Browsed by
Category: Laws of Mourning

The Prohibition of Work/Melacha (2) – When?

The Prohibition of Work/Melacha (2) – When?

The prohibition on melacha is most severe during the first three days. The gemara says:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת מועד קטן דף כא עמוד ב
תנו רבנן אבל שלשה ימים הראשונים אסור במלאכה,
ואפילו עני המתפרנס מן הצדקה.
מכאן ואילך עושה בצינעא בתוך ביתו, האשה טווה בפלך בתוך ביתה.


Bavli, Moed Katan 21b
Our Rabbis have taught: A mourner is prohibited in melacha for the first three days, and even if he is a person who is supported by tzedaka. From that time and going forward, he can do melacha privately in his home and a woman can weave with the spindle.

The Rabbis here understand that the first three days are more stringent than the remaining four as related to the prohibition of melacha. They go so far as to demand that even a person who is unable to support themselves may not work. What is different about the first three days? …

Read More Read More

Introduction to the Prohibitions of the Mourner (3) – Moed Katan 21a

Introduction to the Prohibitions of the Mourner (3) – Moed Katan 21a

The Bavli in Moed Katan preserves one more list of behaviors that are prohibited to the mourner. This list contains some of what appeared in the extended sugya on 14b-16a.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת מועד קטן דף כא עמוד א

תנו רבנן אלו דברים שאבל אסור בהן: אסור במלאכה וברחיצה ובסיכה ובתשמיש המטה ובנעילת הסנדל ואסור לקרות בתורה ובנביאים ובכתובים ולשנות במשנה במדרש ובהלכות ובתלמוד ובאגדות.

Bavli, Moed Katan 21a

Our Rabbis have taught: These are the behaviors that are prohibited to the mourner – [the mourner is] prohibited in melacha (work), washing, anointing, sexual intimacy, wearing leather shoes, and is prohibited from reading in the Torah, the Nevi’im and the Ketuvim, [and is prohibited from] learning in the Mishna, Midrash, Laws, in the Talmud and the Agadot1. 

What distinguishes this list of five (or six) prohibitions from the lengthy analysis on 14b-16a? 

First, this list directly parallels the dinim of Yom Kippur2and Tisha b’Av3. Linking the experience of private mourning to that of national mourning (Tisha b’Av) is a powerful reminder that no one ever mourns alone. By paralleling Yom Kippur we again have an echo of the idea that mourning and loss come as the result of sin which demands atonement and repentance. 

Second, Tosafot4on the page (s.v. elu devarim) claim that this list only contains actions from which the mourner is prohibited as opposed to behaviors that must be done.

The connection between the experience of mourning and Yom Kippur / Tisha b’Av is evocative. The prohibitions on Yom Kippur are called עינוים, innuyim refer to behaviors that are meant to make us feel physical discomfort. One of the more complex Halakhic questions that we are going to have to address is to what extent, if at all, those same behaviors during aveilut are meant to cause physical discomfort to the mourner. Is the point of mourning to give a structure to the expression of grief or to experience innuy? We will continue to return to this distinction as we work through some of the individual behaviors.

Note: This was written before we began sheltering in our homes. One of the core prohibitions during the week of shivva forbids leaving our home. In this difficult time, as many are sitting shivva for their loved ones, we are all struggling at home and praying for healing.

Introduction to the Prohibitions of the Mourner (2) – Moed Katan 14b to 16a, summary

Introduction to the Prohibitions of the Mourner (2) – Moed Katan 14b to 16a, summary

The gemara in Moed Katan (from 14b until 16a) addresses fourteen different behaviors that are either required or forbidden by a mourner: observance during a Holiday, haircuts, head-covering, wearing Tefillin, greeting, learning Torah, laundry, tearing garments, over-turning the bed, work, washing, wearing leather shoes, sexual intercourse and sending sacrifices to the Beit ha-Mikdash. The sugya is confident about the rules relating to the mourner and quotes a verse (or one berayta) to prove the rule. After clarifying the rule for a mourner, the sugya then seeks to understand how that same rule does or does not apply to one who has been excommunicated and a person with tzara’at1.

Here is an example of that structure:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת מועד קטן דף יד עמוד ב

אבל אסור בתספורת מדקאמר להו רחמנא לבני אהרן (ויקרא י:ו) רָאשֵׁיכֶם אַל תִּפְרָעוּ  

מכלל דכולי עלמא אסור (דף טו עמוד א). 

מנודין ומצורעין מה הן בתספורת? 

תא שמע מנודין ומצורעין אסורין לספר ולכבס…

Bavli, Moed Katan, 14b

A mourner is prohibited from cutting their hair, as the merciful one taught in the Torah to the children of Aharon, “Do not bare your heads” (Vayikra 10:6) –

from this we learn that everyone else is prohibited from cutting their hair.

Those who have been excommunicated and those with tzara’at – what is their rule regarding haircuts?

