Returning to the earlier discussion: during the first three days, if a mourner comes from a nearby place, he is not considered to have been with the mourners, but he was within close proximity. As long as he comes to the house of mourning within three days and sits with them, one might have thought that he begins counting from the time he arrives, because he is drawn after the people who are already in the house.
What does it mean that he comes from a nearby place? It means that he could have arrived at the beginning. He was not in China; he was local. Even though he was not actually there, since he could have arrived from the beginning, it is as though he was there from the beginning, and therefore he joins the other mourners in their count.
The Gemara then says that if he came from a place where he could not have arrived on the first day—for example, he arrives on the second day—he begins counting from the day he arrives. The other mourners will finish two days before he does, and he continues his own count from that point. However, once he comes after three days, having missed the essential period of mourning, then regardless of where he comes from, even if he comes from a nearby place, he must begin his own count.
The entire distinction between a nearby place and a distant place applies within the first three days, because those are the essential days of mourning. After the first three days, if he missed that period, then even if he comes from a nearby place, he counts on his own. Rabbi Shimon says that even if he comes from a nearby place on the seventh day, he counts together with them.
Rabbi Shimon is lenient. He says that as long as the mourner is within close proximity, it does not matter that he did not arrive earlier. Even if he arrives on the seventh day, while the others are still mourning, he joins them. We do have a question about the seventh day, because the seventh day is considered complete before it begins. Tosafot explains that the seventh day must be activated through some act of mourning or through comforting the mourners. If he arrives during the morning prayers, while they are still sitting and have not yet formally concluded the mourning period, then he counts that day as his final day and is considered to have joined them. This is Rabbi Shimon’s position, but it applies specifically when he comes from a nearby place.
We now return to the statement that one who comes from a nearby place within the first three days counts together with the other mourners. This is the position of the first Tanna. Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that this applies only when the head of the household is in the house.
We are introducing a new concept: the head of the household. This may mean the oldest member of the family, or the person responsible for the family’s affairs—the one who takes care of the arrangements and serves as the family’s point person. The other mourners are drawn after him. Thus, if the younger mourner arrives two days into the mourning period and the head of the household is in the house, he joins the head of the household’s count.
This implies that if the head of the household is not there, the arriving mourner counts on his own. He is drawn after the head of the household only because the head of the household is present in the house and has already begun mourning. We do not say that if the head of the household is absent, the younger mourner is nevertheless drawn after everyone else. Since the head of the household was not there and had not yet begun sitting, the person who arrives also does not begin his count together with the others.
The Gemara then raises a question. We have introduced the requirement that the head of the household be in the house, but where was he? According to this initial discussion, he was somewhere else. He was not necessarily taking care of the deceased; perhaps he was simply away on a trip. What if he was absent for a legitimate reason—because he had gone to the burial and was taking care of the burial arrangements? One might argue that dealing with the burial is equivalent to being in the house, even though he is not physically there.
Rashi discusses the case of the head of the household going to the cemetery to bury the deceased and remaining there for three days. The question is whether, since he went there for the needs of the deceased, he is considered to be in the house. If another mourner arrives within the first three days, is he drawn after the head of the household or not?
Tosafot explains the question more fully. Does the person who arrives have his own count, or is he drawn after the head of the household? Perhaps the head of the household is preoccupied with the burial and, since everyone heard about the death at the same time, the situation is different from the first case. It is not that the head of the household knows nothing and must first hear about the death. Everyone knows that the person died; the head of the household simply went to take care of the burial while the other mourner remained at home.
On the other hand, perhaps the fact that the head of the household went to deal with the deceased makes him considered as though he were at home. Or perhaps not. Ultimately, he is not in the house, and therefore it may not matter that he went to take care of the burial. If he is not actually at home, then the mourner who arrives within the first three days may have to count on his own.
There is a similar question regarding someone who is not at the cemetery but is in a nearby place. He could have been in the house from the beginning. Do we consider him as though he is there, so that he is drawn after the others? Or do we say that since he is unaware of the mourning and is not in the house, he counts on his own? Another possibility is that because he went away due to the death, perhaps he is treated more favorably. The Gemara, however, gives only the case of the person who went to the cemetery. Perhaps that is because someone who is involved in the burial is considered to be at home, while someone who is merely in a nearby place is not.
