One whose relative has passed away has an obligation 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.
Who and For Whom Does One "Sit Shiva"
- 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. One who is not biologically related to the deceased 'relative' is not obligated to mourn for them.
- A ger (convert) is not obligated to mourn for his relatives.
- 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. Today, however, some believe that this rule is no longer in effect.
- Generally speaking, one does not mourn for a deceased person who has rebelled against Judaism, or one who committed suicide, although there are many possible exceptions to this rule, so every case must be determined by a qualified posek.
- One does not mourn for a baby born prematurely who dies within thirty days of its birth, although there is considerable debate regarding how to determine "premature" in this context.
- Children under bar mitzvah are not taught to observe aveilus. 
- There is a dispute regarding a boy who turns thirteen or a girl who turns twelve during the week or month after the burial of his/her relative, but the practice is for such a person to not observe aveilus at all.
- We mourn over the loss of a Jew who wasn’t religious nowadays.  See Interactions with Non-Religious Jews for details.
The Beginning and End of "Shiva"
- Normally, aveilus begins from the end of the burial. Technically, the aveilim can keep their leather shoes on until they get home, but the custom is to remove them immediately after the burial.
- If the mourner already davened maariv before shkiah, and then heard of his relative’s death, he cannot count that first day as one of the seven days of aveilus, but begins counting as if it were already past shkiah.
- Aveilus is not practiced for the full seven days, but ends on the morning of the seventh day, because we say that מקצת היום ככולו, part of the last day counts as if it were a whole day. However, we do not apply this concept to keeping aveilus at night, and instead the mourners have visitors come in the morning and end aveilus when they leave.
If a Relative Doesn't Go to the Funeral
- According to Sephardim if a relative isn't going to the funeral but knows when the funeral is going to take place, he may not start aveilut until after the burial. After the fact if the asked a rabbi and the rabbi allowed him to start aveilut they can count those days towards the aveilut.
- If a relative hears about the death of a relative and he isn't going to be involved in the burial or funeral at all and doesn't know when the funeral is going to take place, some say that he can't start his aveilut until he knows that the burial was complete, while others hold that he starts his aveilut immediately. Most contemporary poskim follow the second opinion.
- A relative who is not accompanying the meis to the place of burial begins the aveilus from the time that (s)he turns away from the meis, as long as the burial is far enough that those relatives will certainly not make it to the burial. However, if the burial is being done in the city's cemetery, the aneinus ends without the aveilus beginning until those who were busy with the burial return
Completion of Shiva
- On the seventh day of the mourning after the comforters leave the mourner can get up and that completes the shiva as part of the seventh day is considered like the whole day.
- If someone dies on Sunday and the shiva is completed on Shabbat, private aveilut is observed on Shabbat until after Shacharit Shabbat morning.
Prohibitions for the Avel
- The avel is prohibited from working or leaving the house
- wearing shoes
- tashmish hamitah
- learning Torah
- greeting others
- Today, the custom is not to turn over the beds or wrap one's head. The custom is for a mourner to sleep in a bed and not the floor.
- laundering clothing and wearing freshly laundered clothing
- haircutting and shaving
- other practices
Doing Business During Shiva
- It is forbidden for an avel to do work so that he is available to mourn properly and repent. This prohibition includes doing business.
- Even if someone is very poor and needs to take tzedaka may not work during the first three days of aveilut. Afterwards, he can work in private. However, cursed are the neighbors of such a person that they didn't take care of him and made him work during aveilut.
- If not doing a certain activity will cause a loss it is permitted to have others do the work for the avel. For example, if a person has a barrel of wine unsealed and it will spoil if he doesn't seal it, he can have someone else seal it for him. If there is no one else available to do the work that is necessary to avoid the loss, according to Ashkenazim it is permitted after 3 days of aveilut or even within 3 days to avoid a large loss. However, Sephardim would forbid doing work by oneself even to avoid a loss and even if no one else is available.
- If a person is in aveilut then his workers can't work either.
- If a person is in aveilut some permit his wife to work out of the house, while others permit her only if she specifies that she is giving up her rights to having her husband provide for her sustenance for that week.
- It is permitted to write in non-professional script during shiva if there is a need. However, a sofer may not write or fix a sefer torah unless the congregation needs him since there is no other kosher sefer torah and no other sofer available.
- It is permitted for an avel to sweep, cook, make the beds, and clean dishes during aveilut.
- A doctor during aveilut can leave his house to help his patients.
- If a company has to pay its workers (contracted per month or year) even if the company closes it would be considered a loss if the company closed when the owner was in aveilut. Therefore, the workers can continue to work even if the owner is in aveilut.
- If a shochet is an avel and there is no other shochet available in the town he can work during aveilut since his activity is ochel nefesh.
- If a person contracted someone for a specific job for a fixed cost and not paid for time, and then became an avel, that hired person can continue to work even though his employer is in aveilut. But he can only do the job outside the house of the mourner.
- If a person rented a car to someone and then became an avel the renter can continue to use it but the owner can't rent it out again during shiva.
- The mourner may not work. He can get someone else to do his work for him.
- If a partner in a company is an avel, the entire company has to close. The other partners who aren't in aveilut can work in their own houses in private unless it'll become known that the work is being done for the business at the time.
- If a partner in the company dies the partnership is undone and the other partner can work. This doesn't only apply if there are no inheritors of the deceased who will mourn him but even if the deceased has a child inheriting them and mourning them the other partner can work when the child is an avel since halachically the original partnership has been disbanded.
- If before the relative dies a person sells the business to another person or to his partner then the business can stay open during aveilut. If the person already became an onen, in extenuating circumstances, he can sell the business to his partner or someone else during aninut.
- It is forbidden for a mourner to take a complete shower or bath whether it is hot or cold. It is permitted for the mourner to wash his hands, feet, and face with cold water but not hot or even lukewarm water.
- The Ashkenazic minhag is not to shower or bathe during shloshim unless one is doing so to remove dirt. Some permit taking a cold shower. Sephardim don't have this minhag.
- If someone has two relatives pass away in succession and has to observe aveilut straight for longer than 7 days, after the first 7 days he may bathe immediately.
- If someone will be in a lot of pain if he doesn't shower he may shower during shiva but not everyone is in this category.
- It is forbidden for an avel to use soap or anoint oneself with oil except to remove dirt.
- It is forbidden for a woman who is in shiva to go to the mikveh and also a man who regularly goes to mikveh for davening may not go during shiva. However, during shloshim, it is permitted for a niddah, for a man who regularly goes every day for davening or every week for Shabbat to go to the mikveh.
- A woman may prepare herself for hefsek tahara before shiva nekiyim during shiva by washing that area and between her legs even with hot water.
Learning Torah and Getting Aliyot
- It is forbidden for a mourner in shiva to learn Torah including Tanach, Mishna, Gemara, Halacha, and Midrash. However, it is permitted to learn by himself Iyov, Kinot, the sad parts of Yirmiyahu, and the laws of mourning.
- If many people need the mourner to give a shiur it is permissible for him to teach Torah during shiva. The Ashkenazic minhag is not to give a shiur to one's students.
- It is forbidden for an to get an aliyah even if he's the only kohen in the shul.
- The Sephardic minhag is that the mourner during shiva specifically isn't the shaliach tzibur.
- A child who is in mourning shouldn't be held up from his learning during shiva because there is no chinuch on Aveilut.
- If a person's seventh day of Shiva is Shabbat, it is better to wait until the comforters leave and the shiva is complete to do shenayim mikra.
Leaving the House
- During shiva it is forbidden for the mourner to leave the house even to go to shul during the week, to visit another mourner, or visit the cemetery. The reason for this prohibition is that chazal wanted a mourner not to be distracted from the mourning especially with the company of others.
- If a mourner needs to leave his house he can do so at night when people aren't around.
- Even to perform a mitzvah such as attending a milah or wedding an avel may not leave his house during shiva.
- It is permissible after 3 days to visit another mourner's house and sit on the side of the mourners. The Ashkenazic minhag is not to leave the house to visit another mourner. Similarly, it is permissible for the mourner after 3 days to go to the cemetery for another person's funeral and he stands together with the mourners.
- A mourner within 3 days of the death who is the only mohel available can he leave his house to do a milah. He should first daven at home and at the time of the milah he should go to the shul. However, if it is possible to get another mohel it is forbidden. who only According to Sephardim it is permitted to be the mohel even if another mohel is available.
- If the mourner needs to leave the house for a major need such as to prevent a major loss or the government needs him it permissible for him to leave the house.
- There is a minhag to wear black clothing during the year of aveilut for a parent. In Israel it isn't the minhag. On Shabbat one should change his clothing to nice non-black clothing.
Tefillin for a Mourner
- On the first day of Shiva, if the burial is on the same day as the passing, an Avel may not wear Tefillin, as the first day is most bitter.
- If the burial is not on the day of passing, as is very common nowadays, many Poskim hold that the mourner 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. Among Sephardim the dispute is unresolved, while among Ashkenazim most assume that the mourner is exempt the first day of mourning even in this case.
- The Minhag is to wear Rabbenu Tam Tefillin during Avelut.
- On the second day of Avelut a person should not to put on tefillin until after Netz Hachama.
Aveilus on Shabbat and Yom Tov
Behavior towards Visitors
- 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. However, if the mourner did stand, one need not tell him to sit, and doing so is considered a bad omen.
- The avel should stand for a Sefer Torah.
At the Beis Ha'Avel (or "Shiva House")
See the Practices_in_the_Mourner's_House page.
If a Relative Missed Mourning during Shiva
- If someone didn't mourn during shiva intentionally or unintentionally he has to make it up and mourn within thirty days of the death.
- If someone didn't tear keriya he can make it up during shiva but not afterwards. For a parent if someone didn't tear keriya within shiva he can even tear afterwards.
- If a person didn't mourn on the first few days but did mourn afterwards, even the beginning days count towards the shiva.
Chinuch for Mourning
- If a child's relative died the child doesn't need to observe aveilut as there is no chinuch for aveilut.
- If a child's relative died and the child becomes bar mitzvah'ed within shiva or within shloshim, the child is exempt from mourning altogether.
Mourning for Two Relatives Simultaneously
- If someone had two relatives who passed away he can observe aveilut for both of them at the same time. If they passed away with some separation he starts the second aveilut continues until it would have regularly finished just like if there would not been the first aveilut.
Informing Someone of Bad News
- It is improper to be the bearer of bad news and as such there is no obligation to tell someone about his relative's death. However, if he is asked if someone died he can say someone ambiguous but he can't lie. The Ashkenazic minhag is to inform the sons of the deceased so that they can say kaddish for their father.
- There is a difference of opinion as to whether this obligation is derabanan or deoraisa, see below.
- 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.
- 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.
- Rama 391:1, against the opinion of the Mordechai in Maseches Semachos
- Gemara Moed Kattan 20b, Shulchan Aruch 376:6. See Tosfos there regarding one's spouse's relative
- 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.
- 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),
- Maseches Semachos 2:1, Shluchan Aruch Y.D. 345:1, against the opinion of Ramban in Toras HaAdam pg. 83
- 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
- Cf. Niddah 44b, Shulchan Aruch Y.D 374:8, Rama E.H. 156:4
- Derisha quoted in Taz 340:15 writes that in fact a child should be taught to observe aveilus, as the Gemara (Moed Kattan 26b) indicates that he should be taught to tear keriyah on the deceased. However, Dagul Merevavah there writes that there is no aveilus for children, and this is the common practice.
- Rosh Moed Kattan 3:96, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 396, Taz 396:2
- Chazon Ovadia Aveilut v. 1 p. 538. His three reasons are the perhaps he did teshuva (Yad Yitzchak 3:149), perhaps avoiding mourning would lead to ayvah (Maharshag YD 1:25:6), and perhaps he was a tinok she’nishba (Emet LYakov 345:218).
- Moed Kattan 27a (and elsewhere), according to R' Yehoshua regarding turning over the bed. Rashi (Kesuvos 4b) as understood by Ramban (Toras HaAdam pg. 156), holds that aveilus begins from the time that the casket is covered, even before it is placed in the ground, and the burial is only relevant if the body is buried without a casket. However, Shach (Y.D. 373:11) disputes this interpretation of Rashi, and Tosfos (Kesuvos 4b) write that aveilus begin when the stone covering is placed over the grave, or, if there is none, then it begins from the time that the relatives turn away from grave, having considered their burial complete. Bach (Tur Y.D. 375) believes that the Shulchan Aruch paskens like Rashi, but the based upon the Shach just cited, most assume that the aveilus does not begin until the end of the burial. According to Badei Hashulchan 375:2 quoting Daas Torah, the burial is not considered complete until the customary mound of earth is made marking the grave.
- Although it is true that the aveilus does not begin until the completion of the burial, the period of aninus (at least for the purpose of davening) appears to end beforehand, from the beginning of the burial. Both Magen Avraham (O.C. 71:1) and Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 341:28) write that as soon as the body or casket begins to be covered by earth, the relatives may daven.
- Ramban Toras HaAdam pg. 154, Shulchan Aruch 375:1. Badei Hashulchan Biurim "ve'achshav" writes that this may in fact be required according to the Magen Avraham O.C. 554:17, but the Aruch Hashulchan 375:5 writes that this is merely a custom which developed in order to symbolically display the onset of aveilus.
- Shulchan Aruch Y.D 375:11 and 402:11 and Shach 375:15, although cf. Levush there who writes, based on Rama to Y.D. 196:1 that the Rama argues.
- Moed Kattan 19b
- This is the practice as described by the Gemara Moed Kattan 21b. Tosfos there (s.v. “Afilu”) believe that the nighttime cannot count as a partial day, but Ramban (Toras HaAdam p. 215) disagrees. Maharam of Rothenberg, quoted in the Rosh (Moed Kattan 3:30) and paskened by Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 395:1) held that the concept of מקצת היום ככולו can be applied to the nighttime in principle, and is therefore relevant for the thirty days of aveilus, but nighttime does not suffice for ending the seven days because of a need to have a seven day count, similar to the count of a niddah.
- Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 100). The Rambam (Avel 1:5) and Shulchan Aruch YD 375:2 rule that if a relative escorts the dead to the end of the city and doesn't continue to travel to the funeral he starts his aveilut immediately as long as the funeral is so far that he doesn't know when the funeral is going to take place. Chazon Ovadia infers that if the relative knows when the funeral is going to take place he can't start observing aveilut before then. He quotes the Maharnach 2:51 and Radbaz 4:63 who also say this.
- The Gemara Moed Katan 22a states that if a relative sent the funeral procession on its way to a faraway place once he turns his face from the burial he begins his aveilut. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch 375:2. However, the Rosh (teshuva 27:5) writes that if a person observed aveilut before his relative was buried his aveilut doesn't count. There are two major approaches as to how to explain the difference between the Gemara and the Rosh.
- The Netsiv (Meishiv Dvar YD 27) holds that only if a person was involved with the burial and then sent the funeral procession off he begins his aveilut since he has completed his participation in the burial. However, if a person didn't do anything to contribute to the burial and was in another place he can't begin aveilut until after the burial.
- The Netsiv's son-in-law, Rav Rafael Shapira, quoted by Sdei Chemed (Avelut no. 14) argued that once a person despaired from making any further participation in the burial either because he did his part or because he is so distant that he can't do anything he begins aveilut. However, in the case of the Rosh the relatives didn't give up to do the burial, so they can't begin aveilut yet.
- Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 101) quotes the Chelkat Yakov 1:188, Maharsham 2:260, Shevet Halevi 3:168, and Igrot Moshe YD 1:253 who agreed with Rav Shapira.
- Moed Kattan 22a.
- Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 375:2. Ramban (Toras HaAdam pg. 162, based on Rambam Avel 1:5) writes that this is only the case if the meis is being brought to a faraway city, and according to the Dagul Merevavah to Shach 375:1 is how the Shulchan Aruch paskens. However, the Behag (as quoted by Ramban, ibid.) appears to pasken that the relatives begin aveilus from the time that they turn away regardless of where the burial will be, and the Shulchan Aruch quotes this Behag in Y.D. 399:14. According to the Dagul Merevavah and Chachmas Adam (Matzeves Moshe 9), if the burial occurs in the same city, but a relative turns away from the procession and will certainly not return, such as on erev Yom Tov, this too would be enough to start aveilus.
- Ramabn Toras HaAdam pg. 163, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 375:2 as interpreted by Aruch Hashulchan 375:8 and paskened by Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:253 and Badei Hashulchan 375:11. However, Radbaz Sh"T 4:63 understands that even according to Ramban, once night falls, or once the relatives can be certain that the burial has occurred, they begin aveilus even if the burial occurred within their city despite not being present at the burial itself. See also Minchas Shelomo 1:91:25 regarding contemporary situations. In some situations, if the head of the family does not accompany the meis to the burial, then even the relatives who have stayed behind begin aveilus only after the burial. See Tosfos Moed Kattan 22a, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 375:2
- Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 395:1. The Tur 395 cites a dispute if we apply the principle of a part of the day counts like the full day at night. The Bet Yosef quotes the Ramban (Torat Haadam Shaar Haavel, Inyan Haavelut s.v. amar rav amram n. 82) who holds that it does count but the Tosfot, Rosh, and Maharam hold it doesn't count. Shulchan Aruch follows the Maharam.
- Taz 402:5, Shach 402:4
- Gemara Moed Katan 15a forbids learning Torah when one is a mourner based on the pasuk in Yechezkel 24:17. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch 384:1
- Gemara Moed Katan 15a forbids greeting others when one is a mourner based on the pasuk in Yechezkel 24:17. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch 385:1
- Gemara Moed Katan 15a based on Yechezkel 24:17, Shulchan Aruch YD 386:1
- Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 211:1, Gesher Hachaim 1:20:10, Chazon Ovadia (Avelut v. 2 p. 255)
- Gemara Moed Katan 15a based on Shmuel II 14:2, Shulchan Aruch YD 389:1
- Gemara Moed Katan 14b learned from the pasuk in Vayikra 10:6. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch YD 380:1
- Torat HaAdam (p. 170), Bach 380:3, Badei Hashulchan 380:10
- Rambam (Avel 5:7) writes that just like doing work is forbidden so too doing business during aveilut is forbidden. The Nemukei Yosef (Moed Katan 13b) quotes one opinion as holding that it is permitted but that isn't accepted. Tur and Shulchan Aruch 380:3 follow the Rambam.
- Gemara Moed Katan 21b establishes that it is forbidden for a person to work during aveilut even if they are so poor that they need tzedaka but after 3 days they can work in private. The Hagahot Maimoniyot 5:8 writes that after 3 days it is forbidden for anyone who isn't so poor that they need tzedaka. He quotes the Yerushalmi, Maharam, and Raavad who agree with this explanation unlike Rabbenu Shemaya. Tur and Shulchan Aruch 380:2 follow the Hagahot Maimoniyot. The Yerushalmi 3:5 adds that cursed are the neighbors who cursed him to work during aveilut. This is codified by Shulchan Aruch.
- The Gemara Moed Katan 11b cites a dispute between Rav Shisha and Rav Ashi whether it is permitted for an avel to work during aveilut to avoid a loss. The Rif (Moed Katan 5a), Rosh (Moed Katan 2:1), and Rambam (Avel 5:10) all accept the opinion of Rav Shisha that it is forbidden. This is codified in Tur and Shulchan Aruch 380:4.
- Rabban Gamliel (Moed Katan 11b) holds that it is permitted to do the work to avoid a loss if no one is available. The Tur 380:4 quotes the Rif and Rambam who don't hold like Rabban Gamliel, while the Ramban (p. 165) and Rosh (Avel 2:4) accept his opinion. The Shulchan Aruch 380:4 doesn't mention this leniency of Rabban Gamliel, while the Rama does, though he only applies it after 3 days or within 3 days if there's a large loss based on the Rabbenu Yerucham.
