Last time, we learned a short narrative about the tragic passing of Ameimar’s grandson. There was some debate as to who exactly was tearing kriya, but either way the sugya assumed that the correct posture in which to tear kriya is while standing. It is also interesting to note that the idea of kriya itself seems to have a depth of meaning that is simply taken for granted throughout the Bavli.  The Gemara now looks for a Biblical source for this idea that kriya must take place when standing.

Bavli, Moed Katan 20b Rami bar Ḥama said: From where is it derived that rending must be performed while standing? As it is stated: “Then Job arose, and tore his coat” (Job 1:20).

מועד קטן דף כ:  אמר רמי בר חמא: מנין לקריעה שהיא מעומד? שנאמר וַיָּקָם אִיּוֹב וַיִּקְרַע.

In seeking a source for the obligation to tear while standing, the Gemara first looks to Job (Iyyov). The first chapter of the Book of Job is painful to read. My student, Liz Shayne, pointed out that perhaps turning to the tragic figure of Job was a way for Ameimar – whose story we read in the prior post – to express his grief. When the model for your own experience is Job, then you are signaling a particular kind of emotional turmoil. Job, a model of patience, piety and self-reflection, seems to suffer as a result of the Satan’s persuasion of God¹. His cattle, sheep and camels are taken from him, and he finally tears kriya when he learns that his children have been taken as well.

The Gemara quotes Iyyov’s immediate response to the news that his entire life has been destroyed. The verse says:

איוב פרק א:כ וַיָּקָם אִיּוֹב וַיִּקְרַע אֶת מְעִלוֹ וַיָּגָז אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וַיִּפֹּל אַרְצָה וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ: 

Job 1:20] And Job rose and he rent his coat and he shaved his head and fell to the ground and he bowed.

This pasuk is filled with verbs. Iyyov appears frantic as his life has been crushed². The unique nature of the tragedy of Iyyov makes it difficult to use this narrative as the model model for all future generations. The “sufferings of Iyyov” were so extreme that some Amoraim thought that the narrative was fictional and that no such character ever existed (See Bava Batra 15a).

The Gemara continues:

The Gemara asks: Perhaps he did something extra beyond what is required, and actually there is no obligation to stand; and, if you do not say that he did more than what was required of him, then how do you explain the continuation of the verse: “And he shaved his head” (Job 1:20)? Is every mourner required to act in this manner also and shave his head?3

דלמא מילתא יתירתא הוא דעבד?  דאי לא תימא הכי, וַיָּגָז אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ הכי נמי?

This is a reasonable approach to Iyyov. Given the level of suffering and loss that he experienced, and the lengths to which he went to express his suffering, he does not seem like a useful model for the average mourner. The gemara now turns to King David:

אלא מהכא: וַיָּקָם הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּקְרַע אֶת בְּגָדָיו.

The Gemara concludes: Rather, this source must be rejected, and instead the halakha is derived from here, the verse that describes David’s mourning over his son: “Then the king arose, and rent his garments” (II Samuel 13:31). 

Here, the gemara invokes quite a different model of mourning. After Amnon raped Tamar, King David’s son Avshalom sought revenge. Two years later Avshalom sends his servants to kill Amnon. When King David first learns of these tragic events, he is under the impression that Avshalom has killed all of his other children (Avshalom’s half-brothers). It is upon hearing this terrible news the Navi says about King David:

שמואל ב פרק יג:לא וַיָּקָם הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּקְרַע אֶת בְּגָדָיו וַיִּשְׁכַּב אָרְצָה…

II Shmuel 13:33) And the king rose and he rent his garments and he lay down on the ground…

The Gemara now asks a question about King David similar to the one it posed about Iyyov. They both did more than just tear kriya, so how are we to know which behaviors are the rules and which are the exceptions? 

ודלמא מילתא יתירתא עביד? 

דאי לא תימא הכי – וַיִּשְׁכַּב אָרְצָה הכי נמי?… 

The Gemara asks: But perhaps he too did something extra beyond what is required, and he was not actually obligated to stand; and, if you do not say that he did more than what was required of him, then how do you explain the continuation of the verse: “And he lay on the earth” (II Samuel 13:31)? Is every mourner required to act in this manner also?…

אמר ליה: כעין ארצה. 

Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: The verse does not mean that David actually lay on the ground. Rather, it was as if he were on the ground, if this is the case, then Ameimar acted correctly, and a mourner should rend his garments while standing.

It seems that the Bavli concludes with King David’s behavior as the source for the requirement to tear kriya while standing. The fact that the Gemara quotes from two different narrative contexts — both Job and David — is used by some as proof that, if a person were to tear while sitting, they have not fulfilled their obligation and they must rend again. In fact, the Shulchan Aruch paskens:

יורה דעה ש”מ:א

וצריף שיקרע מעומד, ואם קרע מיושב לא יצא

Yoreh Deah 340:1

And the mourner must tear standing, and if the mourner tore while sitting they have not fulfilled their obligation.

The sense we get from Tanach and Chazal is that the tearing of garments was, at least in the cases of Job and David, the natural response to the moment of loss itself. However, the contemporary practice is generally to link the kriya to the funeral and burial. We have formalized the emotional experience and created rules around exactly where, when and how kriya must be torn. The challenge that we face today is to evoke that same emotional catharsis through physical actions that we we have ritualized in observance. In some ways this is another instance of the struggle between keva (fixed prayer / actions) and kavana (the internal religious experience).  

1. See Bava Batra 16a. See also Bava Metzia 58b, Rambam Hilkhot Mechira 14:13, Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 228:4 to understand the ways in which Iyyov’s friends engaged in verbal abuse
2. The Malbim claims that the cutting of his hair was in response to loss of his property, because the Torah prohibits cutting hair in mourning. In fact, the mourner does not cut his or her hair for at least a month
3. It is interesting to note that the possibility of learning this Halakha from Iyyov, here rejected from the Bavli, is taken as a given by the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi is not bothered by the “דלמא מילתא יתירתא הוא דעבד” question – see Yerushalmi (Vilna) Moed Katan 3:7 and Sota 5:6,( Venice) Moed Katan 83c and Sota 20d.