דַּעֲבַדָהּ כִּי כִּיסְתָּא.

The Gemara explains: It is found in a case where a pocketlike protrusion impedes sewing. Therefore, one tears the garment and tucks the protruding portion under the seam.

מתני׳ הַקּוֹרֵעַ בַּחֲמָתוֹ, וְעַל מֵתוֹ; וְכָל הַמְקַלְקְלִין – פְּטוּרִין. וְהַמְקַלְקֵל עַל מְנָת לְתַקֵּן – שִׁיעוּרוֹ כִּמְתַקֵּן. שִׁיעוּר הַמְלַבֵּן וְהַמְנַפֵּץ וְהַצּוֹבֵעַ וְהַטּוֹוֶה – כִּמְלֹא רֹחַב הַסִּיט כָּפוּל וְהָאוֹרֵג שְׁנֵי חוּטִין – שִׁיעוּרוֹ כִּמְלֹא הַסִּיט.

One who rends his garment in his anger or in anguish over his dead relative is exempt. And anyone else who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt. And one who performs a labor destructively in order to repair is liable, and his measure for liability is equivalent to the measure for one who performs that labor constructively. The measure that determines liability for one who whitens, or one who combs, or one who dyes, or one who spins wool is the full width of a double sit , which is the distance between the forefinger and the middle finger. And for one who weaves two threads, the measure that determines liability is one sit .

גמ׳ וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַקּוֹרֵעַ בַּחֲמָתוֹ וּבְאֶבְלוֹ וְעַל מֵתוֹ – חַיָּיב, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת – יָצָא יְדֵי קְרִיעָה! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא – בְּמֵת דִּידֵיהּ, הָא – בְּמֵת דְּעָלְמָא.

We learned in the mishna: One who rends his garment in anger or in anguish over his dead relative is exempt. The Gemara raises a contradiction to this based on a baraita : One who rends his garment in his anger or in his mourning or in his anguish over his dead relative is liable for performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat. And even though he desecrates Shabbat by tearing his garment, he nevertheless fulfilled his obligation of rending his garment in mourning. Apparently, one is liable for rending his garment in anguish over the dead. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this mishna, which states one is liable for rending his garment, is referring to his own dead relative for whom he is obligated to tear his garment. And that mishna, which states one is exempt for rending his garment, is referring to any unrelated dead person.

וְהָא ״מֵתוֹ״ קָתָנֵי! לְעוֹלָם, בְּמֵת דִּידֵיהּ, וּבְהָנָךְ דְּלָאו בְּנֵי אֲבֵילוּת נִינְהוּ. וְאִי חָכָם הוּא – חַיּוֹבֵי מִיחַיַּיב, דְּתַנְיָא: חָכָם שֶׁמֵּת – הַכֹּל קְרוֹבָיו. הַכֹּל קְרוֹבָיו סָלְקָא דַּעֲתָךְ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הַכֹּל כִּקְרוֹבָיו, הַכֹּל קוֹרְעִין עָלָיו, הַכֹּל חוֹלְצִין עָלָיו, הַכֹּל מַבְרִין עָלָיו בָּרְחָבָה! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּלָאו חָכָם הוּא.

The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn in the mishna: Over his dead relative? The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna, which says that he is exempt, is referring to his own dead; however, it is referring to those relatives who are not subject to the obligation of mourning by Torah law. The Gemara asks: And even so, if the dead person is a Torah scholar, one is obligated to rend one’s garment in anguish over his death, as it was taught in a baraita : When a Torah scholar dies, everyone is his relative. The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that everyone is his relative? Rather, say: Everyone is considered to be like his relative, in the sense that everyone rends his garment in anguish over him, and everyone bares his shoulder over him in mourning, and everyone eats the mourner’s meal over him in the public square as mourners do. The death of a Torah scholar is a personal loss for every Jew. The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where the dead person is not a Torah scholar.

וְאִי אָדָם כָּשֵׁר הוּא – חַיּוֹבֵי מִיחַיַּיב, דְּתַנְיָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה מֵתִים בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אָדָם כְּשֶׁהֵן קְטַנִּים – כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּבְכֶּה וְיִתְאַבֵּל עַל אָדָם כָּשֵׁר. כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּבְכֶּה, עַרְבוֹנָא שָׁקְלִי מִינֵּיהּ?! אֶלָּא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא בָּכָה וְהִתְאַבֵּל עַל אָדָם כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁכָּל הַבּוֹכֶה עַל אָדָם כָּשֵׁר – מוֹחֲלִין לוֹ עַל כָּל עֲוֹנוֹתָיו, בִּשְׁבִיל כָּבוֹד שֶׁעָשָׂה. לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּלָאו אָדָם כָּשֵׁר הוּא.

