Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah
שולחן ערוך, יורה דעה
merged
https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh,_Yoreh_De'ah
This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
-Section on Charity, trans. Louis Feinberg. N.Y. School of Philanthropy, 1915
-https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002610269
-Sefaria Community Translation
-https://www.sefaria.org
-Shulchan Aruch by Yosef Karo, translated from Hebrew by Wikisource
-https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Shulchan_Aruch
-Laws of Salting Meat -- Rabbi Ari Enkin
-http://www.torahmusings.com/?s=Rabbi+Ari+Enkin
-Translation v.1
-https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/assets/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/plotkin_mixing.pdf
-Ashlei Ravrevei: Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah, Lemberg, 1888
-https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002097765
-Wikisource Shulchan Aruch - English
-http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Shulchan_Aruch/Yoreh_Deah/186
-Shulchan Aruch de Yosef Karo , traduit de l'hébreu par Wikisource
-https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Shulchan_Aruch
-Code of Hebrew Law by Chaim N. Denburg, Montreal, 1955
-https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002610264
-Asher Meza (without commentary)
-http://BeJewish.org

Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah



Siman 1

1.	All may slaughter (shecht), at the outset, even women . Rema: {There are those that say that women should not be permitted to shecht, as we have already established a custom that (women) are not to shecht, and thus the tradition (holds) that women do not shecht.} Slaves and anyone, even if you do not know that he does not faint (because of shechting), even if you do not know if he is an expert that knows the laws of shechita (kosher slaughter), it is permitted from the outset to let him shecht and it is permitted to eat from his shechita. This is because the majority of those that regularly shecht are under the presumption of being tested experts (in shechita). What situation are we talking about here? (We are talking about  a situation) where that person is not in front of us, only then is it permitted to eat from his shechita, and we rely on the presumption (referenced to above). However if he is before us we need to check him, if he is an expert and knows the laws of shechita, however we do not need to ask if he faints. Rema: {There are those that say that one should only rely on the presumption after the fact,and that initially the presumption should not be relied upon if you are in a place where you can clarify him (the Shochet's [kosher slaughterer's] abilities). All this applies to those that aren't proficient and need to know if this Shochet is proficient. But the Shochet himself shall not shecht, even if he knows the laws of shechita and is proficient, until he has shechted 3 times in front of a learned man and one that is proficient in the laws of shechita. Therefor we practice that a man shall not shecht without having obtained kabalah (ordination) from before a learned one.      And the learned one should not give kabalah until he knows that he (the Shochet) knows the laws of shechita and is proficient with his hands. Therefor we practice that all who come to shecht we trust them initially and we don't check them before or after. Because all that are found to be shechting have already received kabalah from before a learned one. And in a few places they are more stringent. That the one who received (kabalah) also gets a written letter from the learned one, as proof that he has given him kabalah. And every Shochet, even though he has recieved kabalah, it is fitting that he should return to the chapters of laws of shechita. That they (the laws of shechita) should live in his mouth and in his heart, so that he will not forget them. And like in the laws of shechita and with one that comes to shecht thus is the ruling in the laws of bedikaht hare'ah (checking the lungs for disqualifying sickness) and one that comes to check (the lungs). And their (shechita's and behikah's) rules and customs are all equal in all of this. And it is fitting for a Jewish court to investigate and the bodkim (checkers of disqualifying sickness) and shochtim (kosher slaughterers). Because large is the transgression in bedikot and shechitot, that are applicable to all. And if they checked some Shochet or bodek and it is found that he does not know, if at one time he received kabbalah we do not deem all everything he has shechted in the past to be treif (unkosher), for we say that only now did he become bad. But if one has never received kabalah, everything that he has shechted will become treif, and also all the dishes on which what he shechted was cooked would need to be kashered}...
2.	One does not need to know all of the different details of the laws (of shechita), rather if one says "concerning this matter I would be in doubt and ask (a competent authority)", such an individual is called "knowledgeable", until he calls that which is forbidden permitted. Rema: {And we check him about the laws of shechita that will be explained later in the beginning of S23 and in the rules of checking of the knife and in the rules of checking the simanim after shechita that will be explained in S25. And if he shechts and is not here in front of us to check, we none the less check the simanim to see if the majority of them was shechted, because whatever is possible to check we do. And this is all in places where there is not a custom to get kabbalah, but in places where the custom is to get kabbalah, like the sons of Ashkenaz and others that follow them, we do not customarily check after him at all, as will be explained (later)}...
3.	A person who we know that he does not know the laws of shechita, even if he shechts in front of us 4 or 5 times a proper and fitting shechita, and afterwards shechts privately his shechita is not kosher. Even if they ask him, "did you do such and such?" and from his answer it seems he shechted correctly, we do not rely on him. And even if he says "It is clear to me that I shechted beautifully." Rema: {a person who regularly faints, and we know he is not muchzak (established as not fainting), and he shechts and says "It is clear to me that I did not faint", (he is) believed. This is because he knows the laws of shechita.} And someone who we know does not know the laws of shechita, we can let him shecht if someone supervises him. This is only if he watches him from the beginning of the shechita until the end of it (the shechita). Rema: {And some are strict and forbid to let him shecht lehathila (initially). This is because he does not know the laws of schechita, and thus is the practice.}.
4.	If his goats or chickens are lost or stolen, and he found them properly slaughtered; in a place where the majority of people are Jews (and also the majority of the thieves in the city are Jews), they are permissible (to eat) - whether he found them in the market or he found them in the refuse heap of a home. But if he found them in the refuse heap in the market, they are forbidden.
5.	A person who is mute: that does not speak and does not hear; and a mentally disabled person, which is one who goes out himself at night or rips his clothes or sleeps in a graveyard or losses what is given to him… even just one of these, if he does it in the way of a crazy person; and a minor who does not know how to train his hands to shecht; we do not let them shecht lehat’hila (initially). Even if others are standing over them. And if they (none the less) shechted, their shechita is kosher if others were standing over them. But we do not allow them to shecht lehat’hila when others are not stand standing over them, even if we want to feed (the meat) to dogs. If a minor knows how to train his hands, if others are standing over him, he can shecht lehat’hila and it is allowed to eat from his shechita. Rema: { However, if he shechts for himself, than his shechita is disqualified, even if he knows the laws of shechita; he is considered a minor with regards to this matter (of shechita) until he has become bar-mitzvah, which is 13 years and 1 day [old]. There are those that are strict to not give kabalah to anybody less than 18 years old. For then he is a “man with wisdom”, and knows to be careful.}
6.	One who is: a person with hearing-loss, which speaks but cannot hear- he shall not shecht. This is because he does not hear the blessing. If he shechts, even by himself, the slaughter is valid...
7.	One who hears but does not speak, if he is skilled, he can even shecht lehat’hila if another blesses...
8.	A drunk person who reaches the drunkenness of Lot, his ruling is that of a person of cognitive incapability(a mentally-disabled person. Refer above.) If he has not reached the drunkenness of Lot, he can shecht lehat’hila. Rema: {And there are those that say that one who is drunk should not shecht, because for him to come to derasa (chopping, which is forbidden in shechita).}...
9.	A blind person, shall not shecht lehat’hila, unless others are watching him. And if he shechted, his shechita is kosher...
10.	A naked person shall not shecht lehat’hila, this is because he cannot make a blessing...
11.	If the community established a decree, that none should shecht other than a known butcher, and another shechted, there are those that say his shechita is forbidden . Rema: {If the decree was nullified than all the shochtim are in a presumption of kosher[shechita], as in the beginning.}...
12.	One who shechts, in front of witnesses, an animal for an idol worshiper, then, when a Jew comes to buy it from him, he says “don’t buy (meat) from this animal because I did not shecht it” he is not believed.  However, to himself(the Shochet) it(the meat) is forbidden , since he declared it to be a forbidden cut/slice for himself (by his statement that it wasn't kosher)...
13.	 A butcher that makes a sign on the head of the sheep that was shechted, that it should be seen that it (the sheep) is treif, and he also said that it is treif. And afterwards he said that it was kosher, and that he only said this in order that they would not take it so that he should be able to take meat from it. Because he gave a reason for his words, he is trusted... 
14.	 If one witness said that a shochet did not shecht correctly. And he (the shochet) denies it, one witness against a denial is nothing (not considered sufficient proof). And to the witness himself  it is allowed to eat from here (the shochet’s meat) and to the next. In any case, everything is according to the man...

Siman 2

The shechita of a non-jew, (the animal slaughtered has the status of a) nevilah (animal which was not shechted or shechted improperly). Even if he (the non-Jew) was a minor and even if the non-jew does not worship idols. Rema: {For example, a legal resident (a non Jew who does not worship idols and lives among Jews)} and even if others watch him. 
If a wanton sinner who eats a nevilah* and deliberately (slaughters), if a Jew first checks the knife that he is given, only then are we allowed to eat from what he slaughtered even if he slaughters alone (only) if he knows the laws of slaughter. However if the knife is not checked from the beginning, it is forbidden to eat what he slaughtered until we check the knife at the end. And if it’s not given to him in the beginning in order to slaughter, even if a trustworthy person stood over him to assist, without checking the knife from the beginning, we don’t rely that the knife was fit to slaughter.(even if you plan to check it at the end)
A wanton sinner * who intends to slaughter, even if he swears that he slaughtered with a good knife he is not believed....(*carcass of a kosher animal not killed in accordance with Jewish law and therefore forbidden for consumption.**a ”mumar leteiavon” does not mean an apostate, it means a wanton sinner who sins out of lust or desire, not out of heresy)
Seif 4 If a wanton sinner slaughters alone, and he has with him a proper knife and a knife that is not proper. And then says that he slaughtered with the correct knife, we trust them.And even if we find meat in his hand, if there are experts in the city, we accept his slaughter (if the experts say) an expert slaughtered this.
Seif 5 An (true) apostate*, even against one Jewish law, or if he is a Jew who worships foreign gods or who publicly desecrates the sabbath, or an apostate against all of torah apart from these two they have the status of non Jews *(Cuthean was added by the censors).*a Mumar Lehachis is someone who sins (in heresy) out of anger to G-d.
Seif 6 An apostate who continues committing the same transgression, we don’t need to check his knife, according to the Rambam it needs to be checked, specifically if he is an apostate because of a transgression, however if he is an invalidated witness by a transgression that make up the torahs list of transgressions, you don’t need to check the knife, even according to the Rambam.
Seif 7 If he is an apostate because of his foreskin, his status is like one who transgresses a specific law. And if he wasn't circumcised due to a fear of death during the circumcision, Indeed he is like the rest of the kosher Jews.*a mumar le'aveirah is worse than pasul le'edut.
Seif 8 A Samaritan nowadays has the status of an Idol Worshiper.
Seif 9 Saducees and Baiythiates (followers of Baiytus) what they slaughter is forbidden, however if they slaughter and an expert stood over them guiding them and they also checked the knife. (it is allowed).
Seif 10 If an invalidated person starts to slaughter and when he finishes he is no longer invalidated, or if someone begins to slaughter as a kosher Jew and by the end of the slaughter has become and invalidated person. What do we tell them? (We say)From the beginning you were invalidated with respect to an issue, this makes what you slaughtered a nevilah, for example if the gullet and the majority of the trachea (were cut when he found out it is not allowed), however if from the beginning someone is invalidated and half of the Trachea (is already cut) and he finished as a kosher jew, it is permissible.
Seif 11 If a kosher Jew and an invalidated slaughterer simultaneously slaughter, it is not allowed to be consumed.We don’t need to say anything if his (The Kosher Jew’s) hand is on the knife.

Siman 3

Seif 1 The slaughter of non consecrated (animals) does not require intention. Even if one didn’t intend to cut, or if one threw the knife and inserted it itself in a wall, and (in that manner) slaughtered (properly) according to Halacha. If one sees that the knife is not dulled between the required (integral) points or under the skin.And if one finds that a feather or a hair is cut by it, for sure it's not dulled.Even if he drops the knife from his hand or his foot with intention, and slaughters, it is permissible.However if it falls on its own, its forbidden, Because we require human power..(to perform it properly).And if there was a knife placed on your lap or your hand and it fell from your hand or lap by mistake, because it fell literally on its own, it is forbidden.


Siman 4

Seif 1 A slaughter done in the name of Idolatry, even if he doesn't have the intention to perform the act of slaughter and the act of worship, however he has the intention to slaughter it to throw the blood or to burn the fat to worship idols, indeed this is a sacrifices to dead things and it's forbidden to derive benefit from it.
Seif 2 A slaughter without intentions, afterwards, He has a desired intent to throw its blood or to burn the fat for idolatry, it is a question if these are a sacrifices to dead things. (and we say we are strict in a doubt in a Biblical matter, therefore it is forbidden) 
Seif 3 A Jew slaughters an animal belonging to a Gentile, even if he has the intention for the Samaritan to worship idols, it is kosher. And if a Jew intentionally threw it to a samaritan to worship idols, it is forbidden.
Seif 4 If a Jew slaughters an animal belonging to his friend (fellow Jew) for the sake of worshiping Idols, it is not forbidden, because certainly his intentions are only to cause him distress (and not to actually worship idols).  However, if he has a share in it, some say that also his friend's share is also forbidden, while others say that this is also directed to only cause distress to his colleague, and then it is not forbidden.
Seif 5 One who slaughters for the sake of hills or mountains, or for the sake of the sun or the moon, stars or constellations, oceans or rivers, it does not have the status of an item which was offered as an idolatrous sacrifice, therefore it is not prohibited to derive benefit from this meat, however the slaughter is invalidated, even though he did not intend to worship but to heal or some other practice derived from the meaningless superstitions the Samaritans speak about.
Seif 6 If someone slaughtered as a sacrifice for the angel or deity of a mountain, or for a god or spirit of anything, whether the slaughter is a sacrifice for the sake of the Archangel Michael or a sacrifice for the guardian angel of the smallest worm in the sea, it is considered to be a sacrifice to dead false gods and it is forbidden to derive benefit from it. 
Seif 7 If the Ishmaelites do not allow Jews to slaughter unless they turn their face to Al Kibla, (meaning they turn their face toward the east, to Mecca) in accordance with their custom, this is not similar to one who slaughters for the sake of a mountain [thus would not be prohibited].In any event, however, it is proper to do away with this custom and to castigate those who do so, (inasmuch as we are careful to avoid this).


Siman 5

Seif 1 A slaughter for the sake of holy sacrifices, offering as a sacrifice that is offered as a donation or to fulfill a vow, even if the animal has a deformity (and would not be a valid sacrifice), the slaughter is invalid (and not kosher even as a non-sacrificial meat), because it is like slaughtering a sacrifice outside of the Temple. However, a slaughter performed for the sake of a holy sacrifice which is not one of them which are offered as a donation or a vow, the slaughter is accepted as kosher. How is this so? Just like a slaughter done for the sake of a Burnt Offering,  a thanksgiving offering, or Passover offering it is invalidated (as these are offered as donations or to fulfill vows). (Why would the Passover be in this category?  Isn't it an obligation?)  Because on Passover we’re able to set aside all the time what we desire, which is similar to a willful vow. A slaughter for the sake of a sin offering, or a guilt offering, or a first born, or your tithe, or compensation exchanged for another sacrifice, then the slaughter is acceptable as kosher (as a non-sacrifice). However, if a person knows he committed a sin which would obligate him to offer a sacrifice in the Temple, and he declares this slaughter to be for the sake of his sin offering or his guilt offering, the slaughter is invalid (not kosher).
Seif 2 If someone slaughterers chickens and geese and the like (with intention for sacrificing), since these species are not fit for sacrificing they are permissible for consumption. This is also the case if one slaughters small pigeons or grown doves, (since only grown pigeons and small doves were sacrificed).
Seif 3 If two people slaughter the same animal together, whether both grab the same knife in their hands,or each one slaughters with a different knife simultaneously, if one of them has intention for the sake of a invalidated thing their (Slaughter) is invalidated. Also if they slaughter the same animal one after the other, and one has in mind for the sake of an invalidated thing, (the slaughter) is invalidated. This only refers to a case where they shared ownership of the animal, however if they did not share ownership, and the one with the improper intent is not the owner, it is not invalidated, because it is impossible for a Jew to cause his fellow Jew's property to become forbidden to him, and this could only be for the intent of causing him pain, therefore it is inactive.


Siman 6

Seif 1 One may slaughter with anything that is detached from the ground, whether slaughtering with a knife or a rock or a thin reed of a lake, or any of these that can cut. (one may slaughter).(These objects) must have a sharp edge, and cannot have a flaw.Regarding a knife that has one side that is bent and one side that is good, one must not slaughter with the good side from the outset, this was a parameter that was taken so as not to enable the slaughterer to come to use the bad side.If he does slaughter, because it was the good side that was used to slaughter, it is permissible.
Seif 2 If one slaughters with something connected to the ground, or a body, like a fingernail and a tooth connected to an animal, the slaughter is invalidated.Or something detached from the ground but that will end up connected to the ground, we don't slaughter, if one slaughters it is permitted, and even if it is nullified, as long as it is not rooted again after it is nullified.
Seif 3 If one cuts with a jaw of an animal that has sharp teeth and slaughters with it, his slaughter is invalidated. (because it is like a sickle). However with one tooth that is affixed to the jaw, if one slaughters (before the fact) it is permissible.
Seif 4 If someone inserts a knife into a wall, and passes it across the neck (of an animal) until  it is slaughtered, it is permissible, provided that the animal's neck is below and the knife above, if the neck of the animal will be above the knife, it is possible that the animal will descend with the weight of its body [on the knife] and cut [its throat] without [it being brought back and forth]. This is not considered as being slaughtered ritually, Even if he says I am sure that it (the animal) didn’t trample (it neck) over it (the knife), the slaughter is invalidated, therefore, if it was a fowl, whether its neck is above the knife that is implanted or below it, the slaughter is acceptable.

Siman 7

Seif 1 A person may set a knife on a wheel of stone or wood that rotates by one's hand or foot, and proceed (with the contraption) to the neck of the animal or fowl until it is slaughtered by turning the wheel. (and it is acceptable). And if water rotates the wheel and he places the neck of [the animal] opposite it while it was turning causing it to be slaughtered, it is unacceptable.An exemption is made if a person caused the water to flow until they turned the wheel and caused it to slaughter by turning it, [if so the slaughter] is acceptable after the fact because the act came as a result of man's actions. However (a slaughtering that results) from a second rotation is unacceptable because the force did not come from man's power, but from the power of the flowing water.

Siman 8

How long must a knife be to slaughter? Any size as long as it's not too thin that it ends up piercing and not slicing like the head of a small blade or the like. And a needle, even if it is wide like those who makes holes like those who work with leather we decide with the thread. You can't slaughter with such a needle, since it is impossible to determine its size.A slaughterer with a small knife needs to be careful and measure his understanding to make sure he will not come to trample; however an extremely small (knife) we may not be allowed to slaughter with.

Siman 9

Seif 1 If one slaughters with a knife that is white (hot) the slaughter is invalidated, although some opinions hold the slaughter may be kosher.

Siman 10

Seif 1 A new knife belonging to one who worships idols, or an old knife that has no question of being under the impurity of idolatry (or non-kosher use), it is permitted to slaughter a healthy animal with it because by doing so it it will cause a financial loss. However it is forbidden to slaughter an animal that will die anyway due to illness, because this is a positive financial gain (since otherwise, the animal would be lost). The knife (one acquired) belonged to an idolater that was sharpened on a kosher grinding wheel, or if there wasn't a defect on it one must stab it in the hard ground ten times, then one can slaughter permissibly. If someone slaughters with a non-kosher knife, one must wash the area of the neck where the slaughtering cut, and if one cuts away the meat from the area, it is praiseworthy.
Seif 2 A knife that slaughters in a kosher manner, even though it is dirty with blood is permissible to slaughter again with it. However it is forbidden to cut something hot with it.And it is permissible to cut something cold with it if you rinsed off the blood first.
Seif 3 A knife that slaughtered a trefa, it is forbidden to slaughter with it until it is washed with cold or it is wiped with something hard. The modern custom is to wipe the knife thoroughly on the animal's hair between each slaughtering, and this is proper to do, and if someone slaughters without washing it, we wash off the area of the neck where the slaughter cut.  If one finds that he is regularly slaughtering many trefot, we need to stick the knife in hard ground ten times.

Siman 11

Seif 1 One can slaughter at anytime, whether in the day or at night; what do we mean by this? It could be done anytime with a torch, however when there isn't a torch at all or in a dark place, we don't slaughter; and if one slaughters what was slaughtered is permissible.
Seif 2 A slaughter perform on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, even if it was done intentionally, on Shabbat one forfeits his life (if he slaughters), and on Yom Kippur he receives lashes. However what he slaughter will be permissible.
Seif 3 We don’t slaughter into the ocean or rivers, lest people say, that one slaughtered for the deity of the sea, we also don’t slaughter into vessels lest people say that one slaughtered to collect blood to throw it at idols; and if there is a vessel of water, so that the blood (that gets mixed) is not fit for throwing, if the vessels are clear we don’t slaughter into it, lest people say that one is offering a sacrifice to an image reflected by the water; and if (the water) is murky it's permitted; and if there are ashes (or dirt) in the vessel, it is permitted to slaughter in it.
Seif 4 If it happens to be that there is no free space to slaughter in on a boat, you may slaughter on the back of a vessel, and the blood of the slaughter will then trickle down to the water; Or stretch your arm outside of the boat, and slaughter off the side (of the boat), then the blood will flow into the water, without worry.


Siman 12

Seif 1 We don’t slaughter into a basin, even in a house; and if you will don’t want dirty your house with blood, make a place with a slope to the basin and slaughter there, and then the blood of the slaughter will flow in the basin; and in a market this is not done.
Seif 2 There are those who say that if you slaughter in a basin in the market, it is forbidden to eat what he (the person) slaughters until afterwards we check if he is a heretic (or not). There are those who say that it is permitted after the fact without checking (the character of) the slaughterer.

Siman 13

Domesticated animals, wild animals, and birds require ritual slaughter [to be permitted to eat]; fish and grasshoppers do not require ritual slaughter. Rama: And it is permitted to eat them dead or to cut off a limb from them and eat it, but it is forbidden to eat them alive because of the prohibition against being disgusting.
Seif 2 One who slaughters an animal and finds it Kosher, then found inside a fetus of 8 (months), whether alive or dead, or a fetus of 9 (months) dead, it may be eaten and does not require slaughter. And if he finds inside a fetus of 9 (months) that is a alive: if it stood on the ground, it requires slaughter, but other treifot do not prohibit it. If it did not place its hooves on the ground it does not require slaughter. And if its hooves are fused even though it stood on the ground, it does not require slaughter. And some are in doubt.
Seif 3 If while killing the mother, he rips her apart, and if while slaughtering you make her to become a neveilah or a trefa, if the fetus is alive and is in the 9th month you may slaughter itself to make it kosher. If it is a dead fetus of 9 months or even alive of 8 months, then it is prohibited (since the mother was not kosher).
Seif 4 If a living 9-month fetus was found in the womb of a kosher-slaughtered animal, and the fetus grew up and mated with a regularly-born animal and begot a child, the child cannot be made kosher by shechitah (?).  If the fetus grew up and mated with a female animal who was similarly a fetus from a kosher slaughter, then their children, and grandchildren, for all generations, are also halachically considered to be like a fetus taken from a kosher slaughter, just like their parents.  Although the Torah does not require these animal to be slaughtered by shechitah and are kosher without shechitah, the Rabbis still require them to have shechitah as a rabbinical law.  However, they are not rendered non-kosher if they have a treifah.
Seif 5 If after slaughtering an animal we find (a fetus) that resembles a fowl, although it resembles a kosher fowl, it is forbidden to eaten; When a fetus is found in an animal it is not allowed unless it has hooves.
Seif 6 If after slaughtering an animal we find (a fetus) that has two backs and two spines it is not permitted.

Siman 14

Seif 1 An animal (that we are slaughtering) that happens to be in the process of giving birth, (and) if the head (of the fetus) protrudes then returns, it is like it is born (and as if it exited its mother) and is not kosher to eat by virtue of the mother's slaughter.Therefore, if it in 8th month of pregnancy whether alive or dead, or in 9th month it is forbidden; if it is in 9th month and alive, it is kosher by its own slaughter.
Seif 2 If the fetus sticks out a limb and then retracts it (before the slaughter is performed) the limb that came out is forbidden.However what remained internal, from that place to cut,  it is allowed; what returns it slaughtered, once the part that made its way outside of the cavity is cut off, the fetus is permitted.But the area that made its way outside as well as the part that one cut is forbidden.However the rest of it is allowed even small amounts.
Seif 3 If the majority of the limb comes out, it is as if it was born. And if half of the whole limb, from the majority from the small limb, it is like it is born.
If [the fetus] has extracted a limb and drew it back, and then extracted another limb and drew it back  until reaching a majority [of limbs] – the minority that did not emerge is allowed. However, if he had severed each limb as it emerged, even the minority [of limbs] that remained within is forbidden.  
Seif 5 Whenever an animal thrust its limb and then returned it and that limb becomes forbidden, and  afterwards its mother was slaughtered, If it is female, we are forbidden to drink its milk because the milk comes from all of the animal's limbs and it has a limb which is forbidden. Hence, it is comparable to milk from a trefe animal that becomes mixed with milk from a kosher animal.
Seif 6 If a person inserts his hand inside of an animal, cuts off the spleen, and or one of the kidneys or the like, but leaves (the cut organ) inside the animal, and then slaughters it, the pieces cut off are forbidden as Ever min HaChai although they remained within the animal's womb. Although if he cut away a section of the fetus within the womb, but did not remove it, and then slaughtered (its mother), the pieces or limbs of the fetus are permitted because they did not emerge (out of the mother). 

Siman 15

Seif 1 A chick anytime that it does not hatch (from its shell) is forbidden, after it hatches (from its shell)  it is allowed to be taken (and slaughtered).
Seif 2 When an animal is born, if you know it was born after a full-term pregnancy, which would be 9 months for large cattle and 5 months for small animals (such as sheep and goats), it is permitted to slaughter it immediately on the day it is born, since we are not worried that its limbs were ruined from the difficulty of childbirth.  However, if it is unknown whether it was from a full-term pregnancy, it is forbidden until the eighth night, inasmuch as it is possibly considered to be a miscarriage until the eighth day.
Seif 3 We don’t trust the word of an Idolater on whether a small goat is without defect or is 8 days old. (thus making it fit for slaughter).

Siman 16

Seif 1 It is forbidden to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day, it does not matter if you first slaughter the mother and afterward the son or daughter, or if you first slaughter the son or daughter and afterward the mother (it is forbidden either way no matter what order).
Seif 2 The prohibition (to slaughter) “ the mother and its offspring”  certainly applies to females, because when it comes to a mother we are always certain that it is her offspring. And if it's certain that it is known that its the father, we don’t slaughter them on the same day, and if it's (the father) slaughtered (The slaughterer) he is not lashed, because there is a question if the prohibition applies to fathers as well, or only to mothers.
Seif 3 If one violates this prohibition and slaughters a mother and its offspring on the same day, it is allowed to eat of it, There are those who do not allow it. (to eat the second one slaughtered on the same day).
Seif 4 When the Torah says "One day" regarding a mother and its offspring (if one slaughters) on one the day, the day follows the night, therefore we wait to slaughter the second one on the night that follows. What do we mean? if you slaughter the first one at the beginning of Tuesday night, we don’t start with the second one until the beginning of Wednesday night; and if you slaughtered the first one at the end of the Wednesday but before dusk; then slaughter the second one in the beginning of Wednesday night; And if you slaughter the first one at dusk of the Wednesday night, don’t slaughter the second one until the night of the Thursday night, and if you slaughtered on Thursday during day you won't receive lashes (although it is ideal not to do so).
Seif 5 If the child is following a female animal in a way that demonstrates that it is tied to her emotionally, we can assume she is his or her mother.
Seif 6 Someone who buys an animal does not need to worry that its mother or child was slaughtered that same day, however if the mother or child was slaughtered that same day, or if the mother or child was sold to someone else to be slaughtered that day, the seller is obligated to let the buyer know.  Furthermore, if it is one of the four times of the year when every Jew who purchases an animal can be assumed to slaughter it immediately; namely: Erev Pesach, Erev Shavuos, Erev Rosh Hashanah, and Hoshana Rabbah, the seller is obligated to inform the buyer if he sold the mother or child of that animal on the same day.  If the seller did not say anything, the buyer may slaughter the animal without worry, whether he purchased the animal from a Jew or from a gentile.  If he slaughtered the animal and was subsequently informed that its mother or daughter was slaughtered on the same day, it is a mistaken transaction.  This applies only if both were sold on the same day, however if the mother or daughter were sold on the previous day, there is no requirement to inform the purchaser.If one animal was sold to a groom and the second (either mother or child of the first animal) was sold to his bride, even if they were sold on different days, the seller needs to inform the buyer of the status of the animals, because we can assume that both animals will be slaughtered on the same day.If two people purchased a mother and child on the same day, the first purchaser should slaughter the animal and not the second purchaser.  When does this apply?  When they were both purchased from the same person, because as soon as the first one was sold, the remaining animal was not permitted to be slaughtered, because the first buyer purchased the animal in order to slaughter it immediately.  However, if they were purchased from two different sellers, each purchaser is equal, and whoever slaughters their animal first is performing his due diligence.
Seif 7 It is not forbidden to slaughter a mother and her offspring only if its a kosher domesticated animal, as it is said:(in Vayikra 22:28) Do not slaughter an ox or a sheep and its offspring on one day." However it is prohibited to slaughter it if it were a hybrid with a sheep or a goat" or with a wild animal such as a mountain goat or a deer, etc.
Seif 8 The offspring of a (male) deer and a (female) goat and one slaughters the goat and its offspring one is liable for lashes (from the Torah); it is forbidden to slaughter mother and son in the case where the offspring comes from a male goat and a female deer, but one does not receive lashes in that case.  If the female offspring of a doe deer with a male goat (i.e. the child of the previous case becomes a mother) one is liable for lashes should he slaughter the female offspring of this deer and its offspring on the same day.
Seif 9 It is not forbidden to slaughter a mother and her offspring together if they are not ritually slaughtered as [Leviticus 22:28] states: "Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep]3 and its offspring on one day. However if one decapitates the first one or if it becomes a nevelah in his hand it is allowed allowed to ritually slaughter the second one. If a deaf person, or an imbecile or a child slaughter the first animal alone it is allowed to slaughter the second one, because what these slaughter is not considered slaughtered.
Seif 10 It is allowed to slaughter a pregnant animal, for the fetus has the status of it mother's thigh. And if the fetus is alive after the slaughter of its mother, and it stood on the ground, we don’t slaughter it on the same day, however if you do slaughter it you do not receive lashes.
Seif 11 An idolater that sells two animals and who then says,  I have been told that these are mother and child, we do not believe what they say after the sale is finalized and the animals are out of his possession, and if the gentile is (known to be) trustworthy then it is forbidden (to slaughter on the same day).
Seif 12 An animal that is slaughtered whether it is a mother or its offspring on that day and they get mixed together and the other one needs to be slaughtered the same day, what do we do? We slaughter one by one until two are left which cannot be slaughtered the same day because whatever is removed from a group is part of the majority which these two are not slaughtered on the same day.

Siman 17

Seif 1 When one slaughters a healthy animal and after slaughtering it does not make convulsive movements, it is permitted. However regarding an animal that is dangerously ill, i.e., one which cannot maintain itself when others cause it to stand it up, even if it eats the food of healthy animals. If such an animal is slaughtered and does not make any convulsive movements at all, it is a nevelah and one is liable for lashes [for partaking] of it. If it makes convulsive movements, it is permitted. The convulsive movements must be made at the end of the slaughter. If they are made at the beginning, they are of no consequence.What is meant by convulsive movements? For a small domesticated animal and for both a small and a large wild beast, the intent is that it extended its foreleg and returned it, extended its hind leg even though it did not return it, or merely bent its hind leg. This is considered a convulsive movement and [the animal] is permitted. If, however, it merely extended its foreleg and did not return it, it is forbidden. This movement is merely a result of the expiration of the soul. If it either extended its foreleg or its hind leg without bending it or bent its foreleg or hind leg without extending it, it is considered as a convulsive movement and it is permitted. If, however, it neither extended or bent its foreleg or its hind leg at all, it is considered as a nevelah.With regard to a fowl, even if it only blinked its eyelid or swatted its tail, it is considered a convulsive movement.
Seif 2 When one slaughters an animal that is dangerously ill at night and does not know whether or not it made convulsive movements, it is forbidden, because of the possibility that it is forbidden as nevelah.
Seif 3 Our great sages would not partake would not eat of an animal which people were hurrying to slaughter before it died, even if it made convulsive movements after being slaughtered. This is an issue that does not involve a prohibited act. Nevertheless, if one desires to accept this stringency upon himself it is considered praiseworthy.

Siman 18

1. One that shechts with a checked knife and (after the shechita) finds it to be nicked, Rama: {Even from the side.} behold this is a neveila (animal which was killed improperly). Even if (the knife) touched the neck bone we do not attribute it to having been nicked by it (the neck bone) after the shechita. Rather we worry that maybe it was nicked by the skin and he happened to have shechted with a nicked knife, and this is even with a chicken (whose neck skin is very soft)...
2. The measure of a nick is anything, provided that something (can) gets stuck in it, even a strand of hair...
3. One must check the knife before shechita, and if one didn't check one shall not shecht. If one transgressed and did not check beforehand, and (instead) checked afterwards and found the knife to be suitable (not nicked), his shechita is kosher
Seif 4 If one inspected a knife (in one direction) and didn't feel a flaw, if he checks another time (in a different direction) and he feels a flaw, this checking is to be disputed, if you slaughter in the direction that the checking was conducted (without a flaw) and did not reverse the direction, the slaughter is acceptable. If perhaps he reversed the direction, the slaughter is unacceptable. And one who cuts and doesn't feel the flaw before the slaughter, only if we found his knife acceptable before the slaughter; however (now) after the slaughter we find a disputable flaw, as it is said: it is clear me that if he cut in only one direction, the direction without flaw alone, the slaughter is unacceptable.
Seif 5 A knife that has many flaws, even if everyone disputes them, even if slaughtered (under the rubric of) after the fact, it is not acceptable. Because the flaws are many we worry when he returns his hand and kills (he will) not feel it.
Seif 6 When a knife has been sharpened, but its edge is not smooth, instead, when one touches it, it is like touching the tip of an ear of grain which becomes stuck on one's finger, [nevertheless,] since it does not have a blemish, one may slaughter with it.
Seif 7 When the edge of a knife is smooth  and is not sharp, one may slaughter with it, since it does not have a flaw. Even though one passes it back and forth the entire day until the slaughter [is completed], the slaughter is acceptable.
Seif 8 A knife that (has a shape that) goes up and down like a snake without any flaws, one can use to slaughter with from the outset.
Seif 9 The checking of a knife requires the (use of the) skin and fingernail from three angles, in other words one must pass it over and draw it back over the flesh of his finger and afterwards pass it back on one's fingernail from three angles, (which are) its tip and both of its sides so that (to insure) it will not have a blemish at all.(after this) We check (the knife) slowly and with full concentration not turning one's mind to other things, and then repeat on another nail slightly to check, that damaged nail on the sharp part of the knife, and perhaps there is a flaw on both sides that he didn't feel by passing it in a damaged nail.
Seif 10 If a knife has a flaw, one may not slaughter even with the smooth part, lest he use the flawed part. On Yom Tov, the custom is to allow tying a cloth around the flaw (to ensure that it will not be used to slaughter), for one may not sharpen the knife. Even during a weekday, if one did not have a chance to sharpen the knife, one is allowed to slaughter by means of typing a cloth on the flaw.
Seif 11 If a person slaughters many animals or many fowl, he must inspect [the knife] between each [slaughter]. If he did not check, and then checked after slaughtering the last one and discovered [the knife] to be blemished, there is an unresolved doubt whether all of them even the first are considered nevelot.
Seif 12 Although one checks the knife before the slaughter one needs to perform a check after the slaughtering. This is talking about when he still has the knife, but if the knife got lost, the shechitah is kosher as long as the knife was checked before the shechitah, even if he slaughtered many one after the other.  If a damage was felt in the neck of one of them, one should be strict and worry about all those slaughtered afterwards.
Seif 13 If one slaughters with a knife that was checked, and checked before and the knife was lost before it was checked after the slaughter, and afterwards we find the knife and see it flawed, the slaughter is acceptable inasmuch as it performed properly. And if we find a flaw as stated that smashed a bone without knowing after the slaughter, and the knife remains with the established chazaka.
Seif 14 If one doesn't check the knife and slaughters and loses the knife before he makes the additional check which is necessary afterwards, if he slaughter without the additional check its is forbidden. When does this apply? when a regular knife is used, however if a butcher has a special knife for slaughtering in a special place put away there always, traditionally we check it, if it is slaughtered without an additional check, it is acceptable.
Seif 15 If somebody slaughters with a knife that has been checked and after the slaughter he chops bones with the knife in an unusual way (not in a manner of going back and forth)and if we then check and we find a flaw the slaughter is acceptable because we assume that it got chipped because he broke the bone.SO in any simliar case, like it falls on the hard ground.If we saw it specifically fall its blade (its flawed) however because of this doubt we don't attribute what is said if it did not fall on the blade. And if a break occurs because of a neck bone, even in the direction that the break occurred, we don’t attribute what occurs before it to it at all, because the neck is soft.
Seif 16 If one checks a knife after the slaughter and then stores it away and after we find that it is defective, we can have no objection, it is said someone else did it, so if we find a flaw as stated that smashed a bone without knowing after the slaughter.
Seif 17 A butcher who doesn't get his knife seen by a scholar, we place a ban on him.Presently our practice is to appoint well known people to slaughter and inspect,so the scholars gave up this honor to check by themselves and trust the shochtim, because they are careful and diligent.  There is need for a lot of clarity of mind and fear of heaven in checking the knife, If this is not apparent look that he checks it 3 times without feeling the damage for one minute, afterwards we find what he slaughtered recently, we test him to get a sense and feel in accordance with the intention of his heart.
Seif 18 A butcher needs to get paid for treifot as from kosher slaughter.
Seif 19 (If) Reuven tells Shimon, check this knife, and he checked it twice but needed to check it 12 times and he then hands it back to Reuven, while Reuven was going to slaughter Levi stopped his hand and found a defect on the knife.Reuven then apologizes and says he wants (the knife) re-checked further properly.(however) His actions prove him, and it was enough for him to check for this reason we remove him. And if we see that the situation arose out of error, and that he actually is kosher we then re-instate him, this is done solely that he understands not to repeat such a thing.
Seif 20 A butcher that finds a flaw on the head of the knife and says: "This flaw before me covers the blood of fowl on the head of the knife; and I slaughter and i’m careful that I do not touch the flaw", he is removed from his post; and it is close to say the vessels are prohibited as no longer kosher.


Siman 19

A slaughter must bless before (the slaughter), who has sanctified us by his commandments and commanded us regarding slaughtering; And if one slaughters without a blessing it's kosher.
If one slaughters domestic or wild animals or fowl this one blessing includes all of these.
(if you have) Two Slaughterers and two animals, One can make one blessing for (himself and) his friend. (if) he intended to make it himself.
One needs to be careful (not to) speak between the bracha and slaughtering regarding something not related to the slaughter. If he did speak he needs to recite the blessing another time.
If one wants to slaughter many animals, he needs to be careful not to speak about things not related to ritual slaughter between the animals he has slaughtered. If he did speak he needs to cover the blood of the first one he slaughtered and bless a second time on the slaughter. However on second covering (of blood) he does not make a second blessing. There are those that say that from the talk between slaughters, it is not an interruption.
If one had in mind to slaughter one wild animal when he recited the blessing, and afterwards they brought him more animals, he should cover the blood of the first then recite the blessing over it, and afterwards bless over the slaughter of the second one but not over the covered blood.The same would be if the next animal were brought before blessing for the first animal  for the blood being covered.
If their were before him many (animals) to slaughter, and he blessed over the slaughter, and afterwards came more (animals), if when he brought the last ones, there are still before him those that he blessed, there is no need to repeat the blessing. And if not you need to re-bless.And before the fact it is good to have in mind when reciting the blessing that is will count over all that is brought to him (even those not there yet).
If one slaughtered a beast or fowl and he intends to slaughter another, and forgot that he was planning to slaughter more, so he covered the blood and said the blessing over the mitzvah of covering, when he slaughters again he doesn't need to repeat the blessing on the slaughter, and covering the blood is not an interruption.

Siman 20

Seif 1 The place to slaughter is on the neck by the carotid that leading towards the head.From the opening of the sternohyoid and below. This is before the Esophagus becomes wide. That is where there are carotids left.They are located from the upper carotid, beneath the big cervical opening that is like two hoppers from the body to the dispenser . Those carotids are called “cheiti”.If he slit into the carotids and the cervices remained slightly connected on the top, it is kosher because he slit opening of the sternohyoid and below. If nothing is left from the carotid but slit from above the carotid that is a destruction—meaning the cause of using the knife  outside the place of slaughter towards the head of the body—is rejected. And its ring below is until the tip of the (upper) lobe of the lung… When you are going to inflate the lung and the laube, the place where it reaches at the tip that is the same place where it reached when the animal was alive and it was grazing in it regular way when it would stretch out its neck to graze without it having to stretch out its neck anymore then what's usual.
Seif 2 And in the gullet, (the place of slaughter) begins in the spot where when we cut it will shrivel, until the point down below that it begins getting scales and hair like the inside of a stomach. If you slaughter above from this place, this is called the “Turbatz haveshet”, or if you slaughter below this area which is the beginning of were the intestines begin, the slaughter is unacceptable. And this section of (Turbatz haveshet) that is not fit for shechitah up above,  Regarding a domesticated or wild animal it's an amount that you are able to grab with two fingers and regarding a fowl, it all depends how large or small. And the section (of the slaughter) is until the (roof of ) throat.
Seif 3 A slaughterer needs to slaughters it in the middle of the neck; and if you slaughter on sides of the neck, the slaughter will be acceptable, (only) if he turned the signs back and he knows that he cut them before cutting the neck bone, because the signs are soft and they get pushed away from the knife, It is the same halacha if you slaughter it from the back of the neck.
Seif 4 It is to good to be careful, to feel around the signs (before slaughtering) in order that the knife should cut them before it cuts the flesh of the neck. And with doves we find that the signs are on the sides so we insure that one must have skilled hands and have great caution, if we can’t feel the signs before slaughter it is likely that you may come to be negligent and you will cut the neck  before the simanim.


Siman 21

Seif 1 How much must one cut of the trachea and esophagus. The best way to slaughter is to cut both of them an animal and a fowl side by side this is what he (the slaughterer) should do.. If you cut one sign by a fowl, and one sign of an animal and a beast, the slaughter is acceptable, as long as when you measure it you find that it was slaughtered to the majority, and if you find that the part that was slaughtered was more than half even a hair breadths more than half it´s enough.
Seif 2 If one slaughters with one animal one full sign and half of a second one, and with a fowl you slaughtered both signs both half of each it is not acceptable.
 Seif 3 If one did not slaughter the sign (that makes an animal kosher) in one spot, for example if one started slaughtering and the sign turned over (moved) and one completed the slaughter, and between the two cuts you have a sizeable amount, it is acceptable whether you do it either by the windpipe or the esophagus.This applies not only in a case where both of these cuts are circling the same spot, (but) even if the first cut you made up near the head and the second cut you made further down, its acceptable, whether it's one person who  made a cut like this in two or three spots or if it was two people who slaughtered (in this manner) using two different knives, it is acceptable. But if both are on the same side of the sign, like in a case that he started slaughtering a little and then left his spot and then slaughtered above or below the spot on the same side, you need that the sizeable amount be in one of his cuts, one cannot combine the two because they are both on the same sign, if when you have the sizeable amount even it's only in the second cuts it acceptable although the slaughter is not revealed and obvious. 
Seif 4 A Slaughter that was performed like a quill (like cut at an angle) or  like the teeth of  comb (or up and down on an angle) it's acceptable.
 Seif 5 If 1/2 of the esophagus was cut, and then it was slaughtered completely to a sizable amount it is complete; it is permissible. Thus (in a case) where if one started slaughtering in a spot (in the sign) that is whole, and one found their was a flaw in the (original) cut, and one cut it completely to a sizeable amount, it is acceptable.

Siman 22

Seif 1 With fowl one needs to cut the veins or pierce them while it twitches and the blood is warm, in order that the blood should go out and not get cold. And if one didn't so, one should not roast it whole, and if one roasts it whole then one should throw out the veins and cut around a thin peel about the width of a finger. If one cooks it while its whole you search and dig out these blood vessels and what remains, and if you get everything (enough) from what was checked that you nullify the blood from all the blood vessels to 1/60th or less of the total than it is permissible.
Seif 2 On a domesticated animal one does not need to cut or pierce the blood vessels during slaughter. Because it's not common to roast it whole, however if one wants to roast it whole one needs to cut or pierce the blood vessels during slaughter, and if does not , it is forbidden to roast or cook whole.

Siman 23

Any butcher which does not know the laws of shechita it is not permissible to eat from his shechita. And these are the laws: pausing(shehiya), chopping (drasa), covering (halada), missing Missing (cutting outside the permitted area - hagrama), and tearing (ikour).
Seif 2 What do we mean by “pausing”? When a person begins to slaughter and raises his hand before he completes the slaughter and then pauses. Whether it was done inadvertently or intentionally, willingly or unwillingly. If he or another person completed the slaughter but delayed the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal and cause it to lie down, even if he slaughtered the greater part of the signs required for slaughter, his slaughter is not acceptable. With regard to slaughtering a small animal: the amount of “pausing” is the amount that it would take to lift up a small animal, cause it to lie down, and then slaughter it. And with regard to a large animal, the measure of “pausing” is the amount of time it would take to lift up a large animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it. With regards to fowl, the measure of “pausing” is the amount of time it would take to lift up a small animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it. There are those who say that the amount of “pausing” regarding fowl is the amount of time it would take to cut the majority of one sign (Siman) without lifting it up or lying it down. And according to their reasoning one should take notice when one begins to slaughter a fowl and to cut slowly until the blood comes out and lifts up his knife from the neck without completing the slaughter. Also there is concern that perhaps he might cut elsewhere on the gullet. And even if he does not lift up his knife but for a moment, there is still concern since the amount pausing in fowl is very small. Accordingly if he slaughters most of one of the sign in the fowl, he should do so quickly. Even if the slaughterer says that it is clear to me that I only cut the skin,” we don’t rely on this because blood has come out. If another person comes to ask after the knife has been lifted how he did it, they say to him that he should slaughter the windpipe alone in another place and afterward turn out the gullet and inspect it.There are those that are more stringent in the matter, concluding that unless it is a dire time or there is potential for great financial loss, one should rely on the first argument. 
Seif 3 If a slaughterer who slaughters a little (of the neck) and then pauses a little and returns and slaughters a little and pauses a little. If when all of the pauses are combined they measure “shehiyah” (the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down) his slaughter is not acceptable..
Seif 4 If one slaughters cattle with a knife that is not sharp and delays in the measure of “shehiyah” in his slaughter a little after [cutting] the first sign, it is not acceptable.
Seif 5 After one slaughters most of one [sign] in fowl, or most of two [signs] in cattle, there is no “shehiyah” that can make it [the slaughter] not acceptable. Accordingly there is not “shehiyah” with the windpipe in fowl. But there are those that say that in any place that one does not finish the slaughter of both signs it [the slaughter] is not acceptable on the grounds of “shehiyah”, and ab initio they should take heed and be concerned about this..
Seif 6 If one slaughters a fowl and pauses without knowing if he perforated the esophagus, he should return and slaughter the windpipe in another place and wait until it dies. He then turns the esophagus out and checks it [the cuts] against each other. If spots of blood are not found, it is known that there are no perforations and it [the slaughter] is acceptable. 

Siman 24

Seif 1 What do we mean by “striking”? If when one rests the knife on the neck and presses, cutting downward in the same way as one cuts a radish or a squash. This is not permitted. It goes without saying that if one struck with a knife on the neck in the manner that one strikes a sword and cuts the signs at one time the animal is not permitted.
Seif 2 When one slaughters by only bringing the knife forward and backwards (on the neck)  if it is with a knife that is the fullness of the neck and extends off the neck, the fullness of the neck, it is acceptable  if not it is not acceptable.Any [knife] that is not this measurement; it is impossible to slaughter without “dirasah” by going in a forward and backward motion alone. But if he goes forward and backward with a very sharp knife it is kosher. There are those that are stringent with cattle. The custom being that these circular motions are not acceptable in cattle even if forward and backward if it is not with a knife that extends the fullness of the neck and outside the neck.
Seif 3 If one slaughters two heads [of cattle] with one forward and backward motion, if it with a knife [the width of] three necks it is kosher. If not, there is a concern and both of them [the slaughtered animals] are not acceptable.
Seif 4 Two [people] are holding the knife and slaughter, one from above, the side of the head, and one from below, the side of the chest, holding it [the knife] diagonally, it is kosher and there is no concern of “dirasah”. (one struck the neck with a knife as one strikes with a sword)
Seif 5 If one slaughters and cuts the entire neck, it is acceptable.
Seif 6 When a person slaughters a fowl and holds the signs between two fingers, he needs to hold them well and if he does not hold them well sometimes they will loosen here and there and he won’t be able to cut it in a slicing fashion, rather he will do “dirasah”. And thus one should not rest ones fingers on the knife but rather grip it by the handle so that he won’t cause “dirasah”. Even if one does not do “dirasah” with anything other than the gullet, it [the slaughter] in not acceptable. The custom is that all “dirasah” is unfit whether it be a little in the beginning [of cutting] or at the end [of cutting], whether with the windpipe or gullet.
Seif 7 What is meant by “hiding”? When one inserts the knife between the signs [that is between the gullet and the windpipe], slaughtering the lower sign in a manner from above to below and returns to remove it [his knife] and slaughters the one [sign] above in a manner from below to above, it is not acceptable.
Seif 8 If one hides the knife under the hide or under tangled wool in the neck of cattle or under knotted cloth on the neck or cloth that is stuck with wax and slaughters, his slaughter in not acceptable. If however, the cloth is spread on the neck and he slaughters, his slaughter is kosher. There are those [that say] this is also not permitted. Ab initio, there is a concern in the matter. Accordingly one should take heed with sheep as they have tangled wool on their neck. One should tear or pluck the clinging wool so as not to do “chaladah”. (as if one inserted the knife between one sign and another.)
Seif 9 One who slaughters should take heed and have consideration for the hide so that he does not tear it significantly and slaughtering with the head of the knife so that it is covered by the hide. If one slaughters with the middle of the knife there is no concern about the head of the knife being covered by hide since the knife is in the place of proper slaughter [that is] opposing the signs and not covered. There are those that are strict with this and there is a concern in the matter ab initio.
Seif 10 If after one slaughtered most of the signs and the knife becomes hidden under the remaining minority [of the signs], or from one of them [the signs] and divided [cut] it, it [the slaughter] is permitted. There are those [that say] that this is also forbidden and it is clear that there is concern in the matter ab initio (before the fact). 
Seif 11 If the knife is hidden under a little bit of the first [sign] and he cuts from below to above and afterwards finishes the slaughter in proper manner; or similarly if he slaughters most of one sign in cattle and the knife is hidden under the remaining remnant and he then slaughters the second sign; or similarly if he slaughters a little of the first [sign] by “chaladah” and finishes the slaughter not by “chaladah” all of these [means of slaughter] are not acceptable.
Seif 12 What is meant by “lifting up/tipping”? One slaughters the windpipe above the place that is not permitted for proper slaughter. Or if one begins to slaughter in a place permitted for proper slaughter and slaughters a little and inclines the knife outside of the place fit for slaughter from above and finishes there. However, if he slaughters most of the windpipe in a place fit for slaughter and inclines the knife outside a place fit for slaughter from above and finishes their, cutting the entire windpipe it is kosher. This is the law if he slaughters most of the two [signs] in cattle in a place fit for slaughter and completes the slaughter by doing “hagramah” or “dirasah” it is kosher. There are those [that say] this is not acceptable if it is by “dirasah” and there is concern in these matters ab initio.
Seif 13 If one inclines the knife in the in first third and slaughters the next two thirds properly, it is kosher. If one slaughters the first third properly, inclines [while cutting] the second third and then returns and cuts the final third properly, it is kosher. If one inclines on the first third, slaughter the second third properly and then returns to incline on the final third, it is not acceptable. If he presses or hides in the first third or the middle third, it is not acceptable.
Seif 14 All of these sections [that which has just been discussed], when he is certain that he did not strike the gullet but rather only the windpipe [moving] upward. But even if you slaughter the gullet with the slightest cut outside the place permitted for slaughter, be it from the upper side or the lower side; or similarly with the windpipe from the side below before he finishes it in a kosher slaughter even if he finish [cutting] all of the remainder in a place permitted for kosher slaughter, it is not acceptable since even the smallest of these perforations count.
Seif 15 What is meant by “uprooting”? When the windpipe or the gullet is ripped from the jaw and from the flesh and one or both of them slips before slaughter has been completed. If one [sign] in a fowl is slaughtered or most and afterward the second slipped, his slaughter is kosher. If one [sign] slips and afterward he slaughters the second his slaughter is not acceptable.
 Seif 16 As to the issue of “Ikur” being unacceptable, [this is the case when] we have a complete uprooting, but if there is a remnant, even a little bit, it is kosher provided that the remnant is in its place, but if a little bit of the remnant is loose - a little here and a little there - it is not acceptable. The matter is clear that it was uprooted with force and what remains is just loosely attached. These rules apply when most is removed but if only a little is uprooted here and most is enacted, if most remains loosely - a little here and a little there - it is kosher.
Seif 17 If one slaughters one of the signs and the second was found to be displaced but it is not known [if it was displaced] before the slaughter or after the slaughter. This [slaughter] in not acceptable. 
Seif 18 If a sign [either the windpipe or gullet] of the slaughter was found dislodged: if when he slaughtered he took hold of the signs in his hand or the skin from behind the place of slaughter and the signs were squeezed under the skin, this is not acceptable. If not, it is permitted after examination. If he brings cattle and he slaughters the sign and afterward it was dislodged, if it is the same in two of the slaughters,  comparing one to the other it is kosher. If the second is bloodier, the first one is not acceptable. We no longer have experts to check this and the custom in all of these cases is to rule them as not acceptable.
Seif 19 If one slaughters a fowl in the proper way that is acceptable and he finishes the slaughter, a coin is found from the throat on the knife it is acceptable. 
Seif 20 When one slaughters a rooster one needs to take heed and squeeze his feet on the on the ground or lift him up so that his feet do not wedge in the ground in order that he does not dislodge the signs.

Siman 25

Seif 1 A slaughterer must check the signs (that make an animal fit) after slaughter to see is they was slaughtered completely/properly/a sizeable amount. Or if you see during the slaughter that they slaughtered completely, and if you don't see that it was done completely and it prohibited. There are those who say that one needs to see them slaughter on the proper spot of slaughter and not on the part where it is not fit to slaughter.
Seif 2 Those who do the checking with a feather to see if the slaughter was done complete/proper/ to a sizable amount, they are making an error. 
Seif 3 An animal that was slaughtered properly and then a wolf and took its intestines and returned them punctured, it is permissible, we take into consideration (maybe) there was a whole in it before it was punctured. (nonetheless it is permissible).


Siman 26

Seif 1 If there is a puncture in the esophagus during the slaughter and its the opposite  the spot of slaughter, its considered Torn (not acceptable).
Seif 2 While one is slaughtering the gullet/esophagus and one finds that the lungs are punctured before he was able to slaughter the gullet, or if while one is slaughtering the gullet/esophagus and one finds that intestines are punctured before he was able to slaughter the gullet, it is considered Torn (It's unacceptable).


Siman 27

Seif 1 If one cuts from an animal a piece of meat after it was slaughtered properly and it is still twitching it is forbidden to eat from it before it (the animal) dies.


Siman 28

One who slaughters a wild animal or a bird needs to cover its blood, whether it was just trapped now or whether it was already ready in his hand. Rema: And the covering is a commandment onto itself, but the slaughtering is valid even if [the blood] was purposely not covered.
One is obligated to make a blessing before he covers [the blood]: "... who sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us on covering blood in dirt." <i>Rema: One who slaughters for the first time, makes a blessing of "that he gave us life" on the covering but not on the slaughtering since it damages a creature.</i>
the Koy animal which is questionable if it's a wild animal, and mixed-breeds that come from domesticated and wild animals, one needs to cover their blood and there is no blessing made. And we don't slaughter them on holidays. And if they were slaughtered [on a holiday] their blood it not covered. And [after the holiday] at night, if [the blood's] imprint is recognizable, he should cover it. 
The buffalo, we have the custom to not cover its blood. <i>Rema: There are those who question if a buffalo is a "wild" ox or maybe it's a [species] of wild animal, therefore, it's good to cover [the blood] without a blessing or to also slaughter a bird and then he is able to make a blessing on the covering on account of the bird.</i>
There needs to be loose earth below [the blood]. And one needs to designate it verbally, and there are those that say that there is no need.
One covers it with his hand or with a knife or with another utensil, but not with his foot so that the commandments aren't denigrated on account of it.
If one slaughtered and there was no earth below, he needs to scrape off the blood [from the knife] and put it on loose earth and cover it with loose earth.
The one who slaughters he is the one who should cover. And if he didn't cover and someone else sees [the blood, the other person] is required to cover it.
If one slaughters a hundred wild animals or a hundred birds or he slaughtered a wild animal and a bird in the same place, he does one covering for all of them.
One who slaughters and the blood got absorbed into the ground, if the imprint is recognizable he is required to cover it.
If the wind covered it he is exempt from covering it; but if after [the wind covered it] it returned and uncovered it, he is required to cover it. But if he himself covered it and it became uncovered, he is not required to cover it again.
Blood that fell into water or if water fell into the blood, if there is still the appearance of blood one is required to cover it, but if not he is exempt.
If the blood became mixed with red wine or the blood of a domesticated animal, we view the wine and the blood of the domesticated animal as if it were water, and if [the blood] would have mixed with that amount of water it would have still have had an appearance of blood one is required to cover it.
If one slaughtered a bird or a wild animal and then slaughtered a domesticated animal on top of it he is exempt from covering the blood, but if he slaughtered a domesticated animal and then slaughtered a bird or a wild animal on top of it he is obligated to cover the blood. <i>Rema: If one slaughtered a bird or a wild animal and afterward while slaughtering another one it became a carcass (invalidly slaughtered) in his hand, if he knows that the latter's blood covers the former's blood he is exempt from covering, but in the simple situation he is obligated to cover it.</i>
Blood that sprayed and that's on the knife, if there is no other blood but it one is required to cover it, and he scrapes it off and covers it in order that there should also be earth below it. However, if there is other blood there one does not need to cover it because there is no need to cover all the blood. Therefore, there is no need <small>to wait</small> to cover until all the blood comes out. <i>Rema: However, he should wait until [the blood] starts dripping down in order that he should cover some of the life-blood.</i>
One who slaughters for a sick person on <i>Shabbat</i> he does not cover, even if he has a shovel already stuck in the ground. And [after <i>Shabbat</i>] at night, if [the blood's] imprint is recognizable, he should cover it. And there are those who say that if he had ash set aside to cover dung there is something to covering the blood even on <i>Shabbat</i>.
One who slaughters and it became a carcass (invalidly slaughtered) in his hand or one who slaughters and finds [that the animal] has signs that make it unfit, he is exempt from covering it. And so too, if a deaf person or   a mentally challenged person or a child slaughtered and there was no one watching them, there is an assumption that the they had a botched slaughter and it is exempt from being covered. 
One who slaughters, even if he only wants the blood, he's obligated to cover. How should he perform [the slaughtering instead?] He should stab or tear out [the organs] in order to be exempt from covering.
One needs to check the signs and the knife before the covering in order that one doesn't come to make a wasted blessing.
One who slaughters a wild animal does not cover [the blood] until he checks the lungs, and if he finds a questionably invalid signs, he covers without making a blessing. And this is the law for all invalidations that arise from a questionable status, for example that [case] where we're worried that maybe [the knife] became notched while [cutting] the skin, and so too all similar cases. <i>Rema: But anything that according to the law is valid [and] it's only [ruled invalid] because we're strict on it, for example if one cut the entire neck, and similar cases, one is obligated to cover [the blood].</i>
One who has no earth to cover with should not slaughter. <i>Rema: Rather, he should wait until he has earth. And if he is travelling in the desert or on a ship, and the bird is not worth the loss of a garment that he would [need to] burn for its ashes [to cover with] or the gold that he would [need to] grind [to cover with], the sages enacted to slaughter and to keep the blood in a garment or a sandal and make a blessing, and when he reaches a place with earth, he should wash the garment or the sandal so that the blood comes out, and cover it without a blessing, and this is the custom.</i>
One who slaughters a wild animal or a bird and blood did not come out of it, it is permitted.
All things that if one plants seeds in them they would sprout, they are included in "earth" and one may cover [blood] with them. And if they don't sprout, if they are called "עפר" ("earth") one may cover with them. Therefore, one may cover with dung, and with very fine sand, [fine] enough that the potter doesn't need to crush it at all, and with lime, and with an earthenware shard and brick and barrel stopper of earthenware that was crushed, and with ground stones and ground earthenware shards, and scraps of fine flax, and sawdust, and with food or garments that were burnt until they were made into ash, and with powdered coal, and with stibium, and with millstone dust. But one may not cover with coarse dung, and not with sand that a potter needs to crush, and not with flour and bran-flour, and coarse bran, and not with ground metal if it's not burnt [to ash], except for ground gold which is called "עפר" ("earth"), as it is written <b>"and it has earth of gold"</b>. And ash is called "עפר" ("earth"), as it is written <b>"And they should take for the impure from the earth, the burnt [ashes] of the sin-offering"</b>.
One may not cover with desert earth because it's damp earth and [seeds] don't sprout in it. <i>Rema: And therefore, one may not cover with earth that's damp from water, for example swampy earth. And one may not cover with snow.</i>

Siman 29

There are eight types of terefot, and their signs are D"N (final), HN"K (initial), N (initial), P"Sh: attacked (derusah),  perforated (nekuvah), missing (haserah), removed (netulah),  torn (keruah), fallen (nefulah), severed (pesukah), and broken (sheburah). 

Siman 30

If in a behemah (domesticated animal) or chaya (wild animal), most of the bone of the head is crushed, either most of its vault (gab) or most of its circumference (hekkef), the animal is a trefah, even though the membrane is intact.  
If it was reduced, and there's missing from it [a piece] the size of a <i>selah</i> coin, it is an invalid animal. And if there punctured holes that are [big enough that there are pieces] missing, if between all of them [there's missing] the size of a <i>selah</i> coin, which is one third of a handbreadth, it is an invalid animal. <i>Rema: But, less than this there is what to say it is valid even in our days since we're not worried in a domesticated animal for puncturing the membrane of its brain.</i> And in a sea-bird, such as a goose <small>and a duck</small>, even if the bone is punctured any amount, it is an invalid animal. And a dry land bird  that a weasel bit with its teeth [the bird's] head, or it became damaged on a tree or a stone, one places his finger on the side of the hole and sticks his finger there, or he puts in finger into its mouth and presses there, if the brain doesn't ooze out of the hole it is known that the membrane of the brain is not punctured, and it is valid, and if it comes out, it is an invalid animal. <i>Rema: And we are not experts in checking for invalidations in animals, and therefore there's what to rule invalid if the bone of the skull has any hole at all in a bird, even for a dry land bird.</i>

Siman 31

The brain has two membranes one on top of the other. If the bottom one was punctured with a hole that goes all the way through, it is an invalid animal. But, if only the top one was punctured, it is valid. <i>Rema: There are those that invalidate the animal even where only the top one was punctured, and this is the custom if it is not a case of great loss.</i>
If a small part of the brain itself was rotted, or it was crushed but the membrane is intact, it is valid. And if it can be poured like water or hot wax, it is an invalid animal. And if one finds water inside the membrane, and there's [a piece] missing from the brain of the same measurement as the water, if the brain completely surrounds the water so that there is nothing exposed, even to the membrane, it is valid, and if not, it is an invalid animal. And this too is the law if the water is resting inside a small blister (meaning: like a pouch), that if the brain surrounds it so that it isn't exposed even to the membrane it is valid, and if not, it is an invalid animal. <i>Rema: And so too if the blister is resting between the membrane and the skull it is an invalid animal. If there is doubt if it is covered by the brain or not, it is an invalid animal. Therefore, there are those that are careful when opening the head that they open it in a way that they're able to see if the brain surrounds it, if they find water there or not, and nevertheless, there is no need to check [for the invalidation] after this because we rely on the majority, and he's able to throw away the head or sell it to a non-Jew without opening it.</i>
If one found a worm in the membrane of the brain, and the brain is still intact, and there is no imprint or blood spot on the lower membrane, it is valid. And there are those who say that we aren't experts at checking [for invalidations], and [therefore] it is an invalid animal <small>and this is the custom</small>. But, if one found [the worm] outside of the cranium, for example in the nose, it is valid because we can rely on the assumption that it never reached the brain.
The bone, that the brain rests inside, has a large cavity like a pot, and there are what looks like two bean shaped protuberances at its opening by the neck; and everything that is from the brain inside the pot until the protuberances, including the protuberances, are judged like the brain and [invalidate the animal] with any size hole [in them], and from there and onward are judged like the spinal cord.

Siman 32

If most of the skin that surrounds the marrow of the spinal cord was severed, the animal is invalid, even though all of the marrow is intact. And if most of the skin was not severed, even if all of the marrow inside was severed, it is valid. 
If the skin split lengthwise, it is valid. And so too, if the spine broke but the [spinal] cord was not severed, or if the marrow that is inside the [spinal] cord was crushed and it wobbles, since the skin is still intact it is permitted.
If the marrow decomposed and it can be poured like water or melted wax to the extent that the [spinal] cord, when one holds it in his hand, the part that extends out from his hand bends over and is not able to stand by itself, the animal is invalid. And so too, even though the inside didn't soften, but rather it became thick and heavy, if when one stands it up it is not able to stand because of its heaviness, it is an invalid animal. 
If part of the marrow was missing, and a cavity formed, it is valid.
This invalidation of the spinal cord is [from anywhere] until the opening of the third branch [nerve], including it. And if one of the two cords of the first or second branch were severed, it is an invalid animal. But, if the cord of the third branch was severed, it is valid. And in a bird, the invalidation of the spinal cord is until [the location] opposite the wings, the beginning of the place where they are attached to the body. <i>Rema: And there are those that invalidate in a bird until the place at the end of where the bone, which is attached to the body, rests. And this is the custom if it's not a [case of] great loss.</i>
An animal that one hits on the spine with a stick, and the stick went across the entire length of the spine, the animal is valid, and we are not worried that maybe the spine was severed. And if the stick has knots, we are worried [that the spine was severed] in the place of the knots. And so too, if the stick did not reach across the entire spine, we are worried that the head of the stick, at the place where [the stick] ends, hit with force, and so too, if one hit [across] the width of the spine, we are worried that maybe the spine was severed.
An animal that drags its legs, we are not worried that maybe it severed its spine. <i>Rema: Rather, we say that shigrona, which is a disease of the legs, took ahold of it. And so too is the law by a bird that we also rule like this.</i> When do we say this reasoning? When one did not know if [the animal] had fallen, but if one knew that it fell, we are worried.
When do we say this reasoning? When one did not know if [the animal] had fallen, but if one knew that it fell, we are worried.

