The discussion begins by reviewing the halachic rules of mourning for a family member who was unaware of a death. If a family member, unaware of a passing, was within a nearby location (within ten parasangs, a day's journey) of the mourners and surfaced within the first three days of the mourning period, they are considered to join the existing mourning period. For instance, if they arrive on day three, they only need to mourn for five more days, concluding on day seven with the rest of the family. However, if they came from a distant location, they must count seven full days of mourning from their arrival, even if they arrive within the first three days.
A notable opinion is that of Rabbi Shimon, who states that even if such a family member surfaces on day seven, as long as the family is still in mourning, they only need to observe that one day with the family and are then finished. This rule is contingent on the Gadol HaBayit (the older or most influential relative) being among those already observing mourning. If the Gadol HaBayit is present, the younger relative (the Tzair) joins their mourning period. However, if the Gadol HaBayit is absent, and only younger family members are observing, the absent Gadol HaBayit does not join their mourning period.
The Gemara then poses a question: What if the Gadol HaBayit was absent because they were involved in burying the deceased? According to Rashi, if the burial process took three days, the question arises whether we consider the Gadol HaBayit as if they were in the house, thus granting them a dispensation to join the family's mourning. This implies that even though they knew about the death, their involvement in the burial might allow them to join the existing mourning period. Alternatively, as explained by Tosafot, the Gadol HaBayit is not considered to join anyone else's mourning; they count their own seven days from their return. The underlying reasoning for leniency is that since they were preoccupied with the burial, they might be granted a special status.
The Gemara concludes that indeed, even if the Gadol HaBayit was away for the purpose of burying the deceased, they count their mourning period with the family. The mourning of the family typically begins once they turn away from the deceased, meaning when they return home after the body has been taken for burial. Normally, the Gadol HaBayit's mourning would not begin until after the burial is completed, which could be a day or two later. The innovation here is that upon returning to the family, having been involved in the burial, they save some days of their mourning period by joining the family's existing period. This is true if they return within three days; otherwise, they count their mourning for themselves. This three-day rule, previously learned, applies even to the Gadol HaBayit.
Tosafot clarifies that this innovation applies even according to Rabbi Shimon. While previously it was understood that the three-day distinction only applied to someone coming from a nearby location, this Gemara's innovation, according to Rabbi Shimon, is that even if the Gadol HaBayit came from a distant location, they still benefit from the three-day dispensation. If they surfaced within three days, they join the family's mourning; otherwise, they count for themselves. This implies that even for someone from a distant location, the specific circumstance of being involved in burial grants a leniency normally reserved for those from nearby locations.
The Gemara supports this with a story: Rav instructed people from Salponi, who arrived within three days of the mourning period, to count with the mourners. Those who arrived after three days were told to count for themselves. Since the Gemara does not specify which family members these were, it is understood to apply to all scenarios, including the Gadol HaBayit. This proves that even if the Gadol HaBayit was away for burial, they can join the family's mourning if they return within three days, even if they came from a distant place.
Rava similarly instructed the people of Mehoza, who were not accompanying the coffin to burial, to begin counting their mourning once they turned away from the city gate. They did not need to wait until the actual burial, which is the normal start time for mourning. This means that if they handed over the deceased for burial just before sunset, that day counts as day one, even if the burial occurred later. This saves a day of mourning. Rashi explains that those who accompany the coffin must wait until burial. However, if one returns home from the city gate without accompanying the body further, their mourning begins immediately, as they are considered finished with their involvement with the deceased.
Regarding Rabbi Shimon's opinion that one can join the mourning even on day seven, the Gemara clarifies that this applies when the mourners are still actively sitting and receiving consolers. The point is that even though the principle of "a part of the day is like the whole day" means mourning technically ends on day seven, as long as the mourners are still sitting and receiving visitors, it is considered a valid period for a latecomer to join. The Gemara then asks: What if the consolers are already stirring to leave when the family member arrives? Does it still count as mourning, or does their intention to leave negate it? The Gemara leaves this question unresolved.
The Gemara continues by relating a teaching from Rabbi Abba bar Hiyya, in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, regarding two specific halachic areas. It states that in certain laws of terefot (ritually unsound animals) and in the laws of mourning (specifically the rule of joining on day seven), we follow the lenient opinion of Rabbi Shimon. For example, in the case of an animal's punctured intestines, if mucus can seal the hole, the animal is not a terefa. An unnamed rabbi expressed a wish to ascend to the Land of Israel to learn this halacha directly from its source. Upon arriving, he found the students of Rabbi Abba bar Hiyya, who quoted Rabbi Yohanan. When asked if the halacha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in terefot, the students replied that they taught the opposite, that the halacha does not follow Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in terefot. However, regarding the laws of mourning, they confirmed that the halacha is lenient, following Rabbi Shimon, allowing a family member to join on day seven. Rabbi Nachman, however, held that the halacha does not follow Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara concludes that in matters of mourning, we often adopt the lenient opinion, and thus the halacha follows Rabbi Shimon, allowing the family member to conclude mourning quickly.
The Gemara then discusses differences in mourning practices for parents compared to other relatives. For all deceased relatives except parents, expediting the burial is considered praiseworthy. However, for parents, a quick burial is seen as disrespectful. Nimukei Yosef explains that for other relatives, eulogizing is not as obligatory, so delaying burial is a disgrace. For parents, however, proper eulogies are a matter of honor, making it appropriate to take time. An exception is if parents pass away on the eve of Shabbat or a festival, where delaying burial would mean waiting a full day; in such cases, quick burial is praiseworthy, as it is clearly done out of respect for the deceased.
Another difference: for all other deceased relatives, a mourner has the option to minimize their business dealings or not. However, for parents, one is obligated to minimize such activities. This refers to permissible activities during mourning, such as dealing with a lost item (davar aved). For other relatives, one may choose to attend to a lost item; for parents, one should refrain even from permissible activities. Other interpretations, like that of Duran, suggest this refers to business transactions in general, which are usually permissible but are restricted for parents.
A third distinction concerns the practice of tearing garments (keriah) at the cemetery. For other deceased relatives, one may choose to perform "halitzat katef" (revealing the shoulder by removing the arm from the sleeve) as a sign of mourning. However, for parents, one is obligated to perform "halitzat katef." Rosh, citing Rabbeinu Meir, interprets "halitzat" as referring to removing shoes. Thus, for parents, one must remove shoes at the cemetery, whereas for other relatives, it is optional. The Gemara recounts a story where a great rabbi, whose father had passed away, was about to perform "halitzat katef." Another great rabbi present offered to do it with him to minimize the first rabbi's perceived disgrace. However, the first rabbi refrained, not wishing to cause the second rabbi to perform an act he wasn't obligated to. The Gemara identifies the first great rabbi as Rabbi (whose father was Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel) and the second as Rabbi Yaakov bar Aha. A variant tradition reverses their roles. The Gemara questions why Rabbi would refrain from "halitzat katef" for his father, the Nasi (Prince) of Israel, for whom everyone is obligated to perform it. The Gemara leaves this as a difficulty. One proposed answer, though deemed unsatisfactory, is that perhaps a Gadol HaDor (greatest of the generation) is not obligated to perform "halitzat katef" for the Nasi.
Next, for all other deceased, the prohibition against shaving or getting a haircut lasts for thirty days. For parents, this prohibition extends until one's friends rebuke them, telling them they need a haircut. Most commentators understand this to mean that for parents, both the thirty days must pass, and one must receive such a rebuke. If friends rebuke before thirty days, it is not sufficient. The Tosafot notes that a festival does not nullify the thirty-day period for parents, meaning one cannot get a haircut even if a festival intervenes within the thirty days.
For all other deceased, one may attend gatherings of joy (simchot) after thirty days. For parents, however, one may not attend such gatherings until after twelve months. The Gemara clarifies that "simchot" here refers to "simchat meriyut" (gatherings of friends), which are less formal than weddings. Even for other mourners, attending weddings might be prohibited for longer than thirty days. A Baraita states that for both "simchot" (weddings) and "meriyut" (gatherings of friends), the prohibition lasts thirty days. This contradicts the earlier statement that for parents, it's twelve months for all "simchot." The Gemara leaves this as a difficulty.
