Greetings!
In Mishnah Torah Hilchas Avel 5 Rambam states (apparently sourced from the Yerushalmi) that Moshe Rabbenu enacted the seven days of sheva brachos and the seven days of shiva. This seems unusual because the Talmud Bavli refers explicitly in Moed Katan 20 to an asmachta in the prophet Amos for seven days of aveilus compared to the seven days of Yomtov, yet Rambam does not mention this. And the Bavli itself does not mention a takkana of Moshe Rabbenu.
Furthermore, he considers the sheva brachos and shiva as obligatory despite the fact that the Gemara Kesubos 7-8 states that the seven days of mishteh are not obligatory. One can infer from this that the seven days of aveilus are not actually obligatory halachically either.
In addition, we know (i.e. Moed Katan 24) that Yomtov and "shmua rechoka" discontinue any shiva at all. If the seven days of shiva were obligatory (for all the reasons of grieving, etc.) then certainly one would expect there to be seven days right after Yomtov and in effect regardless of a shmua rechoka, especially since the gemara does not stipulate the halachic basis for "shmua krova/rechoka" anyway.
And had the custom (with or without asmachtas)of seven days of shiva been an actual binding halacha from Chazal, the gemara and Rambam would have said so.
David Goldman, USA
1) As you write, David, the source of the Rambam in Hilchos Avel 1:1 is the Yerushalmi Kesuvos 1:1 (page 4), which says that Moshe Rabeinu instituted the 7 days of feasting after the wedding, and the 7 days of mourning.
2) An important principle is stated by the Hasagas ha'Ra'avad on Hilchos Keri'as Shema 3:6, where he writes about the Rambam, "The way of this author is to rely upon the Yerushalmi."
I suggest that, according to this, it is not surprising that the Rambam in Hilchos Avel cites the Yerushalmi. Even though Bavli (Moed Katan 20a) cites a verse from Amos that mourning is for 7 days, the Rambam was not hesitant to cite the Talmud Yerushalmi because the Yerushalmi is giving us an earlier source than the Bavli for 7 days of Aveilus. Especially where there is no clear dispute in Halachah between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi, merely a difference of opinion concerning the source of 7 days, it makes sense that the Rambam should cite the Yerushalmi.
3) I could not find the Gemara in Kesubos that states that the 7 days are not obligatory. The Gemara (end of 7a) states that a Bachur must have Simchah with his Besulah wife for 7 days.
4) The Chasam Sofer (Teshuvos, Yoreh Deah end of #348) writes that in Agadah the reason given that Yom Tov discontinues the Shiva is that Yom Tov ceases the judging of the soul, and the judgement does not return after Yom Tov.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Regarding the sheva brachos days being obligatory. Perhaps I was mistaken, and it could be in Kesubos 7, but I have read that there is no halachic obligation to have seven full days of mishteh as a custom. This would have implications according to the Yerushalmi/Rambam for the seven days of shiva as well not being obligatory as a custom.
David G
Since we have the strong sources of the Yerushalmi and the Rambam stating that the 7 days of mourning and Mishteh were instituted by Moshe Rabeinu, and we possess no clear source that there is no Halachic obligation, I think we will have to remain with what we say that it is obligatory.
(The Tosfos Rid that cites Rabeinu Tam about Bein ha'Shemashos is printed in the standard editions of Tosfos Rid on Shas, and refers to the Gemara in Shabbos (34b) that states "Eizehu Bein ha'Shemashos." It appears at the end of the paragraph beginning "Eizehu".)
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
I will now attempt to explain, bs'd, why 1 day is sufficient for Shemu'ah Rechokah even though the Shiv'ah for Shemu'ah Rechokah is obligatory.
1) The Gemara (Moed Katan 20a) states that Shemu'ah Kerovah (where the mourners heard about the death within 30 days) applies for 7 days and then a further 30 days, while Shemu'ah Rechokah (where the mouners heard only after 30 days) applies only for 1 day. The Ramban (Toras Ha'Adam, cited in Chidushei ha'Ramban, Moed Katan 20a, DH Rav Bar) writes that for Shemu'ah Rechokah, it is sufficient if the Avel does an action by which it is recognizable that he is practicing Aveilus, in order to publicise that he has acted in the way of a mourner. According to the Ramban, it is sufficient merely to take off his shoes to demonstrate this.
2) According to the Shitah of the Rambam (Hilchos Aveilus 1:1), it may be possible to understand the logic behind this Halachah. The opinion of the Rambam is that the only mourning that is d'Oraisa is the day of the death and burial. Certainly, 30 days after the Petirah the Mitzvah of mourning is only d'Rabanan. Therefore, it is possible for Chazal to reduce the amount of mourning required where there is a large gap between the death and the news about it, and according to the Ramban it is sufficient to do only one action to demonsrate this mourning.
3) We can understand this further if we look at Rashi in Sukah 25a, DH Tirda, who writes that, generally speaking, for a Shemu'ah Kerovah the mourner must practice Aveilus by not wearing shoes and by not bathing and annointing himself, in order to show honor for the deceased. We learn from Rashi that the basis of the Halachos of mourning is for the child to demonstrate honor to his deceased parent.
4) In the normal scenario, where the Avel knew imediately about the death, there are many ways that the mouner must show his respect for his relative. In the case of Shemu'ah Rechokah, he also must show this respect, but it is sufficient to do a lot less towards this. Perhaps the reason that less is required is because to do all of the Halachos of mourning would seem out of place, since the fresh shock of the death has already somewhat worn off. At any rate, the bottom line is that when more than 30 days have passed since the death, the obligation of mourning is only d'Rabanan, so it was possible for Chazal to be more lenient on how much the mourner must do.