This question arises frequently. For example, the head of the household may travel to Israel to bury the deceased while the rest of the family remains at home. The family begins mourning immediately, as we will explain, while the head of the household travels to the burial. When he eventually returns, do we say that he is considered to have been at home and therefore joins their count, or do we say that he begins his own count?
The Gemara resolves the matter by distinguishing between when he arrives. If he comes within the first three days, he is considered to have been at home and counts together with them. If he arrives after the first three days, he does not join them and must begin his own count. The head of the household therefore gains the days that the others have already observed only when he returns within the first three days. If he returns after three days, he has missed the essential period of mourning and must begin again.
The reason for the distinction is that he must be physically present, at least briefly, during the essential period of mourning. If he did not arrive at all during that period, he is not considered connected to the mourners who have already begun their count.
Rabbi Levai the son of Rav Huna related a case in which the head of the household had gone away to Bari. The ruling given to the family was that if he returned within three days, he could count together with them, but if he returned after three days, he had to count on his own.
The Gemara then continues with another statement. Rava said to the people of Mehoza who were not accompanying the coffin: “You are not going after the coffin; you are going home. Once you turn your faces away from the coffin, go home and begin counting.”
This is the law for those who are not going to the burial. They return home and begin mourning immediately. If the funeral procession leaves fifteen minutes before sunset and they arrive home before sunset, they may gain that day. There is no need to wait until the burial actually takes place. If we required them to wait until the burial, they might lose an entire day. Once they turn away from the coffin and are sent home, it is clear that they will not be attending the burial, and they begin mourning.
Rashi explains that those who accompany the deceased to the burial do not begin mourning until the actual burial. Someone traveling to Israel, for example, does not tear his garment on the airplane and does not yet begin mourning. He remains an acute mourner until the burial is completed. By contrast, those who remain at home have already begun their mourning.
Nothing has changed in this regard. A thousand years ago, people in the Land of Israel were doing the same thing. Not everyone could travel with the deceased. Some people would walk a block or two and then return home, while others would go to the airport. Those who accompanied the coffin remained in the status of acute mourners until the burial, while those who returned home began mourning immediately.
The major question concerns the head of the household who travels to the airport and then returns from Israel. When he comes back, does he join the family’s count, or does he begin a full seven-day period of mourning? This is a major dispute. The Gemara appears to say that if he returns within three days, he counts with them, while if he returns after three days, he counts on his own.
Tosafot discusses the statement that one who comes within three days counts with the others. We already have the distinction that Rabbi Shimon permits someone from a nearby place to join the mourners even on the seventh day. It is possible, however, that Rabbi Shimon said this only when the person came from a nearby place. In the case of someone who traveled to Israel, perhaps the place is considered distant, because he could not have been with the family during the first three days. It may therefore be that even Rabbi Shimon agrees that he must return within three days in order to join their count.
Tosafot asks: If the law follows Rabbi Shimon because the halachah follows the lenient opinion in mourning, why does the Gemara give a three-day limitation? According to Rabbi Shimon, even if the person arrives on the seventh day, he should be able to count with the other mourners.
Tosafot answers that even according to Rabbi Shimon, there may be a distinction between a nearby place and a distant place. In the case of a nearby place, Rabbi Shimon permits the person to join the mourners even on the seventh day. In the case of a distant place, however, even Rabbi Shimon may agree that he joins them only if he arrives within the first three days. This may be the reason the Gemara presents the example of someone traveling to Israel: it is clearly a distant place, not merely a location a short distance away.
Tosafot offers another explanation of the entire discussion. Perhaps the Gemara is not discussing the head of the household at all. Perhaps it is discussing another mourner who arrives late. Since the head of the household has gone to the burial, and the other mourner arrives while the head of the household is absent, the question is whether the latecomer follows the head of the household and waits for him, or whether he begins mourning on his own. According to this explanation, the subject of the discussion is the younger mourner who arrives late, not the head of the household who is traveling.
