Siman 402

One to whom a report arrived that a relative died for whom he must mourn, if the report reached him within thirty days, even on the thirtieth day itself—this is a timely report. He is obligated to observe seven and thirty from the day of the report, and he rends his garment, and is forbidden in tefillin on the first day, and they provide him the meal of consolation, and he is forbidden in haircutting for thirty days from the day of the report. The general rule of the matter: the day of the report is like the day of burial. And if he died on the first day and was buried on the second day or on the third day—it is called a timely report for thirty days from the day of burial, for then the mourning took effect. And that which we said that even on the thirtieth day it is called a timely report, even though on the thirtieth day we say "part of the day is like the whole of it" as I wrote in siman 395, and if so, when he heard on the thirtieth day in the middle of the day shall we say that it is a distant report? For it is not so, as specifically when he observed mourning do we say "part of the day is like the whole of it," and not when he did not observe it (Perisha). For the general rule of the matter is that the thirtieth day is like before thirty, whether for stringency as in this case, or whether for leniency so as not to mourn for an infant who died on the thirtieth day, as I wrote in siman 374. (And see in section 10 what I wrote regarding death and burial.)

And if the report reached him on the thirty-first day, even on the night belonging to the thirty-first day – it is called a distant report, and he only needs to practice mourning for one hour. And it is not specifically an hour that is one twenty-fourth of a twenty-four hour period, but rather any amount of time. And not all the laws of mourning – some detail of mourning he shall practice for a brief time, as will be explained. And there is no difference between hearing by day or hearing by night, for even if he heard by night and practiced mourning for a brief time – it is sufficient. And even for his father or his mother, one hour is enough, as is explicit in the Gemara (Moed Katan 20a), see there.

And only in two matters is there a distinction regarding a distant report between his father and mother and other relatives. For regarding other relatives, he does not need to perform keriah upon a distant report, but for his father and mother, he performs keriah forever out of respect for them, as I wrote in siman 340. And regarding other relatives for whom he does not need to perform keriah—it is forbidden to perform keriah, for this is not a stringency such that we would say he is being stringent upon himself, as it is forbidden due to "bal tashchit." And only for a man great in Torah, if he wishes to perform keriah upon a distant report, it is permitted, for he does so because of the sorrow of the Torah that is diminished by his death. And specifically when he used to engage in give and take with him in matters of halacha, and he was in awe of his sharpness and erudition (Shach, subsection 3). And likewise for his teacher from whom the majority of his wisdom is derived—he performs keriah for him even upon a distant report, as I wrote in siman 340, see there.

And there is a further distinction: for with other relatives, regarding a distant report, one observes one hour, and thereafter has no further law of mourning upon him. However, regarding one's father and mother, in those matters that are not dependent on the thirty days—such as cutting hair, which is forbidden until his colleagues rebuke him, and likewise regarding the greeting of peace, and entering a house of celebration, which is forbidden for twelve months—even in the case of a distant report, the law is so. For regarding the laws of the thirty days, after thirty days it is considered a distant report, but not regarding the laws of the twelve months. However, one counts from the day of death and not from the day of the report, for after thirty days it is not called a "day of report" from which one would count. Therefore, if a report of his father or mother came to him after twelve months—he observes one hour and it is sufficient for him, and all laws of mourning are nullified from him. And twelve months for one's father and mother is like the thirty days for other relatives in every matter.

It has already been explained that this requirement to practice mourning for one hour regarding a distant report—it is not in all the laws of mourning, but rather in one of their details, such as removing his shoes. And he requires neither wrapping the head nor overturning the bed. And he is permitted in labor, and in washing and anointing, and marital relations, and Torah study. And there is also no meal of consolation regarding a distant report. And if he does not have shoes on his feet—he must perform another sign of mourning, that he should overturn his bed or wrap his head. And this is according to their custom. But for us, since we do not have overturning of the bed or wrapping, it seems to me that he should sit on the ground for one hour, for with us, the essence of mourning is that we sit on the ground. But if he removes his shoes, even this is not necessary.

And as for tefillin, when he has them on his head and his arm when he heard the distant report—he does not need to remove them, for an mourner himself is permitted in tefillin except for the first day. And a distant report is not superior to the other days aside from the first. However, if he was engaged then in Torah or in work, or if he was washing or anointing when the distant report reached him—he is obligated to cease from them for one hour. For even though according to the essential law there is no concern in this since he removes his shoes, nevertheless, since these matters are forbidden during all seven days—he must cease from them. And nevertheless, with this alone he has not fulfilled his obligation, for this is an absence of action, and he must perform an act of mourning such as the removal of shoes or sitting on the ground, as has been explained. (The explanation of the matter is that when he is engaged in them—he must cease, but immediately upon removing his shoes—he is permitted in them. And according to this there is no contradiction in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, and likewise from what he wrote in the section prior to this section. So wrote the Perishah, letter 8, see there. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

One who hears distant news on Shabbat or on a festival—he does not practice even matters that are private. And at the conclusion of Shabbat and the festival, he practices for one hour and that is sufficient for him. And the reason: since he must perform an actual deed of the matters of mourning for one hour, as has been explained, and this is impossible on Shabbat and Yom Tov, for private matters are naught but an absence of action; therefore, he must necessarily practice mourning for one hour at the conclusion of Shabbat and Yom Tov. And if so, why should we impose upon him to practice private matters on Shabbat and Yom Tov themselves?

