Mishneh Torah, Mourning 1

Sugya Map

• Issue: The precise source and scope of the obligation to mourn (avleimut) in Jewish law, distinguishing between Torah law (De'Oraita) and rabbinic enactment (De'Rabbanan).
• Nafka Mina:
  • The duration of mourning obligations.
  • The applicability of mourning laws to specific circumstances (e.g., stillborn infants, executed individuals, suicides).
  • The basis for the seven and thirty-day mourning periods.
• Primary Sources:
  • Leviticus 10:19 ("Were I to partake of a sin offering today...")
  • Leviticus 21:3 ("...his sister, a virgin, close to him, who has not known a husband; for her he may defile himself.") - Implicitly, the obligation to mourn for close relatives.
  • Genesis 50:10 ("And he instituted mourning for his father for seven days.")
  • Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Evel 1:1-3
  • Yerushalmi Moed Katan 3:5
  • Yerushalmi Ketubot 1:1

Text Snapshot

Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Evel 1:1-2

1 It is a positive commandment to mourn for one's close relatives,¹ as implied by Leviticus 10:19: "Were I to partake of a sin offering today, would it find favor in God's eyes?" According to Scriptural Law, the obligation to mourn is only on the first day which is the day of the person's death and burial.

2 The remainder of the seven days of mourning are not required by Scriptural Law. Although the Torah states Genesis 50:10: "And he instituted mourning for his father for seven days," when the Torah was given, the laws were renewed.² Moses our teacher ordained for the Jewish people the seven days of mourning and the seven days of wedding celebrations. From when is a person obligated to mourn? When the grave is covered. But until the corpse has been buried, a mourner is not bound by any of the prohibitions incumbent on a mourner. For this reason, King David washed and anointed himself when his son died, before he was buried.

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrase "כְּשֶׁהַתּוֹרָה נִתְּנָה, נִתְחַדְּשׁוּ הַדִּינִים" (when the Torah was given, the laws were renewed) is crucial. It suggests a process of clarification and enactment at Sinai, rather than a static revelation of all laws in perpetuity. The contrast between the De'Oraita obligation (first day) and the rabbinic extension (seven days) is explicitly drawn. The definition of when mourning begins is tied to the covering of the grave ("מִשֶּׁתִּכָּסֶה הַגּוּלְגֹּלֶת"), highlighting the physical act of burial as the trigger.

Readings

Yad Eitan on Mishneh Torah, Mourning 1:1

אין אבילות מה"ת אלא ביום ראשון כו' אע"פ שנאמר בתורה ויעש לאביו אבל שבעה ימים ניתנה תורה ונתחדשה הלכה. כ"מ מדאיתא בירושלמי והובא בתוס' במועד קטן (דף כ') דאין למידין מקודם מתן תורה. והטעם פי' בס' לוית חן פרשת ויחי דיוצא מזה קולא לענין ביטול תלמוד תורה ושבת שלא היה קודם מ"ת. ובזה אתי שפיר דלא קשה מ"ש בספר שאילת שלום דבכ"ד ילפינן מקודם מתן תורה:

Yad Eitan explicitly states that the De'Oraita obligation of mourning is only for the first day. He supports the idea that De'Rabbanan extended it to seven days, citing the principle from the Yerushalmi and Tosafot (Moed Katan 20a) that we do not derive laws from the period before the giving of the Torah. The reason given is that this principle allows for leniencies regarding Torah study and Shabbat, which were not in force before Matan Torah. This clarifies why, even though Genesis mentions seven days, the Torah itself, upon its revelation, renewed and established the law.

