יורה דעה ת״בYoreh De'ah 402

Se’if 1א׳

מִי שֶׁבָּאָה לוֹ שְׁמוּעָה שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ קָרוֹב, אִם בְּתוֹךְ ל' יוֹם הִגִיעָה הַשְּׁמוּעָה, אֲפִלוּ יוֹם ל' עַצְמוֹ, הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁמוּעָה קְרוֹבָה וְחַיָּב לִנְהֹג שִׁבְעָה יְמֵי אֲבֵלוּת מִיּוֹם שֶׁהִגִיעַ הַשְּׁמוּעָה; וְקוֹרֵעַ וּמוֹנֶה ל' יוֹם מִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמוּעָה (כָּךְ מַשְׁמָע מֵהַרַמְבַּ"ם וּמִנִּמּוּקֵי יוֹסֵף פא"מ וּבְמָרְדְּכַי) לְתִסְפֹּרֶת עִם שְׁאָר דְּבָרִים. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר, יוֹם שְׁמוּעָתוֹ הַקְרוֹבָה כְּיוֹם הַקְבוּרָה. וְאִם שָׁמַע מִיּוֹם ל' וָאֵילָךְ, אֵין צָרִיךְ לִנְהֹג אֶלָא שָׁעָה אַחַת, לֹא שְׁנָא שָׁמַע בַּיּוֹם לֹא שְׁנָא שָׁמַע בַּלַיְלָה, שֶׁאִם שָׁמַע בַּלַיְלָה וְנָהַג מִקְצָת אֲבֵלוּת בַּלַיְלָה שָׁעָה אַחַת, עוֹלֶה לוֹ; וַאֲפִלוּ שָׁמַע עַל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וְהָנֵי מִלֵי לְעִנְיַן גְזֵרַת שִׁבְעָה, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן גְזֵרַת שְׁלֹשִׁים, נוֹהֵג עַל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ בְּתִסְפֹּרֶת עַד שֶׁיִּגְעֲרוּ בּוֹ חֲבֵרָיו, וּבְגִהוּץ עַד שֶׁיַּגִיעַ הָרֶגֶל וְיִגְעֲרוּ בּוֹ, וְכֵן בִּשְׁאֵלַת שָׁלוֹם וְלִכָּנֵס לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה; וּמוֹנֶה מִיּוֹם מִיתָה וְלֹא מִיּוֹם שְׁמוּעָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם בָּאָה לוֹ שְׁמוּעָה עַל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ לְאַחַר י"ב חֹדֶשׁ, אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָא יוֹם אֶחָד אַף בִּגְזֵרַת ל'.

