Siman 378

An mourner is forbidden to eat the first meal of his own, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Ezekiel: "And the bread of men you shall not eat" (Moed Katan 27b). And the reason for the matter has not been clarified for us. And specifically regarding the first meal, but regarding the second, it is permitted even on that same day. And even though the opinion of the Tosafot there is that the entire day it is forbidden to eat of his own, and such is the opinion of the Rokeach, nevertheless, the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch is that it is only the first meal. And that which they said in the Gemara "the first day" – the intention is regarding the first meal. And so it shall be interpreted in the words of the Rambam in the fifth chapter (Rambam, Laws of Mourning 5) who wrote according to the wording of the Gemara, and such is the custom. (And similar to this is found in Pesachim 36a: On the first day do not knead for me with honey. And the intention is regarding the first night, see there.)

And it is simple that if the neighbors did not bring to him, or if he is an individual in this place, that he eats from his own. For it is not a reasonable thought that he should not eat because of this. Therefore, it is a mitzvah upon the neighbors to bring him the seudat havra'ah. And in the Yerushalmi they said: A curse shall come upon his neighbors who necessitated him to eat from his own and to do work (Beit Yosef). And it appears that the primary thing is the bread, according to the language of the verse. And so is the language of the Gemara there: It is forbidden to eat his own bread, see there. But cooked foods he may eat from his own. And so is the custom, that they bring to the mourner bread and eggs alone. And they said in the Gemara there that one may feed the other during his days of mourning, and he will also return to feed the first during his days of mourning, provided that they do not make this condition explicitly. And this is when both are mourners, they shall not say to one another: "I will feed you and you will feed me," for if so, they are obligated by power of the condition and it is like eating from his own. But in an unspecified manner, this is not like the payment of a debt, but rather a mere gift, and it is permitted.

When a woman is a mourner – men are not to provide her with the seudat havra'ah, due to the concern of habitual sin. However, women shall bring her the seudat havra'ah. And the woman who brings it, it seems to me that she does not need to ask her husband, and even without his knowledge she is able to bring it. This is not like a major matter that requires the husband's knowledge, but rather like a minor matter that is permitted to be received from women without the husband's knowledge, as I have written in Aruch HaShulchan Choshen Mishpat siman 358 and above in siman 248. However, if the husband protests against her – she is forbidden to bring it. Furthermore, it seems to me that when the man and the woman are both mourners – men may bring for both of them. For the primary focus is the master of the house, and automatically she also eats. And the woman, even when she is a mourner alone – she may not eat from her husband's property for the first meal, for since he is obligated in her sustenance – it is as if she is eating from her own. And so too, one who has a teacher, or a scribe, or a hired worker who eats with the master of the house as his wage, and a mourning occurred to him – he shall not eat from the master of the house's property for the first meal for the reason that has been explained. And so too, one who obligated himself to provide sustenance for his son and daughter-in-law, or for his daughter and son-in-law, and a mourning occurred to them – they shall not eat from his for this reason. But one who sustains his son and daughter without a condition, or who sustains an orphan or another poor person for the sake of a mitzvah, and a mourning occurred to them – they may eat the first meal from the master of the house's property, for since they eat without an obligation – it is considered as if they are eating from the property of others.

If the mourner desired not to eat at all until the night or until tomorrow – he is permitted to eat of his own at night, and he has the authority to do so. For behold, it is found in the Yerushalmi that they were accustomed to fast on the day of the death of sages, and presumably his relatives also fasted and were not concerned with the seudat havra'ah. And so ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 3 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 378, 3). However, the Or Zarua ruled that they should not allow the mourner to fast unless it is a public fast. But during the days of the Ten Days of Repentance, even if it was his way to fast – he should not fast then, for it is a mitzvah to eat the seudat havra'ah, see there.

The seudat havra'ah is only on this day until the night when he is buried during the day. However, at night he may eat of his own. If he was buried at night – it is forbidden to eat of his own during the night. And if he did not eat at all during the night – they provide him the havra'ah the next day, for the day follows the night, and the night does not follow the day. Therefore, when he is buried during the day – it is permitted to eat of his own at night, and he does not require havra'ah. And regarding one who was buried on Erev Shabbat close to darkness, there is one who says that they provide him the havra'ah. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 5 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 378:5) that since it is not an obligation – they should not provide him the havra'ah out of respect for Shabbat. And so we practice. Thus far his words. It is implied from his wording that according to those who hold it is an obligation, he should eat then. And it requires further study if this overrides the respect for Shabbat.

One does not provide the seudat havra'ah for a deceased minor unless he died on the thirty-first day from his birth, or it is established that his months of gestation were complete. And it is simple that if a relative died during his days of mourning, they are obligated to provide him the seudat havra'ah for the second deceased as well, even though he is sitting in mourning and has already eaten the seudat havra'ah for the first deceased.

One may sprinkle and sweep in the house of the mourner, and one may wash bowls, cups, flasks, and jugs. However, one does not bring there either spices or incense, but one may bring them to the house where the deceased is located, and one does not recite a blessing over them. So it is in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 7 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 378:7). And the reason is simple: since in the house where the deceased is located the spices were only brought to remove the odor, therefore one does not recite a blessing over them. And the reason one does not bring this to the house of the mourner: because we are not to delight him with excessive pleasures (Nimukei Yosef). And according to this, that which they said in the Gemara (Moed Katan 27a) that the house of the mourner is distinct from the house of the comforters, they would explain "house of the mourner" as being when the deceased is there. But there are those among the early authorities who explained that the "house of the mourner" is the place where the mourner sits alone, and there one does not bring for the reason that has been explained, but to the house of the comforters one may bring. (Ibid. And it requires further study as to why one does not recite a blessing? And one must say that their intention is not to smell, and they bring them for honor alone. And see Beit Yosef and Chiddushei Hagahot. And I am surprised that they omitted the Mishnah there, that one does not carry to the house of the mourner on a tray, nor in a bowl, nor in a basket, but rather in wicker baskets. And it requires further study. And the Rambam brought this in chapter thirteen (Rambam Hilkhot Avel 13). And the reason: in order not to shame one who does not have.)