Siman 33

If the lower jaw was removed, it is valid, and this is if [the animal] is able to survive by means of having food stuffed all the way down its throat and having food stuffed partially down its throat. <i>Rema: And so too by a bird whose beak was removed, and it is able to survive by means of having food stuffed all the way down its throat and having food stuffed partially down its throat, it is valid.</i>
If the upper jaw was removed, according to the Rambam it invalidates the animal. And it is fitting to be concerned for his words.
The gullet or the entrance to the gullet, that was punctured [until it reached] its [inner] cavity, if [the hole] is any size, it is [considered an] improperly slaughtered animal.
The gullet has two skins. If one of them is punctured, it is valid. If both of them are punctured, it is forbidden, and even if a membrane formed [on the hole] and closed it up, and even if the holes are not opposite each other, it is forbidden. And that is when the two [holes] punctured from the same side [of the gullet], since then it is possible that they happened together <small>(meaning: that they might align together)</small>. <i>Rema: And all this is only dealing with a case where it's apparent that the hole came on account of an illness, but if there is concern that the hole is on account of a thorn, even if only the inner [skin] was punctured, it is an invalid animal since we're worried that maybe also the outer [skin] was punctured, and the gullet can not be checked from the outside.</i>
These skins, the outer one is red and the inner one is white, and if they switched so that the outer one is white and the inner one is red, the animal is invalid. And so too, if both [skins] are red or white, the animal is invalid. <i>Rema: And all the more so, if there are two gullets or two windpipes that the animal is invalid.</i>
The gullet can not be checked from the outside in [a case where the animal] was mauled, which requires checking, because since [the outer skin] is red, the red of the venom [from the mauling] can not be recognized. What can he do? If it is a bird, he can check the windpipe from the outside and then slaughter it, and afterward he can invert the gullet and check it from the inside. And if it is an animal there is no solution. <i>Rema: And for us, since we are not experts at checking, even by a bird there is no solution.</i>
And also regarding [checking for] a hole in the gullet, one can not check from the outside but rather [needs to check] from the inside.
If a bird comes before us and its neck is dirtied with blood, we are not concerned for a possible case of being mauled [to require] to check the entire cavity [of the gullet], rather we are concerned for a possible hole [to require] to check the dirty spot. <i>Rema: And there are those that forbid all birds and animals whose necks are dirtied with blood because we are concerned for a hole in the gullet and we are not experts [at checking]; and so is the custom.</i>
If one finds a thorn in the gullet, [whether it was lying] lengthwise or widthwise, and [the thorn] was not lodged in [the gullet], it is valid <small>if there is no bloodspot on the outside of [the gullet]</small>. But, if it is lodged in [the gullet], it is forbidden, even if there is no bloodspot [on the outside], since we are concerned that maybe the gullet was punctured and it healed and became healthy and [now the hole] can not be seen. <i>Rema: And there are those that validate the animal if there is no bloodspot on the outside because we are not concerned that it might have [had a hole which] healed. And so too the custom is to be lenient in our cities by the geese which we overfeed to make fat, that there is a a way to fix [the fobidden animal] in the city by checking after the gullet was punctured because we are more concerned for [the case of] the lungs sticking [to each other]. And our custom is to be lenient where the thorn is lodged in the gullet if there is no hole on both sides or if there is no bloodspot on the outside. And there are those who are very precise with this because it is forbidden from the Torah; and it is much better to not check at all and rely on the majority [case] instead of checking and [needing to rely] on a leniency in a case where there is an imperfection.</i>
If the gullet and windpipe separated and hang loosely from each other in the majority of the measurement of their lengths, the animal is invalid.
If the roof of the crop was punctured with a hole that goes all the way through of any size, it is an invalid animal. And what is considered the roof? That which is drawn with the gullet when the bird stretches its neck. But if the rest of the crop is punctured, it is permitted. <i>Rema: If the crop was removed, the animal is invalid, even if there remained enough that the food is able to pass from the gullet to the gizzard. If the flesh between the crop and the gizzard was punctured, the animal is invalid.</i>

Siman 34

A windpipe that was severed [to the extent of cutting through to] most of its cavity inside, [and the cut was] in an area that's fitting for slaughtering or above this [area], this would be forbidden.
If [the windpipe] was punctured with a hole that creates a deficiency [the size of] an <i>issar</i> [coin], it is forbidden. And if a strip was removed from it lengthwise, if [the area of the strip is such that] if we were to make it into a circle it would be [the size of] an <i>issar</i> [coin], it is forbidden. And there are those who say that we are not experts in the measurement of an <i>issar</i> [coin], therefore we [instead] measure it against the majority of the width of the windpipe's cavity. <i>Rema: And according to what we explain nearby that the measurement of an issar coin is less than the majority [of the width of the windpipe's cavity], if so, whoever is not an expert will come to [incorrectly] rule leniently. Therefore, it appears it wants to say the majority of the width of the windpipe's cavity of a bird, which is less than [the measurement of] an issar [coin]. And whoever is not an expert should [rule that the animal] is invalid in this entire topic.</i>
If it was punctured around the circumference small holes near each other like the holes of a sieve, if [the holes] don't create a deficiency, they combine to [make the animal invalid if they encircle] the majority of [the windpipe's] cavity. And if they do create a deficiency, they combine to [the measurement of] an <i>issar</i> coin, that if there is [the measurement of] an <i>issar</i> coin with [all of the] holes and the complete [part of the windpipe] between them, it is forbidden; and this is when the holes are very close together that there isn't between one hole and the next the size of a hole, but if there is between [each hole] more than this measurement [then] what [part of the windpipe] that is between them does not combine.
By a bird, if [the windpipe] has holes like a sieve, one cuts out the place that has holes like a sieve and places it on the opening of the windpipe's cavity; if there is enough [of the cut out piece] to cover most of the [cavity of the] windpipe, it is forbidden. <i>Rema: And if [part of] the windpipe of a bird is missing, there are those that say that we measure it like [the measurement of the case a windpipe with] holes like a sieve. And there are those that say we measure it, a large [bird] according to its large [size] and a small [bird] according to its small [size], according to the calculation of the [relative] measurement [based on what] an issar [coin would cause to be invalid] in a [larger] animal.</i>.
There are those that say that if [the windpipe] became deficient like a door, that the deficiency wasn't removed, rather it hangs and stands and is erect there like a door on the mouth of an opening, since the door closes the hole, the deficiency needs to be greater [to render the animal invalid] to the extent that an <i>issar</i> [coin] can enter and exit from it, and this [measurement] is greater than [the regular measurement of] an  <i>issar</i> [coin].
There are those that say that if [the windpipe] was punctured with holes that go all the way through from both sides, even though the hole only is [large] enough so that an <i>issar</i> can enter widthwise, which means the thickness of an <i>issar</i>, it is forbidden.
If [the windpipe] was entirely split lengthwise, even though nothing from [the windpipe] is missing at all, it is forbidden. And if there remains [unsplit] from it anything at all above and below the place that's fit for slaughtering, it is valid, because whenever the neck is drawn out the crack continues to close, therefore it will return [to normal] and be healed.
If it was punctured below the place [that is fit] for slaughtering, even a little bit, it is an invalid animal.
If one finds the windpipe that was severed or [has parts] missing and one does not know if it happened during [the animal's] lifetime, <small>and he is unable to ascribe it to [the possibility] that this happened on account of the slaughtering since [maybe] it was slaughtered in two places,</small> [the recommendation for this case is] he severs [the windpipe] in a different place and sees if the [two places] look the same, then it would be valid, and if not, it is forbidden. And we only compare from one band [of the windpipe] to another band or from a sub-band to another sub-band, but not from a band to a sub-band and not from a sub-band to a band. <i>Rema: And we are not experts in checking, and [therefore] there is what to rule that the animal is invalid for all [cases] in this topic. And all of these laws about punctures and deficiencies in the windpipe, they are precisely when one knows that these [came about] on account of illness, but if they happened on account of a thorn or needle, for us who are not experts in checking the gullet, the animal is invalid for all [cases] in this topic because we are worried that maybe the gullet became punctured, since [these cases] are no worse than [the case of] if the neck was dirtied with blood as we explained above in chapter 33.</i>
The windpipe at its end, when it enters beneath <small>the chest</small> it branches out, and from there it separates and becomes three heads. One goes towards the heart, and one to the liver, and one to the lungs, and all three [are invalid] with a hole of any size. <i>Rema: However, with the pipe of the heart which is the fat that goes down between the grooves of the lung and the heart, it is normal that it has thin small holes, and this is how it grows, and they are not called holes [that invalidate the animal], and it is valid.</i>

Siman 35

If the lung was punctured, the animal is invalid.
There are five minor lobes <small>(definition: [parts that] are similar to ears)</small> in the lungs, three to the right and two to the left when the animal is suspended by its feet and its innards are facing the butcher such that the right side of the animal and the right side of the butcher are the same. And there is one additional small lobe on the right side which is called the small roselike lobe and it doesn't stand in line [of the other] lobes, rather, it's distanced from them towards the front side. And if one is missing from the right or the left, or if there are two on the right and three on the left, the animal is invalid. <i>Rema: The shapes of the right minor lobes are not similar to [the shapes] of the left [minor lobes], and if the shapes are switched, the animal is invalid. And so too, if the middle minor lobe on the right is larger than the one below it, the animal is invalid. And if the upper minor lobe on the left is larger than the upper minor lobe on the right, the animal is invalid. And so too, if the major lobe on the right is larger than [the major lobe] on the left, all of this is called switched, and the animal is invalid.</i> And the roselike lobe, if it's missing, or if there are two of them or if it's found on the left side, it is valid. <i>Rema: And in our countries the custom is to rule invalid whether two roselike lobes were found or if it was missing or if it's place was changed, and this should be the custom because there are great people who hold like this and one shouldn't change the custom. And so too, if its normal appearance or shape changes, the animal is invalid. If one found in it two roselike lobes that have a singular base, the thickness of a finger even though that they have a crack, it is valid. And if one is inverted and the second one is not inverted, we go after the one that's greater, and if it's not inverted it is valid. The [normal] way of the roselike lobe is to be in a pocket, and if it's not found in a pocket or if it has two pockets or if there is a pocket but [the roselike lobe] is not placed in it, and even if we would place the [roselike lobe] into [the pocket] it would return and go out from it when the lung inflates, the animal is invalid. And all of these laws are only [applicable] in places where the custom is to rule invalid an animal that has two roselike lobes or doesn't have a roselike lobe at all. But in places that [rule those cases] valid, also all of these distinctions are valid. If part of the roselike lobe is missing there is [reason] to check [for it] in the minor lobes or the major lobe on the left side. If the missing piece is found there are those that say it is valid because it is also found like this sometimes in goats and lambs. And so too there are those that rule valid if there is the appearance of a rose at its base, the thickness of a finger, even though there is no appearance of a rose at the head, as long as it is not inverted and has not changed its place. And in all of these things there is what to be lenient after many who rule valid in this entire topic.</i>
If the number of lobes increased, if the extra lobe was on the side of the [other] lobes or in front of the lungs, which is on the side of the heart, it is permitted. And if it was on its back, which is on the side of the ribs, this is an invalid animal; and this is when it's [the size] of a myrtle leaf after it's inflated, but if it's less than that, it is valid. <i>Rema: And there are those who rule stringently and forbid all extra [lobes] that aren't in the row of lobes. And so too is the custom in some places to forbid an extra [lobe] even on the front side, and we don't differentiate whether it's on the front side or the back side. However, if [the extra lobe] stands in the row of lobes, and when it's inflated it leans toward the front side, it is valid. And if it leans toward the back side it is an invalid animal. And in our countries the custom is to validate an extra [lobe] on the front side, and one shouldn't change the custom.</i>
If one finds an extra lobe at the end of the bottom edge of the major lobe, it is valid <small>because this is called in the row of the lobes.</small>
The right minor lobe which is close to the windpipe, in the narrow [part] of the chest, truly next to the neck, on the bottom which is the top that's next to the neck, if it is found on the back side like [the size of] a myrtle leaf, it is valid because it is its way to split. And this is precisely with the [lobe] on the right, but not [for the one] on the left. And there are those that say that this is precisely when it is in the upper half, but if it's in the lower half, it is invalid. <i>Rema: ...</i>

Siman 36



Siman 37



Siman 38



Siman 39

The Laws of Checking Lungs (25 sections) 1) One need not proactively check (without cause to assume there would be an injury) any part of the animal for treifot (specific terminal injuries) except the lungs of domesticated and wild species of mammals to see if there are any sirchot (strands of connective tissue). Anyone who "breaches the fence" to eat meat without checking the lungs should be bitten by a snake.  Rema- We have the custom to also inflate every lung, even if there is nothing wrong with it. In some places they are lenient and don't inflate the lungs unless there was a sircha removed by rubbing, and this is the main understanding.
2) If one opened the abdomen of the animal and, before the lungs were inspected, a dog or an idol worshipper came and took them, it is permitted to eat this animal and we are not concerned that they may have been punctured or had sirchot. Rema- There are those who are strict in the case that the lungs were lost and the animal should not be permitted in such a case except if it will be a major financial loss or if the animal were a kid, lamb, or a wild species, as sirchot are uncommon amongst them. 
3) If an idol worshipper or a Jew came and removed the lungs before they were checked and they are still available, one inflates them.
A minor lobe connected to another minor lobe or to the major lobe, whether slightly connected or connected along the entire lobe, if they are connected "out of order" it is treifah and if it is connected "in order" it is kosher, even without checking (the lung for a hole). Beit Yosef- However, if he inspected the sircha that was "in order" and one found a hole the animal is treifa. The sircha is not considered "in order" except when it is connecting two lobes one next to the other from chituch (flat side overlapped by the neighboring lobe) of one to the chituch of the other, even if the sircha is diagonal or penetrates into the neighboring lobe. However, if the sircha goes from the back of a lobe to the back of the neighboring lobe or even from the chituch to the back of the neighboring lobe, or from the outer edge of the lobe to the outer edge of the neighboring lobe or from the edge of the lung to chituch of the other, or even from the point of one to the point of the other that is next to it, or even from the point of one the chituch of the other that is next to it, it is called "out of order." Rema- There are those who say that even when the sircha is "in order" it needs to be checked to make sure there is no hole in the lung. Because we are not experts in checking for things that can be problems one should consider any sircha (including "in order") treifa, and there are those who say it is kosher if the sircha extends from the origin of the lobes up to the middle of them (by width) even if it is open on both sides. This is indeed the custom to permit it if it is "in order" in this way. Similarly, if there is a membrane connecting a minor lobe to a minor lobe or a minor lobe to a major lobe spanning from the origin of the lobes until the middle of them we do not consider it treifa, as it is normal to find it like this and it is not a sircha. This membrane is only normally found between minor lobes or between the major and minor lobes but not in other places, and if a membrane is found connecting a lobe to another place it is a sircha (and forbidden). Anywhere (on the lung) that the sircha is permitted, even if there is another sircha connected to that same sircha it is called a "folded sircha" and it is permissible. 
5. If one is uncertain as to whether (the sircha) is on the back of the lobe or in the chituch and when the lungs are inflated a lot it appears that (the sircha) is in the chituch but when the lungs are not fully inflated the sircha appears to be outside (the chituch) the animal is kosher.
6. A sircha connected from the varda lobe to anywhere is treifah, even to its own pouch and even if the whole lobe is connected to it. This is the law for any extra piece of lung, that any sircha makes it a treifah. Rema- However, if the varda is connected below from its source (point of attachment) to its pouch it is possible to say it is kosher, since this is the majority (of the varda).

A sircha which extends from the lung and is hanging, unconnected to anywhere else, (the animal is) kosher and (the sircha) does not require checking. Rema- but an unconnected sircha that extends from a bubble (renders the animal) treifah. From a pustule/granuloma it would be kosher. 

Siman 40



Siman 41



Siman 42



Siman 43



Siman 44



Siman 45



Siman 46



Siman 47



Siman 48



Siman 49



Siman 50



Siman 51



Siman 52



Siman 53



Siman 54



Siman 55



Siman 56



Siman 57



Siman 58



Siman 59



Siman 60



Siman 61



Siman 62

A limb from a live animal is forbidden from a domesticated animal, a wild animal, or fowl.
A limb that separates from a live animal is forbidden. And flesh that separates from a live animal is forbidden because of "And the flesh in the field Treifah." And even what separates from the animal [but] is still inside it - such as [where it was] cut from the spleen or from the kidneys and the piece was left inside it - it is forbidden.

Siman 63

Meat that was found spread out in the market, one goes after the majority, because a part goes after the majority of parts. If the majority of the sellers [of meat] are non-Jews, it is forbidden. And if the majority of the sellers are Jews, it is permitted. And this is the case with meat that was found in the hand of a non-Jew and it is not known from whom he purchased it. If the meat sellers are Jews, it is permitted. This is the law [according to] Torah. And the Sages already forbade all meat that is found, either at the market or in the hand of a non-Jew, even though all the sellers and all of the slaughterers are Jews. And furthermore, the one who buys meat and places it in his house and it disappears, it is forbidden [to eat it]. Rather, if there is a sign or there were recognizable rings [on the meat], and he definitely recognizes it that it is the [same meat] or it was bound and stamped, [then the meat is permitted]. 
If one hung up a container full of pieces of meat, and the container broke and the pieces fell to the earth, and one returned and found the pieces without any sign or recognizable features, it (the meat) is forbidden, because one might think that the meat that was in in the container was dragged away by a beast or vermin, and this is other meat. But if one hung it up on a nail or something like this, where it would be impossible for vermin to take it off and and put another one in its place, it is permitted. And some permit meat that was unobserved if it was found in the same place that it was left. [Comment of Rema: And the customary practice is to be lenient, in accordance with the last opinion, and even if it was in an idolater's possession, in a place where all the sellers are Israelites who sell kosher meat. And see below 118.]

Siman 64


One who slaughters an animal and finds an eight or nine month fetus whether it is alive or dead, its helev and sciatic nerve are permitted. A nine month [fetus] is specifically only permitted if it hasn't walked on the ground. However, if it walked on the ground, it is forbidden. There are those who say that if it completed its gestational period and was found alive, even though it did not walk on the ground, its helev and sciatic nerve are forbidden and [consumption] is punished by karet and we remove [from the animal] all the sinews and membranes that are forbidden in all animals. Rema: A prohibition descends on the helev if the animal is aborted.

Siman 65







We are not accustomed to doing this [removing the forbidden fats and sciatic nerve] on a fetus that does not require shechita. There are those who say we should do it if it completed gestation and was found alive. Rema: our custom is to be strict like the second opinion. 

Siman 66

The blood of a domesticated or wild animal, whether it is a pure or impure animal, is forbidden. This includes the blood of an embryo (shalil), but the blood of fish and locusts is permitted.
Egg blood, if it is know that it is from a developed embryo (meaning, one that has begun to take on the form of a chick), one is liable. But if one does not know that it is from a developed embryo one is not liable, but the sages prohibit it.
If a pinch of blood is found, toss the blood and eat the rest, if it is found in the white. But if it is found in the yolk, the whole of the egg is forbidden, <small>The Rema comments: And some say that blood found on the egg white lining and outside of it — that is, that has spread from the lining — makes all the egg forbidden (the Rosh, and Rashba, and Rashi, and the Tosafot, and more. And the Rosh and the Tur and R. Yeroḥam wrote that some are stringent on both measures) and some are more stringent that any that is found on the white linging, even if not spread, makes all the egg forbidden (Issur v-Heter ha-Arukh, Resh Klal 42, and the Maharai 304). And from this the custom of these lands has spread to forbid the entire egg that has blood, and not to distinguish between the white and the yolk. And in the place where the custom is to be lenient, to toss the blood and save the egg, in the place where it is permitted one must take a small amount of white (the thickness of a shell) with the blood when tossing it (Arukh there in the name of the Sefer Mitzvat Gadol) </small>
Eggs that are scrambled in a bowl, and blood is found on the yolk of one of them, even if the yolk with blood on it is tossed, are forbidden, because since they are scrambled in a bowl the white is flimsy and it mixes together, so all of it is forbidden. But eggs that are broken together in a bowl and not scrambled, if blood is found on the yolk of one of them, take out the kosher yolks one at a time in its place, and they are permitted, and leave the one which had blood in the egg with the remaining white and toss them. <small> The Rema comments: And all this that we know that if the blood was in a forbidden place, but if there was doubt if it was in a forbidden place or not then it is allowed to mix (as explained in the commentary of the Rosh) — whereas even if it had not happened one of the two is nullified, but the egg is alone is forbidden. And thus, if it is boiled or roasted and we don't know if it is in a forbidden place (entirely from Issur v-Heter ha-Arukh, and see also the Ta Ḥazi 62, law 3). </small>
If the blood is found in an egg in a place where the whole is not forbidden, and the blood is not tossed but forgotten, and the egg is torn with the blood, it seems to me to be permitted.
If the blood is found in an egg that has been put in stew to shrink <small> [translator's note: a preparation still found in Sephardic kitchens, known as huevos ḥaminados] </small>, since there is no sauce in the egg's place the entire stew is permitted.
Strange eggs (that is, eggs which are non-viable, and formed like a web), even if the hen sat upon them for many days, are permitted to eat, as long as one tosses the blood.
It is permitted to eat roasted eggs even though they cannot be checked. <small> The Rema comments: and thus there is no need to check the eggs if there is blood in them, for we rely on the majority of eggs which don't have blood in them (Hagahot Maimuniot and Arukh), and nevertheless it is customary to be stringent, that when you make a dish with eggs, on that day you look in them to see if there is blood in them.</small>
Fish blood, although it is permissible if gathered in a container, is forbidden on account of looking bad. Thus, if it is apparent that it is from fish — for instance, if there are scales in it — it is permitted.
Human blood, if departed [from the person's body], is forbidden on account of Mar'it Ayin. Thus, if one bites a loaf with his teeth and finds blood from his teeth on the loaf, he needs to wipe it off, but if it is between his teeth he can suck it. <small> REMA: and all blood of fish and of humans, since the law permits it, it is not forbidden to mix them. (Maimuni 87 on forbidden foods, in the name of the Rashba in Torat haBayit 3:5)</small> 

Siman 67



Siman 68










One is not permitted to scald kids and lambs and chicken in a kli rishon [first vessel] unless the fat has been removed and the meat has been salted. And likewise, one may not pour onto them from a kli rishon, and if you do pour, it is enough [to remove] a klippah [outer layer] of the skin. And if the head of the chicken is above where the pouring occurred, a klippah is not even required.  Rema: It is not considered 'pouring' unless there was no stopping of the stream from the kli rishon when it was touching down, but if there was a break it is already not considered a pouring and it is not forbidden. 

Siman 69

(1) [1] One must rinse the meat before salting it. [2] (2) <i>And if the butcher rinsed it, one need not rinse it at home, </i>and if after rinsing the meat [3] another cut was made, [4]<i> or the hooves (3) were removed after being rinsed, </i>one must go back and re-rinse. <i>Rema: And if the re-rinsing was not performed it is as if the meat was never rinsed. Ideally, the most proper way to rinse the meat is to have it soak in water for about half an hour, and then to wipe it in the water. [5] However if one simply rinsed the meat without soaking, it would be sufficient. Afterwards [6] (4) wait a little so as to allow some of the water to evaporate so that the salt will not immediately dissolve from the water once placed on the meat, and thereby not remove any blood. [7] (5) It is customary not to use the vessel used for soaking meat for any other purpose. (6) If the meat was left soaking for twenty four hours then [8] the meat, and vessel are both forbidden to be used. [9] (see further on in this chapter) but one need not worry if it has been less than twenty four hours. Even in the case were the vessel has become forbidden, [10] one may use it for the purposes of soaking. [11] For the laws of frozen meat see chapter 78. </i>
[12] If one salted without first rinsing the meat, then wash it now and then (7) re-salt it, however some forbid this. Rema: And this is our custom even if it was (8) only slightly salted as in preparation for roasting, and [13] even if it wasn’t sitting in the salt for the entire time requirement, (9) however in the case of a great loss we can permit it. (10) If the meat was rinsed only slightly before having been salted, it is [14] permissible post facto. [15] The same is true if there was a sixty to one ratio of meat against the blood on it. If one salted a piece of meat without previously washing it with other pieces, (11)[16] the other pieces are permitted, but this piece is forbidden. 
The salting is not performed with [17] salt that is as (12) thin as flour nor with salt that is too thick so that it will fall off the meat<i> however if the [18] only salt you have is thin then it may be used. </i>
The salt should be spread over the meat so that no place on the meat is without salt and salted to the extent that it would not be edible with such an amount of salt. [19] More salt than this is not needed. The salting must be done on both sides of the meat, (13)<i> and the insides of poultry must also be salted. In a case where one only salted the inside or outside, or only one side of the meat, it is acceptable. </i>Rema: [20] And there are those who forbid it even post facto, and this is how one should act (14) unless there is a great need. [21] This is only if it was cooked already, but if it wasn’t cooked yet, it may not be cooked as is. [22] Rather, if it is within (15) twelve hours of having been salted one must go back and salt the side that was not salted and then cook it. If it is after twelve hours, then roast the meat [23] and through this process the heat and fire will draw out the blood. The side that was already salted won’t absorb blood from the side that wasn't. 
(16)[24] If one cuts the meat after having salted it one need not re-salt the place of the cut. 
The required salting time is no less than the time it takes to walk a mil, which [25] is about a third of an hour. <i>Rema: [26] This can be relied upon post facto, or even initially in honour of guests or Shabbos. However, in other circumstances the custom is to leave the meat sitting in the salt for at least an hour. One should not deviate from this. </i>
Before one puts the meat into the vessel in which it is to receive its final rinsings [27] the salt should be wiped off or the meat should be sprayed with water, and then the meat should be placed in the vessel to be used for rinsing. The meat is rinsed off twice and the vessel should be <i>sprayed off </i>as well between the two rinsings. [28] <i>And some say that one must rinse off the meat three times, [29] and this is indeed the custom to be followed initially. (17) Therefore, rinse or wipe the meat well and then rinse it in water twice, and this will be considered as a total of three rinsings, or place water in a vessel, and then deposit the meat in that and then rinse it off three times, and this is the custom. Ideally one should use a lot of water in the first rinse so as to nullify the potency of the salt that may be in the tzir/remaining fluids. [30] (17*) It is permissible to rinse the meat in fruit juice, and one does not need water. </i>
If one did not wipe off the salt, nor rinse it we don’t forbid the meat [31] because the water in the vessel will nullify the potency of the salt. Rema: Even if only a small amount of water is used, nevertheless the tzir’s strength will be nullified. Some will even permit the meat if it was placed in a vessel with no water [32] because we need not fear problems in the short period of time used for rinsing the meat, and one may rely on this and not worry except for the first rinsing, after the first rinsing there are no fears. (18) [33] it makes no difference if the rinsing took place in a kosher pot, treifa pot, or even a dairy pot, and even a small amount of water in the pot nullifies the potency of the salt, and it is no longer considered to be 'roseiach'. Even if the vessel is dairy or still dirty from treif remains, it is permitted....
Meat that was salted and then cooked without a final washing must  have a sixty ratio (19) [34] against the salt that is upon it.  <small>Rema: (20) [35] And the entire pot is included in the sixty, [36] and if  there is a piece of meat in the pot of equal size to this piece that was  not washed off, everything is permitted for there must be sixty times  the amount of salt on the piece (21), for the piece is certainly at least  thirty times its salt. And if there is not sixty times against the salt  [37], even if only placed in a <i>kli sheini</i> everything is forbidden (23)  since [38] there is salt and <i>tzir</i>, it has cooked somewhat.  [39] Dried meat can be permitted even in a <i>kli rishon</i>, for it must  certainly be sixty times the size of the salt that is upon it since it has  dried. However, initially one must be careful even with dry meat that it should not be cooked or even washed in hot water without being first washed of it’s salt. All this is referring to a case where meat has not been washed off of it's salt at all, however if even only slightly washed once, and then cooked, it is permitted, post facto, for post facto one washing is sufficient. Salt used once, [40] may not be used again, [41], and it goes without saying that it is forbidden to eat used salt.</small>   
[42] A non-Jew who works in Jew’s home, who is cooking a piece of  meat that we’re not sure if it was washed off is subject to the following  halacha: If the non-Jew knows Jewish customs, we may believe to say he  washed it off if there was an adult Jew occasionally walking in and out, or  if there was a knowledgeable child. Rema:  One of these is sufficient (24) [43] either mesiach Ifi tumo that he washed  it well, or a Jew, even a child was around walking in and out for he has  some respect for Jewish customs. However if he told the non-Jew not to  wash meat without permission, and the non-Jew went and did so, it is  forbidden for we see that he has no fear and he should not be relied on.   
[44] Meat that has been cooked without having been salted is permitted if  there are [45] sixty times (26) that piece in the pot, (27) and all the other  meat is permitted as well. Rema: (28) [47] Some forbid that piece even if  there is sixty against it, and that is how we are to act if not for a great need  (2) as in honour of Shabbos or [47] guests when we may rely on those  who are lenient. If a piece of meat was not salted (30) properly it is as if it  was never salted. Any meat that stood for three days without having been  salted remains forbidden even if salted and if it is [48] cooked we require  sixty against it.
Meat that was left for three full days without having been salted can no  longer be saltedbecause the blood has dried and will no longer be  released through salting. Therefore it [49] may not be cooked [50] only  roasted (31) and after it is roasted [51] it still may not be cooked (32) but if  it was it is permitted. [52] Meat should not be left for three days for fear  that it may be cooked.   
(33) [53] If the meat was soaked in water within three days, it may go  another three days (34) (54) less half an hour. Meat that we are not sure if  it was salted within three days is permitted. 
Meat that was left unsalted for three days [55] and was then mixed up with  other pieces is [56] nullified [57] among the permissible majority, and [58]  all the pieces may be cooked (35) [59] even if it was a chaticha ha’ruya  I’hischabed. This is also the rule for pieces cooked without being salted,  and then mixed with others.  
(36) [60] Meat covered in blood that was sitting in water for twenty four hours is  forbidden by some unless it is roasted (37) [61] or unless there is sixty in the  water against it, [62] Some even forbid it to be roasted, and this is how we should  act. 
We perform the salting only in a vessel with holes or upon straw or shavings or in  a diagonal position insuring that if water was spilled onto it, it would flow off  immediately. Rema: An especially smooth surface that water would flow from  need not be placed in a slanted position. however if it’s not this smooth it must be placed slanted so that the water flows out. Even in a vessel with holes, one  should be careful to make sure the holes are open, therefore it should not be  placed on the ground, for then it is as a vessel without holes. As a result of this  some people are stringent and place straw or shavings because even the meat  can close up the holes. (38) Post facto, one need not worry about all this. If one  performed the salting in a vessel without holes (39) [63] it is forbidden to use the  vessel with very hot items. Rema: [64] And if it was used then one must take off a  klipah for a dry item, and if it was a liquid we need sixty against the klipah of the  vessel. [66] Some say that even with cold items it is forbidden to use the vessel  unless it is washed down well, and if it was used without first being washed off,  the item used should be washed off. (40) [67] However, it is permissible to re-use  this vessel for salting once holes are made in it (41) [68] or even without holes if  meat has been salted and washed off. 
(42) But if it has holes [69] it is permissible to eat boiling hot food from it, and there are some that forbid boiling hot [70]One should be careful  initially (43) but post facto, it is permitted. 
Meat [71] that was salted in a vessel without holes [72] and was left for as  long as it takes for water to begin boiling is subject to the following rules:  Anything in the tzir is forbidden even for roasting, and what is outside the  tzir is not forbidden [73] expect for a klipah’s worth, even if it is fatty.  Rema: (44) [74] Some forbid the entire piece, even that which is outside  the tzir, even if only salted slightly as is done in preparation for roasting  [75] and even if it was not left for the required salting time rather only for a  little while allowing for tzir to be seen [76] this is the custom, and it should  not be changed. Nevertheless, only the actual piece that is touching the  tzir is forbidden (45) [77] but the other pieces that are upon it and salted  with it are permitted, and this is indeed the custom. 
After meat has been salted and washed, it may even be placed in water that is not boiling [78] and there are those that require it to be placed in boiling water. Rema: The custom is to follow the first opinion. 
Meat that was salted for as long as required and then placed in a vessel without holes without being washed off [79] and then filled up with tzir is permitted. (46) According to this, meat that fell into tzir that came out of the meat (47) after the required salting time is permitted. There are those who forbid it no matter what, and they should be followed initially. Rema: [80] And some forbid even post facto (48) [81] a klipah and this is the custom, regarding that which is in the tzir. However, anything outside the tzir is permitted. (49) [82] The vessel into which the tzir fell is forbidden, [83] Therefore if the vessel was dairy (50) and is dirty, the meat is forbidden since even after the salting time it is considered roseiach [84] however if it is a case of great loss and needed for a mitzvah (51) one may be lenient and say that once the required salting time has passed, it is no longer considered roseiach. (52) [85] According to his words even though meat sat in salt its required time, one may not eat it until it is washed off well. It is forbidden to cut it with a knife before it gets washed [86] and if cut, the knife must be kashered. Rema: [87] And some permit it to be cut with a knife after it went through it’s required salting time [88] for salt can not affect vessels [89] and it is indeed permitted [90] but the knife must be washed off [91] or thrusted into the ground if the tzir has already dried. Even if it is before the required salting time has passed (53) there is no prohibition on the knife, rather the problem is now that blood had come out from the meat to its surface, if one wants to now wash off that spot and go re-salt it one may do so. If one wants to then go and perform a salting in order to preserve the meat after it has been property salted for blood in a vessel with holes, [92] then the meat must be washed off well and re-salted. It may even be re-salted in a vessel without holes. If one wants [93] to salt meat and eat it roasted without washing one may do so and we are not worried about the blood that is on the salt, for the fire sucks out the blood and the salt can not absorb it. This is when it is salted and put on to be roasted, but if it sat in the salt, the salt absorbs blood, and the meat becomes forbidden. Therefore, it must be washed off well, then roasted, and then it may be eaten. See later on in section 76 regarding the law for meat that was salted without being washed off, and then roasted) 
In a place where salt is not easily found, one should roast the meat (54) until its blood has come out, and then one may cook it. 

Siman 70

One is permitted to salt many pieces of meat together, one on top of the other,  even though the lower pieces will finish releasing their blood before the upper  pieces. We do not assume that the lower pieces will now absorb blood from the  upper pieces. This is because meat releases tzir for a long period of time and as  long as (1) it is releasing it can not absorb. Even if a lot of tzir is gathering and  sitting in the crevices of the meat, it is permitted. When do we say this rule? When  meat is being salted with other pieces of meat, even if it is meat from one animal  with the meat of another animal, even if it is poultry [1] which can not expel all its  tzir before the meat of an ox can expel its blood. Rema: Nevertheless it is  customary to initially be stringent with a piece of meat that has a pocket and invert  it inside out as to allow the blood to flow out, however post facto one need not  worry, [2] A piece of meat salted twice is permitted [3] and we are not worried that  this second salting will cause it to absorb any remaining blood from the first  salting. However meat with fish, and even poultry with fish are forbidden to be  salted together for fish release all their tzir before even poultry can release its  blood. [4] If one did salt them together, the poultry is permitted, but the fish must  have a klipah removed [5] and if (3) one did not remove the scales when they  were salted - it is permitted. Rema: There are those who forbid all the fish if there  is not sixty against the poultry for we measure all cases of salting with sixty, and  this is the custom. This is only if there are no scales, for they are soft and  immediately release tzir, bur if there are scales it is permitted for they do not  release immediately nor absorb from the poultry because as long as they are in  the process of expelling they won't absorb and it is like any other case of meat  being salted together   
In which cases is this said? When they were salted together, or if the  poultry was salted and the fish was not. (4) However if the fish is salty and  the poultry is not and they were placed beside each other [6] or on top of  each other, even the fish is permitted without removing a klipah. <i>Rema: (5)  [8] And so too if the fish [9] are placed on the poultry </i>they are permitted  even if they were salted together since the blood does not flow from  bottom to top, and it is no worse then a piece placed in the tzir in which  what is protruding from the tzir is permitted. If the fish were placed beside  the poultry [11] only (6) after the [12] poultry lay in their salt for the required  salting time, then even the fish are permitted even though they are both  salty. [13] If fish were salted in a vessel in which meat was salted, the fish  are permitted (7) for the fish do not absorb the blood in the vessel because  the salting has no effect on a vessel [14] That which we say that the fish  are forbidden if salty and the poultry is salty, is only when the fish [15] had  released all of their blood and have been washed, (8) but if they still did  not release their blood and were never salted, they are permitted because  when they release their own blood, they will release the blood they  absorbed from the poultry just like a piece that fell into tzir before being  salted. It is permitted for this reason as will be explained below. [16] See  further in section 91 regarding which salting is considered as roseiach.   
(9) Kosher meat that was salted with non-kosher meat, or non-kosher  meat that is salty with kosher meat that is not salty, [17] require the  removal of a klipah if they are touching [18] because even though it does  not absorb from the non-kosher blood, it absorbs from it’s tzir. However, if  the kosher meat is salted and the non-kosher meat is non-salty then it is  permitted even without removing a klipah as long as it is washed. This is  true whether the kosher piece is on the top or on the bottom. (10) There  are those who forbid it if they touch ,[19] and rule that the meat is not  permitted even if they were merely standing close to each other if it  allowed for their juices to touch. Rema: When the non-kosher meat is salty  and the kosher one is not-salty it is still forbidden. [20] See later in section  105 regarding these laws.   
(11) That in which we say that it is only forbidden to the extent of a klipah  is dealing with cases where the pieces of meat are lean. However if one of  them is fatty, [21] even if the non-kosher piece is lean and the kosher  piece is fatty, the forbidden juice spreads throughout the meat [22] if the  non-kosher salty piece was on the bottom. This is based on the rules of  tatai gavar. [23] See later on in section 105 how one should act.   
[24] There are those who say that meat that was salted is forbidden to  remain sitting in the salt after all its tzir has been released, which is after  twelve hours. This is because it begins to absorb from the drops of blood  that are upon it and on the salt, (12) There are also those that permit it to  lay in its salt for even several days. Initially one should follow the stricter  opinion. (12) but post facto it is permitted.   
There are those who forbid placing meat [25] that was not salted at all, [26]  or that was salted and had released all of its blood, with already salted  meat prior to its releasing of its blood. This is because the meat that wasn’t  salted or that was salted and had already released all of its blood now  absorbs what the other piece releases. [27] There are those who permit it  if another salting will take place later since then it will release all of this  newly absorbed blood. (14) [28] And there are those who permit it in any  case. [29] Initially one should follow the stricter opinion. Rema: (15) [30]  Even post-facto we customarily forbid meat [31] that has released all of its  blood and tzir and fell into meat that still did not complete the required  salting time. Some say that meat can release tzir for an entire twenty four  hour period after being salted. (16) [32] If during this time it touched meat  that had not completed the required salting time period, the meat is not  forbidden, and this is indeed the custom. [33] However, if there is no great  loss it should be forbidden if it is after 12 hours, but before this time one  need not be stringent at all, and surely if it had not been salted yet for even  if it had fallen into actual tzir it wouldn’t be forbidden for we say [34] that  when it releases it’s own blood, it will release anything else that it could  have absorbed. Even if the meat has been salted but has not sat for the  required salting time and fell into tzir [35] it may be permitted,[36] if it did  not sit in the tzir for an entire day. [37] If it had sat for the entire salting time  and then fell into tzir, some forbid it even though the releasing of tzir has  not been completed. Nevertheless, in a case of great loss it may be  permitted during the entire time that the meat releases tzir [38] which is  twelve hours [39] if it is re-washed and salted. [40] If it fell into tzir [41]  before the end of the required salting period re-wash and re-salt it. (18)  [42] However, if it was salted without being washed after it had fallen into  tzir [43] it is permitted post facto. All these cases are referring to tzir that  has the status of roseiach as explained in section 69. but blood (dam  b’eyn) that fell on meat [44] during the salting period that is considered  roseiach as explained later on in section 91, causes the meat to be  forbidden, for regarding this blood we don’t say that since the meat is now  in the process of releasing blood, it will release this blood as well, nor do  we say that “as it absorbed so will it release." (19) Regarding the case in  which we forbid it when it fell into tzir is only true for the part that is actually  in the tzir [45] but whatever is protruding from the tzir is permitted, [46]  however (20) what is in the tzir becomes forbidden immediately. Meat that  fell into tzir that is on the ground [47] is as if it was in a vessel without  holes. Meat that touched a piece that was salted in a vessel without holes  and became forbidden [48] has the same law as if it had touched tzir. In a  case of doubt of water or tzir, it is permitted, [49] for tzir is of rabbinical  origin so in a case of doubt we are lenient. Tzir mixed with water, [50] even  with only a little water, is no longer considered roseiach and cannot cause  meat to become forbidden. For the laws of soaking see section 105.   

Siman 71

[1] The head (1) is cut into two pieces and salted well on the inner side, [2] and is salted on its hair, for the hair is not a blockage from allowing blood to be released by the salt. 
(2) [3] The hooves are slightly slit at the bottom, salted, and laid out so the slit is face down. The hair is also salted. [4j See earlier section 68. 
The membrane surrounding the brain has many veins, and the brain itself  has much blood which will not come out through simply salting the head,  because the skull is blocking it, not allowing for the blood to flow.  Therefore, one who wants to salt it must cut the skull and remove the  brain, cut the surrounding membrane and salt it. [5] If one wants to salt the  head with the brain inside, then a hole must be pierced throughout the  skull and membrane, salt it, and place the hole face down as to allow the  blood to flow. It is then permitted even to be cooked. Rema: [6] And see  earlier in section 68 how one should act initially. If one salted the whole  head without making a hole in the skull then the [7] membrane and skull are forbidden, (3) [8] but the head is permitted along with any other meat  that is with it. The thigh bone, as well as other bones that have marrow  inside of them [9] must be salted [10] and the salting of the bone suffices  for the marrow as well. The bone need not be pierced. [11] Nevertheless,  ideally one should not salt it along with other meat, only alone. Post facto it  is permitted.   

Siman 72

The heart has much blood that gathered in it at the time of slaughtering. Therefore, it must be cut before salting to remove its blood, and can then be salted. <i>[1] It may then even be cooked. (1) [2] Some are stringent regarding cooking it, and only roast it. </i>Then it may be cooked. 
If one salted it without having cut it open (2) then it is to be cut  open after its salting, and is still permitted although it was salted  while the blood was gathered inside of it [3] because “as it  absorbed, so will it release.” It is also the case if it was roasted  without having been cut open, that it should be cut after the  roasting, and it will be permitted. (3) [4] However, if it was  cooked without having been opened it is forbidden [5] unless there  is sixty (4) against the heart, for we don’t know how much  escaped from it. Rema: [6] Even if there would be sixty, (5) [7/ the  heart itself remains forbidden [8] and a little bit should be sliced off  from anything surrounding the heart. There are those who rule  stringently even in a case of it having been salted. [9] and forbid  all meat that was salted with it for they say that we can not  assume the rule of "as it absorbed, so wilt it release” regarding  blood gathered within it. (6) This is because of the actual blood  and not simply blood that was released from it. (7) [10] The  custom however is to be lenient, and we rule that this blood is  considered blood that was released and it is possible to say that  ׳׳as it absorbed so will it release” since it was blood of the veins,  as was explained earlier in section 22. There are those who are  stringent and rule that a piece must be peeled from the place the  heart was touching. [ 11] It is proper to heed to their words and to peel a bit from anything that was around the heart, making  everything permitted, [12] There is no difference between meat  that is with the heart, or the heart itself. [13] There is also no  difference (8) whether the heart was closed or open at the top. It is  customary to cut the foreskin of the heart and to cut the sinews  inside of it. [14] However this is only a stringency and an act of  precaution.   
[15] There is no bird (such as a chicken, etc.) that wouldn’t have [16] sixty  against its heart, and it is permitted even if it was attached to the bird.  Rema: Every bird has sixty (9) even if its head and bottom feet have been  removed, as is customary to remove them until the lower knee. Therefore if  the bird is whole, everything is permitted. If it is not whole and it is lacking  sixty against the heart that is attached (10) [18] some say that the piece  becomes as ‘nveilah', and now sixty is required from the other items in the  pot against the whole bird, and this is indeed the custom. Even if there is sixty in the pot, the bird itself remains forbidden for it doesn’t have sixty  against the heart that is still attached. If the heart is not attached to the  bird, then everything in the pot can combine to achieve sixty against the  heart. See later in section 92 regarding the laws of a piece that becomes  nveilah. [19] There isn't an animal that has sixty against it’s heart.   
The lungs need not be cut open, [20] however it is customary to do so, and  to open its large tubes. It is indeed a good custom.   

Siman 73

(1) The liver contains much blood. [1] It therefore not permissible to cook it  even after salting it. Rather it must be sliced by its length and width and  roasted while placed facing down, [2] Until it is fit to be eaten, and may  then be cooked. Rema: (2) [3] If one makes many holes in it with a knife, it  is as if cut lengthwise, and widthwise. As well as if the gall was removed  from the liver allowing for the blood to flow out. Nevertheless, if this was  not done the vessels must removed after the roasting, and may then be  cooked. All this is regarding a liver that is whole. If it was cut, nothing need  be done. When one wants to cook it after its roasting, [5] it is first washed  after the roasting, before being cooked, however, if it was not washed  before being cooked, it is still permitted. (3) [6] Post facto it is permitted if it  was cooked alone in a pot [7] without roasting, but the pot becomes  forbidden since it absorbs and does not release. (4) There are those who  forbid it. Rema: [8] It is customary to forbid everything [9] even if the liver  was salted before being cooked.   
If it was boiled in vinegar, or in water, and a hole was made in it and blood  that shot from it was removed, according to the halacha it would be  permissible to cook it, but the sages forbade it. [10] Post facto it is  permitted.   
It must be cut in preparation for roasting due to the blood in the vessels. If  it was not cut during roasting, [11] it may be cut afterwards. Rema: Some  say that for roasting a cut need not be made (5) and this is our practice,  even initially.   
If it was roasted with meat in an oven such as the type that were common  in the days of the Talmudic sages whose mouth faced upwards, then the  liver should be placed on the bottom, and not on top, [12] however post  facto, it is permitted.[13] Regarding the skewers that are roasted on the  fire, it is forbidden to roast it initially with meat even if the liver is on the  bottom. Rema: Nevertheless, if the liver had been salted, it is permitted to roast it with meat, (6) [14] even on top of meat, since its blood has been  reduced, and is considered as any other piece of meat placed on another  piece of meat.   
[15] Initially it should not be salted on top of other meat, rather under it.  Rema: [16] It is customary (7) not to salt the liver at all, even alone, and  this is the custom and it should not be changed. It should only be lightly  salted when put on the skewer or when placed on the fire for roasting.  Nevertheless, if it is found that the liver was salted, whether alone or with  other meat, even if on top of the meat, everything remains permitted.  Some say that a slice should be cut from around the liver [17] if it is  attached to poultry, and this is only a stringency. [18] It is customary to  wash off every liver after being roasted because of the blood stuck to its  surface, [19] however if it wasn’t washed, it is still permitted.   
If a liver is found in an already roasted poultry, it is permitted. Rema: [20] Some say that a klipah should be removed from the area of the liver, [21]  but it is only a stringency. [22] If it was cooked, then you need sixty against  the liver. Rema: There is no whole poultry that would total sixty times its  liver. Therefore if the liver is whole and attached to the poultry, the poultry  becomes nveilah, and now sixty is needed against the entire poultry to  permit everything else in the pot. The same is true if you have a piece of  liver attached to a piece of poultry, for we have established that in all  forbidden items chaticha na’asis nveilah as is later in section 92. If the liver  is not attached then everything in the pot combines to nullify the liver, and  if there is sixty, everything is permitted. (8) [23] Nevertheless the liver itself  is forbidden just like the heart as is explained later in section 72. (9) Poultry  that was stuffed with eggs [24] and the heart or liver is found, is as if it was  cooked [24] and we require sixty from the poultry excluding the stuffing. If  there isn’t then everything is forbidden. [26] If it was stuffed with meat and  there are not any eggs that have been congealed and are blocking the  blood from flowing is subject to the rules as if it was roasted. 

Siman 74

(1) The spleen, although appearing red with a seemingly extensive amount  of blood. [1 ] is as any other meat and must be salted. Rema: Some say  that the custom [2] is not to cook the kidneys or [3] testicles even after  nikkur, since they contain so much blood, but post facto, one need not  worry. [4] It is permitted to salt all these with other meat, even though they  contain much blood, [5] as long as the membrane and fats from them have  been removed.   

Siman 75

Blood is not assumed to be in the intestines (1) [1] such as in the paunch  and the maw [2] and the bowels and the rectum (meaning the intestinal  tube which is at the top of the anus), if they are without fat on them.  Therefore if they were cooked in a pot without having been salted, they are  permitted [3] unless they have a blush red appearance. Rema: And if they  were salted in a vessel that does not have any holes, they are permitted.  (2) [5] Nevertheless, initially they require salting in a vessel with holes and  a preliminary washing as any other meat. Some disagree regarding the  paunch and say that it does contain blood, [6] even post facto the paunch  and reticulum of the ruminant stomach is forbidden as any other meat.  However the fat that is upon them is as any other meat. Therefore when  the rectum and other intestines are salted [7] they are not salted on the  inner part over the actual food, (3) rather on the outside where the fat is  attached. Rema: If the rectum was salted on the inner side and not on the  outer side it is as if it wasn’t salted. [8] if it was cooked this way it is not  kosher [9] if it has fat on the outside. If it wasn’t cooked yet (4) [10] go back  and salt the outer part [11] and it is then permitted. Eggs that are found in  poultry after being slaughtered if only the yolk was formed but not the white  part of the egg, then it must be salted as any other meat. (5) [12] and it  may be salted with other meat, if even the white part has been formed,  even if the shell on it is as hard as the shell on eggs which are sold in the  market, it is customary to salt it. However one must be careful not to salt it  with other meat, put post facto one need not worry. All fat, even of poultry  is considered as all other meat for the purposes of salting and washing. 
Intestines without fat on them, even though not containing blood (6) [13]  may be salted with other meat. Rema: Some forbid them to be salted with  other meat (7) and this is initially how one should act, however post facto it  is permitted.   
The fat of the winding coil that is on the bowel is full of vessels containing  blood. Therefore some forbid it to be cooked, even if cut and salted, but  now we customarily permit it. Those blood vessels, which if someone is  expert in, may be stretched and properly hung until not even one remains.   

Siman 76

[1] Meat that is to be roasted need not be salted [2] since the fire will draw  out the blood that is in it by itself. [3] However, if other blood had dripped  on the grill, [4] even if it’s cold we do not say that the fire will draw it out, (1)  [5] and it causes the meat to become forbidden to the depth of a netilah.   
If one wishes to salt the meat before roasting it (2) [6] and eat it without  washing it, one may do so and we are not worried about the blood  remaining on the salt. Some say this ruling refers to one who salted it, and  then immediately roasted it, (3) but if it lay in the salt (4) the salt absorbs  and is forbidden. [7] Therefore it should be well washed before the  roasting. Rema: [8] Some say that roasting requires a preliminary washing  (Ramban), and some say that it requires a slight salting beforehand as well  (Rashi). The custom is to wash it first and then to lightly salt it when it is on  the skewer, and to then immediately roast it so that the salt will not absorb  blood. [9] Nevertheless, if it wasn’t washed or salted at all, or it was salted  without having been washed first, and then roasted, it is still permitted.  This is only if it did not sit idle in the salt (5) without being washed for the  entire salting period, but if it did indeed lay idle for this amount of time  before being roasted, it is forbidden. [10] There is no difference in all this  (6) between geese, or other birds with open cavities [11] as long as they  are not stuffed with eggs or other meat. If they are stuffed they are subject  to the same rules as have being cooked, and require salting just as any  other meat to be cooked. It is customary to act stringently when roasting  meat that has not been salted [12] and to refrain from always flipping over  the skewer so that the blood will flow, but post facto, one need not worry.  In makes no difference in all this if one wishes to eat after roasting, or if  one wishes to cook it afterwards. [13] It simply must be roasted first to the point that it is fit to be eaten [14] which is about half it’s possible roasting.  Some say [ 15] that all roasting requires a washing after being roasted  because of the blood that is stuck to it. and this is the custom in the first  instance. Nevertheless, it if wasn't washed and even if it was cooked, it is  permitted. This is true even if it was first salted before being roasted and  not washed after the salting that it is permitted. We are not worried about  the blood that is upon it, for the fire draws it out.   
[16] If the jugular vein of poultry was not pierced during the slaughtering  then it is forbidden to eat it, even if roasted, unless it is cut limb by limb and  roasted. [17] If one wished to eat it raw, it is forbidden until it is cut and  salted. If the meat was cleaned from its veins of blood, it may be eaten raw  even without being salted, [18] or roasted, even all of it at once. [19] There  are those who rule stringently that it should not be eaten all at once even if  roasted (8) [20] until the jugular vein and the majority of the two required  tubes have been but.   
There is one who forbids the cutting of roasted meat with a knife that is  beside the fire if it wasn't salted, so long as it hasn't been fully roasted  because of the blood that gets absorbed into the knife. [21] There is also  one who forbids the skewer that was used for roasting meat that wasn't  salted. There is also one who ruled that it is forbidden to leave roasted  meat on the skewer [22] after it is removed from the fire (9) after the flow  from the meat had concluded, for fear that the hot meat will now re-absorb  it. There are those who permit all the above situations, and it is indeed the  custom to permit it. [23] We are careful in the first instance (10) but post  facto it is permitted.   
Roasted meat that was not first salted, and was cut over a loaf of bread  [24] does not cause the bread to become forbidden, even if it appears red,  as long as the meat was roasted to the point of being edible to most  people. That is, half its time. The same is true regarding the red juice that  flows out of the meat.   
(11) [25] Meat that is roasting without first having been salted should not  have a vessel be placed below it in order to catch the fats that are dripping  off it, until it has been roasted to the point that it can be eaten.   

Siman 77

Poultry or goats that are filled with meat that was not salted are permitted if  they are roasted, even if the mouth is facing upwards (1) [1] and even if the  outer part was salted (2) for as it absorbs blood from the filling so will it  release. Rema: [2] Of course if the inner part was salted and not the outer  part it is permitted as well, for the flame draws out blood from the outside  without it being absorbed in the inside. For cooking, it is forbidden [3] until  salting (3) is performed on the outside on its own and in the inside on its  own. !f after it was stuffed the outside was salted (4) [4] it does not release  blood from the inner side. Rema: All this is post facto, but in the first  instance one should not stuff anything until both are salted. [5] This is all  referring to a case that the stuffing is meat or herbs, however if there are  congealed eggs it is as if cooked in a pot. [6] Even post facto it should be  ruled as forbidden (5) if they were both not salted. Meat that was not  washed or salted that was roasted with meat that was washed and salted  is permitted post facto. In the first instance it is forbidden to roast meat that  was salted with meat that was not salted even if it was washed.   

Siman 78

[1] If one places dough on poultry that was not salted, although the Gemara differentiates between coarse flour and other flour, and between it appearing red and not we are not expert in these rules therefore we should forbid it in every׳ case. Nevertheless if it was properly salted and washed it is permitted in all cases. Rema: Only placing dough on it is forbidden, but to smear it with oil is permitted, (1) or with the juice from meat that was not salted, for this will not block the release of blood. [2] A quiche has all the same rules as food that is to be cooked (2) with its leniencies and stringenies. 


Siman 79



That which is born of a treifah is permitted.

Siman 80



Wild ox is considered a type of cattle

Siman 81




One is permitted to eat a donkey's placenta, because it is only considered a secretion
..

Siman 82

The signs of a kosher bird are not explained from the Torah, rather it only enumerated the non-kosher types, and the permitted types of birds. And the prohibited types, 24 were mentioned in the Torah (See: Rambam Forbidden Foods 1:14)
Anyone who is an expert in those types and their names, behold he eats all of the birds that are not from them, and he doesn't need checking. (Ibid.) And a kosher bird is eaten according to tradition, and that is the clear thing in that place that it is a kosher bird. And the hunter is believed saying: This bird, my hunting rabbi permitted for me, since that hunter is known to be in an expert in non-kosher types that are mentioned in the Torah and their names. Someone who does not know them and does not know their names, he should check the signs: every bird that is a bird of prey and he eats [it], and it is known that it is of non-kosher types. And if he does not know if it is a bird of prey or not, if, when they stand it up with wire, split along its legs, two fingers here and two fingers here, or it is [a bird that] clutches from the air and he eats [it], it is known that it is a bird of prey. If it is known that it is not a bird of prey, there are three signs of [its] kosher [status]: an extra finger, a crop [digestive pouch near gullet], and its gizzard is peeled by hand, excluding if it was only peeled with a knife. (See the Mechaber) If it hardened and was attached, and he placed it in the sun and it healed and then it was peeled by hand, behold this is a sign of [it being] kosher. And even though it has these three signs, it should not be eaten, because we are concerned lest it is a bird of prey, rather, unless they have a tradition that was transmitted to them by their ancestors that it is kosher. (See Rambam Forbidden Foods 1:18).
There are those who say that all birds that have a wide beak and the palm of its foot is wide like a goose, and it is known that it is not a bird of prey, and is permitted to eat if it has the three signs on its body. <i>Gloss: And there are those who say that we don't rely even on this, and one should only eat a bird with an accepted tradition that it is kosher (in the Arukh...) and we are accustomed to this and it should not be changed.</i>
One who is from a place that they are accustomed to a prohibition with a single bird because they do not have a tradition, and he went to a place where they do have a tradition, he is able to eat it in the place where he went, even if his intention to return. And if he went from a place that does have a tradition and he went to a place that does not have a tradition, it is permitted for him to eat it.
If the rest of the places that do not have a tradition are able to eat it relying upon the place that does have a tradition, there is one who forbids and there is one who permits. And there is [a reason] to be concerned regarding the words of the one who prohibits.

Siman 83

The signs of fish are explicit in the Torah: All that have fins and scales, kosher. And fins, it is what it swims with. And scales, they are hardened skins on it. <i>Gloss: Specifically when they are peeled by hand or with a utensil, but if it is impossible to peel them from the skin of the fish, it is not called scales (HM''M 1:41)</i> And even if it only has one fit and one scale, it is permitted. And if it does not not, and in the future when it grows after a time or when it has scales while in the sea, but when it emerges it sheds its scales, it is permitted. (Rambam Forbidden Foods Chapter 1 and the Rif and the Ran and this is the law) <i>Gloss: And there are those who say that one does not permit with one scale, only when it stands on its jaw or tail or fin (the Tur and the Rosh according to the Beit Yosef and the Ran and this is the law in the name of the Ramban), and it is good to be stringent.</i>
There are types of fish that their scales are very thin and are not recognizable [as scales], if they are wrapped in a garment or placed in a vessel full of salt water and scales are found, it is permitted.
Everything that has scales has fins, and there are [fish] that have fins but not scales. Therefore, if one found a cut of fish that has scales, one does not have to go after fins. If one found fins, one should not eat it until he knows it has scales.
If one found cuts of fish and one of them has scales, if the cuts are suitable, all of them are permitted; the presumption being that it came from one fish. And if none of them are suitable, those that have scales found on them, they are permitted, and the rest are are prohibited, even if all of them were salted together. <i>Gloss: And if one found there a fish that has a wide head and spine, it is permitted to eat, specifically if it had scales. But if the fish is whole, and we do not see scales on it, we cannot rely on the head and spine.</i>
Non-kosher fish brine, is only rabbinic. Therefore, it is permitted to purchase salted fish from a non-Jew, [that are] kosher, even though they were placed with non-kosher [fish] in the same vessel, lest they were not salted together. <i>Gloss: There are those who prohibit, if they were placed with non-kosher [fish] in one barrel. We are accustomed to not purchase them, even if we see that it was only placed with [other] non-kosher salted fish in a mixture on the table that they are being sold on. (Trumat HaDeshen 174 and Hagahot Sh''D, Sh''D Siman 20, and Or Zarua and Arukh Klal 13 and Mordechai in the name of the Tosafot Rabbi Israel), except for herring and markrish which are permitted in every circumstance, and definitely when they are not salted with non-kosher [fish], because it is not the way to salt them with them [the other types of fish] (Mordechai). Even regarding the rest of the fish, one should not be stringent to rummage and check if there are non-kosher fish among them. If one sees that non-kosher fish are being soaked in the water with kosher [fish], even herring there [is what to say] to prohibit it (Hagahot Sh''D in the name of MaHaRA''I and Rabbi Yerucham). But there is no concern lest it is being soaked, the whole time that we don't see [them] (ibid.). All of this is from the outset, but after the fact, when has already purchased them, there is [what to say] to permit them in every circumstance, because fish brine is rabbinic, and we say lest they were not salted together in the beginning, and we are not concerned after that of it absorbing from one to the other (Arukh). And specifically when suspended in oil, and just salted fish do not have oil, but if there is oil, it is prohibited by the Torah, and doubt [regarding Torah law we lean towards] stringent (ibid.). And in the case that the fish are salted dry, it is permitted in every circumstance, after the non-kosher [fish] also are dry (MaHaRA''I BT''H). And we are accustomed to be stringent also with this from the outset, if they are placed among them (ibid.).</i>
Non Jews that bring a barrel of water full with fish brine, if one Kilkit [type of fish] (explanation: a prepared non-kosher fish, this is what Rashi explains, and others explain that it is a kosher fish) is in it, it is permitted, because this is a sign that it is from kosher fish. If not, it is prohibited. And this applies when there is a single Kilkit, in a sealed barrel, but if it is open, it did not jump regarding less than two, but regarding one we are concerned lest it never came. And there is one who says, if there were many barrels, all of them are open, and a Kilkit, since it is a kosher fish, one among them, all of them are permitted. If they were sealed, open one of them and if one found a Kilkit, it is permitted. A second, if one found a Kilkit in it, all of them are permitted. There is one who says, it is permitted as a result of the Kilkit, this applies when there is not a fish or cut [of a fish] that does not have scales, but if there are [fish without scales], all are prohibited. 
Aggressive fish are only taken by an expert, unless a Jew says, <i>or a non-Jew (Ran and this is understood from the Rashba)</i> that is selling them: I salted and took from kosher fish. But if he says: They are kosher, he is not believed, rather unless he is a proven [expert] regarding kashrut. 
Eggs of a fish, if there were two round sections (explanation: spherical and wide like jugs) or they were clear, non-kosher. <i>and it is law regarding aggressive [fish], also the law applies here (Tur).</i> One round and one clear, ask the Jew who sold [it]. If he said: I salted, and took [them] from a kosher fish, eat according to his word. If he said: they are kosher, do not believe him, rather unless he is a proven [expert] regarding kashrut. Now it is the simple custom to purchase just fish eggs, whether whole or soft, even from non-Jews, provided they are red. But if the [eggs] are black, do not eat them at all.
A kosher fish that is found in the intestines of a non-kosher fish, if found either in the secretary channel, or the swallowing channel, or it went out, it is kosher.
A non-kosher fish that was found in the intestines of a kosher fish, it is prohibited (see Rambam in Forbidden Foods 5).

Siman 84

Insects that grow in water that is in house vessels, pits, and caves, that don't have fountain in them, are permitted, even though they don't have fins and scales. Therefore, one can lean over and drink from them, and not to be concerned with them, if they happened to come into his mouth. <i>But it is forbidden to draw [water] in a vessel and drink from them (Ashiri and the Arukh Klal 41 and the Kol Bo)</i> And if they left their place where they grew, like outside pit or on side of vessel, even though they came back, they are forbidden. And presumably, there is no place of concern that they left. But if they did not leave but are on side of vessel, on inside, they are permitted.
Those that grow in water that is in furrows or ditches, (explanation: slits, long and short ditches, wide like made for fish inclosures, Rashi), they are withdrawn and not flowing, there are those who forbid and there are those who permit.
The one who filters water, or the rest of liquids, if it had worms or gnats or mosquitoes in it, even though they returned inside, it is prohibited, because they had already left. Therefore a drink that worms normally grow in them, and similar situations, one does not filter it with wood slivers and straw, at night, lest they will return or fall inside the vessel, and one comes to drink them. <i>Gloss: But it is permitted to filter through a garment or sieve, for behold they are not able to fall through there into the drink, also it is permitted to pour a liquid from one vessel to another vessel, since they always are with a liquid, this is sanitary treatment (Beit Yosef).</i>
Worms that grow in fruit, in picked [fruit], they are permitted. The Torah only forbade crawling things that crawl on land. To what are we referring, when they did not leave the fruit. But if they left the fruit, even if it did not reach the land rather it dead in the air before it reached the ground, even if it did not entirely leave the fruit, only a little, or it only left onto the fruit, or on the seed that is inside, or if it left from fruit to fruit, it is forbidden. And there are those who say even if it died within the fruit and left afterwards. Any time that it is found within the fruit, even a hole bored to the outside, we are not concerned lest it left and returned. <i>There are those who forbid if the hole bored to the outside (Moredechai PA''T and Sh''D in the name of RAB''N and Rabbi ABI''H in the name of Rabbi Yoel Huvah BT''H Siman 171) and this is how we are accustomed (Terumat HaDeshen ibid. and Hagahot SH''D.</i>

All types of fruit where it is their norm to be wormy while they are attached, he may not eat until he checks the fruit from the inside. Maybe there is a worm in it. And if the fruit waited after it was picked, for 12 months, he may eat without an inspection, because any creature that has no bone in it does not survive for 12 months. Nevertheless, he needs to check them to throw away the worms that are found between them on the outside, or on top of the fruit. And even after he throws away those that were found on the outside, there is concern that maybe when he puts them in water in the pot, they will exit and crawl in the water or in the walls of the pot or on the fruit. Therefore, one who comes to cook after 12 months, wormy fruits, he should put them in cold water. The wormy and pierced ones will rise to the top. And afterward he should put them in boiling water, so that if a worm remains it will die immediately. And it does not help with them if he checked the majority. Rather he must check all of them, because it is a prominent minority.
A fruit that became infested - but we do not know if it became infested while attached to detached - is assur. 

If one violated and cooked within 12 months without checking, if he is able to check, he checks. And if not, it is permitted. And if a bit were found in the pot, he throws them away and eats the rest, because there is no fruit that does not contain 60 against the taste of the worm that is inside it. And there is an opinion that says that these words are only if only one or two were found. But if three or four were found, everything is forbidden. Haga”h: And only a food that it is impossible to filter it and to remove the worms from them. And since it is assumed to have worms it is all forbidden. But if it is possible to filter it, he removes the worms that are found there, and the rest is permitted. And see later end of chapter 100.

Siman 85

Kosher signs for locusts: All that have 4 legs and 4 wings, and its wings cover most of the length and circumference, and has two legs to jump with, even if it doesn't have now, but is destined to grown them after a time. And even if it has all these signs, it is not permitted unless its name is "chagav", or they have a tradition that its name is "chagav."
Locusts do not require slaughter.
Oil of non-kosher locusts is permitted.

