Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

From the Rambam’s wording in Chapter 10, Halachah 6, it appears that one should count the 30 days from the day of the relative’s death, but Chapter 10, Halachah 8, (and this impression is also created from Chapter 7, Halachah 4) states that one should count from the day of the burial. Today, the present custom is to count the 30 days from the day of the relative’s death.

I.e., although the practice is Rabbinic in origin, our Sages found an allusion to this practice in the Torah.

With regard to a yefat to’ar, a female captive of war.

The Ra’avad and the Radbaz question the Rambam’s statement, noting that the Babylonian Talmud derives this concept from the exegesis of other verses. The Radbaz states that the Rambam’s source is the Jerusalem Talmud. He asks, however: Why does the Rambam choose the Jerusalem Talmud over the Babylonian Talmud? Other commentaries note that the exegesis of this verse is not found in the standard text of the Jerusalem Talmud and question the Rambam’s source.
Kin’at Eliyahu states that regardless of which source the Rambam is relying upon, the Rambam is following a pattern he employs in several other places in the Mishneh Torah: He will rely on the most obvious Biblical source even when it is not given prominence in the previous Rabbinic writings.

They are described in the following halachot of this chapter.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 2.

The Rambam’s ruling is based on the version of Yevamot 43a cited by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi. The standard published version of the text differs and does not grant a woman license to cut her hair. See also tractate Semachot, ch. 7. Rashi and the other Ashkenazic commentaries follow the standard published version.
This difference of opinion is perpetuated by the Halachic authorities. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 390:5) follows the Rambam’s ruling, while the Ramah follows that of the Ashkenazic authorities.

The Radbaz questions the Rambam’s wording and suggests that “and” should be substituted for “or.” The person should let his hair grow until his colleagues rebuke him. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling, stating that even if the mourner’s colleagues rebuke him before his hair grows uncontrollably long, he may cut it. He does require, however, that the mourner allow his hair to grow for at least 30 days. The Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 390:4) mentions opinions that require one to let his hair grow for three months and others that require one to let it grow for an entire year.

The translation of the term gihutz is a matter of debate. Some translate it as “launder,” others as “iron,” and still others as “press.”

Although some early authorities (the Baal Halachot Gedolot) make a distinction between a man and a woman in this context, the Rambam does not see a Talmudic source that differentiates between them and hence rules as above.

For in this instance, the fact that they are ironed is not as obvious.

Certainly, there is no prohibition against wearing laundered clothes (Radbaz).

For they do not appear as ironed for such a long period. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 389:5) forbids also freshly ironed linen during the 30 days of mourning.

Although the Jerusalem Talmud (Mo’ed Kattan 3:8) mentions following restrictions for a year in the event of the death of one’s parents in this instance as well, the Babylonian Talmud does not mention such restrictions and the Rambam bases his ruling on it.

Lest someone else consecrate her instead (see the Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’aniot 4:6). It is forbidden to hold a feast celebrating the consecration, however. For that is an extra measure of rejoicing which is inappropriate during the days of mourning [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah392:1)]. The Ramah, however, forbids even consecration until the 30 days have passed. An engagement is permitted according to all opinions (Siftei Cohen 392:1).

I.e., he has both a son and a daughter, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 15:4.

Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are not considered festivals in this context [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 392:2)].

This will give him time for his first wife to fade from the forefront of his consciousness. Otherwise, even during times of intimacy, he will remember her and this will disturb his relationship with his new wife (Nimukei Yosef, commenting on Mo'ed Kattan 23a).

And there is no one to care for them.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) rules that one may consecrate a woman immediately and marry her after the seven days of mourning.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) rules that a person who has not fulfilled the mitzvah of procreation may engage in relationships after the seven days of mourning pass.

Mo’ed Kattan, loc. cit., relates that the wife of the sage, Yosef HaCohen, died. He approached his sister-in-law in the cemetery and told her to care for her sister’s children (implying that he would marry her). He did not, however, engage in relations with her until 30 days passed.

