Siman 342

We learn at the beginning of Ketubot (Ketubot 3b): It was taught in a Baraita: If one's bread was baked, his meat slaughtered, and his wine mixed, and the father of the groom died (who is the one laboring for the needs of the meal) or the mother of the bride (who prepares the ornaments for the bride) – they bring the deceased into a room, and the groom and the bride into the chuppah. He performs the initial intercourse of the mitzvah and separates (and they bury the deceased immediately). He observes the seven days of feasting (as it is a festival for them, and mourning does not come and take effect), and afterward he observes the seven days of mourning. And all those days (of the feasting and of the mourning) he sleeps among the men, and she sleeps among the women (for even during all the days of feasting, matters of privacy are practiced).

And even though an onan is forbidden from tashmish hamitah according to most poskim, as I wrote at the end of siman 341, yet regarding aninut they were lenient and treated him as one who has despaired of burying him, so that he may be permitted in meat, wine, and tashmish hamitah (Ritva). And even though according to the Geonim the day of death and burial is from the Torah as I wrote there, and how can the seven days of mishteh which are rabbinic push aside mourning from the Torah? However, the first day of a chatan is like from the Torah, as it is written: "On the day of his wedding and on the day of his heart's gladness" (the Rosh in the name of the Ramah). Furthermore: a beit din stipulates to uproot a Torah commandment through "sit and do not act," and on the other days as well as on the first day after the act of cohabitation it is through "sit and do not act" (Ran ibid.). And the cohabitation was before the burial. And some say that in truth he cohabits at night, and they bury him the next day, and the aninut of the night is rabbinic. (Rashba and Ra'ah. And afterwards they wrote like the previous excuse, see there.)

Some say that only intercourse and yichud are forbidden during these days, but other forms of closeness are permitted. And so too the pouring of the cup, the arranging of the bed, and the washing of his face, hands, and feet (Tur in the name of the Ra'avad). And some say that these are certainly forbidden, for the reason that this mourning is light to him compared to a niddah, as it is stated in the Gemara there, and we fear lest he come to a habitual matter (Shach subsection 5 in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham and the Maharsha there). And even though it would seem that for us, who according to the law of niddah must separate after the initial intercourse, as I wrote in siman 193, and if so it is not similar to the time of the Talmud when the prohibition was only because of mourning and required distancing, but now it should be permitted regarding yichud and the pouring of the cup, etc., like other women who are niddot—nevertheless, in this we are not to be lenient regarding what was forbidden in the Gemara (Taz subsection 3). However, in any event, hugging and kissing are now forbidden by the law of niddah.

And regarding that which they said, "he sleeps among the men and she sleeps among the women," the Ra'avad wrote that this is specifically so. That is to say, they require two safeguards: he among the men and she among the women. For since his inclination overpowers him, and it is a time of joy for him—we fear a mishap. And all of this is at night. But during the day they do not require a safeguard at all, for she is like all other women and it is permitted to be in yichud with her. And the opinion of the Rosh is the opposite: that yichud is forbidden to them even during the day, and two safeguards are not required even at night. And the Gemara's intention is that either he sleeps etc. or she sleeps among the women. Our teacher, the Rema, brought both opinions, and wrote that the custom is to take a small boy to be with the chatan and a small girl to be with the kallah, and they do not enter into yichud during the day without a small boy or a small girl. Thus far his words. And it is necessary that they be children who understand the nature of intercourse but do not submit themselves to intercourse, for if not so, this is not a safeguard, as is understood. And I wonder: regarding a matter that is not common, how does "custom" apply? And it seems to me that it is a stylistic carryover, for above in siman 192 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 192) he deals with one who has not yet cohabited, see there, and there the language of "custom" is applicable. Therefore, he wrote this language here as well (and this is the intention of the Shach in subsection 8, see there).