Siman 86

1. <b> Identifying characteristics of eggs, and their laws. Containing 10 sections. </b> Identifying characteristics of eggs, to recognize if they are from a "pure" bird species: If the two ends [of the egg] are both round, or pointed, or if the egg yolk is on the outside and the egg white on the inside, this is known to be the egg of an "impure" bird, and even if the seller says that they come from a "pure" bird, we do not rely on them. But if one end is convex and round, and the other end is pointed and round, and the egg white is on the outside and the egg yolk on the inside it is possible that it is the egg of an impure bird, but it is possible that it is the egg of a pure bird. Therefore, one must ask the Israelite <i> (Or idolater) (citations)</i> who is selling them. If they say, "It comes from such-and-such a bird," and we recognize that species of bird to be pure, one can rely on them. But if they say, "It comes from a pure bird," but cannot name the species of bird, one cannot rely on them. Therefore, one may not purchase eggs from the idolaters, unless one recognizes them, and they are visually identifiable to be the eggs of a pure bird. And we need not worry about the possibility that they might be eggs of a mortally ill [bird] or one who died of natural causes. 
2. Currently the common practice is to purchase unmarked eggs from anyone, because eggs from impure birds are uncommon amongst us. <i> RAMA: This is specifically about the ordinary type of eggs, that is, eggs of chickens or geese or similar ones to these. But one must not purchase eggs from birds that are not as common as those of impure birds, unless one observes the identifying characteristics, as will be explained. (Aruch, klal 42) </i>
3. The egg of a mortally ill [bird] or one who died of natural (ie. non-slaughter) causes, even if it was so completely formed that similar ones are sold in the marketplace: it is prohibited. And even if it mixed with a thousand, they are all prohibited. But there is doubt whether the egg comes from one [bird] who died of natural causes, or by proper slaughter, it is permitted, even without being mixed [with permitted eggs]. But if there is doubt about whether it is the egg of a mortally ill [bird] or one who died by proper slaughter, it is prohibited. <i> RAMA: And if the chicken was slaughtered and then found to be mortally ill, the rule for the eggs is like the rule for milk which was milked form an animal (B"Y) and see above section 81. </i>
If one hit a chicken on her tail and she miscarried her egg before it was fully completed, it is permitted, and there is no concern here for the prohibition of limbs from living animals. This is true as long as it [the egg] is not enveloped in tendons.
5. An egg from an impure bird, which has been cooked with others: if it is in its shell, it does not prohibit them, but if it is shell-less, it prohibits them <i> (and if it is punctured, this is considered shell-less.) (citations) </i> And one needs 61 parts permitted eggs parallel to it [the impure egg] to nullify it <i> (and even if it is not whole, but rather scrambled.) (citations) </i> But if it was cooked in a permitted dish, one only needs sixty parts of the dish to nullify it. And an egg that contains a chick or blood: it prohibits whatever is cooked it it, even if it is not shell-less. <i> RAMA: And the shells of the prohibited one combine as well with the permitted material to nullify the prohibited material. And how much more so the shells of the permitted ones. (citations) and see below section 99. </i> 
6. An egg from one [bird] which was mortally ill or died of natural causes: its law is the same as the law of an impure bird, in that as long as it is not peeled, if it was cooked with others, it does not prohibit them, as it is [as insignificant as] egg water. <i> RAMA: And some say that all eggs have the same law, and do prohibit [other eggs that were cooked with them] even if they were not peeled. (Tur citing BH"T and most poskim) And it is right to practice this way, in a situation when there is not a great loss. But if there is a great loss, it is right to rely on the lenient ones. </i> 
7. A chick born out of an egg from a mortally ill [bird] or one who died of natural causes: it is permitted. <i> RAMA: And some say that we do not practice this way (in the Aruch) and ideally one should be cautious. </i>
8. An egg from an impure bird in which the bird had begun to take form: they used to be dealt lashes for it on account of the prohibitions on flying vermin. But an egg from a pure bird in which the bird had begun to take form: if one ate it, they would deal them lashes for "rebelliousness" [ie. violations of Rabbinic-level laws.]
9. A mortally ill animal cannot give birth. For this reason, a bird which is possibly mortally ill: if it laid eggs, we impose a holding time on it while it lays all the eggs that it was already carrying. If it carries eggs again, it is kosher. And we will know this after it has been held between the end of one birthing session to the start of the next birthing session for 21 full days, as this is the duration of her gestation. And this rule applies the same to a chicken which has never birthed before, in which there arises doubt about mortal illness: that if she gives birth 21 days after the time that the doubt arose about mortal illness, she and the eggs are permitted. 
10. We must not sell the eggs of a mortally ill [bird] or one who died of natural causes to an idolater, in case they come back and sell it to an Israelite. How should one act? One should scramble it up into a dish, and sell it to an idolater, because then certainly an Israelite will not buy it from them. In what cases is this said? When one sees it scrambled in their hand, because one should be concerned that an Israelite has sold it to them because it is from a mortally ill animal. But it is permissible to purchase from them bread that was kneaded using eggs in places where the custom is to eat bread of idolaters, since one does not see it scrambled in their hand. <i> RAMA: And some say that currently, when people are not cautious about bread of idolaters, one should not sell an idolater a prohibited egg, even scrambled, as we must have concern for the possibility that they will mix it with bread and sell it to an Israelite. (citations) And this is how the custom is practiced, in places where it is customary to make the bread with eggs, and the custom is to permit buying it. But in other places, one does not need to worry. </i> 

Siman 87

It is written in the Torah: "you will not cook a kid in the milk of its mother" three times (Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21); once for the prohibition of cooking, once for the prohibition of eating, and once for the prohibition of receiving benefit [from the cooked meat and milk products]. The prohibition of eating is presented in the language of cooking, to say that there is no prohibition from the Torah [in regard to meat and milk] unless it is in a manner of cooking, but rabbinically it [the mixture of meat and milk] is forbidden in every way. <i>All meat and milk [mixtures] that are not forbidden from the Torah are permitted to benefit from.</i>
[The word] "kid", is not specific, it is the same rule with ox, sheep and goat. There is no difference if it is the milk of the mother, or of another [domesticated] animal.  Rather, the verse refers to the common case. 
The law only applies with meat from a pure [kosher] animal and milk from a pure animal, but meat of a pure animal in milk that is impure, or meat from an impure animal in pure milk, is permitted to cook and benefit from.  Meat of a wild animal and of fowl, even in milk which is pure, is permitted to cook and benefit from; and even eating is only prohibited rabbinically.  Fish and grasshoppers are not prohibited [with milk] even rabbinically.  <i>RAMA: We make milk from almonds and place bird meat in it, since [milk and bird meat] is only rabbinically [forbidden].  But with meat from a domesticated animal, place almonds next to the milk, so that people don't misunderstand.  This is as we said above, in chapter 66.</i>
It is forbidden to cook [meat] with the milk of a woman, because of appearances. If woman's milk fell into [meat] food, it is nullified and there is no need to measure.  <i>RAMA: It seems according to this, all the more so that it is forbidden to cook with impure milk or impure meat with pure milk, in the case of domesticated animals. But with rabbinical prohibited fowl, there is no need to be concerned. </i>
Eggs that are found inside chickens, if they are complete - i.e. they have white and yolk - even though that it is bound with sinews -  indeed it is complete and it is permissible to eat it with milk. If the egg only has yolk, it is forbidden to cook with milk.  If he eats the eggs alone, it is permissible to eat cheese or milk afterwards.   
A person who [Cooks meat and milk together by] smoking and or cooking in the hot springs of Tiberius does not receive lashes for transgressing a lav. Similarly,cooking meat in "mai chalav" (milk water) or chalav maisa ("dead milk") or chalav zachar or cooking blood  and  milk  together  is  exempt (from lashes) and one  who  eats  it [milk  cooked with blood] does not receive lashes for [transgressing the lav of] meat and milk. <i>RAMA: Chalav zachar is not called milk at all and if it fell into a pot of meat it would not be forbidden. However [if ]chalav maisa or mai chalav [fell into a pot of meat] the food is forbidden because they  are  comparable  to  milk.  It  is  even forbidden to  cook [chalav  maisa  or  mai  chalav  with  meat] initially. There are those who say that it is forbidden to stoke the fire under the pot of a non-Jew because they use the same pot sometimes to cook milk and sometimes to cook meat. Therefore by stoking the fire under the non-Jew’s pot one may come to cook meat and milk [together]. Furthermore, one should not mix together the water that was used for washing milk dishes with water that was used to wash meat dishes and then give it to an animal because the water becomes forbidden for use. And furthermore, the container that is used to make shampoo should not be used [for anything else] because the  ashes  on  the  stove that  are  used  to  make  shampoo  are mixed with milk and meat. Therefore it is forbidden to use the pots that are usually on the stoves in the winter lodges because sometimes milk and meat splash on them from the cooking going on in the oven itself. After the fact, we do not worry about the above laws, and furthermore even initially they are only a chumra b’alma (stringency of the world). One who is lenient will not lose. </i>
One who cooks an embryo in milk is liable, and one who eats them cooked together is liable. But cooking the placenta, skin, tendons, bones, ikari karnaim (The part of the horn that is found below the skin) ,or soft hooves [in milk] is exempt [from the Torah] and one who eats them is exempt.
There are those that say that the whey of the milk <small>(meaning the milk that's extracted from the curdled cheese)</small> is not included in [the category] of "milk water" and it is forbidden from the <i>torah</i>. Rather, this is what "milk water" is: after they make the cheese they cook the whey, and the foodstuff floats to the top, and the only thing that's left is mere water; this is what's called "milk water".
Milk that was found in the stomach [of the animal] is not called milk, and it is permitted to cook meat in it, even in the liquidy part. And there are those that forbid it, <i>and so is our custom.</i>
Milk that was found in the stomach [of the animal] <i>from the outset one should not leave it in the stomach until the milk that's in the stomach cools off, but after the fact, there is nothing to worry about until</i> it was salted in the stomach, or it stood in it for a full day, [then] it is forbidden to curdle milk with it. <i>RAMA: And if one did curdle milk with it, if it was liquidy, the entire cheese is forbidden unless there was sixty times the amount of [permitted] milk that one made curdled with against the forbidden [milk] from the stomach. And if there was sixty times the milk it is all permitted. And if the [milk in] the stomach was solidified, it does not forbid [the cheese] at all even if there wasn't sixty times the [permitted] milk against the [milk in] the stomach. And if the [milk in] the stomach was liquidy at first and became solidified, it has the law of liquidy [milk]. And there are those that are lenient in this matter, and in a case of monetary loss, there is room to be lenient. The skin of the stomach, sometimes they salt it and dry it out and it becomes like wood and they fill it with milk, [in this case the milk is] permitted, since after it was dried out it is like mere wood, and it has no moisture of the meat in it.</i>
If one curdled cheese in the skin of the kosher stomach, if there is the taste of meat in it, it is forbidden, and if not, it is permitted. But if one curdled in the skin of the stomach of an invalidly slaughtered animal or an invalid animal or a non-kosher animal, it is forbidden with any amount. <i>RAMA: Because something that's intrinsically forbidden, and one [used it] to curdle milk, even in a thousand parts it's not nullified. And this is precisely if there was nothing else that was used to curdle except the forbidden item, but if there was something else that is permitted that was used to curdle, then both this and that caused it [to curdle] and it would be permitted if there was sixty times [the permitted] against the forbidden.</i>

Siman 88

Even with meat of a wild animal and a bird it is forbidden to put them on a table where one is eating cheese, so that he doesn't come to eat them together. But [to put] on a table that's meant for arranging cooked foods, it is permitted to put one next to the other.
That which is forbidden to put together on the same table, that is precisely only with two men who recognize each other, even if they insist on not sharing food with each other. However, by guests who don't recognize one another, it is permitted. And even by those who recognize each other, if they make any sign, such as if each one eats on his own tablecloth, or even if they eat on a single tablecloth but they place bread between themselves as a sign, it is permitted. <i>Rema: And this is precisely if they don't eat from the bread that's placed between them as a sign, but if they eat from it, it is no longer considered a sign, because even without this purpose, bread from which they eat from is placed on the table. But if they placed a drinking vessel between themselves, and if not for this purpose it is not normal for it to be on the table, it would be a sign even if they drink from the vessel. And of course if they place on [the table] a candelabra or other items on the table that they are [valid] signs. And they should be careful not to drink from a single vessel because food sticks to the vessel. And of course they should not eat from the same bread. And so is our custom to have individual salt-vessels for each person themselves, because sometimes when they dip into the salt there remains leftovers of the food in the salt.</i>

Siman 89

One who eats meat, even of a wild animal or fowl, does not eat cheese afterwards until he waits six hours.  Even if he waits that period, if he has meat between his teeth he has to remove it.  One who chews food for a child has to wait. <i>If afterwards he finds meat between his teeth and removes it, he has to wipe his mouth out before eating cheese (Ran chapter 25).  There are those that say that he doesn't have to wait six hours, but rather immediately if he finishes the meal and says the concluding blessing, it is permissible after wiping and rinsing his mouth (Tosafot Hullin 105a - "At the next meal", Mordechai chapter 25, Haga'ot Ashri, Haga'ot Maimoniot chapter 9 of forbidden foods, and Ravya).  The simple custom in our countries is to wait after eating meat one hour and to eat cheese afterwards, but you have to say the concluding blessing after the meat (HaAruch, Haga'ot Shaarei Dura) because then it's like a new meal and permissible to eat according to the lenient view.  But with no blessing, waiting alone does not good.  It doesn't matter if you waited before the blessing or afterwards (his own reasoning, from the Mahari, as opposed to the Issur v'Heter).  If he finds meat between his teeth after the hour, he has to pull it out (his own reasoning, from the Ran above).  And there are those that say not to say the concluding blessing in order to eat cheese (Aruch in the name of Maharach) but we're not careful about this.  And some are careful to wait six hours after eating meat before eating cheese, and it's proper to do so.</i> 
If one ate cheese it is permissible to eat meat immediately afterwards as long as one examines one's hands, so that one should not have any pieces of cheese attached to them, and if it is night and one is therefore unable to examine them thoroughly one must wash them. One must clean one's mouth and rinse it out. One cleans it by chewing bread, thereby thoroughly cleaning his mouth with it, and one can do this with anything that one chooses, except with flour, dates, or vegetables, because they attach to the palate (the area above the esophagus close to the teeth) and do not wipe well. Afterwards one should rinse one's mouth with water or wine. This was all stated in regard to meat of domestic or wild animals, but if one wishes to eat poultry after cheese there is no need for cleaning or rinsing.       Comment (Ramah): some are stringent (to wait six hours) even with meat after cheese (Mordechai in the name of the Maharam and Bet Yosef, Bach siman 173) and so is the custom with hard cheese, we do not eat afterwards even poultry, like with cheese after meat (and so it is in the Zohar). Some are lenient, and one should not protest against them, but they should do cleaning, rinsing, and washing of the hands, and it is better to be stringent. 
If one ate a cooked dish made with meat, it is permitted to eat afterward a cooked dish made with cheese, and washing between them is only optional. <small>And there are those that require washing.</small> But if one comes to eat cheese itself after a cooked dish made with meat or [to eat] meat itself after a cooked dish made with cheese, it is an obligation to wash his hands [between the foods]. <i>Rema: And fat of meat has the law of meat itself. And our custom now is to be stringent to not eat cheese after a cooked dish made with meat just like after eating meat itself, and one should not change this and break this fence. However, if there is no meat in the cooked dish, only that it was cooked in a pot used for meat, it is permitted to eat cheese afterward, and there is no custom to be stringent. And so too is the custom to eat meat after a cooked dish that has cheese or milk in it. However, there is [reason] to wash one's hands between them, and this is even [in a case where] one didn't eat actual meat but rather only a cooked dish made with meat after a cooked dish made with cheese if he touched them with his hands. A servant that prepares the meal and touches the food is not required to wash because we only require washing for those eating.</i>
One who ate cheese, and wants to eat meat, needs to remove from the table leftover bread that he ate with the cheese. And it is forbidden to eat cheese on the tablecloth that they ate meat on. (And vice-versa is similarly forbidden.) (So is implied in the Aruch.) And all the more so is it forbidden to cut cheese, even cold, with a knife that they usually use to cut meat. And not only that, but even the bread that they eat with the cheese is forbidden to cut with a knife that they use to cut meat. <i>And vice-versa is also similarly forbidden. However, via stabbing into hard ground, it is permitted. (Beit Yosef, quoting A"Ch and Kol Bo). But, all of Israel already is accustomed to having two knives and to mark one of them, so it is distinguished, they are accustomed to marking the dairy one, and it's not right to change a custom of Israel.</i> 

Siman 90

The udder <small>(meaning, the breast of the animal)</small> is forbidden according to the word of the Sages, because meat that is cooked with milk from a slaughtered animal is not forbidden from the <i>torah</i>. Therefore, if one tears it and empties the milk inside it is permitted to roast it and eat it. And if one tore it lengthwise and widthwise, and pressed it against a wall until there no longer remains the moisture from the milk, it is permitted to cook it with meat. And an udder that was not torn, whether it was from a young [cow] that did not nurse or whether it was from an adult, it is forbidden to cook it. And if one transgressed and cooked it by itself <small>and of course if he roasted it</small> it is permitted to eat it. And if he cooked it with other meat we measure it against sixty times [the other meat] and the udder is included in the count. How so? If the entire [food] including the udder is like sixty times the udder, the udder is forbidden but the rest is permitted. And if it is less than sixty, the entire thing is forbidden. Whether it is [sixty times the amount] or not, if it fell into another pot it can cause it to become forbidden and we measure it for sixty times like originally; because the udder itself when it is cooked becomes like a piece of forbidden food, and we only measure it like it was at the time when it was cooked and not like it was at the time when it fell [into the other pot]. <i>Rema: and there are those that say that if it originally fell into a pot that did not have sixty times as much, and the udder made it forbidden, if it then falls into another pot the udder is not included in the [count of] sixty times; and this is the main part.</i>
We have the custom to not cook [an udder] with meat at all. And to cook it without meat, in oil or in a pastry dough, we need it torn lengthwise and widthwise and pressed against a wall. And roasted, [we need] tearing lengthwise and widthwise. <i>Rema: And if one transgressed and cooked it, if he tore it lengthwise and widthwise and pressed it against a wall, there are those that permit it after the fact in a case of great loss, but without this it is not permitted. And that which we have the custom to tear it and to cut it many times lengthwise and widthwise across the entire thing, that's preferred and works better than pressing it against a wall. And by roasting, we have the custom that from the onset one should tear it lengthwise and widthwise and press it against a wall. However, if one transgressed and roasted it, even without tearing, it is permitted if it was roasted alone without any meat with it. And if it was roasted with meat, if it was torn lengthwise and widthwise and pressed against a wall, both of them are permitted, and if not, the top one is permitted and the bottom one is forbidden. And we don't forbid both of them [from the concern] that maybe the spit flipped, because after the fact we don't make it forbidden. But, from the onset we don't roast it with meat at all. And [to cook it] in a pot without meat, our custom is that it is forbidden from the onset. And so too is the law by frying it, even with meat and even if the udder was dried out. And if one transgressed and cooked it in a pot alone, after the fact it is permitted if it was torn lengthwise and widthwise and pressed against a wall. However, if it was dried out, which is after thirty days, if one transgressed and cooked it, even with meat, it is permitted after the fact. And to make it an udder in pastry dough, without meat, the custom is to permit it if the pastry dough is not baked in a frying pan. But, in a frying pan the law is similar to cooking in a pot. And there are those set individuals that are strict by all pastry dough if the udder is not dried out first. There are those that are strict to not bake a pastry dough of udder with one of meat in a small oven, rather, he should place one by the entrance of the oven. And it is better to be careful from the onset because this is only a mere stingency.</i>
It is permitted to cut a hot udder with a knife that was used to cut meat <small>and for sure [this applies to] a raw udder even though it is filled with milk</small>. And so too, it is permitted to cut meat with a knife that was used to cut an udder. And so too is the law [that it is permitted] to eat one in a utensil that the other one was eaten in. <i>Rema: And so too is the law [that it is permitted] to roast one on the spit that the other one was roasted on. And so too is the law that it is permitted to leave [an udder] on a plate together with roasted meat, even if they are both hot, because after the udder was roasted according to its law, it is considered like other meats for all purposes. And the is precisely if it was roasted according to its law, which is that it was first torn lengthwise and widthwise and pressed it against a wall, but if one transgressed and roasted it without tearing it, or [only] tore it slightly, all of these cases are from the onset forbidden, but after the fact they are all permitted. And if it was torn according to its law and roasted, even though afterwards one found in it holes full of milk, there is no need to be concerned. And so too, if one leaves it complete, before roasting it, together with its milk for a complete day, it is permitted; and we do not say that soaking it is like cooking it in this case.</i>
To roast an udder or to salt it with meat, its law is the same law as roasting or salting a liver with meat. And there are those who permit salting an udder on meat. <i>Rema: And one shouldn't salt it with meat; but after the fact, in every matter, it's permitted. The skin of the stomach, after its milk is removed from it and it's rinsed, it has the same law as other meat and it is permitted to salt it with other meat, and it does not have the law of an udder at all.</i>

Siman 91

[Cold] Meat and cheese that touched each other, they are permissible [to be eaten], but it's necessary to rinse the place where they touched.  And it is permissible to wrap them in one handkerchief, and we don't worry lest they touch.
Anything that requires rinsing, for example placing permissible cold meat on a cold non-kosher plate, is prohibited <i>ab inicio</i>, lest you eat it without rinsing.   This applies particularly to cooked meat, since it is not generally rinsed, but something that is generally rinsed, like raw meat and similar things, is permitted <i>ab inicio</i> [to place on a non-kosher plate.]  <small>NOTE: This applies particularly to something that is a bit moist; but things that are entirely dry, and the plate only absorbed from cold things, it is permissible to place a dry thing on it without any rinsing at all (his own reasoning) see chapter 122.</small>
It's necessary to be careful that meat doesn't touch bread, because if it touches it, it's forbidden to eat it with cheese. Also be careful that cheese doesn't touch it [bread], because if it touches it, it's forbidden to eat it with meat.
Hot meat and milk that are mixed together, and even cold meat that [falls] into hot milk or cold milk that [falls] into hot meat, everything is prohibited, because the bottom item determines [the status].   But hot milk that fell on cold meat or hot meat that fell into cold milk - peel off [the outer layer of] the meat and the rest is permitted, <small> NOTE: In a case where the meat needed to be peeled, if it wasn't peeled, but cooked as is, it is permitted after-the-fact. (Aruch klal 29)</small> and the milk is all permitted <small>(Rambam, Rabbenu Hananel, R"i, and others). </small> If one fell into the other [and both are] cold, rinse the meat and they're permitted.  
Salted food, that one is unable to eat because of its salt, which is the amount of salt that [is required] to salt [meat to cook] in a pot, and it stays there the amount of time [required] to salt [meat to cook] in a pot, as long as it is not rinsed, it has the status of food that one is unable to eat because of its salt. <i>Rema: And there are those that say that after it stays in the salt the amount [of time necessary] for salting it is afterwards not called hot food. And for a great need, for example in a case of great loss and it is needed for a feast made for a mitzvah, there is what to rely on the lenient [opinions]. But without this, one shouldn't be lenient at all. Even if the meat was not salted on both sides, only on one side, as long as it was salted [to the point of] salted food that one is unable to eat because of its salt, it is considered hot food. But anything that's not salted so much is considered cold, even if it was salted on both sides. And there are those that say that we are not experts in the matter and we should consider even [the amount needed] to salt for roasting to be like heated. And is is good to be stringent in a case where there is no great loss.</i> And a salting that's similar to the salting [one would do for food] that he needs to take for a long trip, even after it's rinsed it's considered food that can't be eaten because of its salt, and as long as it's not soaked in water it has the law of hot food which forbids [when touching certain other foods] up to [an amount] that needs to be peeled away. And there's no difference whether the salted food is on top and the unsalted food is on the bottom or whether the salted food is on the bottom and the unsalted food is on top, always the salted food imparts taste to the unsalted food and it does not absorb taste from it. Therefore, meat and cheese that were both salted that touched each other, one is required to peel away the place from both of them where they touched. And if one of them is salted and the second is unslated, the salted food is permitted with a rinsing and the unsalted food requires peeling away. <i>Rema: And there are those that say that with all salted foods we require a measure of sixty times [in order to permit the foods], and see later on in chapter 105 how we are accustomed to rule. And that which we said that if the salted food was pure and the unsalted food was impure that [the pure food is] permitted, that's where the impure food was dry, but if it's a wet item it forbids the pure food, for after it's [salted to the extent of a food that] one is unable to eat because of its salt, it absorbs from the forbidden food that's near it and they both become forbidden. And this is precisely where the pure food is [at least] slighly moist, but if it's completely dry it does not absorb from the moist food near it.</i> And if they are both dry, even if they are both salted, or if they are both moist but not because of salting, it is enough [to permit them] with rinsing. <i>Rema: Al meat juices from meat that was salted, even if it was only salted [to the extent required] for roasting, it's considered like hot food. And therefore, if meat juices fell on cheese or onto a vessel, it forbids it. Even in a case where the meat wouldn't forbid because it's not considered like hot food, nevertheless, the meat juices are considered like food that one is unable to eat because of its salt. And meat juices of meat that forbids that fell onto a vessel, [the vessel] requires being immersed into boiling water. And if it's an earthenware vessel, it requires breaking it. And if it only fell onto one area, and the vessel is wood or something similar, one can peel away that area and that's enough.</i>
Where do we say that it's only forbidden up to [an amount] that needs to be peeled away, that's where neither of the pieces are fatty, for if there is fat the entire item is forbidden. And so too the accompanying [food] is entirely forbidden because the fat diffuses <small>and see later on in chapter 105</small>.
That which we distinguish between between [food] that one is able to eat with its salt and [food] that one is unable to be eat because of its salt, this is referring to raw meat, but hot roasted meat that fell into salted food, even if it can be eaten with its salt, it requires [a layer] to be peeled away. And if there are cracks, or if it's spiced with spices and it's entirely hot and roasted, it is forbidden. <i>Rema: And so too is the law by baking and cooking. And there are those that say that even if they are cold that this is also the law, and so too this is what one should follow if there's no great loss.</i>
Milk and meat is only forbidden, in the case of salting or in the case of soaking, to eat it, but it isn't [forbidden to] derive pleasure from it.

Siman 92

An olive-worth of meat that falls into a pot of boiling milk: let a non-Jew taste the dish. If he says that there is a taste of meat in it, it is forbidden. If not, it [the milk] is permitted, even in less than sixty, and that piece [the meat] is forbidden.  When is this true?  When one quickly removes the piece before it exudes the milk that it absorbed, meaning before the pot rests from its boiling.  But if he didn't remove it before it was able to exude the milk it absorbed, even if a non Jew tastes it and it has no taste at all, (Rama) it's forbidden unless there is sixty.  <i>See chapter 98 (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 98) that we aren't accustomed to rely on the tasting of a non-Jew and we need sixty every time.</i> 
Milk falls into a pot of meat: [let a non-Jew] taste the piece that the milk fell on.  If it does not taste of milk, everything is permitted.  If the piece does taste of milk, then that piece is forbidden. <i>For us who don't rely on a non-Jew, we need sixty in the piece, and if there's not sixty then it's all forbidden.</i> And we measure it [the original piece of meat] against the whole [pot].  If there was in all that is in the pot, the pieces, the vegetables, the soup, and the spices, enough that this piece is one in sixty [or less] of the whole, the piece is forbidden and the rest is permitted.  In what situation are we speaking? When the pot was not stirred at the beginning when the milk  fell in, but only at the end, and the pot wasn't covered.  But if it was stirred from beginning until end or was covered from the time of [milk] falling in until the end, everything joins together to nullify the taste of milk. <i>Therefore, if it wasn't stirred at all, not at the beginning and not at the end, and wasn't covered at all, if there is sixty in the pot compared to the drop of milk that fell in, it only prohibits the piece alone, and the rest of the pot is permitted (Bet Yosef in the name of the Ra'avid and Magid Mishnah in the name of the Rambam.) And also if it was stirred at the beginning or covered immediately even though it wasn't stirred or covered at the end, all of the pot joins together, if it was stirred or covered immediately when the prohibited matter fell in (Tur and Bet Yosef in the name of the Ri N Haviv.)</i>  Therefore, if [the milk] fell into the soup or onto a piece and we don't know onto which piece it fell, stir the whole pot until it's all mixed.  If in the whole pot there is a taste of milk, it's prohibited, and if not, it's permitted.  And if there is no non-Jew to taste and be relied on, we measure with sixty (until now, the language of the Rambam.)  <i>There are those who disagree and reason that stirring the pot isn't effective unless it's stirred immediately after the prohibited matter fell in, and this is our practice.</i>   
When a piece of meat becomes forbidden due to milk it is prohibited completely. If it was cooked with others, sixty is needed to negate it all. If you recognize it, take it out and the others are acceptable. If you don't recognize it, the sauce is permitted but all the pieces of meat are forbidden if the initial piece was rih-ooya lih-hitchabeid (too important to be considered part of a mixture)
We only say the rule of "the piece itself becomes just as forbidden as a <i>neveila</i>" by milk and meat, but not by other prohibitions, like an olive's bulk of forbidden fat that was absorbed by a piece of meat, and there isn't sixty times [the meat] to nullify [the fat], and it becomes forbidden, and afterwards it was cooked with other meat we only require [the new total] to have sixty times the olive bulk of the fat, and if so, then even the [original] piece of meat itself returns to become permitted. <i>Rema: And there are those that say that we apply to all prohibitions the rule of "the piece becomes just as forbidden as a neveila", and this is the regular custom and it should not be changed. And this is precisely if the forbidden item is attached to the permitted piece of meat, or if the piece of meat is entirely outside of the sauce and the forbidden item fell onto it. But, if part of the piece of meat is inside the sauce and the prohibitted item is not attached to it, we do not say "the piece of meat becomes just as forbidden as a neveila" and the entire pot would combine [to sixty times the forbidden] to nullify the forbidden item. Nevertheless, there is what to be stringent about and to forbid that piece of meat. And all of this is regarding other prohibitions, but by milk and meat, even though there is no forbidden item attached and part of the piece of meat is inside the sauce, we say that "the piece becomes just as forbidden as a neveila". There are those that say that we don't say "the piece becomes just as forbidden as a neveila" if a forbidden liquid became mixed with a permitted liquid, and afterwards the entire thing became mixed with another permitted item; and we would only require sixty times against the [original] forbidden [liquid] that fell [in order to nullify the forbidden part of the mixture]. And there are those that rely on this in other prohibitions if it's needed in a case of great loss, but not by milk and meat. And if a dry item became mixed with a dry item, we don't say by any prohibition that "the piece becomes just as forbidden as a neveila". And see above in chapter 99 according to the law of "the piece becomes just as forbidden as a neveila". A vessel that became forbidden by absorbing a forbidden item, we do not say by it that "the piece becomes just as forbidden as a neveila", and we only need sixty times against the prohibitted item that was absorbed [in order to nullify it], and see above in chapter 98.</i>
A drop of milk that falls on the outside of a pot that is on the fire, if [the drop] falls opposite the food [in the pot] one only needs [the amount of food in the pot to be] 60 times [the amount of milk] in the drop that was absorbed within [the walls of the pot], this is as if [the drop] fell into the food [itself]. But if [the drop] fell [opposite] a place [in the pot] where there is no food, it spreads out within the walls of the pot until it is next to the food such that there is not 60 times against the drop, that spot on the pot is prohibited, and if one stirs against the prohibited spot on the pot, the food is prohibited. This is how to fix it: do not touch it until it has cooled off. [Isserles:] This applies specifically to an old pot [one that has been used within the last 24 hours]. If [the pot] is new [has not been used within the last 24 hours], in any case one needs 60 times only against the drop that fell on it, as it says later in section 98, concerning the spoon.  
The prevailing custom is to forbid when [a drop of milk] falls on the [outside] of the wall [of the pot] not opposite where the sauce is. And this is precisely when it falls on the side [of the pot] that is not near the fire, but if it fell [on the side] near the fire, it is permitted, because the fire burns it and dries it out, <small>and then, the pot would also be permitted</small>. And this is precisely when dealing with a small amount, such as a drop, but if a large amount fell, it is not permitted even if it fell [on the side] near the fire unless it was opposite the sauce and was sixty times the amount. <i>Rema: And then, the pot would be forbidden even if there was sixty times the amount in the cooked food against the drip that fell, and one should immediately pour out the cooked food from it on the other side, not near the drop. And if one cooks in that pot another cooked dish, its law is the same as the first time.</i> 
There are those that permit it in extenuating circumstances, for example, on the eve of <i>shabbat</i>, even if [the drop] is not opposite the sauce, even not on the side of the fire, as long as there's sixty times the amount. <i>Rema: And this is the custom. And if milk spilled, or any other hot forbidden food, on the ground, and you put on top of it a hot pot [of meat], if what spilled is not near the fire, it's only a secondary vessel [of heat], and therefore, the pot is forbidden, because it absorbs a bit, and the cooked food is permitted because the bottom item determines [the status]. And a stream from a boiling pot that went to [another] cold pot, if the stream was cut off from [the bubbles of] the boiling pot before it reached the cold [pot] it's also considered like a secondary vessel [of heat], and if it's not cut off it's like what's poured [from a primary vessel] and the cold pot is forbidden if the stream that's touching the pot is [as hot as] "when the hand retracts". And the cooked food that's inside it is permitted because what's poured only forbids up to [an amount] that needs to be peeled away. But if the [other] pot is hot, and it's a primary vessel, and certainly if it's standing near a fire, even if the stream is cold, it's all forbidden because the bottom item determines [the status]. And it's like cold inside of hot where it's all forbidden like we explained above in chapter 91. A drop that fell onto the lid of a pot, its law [is like if] it fell on the pot opposite the sauce. And this is if the pot has already begun to boil because then the steam constantly goes up and reaches the lid and goes down from there to the sauce.</i>
A pan of milk, placed in an oven, underneath a pot of meat - the steam rises, enters into the pot, and renders it forbidden. <i>Rema: If there was actual milk in the pan, then we require sixty times its volume in the meat. All of this is when the pan is open, and the steam rises up from the food itself, to the pan that is above it, and also if the two are so close to each other that the steam that rises is so how that it would make your hand retreat rapidly. If not, then everything is permissible. Therefore, we hang meat (slabs) over dairy pots, and we don't worry about the steam that rises. And if something is covered, then everything is permissible, since it is like two pots that touch each other, which do not make each other forbidden, and all the more so with mere steam. But ideally (lechatchila) one should be strict on all this.</i>
A tallow candle made like a wax candle from which falls a drop [of hot, liquid tallow] on a pot, one only needs to scrape it off. However, if a drop of [hot] molten tallow fell on a pot, it requires [kashering by] immersion in boiling water. 

Siman 93

A pot in which meat was cooked, one may not cook in it milk. And if one cooked [milk] in it within 24 hours, it is forbidden on account of “giving taste.” And one needs to measure [for negation by 60] against the entire pot. But if it sat for 24 hours before one cooked in it, [it is a case of] “giving detrimental taste,” and the food [cooked in it] is permitted, but the pot is forbidden to cook in either meat or dairy. <small>NOTE: But other things are permitted. And the rule for a pot lid is like the rule for the pot itself. And there are those who are [more] stringent for the lids, saying that even when it isn’t <i>ben yomo</i> [meaning it hasn't been used in the past 24 hours] its rule is like it was <i>ben yomo</i>, and so they act in a few places. And this is how I behave according to the custom, and it is a restriction without reason. And in any event, in a place where there is some reason, like it is a Shabbat need or a [potential] loss, there is [reason] to permit [the cooked food] if [the lid] is not <i>ben yomo</i>, like the pot itself. And if they took a boiling-hot lid from a meat pot and put it on a milk pot, and if both of them are hot, both of them are forbidden if there is food in the pot of meat and milk. And if the lid is cold and the pot is hot, still both of them are forbidden if it began to sweat under the lid, for “the bottom dominates.” And if the lid is hot and the pot is cold, everything is permitted, just the food requires taking a <i>qlippah</i>, if it is possible to take a <i>qlippah</i>, and if not, everything is permitted. And if there wasn’t food in the pot, everything is permitted, for this is like two pots that touched each other.</small>

Siman 94

If one inserts a dairy spoon into a meat pot, or the opposite, we measure against all [the portion of the spoon] that was inserted into the pot (food itself) <small>if the spoon was a <i>ben yomo</i> which is that it was used with a primary vessel [of heat] in the last 24 hours</small>. And there are those who say that if the spoon is metal that we measure using the entire spoon because if part of it gets hot the entire thing gets hot. <small>And the first opinion is the main one, and so too is our custom, and see above in chapter 98.</small>
If one inserted a spoon into a cooking vessel two times and did not know in the meantime, they need 60 times twice (the amount of food versus the spoon). There are those who say that it is sufficient to have 60 times (the amount) once. This is the custom. 
If there is 60 times [the volume displacement of the spoon in the food] to negate [the taste in] the spoon, the vessel and the food are permitted but the spoon is prohibited, whether [the] spoon [is a] meat [spoon] or [a] dairy [spoon], since it [the spoon] has absorbed [the prohibited taste of] meat and milk. And even ex post facto it [the spoon] is prohibited, if one inserts [the spoon] again [into the food], whether in meat or in dairy, the entire time [that] it [the spoon] has been used within the past 24 hours. And if there is not 60 times [the volume displacement of the spoon in the food], everything [the spoon, the food, and the vessel] is prohibited [and one is prohibited] from deriving benefit [from the spoon, the food, or the vessel], even the vessel, although it is permitted to place within it [the vessel] fruits or cold [food items], since they do not benefit [i.e., absorb taste] from the prohibited body [i.e., the prohibited vessel]. 
If the spoon has not been used in the past 24 hours, the vessel and the food are permitted and the spoon is prohibited a priori, whether with meat or with dairy. Nevertheless, ex post facto, it [the spoon] is not prohibited, since it has not been used within the past 24 hours.
If one cooks water in a new pot and dips a dairy spoon into it, and thereafter returns and cooks water again [in the pot] and dips a meat spoon into it, and both spoons had been used within the past 24 hours and neither time was there 60 times in the water against the spoons, it is prohibited to use the pot for either meat or dairy, but it is permitted to cook other [i.e., pareve] things [in the pot] {?} [Isserles:] However, if one proceeds to cook in the pot meat or dairy, it is permitted, since it is a case of secondary transfer of taste (Hagos Maimoni 8:9 {ch. 9?}). A pot in which one cooks vegetables or water and into which one dips a spoon which has been used within the past 24 hours, and the pot has not been used within the past 24 hours, or the opposite [i.e., the spoon has not been used within the past 24 hours and the pot has been used within the past 24 hours], or there is 60 times within the food [against either the spoon or the pot, respectively], everything is permitted. (Aruch, rule 37), It is our custom to be strict to eat the food that is within a vessel that has been used within the past 24 hours, and to prohibit the vessel that has not been used within the past 24 hours but this is only a stringency, according to the letter of the law, all of these cases are permitted.
 Onions or vegetables that have absorbed meat taste and one cooks them in a dairy pot, if one knows how much meat [taste has been] absorbed by the onions and the vegetables, one only needs 60 times against the [taste of] meat [in the onions and the vegetables]. [Isserles:] It is not appropriate to say [that the onions and vegetables] are inherently, entirely not kosher; they are still entirely kosher, and similarly one only needs to [have 60 times] against that which was absorbed [by the onions and the vegetables]. The same applies to a dairy pot in which one cooks water within the past 24 hours, and thereafter cooks [in the pot] meat, one does not say that it is necessary to have 60 times against all of the water, only against the dairy that was absorbed by the pot. (From that which is implied by the Tur and Beis Yosef).
Hot meat that one has sliced with a dairy knife, all of the slices are prohibited if there is not 60 times [in the meat] against the place on the knife that sliced the meat. But if [the knife] has not been used within the past 24 hours, the slice is not prohibited except for a thin, outer layer. [Isserles:] All of this applies to meat cooked in primary vessel, further if the knife has been used within the past 24 hours and there is not 60 times in the meat against the knife, all [of the meat] is prohibited, further the knife requires [kashering by] immersion in boiling water. But if the meat is in a secondary vessel, a thin, outer layer needs to be removed from the meat; and the knife [requires kashering by] inserting it into the ground ten times (Aruch, rule 36), and this is the custom. And even if the knife is has not been used within the past 24 hours, there are those who remove a thin, outer layer from the meat a little bit because of fatty material of [on] the knife (Tur and Beis Yosef in the name of the Sefer Mitzvos Katan).   
If cheese falls on a meat pastry  in the oven, even wet, and similarly hot cheese in a meat pot that has been used within the past 24 hours, only a thin, outer layer is prohibited.
[If] one cooks honey in a meat pan that has been used within the past 24 hours and empties it [the honey] warm into a dairy vessel that has been used within the past 24 hours, [the honey] is permitted, because this is a case of the secondary transfer of taste between two permitted things [i.e., kosher meat and kosher dairy]. 

Siman 95

Fish that were cooked or roasted in a well-washed meat pot with no fat stuck to it are permissible to eat with kutach [a milk based food], because they [the fish] are two degrees removed from a permissible taste.  If the pot was not well-washed, if there is more than 1/60th the fish worth of substance on the pot, it's forbidden to eat them [the fish] with kutach.
An egg that was cooked in water in a dairy pot - it is permissible to put it into a chicken, even before the fact.  But if it was cooked in a pot with meat, even in its shell, it is forbidden to eat with kutach. <i>There are those that are strict with roasting and cooking and prohibit second-degree taste (Rivan in the name of Rashi, Aruch 34 quotes the Mordechai and ...) and the custom is to prohibit it before the fact.  After the fact, it is permissible in every way (Aruch).  This [prohibition] is only eating it with milk or meat itself, but it is permissible to serve it on their dishes  before the fact (Issur v'Heter, Aruch) and that is the practice. Also, if they weren't initially cooked or roasted, rather they were just on a meat plate, it is permissible to eat them with milk, and the inverse (his own reasoning). Also, if the vessel that they were cooked or roasted in was rancid - meaning it was not used for cooking food within 24 hours - we are lenient even before the fact to eat them with the other type (Aruch, ibid). All of this is assuming that the food is not sharp, but if it was sharp - e.g. you cooked sharp things in a meat pot even if it has not been used that day, or you crushed spices with a meat pestle, if you [cooked] it in milk, it's prohibited even after the fact, until there is 60 times the meat that is absorbed in them. ... And in any event, [this is not with regards to] an instance of sharpness on account of a small [amount of] spice in it, only if it is entirely sharp.</i>
Plates used for meat that were washed in a dairy pot with water so hot that one's hand recoils, even if both the plates and the pot had been used within the day - all is permitted because they are "nat bar nat" - a second degree impartation of taste of permissible foods and tastes. And this is only if one can say " I am certain that there was no fat stuck to the plates or to the pot." And if there was fat stuck to them then there needs to be 60 times the volume of water to nullify the volume of the fat that is on the plates. REMA: And some forbid even if there is no fat stuck to them unless the pot or the plates had not absorbed the taste within 24 hours. Then the plates and pot are permissible and the water - we are strict before the fact. But if both the plate and the pot had both been used for 24 hours and they were both washed together with piping hot water, then all is forbidden. And this is our practice and we should not change. But this is the case only if they were washed together in a "primary pot" that was on the stove (or heating element).  But if dairy and meat dishes are washed one after another or if they are washed together in a secondary vessel, then all is permissible. And if water is poured from a primary meat vessel onto a dairy vessel then its status is like a primary vessel and the dairy vessel is prohibited if it had been used for dairy within 24 hours. But if boiling water, (that was heated in a pot) that is neither dairy nor meat is poured on meat and dairy dishes together, even if there is oil stuck to them, all is permissible since the heat of pouring is not comparable to the heat of a primary vessel such that the vessels that water is poured over can swallow substances one from another. And if one finds a dairy plate among meat plates we are not concerned that they may have been washed together in a way that renders them prohibited. 
It appears to me that if one places ash in the hot water in a large pot before washing dishes in the pot, even if there is grease stuck to the plates, it is permissible because the ash mixes with the grease to impart a rancid taste.
One should not place a utensil that has <i>kuta<u>h</u></i> [i.e. dairy] on it near a bowl with salt in it, but one may place [a utensil that has <i>kuta<u>h</u></i> on it] near a bowl with vinegar.  <small>NOTE: And this is really if the utensils are uncovered, and even if [they are uncovered] if it happened and one put them together, it is permissible, and we do not worry that [the dairy] fell into the salt.</small>
It is permissible to put within [one] cupboard a vessel for meat with one for milk. <small>NOTE: And there are those who are strict <i>ab inicio</i>. And it is good to be careful <i>ab inicio</i> in a place where one does not need [to create possible confusion].</small>
Salt that was placed in a meat bowl, it is permissible to put it in milk. <small>NOTE: And [for] the person who is strict about this, blessing will come upon him for being strict <i>ab inicio</i>.</small>

Siman 96

1) Radish or beets that were cut with a meat knife, used that day or that was not cleaned off are not allowed to be eaten with dairy, until a slice is removed from the location of the cutting that is an "amount to be taken." This amount is equivalent to the width of a thumb. Or let it be tasted, and if it does not have the taste of meat it can be eaten with dairy with mere rinsing. There are those who say that this is also the rule with a knife that was not used that day and was cleaned off. And if you did not take the "amount to be taken" and you did not taste it and you cooked it with Milk, you need 60 times the amount that the knife touched, and this is the rule for something that was cut with a knife of a Non-Jew.  Rema: If one cuts [a radish] very finely [i.e., dicing], one needs 60 times against the entire radish.And some say the same is true if it is cut with a meat knife the entire radish is prohibited with dairy. And this is our practice ab initio, however after the fact only an "amount to be taken" is rendered forbidden. And this is only true if the radish itself was cut, but if the radish greens were cut there is no cause for concern. And if there is doubt if the radish was cut with a non-kosher knife, we are lenient. And so too we purchase radishes that were cut on their tops for we can assume they were cut with garden tools.And in a place where only knife-cut radishes can be found, the practice is to permit them through removing an "amount to be taken."
(2) If one cut garlic, onions, kerishin, and tamcha (known as krayn) and other things that are similarly sharp, or pickled fruits, or salted fish, they all have the same laws as one who cuts a radish. Rema: And it is nonetheless permissible to eat spice mixtures made by gentiles like ginger since they use special tools to prepare it our pull it out of the ground without cutting.
(3)Spices that are ground in a meat mortar that had been used within 24 hours should not be eaten together with dairy. Rema: And some say even if it was not used within 24 hours.
(4) Lemon juice made by gentiles and cut pieces of salted fish that are brought by gentiles in barrels are permitted. Rema: Because they bring large quantities at once and even if some of them are prohibited, for they were cut first with a non-kosher knife, they are nullified amidst the others that are subsequently cut, for the ones cut later do not become prohibited for the taste in the knife was nullified in the first items cut and so the entire group is permitted. And so too all cases of this sort. Therefore in some places they eat cabbage called kompast, even though it is cut open and chopped. And there are some places where they are strict about that and one should not change the practice. But other things that are not sharp, like apples or dry turnips, the practice is to permit just like lemons and one should not be strict at all.
(5) If one cuts squash with a meat knife can eat it with dairy if he merely scrapes away the place of cutting. And if he cuts a turnip, even that scraping is not required, rather mere rinsing suffices. Not only that, but even a radish cut after a turnip can be eaten with dairy after mere rinsing just like the turnip itself because the taste of the turnip changes and nullifies the taste absorbed from the knife. Rema: This is only true about turnips for its taste is changes, but vegetables or bread or other things do not accomplish this. And even after cutting a turnip one should not cut a radish more than once, unless he cuts turnip between each cut of the radish.

Siman 97

One may not knead dough with milk, lest one come to eat it with meat.  If one did knead it that way, the whole loaf is prohibited even to eat alone.  If it was a small quantity that can be eaten in one sitting, or its shape is unusual so it will be recognizable that it shouldn't be eaten with meat, it is permitted. One may not bake bread in an oven that was smeared with fat, and if one did, the rules are as for a dough kneaded with milk. <i>Rema: Thus we are accustomed to knead bread with milk for Shavuot, and also fat for the honor of the Sabbath, because all of this is considered a small amount.  Also, its shape is distinct from other bread. And all the more so [pastries made with meat like] phladan or pashtida are permitted (Hagahot S.D.) One should not bake bread with any [pastries made with meat like] phladan or pashtida in an oven, because it is considered possible that fat may leak onto the bread, and if it leaks under the bread it is as if the bread was kneaded with it (Beit Yosef in the name of the Hagahot Ashiri).</i>  The custom is to put the secondary (here: pareve) near the mouth of the oven (Beit Yosef in the name of the Hagahot S.D). <i>And even if the food is in a pan (which would prevent the leaking problem) we are accustomed to be strict in the first instance.</i>
An oven the was smeared with fat, we don't bake bread in it until it's heated from within until it turns white. And even if it's a tiled pan (<small>meaning, an earthenware vessel that's heated from below and one bakes cookies on it</small>) it is not permitted if heated from the outside. 
Bread that was baked together with roasted meat, and fish the was roasted in a single oven together with meat, it's forbidden to eat them with milk. And this applies to a small oven, but with a large oven that holds twelve measures of <i>esronim</i> and has an open mouth, it is permitted. And if the roasted meat was covered, and so too a meat pie that whose hole was covered, it is permitted even in a narrow oven. <small>And see later on in chapter 108 what the custom is.</small>

Siman 98

A non-permissible [food item] that was mixed with a permissible item that is not of its type, for example prohibited fat that was mixed with meat, a non-Jew should taste it, if [the non-Jew] says that it has no fat taste or if he says that it has taste but the taste is "pagum" (somehow not good), permitted. And this is that it is not for the ends of improving. And it must be that [the non-Jew] doesn't know that he is being depended upon. And if there is not there a non-Jew to taste it, we measure it against 60. And likewise, if it is a [mixture of two things which are] of the same type, because one cannot really upon taste, it is measured against 60. {REMA: It is not done now to trust a non-Jew, and we measure against 60.}
If it is was mixed with something of the same type and it was spilled, in a case where one can not deal with it to measure it, if it is known that it was majority permissible, [it is] permissible. And if it is not known that it was majority permissible,  [it is] forbidden. <i>Rema: And in the matter of "being of the same type" we follow the name, if it is the same then this is "of the same type," but we do not follow the taste if it is the same or not.</i> But if was mixed with something that is not of the same type and it spilled in a case where one can not deal with it to measure it, even it is known that it was majority permissible, [it is] forbidden. And if it was mixed with "of its kind" and with "not of its kind" and it spilled in a case where one can not deal with it to measure it, and it is known that it was majority "of its kind", one views the "not of its kind" as though it were not [present], and the rest, "of its kind" is greater and negates it.
When do we rule this way? When it spilled. But a forbidden food that mixed with a permitted food, and it is before us, and it is impossible to deal with it to measure it, even though it's [a case] of rabbinic prohibitions, it is forbidden.
Something Asur that was cooked with something Mutar, even if it is recognisable and complete and was thrown out - x60 [Mutar] is needed corresponding to the entire Isur - because we don't know how much "went out" of [the Isur]. Therefore someone that cooks in a Bat Yoma Asur pot or inserts an Asur spoon into Mutar food, x60 is required corresponding to the entire pot/part of the spoon that was inserted - because we don't know how much [Isur the pot/spoon] "swallowed" (irrespective if they are made of earthenware, wood or metal). Rama: and [the pot/spoon] must swallow through hot fire (circumstances in which the swallowing occurs throughout the entire Kli). But if the swallow via salting - doesn't permeate entire Kli, only Kdai Klipa (so only need to evaluate Kdai Klipa). Some are strict with a metal spoon to require x60 corresponding to the entire spoon (even if only part entered) because the heat on part heats the entire spoon. Rama: We act according to the 1st logic. And any Isur that becomes Batel with 60, if it is recognisable, it must be thrown out even if its taste is Batel by x60. Therefore if [Asur] fat falls into a meal and its taste is Batel by x60, cold water must be added and the nature of the fat is to congeal and to float above the water. The fat must be removed. Since it is able to be removed it is as if it is recognisable (and so it must be removed). Isur that was Batel in a pot and removed and then falls into another pot [the food in the pot] must be Batel by x60 the entire [Isur]. And so too indefinitely. But if it fell into the same pot twice - x60 is only needed once 
  
...Half a כזית of something that's prohibited that was mixed with something permitted, needs 60 half זיתים of permitted food to mixed with it for it to be nullified.
...An egg that has a chicken in it or a drop of blood that was cooked with other eggs, needs 61x more to nullify the prohibited taste that it emits. 
...An udder is nullified when mixed with 59 pieces of meat (The 60th piece of meat is the meat of the udder itself) Rema- Everything that's prohibited in our days is nullified in 60x more. Except for chametz on Pesach and wine that was libated for an idol as is explained in the proper place. That which everything is nullified in 60x more, is as long as it doesn't add taste to the dish. But if it adds taste to the dish, and it's prohibited because of it's self (As opposed to if it's only prohibited based on the principle of חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבלה, see siman 92 for details), then even if there's 1000x more, it will not be nullified as long as one can discern the taste. Therefore salt and spices from things that are made for giving taste, if they are prohibited because of themselves, they are not nullified when there's 60x more.
If there is a pot that has 59 כזיתים of התיר and two additional כזיתים fell in, one of blood and one of prohibited fat, each one combines with the 59 כזיתים of התיר to nullify the other one. Similarly, if one כזית of prohibited fat falls into 29 כזיתים of התיר and in another pot of 30 כזיתים of התיר one כזית of blood falls in, and then the two pots (one containing 29  כזיתים of התיר plus one כזית of prohibited fat and the other containing 30 כזיתים of התיר and 1 כזית of blood) are mixed together by accident, it's permitted. Rema- And all the more so with 2 כזיתים, and one is of cheese and the other is meat and each one nullifies the other.

Siman 99





We may not intentionally nullify a prohibited food item. Even in a case where the prohibited item falls into a mix where there is not quite enough to nullify it - we may not add additional permitted food in order to nullify it.  If someone violated this and did, in fact, nullify it, or added to the permitted material: if they did so unintentionally, the food is now permitted. But if they did so intentionally, the food is prohibited to themselves, and to those for whom they may have nullified it, but is permitted to others (Remah: it is also prohibited to sell it to another Jew, lest one derive benefit from having improperly nullified the food).
A forbidden item <i>midderabbanan</i>, one does not mix it by hand to nullify it. And if one did so intentionally, it is forbidden to eat it. But if it fell on its own, and there is not enough to nullify it, one may add to it and nullify it. <small>NOTE: And there are those who that one many not nullify an item that is forbidden <i>midderabbanan</i> or to add to it like an item forbidden from Torah law. And this is how it is practiced, and it should not be changed. A forbidden item that was nullified, for example if there were 60 parts against it, and afterwards more of the forbidden items was added, one returns and is awakened [that is, counts all of the forbidden added even that which was already nullified and if it is now too much to be nullified than it is] forbidden. It does not matter whether it is “of the same type” or “of a different type” or whether it is dry or moist, or whether he knew in the meantime or whether he didn’t know in the meantime. A <i>kazzayit</i> of milk that fell into water and was negated by 60, and afterwards some fell from the water into a meat pot, permitted, even if there is not in the meat 60 against the milk, for behold it was negated by the water. And other things like that.</small>

Siman 100

A creature (that is, something like an ant or an unkosher bird, or a sciatic nerve, or a limb of a living animal, or an egg with a chick inside, and such things) is never nullified even in 1000 times. Something will not be considered a "creature" in this context unless it is something which has had life, thus a single grain of forbidden wheat would not count. It must also be something which was forbidden at its creation (thus excluding a kosher bird which died a a natural death [and is thus unkosher only because it had no shechita], and an ox which was put to death under a court ruling). Also it must be a whole thing, such that it would be called something different were it to be split apart (thus excluding forbidden animal fats). And it must also be whole. NOTE: The main forbidden sciatic nerve is only on the /kaf/ , and it is about 4 fingerbreadths wide, and if it is whole it *is* called a "creature".If the [beriah] fell into a pot of soup and was lost, it is all forbidden.
Something which is a [beriah] which was cooked with [heter], if it is not recognizable: all of the solids are forbidden and the liquid would be subject to the laws of [noten taam]. If it is recognizable: throw out the piece and the rest of the solid and liquid combined require 60 times the amount.(except the gid hanashe which does not give off a taste strong enough to forbid. however its' oils do forbid and would require 60 times to permit the liquid). Therefore the [yerech] which was cooked with its nerve if it is recognizable: throw the piece  away and the the rest is permitted if there is 60 times the amount the oils. If it is not recognizable: all of the pieces are forbidden. If there is in the pot 60 times the oils the liquid is permitted and if not it is forbidden. If the nerve was dissolved [nimuach] and is not recognizable you would require 60 times the nerve to permit it. 
Regarding a pot of soup that had a [beriah] fall into it and was lost in the mixture, everything becomes forbidden. ...
If one found [3 tolaim] in cooked vegetables, the vegetables are forbidden. However the liquid from the soup would be permitted once it is filtered. Similarly, meat can be rinsed and checked and then it is permitted.  

Siman 101

1. A piece of meat that is large enough to serve as an entree is considered food. And even a 1:1000 ratio is not enough to nullify. And even if it is prohibited for benefit, it is still prohibited since if it is nullified it would be permitted and permissible to serve as a single piece. Rema: And even if it is only prohibited by a rabbinic prohibition, we do not nullify, and if it is doubtful whether it is of a great enough size or not, we prefer leniency, and even if it is prohibited biblically. 
It will not classify as a Chaticha Hare'uyah Lehitkabed unless the item itself is prohibited, like treifa meat or milk and meat together. If, however, it is forbidden because it absorbed flavor from some forbidden food, and it did not have the required 60:1 to nullify the flavor,  then,  even according to those who hold that the entire contaminated piece becomes a prohibited item it still would not classify as Chaticha Hare'uyah Lehitkabed. Rema: Thus, even a piece of meat that had not been salted could be nullified, since its prohibition is not from itself but from the blood absorbed into it (ibid and Toras Habayis 170). Any item whose outer layer became prohibited (due to a shallow absorption of prohibited flavors) cannot be considered Re'uyah Lehitkabed, since the volume of just the outer layer is not large enough. 
A chicken with its feathers is not considered Ch.H.L because it is not fit to be served to guests as it is, even though after it was lost in a bunch the feathers will be removed. Similarly, an item will not be considered a Ch.H.L. unless it is cooked. Similarly, a complete lamb or a portion that is far too big would not be a Ch.H.L. because one does not served guests complete lambs or portions that are far too large. There are dissenting views on all of this. Rema: But this is our custom.

Siman 102


There are those who say, that it should not be said a thing will be permitted (d'var sheyesh lo matirin) except when it is inevitable or it can be made permissible without [monetary] loss. But if it is not possible to make or inevitable that it will become permissible, it is not judged to be a thing that will become permissible (d'var sheyesh lo matirin). Therefore, if there is a doubt [regarding] an egg [from] a sick (trefa) [chicken] which gets mixed with other [eggs] it does not have the ruling of a thing that will be permitted (d'var sheyesh lo matirin) since it is neither inevitable nor possible to make it permissible.

Siman 103

Any forbidden thing with a rancid taste cannot render a mixture prohibited. And even a case where the item's taste is not rancid by itself, but rather tasty and enhancing, but if it is rancid in this mixture, the mixture is permitted. Rema: However, important things, like a biryah (complete organism) and other similar things, if they do not themselves have a rancid taste, even if they make the mixture taste worse, they are not nullified, even in a thousand times their volume. 
Rancid – this does not to be so disgusting that one stops eating it, just even a little disgusting [and] it does not forbid its being mixed. And there is he who says that this is really when the forbidden item mixed in is small compared to much of the permissible item, but if the forbidden item is much within a small amount of permissible item, and even when it is half and half, we do not say that “giving a rancid taste is permissible” until it makes [the mixture] totally rancid [such] that it is not fit as human food. And if there are not there any substantial pieces of the forbidden item, but rather its taste alone, even if there is a much of the forbidden item and a little of the permissible item, it is permissible if it is only a little detrimental. And there is one who <i>hokheikh</i> (the meaning is [this <i>posek</i>] hopes to be stringent, and he forbids) to say that if the forbidden item has raised the measurement of the permissible one until it is better when it is eaten in its measure than how much it worsens in missing its flavor, forbidden until [the point at which] is becomes unfit for human consumption. About what things do we speak, those that make detrimental from beginning to end, but those that [initially] improve [the flavor] and at the end make it worse, or [a food that] makes worse [initially] and at the end makes better, [these items are] forbidden. <small>NOTE: There are those who say that even though the forbidden item gives a taste [that is] detrimental and the food is permitted, in any event the pot is forbidden, and if one cooked in it within 24 hours a food that the original forbidden item will got a positive taste, the second food is forbidden if there were not 60 parts against the first forbiddenness. But if one stirred the first mixture with a spoon, and afterwards thrust the spoon into the second mixture that it will also be detrimental to that, then the pot is not forbidden. And likewise, for a thing that does not have any taste at all, for example the cauldron in which one melts honey, even if there are bees’ legs in it, the cauldron is not forbidden and other things like this.</small>
Even [if] the forbidden food does not have the power to give a negative flavor by itself, but rather it requires another thing to assist it, for example if the forbidden item fell into a pot that has in it salt or a powdered spice and were it not for the salt or the spice which is in it [the forbidden item] would not have the strength to give a detrimental flavor, even in this case it is permitted.
Oil and honey of a non-Jew, even though they are cooked, they are permitted because the meat gives a negative flavor to the oil and makes it stinky, and likewise for honey. <small>NOTE: And there are those who say that meat does not give a detrimental flavor itself, only the drink that is made from the honey; and in a place where there is not a great loss, it is worth being stringent. Milk or meat in wine, this is detrimental, and it is permitted.</small>...
Any pot which is not <i>bat yoma</i> is considered [that] its taste is detrimental and it is does not make forbidden [food cooked in it]. And it is called "<i>bat yoma</i>" all time that it has not sat from one moment to another moment that the forbidden thing was cooked in it, and once “from one moment to another moment that the forbidden thing was cooked in it” has passed [i.e. it has sat for 24 hours since the forbidden food was cooked in it] it is not called <i>bat yoma</i>. And if one cooked in it when it was not <i>bat yoma</i>, the cooked food is permissible for this will be a “giving a detrimental flavor” and this is [only] that [the pot] is rinsed such that there isn’t any residue on the inside, and if one did not rinse it, it makes things [cooked in it] forbidden and this is like a piece of forbidden [food] that is not detrimental. And there are those who allow even [the food that] one cooked in it before rinsing it. <small>NOTE: And if there are 60 against that which was stuck to its inside, everyone [agrees that this is] permissible from when the pot is not <i>bat yoma</i>. And this is how one acts.</small>

A pot that has absorbed from meat and milk that were cooked in it together or one after the other, and before a night had passed water was heated in it, it is considered <i>bat yoma</i> until it will have sat 24 hours from the time that the water was heated in it. <small>NOTE: But if a night has passed, [it is] permitted. And likewise if a night passed between cooking meat and milk, even though water was heated immediately afterwards, the law is likewise thus. And this is the law for all forbidden items according to what is established for us regarding all forbidden items [that] a piece is transformed to non-kosher [meat]. And look above at <i>siman</i> 92. And in a place of loss it is worth permitting this behavior for all forbidden items in all matters, so long as there are 24 hours from the time of cooking the forbidden item.</small>

Siman 104



Siman 105

A forbidden item that was soaked with a cold permissible item for 24 hours, as in pickling, behold this is like it has been cooked and it is forbidden in its entirety. But less than [24 hours], rinsing is enough [to then eat the permissible item]. <small>NOTE: And wherever we say “pickled is like cooked”, even what was outside of the pickling is forbidden, for on account of the pickling below it wells up above, as with cooking. And there are those who are lenient on what was outside. And possible pickling, this is forbidden, except for meat with milk that we go with a leniency, since from the Torah it is only forbidden with actual cooking. </small> And if it were pickled in a brine or in vinegar, if it sat long enough that if it was on a fire it would boil and begin to be cooked, behold this is like it is cooked; and with less than this length, it is only forbidden through the thickness of a "peel" [which is the minimum thickness of the meat that can be removed in one continuous peel].
The heat of a “first” utensil [i.e. one which is directly exposed to the heat source] from which the hand shrinks back from it, it cooks and it makes everything forbidden. But the heat of a “second” utensil [i.e. one which is not directly exposed to the heat source] does not cook. And there are those who say that it likewise does not emit or absorb. And there are those who say that in-any-event it does emit and absorb, and it makes things forbidden to the taking of a <i>qlipah</i> [that is the thickness of a <i>qlipah</i> is forbidden, but the rest of the meat is still permissible]. And it is appropriate to be concerned to be careful in [this] matter <i>ab inicio</i> but <i>post facto</i> it is permissible without <i>qlipah</i>, and with mere rinsing is sufficient.
If a hot forbidden item fell into a hot permissible item in a “first vessel” [i.e. the vessel directly in contact with the heat source], or even if a cold forbidden item fell into a hot permissible item, everything is forbidden, for “the bottom dominates over the top” and [the “first vessel”] heats [the forbidden thing] until it emits into the bottom. And one does not [need] to mention a cold permissible item into a hot forbidden item, for the entirety is forbidden. But if the top is hot and the bottom is cold, [the forbidden food] does not make [the permissible food] forbidden except for a "peeling" [i.e. one must remove the amount of meat that can be peeled off the outside of the entire meat in one continuous piece], even if the hot top is the forbidden item. <small>NOTE: And all this is only said with regards to the heat of a “first vessel”, for example immediately as one removed it from the fire one placed it with the permissible item. But if it were already placed in a “second vessel”, and afterwards the permissible item were placed on it, the [forbidden food] does not make [the permissible food] forbidden at all, for a “second vessel” does not make things forbidden, as is explained. And if one placed this with that, if both are hot with the heat of a “first vessel”, the entirety is forbidden. And if the permissible food is cold, the permissible food required "peeling" in the place that it touched. A forbidden food that one placed in a permissible vessel or the opposite, we say of it, too, “the bottom dominates” as with two pieces… </small>
4. Until now we were talking about a case when the piece fell into a tavshil because the gravy will transfer the taste of issur and mix it into the entire tavshil. However issur, whether it is hot or cold, that fell onto [a chaticha] during tzli (being roasted) by the fire is only forbidden to a thumbnails worth, which is the width of a finger. Therefore, if a hind leg that is roasted with its gid (sinew) or a forbidden piece that is roasted with a permitted piece and they touch [during roasting] a k’dai n'tila must be removed from around the gid, and from the area of the piece that touched the forbidden piece. Similarly if issur fell on a piece that is outside the gravy and the pot was not stirred or covered, it is only assur k’dai n'tila (forbidden a thumnail's worth). However if the piece was in the gravy – according to Rashi [all] [according to the R”Y] even partially - or even it is completely out of the gravy and the pot is stirred or covered the gravy will spread the taste and mix it into the entire mixture.
5. The law the roasting is only forbidden a n'tila applies in cases like a sinew roasted with the hind leg, because the sinew is lean (or thin) and therefore it does not have the strength to spread to the entire piece. However, a fatty sinew that is roasted with its fat, if there is not in the entire sinew 60 against all the fat, it is forbidden to eat even from the tip of its ear, because shuman is spread completely (until 60). But if it is lean, even though there is not 60 against all the fat, it is only forbidden a thumbnail's worth since the fat of a lean animal is also lean. Even if the forbidden piece is lean and the permitted piece that is roasted with it is fatty, the issur (forbidden) will be spread throughout. Anything that has the ability to spread, and we know the exact place it fell during roasting, even though there is 60 to nullify the issur, that area is (still) forbidden a thumbnail's worth. (Mordechai in the name of several sages, and the Smak, and the Issur v'Heter Rule 14 and iggur in the name of the Maharil). <i> Rama: Anything cooked without gravy or baked has the law of roasting (Tur and Beis Yosef). And there are those who say that we are not experts in knowing what is lean and what is fatty, therefore we forbid in all cases until 60. Even if there is 60, the area of contact is forbidden a thumbnail's worth (Aruch) and this is the custom. This (law) is specifically (applied to) fats, or other issurim that can be considered fatty. However, in a case where the issur is not at all fatty, and without question it is lean, the area of contact is only forbidden a thumbnail's worth. (See Seif 9) (This is what is stated in the Beis Yosef).</i>

Siman 106



Siman 107



Siman 108

Do not roast kosher meat with non-kosher meat or meat of an unclean animal in the same oven, even if they do not touch one another. But if you did roast them, this is permitted - and even if the piece of forbidden meat was very fatty and the piece of permitted meat was lean. But if the oven is large enough to hold 12 <i>esronim</i>, and its mouth is open, then it is permitted to roast them in it as long as they do not touch one another. And if one of them is covered with a bowl or with dough or the like, it is permitted to roast them, even in a small oven with a closed mouth. <i>Comment: The same is true for meat with milk - the ruling is also thus. And it is customary to be strict before the fact, even with a large oven, and after the fact to be lenient even with a small oven. But, if one baked a loaf of bread with meat, it is forbidden to eat it with milk if he has another loaf. And thus if an idolator baked a loaf of bread with something prohibited, it is prohibited to buy that loaf if he has another loaf - because all this is an instance of "before the fact." But if he has no other loaf available, both are permitted, because this is an instance of "after the fact." There are some who say that we do not permit on the basis of smell not being an issue, even after the fact, unless the oven is open from the side or above where the smoke can escape. But in a case of financial loss we are not stringent after the fact, even if the oven is completely closed. If the prohibited thing is pungent, and all the more so if the permitted thing is pungent, smell is an issue and even after the fact it is prohibited, if the two of them are uncovered. But if one of them is covered, even as is common with dough, it is permitted. If they baked or roasted a prohibited thing and a permitted thing under one (covered) frying pan, uncovered (from one another) this is prohibited even after the fact. The same is true if they baked a loaf of bread with meat in such a manner, it is prohibited to eat it with milk. But one after the other there is no concern, unless there was sweat from the pan in both of them, because this is like the cover of a pot. There are some who say that any time we say smell is an issue and prohibit after the fact, that is specifically because there is not 60 times as much of what is permitted as what is prohibited. But if there is 60 times what is permitted, even among everything that is in the oven, the prohibited thing is nullified. And for the sake of loss this is the custom. Three are some who say that a prohibited thing that prohibits something, for example leavening on Passover, smell is an issue and it prohibits even after the fact, if the oven is small and closed, and the prohibited thing and the permitted thing are uncovered within the oven. There are some who say that we do not differentiate. And in a case of loss it is possible to rely on the words of those who are lenient. </i>

Siman 109



Siman 110



Siman 111

1. Two pots, one of permitted food and one of forbidden food, and before it two pieces [of food], one permitted and one forbidden; if the piece of forbidden food is [forbidden] Rabbinically, such as the fats from the Gid [Hanasheh], and these [pieces of meat] fell into these [pots of food], they are permitted, as we attribute saying, the prohibited food fell in the prohibited food, and the permitted food fell into the permitted food. And even if the permitted food in the pot is not a majority [of the food] in front of him. And this is also the ruling if there was only one pot of [Kosher] slaughtered meat, and one of these two pieces fell into it, and we do not know which [piece] it was, we attribute that the permitted piece fell in, even if the permitted food in the pot is not a majority [of the food] in front of him. Or if there was only one piece of Rabbinically forbidden food, and two pots, one of permitted [food] and one of prohibited [food], and he doesn't know into which pot it fell, even here we attribute leniently.
2. When do we say this [i.e. the above], where we attribute everything leniently, even if the permitted [food] isn't a majority over the prohibited [food]? When the prohibited [food] is is not greater than the permitted [food]. But if there is more prohibited [food] than permitted [food] we do not attribute leniently.
3. If the prohibition is a Biblical [prohibition], we do not attribute leniently to say that the prohibited [food] fell into the prohibited [food], until there is more permitted [food] than prohibited [food], so that it will be nullified inside it [the pot] according to the Torah.
4. There was more permitted [food] than prohibited [food]...

Siman 112

The sages forbade eating the bread of idol worshippers because of the concern of intermarriage. Rema: and even in a situation where there is no concern of intermarriage, it is [nonetheless] forbidden. (Rashb"a §248) However, they only forbade bread made from the Five Grains (wheat, barley, oats, rye, spelt), but bread made from legumes or from rice or millet is not in the category of "regular bread" which they forbade. Rema: It is also not forbidden on account of [being] "Idolaters' Cooking," if it would not be served at kings' tables (Tur and Beit Yosef in the name of the Rosh's responsa).
There are places that are lenient about this, [where] they buy bread from an idolater's bakery in a situation where there is no Jewish bakery, since this is considered a "time of pressing need." Rem"a: And some say that even in a place where "Jews' bread" can be found, it is permitted (Beit Yosef following the Mordechai; Sefer Mitzvot Hakatan; Hagaot Ashri; Mahar"i; Issur VeHeter §44). But regarding personal bread, no-one rules leniently, since the essence of the decree is because of the concern of intermarriage, and if one eats the bread of [idolatrous] home-owners, he will come to dine by them. Rem"a: However, it is not called "personal bread" unless he made it for the people of his own household, but if he made it to sell, it is called commercial bread, even if he doesn't normally [sell bread]; conversely, a baker who made [bread] for himself, it is considered "personal [bread]."








Bread of a Jew that a non-Jew baked without the lighting of the fire by a Jew, and without a token [distinctive sign], is forbidden. And [it is] forbidden to sell it to a non-Jew, lest it comes to be sold to a Jew. But if the bread is split into two, it is permitted to sell it to a non-Jew. Rema: And the same [law applies] to all bread of a non-Jew that is forbidden. Therefore, the custom is not to buy pieces of bread from a non-Jew, because we suspect that it might be forbidden bread and a Jew sold it to him as such. (Mordechai and Aruch).

Siman 113

A food that is not eaten when it is raw and is served at a kings table, to spread on bread or as a dessert, which was cooked by a non-Jew, even in the pots of Jews and in the house of a Jew, it is forbidden because it was cooked by a non-Jew
If one mixed a food that is eaten even raw with a thing that is not eaten when raw and a non-Jew cooked them – if the essence is of the food is subject to the prohibition of non-Jewish cooking, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. Rema: And it is permitted to eat roasted peas of a non-Jew, and also the roasted legumes (which are called “arbiss”), for they are not served at the kings table And thus they treat them leniently if it is not in a place where they grease the metal frying pan with forbidden fats, then the custom is that they are prohibited. But otherwise it is permitted, and one need not worry about the vessels of non-Jews because most vessels have not been used in the last 24 hours. And any fruit that is eaten raw, even if a non-Jew cooked it, and it was mashed up and made into a cooked dish in their hands, it is permitted. Therefore, we eat the fruit mash made by non-Jews.
Pot pies that are baked by a non-Jew are forbidden, even for those who are accustomed to be lenient on non-Jewish bread, because the fats and oils are forbidden when readily apparent as they are subject to the prohibition of non-Jewish cooking, and they are absorbed within the bread. And so vegetables that are eaten raw but cooked with meat are forbidden because the fat of the meat has been absorbed within them.
There are those that permit cooking by our non-Jewish maids, and those that forbid, and even after the fact. Rema: And after the fact, you should rely on those that permit. And even initially, we are accustomed to be lenient with a Jewish house that has non-Jewish maidservants and menservants that cook in the Jewish house because, inevitably, one of the household members will be doing some stirring.
Non-Jews that cook, and do not intend to cook, this is permitted. How? A non-Jew that lights a fire in a swamp in order to chase away the locusts, and some of those locusts become cooked, these are permitted, even in a place where they are served on a kings table. And thus if he singed the head of an animal, it is permitted to eat the tips of the ears that became roasted at the time of the singeing. But if the non-Jew intended to cook, for example that he lit the oven to cook in it, and there was some meat in there already which became roasted, even though he did not intend to cook the meat, as he did not know it was there, it is forbidden.
Anything which a Jew cooks to some small degree, whether at the beginning or the end of the cooking, is permitted. Therefore, if the non-Jew placed meat or a dish on the fire, and the Jew flipped the meat and stirred the dish, or he stirred it, and the non-Jew finished cooking, this is permitted. (And even if the dish couldn't be cooked without the non-Jew).
The use of a Jewish-lit oven is sufficient to qualify bread as "bishul Israel". However, in other types of cooking, the lighting of the fire nor the lit of the oven hold any significance. It is only the actual act of placing the food in the oven that qualifies it as "bishul Israel". Therefore, if one wants to cook in a pan in an oven of non-Jews, it is necessary that the Jew puts the pan in himself, to a place in the oven that is appropriate to cook in. Rema: And there are those that disagree and believe that lighting a fire or stoking the coals in any way with regards to cooking, as with bread, is sufficient, and that is our custom. And even stoking the fire without any particular intentions works. And there are those that say that even if the Jew did not stoke the fire, and did not throw in any wood chips, only that the non-Jew lit the oven from a fire that was lit by a Jew, that is permitted.
If a Jew puts the dish on the fire, and takes it off, and a non-Jew comes and puts the dish back on, this is forbidden. Unless the food had become at least one third cooked when it was removed from the fire.
If the non Jew cooks the food at least a third of the way, and then a Jew comes and finishes the cooking, there is a side to forbid it unless it is the Sabbath eve or the eve of a holiday or a great loss will occur. Rema: And there are those that permit it in any case, and such is our custom.
If a Jew places items on coals which are unable to cook them to a third, and a non-Jew comes and blows on the coals and they cook, the food is forbidden.
If a Jew places a dish on the fire, and has the non-Jew watch the dish, and he blows on it, but he doesn't know if the non-Jew removed the food before it was cooked to a third, it is permitted. Rema: And thus is the case in every instance of doubt regarding a non-Jew cooking and similar examples, that it is mutar.
Small fish that are salted by a Jew or non-Jew, salting is considered a small aspect of cooking. And if the non-Jew roasted them after, they are permitted. But large salted fish are not edible except in pressing circumstances. Therefore, if a non-Jew roasted them, they are forbidden, and there are those that permit this. Rema: And thus anything that is edible when raw only in pressing circumstances, and a non-Jew cooked them, the rule is like large fish. And meat that is salted is not edible at all when it is raw, and it is forbidden if it is cooked by a non-Jew.
Fish salted by a non-Jew and fruits that are smoked until they are fit to eat, these are permitted, because salting is not considered like boiling for the purposes of this injunction, and smoking is not like cooking. Rema: Also soaking is not like cooking, because the only prohibition is on cooking by fire.
Egg, even though it may be swallowed raw, if it is cooked by a non-Jew, is forbidden.
Dates that are a little bitter which are unable to be eaten except in pressing circumstances, if they are cooked by a non-Jew, they are forbidden.
Vessels in which a non-Jew has cooked in front of us things which are subject to the prohibition of non-Jewish cooking need to be made kosher. And there are those that say that this is not necessary. And even for those that require the dishes to be made kosher, if it is a clay vessel, it should be placed into boiling water three times, and that is sufficient, because there is nothing that is forbidden here according to the Torah. Rema: A non-Jew that cooks for someone who is sick on the sabbath, it [the food] is permitted after the sabbath, even for those who are healthy, and there is no concern here of the prohibition of non-Jewish cooking, because in any case, it is recognizable what this is.

Siman 114

Any alcoholic beverage of Gentiles, whether it be of dates or figs or of barley or of grain, or of honey, are forbidden because of intermarriage. And it is not forbidden except in the place of its sale, but if he brings the alcoholic beverage to his home, and drinks them there, it is allowed, since the essence of the decree is that perhaps he will dine with the Gentile. And the sages only forbid it when he has a set place for drinking as people are wont to do, but if he enters the house of a gentile and drinks there in a temporary manner, it is allowed. And so too one who stays overnight in the house of a gentile, it is thought of as his house, and one is allowed to send into the city to buy alcoholic beverages from the idol worshipers. Rama: And there are those who permit the alcoholic beverages of honey and grains, and it is the custom to be lenient in our countries.
A place in which Jews are accustomed to be lenient regarding the wine of non-Jews, even the beer is forbidden.
Apple wine, pomegranate wine, and anything like them, are allowed to be drunk in any location, because uncommon items were not included in the decree.
All such drinks and so too the vinegar from them are forbidden to be purchased from them if their appearance is more desirable than wine, because we are concerned that perhaps they will mix some wine (until there is greater than 1/60th wine present which will not be nullified). What are we talking about? When one buys in a shop; but if he sees the shopkeeper bring it from the barrel, it is permitted, and we are not concerned that perhaps wine was mixed in, because if wine would be mixed inside the barrel, it would ruin the product. Rema: And even though that it is normal is to rub the inside of vats with lard, there is no concern as this gives off a ruined flavor, which is also nullified in 60, and also there is no concern that they would put wine in the drink. And see chapter 134 in a place that they are accustomed to put blood or other forbidden things into the salt, or ink, if it is permitted or forbidden.
Pomegranate wine that is purchased for its healing properties, is permitted to be bought from the merchant, even if it is not from the barrel, even though that it has a superior appearance to that of wine, because since that people are careful about medicine, they will not want to risk their own careers over this. (and so too all things that are bought from craftsmen that they do not want to tarnish their careers)
One needs to be careful and to check alcohols and drinks made from honey that the non-Jew has just made them, if he placed in them wine yeast. Rema: And if it is normal to put yeast in, then it is forbidden to buy from them if the drink does not have at least 60 times the amount of yeast. And that is only if it does not contribute to the taste, for if it is for the taste it would not be nullified, even with 1000 times the amount of yeast.
Oil and honey of non-Jews are permitted, and they are not forbidden on account of the prohibition of non-Jewish cooking, and not because the non-Jews have altered it, and it is the same rule for their hot water.
Caper buds, Leeks and Locusts that they cook, soaked they are permitted, and one that sees them remove it from storage, but they are buying them in the store, are forbidden as perhaps they have adulterated them with wine. And so olives that are soaked in brine are permitted, even if they are very soft as they are disgusting in their natural state, and we do not suspect that perhaps they have adulterated them with wine, and this is only if they do not cut them with their knives. Rema: Because after they have been soaked they are spicy and shall absorb flavors from the knife. But if they are soaked in non-Jewish containers, they are permitted because after they put water in them to nullify the spice. And so too with anything similar, and see above in chapter 96.
Grapes of non-Jews, even if they are very wet and have cracked, they are permitted. And so all soaked things that it is not their way to put wine or vinegar in them. And so too with kosher fish. And so too fish brine that has fish in it. And so too asafoetida is permitted.
It is forbidden to buy asafoetida from non-Jews if it is cut with their knives which have come into contact with non-kosher food, and so too with mixtures of fish, because small unkosher fish gets into the mixers and it is impossible to separate them, and they sometimes place wine to soak in the mixture. And this is forbidden to eat, but to benefit from it is permitted. And if it is known that they put wine in all of these, then they are forbidden even to benefit from. Rema: And you can sell them all, except if it has non-Jewish wine in it. And if it is known that a non-Jew will later be in a city where they do not mix wine, even though that other non-Jews are accustomed to do so, this is permitted to buy from them, as long as you don't know for certainty that they have mixed wine in, because we rely on this lenience that perhaps they have not mixed anything in. And so too for anything like this that is forbidden rabbinically. And if it is known with certainty that some non Jews mix wine in, and some do not mix wine in, then we go according to the majority, as it is unusually for a person to deviate from the norm. But it is forbidden to buy from them when they are at home, because one half is just like the other half in this regard.
Fish oil, in a place where it is common to add wine, is forbidden. And if wine is worth more than the fish, it is permitted. and in a place that it is not common to mix the two, it is permitted to purchase it, and to do this often, and to send to others by a non-Jew.
The Rashba was very careful regarding Saffron, because in every land there are counterfeiters who adulterate it with much wine and also mix in bits of dried meat.

