Sarah died in Kiriath-arba—now Hebron—in the land of Canaan; and Abraham proceeded to mourn for Sarah and to bewail her. Then Abraham rose from beside his dead, and spoke to the Hittites, saying, “I am a resident alien among you; sell me a burial site among you, that I may remove my dead for burial.” And the Hittites replied to Abraham, saying to him, “Hear us, my lord: you are the elect of God among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our burial places; none of us will withhold his burial place from you for burying your dead.” Thereupon Abraham bowed low to the landowning citizens, the Hittites, and he said to them, “If it is your wish that I remove my dead for burial, you must agree to intercede for me with Ephron son of Zohar. Let him sell me the cave of Machpelah that he owns, which is at the edge of his land. Let him sell it to me, at the full price, for a burial site in your midst.” Ephron was present among the Hittites; so Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the Hittites, the assembly in his town’s gate, saying, “No, my lord, hear me: I give you the field and I give you the cave that is in it; I give it to you in the presence of my people. Bury your dead.” Then Abraham bowed low before the landowning citizens, and spoke to Ephron in the hearing of the landowning citizens, saying, “If only you would hear me out! Let me pay the price of the land; accept it from me, that I may bury my dead there.” And Ephron replied to Abraham, saying to him, “My lord, do hear me! A piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver—what is that between you and me? Go and bury your dead.” Abraham accepted Ephron’s terms. Abraham paid out to Ephron the money that he had named in the hearing of the Hittites—four hundred shekels of silver at the going merchants’ rate. So Ephron’s land in Machpelah, near Mamre—the field with its cave and all the trees anywhere within the confines of that field—passed to Abraham as his possession, in the presence of the Hittites, of the assembly in his town’s gate. And then Abraham buried his wife Sarah in the cave of the field of Machpelah, facing Mamre—now Hebron—in the land of Canaan. Thus the field with its cave passed from the Hittites to Abraham, as a burial site.

Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and was buried under the oak below Bethel; so it was named Allon-bacuth.

His sons carried him to the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, the field near Mamre, which Abraham had bought for a burial site from Ephron the Hittite.

§ The mishna teaches that everyone, not only an executed transgressor, must be buried on the day of his death, if that is at all possible. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: From where is it derived that one who leaves his deceased relative overnight without burying him transgresses a prohibition? The verse states: “But you shall bury him [kavor tikberennu]” (Deuteronomy 21:23), doubling the verb for emphasis. From here it is derived that one who leaves his deceased relative overnight without burying him transgresses a prohibition. There are those who say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: From where in the Torah is there a hint to the mitzva of burial? The verse states: “But you shall bury him [kavor tikberennu],” doubling the verb for emphasis. From here there is a hint to the mitzva of burial in the Torah. The Gemara relates: King Shapur, the monarch of Persia, once said to Rav Ḥama: From where in the Torah is there a hint to the mitzva of burial? What proof is there that the dead must be buried and not treated in some other manner? Rav Ḥama was silent and said nothing to him, as he could not find a suitable source. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: The world has been handed over to the foolish, as Rav Ḥama should have said to King Shapur that the mitzva of burial is derived from the verse: “But you shall bury him” (Deuteronomy 21:23). The Gemara explains: In that case, King Shapur could have replied that the verse merely proves that a coffin should be made for the deceased so that he can be placed in it, not that the deceased should be buried in the ground, as the verse could be understood as instructing that the corpse be placed in some sort of receptacle, not in the ground. The Gemara challenges: Rav Ḥama could still have claimed that the mitzva of burial is derived from the doubled verb “you shall bury him [kavor tikberennu].” The Gemara answers: In that case, King Shapur could have replied that he does not learn anything from a doubled verb, which seems to be merely a stylistic choice and not the source of a new halakha. The Gemara asks: But let Rav Ḥama say that the mitzva to bury the dead is derived from the fact that the righteous forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were all buried. The Gemara answers: King Shapur could have said that this was merely a custom of the time, but not a mitzva. The Gemara asks: Rav Ḥama could have derived the mitzva from the fact that the Holy One, Blessed be He, buried Moses, which proves that this is the proper way to handle the dead. The Gemara answers: King Shapur could still have said that God acted in this manner in order not to deviate from the general custom, but this does not prove that burying the dead is a mitzva. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that burying the dead is a mitzva, as the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite said about Abijah, son of Jeroboam: “And all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him” (I Kings 14:13). The Gemara answers: From here, too, there is no proof, as they may have buried Abijah in order not to deviate from the general custom of the world, and not because they were required to do so. The Gemara proposes another proof: Jeremiah pronounced a curse upon the wicked, saying: “They shall not be eulogized, nor shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth” (Jeremiah 16:4), which proves that when no curse has been pronounced, the dead should be buried. The Gemara rejects this proof: From here, too, there is no proof that it is a mitzva to bury the dead, as Jeremiah cursed the wicked, saying that they would deviate from the general custom and not be buried. Due to all these difficulties, Rav Ḥama was unable to adduce incontrovertible proof that there is a mitzva to bury the dead. § A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is burial obligatory on account of disgrace, i.e., so that the deceased should not suffer the disgrace of being left exposed as his body begins to decompose, or is it on account of atonement, i.e., so that the deceased will achieve atonement by being returned to the ground from which he was formed? The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that arises from knowing the reason that burial is necessary? The Gemara answers: There is a difference in a case where one said before he died: I do not want them to bury that man, i.e., myself. If you say that burial is required on account of disgrace, it is not in his power to waive his own burial, as his family shares in the disgrace. But if you say that burial is required on account of atonement, didn’t he effectively say: I do not want atonement, and with regard to himself one should be able to do as he wishes? What, then, is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the fact that the righteous patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were all buried. And if you say that burial is required on account of atonement, do the righteous need atonement? The Gemara rejects this proof: Yes, even the righteous are in need of atonement, as it is written: “For there is no righteous person on earth who does good and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20), and so even the righteous need atonement for the few sins that they committed over the course of their lifetimes. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the verse referring to Abijah, son of Jeroboam: “And all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him, for he alone of Jeroboam shall come to the grave” (I Kings 14:13). And if you say that burial is required so that the deceased should achieve atonement, these too, i.e., Jeroboam’s other sons, should also be buried so that they should achieve atonement. The Gemara rejects this argument: This son, Abijah, who was righteous, should achieve atonement through his death and burial, but these other sons, who were wicked, should not achieve atonement even in death. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the curse pronounced by Jeremiah upon the wicked: “They shall not be eulogized, nor shall they be buried” (Jeremiah 16:4), which indicates that it is not on account of atonement that burial is required, as were that the case the wicked are certainly in need of atonement, and therefore they should be buried. The Gemara answers: This is no proof, as Jeremiah’s intention might be that the wicked should not achieve atonement. Therefore, the question of whether burial is necessary in order to prevent disgrace or achieve atonement remains unresolved.

