יורה דעה שמ״חYoreh De'ah 348

Se’if 1א׳

שׂוֹרְפִין עַל הַמְּלָכִים אוֹ עַל הַנְּשִׂיאִים (טוּר בְּשֵׁם תּוֹסֶפְתָּא), מִטָּתָן וּכְלֵי תַּשְׁמִישָׁן, אֲבָל עַל הַהֶדְיוֹטוֹת אָסוּר.

They burn at [the funerals] of Kings,1A.Z. 11a. This is not considered an Amorite usage, for it is written: ‘Thou shalt die in peace and with burnings of thy fathers, the former kings were before thee, so shall they make a burning for thee’ (Jer. XXXIV, 5). These words were spoken to King Ẓedekiah. Nor does one transgress thereby the law which prohibits to ruin anything wantonly (Deut. XX, 19). On the contrary, honour is thereby extended to the Kings or Princes lest anyone makes use of their articles if left. Hence, only their beds or other articles of use are burnt, but nothing else — ShaK. or [at the funerals] of princes,2Tur on the authority of Tosef. — G. Princes are also mentioned in A.Z. ibid. Cf. however, Sem(H). VIII, 6. their bed[s] and articles which they used,1A.Z. 11a. This is not considered an Amorite usage, for it is written: ‘Thou shalt die in peace and with burnings of thy fathers, the former kings were before thee, so shall they make a burning for thee’ (Jer. XXXIV, 5). These words were spoken to King Ẓedekiah. Nor does one transgress thereby the law which prohibits to ruin anything wantonly (Deut. XX, 19). On the contrary, honour is thereby extended to the Kings or Princes lest anyone makes use of their articles if left. Hence, only their beds or other articles of use are burnt, but nothing else — ShaK. but for commoners it is forbidden [to do so].3Tosef(Ẓ). Shab. VII(VIII), 18; San. IV, 3. In the case of commoners, burning their articles would smack of haughtiness and would be considered a transgression of ‘Do not destroy.’ From this we learn that one should not destroy wantonly any garment whatsoever for the dead unless it is required for the shrouds — A.H.

Se’if 2ב׳

הָאוֹמֵר: אַל תִּקְבְּרוּהוּ מִנְּכָסָיו, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, אֶלָּא מוֹצִיאִין מִיּוֹרְשָׁיו כָּל צָרְכֵי קְבוּרָתוֹ בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ, וְכֵן כָּל מַה שֶּׁרְגִילִין לַעֲשׂוֹת לִבְנֵי מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ, וַאֲפִלּוּ הָאֶבֶן שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין עַל הַקֶּבֶר; וְהוּא שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ מָמוֹן מֵאֲבִיהֶם.

One who gave instructions4While in a dying condition. [that when he dies] he should not be buried at the expense of his estate,5But should be a public charge. is not to be obeyed,6Ket. 48a: ‘For he has no right to enrich his sons and become a public charge.’ but they collect from his heirs7Even if he distributed most of his estate and left very little for the heirs, the latter are still dutibound to bury him at their expense (cf. Ḥ.M. § 253, 31) — ShaK. If he left enough only for his wife’s marriage settlement (Kethubah), he must be buried at the public’s expense — G.Mah. Ḥ.M. ibid. par. 30 where our present ruling is also found. [for] all his burial needs against their will,8Thus Tur. Cur. edd. have ‘his will.’ and likewise [for] all that is customarily done for [other] members of his family, and even [for] the stone that is placed upon his grave,9Tur derived from Asheri, San. § VI and in Resp. A tombstone may be erected over a grave at any time after the seven days of mourning — Mishmereth Shalom. also Ket. 5a, Tosaf. s.v. עד שיסתום. provided that they inherited money from their father.10Otherwise everyone is dutibound to share the costs — ShaK. However, this is applicable only if he left instructions. Otherwise, the heirs, if well-to-do, must pay the expenses even if they did not inherit the estate — G.Mah. and B.Hillel supra § 344, 9, n. 24.

Se’if 3ג׳

אֲפִלּוּ מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מָמוֹן שֶׁצִּוָּה וְאָמַר: אַל תִּקְבְּרוּהוּ, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.

Even one who has no money,11Tur has, ‘even a dying person who has no heirs.’ Cf. BaḤ a.l. who gave instructions [that when he dies] he should not be buried [in order not to become a public charge],12 San. 46b, where the question is raised whether the purpose of burial is to avoid disgrace for the relatives on account of the putrefaction of the body, if left unburied, or is burial a means of expiation for the sins that the dead committed during his lifetime (cf. ibid. 47b, where it is stated that the decomposition of the body in the ground is a means of atonement for the dead). This question remains undecided. N states that since this involves a doubt concerning a ritual question, we adopt the more stringent view. Hence, the ruling here. Cf. also Yad, Zekiyah U-Matanah XI, 24. is not to be obeyed.13Tur adds, ‘for it is a disgrace for all living and not only for his family.’ supra n. 11.