Siman 341

We say in Moed Katan (Moed Katan 20a): From where do we derive seven days of mourning? As it is written: "And I will turn your festivals into mourning" – just as a festival is seven days, so too mourning is seven days. However, from the verse "And he made a mourning for his father seven days," we cannot derive it, for it was before the burial (Tosafot). And the essence of mourning is after the burial. And in the Yerushalmi there, it says that we do not learn from before the giving of the Torah, for the Torah was given and the halacha was renewed. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: that certainly we also learn from before the giving of the Torah, for the Yerushalmi itself in the first chapter of Moed Katan (halacha 7), regarding the fact that we do not marry women on the festival because we do not mix one joy with another joy – derives it from the verse "Complete the week of this one" regarding Rachel, see there. Rather, this is what it means: that in this matter we cannot learn from before the giving of the Torah, for perforce the mourning was not according to the law that followed the giving of the Torah, for it was before the burial. And perforce the Torah was given, and the halacha was renewed that mourning is after the burial. If so, it follows that we cannot learn from there, as it was before the burial. (And the conclusion of the Yerushalmi is also from the verse "And I will turn etc." and other derivations, see there. And the Pri Megadim labored over this difficulty from the first chapter. And in my humble opinion, the intent of the Yerushalmi is like the Tosafot and as I have written.)

This is the wording of the Rambam at the beginning of the Laws of Mourning (Rambam Laws of Mourning 1): It is a positive commandment to mourn for relatives, as it is said: "And if I had eaten the sin offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of Hashem?" And mourning is from the Torah only on the first day alone, which is the day of death and the day of burial. But the rest of the seven days are not a Torah law. Even though it is said in the Torah, "And he made a mourning for his father seven days" — the Torah was given and the law was renewed. And Moses our teacher ordained for Israel seven days of mourning and seven days of feasting. From when is a person obligated in mourning? From when the golel is closed. But as long as the deceased is not buried, he is not forbidden in any of the matters that a mourner is forbidden in. And because of this, David washed and anointed himself when the child died before he was buried. Thus far his words.

And he follows the view of the Rif in the third chapter of Moed Katan, and the view of the Geonim which the Tur wrote in their name in siman 398 (Tur Yoreh Deah 398), that mourning on the first day is from the Torah. And even though the proof from "And had I eaten the sin offering today" is not a proof, for what is the connection between sacrificial matters and other things? For behold, aninut is explicitly stated in the Torah regarding the second tithe, as it is written "I have not eaten of it in my mourning," and we learn sacrificial matters through a kal vachomer from the lighter tithe as we say in Zevachim (Zevachim 101a), and he is forbidden from the Temple service and from eating the sacrifices as we say there—nevertheless, for other matters there is no aninut from the Torah at all, as will be explained. And more difficult than this, for behold in Zevachim there we say that this verse of "And had I eaten the sin offering today" is because of aninut, not because of mourning; see there. And in Sefer HaMitzvot, mitzvah 37 (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandment 37), the Rambam wrote another reason: that since the kohen was commanded to contract tumah for his relatives, this is proof for mourning; see there. And behold, the Rif there also cited from this verse, and from the verse "And the end thereof as a bitter day"; see there. And it appears to me that their primary intention was not to bring proof for mourning that it is from the Torah, for this is a simple matter, as we say in Moed Katan there regarding the festival, that the positive commandment of the many comes and overrides the positive commandment of the individual; see there. Consequently, mourning is a positive commandment. And the verses they cited are to teach that only one day is from the Torah, and that is the day of death and burial together, as the Rashba wrote in a responsum (siman 155). For according to the Geonim, it is not from the Torah except for the day of death and burial together, but one without the other is not from the Torah; see there. And this is why they cited that even regarding sacrificial matters it is only written "And had I eaten the sin offering today." And likewise "And the end thereof as a bitter day," which is only one day. And the rest of the days of mourning are d'rabbanan.