These are the customs observed by the Jewish people with regard to corpses and burial. We close the eyes of the deceased. If one's mouth hangs open, we tie the jaw closed. After washing the corpse, we stuff closed the orifices, anoint it with different fragrances, cut its hair, and dress it in shrouds of white linen which are not expensive. Our Sages followed the custom of using a cloak worth a zuz, so as not to embarrass a person who lacks resources. We cover the faces of the deceased so as not to embarrass the poor whose faces turned black because of hunger.

One suspends the study of the Torah for the sake of taking out the dead [for burial].1Ket. 17a and Tosaf. ibid. s.v. מבטלין. Here the reference is to dead in general (v. supra § 343, n. 3), and not only to a Meth Miẓwah (v. Glos.). also Meg. 3b, 29a and Ket. ibid. Tosaf. s.v. להוצאת. The suspension of Torah studies is obligatory — ShaK. For one who taught others there is no limit, [i.e.,] even if there are many thousands [present] with him [the dead], one must suspend himself [from studies] for his sake. For one who read [Bible] and studied [Mishna], i.e., one who read [Bible] and studied [Mishna] but has not yet taught students, — if there are sixty myriads [attending the funeral], one need not suspend himself [from studies] for his sake.2Ket. 17a-b and parallel passages. ShaK states that according to this ruling a knowledge of both Bible and Mishna is required. Not so RITBA (cited by B.Yos.) where it is implied that a knowledge of either one is sufficient. The number sixty myriads is explained by the Gemara (ibid.) as follows: ‘The taking away of the Torah (on account of a scholar’s death) must correspond to its giving. As its giving was in the presence of sixty myriads (600,000), so also its taking away must be in the presence of sixty myriads.’ For one who has not read [Bible] nor studied [Mishna], — as long as there is someone looking after [his burial needs], one need not suspend himself [from studies] for his sake,3She’iltoth, Ḥayye Sarah § 14; ibid. Vay-yeḥi § 34 quoted in Rashi and Tosaf. Ket. ibid. Thus also Tur on the authority of BeHaG. The suspension of Torah studies in order to escort the dead and bring the bride into the bridal canopy, applies only if one actually witnesses these taking place. Sem(H). XI, 7; Y.Ḥag. I, 7(76c); Ha‘amek She’elah to She’iltoth ibid. On the greater importance of practice over study, cf. the following sources: Sifre, ‘Ekeb s. 41; Meg. 29a; Ket. 17a and Tosaf. s.v. ;להוצאת המת Kid. 40b and Tosaf. s.v. תלמוד; B.K. 17a and Tosaf. והאמר Y.Pes. III, 7(30b); Y.Ḥag. ibid. provided that [at least] ten people are [present] there.4Tur on the authority of R. Notrai Gaon. Thus also N and ShaK, since the line of comforters, the Kaddish prayer, recital of Ẓidduk Haddin etc. require ten males to be present. Some say that today, [even] without knowing [one's scholastic ability] we suspend [studies], for there is no man from among Israel nowadays, who is not [versed] in Bible or Mishna.5B.Yos. on the authority of RITBA, Ket. II, cited in the name of SeMaG — G. This ruling of Isserles applied to the period during which he flourished. [With respect to] a woman, some say that her status6Lit. ‘her law.’ is like one who read [Bible] and studied [Mishna];7Tur on the authority of Asheri. The reason being that although she is not enjoined to study Torah, yet she takes care of the education of her children etc. and attends to all her duties. and some say that her status6Lit. ‘her law.’ is like one who has not read [Bible] nor studied [Mishna]. And thus is the accepted practice regarding a woman and a child, — to adopt the lenient view.8N in T.H. She is treated as one who has not read Bible nor studied Mishna. Hence, if there is someone looking after her needs, one is not required to suspend his studies on her account. One does not suspend the study of the Torah for the sake of attending to [the burial needs of] the dead, when there is someone [else] who will attend to his need[s] sufficiently; but one occupies himself with [the study of] the Torah and is not required to go out and see whether all his [burial] need[s] are [attended to] or not; but as long as there is some one who will perform the [necessary] work [with respect to the corpse], his study of the Torah has priority.9Y.Pes. and Hag. ibid. Cf. also Tur a.l. and Ket. and Tosaf. ibid. This refers only to the time when the corpse is awaiting to be escorted for burial, in which case, even if the dead was a teacher, one does not interrupt his studies on his account. We suspend studies only at the time of the funeral procession (v. infra par. 2) — ShaK contra BaḤ. School children are not suspended [from their studies] at all.10Y.Pes. III, 7(30b). Cur. edd. of Y. do not have אין מבטלין תינוקות של בית רבן להוצא׳ המת as recorded by W.G. however, Torathan Shel Rishonim in Y. ibid. where such a version of Y. is cited by Sem. of R. Meir of Rothenberg, s. 46 Cf. also Asheri and Mord. to M.K. Shab. 119b: ‘Children are not made to suspend (their studies) even for the building of the Temple.’ This refers even to the time of the funeral procession — ShaK. When does this apply, [viz.,] that we suspend the study of the Torah to escort him [for burial]? — [Only] during the time he is brought out [for burial]; but as long as he still] lies awaiting burial, we do not suspend for his sake the study of the Torah, only that if there are [burial] associations in the city, of which each one [association] attends to [the burial needs] on its [particular] day, [then] the one [association] for whom [this] is not its [particular] day, is permitted both study and other types of work. During the time [the corpse] is brought out [for burial] we suspend [ourselves] from all types of work and come to escort him, even if he did not read [Bible] nor study [Mishna], for [the law is that] we make a distinction in the case of one who did not read [Bible] nor study [Mishna] only regarding suspension of the study of the Torah, but in the case of other occupations, even if one did not read [Bible] nor study [Mishna] all are suspended [from work], and come to escort him. If, however, there are no [burial] associations in the city, all workmen are required to be suspended [from work] and to attend to him until he is buried, but they are required to be suspended from the study of the Torah only at the time of the funeral escort as we have stated.11Ket. 17a, Tosaf. s.v. להוצאת; M.K. 27b, Tosaf. s.v. אסורין supra § 343, 1. One who sees a corpse and does not escort him transgresses thereby, 'Whoso mocketh the poor12e., the dead. [blasphemeth his Maker],13Prov. XVII, 5. This ruling is found in Ber. 18a. Cf. Derek Ereẓ Zuta § and should be placed under a ban;14M.K. ibid. supra § 343 and notes. and one should escort him at least four cubits.15R. Jonah and Asheri to Ber. ibid. This applies only if there are sufficient people present at the funeral escort. Otherwise, one must escort the corpse to the grave. Even where one is not required to escort the dead he is dutibound to rise before him.16Derived from Y.Bik. III, 3(65c): ‘Those who stand before a corpse, do not (really) stand before the corpse, but (rather) before those who attend to his burial needs.’ It follows therefrom that one should rise before anyone who performs a religious duty (v. Kid. 33a) — TaZ. Thus also Bert. Mishna Bik. III, 3. A coffin which passes [on its way] from place to place, — if the remains have retained the shape of the body they must escort him as at the time the corpse was brought out [for burial).17M.K. 25a. supra § 345, 8. One who places his dead in a coffin and did not bury it1The coffin. Perisha. in the earth, transgresses thereby a [negative command] because he keeps the dead over night [unburied].2Derived from San. 46b where it is stated that R. Joḥanan said that burial in the earth is referred to by the Torah in the verse, ‘Thou shalt surely bury him’ (Deut. XXI, 23). The emphatic infinitive (קבור תקברנו) denotes burial in the earth. Otherwise, one transgresses the injunction, ‘His body shall not remain all night’ (ibid.). Placing the corpse in a coffin is alluded to in the question that King Shapor asked R. Huna (San. ibid.). It is not obligatory to bury an amputated limb of a living being. However, since it defiles, Kohanim are prohibited against being in the same room with it — P.Tesh. If he placed him in a coffin and buried it1The coffin. Perisha. in the earth, he does not transgress [a negative command] on his account.3Y.M.K. I, 5(80c bot.); Y.San. VI, 12(23d bot.): ‘In former days they buried them (the convicts) in deep pits etc. and they were placed in a coffin’ (v. W.G.), i.e., after the flesh became decomposed they were placed in a coffin. Thus also Asheri. infra § 363, 4. Nevertheless, it is [more]4 BaḤ. appropriate to bury him in the earth proper even [when he is buried] outside the Land [of Israel].5Y.Ket. XII, 3(35a top); Y.Kil. IX, 4(32b top); Gen. R. s. 100. In these sources R. Judah, the Prince, prior to his death gave the following instructions: ‘Let my coffin be perforated at the bottom.’ N explains that what he meant was that the bottom of the coffin should be removed so that the body should be in contact with the ground, since burial in the earth is a religious duty and applies not only to the Land of Israel but also when one is buried outside the Land of Israel, for it is written, ‘And to dust thou shalt return’ (Gen. III, 19). Cremation is forbidden according to Jewish Law. Beth Yiẓḥak; Eben Yekarah; ‘Arugoth Habosem; Imre Yosher and others who strongly prohibit cremation. One who left instructions to be cremated after death is regarded as one who dissociates himself from the practices of the Congregation and is considered a heretic. Hence, he has the same status as those for whom one does not observe Aninuth or mourning rites. The ashes of a cremated person are forbidden to be buried in a Jewish cemetery. On the question of cremation cf. also lengthy article by Dr. H. Higger, appended to his Halakoth Wa-Agadoth pp. 161-183. The corpse [when buried] is placed on its back6Y.Naz. IX, 3(57d): ‘What is considered lying in its usual position? — If the corpse is found with its feet stretched out and its hands on the heart.’ This indicates that the corpse is interred on its back. Cf. also Naz. 65a: ‘Lying, but not in a sitting position; in the usual position, — excludes the head lying between the thighs.’ (this corresponds to the expression קמצוץ i.e., a doubled position, found in Y. ibid). Burial is also permissible on one’s side. Y.Ket. XII, 3(35a) as part of the instructions given by R. Jeremiah: ‘Let them place me on my side.’ (v. Tur. who has the reading על גבי ‘on my back,’ which is emended by Perisha to על סיטרא ‘on my side’ found in cur. edd.). Cf. B.B. 101a-b according to which burial in an upright position is regarded as the burial of asses. If a corpse is placed in an upright or sitting position it is considered disrespectful. It is customary to cover the top of the coffin and not to throw earth directly on the corpse, which would be considered disgraceful — ShaK. however, Tur who quotes Resp. of R. Natronai Gaon regarding different customs of burial depending on dry or moist localities, and cf. also Perisha a.l. and its face is upwards like a person who is asleep.7Cf. Ber. 13b according to which it is forbidden to sleep on the back. however, B.B. 74a where it is stated that the ‘Dead of the Wilderness’ slept on their backs. They do not bury two corpses one alongside the other,8In some localities the corpse is buried with head northward and feet southward; in others, the head westward and the feet eastward. Whatever custom is adopted, the position on each cemetery should be the same for all dead — A.H. unless the [intervening] wall of the grave separates between them.9According to the Mishna in B.B. 100b which deals with sepulchral chambers (כוכין), the thickness of the wall between grottos was one cubit (i.e., six handbreadths). Hence, the thickness of the wall of the grotto was half a cubit. Accordingly, some rule (v. R. A. Eger; G.Mah.; Yad Abraham and others) that the intervening wall should be one cubit in thickness. This follows the opinion of the First Tanna in the Mishna ibid. Caro here and in B.Yos. seems to rule in accord with the opinion of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel (ibid. W.G. a.l.) that everything depends upon the quality of the intervening earth or rock. If it is hard, one may make more sepulchral chambers, since less intervening space for the walls would be required. On the other hand, if the earth is soft, more space would be required for the intervening walls. Hence, the number of grottos would be less. P.Tesh. states that the custom to bury the dead close to each other stems from the fact the land available to us for cemeteries is quite limited. TaZ § 364, n. 2. A.H. rules that legally no specific thickness for the intervening wall is required. As long as it is able to stand without caving in. It must be at least six fingerbreadths in thickness. Nor [do they bury] a corpse alongside the bones [of another corpse], or the bones [of a corpse] alongside [another] corpse.10Sem(H). XIII, 8. also Baraithoth Ebel Rabbathi ibid. p. 232, 236. However, a man may be buried with his minor daughter and a woman with her minor son or her son's minor son [in the same grave]. This is the general rule, — whosoever sleeps with him during lifetime may be buried with him when he dies.11Sem(H). ibid. in accord with R. Judah. This ruling refers only to a minor son, but a son or daughter of majority age are not permitted to be interred with the father or mother respectively. The mention of her son’s minor son does not exclude the daughter of his son or the daughter of his daughter — ShaK. A man may be buried next to his wife — Peri ha-Sadeh. They do not place two coffins, one above the other.12In ‘En Yiẓḥak it is stated that if a new cemetery could be bought only on the condition that at some later date the corpses will have to be removed, they may cover the old cemetery with earth so that there will be an intervening layer of earth six handbreadths in thickness and then bury the new dead. Lebushe Mordekai states that this was done in the city of Presburg. This was also done in the city of Cracow — BaḤ. In Beth Yiẓḥak it is reported that in the city of Paris a rock would be placed between the upper and the lower coffins. For only in the case of intervening earth are six handbreadths required, but not in the case of rock. If one placed [them in this position], they may compel [the owner of the] one above that it be removed. If between them [the coffins]13 B.B. 101b: ‘R. Ashi said, if he deepens them.’ there are six handbreadths14Thus Tur. But N in T.H. has ‘three handbreadths.’ however, Ḥiddushe Hagahoth on Tur. Cf. W.G. and R. A. Eger a.l. of earth, it is permissible.15T.H. on the authority of Sem. Baraithoth Ebel Rabbati p. 233. They do not bury a wicked man beside a righteous one;16For it is written, ‘Gather not my soul with sinners’ (Ps. XXVI, 9). If a widow who was left with children from her first husband, remarried and then predeceased her second husband, and there was no issue left from her second marriage, the law is that she should be buried in the plot reserved by the second husband, since the second marriage released her from the first husband’s relationship. Thus Ḥatam Sofer. infra § 403, 5, notes. Ma‘abor Yabok rules (on the basis of Zohar Gen. 21a) that she should be buried next to her first husband even if there was issue from the second marriage as well. In the case of a person who was burnt to death, and it is impossible to identify the person, he should be buried in a Jewish cemetery at a distance of eight cubits from the other graves — Resp. Hare Besamim. even a grossly wicked person [is not buried] alongside a moderately wicked one.17Mishna San. 46a and Gemara ibid. 47a. And likewise they do not bury a righteous person, and so much the more18Thus Tur, ShaK and TaZ. Cur. edd. read, ‘a worthy person.’ an average individual beside an extremely pious one.19Derived from the story regarding the death and burial of R. Huna, related in M.K. 25a. However, they may bury a repentent sinner beside a perfectly righteous person.20Benjamin Ze’eb — G. Ber. 34b. But not beside a pious person who stands on a higher plane. M.K. 17a. A Jew who studied under missionaries should be buried at a distance of more than eight cubits from the grave of a worthy person — G. Mah. A male convert who wished to embrace Judaism and had already been circumcised, but had not yet performed the ritual immersion (v. supra § 268, 2), may be interred in a Jewish cemetery, since he had already performed an act (viz., circumcision) to enter the Jewish fold — Minḥath Eliezer. Likewise, in the case of a female convert who had declared that she accepts the Jewish faith (קבלת המצות), but had not yet performed the ritual immersion, may be buried in a Jewish cemetery — ‘Ikare Dinim. Two [people] who were enemies of each other,21Lit. ‘this (one) to this (one).’ should not be buried together.22Sefer Ḥasidim. One should not remove a corpse and bones1Two reasons are advanced for this prohibition: a) The disturbance of removal is hard on the dead — TaZ, ShaK. Cf. I Sam. XXVIII, 15; Job III, 13; b) Removal is considered a disrespectful treatment of the dead — RIDBaZ to Yad, Ebel XIV, 15. One who was buried in a non-Jewish cemetery may be removed to a Jewish one — P.Tesh., G.Mah. from a dignified grave to [another] dignified grave, nor from an undignified grave to [another] undignified grave, nor from an undignified one to a dignified one, and needless to say [that it is forbidden] from a dignified one to an undignified one. And [to remove a corpse] into his own,2To his family grave. even from a dignified [grave] to an undignified one, is permissible,3 M.Abr. to O.Ḥ. § 526, n. 18. for it is pleasant for a man that he rest beside his ancestors.4Y.M.K. II, 4(81b); Sem(H). XIII, 7. M.K. 13a, Tosaf. s.v. אין. And likewise, in order to bury him in the Land of Israel, it is permissible [to remove him].5For it is a means of atonement for the dead and relieves them from judgment. Cf. Y.M.K. I, 5(80c); Y.San. VI, 12(23d); Deut. XXXII, 43: ‘And his land doth make expiation for his people.’ The rendering of this verse is in accord with Ket. 111a. One who expressed his opinion during lifetime that it is not praiseworthy to be removed from outside of Israel for burial in the Land of Israel (cf. Y.Kil. IX, 4(32d); Y.Ket. XII, 3(35b), is permitted to be removed by his children for burial in the Land of Israel, unless he left specific instructions not to be buried in Israel — P.Tesh. If they placed him there [originally] with the intention that he be removed [later], it is permissible under all conditions.6Cf. infra § 364, If he is not safe in this grave, for there is apprehension that heathens may take him out, or that water may enter therein, or that it is a grave that has been found,7A grave in which a corpse was buried without the knowledge or consent of the owner of the ground. In other words, this particular spot was just discovered to be a grave. it is a religious duty to remove him [therefrom].8Hag. Asheri to M.K. Some are wont to place some earth from the Land of Israel in the grave;9Or Zaru‘a — G. (and this custom has a basis).10Tanḥ. Vay-yeḥi s. 3 (B. VI) — G. They do not convey a corpse from a city wherein there is a cemetery to another city, unless it is from outside the Land into the Land [of Israel],11Hag. Asheri to M.K. For this is disrespectful to the other dead who are buried in the cemetery from which this corpse is removed — ShaK. Others claim that the reason is on account of disgrace which results to the corpse proper. For according to the first reason, the corpse should not be removed even in the case where it is considered a religious act (e.g., removal to the Land of Israel) — P.Tesh., R. A. Eger. however, A.H. Gloss: Or if they convey him to the place of his ancestral sepulchre.12Thus implied in Or Zaru’a — G. Cf. Mak. 11b where it is taught that if a murderer died while in banishment prior to the death of the High Priest (v. Num. XXXV, 9-34), on the latter’s death, they transfer the remains of the murderer to his ancestral sepulchre. This is based upon the verse (ibid.) ‘And after the death of the High Priest the slayer shall return to the land of his possession.’ The words, ‘land of his possession’ refer to burial in one’s ancestral grave. Cf. supra par. 1. Rashi (Gemara ibid.) s.v. תנא and W.G. a.l. And if he left instructions to convey him from one place to [another] place, or [if] he left instructions to bury him at his home and not in the cemetery, he is obeyed.13Or Zaru‘a ibid. — G. This means even if he was already buried — G.Mah. It is permitted to place lime upon him, in order to decompose the flesh rapidly,14Cf. Job XIV, 22: ‘But his flesh grieveth for him,’ which is explained in Ber. 18b, ‘The worm is as painful to the dead body as a needle in sound flesh.’ This shows that the dead is aware of the pain of its decaying flesh and has no rest from judgment whilst the decomposition goes on — TaZ. and [then] to convey him to the place [concerning] which he left instructions.15RaShBA Resp. 369 — G. D.M. One may not collect bones from a16Lit. ‘inside.’ coffin, nor [may one gather the bones] from a16Lit. ‘inside.’ grave to one17Lit. ‘this.’ side [in order] to bury therein another corpse, nor for the need of the place.18N in T.H. on the authority of Sem. Not found in cur. edd. Sem(H). Baraithoth Ebel Rabbathi § II, p. 23 N (ibid.) writes that this is based upon the verse, ‘Remove not the ancient landmarks’ (Prov. XXII, 28), for the grave becomes the possession of the dead person buried therein. however, Sifre, Shofetim s. 188 where the prohibition is derived from, ‘Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark which they of old have set etc.’ (Deut. XIX, 14). According to Or Sameaḥ (to Yad, Ebel XIV, 15) the latter verse is sourse of the prohibition. Where it is customary to remove bones, it is done only after decomposition of the flesh, for the purpose of permanent burial. Y.M.K. I, 5(80c); Y.San. VI, 12(23d) and infra par. 4. [In] a locality where it is customary to bury [the dead first] in depressions, (i.e., deep pits, — derived from, 'into deep pits that they rise not up again',)19Ps. CXL, 11. Cf. Ibn Ezra, Me’iri (ed. Mekiẓe Nirdamim, Jerusalem 1936) and Meẓudath David a.l. infra § 403, n. 1. without a coffin, until the flesh is decomposed, and afterwards one collects the bones and buries them in a coffin, it is permitted.20 supra § 362, n. 3. One must be careful not to mix bones of two corpses. infra § 403, 8. [If] one cleared a coffin [of its corpse] it is forbidden for profitable use. If it [was made] of stone21N in T.H. has, ‘if of stone it should be buried.’ or of earthenware, it should be broken; [if] of wood, it should be burnt.22Sem(H). XIII, 9; Y.Meg. III, 1(73d). Everything that is buried with the dead is forbidden to be employed for profitable use. supra § 349. One who finds boards on the cemetery, should not move them from their place.23Sem. ibid. For we apprehend lest this was a coffin that was cleared and is prohibited for profitable use. This applies also to one who finds broken pieces of earthenware — Perisha. He is not required to burn the boards, since he is not certain that they were part of a coffin — A.H. It is forbidden to open the grave after it was closed [by] the Golel,24e., earth had already been put on the coffin. Otherwise, it may be opened. On Golel v. Glos. even if the heirs protest to open it in order to examine [the corpse] whether he has grown25Lit. ‘brought.’ two hairs.26The signs of maturity. This ruling is found in Sem(H). IV, Cf. B.B. 154a and 155a where it is related that a certain person who sold his father’s estate, died, and the heirs insisted that the deceased was a minor at the time of death, who was legally ineligible to sell any of the father’s estate. Consequently, they claimed that the estate should be returned to the surviving heirs. When they asked to have the body exhumed, they were told that it was not permitted because a) one would thereby dishonour the dead, and b) the signs of maturity undergo a change after death. If a deserted wife (עגונה) claims that she has signs for identifying her husband, the law is that in this case we do open the grave in order to establish whether it was her husband or not — A.H. Likewise, if they forgot to include the shrouds, the grave may be opened — A.H. The general principle is that a) anything that is required for the dead proper which was omitted during burial (e.g., shrouds), or b) in the case where a religious act would thereby be performed (e.g., the case of a deserted wife), or c) where there is a loss of money involved (e.g., supra in the case of the person who sold his father’s estate, were the buyers to insist to have the body exhumed in order to verify whether the seller was a minor or not, so as to avoid a possible loss for themselves), the grave may be opened. For only if the surviving heirs insist to open the grave is it forbidden. Not so, however, if the buyers request this — A.H. On this entire chapter v. excellent digest of Resp. literature in Sh.M.B. IV, p. 265-9. A built grave is forbidden for profitable use, but natural1Lit. ‘world.’ earth of a grave is not forbidden.2San. 47b regarding the earth of Rab’s grave. This is derived (ibid.) from, ‘And he cast the dust thereof (i.e., of the Ashera) upon the graves of the common people’ (II Kings XXIII, 6) whence we learn that the graves of the common people are compared to idols. And just as idols are not prohibited when they are attached, as it is written, ‘Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations that ye are to dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains’ (Deut. XII, 2), i.e., their gods which are upon the high mountains (are forbidden for use), but not the mountains which themselves are their gods, — so too, whatever belongs to the dead, i.e., attached, is not prohibited. However, a built grave is not considered attached to the soil, and as in the case of detached idols, is prohibited (v. supra § 145, 3). Meg. 29a and infra § 363, 1, according to which even natural soil of burial grounds is forbidden for profitable use and consequently contradicts the present ruling. B.Hillel therefore, explains that in our case (Gemara San. ibid.) where it is reported that Samuel permitted people to take earth from Rab’s grave and apply it as a remedy on the first day of an attack of fever, we deal with natural soil taken from a grave and applied as a remedy only, which is permissible; whereas in the other passage (Gemara Meg. ibid.) the natural soil was not used for a remedial purpose, and consequently, is forbidden for profitable use, not because legally this is so, but rather because this is considered disrespectful treatment of the dead. Cf. also Mord. Meg. ibid. Gloss: Some say3Hag. Asheri M.K. that the earth which they removed4Lit. ‘they took.’ from the grave and then placed it back upon him [the dead person], which is [then] regarded as an object [originally] loose that one subsequently attached is forbidden for profitable use.5Tur on the authority of R. Isaiah — G. What is natural soil? — One who hews a grotto in a rock that was never detached (Tur). The sides of the grave and the bottom are certainly not forbidden. The example of the grotto is cited in order to emphasize that even the earth above it is not prohibited but is regarded as natural soil — ShaK. A.H. elucidates the ruling here as follows: An object originally loose and subsequently attached (תלוש ולבסוף חברו) is forbidden only if it was removed from one place and attached in another place, as in the case of idols. For this reason a built grave is forbidden for use. Not so, however, in the case of earth which was dug out for burial purposes and then put back into the same grave. In the latter case it should be considered ‘natural soil’ contra R. Isaiah and in agreement with those authorities who permit (v. infra Isserles). Furthermore, some prohibit to sit on the stone that is placed upon the grave as a monument;6Tur on the authority of R. Isaiah. Thus also Hag. Asheri in the name of Or Zaru‘a M.K. III — G. This is considered ‘an object originally loose and subsequently attached,’ and refers as stated here, only to the stone placed on the grave proper. But the tombstone that is placed at the side of the grave is permissible for use. A.H. It is forbidden to sell a broken tombstone or to lean on a tombstone or to tread upon graves — ShaK. Two reasons are advanced for this prohibition, a) it is forbidden for profitable use, b) it is disrespectful to the dead — P.Tesh. Cf. also G.Mah. and some differ with [this ruling] and permit.7Twr on the authority of Asheri — G. supra n. 5. Cf. B.B. 101a, RaShBaM s.v. קמיתדשי according to which temporary treading upon graves in order to reach another place on the cemetery, is permitted. Old tombstones may be used for other dead, but are forbidden for profitable use. supra n. 6. The implements wherewith they dig [graves] and bury [the dead] are permitted for profitable use, and one is permitted to make use of them only with the knowledge of the communal manager as in all other [cases of public] charity.8RaShBA Resp. 97 — G. supra § 349. This [ruling viz.,] that a built grave is prohibited [for profitable use] forever, [applies only when one built it for the sake of a dead person and [also] placed him9The dead person. therein,10In accord with San. 48a that both designation and the material act are required. even [if done] with the intention to remove him9The dead person. [later];11In accord with the interpretation of N to San. ibid. s.v. אע’ג דפנייה i.e., the prohibition remains in force even if the corpse was later removed therefrom. supra § 363, and even if one placed therein a prematureborn child; but if one built it for his9The dead person. sake and did not place him9The dead person. therein, it is permitted [for profitable use]. Likewise, if he placed him9The dead person. therein with the intention to remove him [later], but did not designate it [for the dead] from the beginning, it is permitted [for profitable use] after he removed him9The dead person. [therefrom].12San. ibid. However13Lit. ‘but.’ if he placed him therein with the intention that he remain14Lit. ‘be.’ there forever, it is prohibited [for profitable use] even after he removed him [therefrom; and] even [if] he did not build it for his9The dead