Moed Katan 23

Daf Ditty Moed Katan 23: Condolences
Hamakom Yenachem
Ella Oppenheimer1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB820vxc9vY
1
https://2020.bezalel.ac.il/projects/hamakom-yenachem/?lang=en
1
Leon Wieseltier, Kaddish
There is some mourning on Shabbat, i.e., with regard to mourning rites that can be observed
privately in the mourner’s home and will go unnoticed by other people; whereas those say: There
is no mourning on Shabbat at all.
2
The Gemara explains: The ones who said that there is some mourning on Shabbat rely on that
which is taught, that Shabbat counts as one of the days of mourning, implying that some degree
of mourning applies on that day. The ones who said that there is no mourning on Shabbat at all
bases this on that which is taught that Shabbat does not interrupt the mourning period.
The latter argue as follows: If it should enter your mind to say that there is some mourning on
Shabbat, there is a difficulty, for now that it has been stated that actual mourning applies on
Shabbat, is it necessary to teach us that this day does not interrupt the mourning period? Rather,
the conclusion must be that there is no mourning on Shabbat whatsoever.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the mishna that Shabbat counts as one of the days of
mourning, implying that it is just like the other days of mourning, and at least some mourning rites
are practiced on it? The Gemara answers: Since the mishna wished to teach in the latter clause
that the days of a Festival do not count toward the requisite days of mourning, it taught also in
the first clause that Shabbat counts as one of the days of mourning, although no mourning rites
are practiced on it.
The Gemara asks: And according to the ones who said that there is some mourning on Shabbat,
isn’t it taught in the mishna that it does not interrupt the mourning period, which would have
been unnecessary to say if the mourning rites are practiced on it? The Gemara answers: This was
not necessary for itself, but due to the fact that the since the mishna wished to teach in the latter
clause that the Festivals interrupt the mourning, it taught also in the first clause that Shabbat
does not interrupt it.
3
Summary
Mourning: Marrying, Observing Shabbat, and Dealing with Dissent
Mourners are to behave differently than other people. The rabbis suggest that the first four weeks
of mourning involve specific ways of interacting with the community. During the first week , s/he
does not leave his/her home. This makes sense, as the mourner is being visited continually at the
shiva. During each successive week, the mourner is able to communicate more with other members
of the community, slowly joining his/her place in the synagogue and speaking aloud.
The rabbis wonder when mourners are allowed to remarry. These guidelines are dependent upon
whether the mourner is mourning a relative or a spouse. In the case of a spouse, the rabbis argue
when it might be appropriate to remarry. They consider issues including the need for childcare,
the experience of loneliness, the availability of a partner with whom one can procreate, respect for
the memory of the deceased, and respect for the new wife [sic] who might be subject to
comparisons with the deceased wife.
Men and women are considered separately. While there are numerous considerations regarding
men who consider remarrying, women are encouraged to do so early on in her mourning
experience. This difference is striking. In most situations we are not learning about how women
are to observe the rituals. Often it is assumed that women are exempt (for women are exempt from
mitzvot that are deemed time-bound and positive). But in this case, the rabbis consider how their
halachot affect women. Why?
Amud (b) focuses on mourning and Shabbat. Are we allowed to mourn on Shabbat, or does the
'delight' of Shabbat override our right to mourn? Which mitzvot must we continue to observe on
Shabbat? Are we asked to observe all or none? And what difference might it make whether we
are observing in private or in public? Does it matter how the community might understand our
experience of mourning?
Our daf shares an example of one of the most special features of the Talmud: the immortalization
of truly dissenting opinions. In one section of amud (b), we are told that mourners partake in all
mitzvot of Shabbat. It provides a list of examples. On that list is donning tefillin - which is not
permitted. Tefillin cannot be worn at all on Shabbat. The Gemara explains how one could have
included tefillin on their list. Was it a mistake? A general statement of examples rather than a
literal list? Or, perhaps, was this list provided by one of the rabbis who believes that we are
permitted to lay tefillin on Shabbat?
4
Not only do the rabbis include this dissenting opinion, but they also discuss it. They do not pretend
that all rabbis agree with halacha, even after the establishment of that halacha. There is a level of
confidence and foresight in the act of including dissenting viewpoints. A lack of fear. What a
pleasure to read!
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2
The Gemora cites a braisa: If a Torah scholar dies, his Beis Medrash should stop its regular classes.
If the head of the Beis Din dies, all the places of learning in his city should stop their regular classes
and when they enter the synagogues, they should all change their seats from where they usually
sit.
If the Nasi dies, all of the places of learning should stop their regular classes and they should enter
the synagogues on Shabbos to read the Torah (they would not pray together with a minyan, but
rather, they would each pray in their own house).
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah said: The people would not stroll in the market, but rather, they
would stay at home and remain silent. They would not discuss Torah matters in a house of
mourning, (but rather, they would sit and remain silent). It was said regarding Rabbi Chananya
ben Gamliel that he did discuss Torah matters in a house of mourning.
The Gemora cites a braisa: A mourner should not leave his house during the first week of
mourning. The second week, he is permitted to leave, but he should not sit in his regular place (but
rather, in the place reserved for mourners – Meiri, nowadays the custom is to move his seat to
another place). The third week, he may sit in his regular place, but he should not talk publicly.
During the fourth week, he should conduct himself like a regular person. Rabbi Yehudah says: It
is not necessary for the Chachamim to rule regarding the first week that he shouldn’t leave his
house since that is the week that everyone comes to console him; rather it is the second week that
he shouldn’t leave his house.
The third week, he is permitted to leave, but he should not sit in his regular place. The fourth week,
he may sit in his regular place, but he should not talk publicly. During the fifth week, he should
conduct himself like a regular person.
The Gemora cites a braisa: A mourner should not marry during the sheloshim. If it is his wife that
died, he should not get married until after three festivals (in order that he shouldn’t forget the love
for his first wife – Tosfos). Rabbi Yehudah maintains: He is permitted to marry after the second
festival has passed. If he did not yet have any children, he is permitted to marry immediately since
otherwise, he would be neglecting the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying. If he has young
children, he is also permitted to marry immediately in order for the children to have a woman to
sustain them.
The Gemora cites a braisa: The mourner is prohibited from wearing pressed clothing during the
sheloshim, whether they are new clothes or old ones. Rebbe says: The prohibition is only
2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Moed_Katan_23.pdf
5
applicable to new clothes. Rabbi Elozar the son of Rabbi Shimon says: It is only applicable to new,
white clothes.
The Gemora presents a dispute between the people of Yehudah and the people from the Galil
whether the laws regarding private expressions of mourning apply to the Shabbos during the shiva
period. The Gemora attempts to prove that this argument is in fact a dispute among the Tannaim.
The Gemora cites a braisa: One whose deceased relative lies before him (to be buried – he is now
an onein) has the following halachos: He should eat in another room (eating in front of the dead is
tantamount to mocking them); if no other room is available to him, he should eat in a friend’s
house; if that is not an option, he should build a separating wall in the height of ten tefachim and
eat there; if that cannot be accomplished, he should turn around (away from the deceased) and eat
there. When he is eating, he should not recline (reclining was a symbol of royalty and it is not
proper to display royalty while he is an onein); he should not eat meat or drink wine; he should not
recite the blessing before the meal or afterwards; others should not recite the blessings for him; he
should not participate in the zimun (three people join together to recite the blessing after the meal);
he is exempt from reciting krias shema, shemoneh esrei, donning tefillin or any other mitzva.
The braisa continues: On Shabbos, he may recline in his usual manner and eat meat or drink wine;
he can recite the blessings before the meal and afterwards; he may participate in a zimun; he is
obligated to recite krias shema, Shemoneh Esrei, don tefillin and all other mitzvos. Rabban Gamliel
says: Once he is obligated in these mitzvos, he is obligated in all other mitzvos, as well. The
Gemora proceeds to explain the dispute between the Tanna Kamma and Rabban Gamliel. The
argument must be if it is permitted for the mourner to engage in marital relations during the
Shabbos of shiva. The dispute is dependent on whether there is an obligation to observe the laws
of mourning on Shabbos or not. The Gemora rejects this explanation: Perhaps the Tanna Kamma
prohibited the mourner from engaging in marital relations only because the deceased is lying
before him; and perhaps Rabban Gamliel permitted it because it wasbefore the burial and the laws
of mourning did not yet take effect.
Rabbi Yochanan inquired of Shmuel: Is a mourner obligated to observe the laws of mourning on
Shabbos? Shmuel responded: The laws of mourning should not be observed on Shabbos, even in
the privacy of his home.
SIMCHA ON SHABBOS
Tosfos states that on Shabbos, the laws of mourning can apply because Scripture does not write
regarding Shabbos that it is a day of simcha, happiness and therefore mourning will not be in direct
contrast to the Shabbos. There is an obligation to rejoice on a festival and that is why the laws of
mourning do not apply then.
Tosfos in Kesuvos (7b) writes that one should enhance the Shabbos with rejoicing and feasting.
This would indicate that there is an obligation of simcha on Shabbos.
6
The Nimukei Yosef (19a) states explicitly that there is an obligation for oneg, pleasure on Shabbos
but not simcha. The Gemora Shabbos (62b) states that there is a clear distinction between oneg
and simcha.
The Sifri in Parshas Bahaloscha expounds on the verse U’veyom simchaschem, this is referring to
Shabbos. The Zohar constantly refers to Shabbos as a yuma d’chedvasa, a day of happiness. The
Taz (O”C 688:8) cites a Yerushalmi that one has an obligation to conduct himself with simcha on
Shabbos.
The Toras Chaim (at the end of Chulin) concludes that there is no obligation to be b’simcha
physically on Shabbos (such as eating and drinking), but there is an obligation for a spiritual
simcha. The Sefer Chasidim writes that this can be accomplished through the studying of Torah
as it is written Pikudei Hashem yeshrim mesamchei leiv.
An interesting question: Nusach Sfard says “Yismechu b’malchuscha shomrei Shabbos” in all
Shemoneh Esrei’s on Shabbos. Evidently, there is an obligation of simchah on Shabbos. Nusach
Ashkenaz, however, disagrees and only inserts those words by Mussaf, where, the Brisker Rav
explains, the korbanos required simchah. Shabbos, they seem to maintain, does not require
simchah. In Kabbalas Shabbos, however, there is a reversal: Nusach Ashkenaz says “Gam
b’simchah u’v’tzahalah.” Nusach Sfard replaces those words with “Gam b’rinah u’v’tzahalah.”
What is the explanation for the switch?
Abaye Changes His Position Three Times3

