THOSE WE MOURN FOR
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הָאָמוּר בְּפָרָשַׁת כֹּהֲנִים שֶׁכֹּהֵן מִיטַּמֵּא לָהֶן — אָבֵל מִתְאַבֵּל עֲלֵיהֶן, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: אִשְׁתּוֹ, אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, אָחִיו וַאֲחוֹתוֹ, בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ. הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן: אָחִיו וַאֲחוֹתוֹ הַבְּתוּלָה מֵאִמּוֹ, וַאֲחוֹתוֹ נְשׂוּאָה, בֵּין מֵאָבִיו בֵּין מֵאִמּוֹ.
§ The Sages taught: With regard to all of the relatives mentioned in the Torah in the passage referring to priests, for which a priest becomes impure, a mourner must mourn for them. And they are: His wife, his father, and his mother, his brother and his unmarried sister from the same father, his son, and his daughter. The Sages added other relatives to this list: His maternal brother and his unmarried sister from the same mother, and his married sister, whether from the same father or from the same mother. One mourns for these relatives, although a priest would not become impure for them.
וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמִּתְאַבֵּל עֲלֵיהֶם — כָּךְ מִתְאַבֵּל עַל שְׁנִיִּים שֶׁלָּהֶם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ מִתְאַבֵּל אֶלָּא עַל בֶּן בְּנוֹ וְעַל אֲבִי אָבִיו. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל שֶׁמִּתְאַבֵּל עָלָיו, מִתְאַבֵּל עִמּוֹ.
Just as one mourns for them, so too he mourns for their relatives’ relatives, who are his second-degree relatives. That is to say, just as one is required to mourn over his close relatives, so too he is required to mourn over his relatives’ close relatives, which are known as second-degree relatives. For example, if his father’s father, his son’s son, his brother’s son, or the like passed away, he must join his relatives in their mourning; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: He mourns only over his son’s son and his father’s father, but not over the other relatives of his relatives. And the Rabbis say: Any relative over whom one would mourn if that person died, one mourns with him when he is in mourning.
חֲכָמִים הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ עִמּוֹ בַּבַּיִת. כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְחִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ, וְכֵן אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא לְרַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ: בְּאַפַּהּ — נְהוֹג אֲבִילוּתָא, בְּלָא אַפַּהּ — לָא תִּינְהוֹג אֲבִילוּתָא.
The Gemara asks: The statement of the Rabbis is identical to the statement of the first tanna, Rabbi Akiva. What does their statement add? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to whether one mourn with him only in the same house. According to the Rabbis, one is required to mourn with his relative only while he is with him in the same house, whereas according to Rabbi Akiva, he is required to observe mourning even when he is not with him. This is like what Rav said to his son, Ḥiyya, and it is similarly like what Rav Huna said to his son Rabba, when the latter’s wife was in mourning: In her presence practice mourning, but out of her presence do not practice mourning.
Mourning for In-Laws
(טז) וַתֹּ֤אמֶר רוּת֙ אַל־תִּפְגְּעִי־בִ֔י לְעׇזְבֵ֖ךְ לָשׁ֣וּב מֵאַחֲרָ֑יִךְ כִּ֠י אֶל־אֲשֶׁ֨ר תֵּלְכִ֜י אֵלֵ֗ךְ וּבַאֲשֶׁ֤ר תָּלִ֙ינִי֙ אָלִ֔ין עַמֵּ֣ךְ עַמִּ֔י וֵאלֹהַ֖יִךְ אֱלֹהָֽי׃ (יז) בַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר תָּמ֙וּתִי֙ אָמ֔וּת וְשָׁ֖ם אֶקָּבֵ֑ר כֹּה֩ יַעֲשֶׂ֨ה יְהֹוָ֥ה לִי֙ וְכֹ֣ה יוֹסִ֔יף כִּ֣י הַמָּ֔וֶת יַפְרִ֖יד בֵּינִ֥י וּבֵינֵֽךְ׃
(16) But Ruth replied, “Do not urge me to leave you, to turn back and not follow you. For wherever you go, I will go; wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. (17) Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus and more may the LORD do to me-b if anything but death parts me from you.”