One does not state a legal tradition or homiletic teaching in the house of a mourner, but rather they sit and remain silent. So it is in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 7 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 378:7), and so it is in the Gemara (Moed Katan 23a). And it is stated there: They said about Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel that he would state a legal tradition and homiletic teaching in the house of a mourner, see there. And they ruled according to the first Tanna. And "legal tradition" refers to a discussion of any matter that is not related to mourning – one should not study it in the house of a mourner. And according to this, one must wonder at our custom, as many study Mishnayot in the house of a mourner. And also the men of the Shas society study Gemara when the deceased was from the society. And besides this, there is no reason why others should not study in the house of a mourner, and on the contrary, they consider this a merit for his soul.

In my humble opinion, it appears clearly from Semachot at the end of the tenth chapter that this refers to a sage who died, whose beit midrash is nullified. For thus it is stated there: A sage who died etc., an av beit din who died etc., and a nasi who died etc. – one does not say halacha or aggada in the beit midrash of a mourner. If one needs to ask – they begin with the laws of mourners, and diverge to other matters, and return and conclude with the laws of mourners. Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel says: One says aggada in the beit midrash of a mourner. Thus far his words. Behold, it is clear that we are dealing with the beit midrash of the mourner, and that is where they ask questions. And with this it works out well so that they do not divert their attention from the mourning, for all are obligated in his honor. (And the Nimukei Yosef also wrote this reason, and concludes: But if a practical case comes before them – they rule upon it. Thus far his words. And so it is explained from the Rif, who wrote this regarding a sage who died, see there. And the Beit Yosef in siman 344, which deals with these laws, brought from the Ramban who wrote: It was taught: One does not say a legal tradition etc. – he is speaking of Shabbat; even though there is no mourning on Shabbat, they do not engage there in Torah etc. but if a practical case comes before them – they rule etc. And in Evel Rabbati it was taught etc., the beit midrash of a mourner refers to the batei midrashot that are nullified on account of mourning. And it refers to the first clause, which taught regarding a sage: and an av beit din and a nasi etc. Thus far his words. And this is exactly like our words. But regarding ordinary mourners – others may study. And I am very much astonished at the Shulchan Aruch and the later authorities who left their words unspecified. But for the law, it appears clear to me as I have written. And so one should say regarding the words of the Rambam in chapter thirteen. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

Once the deceased has been buried, the mourners are permitted to eat meat and drink a little wine during the meal, in order to digest the food in their intestines, but not to become intoxicated. In the time of the Gemara, they would serve ten cups in the house of the mourner (Ketubot 8a): three before the meal, three during the meal, and four after the meal. They added to them another four, etc., and they began to become intoxicated—they returned the matter to its original state. Rashi explained: to ten cups, and so it is explained from the Rambam there. However, the Ramban explained "to its original state": that they should not drink except during the meal. And such is the custom of the world (Tur), for there is no obligation in this at all. And to minimize wine is preferable.

And in a place where they are accustomed to provide the seudat havra'ah with meat and wine and various delicacies—they may do so. But first, they provide the seudat havra'ah with eggs or a dish of lentils, as this is a remembrance of mourning, and afterwards they provide the seudat havra'ah with whatever items they desire. And many people should not eat with the mourner in a manner where they would divide into two places, as it appears like a social feast. Only the members of his family eat with him (Tur).

One who has a deceased relative die on Yom Tov or on Chol HaMoed – the seudat havra'ah is canceled for him. And even though our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 11 wrote: In a case where one must count seven days after the festival, and likewise if he heard news of the death on Shabbat – one must provide him the first havra'ah of the days of mourning. Thus far his words. However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And there are those who say that since the first day was deferred – one does not provide him havra'ah. And such is the custom. And even in a case where it counts toward the tally of seven, such as on the second Yom Tov of the diaspora. Thus far his words. And all the more so that one does not provide havra'ah for distant news. But for near news – one provides havra'ah, even though the deceased died in another place. (And see Shach, subsection 11. And it is not difficult at all, for in truth in the Shulchan Aruch they omitted this, see there. And examine closely and you will find it easy.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 13 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 378:13): The greatest among the comforters breaks the bread, and on Shabbat he breaks it in his usual manner. Thus far his words. And this is its explanation: That on a weekday, the greatest of the comforters breaks the bread, but not the mourner. But on Shabbat, the mourner himself breaks the bread. And this is from the Yerushalmi, the third chapter of Berakhot. And it concludes, as it is written: "The blessing of Hashem, it makes rich" – this is Shabbat, "and He adds no sorrow with it," see there. And in Orach Chaim siman 167 it is explained that one does not give the "Hamotzi" bread into the hand of the eater, but rather places it on the table and he takes it. And only to a mourner do they give it into the hand, as it is written: "Zion spread out her hands." And on Shabbat, he shall not give it even to a mourner into his hand, see there.