Shiva

From Halachipedia
This article is lacking content. It should be expanded to include some more halacha's and broader sources.

One whose relative has passed away has an obligation[1] to engage in several practices of mourning. The week of mourning, which begins (under normal circumstances) from the time of burial and continues for seven days, is colloquially referred to as "shiva" and is associated with several laws and customs.

For Whom Does One Sit "Shiva"

  1. There are seven relatives for whom one is obligated to mourn: one's (1) father, (2) mother, (3) son, (4) daughter, (5) sister, (6) brother, and (7) spouse.[2] One who is not biologically related to the deceased 'relative' is not obligated to mourn for them.[3]
  2. A ger (convert) is not obligated to mourn for his relatives.[4]
  3. The Rabbis decreed that one whose immediate relative (i.e. one of the seven described above) is in mourning should also act as if he himself is in mourning, as long as he is in the presence of his mourning relative.[5] Today, however, some believe that this rule is no longer in effect.[6]
  4. Generally speaking, one does not mourn for a deceased person who has rebelled against Judaism,[7] or one who committed suicide,[8] although every case is unique and must be determined by a qualified posek.[9]


Comforting the mourner

  1. It is a great Mitzvah for others to comfort a mourner (or "avel," person in mourning). [10] It is crucial to remember that the reason for one's visit to the house of mourning is to comfort the mourner(s), and so one must be considerate to their wishes.[11]
  2. Those coming to comfort the avel should not initiate conversation but should respond when the mourner begins to speak. [12]
  3. A mourner does not have to stand up for his/her guests, even if the guest is a Talmid Chacham or person of high stature.[13] However, if the mourner did stand, one need not tell him to sit, and doing so is considered a bad omen.[14] Some require the avel to stand for a Sefer Torah.[15]
  4. One should not say “What could you have done? You can’t change what Hashem decreed.” since this implies that if one were able to change what Hashem decreed, one would have, which is blasphemous. Rather one should accept Hashem’s decrees.[16]

Tefillin for a Mourner

  1. On the first day of Shiva, if the burial is was on the same day as the passing, an Avel may not wear Tefillin, as the first day is most bitter.[17]
  2. If the burial is not on the day of passing, as is very common nowadays, many Poskim hold that the Avel is, in fact, obligated to put on Tefillin, while others firmly believe that he is still forbidden from doing so. According to those who hold one should wear them, one should do so in a closed room without a Beracha.[18]
  3. The Minhag is to wear Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin during Avelut.[19]

Davening at a Shiva Minyan

  1. The minhag is to say Tefillim chapter 49 after Shacharit and Mincha. It is good also to learn mishnayot there for the Iylui Nishama. [20]

The Shiva House

  1. Some have the practice not to bring food out of the shiva house[21] if the person died at home[22], however, there many are lenient about this.[23]

