Pesak: The Yerushalmi rules like the one who adds days.

Question: When I was small, I saw that my grandfather Rabbeinu Yitzchak did not sit in his place until the fourth week. I did not know his reason;

If he holds like R. Yehudah, he should hold like him regarding the second week, that an Avel may not leave his house

Answer #1: One can say that regarding this, we find many sources above that Avelus is seven days, and we hold like this.

Answer #2: Perhaps he holds like Rabanan. Because he needed to sit in his place and not speak, it was better to sit elsewhere. Perhaps the Isur to speak is only in his place.

Explanation #1: Three Regalim must pass without Simchah, so he will not forget love of his wife.

Explanation #2: It is in order that when he marries another woman, he will not remember his first wife, lest there be thoughts of two [wives] in the bed [during intimacy, which is very problematic].

Explanation #3: It is lest he mention love of his first wife to his new wife, to vex her.

Support: Similar to this, we say above (21b) that if one's wife died and he married another, [others] may not enter his house [to console him].

Suggestion: Because we hold above (22a) that the Halachah follows the lenient opinion in Aveilus, we should rule like R. Yehudah, who says two Regalim.

Rejection (R. Yonah): This is not a matter of Avelus, for the days of Avelus already finished.

Explanation: This was not literally at the cemetery [at the time of the funeral], for an Avel is forbidden [to marry] all seven days.

Explanation (Riva): This is the wife whom we say (Zevachim 100a) died on Erev Pesach. We said above that [if a Mes died] even one day, or even a small time [before Yom Tov], the decree of Shivah is Batel.

However, it connotes that he holds like the Perush I explained above in the name of R. Yonah that he is forbidden to bathe until the evening, and this [episode] was during the day.

Other leniencies: The law of [a mother] who died and left young children, that he may marry and have relations immediately, and the law of one who has no children, I explained this in Tosfos in Yevamos (43b) and Kesuvos (4a) and in Teshuvos.

Maseches Semachos discusses the episode in which he (Yosef ha'Kohen) married her immediately, but did not have relations with her until a long time, and the law that if one has no one to serve him, he is permitted, and he need not wait three Regalim. I explained these elsewhere (Kesuvos 4a DH Aval).

Assertion: Only Gihutz (rubbing with a stone) is forbidden, but without Gihutz, e.g. Kivus (laundering), it is permitted.

Support: We say below (27b) "Al Tivku l'Mes" - Gihutz and cutting hair are forbidden for 30 days.

In Maseches Semachos, we say "Gihutz is forbidden for 30 days. How is this?..."

The Yerushalmi forbids Gihutz and cutting hair for 30 days, but it seems that Kivus is permitted.

Source - Citation (Yevamos 43b): A widow [may not become Mekudeshes] due to Aveilus. Her Avelus is 30 days;

Citation (cont.) Question: When Kivus is forbidden, Kidushin is permitted. All the more so when one may launder, Kidushin is permitted!

Implied question - Citation (Maseches Semachos): [If the Mes died] eight days before the Regel, if one wanted to launder or cut hair [on Erev ha'Regel];

Citation (cont.): If he did not cut hair or launder on Erev ha'Regel, it is forbidden until 30 days are completed;

Inference: Also Kivus is forbidden!

Answer: It seems that the Kivus forbidden there is Gihutz.

Application: Since [what is normally called] Kivus is permitted, also Gihutz is permitted for us, like we say in Kesuvos (10b) and Ta'anis (29b) that our Gihutz (in Bavel) is like their Kivus (in Eretz Yisrael).

Question (R. Shmuel of Vardom): In our Sugya, it says Abaye went out [during Sheloshim with an old Meguhatz garment, like Rebbi]. They were in Bavel, and their Gihutz is only like Kivus (of Eretz Yisrael), and still it is forbidden [for new garments, and Chachamim forbid all garments]!

Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak): Sometimes they used to bring from Eretz Yisrael Kelim on which Gihutz was done.