מָר עוּקְבָא שְׁכֵיב לֵיהּ בַּר חֲמוּהּ. סְבַר לְמֵיתַב עֲלֵיהּ שִׁבְעָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים, עָל רַב הוּנָא לְגַבֵּיהּ, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: צוּדָנְיָיתָא בָּעֵית לְמֵיכַל?! לֹא אָמְרוּ לִכְבוֹד אִשְׁתּוֹ — אֶלָּא חָמִיו וַחֲמוֹתוֹ.
It is related that the son of Mar Ukva’s father-in-law, i.e., Mar Ukva’s brother-in-law, died, and Mar Ukva thought to sit in mourning over him for the seven- and thirty-day periods of mourning. Rav Huna went into his house, found him observing the rites of mourning, and said to him: Do you desire to eat mourners’ food [tzudaniyyata]? The Sages said that one should observe mourning in honor of his wife only when she is in mourning over the death of his father-in-law or his mother-in-law.
דְּתַנְיָא: מִי שֶׁמֵּת חָמִיו אוֹ חֲמוֹתוֹ — אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לָכוֹף אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ לִהְיוֹת כּוֹחֶלֶת וְלִהְיוֹת פּוֹקֶסֶת, אֶלָּא כּוֹפֶה מִטָּתוֹ, וְנוֹהֵג עִמָּהּ אֲבֵילוּת. וְכֵן הִיא שֶׁמֵּת חָמִיהָ אוֹ חֲמוֹתָהּ — אֵינָהּ רַשָּׁאָה לִהְיוֹת כּוֹחֶלֶת וְלִהְיוֹת פּוֹקֶסֶת, אֶלָּא כּוֹפָה מִטָּתָהּ וְנוֹהֶגֶת עִמּוֹ אֲבֵילוּת.
As it is taught in a baraita: One whose father-in-law or mother-in-law died may not force his wife to paint [koḥelet] her eyelids or put rouge [pokeset] on her face while she is in mourning. Rather, he should overturn his bed, and observe the rites of mourning with her. And similarly, when her father-in-law or mother-in-law dies, she may not paint her eyelids or put rouge on her face. Rather, she should overturn her bed and practice the rites of mourning with him.
וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לָכוֹף אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ לִהְיוֹת כּוֹחֶלֶת וְלִהְיוֹת פּוֹקֶסֶת, בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ מוֹזֶגֶת לוֹ אֶת הַכּוֹס, וּמַצַּעַת לוֹ מִטָּה, ומַרְחֶצֶת לוֹ פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו. קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי!
And it was taught in another baraita: Even though the Sages said that a husband may not force his wife to paint her eyelids or put rouge on her face when she is in mourning, i.e., that she may not treat her mourning lightly, actually, they said that she may pour his cup of wine, make his bed, and wash his face, hands, and feet, as these activities are expressions of affection between husband and wife rather than unnecessary adornment or a belittlement of the mourning. These two baraitot contradict each other: The first baraita indicates that the husband must practice the rites of mourning together with his wife, whereas the second one bars him only from forcing her to treat her own mourning lightly.
אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כָּאן בְּחָמִיו וַחֲמוֹתוֹ, כָּאן בִּשְׁאָר קְרוֹבִים. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: לֹא אָמְרוּ לִכְבוֹד אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא חָמִיו וַחֲמוֹתוֹ בִּלְבַד.
Rather, must one not conclude from this as follows: Here, where one is required to observe the halakhot of mourning together with his wife, the baraita is referring to the death of his father-in-law or mother-in-law. There, where one is not required to mourn, the baraita is referring to the death of his wife’s other relatives for whom she is required to mourn. The Gemara summarizes: Conclude from this that this is the case. This is also taught in a baraita: The Sages said that one is required to observe the rites of mourning in honor of his wife only when she is in mourning over his father-in-law or his mother-in-law.
Mourning for a Grandchild
אַמֵּימָר שָׁכֵיב לֵיהּ בַּר בְּרֵיהּ, קְרַע עִילָּוֵיהּ. אֲתָא בְּרֵיהּ — קְרַע בְּאַפֵּיהּ. אִידְּכַר דִּמְיוּשָּׁב קְרַע, קָם קְרַע מְעוּמָּד.