In practice, the common custom is that when the head of the household travels with the deceased and later returns to the house where the other mourners are sitting, he joins their count. I remember a case many years ago in which the head of the household traveled to Israel for the burial. Some rabbis in the community wanted to say that because he was the head of the household, he was not drawn after the others and would have to begin a full seven-day period when he returned.
Rabbi Max strongly rejected that approach. He said that they did not understand the position of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, which is also cited by the Shach. Rabbi Akiva Eiger holds that the discussion applies only when the person does not return to the house where the other mourners are sitting. If he returns to that house, then even if he comes on the seventh day, he is drawn after them.
Accordingly, the entire discussion may not apply to the ordinary case. If the person remains in Israel and does not return to the house where the family is sitting, then he is not drawn after them, regardless of why he remained away. But if he returns to the house where the mourners are sitting, Rabbi Akiva Eiger says that he is always drawn after them.
This is a separate issue from the discussion in the Gemara. If he returns and sits in a separate house by himself, that is different. But when he comes back to the place where the other mourners are sitting, Rabbi Akiva Eiger says that he joins them. I remember that Rabbi Max was very firm about this. I called him recently to confirm it, and as soon as I mentioned Rabbi Akiva Eiger, he immediately said that Rabbi Yosef agrees with this position. There had been some controversy about it, but this is the accepted practice.
I later found the same ruling in a book on mourning by Rabbi Yitzchak Olbaum, one of the heads of a yeshiva. He sent the book to the rabbis who were studying this tractate. He writes that those who accompany the coffin to the airport begin mourning when they turn away from the coffin, even if the head of the household is also traveling with the deceased. They begin when they turn away from the coffin, not after the burial.
He further writes that if the head of the household travels with the deceased to Israel and then returns to the place where the mourners are sitting, he begins counting with them from the time they turned their faces away from the deceased. He does not wait until after the burial. In his practical ruling, even if the head of the household returns on the seventh day in the morning, he counts together with the others, provided that he returns while they are still sitting.
He explains that the ruling concerning those who accompany the deceased to a different city applies specifically when they do not return to the place where the mourners remained. If they return to the house where the others are sitting, they join the others’ count.
He also cites a ruling in the Responsa Igrot Moshe concerning someone who travels with the coffin to Israel for burial and returns after the burial, even after the other mourners have already begun sitting. According to that view, each person begins his own count from the point at which he turns away from the deceased. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein’s position is stricter in this respect: each person counts separately.
However, the accepted practice is not necessarily like that. The ruling is that if the person returns to the house where the mourners are sitting, even the head of the household is drawn after them. This is the position of Rabbi Akiva Eiger. The more stringent ruling applies when the person does not return to the place where the others are sitting.
We once had the opposite situation in my family. The burial took place here, while my father’s sisters were in Israel, shortly before Passover. The practical question was when they would begin counting. Those here began mourning when the burial took place. Had the burial taken place after the relevant time before Passover, the family members in Israel might have lost the ability to complete the mourning period before the holiday. Fortunately, the burial took place early enough in the morning that they were able to begin their count and avoid that problem.
There is also a discussion about who qualifies as the head of the household. It may be the spouse, or it may be the oldest son who takes care of everything. What makes someone the head of the household is itself subject to discussion. Does the term refer literally to the oldest person, or does it refer to the person who manages the household and assumes responsibility for the arrangements? Often the oldest person is also the one who takes care of everything, but the two definitions are not necessarily identical.
The ruling attributed to Rabbi Akiva Eiger is that if the head of the household returns to the house of mourning within the seven-day period, he joins their count. If he does not return to that house, then he counts from the time he turns away from the deceased or from the point at which he begins his own mourning.
The Gemara then qualifies the statement that even if the head of the household arrives on the seventh day from a nearby place, he joins the others. This is true only if he arrives while the mourners are still sitting. If they have already gotten up on the seventh day, he has missed the opportunity to join them.
The phrase “while they are still sitting” itself requires clarification. What if they were about to get up but had not yet formally done so? The Gemara asks whether they are considered to be sitting in that situation, and concludes with an unresolved question.