5) According to this, there is no proof from the Din of Shemu'ah Rechokah that, generally speaking, the Mitzvah of mourning is not obligatory.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
This is conceptually very interesting, because essentially it is telling us clearly that the extent of "grief" for the death of a relative should not be ritually observed after 30 days for more than a single day, based on the concept of "shmua rechoka".
Thus the observances are merely ritualistic and cannot be quantified in terms of expressing actual emotion. It is therefore possible that a person may feel the same grief on day 31 as on day 29, but ritualistically it is too much of a burden to have to be observed.
With regard to the view of RambaN, the ritual of changing the shoes is sufficient at 31 days for a single day, yet as ritual it should be sufficient (per the list of the gemara) for perhaps SEVEN days BEFORE day 30. Indeed, as we discussed the list of MINHAGIM (turning beds, covering the head and EVEN kriya) can be and are eliminated. Furthermore, in our society it is a common practice not to wear street shoes in the house all the time, so wearing slippers or sandals would not even be enough of a symbolic action according to RambaN in our day.
1) In fact, Rashi (Sukah 25a, as I cited in the previous reply, #3) adds some other words. He writes that while the mourner must practice the Halachos of not wearing shoes, not bathing, and not annointing in order to show respect to the deceased, he is not obliged to be pained. That the mourner is not obliged to grieve seems to be a big Chidush, and in fact Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt'l wrote in Minchas Shlomo (2:96:8) that what Rashi means is that he does not have to be so upset that he will not be able to perform the Mitzvos of the Torah in the normal way (since the Avel is obligated in all the Mitzvos during the Shiv'ah with the exception of Tefilin on the first day). However, certainly the Avel is obliged to be pained at the loss of his loved one.
2) However, I think Rav Shlomo Zalman would agree that Rashi is telling us that a very major part of Aveilus is to show respect and honor for the deceased. I am not sure what you mean, David, when you write that the observances are merely ritualistic. I would have expressed it slightly differently. The observances are practical ways we have of showing how important the relative was for us, and what a great loss it is that he is no longer with us. It is not hard to understand that the Halachah cannot dictate to us how long we have to grieve over the lost relative, because this is a very subjective matter which will vary with every individual depending on his relationship with the deceased, but what the Halachah does tell us is what actions are considered as showing respect to the dead, and how long it is respectful for us to observe these matters. While sometimes it might be too much of a burden to mourn on day 31, on the other hand it might be that sometimes one should not mourn for too long, as the Gemara in Moed Katan (27b) tells us that one should not overdo mourning for the deceased.
3) Yes, I agree with your very perceptive observation about what mourning shoes one would have to wear for a Shemu'ah Rechokah. There is an extensive discussion among contemporary Poskim concerning what footwear one has to wear nowadays on Tish'ah b'Av. Some rule that since many kinds of shoes that do not contain leather are standard usage now, one may not wear these on Tish'ah b'Av. Since the Ramban writes that for a Shemu'ah Rechokah the taking off of the shoes must be done in a publicised way, it may be that everyone would agree that wearing sandals is not sufficient for a Shemu'ah Rechokah.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you. By ritualistic I just meant that they are just minhagim that are meant to signify things, but in fact cannot be actually a "chiyuv" (as Rambam would refer to it for example), because they are only customs, some of which are not even observed anymore. So kriya is practiced, whereas turning the beds is not, but in fact they are the same in terms of status that may not always apply, even though we generally think of kriya as an obligation (along with sitting on a low stool) that must be observed.
About shoes, we don't have much choice today because we either wear leather or a form of plastic or other synthetic material. In the past even leather shoes were a very special item, but today they are mass produced easily. So the question would actually be whether even on Tisha B'Av or Yom Kippur the prohibition of wearing leather shoes should apply. On the other hand, other than leather and plastics we don't have any other usual forms of shoes, so what is the alternative then?
1) There is a source in Chazal for not turning over the beds nowadays. This is the Talmud Yerushalmi, Moed Katan 3:5, which says that if someone lives in a hotel (where he shares his room with others), he need not turn over his bed, because his neighbors might say that he is practicing witchcraft.
The Rosh (cited by the Tur, Yoreh Deah #387, and Shulchan Aruch 387:2) writes that we rely on this in Germany and France where turning over the beds is not carried out, since we live among non-Jews who come in and out of our houses all day.
So we cannot prove from the fact that turning over the beds is not performed nowadays that other matters of mourning also do not apply.
2) Concerning shoes: See Shabbos 129a, that even if a person needs to sell the walls of his house, it is worth doing so to ensure that he can buy shoes. We learn that while shoes might have been an expensive item for some, nevertheless they were not considered a luxury but rather an essential item which everyone should make a great effort to ensure he posseses.
The Halachah says that one must afflict oneself on Yom Kippur and Tish'ah b'Av by not wearing shoes. If we take this literally and say that not wearing shoes means going in socks only, this would clearly be considered affliction nowadays also.
I would have thought that the contemporary Halachic question would be the opposite: nowadays, if one takes off his leather shoes on Yom Kippur and Tish'ah b'Av and wears comfortable plastic shoes instead, is this a sufficient way of afflicting himself? On one hand, he is not wearing the leather shoes mentioned by the Gemara, but on the other hand, he is wearing comfortable shoes, so one could argue that there is no affliction.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom