זבחים ק

זבחים ק

לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וּקְבָרוֹ בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, כָּאן שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר וּקְבָרוֹ בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר.

It is not difficult. Here, in the baraita where Rabbi Shimon holds an acute mourner may not send a Paschal offering, since acute mourning at night is by Torah law, it is referring to a case where his relative died on the fourteenth day of Nisan and he buried him on the fourteenth itself. There, the ruling in the mishna in tractate Pesaḥim, which teaches that an acute mourner immerses and partakes of the Paschal offering in the evening, since acute mourning at night is by rabbinic law, is referring to a case where his relative died on the thirteenth day of Nisan and he buried him on the fourteenth of Nisan.

מֵת לוֹ מֵת בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וּקְבָרוֹ בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר – יוֹם מִיתָה תּוֹפֵס לֵילוֹ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. מֵת לוֹ מֵת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר וּקְבָרוֹ בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר – יוֹם קְבוּרָה מִדְּרַבָּנַן, אֵינוֹ תּוֹפֵס לֵילוֹ אֶלָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

Rav Mari explains: In a case where his relative died on the fourteenth day of Nisan and he buried him on the fourteenth itself, his acute mourning is due to the day of death and is therefore by Torah law. Consequently, it takes hold of its following night by Torah law, and the mitzva of the Paschal offering does not override it. By contrast, in a case where his relative died on the thirteenth day of Nisan and he buried him on the fourteenth of Nisan, the fourteenth is only the day of burial, and his acute mourning is therefore by rabbinic law. Consequently, it takes hold of its following night only by rabbinic law, and the mitzva of the Paschal offering overrides it.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב מָרִי: וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּקָתָנֵי, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: תֵּדַע, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרוּ: אוֹנֵן טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ אֲבָל לֹא בַּקֳּדָשִׁים; נֵימָא לֵיהּ: קָאָמֵינָא לָךְ אֲנָא יוֹם מִיתָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְאָמְרַתְּ לִי אֶת יוֹם קְבוּרָה דְּרַבָּנַן?! קַשְׁיָא.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Mari: But if so, it is difficult to understand that which the baraita teaches: Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: Know that this so, as the Sages said: An acute mourner immerses on the fourteenth of Nisan and partakes of his Paschal offering in the evening, but he may not partake of other sacrificial meat. According to your explanation of this statement, let Rabbi Yehuda say to Rabbi Shimon that this is no proof: I am telling you a halakha about the day of death, when acute mourning is by Torah law, and you tell me that you have a proof from a mishna that deals with the day of burial, when acute mourning is by rabbinic law. The Gemara concludes: This indeed poses a difficulty for Rav Mari.

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן שֶׁמֵּת קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת, כָּאן שֶׁמֵּת לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת. קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת, דְּלָא אִיחֲזִי לְפֶסַח – חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ אֲנִינוּת. אַחַר חֲצוֹת, דְּאִחֲזִי לְפֶסַח – לָא חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ אֲנִינוּת.

Abaye said a different resolution to the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Shimon: It is not difficult. Here, in the baraita where Rabbi Shimon holds that an acute mourner may not send a Paschal offering, it is referring to a case where his relative died before midday on the fourteenth of Nisan. There, the ruling in the mishna in tractate Pesaḥim, which teaches that an acute mourner immerses and partakes of the Paschal offering in the evening, it is a case where his relative died after midday on the fourteenth of Nisan. When his relative died before midday, in which case he was not ever fit for bringing a Paschal offering since the obligation begins at midday, the status of acute mourning applies to him, and it is prohibited for him to bring a Paschal offering. But if his relative dies after midday, when he is already fit for bringing a Paschal offering, the status of acute mourning does not apply to him with regard to this matter, so he may immerse and partake of the Paschal offering in the evening.

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁנֵי לֵיהּ בֵּין קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת בֵּין לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת? דְּתַנְיָא: ״לָהּ יִטַּמָּא״ – מִצְוָה. לֹא רָצָה – מְטַמְּאִין אוֹתוֹ עַל כׇּרְחוֹ. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּיוֹסֵף הַכֹּהֵן שֶׁמֵּתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח, וְלֹא רָצָה לִיטַּמֵּא, וְנִמְנוּ אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים וְטִימְּאוּהוּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ.

