Siman 391

The mourner is forbidden from joy for the entire thirty days. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said (Moed Katan 22b): For all other deceased – he may enter a house of joy after thirty days. For his father or for his mother – after twelve months. And what is called a "house of joy"? The feast of a groom and bride (Nimukei Yosef). And in Semachot (chapter nine) it was taught: For all other deceased, it is forbidden to go to a house of feasting until thirty days. For his father and mother – the entire twelve months, unless it was for the sake of Heaven. See there. And it appears that a "house of feasting" and a "house of joy" are two different things, as is proven from the Tosefta of Moed Katan at the end of the second chapter, where it was taught there regarding Chol HaMoed: One does not bring flutes to a house of mourning, but rather to a house of feasting and to a house of joy, etc., see there. Consequently, they are two different things. And in the Yerushalmi at the end of Moed Katan it is stated: For all other deceased, it is forbidden to go to a feast for the entire thirty days. For his father and mother – the entire twelve months. If it was a group of a mitzvah or the sanctification of the month – it is permitted, see there. Behold you have three different wordings regarding this matter. And the wording of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch is "house of feasting" like the wording of Masechet Semachot, see there. And it must be said that all of them are forbidden, and each one employed his wording not precisely.

And know that laughter is also like a bit of joy and is not actual joy, and it is not prohibited except within the seven days. For this reason, the Rambam wrote at the end of the fifth chapter, which deals with the laws of the seven days, and this is his wording: If greeting with peace is prohibited to a mourner, it is a fortiori that he is prohibited from speaking excessively and from laughter, as it is said: "Be silent." And he should not hold a child in his hand so that he does not bring him to laughter, etc. Thus far his words. And laughter is the opposite of weeping, as Kohelet said: "A time to weep and a time to laugh." Therefore, during the seven days when weeping is common—he is prohibited from laughter, but not during the entire thirty days. And the Tur and Shulchan Aruch also wrote thus, but their wording requires explanation, and this is their wording in section 1: A mourner is prohibited from joy. Therefore, he shall not take a child in his lap all seven days, lest he come to laughter. Thus far his words. And what is the meaning of the word "therefore"? For behold, joy is prohibited all thirty days, and this prohibition is only during the seven days. And it must be said that this is what he means: Therefore, meaning since joy is prohibited all thirty days, therefore even though laughter is not joy, nevertheless all seven days laughter is also prohibited, since joy is prohibited for thirty days, and laughter is a small part of joy. (And also the wording of the Tur can be settled according to our words. And the Beit Yosef raised a difficulty against him, and the Bach struggled with this, see there. And according to our words it works out well. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And it is stated in the Gemara there that a feast of companionship when one needs to repay—it is permitted within thirty days. But when not to repay—it is forbidden. And the explanation of the matter: a meal that friends and beloved ones make with one another, where this one makes a meal today and they all eat with him, and tomorrow the second one makes it and afterwards the third, and so on always, and there is not so much joy in this. Therefore, if he is obligated to repay, since he was already with his friends and he needs to make it now for their turn—it is permitted even within thirty days. But if he is not obligated to repay it—it is forbidden to make it within thirty days. And for his father and his mother, even though he is obligated to repay it—it is forbidden all twelve months. And know that in every place where "twelve months" is mentioned—it is permitted in the thirteenth month if it was a leap year. Therefore, in all matters regarding his father and his mother, it is only twelve months and not thirteen. (And it seems simple that repayment is permitted for him to perform within thirty days because he is obligated to repay, as Rashi explained. But that he should enter to another within thirty days for a meal, even if the other is indebted to him—it is forbidden for him to enter. And that which the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch wrote the phrasing "to enter it"—they employed the phrasing of the Shas, but the intent is as I have written. And it requires further study in the Rambam, who wrote at the end of the fifth chapter: And he shall not enter a place of joy, such as banquet houses and the like. Thus far his words. And in the fifth chapter he deals with the laws of the seven days, and he should have written this in the sixth chapter which deals with the law of thirty days, just as he wrote there the law of a feast of companionship. However, we have heard from his words that every type of banquet is forbidden, as I wrote in section 1. And examine closely and you will find it easy.)

And behold, we have already brought in section 1 the wording of Masekhet Semachot, which says that a meal that was for the sake of Heaven is permitted. And the Yerushalmi says that if it was a group for a mitzvah, or the sanctification of the month, it is permitted. And the plain meaning of the matter is that this refers to the thirty days for other deceased relatives, and to the twelve months for one's father and mother. But within the thirty days for one's father and mother, it is forbidden in any case. And so it is clarified from the words of the Ra'avad that the Tur brought, see there. And the Rishonim asked: for according to this it is clarified that a mitzvah meal has more of a permission than a voluntary meal. Yet in our Talmud it is clarified to the contrary, that a friendship meal, which is certainly a voluntary meal, has more of a permission. (This difficulty was raised by the Rosh in the name of the Ra'avad and the Nimukei Yosef, see Beit Yosef. And were it not for the words of our teachers, I would have said that certainly a mitzvah is preferable only in a friendship meal, and the reason is because of the repayment of a debt as Rashi wrote, see there, and this is not relevant to a mitzvah as is understood, and not because a voluntary matter is more lenient. And this is the opinion of the Smag and Rabbeinu Tam and the Ri, as will be explained in section 7).

The Rosh (siman 89) answered in the name of the Ra'avad that this "for the sake of Heaven" which is permitted—this refers to one who marries off an orphan boy or an orphan girl, or a poor man or a poor woman for the sake of Heaven, and if he does not enter there—the matter will be cancelled. But regarding the marriage of a wealthy person, who invited him to the meal in order to be honored by him—it is forbidden to enter there. And in the Yerushalmi, if it was a group for a mitzvah or the sanctification of the month—it is permitted; a group for a mitzvah such as a group for the Pesach offering, a group for the eating of sacrificial foods and the second tithe, and similarly anything that he himself requires, even though he eats in a group and there is feasting and joy there. And in all this, they only permitted from thirty days and onward for his father and his mother, etc. Thus far his words. And according to his words, a seudat mitzvah is more forbidden than a discretionary meal, for in a mitzvah there is joy. And that which they permitted for a mitzvah and for the sake of Heaven—this is in one of two things: either regarding an orphan boy or an orphan girl, where he is the one occupied with their marriage and were he not there it would be cancelled. And it seems to me that it does not specifically mean the match would be cancelled entirely, but rather that the hearts of the groom and bride would be as if in pain. Or a mitzvah that is an obligation upon him, such as Pesach and sacrificial foods, which in this time is not applicable. And according to their words, even for a brit milah and pidyon haben—it is forbidden, for every seudat mitzvah has joy in it.

And the Nimukei Yosef answered that that case of "for the sake of Heaven" refers to a seudat mitzvah where there is no joy, such as a brit milah where there is the pain of the infant. Alternatively: in the case of marrying off an orphan boy or orphan girl, etc. Thus far his words. And the "alternatively" follows the Ra'avad. But in the first part, he distinguishes between one mitzvah and another. And the explanation of his words is that there is also a seudat mitzvah where there is no joy, similar to a voluntary meal, and that is a seudat brit milah, where we do not say "for joy is in His abode" because of the pain of the infant, and therefore there is no joy in this and it is permitted. And one must wonder about his words: if specifically a seudat milah is permitted because of the pain of the infant, but a seudat pidyon haben or bar mitzvah or a siyum masekhta, where this reason does not exist—is it forbidden? Or perhaps he merely cited it as an example, meaning: that only a wedding meal where they say "for joy is in His abode" is forbidden. But wherever they do not say "for joy is in His abode," it is permitted in a seudat mitzvah, and according to this, all of them are permitted (and so it appears in my humble opinion). And the Ramban hesitates to permit the meal of an orphan boy or orphan girl, as the Tur wrote. And the Rosh agreed with the Ra'avad, see there. And it appears that the opinion of the Ramban is that the primary prohibition of a "house of joy" that they forbade in the Gemara is a wedding meal, and if so, it is possible to permit it. And nevertheless, it appears in my humble opinion that even the Ramban only said it when the match will not be canceled through this. But when it will be canceled—there is no reason at all not to permit it because of such a great mitzvah. And only he holds that what the Ra'avad wrote, that if he does not enter the act will be canceled, the intention is not regarding the cancellation of the match, as I wrote in section 5. And it further appears to me that if the match will truly be canceled—it is permitted even for his father and mother within thirty days, for you have no mitzvah as great as this. And certainly the sages did not uphold their decree in such a matter, but rather it is not specific, as I have written.

