Siman 380

These are the matters which are forbidden to a mourner: work, washing and anointing, wearing sandals, and marital relations. And it is forbidden to read from the Torah, and it is forbidden regarding the greeting of peace, and it is forbidden regarding the laundering of garments. And he is obligated in the muffling of the head. And in the overturning of the bed all seven days. And it is forbidden to don tefillin on the first day. And it is forbidden regarding pressing and haircutting, and it is forbidden regarding joy. And it is forbidden to mend the tear all thirty days, as I have written in siman 340. And all matters of mourning—one practices both by day and by night.

And all these matters were supported by verses (Moed Katan 15b): Melacha, as it is written: "And I will turn your festivals into mourning" – just as a festival is forbidden for melacha, so too is a mourner. And washing, and anointing, and laundering, as it is written: "And Joab sent to Tekoa... and said to her: I pray thee, feign thyself to be a mourner, and put on mourning apparel, and anoint not thyself with oil" – and washing is like anointing, and laundering is included in this. And the wearing of a sandal, from that which the Merciful One said to Ezekiel: "And put thy shoes upon thy feet" – it follows that for others it is forbidden. For one cannot say that the same applies to others as will be explained regarding Torah, for if so, why did He need to say this, as presumably Ezekiel did not walk barefoot? Rather, it is certainly as I have written. And marital relations, as it is written: "And David comforted Bath-sheba his wife, and went in unto her" – it follows that initially it was forbidden. And it is forbidden to read in the Torah and in the greeting of peace, from that which the Merciful One said to Ezekiel: "Sigh in silence." And it is forbidden in tefillin on the first day, from that which the Merciful One said to Ezekiel: "Bind thy headtire upon thee" – it follows that for everyone else it is forbidden. And the wrapping of the head which one is obligated in, from that which the Merciful One said to Ezekiel: "And cover not thy upper lip" – it follows that everyone else is obligated. And the obligation of overturning the bed, which is that it is forbidden to sit upon the bed, as it is said: "And the king arose... and lay on the ground." And the prohibition of joy is simple. And each and every law will be explained in its place. And in this siman, the law of melacha will be explained.

And I have a question regarding this: Since all of them are derived from the verses in Yechezkel, why regarding all matters is the prohibition for all seven days, yet regarding tefillin only one day for the reason that the essence of bitterness is one day? As it is written: "And the end thereof as a bitter day," and tefillin are called "glory," and since he is bitter of soul his horn is defiled in the dust, and this is not glory (Tosafot Moed Katan 21a, s.v. mishlishi). Nevertheless, in the end, they were all learned from one verse, and if so, let us say that all of them are only for one day? And it must be said that according to the method of the poskim that mourning on the first day is from the Torah, it works out well, for certainly the entire verse refers to the first day, and the remaining days are from the rabbis who prohibited them. And regarding tefillin, they did not want to prohibit and nullify him from a mitzvah. And that which they prohibited regarding Torah study is because he can study permitted matters. And according to the poskim who hold that the essence of mourning is entirely from the rabbis—the verse is a mere asmachta, as is understood, and it is the rabbis who decreed on all matters, except for tefillin for the reason we stated. Furthermore: in all of them there is pleasure, and therefore they prohibited all seven days. And Torah study contains joy, as it is written: "The precepts of Hashem are upright, rejoicing the heart"—they prohibited all seven days. But tefillin contain neither pleasure nor joy, and therefore they did not prohibit all seven days. (See Rashi ibid. s.v. ve'asur likrot. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