Abaye was a Kohen and was eligible to receive the coveted Zro'a, L'Chayayin, and Keiva,
shoulder, tongue, and stomach of every animal slaughtered.
The gemara Chulin (133a) tells us that initially, Abaye in his enthusiasm to show how important
the mitzva is, used to grab these pieces of meat from the people who slaughtered the animal. Later
when he heard that the pasuk says these pieces should be "given" to the Kohen, he stopped taking
them himself but started to tell the people to give it to him.
When he heard that the Navi criticized the children of Shmuel HaNavi for "asking" for the
Matanos, he stopped asking but continued to accept them when offered. When he heard the Braisa
says that the modest Kohanim would pass on the opportunity to get a piece of the holy Lechem
HaPanim while the aggressive ones would grab, he stopped accepting altogether.
The Mei Shiloach says that the nature of a person whose opinion is attacked or even questioned,
is to stand up and defend himself vigorously. This is especially of a person of stature and even
more so when it comes to his personal conduct. Admitting error puts a blemish on his past
behavior, which a public persona has trouble dealing with both on his own account and that of his
position. Abaye exhibited the exact opposite behavior. Despite that after his own internal lengthy
debate, he decided that grabbing the Matanos showed the most respect for the Mitzvos, as soon as
he even "heard" that his way may not be correct, rather than defend himself he chose to change his
ways.
3
Revach l’Daf
7
Still when that did not prove sufficient to stem the voices of dissent, Abaye once again altered his
behavior without any argument. And then he did it for third time. Could you imagine the shame of
a Gadol HaDor swallowing his pride three times over the same issue?
Abaye, says the Mei Shiloach, set an example how all of ones conduct must be totally L'Shem
Shamayim without any consideration of one’s own ego. One must always seek the truth no matter
what is at stake for him personally.
LEARNING TORAH IN THE HOUSE OF AN AVEL
Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4
The Beraisa (22b) states that when a Nasi dies, all of the learning in all of the study halls ceases in
respect for the Nasi. The Beraisa continues (23a) and says that in the house of an Avel, words of
"Shemu'ah" and "Agadah" (Halachic teachings and Agadic teachings) are not spoken. The Beraisa
adds that Rebbi Chananyah ben Gamliel maintains that words of "Shemu'ah" and "Agadah" may
be spoken.
Why does Rebbi Chananyah ben Gamliel permit the learning of "Shemu'ah" and "Agadah" in the
house of an Avel? The Gemara (15a, 21a) states clearly that an Avel may not learn Torah during
Aveilus.
Moreover, why does the Beraisa single out these two areas of learning, "Shemu'ah" and "Agadah,"
when it says that Torah may not be learned in the house of an Avel? The Beraisa earlier (21a)
records a lengthy list of all of the areas of Torah learning which are prohibited for an Avel. Why
does the Beraisa here not mention all of them, as the Beraisa earlier does?
(a) The RAMBAN (in TORAS HA'ADAM) explains that the Beraisa here refers to learning
Torah in the house of an Avel on Shabbos. On Shabbos, an Avel is not permitted to observe any
public practices of Aveilus. The Beraisa teaches that although an Avel may not observe Aveilus
in public, he must refrain from learning these two parts of Torah. Rebbi Chananyah permits him
to learn these parts of Torah on Shabbos because he maintains that refraining from learning them
is considered a public act of Aveilus. Everyone agrees that if a practical Halachic question arises,
the Avel is permitted to teach the Halachah.
(b) The RAMBAN gives a second answer. He says that the "Beis ha'Avel" mentioned in the
Beraisa refers to the study halls mentioned earlier in the Beraisa, which must cease all learning
activity at the death of the Nasi. The Beraisa now adds that not only is the regular Torah learning
stopped as a sign of mourning for the Nasi, but the Talmidim may not even learn areas of Torah
4
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/mkatan/insites/mo-dt-023.htm
8
which do not require deep analysis and are not usually learned in the study halls. Rebbi Chananyah
says that these areas of Torah may be learned in the study halls during the mourning for the Nasi.
(c) The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 378:7) cites the ruling of the Gemara as the Halachah. It is
evident from the context of his words that he understands that the Gemara refers neither to Shabbos
nor to the study halls of the Nasi, but to the home of an individual Avel. The SHEVET
YEHUDAH explains that the Shulchan Aruch maintains that the Beraisa does not refer to what
the Avel himself may or may not learn; the Avel himself certainly is prohibited from learning
Torah. Rather, the Beraisa refers to others who come to visit the Avel. When they talk among each
other, they may not talk words of Torah, even matters of "Shemu'ah" and "Agadah."
HALACHAH: The common practice today is to learn Mishnayos in the home of the Avel, in the
merit of ("l'Iluy Nishmas") the departed relative. The Poskim write that this is a commendable
practice.
The NETZIV (Meshiv Davar 5:56) explains at length that since the Mishnayos are learned for the
benefit of the soul of the departed, it certainly is permitted. The Avel himself, however, should not
listen, because he is not permitted to learn. (If possible, the Avel should go into another room while
the others who have come to comfort the mourner learn the Mishnayos together l'Iluy Nishmas the
deceased.) In addition, the Talmidim of the deceased should not be the ones who learn Mishnayos,
because the Gemara says that the Talmidim must refrain from learning.
Remarrying While in Mourning
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5
Someone who is in mourning cannot get married during the first thirty days of
his aveilut (mourning).
If someone’s wife passes away, however, he must wait until the three holidays of Pesah,
Shavuot and Sukkot have passed before he can remarry. The baraita offers two exceptions to this
rule:
Someone who has no children can remarry immediately in order to fulfill the commandment of pru
u’revu – be fruitful and multiply.
Someone who has small children that he cannot care for on his own may also remarry immediately.
5
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/moed23/
9
To support the idea that exceptions to this rule exist, the Gemara tells of Yosef HaKohen whose
wife passed away, leaving him to raise small children. Immediately following the burial – while
still in the cemetery – he turned to his late wife’s sister and asked her to care for the orphans.
Nevertheless, the Gemara records that he did not consummate the marriage until a significant
period of time had passed.
Tosafot suggest three possible explanations in an attempt to explain this unique law:
The Sages felt it inappropriate to forget one’s wife so quickly.
When being intimate with his new wife, memories of his first wife would be bound to intrude,
which the Sages viewed as morally inappropriate.
Remarrying so quickly would lead the husband to mention to his new wife the activities of his first
wife, which would not be beneficial to the building a solid marriage.
Interestingly, Rabbeinu Yehonatan and other rishonim rule that this restriction on marriage for a
significant period of time applies only to men; when a woman’s husband passes away, she is
permitted to get married immediately. Among the reasons offered for this is that ordinarily –
certainly in traditional societies – it is the man who approaches the woman to begin the
relationship.
Therefore, if a widow is approached by someone who is interested in marrying her, it is important

that she not be put into a situation in which she will be forced to postpone that option for a
significant amount of time.
The Gemara had stated earlier (22b) that when observing mourning for a parent, a person should
not enter a hall for a simcha for twelve months.6
Nevertheless, Rosh and Tosafos write in the name of Rabeinu Tam that a mourner may marry after
the first thirty days of mourning, and that this halacha is true even when the mourning is for a
parent. The reason this restriction is lifted in this case is that this simcha is for a mitzvah, whereby
the person can fulfill the mitzvah of ‫ ורבו פרו‬.
Furthermore, Rabeinu Tam adds that even if the person already has children, and he has fulfilled
the mitzvah of ‫ורבו פרו‬, this halacha and its leniency applies to him. The reason is that we hold
according to Rabbi Yehoshua (Yevamos 62b), who holds that a person who had children when he
6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/MoedKatan%20023.pdf
10
was young should still be married and continue to have children later, in fulfillment of the verse
(Koheles 11:6): “In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening do not be idle.”
Therefore, such a marriage is, indeed, a mitzvah, and the mourner may marry after thirty days.
Rabbi Yehuda continues and teaches that if a mourner does not have children, he may marry “‫לאלתר‬
– immediately.”
The Rishonim dispute whether this means even within thirty days, or only after thirty days.
Ramban rules that a man who has no children may marry only after thirty days.
Here, ‫( לאלתר‬immediately) means that he need not wait until three festivals have elapsed.
Tosafos holds that one who has no children may marry even within thirty
days, as is also allowed for one who has small children who need attention.
This is also the ruling of Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 392:2). Although he may marry within thirty days
of the death of his wife, the marriage should not be consummated until after this time. Ramban
wonders about this ruling, because the main issue is the marriage itself, which entails simcha. He
argues that if this is permitted within thirty days, there should be no restrictions regarding
consummating the marriage.
In fact, the opinion of Rabeinu Tam (Tosafos, ibid.) is to permit even this. Ramban suggests that
perhaps only the is allowed in order that no one else marry this woman, but the wedding
feast should take place only after the thirty days.
One whose deceased relative lies before him … and he may not eat meat and he may not drink
wine.
T wo explanations are given for the restriction against eating meat and drinking wine while one is
an
Tosafos (1) writes that while one is an one should be focused and engaged in burying the
deceased rather than pursuing meat and wine. Rosh (2), on the other hand, writes that refraining
from meat and wine is an expression of mourning.
Rav Yekusiel Yehuda Halbershtam (3), the Klausenberger Rebbe, notes that a practical difference
between these two explanations will be whether one must refrain from eating meat and drinking
wine following the passing of one’s Rebbi.
According to the Rosh’s explanation it is logical to assume that one should mourn the loss of a
Rebbi in the same way one mourns the loss of a parent and it would be appropriate to refrain from
meat and wine. According to Tosafos, however, there is no reason to restrict a student from eating
11
meat and drinking wine following his Rebbi’s passing since there are family members who are
charged with the task of burial.
The Klausenberger Rebbe then notes that Ramban (4) writes explicitly that a student should refrain
from meat and wine as long as his Rebbi has not been buried.
Shulchan Aruch (5) also rules that a student should observe the restrictions of an for a
Rebbi who taught him Torah.
Mishnah Berurah (6) cites the Shelah Hakodesh who writes that it is proper for a student to fast on
the yahrtzeit of a Rebbi. Elyah Rabbah (7), however, challenges this ruling.
There are two reasons a child fasts on the yahrtzeit of a parent, neither of which applies to a student
for his Rebbi. One reason is that the yahrtzeit is dangerous because it carries bad mazal and this
concern applies only to a child rather than to a student.
Secondly, the son fasts because he and his father are considered to be one body which also does
not apply to a Rebbi and his student. The Klausenberger Rebbe refutes both of these claims and
rules in accordance with the Shelah Hakodesh that a student should fast on the day of his Rebbi’s
yahrzeit.
As we see from our daf, Tosafos rules that a person mourning his parents, may wear worn, white
garments or new, colored garments after the first thirty days are over.
A man who was still within the first year of mourning for his parent once asked the Klausenberger
Rebbe, zt”l, if he would be permitted to wear new clothing in honor of his own son’s wedding.
The Rebbe responded, “Actually, in a discussion regarding a mourner who has passed the first
thirty days but is still within the year, the Rema (Y.D. 389:3) brings an opinion that it is permitted
to wear new clothing.
He concludes, however, that the custom is to prohibit this for the whole twelve months. The Be’er
HaGolah, zt”l, does add that we can rely on the lenient opinion ‘—if necessary.’ He continued, “It
12
seems obvious that a father wearing new clothes at his son’s wedding is in this category. Similarly,
we find that a man who has passed the first thirty days of mourning for his parent may wear
Shabbos clothes for his own son’s Bris since, ‘this is his Yom Tov…’ One’s son’s weddingalso a
Yom Tov, and at the very least it should be considered ‘‫‘ לצורך‬since a person is in any event
obligated to marry off his son.
Although it seems as though one should be more stringent about new clothes as opposed to
Shabbos clothes, there is room to be lenient. When one makes a wedding, one’s closest friends and
relatives join in for the occasion and the custom is for one to wear new clothes. It is preferable,
though, to have another person ‘break in’ the garments before you wear them so that they won’t
be entirely new.
May we have only semachos!
Sara Ronis writes:7
We’ve already discussed (Moed Katan 21) some of the rules of sitting shiva: The mourner is not
allowed to greet or respond to greetings for the first three days of their mourning; for the next four
they can respond to but not initiate greetings.
But human interaction is not only greetings — after all, greetings are usually the prelude to a longer
conversation. Today’s daf articulates another rule of conversation relevant to a mourner:
“One may not speak about halakhah (Jewish law) or aggadah(biblical exegesis) in a house of
mourning.
Often in moments of tragedy, we turn to our tradition for inspiration and solace — so why is
discussing Torah prohibited in this moment of need?!
To understand this prohibition, we have to go back to something we read two days ago, on Moed
Katan 21a. There, a beraita states:
The sages taught: These are the activities that a mourner is prohibited from: He is prohibited
from working, and from bathing, and from anointing, and from engaging in sexual relations,
and from wearing shoes. And he is prohibited from reading in the Torah, and in the Prophets,
and in the Writings, and from studying in the Mishnah, in the midrash, and in the halakhot,
and in the Talmud, and in the aggadot.
The study of sacred Jewish texts (and this list offers a handy description of what those were, for
the rabbis) has for millennia been a way that Jews sustain ourselves — physically, spiritually and
emotionally. The medieval commentator Rashi also points out that these texts bring us joy —
something much lacking in this moment of grief.
7
Mytalmudlearning.com
13
I’ll be honest — depending on what part of the great sea of written and oral Torah I’m reading,
joy may not be the main emotion I feel. Torah is challenging, troubling, spiritually powerful and
deeply intellectually engaging. I’m sure everyone who is doing the daily daf has numerous
examples of times when the main emotion they felt was not joy (Tractate Eruvin, anyone?).
And yet the privilege of learning Torah, of being part of that great sea, is a cause for joy. Having
enough access to our traditions to be challenged, troubled, spiritually uplifted and intellectually
engaged is a joyful thing.
Perhaps it is that very joy which the rabbis are thinking about two pages later, when they state that
not just reading and studying but even talking about Torah is prohibited in a house of mourning.
Even this verbal engagement is too joyful a prospect to be appropriate when trying to create space
for true mourning.
Many of the halakhot on today’s daf are designed to create silence, to require sitting quietly with
one’s thoughts and feelings after a momentous loss. It’s not about filling that void, with joy or
education or rationalization or even distraction. That can be really hard to do. We might think:
Where better to shift our attention than the Torah? After all, it’s a mitzvah to study Torah! But
today’s daf insists that we need and deserve real space — even from Torah — to mourn.
Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:8
We are taught in our daf (Moed Katan 23a-b) that there was a dispute between ‫( בני יהודה‬the
Judeans) and ‫( בני גלילא‬the Galileans) about whether ‫‘ – יש אבלות בשבת‬there is mourning on
Shabbat’ or ‫‘ – אין אבלות בשבת‬there is no mourning on Shabbat’.
It is noteworthy that from the Gemara alone it is not clear which community held which position.
But as Rabbi David Yoel Weiss helpfully points out in his ‘Megadim Chadashim’ that we are
taught at the end of Chapter 10 of Massechet Semachot that ‘in Judea, they greeted mourners [on
the Shabbat] to demonstrate that there is no mourning on the Shabbat’ – thus serving to clarify that
‫( בני גלילא‬the Galileans) held that ‫‘ – יש אבלות בשבת‬there is mourning on Shabbat’, while ‫בני יהודה‬
(the Judeans) held that ‫‘ – אין אבלות בשבת‬there is no mourning on Shabbat’.
In terms of contemporary Jewish practice, we rule that there is no public mourning on Shabbat,
while on the question of greeting mourners on Shabbat – like many other aspects of the laws of
mourning - the answer is dependent on local custom (see Yerushalmi Moed Katan 3:5, Shulchan
Aruch Yoreh Deah 385:3) with some communities doing so, and others not doing so.
Today, our overreliance on halachic handbooks (which often lack details or sensitivity to local
custom), as well as our underappreciation, or lack of sensitivity, or lack of interest in preserving
local custom, means that most people just ‘go with the flow’ – notwithstanding the various halachic
inconsistencies that can emerge from such an approach. Still, today’s daf serves to remind us that
8
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com
14
while we speak of ‘the laws of mourning’, many of these are – in fact - ‘customs of mourning’
which differ, often significantly, from place to place.
Halachically Speaking – Nichum Aveilim
Rabbi Moishe Lebovits writes:
There are many halachic issues that pertain to the mitzvah of being menachem avel. Who begins
to talk first? What should one talk to the avel about? When should one come to be menachem avel?
Why are the mirrors covered in an avel’s home? May an item be removed from the avel’s home?
In this issue, we will discuss the halachos and customs of an avel’s home.
Learning Hilchos Aveilus
Many people are hesitant to learn Maseches Moed Kattan because it talks about inyanei aveilus,
and they are concerned that this might create an ayin hara that would result in some harmful
event R”l. The Sefer Chassidim[1] comments that before learning this masechta one
15
should daven to Hashem that nothing bad will happen to him. He maintains that Maseches Moed
Kattan is a meis mitzvah since some people don’t learn it for fear that something bad will happen,
so if one wishes to learn it he is doing a great mitzvah. The Knesses Hagedolah[2] says that there
is only a concern if one learns it with a group of people, but learning alone is permitted.
This masechta is included in the Daf Yomi cycle so it would seem that one may learn it.
Furthermore, most Rishonim have a pirush on this masechta.[3] When one learns
this masechta he should not delve into it as deeply as he does with other masechtos, but he should
learn it quickly.[4]
Even if one would avoid learning hilchos aveilus,[5] there is no need to abstain from
learning hilchos menachem avel, since they pertain to one coming to console the aveilim. If one
did not learn these halachos then he would not know what to do.[6]
The Mitzvah
There is a big mitzvah[7] to console someone who lost a relative.[8] The pasuk[9] says that it is
better to go to a beis avel than to go to a party. We see that Hashem consoled Yitzchak after
Avraham Avinu was niftar.[10]
Hashem did so to Yaakov after he lost Yitzchak as well.[11] Therefore, even a great person should
go be menachem avel a person of lower stature.[12] (An avel does not have to rise in respect for
anyone of great stature[13] because he is immersed in his pain.)[14]
There is a discussion in the poskim if this is included in the mitzvah of doing