The Gemara explains: And from where do you say that the halakha is different depending on whether his relative died before midday on the fourteenth of Nisan or whether he died after midday? As it is taught in a baraita: The Torah states with regard to a priest: “And for his sister a virgin, that is near unto him, that has had no husband, for her may he become impure” (Leviticus 21:3). From here it is derived that it is a mitzva for a priest to become impure in order to bury his deceased relatives, and if he did not want to do so, others must render him impure against his will. And an incident occurred involving Yosef the priest, where his wife died on Passover eve, and he did not want to become impure, as he wanted to offer the Paschal offering; and his brethren the priests voted and rendered him impure against his will.

וּרְמִינְהִי: ״וְלַאֲחוֹתוֹ״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? הֲרֵי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִשְׁחוֹט אֶת פִּסְחוֹ וְלָמוּל אֶת בְּנוֹ, וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת – יָכוֹל יִטַּמֵּא? אָמַרְתָּ לֹא יִטַּמֵּא.

And the Sages raise a contradiction from another baraita: What is the meaning when the verse states with regard to a nazirite: “He shall not become impure for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister when they die; because his consecration unto God is upon his head” (Numbers 6:7)? If a nazirite went to slaughter his Paschal offering or to circumcise his son, mitzvot for which failure to fulfill them is punishable by karet, and he heard that a relative of his died, one might have thought that he should become impure in order to bury his relative even if this will result in his not bringing the Paschal offering. You rather say, based on this verse, that “he shall not become impure.”

יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁלֹּא יִטַּמֵּא לַאֲחוֹתוֹ, כָּךְ אֵין מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלַאֲחוֹתוֹ״ – לַאֲחוֹתוֹ הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.

One might have thought that just as he may not become impure to bury his sister, so too he may not become impure to bury a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]. The verse states: “Or for his sister,” teaching that it is only to bury his sister that he may not become impure, but he does become impure to bury a met mitzva.

לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כָּאן קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת, כָּאן לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת?

In the first baraita, contracting impurity from a dead relative is obligatory, and in the second baraita it is forbidden. Do you not learn from this contradiction that there must be a distinction between the cases? Here, in the first baraita concerning a priest, it must be referring to a case where the relative died before midday, so he was obligated to become impure before the obligation for the Paschal offering took effect. There, in the second baraita concerning a nazirite, it must be referring to a case where the relative died after midday. This distinction, between death before and after midday, also applies to acute mourning.

מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לְךָ: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אַחַר חֲצוֹת; וְהָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְהָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״לָהּ יִטַּמָּא״ – רְשׁוּת. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה.

The Gemara rejects this explanation: From where do you infer that this is the resolution to the contradiction? Actually, perhaps I will say to you: Both this baraita and that baraita are discussing deaths that occurred after midday. And this baraita, about a nazirite, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and that baraita, about Yosef the priest, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As it is taught in a baraita: The Torah states with regard to a priest: “And for his sister a virgin, that is near unto him, that has had no husband, for her may he become impure” (Leviticus 21:3). This is optional, i.e., a priest is not obligated to become impure to bury his sister; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory.

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ; דְּרֵישָׁא דְּהָהִיא – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״נֶפֶשׁ״ – אֵלּוּ הַקְּרוֹבִים, ״מֵת״ – אֵלּוּ הָרְחוֹקִים.

The Gemara responds: This should not enter your mind, because it is Rabbi Akiva who teaches the first clause of the baraita about a nazirite. As it is taught in the full version of that baraita: The Torah states: “All the days that he consecrates himself unto the Lord he shall not come near to a dead body. He shall not become impure for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister when they die; because his consecration unto God is upon his head” (Numbers 6:7). Rabbi Akiva says: The term “body [nefesh]” is referring to relatives. The term “dead [met]” is referring to non-relatives.

״לְאָבִיו״ אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה. ״לְאִמּוֹ״ – הָיָה כֹּהֵן וְהוּא נָזִיר, לְאִמּוֹ הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה. ״לְאָחִיו״ – שֶׁאִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְהוּא נָזִיר, לְאָחִיו הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.

The verse specifies: “For his father,” even though his father is included among his relatives, to teach that he may not become impure to bury his father, but he does become impure to bury a met mitzva. The verse states: “For his mother,” to teach that even if he was a priest and he was a nazirite, and therefore doubly prohibited from becoming impure, nevertheless, he may not become impure to bury his mother but he does become impure to bury a met mitzva. The verse states: “For his brother,” to teach that even if he was a High Priest, who may not become impure even for his relatives, and he was also a nazirite, nevertheless, he may not become impure to bury his brother but he does become impure to bury a met mitzva.