The primary mourning is seven days. Nevertheless, there are matters that the sages prohibited for the entire thirty days, as the Rambam wrote at the beginning of the sixth chapter (Rambam, Laws of Mourning 6). This is his wording: It is a rabbinic decree that the mourner should observe some mourning for the entire thirty days. And from where did they find support for thirty days? As it is said: "And she shall weep for her father and her mother a month of days" – implying that the mourner suffers for the entire thirty days. Thus far his words. And regarding haircutting, they derived it from "do not let the hair of your heads grow long," and it is derived through the common term "long hair" from a nazir. And he wrote further: These are the things that are prohibited to a mourner for the entire thirty days: he is prohibited from haircutting, from laundering, from marriage, from the joy of a social gathering, and from going on business from province to province – in total five things. Thus far his words. And each one will be explained in its place. And it seems to me that they did not prohibit all things, because it is difficult for a person to withstand them. And among us, by way of custom, they also prohibited bathing in hot water for the entire thirty days, and it will be explained in siman 381. (The Knesset HaGedolah wrote that if one wishes to observe other prohibitions for the entire thirty days, he is like one who adds; see there. And I am uncertain about this, for if so, how did they practice adding to the prohibition of bathing? Delve into it and you will find it easy.)

Melacha, how so? All the first three days he is forbidden from melacha, even a poor person who is supported by tzedakah. For three days are for weeping, and if he performs melacha – he will divert his mind from the weeping (Beit Yosef in the name of the Riq). And furthermore: for it is found in the Yerushalmi that all three days the soul hovers over the body (ibid.). And from three days onwards, if he is a poor person, even if he can be supported by tzedakah, nevertheless since he is poor and has nothing that he and the members of his household may eat – he performs his melacha in private inside his house. And a woman spins with a spindle inside her house (Moed Katan 21b). That is to say: for a woman they only permitted melacha that is private and temporary, like spinning with a spindle. And if with this she is not sufficient – she may perform her permanent melacha inside her house (Tur). But the sages said: May a curse come upon his neighbors who necessitated him to do so. However, if he does not want to receive, and wants more to earn – there is no transgression upon the neighbors (it appears to me).

And there are those who wish to say that after three days, even one who is not poor may perform labor within his house (Tosafot ibid. in the name of our teacher, Shmuel, and Hagahot Maimoniyot in the name of our teacher, Shemaya). However, most of our teachers disagree regarding this, for it is explicitly taught in Semachot (beginning of the fifth chapter): But all seven days—it is forbidden to perform labor, he and his sons and his daughters, and his male slaves and his female slaves, and his livestock, etc., and others are forbidden to perform for him except in a case of davar ha'aved, as is explained there and in the second chapter of Moed Katan. Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that a master of a craft who maintains workers and pays them—they may perform his labor in his house even from the first day, for you have no greater davar ha'aved than this, as he pays them from his pocket for every day, or provides them sustenance from his pocket. And this is a total loss. And it is not similar to male and female slaves, whom he does not pay from his pocket, and what they eat they earn even without labor. Therefore, the workers may perform even if he is wealthy. And so it appears proper to instruct, and see what I wrote in section 22.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 380:4): Even a matter of financial loss is forbidden for the mourner to perform, whether by himself or by his male and female slaves, or his sons and daughters whose handiwork belongs to him. Thus far his words. However, if their handiwork belongs to themselves, even if they are minors—they are permitted to perform it so that they may profit for themselves. And all the more so regarding those laborers who work for craftsmen, who do not hire themselves out for a set time regardless of whether they work or not, but rather take such-and-such for each piece of work, and if they do more they will profit more, for they are permitted to work even though the employer will profit through this. And even though he has no out-of-pocket loss if they do not work, nevertheless, since their intent is for their own profit—it is permitted (so it appears in my humble opinion).