But the system of our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, and the Smag, and most of the sages of France and Ashkenaz, is that from the Torah there is no mourning at all. And that which they called it a "positive commandment" – this is a rabbinic positive commandment. For even the joy of the festival is rabbinic (Tosafot ibid.). This is the wording of the Tur in siman 398: And Rabbeinu Tam and the Ri explained that there is no mourning from the Torah, rather aninut alone is from the Torah on the first day. And aninut is one thing and mourning is another, for that which is forbidden in this is permitted in that. And an onen is not forbidden from the Torah on the first day except for the eating of kodashim and ma'aser sheni. Furthermore, the sages were stringent regarding him to forbid him in the matters explained in the chapter "Mi Shemeto," etc. Thus far his words. And these are the matters that will be explained in this siman. And regarding an onen, the opinion of the Rambam is also thus in the fourth chapter, see there. And in the Yerushalmi, chapter "Mi Shemeto," it says that the reason they forbade the matters that will be explained to an onen is because of the honor of the deceased, so that he will set his heart to his shrouds and his burial. And even though there are others occupied with his burial, nevertheless the obligation is incumbent upon the relatives. And although in the Yerushalmi it appears as if it is uncertain about this, the conclusion is not so, see there. And thus we hold. Therefore, on Shabbat and Yom Tov when they cannot bury him – there is no prohibition in the matters that will be explained, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. And these laws of aninut are only before the burial and not after the burial, for after the burial mourning begins, as I have written.

And I have a great question regarding this: behold, it is explicitly explained there in Zevachim that the eating of kodashim and ma'aser sheni is forbidden to an onen the entire day, even after burial. And the aninut of the night is rabbinic. And if so, at the very least regarding all the laws of an onen that the sages instituted, why did they not institute them for the entire day even after burial? And granted that for the night they did not institute them because regarding the night it is only rabbinic. But for the entire day, which is from the Torah, why did they not institute them? And one cannot say that the sages did not want to institute in this case according to the model of the Torah, for our teachers, the Tosafists, wrote in Berakhot (Berakhot 16b) regarding washing, and this is their wording: For if it were so that it was from the Torah regarding ma'aser etc., the sages also should have decreed. For whatever the sages instituted—they instituted according to the model of the Torah etc. Thus far his words.

I found in the Smag in the laws of mourning that he wrote, and this is his wording: From the time the deceased is buried, even if he was buried on the day of death, the people have the custom to cancel the aninut even though for sacrificial matters it is not canceled the entire day. Thus far his words. He made the matter dependent on the custom of the people, which implies that it is not according to the letter of the law. And it is difficult to say this, for there is not one of the poskim who mentioned that according to the law aninut is practiced even after burial on that same day. Therefore, I say that according to the letter of the law it is so: for the sages were unable to be stringent in the laws of aninut even after burial, as this is a stringency that leads to a leniency, in that we would forbid him from praying and reciting Birkat HaMazon which is from the Torah. And you cannot be lenient regarding matters of the Torah. And consequently, it is necessary to also permit him meat and wine, for it is impossible to perform the aninut in halves, as is understood. And that which the Tosafot wrote is only regarding washing, for even during the days of his mourning he is forbidden in this, so we can well treat him as a mourner. But meat and wine, which a mourner is permitted in—it is impossible to forbid him because of aninut, as I have written. And that which the Smag wrote "the people have the custom" (meaning the people have the custom), meaning: "they have the custom and according to the law it is so" (it appears to me).

And what is the law of aninut? One who has a deceased relative for whom he is obligated to mourn is forbidden from eating, prior to the burial, in the room where the deceased is lying. Rather, if he wishes to eat, he should eat in another room. And the reason: for it is "mocking the poor" (Rashi, beginning of the chapter "Mi Shemeto"). That is to say: as if he is not concerned at all for the deceased. And it is not only necessary to say if it is on a weekday, when he must occupy himself with the business of his burial, for it is certainly like mocking the poor that he eats and is not concerned with the business of the deceased. Rather, even on Shabbat it is also so, for he shows that he is not concerned for him and eats in his presence. And proof for this, that this is forbidden even on Shabbat, is from the beginning of the third chapter of Berakhot, where it says there: And on Shabbat he reclines and eats, etc., and it is not said that on Shabbat he eats in the room where the deceased is located. (And the Shach, small subsection 3, and the Taz, small subsection 1, do not disagree. And that which the Taz wrote, that he is not occupied with his burial, he took a definitive matter, and the same law applies to Shabbat. And the Pitchei Teshuva, small subsection 2, did not direct well in this, see there.) And if another person eats in this room, we have no concern with it, for regarding him "mocking the poor" is not applicable, for what is he to this deceased person? And according to everyone it is permitted. (And in this also the Pitchei Teshuva did not direct well.)