The Gemara asks: And if he was an upright person, aren’t all those present at his death obligated to rend their garments over his death? As it was taught in a baraita : Why do a person’s sons and daughters die when they are young? They die so that he will cry and mourn over the death of an upright worthy person. The Gemara asks: They die so that he will cry? Is security taken from him in advance to ensure that he fulfills his obligation? Rather, emend the statement and say: It is because he did not cry or mourn over an upright person who died, as anyone who cries over an upright person who died, they forgive him for all his transgressions because of the honor he accorded to the deceased. Nevertheless, it is difficult, as one is required to rend his clothing over the death of an upright person. The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where the deceased was not an upright person.

וְאִי דְּקָאֵי בִּשְׁעַת יְצִיאַת נְשָׁמָה – חַיּוֹבֵי מִיחַיַּיב, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הָעוֹמֵד עַל הַמֵּת בִּשְׁעַת יְצִיאַת נְשָׁמָה – חַיָּיב לִקְרוֹעַ, הָא לְמַה זֶּה דּוֹמֶה – לְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפָה. לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּלָא קָאֵי בִּשְׁעַת יְצִיאַת נְשָׁמָה.

The Gemara asks: And if one is standing close to the deceased when the soul leaves the body, he is obligated to rend his garment, as it was taught in a baraita : Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One who is standing over the deceased at the time of the departure of the soul is obligated to rend his garment. To what is this similar? It is similar to a Torah scroll that was burned. The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where he is not standing there at the time of the departure of the soul.

תֵּינַח – מֵתוֹ, אֶלָּא חֲמָתוֹ אַחֲמָתוֹ קַשְׁיָא! חֲמָתוֹ אַחֲמָתוֹ נַמִי לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: ״מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֵין צְרִיכָה לְגוּפָהּ – חַיָּיב עָלֶיהָ״, הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: ״מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֵין צְרִיכָה לְגוּפָהּ פָּטוּר עָלֶיהָ״.

The Gemara asks further: This works out well in terms of resolving the contradiction with regard to his dead relative. However, the contradiction between the ruling in the mishna that one who rends his garment in his anger is not liable, and the ruling in the baraita that one who rends his garment in his anger is liable, is still difficult. The mishna exempts one who rends garments in anger, while the baraita deems him liable. The Gemara answers: The contradiction between his anger in the mishna and his anger in the baraita is also not difficult, as this ruling in the baraita that deems him liable is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that ruling in the mishna that exempts him is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara elaborates: This ruling in the baraita follows Rabbi Yehuda, who said that one who performs a prohibited labor on Shabbat that is not needed for its own sake is liable for performing it. Therefore, one who rends his garment in anger is liable. That ruling in the mishna which exempts him is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that one who performs a labor that is not needed for its own sake is exempt for performing it.

אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בִּמְתַקֵּן, בִּמְקַלְקֵל מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: הַאי נַמִי מְתַקֵּן הוּא, דְּקָעָבֵיד נַחַת רוּחַ לְיִצְרוֹ. וּכְהַאי גַּוְונָא מִי שָׁרֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם חִילְפָא בַּר אַגְּרָא, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: הַמְקָרֵעַ בְּגָדָיו בַּחֲמָתוֹ, וְהַמְשַׁבֵּר כֵּלָיו בַּחֲמָתוֹ, וְהַמְפַזֵּר מָעוֹתָיו בַּחֲמָתוֹ – יְהֵא בְּעֵינֶיךָ כְּעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה; שֶׁכָּךְ אוּמָנֻתּוּ שֶׁל יֵצֶר הָרָע, הַיּוֹם אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״עֲשֵׂה כָּךְ״ וּלְמָחָר אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״עֲשֵׂה כָּךְ״. עַד שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ ״עֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״ וְהוֹלֵךְ וְעוֹבֵד. אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: מַאי קְרָאָהּ – ״לֹא יִהְיֶה בְךָ אֵל זָר וְלֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאֵל נֵכָר״, אֵיזֶהוּ אֵל זָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם – הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה יֵצֶר הָרָע.

The Gemara asks: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda rules that one is liable for performing a labor not needed for its own sake in the case of a constructive act; did you hear him deem one liable in the case of a destructive act? Rabbi Avin said: This case, where one rends his garment in anger, is also constructive, because in doing so he assuages his anger. Rending his garment calms him; therefore, it can be said that he derives benefit from the act of rending, and it is consequently a constructive act. The Gemara asks: And is it at all permitted to tear in that manner? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Ḥilfa bar Agra, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: One who rends his garments in his anger, or who breaks his vessels in his anger, or who scatters his money in his anger, should be like an idol worshipper in your eyes, as that is the craft of the evil inclination. Today it tells him do this, and tomorrow it tells him do that, until eventually, when he no longer controls himself, it tells him worship idols and he goes and worships idols. Rabbi Avin said: What verse alludes to this? “There shall not be a strange god within you, and you shall not bow to a foreign god” (Psalms 81:10). What is the strange god that is within a person’s body? Say that it is the evil inclination. One may not rend his garments in anger, because in doing so he is deriving pleasure from satisfying the evil inclination.