It was further related that the son of Ameimar’s son died, and Ameimar rent his garment over him. His son came before him, and he rent his garments again in the presence of his son, as an expression of empathy with the his son’s pain and grief. Later, he remembered that when he rent his garments in his son’s presence he rent them while sitting, and therefore he stood up and rent his garment again while standing.
Off on a Tangent: Rising for Kriyah
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: קְרִיעָה דִּמְעוּמָּד מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּקׇם אִיּוֹב וַיִּקְרַע אֶת מְעִילוֹ״.
With regard to this issue, the Gemara reports that Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: From where do we derive that rending must be done while standing? He responded: As it is written about the deaths of Job’s sons: “Then Job arose, and rent his coat” (Job 1:20).
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: ״וְעָמַד וְאָמַר לֹא חָפַצְתִּי לְקַחְתָּהּ״, הָכָא נָמֵי? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: בֵּין יוֹשֵׁב בֵּין עוֹמֵד בֵּין מוּטֶּה!
Rav Ashi challenged him: However, if that is so, one should be required to stand while performing the ritual through which the brother-in-law frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza], as the verse states: “And if he stands and he says: I do not wish to take her” (Deuteronomy 25:8). Here must he also stand for the ceremony? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that ḥalitza may be performed whether the man is sitting, or standing, or reclining?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם לָא כְּתִיב ״וְיַעֲמֹד וְיֹאמַר״, הָכָא כְּתִיב ״וַיָּקׇם וַיִּקְרַע״.
He said to him: There, in the case of ḥalitza, it is not written: And he will stand and he will say, which would imply an obligation to stand; whereas here, in the case of rending, it is written: “Then Job arose, and rent his coat” (Job 1:20).
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מִנַּיִן לִקְרִיעָה שֶׁהִיא מְעוּמָּד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיָּקׇם אִיּוֹב וַיִּקְרַע״. דִּלְמָא מִילְּתָא יַתִּירְתָּא הוּא דַּעֲבַד? דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי — ״וַיָּגׇז אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ״, הָכִי נָמֵי?
Rami bar Ḥama said: From where is it derived that rending must be performed while standing? As it is stated: “Then Job arose, and tore his coat” (Job 1:20). The Gemara asks: Perhaps he did something extra beyond what is required, and actually there is no obligation to stand; as, if you do not say that he did more than what was required of him, then how do you explain the continuation of the verse: “And he shaved his head” (Job 1:20)? Is every mourner required to act in this manner also and shave his head?
אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וַיָּקָם הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּקְרַע אֶת בְּגָדָיו״. וְדִלְמָא מִילְּתָא יַתִּירְתָּא עָבֵיד? דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי — ״וַיִּשְׁכַּב אָרְצָה״, הָכִי נָמֵי?
The Gemara concludes: Rather, this source must be rejected, and instead the halakha is derived from here, the verse that describes David’s mourning over his son: “Then the king arose, and rent his garments” (II Samuel 13:31). The Gemara asks: But perhaps he too did something extra beyond what is required, and he was not actually obligated to stand; as, if you do not say that he did more than what was required of him, then how do you explain the continuation of the verse: “And he lay on the earth” (II Samuel 13:31)? Is every mourner required to act in this manner also?
וְהָתַנְיָא: יָשַׁב עַל גַּבֵּי מִטָּה, עַל גַּבֵּי כִּסֵּא, עַל גַּבֵּי אוּדְיָינִי גְּדוֹלָה, עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע — מִכּוּלָּן לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁלֹּא קִיֵּים כְּפִיַּית הַמִּטָּה!
But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a mourner sat on a bed, on a chair, on a large mortar [udyanei], or on the ground, he does not fulfill his obligation through any of them. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is because he did not fulfill his obligation to overturn his bed, even if he lay on the ground. This indicates that there is no requirement whatsoever to lie on the ground.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּעֵין אַרְצָה.
Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: The verse does not mean that David actually lay on the ground. Rather, it was as if he were on the ground, since he overturned his bed and brought it closer to the ground. If this is the case, then Ameimar acted correctly, and a mourner should rend his garments while standing.
PROHIBITIONS DURING MOURNING
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, וְאֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָבֵל אָסוּר בָּהֶן: אָסוּר בִּמְלָאכָה וּבִרְחִיצָה וּבְסִיכָה וּבְתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה וּבִנְעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל. וְאָסוּר לִקְרוֹת בְּתוֹרָה וּבַנְּבִיאִים וּבַכְּתוּבִים, וְלִשְׁנוֹת בַּמִּשְׁנָה, בַּמִּדְרָשׁ וּבָהֲלָכוֹת, וּבַתַּלְמוּד וּבָאַגָּדוֹת. וְאִם הָיוּ רַבִּים צְרִיכִין לוֹ — אֵינוֹ נִמְנָע. וּמַעֲשֶׂה וּמֵת בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּצִיפּוֹרִי, וְנִכְנַס לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְדָרַשׁ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ.
§ The Sages taught: These are the activities that a mourner is prohibited from engaging in: He is prohibited from working, and from bathing, and from anointing himself with oil, 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 Mishna, in the midrash, and in the halakhot, and in the Talmud, and in the aggadot. But if the public needs him to teach them these things, he need not refrain from doing so. There was an incident that the son of Rabbi Yosei died in Tzippori, and Rabbi Yosei entered the study hall and expounded there for the entire day.
Prohibition from Teaching
רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אִיתְּרַעָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא, סָבַר דְּלָא לְמִיפַּק לְפִירְקָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אִם הָיוּ רַבִּים צְרִיכִין לוֹ — אֵינוֹ נִמְנָע. סְבַר לְאוֹקוֹמֵי אָמוֹרָא עֲלֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב: תַּנְיָא, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲמִיד תּוּרְגְּמָן.
It was related that a calamity, i.e., a death in the family, once befell Rabba bar bar Ḥana, and he thought not to go out to deliver his exposition. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Is it not taught that if the public needs him to teach them these things, one need not refrain from doing so? He then thought to place an interpreter alongside him, who would sound his words to the public, as was normally done for such an exposition. Rav said to him: It is taught in a baraita similarly: Provided that he does not place the disseminator alongside him.
וְאֶלָּא הֵיכִי עָבֵיד? כִּי הָא דְּתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה וּמֵת בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אִילְעַאי, וְנִכְנַס לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. וְנִכְנַס רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא וְיָשַׁב בְּצִדּוֹ, וְלָחַשׁ הוּא לְרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא, וְרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא לְתוּרְגְּמָן, וְתוּרְגְּמָן הִשְׁמִיעַ לָרַבִּים.
The Gemara asks: But how, then, should he act so that he can be heard? The Gemara answers: It is like that which is taught in a baraita: There was an incident and the son of Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai died, and Rabbi Yehuda entered the study hall. And Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya entered after him and sat by his side. Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai then whispered his lecture to Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya, and Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya whispered it to the disseminator, and the disseminator sounded to the public what had been told to him. In this way, it became known that Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai was in mourning.
Prohibition from Wearing T'fillin
(ח) וּקְשַׁרְתָּ֥ם לְא֖וֹת עַל־יָדֶ֑ךָ וְהָי֥וּ לְטֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵינֶֽיךָ׃
(8) Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead;
והיו לטטפת בין עיניך. אֵלּוּ תְּפִלִּין שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, וְעַל שֵׁם מִנְיַן פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתֵיהֶם נִקְרְאוּ טֹטָפוֹת, טט בְּכַתְפִּי שְׁתַּיִם פת בְּאַפְרִיקֵי שְׁתַּיִם (סנהדרין ד'):
לטטפות בין עיניך AND THEY SHALL BE FOR FRONTLETS BETWEEN THINE EYES — these are the Tephillin that are placed upon the head. It is in reference to the number of the Scriptural sections contained in them that they are termed טטפת, for טט denotes "two" in Katpi and פת in Afriki denotes "two" (Sanhedrin 4b; cf. Rashi on Exodus 13:16).