Come and hear: Those who have been excommunicated and those with tzara’at are prohibited from cutting their hair… …

Read More Read More

Introduction to the Prohibitions of the Mourner (1) – Moed Katan 14b to 16a

Introduction to the Prohibitions of the Mourner (1) – Moed Katan 14b to 16a

We are now going to begin a lengthy series that addresses the various behaviors that a mourner may not engage in during shivva, shloshim and the 12 months. In some ways, this is the bread and butter of Hilkhot Aveilut, as many mourners’ questions  involve these topics. As we will see, some of these prohibitions feel intuitive to us today while others speak less readily to the 21st century mourner.

I also want to emphasize the following point: people in Yeshivot often think about the laws of Aveilut as based heavily on minhag. While a few areas are, in fact, driven by long standing communal practice – particularly around matters relating to davening – the vast majority of this material functions as normative Rabbinic law.

Despite the fact one siman asks which aspects of Aveilut are from the Torah and which from the Rabbis, most of these laws are understood to be Rabbinic, with a few exceptions.  However, there does appear to be more flexibility in the laws of Aveilut than we might typically expect to find. Nonetheless, we should not read that flexibility as meaning that these are “just” minhagim;  instead, that flexibility reflects the Rabbinic understanding that these laws are meant to express and respond to a deep human need.  …

Read More Read More

Onen (אונן) Between Death and Burial (04) – Understanding the Apparent Contradiction of the Shulchan Aruch

Onen (אונן) Between Death and Burial (04) – Understanding the Apparent Contradiction of the Shulchan Aruch

Let us briefly review the three approaches to the nature of the exemption of the onen that are found in the Shulchan Aruch.

1) In Orach Chayyim 71:1, Rav Yosef Karo says that the onen is exempt and prohibited when directly involved with burial preparations. However, if there are people to care for the physical needs, we do not stop the onen from performing Mitzvot (“exempt but permitted”). This is the approach of R. Yitzchak quoted in Tosafot on the page (Berachot 23b s.v. v’ein mevarvhin alav and Or Zarua Section 2, Hilkhot Aveilut siman 417) as well as referred to by the Rosh (Berachot 3:1 & Moed Katan 3:54).

2) The first position brought anonymously in Yoreh Deah 341:1 is that the onen is exempt from all positive Mitzvot but is permitted to perform them. This is the opinion of Rashi (Berachot 17b s.v. vi-ein mevarech) and Rambam (Rambam Hilkhot Avel 4:6 and Hilkhot Kriyat Shema 4:7).

3) The second approach in Yoreh Deah 341:1, introduced with the phrase “יש אומרים – some say”, is that the onen is exempt and prohibited from performing all positive Mitzvot. This is the majority position of Tosafot (Berachot 17b s.v. vi-ein mevarech), Ra”ah (Berachot 16b s.v. mi she-meito mutal) Rosh (Berachot 3:1) and Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona (Rif, Berachot page 10b).  …

Read More Read More

Onen (אונן) Between Death and Burial (01) – Exempt and Permitted or Exempt and Forbidden?

Onen (אונן) Between Death and Burial (01) – Exempt and Permitted or Exempt and Forbidden?

The category known as the Onen (אונן) describes the mourner between the time of passing and burial. This word actually refers to a Biblical verse1that is recited by Israelite pilgrims to the Beit ha-Mikdash when bringing their ma’aser to the Temple. This verse is used to teach us that an Onen may not eat kodshim (the holy food of the Temple)2. 

The correct phrase that describes a person between the passing and burial of a loved one today – when sadly we no longer have the Beit ha-Mikdash – is מיתו מוטל לפניו (lit. The dead person is lying  before him). This is how the third chapter of the Mishna of Berachot opens:

מסכת ברכות פרק ג משנה א (דף יז:)

מי שמתו מוטל לפניו פטור מק”ש ומן התפלה ומן התפילין ומכל מצות האמורות בתורה

Mishna, Berachot 3:1 (17b)

One whose dead lies before them is exempt from the reading of the Shema, from Tefila and from Tefilin and from all [positive] commandments recorded in the Torah. …

Read More Read More

Tearing Garments (קריעה) an External Expression of an Internal Experience (04)

Tearing Garments (קריעה) an External Expression of an Internal Experience (04)

See https://davidmoss.com/ for one of the most creative Jewish artists. Can Rabbis learn to be artists?

Is the obligation to tear kriya from the Torah or from the Rabbis?

Bavli, Moed Katan 24a

Rav Taḥlifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: A mourner who did not let his hair grow wild and did not rend his garments is liable to receive the death penalty as it is stated following the deaths of Nadab and Abihu concerning the surviving sons of Aaron: “Let not the hair of your heads go loose, neither rend your clothes, that you not die” (Leviticus 10:6). From here it may be deduced that any other mourner who did not let his hair grow wild or rend his clothes is liable to receive the death penalty.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת מועד קטן דף כד עמוד א

אמר רב תחליפא בר אבימי אמר שמואל אבל שלא פרע ושלא פירם חייב מיתה 

שנאמר ראשיכם אל תפרעו ובגדיכם לא תפרמו ולא תמתו וגו’ 

הא אחר שלא פרע ושלא פירם חייב מיתה 

This text states clearly that the failure to tear kriya is a capital crime based on a Biblical verse. One might think that, therefore, the obligation itself should be understood as a Torah obligation. It is interesting to note that there is only one rishon who claims that the obligation of kriya comes from the Torah. The overwhelming majority understand citation of the verse and the harsh language as an asmachta (a hint from the Torah for a Rabbinic law). …

Read More Read More

Tearing Garments (קריעה) – What if the mourner can’t stand? (03)

Tearing Garments (קריעה) – What if the mourner can’t stand? (03)

 

פתחו לי שערי חסד – Open up your gates of love… but first get me up this flight of stairs!