kindness mid’Oraisa[15] or mid’Rabbanan.[16] Some say that one should train a child to go
be menachem avel as well, although the custom seems to be lenient.[17]
The Main Focus of the Mitzvah
When one is menachem avel, he should realize that the main focus is to console the mourners from
their pain.[18] Some say it is a tikkun to the deceased by coming to be menachem avel,[19] since
the davening there brings a pleasant feeling for the deceased.[20] The customary phrase is
16
“HaMakom[21] yenachem eschem besoch sha’ar aveili Tzion v’Yerushalayim.”[22] Some say that
the nusach of eschem (lashon rabim) is said even when being menachem one avel.[23] Some say
that the aveilim answer amen after the brachah.[24]
Some explain the nusach as follows: When one consoles an avel, he does not know if it will be
effective. However, we know that Hashem always takes care of the good of the tzibbur, and
any nechamah which includes the tzibbur will be accepted. Therefore, we add Yerushalayim to
the nechamah, which is a consolation for the tzibbur.[25]
Although one can be yotzei the mitzvah with this one phrase, it is better to actually engage the
mourner in conversation and ease his pain (see below).[26]
Nichum Aveilim or Bikur Cholim?
Nichum aveilim is kindness for both the living and the one who was niftar.[27] Therefore, the
mitzvah of nichum aveilim has precedence over the mitzvah of bikur cholim.[28][EMS1]
Where to Sit – Where to Visit the Aveilim
Some say that the aveilim should sit where the niftar died,[29] while others argue that this is only
important when there is no avel, and a group davens in the niftar’s home out of honor for
the niftar. However, if aveilim are sitting shivah, that itself is an honor for the niftar. Therefore,
the custom is that the aveilim sit wherever they find it convenient. They may even sit in different
homes.[30] However, most maintain that the aveilim should sit where the niftar lived.
Sitting or Standing
According to the letter of the law, the ones who come to console the mourners should sit on the
floor (if the mourners are sitting on the floor).[31] One must feel the pain of the mourners,[32] and
this cannot be accomplished while standing.[33] However, mourners do not sit on the floor
today,[34] so they are mochel and allow the visitors to sit on a chair.[35]
17
Some say that one should sit when being menachem avel.[36] Others are lenient and allow
standing,[37] particularly if there is no room to sit.[38] Some say that the phrase of haMakom need
not be said while sitting.[39]
Whom to Be Menachem
One should not be menachem if he is not on good terms with the mourner, since it will cause
additional pain.[40]
A man may comfort a woman and vice versa.[41] When visiting a woman, one should be careful
to avoid any questions of yichud.[42] Some say he should stand outside of the room and say
the nusach[43] to the woman.[44]
It is preferable that men and women who are mourning the loss of a relative should not sit in the
same room since there will be a lack of tznius when people come to be menachem avel.[45]
Some say that there is a mitzvah for the aveilim to be menachem each other as well.[46]
One should console a non-Jew who lost a relative if avoiding it would result in friction.[47]
On the Telephone / Letter
A phone call can console the mourner, but will not create a pleasant experience for the
deceased.[48] Therefore, it is best to visit in person. If it is not possible, one may communicate by
telephone[49] letter,[50] or fax.[51]
Talking to the Mourner
When going to be menachem avel, the mourner has to start the conversation before one talks to
him.[52] Some explain that one is supposed to say that Hashem’s judgment was fair, and the avel is
supposed to say it first.[53] Others say that it is the mourner’s way of showing that he is ready to
be consoled.[54] One can say, “Hashem should console you,” before the mourners begin to
18
talk.[55] Some permit the visitors to initiate the conversation if the mourner signals that he is ready
to talk.[56]
In addition, asking about the deceased’s life and manners is permitted even before the mourners
begin talking.[57] An avel who took the phone to speak with someone is considered as if
the avel began talking.[58]
Many people ignore this rule. Some explain that in times past, some mourners did not talk at
all,[59] so it was necessary to wait for him to initiate the conversation. Today the mourners talk,
so one may begin talking even if the mourner is quiet.[60] Others say that as long as the mourner
began to talk to someone in the beginning of the day, anyone who comes afterwards can begin
talking before the mourner starts talking to him.[61]
If the mourner does not begin talking one is allowed to open his remarks before the mourner
does.[62] Furthermore, it can happen that the mourner does not know he is supposed to start, in
which case the visitors may initiate the conversation.[63] Finally, some say that if one merely says,
“haMakom etc.” it is not considered talking.[64]
What to Discuss with the Mourners?
As mentioned above, many people who come to be menachem avel simply say “haMakom etc.” It
is questionable whether this satisfies the purpose of nichum aveilim; however, many feel this is
sufficient.[65] There are many proofs from the Gemara[66] and other sefarim[67] that the main
goal is to say words of nechamah (words which console the mourner).[68] For example, one
should talk about the kindness and goodness of the deceased.[69] Some say that one should
mention that the niftar merited being near the tzaddikim.[70]
One may not tell the mourners, “What can we do,” or, “You can deal with it.”[71] Use your
intelligence when talking to mourners.[72] It is worthwhile to prepare your words before you go
to be menachem avel.
Sometimes, the very fact that someone came to the mourner’s home is a nechamah for the
mourner, since it shows honor for the mourner.[73] In such situations, one has fulfilled the mitzvah
19
of nichum aveilim without saying a word.[74] Nonetheless, the main point of nichum aveilim is
that one should strive to say words of nechamah to the avel, and a small part of the mitzvah is
fulfilled by just saying “haMakom.”[75] Some maintain that irrelevant topics such as politics
should be avoided, since they do not help console the mourner.[76] If these discussions relieve the
pain of the mourner, they are permitted.[77]
Those who come to daven at the beis avel, then say “haMakom,” and leave right away, have lost
the main focus of nichum aveilim.[78]
Saying Shalom to an Avel
An avel should not be greeted with shalom or shalom aleichem,[79] and he should not greet others
in this fashion.[80] The reason is that the avel is not at peace with himself.[81] The people who
are menachem avel should not greet each other with shalom either.[82]
Saying Hello / Good Morning / Good Evening / Mazel Tov
There are some who permit saying hello, good morning[83] or good evening to an avel. According
to them, this is not like saying shalom, while others disagree.[84] One may say mazel tov to a
mourner.[85]
Being Menachem Many Mourners
One can be menachem many mourners who are sitting in one house, and there is no need to
be menachem each one separately.[86] In addition, the accepted nusach of “haMakom” can be said
to many aveilim at one time.[87]
Coming More Than Once
Some say that there is no need to visit the avel more than once,[88] while others say that one should
go all seven days of the shivah to be menachem avel.[89] The accepted custom is to go once, but
if one has other words of nechamah which would console mourners then there is a mitzvah to visit
again.[90]
20
Chassan / Kallah
Some say that a chassan and kallah should not be menachem avel during the days of sheva
brachos, even if the mourner is a relative.[91] Others permit this from the second day of sheva
brachos and on.[92]
Many at One Time
Some say that it is better for a large group of people to come at one time than one at a time, since
it brings more nechamah to the mourners.[93]
When to Leave
In the days of the Gemara,[94] the avel would nod his head to indicate that he wanted the visitors
to leave.[95] This is not practiced today. Instead, one should be sensitive to the avel’s nonverbal
cues, and understand when it is time to leave.[96] This is also comforting to the mourners, since
they can be alone when they want privacy.[97]
When to Be Menachem Avel
First Three Days
The first three days[98] of mourning[99] are set aside for crying.[100] Therefore, some say that
one should not be menachem avel during that time, since the face of the niftar is still fresh in the
mourner’s mind and he will not be consoled.[101] Others explain that a visit might cause
the avel to feel an obligation to talk, even if he is not up to it.[102] However, if one is going just
to say “haMakom” it is permitted.[103] Those who daven at the beis avel may certainly do so
during the first three days.[104] If one will not be able to visit later in the week, then he may go
during the first three days.[105]
Some prove this rule from the fact that the shevatim came to be menachem avel Yaakov after many
days.[106] Since “days” means two, “many days” means three. However, others dispute this
proof.[107]
21
Others say that one should certainly visit during the first three days since the mourners are often
sitting alone and it is a great mitzvah to console them at this time.[108] Harav Yaakov
Kamenetsky zt”l said that custom in Lita was to be menachem avel during the first three
days.[109] This is the custom of many other gedolim as well.[110]
At Night
There is no reason to refrain from going to be menachem avel at night.[111] However, it goes
beyond saying that one should not visit too late at night.[112]
Shabbos / Yom Tov
According to the letter of the law, nichum aveilim is permitted on Shabbos.[113] Nevertheless, the
custom among Ashkenazim is to refrain from visiting.[114] The custom is not to be menachem
avel on Yom Tov.[115] Nonetheless, if one knows that his visit will give comfort to the mourner,
then it is a mitzvah to be menachem avel on Shabbos and Yom Tov.[116]
Chol Hamoed
Some have the custom to be menachem avel on Chol Hamoed.[117]
Tishah B’Av
One should not be menachem avel until after chatzos on Tishah B’Av. It is permitted to say
“haMakom” even before chatzos.[118]
Some Customs at a Beis Avel
Covering Mirrors
The custom is to cover the mirrors in a beis avel[119] even if the niftar did not die
there.[120] There are a number of details regarding this custom, as discussed below.
22
Many reasons are given for this custom.[121] Some say that looking in a mirror causes joy, and
this is not a time for joy.[122] During the mourning period, one should be concentrating on the
end of life and not on his appearance. Therefore, the mirrors are covered.[123]
Others offer a different reason: It is prohibited to daven opposite a mirror,[124] as it is difficult to