He further wrote: It is forbidden to perform his work through others, even through a kutei, unless it is a davar ha'avud. For a davar ha'avud is permitted to be performed through others; even something forbidden on the moed due to exertion is permitted for a mourner, and even if it is the work of a craftsman. Thus far his words. For specifically on Chol HaMoed did they forbid matters of exertion because of the honor of the festival, but a mourner who performs through others, why do we care about the exertion of others (Tur)? Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that some say if he cannot perform through others, and it is a davar ha'avud—it is permitted for the mourner to perform it himself, and after the first three days one should be lenient, and even within the three days when it is a substantial loss. Thus far his words. And even if it is a matter involving exertion and the work of a craftsman, provided that he performs it in private (Shach, subsection 6). For indeed, it is explicitly explained in the Shas as a great principle that any davar ha'avud is permitted for a mourner, as will be explained regarding merchandise. However, regarding labor they forbade it by himself because he can perform it through others. If so, it follows that when it is not possible through others—it is permitted by himself. And exertion is of no consequence regarding a mourner, and likewise the work of a craftsman, and it is not similar to Chol HaMoed as I have written.

It appears to me that a poor person who has nothing to eat, if he is alone in a manner that it is impossible for him to be supported by tzedakah, or even when he is in a city and it is impossible for tzedakah or for his neighbors to support him, such as in our times when due to our many sins poverty has increased—he may perform melakhah even on the first day and by himself, even professional work, provided it is in private. And this is a fortiori from the matter of a financial loss which our teacher, the Rema, permitted as I have written. If so, when he has nothing to eat—all the more so it is permitted for him to work since it is impossible otherwise: shall he and the members of his household perish from hunger, Heaven forbid? And it is simple.

The law of writing for a mourner: our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 380:2) that just as it is permitted to write on Chol HaMoed – so too it is permitted to write during the days of his mourning, but not otherwise. Thus far his words, and it has been explained in Orach Chaim siman 545. And it appears to me that he does not entirely equate it to Chol HaMoed, as there are several matters where it is impossible to compare them. For there it was explained to be lenient regarding our script which is not a professional craft, and regarding a mourner it has already been explained that there is no distinction between a professional craft and that which is not a professional craft. And also there it was explained that some are lenient regarding a letter of greeting, and regarding a mourner it is obvious that greetings are forbidden. Rather, the intention of our teacher, the Rema, is regarding the essence of the matter: that just as it was explained there that one whose livelihood is from writing, such as one who writes a Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot, is forbidden to write on Chol HaMoed, and if he has nothing to eat it is permitted, see there – so too for a (scribe) who is a mourner (it is so), and likewise regarding a matter of loss. But certainly there are details that are not equal. And to write letters of greeting is certainly forbidden for a mourner, and to write an account is certainly permitted, as it is like a matter of loss lest he forget. And also on Chol HaMoed it is explained there that it is permitted to write his accounts and calculate his expenditures for this reason, see there. And other writings that are not a necessity – it is certainly forbidden during the days of his mourning just as on Chol HaMoed.

Just as he is forbidden from performing labor, so too he is forbidden from engaging in commerce, or from going from city to city for commerce. Regarding merchandise that he possesses, if he will not suffer a loss by not selling it now – it is forbidden to sell them. But when he will suffer a loss – it is permitted. This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 6 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 380:6): His merchandise in a matter of loss, where if he does not sell he will lose from the principal – it may be sold through others. But if he will not lose from the principal, but rather that if he sells it now he will profit more than if he sells it later – it is forbidden. Nevertheless, if caravans or ships arrived, or if they seek to depart, and they sell cheaply or buy dearly – it is permitted to sell and buy through others, even if not for his own needs but to engage in commerce to earn a profit. Thus far his words. And this wording is also in the Tur, and in the Tosafot of Moed Katan (Moed Katan 10b, s.v. u-vidvar), see there. And it is not precise that they opened with a loss from the principal, and concluded that now he will profit more than when he sells it later, which implies that even later he will profit, only now he will profit more. And the wording of the Rosh there (siman 23) is more precise, see there. Also the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch regarding Chol HaMoed in Orach Chaim siman 539 (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 539) did not write according to their wording here, see there. And it appears in my humble opinion that there are two types of merchandise: for a person whose fixed livelihood is not from this merchandise, but rather it happened upon him and he bought it and needs to sell it – for him it was not permitted except when he will lose from the principal. But one whose livelihood is from this – even the necessary profit is like the principal, for it is his sustenance. And in this, the prohibition is only if even later he will profit, but now he will profit more, for then it is forbidden. But if later he will need to sell without any profit at all – it is permitted. And as our sages, of blessed memory, said: Buy and sell, and you are called a merchant (Bava Metzia 40b), and see in section 27.

