Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 13

How is this to be imagined ? (If by tearing the thing one means to spoil it, he may tear even as much as will require any number of stitches and not be culpable, but if he tears in order to sew together with two stitches and thus improve the thing, how can that be done ?) This can be done in the case of a piece of cloth protruding from a garment, which one would tear off, and then sew up the remaining rent. MISHNA : One who tears a thing while enraged, or through 213 214 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. grief on account of his dead, and, in general, all who spoil a thing are not culpable. If, however, one destroy a thing with the intention to mend it, the prescribed quantity (making him culpable) is determined according to the prescribed quantity of the act by which it is mended. The prescribed quantity of wool when being washed, carded, dyed or spun is a thread the length of a double sit ; * in the weaving the prescribed quantity for wool is the breadth of one sit. GEMARA: There is a contradiction: We have learned in a Boraitha : One who tears a thing while in a rage, or through grief, or through mourning for the dead, is culpable, and although he desecrates the Sabbath, the duty of tearing (or- dained in cases of mourners for the dead) is fulfilled. This presents no difificulty. The Boraitha treats of the case of a man who tore his garment on account of the death of one on whose account it was his duty to tear his garment, while the Mishna treats of the case of a man who did not do so for duty's sake, but on account of a death of a stranger, and this not being his duty, he merely spoiled his garment. How can you say, that the Mishna treats of a man who tore his garment on account of the death of a stranger; it says distinctly his dead ? Yea, it says his dead, but he has such relatives, on whose account he need not tear his garment ; (though it may be his duty to bury them, he being the nearest living relative; and tearing one's gar- ment becomes a duty only in the event of the death of a father, mother, son, daughter, brother, or sister). Now, there is no contradiction then as far as mourning for the dead is concerned, but there surely is as regards one who is enraged ? In the Bo- raitha he is held culpable and in the Mishna he is not ? Here also there is no difficulty: The Mishna's statement is in accord with R. Simeon's decree, who holds, that one is not culpable of performing a deed not for its own sake, while the Boraitha is in accord with the opinion of R. Jehudah, who holds one culpable of performing work even not for its own sake. But you have heard that R. Jehudah's opinion only applied to an act by which a thing was mended ? Did you also hear that he decreed thus in the case of where a thing was destroyed ? Said R. Abhin : " This is also a case of mending, because it relieves the man's * The length of a sit is the distance between the first and middle finger of the hand when stretched taut. A double sit is the distance between the thumb and fore- finger when stretched farthest apart. TRACT SABBATH. ^15 mind ; and while he may spoil the garment at the same time he abates his fury," Is such action permitted ? Have we not learned that R. Simeon ben Elazar said in the name of 'Hilpha bar Agra, quoting R. Johanan ben Nuri: " He who tears his gar- ments in his fury, or he who breaks his vessels, or he who throws away his money while in a rage, shall be regarded in your eyes as a worshipper of idols, because such is the custom of the mis- leader: To-day he says to one, ' Do so,' to-morrow ' Do some- thing else,' until he tells one to go and worship idols and the man does so." R. Abhin added to this: " Where can a Scrip- tural passage be found prohibiting this ? [Psalms Ixxxi. 10] : ' There shall not be among thee a foreign god; nor shalt thou bow thyself down to any strange god.' This means that no foreign god (misleader) shall be in thy heart, because it says Becho (in thee). The latter part of the verse infers, that if he allows the misleader to dwell in his heart it will bring him to bowing down to idols." Such action is permitted only when a man is not in an actual fury, but wishes to appear as if enraged in order to command obedience (from his family), as R. A'ha bar Jacob used to do; viz. : " When he wanted to show displeasure at the deeds of his family, he would take up a broken vessel and shatter it, making his family believe that he was furious and was breaking whole vessels." Said R. Simeon ben Pazi in the name of R. Jehoshua ben Levi, quoting Bar Qapara:* The tears shed by a man on account of the death of an upright man are counted by the Holy One, blessed be He, and stored in His treasury, as it is written [Psalms Ivi. 9]: " My wanderings hast Thou well num- bered : put Thou my tears into Thy bottle, behold they are num- bered by Thee." R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: " One who is slow to mourn the death of a scholar deserves being buried alive, as it is written [Joshua xxiv. 30]: 'And they bur- ied him on the border of his inheritance at Thimnah-serach, which is on the mountain of Ephraim, on the north side of Mount Ga'ash.' Ga'ash signifies storm, and from this it is inferred, that because the people did not mourn the death of Joshua the mount stormed and tried to bury them alive." Said R. Hyya bar Aba in the name of R. Johanan: " One * Because mourning for one's dead is treated of in the last paragraph, the follow- ing discussions relating to mourning for uprigfht men in general are held and the ODinions of the different teachers cited. 2i6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. who is slow to mourn the death of a scholar will not have long life. This is in retaliation ; (because he did not mourn the death of the scholar, his own death will be hastened), as it is written [Isaiah xxvi. 8] : 'In measure, by driving him forth, thou striv- est with him.' " R. Hyya bar Aba objected and said to R. Johanan : How canst thou say, that one who is slow to mourn the death of a scholar will not have long life ? Is it not written [Judges ii. 7] : " And the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders, that lived many days after Joshua, who had seen all the great deeds of the Lord, which he had done for Israel "? R. Johanan answered : " Thou Babylonite ! Does the verse say, that lived many years ? It only says many days! " Now, according to R. Johanan's argu- ment, does the verse [Deut. xi. 21]: " In order that your days maybe multiplied, and the days of your children," etc., also mean days and not years ? In this verse it is different. Where a blessing is conferred days and yeara are meant. R. Hyya bar Aba said again in the name of R. Johanan : " If