concentrate, and it looks like one is bowing to his reflection.[125] Since davening takes place in
the mourner’s home, the custom is to cover the mirrors.[126]
The rule used to be that the beds should be turned over. This indicated that the man must separate
from his wife while he is an avel. Today, we cover the mirrors instead. Logically, it should be
necessary to turn over the mirrors, and covering them would not suffice. Nonetheless, the custom
is to cover them.[127]
There is no need to cover the mirrors on Shabbos.[128]
The mirrors in a breakfront do not have to be covered.[129] There is no need to cover the mirrors
in a room that the avel will not be using.[130]
It is questionable whether a mourner has to cover the mirrors in his own home if he is not
sitting shivah there.[131]
Taking from a Beis Avel
Many have the custom not to remove anything from a beis avel until after the shivah, because of
the ruach ra’ah that is present.[132] Even items borrowed by the avel, like sefarim, remain until
after shivah.[133] Some say that there is no issur involved in removing food,[134] while others
say that the whole concern is taking from the room where the niftar died.[135] Others only prohibit
actually taking the food from the hands of the mourners,[136] but anything that is not taken from
their hands is permitted.[137] Furthermore, some say if it is something which is not meant for
the avel to use one should not take it, but if it is money or something else which is meant to take
out it is permitted.[138] For example, food which is made for others to have enjoyment from is not
a problem of removing from a beis avel.[139] Even according to the stringent view, one who lives
23
in the home may remove food.[140] Some say that this custom has no basis whatsoever, and there
are no restrictions at all.[141]
The Steipler zt”l refused to use a chair which was taken out of a beis avel, even though it was
brought out for him to rest on the landing.[142]
There is a custom to give cake and shnapps after Shacharis in a beis avel. One may partake of
these refreshments even if he holds of the strict opinion.[143]
If there is so much food that people brought to the home and it will be thrown out one may partake
in the food.[144]
If one’s father is sitting shivah and one’s mother has food in the freezer for Shabbos and wishes to
give it to her son or daughter and their family for Shabbos the food may be taken out of the home.
L’ma’aseh, one need not be makpid on this, but he may if he wishes to.[145]
Covering Pictures
Some have the custom to cover pictures in the shivah home.[146]
Offering a Hand to an Avel
Some say that one should not offer his hand to an avel or to someone else at a beis avel because
of loeg l’rosh (making the avel jealous that he cannot be so friendly since he cannot
say shalom).[147] Others only restrict this to the avel, but permit a handshake with other visitors.
Still others permit even shaking the hand of an avel and saying shalom.[148] However, the custom
in any case is to be stringent.[149]
Giving Tzedakah
It is customary to give tzedakah at a beis avel in memory of the niftar.[150] This is true even if the
house where the aveilim are sitting is not the house where the niftar died.[151]
24
Bringing Food to a Beis Avel
During the shivah many people bring food to the beis avel. Is this practice permitted?
Harav Moshe Feinstein zt”l[152] permits this since it is a way of showing comfort to the aveilim.
[1] 261:pages 225-226, see Yosef Ometz page 270, Minhag Yisrael Torah Y.D. 246:29, Asei Lecha Rav 8:66, Be’er Moshe intro to
second volume page 4, Derech Sichah 2:page 328. Refer to Yehuda Ya’aleh 2:248 on why some do not learn it. Refer to Kovetz
Zera Yaakov 14:page 190:33-34, page 191:37. The Yalkut Yosef intro to volume 7, pages 2-3 says if one is learning inyanei
aveilus for the needs of the tzibbur he has nothing to worry about. (Quoting the opinion of Harav Ben-zion Abba Shaul zt”l,
see Zecher L’Avraham 5760:pages 899-900.)
[2] Y.D. 245:3.
[3] She’arim Metzuyanim B’halachah beginning of Moed Kattan.
[4] Sefer Chassidim ibid., Kaf Hachaim 116:189, Tov Yehoshua 2:18:4, Shemiras Haguf V’hanefesh 89:1.
[5] Refer to Igros Moshe Y.D. 4:60:4 which says all have to learn these halachos.
[6] Zecher Avraham 5760:page 894. Refer to Sheilas Hametzuos 3:pages 107-108 quoting the opinion of Harav Chaim
Kanievsky shlit”a.
[7] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:1.
[8] Refer to Bereishis 37:34-35, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 376:1. Refer to Orchos Rabbeinu 4:page 119:15 where it is stated that the
Steipler zt”l went to great lengths to be menachem avel (and mevaker choleh). Refer to Toras Chaim page 161:9.
[9] Koheles 7:2.
[10] Bereishis 25:11, Maseches Sotah 14a, Darchei Hachaim 4:1, see Sifsei Chachamim “d’ei.”
25
[11] Bereishis 35:9, Rashi “vayivarech,” Michtav M’Eliyahu 4:page 342.
[12] V’ein Lamo Michshol 6:pages 299-300. See Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:page 481 if one should be menachem an avel whom one
does not know well.
[13] Maseches Moed Kattan 27b, Rama Y.D. 376:1, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:2, Darchei Hachaim 4:5. Refer to Rivevos
Ephraim 7:230 if an avel has to get up if a sefer Torah passes by.
[14] Levush Y.D. 376:1.
[15] Rabbeinu Yonah Maseches Brachos 3:page 22, ”Mishnah,” Darchei Hachaim 4:1:footnote 1. Refer to Pele Yoetz “nechamah”
page 410 (new), Ahavas Chessed 3:6:page 282, Salmas Chaim 625 (old), Pirkei D’Rabbi Elazar 16. Some say included in this is
to make sure the mourners have food to eat, etc. (Teshuvos V’hanhagos 3:378). Refer to Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:page 481.
[16] Rambam Hilchos Avel 14:1, Mishnah Berurah 224:13.
[17] Nitei Gavriel (Aveilus) 85:15, Chai Pinchas page 120, Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:page 508.
[18] Ahavas Chessed 3:6:page 283.
[19] Teshuvos V’hanhagos 1:691, 2:587.
[20] V’ein Lamo Michshol 6:page 306:footnote 14. See Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:pages 496-497.
[21] Refer to Rivevos Ephraim 5:559 why we say “haMakom.” Also see Tzitz Eliezer 17:7:1.
[22] Prisha 393:3, Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 287:3, Nitei Gavriel (Aveilus) 90:1, Chuko Mamtakim 1:page 24. Refer to Orchos
Rabbeinu 4:page 116:1 quoting this as the custom of the Steipler zt”l. Some say “lo sosifu l’da’avah od” (Teshuvos
V’hanhagos 4:274:9:7 says this is the custom of Yerushalayim). Refer to Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:pages 494-
495, Tziyanei Halachah pages 302-303. See Teshuvos V’hanhagos 3:378, 5:309:18 on this phrase.
26
[23] Opinion of Harav Elyashiv zt”l quoted in Halichos Bein Adam L’chaveiro 27:footnote 47, Tziyanei Halachah pages 313-314.
The Gesher Hachaim 20:5:8 says one should say “oscha” when going to be menachem avel one person. Some are unsure about
this (Chai Pinchas page 116, see Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:page 489, Nitei Gavriel Aveilus 90:1).
[24] Pnei Baruch 11:footnote 9, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 1:691, 3:377, 4:274:9:9, 5:309:19, Nitei Gavriel (Aveilus) 90:2, Chuko
Mamtakim 1:page 24 quoting the opinion of Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l, V’zos Habrachah page 188, see Halichos
Chaim 2:page 150:312 and Ashrei Ha’ish Y.D. 2:page 305:27 who argue. See Tziyanei Halachah pages 301-302.
[25] As explained by Harav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l in B’mechitzas Rabbeinu page 185. Refer to Teshuvos V’hanhagos 3:378 for
an explanation of these words.
[26] Ahavas Chessed 3:6:page 283. See Igros Moshe O.C. 5:20:21, Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:pages 496-499.
[27] Rambam Hilchos Avel 14:7, Rama Y.D. 335:10, Shach 11, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:1, Asei Lecha Rav 2:page 52.
[28] Rambam ibid. Refer to Nechamas Sara 8:page 252 if one should leave his learning to be menachem avel. Refer to Tzitz
Eliezer 5 Ramas Rochel 19 when bikur cholim is before nichum aveilim. Refer to Teshuvos V’hanhagos 5:309:11 which discusses
if it is correct to publicize in the newspapers where a person is sitting shivah in order for more people to come.
[29] Aruch Hashulchan 376:7, Darchei Hachaim 4:8. Refer to Rama Y.D. 376:3, 384:3.
[30] Avnei Yushpei 2:82, 6:142:6.
[31] Rosh Maseches Moed Kattan 3:98, Rambam Hilchos Avel 13:3, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 387:1, Taz 1, Leket Yosher page
91, Levush 1, Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 376:2, Moadim U’zmanim 5:341.
[32] Levush Y.D. 387:1.
[33] Nechamas Sara 8:page 252.
[34] Moadim U’zmanim 5:341.
27
[35] Shach Y.D. 387:2, Leket Yosher page 91, Darchei Hachaim 4:3, Moadim U’zmanim 5:341, Nechamas Sara 8:page 252, Chai
Pinchas page 114:24. See Divrei Malkiel 2:92, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 5:309, Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:pages 483-484.
[36] Derech Sichah 1:page 125, B’mechitzas Rabbeinu page 189.
[37] Orchos Rabbeinu 4:page 117:5.
[38] Nechamas Sara 8:page 252.
[39] Igros Moshe O.C. 5:20:21, Divrei Chachamim page 227:133:footnote 133 quoting this from many gedolim. See She’eilas
Rav 2:1:24:20. Refer to Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:page 483.
[40] Rama Y.D. 335:2, Shach 2, Chai Pinchas page 120.
[41] Chelkas Yaakov Y.D. 223, Gesher Hachaim 20:5:1, Badei Hashulchan 376:1, Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:pages 491-492, She’arim
Metzuyanim B’halachah 207:1, Be’er Moshe 2:107. Some refrained from doing so (Orchos Rabbeinu 1:page 313:31).
[42] She’arim Metzuyanim B’halachah 207:1.
[43] Without any other talking [if it is not a relative] (Teshuvos V’hanhagos 2:590).
[44] Orchos Rabbeinu 4:page 117:6, see ibid. 7, Masei Ish 5:page 22, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 4:274:9:5, Yalkut Yosef Bikur Cholim
V’aveilus page 432:7.
[45] Be’er Moshe 2:107, Chai Pinchas page 116, Nitei Gavriel (Aveilus) 85:7. Refer to Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:page 492.
[46] Darchei Hachaim hashmatos to 4:1, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 1:691, Sha’arei Halachah U’minhag Y.D. pages 367. Refer
to Chai Pinchas page 119 which argues.
[47] Rashba Maseches Gittin 61a “hu,” Meishiv K’halachah Y.D. 9.
[48] Igros Moshe O.C. 4:40:11, Orchos Rabbeinu 4:pages 118-119:13, V’ein Lamo Michshol 6:pages 306-307. Refer to Chai
Pinchas page 116, Aleinu L’shabei’ach 5:page 692, Ashrei Ha’ish Y.D. 2:page 305:26, Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:pages 487-489.
28
[49] Igros Moshe O.C. 4:40:11, Be’er Moshe 2:104, Electric 7:33, Rivevos Ephraim 3:610, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 2:587, Yechaveh
Da’as 3:83, Yabia Omer Y.D. 10:48, Minchas Yitzchak 2:84, Derech Sichah pages 125-126 quoting the opinion of Harav
Elyashiv zt”l, Badei Hashulchan 376:6, Yalkut Yosef Bikur Cholim V’aveilus pages 434-435, Tziyanei Halachah page 313. There
is no problem with an avel talking on the telephone (Rivevos Ephraim 3:377, Igros Moshe ibid.). Refer to She’arim Metzuyanim
B’halachah kuntres acharon 207:4:page 413.
[50] Sha’arei Halachah U’minhag 3:page 367, Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:page 488, Orchos Rabbeinu 1:page 317, 4:pages 119-
120:16, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 2:587.
[51] Nitei Gavriel (Aveilus) 85:11.
[52] Maseches Moed Kattan 28b, Rambam Hilchos Avel 13:3, Beis Yosef Y.D. 376, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 376:1, Leket Yosher
Y.D. page 91, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:1, Aruch Hashulchan 1. There is no need for the mourners to start talking about the
deceased first (Chai Pinchas page 118). See Tziyanei Halachah page 297.
[53] Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 376:1.
[54] Levush 376:1, Nechamas Sara page 250.
[55] Igros Moshe O.C. 5:20:21.
[56] Chuko Mamtakim 1:page 23.
[57] Chai Pinchas page 118.
[59] Refer to Rambam Hilchos Avel 5:20, see Brachos 6b, Maharsha Maseches Brachos ibid.
[60] Teshuvos V’hanhagos 3:376, see Divrei Chachamim page 230:140.
[61] Opinion of the author of the Tzitz Eliezer quoted in Pnei Baruch page 472. This was printed later on in Tzitz Eliezer 17:45:4.
See Masei Ish 5:page 108, Ve’aleihu Lo Yeibol Y.D. 2:page 147:169, Tziyanei Halachah page 297, Badei Hashulchan 376:5.
29
[62] Chuko Mamtakim 1:page 24, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 3:376, 4:274:6. Refer to Orchos Rabbeinu 4:page 117:4 quoting the
opinion of the Chazon Ish zt”l.
[64] Nechamas Sara ibid., Chai Pinchas page 118, Chuko Mamtakim 1:page 24, Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:page 501. Refer
to Prisha Y.D. 393:3.
[65] Refer to Ahavas Chessed 3:5, Igros Moshe O.C. 5:20:21.
[66] Refer to Maseches Moed Kattan 27b, 28b, Kesubos 8b, Rashi in Sanhedrin 113a “by tama.” Refer to Nechamas Sara 7:pages
246-248.
[67] Refer to Ohr Hachaim on Bereishis 37:35.
[68] Refer to Pele Yoetz “nechamah” pages 410-411, see Chai Pinchas page 117.
[69] Teshuvos V’hanhagos 4:274:9:1
[70] Kli Yakar Bereishis 37:35. Refer to Chuko Mamtakim 1:page 28.
[71] Refer to Rama Y.D. 376:2.
[72] V’ein Lamo Michshol 5:page 166:1.
[73] Nechamas Sara 7:page 248, see Levush 376:1.
[74] Darchei Moshe 375:4, Nechamas Sara ibid.
[75] Nechamas Sara ibid:page 250.
[76] Teshuvos V’hanhagos 1:691, 3:376 4:274:9:1. Refer to Rivevos Ephraim 3:377, Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:pages 506-507.
30
[77] Refer to Chai Pinchas page 119.
[78] V’ein Lamo Michshol 6:pages 305-306.
[79] Leket Yosher O.C. page 110, Be’er Moshe 4:106, Yaskil Avdi Y.D. 6:25. Refer to Maseches Moed Kattan 15a, Rambam
Hilchos Avel 5:20, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 385:1.
[81] Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 385:1. Refer to Levush Y.D. 385:1.
[83] Refer to Salmas Chaim 621 which is stringent. In addition, the B’tzel Hachachmah 5:72 is stringent. Refer to B’tzel
Hachachmah 5:70.
[84] Leket Yosher O.C. page 110, Be’er Moshe 4:106, Yaskil Avdi Y.D. 6:25.
[85] Salmas Chaim 622 (old), Sridei Eish 2:111. See Teshuvos V’hanhagos 5:309:31 about saying good Shabbos to an avel.
[87] Teshuvos V’hanhagos 5:309:26, Nitei Gavriel (Aveilus) 90:3:footnote 6.
[88] Rivevos Ephraim 8:105:3.
[89] Darchei Hachaim 4:2:footnote 2.
[90] Nechamas Sara 8:pages 252-253. See Ashrei Ha’ish Y.D. 2:page 304:21, Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:page 485, Yalkut Yosef Bikur
Cholim V’aveilus page 435:10.
[91] Gesher Hachaim 20:5:6, Chai Pinchas page 116.
31
[92] B’tzel Hachachmah 2:44 in great depth.
[93] V’ein Lamo Michshol 6:page 305. Refer to Maseches Moed Kattan 21b.
[94] Maseches Moed Kattan 27b.
[95] Rambam Hilchos Avel 13:3, Tur Y.D. 376, Beis Yosef, Shulchan Aruch 376:1, Levush 1. Refer to Kitzur Shulchan
Aruch 207:1.
[96] Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 376:3, Gesher Hachaim 20:5:7.
[97] Levush Y.D. 376:1.
[98] Refer to Rama Y.D. 393:1. See Tziyanei Halachah page 303.
[99] Some say this starts from the day of death as opposed to the day of shivah (refer to She’arim Metzuyanim B’halachah 207:1).
[100] Pele Yoetz “bechiya” pages 38-39.
[101] Darchei Hachaim hashmatos to 4:1, Da’as Torah Y.D. 376:1, Gesher Hachaim 20:5:5, Teshuvos V’hanhagos 3:377. Refer
to Midrash Rabbah Vayikra 18:1, Ginzei Yosef 74:2:page 177, Sha’arei Halachah U’minhag Y.D. pages 365-366, Magen
Shaul 69, Cheshev Ha’efod 3:98.
[102] Gesher Hachaim 20:footnote 8.
[103] Teshuvos V’hanhagos 4:274:9:2:footnote 2. See Yalkut Yosef Bikur Cholim V’aveilus page 431:5.
[104] Nitei Gavriel (Aveilus) 86:2:footnote 7.
[105] Gesher Hachaim 20:5:5, Chai Pinchas page 119. Refer to ibid. which is unsure if the three days start from the day of death
or from the days of shivah.
[106] Bereishis 37:35.
32
[107] Emes L’Yaakov Y.D. 376:footnote 223.
[108] Habayis Hayehudi 3:page 264, Chuko Mamtakim 1:page 22. Refer to Be’er Sarim 3:75, Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:pages 504-
505.
[109] Ibid.
[110] Refer to Yalkut Avraham hashmatos to Y.D. 376, Orchos Rabbeinu 1:page 313:30, 4:page 116:1 quoting this as the custom
of the Steipler zt”l, and page 117:4 quoting the custom of the Chazon Ish zt”l, Chuko Mamtakim 1:pages 21-22 quoting the opinion
of Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l, see ibid:footnote 21 quoting the opinion of Harav Zilber zt”l, Nitei Gavriel (Aveilus)
86:footnote 2, Dinim V’hanhagos of the Chazon Ish 4:24. Refer to Rambam Hilchos Avel 13:2.
[111] Kol Bo (Aveilus) page 297, Ginzei Yosef 74:page 177:2, Badei Hashulchan 376:1, Gesher Hachaim 20:5:4, Yabia Omer
Y.D. 10:48, Chai Pinchas page 119. Refer to V’yalkut Yosef year 12:181 which brings a reason not to go be menachem avel at night.
See Afrakisisa D’anya 4:372:3.
[112] Nitei Gavriel (Aveilus) 86:8, Chuko Mamtakim 1:page 27, Halichos Bein Adam L’chaveiro 27:7, Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:page
505.
[113] Maseches Shabbos 12a, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 287:1, Tur Y.D. 393, Kaf Hachaim O.C. 287:4, Orchos Rabbeinu 4:page
118:12, Nishmas Shabbos 2:376. Refer to B’tzel Hachachmah 2:44:6. See Kovetz Bais Aharon V’Yisrael 84:pages 146-147.
[114] Mishnah Berurah O.C. 287:1, Nemukei Orach Chaim O.C. 287:1, Gesher Hachaim 20:2, Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 287:
3, Y.D. 393:10, Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:pages 490-491, Chai Pinchas page 116, B’tzel Hachachmah 2:44:7, Tziyanei Halachah page
304.
[115] Darchei Hachaim 4:14.
[116] Sha’arei Teshuvah O.C. 287, Biur Halachah O.C. 287 “v’chein.” In regard to which nusach to say, see Mishnah
Berurah ibid:3. See Aruch Hashulchan O.C. 287:3.
[117] Refer to Maseches Sukkah 41b, Orchos Rabbeinu 4:page 118:11. Refer to Rivevos Ephraim 4:153:7, 6:274. Others say the
custom is not to be menachem avel on Chol Hamoed (Tziyanei Halachah page 306, see Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:172).
33
[118] Igros Moshe O.C. 5:20:22.
[119] Shemiras Shabbos K’hilchasah 65:8. Refer to Shemiras Haguf V’hanefesh 202:2. Some say it is because of ruach
ra’ah which is present in a beis avel (Ginzei Yosef page 330).
[121] Refer to Kol Bo (Aveilus) page 262:11. Some say to turn over the mirrors (V’yalkut Yosef 14:110:page 42).
[122] Ibid., see Yabia Omer Y.D. 4:35:3.
[123] Teshuvos V’hanhagos 2:585, see Asifos Gershon page 7-8 because of davening there. Refer to Ta’amei Haminhagim page
435 in the footnote.
[124] Radvaz 106, Be’er Heitiv 90:30, Mishnah Berurah 70. The Yabia Omer Y.D. 4:35:3 says since davening takes place in a beis
avel the mirrors are covered. If no davening takes place then one would not have to cover the mirrors (ibid.). See Miyum
Hahalachah 2:31.
[125] Mishnah Berurah 71, Aruch Hashulchan 28.
[126] Kol Bo ibid., Chelek Levi Y.D. 132:page 123, Yabia Omer 4:Y.D. 35:3, Shevet Hakehasi 6:401.
[127] Yabia Omer Y.D. 4:35:3.
[128] Shevet Hakehasi 6:401.
[130] Pnei Baruch page 501, Ashrei Ha’ish Y.D. 2:page 303:18.
[131] Ibid.
34
[132] Rav Akiva Eiger Y.D. 376, Beis Lechem Yehuda Y.D. 376, Elyah Rabbah 224:7, Darchei Hachaim 32:4, Aruch
Hashulchan 11, Kaf Hachaim O.C. 224:46, Yabia Omer Y.D. 4:35:4, Gesher Hachaim 20:12, Mishneh Halachos 7:206.
[133] B’mechitzas Rabbeinu page 189.
[134] Yabia Omer Y.D. 4:35:4, Halichos Chaim 2:page 149:310.
[135] Misgeres Hashulchan Y.D. 376:page 177b, Darchei Hachaim 32:4, Chai Pinchas page 57.
[137] Chuko Mamtakim 1:page 20:footnote 15.
[138] Ibid.
[140] Rivevos Ephraim 8:406:3.
[141] Yosef Ometz page 330, Chaim B’yad Y.D. 125:15.
[142] Orchos Rabbeinu 4:page 118:8. For this reason the Steipler zt”l did not want to bring his cane when he went to be menachem
avel (Orchos Rabbeinu 4:page 118:9).
[144] Halichos Chaim 2:page 149:footnote 270.
[145] Yabia Omer Y.D. 4:35:4.
[146] Pnei Baruch 10:4, Chai Pinchas page 56.
[147] Rivevos Ephraim 3:375, 5:557:1, 7:401, Be’er Moshe 4:107.
35
[148] Har Tzvi Y.D. 290, Yaskil Avdi Y.D. 6:25:5, Sridei Eish 2:111, Yabia Omer Y.D. 4:35:10.
[149] Chai Pinchas page 60. Refer to Yaskil Avdi Y.D. 6:25:5, Sridei Eish 2:111 which are lenient.
[150] Torah Lishmah 516.
[152] Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:168. See Introduction to Beis Hayehudi 3 in the letter of Harav D’bliski shlit”a, as well as Beis
Hayehudi 35:8.
Nichum Aveilim: Comforting Mourners