Answer #2: Sometimes they brought professionals who know how to do Gihutz like in Eretz Yisrael.

Implied question - Citation (Tosefta): All these that they said may cut hair during the Moed may cut hair within 30 days. However, all these that they said may do Kivus during the Moed are forbidden within 30 days of Avelus.

Answer: We must say that also Kivus [in the Tosefta] is Gihutz.

Riva's opinion: My Rebbi, Riva, forbids Kivus within 30 days. He held that it is not proper to reject all these proofs.

Implied question: In Yevamos 43a, we said "when Kivus is permitted [within 30 days]"!

Answer: It discusses those whom [Chachamim] permitted to shave and Lechaves [during the Moed] (13b), e.g. one who came from overseas, or left jail...

Implied question: There, we forbid Kivus in [the week preceding] Tish'ah b'Av.

Answer: This is because he can wait until after Tish'ah b'Av, since the Isur does not last so long;

Defense of text: The text "in a place where cutting hair [...] " is proper, like I explained. (Those permitted during the Moed are permitted within Sheloshim.)

One need not erase the text, or resolve it through [establishing it to discuss] a woman, or shaving the entire head (it is not called a haircut, for it is not done for beauty), like the Meforshim who want to resolve the text do.

I elaborated in Tosfos in Yevamos. The text below (27b) says "Al Tivku... How is this? Kivus and cutting hair are forbidden for 30 days.

Implied question: Above (15a), we say that an Avel is forbidden Kivus. This connotes that it is permitted after seven days.

Answer: That refers to [laundering only] with water, without white earth and sand. This can be permitted after seven days.

Tosfos ha'Rav explained like this, and forbade [Kivus within 30 days]. He said that his Rebbi permitted.

Support (and Answer #3 to Question (e)): Based on what he (Riva) explained that Kivus is forbidden like Gihutz, this answers Rabbeinu Shmuel's question [from Abaye, that even Rebbi permits only an old Meguhatz garment during Sheloshim].

Rejection of support: However, my Rebbi did not really explain to forbid all Kivus. Rather, he explained that the Beraisa that forbids Kivus discusses Eretz Yisrael. Their Kivus is like our Gihutz.

The Beraisa that teaches (forbids only) Gihutz, but not Kivus, refers to Bavel. However, according to this, only Gihutz is forbidden to us.

The Ri's opinion: However, without a proof, the Ri explained like Rabbeinu Yitzchak ha'Zaken, that sometimes there were in Bavel professional [launderers] who knew Gihutz.

[The Isur of] Gihutz does not apply linen garments. This is unlike the Yerushalmi, which forbids Gihutz 30 days, to wear new wool garments Meguhatzim, and white linen garments Meguhatzim;

Tosfos ha'Rav's opinion: The Isur of Gihutz is only to wear [garments Meguhatzim], but one may do Gihutz.

The [entire] Beraisa [in Maseches Semachos] that says "Gihutz is forbidden 30 days" forbids wearing garments Meguhatzim... until "one may bring garments for Gihutz within Sheloshim."

Question: I am unsure whether the Rav would permit Kivus within Shivah, and distinguish also between laundering and wearing.

Answer: However, my grandfather Rabbeinu Yitzchak explains in a Teshuvah that even to launder and leave [to wear afterwards] is forbidden.

Source: In Ta'anis (29a), we forbid to launder [in the week of Tish'ah b'Av] and leave [to wear afterwards].

Pesak: In the Teshuvah, he also explained that our Kivus is permitted regarding Tish'ah b'Av, like we say that our Gihutz is like their Kivus.

Inference: Our Kivus is unlike their Kivus.

Support: It says so explicitly in Kesuvos (10b).

Distinction: However, regarding Avelus, our Kivus is forbidden. Even regarding Tish'ah b'Av, everyone has the custom to be stringent about our Kivus;

This is like people are stringent about Avelus regarding salted meat. The Halachah permits it, but people conduct as if it is forbidden.