Siman 115

Milk that was milked by non-Jews and no Jew saw them do so, it is forbidden as perhaps non-kosher milk was mixed in. If it was milked in his house and a Jew was sitting outside, if it is known that there is no non-kosher animal in his herd, it is permitted, even if no Jew is able to see him at the time that he milks the animal. If he has a non-kosher animal in his heard, and the Jew sits outside, and the non-Jew is milking only for the sake of the Jew, even if the Jew is unable to see him when he is sitting, if he is able to see him when he stands, this is permitted, because the non-Jew fears that perhaps he will stand and be seen, and he knows that non-kosher milk is forbidden to the Jew. Rema: Initially, it is necessary for the Jew to be there are the beginning of the milking and check to make sure that the bucket is empty and does not contain non-kosher milk. And it is our custom to be stringent and not milk with vessels which are usually used for milking by non-Jews, lest some of their [non-Kosher] milk remain in the vessel. In any case, after the fact there is no need to be concerned for this. And regarding maidservants that milk domestic animals in the Jew's house or in his [animal] pen, any instance in which it is not a house of a non-Jew, that is enough and there is no need to be concerned about a non-kosher matter, and it is permitted even initially to leave them to milk even there is not a Jew around, because the non-Jewish milker is in his house or neighborhood, they are not suspected of milking non-kosher animals. But if a non-Jew takes a break, the Jew needs to be there, because it is like the case of the non-Jew's house. And even a Jewish child will suffice, because the non-Jew appears before him. In any case, if a Jew is not present until after he has finished milking, this milk is considered the milk of non-Jews that is forbidden, even thought no non-kosher animal exists in his herd. Milk of a non-Jew makes vessels non-kosher when they are cooked in them, just as any prohibited food, even though this is only an uncertainty whether he has mixed in something non-kosher. And so too with non-Jewish cheese, but not non-Jewish butter, even in a place where it is considered prohibited it does not prohibit vessels when cooked, and it is not a problem if it becomes mixed; if it is mixed in that which is permitted, everything is permitted, like above regarding the bread of non-Jews. See above in chapter 112. Milk of non-Jews that is forbidden, it will not work to make it into cheese or butter afterwards, rather it remains forbidden, and everything that is made from it is forbidden.
Cheese made by non Jews was forbidden because that they are produced with the dried stomach of an animal that was not correctly slaughtered. And even when the cheese is produced using vegetarian rennet it is forbidden. Rema: And thus is the custom, and it must not be changed, unless you are in a place that has permitted this since earlier times. And if a Jew oversees the production of the cheese and the milking, it is permitted. And thus is the custom that spread in all of our countries. And if a Jew oversaw the making of the cheese, but not the milking, it is permitted after the fact, because there is no concern that perhaps something non-kosher was mixed in after the cheese was made from the milk, because non-kosher milk will not allow the cheese to form, and of course the non-Jew did not mix anything in once he knew it was for making cheese. And in any case, it is forbidden to eat such milk.
Butter of non-Jews, one do not protest about it if the local people permit it, and if the majority of a place treat it as forbidden, this cannot be changed. And in a place that has no particular custom, if the butter is cooked until the milk solids come out, this is permitted. Rema: Also it is permitted to cook it in this fashion initially in order to get the milk solids. And if a non-Jew cooked it, it is permitted, because most vessels have not been used in the past 24 hours. And if one goes from a place where this is not eaten, to a place where they do eat it, he should eat it with them, but it is forbidden to bring it with him and eat it in a place where they are accustomed to forbidding it. If the butter is not recognizable as being from such a place, it is permitted. And one who goes from a place where this is forbidden, to a place where it is permitted, it is forbidden to eat it there. And there are those that say that the law is the same if he brought it from a permissive place to a prohibitive place, that this is also forbidden, even if it is recognizable, and such is the custom.

Siman 116

Exposed beverages were forbidden by the rabbis because they feared that snakes would have drunk from them, and left behind venom. But now when snakes are not found amongst us, it is permitted.

He should wash his hands between meat and fish, and eat dipped bread in between, to wash his mouth. <small>Hagahah: And some says that there is no concern for this unless he cooks and eats eats them togther, but to each them one after the other there is not concern. And the custom is not to wash ones mouth and hands between, but still one should eat and drink something. Since this fulfills kinuach and hadachah</small>
One needs to be careful from human sweat, since all human sweat is deadly poison, except for sweat of the face 
One must refrain from putting coins in one's mouth, lest it's covered with dried saliva of those afflicted with boils. He should not put the palm of his hand in his arm pit, lest his hand touched a <i>metzorah</i> or a harmful poison. He should not put a loaf of bread under his armpit, because of the sweat. He should not put a cooked item or drinks under the bed, since an evil spirit rests on them. He should not stick a knife in an esrog or a radish, lest one fall on its edge and die. <small>Hagah: Similarly, he should be careful of all things that cause danger, because danger is stricter than transgressions, and one should be more careful with an uncertain danger than with an uncertain issur. They also prohibited to go in a dangerous place, such as under a leaning wall, or alone at night. They also prohibited to drink water from rivers at night or to put one's mouth on a stream of water and drink, because these matters have a concern of danger. It is the widespread custom not to drink water during the equinox, and the early ones wrote this and it is not to be changed. They also wrote to flee from the city when a plague is in the city, and one should leave at the beginning of the plague and not at the end. And all of these things are because of the danger, and a person who guards his soul will distance himself from them and it is prohibited to rely on a miracle in all of these matters.</small>
It is prohibited to eat food and drinks that a persons soul is disgusted by, such as drinks and food that have vomit or feces mixed with them, and rotten moisture and things like this. It is assur to eat and drink from dirty vessels that a person's soul is disgusted by them, like bathroom vessels and glass vessels that they let blood into. And he should not eat with dirty hands and on dirty vessels, since all of these fall into the prohibition of "Do not make your souls abominable"
An animal that is in danger of dying, even though it is permitted to eat when slaughtered, people who are careful are strict on themselves not to eat it. Hagah: An animal that a rabbi ruled to [permit] out of logic,but the law is not explicitly found [in books] to permit that it is permitted, and person who is careful for his soul will not eat from it.

Siman 117

Anything that is specifically for eating and Biblically prohibited, even though it is not forbidden to derive benefit from it, is forbidden to do business in it. Rema: Or to lend with it as collateral. And even to purchase it to feed it to one’s idol worshipping workers is forbidden. Except for Biblically prohibited fats because the Torah says in regard to it: “it may be used for all kind of work” (Lev. 7:24). And if impure wild animals or birds or fish happened into the trap of a trapper, Rema: Additionally one into whose house happened a nevelah or treifah, he is permitted to sell them, assuming that he did not intend for them to come into his possession in the first place. Rema: And he needs to sell them immediately and not to wait until they become fat in his possession. And it is also permitted to collect impure things from an idol worshipper for a debt because this is like rescuing [what is yours] from their possession. It is forbidden to sell an idol worshipper nevelah claiming that it is kosher. And anything that is only prohibited rabbinically, it is permitted to use it for commerce.

Siman 118

Wine or meat or a piece of fish that does not have on it a sign, which one deposits or sends with a non-Jew, it needs two seals. But cooked wine and beer or wine that has other things mixed in it such as honey, and so too vinegar, milk, brine, bread, and cheese and anything that is prohibited by the words of the scribes [i.e. rabbinically] that one deposits in the hand of a non-Jew, is permitted by a single seal. And there are those that say that even things which require two seals only require them when they are sent along with a non-Jew that is not able to see the second seal, but it is enough that he can see one, and he will be afraid to do anything to the product. And even the one who sends the package, if he informs his friend of the form of the seal, and also tells the non-Jew that he has informed his friend, then one seal is enough. Rema: There are those who say that we require two stamps only for a Jew who is suspected of wrongdoing, but for a non-Jew, everything is permitted, even by one seal, and after the fact one may rely upon this.
When the seals are appropriate, two seals on a thing that requires two, and one seal on that which requires one, you do not have to double check them. But if one double checks the seal and does not recognize it, it is forbidden even if two seals were made. Rema: And in any case, this is specifically if it is a thing which there is a concern that the product was switched, and it would benefit the courier to have switched it, or it is wine and there is a concerned that it has been touched. But if he saw the item that was sent, or he deposited it, and it is as good as when it was sent, and it would not have benefited the courier to have switched, we are not concerned, even if the seal was damaged. And see the end of chapter 134 regarding our countries....
One letter is considered to be one seal, two letters would be like two seals. And if they are printed, even though there are many letters, they are only considered to be a single seal, since that they are set with a single action. And there are those that say that in a place where many apostates are found or non-Jews who know how to write, then one should not write a sign except to someone who recognizes his handwriting.
A cap and a seal constitute two seals. But on things where one seal is sufficient, if you only have a cap, this is not considered a seal. Rema: If something is sent within a sack, and the sack is sealed, this is only considered a single seal, unless the package is sown closed inside. And if you sealed the item, and also sealed the sack, this is considered two seals.
If you send a thigh by a non-Jew without a seal, if it was sealed in a way that made it clear that a Jew has removed the sciatic nerve, this is kosher. And so all seals that are recognizable that a Jew has removed forbidden nerves, or anything like it. Rema: And so to with other pieces of meat that are with them, if there is a concern that perhaps they could be switched, they are forbidden. And this is specifically with regards to meat or other things which the Torah forbids, but if something that is only rabbincially forbidden was sent, like cheese which we suspect might be switched by the non-Jew, if it is recognizable in some small way that it was not switched, everything is permitted, if the package contains something better than that which was sent, then of course if it was switched he would have had to have bought the better product.
If you send an animal or a bird with a non-Jew, but they lack a seal, they are forbidden, because indications of ritual slaughter is not considered a sufficient mark that we can rely on.
If a package was sent with a non-Jew, and it was sent through a public place, this is permitted, because he will be concerned that perhaps someone will see him in public and report him for being a thief. And in any case, initially you should not send anything by a non-Jew without a seal.
One who buys meat and sends it by someone who does not know the laws, he is to be trusted regarding it, even though that he is not careful about kosher, and we do not suspect him of switching anything. And even by a Jew's manservant or a maidservant, they are believed in this matter. And there are those that say that if it is a Jew who is suspected of wrongdoing for eating things that people are not lenient regarding, even he is suspected of switching.
Meat that is found in the hands of the non-Jew, and it has a seal or has "kosher" written on it, even though that the non-Jew doesn't understand what is written there, it is kosher, because it makes it known that a Jew originally made this. And this is where non-Jews do not know how to write. Rema: And so it is permitted to buy cheese sealed as the Jews seal them. And specifically in a place where there is no concern that perhaps some sort of stamp is in the hands of the non-Jew that he could have stamped his own cheese. And there are those that forbid all of this, since that it is not known who wrote the letter or made the stamp, and after the fact we are not stringent about this.
One who leaves a non-Jew alone in his house, and inside there are things that could be switched, and they would be then forbidden by the Torah, if he goes out and [re-]enters or even if he waited a long time and did not inform him that he intends to wait, it is permitted, and we do not worry that perhaps he switched it, even if he will benefit from switching the product, and this is provided that he does not lock his house up. Because he is afraid the entire time, saying, “Now he will return and he will see me.” But if he informed that he intended to wait, it is forbidden. But if he will not benefit from the switch, it is permitted in any case, for we are not concerned that perhapse he will switch them and cause the owner to stumble, since he gains no benefit from this matter.
A Jew and a non-Jew that share together two pots, one by the other, this one for kosher meat, this one for non-kosher meat, this is permitted, and we are not concerned that perhaps when the Jew returns, the non-Jew will have switched kosher and non-kosher , even if the Jew's meat is better, and even if he vocalizes that it is better, it is permitted, and we are not concerned that perhaps they will splash and spill into one another. And this same rule is true for two things that are roasted next to each other. But initially, we should be careful even with two pots.
One should be stringent not to leave a pot with a maidservant when no Jew is in the house. Rema: And you should not even leave and reenter. And if damage occurred that something forbidden was placed in the pot, you should not eat from the pot, so this should not become a regular occurrence.
A Jew that made cheeses in a non-Jew's house, and sealed it with a seal that is made by a wooden stamp, and he forgets the stamp in the house of the non-Jew, there is no concern that perhaps the seal was counterfeited by the non-Jew, and he stamped other things with the stamp. And so there is no concern that perhaps the non-Jew smeared the cheeses with lard. Rema: And there are those that say that we should not permit it if he forgot the stamp in the house of the non-Jew, unless he left it on the cheese that he himself made, but if he left it like so, and there is a concern that perhaps the non-Jew cut the cheese smaller, and then switched it with another large piece of cheese or something better, it is forbidden. And in a situation of loss, we should be lenient in any case.

Siman 119

A Jew who is suspected of eating forbidden things, whether he is suspected of something forbidden by the Torah or something forbidden by the rabbis, one may not rely on his word. And if one is a house-guest with him, he may not eat from his foods for which he is suspected. Rema: And there are those who say that even for someone who is not suspected, but rather that we merely do not know him to be established regarding keeping kosher, it is forbidden to buy from him wine or other things for which there is a concern about prohibited items. In any case, if one is a house-guest with him, he may eat with him.
If one is not suspected to eat forbidden things, but is his suspected to sell them, one whom is a house-guest by him may eat with him. And thus if he sends food to your house, it is permitted, because it is persumed that he would not eat something strange to him, and someone who succumbs to temptation is not considered suspect.
One may give his food to the one who is suspected of eating non-kosher items in order that he should fix or cook them, and there is no concern that he will switch them, since he is not suspected of outright robbery. And if it is given to someone who is zealous about his actions, and he is suspected of eating non-kosher, it is forbidden, as perhaps he will damage what he was given and then switch it out with his own food. How? If one gives something to his father in law who is suspected regarding forbidden things, it is forbidden, because of the shame of marriage, and he wants to make his daughter look good, and therefore he will switch out something bad with something good. And thus if one gives something to an innkeeper who is suspect, sometimes he is embarrassed of his guest and will switch something bad for something good. (And in any case, it is permitted to deposit items with him and they should be in the same state as when they were deposited).
One who is suspected for one thing is not suspected for other things, but he is suspected for anything that is required to perform that thing. For example, one who was suspected of selling prohibited animal fat instead of permitted fat, and he would get youths to come buy from him by providing nuts, they fine him so that he could not sell even nuts.
One who is suspect for a serious forbidden act is suspect for an act with a lighter punishment, unless people are more cautious about that act than the serious act.
One suspected about two things, and he ceases to do them, but then afterwards is found to still be doing one of them, even if it is the more lenient of the two, we are concerned that perhaps he has returned to performing the other act as well, and is suspected regarding both of them,
One who publicly transgressed the Torah, except for idol worship and Sabbath desecration, or who does not believe the words of our rabbis, is believed with regards to other prohibitions. And regarding others he is believed, even on that same issue, to say that they are permitted. Rema: One who is suspected regarding a thing that is not common for people to transgress is not considered suspect, and in any case, for that same matter he is not believed. One who is accustomed to a particular forbidden act as he considers the law to be so, or with regards to a stringency that he holds himself to, it is permitted to eat with others that believe this to be permitted, as certainly they would not eat something that is considered forbidden.
One suspected about an act is not believed regarding it, even if he takes an oath.
A convert that becomes an apostate out of fear, and so too a Jew that sins out of fear that he will be killed, is still considered a Jew, and his ritual slaughter is still permitted, and he does not cause wine to be forbidden with his touch.
One who reports others to the government, his ritual slaughter is kosher and he is believed regarding other prohibitions.
An apostate who believes in idol worship in one city, on account of the non-Jews there, and in another city of Jews claims he is a Jew, he does not make wine forbidden.
One whom is forced to convert that remains in our lands, if he keeps kosher, whether with them or on his own, and is not able to flee so that he should be able to serve G-d, we can rely on his ritual slaughter and he does not forbid wine with his touch.
One who sells his friend forbidden food, and knew before he ate it, his friend should return the food to where he bought it from and the shopkeeper should return his money. And if he only knew when he ate it, what he ate he ate, and he should return the remainder for a refund. And if the seller bought it to sell to non-Jews, he should pay him the value of non-kosher food. And if it was something that is not forbidden to be eaten except according to the rabbis, or if it was forbidden fruit, he should return the fruit for a refund, and if he ate it, what he ate he ate, and the shopkeeper should not return his money at all. And all are forbidden to benefit from, even something prohibited by the rabbis, the value should be returned and they should not be sold at all.
One who sells meat, and afterwards it is know that the animals were not checked properly, their rule is like that of something forbidden by the rabbis. Rema: And if he sold animals that had a presumption of being kosher, but something happened that he was unable to check it, even so it should be considered as something that is certainly not kosher and needs to be returned for a refund.
One who sells forbidden foods, he should remove and destroy them, and there is no reparation that can be done unless he moves to a new place where they do not recognize him and return lost items or slaughter for himself and cease producing forbidden foods, so that his repentance will be without tricks, since he would not himself transgress.
A cook whose actions attest  that he wants to cause the public to stumble by eating non-kosher food, for example a slaughterer that cuts off the lesions from a lung to make it appear kosher, should be removed, and in any case he is excused from paying back those who bought from him.
A cook that cooks non-kosher food is unable to apologize saying, "I made a mistake."
A cook that makes non-kosher food by his own hand, but is not an expert, he has the chance to learn from his mistakes. Rema: And so it is necessary to go to a place where he will not be recognized and to repent, this is because he intentionally transgressed or strengthened this act, but if he is able to swear by an oath that it was done accidentally, it is enough that his friends can trust his word, and he shall repent as the judge sees fit. And see above in chapter 64.
One who says to another that is suspected of eating non-Jewish cheese: "Buy some kosher cheese for me from the cheesemaker," and he goes and brings him cheese and says to him: "This is kosher, I bought it from the cheesemaker," he is not believed. If he said, "I bought it from so-and-so the cheesemaker," he is believed. If he brings a gift from the cheesemaker, he is believed, because he is not suspected of switching products. About what are we speaking? When there is no suspicion of outright robber, but if he is suspected of this, then he is suspected of switching products. And all this is not regarding someone who is suspected of breaking Torah laws.
One who is suspected of eating that which not many are so lenient as to eat normally, even he is suspected of switching products. And there are those that say that we do not trust him regarding something forbidden by the Torah except with two seals.

Siman 120

...One who acquires from an idol worshipper a meal vessel of metal or glass or vessels or covered in lead from the inside - even though they are new one must dunk them in a mikvah or a stream that is forty se'ot. GLOSS: There are those who says that vessels that are covered in lead even on the inside are dunked in a mikvah without a blessing, and this is how we act. 
The vessel must be loose in your hands at the time of dunking, for if it is tight in your hands it is an interposition, and if you dampen your hand in the water at the outset there is no need to worry (GLOSS: and specifically that you dampened your hands in the waters of the Mikvah but not in water that is detached).
Bless "on the dipping of a vessel", and if there are two or more bless "on the dipping of vessels".
Tripods upon which we set upon them large pots do not require dunking but parillas [barbecue grills] require dipping because the actual food is placed on them.
A shechita [ie ritual slaughter] knife (GLOSS: or a knife for skinning) - there are those who say that it does not require dunking. GLOSS: And there are those who disagree, and it is good to dunk it without a blessing. The irons upon which Matzot [unleavened breads] are repaired do not require dunking. And so too a covering which we force onto the bread to bake it. But a covering for a large pot requires dunking. 
A wooden vessel which has iron hoops on the outside for holding it up does not require dunking.
A silver cup which is connected to a wooden vessel requires dunking. GLOSS: And so too pepper millstones which within the wood there is iron affixed for grinding require dunking. And so too iron funnels or tappings of iron and other metals - all of them require dunking. And specifically that the essence of the vessel is metal, but if the essence of the vessel is wood only if some iron is affixed to it since in order to use it without the iron dunking is not required, but a vessel which is repaired with iron rods, and without the rods one would not be able to use it, and they are on the inside - dunking is required.
One who borrows or rents a vessel from an idol worshipper does not need to dunk, but if an Israelite acquires it from an idol worshipper and lends it to a friend it requires dunking as [dunking] was already required by the first person. And there are those who say that if the first person did not take it for the purpose of a meal, rather only for cutting parchments and the like, he is not required to dunk it. GLOSS: But it is forbidden for the first person to use it for the needs of a meal, even on a temporary basis, without dunking although he acquired it the purpose of [cutting] parchments. And so too if the second Israelite acquired it from the first for the purpose of meals the second must dunk it. 
If an idol worshipper provides a vessel as a loan guarantee to an Israelite [ie as collateral] - if it appears in the mind of the idol worshipper that it is permanent in his hand, dunking is required, and if not, dunk without a blessing or acquire a different vessel and dunk. (GLOSS: and if in the end it becomes permanent in his hand, dunk without a blessing).
...An Israelite who gave silver to an idol-worshipping artisan to make a vessel from it does not require dunking. GLOSS: And there are those who disagree and say to dunk without a blessing. And if some of the silver used to make the vessel was owned by the idol worshipper, dunking is required. And thus an Israelite artisan who makes a vessel for an idol worshipper and acquires it from him shall dunk, also without a blessing if the idol worshipper gave him the metals, but if [the Israelite artisan] makes it himself and only acquired the metals from the idol worshipper or if he gave some metals of his own, dunking is not required.
An Israelite who sells a vessel to an idol worshipper and returns and takes it from him - dunking is required. But if [the idol worshipper] holds it as collateral and [the Israelite] returns and redeems it, it does not require dunking. GLOSS: An Israelite and an idol worshipper who acquire a vessel in partnership - it does not require dunking. An Israelite whose vessel was robbed or stolen and returned to him - dunking is not required. But a minister or governor who forced an Israelite and took his vessel and returned it to him, dunking is required because it already became permanent in the hand of the idol worshipper.
One must dunk the handles of the vessel.
One must remove the rust before dunking, and if one did not remove - if he is careful about it, it is a separation. And if he rubs and puts it on coals and there remains there a bit of rust which is not removable this way, It is considered a minority that [the owner] is not particular about and it is not [considered] a separation.
One may not believe [ie rely on] a child regarding dunking of vessels. (GLOSS: But if [the child] dunks before an adult, it is considered a dunking).
If one dunked vessels alongside an idol worshipper, it is a dunking (GLOSS: But one may not believe [ie trust] [an idol worhsipper] regarding dunking).
If one forgot and did not dunk from the eve of the Sabbath or the eve of a holiday, give it to an idol worshipper as a gift and afterwards borrow it from him and one may use it. GLOSS: And this is how it's done even on regular day in a place where there is no mikvah. And if one mistakenly uses the vessel without dunking - the food he used it for is not forbidden, and he shall dunk it thereafter.

Siman 121

One who takes old (ie used) vessels from one who worships idols [lit. stars] - the way in which the idol-worshipper used them, this is how he kashers them. Therefore, one who takes a used old vessel which was used for cold, such as cups and plates and others like that - he washes them and he must scrub them well in water at the time of washing in order to remove and polish the issur (forbidden matter) which is on them, and afterwards rinse them in water and dip them (in a mikvah). GLOSS: There are places where the custom is to permit placing wine in vessels (ie barrels) where the planks of wood are smeared with fat because the nature of wine is to separate itself from the fat, and the fat congeals and stands by itself and does not touch the wine at all (Ribash 149).
[He] took from them [the idol-worshipper] vessels which were used with heat, whether they were made of metal, wood or stone, he dunks them in boiling hot water and afterwards dips them in a mikveh (if they are made of metal) and then they are permitted. If you dipped them [ie metal vessels] in a mikveh [first] and then dunked them in boiling hot water - they are permitted. And there are those who say that they must be dipped in the mikvah again. GLOSS: This is also the rule regarding a vessel made of bones, see the laws of Passover 451. One should not dunk a vessel in boiling water when the vessel has been used within the past 24 hours (see the Tur) and one should not use the water from the boiling (Aruch). Every instance in which dunking in boiling water is required it doesn't help if you scrape them with a tool. And see above 108: The Law of a Bread Paddel which is Issur.
The laws of [making kosher through] boiling and heating until it turns white are written in the Laws of Passover. 
A pan which was fried in, even though with regards to chametz on Passover it is enough to dunk in boiling water, with regards to other forbidden matters we require whitening through fire. 
If one dunks in boiling water a vessel which requires whitening by fire, the vessel may not be used with hot food even if it is not next to the fire. GLOSS: But it is permitted to use for cold food, even from the outset [without dunking in boiling water either], through washing and scrubbing well, and all the more so with regards to a vessel which requires dunking in boiling water. And this can only be done in temporary circumstances such as when he is in the house of an idol-worshipper or it is after the fact. But if he wants to use these vessels on a regular basis, there  are some who are stringent and say that even to use it with cold, dunking in boiling water or whitening through heat is required. It is decreed lest once come to use it with hot, and this is our custom. And even vessels which were used for cold, if there is a concern that they were used to heat wine such as a vessel made of silver, our practice is to dunk in boiling water and it should not be changed. And even chests and tables which were acquired from idol-worshippers, it is our custom to dunk them in boiling water, for they may have spilled something hot on them, and this is specifically from the outset, but after the fact there is no need to worry about all of this. And an earthenware vessel which was used for cold, which is impossible to dunk in  boiling water, we consider 'after the fact' and we say that it is enough to empty it and scrub it well, and it is permitted to place in it afterwards even sharp foods like vinegar and others like that. And all the more so hard things like spices and others like that, and see above 91.
Metal vessels - even though there are those who that say that if it is used only partially for forbidden foods, the entire vessel is forbidden, because something on part of it is like something hot on all of it, but with regards to kashering it, it doesn't have the effect unless you kasher the entire thing whether it is through dunking in boiling water or whitening by fire. GLOSS: And specifically if the entire vessel was used, but if you know that it was not [all] used, only partially, as it is absorbed is where it emits.
An old [ie used] knife, whether it is big or small, which is acquired from an idol worshipper - if you want to use it to cut something cold - if it doesn't have dimples/holes - thrust it into hard ground 10 times. And every single thrust must be into hard ground. Therefore one may not thrust into a place where there was already another thrust. And even if you cut a sharp food like a raddish this is sufficient (REMA: And to use it regularly don't diminish that which is done for other vessels, for which we dunk in boiled water even for cold). (As it was explained) if there are dimples (or) you want to cut something hot or slaughter [with the knife], whiten it through fire, or sharpen with a whetstone of a blacksmith well on every surface. GLOSS: There are those who say that sharpening this way is only to cut something cold, not something hot, and this is the custom a priori. And if you are not able to whiten the knife through fire well because of the handle, whiten it through fire and dunk in boiling water after. However, if you whitened but did not dunk in boiling water, even if there are dimples, or if you dunked but did not whiten and there are not dimples and you cut something warm it won't be forbidden even if the knife has been used in the previous day, and if you sharpened it well with a whetstone in every place, and dunk it in boiling water afterwords it is effective like whitening through fire if you are able to clean the dimples in it. 

Siman 122

1. The Laws of "Noten Ta'am Lifgam" - Giving a Bad Taste - in Vessels, 12 Seifim: Noten Ta'am Lifgam is permitted. [If something gives a bad taste it is permitted].
2. A vessel which is not bat yoma, meaning that the vessel has sat for 24 hours since prohibited substance was cooked in it, this gives a detrimental taste, but even so, the sages forbade cooking in it initially. This is a decree on account of a bat yoma [vessel], whether it absorbed [taste] from a forbidden substance and one wanted to cook something permitted in it, or whether it absorbed some dairy and one wanted to cook meat in it, or the opposite [it absorbed some meat and one wanted to cook some dairy in it].
3. There are those who say that the negative taste created by the passing of 24 hours is only relevant when the utensil is washed well and all unwanted residue is removed, however if it was not washed well and the unwanted residue is present (be-en),  24 hours does not make the food stale (pagum). Rashba, Tur, and Raavad: Rama: Nevertheless if there is 60 times the food which is present (be-en) the mixture is all permitted because that which was swallowed in the walls of the pot became stale (pagum) and does not require bitul. (this is also implied in siman 95) There are those who say when cooking  sharp food, we don't say the food swallowed in the wall has a status of stale as explained above in Siman 95 and 96. Therefore if you cooked in a forbidden pot a dish which is mostly vinegar or spices  or other sharp foods, it is forbidden. However we don't consider the dish sharp if it only contains a small amount of spices. (Mordechai 81:40 and Rashba Siman 449) And this is the custom. Look above in Siman 95 and 96. However if the forbidden food was sharp and the pot rested for 24 hours and you cooked something permitted in it which is not sharp, the food is permitted because the first sharp food doesn't revitalize forbidden taste. (Aruch klal 38)

Siman 123

HEADER: Several laws of 'Yayin Nesech' (and which wine is forbidden because of 'Yayin Nesech') and there are 26 paragraphs in it: [1] The wine of the nations (non-Jews) is prohibited to derive pleasure from, and the same applies to their contact with our wine. [RAMA: this is because of a decree regarding wine that was poured as a libation to idols. Nowadays, when it is not common for nations to make libations to idols, some say that the touch of a non-Jew to our wine does not prohibit its use for pleasure, only for drinking. Similarly, ordinary - non-sacramental - wine of theirs is not prohibited for deriving pleasure from it, and therefore it is permissible to collect a debt from a non-Jew with ordinary wine, as it is considered as saving it from their hands (Tur in the name of Rashbam, the Rosh and Mordechai). And the same applies to other losses, such as if he went ahead and bought or sold, but initially it is forbidden to buy it and sell it in order to profit from it (Commentaries of Maimonides, Chapter 8 of Forbidden Foods, and comments of Ashiri and Mahar"m of Padua, Responsa 46). However, there are those who are lenient even in this, but it is good to be stringent. See Siman 132 (there in the name of Semag and Agur in the name of the Geonim).

Siman 124



Siman 125



Siman 126



Siman 127



Siman 128



Siman 129



Siman 130



Siman 131



Siman 132



Siman 133



Siman 134



Siman 135



Siman 136



Siman 137



Siman 138



Siman 139



Siman 140



Siman 141

1) Mehaber: All the images of star worshippers found in villages are forbidden, since, apparently, they were made as idols, but those found in cities are permissible, since they were certainly made for the sake of beauty, unless they stand at the entrance of the city, and an image of a staff or a bird or a ball or a sword or a diadem and a ring is in the hand. 


4. Mechaber: It is prohibited to form figures of the Divine heavenly realm such as the four faces (of the prophetic vision) together and similarly the figures of ofanim, and seraphim, and the ministering angels. And similarly the figure of a human being. The production of any of  these are forbidden even if only being produced for ornamental value. And if an idol worshipper made them it is prohibited to retain them in your possession. Rama: However if you found the above items it is permitted to retain them, with the exception of the sun and the moon as it is the manner of the idol worshippers to form these specifically  for their worship or in the case that there is indication that these were made for worship for then then they are prohibited as articulated in the initial portion of the Siman. Mechaber: When was this stated? When they are images that protrude (such as 3D images) but flat/engraved like those woven onto a garment or those formed on a wall with dyes (murals) are permitted. The form of the sun moon and stars are prohibited whether they protrude or are sunken/flat. And if they are for the purposes of learning; to understand and to teach all are permitted - even protruding. Rama ( And there are those that permit these figures if they are publicly owned as then there is no suspicion.) 

Siman 142



Siman 143



Siman 144



Siman 145



Siman 146



Siman 147



Siman 148



Siman 149

A city in which they (idol worshipers) are making a fair on the day of their festival, and the idol worshipers are gathering from a number of places and are traveling there for the honor of idol worship, it is permitted to travel on its outskirts and it is forbidden to enter it. If (the fair) is on its outskirts, it is permitted to enter it. One who is traveling from one place to another place, it is forbidden to pass through it if the path is specific to (that city) (That is, that one does not pass [through that path] from that city to another city.)
When is this said? By a lodger. But a resident of a city is permitted. And if he is traveling by caravan it is permitted. (Ram"a: A courtyard of idol worship, some say its law is like a city of idol worship. (Tur quoting the Rashb"a) And at a time that the idol worshipers to not gather there for their "prayers", it is permitted to enter there. (Tur quoting R' Yonah and the Ros"h) And some say that under any circumstances it is forbidden if there is no way to pass through it to another place. But if the path passes to another place all agree that it is permitted. And so the custom is widespread to go through that courtyard to another place. (Rashb"a) Nevertheless, the pious act is to distance oneself form going through it if there is another path of similar shortness. (D"A and so is implied in the Sefer Chasidim) And see above, Chapter 142.

Siman 150



Siman 151



Siman 152



Siman 153



Siman 154



Siman 155



Siman 156



Siman 157

Shulchan Aruch: All of the transgressions which are in the Torah, with the exception of idolatry, sexual prohibitions, and murder: If someone is told to transgress them or he will be killed, so long as he is in private, he should transgress and not be killed. If he wants to be stringent upon himself and be killed, he may do so if the idolater intends to make him violate his religion. Rama: If he can save himself with all he has, he must give it all rather than transgress one of the negative commandments (Ran in Sukkah, Perek Lulav haGazul, and Rashba and Raavad and Rivash Siman 387). When they [Chazal] said that anyone who has the ability to protest and does not, he is seized in the same sin - here, where there is a chance of danger, he does not need to give up his money over this (Mahariv Siman 156). Shulchan Aruch: If he is in public - that is, in front of ten Jews - he must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress, providing the idolater intends to make him violate his religion (even if this is over a minhag such as the way one ties one’s shoes) (Beis Yosef). But if he [the idolater] intends only for his own benefit, he [the Jew] should transgress rather than be killed. If, however, it is a time of legislation (only against Jews) (Beis Yosef in the name of the Nimukei Yosef), even about the strap of one’s shoes he should be killed rather than transgress. Rama: And this is only if they wish to make him violate a negative commandment; if they made a law that one should not fulfill positive commandments, however, he does not need to fulfill it if he will be killed (Ran Shabbos Perek BaMeh Tomnin and Nimukei Yosef Sanhedrin Perek Sorer uMoreh). Nonetheless, if the hour requires it and he wishes to fulfill it and be killed, he may do so (Maharik Shoresh 88). Shulchan Aruch: And by idolatry, sexual prohibitions, and murder, even in private and not a time with legislation and even if the idolater intends it only for his own benefit, he must be killed rather than transgress. Rama: And this is only when they tell him to do an action: for instance, if they tell a man to transgress a sexual prohibition or he will be killed. If they force a woman to have sex or throw him over a child to murder it or he is already erect and they force him to have forbidden sex, he need not be killed (Beis Yosef in the name of Tosfos and Ran Psachim Perek Kol Sha’ah). All prohibitions of idolatry and sexuality and murder - even if they are not punishable by death, just prohibitions without explicit punishment - he must be killed rather than transgress. On the prohibition of “Do not put a stumbling block before the blind” he may transgress rather than be killed (Ran Psachim Perek Kol Sha’ah and Sanhedrin Perek Ben Sorer uMoreh). An idolater sleeping with a Jewish woman is not included as a sexual prohibition (Beis Yosef in the name of the Ramban and the authorities cited above). Idolaters who told a Jew, “Give us one of you so we may kill him” - they may not give him over unless they [the idolaters] singled him out and said, “Give us Ploni” (Mishnah Trumos 8, Rambam Yesodei haTorah 5). There are those who say that even in this case, one should not give him over unless he is already liable for death like Sheva ben Bichri (Beis Yosef in the name of Rashi and the Ran). Likewise, women who were told by idolaters, “Give us one of you so we may rape [lit. make impure] her” - they must all be raped rather than hand over one Jewish life (Rambam ibid). Any place where it is said, “Be killed rather than transgress,” if he transgressed and was not killed, even though he has desanctified the Name, nonetheless he is considered forced and is not liable. This is only where he could not have fled - if he could have fled, and did not do so, he is like a dog sitting on his vomit and is considered to have transgressed deliberately (Beis Yosef in the name of the Rambam Yesodei haTorah 5).
Shulchan Aruch: It is forbidden for a man to claim that he is an idolater so that they will not kill him; if, however, so that they will not know he is a Jew, he changes his clothes during a time of legislation, this is permitted, since he does not say that he is an idolater. Rama: Even if he must wear shaatnez (Nimukei Yosef Bava Kama Perek haGozel (the second one)). Even though it is forbidden to say that he is an idolater, nonetheless he may say things that can be interpreted multiple ways (Nimukei Yosef Bava Kama Perek haGozel) and the idolaters will understand that he has said that he is an idolater while he means something else. Likewise, if he can trick them so that they will think he is an idolater, this is permitted (Trumas HaDeshen Siman 197). In the same vein, one who desires another man’s wife - if his wife can sleep with him such that he will believe he is sleeping with the forbidden woman, this is permitted (ibid in the Nimukei Yosef). All of this is permitted only where there is a danger, but where there is no danger - for instance, he wears idolaters’ clothes so they will not recognize that he is a Jew so that he can avoid the tax or suchlike - that is forbidden (Hagahos Ashiri and Nimukei Yosef Bava Kama Perek haGozel (the second) and Trumas haDeshen Siman 196 and other authorities).
Shulchan Aruch: One who is liable for the death penalty may run to an idolatrous house of worship to save himself (some say that at a time of legislation this is prohibited (Kol Bo). See above Siman 150).

Siman 158

Idol worshipers, with whom there is no war with us, and Jewish shepherds of thin animals ["behemah dakah" - a category of animals, including sheep and rams, which one is forbidden to raise in the Land of Israel due to the fact that they consume every creature in their way, thus hindering the mitzvah of settling the Land -translator's note] in the Land of Israel, at a time when most of the fields belong to Jews, and [consequent laws that] derive from this [apply], one may not allow the [idol worshipers] to die, but it is forbidden to save them if [the rescuer] is likely to die [trying to save them], such as [a case where one] saw one of them who fell into the sea, one does not pull him out even if he will be paid. Thus, one must not heal them, even for payment, unless there is reason [to save them] on the grounds of [preventing] hatred [of Jews]. Rema: for then [under those circumstances] it is permitted even for free [without payment] to save them, if he will not be able to be dropped even for free. (Beit Yosef in the name of the Ramban). And thus it is (Rema: it would be) permitted to attempt to heal a Cutite [non-Jew] if one is so inclined (Tosfot and the Mordechai Pe"m and in the Sma"g). Which things are being discussed, regarding a Jew with sins and who stands by his wickedness consistently, such as the shepherd of a thin animal [behemah dakah] who unload stolen wares ["parku b'gazel] and they go in their foolish ways. But a Jew who has sins, [but] who does not stand by his wickedness consistently, [and] rather does sins for personal benefit, such as one who eats forbidden foods to satisfy his appetite, it's a mitzvah to save him and it's forbidden to let him die (literally: stand by his blood).
The heretics, and those who practice idol worship (literally: worship of the stars), or who do sins for the sake of provocation, [and] even one who ate carrion flesh, or wore shatnez in order to provoke, behold, this person [has the status of] a nonbeliever. And the heretics, and those who deny the Torah and Jewish prophecy -- they had the custom during the times of the Holy Temple to kill them. If one's hands were strong enough to kill them with a sword, in public, he would kill him [in that way], and if not, he would develop a plan in order to bring about their death. How so? [If] he saw one of them that fell into a well, and [there was] a ladder in the well from before, he would take it and say [to the person who fell], "Behold, I am going to take my son down from the roof [with this ladder], and I will return it to you," and [other plans] similar to this. <i>Rema: And refer to Choshen Mishpat, Siman 425: Jewish apostates who attach themselves to idol worship, or defile themselves among idolaters to worship idols like them, behold, they are [considered to be] like apostates who provoke anger. And they would lower them down and not raise them up </i>(Tosafot פא"מ)<i>, for it is an eye for an eye. [But] if he came to repent, they were not stringent on him, as it is difficult to break free from [idolatry], and there is a concern that he will return to his apostasy [if he is subjected to disgrace].</i>

Siman 159

That it is permitted to lend to gentiles and apostates with usury, in three parts:  The Law declared it is permitted to lend to gentiles with usury, but the Sages proscribed it except for one's living or by a scholar or if it is only rabbinical usury. And nowadays it is permitted. 
Usury to apostates is permitted, but borrowing from them usurily is proscribed. GLOSS [RMA]: And some are strict even re usury to apostates (the Mordechai and the Haga'os Maimonios citing RABIH and RSHI and SMG and in MHRIL) And it is good to be strict if it is possible to elude it.
Samaritans have the status of apostates. Karaites do not have the status of apostates, and usury to them is proscribed, and it is not necessary to say that it is proscribed to borrow from them usurily. GLOSS [RMA]: And see the laws of the immured. An infant which fell into the captivity of gentiles and doesn't know any Law is like a Karaite and usury to them is proscribed. And also an apostress with a child from a gentile, for the son is — behold — like her and an apostate, usury to him is proscribed, for he is like an infant captured by gentiles.

Siman 160



Siman 161



Siman 162



Siman 163



Siman 164



Siman 165



Siman 166



Siman 167



Siman 168



Siman 169



Siman 170



Siman 171



Siman 172



Siman 173



Siman 174



Siman 175



Siman 176



Siman 177



Siman 178

1. Not To Dress Like A Non-Jew, 3 Seifim: One [i.e., a Jew] should not follow the customs of non-Jews (nor should one try to resemble them) (Tur in the name of the Rambam). One should not wear clothing that is particular to them [i.e., their culture]; one should not grow forelocks on one’s head like the forelocks on their heads; one should not shave the sides [of one’s head] and grow one’s hair in the middle of one’s head [like they do]; one should not shave the hair in front of one’s face from ear to ear and let one’s hair grow [in the back] [like they do]; one should not build places [i.e., buildings]—like the non-Jews’ temples—so that large groups of people will enter them, like [non-Jews] do. <i> RAMA: Rather, one [i.e., a Jew] should be distinct from them [i.e., non-Jews] in one’s manner of dress and in all of one’s actions. But all of this [i.e., these restrictions] apply only to things that non-Jews do for the sake of licentiousness. For example, they are accustomed to wearing red clothing, which is official/princely clothing, and other clothing that is similarly immodest. [These restrictions also apply] to things that they are accustomed to doing because of a custom or rule that does not have a[ny underlying] reason, out of concern that [a Jew who does such things will follow the] “ways of the Amorites,” and that it has the blemish of [i.e., is tainted by] idol worship inherited from their ancestors. But things that they are accustomed to doing for a useful purpose—such as their custom for expert doctors to wear particular clothing so that the doctors will be recognized as specialists—one is permitted to wear [such clothing]. (Maharik Shoresh 88) Similarly, things that are done out of respect or another reason, it is permitted [for one to do such things]. And therefore they said one may burn [the items of deceased] kings, and there is not in this “the ways of the Amorites.” (R"an, Chapter of the Laws of Non-Jews) </i>
2. One [i.e., a Jew] who is close [i.e., works closely] with the [non-Jewish] authorities and is required to dress in their clothing and to be similar [in appearance] to them, is permitted in all respects [to do so].
3. One who eats and on his table, does not bring a full loaf and place it on the table. RAMA: There are places to set the table and place upon it some (types) of food at night for the next day...

Siman 179

<b> Not to do magic, necromancy, or divination. Containing 19 sections. </b> We do not make inquiries to astrological seers, nor to the fates. [Comment of Rema: Because it is said, "You must be wholehearted with the LORD your God." (Deuteronomy 18:13) (B"Y citing Tosafot (???) and citing Sifrei) And certainly it is prohibited to make inquiries to magicians, diviners, and sorcerers. (Piskei Mahara"i 96)]
We have the custom to not begin things on the second or fourth days of the week (Monday or Wednesday) and we only take wives during the full moon. [Comment of Rema: And therefore, we have the custom as well to begin study on Rosh Chodesh, because even though there is no divinatory benefit, there is a symbol (SM"K 136). What a person knows to be inauspicious, they should not do, and they should not rely on miracles. However, one must not investigate this matter, because one should be "wholehearted" (Responsa of Ramba"n 286) as will be explained.]
One who says, "My bread has fallen from my mouth!" or "My staff from my hand!" or "My child calls from behind me!" or if a deer stopped before them on the road, or a snake passed on their right, or a fox on their left- someone to whom these things have happened, and they derive divination from it, not to go on a trip, or not to begin a project; or similarly, those who do divination by rodents or by birds or by the stars; or similarly one who says, "Do not begin asking me for payment, as it is morning" or "as it is after Shabbat" or "as it is after Rosh Chodesh;" or similarly one who says, "Slaughter that hen, as she cried out like a raven!" or "this hen, as she cried out like a rooster!" These are prohibited. [Comment of Rema: Some say that if one does not say the reason why they are directing to slaughter the hen, but simply says "slaughter this hen" then it is permitted to slaughter it, if she did cry out like a rooster (B"Y citing R"A in the Responsa of Mahari"l 118) and this is how the custom is practiced.]
A child's or a woman's house: even if there is no divinatory benefit, there is a symbol. [Comment of Rema: If one has succeeded afterwards three times, or not (B"Y citing Rashi). And similarly one may say to a child, "Tell me your verse (of current study)" (Tur). Some say that one may make a sign about something that is still to happen, like Eliezer, Abraham's servant did, or Jonathan (Tur and R"D Kimchi) but some forbid it (Rambam and SM"G). But one who proceeds wholeheartedly and trusts in Hashem will be surrounded by kindness.] 
"A spell-caster" (Deuteronomy 18:11) is someone who gathers animals or snakes or scorpions or mosquitoes or flies with whispers.
Someone who has been bitten by a scorpion: it is permitted to whisper spells for them, even on Shabbat, and even though this thing is completely ineffective, because the person is in danger, they permitted it in order that their mind should not be torn apart (made insane).
Someone who is being chased by a snake or scorpion: it is permitted to whisper spells in order to prevent them from harming one. 
Someone who whispers spells over a wound, or over someone ill, and then spits, and then reads a verse from the Torah: this person has no portion in the World to Come. But even if they do not spit, however, it is still prohibited. But if there is danger to life, then anything is permitted. [Comment of Rema: And some say that all this is only forbidden when one reads the verse in Hebrew but not in a foreign language (Rashi citing his teacher). However, it is best to be careful about spitting, as much as possible, especially if one is reciting the Divine name, as this person has no portion in the World to Come (as is indicated by the Tur in the R"I's opinion).]
A child who has been wounded: we may not recite verses over them, or place a Sefer Torah upon them.
A healthy person: it is permitted to recite verses over them, in order to protect them from the damaging forces. 
To measure a belt (of a person who is ill) and to whisper spells over it is permitted, even on Shabbat. [Comment of Rema: And see OC 306, and the rule is the same for other whispered spells. And see OC 301 for which whispered spells and which amulets are forbidden.]
It is permitted to by healed by an amulet, even if it has Divine Names inside. And it is similarly permitted to carry amulets that have verses inside. This is specifically for protection, not to become ill, but does not permit someone who has a wound or an illness to be healed by them. But it is forbidden to write verses in the amulets. 
"A necromancer" (Deuteronomy 18:11) is someone who starves themselves and sleeps in the cemetery in order to have unholy spirits rest upon them. 
To make someone ill swear an oath to return after death to tell one whatever they ask: this is permitted. [And some permit even after death, if one is not making an oath with the body of the deceased but only their spirit. (As is indicated by Hagahot Maimoniot citing R"AM, which does not accord with the Beit Yosef.)]
Illusion-making is prohibited, but it is permitted to do so using the Sefer Yetzirah. [Even if this includes actions (Tur).]
Demonic work is prohibited, but some permit inquiring of them about stolen items. [Comment of Rema: And derived from this (B"Y and Hagahot Maimoniot 11 in "Laws of Theft") And to force them to swear oaths using Divine Names, some permit in any situation. (B"Y citing N"Y and citing that comment) But in any case, most of the practitioners of this do not get out of it peacefully, so one who wants to protect their soul will distance themselves from them (demons) (B"Y).] 
Those who customarily set a table with various types of foods on the night of a circumcision and say that it is auspicious for the baby: this is prohibited. [And see above at the end of 178)
To smudge the house using herbs with good scents: some forbid unless one is doing so in order to remove bad scents. 
One who burns incense for a demon, to connect with it and force it to do one's will is guilty of worshipping idolatry. One who studies from a sorcerer, even words of Torah, is worthy of the death penalty. 

Siman 180

<b> The Prohibition of tattooing, and balding for the dead. Contains 12 sections. </b> Incised writing is defined as cutting one's flesh and filling the place of cutting with kohl [following the emendation of Biur HaGra YD 180.2] or ink or any other dye that leaves a mark.
If he does this on his friend's flesh, the one to whom it was done is exempt unless he aided in the matter.
One is permitted to place ash on their wound. 
One who marks their slave lest they escape is exempt (But it seems that, in the first place, it is forbidden).
One who cuts their flesh is not culpable unless they are doing it for their deceased, or for idolatry. However, for their deceased, one is culpable whether one did it manually or with a tool, while for idolatry one is only culpable if it was with a tool. 
Scratching and cutting for the deceased is prohibited, even outside the presence of the deceased [But it is permitted to do so because of another source of pain. (B"Y based on Tur)]
Some say that specifically cutting is forbidden but hitting with the hand on the flesh until blood flows is permitted, and some forbid it. 
One who makes five cuts for one deceased person, or one cut for five deceased people has five culpabilities. 
Balding is is defined as removing the hairs from one's head over a death, from any place on the head, whether by hand or with a potion, and at its minimum size, a bean-size area of one's head must be visibly empty of hair. And some say: two hairs. And some say that a prohibition even extends to one hair. 
If one created one bald area for five deceased people, they are only culpable once, but if they created five bald areas for one deceased person, they are culpable for each one. 
One who creates a bald spot on a friend's head, or cuts a friend's flesh, while the friend supports it: if they both do so intentionally, they both receive lashes. If one did so by accident and one intentionally, the intentional one receives lashes. 
Women are also cautioned against balding. [Comment of Rema: And how much more so against cutting (Tur). And it is right to caution them not to remove their hair by the deceased person, so that they do not come to violation of the prohibition on balding (Tur citing Yerushalmi) and likewise with cutting.]

Siman 181

1. The Issur of Shaving the Pe'ot, 12 Seifim: There are two pe'ot/corners of the head. [Where the] head ends is where it joins with the jaw, on the right and on the left.
2. Whether one shaves the pe'ot only, or whether he shaves the whole head with the pe'ot, he is liable.
3. He is not liable unless he uses a razor. And there are those who forbid scissors that shave like a razor; and their words should be regarded.
4. The person whose pe'ot are shaved off is also liable if he assists in shaving, leaning his head to him so that he shaves his pe'ah, but there is prohibition even if he does not help, therefore it is forbidden to have one's pe'ot shaved off even by means of an idolater.
5. One who rounds [the head of] a minor male is liable. (But it is permitted to round [the head of] an idolater or a woman -- Beit Yosef, in the name of the RoSh). But there are those who have doubt regarding this (Beit Yosef in the name of י"א). A minor is permitted to be rounded by an idolater (Ran, in the perek Eilu Hen Hagolin).
6. A woman is not included in the mitzvah of rounding, but there are those who say that although she is permitted to round the corner of her head, she is forbidden to round the corner of the head of a man, even if he is a minor.
7. Slaves are obligated regarding rounding the head, just as [free] men.
8. A tumtum or androgynos is forbidden to round the head.
9. The extent of the pe'ah [of the head] is from the hair on [i.e. by] his forehead including up to below the ear, where the lower jaw emerges and separates [from the head] there, and no hand should touch the entire width of this place.
10. One is not liable in destroying the corner of the beard except by means of a razor, however by scissors it is permitted, even cutting so close as a razor. <i>Rem"a: But in any case we are cautious when trimming with scissors to do the shaving motion with the upper piece of the scissors and not with the bottom piece, lest one does it all with the bottom piece and it be as a razor (See Siman 395). Anyhow, it seems that under the throat there is no concern about this, since it is not the main location of the pe'ot.</i>
11. There are five corners of the beard, and there are many opinions on them, therefore a God-fearing man should fulfill all of them and not pass a razor over any of his beard at all. (And even under the throat (Beit Yosef in the name of the Iggeret R"Y and the Smag)
12. A woman who has a beard is permitted to destroy it; and the law for her in destroying the beard of a man is the same as in rounding the head of a man.

Siman 182

One who removes the hair of the armpit or pubic area, even with scissors in a similar manner to a razor (i.e. close to the skin) receives lashes of rebellion. About what were these words said? In a place where only women remove it, so that he should not improve himself as women do. In a place where men, too, do so, however, if he does so they do not beat him. (Rama: Even initially this is permitted (Ran in Avodah Zarah). Only exceptionally scrupulous people refrain in all places (ibid and in Beis Yosef in the name of the Nimukei Yosef). See above Siman 156.) It is permitted to remove the hair of other limbs with scissors in any place.
One who shaves all his body hair, from his head to his legs, there are those who say that it is permissible for him to also shave his armpits and pubic hair.
It is forbidden to rub the hair of the armpit and pubic area in order to remove it, but it is permitted to rub with one's garment to remove it.
One who has sores on his armpit or pubic area, and the hair there causes him pain, he may remove it.
A woman may not clothe herself in men's clothing, e.g. put on her head a mitre or helment, or wear armor, and so on (Rama: from that which men wear in accordance with the local custom (Tur)) or shave her head like a man. A man may not clothe himself in the clothes of a women, e.g. wear colored clothing or golden ornaments in a place where only women wear those things. (Rama: Even wearing just one of the garments is forbidden, even if it is apparent by his other garments that this is a man or a woman (Beis Yosef).) A tumtum and an androgynos are forbidden to dress like women.
It is forbidden for a man to pluck even one white hair from among the black because of "A man shall not wear" (Devarim 22:5). It is likewise forbidden for a man to color (Rama: the white hairs so that they will be) black hairs, even one hair. It is likewise forbidden for a man to gaze at his reflection. (Rama: See above Siman 156.)

Siman 183

A woman who has a discharge of blood from her uterus, whether due to outside factors or purposefully, is tameh (impure) if she felt it flowing out. If she felt the discharge she is tameh even if the blood did not flow out of her body, and even if she only saw a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed; she must observe seven clean days for it {Rema: as will be explained in Siman 196. And there is no distinction between a married and an unmarried woman with regards to the laws of niddah (Rivash in Siman 425 as brought by Bet Yosef), because all who have intercourse with a niddah are liable for karet.}

Siman 184

Most women have vestot (meaning, a fixed time to experience menstruation) to see [menstrual blood] at a known time, for example every twenty days or every thirty days, and any woman who has a consistent veset may have relations at a time which is not her veset and does not need to perform a check prior to relations. (Rambam) <i>RAMA: And she also should not be stringent to check herself before or after relations, lest [her husband] worry and withdraw from her. (Tur; Mordechai; and the majority of Poskim)</i>  However, at other times, she is praiseworthy the more she checks.
During her veset, [her husband] must separate from her for one onah, not from all contact but only from marital relations. If it is daytime, separate from her for that entire day, even if the veset is at the end of the day, and it is permitted immediately the following evening. Similarly, if [the veset] is at the beginning, separate the whole day and it is permitted the entire preceding evening. And such is the law if it is at night, separate during the night and it is permitted the preceding and following days. This applies whether she has established her veset three times or one time. <i>RAMA: and all of this is discussing a veset dependent on counting days and not on a veset dependent on bodily changes, see later Siman 189. (Beis Yosef in the name of the Ra'avad).  A woman whose veset changes and occurs two or three days earlier or later each month, should separate those two or three days before or after. (Hagahos Maimoni) See also Siman 189. </i>
3. When does the above apply? When she reaches the age of majority. But regarding a minor who has not entered into the days of the young women and does not have signs, she need not separate due to her veset, as long as the veset has not occured three times. This is also the law regarding older women, whose blood has left them.
4. If she normally sees [blood] with daybreak, and they are not certain whether [she saw] before daybreak or after it, she is only forbidden in the day.
5. If she normally sees [blood] from before daybreak until after daybreak, she is forbidden during the portions of night and day that are adjacent to it (daybreak). 
6. If her cycle lasts two or three days, during which she is emitting or has flows [of blood] she only needs to separate for the first onah [at the recurrence] of that veset, and once that onah has passed without her seeing [blood], she is permitted.
7. If a veset occurs during her pregnancy after she knows she is pregnant, or during her lactation which extends 24 months from the birth of the fetus, even if the fetus dies: one is not required to separate close to her veset, and even during her veset, she is permitted without inspection. (See below Siman 189.)
8. If she was in hiding out of fear, and the time of her veset arrives, she should disregard it. <i> RAMA: And some say that this is only if the veset has already passed and she she did not inspect and did not feel a sensation- then she is pure without inspection. But ideally, she requires inspection. (As is indicated by B"Y) </i> 
9. The rest of the women must inspect themselves when their veset comes. If the time of the veset passes, and she has not checked, and she has not felt a sensation - she is pure without checking. There are those that say that she is forbidden until she inspects, if she has a set veset or if it is the 30th day even if it is not her set veset. <i>RAMA: This is how the custom is practiced. Similarly, see Siman 189.</i>
10. One who wants to leave for a journey must "visit" his wife, even if it is close to her veset. <i> RAMA: And even intercourse is permitted (Tur, citing Y"A and B"Y citing Rashi and Raavad and Rashba and R' Yerucham) and in any case, if one is stringent and only "visits" her in things that appease her, may they be blessed. (B"Y citing SM"G) And it was already explained that all types of intimacy and love are permitted, except for intercourse. But if one is leaving for a mitzvah journey, he does not need to "visit" his wife. And some say that if one wants to leave for a journey and his wife is a niddah but she will immerse within one onah, he must wait. (N"Y ch. "Haba al yevimto") </i>
11. A woman who only has a veset by number of days, and the time for her veset has arrived- it is prohibited to have sex with her until one asks her [about her nidda status]. And if she does not have a veset, the 30th day from her sighting [of blood] functions as the time of the arrival of her veset. And if she has waited after the veset long enough for her to count and immerse, he may have sex with her and does not need to ask. 
12. If she had a veset by number of days (Tur citing Rashba) and a veset by body cycles (B"Y citing Hagahot Maimoniot ch.4 citing Ramban) such as jumping etc., since the veset is dependent on the activity, one can say that she has not jumped and has not seen [blood]. But she must pay attention to the ordinary cycle length, which is 30 days. (B"Y citing Rashba and Tur below S. 189)

Siman 185



Siman 186

A woman that has a regular period cycle, does not need check herself at all. Not before intercourse and not have intercourse. And on the contrary, she should not check in front of her husband at the time of intercourse, so that his heart will not push him away (i.e. eliminate his desire). And the Rambam, Z"L, requires her to check after intercourse, she with one inspection-cloth and he with one inspection-cloth, and to look in them perhaps, she saw blood at the time of intercourse, and according to him, the modest women check themselves also before intercourse. (And the first view is core, and such is the practice.)

Siman 187



Siman 188

Every shade of red, even very light or dark, is tameh.  As is every kind of black.  White and green are tahor - even the color of wax or gold [i.e. what we call today "yellow"] and all the more so the color of plants [i.e. "green"], even if it has the consistency and thickness of blood (so too "blue" is like green) and even if she felt her womb open and checked herself immediately and found these colors she is tehora.  (RAMA: Agreed.  And not like those who are stringent regarding everything which has the consistency and thickness of blood.  If she felt her womb open and checked herself immediately and found nothing, see Siman 190.)
A woman is relied upon to say "I saw a stain like this, and it got lost." If it was white or green, she is tehora.  But if she brings us the blood, and we render it tameh, or are even just in doubt if it is tahor or tameh and she says "Rabbi so-and-so told me an identical stain was tahor" we do not rely on her.
If she inserted a [thin] tube and removed the blood  through it, she is tehorah.  And so too if she saw blood in a chunk, even if the chunk has blood in its crevices such that it [the blood] touches her flesh, she is tehorah because this is not the normal way of seeing blood.  So too a woman who's womb is displaced and pieces of flesh fall into her "outer chamber" is tehorah (RAMA: even if she [also] sees blood.  As long as there are pieces of flesh in her "outer chamber" she is tehorah because we ascribe the blood to those pieces, given that she knows full well that her womb has been displaced and this is all the result of her injury.) This is so if she placed the chunk in lukewarm water and it did not dissolve and only regarding small chunks resembling a [thin] tube.  But larger chunks are tameh even if she saw no accompanying blood because it is not possible that the womb should open without blood, even in the case of an unformed fetus.
All blood which emerges from a woman, be it liquid or dry, is tameh.  And even if it has the shape of peels, or hairs, or red gnats, it is tameh so long as it disolves within 24 hours in lukwarm water which maintains its teperature for the entire 24 hour period.  The required temperature is that of water drawn in the summer from a river or a stream which was then left indoors to warm.  And even in the winter the water must be this same temperature. (In general, lukewarm water does not rise above the temperature of spit) And if [these shapes] are so hard that they do not dissolve within 24 hours, she is tehorah even if they can be liquified by crushing them with one’s fingernail.  (and if they cannot be liquified by crushing them with a fingernail, she is surely tehorah and there is no need to even check them in lukewarm water.)
When do we say that she is tehorah so long as [the shapes] do not dissolve?  Only when they emerge completely dry and there is no [liquid] blood with them at all.  But if there is even a bit of [liquid] blood on them, she is temah.  (RAMA: She is likewise tameh in a case where only a part of them dissolved, and the other part stayed solid.  And it seems to me that if she checked what emerged from her on three separate occasions and it did not dissolve at all, she need not check identical items which emerge from her thereafter because she has already established that these things are not blood, rather they originate in an internal wound.  But this only applied to a woman who has an established veset and not during her veset, as was explained regarding wounds in siman 187
When do we say that the lukewarm water test is required?  When she discharges shapes like peels or hairs.  But a shapeless chunk of blood, even if it is hard and does not dissolve, is tameh.  And some say that even this requires the lukewarm water test, if it is a chunk as small [in diameter] as the thinnest reed tube.

Siman 189

A woman with no established veset must keep the 30th day since her last period, since this is the "middle veset" for women in general.  But if she has an established veset of 20 or 25 days, she only keeps this day [and not the "middle veset."]

Siman 190

According to Torah law, a woman is not rendered teme'ah and is not forbidden to her husband until she feels a sensation that blood left her body, but the sages decreed that upon seeing a blood stain on her body or clothing that she is teme'ah and forbidden to her husband even though she did not feel the blood leave her body, and even if she examines herself [afterwards] and finds herself clean. She requires a hefsek tahara to examine herself and find she is clean, and afterwards to count seven clean days from the day of her examination, as though she had certainly seen [niddah blood] as will be explained later in section 196. And if she felt that her uterus opened to release blood but checked herself afterward and did not find anything, there are those who say she is still teme'ah.  


















One who is wont to emit blood by way of his penis, and blood is found on the woman after sex -- we blame the husband.

It is unknown if she passed through a butcher's market or if she sat next to dye-workers -- we do not blame them. Of what do we speak? In a city that the butchers or the dyers sit in a known place, but if their way is to work here and there we blame them even because it is unknown if they were working where she passed and she did not feel.


Two women who work with one bird which contains only one sela of blood, and on each is found a sela of blood -- they are both impure.

Siman 191



Siman 192



Siman 193



Siman 194

A woman giving birth: even if she has not seen blood, is ritually impure as though she were a menstruating woman; whether she delivered a live child, or whether she delivered a stillborn child and even if she miscarried. And how many are the days of her ritual impurity? Now, in this time, all of the childbearers are considered as those delivering in a flow and require to count seven clean days; it follows to say that one who delivers a male sits seven for the birth and seven clean (day)s for the blood-flow, and one who delivers a female sits two weeks for the birth and seven clean (day)s for the blood flow. The days of birth, which are 7 for a male and 14 for a female, if she did not see (any blood) on them, they count for the accounting of her blood-flow; and if seven clean days are completed within the 14 for a female child, such a woman is forbidden until the night of the 15th (day); and if she had immersed prior to that, the immersion does not count for her. <small> Rema: And after 7 for a male and 14 for a female, she is permitted to her husband immediately, on account of the fact that she had counted seven clean (day)s and she did not further see (blood-flow). Nevertheless, there are places where the custom is that they do not immerse within 40 (days) for a male and 80 for a female (Beit Yosef citing the Mahari"k, who brought the tanya, and in the Agudah ch. A"P (Arvei Pesachim?) and in the Mahari"l), and one ought not be lenient in a place where they were accustomed to be stringent (Riv"sh); but in a place where there were no set custom, one ought not be strict at all - just as soon as she has not seen blood after the seven for a male and fourteen for a female, and has counted seven clean days, she is permitted to her husband (T"H - Torat haAdam? - section 255). But if she has once again seen, even a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed, she is ritually impure - even though according to biblical ruling it is pure blood - the custom has already spread throughout all of Israel that we do not engage in sexual relations over pure blood (Beit Yosef, and Agur, and Tur, and decisors citing the geonim), and its ruling is like the other cases of blood in every way. <small></small></small>
One who miscarries within (the first) forty (days of pregnancy) - she should have no concerns for (status of delivering) a birth but does have concerns as regards menstruation, even if she has not seen (blood). <small>Rema: Since there opening of the "grave" without blood is by definition impossible, and we derive from this that immediately after she has counted seven clean (day)s, she is permitted, and she need have no concern for delivering  (d"'a).<small></small></small>
One who miscarries (a fetus with an appearance) like some sort of animal, beast or bird; like fishes or grasshoppers or creeping or crawling things, and any appearance of delivered child, whether amniotic sac or placenta or a piece that when they tore it there was a bone inside - now that we are not expert in (varied embryonic) forms, she should be concerned that it was a (potentially viable) delivered child; and if seven clean days were completed within fourteen days, if she had immersed prior to the night of the fifteenth, the immersion did not count for her.
She delivered a quick child and afterwards she delivered a placenta, she need not be concerned regarding an additional delivered child, but rather accounts it to the child that she had already delivered - until 23 days (have passed). But if she miscarried a fetus first, she does not consider to be related to it any placenta that she may deliver after, and she must be concerned for that placenta to give her the days of ritual impurity for (delivering) a female.
If the placenta came out first, we do not account it for the child which she will deliver afterwards, even if it is viable, and we are concerned for the placenta that it gives her days of ritual impurity for (delivery) a female.
If a bit of the placenta came out on the first day, and did not finish coming out until the second day, she is concerned as of the first day but does not begin counting other than from the second day.
One who miscarries (a fetus with the) appearance of an animal, a beast or a bird, and it had the placenta attached to it, need not be concerned for any further childbirth; and if it is not attached to it, must be concerned for a further birth; and even though the child appeared to be male, we are concerned to give her days of ritual impurity of a female on account of the placenta.
If one should deliver a child with no visible sex organs, or a hermaphrodite, we give her the days of ritual impurity of a female child.
If she felt that she was miscarrying and she did not know what, even if she was not considered likely pregnant - this is (nonetheless) the ritual impurity of birth, and she must be concerned as though it had been female.
If the child were dismembered within her and came out a limb at a time, whether it came out in order of the limbs (such as that the foot came first, then the thigh, then the hip) or whether it came out of order, she is not considered ritually birth-impure until most of it has come out; and if the entire head came out as a unit, this is considered as "most of it"; and if had not been dismembered, and came out naturally, once its forehead has emerged it is considered as born even though it may be dismembered thereafter. And the final matter is not that is actually emerged (from her body), but that even if it emerged from the birth canal.
Once the fetus put forth its hand and drew it back, the mother becomes ritually birth-impure.
If the mother was in difficult childbirth and she heard the cry of the baby, it is considered as a born child, because it would be impossible if the baby had not brought its head outside of the birth canal.
If a woman gives birth to twins and one of the babies delays after its fellow is born, such as when one was born before the sun set and the other after the sun set, once the first has emerged - she (the mother) is ritually impure and counts impurity-days from when the last one emerged; and if the first is recognized to be male and the second is recognized to be female, or that it is not recognizable whether the second is male or female, she counts starting from when the second emerged the ritual-impurity days for a female.
A Caesarean birth - if no blood emerges, even through her uterine wall, its mother is pure from birth-impurity and from menstruation-impurity and from blood flow-impurity.

Siman 195

Matters that are prohibited during her time of menstruation, including 17 paragraphs: A person is obligated to separate from his wife during the days of her impurity until she counts and immerses (even if she waits a long time to immerse).  She is always in her Niddah status until she immerses (Beis Yosef in the name of halakhic authorities). He should not joke or engage in levity with her (even with words) (Tur and Beis Yosef in the name of the Rashba from Avot d'Rabbi Nasan) lest he become accustomed to sin.  However, he is permitted to be alone with her since once he has had intercourse with her one time, his urger will no longer overcome him (his own language).
He may not touch her, even with his little finger, nor may he pass anything from his hand to her hand, nor may he accept from her hand, lest he touch her flesh (similarly, by throwing from his hand to hers or vice versa, is also prohibited).
He may not eat with her at the table unless there is some difference, that there is something separating between his plate and her plate, bread or a pitcher, or that each one eats on their own tablecloth. Rama: There are those who say that the requirement of separation between his plate and her plate is specifically when they don't eat from the same plate when she is pure. However if they normally eat from a single plate when she is pure,  it suffices if she eats from her own plate, and they don't need another reminder (Hagahot Ashiri in the name of R"i and Hagahot Alfasi) and this is the practice.  There are those who say that it is prohibited for him to eat what remains on her plate (found in a commentary on the laws of Niddah) just as it is prohibited for him to drink what remains in her cup, as will be be explained.
He may not drink from what remains in a cup from which she drank.  Rama: Unless someone else drank in between them (Tur in the name of the Smag) or it was poured from this cup into another cup, even if it was returned to the first cup (Hagahot Maimoniot in the name of the R'em and the Rokeach 318 and Mordechai and Aguda on the first chapter of Shabbos). If she drank and he didn't know, and he wanted to drink from her cup, she doesn't need to tell him not to drink (ibid), and she is allowed to drink from a cup from which he drank (ibid). If she drank from a cup and left, there are those who say he is permitted to drink from what remains since after she has already gone, there is no obligation (in the commentary mentioned above).
He should not sit in a bed that is specifically meant for her even in her absence. Rama: It is prohibited to sit on a long bench that wobbles and is not attached to the wall when his wife in Niddah is sitting on it (Mordechai first chapter of Shabbos, Tzaphenas Paneach in the name of Rashi) but there are those who permit when a another person sits in between them (Agudah on Chapter Hatinoket and Torat Habayit 251). Similarly, he should not go with his wife in a single cart or on a single boat if they are going just for a pleasure trip, for instance to go to gardens and orchards or the like. However, if he is going from one city to another out of necessity, it is permitted, even if he and his wife are alone, as long as they sit in such a way that they do not touch each other (all this is in Torat Habayit 251).
He may not sleep in bed with her, even if each one is in their own garment, and they do not touch each other.  Rama: Even if each one has their own sheet (Beis Yosef contrary to Rabbeinu Yorucham), and even if they sleep in two beds but the beds touch each other it is prohibited (Mordechai on Chapter 1 of Shabbos in the name of the Ram).
He may not gaze even at her ankle, nor at any of her covered places. (However, he is permitted to gaze at her revealed places, even though he takes pleasure in the sight) (Beis Yosef in the name of the Rambam).
It is fitting that she should have special garments for her days of Niddah so that they both remember constantly that she is in Niddah.
With difficutly, they permitted her to adorn herself during her days of Niddah, only so that she should not be repulsive to her husband.
All labors that a woman does for her husband, a Niddah may do for him, except mixing his cup, for it is prohibited to mid the cup (in front of him) (Beis Yosef and similarly is implied in the Mordechai on the first chapter of Shevuos and several places in the words of the halakhic authorities), or setting on the table before him unless she makes a reminder, for instance that she sets it on the table on the left side or that she sets in on a cushion or pillow, even on his right hand side.
She is prohibited to make his bed in front of him, specifically spreading sheets and blankets, which is in the way of affection, but setting out the pillows, which is labor and is not the way of affection, is permitted. In his absence it is all permitted, even if he knows that she is making the bed.
She is prohibited to pour water for him to wash his face, hands and feet, even if she does not touch him, and even if the water is cold.
Just as she is prohibited to mix for him, so, too, he is prohibited from mixing for her.  Not only that, but even to send her a cup of wine.  It doesn't matter whether it is the cup of blessing or another cup, if it is designated for her. However, if they are drinking out of that cup, and she drinks after him, we need not be concerned.
All these distancing measures must be practiced both during her days of menstruation and during her "whitening" days, which are all the days of her counting, nor is there a distinction in any of these, between one who experienced a flow and one who found a stain. Rama: There are those who say that we need not be stringent during her whitening days in the matter of the prohibition on eating with her from a plate (note in the Mordechai in the name of the Raavya), and thus the practice is to be lenient in this, but one should be stringent.
If he is sick and has no one to attend him besides her, she is allowed to attend him, but she should be as diligent as she can be to avoid washing his face, hands or feet, or making the bed in front of him.
A woman who is sick and menstruating, it is prohibited for her husband to touch her in order to attend to her, for instance to help her stand up, or lie down, or to support her (there are those who say that if she has no one else to attend her, he is permitted to do everything and this is the practice if she really needs it).
If her husband is a doctor, he is prohibited to touch her in order to take her pulse.  Rama: According to what I have written, that our custom is to permit him to attend her if she needs him, all the more so, it is permitted for him to take her pulse if there is not another doctor, and she need him, and there is danger in her illness (thus specified the Beis Yosef from the language of the Ramban 127), and see in Orach Chayim Ch. 88 if a menstruant is permitted to enter a synagogue to pray.

Siman 196

The seven days which the Zava counts start from the day after she stops seeing blood. Likewise, the law is that if she sees blood for 2 or 3 days and subsequently stops seeing blood, she should do an internal examination on the day she stopped seeing blood in order to establish her tahara status. This internal examination should be done just prior to the onset of halachic twilight (ie. just before sunset). [And this is the way one should ideally act; but if, after the fact, even if she only did an internal examination in the morning and found no blood, that would suffice.] A person should always teach his wife to [be stringent for the ideal ruling and] do internal examination on the day she stops seeing blood using a compressed wad of cloth which should be inserted for the entire time of halachic twilight, because this type of internal examination frees us from doubt. [Gloss: There are authorities who say that if the local community has prayed the evening prayer while it is still early in the day, a woman is no longer able to do an internal examination and begin counting and wearing her white garments the following day, because of the fact that the local community has already established it as nighttime. There are also authorities who say that she would be permitted to do so even if the local community had accept the Sabbath; our practice is to ideally be stringent, but after the fact one does not have to worry about the stringent opinions. There are some women who act as follows: If she did an internal examination before the Chazzan says "Barchu" (at the evening service which the local community said while it was still daytime), but then during the course of her days of counting she saw some blood (and had to start her count over with a new internal examination) in that situation she would be able to do an internal examination even after the Chazzan says "Barchu" (at the evening service which the local community said while it was still daytime) if this blood was seen close to the onset of nighttime. This practice is not considered ideal, but one should not protest women who behave this way as they have received this ruling from a sage who ruled this way for them, and it is an old custom.]
If a woman saw blood for just one day, and she stopped seeing blood on that same day, she must do an internal examination with a compressed wad of cloth which should remain inserted for the entire duration of halachic twilight. [Gloss: But, after the fact, if she did a standard internal examination just before the onset of halachic twilight and found no blood, even though the wad was not inserted for the entire duration of halachic twilight, it is sufficient. However, in this case an internal examination done in the morning would not suffice because of the fact that she only saw blood for one day.]
(On the day which we have been discussing, ie.) the day she stopped seeing blood and did an internal examination, she should wear a garment that has been checked and found free from stains, and at night she should make her bed with sheets which have been checked and found free from stains. On the following day she begins counting her seven blood-free days. [Gloss: It is an upright practice that before a woman does the internal examination that she wash herself and wear white garments. Even if she only washes her genital area, that is enough. This is the way our communities act and one should not depart from this practice; however, in a dire situation, such as a woman who is going on a trip and doesn't have (white) clothing, she is still able to begin counting her seven blood-free days. She should, however, do her best to wear clothing which have been checked beforehand and found free of any blood stains. (Although this last line does not follow the seeming literal translation, based on commentaries this seems to be the position of the Rama)]
During all of her seven blood-free days a woman should, ideally, do internal examinations twice a day, once in the morning and once just before the onset of halachic twilight. But, if she did not do any internal examinations over the course of the entire seven blood-free days except once - irregardless of whether that single internal examination was done of the first day, the seventh day, or on any of the other day - because of the fact that she did an internal examination on the day before the seven days began (ie. the hefsek tahara) this (internal examination that she does during the seven blood-free days) suffices for her. But, if she didn't do any internal examinations during the entire seven days but only did an internal examination on the eighth day and found it to be clean from blood, she can only begin counting from the eighth day (ie. the eighth day becomes the first day). There are authorities who say that a woman must do an internal examination on the first and seventh day, and one should not be lenient. [This internal examination should ideally be done by daylight and not by candle light, but after the fact even candle light is acceptable.]
If she does an internal examination on the day which she stops seeing blood and finds that it is not clean, and then she checks after three or four day and finds that it is clean, she is still presumed to be bleeding until she establishes otherwise through an internal check as outlined above. A woman may never begin counting her seven blood-free days until she checks to ensure that she has indeed stopped bleeding and then she can begin counting on the next day.
All of these examinations, both the hefsek tahara and the internal examinations which are conducted during the course of the seven blood-free days, must be performed with an old, white linen piece of fabric, or with cotton, or with wool which is clean, soft, and white. It should be inserted into the vaginal cavity to the depth which a man's reproductive organ enters during intercourse, and it should make contact with the crevices and openings, in order to see if there is anything which is reddish in appearance. It is not sufficient for her to merely wipe herself and enter the vaginal cavity slightly. If she finds it very difficult to insert the cloth to such a depth, at the very least she should do so for the internal examination of the day on which she sees her bleeding stop and the internal examination on the first day of her seven blood-free days. [Gloss: But, if she did not do so for the internal examination on the first day of her seven blood-free days, she should do so for at least one of the internal examinations of the remaining days. However, after the fact, if she didn't do any internal examinations to such a depth, but she did check the crevices and openings within the vaginal cavity well as deep as she is able, even though she didn't reach the depth that the male organ reaches during intercourse, it is sufficient.]
A blind woman should do an internal examination and show the cloth to another woman.
A mute woman or a deaf woman who can speak, they are considered mentally fit, but a deaf-mute who cannot speak or hear, and similarly a woman who is mentally unfit, or a woman who has temporarily lost her mind because of an illness, require a mentally fit woman to perform internal examinations and establish their presumed sighting days on their behalf in order that they be permitted to their husbands. One who establishes presumed sightings for these women, should do so according to the rules for all other women. If they do not have an established day of presumed sighting, they must be careful for the 30th days from the previous sighting and be examined by mentally sound women.
A woman who checks more often than necessary, whether during her seven blood-free days or during days when she doesn't see blood at all, is praiseworthy even if she has an established day of presumed sighting.
The seven blood-free days must be consecutive days on which she does not see blood. If she saw blood even at the end of the seventh day, all the previous days are cancelled and she must do a hefsek tahara to re-establish her status and start counting a full seven blood-free days again. [Gloss: There are authorities who say that during the first three days of her seven blood-free days if she finds a stain we do not attempt to hang it on an outside source in order to be lenient in the way that we attempt to hang other stains, because the first three days should be completely clean, but on the subsequent days stains which are found may be treated like all other stains, and this is the way we behave. And this is specifically referring to a stain which is larger than the size of a "gris and more", but a stain which is smaller than this size can be blamed on a louse even within the first three days. This is also true if she has a wound on her body which she knows is actively bleeding, in this case she would be able to blame a stain which is larger than a "gris and more" on this wound. During the first three days, however, we would not blame a stain on a wound which she is not sure whether it is actively bleeding or on other things which we would normally attempt to blame a stain on, as is outlined in Section 190 above.]

Siman 197



Siman 198

















(17) Coloring/makeup/dye that women put on their faces and hands and the hair on their heads is not an interposition.  And also, one who uses dyes (or paints) and their hands are dyed/colored, this is not an interposition. Re’ma – and also one whose occupation is a shochet or a butcher and their hands are always dirty with blood, the discoloration is not considered an interposition. Because the majority of butchers are not particular about this. **** שרוב בני אומנות זו אינן מקפידים - Most people in the profession do not care about this. **** Similarly, one whose profession is to be a slaughterer or ritual slaughterer and whose hands are always stained with blood is not a barrier because most people in this profession are not careful.

Siman 199



Siman 200



Siman 201

Laws of Mikveh and its water. Containing 75 sections: The woman does not rise up from her impure status through washing in a bathhouse, and even if all the waters in the world passed over her, she is still in her impurity, and those (who have sex with her) are deserving of spiritual excision, until she immerses her whole body at once in the waters of a mikveh or spring which has the volume of 40 se'ah, with a size of one amah by one amah and a height of three amot square, where an amah equals six tefachim and half an etzbah. And if it is wider but not as tall, that is valid, as long as she is able to get her whole body covered by them (the water) at once. And the geometric values must add up to 44,118 and a half etzba'ot in size. And the container where the water is located must be larger than this size, so that the immersee can enter and and when the water is displaced, 40 se'ah will still remain. 
Spring water purifies even when it is flowing. Rain water only purifies when in a still body, but when it is flowing, it is Biblically invalid, if it is detached from a spring. If the flowing water from a spring mixed with downflow which derives from rain, then the whole mixture has the status of the spring for all purposes. But if the downflow is greater than the spring flow, or similarly if rain water makes up the majority of the water in a river, they do not purify while flowing but only while still. Therefore one must set up a barrier or something like it in the mixed river, until the water gathers together and one can immerse in it. [Comment of Rema: And thus it is correct to teach and to be stringent. But some permit immersion in rivers all year round, even during rain and snowmelt season, when the downflow is greater than the spring flow, because the essence of the river's size is from its source location. This is the practice in most places where there is no mikveh, and we should not reprimand those who have the custom to be lenient, because they have authorities to rely on. However, one must be careful not to immerse in a river that appears entirely through rain, and when there is no rain it stops completely. Even if other rivers pour into it during the rainy season and it appears through them, in any case, since it stops entirely during the season when there is no rain, it is forbidden to immerse in it while it is flowing, until the waters are gathered together. But a river that does not stop, even even if during the rain it swells and and expands over its banks, it is permissible to immerse in it in any case, according to the lenient opinions and the common practice.]
The forty se'ah that is prescribed must not be drawn water, for if they are drawn, they are invalid. [Comment of Rema: And if the whole mikveh was drawn water, it is Biblically invalid, and when in doubt we must be stringent. But if the majority of the mikveh is valid and a minority is drawn, this (disqualification) is only Rabbinic and when in doubt we must be lenient.]
A mikveh that belongs to idolaters and they get fees from it- we should not trust the idolaters about it unless there is a fixed volume of (at least) 21 se'ah. [Comment of Rema: Since the majority of it is valid, the doubt must be resolved leniently. If we observed a partly empty mikveh, and then came and found it full, and we do not know who filled it- if it was already mostly valid, meaning that 21 se'in were present (of the necessary 40) we proceed leniently. And if the majority was not valid, then now we have a Biblical-level doubt: whether we should suspect that the idolater filled it up for bathing, and it is invalid, or whether rather an Israelite filled it up for immersion in it, and it is valid. Since most of the people who are around a mivkeh and work to make it valid are experts, certainly they have filled it properly. And even more so, if the Israelite is before us and says that they filled it properly, they are trustworthy, given that they have the ability to fix it. Similarly, one witness can be relied upon to determine forbidden status of objects, as above in Section 127 and below at the end of this section regarding rules for doubt about drawn water.]
All seas are considered springs, in that they purify even while flowing. Therefore, if a wave separates from the sea and has a volume of 40 se'ah and falls on a human or onto objects, the immersion counts for them. But if one immersed in a wave while it was in the air before it fell to the ground, even if it has a volume of 40 se'ah, or if one threw objects into the middle of the wave when it is shaped like a dome, the immersion has not counted for them. 
The mikveh's 40 se'ah must not be in a container, as we do not immerse inside containers. 
If one takes a large container like a big barrel or big tub and punctures it with a puncture that would render it insusceptible to impurity, (and some say the opening must be as large as the tube of a waterskin, and there is reason to be stringent) and installs it in the ground, and turns it into a mikveh, this is valid. And similarly if the plaster or building has cracks, this does not invalidate it, and the water that is collected inside is a valid mikveh. If one sealed it with plaster or gypsum, it still invalidates the mikveh until it is installed in the ground, or built-in. And if he dragged it across the ground or across plaster and the mud smooths (itself onto the container) from the outside, this is valid. [Comment of Rema: It is permissible to make it on a roof, as long as it is not inside a container or one stone that was first carved out and then installed. But a collection of many stones is not considered a container.]
A spring that pours into a container- immersion is invalid in it, whether in the water inside the container or after it has exited the container. And if the container pours onto the edge of a container, and from there to the inside of the container- inside the container one may not immerse, but outside of it one may, even if the majority of the water is inside. 
An impure container which one placed other containers into and then immersed- the immersion counted for all of them, even if the container has a very narrow mouth such that the water enters through it. And since immersion counts for the large container, it counts for the containers inside it. But if one tipped it onto its side and immersed it, the immersion only counts for them if the mouth is as wide as the tube of a waterskin. Similarly, if the container was pure, and one put impure containers inside it and immersed them, the immersion only counts for them if the mouth is as wide as the tube of a waterskin. [Comment of Rema: And it is permissible to immerse vessels in a basket or bag, because they do not hold water which is superior to an opening as wide as the tube of a waterskin.]
A spring that one extended into a pool of waters which are gathered and standing- it has the status of a spring. And if the intake of the outflow stops, it goes back to having the status of a mikveh. And if one went back and extended the spring's outflow into it, it goes back to the status of a spring. 
A mikveh of drawn water into which one extended the waters from a spring- even if the waters from the spring are the minority, the minority of spring waters purify the majority of drawn waters, whether the spring waters preceded the drawn or the drawn preceded the spring. [Comment of Rema: As will be explained below. But in any case, one should not immerse in it, but rather in an area of still water, as this should not be more favorably regarded than rivers where there is more outflow (from rain) than flowing water (from springs).  
A spring that was passed over the backs of containers and drawn to another location returns to the status of a mikveh, as long as one does not immerse on the actual backs of the containers. 
A spring that descends from a mountain drop by drop discontinuously has the status of a mikveh unless it descends as a flow and not discontinuously. 
Drips that became flowing water, for example, if one placed an earthenware slab close to the place that is dripping, and the waters flow and drop on it, they are valid. But any item that can become impure, even on a Rabbinic level, we may not use to create a flow. And flowing waters that pours through nut leaves are valid. 
A mikveh that (already) contains 40 se'ah or a spring of any size- one may draw as much as desired to be added inside it, and they will be valid, even if they are greater than the waters that were inside at first. (And there is no distinction between whether the spring preceded the drawn water or not, as was explained.) But any time that the mikveh does not (yet) contain 40 se'ah, even if it is only missing a small amount, if 3 lugin of drawn water fall inside, they have invalidated it, and it makes no difference if they were drawn in a container or squeezed from one's garment and held up so the water in it would fall from many locations. Likewise if one pours from the jug and drips from many locations into it, or if one threw them with the palms, and even if they fell in from two or three containers, a bit from one and a bit from the other, they combine (to comprise a volume of 3 lugin). In which circumstances is this stated? When (water) begins from the second container before the first container has stopped. But if the first one stopped before the second one started, they do not combine. And if the second start before the first stopped, specifically up to three vessels, but they do not combine from four. In which circumstances is it stated that (water) from four cannot combine? When one's original intention was not to add all three lugin. But if originally one intended to add all three lugin, even if they only added it little by little from several containers that add up to 3 lugin, it is invalid. [Comment of Rema: But if one manually passed 3 lugin over the ground, or if they splashed from an animal's feet, this is valid. And some say that an animal's feet are like a human's feet, and that neither one is valid except when passing (water) over the ground, which is like drawing it, but not when splashing, see below in this chapter in Section 39.]
A sponge that has absorbed within it 3 lugin, and when it fell into the mikveh the absorbed waters mixed with the mikveh's waters, or likewise a bucket whose mouth is narrow which contains 3 lugin of drawn water and it fell into the mikveh and not all the water inside it came out, but rather it mixed with the mikveh's water- they have not invalidated it, because they (the Sages) only discussed 3 lugin that fell and entirely mixed with the mivkeh's waters. 
Drawn waters which were at the side of the mikveh, even though the waters touch the mikveh's waters, they have not invalidated it. 
Two pools, one above the other, with a wall in between them, where one is full of valid waters and its companion is full of drawn waters, and there is an opening between them- if there are three lugin of drawn water opposite the opening, it has become invalid. How large will the opening be to have 3 lugin in it? One part out of 320 of the (size of the) pool. 
Two mikvaot, of which neither contains 40 se'ah, where one and a half lugin fell into one and one and a half lugin fell into the other, and the two mikvaot were mixed- they are valid, because neither one attained a status of invalidation. But a mikveh that did not contain 40 se'ah into which 3 lugin of drawn water fell, and which was afterwards split into two and had valid water added in, these are invalid. 
A cistern full of drawn water, which the aqueduct enters and exits- it remains perpetually invalid until it can be calculated that less than three lugin remain of the drawn waters that had been in the cistern.
A mikveh into which drawn waters fell, invalidating it, and then later one added valid water until there were 40 se'ah- it remains invalid until all the water in it leaves and the drawn water is lessened below 3 lugin. Likewise, if one made a mikveh containing 40 se'ah of valid waters and mixed it with this invalid mikveh, these have purified those. (The same rule applies to a spring of any size, which one drew to the drawn water- they have been purified as was detailed above.)
If the mikveh was missing 3 lugin, and 3 lugin of drawn waters fell into it, it remains perpetually invalid until rain waters overwhelm it or until valid waters pour into it to the point that it can be assessed that the original full volume has fallen in and more, because the incoming waters push out the waters that are inside, and remove them. If the mikveh was less, even a kortov, and less than 3 lugin of drawn waters fell into it and completed it, they have not invalidated or validated it. How is this? It remains invalid until rain falls into it or until (waters of) about the volume of water that it is missing pours in. If the right volume of rain water falls in, it is valid. If it was missing even a kortov and 3 lugin of waters fell in, they have invalidated it, and it remains invalid until its full volume and more leaves. [Comment of Rema: We specifically validate 3 lugin of drawn waters in this fashion, but if the whole thing was drawn, even if one added to it until the full volume and more leaves, it does not work, but rather we calculate the water that is leaving based on the value of both the valid and invalid waters.]
3 lugin only invalidate (the mikveh) when they are made of water and look like water. Therefore, 3 lugin of water into which wine fell, which look like wine, which fell into a mikveh have not invalidated it. Likewise, 3 lugin minus a little bit into which some milk fell, completing the volume, which fell into an incomplete mikveh have not invalidated it. 
Water from pickling, vegetable broths, and not-yet-fermented grape pomace and, similarly, dyed waters invalidate the mikveh when at (a volume of) 3 lugin. But any other liquids, fruit juices, fish pickling liquid, and fermented grape pomace do not invalidate the mikveh which is missing 3 lugin, and they also do not complete it to make it valid. So if it had 39 se'in and one se'ah of these (liquids) fell in, they do not complete it. But if it had 40 se'ah and one se'ah of these (liquids) fell in, and one took out one other se'ah, this is valid even if one did this 19 times. But with drawn waters, if one se'ah fell into 40 se'ah of valid waters, and one took out one other se'ah, and one se'ah of valid water fell in, even if one did this forever, it would be valid. 
Dyed waters have the status of waters for invalidation of the mikveh which is missing 3 lugin, even if their appearance is unusual compared to the appearance of water. But a complete mikveh- even if dyed waters fell in and changed its appearance, is not invalidated. Likewise, if one washed dishes in it and its appearance changed, or steeped herbs or foods in it and its appearance changed, it is not invalidated. But if wine or olive juice fell in and changed its appearance from what it had been, it is invalidated. What should one do? If it is missing volume, one should wait until rains fall and fill it and its appearance goes back to the appearance of wate. And if it contains 40 se'ah, which means it cannot be invalidated by drawing water in, one should fill it up manually and add to it until its appearance returns to the appearance of water. 
If it contained 40 se'ah and wine fell in and changed the appearance of half of it (the mikveh), if it does not have 40 se'ah that have the appearance of water, then one should not immerse in it. 
A mikveh in which the waters have changed appearance due to their own reasons and nothing has fallen in- this is valid. 
A changed appearance only invalidates rain waters that have formed a mikveh, but a spring cannot be invalidated by a change of appearance. Not only this, but even if the mikveh has (already) been invalidated, if one drew waters from a spring towards it, the spring purifies it, even if they (the waters) have not returned to their appearance. 
If three lugin of wine fell in, it is as if they did not fall in (and permissible to immerse) whether in the area of the wine or the area of the water. If it contains drawn water and one connected it (to a mikveh), if it connects at the area of the wine, neither one is purified. If it connects at the area of the water, the area of water is purified, the area of wine is not purified. [Comment of Rema: An incomplete mikveh into which wine fell, changing its appearance, and then 3 lugin of drawn water fall in, they do not invalidate it, and when one returns and completes the mikveh with valid waters, and it returns to the appearance of water, it is valid.]
The action of drawing only invalidates water. But snow, hail, ice, salt, somewhat thick mud, even if it is soft enough to pour from one container to another- drawing does not invalidate them, so that if one drew these into an incomplete mikveh, they have not invalidated it. Not only this, but even if one made the entire mikveh from snow or ice or hail which was brought in a container, and made a mikveh out of it, this is valid. [Comment of Rema: And when one assesses the volume of the mikveh using snow, they must first condense its hollow spaces, and then it is permissible to immerse in it as-is. And some are stricter, immersing in all of these only after they have melted and turned to water, and ideally it is good to be strict.]
A drawn mikveh that has frozen is pure from concern of drawn water. If it melts, it is valid for immersion. 
A mikveh that contains 40 se'ah of water and soft mud that a cow might bend and drink from, if the water floats on top of the mud, we may immerse even in the mud. If the water does not float on top of the mud, we may not immerse in the area of mud, but we may immerse in the water, even if it only contains 40 se'ah when the mud is included. 
Anything originating within the water, like red gnats- we may immerse in it. And we may immerse in the eye of a large fish where the fat of the eye has melted inside the socket.
A container is only considered to invalidate the water in it by reason of "drawing" if it was suitable as a container before it was installed, and it was deliberately filled. Then it invalidates (the water), whether it is a large container that holds 40 se'ah liquid measure, which would be 2 kurim in dry measure, or whether it is an extremely small container. And even if it is a container made from dung, a stone container or an earthen container. 
One places a board under the pipe near the mikveh so that the waters will fall from it to the mikveh. If it has four rimmed edges so it suitable to contain the waters, it invalidates (the mikveh), but if not, it does not invalidate. One stands (the board) up on its side to rinse it, even if it has rimmed edges, it does not invalidate, since it is not positioned in a way that is suitable for containing. This is in a situation where the waters are eligible to enter the mikveh without it (the board). But if the waters were not eligible to enter the mikveh without it, even if it was stood up on its side or flipped onto its mouth, it invalidates (the mikveh). 
A pipe that does not have four rimmed edges is not considered a container, and it is suitable for bringing water through it to the mikveh. And if one carved out a hollow, even a small one, inside (the pipe) before installing it, if it is wooden, then even if the hollow only holds a tiny amount, the whole thing becomes a container because of it, and all the waters that pass through it are considered drawn. But if it was made of pottery, the hollow only invalidates it if it holds a revi'it. And if clumps of mud or dirt fell in the hollow, it cannot be considered sealed off enough to nullify the (pipe's) container status unless they adhere inside it. A spout that narrows on both ends and is wide in the middle is not considered "containing" enough to invalidate the mikveh. [Comment of Rema: And therefore it is permitted to make mikvaot by means of wooden pipes and spouts that bring the water from a river or some other spring to the mikveh, or pipes from the roofs. And we do not need to worry that perhaps the force of the moisture has made hollows in them and they are containing, because even if there is a hollow in them, it is not considered a container, since it was not made intentionally by anyone. And if the waters come into the pipe by way of containers that are fixed on a wheel, which are punctured in a way that makes them not considered containers, it is permissible to immerse in them if the mikveh contains 40 se'ah. But if it does not contain 40 se'ah, one must not immerse there, since it is not considered connected to the river by this. See OC159.]
Tiles that we cover roofs with- even though they have hollows and carved portions, they do not invalidate the mikveh, because they were not made to contain (anything) in them. 
One places fabric or wicker under the pipe- the waters that are drawn down them do not invalidate the mikveh. 
The rule they stated - Anything that is not made for containing water does not invalidate the mikveh - they only said about the case where they (the waters) fell of their own accord into the mikveh, on their own. But if a human put them into the mikveh, then this invalidates it, as any thing a human does manually, even splashing with their hands and feet, and even passing through waters which flow on their own down their legs into the mikveh, invalidates it. In which cases is this said? When they flow down their legs. But if one was riding on the back of an animal and the waters flowed down the animal's legs, they have not invalidated it, even though they flowed from the animal that one is riding on, this is not considered the same as flowing down one's own legs. (It has been explained already that some disagree with this, see above Section 15.)
A container that has a puncture in its base, even a very small one, is not considered a container enough to invalidate the mikveh. But in any case, one should not be lenient and in an ideal case make the mikveh with water brought in punctured containers like this. And if the puncture is on the sides, it does not nullify the status of a container until the puncture has a width of the tube of a waterskin, which is approximately the width of the first two fingers from the parallel portion of the hand, folded over, within the opening of the puncture, whether it is square or round. And it must be close to its base so that it cannot hold any water from there downward, but if it can hold any water below it, its status as a container has not been nullified. And if one mixed plaster with clumps of mud and sealed the puncture with them, it is not considered sealed enough to return it to the status of a container. Or if one set it on the ground or even on plaster or gypsum, it is not considered sealed. However, if one mixed plaster and gypsum and sealed it, it is considered sealed. Therefore, if one wants to draw water from the mikveh to clean it, but fears dripping 3 lugin back from the container used to remove the water into the mikveh after less than 40 se'ah remain and invalidating it, one should puncture the utensil in its base a little bit, so then the waters within it will not be considered drawn. But if the waters are flowing, there is no need for this, as a spring is not invalidated by drawing. [Comment of Rema: But in any case, they have customarily been strict even about a spring, because some disagree even about a spring and say that drawing does invalidate it, and therefore, ideally, we should be stringent and puncture the container that we are drawing water with, even in a spring. And if they did not do this and drew the water with a complete container, and 3 lugin of drawn waters fell in and the mikveh was invalidated and they now want to clean it and make it valid, if the dripping punctures can be easily stopped up, it is best to be stringent and to do so, but if this is a very difficult task or after the fact if they did not do it, we should rely on the lenient opinions, who think that drawing water does not invalidate a spring, because this is the basic rule. And even in a mikveh that does not have a spring, if the container is not so large that it will certainly drip 3 lugin of drawn waters, but we might suspect that the drips are sequential etc., we follow the lenient opinion because a doubt about the 3 lugin of drawn water is a doubt about a Rabbinic-level rule, and we do not need to be suspicious after the fact.]
One places containers under the pipe to catch the waters that will fall from them into the mikveh- if one placed them when clouds were gathering and it rained before the clouds dispersed, and they fill up, they are considered intentional and become "drawn." But if the clouds were not gathering at the time that one placed them (the containers) and they (the clouds) then gathered and filled them, or even if one placed them while clouds were gathering but they scattered, and they (the containers) remained there until they (the clouds) gathered again, and filled them, this is not considered intentional, and they are not invalid. This is only when one breaks the containers or flips them without raising them off the ground, because if one raises them from the ground with the water, they are considered "drawn" and invalidate the mikveh. 
One places jugs on top of the roof to dry them, and rains fall on them and fill them- even if it was the rainy season, one may break the jugs or flip them and the water that had been in the jugs is valid for immersion, even if all the water had been in the containers, because one has not filled them manually. But if one lifted the jugs and poured them out, then all the waters in them become "drawn."
The plasterer who forgot a pot in the mikveh, and it filled with water- even if only a little remains in the mikveh and the pot has the majority of the mikveh's volume, one may break the pot in its place and the whole mikveh will be valid. Likewise, one who placed jugs in the mikveh to strengthen them and they filled with water, even if the mikveh has absorbed its waters and there is no water remaining except the water that is inside the jugs, one may  break the jugs and the collected water in them is a valid mikveh. 
Drawn waters of 3 lugin do not invalidate the mikveh until they fall into the mikveh from a container. But if the drawn waters were dragged outside the mikveh and flowed so they fell into the mikveh, they do not invalidate the mikveh until they constitute a half-and-half fraction, but if the majority is the valid portion then the mikveh is valid. How (does this work)? A mikveh contains 20 se'ah plus a small amount of valid waters, and one fills and draws (water) up outside the mikveh, and the waters flow and fall into the mikveh. Whether they flow over the earth, or inside a pipe etc. made of things that do not invalidate the mikveh, it is valid, even if in total they comprise a thousand se'in. Because drawn water that has been made to flow is valid if most of 40 se'ah of valid (water) was already present. Similarly, if a roof had 20 se'ah plus a small amount of rain waters, and one filled it manually and added less than the 20 that were present - the whole thing is invalid - and then opened the pipe and the waters all flowed to one place, this is a valid mikveh. Because drawn water that has been made to flow is entirely valid, therefore a majority of the water present is valid. [Comment of Rema: But if one first made the invalid waters flow, and then after brought to them the majority of valid water, this was not effective.]
The length of this flowing portion must be no less than three hand-widths.
Causing the flow does not work unless it is over the earth or a pipe that does not have a separate container. But if one made it flow over containers, even containers made of dung etc. this does not constitute flowing. [Comment of Rema: And some say that making it flow only works specifically on the earth, which is able to absorb it, but if one made if flow over stone flooring which is not absorbent, and even more so over a board or container, even one that does not invalidate a mikveh, this does not work. And ideally it is good to be stringent.]
A mikveh that flows that dried out in the summer, and the cistern was somewhat far from it, and one filled it (the cistern) with drawn water and the mikveh filled up from under the ground with those same drawn waters, the mikveh is just as valid as if it was flowing. 
One trying to cause waters to flow to the mikveh must not use an item that can contract impurity. So for example, if one wants to make rain waters flow to another place to make a mikveh, they must not grab a board by hand and pass them over it. Instead, they should place the board on the earth and take their hand off of it before the waters pass over it. And similarly, it is forbidden to cause the waters to flow through a metal pipe into the mikveh, because it can contract impurity. This is when the waters fall directly from the item that can contract impurity into the mikveh. But if they fall on its (the mikveh's) edge, outside, and flow into it, or if one connects a small tube of wood or pottery to the lead pipe, through which the water cascades into the mikveh, this is valid. And if the metal pipe is connected to the earth, even if it cascades directly into the mikveh, it is valid, because it cannot contract impurity, because it is rendered insignificant by the earth. [And it does not make a difference whether it is buried under the ground or not.]
In what cases was this said? When one causes regular rain water to flow. But if one is causing it to flow from a spring or a mikveh, even using something that can contract impurity, it is valid. Because we consider this mikveh that is receiving the flow as if it were connected to that spring or to that mikveh that is originating the flow of waters. And some do not differentiate between these. 
A rain water mikveh that had one of its walls break, and the waters are exiting through the crack- if 40 se'ah are left after the portion next to the crack exit, it is valid, but if not, it is invalid. Because it has become flowing, and a mikveh does not purify while flowing. [Comment of Rema: And some are stringent, even if 40 se'ah will remain until the crack is reached, and ideally one should be sensitive to their concerns, and seal the cracks. And all this is specifically in a mikveh that does not come from a spring, but if it comes from a spring, one does not need to worry about its flow. And waters' exit is not considered 'flowing' unless they do not return to the mikveh. But if they go out a little and come back there, it is not considered flowing.] And if one tries to seal the crack so that 40 se'ah will remain, they must not seal it manually, or with anything that can contract impurity. And some permit sealing with any item that can contract impurity. 
If the mikveh is punctured and its waters drip little by little, or are absorbed into the earth little by little, it is valid, because their flow is not identifiable.
One trying to mix an invalid or too-small mikveh with a valid mikveh to make it valid, or when both are too small and one is trying to mix them to make them valid- the opening between them must be as wide as the tube of a waterskin (and the stream of water must be as wide as the opening) and after the invalid has been mixed with the valid, even for a moment, it remains valid forever, even if the puncture is later sealed up. Anything located near the waterskin-tube-width can reduce its size, even materials originating from the water. If it is doubtful whether the opening is as wide as the tube of a waterskin or not, it is invalid. If it has many small punctures, they combine to add up to the width of a waterskin tube, if the one mikveh is complete and the second is too small. [Comment of Rema: And it is permissible to dig a mikveh next to a river and to immerse in it, even if there are not 40 se'ah, since the soil is continuously percolating, and since it is close to the river and we can observe the percolation between them, in which the waters come from the river by way of percolation, meaning, through tiny openings in the earth, this is considered a connection.] But if both are too small, the small punctures do not add up to the width of a waterskin tube. (And the rule is the same if a part of the mikveh is in a basket or bag, if neither side has enough volume, it is invalid.)
One trying to validate a mikveh of drawn water with a full, non-drawn mikveh- even if one only connects them by a hair's breadth, it is valid. And even if the waters at that connection do not contact the surface. [Comment of Rema: This is specifically relating to the invalidation of drawing water, which is Rabbinic-level. But a Biblical-level invalidation requires the width of the tube of a waterskin, as was explained. Even the invalidation of drawn water is disputed, and it is proper to teach it this way.]
A wall between two mikvaot that has cracked from one side to the other, even a very small amount, if it is in "warp thread" direction, they combine to mix the two mikvaot and make them valid. But if it is in the "weft thread" direction, they do not combine until one area has the diameter of the tube of a waterskin. And if the wall was split at the top between one and the other, with a height of a garlic peel and width of the tube of a waterskin, it is valid. [Comment of Rema:  And it would be the same rule if there was a pile of dirt between the two mikvaot- if one removed a little from the height of the pile until they flow into each other with a width of the tube of a waterskin and the height of a garlic peel, this is enough, since we only require the full diameter of the tube of a wineskin for a puncture.]
Three mikvaot, where two of them have twenty se'ah each of valid waters and one has twenty se'ah of drawn waters, and they are standing side by side, and three people descend and immerse in them, and through this, they fill up and overflow and mix together- all three of them become valid, since at one point 40 se'ah of valid water were connected together, and those people who immersed in them are purified. But if the drawn water was in the middle, so the two valid ones could only mix through it, they have not become valid, but rather remain as they were originally, and those people who immersed in them have not been purified. 
Two mikvaot, of 20 se'ah each, where one is drawn and one is valid- if two people descended in and connected them and immersed in them, even if they (the waters) started off red and became white (through mixing), or started off white and became red, the mikvaot are just as they were before, and the immersees are just as they were before. 
Everything that is mixed with the mikveh has the status of a mikveh, and one may immerse in pits close to the mikveh's mouth, and in places where animal hooves have stepped, if the water in them is mixed with the mikveh's water by the width of the tube of a waterskin, they may immerse in them. [Comment of Rema: And therefore, for a utensil placed on the edge of the mikveh, one may splash their hand in the mikveh to make a wave in the water, which will pass over the utensil, and the immersion has counted for it. However, one must not disconnect the wave from its place, and it must rather be attached to the mikveh.] 
Niches in caves, and crevices in caves- one may immerse in them even if the water in them is only mixed with the mikveh's water by a very small amount. 
A lower chamber (meaning, an excavated area) within the mikveh- if the earth that separates between the lower chamber and the mikveh is sturdy and can support itself, one may not immerse in the waters in the lower chamber until they mix with the mikveh's waters by the width of the tube of a waterskin. But if it cannot support itself, even if they are only mixed a tiny amount, one may immerse in them. 
Three pits along a riverbed, where the bottom and top are of 20 se'ah, and the middle is of 40, and a flood of rainwater passes through the riverbed- even though it enters and exits them, this is not considered mixing, and one may only immerse in the middle one, as flowing waters do not mix unless they stand still. 
One gathers their arms and legs, and positions themselves at the water spout- if water covers all of them, they are pure. 
A mikveh that contains 40 se'ah exactly- a person who immerses in it must not jump in, so as not to reduce the water by their jumping in, and must not immerse twice in a row. If two people immersed one after the other, even if the feet of the first are still touching the water, the second remains in their impurity, as the water has been reduced from 40 se'ah. 
If one immerses a thick fabric that absorbs water- the whole time that the fabric is touching the mikveh, it is valid, even if three lugin have flowed back into the mikveh. If one removes it (the wet fabric) from it (the mikveh), it is invalid, as it has been made "drawn" by the waters that flow from the fabric into it. And if one immerses a kettle or other utensils, they should lower it into it by the mouth, so that the waters will not splash when they enter it, making it (the mikveh's volume) reduced, and they should raise it out by the sides, so that the water will not stay in it and be missing from the mikveh. [Comment of Rema: All the water that is in the utensil. Also the water in the utensil becomes drawn, and if it falls after this into the mikveh, it can invalidate it, since there is no longer the necessary volume for a mikveh.]
One immersing a pillow or cushion in the mikveh that has exactly 40 se'ah, as soon as its lip is lifted out of the water, the waters inside it become "drawn." How should one proceed? Immerse them, and raise them by their edges. But a basket or a fabric bag- one can immerse them and lift them in their normal way without concern. 
A mikveh where it is known that its water volume grows smaller and ultimately will have less than 40 se'ah- (and one has already immersed in it) they must return and immerse, any time that we do not know for sure that at the time of their immersion there was 40 se'ah. But if it is not known that the water volume grows smaller to that degree that it will ultimately have less than 40 se'ah, even if its waters sometimes rise and sometimes fall, they do not need to return and immerse. But in any case, the proper thing is to check before immersion if there are 40 se'ah in it. ...
A mikveh where the waters are shallow and one cannot cover themselves in it- one may place on one edge stones or bundles of wood so that its waters are gathered to one place, and they will rise up to a level where one can cover themselves in it, as long as it does not totally divide the mikveh. But if one did this with utensils, it is invalid. [Comment of Rema: And even if one could cover themselves with water- if the water is not one fingerspan higher than the immersee's navel, ideally one should not immerse in it, in case they do not immerse nicely. However, if there is no other mikveh, and it is not possible to fix it, even if one needs to lie down flat on their face because the waters are not deep enough- if they can cover their whole body in this way at once, they may immerse there.]
Water that is doubtfully drawn is pure. What does this mean? A mikveh where doubts arise about whether drawn waters fell in or did not fall in, or even if it is definitely known that they fell in, there is doubt about whether they consisted of 3 lugin or not, or even if it definitely known that they consisted of 3 lugin, there is doubt if the mikveh they fell into had 40 se'ah already or not- this is valid. 
Two mikvaot, where one has 40 se'ah and one does not, and 3 lugin of drawn water has fallen into one of them, but it is not known into which one they fell- its doubt renders it pure, because there is "something to hang it on." If both were smaller than 40 se'ah, and it fell into one of them but it is not known into which, then each of them is invalid, because there is "nothing to hang it on." 
A mikveh that was empty when one left it, but one has arrived and found it full- this is valid, because this case is doubtfully drawn water in a mikveh. (And see above, at the beginning of this section what I wrote about this.)
A pipe that spills into the mikveh and has a hollow in its side, so that doubt arises about whether (the water comes) from the pipe to the mikveh or from the hollow to the mikveh - this is invalid, because the invalidation is obvious. But if the mikveh already contains a majority of valid waters, this is valid, because this case is doubtfully drawn water, since there is already a valid mikveh established there. 
One who is impure who descends to immerse, and doubt arises about whether they immersed or did not immerse, and even if they immersed, there is doubt about whether there were 40 se'ah or not, or (if there were) two mikvaot, where one has 40 se'ah and one does not, and one has already immersed in one of them and it is not known in which one- they are impure, because the impure one remains in their established status until it is known that they have immersed appropriately. And similarly, a mikveh that was measured and found to be too small, whether that mikveh is in the public domain or the private domain, all the purifications that were done through it are retroactively impure, until the last known time that it was measured and found to be complete. (And see above 65) 
Two mikvaot, which do not contain 40 se'ah, had three lugin (of drawn waters) fall into one of them, and we know which one they fell in, and then a second volume fell in, and we do not know which they fell into- I can "hang it" and say that the location where the first (waters) fell, the second also fell. But if it is not know which one the first fell into, but it is know where the second fell, one cannot "hang it" and say that the place where the second fell, the first also fell. If one mikveh contained 40 se'ah and one did not, I can say that they fell into the one that did contain 40. If one was drawn and one was not drawn, I can say that it fell into the drawn one. 
Two mikvaot which do not contain 40 seah, and three lugin (of drawn waters) have fallen into one of them, and it is not known into which one they fell and then afterwards rain came and they were filled, one must not ideally immerse in any of them. 
All mikvaot that are found are invalid, as their assumed status is that of "drawn." 
Some prohibit pouring a kettle of hot water into the mikveh to heat it, and likewise, to fill the mikveh with hot water and to connect it to a river by a waterskin's width. [Comment of Rema: But some are lenient, and permit pouring hot water into the mikveh in order to heat it. But in any case, on should be stringent unless one is is in a community that customarily is lenient, in which case one should not discourage them. But in hot springs, like those of Tiberias, it is permissible according to all opinions. And after the immersing in valid waters, one may enter the bathhouse in order to warm themselves, but some prohibit returning to wash afterwards, and this is how the custom is practiced.]

Siman 202



Siman 203

[Which things are praiseworthy, and which of them are degraded. And following: 7 subsections] Do not become accustomed to making vows. Anyone who vows, even if they keep them, is called evil and is called a sinner.
A person who delays their vow, their notebook is opened.
One who vows is considered as if they built a forbidden altar, and one who fulfils the vow is as if they sacrificed a forbidden sacrifice, for it is better to annul the vow. This is the case in normal vows, but in the case of <i>hekdesh</i> vows it is obligatory to fulfil them, and one should only have them annulled in extenuating circumstances. RAMA: This is the case, too, when one makes an oath, that they should only seek annulment in extenuating circumstances.
One should be careful not to vow in any matter. Even <i>tzedaka</i> should not be vowed; rather, if one has what to give, they should immediately give it, and if not, they should not vow until they have it. And if one is part of the <i>tzedaka</i>-distribution process, it should be done while stating "This is not a vow!"
In a time of distress it is permitted to vow.
A person who says "I will learn this <i>perek</i>, and is afraid lest they become negligent in this matter, it is appropriate for them to vow in order to quicken themselves. And so, if one is afraid that their [evil] inclination will attack them and they will transgress any commandment of the negative commandments, or become negligent in the fulfilment of a positive commandment, it is a commandment for that person to vow in order to quicken themself.
One who vows in order to straighten their mind and repair their actions, such a person is eager and praiseworthy. How so? A glutton who forswore meat for a year or two; or a drunkard who forswore wine for a significant amount of time, or forswore drunkenness forever; or one who chased bribes and then felt regret, and forswore gifts or benefits from people of that land; or a person proud of their good looks who swore to be a Nazirite. All such vows are ways of serving God, and it is of such vows that the sages said "Vows are a guard for abstinence" (Avot 3:13). Nonetheless, even though these are service of God, one shouldn't become accustomed to them, rather, one should abstain from what is worthy to be abstained from, without making a vow.      

Siman 204

The essence of the vow referred to in the Torah is to attach it to another consecrated item. For example, one says: "This bread is to me like a sacrifice" or "This bread is to me a prohibition". So too if one prohibits one loaf of bread by attaching it to a consecrated item, and then says of another loaf: "That too!" - it is now forbidden. This can apply even to a hundred loaves. If one vows to fast on a certain day, or not to eat meat, and says of another day: "Like that one!" - it is forbidden [to eat]. RAMA: There are varying terminologies for vows, and the Rabbi did not mention them all.

Siman 205



Siman 206



Siman 207

Synonyms for vows are like vows. How so? If one said "Konam", "Konach" or "Konas" is this loaf of bread to me, it is forbidden [as if one said "Korban", sacrifice]. In every place, one follows local terminology, and if there is a local phrase for a vow, it is truly a vow. RAMA: So too, if one does not understand the language of the Rabbis and uses them for a vow, it is invalid. But synonyms of synonyms, or a word that sounds very distant from the language of a vow, is not a vow. RAMA: And a vow can be made in any language where forbidding something to oneself is called 'vow'.

Siman 208



Siman 209



Siman 210

A vow is invalid unless one's heart and lips (intention and speech) are aligned. Therefore if one intended to say 'wheat bread' and actually said 'barley bread', both kinds are permitted. If one, however, intended to say 'wheat bread' (RAMA: or barley bread) and just said "bread", they are only forbidden to eat wheat bread. (RAMA: or only barley bread.) And if one vows according to the intention of others, the definitions follow those of the other, and the vow applies to these.
One who vows in their dream, it is meaningless and they don't need it to be annulled. However, there are those who say that it has to be annulled by ten literate judges (RAMA: And they find a point of regret, as if they had vowed awake.) And this [second] opinion should be heeded. RAMA: However, if it is difficult to find ten literate judges, one can then do it with three, as usual.

Siman 211

One who states: "The vows I wish to vow shall not be vows", and then vows - this is no vow. This is only the case when one expresses the condition verbally, but if one merely thought of this, it is a matter of the heart, and cannot cancel the vow that was spoken. There are those who say that even if one whispers such a condition, it is like a mater of the heart. RAMA: As for us, when we say <i>Kol Nidrei</i> on the eve of Yom Kippur, it is as if we are making this condition. Nonetheless, we do not rely on this to permit things without asking the rabbis, except for urgent cases.
One who makes the condition: "All vows that I vow until the following  time shall be void," and then vows within this time - if they remember the condition at the time of making the vow, then the vow is valid, since the condition is annulled by the vow. If they did not remember the condition at the time of the vow, the condition remains valid and the vow is annulled. There are those who say that the condition cannot annul the vow unless one mentions quickly (<i>toch k'dei dibbur</i>) after the vow that it is being done according to the condition - and one should heed to this opinion.

All this applies only to vows and oaths one makes alone. However, for a vow or an oath concerning someone else - these conditions make no difference.

Siman 212



Siman 213

Vows do not apply to intangible substances. For example, if one says: "<i>Konam</i> that I speak to you!" or "serve you" or "go for you" or "sleep with you" - this is no vow. So too, if one phrases it this way: my speech, my servitude, or my going is forbidden to you, or sleep is forbidden to me - this is no vow. However, on a rabbinic level one should have these annulled. Therefore, if Reuben forbids himself from hearing Shimon's prayer, on a rabbinic level this should be annulled. Yet if he says "<i>Konam</i> is my mouth from speaking to you", "<i>Konam</i> is my hand from serving you", "<i>Konam</i> are my feet from walking for you", "<i>Konam</i> are my eyes for sleep" - these are all absolute Torah-level vows. All the more so if one says: "Forbidden to you is my mouth for my speech", "my hands for my work", "my feet for my walking". RAMA: There are those who say that the phrases: [<i>Konam</i> is] "The speech of my mouth to you" or "The lifting of the stone is to me" are a vow, since one has mentioned the [tangible objects] mouth and stone.

Siman 214



Siman 215



Siman 216



Siman 217



Siman 218



Siman 219



Siman 220



Siman 221



Siman 222



Siman 223



Siman 224



Siman 225



Siman 226



Siman 227



Siman 228

One who took a neder [sic: vow] and regrets it, can rectify the acceptance of the neder by having remorse. Even if one took a neder with the name of G-D. What should that person do? They should go to a wise [Torah Scholar] who is an expert, who [is well versed in] learns logical inferences and deductive (talmudic) reasoning. If there is no expert, one should go to three average people. These should be people who study with logical inferences and deductive reasoning, and who also know how to find loopholes; and they will release the vow. Nowadays there is no one considered to be an expert who is able to release a vow solely by themselves.
A person cannot nullify [another person's nederim] in an ideal way in-front of his rabbi or in a place in which there's a great person unless they give you permission. Rama: And you can nullify two or three nederim at once and you can nullify two or three people's nederaim at once.  
How can you nullify a never? You say three times "mutar lach" or "mochal lach" (you can say this in any language). Even if the people are standing, are relatives, it's night time, and it's Shabbos, even if the vow was taken yesterday (before Shabbos), as long as it is necessary for Shabbos, for example a vow not to eat,  to avoid participating in oneg shabbos. And (if one vows) to distance oneself from the congregation, we say you can nullify the vow even it isn't necessary for Shabbos. 










Prior to annulment, [one] must state the vow explicitly and the reason the vow was taken. If the vow was not stated, the nullification is not [considered] a nullification. However, if one states the vow to one [of the people] that are nullifying the vow, then it suffices.  

Siman 229



Siman 230



Siman 231



Siman 232



Siman 233



Siman 234























































(55) These are the vows that a husband cancels: vows that bring bodily affliction [lit. afflictions of a soul] and (vows) that involve things that come between him and her. Vows that bring bodily affliction that are permitted to her, she has a permission for all times. And (vows) that involve things between him and her he only permits for himself, and while he has benefit from it, (that is) during the time she is under him. And after she divorces, during all the time she still could come back to him, but if she remarries all these are cancelled. And anything that has no affliction and does not come between him and her he cannot cancel.
(56) The husband becomes a proxy to those who ask about the vows of the wife provided that he found three joiners [to dissolve the vow] but he cannot join them.
(57) The husband does not join another two men to release his wife's vow with the formula of release, but the father does release the vows of his daughter with the formula of release if he is a wise man.
(58) There are those who say that the father cannot cancel the vows in which there is no bodily affliction; there are those who permit (him to do so); and there are those who make a distinction if she is betrothed: before she is betrothed, he can cancel all her vows, but once she is betrothed, (even when) the intended has died and she returns to her father's home, he is unable to cancel her vows, unless they involve bodily affliction.
(59) What are the things that involve bodily affliction? Washing oneself, and donning adornments, painting the eyes and the cheeks. For example, if she vowed not to have a bath or to adorn herself, or said that I forbid myself the pleasure of bathing and adorning even for that day, since it is possible that she won't do those things and not be betrothed, those are things involving bodily afflictions, even though the vow is valid only for one day. And there are those who say that bathing and adorning are (also) things that come between him and her. Gloss: and all that only applies for beautification of the face, but adornment of below (ie, feet) everyone agrees that these are not things that come between him and her.

Siman 235



Siman 236



Siman 237



Siman 238



Siman 239



Siman 240

<b>What is honor and what is fear, and their laws. And there are 25 paragraphs in it.</b> One must be very careful concerning his father and mother's honor and fear. <i>Gloss: But nevertheless, the court does not enforce the honor of father and mother; since it is a positive commandment the reward of which is alongside it, such that the court does not enforce it (Beit Yosef in the name of the Gemara; Toledot Adam VeChava, Netiv A).</i>  
What is fear? He should not stand in the place designated for him to stand in the consultation of the elders with his colleagues, or the place designated for him to pray, nor should he sit in the place designated for him to recline in his home, nor contradict his words nor determine his words in his presence - even to say, "Father's words appear [correct]." And he should not call him by his name, neither in life nor in death, but rather say, "Father, my teacher." If his father's name was like the name of others, he changes their names if it is an unusual name that not all of the people call [their offspring] with. <i>But it is permissible to call others with a name that is [common], not in front of him (Tur).</i>  
To what extent is their fear? Had the son been dressed with fine clothing and sitting at the head of the  community, and his father and mother came and ripped his clothes, hit him on his head and spit in front of him - he should not shame them, but rather remain silent, and fear the King of kings of kings, who so commanded him.
What is honor? He feeds him and gives him drink; dresses and covers him; and brings him in and takes him out - and he does so with a pleasant countenance. For even if he feeds him fattened fowl every day, yet does so with an angry face, he will be punished for it.<i>Gloss: And likewise the opposite: If one makes him grind with a millstone, but his intention is for the good - in order to save his father from something harder than this - and he speaks [with] appeasement to the heart of his father and shows him that his intention is for the good until his father agrees to grind with the millstone, he acquires the world to come (Gemara and Rashi, Chapter 1 of Kiddushin and Yerushalmi). And he serves him in other ways in which a servant serves his master.</i>  
And that which he gives him food and he gives him drink - that is from [the resources of] the father and mother, if he has. However if the father does not have and the son does have, we force him and he sustains the father according to what he can [afford]. But if the son does not have, he is not obligated to [knock on] doors to feed his father. <i>Gloss: And some say that he is only obligated to give to him that which he is obligated to give to charity. (So wrote the Beit Yosef - that it appears to be so from the words of the Rif and the Rosh. And so too did the Ran write in the first chapter of Kiddushin.) But nevertheless if he has the wherewithal, a curse will come to one who supports his father with his charity monies (Hagahot Mordechai on Bava Batra; Hagahot on Bava Metzia; and Chiddushei Aggadah). And if he has several sons, they calculate [their obligation] according to their money. And if some of them are rich and some of them are poor, only the rich ones are obligated (Teshuvat Maimoni, Laws of Rebels, in the name of Mohoram [Maharam of Rothenberg] - and brought by the Beit Yosef).</i> But he is obligated to honor him with his body, even though he [becomes] idle from his work through this, and [then] becomes required to [knock on] doors. And [that is] specifically when the son has sustenance that will sustain [himself] that day. But if he does not have [it], he is not obligated to be idle from his work and to [knock] on doors.
If he needs anything in the city and he knows that they would fulfill his request for the sake of his father - even though he knows that they would also fulfill the thing for his sake, nevertheless, he should not say, "Do this one thing for my sake," but rather, "for the sake of Father," in order to attach the honor to his father. 
One is obligated to stand before his father. But if the father is a student of his son, each one must stand before the other. <i>(Tur in the name of the Rosh) Gloss: But if the son wants to forgo his honor [so as] to serve his father, he is permitted. For behold, a teacher who forgoes his honor; his honor is forgiven. But that is specifically in private; or even in public when he is known in his city, such that everyone knows that he is his father. But if the son is a great Torah scholar and his father is not known in his city, we should be concerned about the disgrace of the Torah - if the son is disgraced before the father. So they should distance themselves from one another, such that neither one should reduce his honor before his fellow. ([This is] all the understanding of the rabbi, according to the opinion of the Beit Yosef.) And so did Moharam do with this father.</i>
Up to where (how extensive) is the honor of father and mother? Even if [the parents] took his purse full of gold coins and threw it to the sea in front of him, he should not embarrass them, nor be distressed before them nor get angry towards them; but he should rather accept the written decree and be silent. <i>Gloss: And some say that if he wants to throw the son's purse to the sea, he may prevent him. For behold, he is only obligated to honor him from [the resources] of the father, but not from [those] of the son (Tur in the name of the Ri). And there is no distinction between honoring him and causing him distress (Terumat HaDeshen, Section 40). And [that is] only before that they threw it; as it is possible that he will be prevented and not do [it]. But if they already threw it, it is forbidden to embarrass him; but he may make a claim against him in court (Tur in the name of the Rosh). And [this is] only when he wants to throw his purse to the sea, since there is financial loss. But if he just wants to take profits away from him, it is forbidden in any manner (Ran, Kiddushin, Chapter 1). [In the case of] a son that has a case with his father and the father is the claimant, the son must go [to] the father - even though the son is the defendant and he lives in another city. For this is the honor of his father. However the father is obligated to pay the expenses to the son, since the son is not obligated to honor him from the his [own] resources (In the Maharik, Root 58), as will be explained.</i>
One is obligated to honor him even after his death. How is that? If he says a matter he heard from his mouth - if it is within twelve months [of his death] - he should say, "So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting." But if it is after twelve months when he mentions him, he says, "May his memory be for a blessing." <i>Gloss: And there is no difference between the father and mother in all of this (Maharil, Section 27). Some say that if he writes something within twelve months and mentions his father, he does not need to write, "May I be an atonement for his resting," but rather, "May his memory be for a blessing" - as behold, his writing will endure after twelve months (Hagahot on Rif, Kiddushin, Chapter 1). But there are some that are stringent even with writing ([as] in the Nimukei Yosef and other writers; and so is it implied in Beit Yosef, Section 242 at the end in the name of Rashbatz and [in] in the Responsa of [Yaakov] Ibn Chaviv, 264), and such is our practice.</i>
If one's father or mother has become mentally insane, he should make an effort to behave toward them according to their state of mind, until they will be shown mercy. But if it is impossible for him to stand [it] because they have become utterly insane, he may leave them and go away, charging others to take proper care of them.
If one saw that his father was transgressing a Torah matter, he should not say to him, "You transgressed a Torah matter." Rather, he should say to him - "Father, such and such is written in the Torah" - as if he is asking him, and not warning him. And he will understand on his own and will not be embarrassed. And if [the father] said a mistaken teaching, he should not say to him, "Do not teach it thus."
If his father said to him, "Give me water to drink," and there was another passing commandment before him to do, such as burying the dead or a funeral: If it is possible for the commandment to be done by others, he should occupy himself with the honor of his father. <i>But if he began the commandment first, he should finish it; as one who is occupied with a commandment is exempt from [another] commandment (Beit Yosef in the name of the Ran).</i> But if there are not others there to do [it], he should occupy himself with the commandment and leave the honor of his father. <i>(However if the time of the commandment is not passing, he should occupy himself with the honor of his father and do the commandment afterwards [Rabbenu Yerucham, Netiv A, in the name of the Rosh]).</i>
Torah study is greater than honoring father and mother.
If his father said to him, "Give me water to drink," and his mother said to him, "Give me water to drink" - he leaves his mother and occupies himself with the honor of his father. But if she is divorced from his father, they are both the same, so he can make first whoever he wants.
If his father said to him to transgress a Torah matter - whether a negative commandment or a positive commandment, and even a [rabbinic] commandment - he should not listen to him. 
If a father commands his son not to speak with x and not to forgive him until a set time; whereas the son wants to appease him immediately were it not for his father's command - he should not be concerned about his father's command. 
Both a man and a woman are the same regarding the honor and fear of father and mother. However a woman does not have [the wherewithal] in her hands to do [it], since she is bound to her husband. Therefore she is exempt from the honor of father and mother while she is still married. But if she is divorced or widowed, she is obligated. 
A <i>mamzer</i> (someone born of a forbidden union) is obligated in honoring his father and in his fear. Even if his father is wicked and sinful, he must honor him and fear him. <i>Gloss: And some say he is not obligated to honor his evil father unless he repented (Tur; Mordechai, Chapter Keitzad; and Hagahot Maimoni, Laws of Rebels, Chapter 6).</i>
It is forbidden [for the parent] to make his yoke heavy upon his children and to be exacting with them about his honor, so as not to bring them to an obstacle. Rather he should forgive and avert his eyes from them; since a father who foregoes his honor, his honor is forgiven.
They would excommunicate someone who strikes his adult son; as behold, he is transgressing, "you shall not put an obstacle in front of the blind" (Leviticus 19:14). <i>But regarding this, he is only called adult after he is twenty-two or twenty-four years old (In the Kuntrass, Kiddushin, Chapter 4; and Beit Yosef 334 at the end).</i>
A person is obligated to honor the wife of his father - even though she is not his mother - so long as his father is alive; and he is obligated to honor his mother's husband, so long as his mother is alive. But after [the blood relative's death], he is not obligated in their honor. Nevertheless, it is a proper thing to honor them, even after the death.
A person is obligated to honor his older brother, whether he is his brother from his father or whether he is his brother from his mother.<i> (And even if the younger one is a Torah scholar and greater in Torah than the older one.) (And so was it understood by him from the Responsa of the Rosh in the paragraph after [the one discussing the law above].) (B. Z.)</i>
An older brother who cursed and disgraced his brother who is a Torah scholar but younger than him; and the younger one excommunicated the older one, he did well to excommunicate him. For since he does not show favor to the Torah, 'he does not do the deeds of your people,' such that he is not obligated to honor him.
A person is obligated to honor his father-in-law. <i>Gloss: And some say that a person is not obligated to honor his grandfather, but this does not appear correct to me. Rather he is obligated in the honor of his father more than that of his grandfather (Maharik, Root 44). (And the proof is from the midrash regarding [Gen 46:1], "and he offered sacrifices [to the God of his father, Yitzchak]"). </i>
If a father wants to serve his son, it is permissible to accept [it] from him, unless the father is a Torah personality (<i>ben Torah</i>). A student who wants to go to another place since he is sure that he will see a sign of blessing in his learning in front of the teacher who is there - but his father protests to him, since he is worried that the idolaters in that city libel [the Jews] - does not need to listen to his father about this.<i>Gloss: And likewise, if a father protests [his] son marrying a certain woman whom the son wants, he does not need to listen to the father (Maharik, Root 167).</i>

Siman 241



Siman 242



Siman 243



Siman 244


















18. If an outstanding young Chacham is with a very old moderate Chacham, regarding sitting in judgment or Torah, we seat the younger, greater Chacham at the head and he speaks first. At a drinking feast or wedding feast, we follow seniority and seat the oldest at the head. If the younger is an outstanding Chacham, and the elder is not so old, the Chacham always comes first. If the elder is exceedingly old, and the Chacham is not so outstanding, the elder always comes first, since he is somewhat Chacham. If neither is so Chacham or so old, the elder is first in every case.

Siman 245





From when should a person begin to teach a son? From when that the son begins to speak, [the father] should teach him: "Moses commanded us a law" etc. (Deuteronomy 33:4) and the first verse of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). After that, he should teach him little by little until the child is six or seven, and then he should take the child to a teacher of children.
If it was the practice in the town for a teacher to accept payment to teach children, then he is obligated to teach him [the child] for pay until he can read the entire Written Torah.  He is not obligated to teach him, for pay, Mishna or Gemara.  And this only applies if he is unable to, that the time is pressing [i.e. he lacks the funds].  However, if possible, it is an obligation to teach him Mishna, Gemara, Halachot, and Agadot.

Siman 246

Every Jewish man is obligated in studying Torah, whether poor or rich, whether completely healthy or suffering, whether young or very old. Even a poor man who frequents doorways (to beg) and even one with a wife and children is obligated to set a time for himself to study Torah, by day or by night, as it says, "And you shall meditate in it day and night." (And in a pressing time, even if he only read Shem"a in the morning or evening, it is called "It shall not be moved..." (HG"M 1 &amp; SM"G Asin 12). And one that it is impossible for him to learn because he does not know how to at all or because of troubles that he has, should support others who study. Haga"h: And it will be considered for him as if he learned himself (Tur) And a person is able to make a condition with his friend, that he will study Torah and he will support him, and he will split the reward with him. But if he already toiled in Torah, he is unable to sell him his portion for the money he will give to him. (TA"V? path 2  from Bavli Sotah)
A person should learn Torah first and then marry a woman, because if he married a woman first, it would be impossible for him to study Torah after with a millstone hanging around his neck. But if it is impossible for him to live without a wife because his inclination overpowers him, he should marry a woman first. 

One is obligated to divide his learning schedule into thirds: one third in Written Torah; that is, the twenty-four [books of the Tanach]; one third in Mishna, that is, the Torah She'b'al Peh, and the explanations of the Written Torah are included herein; [and] one third to Talmud, that is understanding and conceptualizing the end of a matter from its beginnings... When does this apply? At the outset of ones learning; however, when one grows in Torah and no longer needs to learn the Written Torah nor needs to constantly review the Torah She'b'al Peh, he may read as fixed times the Written Torah and the words of Torah She'b'al Peh, so that he doesn't forget one thing from the laws of the Torah, and avail the rest of his days to Talmud alone, to the extent of his abilities and ability to focus. [Rema gloss]: There are those who say that through Talmud Bavli, which combines Written Torah, Mishna, and Talmud, one fulfills his obligations for all [of the above].... 

A woman who studied Torah receives a reward, but not like that of a man, because she is not obligated yet performs the commandment. And even though she earns a reward, our rabbis have commanded that one should not teach his daughter Torah, because the majority of women are not intellectual prepared to be taught, and remove words of Torah to words of emptiness due to their intellectual limitations. The rabbis said: One who teaches his daughter Torah is as if he taught her frivolity. When is this stated? In regard to the oral Torah. However, in regard to the written Torah one should preferably not teach her, but if he did so it is not comparable to frivolity. Rema: Nonetheless, a woman is obligated to study laws that are relevant to her. And a woman is not obligated to teach her son Torah. Nonetheless, if she assists her son or husband to study Torah, she receives reward along with them. 














REMA:  A person should not think to engage in Torah and to acquire wealth or honor with the learning, for one who ventures to think such a thought will not achieve the crown of Torah.  Rather, one should make his Torah fixed and his work contingent, and should reduce business and engage in Torah.  He should put aside temporary pleasures from his mind and do work all day for his livelihood if he does not have enough to eat, and the rest of the day and the night he should engage in Torah.  And it is a great quality to generate one's sustenance from the work of his hands, as it says, "The product of your hands you shall surely eat" (Ps. 128).  Anyone who puts in his mind occupying himself with Torah and not working, but supporting himself from tz'dakah, behold, this one desecrates the Divine name and dishonors the Torah.  For it is forbidden to derive benefit from words of Torah, and any Torah that does not have work along with it, it attracts sin and he winds up robbing people.  And all of this applies to one who is healthy and can engage in his work or in a profession a little and provide for his livelihood.  However, an elder or a sick person is permitted to derive benefit from his Torah such that they will provide for him.  And some say that it is permitted even for a healthy person.  And therefore the practice in all Jewish communities has been that the Rav of the city has an income and provisions from the other people of the city, so that he will not have to engage in work in front of other people, so that the Torah becomes degraded in front of the multitude.  And [this applies] specifically to the sage who needs it, but for a wealthy person it is prohibited.  And some are more lenient, saying that it is permitted for a sage and his students to accept subsidies from those who donate in order to strengthen the hands of those who study Torah, since in this manner they can engage in Torah in affluence.  Nevertheless, one who is able to provide for himself well from the work of his own hands and to engage in Torah, it is a pious quality and a gift of God, but this is not the nature of all persons, for it is impossible for everyone to engage in Torah and to become wise in it and to provide for himself by himself....

One who wants to merit the crown of Torah should be careful not to lose even one of his nights by sleeping, eating, drinking, talking and that which is similar to these things, but he should rather [use them] for matters of wisdom and Torah study. <i>Rema: For a person only acquires most of his wisdom at night ([these are the words] of the Tur from the Rambam). And a person should begin his study on the night of the Fifteenth of Av and continue onwards, and one who 'does not add, will pass away (Nimukei Yosef in the chapter [entitled) Yesh Nochalin, the Gemara and the Rambam there [not found in the Rambam], Bava Batra 121b and at the end of Taanit, see there).</i>

Siman 247

It is a positive Biblical command to give Charity according to one's means. There are numerous positive commands as to Charity; and also a negative command not to close one's eyes to charity, for it is written, "Thou shalt not harden thy heart nor shut thy hand [from thy poor brother]."<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Deut. 15:7.</i> And he who closes his eyes to it is called "wicked"<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">The word is Beliya’al, which occurs in Deut. 15:9.</i> and is regarded as if he worships idols. One should take great heed in giving alms that he be not the cause of bloodshed, for the poor man in need may die before help reaches him if it is not offered quickly, as in the story of Nahum of Gimzo.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Ta’anith 21. (A treatise of the Talmud.)</i>
No man is ever impoverished from giving alms, nor is evil or harm ever caused by it; as it is written, "And the work of righteousness shall be peace."<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Isaiah 32:17. A play on the word Tsedakah meaning “righteousness” and also “charity.”</i>
Whosoever has compassion on the poor, the Holy One, blessed be He, has compassion on him. <small>RMI.</small><sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Rabbi Moses Isserles, died in Cracow 1572, annotator of the Shulhan Arukh.</i><small>—Let man realize that he himself is forever seeking sustenance at the hand of God, and just as God answers his prayer, so should he answer the prayer of the poor. Let him also realize that the world is a revolving sphere, and that eventually he or his son or his grandson may be reduced to such circumstances.</small>
Charity prevents threatened punishment from Heaven, and in famine it delivereth from death, as in the story of the widow of Zarephath.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">I Kings 17.</i> 

Siman 248

Everyone is obliged to contribute to charity. Even a poor man who is himself [partly] maintained by Charity should give a portion of what he receives. If one would give less than his due, the Court used to bring pressure to bear and punish him for contempt of court until he would give the amount assessed; and if he persisted in his refusal, they would seize his goods to that amount [in his presence].
A pledge may be taken as security for the Charity tax even on Friday afternoon.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">When the delinquent can plead for delay on the ground that he is occupied with preparations for the Sabbath.</i>
Orphans are not assessed even for ransoming captives (not even wealthy orphans) unless the assessment is made for their glory, to maintain their reputation.
Gabbaïm,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">The term Gabbai (pl. Gabbaïm) means “collector,” but since the collector was usually also the “charities manager,” the same word is used for both.</i> in collecting charity, should accept only small values from women, slaves, or children, because in case of valuables we fear they were obtained by theft or robbery. As to what is to be considered of small value, that depends upon the wealth or poverty of the master. This applies to cases in general; but where the master objects, Gabbaïm are forbidden to receive anything from them.
If the wife engages a teacher for her son and the husband is aware of it and is silent, we assume he is pleased with it; but if he objects immediately upon hearing of it, her transaction is nullified (even though she manage affairs in the house).
A son who eats at his father's table, or a servant who eats at his master's table, may give a piece of bread to a pauper or to a friend's child without fear of being accused of robbery; for such is the way of householders.
A well-to-do man who gives more than his share to Charity, or who straitens himself to pay the collector in order not to be embarrassed,—from such a man it is forbidden to demand or claim his dues; and the Gabbai who humiliates him by asking for it, will be called to account in the future by the Holy One, blessed be He.
He who wishes to be deserving of divine reward, shall conquer his evil inclinations and open wide his hand, and everything [done or given] in the name of Heaven shall be of the best and the finest. If he build a house of worship, let it be more beautiful than his dwelling; if he feed a hungry one, let him give him to eat of the best and the sweetest on his table; if he clothe one naked, let him clothe him with one of his finest garments; if he consecrate anything, let him consecrate from the best of his property; and so, too, the Bible says: "All the fat is Jehovah's."<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Levit. 3:16.</i>


Siman 249

The amount of charity one should give is as follows: if one can but afford, let him give as much as is needed. Under ordinary circumstances, a fifth of one's property is most laudable. To give one-tenth is the average disposition. But to give less than one-tenth is niggardly. When the Rabbis said a "fifth" they meant a fifth of the property the first year only and a fifth of the profits in succeeding years.<br><small>RMI.—But a man should not squander more than one-fifth to charity, so that he might not himself become a public charge.This refers only to his lifetime. Of course, at the time of death one may leave for charity as much as he pleases.</small>
One should never give less than one-third of a Shekel a year and if he gives less than this, he does not fulfil the command to be charitable.
Charity should be given with a friendly countenance, with joy, and with a good heart; the giver should, sympathize with the poor man, and should speak words of comfort to him. If he gives with a displeased countenance he loses his reward.
If the poor man stretches out his hand and he has nothing to give him, he should not scold and raise his voice to him, but should speak gently to him and show him his goodness of heart; namely, that he wishes to give him something but cannot. <small>RMI.—It is forbidden to turn away a poor man entirely empty-handed. Let him give something, if only a fig, for it is written, "Oh, let not the oppressed return ashamed."<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Psalms 74:21.</i></small>
If he can induce others to give, his reward is greater than the reward of the one who gives.
The following are eight grades of charity work, arranged in a descending scale. The noblest form is to strengthen the hand of an Israelite in need, to give him a gift or a loan, or to join him in partnership, or to find him work, that he may not become a public charge and beggar; and it is with reference to such a mode of charity that the Bible says, "… thou shalt uphold him."<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Leviticus 25:35.</i>
The next highest form of doing charity is to give in such a way that the giver should not know to whom he gives; nor should the receiver know from whom he receives. Contributing to a charity fund is a close analogy; but one should not contribute to a fund unless he knows that the official in charge of it is trustworthy and knows how to manage it properly.
A somewhat lower form than that is when the giver knows to whom he gives but the receiver knows not from whom he receives; as the greatest of our sages used to do when they would secretly throw money into the doorways of the poor. This method is especially recommended where those appointed over the charities do not manage them properly.
It is a still lower form when the poor man knows from whom he takes, but the giver knows not to whom he gives; as when the sages would tie money in a corner of a sheet and throw it over the shoulder, so that the poor might come and take it without humiliation.
A still lower form—to give before being asked.
Next,—to give a sufficient sum after the asking.
To give, even what is insufficient, but with a pleasing countenance.
The lowest form of charity is to give grudgingly. <br><small>RMI.—On the other hand a man should not pride himself on the charity he gives; for if he does, he not only receives no reward but there is punishment in store for him. However one may have his name inscribed on anything he donates, as a. remembrance,—in fact, it is the proper thing to do.</small>
It is well to give a coin to some poor man before every prayer, as it is written, "As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness" [or, <i>"</i>… with charity"].<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Psalms 17:15.</i>
The Gabbaïm may use charity funds in their possession as dowries for poor virgins, for there is no greater charity than this.
There is an authority that holds that Synagogue is more important than charity, but that maintaining poor boys in the study of the Law or supporting sick poor people is more important than the maintenance of a Synagogue. 