Therefore, it appears that one who is a merchant in grain or other merchandise and mourning befell him, and now there are merchants to buy from him at a profit, and afterward it is possible that he will not profit – he is permitted to sell his merchandise through others. This means that he himself shall not go to weigh the merchandise for them and deliver it to them, and he shall send another in his place. For this is exactly like a davar ha'aved, and according to what has been explained that regarding a davar ha'aved, when it is not possible through others he may do it himself – the same law applies here, he may go in private if it is not possible through others. And this matter depends on the perception of the posek (so it appears in my humble opinion).

And that which he wrote, that when caravans or ships arrived etc. – this is a different matter. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, was brief in this, and thus it is explained to us from the words of the Rosh and the Tur: for behold, it was previously explained that if he has merchandise to sell – he is not permitted to sell unless he knows clearly that afterward he will lose from the principal, or that he will not profit according to what we have explained. But in an ordinary case, it is forbidden. And now he says that when caravans or ships arrived to buy this merchandise – he is permitted to sell in any case. For we say that ordinarily the price will drop afterward according to the way of commerce, for when buyers are numerous the merchandise is at its peak, and afterward the merchandise falls. And in this, there is no one who disagrees. (See Shach, subsection 7. And they do not disagree, for to both of them it is like a davar ha'aved. And be precise and you will find it simple.)

However, when caravans or ships arrive to sell their merchandise, and for one who needs this merchandise now is the time of their purchase, for afterwards he will not obtain them or they will be expensive – it is the opinion of the Ramban that the mourner is not permitted to purchase unless he needs it for his household needs. But to purchase them for merchandise – it is forbidden. And the Rosh disagrees with him, for even to purchase for merchandise is considered like a "davar ha'aved," since he needs it for his livelihood. And this is the essence of his intention. (And from this is also a proof for what I wrote in section 12.)

And from all the matters that have been explained, we have learned that a mourner who has merchandise on the water or in a distant place, and the way of commerce is to supervise them or to place them in their location, or if he is required to send merchandise prepared with him to a fair or to some place or on the water – he is permitted to send it through others. And if he is compelled to do it himself – he may do it himself according to the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, which we brought in section 8, for you have no greater davar ha'aved than this. And so too if he is a shopkeeper and the time of the fair has arrived to purchase merchandise – it is also permitted through others if possible, and if not, it is permitted by himself for the reason of davar ha'aved. And so too anything similar to this.

One who had a loan business and became a mourner, the Ramban forbade him from lending during the days of his mourning even through others, and Rabbeinu Tam permitted it. To this the Rosh agreed, that it is permitted to lend to acquaintances and those accustomed to borrowing from him, so that they do not go to others and accustom them to come to them, and it is like a matter of loss. And so ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 7 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 380:7). From this, one may judge regarding every type of constant commerce where people are accustomed to purchase from him, and if they do not find it with him now they will purchase from others and accustom them to buy from them—it is permitted for the mourner to sell to them through others. However, regarding a shop there is a different law, as will be explained in section 25.

And similarly, to claim money during his days of mourning, if there is no practical difference between this day and after the mourning, such that no loss will reach him through this—it is forbidden for the mourner to claim. However, if there is a concern that afterward he will not find them because they will go from here—it is permitted for him to send to claim his money, for it is like a matter of loss. And similarly, if he has a legal case against a person—he should not claim against him during his days of mourning. And if it is a matter of loss, such as if the defendant will go from here to a distance, or the witnesses will go from here, or they are ill and there is a concern that they will die—he appoints an agent and litigates with them in beit din. And it appears to me that if there is a necessity that he come himself to beit din—it is permitted if it is not possible otherwise, according to what I wrote in section 8. And see in siman 393.