And one who hears news on Shabbat or on a festival on the thirtieth day of his burial, and consequently on the conclusion of Shabbat and the festival it becomes distant news—the law is also as has been explained, that he should practice one hour of mourning on the conclusion of Shabbat and the festival. However, on Shabbat and the festival he practices mourning in matters that are private. And there is a question regarding this: why should he not practice seven and thirty? For when he heard on Shabbat it was still near news, and if so, what does it matter to me if he heard on a weekday or if he heard on Shabbat? For even on Shabbat he practices private matters, and Shabbat would be the first day of mourning? It is understandable according to the one who holds that Shabbat does not count toward the beginning of mourning, as the Tur wrote in the name of the Ri—it works well. But according to that which we hold that Shabbat counts toward the tally even at its beginning, as will be explained, why should he not practice seven and thirty just as on a weekday?

The answer to this was resolved by the Rashba, of blessed memory (cited in the Beit Yosef): That even though the Shabbat counts for him toward the beginning of the days of mourning, nevertheless, since he only practices things that are private—it does not cause mourning. For if he heard news on Shabbat, we do not say that since the mourning takes effect upon him on Shabbat and counts—the news within it should be as if the mourning took effect upon him on the thirtieth day, and cause him to count after the conclusion of Shabbat. For if so, that which it causes would be more stringent than it, for in it mourning is not practiced, yet because of it mourning would be practiced. And it is not right that what comes through its cause should be more stringent than it. Thus far his words. And according to this, if Shabbat was the twenty-ninth day of mourning—it would indeed be "near news" and he would practice seven and thirty, for the thirtieth day is on Sunday and on it actual mourning is practiced, and automatically it pulls after it all the days of mourning. But when the thirtieth day falls on Shabbat—behold, he does not practice actual mourning on it, and he also does not perform keriah. And the essence of the mourning begins at the conclusion of Shabbat, and then it is "distant." And it is not similar to the beginning of mourning where we count Shabbat as the first day for "near news," for also after Shabbat is the essence of the mourning. Therefore, we also count Shabbat with them as the first day just as when it is one of the other days. And there is one who wrote that when Shabbat is the seventh day of mourning, one must practice a bit of mourning at the conclusion of Shabbat because he did not practice complete mourning on Shabbat (Bach). And his words were rejected by all the great poskim (Shach, subsection 4, and Taz, subsection 5). And such is the simple custom.

One who hears a "near report" on Shabbat—he practices matters of privacy on it. And the Shabbat counts for him as one day, and on the conclusion of Shabbat he rends his garment, and the following Friday becomes the seventh day of mourning. And the Tur wrote in the name of Rabbi Yechiel that at the beginning of the seven days, Shabbat does not count toward the number, but rather he begins from Sunday and the following Shabbat becomes the seventh day of mourning. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 402:3) ruled according to the first opinion, for such is the primary law. For it is the same to me if Shabbat is at the beginning as if Shabbat is in the middle or at the end. Furthermore, even if he heard a "near report" on Shabbat on the eve of a festival, since he practices matters of privacy—that Shabbat counts for him as a portion of mourning, and subsequently the festival nullifies the decree of seven days from him, as I wrote in siman 399. And it has already been explained in section 1 that we count thirty days regarding a "near" or "distant" report from the day of burial and not from the day of death. And there is one who wishes to say that specifically those who were present at the time of death and burial count from the day of burial, for that was the closing of the grave, and the mourning then devolved upon them. But those who were not present at the time of the event—they count from the day of death, for the day of death is the primary factor (Taz subsection 6, and Shach subsection 1 in the name of the Rashal). And the great authorities disagreed with them (the Be'er Heitev and the Shach himself in the Nekudot HaKesef). And so it is explicitly stated in our teacher Yerucham, and this is his wording: A "distant report" is called such when he heard it after thirty days from his burial. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Mordechai and the Rosh (siman 103) regarding an incident that occurred in Mainz, see there. And so it is clear from the words of the Rambam at the beginning of the seventh chapter (Rambam, Laws of Mourning 7) who wrote: The general rule of the matter: the day of his "near report" is like the day of burial. Thus far his words. Learn from this that the report is measured from the burial. And so too in Zevachim (Zevachim 100b): The day of report is like the day of burial, see there.

