מָקוֹם תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים בְּטֵלִים; רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם יַעֲשֶׂה כָּל אָדָם אֶת עַצְמוֹ כְּתַלְמִיד חָכָם.

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is concerned about presumptuousness and the Rabbis are not concerned about presumptuousness? Didn’t we learn that they say the opposite? As we learned in a mishna: A place where they were accustomed to perform labor on Ninth of Av, one may perform labor. A place where they were accustomed not to perform labor on Ninth of Av, one may not perform labor. And everywhere, Torah scholars are idle and do not perform labor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to performing labor on the Ninth of Av, one should always conduct himself as a Torah scholar.

קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אַדְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל!

If so, there is a contradiction between the statement of the Rabbis here and the statement of the Rabbis there. And, there is a contradiction between the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel here and the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel there.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוּחְלֶפֶת הַשִּׁיטָּה. רַב שֵׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא תַּחֲלִיף, דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא: קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע כֵּיוָן דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא קָא קָרוּ וְאִיהוּ נַמִי קָרֵי – לָא מֶיחֱזֵי כְּיוֹהֳרָא, הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא עָבְדִי מְלָאכָה וְאִיהוּ לָא קָא עָבֵיד – מֶיחֱזֵי כְּיוֹהֳרָא;

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed in one of the sources in the interest of avoiding contradiction. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: Actually, you need not reverse the opinions, as the contradiction between the statement of the Rabbis here and the statement of the Rabbis there is not difficult. In the case of the recitation of Shema on his wedding night, since everyone is reciting Shema and he is also reciting Shema , he is not conspicuous and it does not appear as presumptuousness. Here, in the case of the Ninth of Av, however, since everyone is performing labor and he is not performing labor, his idleness is conspicuous and appears as presumptuousness.

דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אַדְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָתָם בְּכַוָּנָה תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, וַאֲנַן סָהֲדֵי דְּלָא מָצֵי לְכַוּוּנֵי דַּעְתֵּיהּ. אֲבָל הָכָא, הָרוֹאֶה אוֹמֵר: מְלָאכָה הוּא דְּאֵין לוֹ, פּוֹק חֲזֵי כַּמָּה בַּטְלָנֵי אִיכָּא בְּשׁוּקָא. הדרן עלך היה קורא

So too, the contradiction between the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel here and the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel there is not difficult. There, in the case of the recitation of Shema on his wedding night, the matter is dependent upon his capacity to concentrate, and it is clear to all that he is unable to concentrate. Reciting Shema under those circumstances is a display of presumptuousness. But here, in the case of the Ninth of Av, one who sees him idle says: It is because he has no labor to perform. Go out and see how many idle people there are in the marketplace, even on days when one is permitted to work. Consequently, his idleness is not conspicuous.

מתני׳ מִי שֶׁמֵּתוֹ מוּטָּל לְפָנָיו – פָּטוּר מִקְּרִיאַת שְׁמַע, וּמִן הַתְּפִלָּה וּמִן הַתְּפִילִּין, וּמִכָּל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה.

One whose deceased relative is laid out unburied before him is exempt from the recitation of Shema , from the Amida prayer, and from the mitzva to don phylacteries, as well as all positive mitzvot mentioned in the Torah, until the deceased has been buried.

נוֹשְׂאֵי הַמִּטָּה וְחִלּוּפֵיהֶן וְחִלּוּפֵי חִלּוּפֵיהֶן, אֶת שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הַמִּטָּה וְאֶת שֶׁלְּאַחַר הַמִּטָּה; אֶת שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הַמִּטָּה צוֹרֶךְ בָּהֶם – פְּטוּרִין, וְאֶת שֶׁלְּאַחַר הַמִּטָּה צוֹרֶךְ בָּהֶם – חַיָּיבִין, וְאֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ פְטוּרִים מִן הַתְּפִלָּה.

With regard to the pallbearers and their replacements and the replacements of their replacements, those located before the bier who have not yet carried the deceased and those located after the bier. Those before the bier who are needed to carry the bier are exempt from reciting Shema ; while those after the bier, even if they are still needed to carry it, since they have already carried the deceased, they are obligated to recite Shema . However, both these and those are exempt from reciting the Amida prayer,

קָבְרוּ אֶת הַמֵּת וְחָזְרוּ, אִם יְכוֹלִין לְהַתְחִיל וְלִגְמוֹר עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעוּ לַשּׁוּרָה – יַתְחִילוּ, וְאִם לָאו – לֹא יַתְחִילוּ.

After they buried the deceased and returned, if they have sufficient time to begin to recite Shema and conclude before they arrive at the row, formed by those who attended the burial, through which the bereaved family will pass in order to receive consolation, they should begin. If they do not have sufficient time to conclude reciting the entire Shema , then they should not begin.

הָעוֹמְדִים בַּשּׁוּרָה, הַפְּנִימִיִּים – פְטוּרִים, וְהַחִיצוֹנִים – חַיָּיבִים. (נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִים מִקְּרִיאַת שְׁמַע וּמִן הַתְּפִילִּין וְחַיָּיבִין בִּתְפִלָּה וּבִמְזוּזָה וּבְבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן.)

And those standing in the row, those in the interior row, directly before whom the mourners will pass and who will console them, are exempt from reciting Shema , while those in the exterior row, who stand there only to show their respect, are obligated to recite Shema . Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the recitation of Shema and from phylacteries, but are obligated in prayer, mezuza and Grace after Meals.

גמ׳ מוּטָּל לְפָנָיו – אִין, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּטָּל לְפָנָיו – לָא;

We learned in the mishna that one whose deceased relative is laid out before him is exempt from the recitation of Shema and other positive mitzvot. The Gemara deduces: When the corpse is laid out before him, yes, he is exempt, but when the corpse is not physically laid out before him, no, he is not exempt from these mitzvot.

וּרְמִינְהִי: מִי שֶׁמֵּתוֹ מוּטָּל לְפָנָיו – אוֹכֵל בְּבַיִת אַחֵר, וְאִם אֵין לוֹ בַּיִת אַחֵר – אוֹכֵל בְּבֵית חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאִם אֵין לוֹ בֵּית חֲבֵירוֹ – עוֹשֶׂה מְחִיצָּה וְאוֹכֵל, וְאִם אֵין לוֹ דָּבָר לַעֲשׂוֹת מְחִיצָּה – מַחֲזִיר פָּנָיו וְאוֹכֵל, וְאֵינוֹ מֵיסֵב וְאוֹכֵל, וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן, וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ וְאֵינוֹ מְזַמֵּן,

The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita : One whose deceased relative is laid out before him eats in another room. If he does not have another room, he eats in the house of a friend. If he does not have a friend’s house available, he makes a partition between him and the deceased and eats. If he does not have material with which to make a partition, he averts his face from the dead and eats. And in any case, he does not recline while he eats, as reclining is characteristic of a festive meal. Furthermore, he neither eats meat nor drinks wine, and does not recite a blessing before eating, and does not recite the formula to invite the participants in the meal to join together in the Grace after Meals [ zimmun ], i.e., he is exempt from the obligation of Grace after Meals.