One to whom a report came that he suffered the loss of a near-of-kin [for whom one is dutibound to observe mourning rites], — if the report reached him within thirty days [after burial],1Yad, Ebel VII, 1 derived from M.K. 20a. One who receives a death report and does not know whether it is still within or after the thirty days, — there is a difference of opinion among the Codifiers. TaZ rules that he does not have to observe mourning rites. supra § 397, 1, n. even [if he received it] on the thirtieth day proper,2Thus Alfasi and N in T.H. This is derived (M.K. 20b) from the case of one who receives near tidings on the Sabbath, and by the termination of the Sabbath it has become distant tidings in which case the law is that he observes one day of mourning only (actually one hour. infra). From this we conclude that the Sabbath must have been the thirtieth day, and since one observes on the Sabbath only mourning pertaining to private matters, formal mourning cannot continue after the Sabbath. Hence, with the termination of the Sabbath the death report is regarded as distant tidings. Were the Sabbath the twenty-ninth day, the entire seven days of formal mourning would have to be observed. Consequently, we may conclude that a death report received on the thirtieth day (excluding the Sabbath) is regarded as near tidings. The thirtieth day is calculated according to the locality of the mourner and not the place of death, e.g., if one who lives in United States or Canada receives a death report from Europe on the thirtieth day, although in Europe at that time it was already the thirty-first day, we follow the locality of the mourner with respect to determining whether it is near or distant tidings — Resp. Abne Zikaron. it is considered near tidings and he is dutibound to observe seven days of mourning from the day that the [death] report reached him, and he rends [garments]3Derived from M.K. 20b where the question is raised whether or not one rends garments on hearing near tiding on the Sabbath which becomes distant tidings at the termination of the Sabbath, whence it follows that during the thirty days one must rend garments. Furthermore in M.K. 25a it is stated that if a Ḥakam died all must rend garments. This undoubtedly refers to near tidings, for if not, i.e., if it refers to the time between death and burial, then even in the case of any worthy person אדם כשר who dies one must rend garments, and not only in the case of a Ḥakam. § 401, 3 and W.G. a.l. and counts thirty days from the day the report [is received]4Thus implied in Maim. (Yad, ibid.) and N.Yos. and Mord. M.K. III — G. with respect to [the prohibition against] hair-cutting [and] with [regard to] other matters [which obtain in the case of other dead.5E.g., the mourner’s meal and everything else which obtains on the day of burial — Asheri and Tur. The general principle of the matter is [that] the day of his [receiving] near tidings [is regarded] as the day of burial.6One should not don Tefillin on the day one receives a death report of near tidings (B.Yos. on the authority of N) — TaZ. Cf. supra § 388, 1, n. 4. however, Nek. Hak. that this follows from par. 2 infra. The thirty days of near tidings are calculated from the day of burial and not from the day of death. Thus D.Merb. TaZ and ShaK state that we should calculate from the day of death (v. Nek. Hak. who writes that the matter requires further elucidation). Thus also Peri Megadim and Ḥ. Adam. Mishmereth Shalom after a lengthy analysis of this problem concludes that the law is in accordance with the lenient view. A.H. maintains that we should calculate from the day of burial (v. Zeb. 100b). However, if he received the report after the thirtieth day and onward, — he is required to observe [mourning rites] only for one hour,7M.K. 20a in accord with R. Akiba. supra § 399, 7, n. 56. [and] there is no difference whether he received the [death] report during the day8E.g., the thirty-first day. or during the night,9E.g., the night of the thirty-first day. supra § 395, 2. [for even] if he received the [death] report at night and observed some mourning rites at night for one hour,10Cf. supra § 388, 1, n. 4. it counts for him [as valid]; and even if he received a report [of distant tidings] about [the death of] his father and/or mother [the same principle obtains].11N and Asheri, derived from the following case of Rab and R. Ḥiyya in M.K. 20a-b and parallel references: ‘. . he (R. Ḥiyya) said to his nephew (Rab), “Is father alive”? — He replied, “Mother is alive.” (Again) he asked, “Is mother alive”? — He replied, “Father is alive.” R. Ḥiyya then said to his attendant, “Take off my shoes and bring along my things to the (public) bath-house.” From this we learn three things: We learn that a mourner is forbidden to put on shoes; that (on hearing) distant tidings (one observes mourning rites) for one day only; and that part of the day is (regarded) as a whole day.’ According to R. Ḥananel, R Ḥiyya referred to his own parents when questioning Rab about them (v. Rashi and Tosaf. ibid. s.v. אייבו for other interpretations). The same ruling is derived from the case of R. Ḥinena (ibid. 20a) who received tidings from Be Ḥozai about the death of his father, and after consulting R. Ḥisda, the latter told him, ‘On (receiving) distant tidings, mourning is observed for one day only.’ And this, — [viz., that even in the case of receiving distant tidings about the death of one's parents, one hour of mourning suffices], applies only with respect to the restrictions of the seven [days of mourning which fall away in the case of distant tidings],12Tur on the authority of N in T.H. on the basis of a logical deduction. but as to the restrictions of the thirty [which apply in the case of other dead],13e., whatever restrictions obtain in the case of other near-of-kin with respect to the thirty days, e.g., laundry-work, hair-cutting, obtain in the case of one’s parents until he is rebuked etc. — TaZ. — he observes [in the case of receiving distant tidings] about [the death of] his father and/or mother the [prohibition against] hair-cutting until his friends rebuke him, and with respect to laundry work, — until the Festival arrives and they rebuke him, and likewise, with respect to extending a greeting of peace or entering a house of feasting. However, [in the aforementioned restrictions],14With respect to distant tidings received about the death of a parent. he counts15The twelve months. from the day of death and not from the day that the [death] report [is received]. Therefore, if a report reached him about [the death of] his father and/or mother after twelve months [from the day of death], he observes only one day16e., one hour. For we apply the principle that ‘part of a day is regarded as a whole day.’ of mourning [and] even with respect to the restrictions of the thirty [days in the case of other dead the same principle applies].

