Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

I.e., there are two dimensions of this mitzvah: a) for any person to mourn for his relatives; b) that despite the impurity involved, a priest must be involved in the burial of his relatives.

I.e., on the surface, these mitzvot are not directly related to the subject matter of this book, "The Book of Judges." Nevertheless, because of the connection mentioned by the Rambam, it is more appropriate to discuss these mitzvot here than in any other place in the Mishneh Torah.

See Hilchot Sanhedrin 15:8 where this mitzvah is discussed.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 37) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 264) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There are, however, other Rishonim who do not accept this concept. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 398:1) quotes both these views, while the Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 399:13) states that the common practice is to follow the opinion that there is no Scriptural obligation for mourning. Among the distinctions between these two views is whether there is an obligation to mourn on the second day of a festival or not.
In Chapter 2, Halachah 1, the Rambam defines the term “[close] relatives” as one’s “father, mother, son, daughter, brother, and sister.” As will be explained there, others also include one’s spouse.

Aaron posed this question to Moses after Moses asked him why he did not partake of a sin offering despite the fact that Aaron's sons had died that day. The Rambam maintains that the fact that mourning for his sons took precedence over partaking of the sacrifices which is a mitzvah indicates that mourning is also a mitzvah (Radbaz).
The Kessef Mishneh notes that this is a somewhat indirect commandment and notes that in Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam quotes another source. There, he states that the mitzvah is derived from the priests’ obligation to become impure while caring for their deceased close relatives.

I.e., according to the Rambam, for there to be a Scriptural obligation of mourning, the death and the burial must be on the same day.

Joseph instituted mourning for Jacob.

I.e., when there is a difference between the two, our conduct follows the commandments given at Sinai and not the conduct of the Patriarchs and their descendants.

I.e., although the observance of these seven days is a Rabbinic institution. Chronologically, it was given to the Jewish people at the same time as the Scriptural commandments.

We have translated the Rambam’s words loosely. The term golal refers to a large stone which is placed over a grave to close it. See the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Ohelot 2:4).

See Chapter 5, Halachah 1. There are, however, certain obligations incumbent upon him because of the state of aninut. See Chapter 4, Halachah 6.

II Samuel, ch. 12, relates that when the first son whom Bathsheba bore David became ill, David oppressed himself, ­buried.

In the Talmudic era, it was very common for the Romans to crucify people and leave their bodies unburied. The Kessef Mishneh states that if it is possible to bribe the ruling authorities to allow the corpse to be buried, then the mourning rites cannot be started.

For it is unlikely that they would be successful in stealing the corpses.

The Radbaz notes that the Rambam’s wording leaves unclarified a question raised by other Rabbis. To explain: As stated in Hilchot Gerushin 13:16, if a person drowns in water that does not have definite boundaries, a sea or the ocean, his wife is not given the chance to remarry. There are authorities who maintain that in such a situation, mourning rites should also not be held. For if one holds mourning rites, people will be certain that he died and his wife will be allowed to remarry. This opinion is reflected in the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 375:7). The Radbaz, however, does not accept this conception entirely. He explains that, according to the Rambam, since mourning is a Scriptural obligation, it should not be overridden because of the possibility of such an error.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that if, after the family despaired of finding the corpse and held mourning rites, the corpse is discovered, there is no need to hold mourning rites again. The deceased’s sons, however, should mourn for the remainder of the day on which the corpse was discovered.

Kin’at Eliyahu notes that today, with the advances in modern communication, it is possible to know when a corpse was buried even when it is buried in a distant place. Hence the mourners in distant places do not start the seven days of shivah mourning until the burial.

The people who accompany the corpse, by contrast, are obligated to begin mourning rites only after the burial. Thus two members of the family may complete mourning rites for the same person on different days.

Nor should a priest become impure (Chapter 2, Halachah 8).

In contrast to an animal which is considered as viable after eight days (Shabbat 135b).

The Radbaz states that this applies even when the fetus dies of unnatural causes, e.g., it is consumed by a beast of prey. Since we are not certain that the birth was viable and thus we are obligated to mourn, we follow the more lenient position.

I.e., the woman did not engage in relations with her husband from nine months before the child's birth until her pregnancy was detected [Rashi, Shabbat 136a; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 37:8)].