Siman 250

How much is to be given to a poor man? Sufficient for his need in that which he wanteth.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Deut. 15:8.</i> Thus, if he is hungry, he should be fed; if he needs clothing, he should be clothed; if he lacks household utensils, they should be purchased for him; and even if he had been accustomed before he was impoverished to ride on horseback with a slave running before him, he should be furnished with a horse and a slave. And so each and every one should be supplied with what he needs.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Deut. 15: 8 “… sufficient for his need in that which he wanteth,” with emphasis on <i>his</i> and <i>he</i>. But see Ketub. 67b (a treatise of the Talmud), story of Rabbi Nehemiah.</i> If it is fit to give him [merely] a slice of bread, give him a slice; if it is proper to give him dough, give him dough; if he ought to be provided with lodging, too, provide a bed for him. If it is fit to give him a warm meal, give him warm food; if cold lunch, then cold lunch. If he has to be fed [like an infant] then he must be fed. If he is unmarried and he comes to take a wife, the community should find him a mate; but first they should rent him a home, prepare him a bed and furnish him with necessary household utensils, and then marry him off. <br><small>RMI.—It appears that all this applies to Gabbaïm over public funds or to many doing charitable work together, but every individual is not bound to satisfy all the needs of a poor man who may chance to come his way. What he ought to do is to arouse public interest in a worthy case; but if he lives far from men, he should give what he can afford.</small>
A poor woman who has an opportunity of marrying, shall receive not less than fifty Zuz; and if there is enough in the treasury, she should be maintained as honorably as is befitting her.
A pauper who begs from house to house should be given only a small sum from the Kuphah.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">See Article 256, Sec. 1.</i>
A poor man, who goes from place to place, shall receive not less than a loaf of bread costing a dupondium, when four S'ah of wheat are worth one Sela. If he remains over night, he should be given a couch to sleep upon and a bolster under his head, and oil and small fruit; and if it is Sabbath, he should be provided with food for three meals, and oil, small fruit, fish and herbs; and if he is known [to be worthy], he should be given as much as is befitting his honor.
If the poor in a city are numerous, and the rich say they should go and beg, and the middle classes say they should not beg but be supported by the members of the community in proportion to their wealth, the law is as the latter say.

Siman 251

If one wilfully and repeatedly transgresses even one of the Biblical commands and does not repent, we are not obliged to support him or to lend him money; (but we should support the heathen poor<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Although they transgress many Biblical laws.</i> with the Jewish poor for the sake of peace).<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Gittin 61a. (A treatise of the Talmud.)</i>
One who transgresses even one command in a sheer spirit of defiance; as, for example, when he eats the flesh of an animal not slaughtered according to the ritual rules in a place where kosher meat is available,—such a person it is forbidden to ransom if made captive. (But when one is a transgressor on account of an irresistible appetite, they may ransom him if they wish, but they are not obliged to.)
Helping one's grown up sons or daughters in need when he is not obliged to—in order to give his sons an opportunity of studying the Law, or to keep his daughters in the right path—and presenting gifts to one's father in need,—all this comes under the general head of Charity. In fact, such charity is to be preferred to other forms. Not only a father or child, but any relative should be given preference to a stranger; a brother of one's father, to a brother of one's mother; the poor of his own house to the poor of the city at large; the poor of his own city to the poor of other cities; and the poor that dwell in the Holy Land to those that dwell in other lands.
The community can compel a father to support an impoverished son, and even where the son is an adult, the father is taxed more than the other wealthy men. (And so with other relatives).
Once a man has contributed a sum of money to the Gabbaïm, neither he nor his heirs have any power over it, but the community can do with it what is pleasing in the eyes of God and man.<br><small>RMI.—But if he made the donation without specification, before the money reaches the Gabbai, we give it to his poor relatives, because we presume that he meant it for his poor relatives. And this, only if he had poor relatives at the time of the donation. But if they were rich at the time and then became poor, we do not give it to them. All this applies to one making an individual donation; but if he donates in connection with other members of the community, we presume that he leaves it to the judgment of the community to dispose of it in any manner deemed fit.</small>
Let the poor be members of thy household.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Aboth 5, 1. It means: employ them as your servants whenever possible (Maimonides).</i>
Feeding the hungry should precede clothing the naked.
If a man and a woman ask for food, the woman is given the preference; and so, too, if they ask for clothing. So also, if two orphans, a man and a woman, come to be married off, the woman is given the precedence.
If many poor seek help and there is not enough money in the treasury to help them all, a priest is given preference before a Levite; a Levite before an ordinary Israelite; an Israelite before a Halal;<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">The issue of a marriage forbidden to priests. See Levit. 21 : 7, 14.</i> a Halal before a child of unknown fatherhood; such a one before a foundling; a foundling before a bastard; a bastard before a Nathin;<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">A descendant of the Gibeonites. Joshua 9:27; Zebahim 78b. (A treatise of the Talmud.)</i> a Nathin before a proselyte; a proselyte before an emancipated slave. This applies only in case they are equal in learning. But between a bastard a scholar and a high priest an ignoramus, the scholarly bastard is given the preference; and so whosoever is greater in learning is preferred. However, if the father or teacher of the charity distributor is among the poor seeking aid, the teacher, or the father (provided he too is a scholar) is given the preference, even if there is a far greater scholar among them.
If one comes and says, "Give me food," no investigation is made to see that he is not an impostor, but he is given food at once. If he is destitute and asks for clothing, the case is investigated, and if he is found worthy, he is immediately furnished with raiment.
Rabbi [Judah the Prince] grieved that he had given his bread to an illiterate,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Baba Bathra 8a. (A treatise of the Talmud.)</i> because those years were years of dearth and what the illiterate ate might have been given to a scholar. But if it had not been a time of scarcity, he would have been obliged to sustain him. However, if one is on the point of starvation, he must be given food, even though there is a possibility that a scholar will later be in need on account of it.
Two poor men who are required to give to charity, may pay their obligations by giving alms to one another. <br><small>RMI.—This refers to Charity in the ordinary sense. But if the community imposes it as a fine upon them for some misdemeanor that they give a certain sum to Charity, they can not give it to one another; for that would not be paying a fine.</small>
A congregation in need of a Rabbi and a Public Reader, but unable to engage both, should give the preference to the former, provided he is a distinguished rabbi well versed in the Teachings and Laws; otherwise, a Reader should be engaged.<br><small>RMI.—The Rabbi should not be maintained out of the charity fund, as it is a disgrace both for him and for the city; but the community should provide him another source of income. However, gifts of individuals are perfectly honorable.</small>
The community authorities may use even school-funds if necessary, for the payment of the annual per-capita tax of thirty Peshitim<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Small coins.</i> to the commander of the city's troops, because it is a matter of life and death; for if they will not come to terms with him now, many poor people, not having the wherewithal to pay, will be beaten and stripped naked.


Siman 252

Ransoming captives comes before feeding or clothing the poor. There is no act of charity more meritorious than ransoming captives; therefore, money collected for any worthy purpose whatsoever may be used as ransom, even if originally collected for the erection of a Synagogue. And further: even if the building materials have already been bought and the beams squared (which makes it a grave offense to sell them for any other purpose) nevertheless, it is permitted to sell them to raise a ransom. However, if the structure is already erected it should not be sold. (Still, if one donates a Sela to Charity without specification, ransoming is not to be understood in the general term of charity, and the Sela should not be used for this purpose without the knowledge of the members of the community.)
He who shuts his eyes against the ransoming of captives transgresses the negative precepts, "Thou shalt not harden thy heart",<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Deut. 15:7.</i> and, "[Thou shalt not] shut thy hand";<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Deut. 15:7.</i> also this, "Neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor",<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Lev. 19:16.</i> and this, "He shall not rule with rigor over him in thy sight";<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Lev. 25:53.</i> and he neglects the positive precepts, "Thou shalt surely open thy hand unto him",<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Dent. 15:8.</i> and, "that thy brother may live with thee,"<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Lev. 25:36. The Hebrew text permits the rendition “Let thy brother live,” etc.</i> and, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Lev. 19:18.</i> and, "Deliver them that are carried away unto death."<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Prov. 24:11.</i>
Every moment that one delays unnecessarily the ransoming of a captive, it is as if he were to shed blood.
Captives are not to be ransomed at an unreasonable cost, for the safety of society; otherwise, the enemies would exert every effort to capture victims. But a man may ransom himself at any price. So also, a scholar should be ransomed at a greater price, or even a student who gives promise of becoming a great scholar. (As to whether one's wife is considered "another" or "one's self," see Eben Ha-Ezer,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Eben Ha-Ezer is the fourth part of this code of Shulhan Arukh, and deals with laws pertaining to woman.</i> 78.)
Captives should not be aided to escape, for the sake of public safety; lest the enemies treat the captives with greater severity and confine them under closer custody.
He who sells himself to heathens, or who borrowed from them and is held by them for non-payment, should be ransomed the first time and the second time, but not if it happens a third time. But his children should be ransomed after the father's death. However, if his life is in danger, he must be ransomed immediately, no matter how many times it has happened before. (But one who is an apostate with regard to even one precept, as, for instance, if he eats meat not slaughtered according to ritual in a spirit of defiance, it is forbidden to ransom him.) (See Art. 251.)
A slave who is made captive, is ransomed like a captive Israelite, since he is regarded as a free-man after he takes the required ritual bath and assumes the obligations of certain Jewish laws.
A woman is redeemed before a man; but where pederasty is common, the man is given precedence. (If both are willing to drown, the man is rescued first.)
If he and his father and his teacher are captives, he himself comes before his teacher; and his teacher before his father; but his mother comes before all.
If a man and his wife are captured, the wife is ransomed first, and Court may seize his property to ransom her; and even if he protests, "Do not ransom her with my property," no attention is paid to him.
If a captive has property but does not wish to ransom himself, his ransom is paid against his will.
A father is obliged to ransom his son, if the father has the means and the son has not.

Siman 253

One who has food to suffice for two meals must not take any from the Tamhuy.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Alms-basket or soup-kitchen, from which provisions are distributed daily.</i> One who has enough for fourteen meals must not take anything from the Kuphah.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Charity-fund, distributed weekly. See Article 256.</i> And if he has two hundred Zuz uninvested or fifty Zuz invested, he should receive no charity. But if he has two hundred Zuz minus one denar uninvested, he may accept charity, even if the sum of a thousand Zuz be given him at one time. And if he has much money in his possession, but is indebted to others, or the money is the security of his wife's widowhood-endowment, he is entitled to charity. If one possesses a house and many household utensils but no two hundred Zuz, he may accept charity; and he does not have to sell his household goods, even if they be vessels of gold and silver. This applies only to eating and drinking utensils, articles of clothing, bedclothes and the like; but if he has a silver strigil or pestle, he should sell it and not depend on charity. Further, this law that he is not required to sell his gold and silver utensils applies only where he does not have to touch the public charity-fund but depends upon secret private assistance. But where he asks to be maintained out of the Kuphah, he should be refused until he sell the utensils.<br><small>RMI.—And so, in communities where it is a rule not to give charity to anyone having a definite capital, the dwelling and the necessary household utensils are not reckoned as "definite capital."</small>
Some authorities hold that the limits<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">200 Zuz, 50 Zuz.</i> spoken of here, were meant only for their days,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Talmudic times.</i> but that to-day one may depend on charity until he possesses a large enough principal to yield a sufficient income with which to support himself and family—and there is sound reason in this view.
If a poor man possesses a piece of land which he would have to sell cheaply if he sold it in the winter time, but which he could sell at full value if he waited till the summer, then he is not obliged to sell at a loss: he should be maintained by the tithes-of-the-poor to the extent of half the value of the property, so that he should not be driven to sell out of season. (But some hold that he is to be supported until he is able to sell at half-price.) If others are buying at a high price, but he is unable to find a purchaser except at a low price, because he is occupied, he is not compelled to sell but may live on the tithes-of-the-poor until he can sell at a fair price; so that all may know that he is not pressed to sell.
If, while journeying from place to place, one's funds give out, he may resort to charity, and on returning home he is not compelled to refund (for the law in this case is like that of a poor man who later grows rich,—he does not have to repay).
If one who supported an orphan and intended it as an act of kindness, demands repayment when the orphan reaches majority, the orphan is not obliged to pay him.<br><small>RMI.—Even if he now has the means, he is not obliged to pay; since his patron did not specify at the time that it was in the nature of a loan. This applies only to an orphan. But another must pay, even if nothing was specified, for we assume it was meant as a loan; inasmuch as he now possesses the means.</small>
If, in collecting for a poor man, more was collected than is necessary for the satisfaction of his wants, the excess belongs to him as well. But if they collected for "the poor" in general, and something remained, it should be kept for other poor. So, too, the excess of a ransom belongs to the ransomed one; but if they collected for "ransoming captives," what is left should be kept for future captives. So, too, what remains after burying a dead person belongs to the heirs, but the remainder of the "fund for burying the dead" should be kept for other dead. But if the heads of the community see fit to devote it to some immediate need, they may do so.
If money was collected to ransom a captive, and the captive in question died before he could be ransomed, some hold that the money should go to the heirs, and others say it should not.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">But should be returned to the contributors.</i> To-day we incline towards this latter view, for we presume the donors did not intend that their money should thus be disposed of. The same law holds in case one captured by heathens becomes thoroughly assimilated and lost among them before ransoming is attempted.
If a poor man contributes a coin to charity, the money is accepted; but if he does not give, he is not compelled to. If he was given new garments and he returns his old ones, they are accepted; but if he does not return them, he is not compelled to.
If a needy poor man does not wish to be an object of charity, cunning may be resorted to; <i>i. e.</i>, the money should be given him in the form of a gift or a loan.
A rich man who starves himself because of parsimony, need not be looked after.
A scholar in need should be helped in a manner befitting his station. If he does not wish to accept their help as charity, they should buy goods for him cheaply and buy them from him at a higher price. If he really understands business, then they should lend him money with which to engage in traffic.
If one depending upon charity roams about for a livelihood and succeeds in collecting alms, his creditors cannot take what he collected as charity, in payment of debts due them. <br><small>RMI.—Unless it is noted in the charity records that he is indebted to others, for in that case the money was given him presumably to pay his debts.</small> 

Siman 254

An Israelite is forbidden to accept charity from heathens in public. But if he cannot subsist on Jewish charity alone and he is unable to receive it from heathens without public notice,—in that case it is permitted.
If a heathen prince donates money for Jewish Charities, the money should be accepted for the sake of peace; but it should be distributed among non-Jewish poor secretly so that the prince might not hear of it.<br><small>RMI.—Some hold that if he specified the purpose, the money should be devoted to that purpose. </small><br>But donations towards the erection of a synagogue are always accepted.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">As they are not worse than Temple offerings, which heathens also were permitted to donate.</i> 

Siman 255

One should always avoid charity and rather roll in misery than to depend upon the help of man. And thus our Sages commanded, "Rather make thy Sabbath a week-day<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">As regards festive meals.</i> than be dependent on men."<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Pesahim 112a. (A treatise of the Talmud.)</i> And even though he be scholarly and respectable, let him engage in some occupation, even an unpleasant occupation, so as not to need the help of man.
Whosoever is not in need of charity but deceives the public and takes it, will be in actual need before his days are ended. And whosoever is so much in need of charity that he cannot live unless he receive it—as, for instance, a man who is old or sick or in constant pain,—but takes none out of pride, is guilty of blood-shed and is responsible for his own life; so that he has nothing for his suffering, save punishment and sin. But, whosoever is in need of charity and suffers patiently and leads a pinched and humble life, so as not to become a burden to society, will live to help others some day; and it is with reference to such a person that the Bible says, "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord."<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Jeremiah 17:7.</i>


Siman 256

Every city in which Israelites dwell must appoint charity Gabbaïm,—well-known and trustworthy men who should go about and collect from each one what he ought to give and what he has been taxed. This money they should divide among the poor once a week before the Sabbath, giving each one enough to suffice him for seven days. This fund is called Kuphah. The community should also appoint other Gabbaïm to collect, day by day from every household, donations of bread and other victuals, or fruit, or money. This should be distributed among the poor daily towards evening, to each one enough food for the day. And this is what is called Tamhuy.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">See notes on Article 253, Sec. 1.</i> We have never seen or heard of a Jewish community that has no Kuphah, but in some places it is not customary to maintain a Tamhuy.
On the night of a fast day food should be distributed among the poor. If, at the close of a fast, the people eat and retire without giving charity to the poor, they are regarded as if they had shed blood. This is so only when the distribution is made of bread or fruit; but if they fail to distribute money or wheat,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">I. e., they postpone distribution until the morrow.</i> they are not regarded as shedders of blood.
Collections for the Kuphah must never be made by less than two, because no office for communal money-affairs can be created with less than two officers; but after collection one can be trusted with it as treasurer. Therefore, two brothers may be appointed as treasurers. The distribution of charity, however, must be made by no less than three (as in all civil cases) because every poor man must be judged as to the amount he needs. But the Tamhuy is not only distributed by three but also collected by three, because it is not a fixed matter, but each person approached must be judged every day as to the amount he is to give that day.
The Tamhuy is collected every day, and the Kuphah, once a week. The Tamhuy is meant for any poor people who may apply, while the Kuphah is intended for the poor of that particular city. The community may convert a Kuphah into a Tamhuy, or vice versa; or it may use both for any other communal purpose, although such a condition was not specifically made at the time of collection. If there is in the city a distinguished wise man who enjoys the confidence of the community and who has charge of the distribution of charity, he alone may devote the charity funds to any other communal purpose.<br><small>RMI.—And the same applies to a duly elected Gabbai. And even when an individual donates a sum of money<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Without stating explicitly that it is to be given to the poor.</i> and gives it to the Gabbai [the Gabbai may use it as he sees fit]; but if that individual appoints his own trustees, the members of the community have no right to change its purpose; because the money is not donated to be disposed of at their discretion. Nor have they the right of change when the donor specifies that the money be given to the poor of the city, or to a certain poor man,—not even for school purposes. If a controversy arises between the Gabbai and the community, resulting in an irreparable breach, and the funds are still in the hands of the Gabbai,—then, if he possessed the right originally to dispose of the money as seemed best to him, he may exercise that right now; but if he always had to take counsel with the leaders of the community, he should likewise do so now. If, however, it is impossible to bring them together, or they cannot come to an agreement, the Gabbai should do with the money what he deems proper,—only he should spend it for some worthy purpose.</small>
After dwelling in a place thirty days, one can be compelled to contribute towards the Kuphah; after three months, to the Tamhuy; after six months, he can be compelled to contribute to the Clothing-Fund for the poor; after nine months to the Burial Fund with which to make interment of the poor and perform all funeral rites. This applies to one who comes to dwell in a place temporarily; but if he settles there permanently, he must become a contributor at once.
If one comes to a strange city on business, and that city assesses him with an amount for charity, he must pay that for the poor of that city. But if a number of merchants come in a body and they are assessed, they must deposit the amount; but, when they are ready to return home, they take back the total amount of their contributions and bring it to their home city, to be devoted to the poor of their own city. And if there is a universally recognized scholar there, they should give it to him for distribution. <br><small>RMI.—They have to pay immediately in order to avoid suspicion, but it is afterwards returned to them. And this refers to a kind of charity to which they would not have been obliged to contribute had they remained at home; but to the usual charities they do not have to contribute in the strange city, for we assume that they are taxed in their home town. </small>

Siman 257

Charity collectors must not separate from one another in the market-place, but they must be within sight of one another; as, when one is in the gateway collecting, and the other in the store. If the collector finds money in the street, he shall not put it into his pocket, but into the charity bag—until he reaches home, when he may take it. If the collector collects a personal debt from a friend in the street, he shall not put the money into his pocket, but into the charity bag and take it when he reaches home. He shall not count the coins of the Kuphah two at a time, but one by one, to avoid suspicion; as it is written "And ye shall be guiltless before the Lord and before Israel."<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Numbers 32:22.</i>
If the Gabbaïm have no poor among whom to distribute the money, they may exchange it for Denarii,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Coins of a higher denomination.</i> but not from their own pockets. So, too, if anything is left from the Tamhuy, they should sell it—to others, not to themselves, in order to avoid suspicion. No accounts should be required of Gabbaïm of charity, nor of treasurers of sacred funds, for it is written, "Moreover, they reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to be bestowed on workmen: for they dealt faithfully."<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">II Kings, 12:15.</i> <br><small>RMI.—Still, in order to be "guiltless before the Lord and before Israel," it is better for them to submit accounts. And besides, the text refers to men whose honesty and capacity were undisputed; but wherever there is the slightest suspicion or where the official obtained his position through force, an account must be submitted. And so with all public financial institutions. The community at the expiration of the term has the right to elect another official and cannot on that account be accused of suspecting the former official.</small>
Charity comes within the general class of vows. Therefore, if one says, "I vow a Sela<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">A coin worth two common Shekels.</i> to charity," or, "I vow <i>this</i> Sela to charity," he must give it to the poor immediately; and, if he delays, he is guilty of transgressing the precept, "Thou shalt not slack to pay it,"<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Deut. 23:21.</i> since he has the money and poor people are a-plenty. But if no poor are available, he should separate the money and lay it aside until he meet one.<br><small>RMI.—He transgresses a law in delaying payment, only when he vows to give charity which he himself must distribute. But if he vows to contribute to the general charity fund in the synagogue and the like, which must go through the hands of the Gabbai, he does not transgress the precept, although poor are a-plenty, until the Gabbai asks for it; and then, if he delays, he is a transgressor. And if the Gabbai does not know of the vow, he must inform him how much he vowed, so that he might come to collect. </small><br>That he must not delay in paying his vows to charity refers to vows as ordinarily made; but, of course, a man is permitted to separate a sum of money which he himself is to distribute a little at a time as he may see fit. And so also, if he stipulates a condition in making the vow, that the Gabbaïm should be permitted to exchange the money for gold, then they are permitted to do so.
One should avoid vows. If people are being taxed for charity and one feels obliged to fix an amount for himself, let him say, "Without vowing, I promise," etc.
If the charity treasury lacks funds, let the Gabbai make a loan to the fund out of his private purse; and when conditions improve, he may draw that amount without permission from the contributors.
If the Gabbai, while still in office, says, "I have loaned so much and so much to the fund," he is believed without taking an oath; but not after he is discharged.
A Gabbai should not take to heart the insults which the poor may heap upon him: his reward will be the greater for it.
A poor man who has wealthy relatives does not have to be supported by the Gabbaïm, even though the relatives are contributors to the fund.
One should not center all his charities in one poor man.
He who distributes the charities should guard himself against being partial to his relatives.<br><small>RMI.—That is to say, a public Gabbai. But a private individual may give charity or his tithes to whichever relative he chooses,—in fact, his relatives come first, as already explained in Art. 251.</small>
If one invests a sum of money the income of which is to be devoted to religious education and he appoints his wife to give it to whomsoever she wishes, she has no right to deposit the money with another, even though that other be as honorable a man as Rabbi Hananiah ben Tradion. But if the donor appoints a prominent scholar over the funds, he has the right to deposit them with his wife.


Siman 258

One may consecrate something to charity by "comparing" it to something already sacred, just as in vows. For example; if a Sela belonging to charity lies before him and he says with reference to another Sela, "Let that one be like this one," that one becomes a contribution to charity.
If he separates a Sela and says, "Let this become charity," and then adds, referring to another, "and this," the second likewise becomes charity.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Although he is not explicit with the second.</i>
He who vowed to give charity but does not know how much he vowed, should give and give until he feels certain that he did not intend to give that much.
If one says, "Give two hundred Zuz, or a Scroll of the Law, to the Synagogue [on my account]," they should give it to the synagogue in which he usually worships in the city in which he dwells. <br><small>RMI.—And if he frequents two, the money should be divided between them. If one donates illuminating oil [without specifying] it should go to the synagogue rather than the House of Study.</small>
If one says, "Give [these] two hundred Zuz to the poor," the money should be given to the poor of the city in which he dwells.<br><small>RMI.—Only when there is no reason to assume otherwise. But where we know that he did not intend it for the poor of that city only, as in places where wealthy people leave vast sums at the time of death to be distributed among various Charities, we follow the custom of the place even when it is not so specified in the will; and the heirs distribute the money as they deem best, even to charities of other cities. And even if the money is deposited with another at the time of the donor's death, it is returned to the heirs and they are informed of the manner of the bequest.</small>
He who makes a vow to give charity cannot retract, unless he turns to a Rabbi and obtains a release; but, after the money reaches the Gabbai, he cannot apply for a release.
A man cannot hallow<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Donate for some holy purpose.</i> anything not in his possession. For example: If A deposited something with B, and B denies that it belongs to A, then A cannot hallow it. But if B does not deny it, then it is considered in A's possession, no matter where A may be. This refers only to chattel property. But if B robs A of a piece of land and denies that it belongs to A, then if A can recover it by law, he may hallow it even before it is recovered; for the principle is that real estate always continues in the possession of the true owner. If one robs another of some object and the owner does not yet despair of recovering it, neither can hallow it,—the one because it is not his, and the other because it is not in his possession. And so on.
If A owes B a debt, and B says, "Let it become hallowed," or, "Let it go to charity," it does not take effect. But if he says, "When I shall get the money which A owes me, I shall hallow it or give it to charity," he must fulfil his promise when the money reaches him. Even if he says, "Let the debt which A owes me go to charity," if only the debtor and the Gabbai are present, or the leaders of the community (or a highly respected scholar in the community), the Gabbai comes into possession of it by virtue of the fact that three are present, and he cannot retract or change his word.
If A strikes B or insults him (for which according to the community ordinances A must pay five gold-pieces) and he says, in the presence of the Gabbai or the leading members of the community, "I want my fine to go to charity," and then they make peace, so that B forgives A, this does not affect what preceded, and the poor are not deprived of A's fine.
If one makes his vow to charity depend upon a condition, as, for example, "If I do this and that, I shall give so and so much to charity," he must pay it, if he fulfils the condition.
If a man and his wife solemnly vow to divorce and fix a fine upon themselves, and finally they decide not to divorce, some are of the opinion that they are exempt from paying the fine.
If one promises to give another a gift, and that other happens to be a dependent poor man, it is as if he had made a vow to charity which he cannot retract.
If one says, "I give this object to charity at such and such a value," and it is found to be worth more, he cannot retract (for whenever charity can be the gainer because of a word, we say "a word" is as binding in sacred matters as actual transfer in lay matters). But if the object was not worth more at the time and later increased in value, he may retract as long as the money is not yet transferred. <br><small>RMI.—If he promises in his mind to give anything to charity, he is obliged to fulfil his thought and no speech is necessary, except that when he expresses it verbally we can compel him to fulfil his promise.</small>

Siman 259

If one says, "Let this Sela go to charity," or if he says, "I vow to give a Sela to charity," and separates the coin, he may still change the coin as long as the Gabbai does not come to collect it; <i>i. e</i>., he may borrow it himself or lend it to another, but he must pay another instead.<br><small>RMI.—So, too, if vessels or utensils have been hallowed, they may be sold according to the appraisal of three experts, and the proceeds given to charity.</small><br>But after the money reaches the Gabbai it must not be loaned to anyone, neither to the donor, nor to another, nor even to the Gabbai. But if the poor can benefit by the fact that the Gabbai retains the money for a time; as, for example, thereby to induce others to pay, he may borrow it and then pay it back.<br><small>RMI.—Because charity is not exactly like Temple funds, as it is permitted to derive benefit from the former.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">If the enjoyment of its benefits does not use up the article or depreciate it.</i> But funds ready for distribution should not be tied up in business, only money-changing and the like being permitted where the cash is always on hand, because the poor may come and there would be no ready money to give them. However, funds not meant for immediate distribution may be invested, so that the principal should remain intact and only the income thereof be distributed.</small><br> And this, in fact, is the custom in vogue.
Moneys donated for purposes of the synagogue or of the cemetery, may, if the community sees fit to do so, be diverted to the use of the House of Study or to the maintenance of a Religious School,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Because they are more important than synagogues.</i> even against the will of the donors; but moneys collected for the support of a school cannot be commuted to the synagogue. <br><small>RMI.—Only where there is ground for apprehension that there will not be sufficient money for school purposes [if this money were to be diverted to the synagogue]; but where the members of the community support the schools generously (so that if this money is spent for a synagogue they will surely furnish more money for the schools); in such a case, it is permitted, even in a place where it is [usually] forbidden to change the will of the donor. If one donates a sum of money for a purpose for which there is no need [at present]; as, for example, he donates a site for a House of Study and for certain reasons the building cannot be erected immediately, the donor cannot retract, but the site remains until the House of Study is eventually erected. All this applies in places where there is no established custom. But where it is established that the Gabbai or the assembled community has the right to commute the funds from one charitable purpose to another, we follow the usual custom; for we presume that the donor makes his donation subject to custom and that the authorities accept it with this condition at heart [that they may dispose of it at their discretion]. Of course, where the donor expressly stipulates that his donation shall not be subject to change, naturally it cannot be commuted.</small>
If a Jew had donated a lamp or a candelabrum to the synagogue, and the name of the donor is not associated with the object, the community<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">But not the Gabbai.</i> may devote it to another purpose, even a non-religious purpose<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">If the lamp or candlestick has not yet been used.</i> (even against the donor's protests). But if the donor's name is associated with the gift, it cannot be commuted for a non-religious purpose, but it may, for a religious purpose. If the donor is a heathen, the gift cannot be commuted even for some other religious purpose, as long as his name is associated with the gift. (And as long as the name of the donor is engraved on the vessels donated, the name is said to be "associated" with the gift.)
If a heathen donates a candelabrum or other object to the synagogue, we accept it, if he says, "I have consecrated this according to the intentions of the Israelites"; but if he does not say this, it must be put away.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">For we fear he might have consecrated it for idol-worship.</i> (See Art. 254.)
If a person has money in his possession and he is in doubt whether it belongs to charity or not, he must give it to charity.<br><small>RMI.—If one consecrated something with an ambiguous expression and died, the property continues in the possession of the rightful heirs, since it is impossible to know the intention of the deceased. For the burden of proof rests with the Charity officials who are interested in changing the present status of the property; and as long as they cannot bring proof, the property in question continues in the possession of the heirs.</small>
The community has no right to assess or tax charity funds.<br><small>RMI.—If one finds a purse in his chest with the word "charity" written over it, we depend upon the written word and it is Charity. So, too, if one said to his children, "This is Charity," and it seems to them now that he said this to inform them of a fact, the money is Charity. But if it seems to them that he told them this so that they should not take any, or so that they should not consider him wealthy, then we put no stock in his words. So also, if one is informed in a dream that his father concealed money in a certain place<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">And it is actually found in the place designated.</i> and that the money is Charity, we put no trust in these words, because the words of dreams are of no account either one way or the other. If one handles a box of charity funds and one of other funds, and money is later found on the floor, we say it belongs to the chest he used last. If he used both simultaneously, we say it belongs to the larger sum. But if he finds it in a crevice or hole, where, we might say, it has been lying for a long time without being noticed, then we give it to the larger fund even if he handled them successively. </small>

Siman 260

It is a positive commandment for the father to circumcise is son. And this commandment is greater than all the other positive commandments.

Siman 261

If the father did not circumsise his son, Bet Din (the court) is obligated to circumcise him. And if the bet din did not circumcise him, he is obligated (when he shall grow up) to circumcise himself. If he did not cicumsise himself then he is suffers karet (spiritual excision). <small>And every day he transgresses and is punished. We don't circumcise the son of a man without his knowledge, unless the father refuses to circumcise his son and the bet din did not circumcise him, we circumcize him despite his will. (Tur in the name of the Rambam) And the wife is not obligated to circumcise her son (Tur) e If the father does not know how to cirumcise, and there is a Mohel who does not want to circumcise the child unless he is paid, the bet din ajures the mohel that this is not the path of the descendants of Avraham. On the contrary, the Mohel's are zealous to let them circumcise. And if he stands defiantly and the man (father) does not have money to give the mohel, it is as if the child does not have a father and the bet din is obligated to circumcise him. And therfore bet din forces him since there is nobody else available to circumcise.</small>

Siman 262

א The time of circumcision for the Healthy, Sick and Androginous: We don't circumcise until netz hachamah (sunrise) on the eigth day from birth (and if it was first light it is ok)""mishna 82 megilla"" and all day is kosher for milah but we try to be zealous in the mitzvah and the correct time for the circumsision is in the morning. And even if we do a milah not at its time we don't do except for during the day. Ab) If he is over and circumcises at night he is required to redo it and do hatif dum brit (draw some blood) mishna there Circumcises before the eigth day and during the day is is ok the rosh, in perek Rabbi Eliezer de Milah, Rashba and not as we will learn in 264
ב We don't circumcise a sick child until it is healthy. And we learn that we don't circumcise him until seven complete days after he is better. With what do we say this when he has a fever or his whole body is sick, but if only one of his limbs is sick like he has a problem with his eye, or problem with his מועט and similar to this we wait until he is healthy and after this we circumcise him. ( but if his eyes hurt him greatly, we treat it like a sickness of the complete body)
An androgynous person, someone with two foreskins, and someone born of a C-section are circumcised on the eighth [day].
ד If he was born during twilight he is circumcised on the ninth day because of doubt when the eigth day is. And if the head was out of the vagina while it was still day or a cry from it even if it was born after many days we count eight days from the day that the head came out or the time the cry from it was heard (There are those who say it in the plain case but if his mother says the baby was resting with the claim like most time and his nose was not yet born the general rule that even though we heard the cry from him while it was still day and even though babies don't cry until their head is outside of the vagina the mother is believed the rest of the time when she says the baby cried( rabbi Yoel haLevi))
ה If he was born at a time that you could see many small stars in the sky, it is close to questionable stars circumcise him starting starting the count tomorow since it was not shabbats and not om tov even though there was in the sky one needs to be careful since there was no light of day.
ו If after the head has gone out of the vagina one sees 3 medium sized stars Since it was close to night even if it was after shabbos but if it was a while after the birth and he had seen that it was still day when the head was out then we circumcise him on the eigth day even if it is shabbos.
ז This matter is not put aside by prayers. If he prayed and it was still day we are not lenient or stringent

Siman 263

רסג One who was born and was red or yellow or whose children had died from cirumcision: א A baby that was born and was yellow (jaundiced) this is a sign that he does not have enough blood and we don't circumcise him until the blood returns and he looks like the majority of babies. So too if we find that he is red it is a sign that his blood is not in his limbs but in his flesh and we don't circumcise him until his blood returns. We need to be very careful in these matters so that we don't circumcise him or have a suspicion of ilness. Danger to his life pushes away all that if there is a posibility to circumcise him after the time then we should be careful about the life of one jew so that he endures.
ב A women whose first son died as a result of circumcision it lost its strength. They circumcised the second one and he died as a result of the circumcision. We don't circumcise the third one until he is grown up and reached his full strength because he might die. This is the law if a man had a son and he died from the circumcision, he had another who died from the circumcision we don't circumcise the third one whether they were from one wife or from two. (there are those who argue and hold that it is not with a man only with a woman (chidush agudah we see in perek rabbi Eliezer de milah) and in questions of life we are lenient)
ג And this is the law if a women had a son who died from the circumcision and her sister also had a son who died from the circumcision with the rest of the sisters we don't circumcise their children until they have grown and have become stronger.
ד One who was born and it is as if he was circumcised we have draw some blood and we may find that the foreskin is ingrown and he needs circumcision. You should check very closely by hands and look with your eyes but should not probe with metal that he should not לעייק and you should see and be very careful that if you circumcise him and you should wait a long time and don't suspect the eigth day so that he won't come to danger.
ה A baby that died before his eigth day you circumcise him before burial with a reed of a knife. You don't make a blessin on the circumcision but you give him a name to the boy so that Hashem will have mercy and that he will be resurected at the end of days.

Siman 264

א Everyone is kosher perform circumcision even a slave, a woman, a child and an uncircumcised Jew whose brother had died from circumcision. But if there is an adult male Jew that knows how to perform circumcision he gets precedence over them all. And there are those who say that a woman does not circumcise סמק והנהות מרדכי and this is our custom to beautify with a male but an Idol worshiper even if does the circumcision the circumcision is not a circumcision. But if an Idol worshiper circumcises, one does not need to go and perform the circumcision a second time. 

How do we circumcise? We cut the foreskin, all of the skin covering the crown, until the crown is revealed. Then we split the soft membrane below the skin with the fingernail and bring it back to this side and to that side until the flesh of the crown is revealed. And then we suck the circumcision until the blood leaves the extremities in order that it not present a danger. And we relieve any mohel (ritual circumciser) who does not do the sucking. And after he has sucked, we put a compress or a bandage on it, or  medicinal powder that stops the blood. <i>Gloss</i> But he must be careful if the compress has a rim that he turn it outwards, and not inwards, so that it not stick to the wound and present a danger. (Rabbenu Yerucham, Section 1)

Siman 265

Seif 1 - The circumciser blesses “who sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us regarding circumcision.” The father blesses between the cutting of the foreskin and peeling back: “who sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us to bring him into the covenant of Abraham, our father.” HAGAH – If the father of the boy is not at the Bris, there are those who say that another man makes this blessing because the court is obligated to circumcise him and our practice is that the one who holds the boy makes this blessing. So too if the father is at the Bris, but does not know how to make the blessing. The father and the mohel need to stand when they bless, but the one holding the boy customarily sits when he blesses. There are those who say that all people at the Bris must stand because it says that “all the nation stood in covenant.” This is our custom except for the one holding the boy who sits down. And if others are standing there, they say “just as you brought him into the covenant, so too should you bring him in to Torah, to the wedding canopy, and to good deeds.” The father or the mohel, or one of the people there blesses on a cup: “who creates the fruit of the vine.” And some have the custom to take a myrtle in their hands, to bless on it and to smell it. He says “BAA EMH who sanctified his dear one from the womb etc.” Our custom is when we reach “BeDamayich Chayii” to put wine on his finger and in the mouth of the baby. (And when the mohel makes the blessing, he should wipe his hands and mouth first so that he does it in cleanliness.)
Seif 2 - If the father of the boy is himself the mohel, he blesses “to circumcise a son” according to the Rambam. (But there are those who disagree, and our custom is not to differentiate. However, if he blessed “limol” or “lehachnieso” alone, he has fulfilled his obligation.
Seif 3 - A convert who was circumcised before he converted, and minor who was born circumcised, when we take a drop of blood from them (הטפת דם) they do not require a blessing. Similarly, one possessing both male and female genitalia, their circumcision does not require a blessing because they are not a male for certain. Rema: But when going back (to cut) flaps of skin that prevent the circumcision [from being kosher], one is required to go back and bless all of the blessings, but one does not say the phrase: “keep this child…”
Seif 4 - A mamzer is like a (regular) Jew and we bless the blessing for circumcision until [the point in the blessing when it says] “who makes the covenant”, and we do no has for mercy for him. And we make it public knowledge during his circumcision that he is a mamzer). During Yom Kippur and the other 4 fasts one should not make the blessing over a cup [of wine], however, during the three fasts where a woman who has recently given birth does not need to fast, it is permissible to make the blessing over a cup [of wine], and the woman should taste it if she hears the blessing and intends not to make an interruption between hearing the blessing and drinking the wine, but during Yom Kippur and the 9th of Av, when the woman who has recently given birth is not allowed to drink, we do not make the blessing over a cup [of wine], and during the 9th of Av we do not bring a myrtle, because the reasoning being that we (similarly) don’t make the blessing over the spices when the 9th of Av falls on Saturday night. Rema: And there are those who say that one makes the blessing over the cup [of wine] on all of the fasts, and he gives the blessing (i.e. the wine on which the blessing was made) to the small children. And this is how we practice, and during Yom Kippur, our practice is to give [some wine] to the child who was circumcised. And there are those who say that this is sufficient even when it is not a fast day, but we don’t practice accordingly; rather, the sandek should drink [from the cup] when it is not a fast day.
Seif 5 - Someone who has two babies to circumcise should make a single blessing for the two of them, even if two people are circumcising them, the first should make the blessing over the circumcision, which will cover the second circumcision, and the second person should make the blessing: “who Hashem sanctified” and the blessing will count for the first child, and even if the child is not in front of him during the blessing, since he was focused on the child, provided that he was not distracted in the interim.
Seif 6 - When it is possible, the circumcision should be done among 10 individuals, and when it is not possible, it can be done among less than ten.
Seif 7 - When the father himself is circumcising his son, he makes the blessing שהחיינו, and if the one who is doing the circumcising is someone else, there are those who say that the blessing שהחיינו is not said, and according to the Rambam, the father always makes the blessing שהחיינו for every circumcision, and this is how we practice in all of the community of the land of Israel, and in Syria, and in its environs, and in the Egyptian community. And in these places, the custom is not to bless שהחיינו, even when the father himself is circumcising his son, unless he is circumcising his firstborn son who is obligated in being redeemed, then he makes the blessing שהחיינו during the circumcision and does not make the blessing during the redemption, but when the child is exempt from being redeemed, he does not make the blessing שהחיינו.
.
Seif 9 - The Father of a son [who is about to be circumcised] stands over the mohel [i.e., the one performing the circumcision procedure] to let [the mohel] know [that when performing the circumcision procedure,] he is [acting as] the father’s agent.
Seif 10 - The Orla (foreskin} must be placed (buried) in sand or dirt. Rama: So too the blood from metzitzah should be spit into dirt.
.
Seif 12 - It is customary to have a meal on the day of the circumcision. Rama: And it is customary to assemble a minyan [i.e., a quorum of ten] for the circumcision meal, and it is considered a “mitzvah meal” [i.e., a meal following the performance of certain commandments]. And anyone who does not participate in a mitzvah meal are like those outcast by God, but only if honest/worthy people are [in attendance] there. But if dishonest/unworthy people are [in attendance at the mitzvah meal], one is not obligated to eat there.
It is also customary to make a meal and a feast on the Friday night after the birth of a son, and for people to come and partake [of food] near the baby. This is also a mitzvah meal.

Siman 266








8. Someone who was born at twilight where it is doubtful [if it is still] day and doubtful [if it is already] night, we count from the night and do the Bris on the 9th, which is Safek the eighth day. And if he is born Erev Shabbos at twilight it does not supersede [the laws of] Shabbos because we do not supersede Shabbos because of a doubt. And likewise we do not supersede Yom Tov because of a doubt, and even the second day of Yom Tov in Galus [outside Israel]. (Tur, this is in the name of the Teshuvot HaRosh). Even if his only his head emerged at twilight and the rest of him emerged on Shabbos we do not perform the Bris on Shabbos. 
Seif 9 – About the measuring of twilight, the Tannaim and the Amoraim disagree at the end of the chapter “Bameh Madlikin” [the second chapter of Shabbat]. The Ba’al HaIttur wrote that there is doubt for us regarding whom the halakhah is like; therefore, if the head of the child was coming out from sunset, there is doubt until twilight according to R. Yose is completed, and the child is circumcised on the 10th day. If the child was born Saturday night from sunset on, we follow the stringency of Rabba. 
.
.
.
Seif 13 – If a Jew has born to him a son by a non-Jew, he does not circumcise him on Shabbat.

Siman 267

It is a positive commandment for a master to circumcise his slaves, If the master fails to circumcise them then it is a mitzvah on the Beit Din to circumcise them. A slave boy born in a Jewish household or one purchased from an idolater, you are (still) required to circumcise. A slave not born in your home is circumcised the same day, even if you acquired him the day he was born, you circumcise him the same day. There are slaves who are purchased  that are circumcised on the eighth day as well as slaves born in your home that you circumcise the same day. What do we mean?Should one purchase a maidservant and purchase the rights to her fetus (separately), when she gives birth, the baby should be circumcised on the eighth day.Although the fetus itself was purchased alone, since he purchased the mother before the child was born, the child should be circumcised on his eighth day.If one acquires a maidservant or her offspring or one acquires (purchases) a maidservant with the intent of not immersing her for the sake of slavehood, even though her offspring is born in his home, the child should be circumcised on the day he was born,This is because the child is considered as if he alone had been purchased , and it is as if he purchased him this day.His mother is not among the maidservants of the Jewish people, so that the child could be considered home-born slave. And if she immerses after she gives birth,  the child should be circumcised on the eighth day. Although the fetus itself was purchased alone, since he purchased the mother before the child was born, the child should be circumcised on his eighth day. If one acquires a maidservant or her offspring or one acquires (purchases) a maidservant with the intent of not immersing her for the sake of slavehood, even though her offspring is born in his home, the child should be circumcised on the day he was born, This is because the child is considered as if he alone had been purchased , and it is as if he purchased him this day. His mother is not among the maidservants of the Jewish people, so that the child could be considered home-born slave. And if she immerses after she gives birth,  the child should be circumcised on the eighth day.
Just as the circumcision of sons supersedes the Shabbat, so too, the circumcision of those slaves who are circumcised on the eighth day supersede Shabbat, with the exception of one born in your home and or purchased whose mother did not immerse herself until after she gave birth. Although such a slave is circumcised on the eighth day, his circumcision does not supersede Shabbat.
A Slave that was purchased from an idolater, we tell him: Do you wishe to enter and join the slaves of Israel and become acceptable or not? If he agrees we inform him of the fundamentals of the faith, some of the minor commandments and some of the more severe ones and punishments and rewards, like we do with a convert. Then we immerse him like we do with a convert and inform him while he is in the water. [And the slave recites the blessing over the immersion, not the master.]
When one purchases a slave from an idolater and the slave does not want to be circumcised, we are patient with him for a total of twelve months. Any more than this it is forbidden to hold on to an uncircumcised individual so one must then sell him to idolaters.
If one circumcised and immersed his slave against his will for the sake of becoming a slave,  his actions are of no consequence.
A slave which is a child or an imbecile we immerse him on the authority of the court.
When a slave is released we immerse before three witness, he does not need to accept upon himself the commandments nor do we inform him of the fundamentals of the faith, because he was already informed when we immersed him for slavery.
A slave that was circumcised that rebels and becomes haughty and one sells him to idolaters, and then returns to the Jew who sold him, he is considered like an apostate Jew and their is no need to immerse him only lash him.
If one acquires a slave from an idolater, we do not own him until we are able to immerse him in the name of slavehood. If for whatever reason we purchase him before and then immerse him (it will end up being) for the sake of attaining his freedom, he therefore will be a free man. For this reason we need impose any form of servitude on him while in the water, so that it will look like he is a slave, if not beforehand he will say, I am immersing  for sake of becoming a free man. However if an idolater sells himself to a Jew,  we purchase him immediately and not give him the chance to immerse for the sake of his freedom.
This is what we are saying, that the slave we took from the Idolater we don’t own him (his body), when he (the) idolater purchases him as a slave by means of the slave selling himself. However if he is purchased (by the Idolater) according to the local law, his body belongs to him (his master), and then if he is acquired by a Jew (it belongs to him), and he purchased him (his body) before (immersion) and then he immerses him it will be for his freedom and he would of bought himself a free man.
He who has a maidservant and has still not immersed her for slavehood, it is forbidden to do so afterwards (before the fact) without permission from her master.
When one circumcises a slave he blesses, Blessed are you Lord King of the universe who has sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us to circumcise slaves. And afterwards we bless:AKB”V to circumcise slaves and extract from them the blood of the covenant and so forth, blessed are you Lord who establishes the covenant.
One needs to cover his nakedness while saying the blessing.
There is no authority for Hebrew Slaves except in the era that the Jubilee was observed. This is said in the terms of purchase (like from a Beth Din) relating to all the rules governing Hebrew Slaves. However, in the situation when his (Hebrew Slaves) talent is sold under the secular law, such as he was detained in war or sold by tax authorities, then he may employ (The Hebrew Slave) for that talent only.  The  (Hebrew Slave) serves his Jewish Master for the amount paid or the value of acquiring him, and he (Hebrew Slave) is released. The hand of the Master is at a loss to accept the least.
People who do not act in as they should— it is permissible to subjugate them by force and be served by them.
If a king decrees that all who do not pay taxes be enslaved to the person who pays the head tax for him, a person who pays the head tax for someone may use that person for labor beyond the ordinary measure. He may not, however, use him as a slave. If, however, that person does not conduct himself properly, he may utilize him as a slave.
If one buys an Idolatrous slave from a Jew or from another Idolater, and as well as an idolater who sold himself to a Jew or sold himself his sons and daughters, they are as Canaanite slaves. However if he is acquired by an Idolater we don’t purchase his body however we could purchase him for his talent/work, unless he was bought according to local law or similiar, anytime that we do not immerse him for slavery, they have the status idolaters in all respects. And if we immerse one for slavery, hes a slave and obligated to the mitzvot that pertain to woman, and because its a slave it is permitted to give him oppressive labor. Although this is the law according to our standards of decency and the ways of our sages which expects a person to be merciful and not make his slave carry a heavy yoke nor cause him distress, He should also allow them to partake of all the food and drink he serves, Similarly, we should not embarrass a slave by our  words nor should one shout or vent anger upon them but rather speak with them pleasantly, and hear their complaints.
An Idolatrous king that makes a war and brings captives to be sold, so he let anyone who wants to go and capture (people) from a nation we’re at war with and bring (captives) to sell as slaves, or if his laws state that whoever does not pay his taxes - or does such and such or fails to do such and such - may be sold as a slave, the laws he ordains are binding, and these individuals are considered Canaanite slaves  with regard to all matters.
A woman can own female slaves but not male slaves, even male children out of suspicion.
A master may tell his slave: "Work for me, but I will not feed you," however slaves a wife acquired through inheritance one has an obligation to feed.
If one amputates the hand of his neighbors  canaanite slave, he must give his master 5 things and to the slave he rightfully sustains him, although the master gets paid for his damages, you can say to him (the slave):work for me and I’ll sustain you. Although you must allow him to recover if he estimates his recuperation will take 5 days, and if you make him a tonic for strength and he quickly recuperates in 3 days, then the master can take and profit in spite of his slaves anguish (bec of the tonic).
Everything a slave purchases belongs to his master, whether he finds it or it is give to him as a gift, whether given to him by his master or someone else, It all belongs to the master, (as does) the field and what it produces, even if someone says to him: (i'm giving you this) on the condition that your master has no right to it, it is (still) of no effect unless you say: I am giving you this on the condition  that you go out with it to freedom.
A canaanite slave, whether you bought him while he was an idolater or whether you bought him after his master immersed him, is acquired by money or a document or under an accepted presumption, whether he bought him from an idolater whether he bought him from a Jew. It becomes an established presumption when he uses him, such as having the servant untie his shoe, put on his shoe, or having him carry his clothes to the bathhouse or dress him or undress him, washes him, anoints or scrubs him.
If the slave lifts  the master like a utilized commodity, the slave is acquired. If the master lifts the slave, the slave is not acquired.
If one acquires a slave through an exchange. he’s acquired through pulling, or forcibly pulling the slave to himself. However if one called the slave and then he came he is not acquired unless he was a child.
A slave acquires his freedom with either money, or from losing the tips of his limbs or with by securing a bill of ownership. How is it done by money? For example when someone else gave the slave’s master money and tell him: This amount is yours for the sake of giving your slave his freedom, Once his master receives the money or merchandise worth money, the slave is granted his freedom, this all could be done without the knowledge of the slave. Similarly, the slave can be freed if a person gives the slave money, specifying that it is given to him "with the intent that he use it to obtain his freedom." If the Master wishes to accept the money the slave acquires his freedom if not the slave does not (even) keep the money.
How does a slave acquire his freedom by the loss of one of his limbs? A slave that is circumcised and immersed for the sake of slavehood, if he was blinded by his master, or if he knocked out his tooth or is made to loose the tip of a finger or toes or nose or penis or nipples of a woman, he (or she) is granted his (or her) freedom and receives a bill of release. However if his tongue is cut off he is not set free.
If the slave was castrated completely, he is set free. However if his genitals are slightly cut but still intact he does not gain his freedom.
If there is a slave with an extra finger gets it cut off by his master, if the finger stands in the order of the other fingers he is set free.
If the master pulls out the slaves beard and by doing so dislocates his jaw bone he is granted his freedom.
If the master struck his hand and it became swollen, he doesn't receive his freedom.
If the master knocks out the tooth of child that will grow back the child (slave) does not receive his freedom.
If his eye was not functioning well and then it was struck and he was blinded, if at the beginning he was able to use it (atleast) some, he goes free. However  if  the master cut it out, even if he wasn't able to use it at all the slave goes free because the master caused him to lose an organ. The same law applies with regard to any other of the tips of the organs that are not functional and cannot be used for labor, if they are cut the slave is released because of losing an organ/limb.
If the master struck his eye and the slaves vision was impaired or struck him on his tooth and it becomes loose, if he is able to use them (where he was struck) he does not go free if not he does go free. 
If the master struck the eye and blinded the slave, or his ear and made him deaf, the slave is freed. However if he struck his eye or ear against a wall and in turn becomes mentally disturbed to the point that he can't see or cannot hear he doesn't go free.
In all these cases the slave doesn't go free for actions done unintentionally by the owner. Thus if the master intended to hit an animal with a rock but instead hit the slave and cut a finger or knocked out a tooth the slave does not go free. And If the master inserted his hand into the womb of his maid-servant and blinded the eye of the fetus within, he is not granted his freedom, for he was not aware of the entity thus he could intend to strike it. However if the Master is the slaves doctor and the slave told him: "Treat my eye for me," and he ends up blinded it, the slave goes free because his intention/attention was on the Limb/Organ.
One who is half slave and half free, or a slave which is owned by two masters he does not receive his freedom by losing the tips of his limbs, because the Pasuk says that one’s slave belongs uniquely to himself.
A slave that is considered a heritage asset is not released because of the loss of the tips of their limbs or organs if the husband was the cause but not if the wife caused it.  And if its usufruct property he doesn't go free because he neither belongs to the husband or wife.
If one knocks out the tooth of his slave and blinds his eye, he goes free and does not have to pay damages for his eye. If he seizes the money owed to him we don't remove it from his hand. And if he (his master) writes him a bill of release in the middle of  knocking his tooth and blinded his eye, he is obligated to pay damages for his eye.
The releasing of slaves because of lost limbs, even though it is a fine, our custom today is that if witnesses come regarding the thing tell him that he can’t use him.And there are some who write that we excommunicate him until he writes him a document of release.
How does a slave achieve his freedom through the transfer of a legal document? The master must write to him on a paper or on a shard: "Behold, you are a free man," "Behold, you are your own property," "I no longer have anything to do with you," And handed over to him or to another for him, Even without the knowledge of the slave because it is benefit to him to be freed from under the master's hand to freedom, however if he protests when he receives it he does not go free.
If others informed him with those expressions (verbally)  “ it is of no consequence”.
For his female slave if he writes: Behold you are permitted to anyone, it is of no consequence.
If he is given the document in the presence witnesses. or, if witnesses have signed on the bill of release and he gives the slave the bill of release in private, he attains his freedom. There are those who say that it needs to be given to him in the presence witnesses. And if we see it signed, there is no need for us to receive testimony ascribing that it was legally delivered.
There are six things in where a bill of release given to a slave is equivalent to a bill of divorce. With regard to other matters, a bill of release is equivalent to other legal documents. These are the six: 1) they are not acceptable if prepared by the courts of idolaters; 2) they are acceptable if one witness is a cuthean, 3) they must be written for the sake of the slave who is being freed; 4) they may not be written on an article that is attached to the ground; 5) the witnesses may sign only in the presence of each other; and 6) the same laws apply to a bill of divorce and a bill of release with regard to bringing these legal documents from one place to another.
What is implied? All legal documents that are composed by idolaters are acceptable provided they conform to all the conditions stated in Hilchot Halva'ah with the exception of bills of divorce for women and bills of release for slaves.
Any legal document that is signed by even one witness who is a cuthean is not acceptable, with the exception of bills of divorce for women and bills of release for slaves, provided the Cuthean is known to be precise in his observance. In the present age, when the Cutheans are considered as gentiles with regard to all matters, we apply the laws stated with regard to them to the Sadducees. For the Sadducees in the present era are considered like the Cutheans of the previous era, before it was decreed that they would be considered like gentiles.
With regard to a woman's bill of divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1 states: "And he shall write to her, “for her sake” and a document free a female (canaanite) slave reads “Nor was freedom given to her," Leviticus 19:2 teaching that the bill of release must be written for her sake.
With regard to a woman's bill of divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1 states: "And he shall write to her, he who does not (the bill should be written) on a substance that is lacking only to be given. This excludes a bill of divorce that is written while the article on which it is written is attached and afterwards detached. For it is lacking both being detached and being given. Similarly, with regard to a bill of release, it is written: "given to her," (Lev 19:2) teaching that the bill of release should be lacking only being given.
Witnesses may not sign bills of divorce for women and bills of release for slaves outside each other's presence. 
What is meant by the statement that the same laws apply to bills of divorce and bills of release with regard to bringing these legal documents from one place to another? When an agent brings a bill of release from one place to another in the land of Israel, he does not have to testify that it was written and signed in his presence. And in the diaspora, if there are no witnesses present to verify the authenticity of the bill of release, and the agent states that it was written and signed in his presence, its authenticity is considered as verified. Afterwards, if the master comes and protests, no attention is paid to him, as we have explained with regard to a bill of divorce.
Just as when a woman brings a bill of divorce, she does not have to have the authenticity of the document verified, because the bill of divorce is in her possession so when a servant's bill of release is in his possession, he does not have to have the authenticity of the document verified.
Just as the woman must say: "It was written and signed in my presence," when it was stipulated that she do so, as we have explained in that context, the same applies for a servant/slave.
Everyone who is acceptable to bring a bill of divorce to a woman (as the husband's agent) is also acceptable to bring a bill of release for a slave (as the agent of the master.)
A slave may receive a bill of release for another slave from that slave's master, but not from his own master.
If one transfers a bill of release for a servant with the intention that he be released in a court, we  do not differentiate if it says: Yourself and the assets you purchased, we  do not differentiate if it says: all my property is acquired by you, he acquired his own person by saying: Before me it was written and signed; However he does not acquire it until the authenticity of the document is verified.
If someone writes over all his assets to his slave, the slave acquires his freedom, for he is included in assets and acquires himself  in all those assets. However if is left over small assets, whether its attached to the ground or his personal belongings, whether he specifies a portion or not, whether he has other assets of those leftover whether they werent other assets, even if he writes to him : yourself and all my assets should be acquired to you besides one object, he does not go out free and does not acquire the assets.
Regarding a document for erusin of a maidservant, although it states: go out to freedom and go be betrothed, these are not the words of release, (thus) she is not betrothed nor released.
One who liberated two slaves with one document,  they do not acquire their freedom. Therefore if a person writes a single legal document transferring all his property to two slaves, they do not acquire their freedom. If the master wrote two documents, one for each slave, they acquire their freedom. When does the above apply? When the master wrote in each legal document: "All my property is given to so and so and so and so, my slaves. If, however, he writes: "Half of my property is given to so and so, my slave, and the other half is given to so and so, my slave," even if the owner wrote two documents, the slaves do not acquire anything.
If one free his slave halfway with a bill of release, the slave does not acquire half of his person, and he is a slave just as he was before. However if he releases half of a slave, because of a monetary payment - e.g., he took money for half his worth with the intent of freeing that half - he acquires (half his freedom). Thus, he is half slave and half free man. When does the above apply? When the master released half of the slave (with a bill of release) and retained half. If, however, he sold half the slave and gave away the other half after, whether the liberation was through the selling or as a gift likewise whether the sale preceded it or after the release the slave acquires half of his person, and acquires or accepts the other. Similarly, when a slave is owned by two partners, and one frees his half - whether through money or through a legal document - the slave acquires his half, and he is half slave and half free man.
When a master writes a bill of release for his maidservant who is pregnant, stating "You are free, but your child-to-be remains a slave," his words are binding. If, however, it states: "You remain a maid-servant, but your child- to-be is free," it is of no consequence.
A person who is a half slave and half free is not permitted to marry a maid-servant or a free woman. Therefore, we compel his master to write a bill for the other halfs value. And if he still doesn't write him a bill of (full) release, his talents (work of his hands) belong to himself, and if his bull kills he doesn't have to pay a fine or the kofer. When does the above apply? For a male slave. For a male is commanded to be fruitful and multiply. A maid-servant, however, should remain in her immediate state and serve her herself one day, and the master the next. If a man strikes her on the hand and it withered, but it will eventually return and heal, if he struck her on a day she was serving her master he is liable for the damages if on another day she is liable, however if he severs the hand, as well as all any body part that does not return or heal itself, the portion of the damage is split between her and her master. If the she dies we give half of the fine to the master and exempt him half of the kofer.
A slave owned by two masters. One set him free as to his half. We thus compel the second one to also free his share. However if he thought to himself: If the Rabbis hear of it, they will compel me to set him free. So he transferred him to his minor son, For no beit din can force his son to release the slave, however the court can appoint a guardian for the minor who will entice the child with coins and then the guardian will write a bill of emancipation in the child's name. And certainly like this intentionally take away the enactment of the sages, however if the father dies and minor son inherits his half, we do not appoint a guardian to the minor in order to free the slave, (what do we do) The slave will remain only half free and thus work for himself one day and one day for the minor until he (the minor) grows up (and the court could then compel him.) ...
If someone declare his slave ownerless, the slave is granted his freedom. A bill of release is composed for him. If the master who declared him ownerless dies, his heir should compose the bill of release.
A convert who dies without heirs, and they were older slaves, they acquire themselves and are free, however regarding children they cannot acquire themselves and thus are not freed.
A slave who is captured and then escapes, If his master despaired of regaining ownership of him, he is granted his freedom and we compel his master to write him a document of release.
A slave that is captured and his first master despaired of regaining ownership of him, anyone who redeems him with the intent that he remain a slave may subjugate him, and he becomes his property. If he redeemed him with the intent that he become free, he is granted his freedom. If the slave's first owner did not despair of regaining ownership, one who redeems the slave with the intent that he remain a slave should take back the money he spent to redeem him from his owner, and the slave is returned to his original owner. If he redeemed him with the intent of freeing him, he is returned to his original owner without any owing anything.
If a master makes a slave as collateral  for his creditor and then frees the slave, the slave is freed, because he was expropriated from slavery he is free, and thus the value must be paid to his debtors, and we compel his debtors to write him a document of freedom.
When Israelite has relations with a female slave, even though she is his slave her offspring is also (his) slave. Some say that if he has relations with his maid servant or a prostitute, the child is born free, for all who say this (Rav Nitrona Gaon and other poskim). there are (also) those who say that the rest of the things are similar to a male slave's freedom (however) it's not allowed for a free maidservant until she's receives a document of freedom.
If a master marries his slave to a free woman, places tefillin on his head, or tells his slave to read three pesukim from a sefer torah in front of others, regarding matters that only a freed person is obligated to he becomes a free man. (if his master refuses) We compel him to compose a bill of release for him. If, however, a person borrows money from his slave, makes him a guardian, if the slave puts on tefillin before his master, or reads three verses in the synagogue in his master's presence, and his master does not protest against him, he does not obtain his freedom.
It is forbidden for a master to teach his slave Torah. If he teaches him, he is not granted his freedom
There are those who say that if a slave takes a vow that obligates him on something,  such as he vowed not to eat meat or the like, and his master says: "The vow is annulled." (in other words) because he did not compel him in a situation (in which he should have compelled him,) he was showing that he was releasing him.
One who frees his slave speaking in any language and uttered words which state that his intentions are that he no longer has any authority over him, and he has resolved to accept this step, he cannot retract and we compel him to write a bill of release even though he has not written one already..
When a person writes a document that states: I’ll make my slave free, and he gives it to him he does not receive his freedom but if he writes I have made or he may go free or behold he is free or he will be free and then the document is given to him he goes free. However if he says this to him in one of these other languages he does not go free and in a case where the master is deathly ill person if he says it to him in one of these languages, he goes free and will need a document of release to be permitted to marry a free woman and we compel the heirs to write it. Even though he is healthy, if they told him through a confession he goes free and needs a bill of release and we compel his master to write one.
When one says: that he released his slave and the slave says has not been released, we suspect that the master had another person acquire the bill of release on behalf of the slave. If the he said: "I composed a deed of release and gave it to him," and the slave says: "You didn't write it nor did you give it," the admission of a litigant is equivalent to that of a 100 witnesses, and thus he remains a slave.
If he says afterwards take possession of this bill of release to free my slave, the slave goes free although he doesn't come near to the slave however if he says give this bill of release to my slave, he cannot change his mind, and the slave will not be free till the document reaches his hand. Therefore he who says: Give this document to my slave (and the master dies) the document is not given after his death.
When a master commands at the time of his death: "My heirs should not subjugate so and so, my maid-servant," she is still considered a maid-servant as before, but it is forbidden for his heirs to subjugate her. And if he says: "cause her to be content," we compel the heirs not to make her perform any tasks other than the ones that she desires to perform. If he commanded them to free her, we compel them to free her.
A deathly ill person who wrote that all his possessions be given to his slave, and then recovers from his illness, the statement regarding the possession is retracted. If this happened regarding giving the slave his freedom it is not retracted, for he has already gained the reputation of being a free man.
One who releases his slave transgresses a positive commandment (Lev 15:26) “forever you will make them work for you." it is permitted to free a slave for the sake of a Mitzvah, even a rabbinic one, for example if one was short a man in the synagogue for a making a minyan, if one only had 9 one should free his slave to make 10, and so forth. As well as a maid servant if it is customary for her to behave inappropriately with others we compel her master to free her, in order that the barrier be removed.
If one sells his slave to an idolater or  Ger toshav he goes free, and if he escaped from a gentile, the master could not enslave him again. If he didn't escape We compel the previous owner to buy him back from the gentiles at even ten times his value. He then composes a bill of release for him, and the slave is released from slavery. This fine is only collected and brought to judgment in a court of expert judges.If the seller dies, we do not require his heir to return the slave so that he can free him.
A slave who has been circumcised and immersed himself to become a slave, but afterwards he is captured by gentiles and his master cannot get him back and they refuse to sell him back it is permitted to take money and one can write a bill of sale for them.
If one sells his slave outside of the land of Israel, Syria or Acco he goes free, we compel his new master to write him a bill of release and he forfeits the sale at a loss. Even if he says: I won't take him out of the land, I will enslave him in the land of Israel we do not listen to him.
When a slave follows his master to Syria, and his master sells him there, the slave is considered to have forfeited his privilege. When does the above apply? When his master took him to the diaspora with the intent not to return to Eretz Yisrael. If, however, his master's intent was to return, and the slave followed him with that intent, should the master sell him there, he is granted his freedom, and we compel the purchaser to release him.
When a slave asks his master to move to Eretz Yisrael, we compel his master to move there with him or to sell him to someone who is moving there. When a master living in Eretz Yisrael desires to move to the diaspora, he cannot compel the slave to move with him against his will. This law applies in all times, even in the present era, when the land is ruled by gentiles.
When a slave flees from the diaspora to Eretz Yisrael, he should not be returned to slavery. Concerning such a person, it states: "Do not return a slave to his master." His master is told to compose a bill of release for him, and he writes a promissory note for his master for his worth, which the master holds until the freed slave earns that money and gives it to him. If the master does not desire to free him, the court invalidates his ownership of him, and the slave is free to go on his way.