Regarding the matter of the thirty days – he only counts from the days of mourning that follow the days of feasting, but the days of feasting do not count toward it. And even though a festival counts toward the count of thirty – this is because even on a festival he practiced the prohibitions that are forbidden throughout the thirty days, such as pressing and haircutting. But here, he is permitted pressing and haircutting. And there is one who wishes to forbid it, but it is not the primary view, for a groom must of necessity press his garments, as in the matter of "your eyes shall behold the king in his beauty," for a groom is compared etc. (see Shach subsection 10 and subsection 11). And there is a question regarding this: Behold, in the case of one whose deceased relative died an hour before the festival – the festival cancels the decree of seven for him? And since the relative died before the wedding canopy, and we permitted him the wedding canopy and the seven days of feasting which are similar to a festival, why should the decree of seven not be cancelled for him entirely? And the answer is that it is not similar, for there he practiced mourning for one hour before the festival. But here, the deceased has not yet been buried, and mourning has not yet taken effect upon him. And it is like one whose relative died during the festival, where the mourning is not cancelled.

All this that they permitted is specifically in the case of the death of the father of the groom or the mother of the bride, for there is no one who will exert themselves on their behalf. And also in a manner where they would suffer a loss regarding what they prepared for the wedding, such as if it is not common to find someone to sell to without a loss. But when there is no loss, such as if it is common to sell what they prepared in this place and without a loss, or even if they have a loss but the mother of the groom died or the father of the bride died or one of their other relatives, and the father of the groom and the mother of the bride are living such that they have someone who will exert themselves on their behalf for another time – they did not permit postponing the mourning. Rather, they bury the deceased immediately, and observe the seven days of mourning, and afterward they bring the groom and the bride to the chuppah immediately, and observe the seven days of feasting. And even though for other mourners they did not permit marrying within thirty days, in this case they permitted it because they had already prepared themselves. And there is a doubt in the case of the death of one of their relatives, but the father of the groom or the mother of the bride are not living, whether they permitted this because there is no one who will prepare on their behalf, or perhaps just as the preparation was now done by others, so too it will be for another time, and they did not permit this. And it appears that this is the primary view, that they did not permit in such a case.

If a relative died for him during the seven days of feasting, the Rambam wrote in chapter eleven, law 7: that he completes the seven days of feasting first, and afterwards counts the seven days of mourning, see there. And he counts the thirty days from the days of mourning, and the days of feasting do not count toward them for the reason explained in section 5. And if the death occurred after the chuppah but before the first intercourse—some permit him to have intercourse before the burial, and some forbid (Taz, subsection 1). And such is the primary ruling, for they only permitted it because of the loss, which applies before the chuppah. And consequently, he performs the first intercourse, but for the sake of intercourse alone they did not permit it. And the practice is to observe the seven days of feasting, and afterwards the seven days of mourning, and afterwards he has intercourse. And there is one who says that they begin the mourning immediately. (Ibid. And it is not so, as is clear from the Rambam. And the Dagul Mervavah already wondered at this.)

Some say that if mourning occurred after they covered the head of the bride, they also bring them into the chuppah for the reason that it is as if the mourning began within the seven days of feasting (Derishah). And some disagree with this (Taz). However, the great authorities wrote that nowadays even if the father of the groom or the mother of the bride died – we do not follow the law of the Gemara. Rather, they bury the deceased and observe mourning, and afterward they perform the chuppah and the seven days of feasting, because we see that nowadays all the relatives toil in the preparation of the chuppah and the meals, and it is like the time of the Gemara when one of the other relatives died (Nekudot HaKesef). And so the world has practiced (Chatam Sofer). And there was an incident with one who was ill, and he commanded to perform the marriage for his daughter and they did so. And after the consummation he died, and they ruled that the bride should not follow after the bier. And even though on a festival the relatives also follow after the bier, nevertheless the bride, for whom the custom is that she does not leave her house until Shabbat – she shall not leave her house (Pitchei Teshuvah in the name of Shevut Yaakov part two, subsection 2). And behold, in our times it is known that the bride goes immediately to the street; if so, it follows that she must go out after the bier, in a place where they practiced that women go out for the funeral procession.

That which has been explained, that after the days of the feast they shall practice mourning if a festival occurs, some say that the decree of seven is canceled, according to the law of a festival which cancels the seven. And there is one who says that since the mourning has not yet taken effect upon him – the festival does not cancel (the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger). And the law is the same in all these matters, whether for a widower who married a widow, or for a young man who married a virgin (ibid.).