Cremation and Dignity

(12) all the valiant men arose, and went all night, and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth-shan; and they came to Yabesh, and burnt them there. (13) And they took their bones, and buried them under the tamarisk-tree in Yabesh, and fasted seven days.

§ 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.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the eulogy delivered for the honor of the living relatives of the deceased, or is it delivered for the honor of the dead? The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two possible reasons? The Gemara answers: There is a difference in a case where one said before he died: Do not eulogize that man, i.e., myself. If the eulogy is delivered to honor the deceased, he is able to forgo this honor, but if it is delivered to honor the living, he is not, as it is not in the power of one individual to forgo the honor of others. Alternately, the difference is with regard to whether it is possible to collect the eulogist’s fee from the heirs. If the eulogy is to honor the dead, it is possible to collect this fee from the heirs, even against their will, but if it is to honor the living, they are able to forgo this honor.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the verse that states: “And Abraham came to eulogize Sarah and weep over her” (Genesis 23:2), indicating that Sarah’s funeral was delayed until Abraham returned from Beersheba to Hebron to eulogize her. And if you say that a eulogy is delivered due to the honor of the living, would they have unduly delayed burying Sarah due to Abraham’s honor? The Gemara rejects this argument: It was satisfactory to Sarah herself that her funeral was delayed so that Abraham could be honored by eulogizing her. Since Sarah herself would prefer that Abraham eulogize her, there was no disgrace in waiting for Abraham to arrive.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different resolution of this dilemma from the verse referring to Abijah, son of Jeroboam: “And all Israel shall eulogize him and bury him” (I Kings 14:13). And if you say that a eulogy is delivered due to the honor of the living, are these people, Jeroboam’s surviving family, worthy of this honor? The Gemara answers: It is satisfactory to the righteous when other people are honored through them. Since that is their wish, they are eulogized even if their wicked relatives are honored as a result.

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). If you say that a eulogy is delivered due to the honor of the living, why should the wicked not be eulogized, as perhaps they are survived by righteous people who are worthy of this honor? The Gemara answers: It is not satisfactory to the righteous when they are honored through the wicked, and therefore they prefer that a eulogy not be delivered for their wicked relatives.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from what Jeremiah said to Zedekiah: “You shall die in peace; and with the burnings of your fathers, the former kings that were before you, so shall they make a burning for you; and they will eulogize you, saying: Ah, master” (Jeremiah 34:5). And if you say that a eulogy is delivered due to the honor of the living relatives of the deceased, what difference does it make to him if he is eulogized? The Gemara answers: It is possible that a eulogy is to honor the living, and this is what Jeremiah is saying to Zedekiah: Enjoy the thought that Israel shall be honored through you at your funeral just as they were honored through your ancestors at their funerals.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from what was taught with regard to the verse: “In his eyes a vile person is despised, but he honors them that fear the Lord” (Psalms 15:4). This is referring to Hezekiah, king of Judea, who dragged the bones of his father, Ahaz, on a bier made of ropes, and he did not bury Ahaz in a manner befitting a king in order to disgrace him for his sinful conduct. And if the eulogy and other funeral rites are meant to honor the living, what is the reason that he acted this way, in a manner that brought disgrace upon himself and all of the Jewish people? The Gemara answers: Hezekiah did this so that his father would achieve atonement for his sins through his disgrace.

The Gemara asks: Can it be that for his father’s atonement they would defer the honor of all of Israel, who would have been honored by a proper eulogy for their late king? The Gemara answers: It was satisfactory to the people of Israel themselves to forgo their honor for him in order that their former king achieve atonement for his sins.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Before he died, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his disciples: Do not eulogize me in the small towns that you pass as you take my body out for burial, but eulogize me only in the larger cities. And if you say that a eulogy is delivered in honor of the living, what difference does it make to him if he is eulogized also in the smaller towns? The Gemara answers: He thought that the people of Israel would be more greatly honored through him if they gathered together for the eulogies in the larger cities.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If one left his deceased relative unburied overnight for the sake of his honor, e.g., in order to bring him a coffin or shrouds, he does not transgress the prohibition of “his body shall not remain all night.” What, is it not referring to the honor of the deceased? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to the honor of the living relatives of the deceased.