Note the Kessef Mishneh who rules that she may be consecrated and even married immediately. He asks, however: why is the woman required to wait 30 days before engaging in relations? If she is mourning for other people besides her husband, she should be permitted to engage in relations after the seven days of mourning. And if she is mourning for her husband, she is required to wait 90 days to establish clearly the parentage of any child she might conceive (see Hilchot Gerushin 11:20).

E. g., a friend held a celebration for him on the condition that he make a celebration in return immediately thereafter.

Even if he made a commitment to hold such a celebration in the near future.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Mo ‘ed Kattan 3:8) states that leniency is granted with regard to a feast associated with a mitzvah. See the Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 391:1) who discusses this issue.

A distant business trip has a certain festive nature to it. Usually, one would go to county fairs and the like where there were entertainment and rejoicing. Ordinary commercial enterprises, by contrast, are permitted after the seven days of mourning (Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).

This applies after the seven days of acute mourning, but during the 30 days of mourning (Kessef Mishneh).

For as reflected by Hilchot Ta’aniot 3:8, this is appropriate in times of disfavor.

For these 30 days.

This is speaking about a situation where the mourner heard about the death of his relative while he was on a business trip. Alternatively, if he left on a small business trip during the 30 days of mourning (Radbaz).

He may, however, purchase a large amount at one time. There is no need for him to purchase only the bare minimum (Kessef Mishneh).

The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De’ah 346) states that this law does not apply when the crucifixion is carried out beyond the city limits.

In Talmudic times, the Romans would frequently crucify criminals - and innocent people who they termed criminals for their own reasons - and leave their bodies unburied for lengthy periods.
To dwell in the city would be considered as disrespectful to one’s relative, for people will say: “His relative is crucified and he is continuing his life without mourning” (Radbaz). Others (Nimukei Yosef to Mo’ed Kattan 26b) state that the very fact that people see his relative will cause the deceased to lose respect, for people will recall that he was crucified.

For the people in that portion of the city may either not know about the crucifixion or might not know that the person is related to the one crucified (Semachot 2:13).

I.e., after any portion of time after sunrise, but all the mourning rites must be observed at night. The present custom is to come to the mourner’s home for the morning prayers and then to order him to arise from mourning [Radbaz; Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 395:1)].

As stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, “since he observed mourning for a portion of the day, it is considered as if he observed [mourning] for the entire day.”

Thus if a person buries his dead seven days before a festival begins, both the seven day and 30 day mourning periods are completed with the advent of the festival.

The Ramah (Yorelz De’ah 381:1) states that it has become customary to wait 30 days before washing with hot water. There are different customs depending on the norm in one’s local community.

The other matters forbidden during the seven days of mourning. An exception is made with regard to sexual relations which are forbidden until nightfall (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

It would appear that the same applies with regard to the other prohibitions mentioned in this chapter.

For he was not able to cut his hair at the conclusion of the first 30 days of mourning, because of the second period of mourning.

I.e., he must deviate from the ordinary manner of cutting his hair (Radbaz).

If he suffers two losses, the second in the week of mourning for the first.

A person who is under a ban of ostracism is forbidden to cut his hair as stated in Hilchot Talmud Torah 7:4.

The Rambam Le’Am states that a person who is ritually impure may not find someone to cut his hair lest that person contract ritual impurity. Kina’at Eliyahu notes that a person afflicted with tzara’at is forbidden to cut his hair (Hilchot Tumat Tzara’at 10:6). As stated in those halachot (10:8), all of the ritually impure were obligated to make it known to others that they were ritually impure. Hence it is possible that one of the signs they employed was allowing their hair to grow long.

I.e., he may cut his hair in the ordinary manner. He need not use a razor (Mo’ed Kattan 17b).

Similarly, such individuals may launder their clothes in an ordinary manner [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 289:1)].

See Chapter 8.