And know that in the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, Laws of Mourning, there is a puzzling matter regarding this subject. This is his wording: It is taught in Semachot that if it was a seudah of mitzvah—it is permitted. And the Rav Rabbi Yosef, and my teacher our teacher Yehuda from the mouth of our teacher Yaakov and our teacher Yitzchak, would permit coming to the seudah of a groom. And in the Yerushalmi we find the version: If it was a group of mitzvah—it is permitted. Thus far his words. And "our teacher Yaakov" is our teacher Tam, and our teacher Yitzchak is the Ri the Elder, the author of the Tosafot, and his teacher is our teacher Yehuda HeChasid. And if so, all these our teachers clearly held that every seudah of mitzvah is permitted, and only a house of joy and a house of feasting of a voluntary nature was forbidden. And that which we permit in a friendship gathering—this is because of the repayment of a debt, and as I wrote at the end of section 4. And as the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol concludes afterward, this is his wording: For the joy of a friendship gathering that he is obligated to repay—it is permitted etc., see there. (And in the Teshuvot Maimoni to the Book of Judges, siman 19, he brought the words of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, and wrote regarding this, this is his wording: However, I found that the Ri wrote that it is forbidden to enter in order to eat etc., see there. Nevertheless, the opinion of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol and all these great teachers is as I wrote. And one cannot say that the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol also intends not to eat but only to enter, for he is standing upon Masechet Semachot, which refers to actual eating. And indeed, this opinion is not cited in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, and nevertheless it is a great support if there is a doubt in the matter. And examine closely and you will find it easy. And see the Rosh, chapter four of Yevamot, siman 27.)

This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema: And in a group of mitzvah, such as when one marries off an orphan boy or orphan girl for the sake of Heaven, and if he does not eat there the matter will be cancelled – it is permitted after thirty. But within thirty – it is forbidden for any mitzvah meal in the world. Thus far his words. And its interpretation: within thirty for his father and his mother. But for other relatives – it is permitted within thirty (Bach). And there is one who interpreted that it refers to all relatives (Shach, subsection 3), and the great later authorities have already rejected this matter (Dagul Mervavah and the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger). And this is nothing but a wonder, for how does it belong to permit for other relatives after thirty, since all the mourning has already concluded? Rather, it refers to his father and his mother. And this is the opinion of the Ra'avad that we brought in section 5.

And he wrote further: But a seudat mitzvah that has no joy—it is permitted to enter it, such as a pidyon haben or a seudat brit milah—it is permitted to eat there even within the seven days, provided that he does not go out from the entrance of his house. Thus far his words. And he holds as the primary view that what they forbade was only regarding a wedding feast, where they say "that joy is in His abode." But other seudot mitzvah they did not forbid at all. And even though within the seven days we have not found anyone who permitted it, yet this matter was written by the author of Terumat HaDeshen (siman 268) that it is so found in the Tosafot of Riva, see there. And he maintains that this is not considered joy at all. And that which he wrote that he should not go out from his house—this is during the seven days, for he is forbidden to go. But from the seven days and onward this is not applicable, of course. And this is according to the Shita of the Nimukei Yosef, that only in marriage is there joy, according to what we explained in section 6.

And he further wrote: And some forbid at a brit milah feast. And the custom is not to eat at any feast in the world for all twelve months if it is outside his home. But inside the home we are lenient, for he may eat in his home at a brit milah feast, and certainly at other feasts that do not have joy. But at a wedding feast one should be stringent. Thus far his words. And the "some forbid" follows the view of the Ra'avad, that a mitzvah is even worse, and every seudat mitzvah was forbidden. And the custom not to eat at any feast, meaning: neither of a voluntary nature nor of a mitzvah—is to be concerned for both opinions: for the opinion of the Ra'avad that the prohibition is on a mitzvah, and for the opinion of the Semag that we brought that the primary prohibition is on a voluntary matter. And they were accustomed regarding other relatives to forbid for all thirty days, and for his father and mother twelve months. But at the feast of an orphan boy or girl, even according to the custom it is permitted. And behold, we have explained all the opinions in this. And it seems to my humble opinion that in a case of necessity one may rely on the lenient opinions, for the halakhah follows the words of the one who is lenient in mourning. And at the celebration of his children and grandchildren—it is certainly permitted.

