If the principal member of the household went with the remains of the deceased to the cemetery and did not return for several days, what is the halakha? If another mourner came to the house of mourning during his absence, does he follow the principal member of the household and count from the time of the burial, or does he count from the time that the funeral procession departed, like the other members of the household?

The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if the principal member of the household went to the cemetery, the mourner who comes home during his absence counts with them, i.e., the other members of the household who did not go to the cemetery. The Gemara asks: Does he really count and complete his mourning with them? But isn’t it taught otherwise in a baraita, that he counts seven days on his own?

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement, that he counts with them, is referring to a case where the principal member of the household came home within three days. And the other ruling, that he counts on his own, is referring to a case where he did not come home within three days. This conclusion is similar to what Rav said to the sons of Hatzleponi when they were in mourning: Those who come home within three days should count with you; whereas those who do not come home within three days should count on their own.

Rava said to the people of Meḥoza: Those of you who do not follow the coffin all the way to the place of interment should begin counting your days of mourning from when you turn your faces from the city gates to return home. Since the dead were commonly transported long distances and buried far away, most of the mourners did not accompany their deceased relatives to the actual site of burial.

§ The Gemara cites the baraita taught above: Rabbi Shimon says: Even if one of the mourners came on the seventh day from a nearby place, he counts with the other mourners and completes the seven-day period of mourning with them. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: And this is the halakha, provided that he came and found consolers still present in the house.

§ Rav Anan asks: If the consolers had already stirred themselves to stand up and leave but did not yet actually stand up and leave, what is the halakha? Is it considered as if the consolers have already left or not? This question was not answered, and the dilemma stands unresolved.

The Gemara relates that a colleague of Rabbi Abba bar Ḥiyya learned the following principle as a tradition from Rabbi Abba. The Gemara asks: And who was this colleague? It was Rabbi Zeira. And some say a different version of this tradition: A colleague of Rabbi Zeira learned a tradition from Rabbi Zeira. The Gemara asks: And who is this colleague? It was Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to an animal that is unsuitable for human consumption because of severe organic disease or congenital defect, making it a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the halakhot of mourning.

The Gemara explains: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning, concerning that which we just said about a mourner who arrives on the seventh day. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to defects in animals that render them tereifa concerning that which we learned in a baraita: If the animal’s intestines became perforated, but the hole was stopped up by mucus, so that nothing comes out of this hole, the animal is fit. Unlike an ordinary hole in the intestines, this hole does not render the animal a tereifa and make it unfit for consumption. This is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

The Gemara asks: What is this mucus? Rav Kahana said: The fat [shirka] of the intestines that comes out under pressure. Someone whose name was not given said: May I merit to go up to Eretz Yisrael and learn this halakha from the mouth of its author.

When he went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and said to him: Did the Master say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to defects that render the animal a tereifa? He said to him: I said just the opposite, namely, that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and therefore such a hole in the animal’s intestine makes it unfit for eating.

He asked him again: What about the other ruling reported in your name, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning? Is this accurate? He said to him: This issue is subject to dispute, as it was stated: Rav Ḥisda said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and similarly Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is the halakha. But Rav Naḥman said: It is not the halakha.

The Gemara concludes: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to the aforementioned issue of tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning, as Shmuel stated a principle: The halakha follows the opinion of the more lenient authority in matters relating to mourning.

§ It was taught in a baraita: With regard to all other deceased relatives, it is praiseworthy for one to be quick in taking the bier out for burial. But in the case of one’s father or mother, acting in this manner is condemnable, as one should draw out the period of acute mourning for his parent. If, however, it was Friday or the eve of a Festival, then one is praiseworthy for expediting his parent’s burial because he does this only out of respect for his father or mother, as he does not want them to remain unburied for the duration of Shabbat or the Festival.

With regard to all other dead, if the mourner wishes he may reduce his business due to mourning. If, however, he wishes not to do so, he need not