person. sake.15San. ibid. The very fact that his intention is to place the corpse therein forever constitutes ‘designation’ which coincides with ‘the material act’ of placing the corpse therein — A.H. And if he did not build it for his9The dead person. sake, and he9The dead person. was placed therein and he added a single row of stones, i.e., a layer, viz., a row of [stones] in the wall structure for his9The dead person. sake, the entire [structure] is prohibited [for profitable use]16Since it is unknown which row was added. even after he removed him, and even if he buried him therein with the intention to remove him [later].15San. ibid. The very fact that his intention is to place the corpse therein forever constitutes ‘designation’ which coincides with ‘the material act’ of placing the corpse therein — A.H. If he recognizes the row of stones that he added for his9The dead person. sake, he removes it and it alone is prohibited, but the rest of the grave is permissible [for profitable use].15San. ibid. The very fact that his intention is to place the corpse therein forever constitutes ‘designation’ which coincides with ‘the material act’ of placing the corpse therein — A.H. A grave that has been discovered17One in which the corpse was buried without the consent of the owner of the ground. may be cleared;18We do not say that perhaps a Meth Miẓwah (v. Glos.) was buried therein who takes possession of his place (v. infra par. 3), for if this were so, the matter would have been known (San. 47b). after it is cleared, the place thereof is [levitically] clean19Since the corpse was buried therein without the consent of the owner of the ground, he does not take possession of his place. and is permitted for use.20For a person cannot prohibit something which does not belong to him (Pes. 90a. Yeb. 66b). We deal here with a ‘built grave,’ for if it refers to ‘natural soil’ of a grave, it would not be prohibited in any case (v. supra par. 1) — ShaK. A known grave21In which one was buried with the owner’s consent. may not be cleared; if it has been cleared, the place thereof is unclean and forbidden for use.22San. 47b. This was a Rabbinical precautionary measure against unwarranted removal of bones. Maimonides' [version] reads: A grave that has been discovered may be cleared; after it is cleared, the place thereof23‘The place thereof’ refers to the surrounding parts of the field where more bones may be discovered. is unclean and forbidden for use. A known grave may not be cleared; if it has been cleared, the place thereof is [levitically] clean24Since it is known that no other graves are found in the environs. and permitted for use.25Yad, Tumath Meth VIII, 5 ( Kes. Mish. a.l.) derived from Y.Naz. IX, 3(57d). Cf. Tosef(Z). Ohol. XVI, 9. A Meth Mizwah26 Glos. whom one found in a field and buried him therein even without the knowledge of the owner of the field,27Derived from San. ibid. is forbidden to be cleared away, for a Meth Mizwah takes possession of his place, and when one finds him he must bury him on the spot wherein he found him.28One of the ten enactments laid down by Joshua upon entering the Land of Israel was that a Meth Miẓwah should be buried in whatever spot he is found (B.K. 81a-b; ‘Er. 17a; Sot. 45b and cf. San. 47b). Nowadays this law is no longer applicable and we follow the law of the land — TaZ, ShaK, A.H. If he found him [lying broadways] across a narrow path29Obstructing the way so that people passing by are compelled to step over the corpse. he must remove him therefrom on account of the public, so that they should not convey uncleanness by overshadowing him.30So as not to cause defilement to Priests and those who abserve levitical purity through overshadowing or forming a shelter over the corpse. Cf. Ohol. III, 1 seq. If he found him between an uncultivated field, i.e., one that is unplanted and unsown and a fallow field, i.e., one that was ploughed but unsown, — he removes him to the uncultivated field;31In order to reduce the damage as much as possible. [if] between a fallow field and a field with seed, he removes him to the fallow field;32B.K. 81b and ‘Er. 17b in accord with R. Bibi. [if] between a field with seed and a tree-planted field, he removes him to the field with seed; if betwwen a tree-planted field and a vineyard field, he removes him to the tree-planted field; but if both [fields] are equal he removes him to the nearer one; and if both are equal in nearness, he may remove [him] to whichever one he prefers.33Sem(H). IV, 18; Y.Naz. VII, 1(56b). The latter source adds: ‘If found between a tree-planted field and a vineyard, he should remove him to the vineyard.’ Thus Yad, Tumath Meth VIII, 7 and Sefer Ha-Eshkol. When does this apply? — [If he found him] outside the [cemetery]34Thus A.H. limits, but if he found him within the [cemetery]34Thus A.H. limits he conveys him to the cemetery.35Y.Naz. VII, 1(55d-56a-b). Thus also in Sem. ibid. according to the version of N in T.H. Not found in cur. ed. of Sem ( Baraithoth Ebel Rabbathi IV, p. 245). He is designated a Meth Mizwah only if he found his head and the larger portion [of his body].36Y.Naz. ibid. and Sem. in accord with version of N. Needless to say that the law of Meth Miẓwah applies only if the head and the larger portion of the body were found intact. With respect to the head if found in one place and the body in another, v. Mishna Sot. 45b and Gemara ibid. If they found a slain Israelite, they may bury him [in the same condition] as they found him, [viz.,] without shrouds, and they do not even remove his shoes.37B.Yos. Gloss: Thus they do [with respect] to a woman in confinement who died, or regarding a person who fell down38E.g., from a roof top. and died.39MaHaRIL s. 65 — G. If there was bleeding, the Tohorah (v. Glos.) should not be performed, for the blood which also requires burial (v. infra) will thereby be removed. The dead person should therefore be buried in his clothes. This applies only if the person died while wearing his clothes, but if after suffering a fall, the person was confined to bed and died some days later, after his clothes were removed, and there was no bleeding, the Tohorah is performed and the corpse is wrapped in shrouds as usual. There is however, a distinction to be made between the case of one who fell from a roof top and one who was murdered. In the latter case, even if the blood flow had ceased when the corpse was found, he is buried in the condition he was found in order ‘to raise our anger’ and possibly avenge the slain person; whereas in the former case where the person fell from a roof top, this is not applicable. Similarly, in the case of a woman who died in confinement, and the blood flow still continues, we bury her in the garments she wore at the time of death. But if death occurred some days or weeks later, at which time the blood flow had already ceased, we deal with her as with other dead and bury her in shrouds. A further reason for burying a slain person in his clothes is that there is fear that at least a fourth of a Log (v. Glos.) of blood that escaped, — the smallest quantity required to sustain life, — is absorbed in the clothes. Hence, he should be buried in his clothes. For the very same reason even the shoes should not be removed, since there may be a similar quantity absorbed in them. Even the earth surrounding him, which absorbed blood, should be buried. The same principle would therefore apply to one who fell from a roof top, or in the case of a house which collapsed upon a person, or a confinement case, where there was a flow of blood, and consequently there is an absorption thereof in the garments, — in all these cases, since there is an