Se’if 2ב׳

הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ שְׁמוּעָה רְחוֹקָה, אֵין צָרִיךְ לִנְהֹג כָּל דִּין אֲבֵלוּת, אֶלָא דַּיּוֹ בַּחֲלִיצַת מִנְעָל, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לֹא עֲטִיפָה וְלֹא כְּפִיַּת הַמִּטָּה, וּמֻתָּר בִּמְלָאכָה, רְחִיצָה וְסִיכָה וְתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה וּבְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, וְאִם אֵין לוֹ מִנְעָלִים בְּרַגְלָיו צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּכְפֶה מִטָּתוֹ אוֹ יַעֲטֹף רֹאשׁוֹ, שֶׁצָּרִיךְ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּכָּר בּוֹ שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה מִשּׁוּם אֲבֵלוּת; וְאִם הָיָה עוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה אוֹ בִּמְלָאכָה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה רוֹחֵץ וְסָךְ, וּבָאָה לוֹ שְׁמוּעָה, מַפְסִיק שָׁעָה אַחַת מִשּׁוּם אֲבֵלוּת, וְחוֹזֵר לְמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדוֹ, אֲבָל אִם הָיָה לָבוּשׁ תְּפִלִין, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְחָלְצָן, וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא יְדֵי אֲבֵלוּת בְּהֶפְסֵק זֶה, וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּכָּר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה מִשּׁוּם אֲבֵלוּת, כְּגוֹן חֲלִיצַת מִנְעָל אוֹ כְּפִיַּת הַמִּטָּה וַעֲטִיפָה; וּמִיהוּ בְּחָדָא סָגֵי.

One who hears distant tidings is not required to observe the entire law of mourning rites, but it is sufficient for him to remove [his] shoe[s] and he is not required [to observe in addition] muffling [of the head] or overturning the couch, and he is permitted to work, bathe, annoint himself, use of the conjugal couch and Torah-study. However, if he has no shoes on his feet [at the time the distant tidings are reported to him], he is required to overturn his couch or to muffle his head, for he is required to perform a [positive] act whereby it may be seen that he acts [thus] on account of mourning. If, however, he was engaged in the study of the Torah, or work, or he was bathing or annointing himself, and a [belated death] report came to him, — he interrupts [this] for one hour on account of mourning, and [subsequently] returns to what he was doing.17Lit. ‘to what was in his hand.’ Tur on the authority of N in T.H., derived from the case of R. Ḥiyya and Rab. supra n. 11. R. Ḥiyya merely removed his shoes but went to the bathhouse which is forbidden to a mourner for a recent bereavement. But if he was wearing Tefillin18 Glos. [at the time the distant tidings were received], he is not required to remove them.19Thus N in T.H. derived from R. Ḥiyya (ibid.), who, we assume was wearing his Tefillin. at the time he was informed about the death of his parents, and yet no mention is made that he removed them (v. supra n. 11). For if R. Ḥiyya were required to remove his Tefillin, it would mean that distant tidings of death would be considered more stringent than mourning for a recent bereavement, in which case the law is that the Tefillin should be worn during the observance of formal mourning save on the first day. supra § 388 and notes. Yet, he does not discharge his duty of mourning through this [aformentioned] interruption, and is required to perform a [positive] act whereby it may be seen that he acts [thus] on account of mourning, e.g., [by] removing [his] shoes or over-turning the couch and muffling [the head]. However, one [such act] is sufficient.

Se’if 3ג׳

אֵין מַבְרִין עַל שְׁמוּעָה רְחוֹקָה.

One does not provide the mourner's meal on account of distant tidings.20N.Yos and Mord. Derived from the case of R. Ḥiyya (ibid.) where this was not done. M.K. 25b, Tosaf. s.v. אלא. Regarding the laws of the mourner’s meal, v. supra § 378.