He further wrote: A mourner who is a baal berit or a mohel—he shall wear Shabbat garments until after the milah. And it is permitted to enter the milah to eat there if it is after thirty days, even though the milah is not in his house. Thus far his words. And his intention is: after thirty days for his father and his mother, and the same law applies within thirty days for other relatives. And the explanation of his words is that even according to the custom, nevertheless, if he was a sandak, who is called a "baal berit," or a mohel—he may eat at the milah feast, for in such a case there is no one who was stringent. And all the more so if he is the father of the son, or the father of the father of the son, that it is permitted. And whether one may be lenient for a baal berit or a mohel within thirty days for his father and his mother, there is a dispute (see Taz, subsection 3).

To enter the chuppah not at the time of eating to hear the blessings – there are those who permit it for a mourner, for the prohibition is only regarding the meal. However, at the time they are standing there with the wedding festivities of the chatan and kallah – he shall not enter the house at all, and all the more so at the time they are singing. And so they practice in Ashkenaz (Tur), and so they practice in these provinces. And all this is in the house where they make the wedding and rejoice there. But at the chuppah that they make in the courtyard of the synagogue where they make the chuppah, where they recite the blessings of erusin and nisuin, and there is no rejoicing there at all – it is permitted immediately after shiva. However, if they play musical instruments there – it is forbidden for the mourner to hear. And there are those who forbid until thirty days. And there are places that are stringent for the mourner to stand all twelve months outside the synagogue to hear the blessings. Nevertheless, it appears that a mourner may recite the blessings of erusin and nisuin under the chuppah, and he may wear some Shabbat clothing, and he may lead the chatan to the chuppah according to the custom that two men lead the chatan to cover the kallah, provided that it is after thirty days. And it appears to me that if he is the rav in the city, upon whom it is incumbent to arrange the kiddushin – he may arrange them even within thirty days even for his father and mother, since the matter is cast upon him. Only he should not hear the musical instruments.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: Some permit a mourner to eat at a wedding feast or a brit milah with the servers, provided that it is not in a place of joy, such as in another house. And some forbid it, and such is the custom. However, the mourner may serve there if he wishes, and he eats in his house from what they send him from the feast. Thus far his words. And this is the explanation: for the first opinion holds that the prohibition is only if he eats in the wedding house where the guests eat. But in another house, meaning in another room with the servers – it is permitted. And those who forbid it hold that this also is called a "house of joy." And that which he permitted to serve, it seems to me that specifically serving in the kitchen and in the room where the food is prepared is permitted, but not to extend the food to the guests, for this also is like joy. And the world is accustomed to be lenient in this.

He further wrote that there are those who permit a mourner to eat at that fish feast (which is on the day after the chuppah) that they make after the marriage, because since they have already ceased to say "she-hasimcha bime'ono," he has a recognition that there is no joy in that feast, and it is permitted. Thus far his words. That is to say: even according to those who forbid at all feasts, nevertheless here where there is a recognition that they ceased to say "she-hasimcha bime'ono" – it is permitted. And it appears that in their locale they did not say "she-hasimcha bime'ono" on the following day (as the Bach and the Shach wrote in subsection 7). But in our locales we say "she-hasimcha bime'ono" all seven days if they only make a feast, and if so, this permission is nullified. He further wrote that there are those who say it is forbidden to eat at a feast on the night that on the following day his father or mother died. Thus far his words. And this is the day of the yahrtzeit, to conduct oneself in it like mourning. And the Levush wrote that he did not see this custom. And there are those who wrote that they did see it (Shach subsection 8). And there are those who wrote that the prohibition is only on the first yahrtzeit and no more (Ba'er Heitev in the name of the Magen Avraham). And it seems to me that even now they do not practice stringency, and one should be stringent in the first year. And know that I saw one who wrote that one whose livelihood is from musical instruments, if he is a mourner it is permitted for him to play during his year for his father and mother, and during thirty for his other relatives, so that he does not lose his livelihood (Ba'er Heitev). And certainly it is so, for regarding him it is not relevant to joy, for he is engaged in his livelihood. (And there is a proof from Bava Metzia 91a: "species with its own species it is permitted to bring in etc. he is occupied with his work," see there.)