Avelut FOR GRANDPARENTS AND IN-LAWS

By Daniel Roselaar

            Frequently, upon the demise of a much loved family member, relatives other than those sitting shiv'ah find difficulty in expressing their grief and sorrow.  On the one hand, they are not formally defined as mourners.  They do not receive messages of condolence, nor are they able to experience the therapeutic benefits of the formal mourning process.  Often, they must arrange the shiv'ah rather than sit shiv'ah, and comfort rather than be comforted.  On the other hand, very often they share very deep and genuine feelings of sadness and bereavement with the principal mourners.  What occurs, therefore, in many instances, is that they must continue the normal functions of life while repressing these feelings of sorrow.

            Unbeknown to many, the Shulchan 'Arukh (Yoreh De'ah 374:6) rules that one is obligated to observe certain forms of mourning even upon the death of a "second-degree" relative, a custom honored more in its breach than in its observance thereof.  Our aim is to examine the source of,  reasons for, and parameters of this ruling in the hope of both clarifying the halakhah and also of providing a source of comfort and consolation לחיים ולמתים.

            The Talmud (Mo'ed Katan 20b) lists those relatives for whom there exists an obligation to mourn.  They include one’s parents, children, siblings and spouse.  In addition, the rabbis prescribed participation in the mourning rites for certain other relatives. According to Rabbi 'Akiva, whenever one’s parents, children, siblings or spouse is sitting shiv'ah, one must formally share in their mourning by sitting shiv'ah together with them.  Rabbi Shim'on ben El'azar disagrees and limits the scope of this additional mourning to necessitate sitting shiv'ah only upon the death of grandparents or grandchildren.  The Chakhamim rule in accordance with R.  'Akiva, yet restrict the obligation to sit shiv'ah to the location of the principal mourners.  It is in accordance with this third opinion, that of the Chakhamim, that the rishonim and Shulchan 'Arukh all rule.

            Such secondary avelut may have been instituted for either of two possible reasons:  out of respect for the deceased, or out of respect for and as an expression of sympathy with the principal mourner.  It would appear that according to R.  'Akiva this mourning was instituted out of respect for the deceased.  Consequently he maintains that the obligation exists for anyone related to any first-degree relative, irrelevant of the presence of any primary mourner.

            R.  Shim'on ben El'azar apparently maintains a similar opinion regarding the nature of this avelut.  However, he limits this obligation to those who have an enhanced emotional relationship with the deceased, namely grandparents and grandchildren.

            The Chakhamim, however, it may be presumed, understood this secondary mourning to have been instituted out of respect for the primary mourner.  Therefore, anyone directly and closely related to that mourner is required to participate in the avelut practiced by that mourner.  However, because the obligation is out of respect for the mourner, rather than for the deceased, it applies only in the presence of the mourner.

            Despite the fact that the posekim rule in accordance with the view of the Chakhamim, it nonetheless appears that the rishonim are of divergent opinions regarding the reason for such secondary mourning.  This disagreement leads to a divergence of halakhic rulings regarding the scope of this avelut as we shall attempt to demonstrate.

            Tosafot,[1] raise the question of the definition of the "presence" of the primary mourner.  They leave the issue as to whether it is to be understood literally, or more broadly to include the entire house of the mourner, unresolved.  It seems logical to suggest that if the reason for secondary mourning is out of respect for the primary mourner, then it may be limited to the immediate presence and vicinity of that mourner.  If, however, the reason for such mourning is out of respect for the deceased, then the obligation may apply within the entire house of mourning.

            The Shulchan 'Arukh rules that secondary mourning is mandated only in the presence of the primary mourner.  Ramban[2] and Ritva[3] discuss which of the laws of mourning are included, and which are excluded, as a result of this specific limitation.  Because certain activities would be obvious to the primary mourner even if they were not performed in his presence, e.g.  haircutting and pressing clothes, they conclude that the only restrictions which are permitted according to the Chakhamim are either those actions which are performed in private or by a relative in a distant city.  However, a certain ambiguity still remains.  Activities such as the wearing of leather footwear are simultaneously neither private activities nor those necessarily discernible by the primary mourner.  We may conclude that if secondary mourning were instituted out of respect for the principal mourner then anything that could potentially be discerned by him is prohibited (thereby prohibiting the wearing of such shoes anywhere in that city since he may come to learn of it, yet permitting this in another city where the probability of the information reaching him is small).  Conversely, we may conclude that if the mourning is for the sake of the deceased, then it may be limited to the shiv'ah house, or the immediate vicinity of the primary mourner, alone.