When a pregnancy continues for its full term, we assume that the birth was viable and that the infant died for other reasons. Compare to Hilchot Rotzeach 2:7.
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 156:4) writes that in the present era, as long as we know that a woman has reached her ninth month of pregnancy, her child is considered as viable. Hence the mourning rites would have to be observed for such an infant.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that we do observe mourning rites for a child born in the eighth month if it survives for more than 30 days. The difference between them depends on our Sages’ statement (Shabbat 135a) that an infant born in the eighth month is like a stone; i.e., it will certainly die and therefore it may not be carried on the Sabbath. The Ra’avad maintains that if the infant lives 30 days, it becomes obvious that it was in fact a fetus from a seven month pregnancy that remained in the womb somewhat longer and the birth is considered viable. The Rambam does not accept such a possibility. (It must be emphasized that today, efforts are made to save all infants, even those born in the eighth month and in many instances, the doctors have been successful in enabling such infants to live.)

I.e., we do not arrange eulogies and funeral processions. We do, however, arrange for the fetus' burial (Siftei Cohen 344:6). There are, however, opinions (Hagahot Maimoniot, Hilchot Milah 1, note 10) which maintain that there is no mitzvah in burying a stillborn fetus.

I.e., even though the Torah granted such license, these individuals are not considered like those executed by the court. Kiryat Melech cites proof from II Samuel 11:27 which speaks of Bathsheba mourning for her husband Uriah even though he was killed as a rebel against the king.

I.e., the funeral and eulogies should be held in an ordinary manner. Since their transgression involved disobeying the ruling authorities, their death is sufficient to atone for that transgression.

In punishment for rebelling against him.

See Hilchot Sanhedrin 13:6. The severity of their transgressions is so great that the additional measure of withholding mourning rites is necessary for them to gain atonement (see Sanhedrin 46b and commentaries). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:8), the Rambam writes that the atonement for these individuals is not granted until their corpses begin to decompose. Hence at the time of the funeral, it is not fit to mourn for them. See also Chapter 2, Halachah 8.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 6.

I.e., it is not an expression of honor for the departed and thus withholding it will not bring him atonement (see Sanhedrin, loc. cit., and commentaries).

For we do not bury a wicked person next to a righteous one. When, however, their corpses have decomposed that is a sign that their sins have received atonement (ibid.). See Hilchot Sanhedrin 14:9.

See Hilchot Mamrim 3:2 for further explanation of these terms.

As Proverbs 11:10 states: “At the devastation of the wicked, there is rejoicing” (Siftei Cohen 345:9).
Although this law is quoted by the later authorities [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 345:5)], in all ages, there were Rabbinic authorities who differed. For example, Rabbenu Gershom had a son who converted and yet, that sage mourned for him. (Indeed, he mourned 14 days.) Even the authorities who maintain that this practice should be upheld with regard to the deviants themselves, rule more leniently with regard to their descendants [see Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 340:5)]. Since they were raised without a full awareness of their Torah tradition, they are not judged as seriously for their violation of it. On this basis, there are many contemporary authorities who counsel leniency with regard to holding mourning rites for Reform and Conservative Jews today.

We do not even rend our garments in mourning or attend his funeral.

For suicide is considered a grave sin, equivalent to murder (see Bava Kama 91b). Hence, any act that is a token of respect for the deceased is withheld. Although mourning on the first day fulfills a Scriptural commandment, that commandment applies only when the deceased is an observant member of the Jewish community (Radbaz).

See Chapter 13, Halachah 1.

See Chapter 12, Halachah 7.

For they have suffered a loss and their feelings should be assuaged.

For perhaps he slipped and fell accidentally.

I.e., he states his intention to commit suicide.

Even though the circumstantial evidence would appear to lead to the conclusion that he committed suicide, we do not act upon that conclusion.

I.e., he is given a full eulogy, funeral procession, and mourning rites.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 345:3) states that a person who commits suicide because he is forced to for example, King Saul, should be mourned.
In practice, the issue is very delicate and in many instances, even when there is much circumstantial evidence that a suicide was voluntary, Rabbis have allowed mourning rites to be held.