Mentioned in Chapter 6.

Similarly, it is a mitzvah to provide him with a meal of comfort, as mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 9 and notes.

From the Rambam’s wording here and in Chapter 8, Halachah 6, it would appear that if one hears a distant report concerning the death of his parents, he is not obligated to rend his garments. Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and others differ and require one to rend his garments when he hears of his parent’s death even if it occurred more than 30 days previously. Their view is recorded by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 402:4).

A portion of the time he observes the mourning rites is considered as the seven days of acute shivah mourning and a portion as the thirty days of sheloshim mourning. Thus from this time onwards, none of the ordinary mourning rites must be observed (Radbaz).
The extra mourning practices one observes for parents (e.g., not cutting one’s hair or going on a business trip until rebuked by one’s friends) must, however, be observed within the year of mourning [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 402:1)].

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 402:2) emphasizes that it is not necessary for the person to observe all the mourning rites. It is sufficient for him to observe one, e.g., removing his shoes or overturning his bed.

The Rambam uses the term sha’ah often translated as an “hour.” In this instance, the intent is not an hour on the watch, but rather a significant amount of time, each person according to the time he sees fit. See (in related contexts) Siftei Cohen 389:4, 399:1.

Mo’ed Kattan 20b relates that Rabbi Chiyya heard a distant report of a relative’s death. He told his attendant to remove his shoes and to take his personal articles to the · bathhouse. From this, our Sages learned: a) a mourner is forbidden to wear shoes; b) one must only observe mourning rites for a distant report for one day; and c) a portion of the day is considered as the entire day and during the remainder one may bathe and the like.

On the festivals and on the Sabbath, those mourning rites that are public need not be observed. Those which are private, by contrast, should be observed [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 402:5)].

E. g., the Sabbath was the thirtieth day after his relative’s death. This follows the ruling of the Siftei Cohen 402:5 which states that with regard to the proximity or distance of a report, we count from the death of the deceased and not from his burial.

For we assume that had he known, he would have come, participated in the burial and begun the mourning rites together with the others (Mo’ed Kattan 21b). If, however, he was notified of the death in his own place and began observing the mourning rites on the second day, he does not shorten his obligation even if he comes to the place where the remainder of the family is mourning [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 375:9)].
The Siftei Cohen 375:11 emphasizes that this applies only when the family are mourning in the place where the deceased passed away or where he is buried. In other places, each person counts individually.

A parsah is four mil, approximately four kilometers in contemporary measure. It must be emphasized that due to the advances of transportation and communication in the present age, the relevance of this halachah is highly diminished, for there are few situations in which it applies.

I.e., the family is still observing the mourning rites.

I.e., he does not count the seven days of acute shivah mourning at all if he comes at their conclusion; or he counts only the remaining days if he comes in their midst.

Counting a full seven and thirty days.

Since it was impossible for him to have observed the entire mourning period together with his family, he is considered as a separate entity and must count himself (Mo’ed Kattan 21b).

I.e., this is forbidden even though it will not take his mind off his mourning. Needless to say, he is forbidden to go elsewhere, even to fulfill a mitzvah. This applies provided it is possible for others to fulfill the mitzvah. If that is not possible and the fulfillment of the mitzvah is dependent on the mourner, he may leave his home even on the first day (Radbaz).

The Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 393:2) states that leniency can be granted in the evenings and if there is a necessity, a mourner may leave his home. On the Sabbath, all authorities grant a mourner license to attend the synagogue [Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:3)]. Similarly, if it is impossible to arrange communal prayers in the mourner’s home, there are authorities who grant him license to attend the synagogue.

In the synagogue or in communal meeting places. The Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 393:2) states that at present, the custom is more severe. When mourning for others, one does not return to his place for 30 days and for his parents, for an entire year.

As an ordinary person does. The Rambam’s wording implies that, as stated in Horiot 12b and cited in Chapter 8, Halachah 1, he should rend the lower portion of his garment.

