Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Sewing refers to stitching the garment in a non-professional manner in which the sides of the tear are not evenly joined. Mending it refers to repairing it in a manner that – to whatever degree possible - the tear cannot be recognized.

For his parent’s passing is a loss that cannot be restored.

Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:15) quotes Mo’ed Kattan 22b which states that a woman may sew her garment immediately because of her honor. Implied is that even when it will not be immodest for her to walk around with the tear - because she is wearing undergarments - she may mend her clothes for women feel extremely uncomfortable wearing torn garments.

In Hilchot Talmud Torah 5:9, the Rambam writes:
When his master dies, he should rend all of his garments until he reveals his heart; he may never mend them.
When does the above apply? With regard to one’s outstanding teacher from whom one has gained the majority of his wisdom. If, however, one has not gained the majority of his wisdom from him... he should rend his garments [at his death] as he does for all the deceased for whom he is obligated to mourn. Even if he learned only one thing from him... he should rend his garments because of’ his [death].
See also Halachah 11 and notes.

The term nasi refers to the head of the Sanhedrin. It is also used in reference to a king. From the fact that the Shulchan Aruch quotes this law, one may conclude that it also refers to an outstanding Torah leader in any age.

The Sage who is second in stature in the Sanhedrin.

I.e., the majority of the Jewish people (Rashi, Mo’ed Kattan 26a).

Although the standard published texts state “the mountains of Judah,” from Halachah 10, it is obvious that this is printing error.

This ruling definitely applies in the present age. Nevertheless, we find that there are many - even scholars of distinguished piety and knowledge - who do not rend their garments every time they visit Jerusalem beyond a 30 day interval. While an adequate halachic explanation for this lack of observance is not available, one of the ways to avoid the difficulty is to used borrowed clothes when visiting these places or to come on the Sabbath when it is forbidden to rend one’s garments.

In which instance the tear is not noticeable on the surface of the garment.

Since it was mended in a manner in which the tear was not noticeable, it is as if it was being rent for the first time.

For the tear should remain distinct.

I.e., the original owner of the garment who tore it in mourning.

For otherwise, the seller will have deceived the purchaser. Moreover, if a person is sold a torn garment, he may not mend it until he clarifies that it was not torn in mourning. Similarly a torn garment may not be sold to a gentile, for we fear that he will mend it [Tur; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:19)].

When describing Elisha’s conduct a s Elijah was being taken to heaven. Although Elijah ascended into heaven alive and did not die, for Elisha, it was as if he was dead (Mo’ed Kattan 26a).

As one is obligated to do at the death of a parent, but not at the death of another relative (Chapter 8, Halachah 2).

When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:36) deviates slightly from the Rambam’s wording, stating: “One must rend his garments because of an unfavorable report, e.g., that the majority of the community gather for a battle, and one hears that they fled before their enemies. [This applies] even if only a minority were slain.” The Ramah adds: “The same law applies if they were taken captive.”

Since the verse states “for” before the object of each clause, we can infer that each of these tidings is - in and of itself - sufficient to warrant the rending of one’s garments (Mo’ed Kattan 26a).

With regard to Ravshakeh's - the agent of King Sannecherib, but according to tradition (Sanhedrin 60a) an apostate Jew - blasphemy of God's name during the siege of Jerusalem. See also lsaiah, chs. 36 and 37, which describes this event.

For Chizkiyahu rent his garments upon hearing the report of the blasphemy from these men (11 Kings 19:1). See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:10 which also describes the obligation to rend one’s garments in this instance within the context of its discussion of the prohibition of blasphemy.

Who relate how the blasphemer cursed God’s name in court, repeating his words; see Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:8.

Sanhedrin 60a derives this from the above narrative which relates that Chizkiyahu rent his garments, but the others did not. Why didn’t they? Because they had rent them when they heard the blasphemy.

See also Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:37) which states that the same law applies with regard to a scroll of the Books of the Prophets or tefillin which are burnt.

Similar laws apply if a scroll is torn or erased in a forceful manner. For one is mourning the desecration of God’s name (Siftei Cohen 340:56).

In its description of the burning of the scroll of prophesy which Jeremiah had prepared by King Yehoyakim.

