Jewish Burial Laws Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah | Joseph Karo, composed in Safed (1563 CE). | Code of Hebrew Law by Chaim N. Denburg, Montreal, 1955.

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.

A dead person who did not have [sufficient funds] for the burial needs and they raised [money] for his sake and there was a surplus; if at the time they collected the [money it was done specifically] for the needs of this particular dead person, [the surplus] should be given to his heirs; but if not [collected specifically for this particular person, the surplus] should be used for the needs of other dead.¹Mishna Shek. II, 5. Although we accept the principle that ‘designation is not considered a reality’ (San. 47b; supra § 349, 1), and consequently, the surplus should not be prohibited for general use, neverthelss, since the deceased was put to shame through the public collection of funds for his funeral needs, we say that the dead forgives his humiliation for the sake of his heirs only (ibid. 48a; supra § 253, 6). It follows therefore, that a woman may not collect her marriage settlement (Kethubah), nor a creditor his debt, from this surplus — A.H. The collection refers to money or other articles for the sake of the dead — ShaK. If the collector withholds the surplus in order to erect a monument over the grave of the dead person, and the heir demands the surplus for himself, contending that many other graves are also without monuments, the surplus must be given to the heir, unless it is customary that all the members of the dead person’s family have monuments on their graves, in which case the collector may use the money for the monument — P.Tesh. Cf. Ḥ.M. § 210 end, Gloss: ‘Anything which is transferred to the dead for the sake of his burial needs, becomes the property of the deceased.’

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.

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.

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.

One must not take apart the [collected] bones nor sever the sinews.²²Sem(H). XII,

A collection of bones [for final burial] is made only after the flesh has become decomposed;²³Sem(H). XII, [for] once the flesh is decomposed, the shape of the corpse is no longer discernible through the bones.²⁴This refers to a case where he himself collects the bones. However, if the collection is made before decomposition, he has to observe mourning for the entire day. supra § 375, Therefore, one may collect by himself²⁵Lit. ‘with his hand.’ his father's and mother's bones. Yet, it is [more] proper that one should not collect them by himself. [This is derived] from that [which is related] about R. Eliezer b. Ẓadok [as stated] anon.