Zevachim

Raba said: Both are meant after midday, yet there is no difficulty: in the one case it was before they had slaughtered [the Passover-offering] and sprinkled [its blood] on his account;1 in the other it was after they had slaughtered and sprinkled on his account.2 R. Adda b. Mattenah said to Raba: after they slaughtered and sprinkled on his account, what is done is done!3 — Said Rabina to him: The eating of the Passover-offering is indispensable, [which follows] from Rabbah son of R. Huna's [teaching]. Said [Raba] to him: Pay heed to what your master [Rabina] has told you [R. Adda b. Mattenah].4 What was Rabbah son of R. Huna's [teaching]? — It was taught: The day when one learns [of a near relation's death] is as the day of burial in respect of the laws of seven and thirty [days’ mourning];5 In respect of eating the Passover-offering it is as the day on which the bones [of one's parents] are collected.6 In both cases7 he performs immersion and eats [of] sacrifices in the evening. Now this is self-contradictory: You say, the day when one learns is as the day of burial in respect of seven and thirty [days’ mourning], but in respect of eating the Passover-offering it is as the day when the bones [of one's parents] are collected; whence it follows that as for the day of burial, one may not eat even in the evening; and then you teach, in both cases he performs immersion and eats of sacrifices in the evening? Said R. Hisda: It is a controversy of Tannaim.8 Rabbah son of R. Huna said: There is no difficulty. In the one case he learnt about his bereavement just before sunset, and similarly the bones of his dead were gathered just before sunset, and similarly his relation died and was buried just before sunset. In the other case [these things happened] after sunset.9 ‘After sunset’! but what has been has been!10 Hence you must surely infer from this that the eating of the Passover-offering is indispensable.11 R. Ashi said: What does ‘both the one and the other’ [mean]? It means that both on the day of hearing and on the day of gathering the bones, he performs immersion and eats of the sacrifices in the evening.12 But this statement of R. Ashi is fiction. Consider: he [the Tanna] is discussing these;13 then he should say, ‘the one and the other.’ Hence it surely follows that it is fiction. Now, what is this controversy of Tannaim?14 — For it was taught: For how long is he an onen on his account?15 The whole day.16 Rabbi said: As long as he is not buried.17 What are we discussing? Shall we say, the day of death? does anyone reject the view that the day of death embraces the night following by Rabbinical law?18 Moreover, ‘Rabbi said: As long as he is not buried’; but if he was buried, he is permitted?19 Does anyone reject [the implication of] And the end thereof as a bitter day?20 — Said R. Shesheth: [We are discussing] the day of burial. To this R. Joseph demurred: Then when it is taught, He who learns about his bereavement, and he who gathers bones, performs immersion and eats in the evening; whence it follows that as for the day of burial, he may not even eat in the evening; with whom will it agree?21 Rather, explain it thus: For how long is he an onen on his account? The whole of that day22 and the [following] night. Rabbi said: That is only as long as he was not buried; but if he was buried, [it is the day] without the [following] night. Now, this was reported before R. Jeremiah, whereupon he observed: That a great man like R. Joseph should say thus! Are we to assume then that Rabbi is more lenient? Surely it was taught: How long is he an onen on his account? As long as he is not buried, even for ten days: these are the words of Rabbi; but the Sages maintain: He observes aninuth on his account only on that day itself! Rather, explain it thus: How long does he observe aninuth on his account? The whole of that day without the [following] night. Rabbi maintained: As long as he is not buried, it embraces the [following] night.23 Now, it was stated before Raba: Since Rabbi maintained that the day of burial embraces the [following] night by Rabbinical law,24 it follows that the day of death embraces the [following] night by Scriptural law.25 Does then Rabbi hold that aninuth at night is Scriptural? Surely it was taught: ‘Behold, this day [etc].26 I am forbidden by day yet am permitted at night;27 but [future] generations will be forbidden both by day and by night’:28 these are the words of R. Judah. Rabbi maintained: Aninuth at night is not Scriptural but a law of the Scribes! — In truth, it is Rabbinical. 29 him? On Abaye's explanation this difficulty does not arise. For he explains that the person died after midday, but before the offering was slaughtered on his behalf. Now, since the obligation to sacrifice preceded his aninuth and is therefore still in force, if he is forbidden to eat of it in the evening, he will refrain from sacrificing at all; therefore the Rabbis waived their prohibition. But there is nothing to fear if his relation died after the sacrifice was offered, and so he should still he forbidden. work, bathe, or wear his shoes. A lighter mourning is observed for thirty days after burial, such as not putting on new garments or attending festivities. If a person learns of such a relation's death within thirty days, he must observe the seven and the thirty days’ mourning from the day that he learnt it. Pes. 92a. hearing and on the day of collecting, for the reason explained anon. evening is the night following his aninuth, and he holds that in this respect the day does not embrace the night following even by Biblical law. He may not eat on the evening of burial where he died after sunset, so that it is not the evening following the day of burial, but the evening of burial itself (the corpse will be buried either that same evening or on the next day). eaten on the day of burial? That certainly should apply to the Passover-offering too. even after burial. viz., because he had lost two sons on that day.