            While according to the Gemara and the Shulchan 'Arukh one participates in the mourning observed by any first-degree relative, nonetheless the rishonim discuss the exact range of such a ruling. Rambam,[4] for example, rules that one is obliged to participate in the mourning rites only upon the demise of a blood relation.  Therefore, he states, one is not obliged to observe any form of mourning for a brother-in-law or a sister-in-law (exceptions to this rule are parents-in-law).  The Tur, however, cites the opinion of Rosh who disagrees with this view and rules that there is no difference between blood relatives and relatives through marriage (exceptions to this rule being the relatives of one’s spouse when mourning is only observed for parents-in-law).  It is logical to suggest that Rambam understands such avelut as being in honor of the deceased, and therefore one need mourn only for blood relatives.  Rosh however believes that the avelut is out of respect for the principal mourner and therefore, in any case that a first-degree relative is mourning, his relatives are obliged to participate in that mourning even if they are not directly related to the deceased.

            Similar considerations can also be observed regarding the mitzvah of keri'ah.  Rosh,[5] for instance, rules that second-degree relatives perform keri'ah upon learning of the death of a relative, even if they are not in the presence of the principal mourner.  Presumably, he is of the opinion in this instance (in opposition to our understanding of his opinion above) that the obligation of such mourning relates to the deceased rather than the mourner.  Despite the fact that the observance of such mourning is limited to the presence of the primary mourner, the keri'ah is to be performed at the optimal time (שעת חימום); ".אבילות לחוד וקריעה לחוד"[6]  Me'iri[7] takes the opposite approach and rules that the keri'ah is to be performed in the presence of the principal mourner (and if it was done elsewhere it must be repeated).  He presumes that this form of mourning is solely for the sake of the principal mourner and consequently there is neither reason nor purpose in performing keri'ah if the avel is not present.

            Ramban,[8] Rosh[9] and several other rishonim all rule definitively that presently the entire law of mourning for second-degree relatives does not apply.  They state explicitly that the mourning was instituted for the sake of the primary mourners and nowadays all mourners waive their prerogatives in this regard.  (The 'Arukh Hashulchan[10] discusses the case of a mourner who specifically states that he does not waive his rights and concludes that he is disregarded).

            While the Rama also rules in accordance with this view, he does state that nonetheless certain relatives should exhibit some sign of mourning until after the first Shabbat following the death.  The Shakh[11] and major Ashkenazic posekim support this ruling, while the Yalkut Yosef declares that the custom of the Sefaradim is to observe no form of mourning in such instances.

            Despite the fact that the rishonim ruled that such mourning is abrogated specifically because its purpose is for the sake of the mourner, the Pitchei Teshuvah[12] rules that those relatives whom the Rama requires to observe some form of mourning must do so even if they are in a different city from the primary mourner.  Clearly he is of the opinion that to a certain extent, the honor of the deceased is still relevant.

            Regarding the correct halakhic practice, the Shakh and subsequent posekim rule that anyone who should have been obliged to participate in the avelut for second-degree relatives should refrain from wearing freshly laundered clothes until the first Shabbat following the funeral (and including that Shabbat in those communities where mourners do not wear Shabbat clothes on Shabbat).  Additionally, they are prohibited from bathing or showering in warm water and from taking a haircut until after that Shabbat.  Likewise, they may not participate in any form of public meal until after that Shabbat, including a se'udat mitzvah.

            We have seen that the halakhah does indeed provide a framework of avelut even for those relatives who do not sit shiv'ah.  In this delicate area of religious practice, our tradition not only furnishes an outlet for the bereavement of more distant relatives, but does so with both utmost respect for the deceased, and careful sensitivity towards the emotions of the primary mourners.