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אָבֵל, שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים — אָסוּר לְהַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין, מִשְּׁלִישִׁי וְאֵילָךְ, וּשְׁלִישִׁי בַּכְּלָל — מוּתָּר לְהַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין. וְאִם בָּאוּ פָּנִים חֲדָשׁוֹת — אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵץ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אָבֵל, שְׁנֵי יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים אָסוּר לְהַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין. מִשֵּׁנִי, וְשֵׁנִי בַּכְּלָל — מוּתָּר לְהַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין, וְאִם בָּאוּ פָּנִים חֲדָשׁוֹת — חוֹלֵץ.
§ The Sages taught the following baraita: For the first three days, a mourner is prohibited from donning phylacteries. From the third day and on, and including the third day, he is permitted to don phylacteries. And if new faces, i.e., people who had not yet come to console him, come, he need not remove them, although these people may falsely conclude that he had also donned phylacteries during the first two days of his mourning; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: For the first two days, a mourner is prohibited from donning phylacteries. From the second day, and including the second day, he is permitted to wear phylacteries. But if new faces come in to console him, he must remove his phylacteries.
אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּתְּמוּ יְמֵי בְכִי אֵבֶל מֹשֶׁה״. אָמַר רַב עֵינָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאַחֲרִיתָהּ כְּיוֹם מָר״.
Rav Mattana said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? As it is written: “And the days of weeping and mourning for Moses ended” (Deuteronomy 34:8). The plural term “days” implies a minimum of two, and it indicates that the main portion of the mourning period is the first two full days. Rav Eina said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua? As it is written: “And I will make it as the mourning for an only son, and its end as a bitter day” (Amos 8:10), i.e., a single “day.”
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּתְּמוּ יְמֵי וְגוֹ׳״! אָמַר לָךְ: שָׁאנֵי מֹשֶׁה, דְּתַקִּיף אֶבְלֵיהּ. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב: ״וְאַחֲרִיתָהּ כְּיוֹם מָר״! עִיקַּר מְרִירָא חַד יוֹמָא הוּא.
The Gemara asks: But also for Rabbi Yehoshua, isn’t it written in the Torah: “And the days of weeping and mourning for Moses ended,” thereby implying that this period lasts for two days? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that Moses was different, because the mourning for him was more intense, and the people mourned for him longer than usual. The Gemara asks: But also for Rabbi Eliezer, isn’t it written in the Torah: “And its end as a bitter day”? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that the main bitterness is only one day, but the severity of the mourning lasts for two days.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בַּחֲלִיצָה, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּהַנָּחָה.
Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the removal of phylacteries. A mourner need not remove them when new people come in to console him. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to the donning of phylacteries, and so a mourner may already don phylacteries on the second day.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בַּשֵּׁנִי לְעוּלָּא, חוֹלֵץ אוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵץ?
A dilemma was raised before the scholars: According to Ulla, who rules in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua that a mourner may don phylacteries on his second day of mourning, is the mourner required to remove them if new people arrive on that day, or is he not required to remove them?
תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר עוּלָּא: חוֹלֵץ וּמַנִּיחַ אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, יְהוּדָה בֶּן תֵּימָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹלֵץ וּמַנִּיחַ אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים.
The Gemara answers: Come and hear what Ulla said explicitly: One removes his phylacteries when new people come to console him, and he dons them again when they leave, even if he must don and remove them a hundred times. This is also taught in a baraita: Yehuda ben Teima says: He removes his phylacteries and dons them again, even if he must do so a hundred times.
רָבָא אָמַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִנִּיחַ שׁוּב אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵץ. וְהָא רָבָא הוּא דְּאָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּתַנָּא דִּידַן דְּאָמַר שְׁלֹשָׁה!
Rava said: Once he dons his phylacteries, he does not remove them again. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it Rava himself who said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of our mishna, who said that the most serious period of mourning is three days? How then does he rule in accordance with the baraita that a mourner may don phylacteries during these days?
מִצְוָה שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara answers: A mitzva is different, and since it is a mitzva to put on phylacteries, the mourner is required to do so, even during the first three days.