In the third perek (and the end of the second) is the main discussion in Shas of the laws of aveilus. Now there is apparently some agreement that most of the laws of aveilus are m'd'rabanan, with a few details from the Torah. I'm guessing that is because most of the pesukim brought to derive the laws are from Tanach, not Chumash.
I've made an impromptu list of the places in Chumash and Tanach that are used as sources for these laws. Here's the list:
Chumash - the hesped for Yaakov Avinu, the (lack of) mourning for Nadav and Avihu, the laws of when cohanim may be tamei for their relatives and when not, the requirement to bury someone who received skilah, the confession that "I did not eat (maaser sheini) when I was an onen". From Nach - Iyov's mourning over his children, Yechezkel's (lack of) mourning, David's mourning for his son, Yoav's arranging a woman to pretend to mourn in front of David. [Mephivoshes also mourned when David left Jerusalem, but I don't recall if anything was learned from there.]
But here is the thing that amazes me: Every one of these sources is indirect. The Torah or Tanach refers to something that someone was doing, never commands anyone to do it. Even the ones that are in command form, like the cohanim, are basically describing when cohanim may or may not do like everyone else is doing already. Same for the niskal.
Why does the Torah never command aveilus, whether d'oraysa in Chumash or d'rabanan from Nach? Derech eretz kadmah latorah?
What other mitzvos are similar?
Update: by now I'm at the end of the masechta, and I have encountered a bunch more sources, but I don't think I've seen exceptions to this note.
I've made an impromptu list of the places in Chumash and Tanach that are used as sources for these laws. Here's the list:
Chumash - the hesped for Yaakov Avinu, the (lack of) mourning for Nadav and Avihu, the laws of when cohanim may be tamei for their relatives and when not, the requirement to bury someone who received skilah, the confession that "I did not eat (maaser sheini) when I was an onen". From Nach - Iyov's mourning over his children, Yechezkel's (lack of) mourning, David's mourning for his son, Yoav's arranging a woman to pretend to mourn in front of David. [Mephivoshes also mourned when David left Jerusalem, but I don't recall if anything was learned from there.]
But here is the thing that amazes me: Every one of these sources is indirect. The Torah or Tanach refers to something that someone was doing, never commands anyone to do it. Even the ones that are in command form, like the cohanim, are basically describing when cohanim may or may not do like everyone else is doing already. Same for the niskal.
Why does the Torah never command aveilus, whether d'oraysa in Chumash or d'rabanan from Nach? Derech eretz kadmah latorah?
What other mitzvos are similar?
Update: by now I'm at the end of the masechta, and I have encountered a bunch more sources, but I don't think I've seen exceptions to this note.