Explanation #1: [They already engaged in] consolation, and Berachah in Shurah (the consolation line).

Explanation #2 (R. Yom Tov): [They already] gave him Seudas Havra'ah (the first meal after the burial).

Rashi's opinion: This is unlike Machzor Vitri, which explains in the name of Rashi that we do not do Havra'ah during the Regel, since there is no Avelus [during the Regel];

Also after the Regel we do not do it, since the first meal was Batel.

Explanation: Rashi was unsure whether Havra'ah is during the Moed, or after the Moed;

Perhaps Havra'ah is not considered a public matter, since an individual can do it.

Explanation: Regarding Havra'ah, he explained below that the entire first day, the Avel may not eat his own food, even if he eats twice during the day.

Source: The Gemara did not say "the first meal", rather, "the first day."

Explanation: Tosfos explained that similarly, his Melachah is done through others.

Question: R. Yochanan holds that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah!

Question (Yerushalmi): Why we don't say eight, like the eight days of Sukos?

Answer (Yerushalmi): Shemini Atzeres is a festival unto itself.

Implied question: Why can't we learn from "va'Ya'as l'Aviv Evel Shiv'as Yomim"?

Answer #1: That was before the burial.

Answer #2 (Yerushalmi): We do not learn from before Matan Torah. The Yerushalmi brought many verses.

Assertion: The same applies when an individual is stringent and the Rabim are lenient. The Halachah follows the Rabim.

Explanation: Here we discuss when an individual is lenient, therefore we stated the Klal in this case.

Exceptions: "Whenever" is not precise. In many places, we rule like the individual. When it was said [that the Halachah follows the individual], it was said (we follow this);

Regarding Eruv, the Halachah follows the lenient opinion, even against a Rabim.

However, only R. Yehoshua ben Levi says so, but R. Yochanan disagrees (Eruvin 46a).

Observation: Even though above it says "and Chachamim say" [this is actually an individual's opinion].

Rashi's opinion: "Eibo Kayam" connotes "I did not yet answer you about Eibo."

Question #1: R. Chiya should have said "is your mother alive?", and not "mother", which connotes R. Chiya's mother!

Question #2: Rav should have answered "father", and not called his own father by his name Eibo!

R. Chananel' text: R. Chiya asked "is father alive?", and Rav answered "father is alive." R. Chiya asked "is mother alive?", and Rav answered "mother is alive."

Explanation: R. Chiya asked about his own father and mother, and Rav answered him about Rav's father and mother.

Question: Why did the Gemara need to mention that Rav was the son of R. Chiya's [half-]brother and the son of R. Chiya's [half-]sister?

Granted, according to the first explanation, the Gemara brought this to explain why R. Chiya was concerned for Rav's father and mother.

Answer: Also according to this explanation, it is needed, lest we ask why Rav answered about his own father and mother more than other living people.

Now, it teaches that Rav answered [about his own father] because he was R. Chiya's brother, so it was good to inform him of good tidings, and R. Chiya would not say "go inform his (your father's) relatives";

This is like we say in Pesachim (3b, regarding one who did not want to say that the wheat grew badly, so he said "the barley grew well", and they told him) "go inform the horses and donkeys"! (Barley is primarily for them.)

Alternative text: Some texts say "(R. Chiya asked) "is father alive?", and Rav answered "mother is alive." R. Chiya asked "is mother alive", and Rav answered "father is alive."

Explanation: This is similar to the way R. Chananel explained his text. R. Chiya asked about his own father and mother, and Rav answered him about Rav's father and mother.

Implied question: Why didn't Rav answer [the question about R. Chiya's father with tidings about Rav's father, and similarly regarding their mothers], like in R. Chananel's text?

Answer: If R. Chiya asked "is father alive?", and Rav answered "father is alive", this would connote that Rav answers about R. Chiya's father;

It was normal to call a grandfather "father".

Explanation: The Regel counts for him towards the count [of Sheloshim]. He observes only one day [afterwards].

Explanation: We ask only in any case like this, since he was obligated to tear at the time he heard;

However, if he heard a Shemu'ah Rechokah on a Yom Chol, he does not tear at all, even for his father or mother.

Support #1: We say below that the Beraisa is due to honor of his father or mother. (Letter of the law, he need not tear.)

Support #2: The Gemara connotes like this above. We do not find that R. Chiya tore, even though it was [a Shemu'ah Rechokah] about his father and mother according to R. Chananel's text.

Question: If we learn from there that one does not tear for [a Shemu'ah Rechokah about] his father or mother, why didn't the Gemara say "we learn from this that one does not tear"?

Answer: The Gemara says "we learn from this" only regarding what we saw R. Chiya do. We do not bring a proof from what we did not see.

Inference: In any case, since the Gemara did not resolve whether or not R. Chiya tore, this connotes that one need not tear.

Pesak: In a Teshuvah of Rabbeinu, my grandfather, he explained that one does not tear for a Shemu'ah Rechokah, even about his father or mother;

R. Yonah and Tosfos ha'Rav were unsure.

Implied question: We say below that one who had no garment (when he became an Avel, and obtained a garment, he tears only if it is within Shiv'ah, even though he was obligated. All the more so, one need not tear for a Shemu'ah Rechokah!)

Answer: This is when he borrowed it from his friend, or it was full of tears.

Pesak: I say that we should rely more on Bahag than Rav Tzemach Gaon, that we tear after 30 days only a father or mother.

Bahag cites two opinions about Birkas Avelim for one who heard on Shabbos. Some say that this is called a private matter;

Others say that since we bless with three or 10, this is not a private matter.

Explanation: [He mourns] not only for a paternal sister [even if she married. He mourns] even for a maternal sister [even if she married].

Explanation: This is those who were born from them. Tosfos ha'Rav in the name of his Rebbi was unsure about their brothers and wives.

I do not know why they should be any different.

Explanation (Tosfos ha'Rav in the name of his Rebbi): The same applies to his mother's mother and his daughter's daughter.

Explanation (Tosfos): All laws of Avelus apply - [Isurim of] wearing shoes, bathing, anointing, and all of them, as long as he is in front of her.

Implied question: In Kesuvos (4b), it says [about conducting Avelus with one's husband] "with him in the house"!

Answer: Perhaps it is only in front of her. Or, perhaps it is in the entire house/.

Explanation: This is with hot water. With cold water, even she may [wash]!

Explanation: Likewise, she mourns with him over the loss of her father-in-law or mother-in-law.

Implied question: Above, we taught that anyone over whom one mourns, he mourns with him [when the latter mourns. If so, one should mourn over all relatives of one's spouse!]

Answer: That refers to other relatives. Regarding one's wife, we distinguish between her father-in-law or mother-in-law (she mourns only over them), and other relatives [of her husband].

Explanation #1: [He tore] in order to conduct Avelus.

Question: Since he already tore, there is no need at all to tear [again] in front of the relatives!

Answer: Perhaps he wanted to show that in front of him (the mourner), one must conduct Avelus.

Explanation #2 (Rabeinu Avraham, talmid of Rashbam): When his son came, he tore in front of him, because Ameimar tore while sitting. His son came to remind him that he erred to tear sitting;

Ameimar's son did this tearing, and through it, Ameimar remembered, and he tore again, standing.