Siman 268

A convert that enters to join to [the] jewish people is obligated in circumcision. If he was already circumcised when he was a Idol worshipper <i> or he was born circumcised (the Tur quoting the Rosh)</i>, its necessary to draw blood from it and not bless on it (the circumcision).And If the organ was destroyed , [the fact that] there isn't circumcision [does not prevent him] from converting and its enough for him [to convert] through immersion [alone]. <i> [If] he immerses before he is circumcised, it is effective, that afther the fact he was immersed</i>  and there are those who say that he [the convert] doesn't have to immerse [due to the circumstances].
When a person comes to convert, say to him, "What did you see that motivated you to come to convert? If you know that Israel, in this time, that the Jewish people are oppressed, eroded, <i>(The words are from "Why is your strong one overthrown?" -Jer. 46:15)</i> insane, and suffering. If he says, I know this and I will still become a part of your people, receive him immediately and tell him the principles of the faith, that God is one and idol worship is forbidden, and tell him a lot about this, and teach him a few of the lighter mitzvot and a few of the more stringent mitzvot, and teach him about some of the punishments of the mitzvot, as it says, "Before you came to learn this, if you ate the forbidden fat, you would not be punished with excommunication, you transgressed Shabbat and you were not punished with stoning; but now, if you eat forbidden food, you will be punished with excommunication; and if you transgress Shabbat you will be punished with stoning." Don't say too much about this, and don't get too specific either. And when you teach him about the punishment of the mitzvot, also teach him about the rewards of the mitzvot and teach him that in the doing of certain mitzvot that will merit life in the world to come. There isn't a complete righteous person, rather a master of wisdom, that does the mitzvot and understands them. And say to him: "You should know that the world to come is hidden from the righteous, who are Israel. As for what you see that Israel is in distress in this world, because it is not granted them to receive the abundance of good things in this world like other peoples, lest their hearts should be indulged loftily and they should go astray and squander the reward of the world to come. But God didn't bring to them too much destruction, so that they would not observe. Rather, all of the idolators stand. And you explicate this idea so that he feels the dearness of it. If he receives this, circumcise him immediately and wait until he is fully healed, and afterwards, immerse him without a barrier. <i>(Some say that you cut or shave his hair and you cut his fingernails and his toenails before immersion.)</i> And three learned scholars stand at his back and teach him some of the light mitzvot and some of the more stringent mitzvot a second time, and he stands in the water. And if it is a woman, women sit her in the water up to her neck and the beit din is outside and they teach her some of the easy mitzvot and some of the more stringent mitzvot and she sits in the water and afterwards, she immerses before them and they turn their faces and leave in order that they do not see her when she is getting out of the water, and they bless the immersion after she comes out of the water. And once he has immersed, it is as if he is a Jew, but if he goes astray, he is like an apostate Jew - he is still sanctified, and his marriage is sanctified.
All matters of the convert from making known to them the mitzvot, receiving them, the circumcision and the immersion, it must be with three who are fitting to judge, and during the day. But after the fact if he only was circumcised or immersed at night or in front of [the convert’s] relatives [which is invalid], or even if one did not dunk with the intention of conversion, rather a man who dunked for a seminal emission, or a woman who dunked for menstruation, they are still converts and he is permitted to [marry] an Israelite woman. So this all applies to the immersion and the circumcision but it does not apply to receiving the mitzvot, which prevents [conversion] unless it was during the day and in front of three [witnesses]. However, the Rif and the Rambam [say that] even after the fact [one who] immersed or was circumcised before two [witnesses] or at night prevents [conversion], and [marrying] an Israelite woman is forbidden. But, if he is married to an Israelite woman and she has borne him a son, we do not invalidate him [the son].
Since the ritual of immersion of a convert needs a beis din of three, do not immerse him on Shabbat and not on yom tov and not during the night. But if he immerses [during these times], indeed this [individual] is a [proper] convert.
One who circumcises a convert blesses, “Blessed are You, Eternal our God, Ruler of the Universe, who sanctifies us with Your mitzvot and commands us to circumcise converts.” And afterwards bless, "Blessed are You, Eternal our God, Ruler of the Universe, who sanctifies us with Your mitzvot and commands us to circumcise converts and to draw from the blood of the covenant.” Were it not for the blood of the covenant the heaven and earth would not be able to stand, as it says “Were it not for my brit, day and night, I would not have placed the laws of heaven and earth.” (Jeremiah 33:25)
[If] a non-Jewish woman comes to convert and she is pregnant, her child does not need to be immersed [after the child is born].
A minor who is an idol worshipper, if he has a [living] father, the father can convert him [i.e. present him to be converted]. And if he does not have a father and he comes to convert, or if his mother brings him to convert, a beit din can convert him, because it’s a merit to him, and we can give a merit to [the child] outside of his presence [because he is a minor and has no legal capacity]. Whether he is a minor who is converted on behalf of his father, or whether he was converted by a beit din [in the absence of a father], when he is older he can protest his conversion - we don’t treat him the way we would treat an adult convert- he is not like an apostate Jew, rather like an idol worshipper.
And what is this talking about? [A converted minor] may not act in accordance with the practices of Israel until they become an adult; but as soon as one becomes an adult and acts in accordance with the practices of Israel, he can no longer protest [his conversion].
An idol worshipper who comes to cut his foreskin due to an affliction or due to boils that appears out of nowhere, it is forbidden for Israel to cut, because there is no intention towards it as a mitzvah. If, rather, the idol worshipper intends for this to be a circumcision, it is a mitzvah for Israel to circumcise him. <i>(And there are some places in which it is allowed for one to heal the idol worshipper, then it is permitted in every circumstance. - Nivukei Yosef)</i>
[One who was previously known to have been] a male or female non-Jew, who comes and says, “I was appropriately converted by a beit din of So-and-So," they still should not be believed to come to the congregation [get married] until the witnesses [of the beit din] come. But if you see them behaving in customs worthy in the way of Israel and they do all of the mitzvot, they are presumed to be righteous converts, in spite of the fact that there were no witnesses to bear witness about who converted them. And if this is the case, if they come to mix [marry] into Israel, do not marry them until the witnesses come, or until they are immersed before us, since they initially had a known status as idol worshippers. However, one [whose status was never known] who comes and says that she is an idol worshipper and was converted by a beit din, believe her, for the mouth that forbids [and admits, “I am an idol worshipper” when she didn’t have to] is the mouth that permits [and says “but I was converted by a beit din.”]. And the Rambam writes that this ruling only applied in former days, and even then, only in the land of Israel, but outside the land one needs to bring evidence before he can marry an Israelite - because [the Sages] enhanced the strictures when it came to lineages [in Jewish communities outside Israel]. 
A man who is presumed to be Jewish and says, "I converted myself, alone”: if he has children, his testimony is not believed about his children [to annul their Jewish status], but you do believe the father to confirm his own status as a "forbidden portion," and [by dint of his own admission] he becomes forbidden from marrying an Israelite woman until he is immersed before a beit din.
When a [potential] convert comes to convert check after him, perhaps it is because of money he took, or because of power she will gain, or because of fear that [the pontential convert] is coming to enter the religion.  And if he is a man, check after him perhaps he placed his eyes on a Jewish woman.  And if she is a woman, check after her perhaps she placed her eyes on the single men of Israel.  And if you do not find to them [such] a cause, inform them of the weight of the yoke of the Torah, and the  difficulty of fulfilling it on the nations of the world in order that [the potential converts] leave.  If they accept and do not leave, and you see them that they are returning out of love, accept them.  And if you did not check after him or you did not inform him of the rewards of the commandments and their punishments, and he was circumcised and immersed before three ordinary people, this is a convert.  Even if you are informed that it is because of some thing (like those discussed above) that he converted, since he was circumcised and immersed he has left the category of Idol Worshippers (i.e. Non-Jews), and we are worried for him until his righteousness is clarified.  And even if he returns and serves Idols, he is like an apostate Israelite that his marriages are marriages.  [Rama]: An apostate Israelite that repents does not need to immerse.  Just that rabbinically he should immerse and accept words of joining (strict observance) before three. 

Siman 269

It is biblical law that it is permitted for a convert to marry his mother, or his sister from his mother that converted. Yet the sages prohibited this so that they wouldn't say: we came from stricter holiness to lenient holiness. So too a convert who slept with his mother or sister and she is still a gentile, it is as if he slept with an Aramean. 

Siman 270

1) [There is] a Positive Commandment on every Jewish man to copy a Torah Scroll for himself. Even if his ancestors bequeathed one to him, he is still commanded to copy [a scroll] of his own. He is not permitted to sell it [a Torah Scroll] even if he owns many Torah Scrolls.  ([This stands] even if he does not have what to eat.  [A Torah Scroll can be sold] only under the most dire circumstance)(Haghoth Maimoni Chapter 6). Even selling an old [Torah Scroll] in order to buy a new [Torah Scroll] is forbidden. However [if the scroll is sold in order to acquire funds] to study Torah or to marry a woman the sale is permitted if the seller has nothing else to sell. Note: For redeeming Jewish captives it is permitted to sell [a Torah Scroll] (See Tosfoth Bava Bathra chapter 1 beginning with "ואגודה שם", and Orah hayim 153). [If] he hired a scribe to copy a Torah Scroll for him or [If] he bought [a Torah Scroll] with copying errors and he proofread it, it is as if he copied [the Torah Scroll] himself (Beith Yosef quoting Nimukei Yosef).  However [if] he bought it as is [with errors] and did not proofread it at all, it is like he abducted a Mitzva from the market and he does not fulfill his obligation [of copying a Torah Scroll] (Tur quoting Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi from Menahoth chapter 2)   
2) Nowadays the commandment is to copy the five books of Moses, the Mishna, and the Talmud with its commentaries.  [These books] can only be sold [in order to gather funds] to study Torah or to marry a woman. 

Siman 271

The Skin that it is written upon, the lines, and the laws of the ink.  There are seven sections:  [We] do not copy a Torah scroll on the hide of a wild animal, an impure bird, or a fish even a pure [fish].  Rather [we] copy on the hide of a wild animal (it should read: domesticated animal)(the translator), and a pure bird, even the hide of corpses and sick animals of them [the permitted sources of hides]. The hides must be tanned by a Jew for the purposes of a Torah Scroll, that he [the tanner] will say at the beginning of the process, when he places them [the hides] into the lime, "I am tanning these hides for the purposes of a Torah Scroll". Note: If the tanner is a Non-Jew, a Jew should help a little (Tur quoting Rabbeinu Barukh) in the beginning [of the tanning process] when [the hides] are placed in the lime, he [the Jew] says that he is doing [this] for the sake of the holiness of a Torah Scroll (Beith Yosef) [then] he [the Jew] marks those hides [that he helped make] so that the Non-Jew[ish tanner] does not mix them up. We do not suspect after the fact that the Non-Jew[ish tanner] mixed them [the hides] up and then forged the marks at the end. (Haghoth Maimoni chapter 1 of the laws of a Torah Scroll) See Orah Hayim 32
2) They [the hides] must be tanned with tannin, lime, or something comparable [meaning] chemicals that shrink the hide and strengthen it.
3) [We] copy the Torah Scroll upon Gvil that is the hide that is not split. [We] copy it on the side with hair. If he copied the Torah Scroll on Klaf [split parchment] it is fit for use, this is when he copied on the inner side that is opposite the flesh. Note: Our parchments are choicer than Gvil.  Preferably [we] copy on the flesh side [of the parchment], and we no longer copy on Gvil (Rabbeinu Yehuda Mintz section 66). If he changed and copied on our parchments on the hair side it is unfit for use (Or Zarua Laws of Tefilin) however there are those who are lenient on this (טור וע"פ עב"י)
4) [If] he copied a little bit of it on Gvil [unsplit parchment] or a little bit of it on klaf [split parchment] it is unfit for use. If he made it half Gvil and half deer skin even though it is not the best way to fulfill the commandment it is fit for use. (See later section 290)
5) A Torah Scroll needs line. If he copied it without lines it is unfit for use.  He should not line [the parchment] with lead or something like it because it colors [the parchment].
6) A Torah Scroll must be copied with black ink made of the smoke of oils mixed in gall-nut water. (preferably one should be careful to make the ink only with ingredients that come from trees)(Implied by Zohar Terumah 72a) If he copied with a solution of gall-nut and vitriol [this mixture creates a black ink] it is fit for use, but [this is] not [so] with the rest of the colors like red, green etc. If he wrote a single letter in the other colors or in gold it is unfit for use. Note: Ergo it is forbidden to copy any of the 24 books [of the Hebrew bible] not in black ink (Rabbeinu Yeruham quoting ibn yarhi) There are those who say that we only require black ink for a Torah Scroll (Mordekhai ה"ק).
7) A Torah Scroll must be copied with the right hand (There are those who say that it can be copied with a reed pen and not a feather (Mordekhai Gitin chapter 1).       

Siman 272



Siman 273



Siman 274



Siman 275



Siman 276



Siman 277



Siman 278



Siman 279



Siman 280



Siman 281



Siman 282

Respectful behavior toward a Torah scroll, and the law of its use.  Herein are contained 19 sections:  One must behave with great respect toward a Torah scroll, and is commanded to designate a special place for it which one must treat with respect and which one must decorate (beautify) greatly.  One may not spit in front of a Torah scroll, nor may one undress (to the point of nudity) in front of it, nor may one scuff one’s feet (on a dirt floor) in front of it, nor may one place it upside down.  Also, one may not turn one’s back on it unless it is [sitting on something] ten handbreadths higher [than the person is tall – to be above the turned back].  Rather, one should sit before it with the proper mindset (for prayer), and with awe and fear, since this (Torah scroll) is [considered] the trusted witness regarding [the deeds of] all who live on earth, as it is said, “(Take this book of the Teaching [which can also be read:  ‘Take this Torah scroll’] and place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of Adonai your God,) and let it remain there as a witness against you.”  (Deuteronomy 31:26), and one should respect it according to its power.
If one sees a Sefer Torah in motion, one must stand before it, and all should stand until the one carrying it stops and brings it to its place, or until it is visually obscured with a cover. [Comment of Rema: But before our "Chumashim" one does not need to stand (B"Y citing Rambam), although some are stringent (Rashb"a 144). If one hears the voice of the one carrying the Sefer Torah, even if one cannot see them, one must stand (B"Y citing R' Rabbeinu Manoach).]
If one is walking from place to place and a Sefer Torah is with one: one should not set it to rest in a marketplace/in sackcloth, or on the back of a donkey and ride upon it, but rather, one should set it to rest in all its accoutrements, opposite one's heart, and it should ride on the donkey by itself. And if one is afraid of thieves, it is permitted. 
A person should not enter a bathroom, a bathhouse, or a cemetery whilst holding a Sefer Torah, even if it is wrapped in a cloth covering ("mitpachat") and placed in its box. A person should not read from it until they are four cubits distant from the corpse or from the cemetery or from the bathroom. And a person should not hold a Sefer Torah without a cloth covering.
We do not throw/discard holy writings, even laws and narrative (halachot and aggadot). And it is forbidden to turn one on its face (upside-down?), and if a person finds one [holy writing] so, one needs to turn it over (Mahari"l).
Amulets (bound texts worn on the body for protection) if covered by leather, may be brought into the restroom, otherwise, they may not be.
It is prohibited to sit on a bed that has a Sefer Torah upon it. [Comment of Rema: And how much more so is it prohibited to place it on the earth, and this rule is the same for other Sefarim (B"Y citing R"R Manoach and AC and Kolbo) and even on the stairs built in front of the Holy Ark it is prohibited to place Sefarim. And one should not place a Sefer Torah on their knees and lean their two elbows on it (Mahari"l) and it seems to me that this rule would be the same for other Sefarim.]
One may not have sex in a house which contains a Sefer Torah, until one removes it. And if there is nowhere to remove the Sefer Torah to, one should make in front of it a tall partition (mechitza) ten tefachim [fist-heights, about 8cm each] high. But by means of placing it in a vessel within a non-specialised vessel, it's only permitted [to have sex in the presence of] tefillin and other holy writings and chumashim, but it's not permitted regarding a Sefer Torah, though the Ramba"m permits this even with a Sefer Torah. And if one spreads one's tallit over the box that one places it in, this is considered like a vessel within a vessel.
All who are impure, even a menstruating woman, are permitted to hold a Torah scroll and to read from it, provided that their hands are not dirty or soiled. 
A Sefer Torah that wore out or became invalid- we place it in an earthenware container and bury it next to a wise sage, and this is its proper Geniza ("hiding away").
Wrappers of Sefarim that wore out- we make them into shrouds for an "obligatory decedent" (a body without anyone to bury it) and this is its proper Geniza.
A case prepared and used for holding a Sefer Torah; and likewise the Aron or the cabinet that we place the Sefer Torah into- even if the Sefer Torah is not placed in directly, but only inside a case; and likewise the chair prepared and used for holding a Sefer Torah. These are all sacred accessories ("tashmishei kedusha") and are prohibited (for ordinary use). And after they wear out or break, they are placed in Geniza. 
An Ark that has broken: it is permitted to make from it another, smaller one, but it is forbidden to make from it a chair for the Sefer Torah. And a chair that has broken: it is permitted to make from it a small chair, but forbidden to make a "shrafraf" (meaning a small bench) for a chair.
 The platforms ("Bimot") that the one holding the Sefer stands on do not have the sanctity of a Sefer Torah. But they do have the sanctity of a synagogue. 
Everything that was made for a Sefer Torah: if it was made on the condition that it could be used for other uses if one wishes to do so, the condition is effective. 
The gold and silver fruits that are made for the Sefer Torah for decoration: they are sacred accessories and it is prohibited to allow them to leave to the mundane realm, unless it is for the purpose of purchasing a Sefer Torah or a Chumash. 
In any situation where it is forbidden to transfer an item to a lesser degree of sanctity, if the seven greatest people of the city sold the item in the presence of the city's populace: it is permitted. 
An individual who sells their Sefer Torah and its accessories: some permit using that money, and some prohibit it. [But if there were mistakes in it, then it is permitted according to all opinions (Riva"sh 286) and see OC 153.]
It is permitted to place a Sefer Torah on top of another Sefer Torah, and we place Chumashim on top of books of Prophets and Writings. But we do not place books of Prophets and Writings on top of Chumashim, nor Chumashim on top of Sifrei Torah. [Comment of Rema: But books of Writings on top of Prophets (or the reverse is permitted) (B"Y citing Ra"N citing Tosfot Ch. 1 of Baba Batra) And all this applies to two separate volumes, where each volume is bound on its own. But in one bound volume, anything is permitted. (Mordechai Ch. "Hashutafin") And see below section 246 that it is forbidden to ponder words of Torah in dirty places, which is is (likewise) because of honor of the Torah.]

Siman 283




It's forbidden to embroider verses [of the Tana"ch] on a tallit/robe.
The orders of the Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the Twelve Minor Prophets. And the order of the Writings: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, the Book of Esther, Ezra, Chronicles.

Siman 284



Siman 285

<b>The reward and mitzva of mezuzah</b><br>It is a positive commandment to write the Shema, the Veyhaya Im-Shamoa, and to fix them on the side of one’s door, and one needs to be very careful in this, and all who are careful in this, their days will be lengthened, and the days of their children. And if one is not careful in this, his days will be shortened. Rama: And in any case, if it's "out of his reach" [i.e. he lacks the funds] to acquire [both] Tefillin and a Mezuzah, let him acquire Tefillin and not Mezuzah (<i>Yerushalmi Megillah,</i> end; O"C 38:12), as a mitzvah that is a bodily obligation is greater.
Its placement is in the outer tefah. Rama: There are those who say that when a person leaves his house, he puts his hand on the Mezuzah there and says “God will guard my going, etc.” And so too when one enters a house, one puts his hand on the Mezuzah.

Siman 286

<b>Places that require a mezuzah.</b><br>These are the places that require a Mezuzah, all the same:<br>• Whether the gates of the houses, or the gates of the courtyards, states and cities, [all are the same].<br>• The cowshed of cattle, and the pen, and the storehouses of wine and oil.<br>• A woman's house [or room] and the house of the Jewish housemates.<br>They are all obligated. (Rema: Specifically when the housemates are Jewish. But the house of a Jew and an idolator, is exempt from a Mezuzah (Mordekhai on Avodat Kokhavim ch. 1 end). Also the courtyards of cities where some idol worshippers live are exempt from Mezuzot (Chidushei Agudah on Yoma, ch. 1).
A house/room for straw, wood, livestock — require. But if women bathe there, since they stand there naked, it is not proper regard of Heaven for a mezuza to be there. (Rema: Only these specifically. But an actual [living] room, even if man and woman sleep and have relations there — requires mezuzah (in Responsa Maharil and the same wrote the BY) And some are lenient and say wherever women lie is exempt from mezuzah (BY in the name of Semak, the Kol Bo, and Mordekhai Hilkhot Mezuza end.) It seems to me wherever the door is from the [room's] inside and when people sleep there they close the door, and a doorpost is found outside it — it requires by all opinions. (ד"ע in Darkhei Moshe. And thus it seems in Teshuvat Maharil #98).
A synagogue, if there is an apartment for anyone, requires a Mezuzah. Rama: And if there is an apartment in the courtyard that is in front of the synagogue, the courtyard needs a Mezuzah but the synagogue is exempt. (BY in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham)
A bathroom and a bathing house and a tannery and a Mikvah, they are exempt, since they are not made to be honorable dwelling places. (BY in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham)
Where there's filth e.g. if there are babies there, it's better to cover the mezuzah. In a clean place it's better to have it visible.
<i>An akhsadra</i> (&lt; Gr. exedra) (porch), which is a space with three walls and a roof, even though it has two uprights on the fourth side <i>petzimin</i>, the <i>akhsadra</i> is exempt, because the petzimin are made to support the roof and not for the sake of <i>mezuzoth</i>/doorposts. (Quoting Rambam: Sefer Torah 6:3) But if it has a wall on the fourth side as well, even if it is low or is composed of many windows, then it requires.
A balcony that is a path to go up some stairs, and hallway [<i>beith sha`ar</i>], and a garden, is exempt. But if the house opens to one of these, it requires.<br>(And some say a hallway [<i>beith sha`ar</i>] requires one even if the house does not open to it (Tur and the poskim in the name of R"Y).
A gatehouse (hallway) that opens to a room and to a yard, needs two mezuzot: one where it open to the room and one where it opens to the yard.
A gatehouse (hallway) between a garden and house needs two mezuzot: one where it opens to the room and one where it opens to the garden.
A Beit Midrash does not need a Mezuzah, but if there is in it an entrance that you regularly use to go to your house, it needs a Mezuzah. And there are those who say that a Beit Midrash does need a Mezuzah and it is correct to be concerned about their words, but one should not make a blessing on it.
A Sukkah during its holiday, a room in a boat, and stores in the marketplace, are exempt.
Two potter's huts one inside the other, the inner one requires and the outer one is exempt. [Sukkah 8b]
A house/room that hasn't 4 amot by 4 amot, is exempt. But if it's able to cover 4 amot by 4 amot in equivalent area, even though it's longer than wide, or is round or has five corners, it requires. (Rambam ibid. :2)
An unroofed room is exempt. If part roofed and part unroofed, if the roofing is by the entrance, it requires mezuzah, provided 4 amot [square] are roofed.
A house even if it has no doors requires mezuzah. But some exempt it.
If there are many rooms, one in front of another, they all need Mezuzot.
If there are many entrances in the house that are open to the yard or to a public domain and each one is used as an entrance and an exit for the people of the house, they all need Mezuzot, even if the number of residents has declined such that its residents normally only exit and enter through one of them.
A house that has many doorways, even though he normally only exits and enters through one of them one, he is required to make a Mezuzah on each one.<br>Rema: Since they are made for entry and exit. (Thus seems to say the Tur)<br>A cellar that has an entry from the street, where they bring in wine in large barrels and it has a doorway from the house through which they enter and exit it constantly: If the small doorway [inside] is fit to have a mezuzah, then it requires it and the large doorway [outside] is exempt. But if the small one is not fit to have a mezuzah, then the large one requires it and the small one is exempt (BY in the name of an Ashkenazi responsum, which is found in Responsae Maharil #99).
A chute that extends from a house/room to an upper floor, in which people go up on a ladder, and the ladder is surrounded by walls, sometimes below at the base of the ladder or sometimes above at its top, and it has a <i>tzurath hapetach</i>/doorway at [either] end, it requires. And if they made a [tzurah] above and below, both require.
An entrance that is behind a door -- if its boards are <i>tefach</i> [past the door], it requires a mezuzah. [Menachot 33b]
An entrance that consists partially of a pillar between [two rooms] — as long as the hinge can be recognized from each side of the pillar, behold they're like two doorways, and each doorway needs a mezuzah. But so long as there's no hinge alongside the pillar, the pillar does not divide it [the doorway] into two [doorways], as it's just decorative.
One who rents a house/room outside the Land, or one who lodges at an inn in <i>Eretz Yisrael</i>/ the Land of Yisrael, is exempt from Mezuza for thirty days. But one who rents a house/room in Eretz Yisrael requires Mezuza immediately, due to [the mitzwah of] <i>yeshuv (dwelling in) Eretz Yisrael</i>. (And this is the law for someone who borrows a house; the law is like the renter.) (BY in the name of R' Manoah [Manoah B. Jacob?] and so it seems in Shas)
One who rents a house from a non-Jew is obligated in the mitzvah of Mezuza [for that house].

Siman 287

<b>What doorway needs a mezuzah?</b><br>A doorway does not require a mezuzah unless it has two doorposts and a lintel.
A house which has a doorpost here and a doorpost there, and on top there is a bow-shaped covering in the place of the lintel, if the doorposts are 10 tefachim or more high, then it requires a mezuzah, and if it is not 10 tefachim high, it is exempt [from requiring a mezuzah] since it does not have a lintel. Rema: And all the more so a door that is not 10 tefachim high is exempt from the requirement of mezuzah. The practice which is widespread in these areas is that most of the world relies on a single mezuzah that they place on the door to their houses and this is incorrect, and they have nothing [no legal source] to rely on for this. Therefore, every G-d fearing person should fix his house according to the law [so that there will be mezuzot] on all of the doors that require [mezuzot], as was explained.

Siman 288

<b>With what, and how, it is written.</b><br>How is the mezuzah written? He writes two sections on one pane (<i>daf</i>) in a single sheet (<i>yeri`ah</i>): <i>Shema`</i> and <i>Wehayah im-shamo`a</i>. He leaves a space below and above, approx. half a pinkly-fingernail-width (<i>tziporen</i>). When beginning he should measure in order [to leave a top margin] to enable unrolling it after it's rolled. Rem"a: <i>At the bottom he needn't leave any margin.</i> (Tur)
It should be written in one [column] (<i>daf</i>) but if he wrote it on two or three [columns] it's kosher.
If he wrote out of order, even if he forgot one letter, it's invalid and irreparable; needless to say if he put the wrong paragraph first.
If he wrote it on two parchments even if he stitched them it's invalid.
A priori the hide needs to be made for-the-mitzvah (<i>lishmah</i>). But where if he'll wait for hide that's made <i>lishmah</i> he will be delayed to do the mitzvah, then he should write it on available hide that is not made <i>lishmah</i> and perform the mitzvah immediately, while requesting hide that's made <i>lishmah</i>.
Whether written on <i>qelaf</i> (split leather) or <i>gewil</i> (unsplit leather), it's kosher. They did not restrict using <i>dukhsustus</i> (an inferior half of the split), but instead were saying the optimal mitzvah [is done on the aforementioned]. (Shabbat 79b) <i>(Rem"a: And our qelafim are kosher by all opinions.) (Mordekhai halakhot ketanot)</i>
Its rules regarding the ink, writing, crowns of the letters Sh`ATNeZ GaTz, are same as for sefer torah.
[The parchment] requires scored lines. If written without scoring, it's invalid.
He writes all its lines equal-length; one should not be longer than another. If one line is longer than the previous or the next, or shorter than the previous or next, it's kosher. As long as it's not arched, or like a tail, or round.
<i>`Al-ha'aretz</i>/on the Land should be written at the head of the last line, and write nothing more after.
The custom is to write it in 22 lines.
It needs to be written with the right hand, like tefilin.
The space between paragraph <i>Shema`</i> and paragraph <i>Wehayah im-shamo`a</i>, it is a mitzvah to make it a closed space. If he made it an open space, it's kosher, since it's not adjacent in the Torah.
It is rolled from end to beginning, from <i>Echad</i> to <i>Shema`</i>.
It is forbidden to add anything to it, except on the back side we write <i>ShaDaY</i> opposite the word <i>Wehayah</i> on the front.<br><i>Rem"a:</i> Some say opposite the space between the paragraphs (Tur in the name of RO"Sh, and the Short Mordekhai and Rambam and HGH"M [Hagahot Mordekhai] in the name of SH"T [Sefer haTerumot]). And that is the custom. And we leave a window in the case opposite the name <i>ShDY</i> so that it's visible from outside (there, in Mordekhai and HGMY"Y [Hagahot Maimoniyot]). We also have the custom to write on the outside <i>KUZU BMUKS"Z</i> opposite <i>H' Eloheinu H'</i>, and write these letter upside-down versus the mezuzah writing, so that each letter touches opposite its replacement letter in the Alef-Beth (HGHMY"Y). But inside, add nothing at all besides the two paragraphs. (TUR and RAMBAM).

Siman 289

<b>Where to affix it, how to affix, and its benediction.</b><br>One who is coming to affix [a mezuzah] should place it in a reed or other type of tube and he should affix it in its place and say the placing “who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to affix a mezuzah” and one should not make a blessing when the mezuzah is being written. Rema: One who is affixing two or three mezuzot should make one blessing for all of them.
Where is the proper place for affixing [the mezuzah]? In the empty space of the doorway [on the inside of the doorway] within the tefach that is closest to the outside, Rema: And if he changes [and places it somewhere else] it does not prevent [the fulfillment of the mitzvah] so long as he places it on the doorpost itself. [Place it] at the start of the upper third of the height of the entryway; and if he attached it higher than this it is valid, so long as it is at least a tefach way from the lintel, and one should attach it on the right side [of the doorway from the point of view] of entering. Rema: and there is no difference whether the person is left-handed or not. And if he placed it on the left side [of the doorway from the point of view of one entering] then it is invalid.
Someone whose house is divided in two and each part is a doorway open to <i>reshut harabim</i>, in the separating divider there is a doorway to both halves: In the place where he makes the hole in the threshhold, [wherein] the door's axle (hinge?) turns, and he erects the doors there, that is the house, and where he enters when it's on his right, he affixes it. Template:Clarify
How is it affixed? Nail it with nails into the door post, or dig out a hole and stick it in there. And don't dig deeper than a <i>tefach</i>, else it's invalid.
[If] he affixed on the doorposts of the doorway whilst [doorpost was] detached, and then attached [the doorpost] to the doorway, it's invalid.
The mezuzah should be erect lengthwise on the length of the doorpost of the doorway, and one should intend that the [word] shema that is at the end of the scroll should be [facing] the outside. Rema: And that is how they practice, but there are those who say that [the mezuzah] is invalid erect, rather its length needs to be inclined towards the width of the doorpost of the doorway [that is to say, horizontally]. And those who are scrupulous fulfill both [opinions] and place the mezuzah at an incline, at a diagonal. And this is how it is proper to practice, and this is how we practice in these places, and one should intend that the top of the mezuzah, where the [word] shema is, should be towards the inside and the last line should be facing outside.

Siman 290

<b>To not write [a mezuzah] on the parchment from a sefer torah.</b><br>A sefer torah or tefilin that got wore out, must not be made into a mezuzah. And not to write it on the parchment [prepared for the intent] of a sefer torah, since we do not descend from higher sanctity to a lower sanctity.

Siman 291

<b>Mezuzah -- when to check it and who requires one?</b><br>An individual’s mezuzah is [required to be] checked twice [every] seven years. But a public/community mezuzah is [only required to be] checked twice [every] fifty years.
[If] one rents a house from one’s friend, the renter/lessee must affix a mezuzah [to the house] and repair the place where it is affixed. (And even if the person rented the house under the [mistaken] assumption that it [already] had a mezuzah, it is not an invalid lease.)<br>And when the renter/lessee leaves [when the lease expires], she/he does not take [the mezuzah] in her/his hand [i.e., the lessee leaves behind the mezuzah]. (And if the lessee is stingy with regard to her/his finances, the second person [i.e., the lessor] is required to reimburse him/her [for the value of the mezuzah].)<br>And if one rented the house from an idolater, or rented the house to an idolater, one takes [the mezuzah] and leaves [with it when the lease expires].<br>Rama: And an idolater who asks that one give her/him a mezuzah [because he/she] wants to affix it to his/her doorway, it is forbidden to give a mezuzah to the idolater. But it seems to me that in a case where there is reason to be concerned that in that particular place there will be hostility [towards Jews if one does not give the mezuzah to the idol worshiper], and that the idol worshiper will treat Jews poorly because of this, it is permissible [to give a mezuzah to an idol worshipper].
All are obligated in [the performance of the mitzvah of] mezuzah, even women and slaves. And we teach children to perform [the mitzvah of] mezuzah for their doorways.

Siman 292



Siman 293

It is forbidden to eat new (crop) of the five types of grain until the Omer is brought, which is the 16th of Nissan. As it says, “And bread, toasted grain, and unripe (or damp) grain you may not eat until (the end of) this very day.” And in these times that there is no Omer, it is forbidden (on) all of the 16th day. And outside of Israel where we observe two days, it is forbidden (on) all of the 17th day, until the beginning of the night of the 18th.
The prohibition of (eating) new (grain) is practiced both in Israel and outside Israel, whether of a Jew’s (grain) or a non-Jew’s.
Grain that did not take root before the 16th of Nissan is forbidden until the next Omer comes. Rama: And nevertheless, all indeterminate grain is permitted after Passover because of a double doubt. Perhaps it comes from the previous year. And even if you’ll say that it came from this year, nevertheless, perhaps it took root before the Omer (Tur quoting the Rosh).  And in types of grain that they certainly plant after Pesach, for example in some countries where they plant spelt and barley after Passover, then he should be stringent after the harvest, unless the gates of the country are not closed and most of the grain comes from another place where they plant before Passover. (Hg”M Ch. 11 from the M”A &amp; Tos. End of Ch. 1 of Kiddushin) And also, in a time when the winter season extends to after Passover, and in all of that region they plant the abovementioned crops after Passover, one should be stringent and suspect unless known otherwise. But one should not teach others in a place where most of their drinking and eating is from these species, because it is better that they be negligent and not to be pre-meditated. (So it seems in the Tur quoting the Rosh and T”H Ch. 158)

Siman 294





























An Idolater that sells fruit and says it is Orlah or a four year sapling we don’t believe him even if he says I took it from so and so.

Siman 295



Siman 296



Siman 297



Siman 298



Siman 299



Siman 300



Siman 301







Shrouds of the dead, one may make them from shatnez (a mixture of linen &amp; wool) even to bury the person in.

Siman 302



Siman 303



Siman 304



Siman 305

















The Redemption of the firstborn depends solely on being the first issue of the womb. If he’s not first born to the mother, even though he’s first born to the father, he’s not obligated to be redeemed. And if (the father) has many wives, and he has a firstborn with each one, he must redeem all of them.

Siman 306



Siman 307



Siman 308



Siman 309



Siman 310



Siman 311



Siman 312



Siman 313



Siman 314



Siman 315



Siman 316



Siman 317



Siman 318



Siman 319



Siman 320



Siman 321



Siman 322

SEPARATION OF CHALLAH: WHETHER CHALLAH OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL OR CHALLAH OF THE DIASPORA - CONTAINING 5 SECTIONS: It is a positive commandment to separate a contribution from the dough and to give it to priest, as it is said: "the first of your dough you shall contribute [as] a contribution" (Num. 15:20) - and "first" - this does not have a [specific] amount from the Torah - even if one separated [an amount] like a grain of barley has exempted the dough. And one who make all of one's dough challah has done nothing until one leaves over some. And from the words of the Sages, we separate 1/24 of the dough, and a baker who makes [it] to sell in the market separates 1/48. And if the dough becomes ritually impure by accident or compulsion [i.e. forces out of one's control], even the householder separates 1/48. 
We are not obligated in challah from the Torah other than in the land of Israel alone, as it is said: "and it shall be that when you eat from the bread of the land..." (Num. 15:19). And [it applies] at a time that all of Israel is there, as it is said: "when you [plural] come" (Num. 15:18) - the coming of all of you and the coming of some of you. Therefore, [the obligation of ] challah at this time - even in the days of Ezra in the land of Israel - is only from their [i.e. the Sages'] words [i.e. it is of Rabbinic force only].
We separate challah in the Diaspora according to the words of the Sages in order that the teaching of challah will not be forgotten from Israel.
There are three laws for challah in three lands. All of the land [of Israel] that those who came up from Babylonia held - up to Keziv - separate in it one challah according to its [specified] amount, and it is eaten by priests. And the rest of the land of Israel that those who came up from Egypt, but not those who came up from Babylonia held - from Keziv to Amana - separate in it two challot. The first is 1/48 and it is burnt, and the second has no [specified] amount, and they give it to the priest to eat it. And all the land from Amana onward, whether in Syria or in the rest of the [foreign] lands separate two challot. The first has no [specified] amount, and it is burnt, and the second, 1/48, and is eaten. And it is permitted to those who are ritually impure, even to zavim and zavot [males and females ritually impure due to abnormal genital emissions]. And in this time, when there is no ritually pure dough because of the ritual impurity of the dead body [a status which all are considered to have], they separate one challah in all of the land of Israel, 1/48, and burn it because it is ritually impure. And from Keziv to Amana, they separate a second for the priest for eating, and it does not have a [specified] amount, as was the case in previous times.
Challah of the Diaspora [in our day], even though it is ritually impure, since its essence is an obligation from their [the Sages'] words, it is not forbidden for eating other than  for those [priests] whose ritual impurity goes out upon one from one's body, namely those who have emitted semen, zavim and zavot (males and females ritually impure due to abnormal genital emissions], menstruants, and those who have given birth. But the rest of those who are ritually impure through touching what is ritually impure, and even those who are ritually impure, are permitted for eating it. Therefore, whether in Syria or whether in the Diaspora, if one wanted to separate [only] one challah, one separates 1/48 and it is eaten by a male minor [priest] who still has not seen a seminal emission or a female minor [daughter of a priest] who has not yet menstruated, and there is no need to separate a second [challah]. And it is [also] so if there was an adult priest there who immersed [in a mikveh] from his emission of semen or from his zivah (abnormal genital emission), even though the sun has not set on him (and there are some who say that the sun needs to set - the Ran on Eilu Ov'rin), behold this one is permitted to eat the first challah, and there is no need to separate a second in the Diaspora. Gloss: And there are some who say that since there is no challah eaten in this time in the land of Israel, also [it should be so] in the rest of the places. There is no need to separate [other than] only one challah and to burn it (Tur in the name  of "there are those who say" and other decisors). And such is the basic practice in all these lands, that they do not separate [other than] only one challah that has no [specified] amount, and they burn it like they used to do when they separated two challot, in that the challah of the fire did not have a [specified] amount. And in any case, the practice to take an olive-size (Maharil). And the one [i.e. priest] who eats challah, even in the Diaspora, blesses first according to the type [of food] that one wants to eat, and after than blesses "who makes us holy with the holiness of Aaron and commands us to eat terumah [a contribution]". And there are those who say that when they burn challah, they make an inference because of it that an Israelite [i.e. non-priest] is forbidden to derive benefit from it (Maharik, and so also in Tosafot "Kol Sha-ah"), and they practice to throw it into the oven before they bake the bread.

Siman 323



Siman 324



Siman 325



Siman 326



Siman 327



Siman 328



Siman 329



Siman 330



Siman 331


In this era, even in a place where Jews ascending from the Diaspora have acquired a presumption of ownership, and even in the days of Ezra (the Scribe), there is no pentateuchal obligation of priestly gifts and tithes; rather, a rabbinic obligation exists, since the verse says, "When you shall come...," implying when all of you will ascend to the land, and not a partial Aliyah, as there was in the days of Ezra.  <i>Gloss: And there are dissenters, and their position is that [even] nowadays we are biblically obligated <u>in the land of Israel</u> in priestly gifts and tithes, yet we do not follow this custom (Yaakov ben Asher (Ba'al ha-Turim) quoting Rabeinu Yitzchak).</i>

Siman 332



Siman 333



Siman 334



Siman 335

<b>LAWS OF VISITING THE SICK; HEALING; THE APPROACH OF DEATH AND ONE IN A DYING CONDITION.</b><br>It is a religious duty to visit the sick.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Shab. 127a; B.M. 30b; B.K. 100a; Ned. 39b-40a; Sot. 14a.</i> Relatives and friends<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Who are intimate with him and are on an equal footing as relatives.</i> may enter at once and strangers after three days. If the sickness overtakes him<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘springs upon him.’</i> both may enter forthwith.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> in abridged form from <i>T.H.</i> — <i>G.</i> Y. Peah III, 9(17d); <i>ibid.</i> Git. VI, 7 (48a-b) ; Sem. de R. Ḥiyya (H) I, 1;  also Sem. (H). Int. pp. 17-19 and cf. Ber. 55b; Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XIV, 5 and <i>Kes. Mish. ibid.</i> Strangers are not permitted to visit the sick person before three days elapse, for prior to this period their visit indicates that the patient’s luck is shaky and that he is designated a sick person. This, however, does not apply to relatives and intimate friends who are much closer to him. Hence, if the sickness overtakes him even strangers are permitted to visit him immediately — <i>BaḤ.</i> A <i>Kohen</i> is permitted to visit a sick person in a hospital, although it is quite likely that a corpse is present there. However, he should first make inquiries from the hospital authorities whether there is a corpse there or not. Where this is impossible to be determined, the <i>Kohen</i> may visit the patient in order to fulfil the religious duty of visiting the sick. The <i>Kohen</i> should not fear that there are sick people in the hospital who are in a dying condition, for we apply the principle that the majority of sick people recover — <i>Resp. Teshurath Shai.</i></i>
Even a prominent person must visit a humble one;<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Ned. 39b.</i> even many times a day and even if the visitor is of his affinity.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Of the same age as the invalid. Thus <i>Rashi.</i> According to <i>Asheri</i>: ‘under the same planetary influence.’ ‘For a master said: ‘A man’s affinity takes away a sixtieth of his (the sick person’s) illness’ (Ned. <i>ibid</i>.; B.M. 30b).</i> One who increases [his visits] is considered praiseworthy,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">In accord with Raba’s dictum (Ned. <i>ibid</i>.), ‘Even a hundred times a day.’</i> provided he does not trouble him.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> The visitor should not come empty-handed — <i>Sefer Yesh Noḥalin.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that an enemy may visit a sick person</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Maharil</i> s. 197 — <i>G.</i></i> <i>However, this does not seem plausible to me; but he should not visit a sick person nor comfort a mourner whom he hates, so that</i> [<i>the latter</i>] <i>should not think that he rejoices at his misfortune, and thereby feel depressed</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">One may, however, follow the funeral procession of his enemy since this is the end of every human and ‘rejoicing at one’s misfortune’ does not apply (<i>BaḤ</i>). But as to visiting the sick or offering comfort to a mourner, it depends upon the degree of enmity. — <i>ShaK</i>. One should therefore, use his judgment, especially if the sick person gives him permission to visit him — <i>Sefer ha-Ḥayyim.</i></i> <i>Thus seems to me</i> [<i>to be the correct view</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">San. 19a — <i>G.</i>  also <i>Me’iri ibid.</i></i>
One who visits the sick may neither sit upon a bed, nor upon a chair, nor upon a stool, but must [reverently] wrap himself and sit in front of him [the invalid], for the Divine Presence is above the top-side of his bed.<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">For it is written, <i>‘The Lord supports him upon the bed of illness’</i> (PS. XLI, 4).  Shab. 12b, and <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>לא</span>; Ned. 40a and <i>RaN</i> s.v. <span>לא</span>.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: [<i>This applies</i>] <i>only if the sick person lies on the ground so that he who sits</i> [<i>near him</i>] <i>will be on a higher level; but when he lies upon the bed, it is permissible</i> [<i>for the visitor</i>] <i>to sit on a chair or a stool</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos</i>. citing <i>RaN; Hag. Maim.; Tosaf.</i> and <i>Hag. Asheri</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>And thus is our accepted practice</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">This means that it is permissible to sit on any side of the invalid’s bed as long as the visitor is not on a higher level. , however, Zohar <i>Pinḥas</i> 234b where it is stated that if the invalid is an average person <span>בינוני</span> one should not sit at his feet, and at the top-side of the bed it is forbidden even if both are on the same level; if the invalid is a perfectly righteous person <span>צדיק גמור</span> the visitor may sit only in front of him at his feet, for in this case the Divine Presence is found on every side of the invalid excluding the side at his feet.</i>
One must not visit the sick during the first three hours of the day, — for every invalid's illness is alleviated in the morning and [consequently] one will not trouble himself to pray<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘to ask for mercy.’</i> for him; and not during the last three hours of the day, — for then his illness grows worse and one will give up hope to pray for him.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Ned. <i>ibid.</i> This is not a prohibition but only general advice. Hence, people are not particular with respect to this requirement — <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>One who visited</i> [<i>a sick person</i>] <i>and did not pray for him has not fulfilled the religious duty</i> [<i>of visiting the sick</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> citing <i>N</i> (in <i>T.H.</i>) — <i>G.</i></i>
When one prays for him, — if in his presence,<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">e., the invalid’s.</i> one may pray in any language one desires; if one prays, not in his presence,<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">e., the invalid’s.</i> one should pray only in Hebrew.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Shab. <i>ibid.</i> according to which the Divine Presence is with the invalid and supports him (v. <i>supra</i> n. 12). Hence, the visitor may pray in any language since he is in the presence of God. But when he is not in the presence of the invalid he requires the angel’s intercession who according to tradition understands only Hebrew (v. Sot. 33a). This should not be confused with the notion that Judaism advocates praying to angels to intercede on our behalf. The angel merely acts as a carrier of prayers to God.  Y.Ber. IX, 1(13a), “If a misfortune befalls a person, he should not cry to Michael or Gabriel, but let him cry to me and I will answer him forthwith, as it is written, <i>‘whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered</i>’” (Joel III, 5).</i>
One should combine him with other Jewish sick by saying, 'May the Omnipresent have compassion upon you in the midst of the sick of Israel;'<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">Shab. <i>ibid.</i> since the merit of a group is more efficacious.</i> and on the Sabbath he says, 'It is the Sabbath when it is forbidden to cry out<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i>, which is not in keeping with the spirit of the Sabbath.  <i>Siddur</i> for text.</i> and healing will come soon.'<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"> O.Ḥ. § 287.</i>
He is told to consider his affairs whether he lent to or deposited [aught] with others,<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">Or whether he wishes to leave instructions for his children — <i>A.H.</i></i> or vice versa, and that he should not fear death on account of this.<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i> citing Sem. However, this is not found in cur. edd. of Sem. The source of this ruling is Sem. de R. Ḥiyya(H) <i>ibid.</i></i>
One must not visit those suffering with bowel diseases,<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">Ned. 41a, on account of embarrassment, since the invalid has to move his bowels frequently.</i> or with eye diseases, or from headaches.<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i>, on account of engaging in conversation which is injurious to people suffering from headaches.</i> And likewise, whosoever is very sick<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘the world rests heavily upon him.’</i> and conversation is injurious to him must not be visited in his presence, but one may enter the outer chamber and ask and inquire regarding him, — whether it is necessary to sweep or sprinkle the ground before him<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i>, 40a.</i> or anything similar to this, and hear his suffering and and pray for him.
One must visit the sick of the Gentiles in the interests of peace.<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">Git. 61a. Cf. <i>W.G.</i> a.l.</i>
[In the case of] those suffering with bowel diseases,—[the law is that] the man must not attend upon the woman, but the woman may attend upon the man.<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">In such cases attendance by a man upon a wowan leads to obscene thoughts and licentiousness. In the reverse case the passion is not as strong and hence permissible. Thus <i>D.M.</i> <i>Ta</i>Z and <i>ShaK</i> make a distinction between diseases, where the male is more prone to be tempted, and other illnesses, where this is not applicable. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 195, 18 and <i>infra</i> § 352, 3.  also Resp. <i>N.B., E.H.</i> s. 69.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that whosoever has a sick person in his home should go to the Sage of the city in order that he pray for him;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote">B.B. 116a and <i>N.Yos.</i> a.l. — <i>G.</i></i> <i>and likewise is it the accepted practice to recite blessings</i> [<i>on behalf of</i>] <i>sick persons, in the Synagogues</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote">On days when the Torah is read.  O.Ḥ. § 54, 2; § 288,  Blessings may be recited on behalf of sick people even if the latter do not reside in the same city — <i>P.Tesh.</i> No blessing is recited on behalf of an excommunicant — <i>Sefer Ḥasidim</i>.</i> [<i>viz.</i>,] <i>to give them an</i> [<i>additional</i>] <i>new name, for a change of name causes an evil decree passed upon man to be cancelled</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote">R.H. 16b.</i> [<i>The precept of</i>] <i>comforting mourners takes precedence over visiting the sick</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> — <i>G.</i>  also Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XIV, 7. Since the precept of comforting mourners is a charitable act both on behalf of the living and the dead.</i>

Siman 336

The Torah has granted the physician permission to heal,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">B.K. 85a derived from the words, <i>‘And to heal he shall heal’</i> (Ex. XXI, 19).</i> and it is a religious duty<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Ned. 41b, <i>Asheri</i> s.v. <span>רפואת</span>. The apparent contradictory terms ‘permission’ and ‘religious duty’ on explained as follows: True healing is the result of efficacious prayer. But not every person merits such consequences. Man, therefore, has to rely upon natural cures too, through the permission granted the medical man to administer treatment, who in turn is religiously dutibound to perform his duty — <i>Ta</i>Z. In this sense <i>Ta</i>Z explains the passage in Ber. 60a bot. On the question of cures in the Talmud, cf. <i>R. A. Eger</i> a.l.; M.K. 11a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>כוורא</span>; Kol Bo(G) § I, sec. </i> which comes under the rule of saving an endangered life.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i>, derived from Yoma 83a-b. Cf. O.Ḥ. § 328, 4.</i> If he withholds [treatment] he is regarded as one who sheds blood;<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from Y.Yoma VIII, 5(45b). Cf. O.Ḥ. <i>ibid.</i> par. 2.</i> and even if there is someone else who can heal him; for not from every one does one merit to be healed.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Y. Ned. IV, 2(38c).</i> Nevertheless, on should not occupy himself with medical treatment unless he is an expert and there is none other greater than he; for if not so, he is regarded as one who sheds blood.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">This follows <i>a fortiori</i> from all other laws and teachings of the Torah which only an expert is permitted to deal with. Cf. San. 84b; Kid. 82a, Mishna.</i> If one administered medical treatment without the permission of the Jewish Court,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Or nowadays without a medical diploma — <i>A.H.</i></i> he is subject to payment of indemnities, even if he is an expert; and if he administered medical treatment, having the permission of the Jewish Court, and erred, causing [thereby] injury [to the patient], he is exempt by the laws of man and is held responsible by the laws of Heaven.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Tosef(Ẓ). B.K. VI, 17. This applies only if it was the result of his negligence. Otherwise, he is regarded as not having committed any sin — <i>A.H.</i> If he caused injury intentionally, even after having permission of the Court, he is held responsible by the laws of man — <i>ShaK.</i></i> If he caused death and it became known to him that he acted inadvertently, he is banished<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Tosef(Ẓ). B.K. VI, 17. This applies only if it was the result of his negligence. Otherwise, he is regarded as not having committed any sin — <i>A.H.</i> If he caused injury intentionally, even after having permission of the Court, he is held responsible by the laws of man — <i>ShaK.</i></i> on account of him.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Tosef. <i>ibid.</i> according to version of <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> Cf. <i>W.G.</i> a.l.</i>
The physician is forbidden to take payment for his wisdom and learning<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">B.K. 81b; San. 73a; Sifre Deut. XXII, 2, derived from, <i>‘And thou shalt restore to him’</i> which implies that not only lost objects must be returned to their owner, but even if the person proper is lost or is sick, one is dutibound to restore the person of his fellow-man. Hence, this includes giving medical advice which may save the patient and restore his person to good health. Consequently, this must be done gratuitously. Cf. Bek. 29a, ‘Just as I teach gratuitously, so must you teach gratuitously,’ for one must not receive remuneration for the performance of a religious duty.  <i>ibid.</i> Mishna. Advising the patient which medicine to take would refer to learning and wisdom which must be offered <i>gratis</i>; visiting the patient or writing a prescription would refer to trouble and lost time for which payment may be accepted — <i>A.H.</i></i> but he may receive payment for his trouble<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Bek. 29a; Kid. 58a.</i> and lost time.<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">Bek. <i>ibid.</i> a and b; B.M. 31b.</i>
One who has medical ingredients and his neighbour is sick and requires them, is forbidden to raise the price above the standard value.<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from Yeb. 106a regarding the daughter of R. Papa’s father-in-law.</i> Furthermore, even if they agreed to pay him an excessive amount, due to the need of the hour, — for they found that only he possessed the medical ingredients, — he is entitled only to the [standard] price.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i> ibid.</i> regarding the man who escaped from prison.</i> However, if one stipulated an excessive sum as payment to the physician, he is obligated to give it to him, for he sold him his learning which cannot be valued in [terms of] money.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Although he is required on account of the religious duty</i><sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> n. 2.</i> <i>to heal him</i>, — <i>for every positive command which rests upon every person</i> [<i>to fulfil</i>], — [<i>yet</i>] <i>if it chances to come to one's hand and he agrees to execute it only for money</i>, — [<i>the law is that</i>] <i>we do not claim the money from him</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">If the physician had already received the money — <i>BaḤ</i>. The same applies to the medical ingredients if already paid for — <i>R. A. Eger.</i> Although the physician is forbidden to receive payment (v. <i>supra</i> par. 2), it is different, however, if the patient had obligated himself to pay. For the physician may put forth a valid claim that it was not only his own duty to study medicine, since everyone has the opportunity to master this field. Nevertheless, in the case of the man who escaped from prison (v. <i>supra</i> n. 14) and offered the ferryman an exorbitant fee to take him across the river, the law is that he was obliged to pay only the normal rates, despite the fact, that in this case too, the ferryman may claim that every person has the opportunity to learn his type of work, for in the latter case there exists an established rate, whereas in the former case the knowledge of the physician cannot be measured in terms of money. Consequently the stipulation must be fulfilled — <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> <i>nor do we make him cancel his</i><sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">Thus reading of <i>T.H.</i> and <i>B.Yos.</i> a.l. Cur. edd. have ‘their.’</i> <i>obligation</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> — <i>G.</i> Even if he had not yet received the amount pledged — <i>BaḤ, ShaK.</i></i>

Siman 337

One who is sick and suffered a bereavement, must not be informed thereof lest his mind become unclear; nor is his garment rent; nor is it permitted to cry or make lamentation [for the dead]<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Whether for his dead or another’s dead.</i> in his presence, so that his heart be not broken; and they silence the comforters in his presence.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 26b; <i>Alfasi;</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VIII, 4 and <i>Kes. Mish.</i> a.l.; <i>Tur;</i> T.H., derived from Sem. de R. Ḥiyya(H) I, 3. Not found in cur. edd. of Sem.  <i>W.G.</i> a.l. Not only must he not be informed, but even if it became known to him, he is not instructed to rend garments, so as not to aggravate his condition — <i>ShaK.</i> This applies even to a case where one lost a parent and would have to recite <i>Kaddish</i> — <i>Beth Hillel.</i></i>

Siman 338

If one feels death approaching, he is instructed, 'Confess [your sins]!'<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Shab. 32a and <i>Tur</i> a.l. This applies only when he feels death approaching. Otherwise, he will think that he is dangerously ill and his heart will be broken — <i>BaḤ</i> and <i>ShaK contra Perisha</i>.  Sifre, Num. V, 6: ‘R. Nathan says, <i>“and that soul be guilty; then they shall confess their sin which they have done.”</i> this (verse) forms the rule for all dead that they require confession of sin (prior to death).’</i> And they say to him, 'Many confessed [their sins] and died not, and many who have not confessed, died; and as a reward, should you confess, you will live;<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i>, derived from Sem. de R. Ḥiyya(H) I, 2. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 337, n. 2.</i> and he who confesses [his sins] has a portion in the world to come.'<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">As we find written in the case of Achan, <i>‘Joshua said unto him, my son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord, the God of Israel, and make confession unto Him’</i> (Josh. VII, 19). <i>‘And Achan answered Joshua and said, of a truth I have sinned against the Lord, God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done’</i> (<i>ibid.</i> 20). The confession of Achan made atonement for him, as is written (<i>ibid.</i> 25), <i>‘The Lord shall trouble thee THIS DAY,’</i> i.e., only this day, but not in the world to come — Mishna, San. 43b.</i> And if he is unable to make confession with his mouth, he should confess in his heart.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i>, derived from Sem. de R. Ḥiyya(H) I, 2. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 337, n. 2.</i> <i>If he knows not what to confess, they instruct him, say, 'My death should be an expiation for all my sins</i>.'<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> — <i>G.</i>  Mishna, San. <i>ibid.</i></i> All these instructions are given to him, not in the presence of illiterate people, nor women, nor minors, lest they cry and break his heart.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i>, derived from Sem. de R. Ḥiyya(H) I, 2. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 337, n. 2.</i>
The order of confession<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. Sifra, Lev. V, 5 and <i>Torah Temimah</i> a.l. n. 56.</i> for a dangerously ill person, is, 'I confess before Thee O Lord, my God and the God of my fathers, that my healing and my death are in your hand. May it be Thy will, to heal me completely, and if I die, my death should be an expiation for all sins, wrongs and rebellious acts,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Yoma 36a.  O.Ḥ. § 621, 6. <span>חטא</span> refers to a sin committed unwittingly; <span>עון</span> to one committed wittingly and <span>פשע</span> to a rebellious act. The order here is from the lenient to the grave. Thus <i>M.Abr. ibid.</i> n. 5.</i> which I have committed sinfully, wrongfully and rebelliously before Thee, and grant me a share in Paradise, and favour me with the world to come which is stored away for the Righteous.' <i>And if he desires to prolong as in the confession for the Day of Atonement</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Yoma 86b.</i> <i>he has the right to do so</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo — G</i>.</i>

Siman 339

One in a dying condition is considered a living being in all respects.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">He is considered a living being with respect to granting a divorce (provided he is able to speak, according to one opinion in E.H. § 121, 7) ; to giving gifts, and as to a <i>Kohen</i> entering the house of a person in a dying condition, some permit and others forbid.  <i>infra</i> § 370.</i> We may not tie up his jaws,<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">So that he does not open his mouth.</i> nor may we annoint him with oil, nor wash him,<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">In order to remove filth.</i> nor stop off his organs of the extremities,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">This was done in order that the corpse should not swell on account of the air which enters through his open organs.</i> nor may we remove the pillow from under him, nor may we place him on sand, clay-ground or earth, nor may we place on his stomach a dish, a shovel, a flask of water or a globule of salt,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">These were ancient practices.</i> nor may we summon the towns on his behalf, nor may we hire pipers and lamenting women, nor may we close his eyes<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">For all these hasten his death — <i>Ta</i>Z. On closing the eyes, cf. Gen. XLVI, 4, ‘<i>And Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes</i>.’</i> before his soul departs.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>T.H.</i> who derives this from Sem.  Cur. edd., however, do not contain all the items enumerated.  <i>W.G.</i> a.l. and Sem(H). p. 233; also <i>supra</i> § 337, n. 2. Cf. further Shab. 151a-b, Mishna.</i> And whosoever closes [the dying person's] eyes before death<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘with the departure of the soul.’</i> is regarded as one who sheds blood.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">One must make sure that he is dead, for it is quite possible that the patient has only fainted — <i>Maim.</i> The Talmud (<i>ibid.</i>) and Sem. (l.c.) compare this to a lamp that is going out. If one places his finger upon it, it is immediately extinguished — <i>ShaK.</i></i> One may not rend garments, nor bare the shoulder in mourning, nor make a lamentation for him, nor bring a coffin into the house in his presence before he dies,<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">A healthy person is, however, permitted to prepare shrouds for himself — <i>T.H.</i> according to Men. 41a.</i> nor may we begin the recital of <i>Ẓidduk Haddin</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> before his soul departs.<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i> Cf. <i>W.G.</i> a.l.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that we may not dig out a grave for him. although it is not</i> [<i>done</i>] <i>in his presence</i>, [<i>i.e.</i>,] <i>in the house, — before he dies</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RIBaSh, Resp.</i> 114. But if this is not done in the presence of the dying person and he would therefore not become aware of it, it is permissible — <i>B.Yos.</i> and <i>BaḤ.</i> However, on the eve of the Sabbath one must be very careful not to open a grave unless there would be sufficient time to bury the corpse. Cf. O.Ḥ. § 547, 9; <i>BaḤ a.l. Mish. Le-Melek</i>, Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IV, 5.</i> <i>It is</i> [<i>likewise</i>] <i>forbidden to dig out any grave to be</i> [<i>left</i>] <i>open until the next day, in which the corpse will not be buried the same day, and there is danger in this</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Yeruḥam</i> on the authority of <i>R. Yehudah</i> the <i>Ḥasid</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>It is likewise forbidden to cause</i> [<i>aught</i>] <i>to hasten the death of one who is in a dying condition, e.g., one who has been in a dying condition for a long time, and could not depart</i>, — [<i>the law is that</i>] <i>we may not remove the pillow or the mattress from under him</i> [<i>just</i>] <i>because some say that there are feathers from some fowl which cause this</i> [<i>prolongation of death</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Where there exists a possibility that if a certain cure or medicine is administered the patient may live or it may have the opposite effect of hastening his death, the law is that it is permissible to give the medicine or the like after consultation with medical experts — <i>Resp. Binyan Ẓion.</i> One may offer prayers that the suffering person die — <i>RaN</i> (Ned. 40a).</i> <i>He may likewise not be moved from his place. It is also forbidden to place the Synagogue keys under his head in order that he may depart</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">These are all forbidden on account of moving the patient which may hasten his death — <i>Ta</i>Z and <i>ShaK.</i>  <i>supra</i> n. 7.</i> <i>However, if there is aught which causes a hindrance to the departure of the soul, e.g.</i>, [<i>if</i>] <i>near that house there is a knocking sound, viz., a wood-cutter, or there is salt on his tongue, and these hinder the departure of the soul, it is permitted to remove it therefrom, for there is no</i> [<i>direct</i>] <i>act</i> [<i>involved</i>] <i>in this, since he merely removes the hindrance</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Alfasi</i> (295b) to M.K. III — <i>G.</i> <i>Ta</i>Z <i>contra ShaK.</i> forbids removing salt from his tongue, since in this case too, the patient has to be moved. <i>A.H.</i> agrees with <i>ShaK.</i></i>
One who is informed, 'We saw your relative in a dying condition three days ago,' is bound to mourn for him,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Tur, R. M. of Rothenberg, Asheri</i> and <i>Mord.</i> in accordance with Git. 28a: ‘Most of those in a dying condition die.’</i> <i>For it is certain that he has already died</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">For only when the person in a dying condition is in our presence is he regarded as a living being in every respect. Otherwise, he is not — <i>ShaK.</i>  <i>P.Tesh.</i> for other opinions on this question. Nevertheless, when such a report is brought, the wife of the person who was found in a dying condition, may not remarry nor should she observe mourning rites, nor should the children recite the <i>Kaddish</i> — <i>A.H.</i></i>
<i>Ẓidduk Haddin</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> is recited when the soul departs,<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i> If a fire breaks out, one is dutibound to remove a person in a dying condition from the burning house. So too, a corpse takes precedence in such a case over saving Holy books; a living infant takes precedence over a corpse, and a healthy person over one dangerously ill — <i>R. A. Eger</i> on the authority of <i>Sefer Ḥasidim</i>.</i> and when he reaches [the words] 'Judge of Truth,' the mourner rends his garments.
As soon as he feels death approaching, they should not separate themselves from him, lest his soul depart whilst he is alone.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo.</i> For the soul suffers grief when it has to leave the body alone.</i> <i>And it is a religious duty to stand near the</i> [<i>dying</i>] <i>person during the departure of the soul, as it is written</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">Ps. XLIX, 10.</i> '<i>That he should still live alway; that he should not see the pit. For he seeth that wise men die, the fool and the brutish together perish etc</i>.'<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Alfasi ibid.</i> — <i>G.</i></i>
It is a custom to pour out all drawn water in the neighbourhood of the corpse.<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo.</i> By this act people will know that someone has died, and it will avoid a direct announcement — <i>ShaK.</i> Other reasons have been advanced. Cf. <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>), pp. 24-26 for a thorough analysis of this custom.</i>