And if he does not have another room—he eats in the house of his friend. And if he dwells alone, and is forced to eat in this room—he makes a partition for himself between the place of his eating and the deceased. And even a temporary partition such as a sheet—is sufficient, if he fastened the edges of the sheet in a manner that it is not moved by the wind, and the height of the partition is ten tefachim. And if even this is not within his ability, and he is forced to eat there—he turns his face away and eats, to indicate that he does this out of necessity. And he does not look at the deceased at the time of his eating. And in the Yerushalmi there it says that he does not eat all his needs, meaning: not to satiety. And the poskim did not bring this, because this was not mentioned in our Shas. And it appears to me that temporary drinking or temporary eating—there is no concern to eat or drink in this room, and he is not required to go out, but rather that he should turn his face from the deceased. For in a temporary act there is not so much "mocking the poor," as is understood.

And when he eats—he does not recline and eat, to eat while reclining in the manner of important people on his left side. (Rashi and the Shach and the Taz wrote "at the table etc.", see there. And their intention was when they sit at the table to eat. Examine it and you will find it simple.) And this is in order to show submission, and that he eats only out of necessity. And he does not eat meat, and he does not drink wine, in order to show distress. And that he does not eat and drink expansively. Therefore, with a cooked dish of meat there is no concern. And so too other drinks, to drink a little to alleviate distress, it appears that it is permitted. Therefore, it is permitted to drink a little burnt wine, and mead, and beer. But not much (it appears to me). And also desserts it appears to me that one should not eat, for only that which is a necessity is permitted.

And he does not recite the blessing of "Hamotzi," nor Birkat HaMazon. And he does not pray. And he is exempt from all mitzvot mentioned in the Torah. Nevertheless, to wash his hands for eating—it is permitted for the sake of cleanliness, but he does not recite the blessing "al netilat yadayim." And similarly, when he goes to the bathroom—he washes his hands and does not recite "Asher Yatzar." And similarly, the morning washing of the hands—he washes and does not recite the blessing. And also the blessing of the Torah he shall not recite, and he shall recite it after the burial. And similarly, they shall not recite blessings nor perform zimmun for him, for they do not join him for a zimmun nor for a minyan of ten. And even if he eats with others—he shall not answer "Amen" after them. And similarly, he shall not study, nor say Tehillim, nor any supplication or request. And also "Kaddish" he shall not say, since he is exempt from all the mitzvot. And there are those who practiced that others say Tehillim, and the onan says "Kaddish." And it appears that it is not correct to do so. And in the Yerushalmi ibid. it is brought that even if he wished to be stringent upon himself—he is not permitted, whether because of the honor of the deceased or whether so that he shall be free to engage in the needs of the deceased.

It appears from the Yerushalmi there that the practical difference between the two reasons is only regarding Shabbat and Yom Tov, when he is unable to bury him today. However, when he is able to bury him—there is no practical difference, and it is forbidden in every case. And so it appears to me from the words of the Tosafot and the Rosh, for they wrote that even if he does not need to involve himself in the needs of the deceased, such as when he has others who are involving themselves in this, nevertheless he is forbidden in all matters. And thus they ruled in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. And even though there are some among the Rishonim who did not understand the Yerushalmi so (see Beit Yosef and Bach), nevertheless we hold so as the halacha (ibid.). And it is necessary to say so, for if not so, when there are many mourners and only one of them involves himself in the needs of the deceased, shall we say that the rest are obligated in mitzvot? Rather, anyone upon whom mourning falls is called one who must involve himself in the needs of the deceased, even though he is not involving himself. And all the more so if the reason is due to the honor of the deceased, and so is the primary halacha (even though there are those who do not hold so).