- Shulchan Aruch 380:5
- Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 130) writes that just like the Aval Rabati (5:1 codified by Shulchan Aruch 380:4) writes that it is forbidden for children of an avel to work if the money goes to the avel so too it is forbidden for the wife of an avel to work since her salary goes to her husband. Bet Dovid YD 181 agrees that it is forbidden for a wife of the avel to work. However, Chazon Ovadia continues that the Rashba (Bet Yosef EH 95), Rabbenu Yerucham, and Ritva (Ketubot 59b) as holding that if a woman works outside her house which she isn't obligated to do she keeps her salary. If so, Rav Ovadia concludes, a wife who works out of the house can work during shiva of her husband. Rav Ovadia adds that it is better for her to say that she gives up her rights to sustenance from her husband which in exchange means that she can keep her own salary. Peni Baruch (p. 460) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as saying that a wife or family members of the avel who wants to work can specify that their profits not go to the avel that week.
- Rama 380:2, Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 137)
- Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 138) quoting Shaarim Hametzuyim Bhalacha 208:6
- Aval Rabati 11:9, Ramban (p. 173), Maharik 35:4, Mordechai (Moed Katan no. 929), Shulchan Aruch 380:22, Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 135)
- Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 145), Minchat Shlomo 2:96:1
- Aruch Hashulchan 380:6, Gesher Hachaim 1:21:2:2, Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 146). See Chazon Ovadia for his discussion of the opinion of the Chida who was strict and the proofs from others including the Nodeh Beyehuda that it is considered a loss.
- The Mordechai (Moed Katan no. 929) writes that cooking is permitted for an avel since it is permitted on Yom Tov. The Darkei Moseh 380:5 learns from the Mordechai that anything which is permitted on Yom Tov is permitted for an avel (which follows from the source of working during aveilut being that we compare aveilut and yom tov in Moed Katan 15b). Therefore, Rav Ovadia in Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 141) holds that it is permitted for a shochet to do shechita during aveilut if there's no one else available in town. He quotes that Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Drush Vchidush p. 107b) also said this. Gesher Hachaim 1:21:2:2 is also lenient. See, however, the Gilyon Maharsha 380:15 who quotes the Shvut Yakov 3:86 as holding that it is forbidden because of work and the Mahara Klosner who held that it is forbidden because he might not do a proper shechita because of his sorrow.
- Shulchan Aruch YD 380:18, Gesher Hachaim 1:21:2:5
- Shulchan Aruch 380:15 quotes a dispute about the rented boat or animal of the mourner if the renter can rent it a second time when the owner is in aveilut. Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 151) follows the second opinion who is strict. However, from Shulchan Aruch YD 380:14 it is clear that it is permitted for the renter to finish up the rental period that started before the owner became an avel.
- Rama YD 380:16. Even though the Shach 380:17 disagrees with the reasoning of the Levush for the Rama, Gesher Hachaim 1:21:2:4 follows the Levush. The Shach would only permit it if there is a loss to the employer.
- Shulchan Aruch YD 380:21, Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 152). The Gesher Hachaim 1:21:2:7 writes that the minhag is to reopen the company after 3 days of aveilut. See Pitchei Teshuva 380:4 about a sale of the business to the other partners during shiva.
- Gesher Hachaim 1:21:2:10
- Chatom Sofer YD 2:324, Gesher Hachaim 1:21:2:14, Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 1 p. 159)
- Shulchan Aruch YD 381:1
- Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 158) quotes the Tiferet Moshe who writes that lukewarm is considered warm for this halacha.
- Rama YD 381:1 writes that the Ashkenazic minhag is not to shower all of shloshim. The Taz 381:1 quotes the Maharshal who says that the reason for the minhag is because it was common to take a haircut together with bathing and since taking a haircut is forbidden during shloshim the minhag wasn't to bathe for all of shloshim. The Darkei Moshe 381:3 cites the Maharam who explains the minhag based on a similarity to bathing and laundering. The Shach 381:1 writes that bathing in cold isn't bathing. It isn't clear if the Shach is referring to a full body shower or just one's hands, feet, and face. The Dagul Mirvavah 381:1 writes that the Shach is only discussing hands, feet, and face. The Pitchei Teshuva 381:2 quotes the Teshuat Chen who says that for others it is okay to rule that a cold full body shower is permitted in shloshim. Badei Hashulchan 381:16 concludes that it is permitted to take a cold shower in shloshim because some are lenient and also it is very difficult not to shower for 30 days.
- Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 164)
- Shulchan Aruch YD 381:4, Badei Hashulchan 381:34
- Shulchan Aruch YD 381:3
- Gesher Hachaim 1:21:3:2
- Shulchan Aruch 381:5
- Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 159), Badei Hashulchan 381:18
- Rama 381:5, Badei Hashulchan 381:18
- Even though the Rama 381:5 doesn't allow this washing to prepare for the hefsek tahara during shiva except during shloshim, the Shach 381:3 and Taz 381:2 quote the Masat Binyamin who allows washing that area and between her legs even with hot water during shiva. Badei Hashulchan 381:38 and Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 2 p. 162) agree with the Masat Binyamin.
- Shulchan Aruch YD 384:1
- Shulchan Aruch YD 384:4
- Shulchan Aruch YD 384:1 and Rama
- Shulchan Aruch YD 384:2
- Shulchan Aruch YD 384:3
- Shulchan Aruch YD 384:5, Shach 384:5
- Chazon Ovadia (Avelut v. 2 p. 206)
- Although the Mahari Geyitz (cited by Tur 393:3) held that a mourner can leave his house to go to shul each day, the Raavad and Ramban (p. 217, cited by Bet Yosef 393:3) dispute his opinion. The Shulchan Aruch 393:4 follows the Ramban. Yet, he adds that the Sephardic minhag was to leave the house for kriyat hatorah on Monday and Thursday. Pitchei Teshuva 393:2 cites a dispute between the Chaye Adam (Mesevet Moshe 8) and Magen Avraham 696:8 whether the mourner can leave his house if there won't be a minyan at the shiva house in order to participate in kaddish and kedusha.
- Moed Katan 21b, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 393:1
- Trumat Hadeshen (responsa 290)
- Trumat Hadeshen (responsa 290), Rama 393:2
- The Rosh (responsa 27:2, cited by Bet Yosef 393:2) writes that even though a mourner is obligated in all of the mitzvot, that only includes mitizvot he can do on his own like tzitzit and tefillin. However, attending a wedding or milah as a chesed that isn't a cause for him to leave the house. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch 393:2 follow the Rosh in opposition to the Nemukei Yosef (Moed Katan 13b s.v. bmakom) who allows leaving the house for a mitzvah purpose.
- Moed Katan 21b, Shulchan Aruch YD 393:1
- Rama YD 393:1 writes that the minhag isn't to visit another mourner's house during shiva since we can't comfort mourners as they used to it is better to be passive and not leave the house.
- Tur and Shulchan Aruch 393:1, Mordechai (Moed Katan no. 895)
- Hagahot Ashuri (Moed Katan 3:37). Rama 393:3 quotes the Hagahot Ashuri and the Bet Yosef. However, the Shach 393:6 wonders why the Rama even quoted the Bet Yosef.
- Bet Yosef 393:3 writes that since the minhag was to go to shul for kriyat hatorah on Monday and Thursday then certainly to be the mohel it is permitted to leave the house.
- Tosfot (Moed Katan 29a s.v. im), Mordechai (Avel no. 896), Rama 393:2
- The Maharitz Gayitz (cited by Bet Yosef 345:6) writes that the minhag is that mourners wear black. Rosh (Moed Katan no. 94) and Rambam (Torat Haadam p. 85) agree.
- Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 3, p. 60). He cites the Radvaz 4:62 who writes the minhag of Egypt was not to wear black.
- Ben Ish Chai (Shana Sheniya, Lech Lecha no. 18)
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 Machalokot 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).