absorption of blood in the garments, — they should be buried with the corpse. This would not apply to one who froze to death or was drowned, for since there was no flow of bloood, they are buried in shrouds as usual — MaHaRIL (ibid.), TaZ and ShaK. P.Tesh. Some say that they wrap them over their garments [with] shrouds.40Hag. Maim. on the authority of R. Isaac b. Meir Dueren — G. The accepted practice is that one makes no shrouds for them as [for] other dead, but one buries them in their garments over which [they place] a sheet as [in the case] of other dead. A grave which injures the public, e.g., it is close to the [public] road,41San. 47b. It thereby causes defilement to all passers-by. even if he was buried therein with the knowledge of the owner of the field, may be cleared,42Since this ruling follows the ruling (San. ibid.) of a ‘known grave’ (v. supra par. 2), it follows that in this case even if the owner’s consent was obtained, it may be cleared. Hence, Caro’s ruling — W.G. but is prohibited for use,43The injury caused to the public does not warrant a decree of impurity to the place thereof, but it is forbidden for profitable use, since the prohibition is Biblical, and does not lapse even after the corpse is removed. This refers to a ‘built grave’ (v. supra par. 1 and notes) — TaZ [provided] the grave was there first;44Derived from Y.Naz. IX, 3(57d). but if the road was there first, the place thereof is permitted for use.45On the principle that a person cannot prohibit that which does not belong to him. In this case the road belongs to the public — ShaK. A grave which one cleared, where it is permitted for use,46E.g., if the corpse was buried therein without the owner’s consent. one may not make of it a shed for straw,47Sem. adds: ‘or a stall.’ or a shed for wood or a storehouse.48Sem(H). XIII, 9; Mord. M.K. III end. These are prohibited because of disrespect to one’s father who was buried therein. However, a dwelling would not be regarded disrespectful — A.H. One who hews a grave for his [dead] father and [then] buried him elsewhere, may himself never be buried therein, on account of his father's honour,49San. 48a. supra § 240, 9. Even ‘natural soil’ is considered forbidden in this case — ShaK. On account of one’s father mere designation prohibits. supra n. 10. but another [person] is permitted to be buried therein.50 San. 47b, Tosaf. s.v. איתביה. N writes that this accords with Abaye; according to Raba it would be prohibited to everyone. supra § 349 and notes. All relatives excluding the sons and daughters are permitted to be buried therein. The same ruling applies to the tombstone — A.H. One who digs a sepulchral chamber for a corpse is exempt1Ber. 14b on the principle that ‘one who is engaged in a religious act is exempt from other religious duties’ (Suk. 25a). This applies even if the grave-digger is not related to the corpse — A.H. from reading the Shema, from [reciting] the Tefillah2 supra § 341, 2. and from [wearing] phylacteries and from all religious duties enjoined in the Torah. If they were two [grave-diggers] and the time for reading the Shema arrived, one comes up3Tur adds: ‘and washes his hands.’ and reads the Shema and recites the Tefillah and [then] he returns and digs and his companion comes up and reads the Shema and recites the Tefillah. [And this applies] only to a sepulchral chamber which only one person [usually] digs, but if it was a place where two people may attend to it together, they are [both] exempt.4N in T.H. Cf. infra § 403, 9. Graves must be kept removed from a town [a distance of] fifty cubits.5Mishna B.B. 25a. On account of the bad odour. Cf. Ḥ.M. § 155, 23. One who sells his [family] grave, the path to his grave, the place of his [funeral] halt1Seven halts were made by the funeral escort upon returning from a burial for the purpose of lamentation or consolation. This corresponded to the seven times that the word ‘vanity’ is mentioned in Eccl. I, 2, three times in the singular and twice in the plural (B.B. 100b). RaShBaM ibid. s.v. משבעה. and the place of his lamentation, the members of the family may come and bury him against the will of the buyer,2They may force the buyer to cancel the transaction and take back the purchase price. and they return his money.3B.B. 100b; Ket. 84a; Bek. 52b. also Ḥ.M. § 217, 7 where the same ruling is found. The reason given in the Gemara ibid. is that it brings discredit to the family (פגם משפחה) if strangers will be interred in their family plot, whilst the members of their own family will have to be buried in another graveyard. And as to the ruling (supra § 344, 10) that if one left instructions not to make a lamentation for him after death, he is obeyed, it is different in the present case, because a) his financial position compelled him to act thus; whereas in the former ruling (supra) the instructions were given at death; or b) here by selling the place for lamentation, it is derogatory to all the members of the family; whereas there he only denied himself a lament; or c) the very fact that here strangers will come and make their lamentation casts a slur upon the whole family — N, B.Yos. and ShaK. This ruling applies also to one who sells his family pew in the Synagogue (Ḥ.M. § 175, 53 G.). A woman who inherited a grave from her family maybe buried in it herself, but not her descendants,4Because they trace their descent on the paternal side, and it is a discredit to the members of her family to have members of another family buried beside them — ShaK. A.H. unless she saw them during her lifetime.5Sem(H). XIV, 5 according to the version of Tur. Those whom she saw during lifetime were closer to her. [If] her father says, 'Let her be buried beside me,' and her husband says, 'Let her be buried beside me,' — she is buried beside her husband.6Sem. XIV according to version of Tur. And some [versions] read,7Sem(H). XIV, 6 and cur. edd. — she is buried beside her father. If she has children, and says, '[Bury me] beside my children,' — they bury her beside her children. [If] her father says, 'Let her not be buried beside me,' and her husband [also] says, 'Let her not be buried beside me,' — they bury her beside her husband.8Sem. ibid. For the husband is dutibound to attend to her burial needs. Y.Ket. IV, 6(28d); ibid. XIII, 2(35d). One buries the dead of the Gentiles2If there is no one else available to make the burial arrangements. They are not buried in a Jewish cemetery. and comforts their mourners in the interests of peace.3Git. 61a adds: ‘along with the dead of Israel.’ V, however, Y.Git. 9(47c) ; Y.Demai IV, 6(24a); Y.A.Z. I, 3(39c); Tosef(Z). Git. V (III), 5 where ‘along with’ is not found. supra § 335, 9. One must also participate in the funeral escort of the Gentile dead in the interests of peace, for the righteous among the nations have a share in the world to come (v. Tosef. San. XIII and cf. San. 105a) — B.Yos. Similarly, when one sees a Gentile dead passing by, he is dutibound to rise before him (Kol Bo) — B.Yos. One may not walk on the cemetery or within four cubits of a corpse while [wearing] phylacteries on his head, on account of, 'Whoso mocketh the poor blasphemeth his Maker'.4Prov. XVII, 5. The poor refers to the dead. But if they are covered it is permitted.5Ber. 18a; B.Yos. to O.Ḥ. § 23 and 45. also TaZ to O.