Rabbi Ari Enkin writes:9
9
https://outorah.org/p/86672/
36
The mitzva of nichum aveilim, comforting mourners, is generally performed by visiting those who
are sitting shiva. According to some authorities, nichum aveilim is actually a biblical
mitzva[1] while according to others it is a rabbinical one.[2] It seems that it was God Himself who
first performed the mitzva of nichum aveilim when He “visited” and comforted Yitzchak Avinu
after the death of Avraham Avinu.[3] Not only does nichum aveilim allow one to perform an act
of kindness by visiting the mourners and offering them words of comfort and encouragement, but
we are taught that the soul of the deceased is comforted when one performs nichum aveilim, as
well.[4] In fact, merely visiting a shiva house, even without saying anything to the mourners, has
much merit and is also a fulfillment of the mitzva of nichum aveilim.[5]
It is customary for even those who are not truly obligated to mourn for the deceased to participate
in some of the mourning practices (e.g. not bathing in hot water, not listening to music, not
participating in any festive celebrations) – at least when in the presence of family members who
are. For example, a husband should sit alongside his wife and tend to her needs when she is
sitting shiva, though he should not sit on a low chair as true mourners do. In this way, one comforts
those who are mourning and shows honor to the deceased.[6]
As a general rule, only those directly associated with the shiva should eat in a shiva
house.[7] Nevertheless, there is a widespread Sephardic custom to offer food to the guests at a
shiva house. It is explained that the many blessings and "amens" that are recited over the food and
drink by all those present serve as a merit for the deceased. According to all authorities, however,
one may be lenient when necessary when the shiva is not being observed in the location where the
deceased had died.[8]
It is ideal for the shiva to be observed in the place where the deceased had died, though this is
seldom practical. If shiva cannot be held where the deceased had died then it should be observed
in the home of the deceased. If this too is not possible then the mourners sit shiva in their own
homes or they may join together to sit shiva in the home of one of the mourners. In the event that
there are no mourners who will be observing shiva, efforts should still be made by community
members to hold services in the home of the deceased.[9] In some communities, it is customary
not to visit mourners during the first three days of shiva which is when their grief is the most
intense.[10] Common custom, however, is to welcome shiva visits even immediately after
internment.[11] It is permissible for a man to pay a shiva visit to a woman and vice versa. A bride
and groom should not pay a shiva call on their wedding day.[12] One should avoid paying a shiva
visit on Shabbat.[13]
It is unclear where the traditional mourner’s greeting -- actually a blessing -- of "Hamakom