Leviticus 21:10 states: “The High Priest... shall not let his hair grow uncontrolled, nor should he rend his garments.” As stated in Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 5:6, if a High Priest rends his garments, he is lashed for violating a Scriptural commandment.

As stated in Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash, loc. cit., this applies at all times. He should have his hair trimmed each week.

Leviticus 21:12 states: “He shall not leave the Sanctuary.” In Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash, loc. cit.:5, the Rambam states that he should remain either in his private home or in the Temple.

As stated in Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash, loc. cit., for the High Priest, the people pass by him in a line at his home, in contrast to the ordinary practice which is described in Chapter 13, Halachah 1.

As the Rambam requires when visiting a mourner; see Chapter 13, Halachah 3.

As an expression of honor, he is not required to sit on an overturned bench like other mourners. He may not, however, sit on an ordinary chair.

I.e., “May everything that should happen to you happen to us” (Rashi, Sanhedrin 22b).

Visiting them at their homes (Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash, loc. cit.:4).

Who assists the High Priest in all matters; see ibid. 4:16

I n a manner befitting his dignity; see ibid. 5:4.

It is compromising for a king’s dignity to appear before his people in mourning and bereavement (Sanhedrin 20a).

The Kessef Mishneh, in his gloss to Hilchot Melachim 2:4, states that unless the king has a reason that involves the nation at large, as David had with regard to Avner, he may not participate in funeral processions at all.

As related in II Samuel, chs. 2-3, after the death of King Saul, some of the tribes accepted Saul’s son, Ish Boshet, as king, while the tribe of Judah followed David. Avner was the commander of Ish Boshet’s forces and his monarchy was dependent on him. After a bloody civil war, Avner decided to end the bloodshed and accept David’s kingship. Afterwards, Yoav - David’s commander - perpetrated a ruse and slew Avner. David was extremely upset with Yoav’s actions and exerted himself in public mourning for Avner to show that he had no hand in his death.

A low bed or chair with a leather base that is tied to posts by straps that is larger than a bench (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 2:3; Hilchot Nedarim 9:15).

Mo’ed Kattan 24a states that this obligation is so forceful that if a person fails to observe it, he is worthy of death.

This command was issued to Aaron and his sons after the death of his two sons, Nadav and Avihu.
The Ramban states that the obligation to rend one’s garments is Rabbinic in origin and the verse is only an asmachta, a support. For the command to Aaron and his sons does not necessarily obligate everyone else. It could be interpreted that Aaron and his sons may not rend their garments, while everyone else is given that option (Radbaz).

The Radbaz states that the Rambam’s wording implies that one does not fulfill his obligation if he rends his garment while seated. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro also advances that interpretation and cites other authorities who rule accordingly and he cites this decision in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:1). As such, the person is required to rend his garment again (Ramah).

I.e., King David rent his clothes when he heard a report that his sons had been slain.

From one’s collar.

The Ramah (loc. cit.:2) states that one may rend the lower hem of his garment when rending his garments for deceased persons for whom he is not obligated to mourn (e.g., one was present at the time of a person’s death), but for one’s relatives for whom he is obligated to mourn, he must rend his garments at the front collar.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 6.

Instead, one may leave the border whole and tear only the fabric below it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:12) quotes this halachah. The Ramah, however, differs and states that one is liable to rend the border for all deceased.

E. g., a knife or a scissors.

Mo’ed Kattan 22b states: “For all other deceased, if one desires one may rend the garment inside or one may rend it outside.” The commentaries offer two interpretations of this statement: a) he may tear the garment in the privacy of his own room (Rashi); b) he may tear only the underside of the garment. It appears that the Rambam accepts both of these interpretations (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., the leniencies mentioned in the previous clause and in the previous halachah.

I.e., the tear is longer than a handbreadth.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Mo’ed Kattan 3:8) states that this is required because he is losing the mitzvah of honoring his parents which is dependent on the heart.