Ḥ. § 45, n. One may not walk on the cemetery or within four cubits of a corpse or a grave while [holding] a Torah scroll in his arm and read in it, [nor] may one recite the Tefillah [there].6Ber. ibid. The same reason supra par. 2 applies here. Likewise, is it forbidden to recite [Biblical verses] orally [on the cemetery],7Tosaf. ibid. s.v. וםפר. unless it is for the honour of the dead as has been explained.8 supra § 344, 16 — G. Cf. also notes ibid. According to one opinion this refers to one who during lifetime was dutibound to perform these precepts, but not to a minor or a woman — P.Tesh. In times of distress where it is customary to go and pray at the graves of the righteous, it is forbidden to take along a Torah scroll — P.Tesh. One is permitted to enter the cemetery, or within four cubits of a corpse or a grave [while] wearing Ẓizith,9 Glos. provided it10e., each fringe or Ẓiẓith. Derived from the story about R. Ḥiyya and R. Jonathan in Ber. ibid. is not dragged along over the grave;10e., each fringe or Ẓiẓith. Derived from the story about R. Ḥiyya and R. Jonathan in Ber. ibid. but if it is dragged along, it is forbidden on account of, 'Whoso mocketh the poor'.11Prov. XVII, 5. supra n. When does this apply? — only in their days when they used to attach Ẓizith to the garment which they wore for their personal need,12For they attached fringes to all their garments. Hence, it was impossible to remove all such garments — R. Jonah. but today, since we wear it only for the sake of the religious duty,13e., of performing the precept of Ẓiẓith and not for personal wear. However, the small Talith (טלית קטן) may be worn there, because it is covered up by other garments — TaZ, ShaK. it is prohibited, even if they are not dragged along.14Tur on the authority of R. Jonah and v. Ber. ibid. Tosaf. s.v. למחר. And this is the case only if the Ẓizith are uncovered, but if they are covered, it is permitted.15Tosaf. ibid. O.Ḥ. § 23, 1 for the same ruling. Some follow the practice to tie together two Ẓizith from16Lit. ‘which are in.’ two corners [of the garment] when entering the cemetery, but they have profited nothing by their measure.17B.Yos. to O.Ḥ. § 23 and Sh. Ar. ibid. par. 2. Derived from Men. 37b. Although two corners are tied together, the precept of Ẓiẓith does not become suspended thereby, for the knot is not a permanent one, since the intention is to untie the knot as soon as the cemetery grounds are left and the Ẓiẓith are regarded as spread out (v. O.Ḥ. § 10, 3). And even if the precept of Ẓiẓith is considered temporarily suspended, then later, when they are untied, the Ẓiẓith are invalid, for it would not be in keeping with the principle, ‘Thou shalt make’ (Deut. XXII, 12) which is explained that one must not use (Ẓiẓith) which are ready made (תעשה ולא מן העשוי) — Men. 33b. Thus B.Yos. and M.Abr. As soon as one removes himself four cubits he may read [the Shema] and recite the Tefillah even if he [still] sees the grave or the cemetery; and if there is a partition there, he is permitted [to read the Shema and recite the Tefillah] behind the partition close by, even within four cubits of the grave.18RaShBA Resp. cited by B. Yos. ibid. Burial grounds must not be treated irreverently,1Meg. 29a. The reason is because of respect to the dead (Gemara ibid.). This applies not only to the individual graves, but to the entire cemetery, for once a piece of ground has been set aside to be used as a cemetery, it enjoys a status of holiness, on the same principle as a Synagogue (v. Shab. 45a; O.Ḥ. § 152, 1). The status of holiness with respect to a cemetery operates only after a burial has been made, and in the case of a Synagogue after they worship therein — P.Tesh. — e.g., to ease oneself therein2Kol Bo — G. This must not be done even at a distance from the graves. or to eat or drink therein;3This would be considered disrespectful and is similar to Synagogues wherein it is not fitting to eat or drink (Meg. 28a). v. Rashi ibid. s.v. אין אוכלין. and one does not read [Bible] nor study [Mishna] therein;4SeMaG — G. On account of, ‘Whoso mocketh the poor (i.e., the dead) blasphemeth his Maker’ (Prov. XVII, 5). and one does not calculate accounts therein.5B.Yos. on the authority of R. Yeruḥam — G. This refers to accountings made even on behalf of the public — ShaK. Cattle are not permitted to graze in them, nor is a water-channel conveyed through them,6Meg. ibid. Asheri and Mord. on the authority of RI state that even ‘natural soil’ is forbidden for grazing out of respect for the dead. nor should one walk through them for the purpose [of using them] as a short cut,7Compendiaria, sc. via. Sem(H). XIV, — i.e., as a passage from one side to the other; nor should one pluck grass from them; and if one did pluck [grass]8Lit. ‘herbs.’ or one had to pluck it9Lit. ‘them,’ i.e., the herbs. on account of the need of the graveyard-space,10In order to inter someone therein — Perisha. he burns it9Lit. ‘them,’ i.e., the herbs. on the spot.11Meg. ibid. This is done not out of respect to the dead, but is a sort of fine, or in order to avoid suspicion that he takes it for his cattle — Mord. It should be noted that all the restrictions enumerated in the Mishna (Meg. 28a) regarding a Synagogue apply equally to burial grounds (excluding the restriction of funeral orations). The Baraitha (Meg. 29a) enumerates the restrictions that apply only to graveyards but not to Synagogues — A.H. Gloss: Similarly, must one not take [aught] from the natural soil of a grave,12e., directly from the grave — R. A. Eger. although it is permitted for use,13Implied by Asheri and Mord. — G. The reason why it was permissible to take earth from Rab’s grave, is explained in San. 47b that since it was taken to be used as a remedy, it was not regarded as disrespect. supra § 364, 1 Gloss and notes. This would not apply to a built grave — D.M. and all this is only out of respect to the dead. Therefore, if one requires it for a remedy, it is permitted.14Derived from Mord. — G. n. 13. Likewise, is it permitted to make use of the grass upon the graves or of the fruit of the trees that [stand] thereon, [provided this is done] for the benefit15Lit. ‘need.’ of the graves, e.g., where the heathen ruler permits his cattle to graze on the graves and it is impossible to prevent him save at a considerable cost,16As a bribe. and the means of the community suffice not, — [the law is that] they may sell these things in order to save the graves from the heathen's hand, for this is [considered] respect to the dead.17Terumath ha-Deshen s. 284; MaHaRIW s. 3 — G. This is derived from Ḥezkiah who took the gold off the Temple doors and sent it to the King of Assyria as a bribe (II Kings XVIII, 16). Ber. 10b; Pes. 56a and RaDaK to Kings ibid. This shows that Ḥezkiah did this in order to save the Temple proper. Similarly in the present case. If there is nothing on the graves to sell for the sake of [meeting] the required expense, — [the law is that] if the means of the community suffice, and it is in their power to prevent [this desecration] through a small cost, they are required to prevent [him] if there is no apprehension that the ruler be thereby incited against them; but otherwise they are not required to prevent [him].17Terumath ha-Deshen s. 284; MaHaRIW s. 3 — G. This is derived from Ḥezkiah who took the gold off the Temple doors and sent it to the King of Assyria as a bribe (II Kings XVIII, 16). Ber. 10b; Pes. 56a and RaDaK to Kings ibid. This shows that Ḥezkiah did this in order to save the Temple proper. Similarly in the present case. [With respect to trees] that one plants on a cemetery, — [the law is that] it is permitted to harvest their fruit, since they are not [planted] on the graves proper.18Meg. 29a, Tosaf. s.v. ואין מרעין. This is not regarded as disrespectful. It is permitted to plant trees or a garden on those parts of the cemetery where one is positive that there is no grave — ShaK. A new grave is measured, sold and divided and an old one is not measured nor sold nor divided.19