״וְלַאֲחוֹתוֹ״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? הֲרֵי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִשְׁחוֹט אֶת פִּסְחוֹ וְלָמוּל אֶת בְּנוֹ, וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת – יָכוֹל יִטַּמֵּא? אָמַרְתָּ: לֹא יִטַּמֵּא. יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מִטַּמֵּא לַאֲחוֹתוֹ, כָּךְ אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלַאֲחוֹתוֹ״ – לַאֲחוֹתוֹ לֹא יִטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.

What is the meaning when the verse states: “Or for his sister”? If a nazirite went to slaughter his Paschal offering or to circumcise his son, and he heard that a relative of his died, one might have thought that he should become impure. You rather say that he may not become impure. One might have thought that just as he may not become impure to bury his sister, so too he may not become impure to bury a met mitzva. The verse states: “Or for his sister,” to teach that he may not become impure to bury his sister but he does become impure to bury a met mitzva. Consequently, the statement of the baraita concerning a nazirite represents the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

רָבָא אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אַחַר חֲצוֹת, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן קוֹדֶם שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וְזָרְקוּ עָלָיו, כָּאן לְאַחַר שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וְזָרְקוּ עָלָיו.

Rava said there is a different resolution to the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Shimon. Both this baraita and that baraita are discussing cases where the relative died after midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, and still it is not difficult. Here, his relative died before the priests would have slaughtered the Paschal offering and sprinkled its blood on his account, and he may not send the offering. There, the relative died after the priests slaughtered the Paschal offering and sprinkled its blood on his account. Since acute mourning at night is by rabbinic law, it is suspended to allow him to consume an offering that was already sacrificed.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה לְרָבָא: אַחַר שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ – מָה דַּהֲוָה הֲוָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא: אֲכִילַת פְּסָחִים מְעַכְּבָא, מִדְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: צָיֵית מַאי דְּקָאָמַר לָךְ רַבָּךְ.

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: In a case where one’s relative died after the priests slaughtered the Paschal offering and sprinkled its blood, why should he be permitted to partake of the Paschal offering? What was, was, and although the offering was sacrificed, isn’t he still an acute mourner by rabbinic law? Ravina said to Rav Adda bar Mattana: Partaking of the Paschal offering is indispensable for the mitzva, as is seen from that which Rabba bar Rav Huna taught, as the Gemara will explain. Therefore, the Sages did not prohibit the acute mourner from partaking of the Paschal offering as they do for other offerings, for which consumption of the meat is dispensable. Rava said to Rav Adda bar Mattana: Listen to what your master, Ravina, told you, as his explanation is correct.

מַאי דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא? דְּתַנְיָא: יוֹם שְׁמוּעָה כְּיוֹם קְבוּרָה לְמִצְוַת שִׁבְעָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים; וְלַאֲכִילַת פְּסָחִים – כְּיוֹם לִיקּוּט עֲצָמוֹת. אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה – טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לָעֶרֶב.

What is the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna that teaches that partaking of the Paschal offering is indispensable? As it is taught in a baraita: The day that a person receives tidings that his relative died is considered as if it were the day of burial with regard to the mitzva of the seven-day mourning period, when he may not bathe or wear shoes, and with regard to the thirty-day period when he may not wear ironed garments. And with regard to partaking of the Paschal offering, the day he receives the tidings is like the day of the gathering of the bones of the deceased after the flesh decomposed (see Pesaḥim 92a). In both this and that case, he immerses and partakes of sacrificial meat in the evening.

הָא גּוּפַהּ קַשְׁיָא! אָמְרַתְּ יוֹם שְׁמוּעָה כְּיוֹם קְבוּרָה לְמִצְוַת שִׁבְעָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים, וְלַאֲכִילַת פְּסָחִים כְּיוֹם לִיקּוּט עֲצָמוֹת – מִכְּלָל דְּיוֹם קְבוּרָה אֲפִילּוּ לָעֶרֶב נָמֵי לָא אָכֵיל; וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לָעֶרֶב!

The Gemara challenges: This baraita itself is difficult. At first you say: The day of tidings is considered as if it were the day of burial for the mitzva of the seven-day and thirty-day mourning periods; and with regard to partaking of the Paschal offering, it is like the day of the gathering of bones, when one may immerse and partake of sacrificial meat in the evening. By inference, one concludes that on the day of burial, he may not partake of the Paschal offering even in the evening, and all the more so other sacrificial meat. And then it is taught: In both this and that case, i.e., on both the day of burial and the day of the gathering of bones, he immerses and partakes of sacrificial meat in the evening.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא.

Rav Ḥisda said: Whether it is permitted to partake of sacrificial meat the night after the day of burial is a dispute between tanna’im, as the Gemara will explain.

רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן שֶׁשָּׁמַע שְׁמוּעָה עַל מֵתוֹ סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה, וְכֵן שֶׁלִּיקְּטוּ לוֹ עֲצָמוֹת סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה, וְכֵן שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת וּקְבָרוֹ סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה; וְכָאן לְאַחַר שְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This is not difficult. Here, in the latter clause, where the baraita teaches that on both the day of burial and the day of the gathering of bones he immerses and partakes of sacrificial meat in the evening, it is referring to a case where he heard tidings of his dead relative just before sunset, and likewise a case where they gathered the bones for him just before sunset, and likewise a case where his relative died and he buried him just before sunset. But there, in the first clause, from which it is inferred that he may not consume any sacrificial meat the night after the day of burial, the burial occurred after sunset, i.e., on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan itself.

לְאַחַר שְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה – מַאי דַהֲוָה הֲוָה! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אֲכִילַת פְּסָחִים מְעַכְּבָא.

The Gemara objects: If so, why not say that even if he gathered bones after sunset, then what was, was? Why did the Sages permit him to partake of the Paschal offering, as opposed to other sacrificial meat? Rather, learn from this baraita that partaking of the Paschal offering is indispensable to fulfilling the obligation, and due to the severity of the mitzva, the Sages suspended their decree prohibiting one from partaking of it.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מַאי אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד יוֹם שְׁמוּעָה וְאֶחָד יוֹם לִיקּוּט – טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לָעֶרֶב.

Rav Ashi said there is another resolution to this question: What is meant by the latter clause in the baraita: In both this and that case? It does not mean both the day of burial and the day of the gathering of bones. Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: Both on the day of tidings and on the day of the gathering of bones, the mourner immerses and partakes of sacrificial meat in the evening. But after the day of burial, he may not partake of the Paschal offering, and all the more so of other sacrificial meat, as indicated in the first clause in the baraita.

וְהָא דְּרַב אָשֵׁי בְּדוּתָא הִיא; מִכְּדֵי עֲלַהּ קָאֵי, ״זֶה וָזֶה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּדוּתָא הִיא.

The Gemara notes: And this resolution of Rav Ashi is a mistake, since the tanna is already discussing those two cases and equating them. According to Rav Ashi’s resolution, it is extraneous to say: In both this and that case; the tanna should have simply said: In this and that case. Rather, learn from the language of the baraita that Rav Ashi’s resolution is a mistake.

וּמַאי תַּנָּאֵי? דְּתַנְיָא: עַד מָתַי מִתְאוֹנֵן עָלָיו? כׇּל הַיּוֹם. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נִקְבַּר.

The Gemara returns to discuss Rav Ḥisda’s resolution: And what is the dispute between tanna’im with regard to the night following the day of burial? As it is taught in a baraita: Until when does a person mourn acutely for his relative, such that he is prohibited to partake of sacrificial meat? The entire day. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: As long as his relative has not been buried.

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּיוֹם מִיתָה – מִי אִיכָּא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ דְּיוֹם מִיתָה דְּתָפֵיס לֵילוֹ מִדְּרַבָּנַן?!

The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with? If we say we are dealing with the day of death, is there a tanna who does not hold that the day of death takes hold of its following night, at least by rabbinic law? In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of the first tanna, who says that the acute mourning is only during the day, and not at night?

וְתוּ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נִקְבַּר. הָא קְבָרוֹ – אִישְׁתְּרִי לֵיהּ; וּמִי אִיכָּא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ ״וְאַחֲרִיתָהּ כְּיוֹם מָר״?!

And furthermore, if we are dealing with the day of death, then when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: As long as his relative has not been buried, it indicates that consequently, once he has buried him, it becomes permitted for him to partake of sacrificial meat, even on the day of death itself. But is there a tanna who does not hold that acute mourning extends for the entire day of death, even after burial? The verse states: “And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning for an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day” (Amos 8:10).

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אַיּוֹם קְבוּרָה קָאֵי.

