Siman 396

A mourner who did not observe his mourning for all seven days, whether inadvertently, or willfully, or due to circumstances beyond his control—he completes it throughout the thirty days. However, once thirty days have passed, it is not relevant to observe mourning even for his father or his mother, for the primary mourning even for his father or his mother is only thirty days. And the proof for this is from a "distant report," where one only observes for one hour. And there is no distinction in this between his father or his mother and other mourners, as is proven from the Tur and Shulchan Aruch siman 402. And here too it is so. And regarding keriah, the law is not like that of mourning, for if he did not rend within seven days, he does not rend further, for there is no keriah except at the time of intense grief, as I wrote in siman 340. And only for his father and his mother does he rend forever. However, even regarding keriah, if he was not of sound mind during the entire seven days due to his illness, and afterward he recovered and heard—he rends throughout the thirty days, for since he did not hear until now with a clear mind, it is as if he did not hear at all. (Bach and Shach and Taz. And regarding what the Taz wrote to distinguish between whether he was of sound mind during the time of his illness or was not of sound mind, see there, for this is his intention—it is difficult. For in most cases the mind of a sick person is weak, and it is not called a time of intense grief at all then, and he rends afterward for that is then the time of complete intense grief. Examine and you will find it simple.)

And specifically when he did not observe mourning at all for the entire seven. However, if he observed them in mourning even though he treated them with great disregard, meaning that there were several days where he did not observe mourning in them, or for example, one whose deceased died on the first day and he was then in another city and they told him that his relative died, and despite all this he did not observe mourning, and on the second day he came to his city and observed mourning – he does not need to complete them, and he counts seven and thirty from the first day. And it is not specifically when he was in another city. Rather, this is the common way of things among people, that until he comes to his city he does not observe mourning, even though according to the law it is not so, for whatever he can be careful of on the road he is obligated to be careful of. But the same law applies when he was in the city and did not observe mourning on the first day, for in any case he counts from the first day. And all the more so if he did not keep the mourning in the middle of the seven. The general rule of the matter: if he only observed a portion of mourning – he does not need to observe more. But he shall bear his sin if he did not keep his mourning intentionally.

And a sick person whose relative died, if he did not know at all until he recovered—within thirty days he is obligated to observe mourning for the full seven days. And if he knew, but was unable to observe mourning due to his illness, even though this is the law that has been explained, nevertheless it seems to me that he does not need to observe mourning, because it is unavoidable that he did not observe even on his bed some matter of mourning for a brief moment within the seven days, if only he was of sound mind. But when he was not of sound mind—certainly he must observe mourning afterward, when still within thirty days. (So it seems in my humble opinion. And see Be'er Heitiv who cited from Givat Shaul to observe mourning. And the Shach disagrees with him, see there. And to me it seems as I have written. And examine closely and you will find it simple.)

And such is the law when the mourning ceased due to a false report, for example, if they told him "your relative died" and he began to observe mourning, and afterward on the second day they told him "they told you a lie" and he rose from his mourning, and afterward after several days they told him that the second one told a lie and the first one told the truth, and he returned and sat in mourning – he counts from the first report even though he interrupted for several days in the middle (Pitchei Teshuva in the name of Radbaz). And it seems to me that even if after seven days the third report came to him that the first report was true – he also does not need to observe mourning further, since he observed the first day in mourning. (And so it is implied from the source of the law in the Rosh, see Beit Yosef. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

A minor who became an adult during the seven days of mourning, whether an obligation of mourning falls upon him once he became an adult, our teachers the Rosh and his teacher the Maharam disagreed regarding this. For his teacher is of the opinion that he is obligated in mourning once he became an adult, and he shall count seven and thirty from the time he became an adult. And the Rosh is of the opinion that he is exempt, for as long as the mourning did not fall upon him at the time of the burial—it no longer falls. And it is not similar to a festival where one practices after the festival, for there the person was subject to obligation. Furthermore: for even during a festival one practiced matters that are private, which is not the case with a minor who became an adult. And it is also not similar to havdalah in siman 341, for there the essence of the obligation of havdalah is until the third day as I wrote there. Which is not the case for the primary obligation of mourning, which is from the closing of the grave, and since at the time of the act he was exempt—it no longer falls. And there are further proofs for this. And this is not a matter related to that which we establish that there is no rejection regarding mitzvot. For certainly there is no rejection, however this is specifically regarding a mitzvah whose obligation is renewed now as before, but regarding mourning the obligation is only at the closing of the grave, and from there the seven and thirty extend. But as long as he was exempt at the time of the closing of the grave—it is impossible for the obligation to fall upon him. And so ruled our teachers the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, and such is the primary ruling. Nevertheless, regarding the death of his father or his mother, because of their honor he shall practice the matters practiced for twelve months, for this does not extend from the closing of the grave, but rather it is a matter unto itself because of their honor.