Siman 384

A mourner is forbidden from Torah study. And in the Gemara (Moed Katan 15a) we learn this from Yechezkel, from that which the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: "Be silent," see there. And in the Yerushalmi (Chapter "Ve-elu Megalchin" Halacha 5) it is learned from Iyov, as it is written: "And no one spoke a word" – and this "word" is superfluous? It comes to include Torah study, see there. And the Tur wrote in the name of the Ramban that some say the prohibition is only on the first day, as with tefillin. But it is not so, for it is forbidden all seven days because they contain joy, as it is written: "The precepts of Hashem are upright, rejoicing the heart." And a mourner is forbidden from joy, see there (and in the Beit Yosef). And the reasoning of the "some say" is simple: for since a mourner is obligated in all the mitzvot, why did they forbid him from words of Torah? And we have already explained this at the beginning of siman 380, see there. And the Ramban further wrote that he can fulfill words of Torah through the recitation of Shema morning and evening (Beit Yosef). And we explained there: that he can indeed study permitted matters. And it appears to me that the reason the Ramban did not answer this is because there are opinions that even in permitted matters it is forbidden, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. (And Rashi 21a (Moed Katan 21a) s.v. "ve-asur" wrote like the Ramban, see there.)

And behold, at the end of Taanit regarding Tisha B'Av, the Shas says that they are permitted to study on Tisha B'Av those matters that are permitted. But in Moed Katan there regarding mourning – this was not mentioned in the Gemara. And so it is explained from the words of the Rambam in the fifth chapter (Rambam Hilkhot Avel 5) that he did not mention this, see there. And such is the opinion of the Tosafot there in the name of our teacher Tam. And they wrote that in his old age our teacher Tam retracted, and permitted it just as on Tisha B'Av. And seemingly from the expression "be silent" and from the expression "none spoke a word" – it implies that all matters are forbidden. And the Tosafot rejected this, for the prohibition is only regarding a thing that gladdens, but the distressing matters when one studies them – it does not gladden, see there. And the Tur also brought this dispute and decided in favor of the permission, see there. And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, did not bring the forbidding opinion at all, and such is the custom in all the dispersions of Israel. And even though there is certainly the sweetness of the Torah even in the distressing matters in the Torah, nevertheless, the sorrow from the distressing matters dispels the joy of the Torah, and therefore it is permitted to study them.

But according to this, that which is brought in the Yerushalmi of Moed Katan (ibid.) is not understood: It was taught: If he was yearning for the Torah – it is permitted. See there. And if the reason is because of joy – behold, on the contrary, when he is yearning he has more joy, and how did they permit this? And it is true that the poskim did not bring this, and it appears that they hold that since it was not taught in our Shas – we do not concern ourselves with it. Nevertheless, the core of the matter is puzzling, and it must be said that this is its explanation: If he was yearning for the Torah, like a hungry person when he yearns for some food, and if they do not give it to him he will be seized by bulimus and be in danger – so too he yearns for the Torah, and it is considered like a bit of danger. And therefore the poskim did not bring it, because this is not common at all in our times. However, in any event, whatever the explanation in the Yerushalmi may be, it is a proof for the opinion of those who forbid. For if not so, what is the relevance of "yearning"? Let him study permitted matters, and the Torah is longer than the earth in measure? (But in the Yerushalmi there, Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish disagree on the essence of the matter. For Resh Lakish permits a mourner to study, see there. And it is possible that the entire sugya there is according to him, and we hold like Rabbi Yochanan. And also there he permits in a place where he is not accustomed, and this is according to the opinion of Resh Lakish at the end of Taanit according to the version of the Rif. And we hold like Rabbi Yochanan, see there. Examine and you will find it simple.)

Therefore, a mourner is forbidden to study throughout the seven days in Tanakh, Mishnah, Gemara, laws, and homilies. However, it is permitted to read Job and Lamentations, and the distressing matters in Jeremiah, and the laws of mourning. He may study the chapter "Elu Megalchin," the Mishnah and the Gemara, because there it deals only with the laws of mourning and one who is distanced, who is like a mourner. And there is reason to doubt whether it is permitted to study them with depth and to innovate Torah insights within them or not. And I saw one who wrote in this language: I saw one of the great ones during his days of mourning who was studying the laws of mourning with depth by himself, and what he innovated he would write and record in a book. But it seems to me that he did not act properly, for certainly since he deepens his study and innovates—there is no joy for a master of Torah greater than this. And they only permitted studying the plain laws and the traditions (Birkei Yosef).

