Haircut on the night of the thirtieth day of mourning for a brother
This question and answer were automatically translated using our trained AI and have not yet been reviewed by a qualified rabbi. Please treat this translation with caution.
go to original →
Question
A mourner in the thirty-day mourning period for his brother, is he allowed to have a haircut on the night of the thirtieth day for a wedding?
Answer
According to the basic law, part of the day is considered as the whole day, but not part of the night. However, in a pressing situation such as a family member's wedding, the opinion of our teacher, the Rabbi, is that it is permissible to be lenient with part of the night.
Source
In the Gemara Moed Katan, page 19, the sages and Abba Shaul debate whether part of the day is considered as the whole day or not, and the Gemara states that the law is according to Abba Shaul, who says part of the day is considered as the whole day.
Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch ruled in Siman 395, paragraph 1: "Once the comforters rise from the mourner on the seventh day, everything that was forbidden during the seven days is permitted, as part of the day is considered as the whole day, whether part of the seventh day or part of the thirtieth day, once the sun rises on the thirtieth day, the decree of thirty days is annulled."
(And in Tosafot Moed Katan 19: d.h. "Atia" it is written: "And Rabbi Yom Tov explained that since we hold that part of the seventh day is considered as the whole day, and this applies here and there, part of the day is considered as the whole day, and one can shave on the twenty-ninth day, but in Tosafot the Rabbi did not explain so, that we do not say that the seventh day is considered as two days concerning thirty days. From his words, it implies that one should not shave on the thirtieth day. And see Derchei Moshe, SK 4, who ruled like Rabbi Yom Tov and wondered about the custom of the world, which is not so.
And the Rosh in Siman 30 brings the dispute of the early sages whether part of the night is considered as the whole day. Mordechai ruled that part of the night is not considered as the whole day, and Ramban wrote that part of the night is significant as the whole day, and practically the method of the Shulchan Aruch in law is that part of the night is not considered as the whole day in the mourning of seven and thirty days.
And Pitchei Teshuva wrote, Yoreh Deah, Siman 395, SK 1: "See in the Tur the dispute of the poskim whether we need specifically part of the day or even part of the night, and the author's opinion is like the opinion of R.M. of Rothenburg that we need specifically part of the day, and see (in Shut Radbaz, part 3, Siman 559) who ruled that concerning Torah study and marital relations, which have a mitzvah, we should rule according to the lenient opinion that part of the night is as the whole day, but concerning bathing, anointing, and other things that do not have a mitzvah, we rule according to the stringent opinion that requires specifically part of the day and not part of the night, and yet one should wait with marital relations at night a little more than usual to also observe part of the mourning, see there."
And the opinion of our teacher, the Rabbi, is that even in a pressing situation, one can rely on those who consider part of the night as the whole day.