The Gemara asks: But can it be that due to the honor of the living, they allow the deceased to remain unburied overnight? The Gemara answers: Yes, as when the Merciful One states: “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him that day” (Deuteronomy 21:23), it teaches that the prohibition applies only to cases similar to that of a person whose body is hung after his death, who suffers degradation when his corpse is left hanging overnight. But here, since the deceased does not suffer degradation when the funeral is delayed, as the delay is in order that the burial will be performed with greater dignity, there is no violation of the prohibition, and he may be left unburied overnight.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one left his deceased relative unburied overnight for the sake of his honor, for example, in order to assemble the people from the neighboring towns for the funeral, or to bring him professional lamenters, or to bring him a coffin or shrouds, he does not transgress the prohibition of “his body shall not remain all night,” as anyone who acts in such a manner does so only for the sake of honoring the dead. This indicates that the eulogy and other funeral rites are performed to honor the deceased. The Gemara rejects this argument: This is what the baraita is saying: Anyone who acts in such a manner for the sake of honoring the living does not transgress the prohibition, as there is no degradation of the dead.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: It is a good sign for the deceased when he is punished after his death and does not receive an honorable burial or eulogy, as his lack of honor brings him atonement for his sins. For example, if the deceased was not eulogized, or if he was not buried, or if a wild animal dragged his corpse, or if rain fell on his bier, this is a good sign for the deceased.

Learn from the baraita that a eulogy is delivered for the honor of the dead, so that when he is deprived of this honor, he achieves atonement for his sins.

The Gemara affirms: Learn from the baraita that this is so.

"Is burial because of [averting] disgrace or because of atonement"- One must admit that there is some measure of atonement, since it says (below, 47b) "When is atonement effective, from the moment when they saw the pain of the open grave..." Rather, even if there are both [averting] disgrace as well as atonement, one can ask which is essential.

And if you say there is more atonement when it is not buried than when it is buried, as it teaches in our tractate (47a), "It is a good sign for the deceased that he is punished after his death. If he died, he is not eulogized or buried."

One can respond that it doesn't mean he is not buried at all, rather, he is not buried according to his honor. And this disgrace here is not disgrace of the deceased but disgrace of the family. But for the dead, there is disgrace if he doesn't lie in honor on the bier.

(1) A dead body that is in danger [of being burned] in a raging fire: If there is a baby or loaf of bread, you should move the body with it. If there is not a baby or loaf, then if two matresses are avaliable, flip the body from mattress to mattress since this is indirect motion (tiltul min hatzad). If neither are available, you may move the body explicitly. All of these apply only if in one domain. If the body is currently in a very sunny place, you may move it to a shady area by means of a baby or loaf as long as it remains in one domain. However, if there are no babies or loaves available, it may not be moved, even by the method of flipping mattresses, since indirect motion [in the standard case] is called motion. ((Rama) -See later on, in this siman, seif 6 what the decree is)

2. A corpse rotting in a house, and is disgraced among the living, and they are disgraced by it, [Rama: some say even if it didn't rot yet but is close to rotting] it is allowed to take it to a carmelit [on shabbat]. If they had a place to go through it, they don't move it, but place it in its place and they leave. Some say it was not permitted to take it to a carmelit, except with a loaf or baby. There is one authority who says that anytime we take it to a carmelit, it is preferable to take it without a loaf or baby, in order to limit the carrying. Some even allow to take it out to a reshut harabim with a baby, but not with a loaf. This is the law too with a different disgrace, e.g. he was on a ship and non-jews were gathering there, and anything like this. [rema: it is allowed to ask a non-jew to carry him, such as with a loaf or a baby]. It is forbidden to carry a corpse with a loaf or baby for the needs of a Cohen or anything else. But some permit it by asking a non-Jew, and so I have seen for the needs of a mitzvah or a wedding.