All things that they permitted on the moed for the sake of the needs of the moed, and not because of a matter of loss—all of them are forbidden for a mourner even by means of others. For a mourner was not compared to the moed except regarding a matter of loss. For what relevance is there to "need" for a mourner unless he has nothing to eat, as I wrote in section 5 and in section 9?

But if he has a field, and it is under an arisut or chachirut or kablanut arrangement with others—these workers may work as is their way during the mourning days of the owner of the field, for they are not working for him, but rather for themselves. And if it is because through this a profit also reaches him, what do we care, since the field is in their domain and not in his domain? Furthermore, even if the term ended during the mourning days of the owner of the field, or even prior to the mourning—they remain in the field as they were, for an ordinary field stands for arisut, and it is as if he previously handed it over to them for an additional term, and the field is called in their domain. But to lease it out during his mourning days is certainly forbidden, for this is not a davar ha'aved. And conversely, if the mourner was an aris or a chocher or a kablan in the field of others—he may not do it himself, for he is forbidden from melacha, but through others he may do it, for they are not working in his field but rather for the sake of the owner of the field, and a profit reaches the mourner automatically, and it is impossible that others should lose because of his mourning. But if he had a day laborer in his field and became a mourner—it is forbidden for the laborer to work, even if the field is in another city, for the laborer has no portion in the field, and the entire field belongs to the mourner.

And this is regarding the business of land. But regarding the business of movable property, such as if the mourner had a donkey or a ship rented in the hands of others or leased, the law is as follows: if they rented it or leased it before the mourning, and the time has not yet expired – they are permitted to work, for they are engaged in their own property just as with a field. But if the time expired – it is forbidden. And it is not similar to a field, which presumably stands for sharecropping and is like it is rented for the coming time as well. This is not the case with these which do not stand to be rented, and it is now like a new rental, and it is forbidden to rent out during the days of his mourning. And if the mourner is hired to another with the donkey of the other or with a ship, and the time has not yet expired regarding himself – he shall not work. And through others it is permitted, since the primary work is not his, as it is called by the name of the other (Levush). And there is one who forbids unless there is a matter of financial loss (Shach, subsection 17). And it appears to me that both opinions are true. For certainly if there is no practical difference to the owner of the donkey whether he works or does not work – it is forbidden except in a matter of financial loss, such as if he must give the donkey food, or if he pays him for each day according to the calculation. For in such a case, even with his own donkey entirely, if he must give it straw and fodder like our horses – you have no greater matter of financial loss than this. And therefore a wagon driver when he is a mourner – he is permitted to hand over his horse to another who will travel with it and earn for its food. And if there is some practical difference to the owner of the donkey, such as if the agreement between them was that when it is idle he will not take as much payment as during its work – it is permitted to him through others in all manners, since this is for the benefit of the other, and why should he suffer damage because of his mourning? And to the mourner, benefit arrives automatically.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 15 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 380:15): If the donkey was in the hands of others for a half, a third, or a quarter—some permit and some forbid. Thus far his words. And the reasoning of those who permit is simple. And the reasoning of those who forbid is that specifically when they were rented, since for the duration of the rental it belongs to others—it is permitted. But for a half, a third, or a quarter, it is called by the name of the owner. And it is not similar to land, which stands for sharecropping, which is not the case with these. And this is the opinion of the Ra'avad in the Tur, see there. And it appears to me that even according to his opinion, if there is a matter of financial loss involved—it is permitted, for behold, even with his own entirely it is permitted, as I wrote in the previous section. And it is simple.