Tziunei Maharan on Mishneh Torah, Mourning 1:1-2

אבל שאר השבעה ימים אינו דין תורה אע"פ שנאמר בתורה ויעש לאביו אבל שבעת ימים נתנה תורה ונתחדשה הלכה ומשה רבינו תקן להם לישראל ז' ימי אבילות וז' ימי המשתה. הכ"מ לא הראה מוצא הדברים ובס' בית הילל ביו"ד סי' שצ"ח הביא דברי רבינו הללו וכתב עליו וגם מש"כ שתיקן להם משה ז' ימי המשתה לא ידעתי מנ"ל הא דלא מצינו בשום מקום ע"ש. והנה מש"כ רבינו אע"פ שנאמר בתורה ויעש לאביו אבל כו' הוא בירושלמי מו"ק פ"ג ה"ה מנין לאבל מה"ת שבעה ויעש לאביו אבל שבעת ימים ולמידין דבר קודם למתן תורה (בתמיה) שמא משניתנה תורה נתחדשה הלכה, וע"ש בפ"מ. ומש"כ רבינו ומשה רבינו תקן להם לישראל כו' הוא בירושלמי כתובות פ"א ה"א משה התקין שבעת ימי המשתה ושבעה ימי האבל ע"ש:

Tziunei Maharan echoes Yad Eitan's sentiment that the seven days are not De'Oraita. He directly quotes the Rambam's statement and then points out that the source for Moses instituting the seven days of mourning and seven days of celebration is found in the Yerushalmi. Specifically, he cites Yerushalmi Moed Katan 3:5 for the mourning period and Yerushalmi Ketubot 1:1 for the wedding period. He notes that the Beit Hillel questions the source for the seven days of celebration, but Tziunei Maharan confirms its Yerushalmi origin. This Rishon highlights the Yerushalmi as the locus for the rabbinic enactments that shape the mourning period as we know it.

Ohr Sameach on Mishneh Torah, Mourning 1:1

נתנה תורה ונתחדשה הלכה: נ"ב ירושלמי ולמדין דבר מקודם מתן תורה עיין שם:

Ohr Sameach briefly notes that the phrase "נתנה תורה ונתחדשה הלכה" is supported by the Yerushalmi's discussion on learning from the period before the giving of the Torah. This commentary, while concise, reinforces the idea that the Sinaitic revelation was a period of renewal and codification of laws, not just a passive reception.

Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Mourning 1:1

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְאָכַלְתִּי חַטָּאת הַיּוֹם הַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵי יי . אלו דברי אהרן למשה ביום מיתת שני בניו, נדב ואביהוא, שאינו יכול לאכול את קרבן החטאת אף שאכילת הקרבנות היא מצוות עשה, מפני שבניו מתו באותו היום, ומכאן נלמד שמצוות האבלות היא ביום הראשון בלבד. אבל עצם מצוות האבלות נלמד מהפסוק “לה יטמא“ (ויקרא כא,ג) המחייבת את הכהן להיטמא לקרוביו במיתתם, וממילא גם להתאבל עליהם (קנאת סופרים על סה“מ מ“ע לז, לח“מ, וראה לקמן ב,ו; וראה רדב“ז שהסביר באופן אחר).

Steinsaltz offers a deeper dive into the De'Oraita source. He explains that Leviticus 10:19, Aaron's statement to Moses after the death of Nadav and Avihu, implies the mourning obligation is limited to the day of death. This is because Aaron could not partake of the sin offering, a positive commandment, due to his immediate grief. Steinsaltz then identifies Leviticus 21:3 ("לה יטמא") as the basis for the actual commandment of mourning, obligating a Kohen to become impure for close relatives, and by extension, to mourn them. He also notes the Radvaz offers an alternative explanation.

Friction

The Rambam, in Hilchot Evel 1:1, states that the De'Oraita obligation is only for the first day, "which is the day of the person's death and burial." Yet, in 1:2, he clarifies that if burial is on another day, the De'Oraita obligation doesn't apply to the day of death or the day of burial. This seems contradictory. If the De'Oraita obligation is only the first day, and that first day is defined as "death and burial," then what happens if death and burial are on different days? Does the De'Oraita obligation vanish entirely?

The Maharish Engel, in his Ginat Veradim, grapples with this apparent paradox. He suggests that the Rambam's phrasing in 1:1, "on the first day which is the day of the person's death and burial," should be understood as a single, unified concept. The De'Oraita obligation applies to the event of the death and its immediate aftermath, culminating in burial. If these are separated, the full De'Oraita force might be diminished or transferred.