Rav Sheshet said: The tanna of this baraita is discussing the day of burial when it is not the day of death. The tanna’im disagree whether the acute mourning lasts only until the burial, or until the end of the day of burial.

מַתְקֵיף רַב יוֹסֵף, אֶלָּא הָא דְּקָתָנֵי: הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ עַל מֵתוֹ – כִּמְלַקֵּט עֲצָמוֹת, טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לָעֶרֶב; מִכְּלָל דְּיוֹם קְבוּרָה – אֲפִילּוּ לָעֶרֶב נָמֵי לָא אָכֵיל; הָא מַנִּי? אֶלָּא תָּרֵיץ: עַד מָתַי מִתְאוֹנְנִין עָלָיו? כׇּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם וְלֵילוֹ. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נִקְבַּר; [אֲבָל נִקְבַּר] – בְּלֹא לֵילוֹ.

Rav Yosef objects to this: But there is that which is taught in a baraita: One who hears tidings of his dead relative is considered as one who gathers his relative’s bones, in that he may immerse and partake of sacrificial meat in the evening. By inference, on the day of burial he may not partake even in the evening. In accordance with whose opinion is this? This is the opinion of neither the first tanna nor Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rather, one must answer that the baraita means: Until when does a person mourn acutely for his relative? That entire day of burial and its following night. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He continues into the night only as long as his relative has not been buried; but once he is buried, the acute mourning lasts only for the rest of the day, without its night.

אַמְרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, אָמַר: גַּבְרָא רַבָּה כְּרַב יוֹסֵף לֵימָא הָכִי?! לֵימָא דְּרַבִּי לְקוּלָּא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: עַד מָתַי מִתְאוֹנֵן עָלָיו? כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִקְבָּר, אֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מִתְאוֹנֵן עָלָיו אֶלָּא אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם בִּלְבַד!

The Sages said this statement of Rav Yosef before Rabbi Yirmeya. Rabbi Yirmeya said in surprise: Would a great man like Rav Yosef say this? Would he say that the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the more lenient of the two? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Until when does a person mourn acutely for his relative? As long as his relative has not been buried, even if he remains unburied from now until ten days from now. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Sages say: He mourns acutely for his relative only on that same day. The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is more stringent than that of the Sages.

אֶלָּא תָּרֵיץ הָכִי: עַד מָתַי הוּא מִתְאוֹנֵן עָלָיו? כׇּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם בְּלֹא לֵילוֹ. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נִקְבַּר. וְאִם נִקְבַּר – תּוֹפֵס לֵילוֹ.

Rather, answer like this: Until when does a person mourn acutely for his relative? That entire day of burial, without its night. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The acute mourning continues as long as his relative has not been buried, even for ten days, and once he is buried, that day takes hold of its night. This is the dispute to which Rav Ḥisda referred.

אַמְרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא; מִדְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי: יוֹם קְבוּרָה תּוֹפֵס לֵילוֹ מִדְּרַבָּנַן – מִכְּלָל דְּיוֹם מִיתָה תּוֹפֵס לֵילוֹ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא;

The Sages said this statement before Rava. Rava said: Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the day of burial, when acute mourning is by rabbinic law, takes hold of its night by rabbinic law, by inference, he must hold that the day of death, when acute mourning is by Torah law, takes hold of its night by Torah law. The Sages would not be more stringent with their ordinance than the parallel law of the Torah.

וְסָבַר רַבִּי אֲנִינוּת לַיְלָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״הֵן הַיּוֹם״ – אֲנִי הַיּוֹם אָסוּר וְלַיְלָה מוּתָּר, וּלְדוֹרוֹת בֵּין בַּיּוֹם וּבֵין בַּלַּיְלָה אָסוּר. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֲנִינוּת לַיְלָה אֵינָהּ מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים!

The Gemara objects: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold that acute mourning at night is by Torah law? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On the last day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, after two of Aaron’s sons died, Aaron said to Moses: “Behold, today…there have befallen me such things as these; and if I had consumed the sin offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?” (Leviticus 10:19). The word “today” teaches that Aaron is saying: I am prohibited from partaking today but permitted to partake at night; but for future generations, an acute mourner is prohibited from partaking of sacrificial meat whether during the day or at night. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For future generations, acute mourning at night is not by Torah law, but rather by rabbinic law.

לְעוֹלָם דְּרַבָּנַן הִיא,

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that acute mourning on the night after death is by rabbinic law, not Torah law.