Sources

  1. ↑ There is a difference of opinion as to whether this obligation is derabanan or deoraisa, see below.
  2. ↑ Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 374:4. The Rambam in Hilchos Avel 2:1 considers the obligation of mourning for a spouse to be Midivreihem, which most (cf. Lechem Mishnah there) assume to mean that it is derabanan (although this is not the understanding of the Kesef Mishnah there). Ramban, however, in Toras HaAdam (Chavel ed.) page 213 believes that it must be deoraisa. Additionally, Ramban writes (to Vayikra 21:3) that mourning for one's married sister, or a married sister mourning for her brother, is only derabanan.
  3. ↑ Thus, an adopted child, strictly speaking, does not need to mourn for his/her parents. However, some have the practice to do so anyway out of respect and gratitude for their adopted parents. Pischei Teshuvah 374:3 writes that one should mourn for his/her step-parent.
  4. ↑ Rama 391:1, against the opinion of the Mordechai in Maseches Semachos
  5. ↑ Gemara Moed Kattan 20b, Shulchan Aruch 376:6. See Tosfos there regarding one's spouse's relative
  6. ↑ Hagahos Maimoni Avel 2:2 writes that the mourners can forgo this right to have their relatives mourn with them, and so the Rama in 376:6 writes that it is assumed that today everyone relinquishes this right.
  7. ↑ Sanhedrin 47a, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 304:5 and Shach 304:8 (applying the Rosh and Mordechai Moed Kattan 886) that even one who sinned only for pleasure, but repeatedly, is also excluded from being mourned),
  8. ↑ Maseches Semachos 2:1, Shluchan Aruch Y.D. 345:1, against the opinion of Ramban in Toras HaAdam pg. 83
  9. ↑ cf. Chasam Sofer Sh"T Y.D. 326, Ritva Avodah Zarah 18a, Birkei Yosef Y.D. 341:2, Kol Bo Aveilus 1:4:3:39, Yabia Omer vol. 2, no. 24 miluim 15
  10. ↑ Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:1. As it says in Koheles 7:2, it is better to attend a mourner's house than a party. According to the Rambam in Hilchos Avel 14:1, this mitzvah is derabanan, although Rabbeinu Yonah to the beginning of the third chapter of Brachos indicates that one fulfills a mitzvah deoraisa by comforting a mourner
  11. ↑ Cf. Sefer Ahavas Chessed 3:6 and Sh"T Teshuvos V'Hanhagos 3:378
  12. ↑ Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:1
  13. ↑ Moed Kattan 27b, Rama Yoreh Deah 376:1.
  14. ↑ Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:2
  15. ↑ Sh"T Rivevos Efraim 7:230 quotes Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is quoted as saying that even a mourner must stand for a sefer Torah if it passes by, although the Rivevos Efraim himself appears to be uncertain.
  16. ↑ Gemara Bava Kama 38a, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:4
  17. ↑ The Basics
    The Gemara (Berachot 11a and 16b, Succah 25a, Moed Kattan 15a, and Ketubot 6b) learns from the fact that Hashem told Yechezkel to put on his Tefillin while mourning for his wife that a regular Avel may not do so.
    Elsewhere (Moed Kattan 21a), the Gemara presents two Machalokets between R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua. In the first, R' Eliezer holds an Avel is prohibited from wearing Tefillin (Hanacha) until the third day, and R' Yehoshua holds until the second day. Additionally, R' Yehoshua holds that, if the Avel put on Tefillin on the days he's permitted to, if Panim Chadashot (people who have not yet been Menachem him) come to visit, he must take them off (Choletz). R' Eliezer, on the hand, holds that he does not need to (Eino Choletz). The Amoraim debate the final Halacha and conclude that the Halacha follows R' Yehoshua regarding Hanacha and R' Eliezer with respect to Chalitzah, once the Avel puts them on on the second day.
    Miktzat HaYom KeKulo and the Rishonim
    Seemingly, the Gemara is employing the Halachic mechanism of Miktzat HaYom KeKulo in allowing him to put on Tefillin only from some point on the second day. See the exact text of the Gemara and Rashi for a clearer picture.
    In codifying this Halacha, the Rif and Rambam (Hilchot Avel 4:9) only write that an Avel may not wear Tefillin on the first day and seem to make no mention of the second day. In fact, the Rambam's use of the words "ביום הראשון בלבד" seem to clearly indicate that he understood the Gemara in its most minimal sense.