Question: What is his source to be more lenient about Tish'ah b'Av than the [seven] days of Avelus?

Just the contrary! In Ta'anis, we are more stringent about Gihutz of linen garments during the days of Avelus than during the Moed,

Pesak: Regarding hand towels, Rabbeinu answered that even though Chachamim permitted [laundering] them during the Moed, they are forbidden during Avelus.

This is like we said above, that everyone they said may shave during the Moed [is permitted during Avelus];

We asked from a Beraisa that forbids, and established [the lenient Beraisa] to discuss overlapping Avelus (another relative died during the week of Avelus).

Pesak: Tosfos explained that when Abaye and Rava argue, the Halachah follows Rava.

Consequence: If so, one may wear garments Meguhatzim that are colored, even if they are new, or if they are old, even if they are white. Also R. Chananel rules like this.

Explanation: This discusses private matters, like Rashi explained.

Support #1: Also below, we suggested that Tana'im argue about this. We bring the argument of R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabanan, which is [about] private matters.

Support #2: Above regarding the Mishnah of "Shabbos counts [towards Shivah]", the Yerushalmi brings that R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua ben Levi argue about whether relations are forbidden to an Avel.

Inference: They argue like the argument here, according to R. Yochanan.

Opinion #2: Some say there that it is permitted, and it argues with the Bavli, for R. Yochanan (Kesuvos 4a) said that even though there is no Avelus on Shabbos, private matters apply.

Question: Abaye found Rav Yosef with a scarf on his head, and asked "don't you hold that Avelus does not apply on Shabbos?" Rav Yosef answered that R. Yochanan taught that private matters apply.

Answer: Perhaps [Abaye] thought that putting a scarf on the head is a public matter, like the opinion that Pri'as ha'Rosh (uncovering the head) is obligatory;

He (Abaye) did not distinguish between in his house and outside. [Rav Yosef] answered that in his house is considered private.

Assertion (R. Avraham): Since it taught "it is Oleh (Shabbos counts)" and did not specify "there is not Avelus on [Shabbos]", this shows that Avelus applies [on Shabbos].

Proof: If not, it should have explicitly specified "even though it is Oleh, Avelus does not apply", for saying that it is Oleh connotes that Avelus applies.

The Gemara answered that since the Seifa taught Stam "it is not Oleh", the Reisha taught Stam "it is Oleh."

Rejection: This is unreasonable. Rabbeinu Shimon explained in the name of his Rebbi that the one who says that Yesh Avelus [says so] because it was taught "it is Oleh", which connotes that it counts for everything - for the count of seven, and for Avelus, i.e. he observes on Shabbos what he observed yesterday;

Therefore Shabbos counts towards the number [of days he must observe] just like Erev Shabbos counts.

Rejection (continued): The one who says that Ein Avelus [says so] because it was taught "it does not interrupt." Even though it (Shabbos) is so important that it is Mevatel Avelus [from applying] on it (Shabbos), in any case it does not interrupt;

If this were not true [that Avelus does not apply on Shabbos], it would be obvious [that it does not interrupt. There would be no need to teach it]!

The Gemara challenged this, for "it counts" connotes that Avelus applies like on other days.

It answered that since it was taught regarding Yom Tov "it is not Oleh at all, not for the count, and not for Avelus", because Simchah is written regarding them (Yom Tov), like I will explain...

Therefore, also the Reisha taught "it is Oleh." It used the same wording regarding Shabbos as for Yom Tov, to avoid a big deviation in the wording of the Mishnah [from the Reisha to the Seifa].

However, "it is Oleh" regarding Shabbos is not for the count and for Avelus. It does not count, for Avelus does not apply on it (Shabbos).