The Gemara then records a tradition transmitted through the students of Rabbi Abba bar Hiyya. Some say that the students of Rabbi Zeira transmitted it in the name of Rabbi Zeira, and others say that Rabbi Abba bar Hiyya transmitted it in the name of Rabbi Zeira. The statement is that Rabbi Yohanan said the halachah follows Rabban Shimon regarding certain laws of animal defects, and that the halachah follows Rabbi Shimon regarding mourning.
The ruling concerning mourning is the one we have just discussed: if the person arrives on the seventh day while the mourners are still sitting, he counts with them. This follows Rabbi Shimon. The ruling regarding animal defects is unrelated to today’s discussion, but the Gemara mentions it as part of the same transmission.
The case involving animal defects concerns an animal whose intestines were punctured. Normally, a puncture would make the animal a non-kosher animal with a fatal defect. If, however, a certain mucus comes from the intestines and blocks the hole, Rabban Shimon considers the animal fit. Rav explains that the mucus is the natural substance that comes from the intestines themselves. It emerges along with the pressure and is thick enough to close the hole.
Someone said that he hoped he would have the merit to travel to the Land of Israel and learn the ruling directly from the rabbi who transmitted it. When he arrived, he found Rabbi Abba, the son of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, and asked him to confirm the ruling. He had heard in Babylonia that the halachah followed Rabban Shimon regarding animal defects.
Rabbi Abba asked him whether his rabbi had actually said that the halachah follows Rabban Shimon regarding animal defects. He replied that he was asking about the halachah. Rabbi Abba answered that the issue was a dispute. Some stated that the halachah follows Rabbi Shimon, while others stated that it does not.
The Gemara then returns to mourning. We do not follow Rabban Shimon regarding the animal defect, and therefore we are stringent in that area. Regarding mourning, however, the halachah follows Rabbi Shimon because of the principle that the halachah follows the lenient opinion in mourning.
The Gemara also discusses the timing of burial. In general, the faster a person is buried, the better. One should not leave the body overnight, because doing so is not considered an honor for the deceased. With regard to one’s father or mother, however, it may be disgraceful to bury them immediately without delivering an appropriate eulogy. It can therefore be preferable to delay the burial slightly in order to arrange a proper funeral.
If it is Friday or the eve of a holiday and the family does not bury the deceased immediately, then even in the case of a father or mother, they may have to delay the burial until after the Sabbath or holiday. The body may then remain unburied for several days. Nevertheless, that is considered the proper course if the alternative would be to bury one’s parent immediately without according the deceased the honor of an appropriate eulogy.
Regarding all other deceased persons, a mourner may choose to limit his involvement in work. We have learned that a mourner may not work during the seven days of mourning, although in certain circumstances he may have others perform his work for him. In the case of a father or mother, however, he should not take even those leniencies. He should not work even through others and even in circumstances where such an option would otherwise be available.
There is also a practice called removing the shoulder, in which a person removes part of his garment and exposes his shoulder. In earlier times, people would go to the cemetery and uncover the shoulder in this way. Regarding other deceased persons, a mourner may perform this act if he wishes, but he is not required to do so. In the case of a father or mother, however, he must perform it.
The Gemara tells of a great Torah leader whose father died. He was at the cemetery and wanted to remove his shoulder in accordance with this law. Another great Torah leader was present, and that person said that if the first rabbi performed the act, he would have to do it as well in order to empathize with him. The first rabbi therefore refrained from removing his shoulder, because he did not want to cause the other great scholar to do so.
Tosafot immediately points out that this does not contradict the rule. The rabbi would have performed the act for his father; the only reason he refrained was that another great Torah leader was present and would have been obligated to imitate him. The incident therefore demonstrates that under ordinary circumstances he would have removed his shoulder for his father.
The Gemara then identifies the people involved. Rabbi Abba said that the great Torah leader whose father died was Rabbi, meaning Rabbi Judah the Prince, whose father was Rabban Gamliel. The other great Torah leader present was Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha. Some versions reverse the identities and state that Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha was the one whose father died and that Rabbi was the other great scholar.