If the work of others was in his hand, even with a detached item that he could do in private, such as to weave or to sew and the like, whether through kablanut or not through kablanut but rather as a day laborer—he may not do it, for he is forbidden from work. And through others, if it is a davar ha'aved—it is permitted, and if not—it is forbidden even though it belongs to others; nevertheless, he can do it after the mourning (Mordechai). And if his work was in the hands of others, if they are day laborers—it is forbidden, and if they took it through kablanut in his house—they may not do it, so that people do not say that he is also assisting in the work. Alternatively: so that they do not say "during his days of mourning he hired them" (Rashi 11b (Moed Katan 11b)). And in the house of others they may do it even if there is no davar ha'aved in this, for they are engaged in their own kablanut, provided that they received the work before he became a mourner. And that which we permitted in section 6 for a craftsman that his workers may do it in his house—there it is a davar ha'aved, and they are forced to do it in his house. Furthermore: for in that case the second concern "so that they do not say etc." does not apply, for everyone knows that he hired them beforehand. And regarding suspicion there is also not so much, for it is frequently found among us that the workers do and the homeowner does not do. And also in this law it appears to me that if it is a davar ha'aved if they do not do it in his house, they are permitted to do it in his house. And this depends on the sight of the eyes of the posek.

And this is regarding work on detached items. But regarding work on attached items, such as if he had a building in the hands of others through a contract—they shall not do it because of publicity and the appearance of the eye. And even outside the techum they shall not do it, for many go out beyond the techum and will see that the house of the mourner is being built. And even if the contractors are gentiles—it is forbidden. In what case are these things said? On a weekday or on Chol HaMoed. But on Shabbat and Yom Tov, if the contractors are gentiles and the building is outside the techum—they are permitted to do it when there is no other city of Israel within the techum of the building. And if a single Israelite dwells within the techum, it also appears that it is forbidden, and one should deliberate on this.

The Ramban wrote that the same law applies if they accepted a contract to plow and sow his field, which is forbidden as with a building contract, for since he alone consumes the produce—the whole thing is called by his name. And this is like that which is attached to the ground, which everyone sees. The opinion of the Ra'avad is that since the contractor alone is seen in the field plowing and sowing, and he is not there, it is not similar to a building and is permitted. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 20 brought both opinions and did not decide between them. And know that a mourner is permitted to accept work during his days of mourning to be performed after this time, provided that he does not weigh or measure in the manner he does at other times. They did not forbid him from accepting work, for he is doing nothing but mere speech. Furthermore: perhaps they will give it to another, and it is somewhat like a matter of financial loss.

The Rif in the second chapter of Moed Katan, and the Rambam in the fifth chapter, law 9, wrote: Two brothers, two partners, or two shopkeepers, if an event occurred to one of them—behold, these must close their shop. Thus far their words. And this is a Yerushalmi in the third chapter. And the Rishonim raised a difficulty against them, for in the Gemara at the beginning of the second chapter it is stated: Marion and Mar the son of Rav Aha had a team of oxen together. An event occurred to Mar, and he stopped his team. Rav Ashi said: Does a great man like Mar do such a thing? Granted he does not care about his own loss, but does he not care about the loss of others? For behold it was taught: If they were hired, etc., behold these shall work. And he thought: A prominent person is different, see there. Behold it is explicit that a partner should not lose because of the mourning of the second, unlike the Yerushalmi, and they did not cite this at all. And the Ra'avad answered that even in the Yerushalmi the intention is that in public he shall not work, but in private he shall work. And a shop is considered in public, and the incident of Marion was like in private. (The Ra'avad follows his reasoning that a field is not similar to building, as I wrote in section 24. And the Ramban disagrees there, and also disagrees with this answer. And he answered that in the Gemara it deals with a case where a specific time belonged to each one alone, and this week belonged to Marion, and therefore it is well compared to those who are hired. However, the Rosh and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch agreed with the Ra'avad. And according to this, it requires study regarding the Shulchan Aruch section 2 concerning the matter of a field, where he brought both opinions, for he should have decided in favor of the permission like the Ra'avad. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

And based on this, they ruled in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 21 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 380:21) that two partners who are shopkeepers, where a period of mourning occurred for one of them—they must lock their shop so that the partner does not perform work in public. However, he may perform work in private within his house, even regarding the business of the partnership. And if the mourner is a prominent person, and the partnership is called by his name, such that even if they perform it in private within his house it is known that the mourner has a share—it is forbidden for the second partner to perform work even within his house. Thus far his words. (And this is what they said in the Gemara, "a prominent person is different," meaning: that it is called by his name.)