And it appears to me that the primary view is like the words of that great authority. For behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work in Orach Chaim siman 554, brought a responsum of the Maharil regarding the matter of Tisha B'Av, that to study with depth is much better, see there. And according to this, since he is studying with depth and is a great man, it is inevitable that some chiddushei Torah will be innovated by him, and it is permitted to write them down so that he does not forget. And you have no greater "davar ha'aved" than this, just as one of the great authorities permitted writing chiddushei Torah on Chol HaMoed for this reason (Taz Orach Chaim end of siman 545). And if it is because of joy—this is a joy that comes of its own accord. And what shall the mourner do if his businesses earned him much money, and against his will the heart rejoices? Or if his wife gave birth to a male child and he is joyful? And what shall the mourner do regarding the joy of a mitzvah, such as when he dons tefillin or prays with kavvanah if he has reached this level? And in the donning of tefillin there is also joy, as the students of our teacher Yonah wrote at the beginning of the chapter "Ein Omdin." And they only prohibited the mourner from performing an act of joy ab initio, such as the study of Torah which is the essence of joy. But that which they permitted to him and the joy comes of its own accord—it was never prohibited. And certainly, to sit ab initio to study some pilpul regarding mourning or on Tisha B'Av in the matters that were permitted to him—is prohibited, as the Acharonim wrote in Orach Chaim siman 554 (Taz subsection 2, and Magen Avraham subsection 5, see there). But when the chiddush is formed from the side of the study, what is he to do? Consider for yourself: the Book of Iyov was permitted to a mourner, and you have no book more obscure than Iyov, and now if he is studying and a good explanation of some verse is innovated by him, shall he withhold himself from this? This is nothing but astonishing. And so it appears to me as the primary law.

If the public requires his Torah, such as if he is the Rosh HaYeshiva and there is no other in his place, and similarly in the time of the Shas when they would lecture to the public on laws and halachot—it is permitted. Provided that a translator does not stand as was the custom in the days of the sages of the Shas; rather, he should say it to another, and the other to the translator, and the translator shall announce it to the public. This is in order to make some change, and in our time this law is not applicable. And a teacher of children when there is no other in his place—it is simple that Heaven forbid one should cancel the study of children of the house of their teacher, and he shall study with them even on the first day (Shach, subsection 2). And there is one who permits after three days (Taz, subsection 1), and one who relies on the first opinion has not lost. And similarly, a Rav who sits on the seat of instruction—it is permitted for him to answer all questions of issur v’heter, and he is obligated to answer. But regarding the arrangement of a get and words of Torah, it appears that he should not engage in this, unless there is a necessity such that if he does not engage in it, it will lead to a mishap, for then he is obligated to act. And this depends on his own sight regarding this matter.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema: And he may rule on matters of issur ve-heter for an individual who asks him, if there is no other besides him and they need him. But it is forbidden to state the halacha to his students, and so we practice even though there are those who are lenient. Thus far his words. And previously he wrote: or he may lecture himself, see there. For the proponent of this view holds that "the public needs him" is only called such regarding lecturing in public that which is necessary to lecture now, to instruct on issur ve-heter for those who ask when there is no one there but him. And the public lecture is like in the time of the Shas, when they would lecture on the halachot (see Beit Yosef that this is the view of Rabbeinu Yerucham in the name of "some say"). And it seems to me that even the proponent of this view would admit when he is a rosh yeshiva, and if he does not deliver the shiur many students will be nullified from Talmud Torah, for you have no greater public need than this. And a mourner who has small children—he shall not nullify them from their study, Heaven forbid.

And if the mourner is a kohen or a levi – he is forbidden to ascend for the Torah reading, even if they called him, and even if there is no other there. In what case are these words said? On a weekday. But on Shabbat, if they called him – he shall ascend, for if he does not ascend it would be public mourning, as I wrote in siman 400, see there. However, to pray before the amud – it is permitted. And it is a mitzvah for the mourner to pray before the amud, for there is in this a gratification for the soul. And even if there is no mourner here – it is a mitzvah for others to pray there in the place where he died there, for there is in this a gratification for the soul. And that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: If there is no one there who can pray to fulfill the obligation of the public – the mourner may pray to fulfill their obligation. Thus far his words. For it implies that when there is another – he should not pray. Many great authorities have already disagreed with this, and they decided that on the contrary, it is a mitzvah for the mourner to pray (see Bach). And furthermore: that this refers to fulfilling the obligation of the public as it was in ancient times when most of the masses were unable to pray, but it is not so now. And it is simple that the mourner may perform hagbahah and gelilah, and the removal and returning to the aron kodesh.

The mourner is permitted to study Job, etc., as I wrote in section 4. And specifically by himself, but he may not study with others. Rather, if they wish—they may deliberate among themselves regarding the laws of mourning. And if they erred—he answers them with a soft voice, and he does not ask of them. But if they ask him—he shall answer them, as I wrote. And it has already been explained that when the public needs him—it is permitted. And the matter is simple that it is forbidden for the mourner to study other wisdoms, and all the more so to read in newspapers or in any composition whatsoever, so that he does not distract his mind from his mourning. And all the more so if he has pleasure in reading them, for it is certainly forbidden.