This additional measure of mourning is included to show the intensity of his grief. See the gloss of the Radbaz to Chapter 9, Halachah 11, which explains that for one’s parents one may uncover either one’s left or one’s right shoulder.
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:16) quotes the Rambam’s ruling, the Ramah (loc. cit.:17) writes that it is not customary to uncover one’s shoulder in the present era. This is also the contemporary practice in the overwhelming majority of Sephardic communities today.

I.e., so that others should see and cry over the deceased’s passing (Rashi, Mo’ed Kattan 14b). This applies even when the child is too young to be trained in the observance of the mitzvot (Radbaz).

For we fear that emotional aggravation might be perilous for him.
The Siftei Cohen 337:1 states that even if the sick person knows of his relative’s passing, his garments should not be rent, because the torn garments will continually remind him of his loss.

Lest their mourning make him aware of his loss. The Siftei Cohen 337:2 states that, when a person is dangerously ill, we should not mention the death of any others, even people to whom he is not related, in his presence for that is likely to depress him.

But not because of any of her other relatives (Siftei Cohen 340:6).

He need not rend his garments in the same manner as his wife does. lt is sufficient for him to rend them a handbreadth as one does for deceased other than one’s parents (Radbaz). Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:4) quotes the Rambam’s ruling, the Ramah explains that this practice is not observed in the present era.

E. g., he was wearing a garment belonging to a colleague (Ramban to Mo'ed Kattan 20b).

For this is after the period of mourning and one’s garments should not be torn afterwards (Mo’ed Kattan 20b).

The Radbaz quotes opinions that mention that for one’s father and mother, one should rend one’s garments for a year. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:18) states that for his father and mother, one should rend his garment “forever.”

Generally, one may not mend a garment torn because of the passing of one’s parent (Chapter 9, Halachah 1). An exception is made in this instance because we are speaking about a borrowed garment (Nimukei Yosej).

Implicit in telling the owner that his father was dangerously ill was the request to tear the garment if necessary. Nevertheless, obviously, he must reimburse the owner for his loss (Mo’ed Kattan 26b).

For he has no permission to rend it. If he tears the garment, he is considered to be stealing it - for he is taking it for a purpose for which he did not notify the owner. Hence, he is considered not to have fulfilled his obligation for rending his garments. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:19).

The Hebrew expression used by the Rambam has a very specific meaning: the amount of time it takes to greet one’s teacher, saying: Shalom eleche, rabbi (Hilchot Sh’vuot 2:17).

Since he died immediately thereafter, it is as if he died at the time the tear was made (Rabbenu Nissim, gloss to Nedarim 87a).

More than it takes to make that statement.

Since the person did not die until some time after the garments were torn, the tearing is not associated with the death. He need not, however, make an entirely new tear; it is sufficient for him to increase the existing tear a handbreadth (see Halachah 12 and notes; Turei Zahav 340:12; Siftei Cohen 240:31). All this applies with regard to other relatives; for one’s parents, he is required to make an entirely new tear.

Without specifying that person’s identity.

Although he rent his garments after the person’s death, since he did not know the true identity of the person who died at the time he rent his garments, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

Or he hears about their death at the same time even though they died at different times [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 340:23)].

Giving them additional honor by showing an extra measure of grief for them. The Radbaz states that if a person loses both his father and mother at the same time, it is sufficient to rend his garments once for both of them.

Other than one of his parents as stated at the conclusion of the halachah.

Ripping the original tear another handbreadth or making a new tear at least three thumbbreadths from the first tear (Kessef Mishneh). For adding to an existing tear is not a sufficient expression of mourning for his relative.

Since the original tear could have been mended by this time, undoing the mend is considered as a new tear if a slight addition is made (Mo’ed Kattan 26b).

If, however, he dies within the week of mourning, he must make a third tear.

In Chapter 9, Halachah 1, which states that one may not mend clothes one tears in mourning for one’s parents.