yenachem etchem betoch shaar aveilei tzion v'yerushalayim” -- “May God comfort you among the
mourners of Zion and Jerusalem" is derived from.[14] One will notice that the phrase is worded in
the plural (obvious in the Hebrew version) and it is recited in this manner even if there is only one
mourner present. The reason for this is that the plural tense is intended to convey that not only is
the mourner being comforted by the shiva visit, but the soul of the deceased is being comforted,
as well.[15] In Sephardic communities, the customary greeting is "tanchumu min hashamayim" –
"May you be comforted from heaven." The "Hamakom yenachem…" blessing should be recited
by the visitors while they are still seated,[16] though other authorities are not particular about
37
this.[17] The mourners should answer “amen” to the “hamakom” blessing.[18] One should not say
the “hamakom…,” nor comfort a mourner in any way, until the deceased is buried and the shiva
has formally begun.[19] Even one who has attended the funeral and burial should still pay a shiva
visit, as well.[20] It is permitted to shake a mourner's hand when offering condolences.[21]
There is some discussion as to why God is referred to as "Hamakom" in the context of the nichum
aveilim formula.[22] Some suggest that "Hamakom," meaning "the place," refers to the "place" in
Heaven where the soul of the deceased finds itself. Others suggest that God is referred to indirectly
as "Hamakom" as if to say, "He who is in all places," so as to avoid referring to God directly in a
context of sadness and mourning. It is also noted that the word “hamakom” has the same gematria
as one of the names of God.[23] We invoke Jerusalem when comforting mourners in order to
convey that just as the Jewish people will one day be comforted over the destruction of Jerusalem
with its rebuilding, so too, the mourners will one day be comforted by the loss of their loved one
with the resurrection of the dead in the messianic era.[24] There are other interpretations, as
well.[25]
One should be sure to choose appropriate conversation when visiting a shiva house.[26] Each
mourner should be addressed individually and the conversation tailored accordingly.[27] The
mourner should be the first to open any conversation.[28] One should not visit one’s enemy during
shiva, though one may send a messenger to inform him that one would like to visit and evaluate
his response.[29] One who is only able to perform either nichum aveilim or bikkur cholim, should
perform nichum aveilim.[30] However, one who is able to perform both mitzvot should
perform bikkur cholim first.[31]One should comfort non-Jewish mourners, as well.[32]
Although most people only visit a shiva house once during the shiva week, it is actually meritorious
to visit multiple times, and even daily, if possible.[33] Efforts should be made to visit mourners at
times when they are likely to have no other visitors.[34] One who is unable to personally visit
mourners should at least phone them to offer one’s condolences.[35] One should be especially sure
to visit those who are sitting shiva for the loss of a child. In fact, we are told that the death of a
child may signify that the child was a reincarnation of a great person.[36]
[1] Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona, to Berachot, beginning of perek “mi shemeto.”

[2] Rambam, Hilchot Avel 14:1; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:1.
[3] Bereishit 25:11; Sota 14a; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:1.
[4] Rambam, Hilchot Avel 13:4, 14:7; Shabbat 152b. See also Moed Katan 21b.
[5] Berachot 6b.
[6] Rema, YD 374:6.
[7] See Rabbi Akiva Eiger, YD 376:4; Rivevot Ephraim 8:204:3; Aruch Hashulchan, YD 376:11. See also Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
(Toledano) 111:12 and Ateret Shlomo 28 cited in Magen Avot YD 376.
[8] Misgeret Hashulchan 376.
[9] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:5; Badei Hashulchan, YD 376:3, biurim, s.v. met.
[10] Tuv Tam V'daat 2:10.
[11] Rambam, Hilchot Avel 13:2; Teshuvot V'hanhagot 1:691, 3:377, 4:274.
[12] B’tzel Hachachma 2:44.
[13] Aruch Hashulchan, OC 287:3.
[14] Aruch Hashulchan, OC 287:3.
[15] Divrei Sofrim, YD 376; Emek Davar 9.
[16] Rivevot Ephraim 3:359:3.
[17] Leket Yosher p. 91; Orchot Rabbeinu p.313.
[18] Pnei Baruch 11:5; Teshuvot V’hanhagot 1:691, 3:377. But see Halichot Olam Vol. 2 p.150 for a dissenting view.
[19] Avot 4:18.
[20] Rambam, Hilchot Avel 13:1,2; Shevet Hakehati 5:211.
[21] Har Tzvi, YD 290, Yaskil Avdi, YD 6:25.
38
[22] See Rivevot Ephraim 5:559.
[23] Sefer Kushiot 78. There are a number of ways of interpreting the gematria of “hamakom” as being equal to the name of God.
One such interpretation, cited by Raphael N. Levi, is that if one takes each letter of the Shem Havayah (the Tetragrammaton) and
squares it: Yud 102 = 100; Heh 52 = 25; Vav 62 = 36; Heh 52 = 25. Total 186 = the gematria (numerical value) of Makom.
[24] Teshuvot V'hanhagot 3:378.
[25] See for example Tzitz Eliezer17:7 s.v. v’alah.
[26] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:4.
[27] YD 354:2.
[28] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:1; YD 376:1.
[29] YD 335:2; Shach, YD 335:2; Aruch Hashulchan, YD 335:6.
[30] YD 335:10; Shach, YD 335:11.
[31] Bach, YD 335.
[32] YD 367:1.
[34] Yosef Ometz p. 329.
[35] Igrot Moshe, OC 4:40:11; Be’er Moshe 2:106; Rivevot Ephraim 3:610. See also Pachad Yitzchak, Igrot #33.
[36] Rivevot Ephraim 6:10:3.
WELCOMING MOURNERS ON SHABBAT
Rabbi Baruch Frydman-Kohl writes:10
10
https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/frydmankohl_welcoming.pdf
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ushering in an Avel after Sunset of Shabbat
R. Daniel Mann writes:11
Question: You wrote in Bemareh Habazak (IX:94) that an avel may

