Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

See Chapter 8, Halachot 1 and 3.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 9.

See the Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 340:31) which mentions that there are communities where one rends his garments only for his father and mother on Chol HaMoed.

Although the dead may be buried on a festival - on the first day, by gentiles, and on the second day, by Jews (Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 1:23) - we may perform only those activities involved with his actual burial. Rending one’s garments is for the sake of the living. Hence, since it involves the performance of forbidden labor, it is not permitted on the holidays - even on the second day of the festival (Radbaz). And since it is not performed on the holidays, we postpone it until after the festival has past entirely (Mishneh LiMelech; Magen Avraham 547:3).

Rabbi Akiva Eiger notes that on the conclusion of the previous chapter, the Rambam states that if a person buries his dead on the second day of a festival, he is obligated to mourn. Yet as stated in this halachah, a meal of comfort is not served on a festival. Thus the implication is that mourning is more severe. Hence one would think that just as one does not mourn during Chol HaMoed, one would not serve a meal of comfort. The requirement to do so implies that serving the meal of comfort is in a different category; it resembles a eulogy.

I.e., we do not rend our garments for those dead for whom we observe some mourning rites as an expression of honor for the living, e.g., one’s in-laws.

Since the entire community must mourn for him, each one brings food for another. The meal are exchanged in the main street of the city, as can be inferred from Ketubot 8b.

In contrast to the ordinary practice where a mourner sits on an overturned or low chair. See Chapter 4, Halachah 9.

Many interpret the term “mourning blessing” a s referring to the blessing given the mourners by one of the leading members of the community when they return from the funeral as related by Ketubot 5b. Since this blessing is recited in a public place, it is not appropriate for it to be recited during a festival lest it reduce the festive spirit (Radbaz).
Kin ‘at Eliyahu notes that in Chapter 13 where the Rambam describes the comforting of the mourners after the funeral, he does not mention this blessing. And in Chapter 12, Halachah 7, he states that the term refers to blessings given “in the house of a mourner.” See the notes to that halachah for additional explanation.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 1. Ordinarily, the mourners would be accompanied by members of the company. This, however, is not appropriate during a festival: See Mo’ed Kattan 27a.

For the charge “And you shall rejoice in your festivals” also applies to Chol HaMoed and these activities will not lead to increased rejoicing.

I.e., gathering them from where they are buried to rebury them in another place.

Collecting their bones brings back memories of their passing.

One has an obligation to honor his parents. Although that obligation is outweighed by the happiness of the festival, it remains a factor of importance. One does not have an obligation to honor his other relatives. Hence there is no reason why he should think that he should incur the sorrow of moving their remains during a festival.

Although these days are not festivals according to Scriptural Law, they are days of happiness and it is inappropriate to reduce that happiness by eulogies.

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh quote the Tur who states that on Purim, we observe only the private aspects of the mourning laws (as on the Sabbath). The rulings of the Shulchan Aruch on this subject appear contradictory. Orach Chayim 696:4 rules that the full mourning rites should be observed, while Yoreh De’ah 401:7 rules that only the private dimensions of these rites should be observed. Differences of opinion persist among the later authorities as well. AII authorities agree that, in contrast to Scriptural festivals, Purim - and similarly, Chanukah - do not nullify the obligation to mourn.

Ta’anit 17b states that it is forbidden to eulogize on the days before the dates mentioned in “the scroll of fasts,” i.e., dates which were commemorated as minor holidays in the Talmudic era. Among those dates were Chanukah and Purim. Rosh HaShanah 18b states: “The scroll of fasts was nullified,” i.e., we no longer are bound by the restrictions mentioned there. Although Rosh HaShanah 19b states that this does not apply to Chanukah and Purim, this refers only to Chanukah and Purim themselves, and not to the days that precede or follow these holidays (Kessef Mishneh).

When there is no Scriptural obligation to rejoice, however, according to Rabbinic Law, they are days of happiness.

Similarly, women may lament and recite dirges [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 401:5)].

I.e., the sage died more than 30 days previously.

Needless to say, this also applies to a man. The Rambam mentions women because they are more likely to arrange such an event (Radbaz).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mo’ed Kattan 1:5). There - and in greater detail in Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 6:24 - the Rambam elaborates on the rationale for this restriction. To quote Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov: “So that the festival will not arrive when he is sad and his heart is grieved and hurting because of the memory of his agony. Instead he should remove grieving from his heart and direct his attention toward joy.”

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this refers to the eulogies recited in the Talmudic era which were accompanied by loud lamenting and wails of grief. At present, when the eulogies are more controlled, these restrictions do not apply.

For when the death is so close, an expression of mourning will lead to a catharsis of one’s grief and enable one to approach the festival with joy.

See Hilchot Ishut 10:12 which states that a man who marries a virgin bride should celebrate with her for seven days. Just as the mourning laws are not observed during a festival, they should not be observed during these days.
The commentaries question: According to the Rambam, the obligation to mourn on the first day is Scriptural in origin, while the obligation to rejoice with one’s bride is Rabbinic. How could our Sages require that their decree be observed when it prevents the observance of a Scriptural commandment?
Rabbenu Nissim (in his gloss to Ketubot 3:2) offers the resolution that our Sages have the power to nullify a Scriptural commandment as long as a person does not perform a deed. Hence on the day of the burial, a person should not celebrate, but he should not mourn. The Radbaz explains that in this instance our Sages are given the license for they are not abrogating the mitzvah of mourning entirely; they are merely postponing it to a later date.

As is required when a person’s relative dies in the midst of a festival (Chapter 10, Halachah 8).
In contrast to the situation mentioned in the following halachah, in this instance, one need not refrain from marital relations because of the laws of mourning. (This may, however, be necessary because of the niddah laws.)

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, questioning why the seven days of the wedding celebrations are not considered within the 30 days of mourning. After all, the Rambam states (ibid.) that when a person buries his dead during a festival, he counts the 30 days of mourning from the time of the burial.
The Ramban [cited by the Radbaz and the Tur (Yoreh De’ah 342)] explains that during a festival, a person observes some of the restrictions of the 30 days of mourning, for - as a measure of respect to the festival - he may not cut his hair or iron his clothes. Hence, these days can be included in the sum of the 30. With regard to the seven days of the wedding celebrations, by contrast, none of the mourning restrictions must be observed. Hence, the 30 days are counted after their conclusion.

I.e., begin preparing to cook it.

The Ra’avad objects: Since the wedding is being postponed, why is it not postponed for 30 days so that the full mourning rites will be observed? The Ramban [cited by the Kessef Mishneh and the Tur (Yoreh De’ah 342)] explains that since the wedding preparations have already been made and the couple’s expectations have been aroused, it is not proper to postpone the wedding for such an extended period.

For if the burial would be held first, there would be a Scriptural obligation to mourn and it would be improper to hold the wedding (Kessef Mishneh).

This term is used to describe the first time a couple engage in relations, for this union enables them to fulfill the mitzvah of procreation.

And not engage in relations further.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 1.

Compare to Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 22:1. Since they are just married and an external factor is preventing them from engaging in relations, this extra dimension of vigilance is required.

Lest she appear unattractive to her husband.

I.e., when do we grant the leniency to allow the wedding celebration to be held first.

In practice, the matter is dependent on local custom. There are certain communities where it is not customary to postpone a wedding even though relatives died beforehand and others, which are more strict in observing the mourning prohibitions. When such a problem arises, people should contact a competent Rabbinical authority familiar with the local custom.