3. One authority says if he placed on the corpse one of the garments he was wearing, this is like a loaf or baby.

6. A corpse was lying in the sun and they had no place to move it to, or they didnt want to move it from its place, two people come and sit on each side. If the ground is hot, eat brings a couch and sits on it. If it is hot above, each brings an umbrella and spreads it over him. Each one tips his couch and leaves it, and a partition has been made...

7. It is permitted to annoint the corpse and wash it and to remove the mattress so it doesn't smell, as long as he doesn't move a limb. If his face was continuing to open more, tie the lips so it doesn't remain open. but not to close what was already opened even partially, for if he does that he is moving a limb. For this reason, they said we do not close the eyes of the dead on shabbat.

It is forbidden to benefit from the deceased and his garments are forbidden....

They said a deceased is forbidden in hanaah because they derive "name...name" from the egel arufah.

Specifically, when he prepared them for the corpse and put them on it. But if he merely prepared them for it after the death, they are not forbidden.

1. We burn beds & bedding when a king or community leader dies, but for a layman this is forbidden.

2. One who says: don't pay for burial out of his estate, we do not listen, but we take all necessary funds for the burial from the inheritors even against their will. Also, everything that is normally done for a family member, and even the gravestone; this is when they inherited money from their father.

3. Even one who has no money, who commanded and said "don't bury him," we don't listen to him.

One who places his deceased in a coffin but does not bury him in earth transgresses [the prohibition of] "leaving the deceased overnight." If he placed him in a coffin and buried him in earth, he does not transgress it. In any event, it is good to truly bury him in soil, even outside Israel.

(1) To bury him on the same day, and so [too] all the dead: To bury the one that was hung on that [same] day, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 21:23), "rather you shall surely bury him on that day, etc." And the language of Sifrei here is "'Rather you shall surely bury him on that day' is a positive commandment."

(2) About the roots of the commandment is what they, may their memory be blessed, mentioned in the mishna in the chapter [entitled] Nigmar Hadin (Sanhedrin 46b). As there they said that one who is hung is a curse to God, meaning to say that the creatures should not say, "Why was he hung? Because he cursed the Name [of God]." And it will come out in their mentioning of this and their bringing the thing up in their mouths, that they will be profaning the Name of the Heavens and causing evil to themselves. And the God who desires the good of His creatures prevented them from this because of that.

(3) From the laws of this commandment are that which they, of blessed memory, said (Sanhedrin 46a) that this commandment is not only with one who is hung, but rather even with all those killed by the court, it is a commandment to bury them on the day of their killing. Also included in this commandment is to bury all Jewish dead on the day of their death. And because of this, they, may their memory be blessed, called a dead body that has no one to be involved in his burial, 'a dead body of the commandment (met mitsvah),' which is to say that it is a commandment upon all to bury him due to this command. And they, may their memory be blessed, said in the mishnah mentioned (Sanhedrin 46a) that two grave-sites were set up for the courts, one for those hung and burnt - whose punishment is more severe - and one for those who are killed (decapitated) and asphyxiated - whose punishment is more lenient. And after the flesh has decomposed, we collect the bones of the one convicted to be there and bury them in their fathers' grave-sites. And more details are in the mentioned chapter (See Tur, Yoreh Deah 382).

(4) This commandment is practiced, concerning those killed by the court during the time when capital punishment is practiced; and concerning other Jewish dead in every place and at all times, by males and by females, as it is a commandment to bury them on the day of death. And one who transgresses this, and leaves a dead body overnight not for his (the dead person's) honor, negates this positive commandment, besides transgressing a negative commandment, as we will write in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 536) with God's help.