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch were even more stringent: that even when he is in another city—he is forbidden in all matters. The opinion of our teacher Tam in the Tosafot there is not so, but the Rosh rejected his words. For the incident involving our teacher Tam was thus: his sister died, and he was in another city, and he said that since she has a husband who is obligated in her burial—the aninut is not incumbent upon him. And the Rosh rejected this, for if so, the brothers of the deceased would be exempt when there are children of the deceased upon whom the burial is incumbent, see there. But in my humble opinion, the intention of our teacher Tam is only when this person upon whom it is not incumbent to bury him is in another city, for then even the honor of the deceased is not relevant in this case. But when they are all in the city—the honor and the prohibition fall upon all of them. And our teacher Tam, his intention was the opposite, that for one upon whom it is incumbent to bury him—even when he is in another city, he is forbidden. (See the Bach who also settled the words of our teacher Tam, and wondered at the Rosh. And nevertheless, for the practical law, it appears that we must follow the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. Therefore, one who was informed via telegraph that a relative of his died—shall observe aninut until the time of the burial according to his estimation.)

And on Shabbat and Yom Tov, aninut does not apply to him, since it is not in his power to bury him today. And it is permitted to eat while reclining, and he may eat meat and drink wine. And this is not an obligation, but rather if he wishes—he may eat meat and drink wine, for there is no obligation upon a person to eat meat and drink wine on Shabbat (Shach subsection 7 in the name of the students of Rabbeinu Yonah). And he is obligated to recite a blessing, and to lead the zimun, and to pray. And he is obligated in all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah, except for marital relations, which are forbidden. And he must go to the beit knesset on Shabbat. And even on a weekday there is no prohibition in going, only since it is forbidden for him to pray, what would he do there?

It is simple that on Shabbat and Yom Tov, aninut does not take effect until the evening. However, if one must wait until dark at the techum boundary in order to attend to the needs of the deceased—aninut takes effect upon him, and he is forbidden in all of them from the moment he begins to walk in order to wait until dark at the techum. And so too on the first day of Yom Tov, if he wishes to bury him by means of gentiles—he is forbidden in all of them, since he must think about his burial. And all the more so on the second day of Yom Tov, for he himself may bury him even on the second day of Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah, as I wrote in Orach Chaim siman 526, that all the laws of aninut take effect upon him. (And in the Shach, subsection 9, the version is "of the diaspora," and it is puzzling. And there are also those who distinguish between Yom Tov and a weekday, see Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 16. And it is not clear.)

And know that it is found in the Maharil regarding a deceased person who died on Shemini Atzeret toward evening, that it is permitted for the mourner to recite kiddush on the night of Simchat Torah, because there is no aninut on Yom Tov. Thus far his words. And there is one who explained the reason because they do not bury at night (Taz, subsection 2), but the wording does not imply this. Furthermore: if so, in many places where the government does not allow burial at night – let us also say that there is no aninut at night. And there is one who explained that the Maharil holds that on Yom Tov, even during the day, aninut does not apply, but we do not rule accordingly. And according to this, for us, it is forbidden to recite kiddush (Shach, subsection 9). And this too is difficult, that the Maharil would hold not in accordance with the halacha. But the truth is that the Maharil holds that this matter of the second day of Yom Tov being like a weekday, which the rabbis established regarding a deceased person such that aninut applies to it – this is during the day, but during the preceding night they did not enact it (Magen Avraham, siman 548, subsection 8). And according to this, on every second day of Yom Tov, the law of aninut does not apply on the night of Yom Tov belonging to the second day. And so one should instruct (and this is also the opinion of the Derisha brought by the Shach, see there), unless he wants to bury him at night, for then aninut falls upon him until after the burial.