    The Rosh (Moed Kattan 3:23) begins unsure if the Rif implies the Miktzat HaYom is implemented from Netz or from after davening. He concludes that the Miktzat HaYom is fulfilled from Netz.
    The Ramban (Torat HaAdam, Shaar HaAvel, Inyan HaAvelut 67) quotes the Raavad who holds that the Miktzat HaYom is only completed from after Shacharit. He also picks up on the lack of a second day in the Rif and explains that it must be the Rif held the Mikzat HaYom was fulfilled with the preceding night, making the entire second day appropriate for putting on Tefillin. He also quotes the Yerushalmi, which makes no indication that there should be a Miktzat HaYom in the first place. See also Rosh ibid 3:3.
    Regarding the need for a Miktzat HaYom in the first place, Tosafot (ibid) says it's a din MiDeRabbanan, and the Ramban (ibid) quotes the Raavad that it's lehashlim the Aveilut.
    The Tur (OC 38:5) quotes just the language of the Rif. The Beit Yosef extrapolates from the Rosh that, even though Laylah is Zeman Tefillin, since it's Assur to wear them at night, one needs a Miktzat HaYom during the day itself to be able to wear them. The Ran (Succah, on the Rif 11b), who quotes the Ramban above, on the other hand, must hold that even though Laylah is not Zeman Tefillin, it still counts for Miktzat HaYom, since the Avel is still prohibited from wearing them. See Rambam Hilchot Tefillin 4:10.
    In Yoreh Deah (388), the Tur paskens the Gemara as explained above and then says how Yesh Omrim the Miktzat HaYom is from after davening, and the Rif and Rosh paskened from Netz (see Bach). Here, the Beit Yosef is very terse and seems to even equate the Rosh with the Rambam (see Ohr Letzion vol. 1 OC Siman 6, as this could be an additional proof to his thesis).
    The Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh Deah paskens like the Rosh that the Miktzat HaYom is from Netz, as does the Ben Ish Chai (Shana Aleph, Chayeh Sarah 12).
  18. ↑ The Maharitatz (Chiddushim on Eizehu Neshech, quoted by Be'er Heitev (38:5) and Pitchei Teshuvah (YD 388) famously holds that the reason why the Avel is not allowed to wear Tefillin on the first day is because it's Min HaTorah, which is only when the burial and passing are on the same day. Therefore, when the burial takes place the next day and Avelut is subsequently MiDeRabbanan, the Avel is in fact Chayav in Tefillin. The Taz (OC 38:3), and Dagul Mervava, Birkei Yosef, and Mishnah Brurahh disagree.
    The Acharonim have have a field day taking sides for or against the Maharitatz in this Machaloket, the true scope of which is most suited for a Teshuva in Yabia Omer (vol. 2 YD Siman 27).
    Among recent Acharonim, the Ben Ish Chai (Shana Aleph, Chayeh Sarah 12; Od Yosef Chai, Vayera 11, 12, 45), Kaf HaChaim (OC 38:16), and Ohr Letzion (vol. 1, OC Siman 6) pasken against the Maharitatz. At the same time, due to the great number of Acharonim who do pasken like the Maharitatz (including R' Yitzchak Elchanan and the Chazon Ish, see Yabia Omer ibid for the full list), Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichot Shlomo: Tefillah, Perek 18, 5), Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer ibid), and the Piskei Teshuvot (38, Seif Kattan 6) pasken that one should wear them privately without a Beracha. See Magen Avot (Lebhar, Yoreh Deah volume, Siman 388) where he brings the Moroccan Minhag not like the Maharitatz and claims the rest of the world holds that way, as well.
  19. ↑ The Chidah (Birkei Yosef) paskened that one shouldn't wear Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin, as it's a Machaloket HaMekubalim and Shev ve'al Ta'aseh Adif. The Ben Ish Chai (ibid and Od Yosef Chai Vayera 11, 12, 45) claims that the Minhag in Yerushalayim and Baghdad was like the Rashash to wear Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin, so he disagrees with the Chidah. This is also the opinion of the Kaf HaChaim (OC 38:21), who says that, among other considerations, based on the Siddur HaChidah and the fact that we wear them beTorat Chiyuv, the Avel should wear them. HaRav David Yosef (Halacha Brurahh 38:5:13) also paskens this way.
  20. ↑ Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:5
  21. ↑ Aruch Hashulchan 376:11
  22. ↑ Tzitz Eliezer (Even Yakov no. 44:4)
  23. ↑ Yosef Ometz p. 192
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Shiva&oldid=18414"