The people had journeyed to bring sacrifices in the Temple only to find that it had been destroyed by the Babylonians.

See Hilchot Ta’anit 5:16-18 where the Rambam also discusses this obligation.

Man or woman [Kessef Mishneh; 5’hulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:5)]. See Turei Zahav 340:2.

Mo’ed Kattan 25a explains that the passing of any person is comparable to the burning of a Torah scroll for both the Torah and the soul are called “the lamp of God” (Rashi). In his Kessef Mishneh and his Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), R. Yosef Karo cites the ruling of the Maharam of Rutenberg who states that this applies even to a Jew who transgresses, as long as he does not do so in conscious rebellion against God.

I.e., a person who is reputed to observe mitzvot, eschew prohibitions, and conduct himself in a moral manner [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:6)].

Even those people who were not present at the time of the person’s death. If they encounter the corpse before its burial (or hear about the person’s passing according to Siftei Cohen 340:12), they must rend their garments [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:6)]. The Ramah, however, quotes the Hagahot Maimoniot which state that although one must mourn over the death of every Jew, the custom is that only those present at the time of a person’s death are required to rend their garments.
See also Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) and Siftei Cohen 340:13 who discuss whether this obligation is incumbent on Torah scholars or not.

In this context, Rashi (Mo’ed Kattan 22b) defines this term as referring to a scholar appointed by the community to answer halachic questions. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:7) states that it refers to a person who can provide an answer for any question in Torah law, regardless of the subject matter.
Again citing the Hagahot Maimoniot, the Ramah states that this custom is also not followed in the present age unless the sage who passes away is one’s teacher.

Showing the same extra measure of respect one shows for his parents (Chapter 8, Halachah 3; Radbaz). As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, the Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 340:17) states that at present, the prevailing custom is not to uncover one’s arm under any circumstances. This also applies with regard to the instances mentioned in the following halachot.

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo explains that this practice was instituted so that the students would eulogize and mourn over the sage. He also quotes the Tur who clarifies that the intent is not, heaven forbid, that his students suspend their studies, but rather that after the eulogy, they should study at home instead of collecting in the house of study. Rav Yosef Karo also quotes these concepts in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 344:18).

I.e., even individuals who are not worthy of the title, sage. In this instance as well, the Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 340:8) advises leniency and does not require the tearing of garments.

I.e., before the burial, and certainly before the passage of the seven days of mourning in contrast to the requirements mentioned in Halachah 1.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 242:25) state that one need not mourn an entire day; a portion of the day is sufficient.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:7) states that this applies only when the report comes within 30 days of the sage’s death.

The Radbaz (in his gloss to Halachah 11) explains that uncovering one’s left arm is a greater sign of mourning than uncovering the right, because the heart is closer to the left.

I.e., the congregants do not pray in the synagogue, but in the home of the deceased. Nevertheless, on the Sabbath (and on Monday and Thursday), when they must read the Torah, they gather in the synagogue for that purpose alone [Kessef Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 344:18)]. The Radbaz (and Rashi, Mo’ed Kattan 23a) differ and maintain that communal prayer should be suspended at this time.

I.e., the suspension of the houses of prayer and study is not to relax one’s religious obligations, but instead to impress people with the obligation to mourn (Mo’ed Kattan 23a).

I.e., the seven days of mourning include the Sabbath; there is no need to observe an eighth day. The rationale is that since the private aspects of the laws of mourning are observed on the Sabbath, it is included in the reckoning of the seven days.

This is considered a private matter. For as reflected in the notes to Chapter 5, Halachah 19, even during the week, one was not required to veil one’s head in public.

I.e., washing one’s face, hands, and feet with water that was heated before the Sabbath. Among the private matters that are forbidden on the Sabbath is also Torah study. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 400:1) for details.

And thus wear fresh clothes in honor of the Sabbath.

The Halachic authorities debate whether the intent is from Minchah Gedolah (from half an hour after noon onward) or from Minchah Katanah (from nine and a half seasonal hours after sunrise onward). See the Kuntres Acharon to ch. 251 in Shulchan Aruch HaRav which, on the basis of the Rambam’s ruling in Hilchot Tefilah 1:5, 3;2, states that, throughout the Mishneh Torah, whenever the term Minchah is mentioned without any further description, the intent is Minchah Katanah, i.e., the late afternoon.

And thus the seven days of mourning will conclude on Sunday mourning.

I.e., Pesach, Shavuos, and Sukkos.

Since the festivals are characterized by happiness and joy, any observance of the rites of mourning is inappropriate. As Mo’ed Kattan 14b states, the positive commandment (Deuteronomy 16:14): “And you shall rejoice in your festivals” takes precedence over the obligation to mourn, for the obligation to rejoice is incumbent on the Jewish people as a whole.
The Rambam’s wording implies that no mourning rites at all should be observed on the festivals, not even the private aspects of mourning that are observed on the Sabbath. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 399:1) rule that if a person did not observe the mourning rites at all before the festival, he should observe the private aspects of mourning during the festival.

I.e., here the intent of the word sha’ah is not an hour.

If a mourner observed the mourning rites for the briefest time before these holidays, the holiday forces him to stop that observance and he is not required to resume these rites.

The Radbaz explains that, according to the Rambam, even though Rosh HaShanah is followed by Yom Kippur and Yom Kippur is followed by Sukkos, since Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur are not festivals in the complete sense of the term, it is not appropriate that the person should have the entire mourning experience eliminated so drastically. The Kessef Mishneh explains that it is not appropriate that both dimensions of mourning be cut short for the same death.
The Hagahot Maimoniot, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 399:9-10) differ and maintain that Yom Kippur and Sukkos do nullify all mourning rites. This is the universally accepted practice at present.

To complete the Sheloshim period of mourning described in Chapter 6.

And thus is considered as equivalent to seven days. Nevertheless, it is not considered as a festival in the sense that it has the power to nullify the Sheloshim mourning, because there was never any dimension of the Sheloshim mourning observed in a distinct manner (Turei Zahav 399:6).

In the diaspora, one need observe only eight days of mourning. Although mourning is not observed on Simchat Torah, it is also counted as one day in the Sheloshim reckoning [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 399:11)].

The Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 399:3) states that on the day before other festivals, one should perform these activities shortly before nightfall. On the day before Pesach, leniency is granted and the mourner should perform these activities shortly after midday.

The earlier part of the day is considered as the conclusion of the 30 day period of mourning.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 3.

Since this dimension of mourning is not limited to the 30 day period, it is not nullified by the festivals. Similar concepts apply with regard to the other special aspects of mourning associated with the death of one's parents mentioned in that chapter.

On the festival, he may wash (in cold water, or with hot water during Chol HaMoed) for none of the mourning rites are observed during a festival as stated in Halachah 3.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 399:5) states that with regard to laundering one’s clothes, one may launder them after midday, but refrain from wearing the laundered clothes until the onset of the festival. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) also mentions that there are opinions that allow one to wash shortly before the onset of the festival and the Ramah rules that it is customary to accept that view.

I.e., subtracting the days mentioned in Halachot 3 and 4.

The commentaries question why the Rambam mentions “the day of death” when he states previously that the 30 days of mourning are from the day of the burial.

When it is forbidden to cut one’s hair.

I.e., on Chol HaMoed, the intermediate days of the festival. Generally, this is forbidden, but leniency is granted in the present instance, because he was prevented from cutting his hair before the festival by forces beyond his control. See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 7:17-18.

I.e., in situations when the seventh day of mourning falls on the day before any of these holidays and that day is the Sabbath.

For according to the Rambam, the laws of mourning should not be observed during the festival at all. The Rambam, nevertheless, rules that the expressions of grief and comfort associated with the burial should be observed during Chol HaMoed as stated in the following chapter. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De‘ah 399:2) differ with the Rambam and state that the private dimensions of the mourning laws must be observed during the festivals.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that certain leniencies can be observed with regard to the performance of work. After seven days pass after the death of the deceased, other people can perform the mourner’s work in their own homes and the mourner’s servants may perform his work in a discreet manner in his home.

Making no further reductions. Even when a person dies in the midst of Sukkos, Shemini Atzeret does not cause the number of days to be reduced, because he did not (fully) observe any days of mourning [Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)].

I.e., when a person dies in the middle of a festival.

And including the last day of the holiday.

And according to Scriptural Law, one should observe the mourning laws on that day.

I.e., Pesach or Sukkot.

As mentioned in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:23, "Everything necessary [for the burial] may be performed.... With regard to a corpse, the second day of a holiday is considered like an ordinary weekday. This applies even with regard to the second day of Rosh HaShanah." As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, in the present age, it is not customary to follow this leniency and burials are usually postponed until after the holiday.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 399:13) emphasizes that this law only applies with regard to those individuals for whom we are required to mourn according to Scriptural Law.
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) continues that the present custom is not to mourn for any relative on the second day of a festival even if the person died and was buried on that day. The Ramah states that the ruling is based on the premise that there is no Scriptural obligation to mourn.

Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:8 explains that the two days of Rosh HaShanah are considered as a single continuum of holiness since even in the time when the new moon was sanctified through the testimony of witnesses, Rosh HaShanah was often observed for two days.

See Chapter 8, Halachot 1 and 3.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 9.

See the Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 340:31) which mentions that there are communities where one rends his garments only for his father and mother on Chol HaMoed.

Although the dead may be buried on a festival - on the first day, by gentiles, and on the second day, by Jews (Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 1:23) - we may perform only those activities involved with his actual burial. Rending one’s garments is for the sake of the living. Hence, since it involves the performance of forbidden labor, it is not permitted on the holidays - even on the second day of the festival (Radbaz). And since it is not performed on the holidays, we postpone it until after the festival has past entirely (Mishneh LiMelech; Magen Avraham 547:3).

Rabbi Akiva Eiger notes that on the conclusion of the previous chapter, the Rambam states that if a person buries his dead on the second day of a festival, he is obligated to mourn. Yet as stated in this halachah, a meal of comfort is not served on a festival. Thus the implication is that mourning is more severe. Hence one would think that just as one does not mourn during Chol HaMoed, one would not serve a meal of comfort. The requirement to do so implies that serving the meal of comfort is in a different category; it resembles a eulogy.

I.e., we do not rend our garments for those dead for whom we observe some mourning rites as an expression of honor for the living, e.g., one’s in-laws.

Since the entire community must mourn for him, each one brings food for another. The meal are exchanged in the main street of the city, as can be inferred from Ketubot 8b.

In contrast to the ordinary practice where a mourner sits on an overturned or low chair. See Chapter 4, Halachah 9.

Many interpret the term “mourning blessing” a s referring to the blessing given the mourners by one of the leading members of the community when they return from the funeral as related by Ketubot 5b. Since this blessing is recited in a public place, it is not appropriate for it to be recited during a festival lest it reduce the festive spirit (Radbaz).
Kin ‘at Eliyahu notes that in Chapter 13 where the Rambam describes the comforting of the mourners after the funeral, he does not mention this blessing. And in Chapter 12, Halachah 7, he states that the term refers to blessings given “in the house of a mourner.” See the notes to that halachah for additional explanation.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 1. Ordinarily, the mourners would be accompanied by members of the company. This, however, is not appropriate during a festival: See Mo’ed Kattan 27a.

For the charge “And you shall rejoice in your festivals” also applies to Chol HaMoed and these activities will not lead to increased rejoicing.

I.e., gathering them from where they are buried to rebury them in another place.

Collecting their bones brings back memories of their passing.

One has an obligation to honor his parents. Although that obligation is outweighed by the happiness of the festival, it remains a factor of importance. One does not have an obligation to honor his other relatives. Hence there is no reason why he should think that he should incur the sorrow of moving their remains during a festival.

Although these days are not festivals according to Scriptural Law, they are days of happiness and it is inappropriate to reduce that happiness by eulogies.

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh quote the Tur who states that on Purim, we observe only the private aspects of the mourning laws (as on the Sabbath). The rulings of the Shulchan Aruch on this subject appear contradictory. Orach Chayim 696:4 rules that the full mourning rites should be observed, while Yoreh De’ah 401:7 rules that only the private dimensions of these rites should be observed. Differences of opinion persist among the later authorities as well. AII authorities agree that, in contrast to Scriptural festivals, Purim - and similarly, Chanukah - do not nullify the obligation to mourn.