A shaliach tzibbur whose relative died on Shabbat—he may descend before the ark to fulfill the obligation of the many if there is no one else there. But when there is someone else, or a common person—it is forbidden for him to descend before the ark. For although there is no aninut on Shabbat, nevertheless, in a matter that is not a necessity, it is certain that he should not do so. And he also should not ascend to the Torah. But reading Shnayim Mikra Ve-echad Targum, it appears that it is permitted. And he should study matters that are permitted to a mourner. And a son who is an onen for his father on Shabbat, some say that he should say Kaddish, and only on a weekday is it forbidden because he is forbidden in all mitzvot, but not on Shabbat (Taz siman 376). And some say that as long as he has not been buried—one should not say Kaddish for him (Nekudot HaKesef). But regarding a "near report," and certainly a "distant report"—one should say Kaddish immediately, since it is after the burial. And an onen, even if he has a yahrtzeit—it is forbidden for him to say Kaddish on a weekday until after the burial. But on Shabbat it is permitted (Ba'er Heitev).

And an onen who has a son to circumcise – the burial should take place first. For if not so, how shall he recite the blessing "to bring him in," behold he is forbidden to recite a blessing (the Rema in a responsum)? And some say that certainly milah precedes the deceased, and therefore they should circumcise first, and the sandak shall recite the blessing "to bring him in" (Taz). And one whose relative died and he does not know, and he has not yet prayed, if there is someone else to occupy himself with the burial without him – they should not tell him and he should pray, and afterwards they should tell him. And if there are no other occupiers – they should tell him and he should not pray (Pitchei Teshuvah in the name of the Chamudei Daniel). And there is one who ruled regarding a woman who died on Shabbat, and she has sons and brothers, and the brothers had yahrzeit on Saturday night, that they may pray and say Kaddish, since the burial is incumbent upon the sons (ibid. subsection 9 in the name of the Arba'ah Turei Even). And this ruling is a wonder in my eyes, and it is against the Yerushalmi and the poskim, and one should not rule so. And an onen on the first night of Pesach shall not say the Haggadah, because there is an elongation of words in this, and it is better to hear from another (Maharam Lublin in a responsum). However, in a case where there is no other – he is obligated to say it himself. And so too regarding bedikat chametz when he is an onen – he should command another to search. And an onen during the days of the Sefirah, when if he does not count one time he will not be able to count with a blessing all the days of the Sefirah – he may say the Sefirah without a blessing, and it is like a mere narration of things. And so ruled one of the great ones (Noda BiYehudah siman 27). And there are some of the great ones who ruled that an onen who ate without Birkat HaMazon, if after the burial the food has not yet been digested, he is obligated to bless (Derech Chaim and Chachmat Adam). And so too regarding the blessing "Asher Yatzar." And in my humble opinion it does not appear so, for since at the time of eating and performing his needs he was exempt – the obligation does not take effect upon him further. And it is not only necessary according to the one who holds regarding Havdalah not to perform Havdalah after the burial, but even according to those who hold that one must perform Havdalah as will be explained – this is because the time of its obligation extends until Wednesday, which is not the case with these where the obligation is only at the time of the act. And so it appears to me as the primary law. (And there is clear proof from the Magen Avraham siman 71 subsection 1, see there. And examine closely and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 341:4): One who died in prison, and was not released for burial – aninut does not take effect upon the relatives. And mourning also does not take effect upon them, since they have not despaired of burying him. Thus far his words. And his intention is as it was in ancient times, that the oppressor either requested money to allow him to be buried, or did not allow him to be buried at all. Therefore, if he requests money – it is called not having despaired of burying him, for ultimately they will reach an agreement between them. Therefore, neither aninut nor mourning takes effect. For aninut does not take effect since for the time being it is impossible to bury him, and who knows if they will reach an agreement with him? And mourning does not take effect, for perhaps they will reach an agreement with him, and the mourning will begin after the burial. But when he does not allow him to be buried at all – it is called having despaired of burying him, and mourning takes effect immediately, and aninut is cancelled (so it is implied from Shach subsection 15, and from the Ramban in the book Torat HaAdam). And in our days this law is not applicable at all, for even if one dies in a prison – the government compels his burial, and aninut and mourning take effect as with any person. And if it is because they delay until the third day – nevertheless aninut takes effect, for it is not similar to the imprisonment that was explained, for there they do not know the time of burial at all. But here they know, and they begin to prepare themselves with the needs of burial. Therefore, in places where they compel the delay of the deceased until the third day, nevertheless the aninut takes effect immediately. And so ruled one of the great ones (Noda BiYehudah Tinyana siman 211).

