Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Leviticus 21:2-3 mentions that a priest is obligated to become impure while tending for the corpses of these individuals. Mo‘ed Kattan 20b states: “Whenever a priest is obligated to become impure, others are obligated to mourn.”

One’s mother is mentioned first, because she is mentioned first in the verse.

See Halachah 12 on which basis we can appreciate why the Scriptural obligation is only for paternal siblings.

The verses from Leviticus cited above mention: shaaro hakarov eilav which Yevamot 22b interprets as referring to one’s wife. The Rambam, however, maintains that this is merely an asmachta, a Rabbinic Law associated with a Scriptural verse, and not the direct meaning of the verse. This interpretation is borne out by the translation of the verse by Onkelos (see Halachah 6). Similarly, when the prophet Ezekiel describes the obligation for the priests to become impure (44:25), he mentions the other six relatives and not the priest’s wife. Nevertheless, there are other authorities who follow the interpretation in Yevamot. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is following a principle which. he stated on several occasions: Any concept derived through the principles of Biblical exegesis is described as Rabbinic in origin although it has the strength of Scriptural Law.

If, however, she has been merely consecrated, he is not required to mourn (Halachah 3). Needless to say, if he has divorced her; he is under no obligation.

For it is appropriate to express feelings of grief for the loss of any close relative (Radbaz).

According to Rabbinic decree.

For whom he may not become impure, as stated in Halachah 10.

The Ramban, the Kessef Mishneh, and many other authorities have questioned the Rambam’s ruling in this halachah. The Merkevet HaMishneh offers a possible explanation, stating that the obligation to become impure on behalf of a corpse is to insure that someone takes care of that corpse’s burial (see Halachah 6). For if the deceased’s close relatives do not bury him, who else will? With regard to a married woman, however, there is no such fear, for her husband is obligated to bury her. Hence, no license is granted for her brothers to become impure on her behalf. On the other hand, they are obligated to mourn.

For the child's natural father is not considered as his father from a halachic perspective and thus the two share no family ties (Yevamot 22a).

For a convert (and a freed servant) is considered as a newborn infant with no ties to his natural parents (ibid.).

According to Jewish law, marriage is a two stage process involving: a) erusin - consecration, when the marriage bond is established and the woman becomes forbidden to all other men, and b) nisu’in- marriage, when the couple begin living together as man and wife. Although at present, both of these stages commence on the same day, in Talmudic times, couples would wait a substantial period between the two.
As stated in Halachah 7 and notes, a priest does not become impure for such a wife. Hence, other men are not required to mourn.

Who is no longer his wife because he divorced her.

This is simply a measure of respect.

E.g., when one’s grandfather dies, one observes mourning rites while together with one’s father and when one’s nephew dies, one observes mourning rites while together with one’s brother.
The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam. Although he agrees that this principle applies with regard to relatives for whom one is required to mourn according to Scriptural Law, he differs when the obligation to mourn is Rabbinic, e.g., for the son’s maternal brother. His rationale is that we generally do not institute a Rabbinic decree in support of another Rabbinic decree.
The Radbaz supports the Rambam’s position, explaining that it could be said that just as the following halachah speaks about mourning for the parents of one’s wife as a token of respect for her (although according to the Rambam, the obligation to mourn for her is Rabbinic); so, too, it can be said that one mourns for the relatives of one’s son as a token of respect for him. Alternatively, the Radbaz explains that in this instance, our Sages gave their decrees the strength of Scriptural Law to be sure that they would be heeded.
The Rambam’s ruling is quoted by Rav Yosef Karo in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 374:6). The Ramah comments that in the present generation, this ruling is no longer observed. It was instituted only as a token of respect and it is customary for everyone to forgo such respect. Indeed, he writes that a person who fulfills this halachah by observing mourning rites is “one of the dolts.” [Significantly, in his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo quotes similar concepts (although using less severe wording)]. The Ramah continues, however, stating that it is customary in many communities for close relatives to observe a certain dimension of mourning.

See Halachah 3.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 18.

From a previous marriage.

This expression connotes a ruling for which the Rambam has no explicit source in the previous Rabbinic literature.

Note the Radbaz who asks: What is unique about the mitzvah of mourning? Any positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment. See also Halachah 15.

This represents the Rambam’s understanding of this verse and it is echoed by Targum Onkelos. As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 1, others translate the term differently.

It is not, however, considered a separate positive commandment from the commandment to mourn. Instead, they are two dimensions of the same commandment.
The Kessef Mishneh (in his gloss to Chapter 1, Halachah 1) explains the interrelation as follows: The Torah feared that since a priest is commanded to avoid contact with death, unless an explicit commandment was given to become impure, a priest would go to the other extreme and even refrain from mourning for his close relatives. Hence, to insure that he will mourn, he was commanded to become impure.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 11.

The Rambam’s rationale can be explained as follows: Since an Israelite and female member of the priestly family are not obligated to maintain distance from impurity, we do not fear they will refrain from mourning. Hence, there is no obligation for them to become impure.
The Ra’avad and Rabbenu Asher differ with the Rambam, maintaining that the female members of the priestly family are also obligated to become ritually impure while tending to the corpses of their deceased relatives. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 373:3) follows their opinion.

Zevachim 100a states that there was a priest called Yosef whose wife died. He did not want to become impure by tending to her - for that would disqualify him from partaking of the Paschal sacrifice - and his priestly brethren compelled him to become impure.

As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 1, there are many who understand this to be a Scriptural command.

This term refers to the Hebrew meit mitzvah, literally “a corpse [that it is] a mitzvah [to bury].” See Chapter 3, Halachah 8. Just as a priest must become impure to bury an unattended corpse, he must become impure to bury his wife.