enter shul once sheki’a (sunset) has passed, even before the end of Kabbalat Shabbat. Should we
say that, similarly after sheki’a, the shul should not “welcome” an avel by saying Hamakom
yenachem …”?
Answer: You may be assuming that one may not be menachem avel on Shabbat.
The gemara (Shabbat 12a-b) (reluctantly) permits being menachem avel on Shabbat, as does the
Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 287:1). Since this is not the optimal time to do so (Shabbat 12b;
Magen Avraham 287:1), we should not be surprised by the minhag to not be menachem on
Shabbat, at least for Ashkenazim (see Gesher Hachayim 20:5:2).
The timing of an avel’s entrance is based primarily on his ability to enter shul (not before Shabbat
– see Tur, Yoreh Deah 393). Note a historical fact. Until relatively recently, Ma’ariv of Shabbat
in shul was done during daytime, so that the community accepted Shabbat early with the saying
of Barchu (see Rama, Orach Chayim 253:2, as one of many sources). The custom developed to
recite Mizmor Shir L’yom HaShabbat, which became the acceptance of Shabbat (Shulchan Aruch,
OC 261:4). Between Lecha Dodi and Mizmor Shir became the perfect time for the avel to come
in. People could be menachem freely because it was still Friday, and he could enter as it would
immediately be Shabbat when his presence in shul became appropriate. As we pointed out in
Bemareh Habazak, if Shabbat began before the community accepted Shabbat, it is also permitted
for him to go into shul. Your question is a good one. Does it become forbidden to say Hamakom
yenachem …?
11
https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/06/ushering-in-an-avel-after-sunset-of-shabbat/
47
One could argue that it is still permitted, as we saw that it is permitted to be menachem on Shabbat,
despite the minhag not to do so. Since the custom is to welcome the avel at that point in davening,
we would follow the halacha that it is permitted. However, the Pri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav
287:1) says that once the community has said Mizmor Shir, they may no longer announce “to go
out to welcome the mourner” (it was apparently more elaborate than today) because it is a public
display of mourning (this is not obvious assertion), which is forbidden (see Shulchan Aruch, YD
400:1). He allows individuals to go over and express consolations, but not the shul and not with
the standard weekday formula. The Mishna Berura (287:3) states that some authorities permit
regular language.
Thus, the purist will logically agree with you that after sheki’a, the shul should not say Hamakon
yenachem. We could compromise and say that during bein hashemashot (doubt whether it is day
or night), one can be lenient and allow the marginally problematic group consolation. (In Bemareh
Habazak we allowed Shabbat leniency from sheki’a because we are lenient on matters
of aveilut (Moed Katan 18a).) However, the minhag seems to allow welcoming the mourner even
after tzeit hakochavim (nightfall). In theory, we can say the minhag is a mistake, by not updating
the practice after the timing changed.
However, it is possible (and preferable) to uphold the minhag for two reasons. On a matter that is
not overly serious halachically, we uphold minhagim even when they appear to be “wrong.”
Sometimes we also do not know the wisdom behind the minhag. Let
us suggest a possible fundamental justification, while not being sure that it is a correct
explanation.
The Pri Megadim is talking about a case where the community consciously accepted Shabbat
with Mizmor Shir. As such, public aveilut behavior is inappropriate. However, when the
community has not yet accepted Shabbat with their behavior, it is not forbidden to welcome
the avel. While each individual is not allowed to violate Shabbat because the time of Shabbat has
come, consoling the mourner is not a violation (see above). If just the public nature of the practice
is the problem, sensitivity to that may begin only with Mizmor Shir even the time of Shabbat came
earlier.
In any case, we will uphold the minhag of our shuls, many or most of which still welcome
mourners before Mizmor Shir despite your good question.
48
The traditional Jewish words in comforting a mourner can go to the deepest place.
May "The Place" Comfort You

Rabbi Yisrael Rutman writes:12
One of the most difficult tasks anyone will ever face is that of offering comfort to someone who
has just lost a loved one. Finding the right words is often a frustrating and embarrassing experience.
All too often the well-meaning friend or relative is reduced to such eternal verities as, "Well, he
sure was a swell guy!" Or, "You're over it now, right?"
At times like these, even the most fervent advocates of creative personal expression gratefully take
a Jewish prayer book and recite the traditional formula:
HaMakom yenachem et'chem b'toch shar avay'lay Tzion vee'Yerushalayim.

May the Omnipresent comfort you among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.
Like any prayer or blessing, this may be said in one's own native language, but the Hebrew is
preferred. At first, this preference for Hebrew might seem to only add awkwardness to an already
painful moment, but as we shall see, the depth and beauty of the Torah's language offers a unique
perspective on our confrontation with mortality.
12
https://www.aish.com/jl/l/dam/48961211.html
49
Wipe Away the Pain
For starters: Isn't it strange that we call upon God to comfort the mourner? After all, isn't the person
visiting the mourner the one who is supposed to be doing the comforting?
The answer is that our human capacity to empathize with the bereaved is limited. Only one who
truly understands and appreciates the person's loss can really offer comfort. And which of us can
put himself into the shoes of someone who has just spent the last six months with a parent dying
of cancer; or someone whose baby passed away suddenly and inexplicably of SIDS; or who’s
loved one was just blown to pieces by a suicide bomber in a coffee shop in Jerusalem?
Who can put himself into the shoes of someone who just spent the last six months with a parent
dying of cancer?
Only God, who knows the secrets of the heart, is truly capable of fathoming such grief, and of
providing comfort.
Indeed, the human capacity for being consoled is hardly explicable. They say that time heals all
wounds. But it's not true. Some people never recover from their loss. The biblical patriarch Jacob
mourned over his son Joseph for 22 years, mistakenly believing that he had been killed by a wild
animal. Jacob only stopped mourning when he discovered that Joseph was alive and well in Egypt.
Until then, he could not forget his "dead" son.
That is because it is only by Divine decree that the pain of bereavement eases, and that only goes
into effect when the person is really dead. The decree did not take effect for Jacob because his son
was not dead.
Consolation is not a natural process. Neither the passage of time, nor the awkward, well-meaning
gestures of others can remove the memory or wipe away the pain. That is why we ask God to
comfort him – because we cannot.
Eternal Reward
But why do we use the word "HaMakom" – the Omnipresent (literally, "The Place")? It is but one
of the many names of God, and not the one normally employed in blessings. Perhaps
"HaRachaman," the Merciful One, would be more appropriate?
God is everywhere, true. But a person who has lost a loved one often feels that he has been
abandoned by God; that there is no God where he is. We say to the mourner, therefore, that
HaMakom should comfort him: We pray that he be blessed by a renewed awareness of God's
presence, even in the grief-stricken place in which he now finds himself – for that place, too, is
HaMakom, the place of God.
HaMakom asserts that God is everywhere and everything: physical and spiritual, matter and
energy. All of this makes up the oneness of God.
50
The contemplation of HaMakom during a time of pain, and coming closer to Him, can comfort the
mourner with the realization that their loved one's physical death is only a part of the bigger picture.
Just as their life was a part of God's plan, so too is their passing from this world to another yet
more real world.
At the end of life, every soul returns to its Makom, to its unique place in the
world.
The afterlife has always been an essential Jewish belief. Traditionally a great consolation for the
mourner has been the thought that their loved one has been taken from this world of darkness to a
world of eternal light, to the reward hidden away for the righteous in Gan Eden.
In the spiritual reality, nothing is lost: Not the beloved one's purpose, nor their goodness, and nor
even their real existence. The soul continues to exist eternally. At the end of life, every soul returns
to its Makom, to its unique "place" in the "world."
We tell the mourner: If you could see The Place where the deceased now dwells, you'd be
comforted.
Peace In Israel
The latter half of the blessing – "among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem" – also requires
explanation. What, after all, is the connection between The Place and the mourning over the Jewish
homeland?
The Land of Israel is also HaMakom, the place on earth set aside by God as the Holy Land. The
Sages say that the Land of Israel is one of the three things (along with Torah and the World to
Come) which is acquired through suffering.
Therefore, all the suffering of the Jewish people in Israel today should itself be a form of comfort
to us. For by virtue of the terrible loss of so many righteous and innocent Jews, we move closer to
acquiring The Place that God promised us – permanently and in peace.
Sources:
Lekach Tov; Kli Yakar,
Rabbi E.E. Dessler;
Rabbi Shmuel Geller;
Rabbi Gavriel Kleinerman
51
Akiva Miller writes:13
Note that the Mishneh Brurah in both 261:31 and 342:1 says that the recital of Lecha Dodi
constitutes Kabalas Shabbos, but in 287:3 he allows the tzibur to say Hamakom Yenachem as
long as they haven't yet said Mizmor Shir L'Yom HaShabos.
This sounds to me like the MB is contradicting himself, but I'd like to suggest this explanation:
Note that "Hamakom Yenachem" is not really assur even on Shabbos itself.
Chazal wanted to forbid it, but they reluctantly ["b'koshi hetiru"] allowed it, with a strong
preference for "Shabos Hee Milinachem..." Also note the MB 261:31, where he explains that in
the time of the Magen Avraham, Mizmor Shir and Barchu were not said together, but were
separated by a period of time during which melacha was *allowed*. (That's not a typo: See MB
261:31, that melacha was allowed even after saying Mizmor Shir L'Yom Hashabos, provided that
they did not yet say Barchu, and also provided of course that it was not yet Bein Hashmashos.)
Perhaps these two ideas can be combined to say that although the MB begins Shabbos at Boee
Kallah for *most* halachos, he allows "Hamakom Yenachem" for a few more seconds, until
Mizmor Shir, when "Shabbos Hee Milinachem" becomes preferable.
13
https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n332.shtml
52
Ella Oppenheimer
14
14
https://files.anash.org/uploads/2021/05/Comfort-my-Nation-5781-Email.pdf
53
54
55
56
Rabbi Chaim Ozer Geldzahler WRITES :15
When the pain is unbearable, we know that it’s only Hashem’s existence and mercy that can
fill that void, that “makom”

What is there to say?
Nothing. Please nothing.
I remember sitting shivah for my father 16 years ago. I was 11 years old. We were 13 children,
most of us unmarried, the youngest two months old. It wasn’t an easy shivah to attend. People
came and said some of the stupidest things I’ve heard in my life. I remember one mashpia who
called me on the phone and exclaimed, “Chaim Ozer, mazal tov!”
“What for?” I asked, taken aback.
“You got a new father,” he answered.
“Im yirtzeh Hashem by you…” I retorted. My sister, then a young teenager, had her share too. A
teacher told her, “Some people have memories of their fathers old and weak and senile, but you’ll
always remember your father with a black beard!”
I know that people don’t mean to be silly. They just don’t have what to say. What can you possibly
say in the face of tragedy? How can you make sense of madness? How can you find a glimmer of
light and hope, perhaps some positivity, in enormous darkness?
The truth: You can’t. It’s a recipe for stupidity.
It’s not about you. You don’t have to make sense of tragedy. Chazal teach us that “agra d’bei tamia
shtikusa — the merit of visiting a shivah home is the silence.” Just sit there and weep, immerse
15
Rabbi Chaim Ozer Geldzahler studies in the Institute for Dayanim in Yerushalayim and teaches at The Chaburah.
https://mishpacha.com/just-hold-the-pain/
57
yourself in the sorrow and loss. It’s not about making it better or finding hope, it’s about feeling
the pain.
I know this might upset some people, but I’ll take this further. The casualty count was rising, and
I was experiencing what probably were the saddest moments in my life, and probably yours too,
when a well-intentioned bochur approached me and inquired, with tears in his eyes, what should
we be mekabel, what can we change.
My answer was nothing.
Now is the time to just absorb the pain. When Hatzolah is doing CPR and bodies are piling up isn’t
the time to alleviate the agony by consoling yourself that you did something about this. It’s not
about you.
There was once a fire in the home of the Zeide, Reb Mottele of Hornisteipel. His home and all his
belongings went up in smoke, along with his most valuable possession: a manuscript on Gittin that
he’d worked on for years, a project of long days and sleepless nights. After being informed of the
loss, he was quiet for long moments in deep sad meditation. Only after a while did he get up and
proclaim his acceptance of Hashem’s judgment.
A talmid standing nearby was surprised that his rebbe hadn’t simply been mekabel b’ahavah. Reb
Mottele explained, “First one has to feel the pain and face the judgment, only afterward can we
accept it b’ahavah.”
It’s not easy to live with such tragedy. It’s natural to want to find meaning in the face of such
disaster. And that’s okay, and moreover, it’s what makes us special. But let’s wait a little bit.
For now, perhaps, let’s sit quietly and feel the pain. The pain of mothers who buried two children,
passing by their bedrooms and hoping that it’s all a nightmare, the pain of young wives who are
still washing their husband’s laundry from a few days ago, tears rolling down their faces as they
fold, and the pain of countless brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors,
whose lives were shaken to the very core.
We will have an opportunity to reflect on what it means for us. We will eventually move on. But
there’s no reason to rush. Nothing will happen if our routine is shaken up for a few days, if we
don’t meet with friends, don’t go back to life, don’t move on. Not yet.
I sat with the bochur and we wept. There were no names or pictures, we didn’t know ages or
community affiliations, there was no one to blame and no excuses, and we simply sat and held
each other’s hand and cried.
We say to the mourning “HaMakom yenachem,” I told him, for every loss pierces a hole in the
heart of a loved one, a hole that cannot be filled by anyone else. When the pain is unbearable, we
know that it’s only Hashem’s existence and mercy that can fill that void, that “makom.”
58
When we sit bewildered and our hearts bleed with pain for children and young fathers we never
knew, we are united in that makom. Let’s not rush out of there. Let’s not move on so quickly.
There’s no other place where we can survive now.
Death and the Dishwasher
LEON WEISELTER WRITES:16
By the rules of American book reviewing, I ought not