And it appears clearly that for this, it is not effective even if it is a matter of irretrievable loss, for they only permitted the primary labor to a mourner in a matter of irretrievable loss, as has been explained. However, a prohibition of a public nature, which is due to the appearance of the eye – they did not permit on account of irretrievable loss. And according to this, that which we permitted regarding merchandise – we only permitted the sale or the purchase in a matter of irretrievable loss in his home, which is in private, and not in a shop, which is public. And a proof for this: for behold, we are not concerned even for the loss of the partner for this reason, all the more so that we should not be concerned for his own loss.

And behold, although it certainly appears so according to the din, nevertheless we have seen many who are lenient in this in the large cities, even regarding the shop of the mourner himself. And they consider it an impossibility and a great loss if it were to be locked all seven days of mourning. And to make a bill of sale also does not avail, since the reason is because of marit ayin, and everyone knows that the shop belongs to the mourner. And behold, the Maharshal in a responsum (siman 66) is lenient regarding a shop after three days, see there. And I do not know from where we have this, for in the Rambam there it is explicit "all seven," see there. And nevertheless, there is reason to judge them favorably, for regarding a matter of loss, mourning and Chol HaMoed are equal. And the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch in Orach Chaim siman 539 have already written that on Chol HaMoed in a large market like Krasny Targ – it is permitted to sit in the shop, see there. Thus they hold that a matter of loss is effective even against the reason of publicity. And that which they did not concern themselves with the loss of a partner due to the reason of publicity is because such is the way of partnership. And it is no worse than a partner who caused damage unintentionally in the business where the second also suffers the damage, such as if he sold merchandise and the price rose and the like, as is explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 176. But a matter of loss is a complete permission in mourning and Chol HaMoed and we do not concern ourselves with publicity, and everyone knows that this is a great loss. And especially in this time in the large cities, where commerce is great and most of it is on credit, and if it were to be locked seven days the loss is very great, and therefore they are lenient in this. And all this we have written to judge our brothers the Children of Israel favorably, and one who is able to fulfill according to the essence of the din, may a blessing come upon him. (And the giants of the world have already labored in this. And the Shach at the end of siman 6 wrote that in Prague they would send the trustees of the community to annul the partnership. And the Chatam Sofer siman 324 wrote that there are those who sell the shop when they are onanim, and there are those who sell when he is moribund, see there. And in combination with the opinion of the Maharshal that after three days it is permitted, and on the third day part of the day is like the whole of it, see there. And it is a mitzvah to judge the collective of the Children of Israel favorably. And a house of livelihood when they pay tax – it is certainly like a matter of loss, for the tax is from every day.)

It is a simple matter that two partners in a shop means that both are partners in the business of the shop. However, if both sit in one shop, this one with his merchandise and that one with his merchandise, and they are not partners with one another in the merchandise—as is common in our places where two people rent one shop and this one sits in his half and that one sits in his half—partnership does not apply to this, such that if mourning occurred to one, the second should close his shop. Furthermore, I say that in such a case there is room for leniency, that even the mourner may seat a person to sell his merchandise if he is compelled to this, for in this there is no parhesya; for the essence of parhesya is that the shop is open and everyone knows it belongs to the mourner. But here, the shop is open because of the second person, and there is no parhesya in this.