Question #1: If so, according to this Perush, we asked why it taught "it is Oleh", and answered that really, Avelus does not apply. Aidi (since) the Tana taught [... he taught a similar expression regarding Shabbos, for parallel structure];

If this is how we explain the Mishnah, the Gemara never does so. It says that something was taught Aidi only regarding a statement that is true, just it did not need to be taught. We should not do so for things that seems false!

Question #2: Also, we can ask against this Perush that if so, we should have taught that Shabbos does not count, and this would be more similar to the Seifa! All this is from R. Avraham (student of Rashbam).

Question (Tosfos ha'Rav): [The Gemara] connotes that even according to the opinion that Avelus does not apply, it counts towards Shivah. If so, also the Regel, even though Avelus does not apply, should count towards Shivah!

Above, we said that we do not ask about [the Regel counting towards] Shivah, since Mitzvos of Shivah do not apply during the Regel;

Answer: (Tosfos ha'Rav): Even though Shabbos counts, the Regel does not count, since there is no Avelus at all, since Simchah is written [regarding Regalim];

Simchah is not written regarding Shabbos, therefore even if Avelus does not apply, it counts.

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains that Avelus does not apply on Shabbos because it says "Birkas Hash-m Hi Ta'ashir v'Lo Yosif Etzev Imah." Berachah is written regarding Shabbos.

Assumption: It seems that just like on Erev Tish'ah b'Av we permit (Ta'anis 30a) meat as long as it is not like Shelamim (rather, it is more than two days and a night after Shechitah), and wine [straight] from the winepress (i.e. grape juice), also here it is permitted for an Onen.

However, the custom is to be stringent here (regarding an Onen) and on [Erev] Tish'ah b'Av.

Question: This connotes that an Onen is more stringent than an Avel, for we do not find that an Avel is forbidden meat and wine;

Regarding Kodshim, we find that an Avel eats Kodshim, and an Onen is forbidden.

Regarding other matters, Chachamim were more stringent about Avelus, e.g. inverting the bed, wearing shoes, wrapping the head and other matters. These are permitted to an Onen!

Answer: Things that are due to Avelus are permitted to an Onen, and forbidden during Avelus;

However, things that are not due to Avelus, rather, because he should be preoccupied with burying his Mes, and not be drawn after other matters, such as eating meat and drinking wine, are forbidden only to an Onen.

The Gemara below connotes that relations are forbidden during Aninus. Perhaps also this is lest he be drawn after it [and neglect burial], or because it is excessive Simchah and brazenness. I found so [written].

Question: I am unsure whether shaving and laundering are permitted to an Onen.

Suggestion: We can learn that shaving is forbidden from a Beraisa in Maseches Semachos, which says that if one was shaving, and they told him that one of his relatives died, he finishes.

Inference: Had he not begun, it is forbidden.

Rejection: Perhaps the Beraisa discusses a Shemu'ah (report that a relative died) after the burial. (He is an Avel, and not an Onen.)

Partial answer: In the name of Riva, I wrote that shaving is forbidden. We learn from "Rosheichem Al Tifra'u" (after Nadav and Avihu died, Aharon, Elazar and Itamar were forbidden to grow their hair for 30 days, rather, they were obligated to shave);

This implies that all others are forbidden [shaving during Aninus]. They were Onenim at the time.

The law of relations: Below, we forbid relations. Chachamim considered it proper to permit during Aninus (Kesuvos 4a, when the father/mother of the Chasan/Kalah died);

They forbade during Avelus, like it says there, that they put the Mes in a room, they have Bi'as Mitzvah and separate. (They bury the Mes, and then Bi'ah is forbidden.)

Implied question: We say there "Avelus here is lenient. Perhaps they will come to be disgrace it (be extra lenient)!"

Citation (4a): What is the leniency? If it is what we taught, that they have Bi'as Mitzvah and separate, this is because Avelus did not [yet] take effect! (I.e. this is not a leniency of Avelus.)

Answer: The Gemara does not mean that there is no leniency in the matter. Rather, it means that it is not a leniency of Avelus, rather, of Aninus, so people will not come to disgrace Avelus.