Ameimar offers a different version: for "simchat meriyut," it is permissible to attend immediately after seven days. This contradicts the Baraita stating thirty days. To resolve this, a distinction is made between "arisuta" (reciprocal parties) and "puranuta" (paying back a party). If it's a reciprocal party, where friends take turns hosting, it's permissible after seven days. However, if it's the first time initiating such a cycle, one must wait thirty days. According to this version, attending a wedding (seudat hatan) is permissible after thirty days, as the Baraita states. Tosafot raises a question about a brit milah (circumcision feast): Is it considered a "seudat mitzvah" that would be permissible even within thirty days, or is it subject to the thirty-day rule? This is left as a doubt.
Regarding tearing garments (keriah), for all other deceased, the tear must be a tefach (approximately three to four inches). For a mother or father, one must reveal one's heart, implying a larger tear. This is because one has lost the opportunity to perform the mitzvah of honoring parents. Rav Abu states that the minimum tear is a tefach, derived from David tearing his garment, where holding implies a tefach. For other deceased, one only needs to tear the outermost garment. For parents, however, one must tear all garments one is wearing. Rashi clarifies that "afikarsuta" (a head covering that drapes over the shoulders) is considered a hat and does not require tearing. For a woman, according to the first opinion, she must also reveal her heart, which is permissible during mourning as modesty rules are relaxed. However, Rabbi Shimon ben Hazar says a woman should tear her innermost garment near her heart, then turn it to the back to cover the tear, and then tear the garment above it, so her heart is not visible, maintaining modesty.
Another difference: for other deceased, one may choose to tear the garment either below the collar or at the collar itself. For parents, however, one must tear at the collar itself. There is a textual dispute among the Rishonim regarding the exact meaning of "kameh safa" (in front of the collar). One interpretation, following Rashi in our printed editions, is that for other relatives, one can tear below the collar (where it is more visible as a split garment), but for parents, it must be exactly at the collar. Another interpretation, from Rashi in a manuscript, states the opposite: for parents, the tear must be at the collar itself, and not beneath it. The Gemara cites Yehuda, who says any tearing not at the collar is worthless, as it doesn't look like the garment is split in half. The tearing must be visible as two distinct pieces.
For other deceased, the torn garment can be sewn up with wide stitching after seven days, and with normal stitching after thirty days. For parents, however, after thirty days, one can only sew it with wide stitching; it can never be sewn up normally. A woman, due to modesty, may sew up her torn garment immediately, even within the seven days, but only with wide stitching. This is understood according to the opinion that she tears at the heart, making it necessary to cover it quickly. If it's for parents, she can never sew it normally; for other relatives, she can after thirty days.
Ravin, quoting Rabbi Yohanan, brought another distinction from the Land of Israel: for other deceased, one may tear the garment with one's hand or with an instrument (like scissors). For parents, one must tear with one's hand. Tearing with one's hand expresses greater bitterness and sadness. Commentators note that for thick collars, one might start with scissors and continue with the hand.
Furthermore, for other deceased, one may tear the garment privately. For parents, one must tear it publicly. Rashi explains that for other relatives, one can put a hand under the outer garment and tear the inner one, so the tear is not visible. For parents, however, it is forbidden to cover the tear; it must be visible. This means either the act of tearing must be visible, or the torn garment itself must be visible. For parents, the tearing must be done from the outside, so people see the act of tearing. For other mourners, if done in public, it can be done covertly.
Rav Huna states that this rule of public tearing (from the outside) also applies to the Nasi (Prince of Israel) when he passes away. The reason is to increase the public display of mourning and sorrow. The Gemara then raises an objection: A Baraita states that a rabbi, a Torah scholar, the Nasi, or a head of a court (Av Beit Din) are compared to parents only regarding the re-sewing of the garment (it cannot be sewn normally). This implies that other laws, like public tearing, do not apply. The Gemara resolves this by stating that the Baraita refers to a general rabbi or Av Beit Din. However, the Nasi is equal to parents in all laws of mourning, including public tearing. This is supported by an incident where the Nasi of All Israel (the Reish Galuta in Babylon) passed away. Rav Huna bar Rav Hiyya told a person to turn over a mortar and stand on it, so everyone could see him tearing his garment, thereby encouraging others to do the same. This demonstrates that for a Nasi, tearing must be done publicly and visibly, just like for parents.