Ta’anit 17b states that it is forbidden to eulogize on the days before the dates mentioned in “the scroll of fasts,” i.e., dates which were commemorated as minor holidays in the Talmudic era. Among those dates were Chanukah and Purim. Rosh HaShanah 18b states: “The scroll of fasts was nullified,” i.e., we no longer are bound by the restrictions mentioned there. Although Rosh HaShanah 19b states that this does not apply to Chanukah and Purim, this refers only to Chanukah and Purim themselves, and not to the days that precede or follow these holidays (Kessef Mishneh).

When there is no Scriptural obligation to rejoice, however, according to Rabbinic Law, they are days of happiness.

Similarly, women may lament and recite dirges [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 401:5)].

I.e., the sage died more than 30 days previously.

Needless to say, this also applies to a man. The Rambam mentions women because they are more likely to arrange such an event (Radbaz).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mo’ed Kattan 1:5). There - and in greater detail in Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 6:24 - the Rambam elaborates on the rationale for this restriction. To quote Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov: “So that the festival will not arrive when he is sad and his heart is grieved and hurting because of the memory of his agony. Instead he should remove grieving from his heart and direct his attention toward joy.”

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this refers to the eulogies recited in the Talmudic era which were accompanied by loud lamenting and wails of grief. At present, when the eulogies are more controlled, these restrictions do not apply.

For when the death is so close, an expression of mourning will lead to a catharsis of one’s grief and enable one to approach the festival with joy.

See Hilchot Ishut 10:12 which states that a man who marries a virgin bride should celebrate with her for seven days. Just as the mourning laws are not observed during a festival, they should not be observed during these days.
The commentaries question: According to the Rambam, the obligation to mourn on the first day is Scriptural in origin, while the obligation to rejoice with one’s bride is Rabbinic. How could our Sages require that their decree be observed when it prevents the observance of a Scriptural commandment?
Rabbenu Nissim (in his gloss to Ketubot 3:2) offers the resolution that our Sages have the power to nullify a Scriptural commandment as long as a person does not perform a deed. Hence on the day of the burial, a person should not celebrate, but he should not mourn. The Radbaz explains that in this instance our Sages are given the license for they are not abrogating the mitzvah of mourning entirely; they are merely postponing it to a later date.

As is required when a person’s relative dies in the midst of a festival (Chapter 10, Halachah 8).
In contrast to the situation mentioned in the following halachah, in this instance, one need not refrain from marital relations because of the laws of mourning. (This may, however, be necessary because of the niddah laws.)

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, questioning why the seven days of the wedding celebrations are not considered within the 30 days of mourning. After all, the Rambam states (ibid.) that when a person buries his dead during a festival, he counts the 30 days of mourning from the time of the burial.
The Ramban [cited by the Radbaz and the Tur (Yoreh De’ah 342)] explains that during a festival, a person observes some of the restrictions of the 30 days of mourning, for - as a measure of respect to the festival - he may not cut his hair or iron his clothes. Hence, these days can be included in the sum of the 30. With regard to the seven days of the wedding celebrations, by contrast, none of the mourning restrictions must be observed. Hence, the 30 days are counted after their conclusion.

I.e., begin preparing to cook it.

The Ra’avad objects: Since the wedding is being postponed, why is it not postponed for 30 days so that the full mourning rites will be observed? The Ramban [cited by the Kessef Mishneh and the Tur (Yoreh De’ah 342)] explains that since the wedding preparations have already been made and the couple’s expectations have been aroused, it is not proper to postpone the wedding for such an extended period.

For if the burial would be held first, there would be a Scriptural obligation to mourn and it would be improper to hold the wedding (Kessef Mishneh).

This term is used to describe the first time a couple engage in relations, for this union enables them to fulfill the mitzvah of procreation.

And not engage in relations further.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 1.

Compare to Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 22:1. Since they are just married and an external factor is preventing them from engaging in relations, this extra dimension of vigilance is required.

Lest she appear unattractive to her husband.

I.e., when do we grant the leniency to allow the wedding celebration to be held first.

In practice, the matter is dependent on local custom. There are certain communities where it is not customary to postpone a wedding even though relatives died beforehand and others, which are more strict in observing the mourning prohibitions. When such a problem arises, people should contact a competent Rabbinical authority familiar with the local custom.