He further wrote: And similarly, if the relatives of the deceased are in prison—the status of aninut does not apply to them. And similarly, one who was killed on the road, or a wild animal dragged him away, or a river swept him away, and they have not despaired of burying him—the relatives are subject to neither the law of aninut nor the law of avelut. And they count for him seven and thirty from the day they despaired of burying him. Thus far his words. And "not despaired" is the term used when they sent to search perhaps they will find him. And when they searched and did not find and despaired of searching—it is termed "despaired." And know that our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 341, 2) that there are those who say that a student for his primary teacher is forbidden to eat meat and wine as long as he is lying before them. Thus far his words. And we have not seen this custom.

They further wrote in section 3 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 341:3): In a place where it is the custom that specific pallbearers are designated to take out the deceased, and after the relatives have occupied themselves with the burial needs they deliver him to them and they bury him—the relatives are permitted meat and wine from the moment they have delivered him to them, even before they have taken him out of the house, for he is no longer incumbent upon them. Thus far his words. And seemingly according to this, in our time, when in every place there are specific pallbearers—the relatives should be permitted meat and wine. Yet in our days we have never heard this. And reason does not dictate such a thing, for if so, all the laws of aninut would be nullified in most places. For the relatives do not attend at all to the shrouds and the burial needs, and for everything there are societies that occupy themselves with this, and the relatives only provide money; if so, they would have no law of aninut at all, and would be obligated in all the mitzvot? This is a wonder. For it has already been explained that aninut applies to all mourners, even those upon whom the burial is not incumbent, as I wrote in section 11. And behold, more than this, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled that even when the mourner is in another city, aninut applies to him, even though he certainly is not occupying himself and cannot occupy himself with the burial needs. (See Shach subsection 13, and it requires further study.)

But in truth, there is another intention in this: for the source of the law is from the Yerushalmi (chapter three of Berachot), and it says there: If he was handed over to the public—he may eat meat and drink wine. If he was handed over to the porters—it is as if he was handed over to the public. Thus far his words. And this is the explanation: for behold, in our Gemara in Moed Katan (Moed Katan 22a) it is stated: Rava said to the people of Mechuza: You who do not follow after the bier, from the time you turn your faces back from the city gate—begin counting the mourning. And Rashi explained that for one who follows after the bier—mourning does not take effect upon him until the sealing of the tomb, when they transport the bier from Babylonia to the Land of Israel for burial. And not all the relatives are able to go up to the Land of Israel, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, it is dealing with a case where they bury the deceased in another city, and nevertheless, the relatives who go there—their aninut continues until after the burial. Only those who remain at home—mourning takes effect upon them immediately when the deceased has exited the city gate and they have returned to their home.

And also the intent of the Yerushalmi is such: when they bury in another city. And this is its explanation: "delivered to the public," meaning that he is not going to the city of his burial, but rather delivered him to the public so that they should lead him there—aninut is cancelled from him. And so too in delivered to the porters. But when the burial is in the city, it is not necessary to state the relatives who go to the cemetery, but even those remaining in their home—the aninut continues until after the burial. And such is the simple custom in all our regions. And a support for this I found in the Hagahot Maimoniyot chapter four of Evel, letter vav (the Rambam, Laws of Evel 4), who brought this Yerushalmi and wrote: We are in doubt if he goes in a ship or in a wagon, if it is similar to delivered to the porters or not? Raviyah. Thus far his words. And even though I did not know the place of the doubt, nevertheless their words appear explicitly that they explained the Yerushalmi regarding another city. And so it appears from the words of the author of the Charedim in his commentary on the Yerushalmi, which he noted on the Shas of Moed Katan, see there. And therefore, even though from the words of the Ramban in the book Torat HaAdam it does not appear so, and so it appears from the Tur later in siman 375 (Tur Yoreh Deah 375) who understood so in the words of the Bahag, that even in this city when he is buried the law is so, but that he did not rule so in halacha (see Beit Yosef there)—nevertheless, it is necessary to say that they also intended this. Rather, they did not feel the need to explain this, unless we say that they hold like the poskim that upon that mourner for whom the burial does not fall, aninut does not take effect upon him (and they are the "there are those who say" that the Rosh brought in the third chapter of Berakhot, see there). But we do not hold so, as has been explained. (And I saw in the Noda BiYehudah Tinyana siman 211, who wrote this from his own reasoning in brief, see there. Only what he wrote that when the relatives go the aninut does not cease, see there—I am wondered. For this is so even when the burial is in another city. And be precise and you will find it easily.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: In a place where they carry the deceased from city to city, if it is a nearby place, it is as if he is placed before him. But if it is a distant place, such as a journey of two days—it is permitted until they arrive at the city of his burial. Thus far his words. And this law is from the students of our teacher Yonah in the third chapter of Berakhot. And in none of the other poskim is this found. And seemingly it is not understood at all, for since the preparation for burial constitutes aninut, and behold this too is preparation, for what difference does it make to me if he prepares the needs of the deceased or if he transports him to bury him, is he not engaged in his burial? And it appears to me that the reason is that since from the Torah regarding consecrated items there is no aninut except on the day of death, as is explained in Zevachim there, if so, it is not according to the law to institute aninut for more than one day. Nevertheless, if the burial is in his own place, he must necessarily be an onen even for several days until the burial, for there is no basis upon which to divide. But when he transports him to another city— one day is sufficient for him. And therefore he was precise to say "a journey of two days," meaning: more than one day.