And this, that the festival cancels seven and thirty—it is simple that this is only when he heard, as I wrote in siman 399, and not when he did not hear before the festival. Therefore, if ten days after the festival of Sukkot he heard that a relative died, and had he heard on the eve of Sukkot the thirty would have already concluded on this day. How so? For an hour before the festival is like seven, and the festival is seven, and Shemini Atzeret is considered like seven as I wrote there—behold, twenty-one. And nine thereafter—behold, thirty. And the tenth day would be after thirty. Nevertheless, if he did not hear—this does not have the law of a distant rumor but rather a near rumor, for even when he heard, the festival does not count toward the tally when he did not observe mourning at all for one hour before the festival, and all the more so when he did not hear at all.

If one heard two distant rumors on one day – he only practices mourning for them for one hour, and it counts for both of them. If both were near rumors, or if two of his dead died at once – he counts seven and thirty for both of them as one. If he heard of this one today and of that one tomorrow – he counts for the first from today seven and thirty, and for the second from tomorrow seven and thirty. And so too if two of his dead died one after the other, as I have written above in siman 375.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 402, 11): One who has already prayed Arvit while it is still day, and heard a "near report" – he counts from the following day, and that day does not ascend for him. Thus far his words. And specifically for stringency do we say this and not for leniency, such as if today is the thirtieth day, and if he were to count from the morrow it would be a "distant report" – we do not say this (Taz subsection 7). And if he has not yet prayed, even if the congregation has already prayed – he counts from today even for leniency, and as I have written above in siman 375.

One who had a relative die and it was not known to him—it is not an obligation that they tell him, and even regarding his father and mother. And concerning this it is said: "He who utters a slander is a fool." And behold, we say in Nazir (Nazir 44a): It happened that the father of Rabbi Yitzchak died in Ginzak, and they informed him after three years, see there. And if it were a mitzvah to inform him—they would not have refrained from informing him. And it is permitted to invite him to a wedding feast or betrothal feast and any joy, since he does not know. However, if he asks about him—one should not lie and say "he is alive," as it is said: "Distance yourself from a false matter." And he may say a phrasing that is subject to two interpretations, and if he understands—he understands, and if not—he does not understand. And similar to this we find at the beginning of Pesachim (Pesachim 4a) where he asked him: "Is father alive?" and he answered him: "Mother is alive," see there. Such it is according to the essential law.

But our custom regarding male children is to inform them when their father or mother died, so that they may recite kaddish. However, regarding daughters, there is no custom at all to inform them; thus wrote our teacher, the Rema. And he wrote further that it is a mitzvah to fast on the day on which one's father or mother died. And one fasts on the day of death and not the day of burial, unless one was present at the burial and not at the death. Thus far his words. And the great later authorities took issue with this, and ruled that even in such a case, one should fast on the day of death and not the day of burial. And there is one who wished to say that in the first year one fasts on the day of burial (Magen Avraham). And his words were rejected, for even in the first year they should fast only on the day of death and not the day of burial (Shach subsection 10, and Taz subsection 9). And such is the widespread custom.

And he wrote further: That if this day occurred on days when it is impossible to recite tachanun – they do not fast at all. And if they died in Adar and the year was intercalated – the primary ruling is to fast in the first Adar. And even though there are those who disagree – such is the primary ruling. And if they died in an intercalated year in the second Adar – they also fast in the second Adar, and see Orach Chaim siman 568 section 7. And see above siman 396 that one should not eat at a meal on the night of the day on which his father or mother died. And if this fast falls on Erev Shabbat – its law is like any other fast. And see Orach Chaim siman 249. However, if on the first occasion he completed it – he should practice so all his days. Thus far his words. And the Maharshal wrote: Specifically when it falls for the first time on Erev Shabbat, and he did not complete it on 그 occasion, which is not the case when it falls for the first time on a weekday, for the fast was already established until the emergence of the stars – he is obligated to complete it afterwards even when it falls on Erev Shabbat. But there are great authorities who ruled that even when it fell the first time on a weekday and he completed it, nevertheless if it falls afterwards on Erev Shabbat – he does not need to complete it (Pitchei Teshuva subsection 8 in the name of Chut HaShani and so it appears in the Taz Orach Chaim end of siman 649, see there). And one may rely on this. (And see what I wrote in Orach Chaim siman 568 section 14.)

However, this is specifically when, at the time he fasted the first time, it was his intention to conduct himself thus in all years. But if he resolved in his mind only for this year—there is no neder here, as is explained above in siman 214. For it is explained there that when it was not his intention to conduct himself thus in all years—there is no neder here. Furthermore, it seems to me that if it happens that he is weak—he does not require hatarah at all, for let it be no more than a public fast. And when one is weak—he is not required to fast. And it is good that each person should conduct himself on the first yahrtzeit, when he wishes to fast, to say explicitly that he does not accept upon himself to fast every year, but rather whenever he wishes. However, even if he did not say so, if only he did not conclude in his heart for all years—this is not a neder, as I wrote in siman 214, and he may eat in another year. And see in Orach Chaim siman 568, section 16, regarding the matter of a yahrtzeit in Cheshvan and Kislev, which are sometimes full and sometimes lacking, how one proceeds regarding the yahrtzeit; see there.