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָא עָבֵיד לְמִירְמָא אֵימָתָא אַאֱינָשֵׁי בֵּיתֵיהּ. כִּי הָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה שָׁלֵיף מַצְבִּיָיתָא, רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב תָּבַר מָאנֵי תְּבִירֵי, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת רָמֵי לָהּ לְאַמְּתֵיהּ מוֹנִינֵי אַרֵישָׁא, רַבִּי אַבָּא תָּבַר נַכְתְּמָא.

The Gemara answers: It is only necessary to discuss this in a case where one does so to instill fear in the members of his household. In order to show them that he is very angry, he tears and breaks objects even though he is not that angry. In that case he maintains control of himself and is not in danger of succumbing to the evil inclination. It is like the incident where Rav Yehuda sought to display his anger and he pulled threads off his garment. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov smashed broken vessels, Rav Sheshet threw small fish on his maidservant’s head, and Rabbi Abba broke the lid of a jug. All of these Sages caused minimal damage in creating the impression that they were angry.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פָּזִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא: כֹּל הַמּוֹרִיד דְּמָעוֹת עַל אָדָם כָּשֵׁר – הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא סוֹפְרָן, וּמַנִּיחָן בְּבֵית גְּנָזָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נֹדִי סָפַרְתָּה אָתָּה שִׂימָה דִּמְעָתִי בְנֹאדֶךָ הֲלֹא בְּסִפְרָתֶךָ״. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כֹּל הַמִּתְעַצֵּל בְּהֶסְפֵּדוֹ שֶׁל חָכָם – רָאוּי לְקוֹבְרוֹ בְּחַיָּיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקְבְּרוּ אוֹתוֹ בִּגְבוּל נַחֲלָתוֹ בְּתִמְנַת סֶרַח אֲשֶׁר בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם מִצְּפוֹן לְהַר גָּעַשׁ״ מְלַמֵּד שֶׁרָגַשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן הַר לְהוֹרְגָן. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כֹּל הַמִּתְעַצֵּל בְּהֶסְפֵּדוֹ שֶׁל חָכָם – אֵינוֹ מַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים, מִדָּה כְּנֶגֶד מִדָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּסַאסְּאָה בְּשַׁלְחָהּ תְּרִיבֶנָּה״.

Apropos the laws of mourning for an upright person and a Torah scholar, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: Anyone who sheds tears over an upright person, the Holy One, Blessed be He, counts his tears and places them in His treasury, as it is stated: “You have counted my wanderings, put my tears into your bottle, are they not in your book?” (Psalms 56:9). Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who is lazy in eulogizing a Torah scholar, it is fitting to bury him alive, as it is stated: “And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnat-seraḥ, which is in the hill-country of Ephraim, on the north of the mountain of Ga’ash” (Joshua 24:30). This teaches that the mountain raged against them to kill them because they did not eulogize him appropriately. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whoever is lazy in eulogizing a Sage does not live a long life, and his punishment is measure for measure. Since he was unconcerned with the death of the Sage, in the heavens they will be unconcerned with his death. The Holy One, Blessed be He, conducts Himself in this manner, as it is stated: “In full measure [ besase’a ], when You send her away You contend with her” (Isaiah 27:8), and the Sages derived that God punishes from the words: “You contend with her,” and He does so measure for measure, se’a for se’a , from the word sase’a in the verse above.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״וַיַּעַבְדוּ הָעָם אֶת ה׳ כֹּל יְמֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכֹל יְמֵי הַזְּקֵנִים אֲשֶׁר הֶאֱרִיכוּ יָמִים אַחֲרֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ״! אָמַר לֵיהּ: בַּבְלַאי, יָמִים – הֶאֱרִיכוּ, שָׁנִים – לֹא הֶאֱרִיכוּ. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה ״לְמַעַן יִרְבּוּ יְמֵיכֶם וִימֵי בְנֵיכֶם״ יָמִים וְלֹא שָׁנִים?! בְּרָכָה שָׁאנֵי.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is stated: “And the nation worshipped the Lord all the days of Joshua and all the days of the Elders, who lived many days after Joshua” (Judges 2:7), indicating that the Elders lived long lives even though they did not eulogize Joshua properly. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Babylonian, you should be more precise in your reading. They indeed lived many days; however, they did not live many years. In fact, they did not live to the end of that year. Again he asked: But then with regard to the verse “So that your days and the days of your children will multiply on the land which the Lord your God swore to give to your fathers, as the days of the heavens over the earth” (Deuteronomy 11:21), would you also say that here the reward is to live many days but not years? He answered him: A blessing is different and should be interpreted in its most expansive sense.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁמֵּת –

And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one of the brothers dies,