One whose relative died on Shabbat—he shall not pray on Saturday night, nor shall he recite havdalah, and he may eat without havdalah. Also in the morning he shall not pray and shall not recite blessings until after the burial. After the burial, he may recite the entire order of blessings, and likewise he may pray Shacharit if the time for prayer has not yet passed. He may recite Shema even if its time has passed, and he is like one who reads from the Torah. However, he shall not recite the blessings of "Yotzer Or" and "Ahavah Rabbah" if the time has passed; he should only recite Shema and pray the Shemoneh Esrei without tefillin, for a mourner on the first day is forbidden from donning tefillin, as I wrote in siman 388. But he shall not pray Maariv of Saturday night, for its time has already passed. Likewise, if the time for the Shacharit prayer has passed—he shall not pray. This is not similar to one who forgot and did not pray Arvit, who prays Shacharit twice as I wrote in Orach Chaim siman 108, and so it is with all prayers. For there he was obligated to pray, only that he forgot or was under duress in the matter, where the duress does not exempt him by law, such as one occupied with public needs or a passing mitzvah, rather it is a voluntary duress. But here he was exempt by law, and the concept of making up the prayer is not applicable. (And the same law applies when there was a duress of a mitzvah—he is also exempt, in accordance with the opinion of the Derishah brought by the Taz, subsection 5. And the difficulty raised by the Taz is not a difficulty at all, as he wrote in the Nekudot HaKesef, see there.) Regarding one who died at night, where the obligation of the Arvit prayer had already fallen upon him but he had not yet prayed, some say that he must make it up the next day after the burial (as the Dagul Mervavah wrote and in the Pitchei Teshuvah, subsection 18). And some disagree. And so it appears to my humble opinion, that we follow the end of the time.