Rashi's opinion (Berachos 18a): We do not bless ha'Motzi, and we do not make a Zimun with him for Birkas ha'Mazon.

Question: Regarding ha'Motzi, it is not appropriate to discuss blessing Alav (on him)!

Granted, regarding Birkas ha'Mazon, joining [for a Zimun] applies. However, how does joining apply to ha'Motzi?!

Answer #1 (Tosfos): We say that when there are three, we do not bless Alav, rather, the Mitzvah is to divide. This is like two who ate [together]. The Mitzvah is for them to separate [and each blesses for himself]. The Onen does not join with them;

Also, we do not make a Zimun Alav, i.e. with him, to say Nevarech she'Achalnu mi'Shelo.

Had it taught only one expression, one might have thought this teaches that he does not join for Nevarech she'Achalnu mi'Shelo, but he joins for the law of three who ate together, that one blesses for the other[s]. Therefore it taught both of these.

Answer #2 (Riva): "We are not Mevarech and Mezamen" teaches about (1) saying Nevarech she'Achalnu mi'Shelo, and (2) to bless (say a Zimun) with Hash-m's name, like we mention His name when there are 10.

Rashi's opinion: Rashi explained (Berachos 18a) that he does not bless, i.e. he need not bless [Birkas ha'Mazon - Rashash].

Inference: There is no Isur if he blesses. Also in our Sugya, Rashi explained like this.

R. Yitzchak's opinion: We say there that within four Amos [of a Mes, one does not say Keri'as Shema or do Mitzvos, and the same applies to an Onen] is Asur. Rabbeinu Yitzchak explained that he may not bless.

Also Tosfos ha'Rav forbids blessing.

Question (Rabbeinu Yitzchak): Now, the custom is to bless and be Mezamen!

Answer #1 (Rabbeinu Yitzchak): Here we discuss only when he engages in needs of the Mes. He should not be Batel from the Mitzvah;

When he does not engage [in needs of the Mes] it is permitted.

Answer #2: When others engage [in needs of the Mes], and he does nothing [it is permitted].

Question #1: The Yerushalmi connotes unlike this. It says there "he does not eat his fill, and does not drink his fill... and he does not bless. If he blessed, we do not answer Amen.

Citation: If others blessed, he does not answer Amen to them.

If [the Isur] is due to Bitul Mitzvos, there is no Bitul to answer Amen!

Answer: [There is Bitul] because he must cease to hear the Berachah, so his Amen will not an orphaned Amen [which is forbidden].

Question #2: Also, we say below [in Berachos - Rashash] "they stand and pray, and he sits and justifies the decree."

Inference: He is not engaging in it (the Mes) at all. Rather, he sits silently (and even so, he is exempt).

Conclusion: It seems that he may not bless.

Support (Yerushalmi in Berachos): If he wants to be stringent on himself, we do not accede.

Citation (cont.) Rhetorical question: What is the reason? It is due to the Mes' honor, or because there is no one to carry his load.

We ask there from a Beraisa that exempts him from Netilas Lulav. We are thinking that this discusses Yom Tov, on which he is not occupied with carrying a load.

Citation (cont.) Answer: No, it discusses Chol ha'Moed.

Citation (cont.) Question (Beraisa): He is exempt from Teki'as Shofar. You cannot say that this is on a weekday, and not on Yom Tov!

Citation (cont.) Answer (R. Chanina): It is because they needed to bring for [the Mes] a casket and shrouds;

Citation (cont.): A Mishnah teaches that we go to the end of the Techum [towards the end of Shabbos or Yom Tov] to oversee needs of a Kalah or Mes, to bring a casket or shrouds. Also this (going to the end of the Techum) is like carrying a load.

Inference: He does not bless even on Shabbos or Yom Tov, for this reason.

Question: This is difficult, for we say in the Seifa that on Shabbos he blesses and is Mezamen! This requires investigation.