For one of the conditions of the marriage bond is that a husband becomes the sole heir of his wife’s estate (Hilchot Ishut 12:3).

According to the Rambam, the rationale for this ruling can be explained as follows: Since he does not inherit his wife’s estate until he marries her, he is not required to bury her. Instead, her heirs will perform that mitzvah.

Chapter 1, Halachot 6-11.

For some of these individuals, there are exegetical references which indicate that there is no license to become impure. In other instances, the concept is derived through deduction: Since the entire purpose of the license to become impure is to encourage the mitzvah of mourning, if there is no mitzvah to mourn, there is no license to become impure (Kessef Mishneh).

To summarize the point of this clause. A priest must attend the funeral of his close relatives; he may not visit their graves afterwards, however.
The Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 373:6) states that if there is a valid reason for a priest to disinter his relatives and rebury them, he may become impure while tending to their reburial until the second grave is covered.

E.g., a divorcee. Since he was obligated to divorce her, he is not required to mourn for her. Even if she bore him children, he may not become impure for her sake (Siftei Cohen 373:4).

Marrying a priest. Similarly, her first husband was also a priest. Otherwise, there would be no difficulty in either becoming impure for her sake.

See Hilchot Gerushin 10:7 which explains this situation in detail. The woman is not allowed to remain married to her first husband because she willingly engaged in relations with another man while married to him. She is not allowed to remain married to her second husband, because it was with him that she engaged in the relations that caused her to be forbidden to her first husband.

A challalah is a woman who engaged in relations that cause her to be forbidden to a priest or a woman born from such a union. We are speaking about an instance where the mother engaged in such relations after giving birth to this son (Siftei Cohen 373:6). Otherwise, the son is himself a challal and is permitted to become impure to all corpses (see Chapter 3, Halachah 11).

I.e., even if they are challalim who no longer have priestly privileges.

Even if she is later divorced (Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).

And thus may have less physical signs of her virginity (see Hilchot Issurei Bi ‘ah 17:13).

For the word hoyita (Deuteronomy 24:2) is also interpreted as a reference to consecration (Kiddushin 5a).

And one does not inherit the estates of one’s maternal relatives, as stated in Hilchot Nachalot 1:6.

“To her” is seemingly an unnecessary phrase. Hence, our Sages understood it as communicating the following concept. Just as the priest is certain about the identity of “her,” his sister; so, too, he must be certain about the identity of all relatives (Malbim to Tarat Kohanim).
The Radbaz asks: Why would we think that the priest should become impure? Throughout the Torah, when there is a doubt concerning a Scriptural prohibition, we rule stringently. He explains that were it not for the verse, one might think that such a corpse is considered as unattended to. For because of the doubt involved, there will be no one with a clear-cut obligation to become impure.

I.e., two women, even two wives of priests, gave birth at the same time in the same place, and the babies became mixed up and neither was certain which baby was which. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 20:4-5.

A woman was married and was widowed. Instead of waiting 90 days as required, she married immediately, became pregnant and gave birth within 9 months of her divorce from her first husband. We do not know if the child was conceived by her first husband (in which instance, he is his son with regard to all matters -) or by the second husband.

Neither the son to the father, nor the father to the son (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

The son does not become impure for the sake of his father, since he is not certain if he is in fact his father. And if he were not to be his father, becoming impure for his sake would involve a transgression.
The commentaries raise a question: How is it possible for a priest to have such a question with regard to mourning for his wife’s first husband? The only way it is possible for her to have married her second husband is for the first husband to have died. Among the answers given is that the woman never actually married him and they conceived a child in wedlock.

E.g., a man threw a bill of divorce to his wife and there was a doubt whether the bill of divorce was closer to her (in which instance, the divorce is binding) or closer to him (in which instance, it is not). See Hilchot Gerushin 5:13. In these instances, the question is one of Scriptural Law.

I.e., a bill of divorce that is invalidated by Rabbinic decree. See ibid. 10:2.

In the latter instance, according to Scriptural Law, the divorce is valid, and certainly, the priest is forbidden to become impure for her sake. Even in the first instance, since a - question concerning a matter of Scriptural Law is involved, he is forbidden to become impure.

A limb severed from a living person conveys ritual impurity as stated in Hilchot Tumat Me’it 3:1.

The rationale for these laws is stated in the following halachah: A priest may only become impure for the sake of his relatives when their corpses are intact.
The Ra’avad - based on the ruling of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi - differs with this conception. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 373:9) quotes the Rambam’s view.

Or any other limb of his body [Radbaz; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 373:9)].

Even when the head is lying next to the body, if the corpse is not whole, a priest may not become impure for its sake (ibid.).

I.e., as reflected in the Rambam’s explanation, it is not as if this prohibition does not exist for the priest at this time. Instead, the intent is that the prohibition is ongoing. License is, however, granted to transgress it to bury one’s dead. See a parallel ruling in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:15.

The commentaries debate the Rambam’s intent. His wording seems to imply even at the moment the priest is in contact with his relative’s corpse, he may not touch another corpse. There are, however, other opinions - and the Rambam’s words can also be interpreted in this manner - who maintain that at the moment he is touching his relative’s corpse, he may also touch other corpses. The stringency stated by the Rambam refers to the period before the burial is completed when he may not be in contact with his relative’s corpse.

According to the latter interpretation, the concern is when they return from the cemetery. According to the first interpretation, even on the way to the burial, there is reason for concern.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 373:7) quotes the Rambam’s words without clarifying his intent. The Tur and the Ramah follow the second view and the Bayit Chadash and the Siftei Cohen 373:12 mention the first perspective. See also the notes to Chapter 3, Halachah 4.