However, a more precise reading, and perhaps the intended one, is that the "first day" refers to the day of death, and the "and burial" is an indicator of when the full mourning prohibitions commence as per rabbinic law, or at least when the De'Oraita obligation concludes its primary mandate. The De'Oraita obligation is to mourn on the day of death. The burial being on that same day intensifies or finalizes this De'Oraita period. If burial is delayed, the De'Oraita obligation on the day of death still exists, but the cessation of the De'Oraita obligation on the day of burial is now removed, thus allowing for the De'Rabbanan seven days to fully take hold without the De'Oraita mandate having been fully discharged by burial.

The key lies in the distinction between the commencement of mourning (De'Oraita), which is the day of death, and the full application of mourning prohibitions, which the Rambam states begin with the covering of the grave. Therefore, if death and burial are on different days, the De'Oraita obligation applies to the day of death, but the De'Rabbanan seven days, which begin with the burial, then dictate the subsequent period. The De'Oraita obligation doesn't disappear; rather, its fulfillment is affected by the timing of the burial.

Intertext

Tanakh: The Mourning of David

The text itself references King David's actions upon his son's death: "For this reason, King David washed and anointed himself when his son died, before he was buried." (II Samuel 12:20). After the prophet Nathan rebuked David for his sin with Bathsheba, their child fell ill. David fasted and prayed intensely, but when the child died, he rose, washed, anointed himself, and went to the Temple. His servants were surprised, asking how he could do this. David famously replied, "But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (II Samuel 12:23).

This biblical narrative serves as a direct precedent for the Rambam's assertion that mourning prohibitions do not fully apply until after burial. David's actions demonstrate a clear understanding that while grief is present, the outward manifestations of mourning are suspended until the burial is complete. This underscores the distinction between internal sorrow and external observance, a theme central to the understanding of mourning laws.

Shulchan Aruch: The Three Weeks

The laws concerning mourning for executed individuals and those who deviate from the community's path resonate with broader principles of communal responsibility and the boundaries of Jewish observance. While not a direct parallel to the initial De'Oraita vs. De'Rabbanan debate, the Shulchan Aruch, in Orach Chayim 551, discusses the period of the "Three Weeks" leading up to Tisha B'Av. This period involves a set of mourning practices, albeit not as stringent as those for a close relative, observed by the entire community due to historical tragedies.

The Rambam's discussion on mourning for heretics and apostates, where relatives rejoice, contrasts sharply with the general principle of mourning. This highlights that the laws of mourning are deeply intertwined with one's relationship to God and the community's collective identity. The exclusion of certain individuals from mourning rites signifies a rupture in that communal bond. The underlying principle is that mourning is a response to loss within the framework of shared faith and belonging.

Psak/Practice

The distinction between De'Oraita and De'Rabbanan mourning has significant practical implications, primarily concerning the duration and intensity of mourning. While the De'Oraita obligation is limited to the day of death and burial, the rabbinic enactments of seven and thirty days are universally observed. The Rambam's emphasis on the burial as the trigger for the full mourning prohibitions means that if a burial is delayed, the full stringency of halachot evelut (laws of mourning) only commences after the burial.

Furthermore, the Rambam's detailed classifications of who is mourned for (and who is not) serve as crucial heuristics for psak. The exclusion of suicides, heretics, and apostates, while seemingly harsh, reflects a halachic framework that prioritizes communal well-being and the integrity of Jewish belief. The practice is to comfort the immediate family of a suicide victim, as the Rambam states, showing compassion for the living, even when the deceased is not afforded full mourning rites. This demonstrates a nuanced approach, balancing strict adherence to law with the imperative of nichum avelim (comforting mourners).

Takeaway

The evolution of mourning laws from a singular day (De'Oraita) to extended periods (De'Rabbanan) highlights the dynamic nature of Halakha, shaped by rabbinic wisdom to deepen communal experience. The precise application of these laws hinges on critical junctures like burial, demonstrating that outward observance is intrinsically linked to the physical reality of loss and community.