When one is a shopkeeper and a relative died in another place, and he does not know of this even though the members of his household know—both he and they may sit in the shop, and they are not obligated to tell him. And more than this, the Radbaz ruled that if Reuven went from his city to another city, and a relative died here and he did not know there, the members of his household or his partner who are here are permitted to open the shop as usual, since mourning has not devolved upon him due to his lack of knowledge. And we do not have to consider that perhaps he became aware, unless they sent him a messenger to inform him or a letter—one calculates from the time he became aware, and then they close his shop. And so one should rule. (The words of the Radbaz are brought in the Ba'er Heitev 396, subsection 9.)

But a poor person who has vessels to rent out—it is permitted for others to rent them out during the days of his mourning, and you have no greater returning of a lost object than this (ibid. in the name of the Leket HaKemach). And all the more so when he has a horse—it is permitted for another to rent it out so that he does not suffer a loss, for there is no public recognition that this is his, as is understood. And a man appointed over the public when mourning occurs to him, and there is no other in his place—he is permitted to perform the needs of the public. And even though we find this reasoning in the Gemara (Moed Katan 21a) only regarding the study of Torah, as will be explained in siman 384, nevertheless, regarding other matters as well, what shall the public do? However, when there is another with him—the other should perform it and not him. And one of the great authorities wrote that in any place where there is a dispute between the poskim, and likewise when there is a reasoning for prohibition and for permission—one should be lenient after three days (Beit Lechem Yehuda).

Work that they prohibited for a mourner is not like the work of Shabbat. Rather, the intent is: actual work, such as sewing and weaving or other types of craftsmanship. However, household work, such as baking his bread and cooking his food—is not included in the work they prohibited for a mourner. And similarly, sweeping the house, and washing cups, and making the beds, and the like—is permitted. Therefore, it is permitted for a woman when she is a mourner to bake and cook everything necessary for the members of her household. But what is not necessary for her but rather for others—is prohibited. And it seems to me that a female innkeeper may cook and bake for the guests, for they are like the members of her household, since she must feed them. And even though she profits from this, nevertheless it is a necessity to cook for them. And she is not obligated to hire another in her place for a matter that is a necessity for her to do. And similarly a woman who serves in the house of another homeowner, and a mourning occurred to her—she is permitted to bake and cook and do all the needs of the house, whether she serves for free or for wages, since it is upon her to do the needs of the house. And similarly a man who is a servant in an inn or in the house of a wealthy man—he may do his work, only he should not go outside. And if the necessity is great—he may go out for a short time. And it is good to be stringent in this during the first three days. And see below siman 393. (And in a tavern it is permitted to sell burnt wine and beer, for it is a matter of financial loss, as they take a patent.)

One who goes from place to place for commerce, and heard "near tidings," if he is able to diminish so as not to engage in any business in that city—it is better. And if not, such that if he does not purchase in that city he will not find [the goods]—he may purchase for the needs of the journey things that are essential for life. And it is obvious that this refers to where there is no "lost object" involved. And for all other deceased, if he wished to diminish in the business dealings permitted to him, such as a "lost object"—for where there is no "lost object" it was not permitted to him at all—he should diminish. And if he did not wish to—he need not diminish. But for his father or his mother—he should diminish even regarding a "lost object" as much as possible, provided that great loss does not reach him. For in a case of great loss, it is obvious that even for his father and his mother it is permitted. (See the Beit Yosef in Bedek HaBayit. And according to what I have written it works out well. Examine it and you will find it easy.) And from the words of the Rambam in chapter six (Rambam, Laws of Mourning 6) it is explained that this is within thirty days, that it is also proper to diminish in his business if it is in his power to do so. And this is where there is no "lost object," see there. And for all other deceased, it is forbidden until thirty days to go on a long-distance commercial journey when going in a large caravan as was done in ancient times, for there is great publicity, and it is similar to joy because they would rejoice greatly on the way. And for his father and mother—until his colleagues rebuke him, and see siman 390. And nowadays this law does not apply.