According to the first version, Rabbi refrained from removing his shoulder out of respect for Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha. According to the second version, the explanation is difficult. If Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha was present when Rabbi’s father died, Rabbi would have been required to remove his shoulder regardless, because Rabbi’s father was the leader of the generation, and everyone was required to perform this act when the leader of the generation died. Therefore, refraining in order to spare Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha would not have helped.
The Gemara then discusses haircuts during mourning. There is a major misunderstanding regarding the practical halachah derived from this passage. Nowhere does the passage say that a person mourning a father or mother automatically takes a haircut after thirty days. The text says that he waits until his friends come and rebuke him.
The meaning is that after the minimum period of thirty days, his friends may tell him, “Your hair has become too long; you should get a haircut.” The haircut is not automatically triggered merely because the thirtieth day arrived. Thirty days is the minimum period, but the actual trigger is the rebuke or instruction of his friends.
This also has nothing to do with a holiday interrupting the thirty-day period. A holiday can interrupt the thirty days of mourning in cases where the law provides for that, but it does not automatically interrupt the mourning of a person who lost a father or mother. A holiday cannot replace the requirement that the person’s friends rebuke him.
In practice, people often wait thirty days and then tell the mourner to get a haircut. But that is not the precise law. Before thirty days, he certainly may not cut his hair. After thirty days, however, the thirtieth day is not a magical cutoff. His friends must see that his hair has become excessive and appropriately tell him to cut it. It should be a genuine rebuke, not merely a phone call made without seeing his appearance and without considering whether the rebuke is warranted.
The Gemara also says that regarding other deceased persons, after thirty days a mourner may attend a gathering of friends. In the case of a father or mother, however, he may not attend such a gathering until twelve months have passed.
Rav Bar bar Hannah explains that the gathering mentioned here is a meal of friends, a gathering of people who are close and beloved to one another. It is not necessarily a major celebration. The Gemara therefore distinguishes between an ordinary gathering of friends and a celebration connected with a mitzvah, such as a wedding.
There is a dispute about whether a mourner may attend a mitzvah celebration after thirty days. One passage appears to say that both the celebration and the gathering of friends are limited to thirty days. Tosafot explains that the term “gathering of friends” refers specifically to the type of meal held by close friends. Such a gathering is not a particularly great celebration, while a wedding celebration is more significant and may remain prohibited even after thirty days.
Another version of the teaching states that an ordinary gathering of friends is permitted immediately after the seven-day mourning period. The Gemara questions this because another teaching appears to say that such gatherings are prohibited for thirty days. The answer is that there are two different kinds of gatherings. One refers to beginning a cycle of meals, while the other refers to participating in a cycle that has already begun.
In earlier times, groups of friends would establish a rotation. One person would host a meal, then the others would reciprocate in turn. If the mourner was the person beginning the rotation, he could not initiate it during the thirty-day period. He could not announce, “I will host the first meal and everyone will then invite us in return.”
However, if the rotation had already begun and it was now his turn to reciprocate, he could participate after the seven-day period. In that case, he was not initiating a new celebration; he was fulfilling an existing obligation to the group. It was not merely a social matter. It was treated like a debt: the others had hosted meals, and now he was obligated to repay them by hosting his meal.
The Gemara then returns to tearing one’s garment. For all other deceased persons, the minimum tear is the measure of a handbreadth. For one’s father or mother, however, a handbreadth is not sufficient. The tear must reach the heart, meaning that the garment must be opened in a way that exposes the area over the heart.
Rabbi Abba asks how we know that the minimum tear for other deceased persons is a handbreadth. The verse says that David grasped his garment and tore it. Since the garment was grasped, the minimum amount that was grasped is understood to be a row of a handbreadth.
For other deceased persons, it does not matter how many garments a person is wearing. He tears only the outer garment. For a father or mother, however, he tears all of the garments he is wearing. This is a major additional requirement.
The garment called the head covering is not considered a garment for purposes of tearing. It was worn on the head and draped down over the body, but it does not count as one of the garments that must be torn. The requirement applies to the garments themselves.