to write about this beautiful book. I am hobbled by the
most damning disqualification of all: I have a conflict
of interest. Not the appearance of one; an actual one. It
is not that I once met a man whose second wife went to
school with a woman who had a drink with a cousin of
16
https://newrepublic.com/authors/leon-wieseltier
59
the dentist who treats the children of the book's copy-
editor, which would have been damaging enough. It is
that I know the author of Making Toast. Worse, he was
my predecessor in my distinguished position, which is
distinguished not least because he once held it. Still
worse, he has been my friend for over thirty years.
Worst of all, I adore him. So I am hopelessly
compromised. Like many people who are about to do
something that makes them feel bad, I could read a few
pages of Niebuhr, feel sad about feeling bad, and get
on with it; but I do not use the great man as a salve,
and I do not feel bad when I say that Making Toast is a
beautiful book. The judgment is true. I do not think
that Making Toast is extraordinary because of my
friend; I think that my friend is extraordinary because
of Making Toast. I would admire the man who had the
inner resources to produce such a book even if I hated
him. Anyway, impartiality is no guarantee of honesty.
I should add that I wish this book had never been

written, because it is the account of an unbearable
sorrow, and I wish it had never befallen Roger
Rosenblatt. On December 8, 2007, his daughter, Amy
Rosenblatt Solomon, thirty-eight years old, the mother
of three
children, a pediatrician, collapsed at home in Bethesda
and died. Rosenblatt and his wife (make that two
conflicts of interest) immediately left their home on
Long Island and drove to their mutilated family. When
one of his little grandchildren asked how long he is
staying, Rosenblatt replied, "Forever." This book is the
journal-like narrative of the first year-and-a-half of
Rosenblatt’s new life of his broken-hearted and
soldierly attempt to hold his family together. It is a
collection of anecdotes about parents and children,
grandparents and grandchildren, relying upon love for
their improvisations against loss. It is written with
modesty and with calm—with a restraint that it is itself
a great achievement in the
aftermath of a cosmic cruelty.
Rosenblatt's powers of observation—his descriptions of

his family have an Ozu-like clarity-were unimpaired by
his pain. Indeed, they seem almost to have been
sharpened by it. He understands that the first challenge
60
of sorrow is cognitive. Making Toast is a small glowing
jewel in the literature of grief.
Rosenblatt is a learned and literary man, and his

bereavement is punctuated by philosophical and
psychological reflections. He is repeatedly brought back
to the most crushing feature of death, which is its
finality. "Nothing will ever be normal again." "We will
never feel right again." He notes about himself that
"anger and emptiness remain my principal states of
mind." "My anger, being futile, flares in the wrong
places and at the wrong times." Sometimes his anger
extends to the metaphysical: "my anger at God remains
unabated." "I cursed God. In a way, believing in God
made Amy's death more, not
less, comprehensible, since the God I believe in is not
beneficent."
But generally Rosenblatt is not inclined to such

speculations. He records that he and his wife "avoided
religions us and reared our children without one," and
so in the wake of his daughter's death
"God was not with us." There is nothing complacent
about his reluctance to explore these matters any further.
He is simply too wounded for disputation. The problem
with theodicy, and with the arguments against theodicy,
is that it is all so abstract. Brilliance is for the whole
days, not the broken ones. When one buries one's dead,
one's first thought cannot be that Leibniz was wrong,
even if Leibniz was wrong. And so Rosenblatt does not
write here as an intellectual. He writes as a father and a
grandfather; as a man with chores.
The chores are Rosenblatt's real subject, and the reason

that his book is so affecting. Here is an example:
I wake up earlier than the others, usually around 5 a.m.,

to perform the one household duty I have mastered.
After posting the morning's word [a game he invents to
improve the vocabulary of his grandchildren], emptying
the dishwasher, setting the table for the
children's breakfasts, and pouring the MultiGrain
Cheerios or Froot Loops or Apple Jacks or Special K or
Fruity Pebbles, I prepare toast. I take out the butter to
allow it to soften, and put three slices of Pepperidge
Farm Hearty Whites in the toaster oven. Bubbies [his
61
youngest grandson] and I like plain buttered toast;
Sammy prefers it with cinnamon, with the crusts cut off.
When the bell rings, I shift the slices from the toaster to
plates, and butter them.
Making toast, in other words, is a spiritual exercise, but

its spirituality is to be found entirely in its concreteness.
Rosenblatt's book is a tribute to the consolatory power
of the concrete.
"MultiGrain Cheerios or Froot Loops or Apple Jacks or

Special K or Fruity Pebbles": the inventory is the point,
the naming of nourishing things, the amassing of small
particulars against a big particular, so that the facticity
of life becomes a retort to the facticity of death.
In an existence viciously robbed of its banality,
Rosenblatt brandishes the banal, it is his defense against
disorder and despair. It represents a kind of triumph-not
over death, which has already won, but over suffering,
which can still destroy. But not if he empties the
dishwasher! If he empties the dishwasher, life wins.
In his chronicle of dailiness, his humble catalog of

quotidian gestures, Rosenblatt discovers the anti-
apocalyptic potency of the ordinary. He has written
what Tzvetan Todorov, in a penetrating study of
seventeenth-century Dutch painting, calls an éloge du
quotidien.
Like those still lifes and those genre scenes, Rosenblatt's

account of the saving force of domesticity is a kind of
argument. It argues that the integrity of the inner world
may sometimes be secured by the integrity of the outer
world. The subject may sometimes be rescued by
objects. You feel this method of fortification working
again and again in Making Toast. As he recognizes that
he cannot protect the members of his family from their
melancholy thoughts and moods, Rosenblatt learns that
he can at least serve them, and with his diligence and his
wit keep their world continuous and intact. For the
mourner, though I can hardly imagine mourning my
own child, there are no higher ambitions than continuity
and intactness. And so the battle for meaning is fought,
and occasionally won, in the kitchen.
62
There are circumstances in which prose is poetry, and
the unornamented candor of Rosenblatt's writing slowly
attains to a sober sort of lyricism. But this is more than
just a moving book. It is also a useful book. Perhaps
because beauty is the antithesis of use, there is
something especially marvelous about useful
beauty. Making Toast, a memoir of helpfulness, may
actually help some of the people who read it. There are
not many books that are important in this way: Helen
Garner's The Spare Room, a shatteringly honest and
artful account of assisting a friend through her dying, is
another such book. The epigraph to Garner's austere
masterpiece, from Elizabeth Jolley, captures also the
large spirit of Rosenblatt's book: "It is a privilege to
prepare the place where someone else will sleep."
Rosenblatt's children and grandchildren chose their
father and grandfather well. His toast is buttered with
wisdom.
63
‘BEING UNABLE TO COME TO YOU AND LAMENT AND
WEEP WITH YOU’
Grief and Condolence Letters on Papyrus
Chrysi Kotsifou writes:17
17
file:///Users/julianungar-sargon/Desktop/Being_Unable_to_Come_to_You_and_Lament_a.pdf
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
For more on Lecha Dodi see Daf Ditty Shabbat 119: Welcome Shabbat Bride18
18
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5047de16e4b026a4c324cd81/t/5f29c926431d440dfc388065/1596573994380/DD50_S119
.pdf
72

Moed Katan 23

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moed Katan 23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daf Ditty Moed Katan 23: Condolences

Mourning: Marrying, Observing Shabbat, and Dealing with Dissent

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

Abaye Changes His Position Three Times3

LEARNING TORAH IN THE HOUSE OF AN AVEL

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

Remarrying While in Mourning

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

The Sages felt it inappropriate to forget one’s wife so quickly.

Therefore, if a widow is approached by someone who is interested in marrying her, it is important

May we have only semachos!

Sara Ronis writes:7

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:8

Halachically Speaking – Nichum Aveilim

Rabbi Moishe Lebovits writes:

Learning Hilchos Aveilus

There is a discussion in the poskim if this is included in the mitzvah of doing

The Main Focus of the Mitzvah

Nichum Aveilim or Bikur Cholim?

Where to Sit – Where to Visit the Aveilim

On the Telephone / Letter

Talking to the Mourner

What to Discuss with the Mourners?

Saying Shalom to an Avel

Saying Hello / Good Morning / Good Evening / Mazel Tov

Being Menachem Many Mourners

Coming More Than Once

Many at One Time

When to Be Menachem Avel

First Three Days

Shabbos / Yom Tov

Some have the custom to be menachem avel on Chol Hamoed.[117]

Some Customs at a Beis Avel

Others offer a different reason: It is prohibited to daven opposite a mirror,[124] as it is difficult to

There is no need to cover the mirrors on Shabbos.[128]

Taking from a Beis Avel

Some have the custom to cover pictures in the shivah home.[146]

Offering a Hand to an Avel

see Zecher L’Avraham 5760:pages 899-900.)

[2] Y.D. 245:3.

[3] She’arim Metzuyanim B’halachah beginning of Moed Kattan.

[7] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:1.

[9] Koheles 7:2.

does not know well.

Ephraim 7:230 if an avel has to get up if a sefer Torah passes by.

[14] Levush Y.D. 376:1.

[16] Rambam Hilchos Avel 14:1, Mishnah Berurah 224:13.

[18] Ahavas Chessed 3:6:page 283.

[19] Teshuvos V’hanhagos 1:691, 2:587.

an explanation of these words.

[30] Avnei Yushpei 2:82, 6:142:6.

91, Levush 1, Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 376:2, Moadim U’zmanim 5:341.

[32] Levush Y.D. 387:1.

[33] Nechamas Sara 8:page 252.

[34] Moadim U’zmanim 5:341.

[36] Derech Sichah 1:page 125, B’mechitzas Rabbeinu page 189.

[37] Orchos Rabbeinu 4:page 117:5.

[38] Nechamas Sara 8:page 252.

Rav 2:1:24:20. Refer to Nishmas Yisrael 1:24:page 483.

[40] Rama Y.D. 335:2, Shach 2, Chai Pinchas page 120.

[42] She’arim Metzuyanim B’halachah 207:1.

V’aveilus page 432:7.

to Chai Pinchas page 119 which argues.