- The Maharitatz (Chiddushim on Eizehu Neshech), quoted by Be'er Heitev (OC 38:5) and Pitchei Teshuvah (YD 388:2) holds that the reason why the Avel is not allowed to wear Tefillin on the first day is because it's Biblical, 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 rabbinic, the Avel is in fact obligated in Tefillin. The Taz (OC 38:3), Dagul Mervava, Birkei Yosef, and Mishnah Brurah disagree and hold that the mourner is exempt from Tefillin the first day.
- The Acharonim have have a field day taking sides for or against the Maharitatz in this Machloket, the true scope of which is most suited for a Teshuva in Yabia Omer (vol. 2 YD Siman 27).
- Among recent Achronim, 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.
- See above note. 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) hold that the mourner is exempt the first day either way, while Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer YD 2:27 and Chazon Ovadia v. 2 p. 260) holds that they are obligated if the day of the death wasn't the same as the day of the burial.
- See above note. Mishna Brurah 38:16. Rav Schachter (Piskei Corona #23) writes that Ashkenazim follow the opinion that Avelut is derabbanan therefore, they are exempt on the first day either way.
- The Chida (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. He concludes unlike 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. Rav Ovadia Yosef (Chazon Ovadia Avelut v. 2 p. 277) and HaRav David Yosef (Halacha Brurah 38:5:13) also pasken this way.
- Rav Schachter (Piskei Corona #23)
- Moed Kattan 27b, Rama Yoreh Deah 376:1.
- Shulchan Aruch YD 376:2, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:2
- 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. Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 3 p. 74) agreed with Rav Shlomo Zalman.
- The Ramban (p. 216, cited by Bet Yosef 396:1) quotes a Raavad who says that if a person didn't mourn when he was supposed to he has to make it up within thirty days since it is a mitzvah and he didn't fulfill it yet. Shulchan Aruch 396:1 codifies the Raavad.
- Shulchan Aruch YD 340:18, 396:1
- Shulchan Aruch YD 396:2
- Shulchan Aruch 396:3, Dagul Mirvavah 340. See Taz 340:15 who quotes Derisha as arguing that there's chinuch on aveilut.
- The Maharam (cited by Rosh Moed Katan 3:96) held that once the child becomes bar mitzvah'ed he begins to observe aveilut from that time. His proof is Chullin 87a that if dirt covered blood that was supposed to be covered and then was uncovered he is obligated to cover the blood since a pushed off mitzvah isn't considered completely lost. So too, a child who didn't have to observe aveilut is exempt while he is a minor but once he becomes an adult he is obligated to mourn and a delayed mitzvah isn't completely lost.
- However, the Rosh (Moed Katan 3:96) argued with his teacher; he said that in the case of the blood, the mitzvah wasn't delayed, there was just an obstacle in the way and once the obstacle was removed the mitzvah is in place. However, a child is exempt from aveilut and fulfilling aveilut at a later time is considered a makeup of the original aveilut. Since he was exempt from the original aveilut he is also exempt from the makeup. His proof is from the gemara Chagiga 9a that a child who became bar mitzvah'ed between Pesach and Pesach Sheni he isn't obligated in Pesach Sheni since he was exempt from the original Pesach according to the opinion that Pesach Sheni is a makeup of Pesach.
- The Taz 396:2 has a third approach. He says that once aveilut was pushed off it is completely pushed off altogether. His proof is from Sanhedrin 47b that the relatives of a person who was killed by Bet Din don't have aveilut. The gemara asks but doesn't have kapara after he is buried and the body is affected by the burial. The second answer of the gemara is that once the aveilut wasn't fit to begin when he was buried, it can't didn't set in afterwards either.
- The Shulchan Aruch 396:3 follows the opinion of the Rosh, while the Bach 396:2 follows the opinion of the Maharam. The Taz accepts Shulchan Aruch for his own reason, and the Nekudat Hakesef argues with the Taz's proof. The Nekudat Hakesef's distinction is that when the person wasn't fit to be mourned over then the entire aveilut is totally pushed off, however, if there was aveilut but just the relative was exempt at the time then the aveilut can set it afterwards.
- Shulchan Aruch YD 402:9
- Shulchan Aruch YD 402:12, Taz 402:8
- Rama YD 402:12