I asked this question of Facebook, and many comments expressed hurt or insult at the notion that a person would not be permitted to tear kriya in a wheelchair. I agree that such a position seems untenable, but I want to share the approaches of a few important contemporary poskim that shed light on how to approach Halakha. This post will be a bit more technical than usual.

In his commentary on Hilkhot Aveilut, Rav Feivel Cohen asks this very question (ע’ בדי השלחן סימן שמ סק”ח) and says צ”ע, this needs further analysis. In his ביאורים there (ד”ה מעומד וכו), he outlines both sides of the calculus – making the argument both pro and con regarding tearing while sitting. On the one hand, there does appear to be a minority opinion that allows for tearing while sitting. For example, See רא”ש מו”ק ג:מד who quotes two approaches of the ראב”ד, one of which allows for tearing while seated. The Rosh also points out that the רי”ף does not quote the story of Ameimar, an omission which could be understood to say that kriya ‘works’ even while sitting. The בית יוסף in שמ:א quotes this passage of the רא”ש and claims that maybe the ראב”ד holds like his first answer, that kriya must be done while standing, and that the רי”ף is an argument from silence. Given that this voice exists in the history of Halakha, it seems logical that it is better to tear sitting and at least fulfill that minority voice. At the end of his analysis, he again concludes with a צ”ע.  …

Read More Read More

Tearing Garments (קריעה) an External Expression of an Internal Experience (03)

Tearing Garments (קריעה) an External Expression of an Internal Experience (03)

Wheelchair accessible Bima
A person can come up for an Aliya in a wheelchair, what about tearing kriya?

I asked this question of Facebook, and many comments expressed hurt or insult at the notion that a person would not be permitted to tear kriya in a wheelchair. I agree that such a position seems untenable, but I want to share the approaches of a few important contemporary poskim that shed light on how to approach Halakha. This post will be a bit more technical than usual.

In his commentary on Hilkhot Aveilut, Rav Feivel Cohen asks this very question (ע’ בדי השלחן סימן שמ סק”ח) and says צ”ע, this needs further analysis. In his ביאורים there (ד”ה מעומד וכו), he outlines both sides of the calculus – making the argument both pro and con regarding tearing while sitting. On the one hand, there does appear to be a minority opinion that allows for tearing while sitting. For example, See רא”ש מו”ק ג:מד who quotes two approaches of the ראב”ד, one of which allows for tearing while seated. The Rosh also points out that the רי”ף does not quote the story of Ameimar, an omission which could be understood to say that kriya ‘works’ even while sitting. The בית יוסף in שמ:א quotes this passage of the רא”ש and claims that maybe the ראב”ד holds like his first answer, that kriya must be done while standing, and that the רי”ף is an argument from silence. Given that this voice exists in the history of Halakha, it seems logical that it is better to tear sitting and at least fulfill that minority voice. At the end of his analysis, he again concludes with a צ”ע.  …

Read More Read More

Tearing Garments (קריעה) – An External Expression of an Internal Experience (02)

Tearing Garments (קריעה) – An External Expression of an Internal Experience (02)

Last time, we learned a short narrative about the tragic passing of Ameimar’s grandson. There was some debate as to who exactly was tearing kriya, but either way the sugya assumed that the correct posture in which to tear kriya is while standing. It is also interesting to note that the idea of kriya itself seems to have a depth of meaning that is simply taken for granted throughout the Bavli.  The Gemara now looks for a Biblical source for this idea that kriya must take place when standing.

Bavli, Moed Katan 20b

Rami bar Ḥama said: From where is it derived that rending must be performed while standing?

As it is stated: “Then Job arose, and tore his coat” (Job 1:20). 

מועד קטן דף כ: 

אמר רמי בר חמא: מנין לקריעה שהיא מעומד?

שנאמר וַיָּקָם אִיּוֹב וַיִּקְרַע. 

In seeking a source for the obligation to tear while standing, the Gemara first looks to Job (Iyyov). The first chapter of the Book of Job is painful to read. My student, Liz Shayne, pointed out that perhaps turning to the tragic figure of Job was a way for Ameimar – whose story we read in the prior post – to express his grief. When the model for your own experience is Job, then you are signaling a particular kind of emotional turmoil. Job, a model of patience, piety and self-reflection, seems to suffer as a result of the Satan’s persuasion of God1. His cattle, sheep and camels are taken from him, and he finally tears kriya when he learns that his children have been taken as well. …

Read More Read More