And if he is obligated to perform havdalah during the day or after the burial, there is a dispute of the great authorities regarding this, and the Rosh brought them there. For the Ri, of blessed memory, did not perform havdalah the next day, on the grounds that since at the time of the obligation of havdalah he was exempt—consequently he is exempt even after this. But his teacher, the Maharam of Rothenburg, of blessed memory, ruled that he is obligated to perform havdalah, because the obligation of havdalah extends until the third day, as is explained in "Arvei Pesachim." Only that he should not recite the blessing over the spices or over the fire, for with these the time has passed. And the Rosh, of blessed memory, decided like the Ri, see there. The Tur ruled likewise. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in the Shulchan Aruch section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 341:2) ruled like the Maharam, that he is obligated to perform havdalah. And it seems to me that their dispute depends on this: whether the primary obligation of havdalah is only on Motzaei Shabbat, and until the third day is only a makeup, or whether the primary obligation is until the third day, see there. And that which they said in the Gemara: One who did not perform havdalah on Motzaei Shabbat continues to perform havdalah etc.—it is not because of a makeup, but rather from the primary obligation it is so. And such is the dispute regarding Tisha B'Av that falls on Sunday in Orach Chaim siman 556. And the opinion of the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot is like the Maharam, see there in the Tur. (And one who examines the Ran in "Arvei Pesachim" there will see that the opinion of the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot is that havdalah is not because of a makeup, see there. And it seems to me there is a proof for this from Pesachim 105, for it compares kiddush to havdalah in this, that one who did not recite kiddush—recites kiddush the entire day, see there. And regarding kiddush certainly a makeup is not applicable, for the entire day of Shabbat is in its sanctity. And here too regarding havdalah, for he learns kiddush from havdalah. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 341:5): As long as the deceased has not been buried – one does not remove shoes or sandals, and is not obligated in wrapping the head or overturning the bed. But it is forbidden to sit or sleep on a bed, even if it is overturned. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote concerning this, and this is his wording: And all the more so that he is forbidden in tashmish hamitah. And some say that he is forbidden in washing and anointing, and joy and greeting, and haircutting and labor. But he is permitted to go out from the entrance of his house. Thus far his words. And their words require clarification.

And it seems to me that behold, there is a dispute between the Rishonim whether things forbidden during mourning are also forbidden during aninut or not. This is the wording of the Tur: The Rambam wrote that as long as the deceased has not been buried – he is not forbidden in all the things that a mourner is forbidden in. And so wrote the Ritz Gi'at, that he is not forbidden between death and burial in laundering, and in haircutting, and in washing, and in tashmish hamitah, and in the rest of the decrees of the seven days. And the Ramban wrote: It was an error that they permitted tashmish hamitah, for everyone agrees that on a weekday he is forbidden in it. (For he interprets what is written in the Gemara regarding Shabbat, "tashmish hamitah is between them" – this is for a prohibition. But the Rambam and the Ritz Gi'at interpret it regarding permission, and it is not an error.) And so some laws of mourning are practiced by him, such as washing and anointing (and it must be said that he holds that from David there is no proof, as he was a king), a fortiori from eating meat and drinking wine. (And they would hold that this is for the reason of giving heart to the needs of the burial.) And it is unnecessary to mention rejoicing and haircutting etc. and they already said (in Semachot chapter eleven) that it is forbidden to sit even on a turned-over bed, but rather on the ground (and the Rambam indeed did not bring this). And they only said that he does not remove shoe and sandal etc., because he is preoccupied with the affairs of the deceased etc., and if you are stringent upon him – the affairs of the deceased will be neglected thereby etc. And so wrote our teacher Peretz, that he is forbidden in everything practiced in mourning, except for wearing the sandal. And from the words of the author of the Tosafot it appears that he is only forbidden in meat and wine and in tashmish hamitah. But in all other laws of mourning – he is permitted. Thus far his words.

It is found according to this that the Rambam, and the Ritz Gi'at, and the Tosafot hold that all the laws of avelut do not apply to an onen, and only regarding tashmish hamitah do the Tosafot disagree. However, the Ramban and our teacher Peretz hold that all the laws of avelut apply to him except for what is necessary, so as not to forbid matters that cause a delay for the needs of the deceased, such as wearing leather shoes and walking in the street and the like. And according to this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, rules like the Rambam and his faction, and our teacher, the Rema, comes to add that even according to this view, he is forbidden in tashmish hamitah like the opinion of the Tosafot. And some say that he is forbidden in washing, etc., meaning: like the opinion of the Ramban and the Ri"f, but they were brief in this. (And the one who cited in the Rema confused the matters, see there. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.) And they wrote further that one who guards the deceased, even if it is not his own deceased relative—is exempt from Keriat Shema, and from all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah. If there were two—this one guards and this one recites. Thus far his words, and it is simple. (See Pitchei Teshuva subsection 23 in the name of the Chatam Sofer that the Beit Yosef also holds like the Rema. And in my humble opinion it is clear that it is not so, and only regarding the matter of sitting on a turned-over bed did he rule stringently because this is found in Semachot, as I have written. And know that immediately when they begin to throw earth upon the deceased in the grave, the mourners may go and pray if they have not prayed. And it is simple.)