The law for a woman is different because of modesty. She tears the lower garment and then turns it around so that the tear is at the back. She then tears the outer garment. In this way, although the outer garment is torn, the back of the untorn portion of the inner garment covers the exposed area. The requirement to uncover the heart is therefore balanced against the requirement of modesty.
The Gemara describes the procedure by saying that a woman tears the lower garment, turns it around, tears the outer garment, and covers her heart with the lower garment. Although the ordinary rule is that the heart must be exposed, modesty takes precedence in this case.
Regarding the location of the tear, the garment has a collar or neck opening. For other deceased persons, a person may tear below the collar, which is the normal place, or he may tear the collar itself. In the case of a father or mother, however, he must tear below the collar.
The reason is that tearing the collar itself may not appear to be a tear at all. It may look as though the person merely widened the opening through which he places his head. Therefore, in the case of a father or mother, the tear must clearly be made in the body of the garment below the collar.
Rabbi Abba says that any tear that is not made below the collar is not considered a proper tear. Since it is not noticeable as a tear in the garment, it does not fulfill the obligation. Even for other relatives, the proper practice is to make the tear beneath the collar so that it is clearly a tear in the garment.
Rabbi Abba derives this from the verse describing David as tearing his garment into two. The Gemara asks why the verse says “he tore them,” in the plural. It answers that the tear must make the garment appear as though it has been divided into two. Tearing the collar does not divide the garment; it merely lengthens the existing opening. Therefore, the tear must be made on the garment itself.
There are consequently two distinct tears: the existing opening at the collar and the tear made in the garment below it. The latter is considered a true tear because it divides the garment into two portions.
After the seven days, the tear in the garment may be sewn in a loose, irregular manner. After thirty days, with regard to other deceased persons, it may be sewn in the ordinary manner. In the case of a father or mother, it may be sewn in a loose manner after thirty days, but it may never be completely repaired in the ordinary manner. The tear remains permanently recognizable.
A woman may sew the tear immediately because of her honor and modesty. This ruling must follow the opinion that a woman tears all of her garments. According to the opinion that she turns the garment around and therefore does not expose herself, there would not be the same need for immediate sewing. The permission to sew immediately applies to the position that requires all the garments to be torn.
When it comes to other deceased persons, a person may tear the garment with his hand, or he may use a utensil. Using a utensil is preferable in some respects because it allows him to control the tear and makes it easier to sew the garment later. In the case of a father or mother, however, the tear must be made by hand and may not be made with a utensil.
Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that for all other deceased persons, the tear may be made privately. In the case of a father or mother, it must be made publicly. There are different ways to explain this statement. According to Rashi’s manuscript version, “privately” means that the tear does not have to be made in front of other people. Regarding a father or mother, because the grief is greater, the tearing must be done publicly.
Rav Hisda says that the same public requirement applies when the leader of the generation dies. The Gemara challenges this by saying that the leader of the generation is not necessarily equivalent to a father or mother in every respect. Perhaps the similarity applies only to the law that the garment may never be fully repaired, but not to the requirement that the tear be made publicly.
The Gemara asks whether the statement includes the leader of the generation or refers only to other authorities. It then describes a case in which the leader of the generation died. Rav Hisda told Rav Hanan bar Rava to turn over the mortar, stand on it so that everyone could see him, and display his torn garment. This demonstrates that when the leader of the generation dies, the tearing must be done publicly.
Finally, the Gemara discusses which shoulder is exposed when various Torah leaders die. When a local sage who provides the city’s legal rulings dies, the right shoulder is exposed. When a member of the court dies, the left shoulder is exposed. When the leader of the generation dies, either shoulder may be exposed.
Rashi explains that the local sage is the person from whom the people seek practical legal guidance, the authority who answers the questions of the city. For him, the right shoulder is exposed. For a member of the court, the left shoulder is exposed. For the leader of the generation, the law is more stringent in one sense, and either side may be used.
There is no practice of removing the shoulder in this manner today. The discussion is describing the laws and customs that applied in the earlier period.