Siman 340

<b>LAWS OF RENDING GARMENTS</b><br>One who suffered a bereavement, namely, [one] of [his] near-of-kin<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>infra</i> § 374.</i> [died], for whom he is required to observe mourning rites, must rend [his garments] for him.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 24a: ‘A mourner who does not rend his garments, is guilty of a mortal offense.’ The requirement is Rabbinical and the Rabbis gave it support by reference to a Biblical verse — <i>ShaK.</i> It is customary that another person rends the garment, for then the mourner endures more grief, and on seeing a stranger rend his garment, and remaining silent he thereby acknowledges Divine Justice. The stranger must not rend more than is required. Otherwise, he is held responsible for damages. Even when the mourner himself rends the garment, he must not rend more than the law requires. If he rends more, he transgresses the law forbidding one to ruin anything wantonly (v. Deut. XX, 19) — <i>P.Tesh.</i> One must also rend garments when he collects the bones of a near-of-kin — <i>G.Mah.</i> (v. <i>infra</i> § 403, 2). The benediction recited when rending garments must contain the <i>‘Divine Name’</i> and the word <i>‘King’</i> — <i>Bir. Yos.</i></i> One must rend [his garments] while standing;<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 20b, derived from the verse, <i>‘Then Job stood up and rent his mantle’</i> (Job I, 20).  also II Sam. XII, 31.</i> and if one rent [his garments] while sitting, he has not discharged his duty;<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i> <i>and he must rend again</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>Ghayyat; Asheri; Hag. Maim.; B.Yos.</i> according to opinion of <i>RaBaD; N; Mord. M.K. III</i> — <i>G.</i> Some authorities state that if he had already rent in a sitting position, the reading is considered valid.  <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>In the first instance one must rend</i> [<i>his garments</i>] <i>before he conceals the face of the corpse</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> citing <i>SeMaK</i> — <i>G.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> § 339 according to which the mourner rends his garments when he reaches the words, ‘<i>Judge of Truth</i>.’ There is no contradiction between these rulings, since the former rule is in accordance with the custom to recite the <i>Ẓidduk Haddin</i> when the soul departs — <i>Ba’er Heteb.</i> If one has not rent garments after death, he may still do so throughout the seven days of mourning, for during this period it is still regarded as a ‘moment of excitement’ (v. M.K. 24a).</i>
The region for rending is all along the neck of the garment in the forepart; but if he rent in the back part, <i>or in the lower parts of the garment</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> — <i>G.</i></i> or on the sides, he has not discharged his duty.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 26b.  Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VIII, 1. Likewise if the garment is rent widthwise, one does not discharge his duty — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that one discharges his duty if he rends in the lower parts of the garment; and thus is the common practice to adopt the more lenient view</i>, [<i>viz.</i>,] <i>to rend in the lower parts of the garment</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">These customs you will find in <i>SeMaK, MaHaRIW, Ḥid. Agud.</i> and <i>Kol Bo</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>when rending for all other dead, for whom one does not observe mourning rites;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">When one is present during the departure of the soul — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>but for near-of-kin, for whom one must observe mourning rites, he does not discharge his duty with this rending, but must rend in the neck of the garment. And thus is the common practice</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"><i>SeMaK</i> on the basis of Sem(H). IX, 18: ‘One who rends in the lower parts or on the sides of the garment has not discharged his duty. R. Judah says, that he has discharged his duty.’ In the case of other dead, who are not his near-of-kin, we accept R. Judah’s view.</i>
The extent of rending is a handbreadth.<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 22b: ‘Said R. Abbahu, what text teaches this? <i>Then David took hold on his clothes and rent them</i> (II Sam. I, 11), and there is no taking hold of anything by less than a hand-breadth. Cf. Suk. 32b; Nid. 26a.</i> If he rent [his garment] upon suffering a bereavement, and extends the rent, on sustaining another bereavement; if [the second bereavement] is after the seven [days, the additional rent] may be as small [as he wishes]; if during the seven [days], a handbreadth is required.<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 26b.  <i>infra</i> par 21.</i> However, for his father and mother, [after having suffered a previous bereavement], even after seven [days], he rends until he bares his chest.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i>  <i>infra</i> par. 18 and 2</i>
Just as he rends for his near-of-kin, for whom he observes mourning rites, so does he rend in the presence of his near-of-kin, when the latter sustains a bereavement. In what respect? If his son's son dies, or his son's brother,<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">After divorcing his wife, she remarried and had a son from her second husband, who is now a maternal brother to his own son.</i> or the mother<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">After having divorced her she died.</i> of his son, he is required to rend in the presence of his son. So too, does he rend for his father-in-law and his mother-in-law, and a woman rends for her father-in-law and her mother-in-law.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 20b, 26b. Cf. Yad, <i>Ebel</i> II, 4; VIII, 5.</i> <i>Nowadays we do not follow this practice as will be explained infra § 374 in the subject of mourning.</i>
One who is present at the time of the departure of the soul of a Jewish man<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 25a; Shab. 105b.</i> or woman,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">The Talmud (<i>ibid.</i>) compares this to a scroll of the law that is burnt in which case one is required to rend garments. Cf. Shab. <i>ibid. Rashi</i> s.v. <span>לס״ת</span>. The reason for rending garments when present at the death of a woman is because the loss is great and there is much anxiety — <i>Tur.</i> All agree that one should rend garments for a minor who was a student of the Bible — <i>BaḤ.</i> Cf. <i>Ba’er Heteb</i> and <i>P.Tesh.</i> for other opinions.</i> is dutibound to rend garments;<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>N</i> and <i>B.Yos.</i> even according to <i>Rashi’s</i> opinion — <i>G.</i></i> and even if at times [the person who died], committed a sin because of an irresistible desire, or [would] forsake the performance of a religious duty on account of trouble involved.<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg.</i> A precedent for this is King David who wept for his son Absalom — <i>W.G.</i> Even if he committed a grave sin which involves capital punishment by Court, nevertheless, since it was done out of an irresistible desire and not in a spirit of defiance, we must rend garments — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>But one who was in the habit of committing sins, is not mourned for</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.</i> M.K. end — <i>G.</i> Even if committed out of an irresistible desire — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>and so much the more for one who is an apostate in respect of idolatry</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> and codifiers; San. 47a a.e. — <i>G.</i> Sem(H). II, 8; Hul. 41a.</i> <i>Some say that an apostate who was killed by a Gentile</i>-[<i>robber</i>], <i>is mourned for</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Asheri</i> to M.K. III; <i>O.</i>Z. — <i>G.</i> Derived from San. <i>ibid.</i> His death is considered an expiation for his sins, for he no doubt repented at the point of death — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>So too</i>, [<i>does one mourn for</i>] <i>a minor who commits apostasy along with his father or mother</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 159 end and <i>infra</i> § 345, 6.</i> <i>since he was under pressure</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.</i> and <i>Hag. Asheri</i> on the authority of <i>RI</i> and <i>B.Yos. infra</i> § 345 — <i>G.</i> Cf. Shab. 68b.</i> <i>and some say that we observe no mourning rites</i> [<i>for him</i>], <i>and this is the</i> [<i>accepted</i>] <i>fundamental principle</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> on the authority of <i>R. Ḥananel</i> — <i>G.</i>  Tosef(Ẓ). San. XIV, 3 and cf. <i>W.G. a.l.</i></i> <i>Those who dissociate themselves from the practices of the community, although they are not mourned for</i>, [<i>nevertheless</i>], <i>their children are mourned for</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote"><i>O</i>.Z.; cf. <i>infra</i> § 345 — <i>G.</i></i>
For a worthy person,<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> in accordance with <i>RaBaD’s</i> interpretation to M.K. 25a.</i> against whom no suspicion is entertained with respect to any sin, or neglect of any religious duty, and who is not ill-reputed,<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Jonah</i> does not regard these as qualifications for a worthy person unless one shows a deep interest in the performance of kind deeds — <i>N</i> and <i>BaḤ.</i></i> although he is not great in learning,<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote">Gem. <i>ibid.</i></i> — [the law is that] even if one was not present at the time of the departure of the soul, he is dutibound to rend [garments for him], provided he was present there between death and burial.<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote">Derived <i>ibid.</i> from the story about the death of R. Safra. Cf. Sem(H). IX, 1 in accord with emendation of <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i></i> Scholars, however, are exempt from this rending.<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. B.M. 33a and v. <i>P.Tesh.</i> for other opinions.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that one is not dutibound to rend</i> [<i>garments</i>] <i>for a worthy person unless one is present at the time of the departure of the soul; but one is required to weep and to mourn for him</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaN</i> to Shab. 105b; <i>Hag. Maim.</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XII citing <i>Ra’BIaH</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>And thus is the accepted practice, to adopt the lenient view</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">Today, however, we are lenient in every respect with regard to these rendings — <i>ShaK.</i></i>
For a scholar or a disciple who is questioned on a matter of <i>Halachah</i> in any reference and is able to answer it, one rends garments,<sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> from <i>Asheri</i> who derives this from <i>RaBaD</i>, based upon the case of R. Safra M.K. 25a and the case of R. Bun (or Abbun) Y.M.K. III, 7(83b): ‘Just as garments are rent for scholars, so also for their disciples etc.’</i> even after burial, on the day the [death] report [is received],<sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from the above case of R. Safra for whom the Rabbis did not rend their garments. Their reason was that they did not learn from him directly. When Abaye reported to them the teaching that when a scholar dies all are considered his near-of-kin, the Rabbis took the view that what was done was done. However, Abaye said to them, ‘we learnt that if a scholar dies, as long as they are still engaged in a lament for him one is dutibound to rend garments for him. Hence, the ruling here. This is also derived from the case of Samuel (<i>ibid.</i> 24a) who, when informed that Rab died, rent thirteen garments for him, and said that the man before whom he trembled is gone. The same was done by R. Joḥanan when the death of R. Ḥanina was reported to him.</i> if it is within thirty days [from death];<sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> 20b. If he did not rend garments for him at the time the death report was brought to him, he must rend at the time the lament is made, provided it takes place within the thirty days from death; but after the thirty days one does not rend even at the time that the lament is held — <i>ShaK.</i></i> and one rends [garments] for him at the time of his lament.<sup class="footnote-marker">39</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> 25a, ‘A scholar is honoured at the time of the lament.’</i> <i>If one did not rend</i> [<i>garments</i>] <i>on the day the</i> [<i>death</i>]-<i>report</i> [<i>is received</i>], <i>and the time of the lament had already passed and he</i> [<i>still</i>] <i>had not rent, he no longer rends</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote">Thus implied in <i>Tur</i> and <i>B.Yos.</i> — <i>G.</i> This follows also from the case of R. Safra (<i>supra</i>). Cf. <i>W.G.</i> a.l.</i> And [garments] are rent for him until the chest is bared;<sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IX, 11 as in the case of one’s parent.</i> and it is an accepted practice among scholars everywhere to rend [garments] for each other to the extent of a handbreadth, although they are equals and neither is considered a teacher of the other.<sup class="footnote-marker">42</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.;</i> B.M. 33a.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that</i> [<i>garments</i>] <i>are not rent for a scholar unless the latter is his teacher, or</i> [<i>if</i>] <i>we know of the novel interpretations which he expounded, for this is</i> [<i>what is meant</i>] <i>by his teacher';</i><sup class="footnote-marker">43</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri; Hag. Maim.</i> citing <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg — G.</i></i> <i>and thus is the practice to adopt the more lenient view in our countries</i>.
For his teacher from whom he derived the greater part of his wisdom, whether in Bible, Mishna or Gemara,<sup class="footnote-marker">44</sup><i class="footnote">B.M. 33a, ‘R. Judah said, He from whom one derived the greater part of his knowledge.’ This refers to either Bible, Mishna or Gemara. <i>Ibid.</i>, ‘It was stated, R. Isaac said on the authority of R. Joḥanan, the halachah is as R. Judah.’</i> one rends all his garments until he bares his chest.<sup class="footnote-marker">45</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IX, 2 and <i>Tur.</i></i> And some say that he rends only to the extent of a handbreadth,<sup class="footnote-marker">46</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i>, derived from <i>N</i> and <i>Asheri.</i></i> and he never resews the rent;<sup class="footnote-marker">47</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 26a, ‘Our Rabbis taught, And these are rents that art not to be resewn: One who rends his garments for his father and mother or his teacher who taught him wisdom.’ Cf. <i>Tosaf.</i> a.l. s.v. <span>קרע</span> and <i>Rashi</i> and <i>Tosaf.</i> B.M. <i>ibid.</i> s.v. <span>ומקרעין</span>.</i> even if he receives distant tidings,<sup class="footnote-marker">48</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>infra</i> § 402.</i> he must always rend [garments] for him. However, if he did not derive the greater part of his wisdom from him, he rends [garments] for him only according to the law of other dead, for whom he [must] mourn; and even if he learnt from him only a single matter, whether small or great, he must rend [garments] for him.<sup class="footnote-marker">49</sup><i class="footnote">B.M. <i>ibid.</i>, ‘R. Jose said: Even if he enlightened his eyes in a single Mishna only, he is considered his teacher. Said Raba: e.g., R. Seḥora who told me the meaning of <i>Zohamalistron</i> (ζωμóλιστρον). Cf. commentaries <i>ibid.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that a rent made for one's teacher who is not distinguished</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">50</sup><i class="footnote"><span>רבו מובהק</span> A distinguished teacher refers to one from whom he has derived the greater part of his knowledge. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 242, 30.</i> <i>must also not be resewn</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">51</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>Asheri; B.Yos.</i> on the authority of <i>Rashi; Tosaf.</i> and <i>RaN — G.</i></i> [<i>With respect to</i>] <i>scholars who sit together, debate with, and resolve problems for one another, and study together, some say that they are considered to be in the category of a teacher who is not distinguished; others say that they are in the category of a teacher who is distinguished</i><sup class="footnote-marker">52</sup><i class="footnote">The two opinions are found in <i>Tur</i> — <i>G.</i>  B.M. <i>ibid.</i>, ‘The scholars in Babylon arise before and rend their garments for each other in mourning.’ Cf. <i>Rashi ibid.</i> s.v. <span>עומדין</span> from which this is derived.</i>; [<i>still</i>] <i>others say that</i> [<i>garments</i>] <i>are to be rent only for one's teacher who taught him the greater part of his knowledge, but for fellow-collegiates who study together or for one who enlightened his eyes in a single matter</i>, [<i>rending garments</i>] <i>is merely an</i> [<i>additional</i>] <i>stingency</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">53</sup><i class="footnote">According to this opinion Samuel and the Babylonian scholars (B.M. <i>ibid.</i>) rent their garments as an added stringency.</i> <i>and wherever such is the practice, it is followed, and wherever such is not the practice, it is not followed; but we do not rule thus</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">54</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.; Hag. Asheri</i> citing <i>She’iltoth</i> and <i>Hag. Maim.</i> on the authority of <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i> — <i>G.</i> One observes mourning for a teacher who had taught him wisdom for one day or one hour only — <i>Ta</i>Z. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 242, 25.</i> <i>Hence it is the common practice to adopt the more lenient view in these countries</i>.
For all other dead, one rends [to the extent of] a hand-breadth in the uppermost garment, and this is sufficient; but for one's father and mother, one rends all his garments, even though he be wearing ten, until he bares his chest.<sup class="footnote-marker">55</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 22b. It is customary that for parents one rends his garments on the left side (close to the heart), and for other dead (e.g., a son, a brother etc.) one rends on the right side — <i>ShaK</i> on the authority of <i>RaShaL.</i> If one rent the undermost garment, he has discharged his duty — <i>P.Tesh.</i> One is permitted to take off a garment which he wishes to spare and to wear another garment for rending purposes, even in the case of losing a parent. Rending in a ribbon or cloth attached to a garment is not considered valid — <i>G.Mah.</i> and <i>Bir. Yos.</i></i> If he did not rend all his garments, he has not discharged his duty,<sup class="footnote-marker">56</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from M.K. <i>ibid.</i> ‘The rending of one’s undershirt is not indispensable.’ Hence, it follows that in the case of all other garments it is indispensable. Cf. <i>Asheri; T.H.</i> on the authority of <i>RaBaD.</i></i> and he is rebuked [for this];<sup class="footnote-marker">57</sup><i class="footnote">He is rebuked as in the case of one who disregards the performance of a religious duty enjoined by the Sages. Cf <i>Tur</i> a.l.</i> and as long as the garment is upon him, he is instructed, 'Rend!,' even after thirty days.
One is not required to rend his epikarsion.<sup class="footnote-marker">58</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.:</i> ‘And the rending of one’s ἐτπκάρσιλον is not indispensable.’ Cf. <i>N; Asheri contra RaBaD; W.G.</i> a.l.</i> Some explain that it refers to the sweat-shirt, next to his skin;<sup class="footnote-marker">59</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>‘Aruk.</i>  ‘Ar. <i>Comp.</i> s.v. <span>אפיקרסין</span> Cf. Yad; <i>Ebel</i> VIII, 3; <i>T.A.</i> I, 164 nn. 503-5.</i> others explain that it refers to he uppermost garment which is called Caffa.<sup class="footnote-marker">60</sup><i class="footnote">The Caffa is essentially a rich silk cloth worn on the head over the shoulders reaching down towards the middle of the body about 40 sq. in. Arabic <img src="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==
"> (qufiyah, i.e., made in al-Qufah).</i> And the custom has spread not to rend the Caffa for any dead whatsoever, even [not] for one's father or mother; and to rend for one's father or mother also the garment called chemise.<sup class="footnote-marker">61</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> citing his teachers and <i>SeMaK</i> on the basis of <i>‘Aruk</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>In these countries we do not follow this custom</i>, [<i>but the law is that</i>] <i>we do not rend the linen garment, namely, the sweat-shirt, nor</i> [<i>do we rend</i>] <i>the top mantle</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">62</sup><i class="footnote">Thus also <i>Mas’ath Biny.</i> in <i>Resp.</i> But one is required to rend his jacket both for parents of for other dead — <i>ibid. Ta</i>Z rejects this ruling, viz., to rend the jacket. For it is not definitely established that this garment should be rent according to the law, even if one should desire to adopt a stringent view, — for it may lead to a leniency in the case of other dead where only the top garment, (i.e., beneath the jacket) is required to be rent according to he law. <i>ShaK</i> in <i>Nek. Hak.</i> agrees with <i>Mas’ath Biny.</i>  <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>) I, p. 28, 7 who concludes that today we rend the vest.</i> <i>but all other garments one must rend for his father or mother</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">63</sup><i class="footnote">Until he bares his chest. Cf. <i>supra</i> par. 9 — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>and in</i> [<i>the case of</i>] <i>other dead, the top garment under the mantle</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">64</sup><i class="footnote"><i>SeMaG</i> on the authority of the <i>French Rabbis</i> — <i>G.</i></i>
Both the man as well as the woman are alike with respect to the law of rending [garments], only that the woman rends her undermost garment [first] and turns it front to back, and then rends her uppermost garment.<sup class="footnote-marker">65</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> according to <i>RaShBA’s</i> interpretation. Cf. also Sem(H). IX, 7. This procedure is adopted in order to avoid exposure of her chest. This refers to rending garments for parents, in which case one is dutibound to rend all garments. Hence, she adopts the above procedure in order to avoid exposure of her chest, so that if men are present they should not be led to obscene thoughts. Although <i>Isserles</i> (<i>supra</i> par. 10) rules that the undermost garment is not rent, nevertheless, even exposure of the undermost garment may lead to obscenity — <i>ShaK.</i></i>
For all other dead, if one desires, he leaves the upper selvage-border [around the neck] intact, and rends from under the border downwards; for his father or mother he must rend the entire border.<sup class="footnote-marker">66</sup><i class="footnote">For only in rending the selvage-border proper does the garment appear as torn into two separate pieces (M.K. <i>ibid</i>.).</i> <i>Some say that even for other dead he must rend the border</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">67</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.</i> — <i>G.</i> This is in accord with R. Judah (<i>ibid</i>.): ‘Any rending that does not separate the selvage-border is considered a wanton rent.’ He derives this from II Kings II, </i> <i>And thus is the accepted practice.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">68</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIW</i> c. 6 — <i>G.</i></i>
For all [other] dead one should rend inside, [i.e.,] not in the presence of people. Hence, he brings his hand inside and rends in privacy.<sup class="footnote-marker">69</sup><i class="footnote">With the least publicity possible.</i> However, for one's father and mother one rends only outside, [i.e.,] in the presence of all people.<sup class="footnote-marker">70</sup><i class="footnote">Demonstrating his grief openly. M.K. <i>ibid.</i> Inside <span>מבפנים</span> and outside <span>מבחוץ</span> are explained by <i>Rashi</i>, quoted by some of the commentators (Cf. <i>Be’er ha-Golah</i> a.l.), but not found in cur. edd. of <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary on the Talmud, as meaning, privately and publicly, respectively. <i>Ghayyat</i> explains that <i>‘inside’</i> means the inner garment. Thus also <i>N.</i> This follows from the fact that the expressions <span>מבפנים</span> and <span>מבחוץ</span> are used and not <span>בפנים</span> and <span>בחוץ</span>. <i>Caro</i> combines both interpretations in stating the law here. Cf. also Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VIII, 2 with whom <i>Caro</i> agrees. <i>Rashi</i> in cur. edd. agrees with <i>Ghayyat.</i></i>
For all other dead, if one desires, he rends with the hand or if he desires he rends with an instrument; for one's father and mother, [one rends] with the hand.<sup class="footnote-marker">71</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> It is customary for another person to make an initial rent in the garment (either with his hand or with an instrument) and then the mourner completes the required rending himself — <i>Hok. Adam.</i></i> For all other dead, if one has occasion to change his garment during the seven days, he changes, but does not rend [afresh]; for one's father and mother, if one changes during the seven days, he rends all the garments [into] which he changes,<sup class="footnote-marker">72</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 24a. This refers to changing garments during a weekday. On the Sabbath, however, if one has occasion to change garments, he does not rend them even for his father or mother. If he has not garments to change into, he turns the rent side front to back (<i>ibid.</i> 24a). Thus also Yad, <i>Ebel</i> X, 1 and also implied <i>infra</i> § 400. This applies only if he changes to weekday garments but he must not change to Sabbath apparel (cf. <i>infra</i> § 389, 3) — <i>ShaK.</i></i> and never resews the rents, as in the first instance [of rending].<sup class="footnote-marker">73</sup><i class="footnote">Y. M.K. III, 8(83d) end.</i> <i>For all other dead, one may turn the rent front to back during seven</i> [<i>days</i>]; <i>but not for one's father or mother</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">74</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Yeruḥam</i> citing <i>RaBaD</i> — <i>G.</i> This is contrary to Sem(H). X, 10.</i>
For all other dead, one bastes the rent together, — <i>this means to sew with irregular stitches</i> — after seven days, and resews the edges after thirty days,<sup class="footnote-marker">75</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 22b. <span>שלל</span> refers to rough basting stitches; <span>אחה</span> to fine regular stitches — <i>Ta</i>Z. It is permitted to baste together the edges of the rent on the eve of a Festival, provided it is close to evening after the <i>Minḥa</i> Service has been recited — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>and it matters not whether the Festival occurred therein or not</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">76</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Maim.</i> citing <i>Ra’BIaH</i> — <i>G.</i> Although a Festival annuls the seven or thirty days of mourning (v. <i>infra</i> § 399), that is true only with respect to the law of mourning where the lenient view is adopted, but not regarding the law of rending garments, where the strict view is followed. Hence, in the latter case complete seven or thirty days are required. Today, however, it is customary to resew the edges of the rent as soon as the period of mourning is over, for observance of mourning and rending of garments are on the same footing (cf. <i>infra</i> par. 30) — <i>ShaK.</i></i> for one's father or mother, one bastes the rent together after thirty days and never resews the edges;<sup class="footnote-marker">77</sup><i class="footnote">It is forbidden to remove the rent part and to replace it by patching another piece of cloth underneath — <i>P.Tesh.</i> and <i>G.Mah.</i> After twelve months of mourning for parents, this may be done — <i>BaḤ</i> and <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> and a woman may baste [the rent] together forthwith out of respect due to her. <i>Gloss</i>: <i>As long as it is forbidden to baste together, it is likewise forbidden to fasten the edges of the rent with a needle. There are localities where it is customary to be stringent even for other dead, viz., not to baste together within thirty days, and then it is even forbidden to fasten the edges of he rent with a needle</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">78</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIW</i> § 6 — <i>G.</i></i>
For all other dead, if he desires, he bares his shoulder [in mourning];<sup class="footnote-marker">79</sup><i class="footnote">On the meaning of this term, v. <i>‘Ar. Comp.</i> s.v. <span>חלץ</span> n. 6.</i> for his father or mother, he is obliged to bare his shoulder;<sup class="footnote-marker">80</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> Sem(H). IX, 3.</i> and thus he walks before the bier until [the corpse] is interred.<sup class="footnote-marker">81</sup><i class="footnote">B.K. 17a.</i> If the son is a great man and it is not dignified for him to walk with his shoulder bared, he is not dutibound to do so.<sup class="footnote-marker">82</sup><i class="footnote">Derived by <i>N</i> from M.K. <i>ibid.</i> Cf. also Sem(H). <i>ibid.</i></i>
A <i>Nasi</i> is equal to one's father with respect to baring the shoulder [in mourning], rending publicly and resewing the edges.<sup class="footnote-marker">83</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i> All those who rend garments for a Sage who died, — [the law is] that as soon as they have turned away their faces from the rear of the bier, they may baste together the rent<sup class="footnote-marker">84</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 25a.</i> and resew the edges on the following day. On receiving the news of the death of a Sage, [after rending the garment], one bastes together the rent on the very same day, and resews the edges the next day;<sup class="footnote-marker">85</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IX, 12, 13 <i>contra N</i> who sees no reason why this should not be done the same day.  <i>Kes. Mish.</i> a.l.; Sem(H). IX, 6; comments of <i>W.G.</i></i> and for a <i>Nasi</i> and one's distinguished teacher, one bastes together the next day but never resews the edges.<sup class="footnote-marker">86</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel ibid.; W.G.</i> a.l.</i> For a Sage one bares the shoulder on the right; for the <i>Ab Beth Din</i>, on the left, and for a <i>Nasi</i> on both sides.<sup class="footnote-marker">87</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 22b; Sem(H). IX, 2.</i> For one's father, mother and distinguished teacher, if he desires he bares either side or if he desires he bares both sides.<sup class="footnote-marker">88</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri ibid</i>. Thus also <i>Tur.</i></i> <i>Some say that nowadays it is not customary to bare the shoulder at all</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">89</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> on the authority of <i>RI</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>And thus is the accepted practice today.</i>
For all other dead, if one did not receive the [death-] report until after thirty days, he does not rend.<sup class="footnote-marker">90</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 20b in accord with R. Mani.</i> One who had no garment [at that time that is required to be rent according to law],<sup class="footnote-marker">91</sup><i class="footnote">E.g., if his garments were torn or he was wearing borrowed garments or he possesses only a linen undershirt which is not rent (v. <i>supra</i> par. 10 Gloss) — <i>ShaK.</i></i> and [later, a garment that is required to be rent], chanced to come to his hand, — [the law is that if the garment was obtained] during the seven [days], he rends [it]; [if] after the seven [days], he does not rend [it]. However, for his father and mother he always<sup class="footnote-marker">92</sup><i class="footnote">Y. M.K. III, 5(82c); <i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Hal. Ged</i>.; <i>N.</i></i> rends<sup class="footnote-marker">93</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> in accord with R. Zera.</i> <i>all his garments</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">94</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIW</i> § 13 — <i>G.</i> This refers to all his garments which he wears at the time he received the report, but not to those which he has occasion to change to (v. <i>supra</i> par. 14) — <i>ShaK.</i> If the death report was received on the Sabbath, he rends on the night following the Sabbath as in the case of one who receives near tidings of other dead on the Sabbath (v. <i>infra</i> § 402, 7). One who either advertently or inadvertently did not rend garments; if it is still within the seven days of mourning, which is regarded as ‘the moment of excitement,’ he must rend; if it is after seven days, he does not rend; for one’s parents, one rends garments even after twelve months — <i>N.</i> If a person was ill and his mind was disturbed, the law is that when he returns to normal health, that moment is considered for him ‘the moment of excitement’ <span>שעת חימום</span> and he rends garments even for other dead, provided it is still within the thirty days. However, if his mind was not disturbed, but he did not rend because he was dangerously ill, <i>Ta</i>Z states that after the seven days he is exempt from rending for his near-of-kin (excluding his parents). <i>BaḤ</i> and <i>ShaK</i> hold that the latter case is on the same footing as one whose mind was disturbed.  <i>infra</i> § 396, n. 5</i>
Just as he is forbidden to mend a rent which must not be resewn, so also is it forbidden to turn a garment upside down and resew the rent.<sup class="footnote-marker">95</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 26b in accord with R. Simeon b. Eleazar. Thus also <i>Alfasi, Asheri, Maim.</i>, and <i>N</i> on the authority of <i>Hal. Ged.</i> Cf. Y.Shab. I, 3(4a); <i>ibid.</i> A.Z. I, 1(39b) where it is stated that with respect to Sabbath, mourning rites and idoltary the law follows R. Simeon b. Eleazar.</i> Even the one who buys it is forbidden to resew [the rent]. Therefore, the vendor must inform the buyer thereof.<sup class="footnote-marker">96</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> If he does not inform the buyer it is regarded as a purchase made in error — <i>ShaK.</i></i> And if he sold it to him without specifying and did not inform him [about the rent in the garment], the latter is forbidden to resew the rent until he knows that it is not one of the rents that may not be resewn.<sup class="footnote-marker">97</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). IX, 20. Cf. however, <i>supra</i> § 16, 6 and § 316, 6, where it is stated that in a case where the buyer was not informed, he should have no apprehension contrary to the law stated here. <i>Be’er ha-Golah</i> removes the contradiction by saying that in our case the underlying reason is different, for were the rent one of those that may be resewn, the vendor would have done so himself, since a garment with a rent is worth less money. Cf. <i>ShaK</i> a.l. for further distinctions.</i> It is forbidden to sell it to a Gentile.<sup class="footnote-marker">98</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). <i>ibid.</i> Since the Gentile will undoubtedly resew the rent.</i>
One who rends his garment in a part that has been mended by hemming or chain-stitches, or where the edges were gathered up by cross or ladder-stitch, has not discharged his duty;<sup class="footnote-marker">99</sup><i class="footnote">He must rend only where there was no previous rent.</i> but if [he rent] in a part that has been reunited by the Alexandrian mending,<sup class="footnote-marker">100</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i> i.e., by stitching which is even on the surface and projects on the bottom,<sup class="footnote-marker">101</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> on the authority of <i>RaBaD.</i> Thus according to <i>Be’er</i> <i>ha-Golah. W.G.</i> points out that <i>N</i> does not accept this interpretation, but holds that the Alexandrian mending is even on both sides. Cf. Y. M.K. III, 8(83d); Sem(H). IX, 18; M.K. <i>ibid. Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ובאיחוי</span>.</i> he has discharged his duty.
[If] one rent [his garment] on sustaining a bereavement, and then suffered another bereavement; [if] during the seven days [of the first bereavement], he rends anew;<sup class="footnote-marker">102</sup><i class="footnote">He may add a handbreadth to the first rent or he moves away a distance of three fingers and rends a handbreadth.  <i>infra</i> par. 23 — <i>Ta</i>Z and <i>ShaK.</i></i> [if] after the seven days, he extends the first rent a little. [If] he suffered a third bereavement after the seven days of the second one, he extends the rent a little;<sup class="footnote-marker">103</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VIII, 10 according to one opinion in M.K. <i>ibid.</i> Thus also <i>Alfasi</i> and <i>Asheri.</i> If this occurs during the seven days of the second bereavement, he must rend a handbreadth — <i>ShaK.</i></i> and thus he continues to extend until [the region of] his navel. Having reached the [region of the] navel, — [on sustaining another bereavement], he moves away a distance of three fingers [from the previous rent] and rends anew. [If] the forepart [of his garment] has become full [of rents], he turns [the garment] front to back;<sup class="footnote-marker">104</sup><i class="footnote">And then rends in the front.</i> [if] it becomes full [of rents] in the upper parts, he turns the garment upside down;<sup class="footnote-marker">105</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> according to the first opinion. He adapts the bottom part for the neck and then rends — <i>ShaK.</i></i> [if] both these regions have become full [of rents], he is considered as one who has no garment and does not have to rend.<sup class="footnote-marker">106</sup><i class="footnote">Y. M.K. III, 7(83c).</i>
[If] one was informed that his father died and he rent [his garment], and after seven [days] his son died and he added thereto; the lower part may be resewn but not the upper part. [If] one was informed that his son died and he rent [his garment], and after seven [days] his father died, he does not add thereto, but makes another rent,<sup class="footnote-marker">107</sup><i class="footnote">If when rending the first time for his son, he rent the entire selvage-border, it is sufficient to merely add thereto — <i>BaḤ.</i> This is rejected by <i>ShaK</i> who maintains that even if the border was rent, he must make a new rent now.</i> because [a rent made] for one's father or mother is not added to [a previous rent].<sup class="footnote-marker">108</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i>
One who suffered two bereavements simultaneously, or two such reports reached him at the same time, makes one rent for both.<sup class="footnote-marker">109</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>N</i>, derived from M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i> [If] after he rent [his garment] he suffered another bereavement <i>within the seven</i> [<i>days</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">110</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur — G.</i></i> he makes a separate rent, either in the very same rent to which he adds and rends another handbreadth, or he moves away a distance of three fingers and rends a handbreadth; [if] after seven [days], he extends the first rent a little.<sup class="footnote-marker">111</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. <i>supra</i> par. 21 and notes.</i> [If] his father of his mother and one of his [other] near-of-kin died, he rends first for his father or his mother down to [the region of] the heart and moves away [a distance of] three fingers and rends a handbreadth for the other dead. [If] his father died and he rent [his garment] and after seven [days] one of his near-of-kin died, he adds to the first rent; and the lower part may be resewn but not the upper part. [If] one of his near-of-kin died and he rent [his garment], and then his father or his mother died, — [the law is that] whether it was during or after the seven [days], he moves away a distance of three fingers and rends on the side in the border of the garment, for he has to separate the selvage-border,<sup class="footnote-marker">112</sup><i class="footnote">This means that although he separated the selvgae-border on making the first rent, nevertheless, since he is required to separate the border now too, therefore, a new rent is necessary and not a mere extension of the first — <i>ShaK.</i></i> and he rends until he reaches the [region of the] heart.<sup class="footnote-marker">113</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> in accord with R. Judah b. Bathyra.</i> [If] his father and his mother died simultaneously, he makes one rent for both.<sup class="footnote-marker">114</sup><i class="footnote">For R. Judah b. Bathyra requires two separate rents only when one suffered one bereavement of his father or mother and another bereavement of one of the other near-of-kin; but in the case where both bereavements sustained were his parents, one rent suffices for both — <i>N.</i></i>
[If] one was informed that his father died and he rent [his garment], and then it was discovered that it was his son [who died], he has discharged his duty of rending,<sup class="footnote-marker">115</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>Ta</i>Z <i>supra</i> § 234, 33.</i> provided it became known to him within the period of an utterance.<sup class="footnote-marker">116</sup><i class="footnote">The period of an utterance means the time it takes to extend a greeting. Cf. Naz. 20b.</i> However, if it became known to him after the period of an utterance, he has not discharged his duty. But if he was informed that he suffered a bereavement, and thinking that it was his father, he rent [his garment], and then it was discovered to have been his son [who died], — [the law is that] he has discharged his duty, even if it became known to him only after the period of an utterance.<sup class="footnote-marker">117</sup><i class="footnote">Ned. 87a. Thus <i>Alfasi, Asheri</i> and <i>RaN. BaḤ</i> rejects this ruling and states that the individual has not discharged his duty, because his act is not considered unspecified, since he thought it was his father. It would be regarded as unspecified only if he were to rend the garment <i>‘for whomever it is’</i> and not to think that it was his father, in which case he would have fulfilled his duty and not have to rend again, even if it becomes known to him after the period of an utterance. This reasoning finds support in <i>D.M.</i> on the authority of <i>N.Yos.</i>, who writes that if one sustains a bereavement and knows not who it is, and rends garments without specifying for whom he does this, and later discovers who it was, discharges his duty on the principle of <i>Bererah</i> (v. Glos.).  also Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VIII, 8; Sem(H) IX, 16; Y. M.K. 7(83c).</i>
One who has an invalid who fell into a swoon [and appears to be dead], and he rent [his garment] for him, and subsequently [the invalid] died; if he died within the period of an utterance from the time of rending, he is not dutibound to make another rending, but if not, he requires another rending.<sup class="footnote-marker">118</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. Ned. <i>ibid.; infra</i> § 375, 1 <i>Gloss.</i></i>
[If] one was informed that his father died and he rent [his garment] and observed some days of mourning, and subsequently was informed that he did not die, and he discontinued the observance [of mourning rites], after which he was again told that he did die the first time according to the report of the first people, he has discharged his duty of rending.<sup class="footnote-marker">119</sup><i class="footnote">This is based upon the same principle stated <i>supra</i> in par. 25, viz., that another rending is required only if the death did not take place within the period of an utterance from the time of rending. Similarly here, according to the final report he received which verified the first tidings, the rending took place at the proper time. This, however, would not apply were he still alive at the time the first report was brought to him, for then it would be after the period of an utterance — <i>Ta</i>Z and <i>ShaK</i>. In the latter case he would have to recite again the benediction, ‘<i>Judge of Truth</i>’ — <i>Sede Ḥemed</i>. Regarding the seven day period of mourning which he observed partially, it may be stated that since the mourning took effect through his initial observance, he does not have to complete the days he missed unwillfully. They are, therefore, counted in as part of his period of mourning. This matter, however, requires further study (cf. <i>infra</i> § 396) — <i>ShaK</i>.</i>
[With respect to] a minor who suffered a bereavement, — [the law is that] we rend [his garment] for him.<sup class="footnote-marker">120</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> The reason given (<i>ibid</i>.) is in order to stir up grief. According to <i>Ghayyat</i> the law of rending the minor’s garments falls into the same category as all other religious duties into which minor children must be introduced. <i>B.Yos.</i> states that this is done even when the reason to stir up grief does not apply. <i>Derisha</i> holds that a minor who has reached the age when children are introduced into religious practices, must also observe all rites of mourning. This viewpoint is accepted by <i>Ta</i>Z. <i>ShaK</i> in <i>Nek. HaK</i>. rejects this comparison. His reason is that only when the minor becomes of age during the seven days of mourning does the problem arise whether he should observe seven complete days of mourning. But if he is still a minor (less than thirteen years plus one day) this problem does not apply. <i>D.Merb.</i> agrees with <i>ShaK.</i> His reason is that by requiring him to observe the mourning rites, we thereby cause him to neglect the study of the Torah, which is not so in the case of rending garments. Cf. <i>infra</i> § 396, 3, notes 10-11.</i>
One who rends [his garments] on the Sabbath for his dead, although he desecrated the Sabbath, has discharged his duty of rending.<sup class="footnote-marker">121</sup><i class="footnote">Shab. 105b.</i>
One who rends in a garment that was acquired illegitimately, has not discharged his duty.<sup class="footnote-marker">122</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>N</i>, who derives it from Y. Shab. XIII, 3(14a). This case differs from the one mentioned in the previous par., since here the object proper was obtained illegitimately and the rending is regarded as a religious act achieved through a wrong deed (cf. Suk. 30a) ; whereas in the former case only the act of rending was a sin.</i>
For a child regarding whom we do not know for certain that its months [of pregnancy] were complete, who died within thirty [days from birth] or even on the thirtieth day, we do not rend [garments].<sup class="footnote-marker">123</sup><i class="footnote">Shab. 136b, because the rending of garments is a Rabbinical enactment and in a doubtful case we follow the more lenient view— <i>Ta</i>Z. But when we know for certain that its months were complete we must rend garments and observe mourning rites — <i>ShaK.</i></i>
One does not rend [garments] on a Festival day,<sup class="footnote-marker">124</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna, M.K. 24b.</i> even on the second Festival day of the Diaspora;<sup class="footnote-marker">125</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XI, 1 and <i>N.</i> In the Diaspora every Festival which is observed for one day is kept for two days because of doubt. For example, Passover occurs on the fifteenth of <i>Nisan.</i> It was necessary, therefore, to know when the New Moon appears in order to determine when the Festival was to be fixed. This was done through the testimony of witnesses. However, this applied only to the thirtieth day of the month, but the thirty-first day could be consecrated even without the confirmation of witnesses, since the moon renewed itself about every twenty-nine and a half days. Those who lived in the Land of Israel proper were easily contacted through messengers who were sent out to inform the people whether the <i>Sanhedrin</i> in the city of Jerusalem had consecrated the thirtieth or the thirty-first day of the month, thus making the month just passed full or defective. Hence, those who lived in the Diaspora could not be informed in time and because of doubt observed two Festival days. E.g., Passover was kept on the fifteenth and the sixteenth of <i>Nisan.</i></i> even the near-of-kin of the dead. However, during <i>Hol ha-Moed</i><sup class="footnote-marker">125*</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> one rends according to whatever the case may be, [viz.,] if one is present at the time of the departure of the soul, or if it is for a worthy person or for a scholar; for everyone according to the law as has been explained.<sup class="footnote-marker">126</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i>, Mishna and Gem.  <i>Mishna le-Melek</i>, Yad, <i>Ebel ibid.</i>, who writes that for one who died and was interred (by Gentiles) on the first Festival day, he is not permitted to rend garments during the Festival week (<i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i>), but must postpone the rending until after the entire Festival is over, at which time mourning rites take effect. But if one suffered a bereavement during the Festival week, he is permitted to rend garments immediately after death at the moment of excitement (cf. O.Ḥ. § 547, 3) — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that it is customary to rend</i> [<i>garments</i>] <i>during Hol ha-Moed</i><sup class="footnote-marker">125*</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>only for one's father and mother, and for all other dead one rends after the Festival</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">127</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ter. Had.</i> § 288 — <i>G</i>.</i> <i>And in a locality where there is no accepted practice, one must rend for all</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">128</sup><i class="footnote">According to the custom not to rend garments during <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i>, a distinction is made between one’s parents and other near-of-kin ; and according to the custom to rend garments during <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> (which finds support in Mishna <i>ibid.</i>), one must rend for all near-of-kin — <i>Ta</i>Z. And even with respect to the former opinion, not to rend garments during <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i>, it applies only if it is still possible to rend after the Festival, but where during the Festival the tidings are ‘near,’ and after the Festival they become ‘distant’, the law is that we rend during <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> — <i>BaḤ.</i> For ‘distant tidings one does not rend during <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i>, even for parents, since the mourning rites are over, consequently the rending is also not made — <i>RaShaL.</i> Cf. O.Ḥ. § 546, 6.</i>
One who received near tidings during a Festival [i.e., on <i>Hol ha-Moed</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">125*</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> must rend [garments] even if after the Festival it becomes distant tidings.<sup class="footnote-marker">129</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>N.</i> According to the Talmud, rending of garments and observance of mourning for seven days are interrelated, ‘There is no rending without seven days (of mourning).’ It might have been thought that in the present case one should not rend garments, since the mourning rites will not be observed after the Festival but for one day, for then the tidings become distant. We are therefore, informed in this par. otherwise. For the interrelationship between rending and mourning applies only if one receives the death report on the Festival day proper, when it is forbidden to rend garments, and after the entire Festival it becomes distant tidings, at which time the mourning rites are completely suspended but for one day. In such a case only do we apply the aforementioned principle, ‘There is no rending without mourning.’ However, when near tidings are received during <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i>, when rending garments is permissible (v. <i>supra</i> par. 31), he rends even if it becomes distant tidings after the Festival. For the Festival merely interrupts the mourning rites but not the rending — <i>Ta</i>Z and <i>ShaK.</i></i>
One who goes forth before the dead with a garment already rent, [and] who makes show that he has rent but actually has not rent [his garment], robs the living and the dead.<sup class="footnote-marker">130</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 26b. For he thereby deceives everyone.</i>
One who says to his friend, 'Lend me your garment that I may visit my father who is ill,' and he went and found him already dead, rends it and resews the rent<sup class="footnote-marker">131</sup><i class="footnote">Although the law is that for a father we must never resew the edges of the rent (cf. <i>supra</i> par. 15), in this case it is different, since he was only given implicit permission to rend the garment, in order to avoid embarrassment to the borrower, but he was never given acquisition rights. Consequently, he mends the rent — <i>Ta</i>Z and <i>ShaK.</i></i> and returns the garment to him and compensates him for the damage done by the rent. But if he did not inform him [that he is going to visit his father],<sup class="footnote-marker">132</sup><i class="footnote">He did not express the wish to visit his sick father.</i> he must not touch it.<sup class="footnote-marker">133</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> Cf. Sem(H). IX, 20. And even if he rends the garment, he has not discharged his duty, for he is regarded as a borrower without the knowledge of the owner, who is considered under such circumstances a robber (Cf. <i>supra</i> par. 29) — <i>ShaK.</i></i>
One who lends his friend a garment to go to the house of mourning, is not permitted to take it back from him until the days of mourning are over.<sup class="footnote-marker">134</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. Sem(H). <i>ibid.</i></i> <i>In H.M. § 341 he</i> [<i>Caro</i>] <i>does not rule thus</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">135</sup><i class="footnote">There is no contradiction between these rulings. In Ḥ.M. we deal with a case of one who borrows <span>שואל</span> a garment from his friend in order to visit a house of mourning and return, i.e., the borrower himself made this request of the lender. Therefore, since the lender agreed to accomodate the borrower, he may say, ‘I loaned you the garment for one day only,’ i.e., to go and return. In our present case, it was the lender <span>משאיל</span> who approached the borrower to go and perform the condolence rites. Hence, this precept rests upon the borrower every day of the seven days of mourning, and therefore, the lender must not demand the return of the garment before the entire period of mourning is over — <i>ShaK.</i></i>
One must rend [garments] on hearing evil tidings, e.g., when the majority [of the people] of the community gathered for war and a report was received that they were smitten before their enemies,<sup class="footnote-marker">136</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> Derived from, <i>‘Then David took hold of his clothes and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him. And they wailed and wept and fasted until even, for Saul and for Jonathan his son and for the people of the Lord and for the house of Israel, because they were fallen by the sword’</i> (II Sam. I, 11-12). From this verse it appears that one must observe mourning rites all day. Therefore, the rent should be stitched together the following day. Likewise, may the rent be resewn on the next day — <i>ShaK.</i> This latter statement of <i>ShaK</i>, viz., that ‘the rent may be resewn the next day’ is attacked by the commentators (v. <i>P.Tesh</i>.), for according to the Talmud (v. also <i>infra</i> par. 39), a rent made on hearing evil tidings must never be resewn. It is, however, possible, that <i>ShaK</i> refers not to this case, but to other cases, viz., where a rent may be resewn, and on the basis of the above-mentioned verse, he holds that this should be done, not on the day the mourning rites are over, but rather on the following day.</i> even if [only] a minority of them was put to death.<sup class="footnote-marker">137</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>N.</i></i> <i>Thus also if they went into captivity</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">138</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N.Yos.</i> to M.K. III — <i>G.</i></i>
One who hears the Divine Name,<sup class="footnote-marker">139</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 26a. He said, ‘May Jose smite Jose.’ Jose was a substitute for the Divine Name and was chosen because it contains four letters like the Tetragrammaton.  Mishna, San. 56a.</i> or even an attribute of the Divine Name, blasphemed,<sup class="footnote-marker">140</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Abodah Zarah</i> II, 10 — <i>G.</i> This refers even to those attributes which may be blotted out or erased — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> — <i>and even if it was uttered in a foreign tongue it is considered an attribute</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">141</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N.Yos.</i> San. <i>ibid.</i> — <i>G.</i></i> — is dutibound to rend [garments], provided he hears it from an Israelite,<sup class="footnote-marker">142</sup><i class="footnote">San. 60a. For if we should rend garments on hearing blasphemy from Gentiles, our garments would be reduced to tatters — <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> — <i>and some say that nowadays an apostate Israelite has the status of a Gentile</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">143</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N.Yos. ibid. — G.</i></i> and even if one hears it from witnesses [who testify to the effect] that a certain person blasphemed [the Name], is dutibound to rend [garments].<sup class="footnote-marker">144</sup><i class="footnote">San. <i>ibid</i>.; M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i> The witnesses, however, are not required to rend [their garments] again [on reporting].<sup class="footnote-marker">145</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i></i> One who sees a Scroll of Law,<sup class="footnote-marker">146</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.;</i> Sem(H). IX, 19</i> or phylacteries,<sup class="footnote-marker">147</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i> or even one Scroll of the Prophets or Hagioprapha<sup class="footnote-marker">148</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Asheri</i>, derived from the case of the Scroll which Jehoiakim burnt (v. Jer. XXXVI).</i> that was burnt,<sup class="footnote-marker">149</sup><i class="footnote">Similarly if torn, cut, blotted out by an Israelite or a Gentile by force — <i>BaḤ.</i></i> makes two rents,<sup class="footnote-marker">150</sup><i class="footnote">One rent for damage done to the parchment and one for damage to the writing.</i> provided only that it is burnt by force,<sup class="footnote-marker">151</sup><i class="footnote">e., blamphemously, but not when it happens casually.  San. and M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i> and only in the same manner as it once happened.<sup class="footnote-marker">148</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Asheri</i>, derived from the case of the Scroll which Jehoiakim burnt (v. Jer. XXXVI).</i>
One who sees the cities of Judea in ruin, or [at the sight of] Jerusalem or the Holy Temple, is dutibound to rend [garments].<sup class="footnote-marker">152</sup><i class="footnote"> n. 148.</i>
All these [aforementioned] rents one is permitted to mend by hemming or chain-stitches, [or] to gather up by cross or ladder-stitch,<sup class="footnote-marker">153</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i> on the following day,<sup class="footnote-marker">154</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N.Yos.; R. Yeruḥam</i>. Cf. Yad, <i>Ebel</i>. IX end and <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i></i> but they may never be resewn.<sup class="footnote-marker">153</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i>

Siman 341

<b>LAWS OF ANINUTH</b><br>One who suffered a bereavement for whom he is dutibound to observe mourning rites,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"><span>מוטל לפניו</span> is explained as <span>מוטל עליו</span> i.e., the dead person rests upon him to be mourned for. This is in accord with the interpretation given by R. Ashi in Ber. 18a accepted by <i>Asheri contra R. Tam.</i> This excludes an infant who dies within thirty days after birth or whose months of pregnancy were not complete — <i>G.Mah.</i></i> — [the law is that] before burial,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">He is considered then an <i>Omen.</i> But after the burial, even on the day of death, the laws of <i>Aninuth</i> no longer apply — <i>SeMaG, BaḤ</i> and others.</i> he eats in another house [room].<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Otherwise he is regarded as a mocker of the poor, i.e., the dead (v. Prov. XVII, 5). Thus <i>Rashi</i> in Ber. 17b. For eating in the presence of the dead is regarded as irreverence and people will be led to believe that the corpse was a worthless individual. This applies only to cases where one is dutibound to bury the dead. Consequently, it would be unfitting to eat in the latter’s presence — <i>Ta</i>Z. According to <i>ShaK</i> one must not eat in the presence of other dead, even when one is not obliged to arrange the burial preparations, <i>contra Ta</i>Z —<i>P.Tesh. A.H.</i> agrees with <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> [If] he has no other house, he eats in his friend's house; [if] his friend has no house [available],<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">E.g., where he lives among Gentiles — <i>ShaK.</i></i> he makes him a partition<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">The height of a partition is ten handbreadths.  Shab. 6a; Suk. 5b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>עשרה</span>; O.H. c. 362.</i> and eats;<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Y.Ber. III, 1(6a); Y.M.K. III, 5(82b); Ber. 17b; M.K. 23b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ואין</span>; Sem(H). X, 3.</i> even a partition of a sheet is sufficient, [provided] he fastened the bottom of the sheet in a manner that it would not be moved by an [ordinary] wind;<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaShBaM, Resp.</i></i> and if he has not the wherewithal to make a partition, he turns away his face and eats.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Y.Ber. III, 1(6a); Y.M.K. III, 5(82b); Ber. 17b; M.K. 23b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ואין</span>; Sem(H). X, 3.</i> Whichever the case may be; even if he is in another city,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>Asheri.</i> This applies to a case even if in the city where the corpse is present there are people available to look after the burial arrangements (e.g., if his sister died and her husband takes care of all burial arrangements) — <i>Asheri. R. Tam</i>, however, holds that the near-of-kin who are not present in the city where the corpse is awaiting burial, do not come under the law of <i>Aninuth</i>, unless there are no available near-of-kin present in the locality of the dead person. This is accepted by <i>BaḤ</i> and <i>ShaK.</i></i> he does not eat reclining,<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">On a couch or around a table — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK.</i></i> and he eats not meat nor drinks wine,<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">An <i>Onen</i> is permitted to eat meat gravy — <i>Nodah Bihudah.</i> Cf. <i>M.Abr.</i> to O.Ḥ. § 551, n. 29 — <i>P. Tesh.</i></i> nor does he recite the benediction before meals,<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">Although the <i>Onen</i> is not required to recite any benediction before his meal, nevertheless, he is obliged to wash his hands before and after meals, which is a Rabbinical enactment. However, he is not required to recite the benediction thereof — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> nor does he say grace after meals, nor do others recite the benediction [before meals] on his behalf, nor does he join in grace after meals.<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. and M.K. ibid. Y. and Sem(H). <i>ibid.</i> add: ‘He does not eat all that he requires.’</i> Even if he eats with others he should not repeat <i>Amen</i> after them [when they recite the benediction before meals].<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">Y.Ber. <i>ibid.</i>, quoted in Ber. <i>ibid.</i>, Tosaf. s.v. <span>ואינו מברך</span> and M.K. <i>ibid., Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ואין</span>.</i> And he is exempt from [the performance] of all religious duties enjoined in the Torah,<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">For the Rabbis have the authority to cancel a positive Biblical precept on the principle, ‘sit and do nothing’ <span>שב ואל תעשה</span> i.e., not to act. One who commenced to recite the <i>Tefillah</i> and the <i>Shema</i> and becomes an <i>Onen</i>, may complete these since the reason why an <i>Onen</i> is exempt from <i>Tefillah</i> and <i>Shema</i> is only Rabbinical — <i>P.Tesh.</i> An <i>Onen</i> does not perform the <i>Ḥalizah</i> ceremony (v. Glos). but a mourner does — <i>G.Mah.</i> An <i>Onen</i> is exempt from positive but not from negative precepts — <i>P.Tesh.</i> One who is an <i>Onen</i> at the time he has to recite the <i>Shema</i> and its benedictions, may still recite these after the burial up to midday as in the case of <i>Tefillah</i> — <i>B.Hal.</i> If the burial takes place after he eats, at which time he was exempt from saying grace after meals, the law is that if sufficient time has not yet elapsed for his food to be digested, he must recite the grace after the corpse is interred — <i>Codifiers.</i></i> even if he is not required to attend to the preparations needed for the dead, e.g., [when] he has others who attend to [this] for him.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">According to one opinion in Y.Ber. ibid. — <i>Asheri.</i> One who sustains a bereavement prior to reciting the <i>Tefillah</i>, should not be informed thereof until after he completes his prayers, provided there are others available who will meanwhile attend to the burial needs. Otherwise he must be informed — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> And some say that even if he desires to adopt for himself a stricter view, [viz.,] to recite the benediction [before meals], or to repeat <i>Amen</i> after those who recite the benediction [before meals], he is not permitted [to do so].<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote"> O.Ḥ. § 71 — <i>G.</i> Cf. <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>ואינו מברך</span> and Sem(H). <i>ibid.</i></i> And on the Sabbath or Festival, he eats meat and drinks wine,<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. and M.K. <i>ibid. Asheri</i> compares the Festival to the Sabbath. On <i>Purim</i> and on the eve of <i>Yom Kippur</i> an <i>Onen</i> is forbidden to eat meat or drink wine — <i>Codifiers.</i></i> <i>if he so desires</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Jonah</i> in Ber. <i>ibid.</i> — <i>G.</i> For it is not obligatory for one to eat meat and to drink wine on the Sabbath. Cf. Shab. 118a: ‘Make thy Sabbath a weekday (as regards festive meals) than be dependent on men.’</i> and recites the benediction [before meals] and is dutibound to perforrm all religious duties save the use of the conjugal couch wherein he is forbidden,<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. and M.K. <i>ibid.</i> On the question whether an <i>Onen</i> should recite the <i>Kaddish</i> on the Sabbath, v. <i>infra</i> § 376, notes. An <i>Onen</i> may be counted in the Minyan — <i>Kerem Shelomo.</i></i> <i>and he is permitted to go to the Synagogue on the Sabbath, and even on weekdays there is no prohibition, but since he is forbidden to recite the prayers</i> [<i>on weekdays</i>], <i>what will he do there</i>?<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> — <i>G.</i> In order to clarify many rulings pertaining to the period of <i>Aninuth</i>, it should be observed that a difference of opinion exists among the <i>Codifiers</i> as to whether matters forbidden during the mourning period are likewise prohibited during <i>Aninuth.</i> a) <i>Maim.</i> in Yad, <i>Ebel</i> I, 2; <i>RITBA</i> (M.K. 15) ; <i>Tur</i> (a.l. and <i>infra</i> § 398) state that <i>Aninuth</i> and mourning rites are not <i>on an</i> equal footing. Hence, the laws of mourning do not apply to an <i>Onen.</i> b) <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.; R. Pereẓ</i> (quoted in <i>Tur</i>) hold that they are on an equal footing. Consequently, an <i>Onen</i> must observe all the laws of mourning.</i> If one must go to await nightfall at the Sabbath limit to [be ready] to attend to the preparations needed for the dead [at the exit of the Sabbath], the observance of <i>Aninuth</i> rests upon him, insofar as the prohibition extends to everything from the moment he begins to go to await nightfall at the Sabbath limit.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote">Y. <i>ibid.</i> in accord with <i>Asheri.</i> Cf. O.Ḥ. § 71 and § 548, 4.</i> If he wishes to bury him on the first Festival day by Gentiles, the prohibition extends to everything;<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri.</i></i> so much the more on the second Festival day, when he himself may bury him, that all the laws of <i>Aninuth</i> rest upon him.<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. O.Ḥ. § 496, 2. If one dies in the evening following <i>Shemini Aẓereth</i>, i.e., the night of <i>Simḥath Torah</i>, the <i>Onen</i> may recite the <i>Kiddush.</i> Thus <i>MaHaRIL. ShaK</i> rejects this ruling. <i>Ta</i>Z accepts it. <i>D.Merb.</i> agrees with <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> <i>Some say that a student who observes Aninuth rites for his distinguished teacher is forbidden to eat meat or</i> [<i>drink</i>] <i>wine as long as the dead lies in one's presence</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Asheri</i> to M.K. III <i>ibid.</i> — <i>G.</i>  Y.Ber. <i>ibid.</i> This refers to weekdays — <i>Ta</i>Z Cf. <i>supra</i> § 242, 27; <i>infra</i> § 374, 10.</i>
One who suffered a bereavement on the Sabbath,<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> reports this ruling on the authority of his fater <i>Asheri</i> who suffered a bereavement on the Sabbath. This applies to near-of-kin for whom one is dutibound to observe mourning rites.</i> may eat on the night following the Sabbath without reciting the <i>Habdalah</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> nor the evening or the morning <i>Tefillah</i> prior to burial; and after burial, one should recite the morning <i>Tefillah</i> if its prescribed time limit has not lapsed;<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote"><i>M.Abr.</i> to O.Ḥ. § 71 n. 1 states that if the burial takes place in the forenoon, as soon as they commence to inter the corpse, one should read the <i>Shema</i> and recite the morning <i>Tefillah.</i></i> but the [preceding] evening <i>Tefillah</i> one should not recite, since its prescribed time limit has already lapsed;<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">And on the preceding night he was entirely exempt therefrom. This is applicable only to a case where one suffered a loss on the Sabbath before the night set in, so that the obligation of reciting the evening <i>Tefillah</i> never took effect. If, however, the loss was sustained after the night had already set in, in which case the obligation of reciting the evening <i>Tefillah</i> had already taken effect prior to the occurrence of death, one must recite the morning <i>Tefillah</i> twice — <i>D.Merb.</i>  <i>P.Tesh.</i> for further comments.</i> and this is not similar to the case of one who forgot to recite the evening <i>Tefillah</i>, who may recite the morning <i>Tefillah</i> twice,<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote"> O.Ḥ §. 108, </i> since he was not dutibound to recite the <i>Tefillah</i> during the [previous] night.<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Derisha</i> holds that similarly one who occupies himself with communal needs which interfere with the prescribed time to pray is exempt from a complementary <i>Tefillah</i> at the following service (v. previous note). For in both cases, viz., in the case of the sustained loss mentioned above, and in the case of preoccupation with communal needs, there is unavoidable interference. <i>Ta</i>Z opposes this and makes the following distinction between the two cases : In the case of a sustained loss the interference is a result, not of the individual’s incapacity to recite prayers, but rather of external circumstances, namely, the <i>Aninuth</i> which exempts him. Under such conditions one is not required to recite a complementary prayer at the following service. But in the case of preoccupation with communal needs, the individual proper is busily engaged. Hence, he is dutibound to make up the prayer when he becomes free. <i>Nek. Hak.</i> refutes <i>Ta</i>Z and agrees with <i>Derisha</i>, by showing that both cases are on an equal footing insofar as in both instances the individual is legally exempt on the principle that, ‘One who is engaged in a religious act is exempt from other religious duties’ (Suk. 25a). When, however, the person is legally not exempt, but there it an unavoidable interference, the <i>Tefillah</i> is temporarily suspended until the following service at which time a complementary prayer is said.</i> With respect to the <i>Habdalah</i>, one should recite [it] after the corpse is buried.<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Meir of Rothenberg; Mord</i>. and <i>Hag. Maim.</i> — <i>G.</i>  Pes. 107a: ‘Raba said, the law is that he who has tasted food recites the <i>Habdalah.’</i> ‘He who did not recite the <i>Habdalah</i> at the termination of the Sabbath proceeds to recite it anytime during the week.’ (<i>ibid</i>.). The words, ‘anytime during the week,’ are explained to mean until after the third day is ended. Cf. <i>ibid., Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אמימר</span> and O.Ḥ. § 299, 6. <i>Asheri</i> in his <i>Resp.</i> accepted the ruling which he followed in a similar case (v. <i>supra</i> n. 26). Later in his <i>Decisions</i>, he abandoned this view and accepted the view of R. Judah (<i>ibid.</i> Cf. <i>Tur</i> a.l.) who held that one should not recite the <i>Habdalah</i> after (burial.  <i>Ta</i>Z <i>infra</i> § 396 who disagrees with both views and advances another explanation. After burial when the <i>Habdalah</i> prayer is recited it is said only over a cup of wine without the fragrant spices and the candle. If the bereavement was sustained on a Festival day, the <i>Habdalah</i> prayer may be said only on the following day after burial, but not as in the case of the Sabbath where the law is that it may be said even until the third day. An <i>Onen</i> who was ignorant of this ruling and recited the <i>Habdalah</i> on the night following the Sabbath is not required to recite it again after burial — <i>P.Tesh.</i> On the question whether an <i>Onen</i> who has a child to be circumcised should perform the circumcision before or after burial, a difference of opinion exists among the <i>Codifiers. RaShaL</i> maintains that the circumcision should be performed first. <i>Isserles</i> (in <i>Resp.</i>) holds that first the burial should be held, for being an <i>Onen</i> he cannot recite the benediction, ‘Blessed art Thou … and commanded us to introduce my son into the covenant of Abraham our father.’ <i>Ta</i>Z rules that if possible, the burial should be held in the morning. However, if this is not feasible, the circumcision is performed first and the <i>Sandek</i> recites the benediction, and it matters not whether the circumcision is held during the prescribed time, i.e., on the eight day or later. <i>Ḥatam Sofer</i> accepts <i>RaShaL’s</i> ruling. <i>Bir. Yos.</i> and others agree with <i>Ta</i>Z. A <i>Kohen</i> who is an <i>Onen</i>, and there is no other <i>Kohen</i> available, may officiate at the redemption of a firstborn. The benediction over the wine is recited by another person.</i>
[In] a locality where it is the accepted practice that pall-bearers are apointed to take out the corpse [for burial], and after the near-of-kin attend to the burial needs, they give him<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote">The corpse.</i> over to them<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote">The appointed pall-bearers.</i> and they bury him, — [the law is] that as soon as they<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">The near-of-kin.</i> gave him over to them,<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote">The appointed pall-bearers.</i> the near-of-kin are permitted to [eat] meat and [drink] wine,<sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote">Y.Ber. III, 1(6a); Y.M.K. III, 5(82b); Ber. 18a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ואינו</span>; Yad, <i>Ebel</i> III, 6; <i>N</i> in <i>T.H. Nodah Bihudah</i> writes that the near-of-kin are likewise required to read the <i>Shema</i> and to recite the <i>Tefillah</i> as well as the observance of other precepts. Cf. also <i>D.Merb.</i> a.l. However, since it is customary in our localities for the near-of-kin to be present at the burial in any case, the law is that although the burial arrangements were completed by others, the <i>Shema</i> and the <i>Te</i>fi<i>llah</i> should be said after burial — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> even before they take him out of the house,<sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote">Although the laws of mourning have not yet taken effect — <i>ShaK.</i></i> since the [burial] no longer rests upon them.<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">The near-of-kin.</i> [<i>In</i>] <i>a locality where the corpse is borne from one city to another</i> [<i>for burial</i>], <i>if it is a near place, it is as though he</i><sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote">The corpse.</i> <i>lies before him</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">The near-of-kin.</i> <i>but if it is a distant place, e.g., a journeying distance of two days, it is permissible</i> [<i>for the near-of-kin to eat meat and drink wine</i>] <i>until they arrive at the city where the burial</i> [<i>will take place</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Jonah</i>, Ber. III — <i>G.</i></i>
If one died in prison and was not given over for burial,<sup class="footnote-marker">39</sup><i class="footnote">Where there is a government law not to bury the dead before a certain time limit elapses from the time of death, <i>Aninuth</i> does take effect, since all burial arrangements are permissible, unlike the present case — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> the observance of <i>Aninuth</i><sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote">For all Hebrew terms found in text and in commentary v. Glos.</i> as well as mourning does not take effect upon the near-of-kin,<sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote">On the principle that the corpse is not <span>מוטל לפניו</span> i.e., the burial does not rest upon him (v. <i>supra</i> n. 2), since he is not handed over for burial — <i>ShaK.</i></i> since they have not given up hope of burying him.<sup class="footnote-marker">42</sup><i class="footnote">Even if the ruler or despot demands an exhorbitant sum of money in order to release the body, the laws of mourning do not take effect, for it is possible that he may be persuaded later to accept a smaller amount. But if the reason for refusing to release the body is not a monetary one, but rather stems from animosity, as a result of which the ruler will not change his mind, then the laws of mourning do take effect — <i>ShaK.</i></i> Likewise, if the near-of-kin of the dead person are in prison, the observance of <i>Aninuth</i><sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote">For all Hebrew terms found in text and in commentary v. Glos.</i> does not take effect upon them.<sup class="footnote-marker">43</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>RI; Tosaf.</i> Ber. <i>ibid;</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> I, 3; <i>Asheri</i> Ber. and M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i> So too, if one was murdered on the road or a beast dragged him away or if a stream carried him off and they have not given up hope of burying him, the law of <i>Aninuth</i> or of mourning does not take effect upon the near-of-kin. And one counts for him the seven and the thirty [days] from the day that they give up hope of burying him.<sup class="footnote-marker">44</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). II, 2.</i>
As long as the corpse is not buried one does not remove his shoes or sandals and is not required to [perform] the muffling of the head,<sup class="footnote-marker">45</sup><i class="footnote">Wrapping oneself up in mourning.  M.K. 24a: ‘a covering which is not like the covering of the Ishmaelites (up to the lips) is not a mourner’s covering.’  <i>infra</i> § 386.</i> nor the overturning of the couch,<sup class="footnote-marker">46</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> where it is stated that should one be required to observe these, the preparations for the burial will suffer. King David is cited as an example (v. Yad, <i>Ebel</i> I, 2) who washed and annointed himself during his period of <i>Aninuth</i> (v. II Sam. XII, 20). Cf. also M.K. 15b; Ket. 4a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>בועל</span></i> but one is forbidden to sit or sleep on a couch even if it is overturned.<sup class="footnote-marker">47</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). IX, 16 according to the explanation given by <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>So much the more that one is forbidden to use the conjugal couch;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">48</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.; Tosaf.; Mord.</i> Ket. I on the authority of ‘some say’ — <i>G.</i> Use of conjugal couch is forbidden even on the Sabbath.  <i>supra</i> par. 1. <i>Ḥatam Sofer</i> writes that <i>Caro</i> does not differ with the opinion recorded here on the authority of ‘some say.’ For since <i>Caro</i> states that <i>‘one does not remove his shoes,’</i> if follows that the prohibitions mentioned by <i>Isserles</i> are also applicable to the <i>Onen.</i> However, since <i>Caro</i> did not state this explicitly, <i>Isserles</i> deemed it important to be mentioned as <i>‘some say’</i> — <i>P.Tesh.</i> As regards work, v. <i>infra</i> § 343 and § 361, 11.</i> <i>and some say that he is prohibited against bathing, annointing, rejoicing, greeting, haircutting and work</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">49</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> — <i>G.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 21. King David’s conduct would not be considered contrary to this prohibition (v. <i>supra</i> n. 46), since a King is permitted to wash according to Yoma 73b.  Sem(H). VIII, 13; M.K. 23b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ואינו אוכל</span> — <i>W.G.</i> An <i>Onen</i> is forbidden to study Torah or to be called up to the Torah reading (O.Ḥ. § 548, M.Abr. n. 8) — <i>G.Mah.</i> This applies also to the Sabbath (<i>M.Abr. ibid.</i>) <i>D.Merb.</i> writes that on the Sabbath and Festivals the <i>Onen</i> may study Torah. If he is regularly called to the reading of the Torah, he may called up even when he is an <i>Onen</i> (i.e., on the Sabbath). Otherwise, it is regarded as public mourning which is forbidden on the Sabbath and Festivals — <i>Imre Baruk.</i> To read the Scriptual portion twice and the Aramaic version once is permissible for the <i>Onen</i> — <i>A.H.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 21. If there is apprehension that the <i>Onen</i> may have contracted a contagious disease through his contact with the corpse, he may bathe and change his garments — <i>Sede Ḥemed.</i> On cutting the hair, v. <i>Ta</i>Z <i>infra</i> § 398 from which it seems that he may cut his hair prior to burial. Thus also <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>) citing <i>Teshubah Me-Ahabah</i> where such was the custom in Prague. A <i>Shoḥet</i> who is an <i>Onen</i> may slaughter during the period of <i>Aninuth</i> — <i>Yad Sha’ul</i>, but <i>Yosef Da’ath</i> forbids, since the <i>Shohet</i> is grieved concerning his loss and his mind is not at ease in order that he examine his slaughtering knife properly. All the laws of <i>Aninuth</i> apply to the weekday of the Festival (<i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i>) — O.Ḥ. § 548. An <i>Onen</i> on <i>Yom Kippur</i> is dutibound to observe all precepts — <i>Yosef Da’ath.</i> A Cantor who is an <i>Onen</i> on <i>Yom Kippur</i> may lead the services — <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>)<i>.</i> An <i>Onen</i> on the Festival of <i>Sukkoth</i> may build the <i>Sukkah</i> as long as it does not interfere with the burial arrangements — <i>Ibid.</i> A Cantor who is an <i>Onen</i> on the Sabbath may lead the services if there is no other Cantor available. The same is applicable to a Reader of the Torah — <i>Beth Leḥem Yehudah.</i> An <i>Onen</i> is forbidden to recite the Priestly Benediction. On the question whether an <i>Onen</i> may search for leaven on the night of the fourteenth of <i>Nisan</i> preceding the Passover Festival, the law is that he should appoint another person to do this for him. The <i>Onen</i> may, however, recite the declaration <span>כל חמירא</span> — <i>Bir. Yos.</i> He may not recite the <i>Haggadah</i> himself but may hear it from another person. If another person is not available, he may recite it himself — <i>Pri Megadim.</i> He must eat <i>Maẓẓah</i> and drink the four cups at the <i>Seder</i> service — <i>MaHaRaM Lublin.</i> On <i>Ḥanukkah</i> the lights should be kindled, and the benediction pronounced, by another person. If another person is not available, he may kindle the <i>Ḥanukkah</i> lights himself without pronouncing the benediction —<i>Eliya Rabba.</i> An <i>Onen</i> does not count the <i>Omer</i> during the night of his <i>Aninuth</i> period. But on the next day after burial he counts the <i>Omer</i> without reciting the benediction, and on the following nights he continues to count the <i>Omer</i> with the benediction. Should the <i>Aninuth</i> period extend into the following night, too, he may count the <i>Omer</i> even during <i>Aninuth</i> — <i>Laws of Onen</i> by <i>R. E.</i> Z. <i>Margolis.</i> On the night of the Fast of the Ninth day of <i>Ab</i>, the <i>Onen</i> does not go to the Synagogue and does not recite the traditional elegies and lamentations. After burial the following day he may go to the Synagogue an remain there until after the elegies are recited — <i>Eliya Rabba.</i> If he suffers a bereavement during the morning Service on <i>Rosh Hashana</i>, he may continue with his prayers in the usual manner. If he suffered a bereavement on <i>Rosh Ḥodesh</i>, after burial he may recite the <i>Musaf Tefillah</i> any time during the day — <i>Bir. Yos.</i> Of the morning benedictions he may recite the following after burial: a) The Torah benedictions; b) ‘who hast not made me a heathen;’ c) ‘who hast not made me a slave;’ d) ‘who hast not made me a woman.’</i> <i>but he is permitted to leave his house</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">50</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Maim.</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IV on the authority of <i>SeMaK</i> — <i>G.</i> This is permitted since he has to make all the burial arrangements.</i>
The one who guards the corpse, even if it is not his own dead, is exempt from the reading of the <i>Shema</i> and from all religious duties enjoined in the Torah. If there were two [watchmen], one guards and the other reads<sup class="footnote-marker">51</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 18a. Based on the principle that, ‘One who is engaged in a religious act is exempt from other religious duties — <i>ShaK.</i> Similarly in the case of bones that are collected for burial.  <i>infra</i> § 403, 9. For a complete analysis of the laws of <i>Aninuth</i>  <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>). I, pp. 109-61; II, pp. 45, 46, 91; <i>Gesher ha-Ḥayyim</i> I, c. 18.</i>.

Siman 342

<b>LAWS OF MOURNING</b><br>One who made all the preparations for his wedding,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"><i>BaḤ</i> states that this obtains only if all the wedding preparations were made. Otherwise, the wedding should be postponed. <i>ShaK</i> rejects this on the ground that a loss will still be incurred even if only part of the preparations were completed.</i> [viz.,] he baked his bread and prepared his meat and mixed his wine,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Their wine was too strong to be taken undiluted.</i> and the father of the bridegroom<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Who made the preparations for the wedding-feast.</i> died, and he was in a locality where it is unlikely to sell [the food], and should the wedding be postponed he will lose whatever he prepared; or the mother<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">It was she who prepared the bride’s trousseau.</i> of the bride died,<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Ket. 3b-4a. Even if the groom’s mother died or other near-of-kin, in which case there is still his father available to make all the preparations at a future date, nevertheless, since the bride has no one available to make her preparations in addition to the loss involved at present, the wedding is not postponed, and they are brought into the bridal chamber as stated anon. Nowadays if a parent dies the wedding is postponed until after the seven days of mourning — <i>Ba’er Heteb, Ḥatam Sofer.</i> On the eve of Passover after midday it is permissible for a groom or bride who are in mourning to be married, since with the advent of the Passover Festival and the period of counting the <i>Omer</i> that follows it is forbidden to hold marriages. This is in accord with <i>Isserles’</i> ruling (v. <i>infra</i> § 399) that after midday on the eve of a Festival mourning rites have no legal effect, <i>contra ShaK</i> (<i>ibid.</i>). This applies to a groom who was never married before and did not yet comply with the duty of propagation — <i>Zekor le-Abraham, Net’a Sorek.</i> If they suffered a loss after the marriage was already performed, the groom must not perform the marital act until after the seven days of mourning, after which, follow the seven days of the wedding-feast (v. <i>infra</i> § 383). One who was in a dying condition and instructed his daughter’s marriage to take place and he died after the dutiful marital act had already been performed, the law is that the daughter is not permitted to attend the funeral, since it is already regarded as a Festival period for her, and were she to attend the funeral, it would be considered tantamount to observing mourning rites publicly on a Festival which is forbidden — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> and there are womens' perfumes and toilet [prepared] which are not durable,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaN ibid.</i> Cf. <i>Rashi ibid.</i> s.v. <span>ואביו של חתן</span>.</i> — [<i>the law is that</i>] <i>since there is no one</i> [<i>available</i>] <i>who will prepare for them a second time</i><sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from Gemara <i>ibid.</i> — <i>G.</i></i>, they bring the corpse into a room and the bridegroom and the bride into a bridal chamber, and he performs the dutiful marital act and [then] separates [himself from her and they bury the corpse forthwith].<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Gemara <i>ibid.</i> This applies even if he married a woman who was married before. If the death occurred after the bride’s head was covered, the seven days of the wedding-feast take effect. Thus <i>Derisha</i>, but is rejected by <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> However, since the marital precept rests upon him, it is regarded as a Festival day for him, and he observes [first] the seven days of the [wedding-] feast,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">The law is that on the first day mourning rites are Rabbinical (v. <i>infra</i> § 399, 13). Hence, he is permitted to observe first the seven days of the wedding-feast, for were the first day of mourning Biblical, ‘matters pertaining to joy’ would be forbidden — <i>ShaK.</i> Cf. <i>G.Mah.</i> and <i>R. A. Eeger</i> a.l. It may be asked, however, how is it possible for the seven days of the wedding-feast to override a case of Biblical mourning, for the day of death and burial is considered Biblical (it is only when the burial is not held on the same day as death that the first day of mourning is Rabbinical)? This difficulty may be removed because the first day of a groom’s marriage is considered Biblical, for it is written, <i>‘In the day of his espousals and in the day of the gladness of his heart’</i> (Song of Songs III, 11) — <i>Asheri.</i> Although an <i>Onen</i> is forbidden the use of the conjugal couch (v. <i>supra</i> § 341), the Rabbis were lenient in this case and put it on an equal footing with one who had given up hope of burying his dead in which case he is permitted to eat meat and drink wine and use the conjugal couch — <i>RITBA.</i></i> and after this he observes the seven days of mourning.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">As to the question of rending garments, there is a difference of opinion among the authorities. <i>MaHaRIL</i> (Laws of Mourning) states that the garments are rent after the seven days of the wedding-feast. <i>She’elath Yabeẓ</i> maintains that garments should be rent forthwith since it is not a Biblical Festival. <i>Sede Ḥemed</i> accepts <i>MaHaRIL’s</i> ruling. <i>Mishmereth Shalom</i> agrees with <i>Yabeẓ.</i></i> And the entire seven days of the [wedding-] feast he observes matters pertaining to private [mourning], and he is forbidden to use the conjugal couch.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XI, 8. <i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>RaBaD</i> writes that he is only forbidden to use the conjugal couch or to be alone with her, but the mixing of the cup, the making of the bed and the washing of his face, hands and feet are permitted to be done in each other’s presence. <i>ShaK</i> rejects this on the basis of numerous sources in the Talmud and Codes and extends the prohibition to embracing and kissing as well.</i> Therefore, the entire seven days of the [wedding-] feast and the seven days of mourning, he sleeps among the men and she sleeps among the women.<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">Ket. <i>ibid.</i> According to our ruling today (v. <i>supra</i> c. 193 end) that after the dutiful marital act she is considered a <i>Niddah</i>, no guarding should be necessary. Yet, since it was a requirement in Talmudic days we should advocate more stringency — <i>Ta</i>Z. <i>Nek. Hak.</i> opposes <i>Ta</i>Z, but latter is defended by <i>Imre Baruk.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that she is forbidden to be alone with him during the day as during the night, and they do not require two</i> [<i>separate</i>] <i>guardings; but</i> [<i>it suffices</i>] <i>that he is among the men or she among the women</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>And if they do not sleep in one room they require no guarding at all</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaShBA</i> on the question of a bride who became menstrous— <i>G.</i></i> <i>And some say that during the night two guardings are required, and during the day he is allowed to be alone with her.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>RaBaD</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>The accepted custom is to take a minor boy</i> [<i>to be</i>] <i>with the bridegroom and a minor girl</i> [<i>to be</i>] <i>with the bride, and they do not remain alone without a minor boy or a minor girl.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote"> E.H. § 22.</i> With respect to the thirty days [of mourning], — [the law is that] he counts only from the seven days of mourning and on.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>T.H.</i> and Yad <i>ibid.</i> Although a Festival enters into the counting of the days of mourning, here it is different, since he is permitted hair-cutting.  next note.</i> The entire seven days of the [wedding-] feast he is permitted fine laundry work and hair-cutting.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">For it is written, <i>‘Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty’</i> (Is. XXXIII, 17).  P.R.E. c. 16 end.</i> And if he suffers no loss, e.g., in a locality where it is likely to sell whatever he prepared,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Or to put the foodstuff away in cold storage so that it does not perish.</i> or even if he suffers a loss, but the mother of the bridegroom died or the father of the bride or one of their near-of-kin, [so] that someone remains to prepare for them on another occassion, — [the law is that] they did not allow him [under such conditions] to postpone the mourning rites, but he buries him [the dead] forth-with,<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">Ket. 4a.</i> and observes seven days of mourning after which the bridegroom and the bride are brought immediately into a bridal chamber and he observes the seven days of the [wedding-] feast.<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">Yad <i>ibid.</i> Thus also <i>Tur</i> citing <i>Asheri.</i>  <i>supra</i> n. 5. 343</i>

Siman 343

[As long as there is] a dead person in town [awaiting burial] all the townspeople are forbidden [to engage] in work.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 27b.</i> And whosoever<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>ShaK.</i> Cur. edd. have <span>שכל</span> ‘for whosever.’  <i>Tur.</i></i> sees a corpse and does not attend to all its [burial] needs, is subject to be placed under a ban.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> quoted by <i>Tur</i>, derived from the following case recorded in M.K. <i>ibid.</i> : ‘R. Hamnuna once came to Daru-Matha; he heard the trumpet announcing a death in town, and when he saw that some people carried on their work, he said, Let the people be placed under the ban! Is there not a death in town? They then told him that there was an Association in the town. If so, said he to them, it is permissible for you to work.’ The law as set down here by <i>Caro</i> refers to any corpse.  however, Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XIV, 10; <i>BeHaG</i> and <i>Alfasi</i> according to whom this is applicable only to a corpse where there is no one to look after its burial needs, the burial of which is a religious duty <span>מת מצוה</span>.</i> However, if there are associations in town, each one of which attends to [the burial needs of] the dead on its [particular] day, it is permissible [for the others who are not required to attend to the burial needs, to engage in work] on the day which is not [appointed] for it [the association].<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> quoted by <i>Tur</i>, derived from the following case recorded in M.K. <i>ibid.</i> : ‘R. Hamnuna once came to Daru-Matha; he heard the trumpet announcing a death in town, and when he saw that some people carried on their work, he said, Let the people be placed under the ban! Is there not a death in town? They then told him that there was an Association in the town. If so, said he to them, it is permissible for you to work.’ The law as set down here by <i>Caro</i> refers to any corpse.  however, Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XIV, 10; <i>BeHaG</i> and <i>Alfasi</i> according to whom this is applicable only to a corpse where there is no one to look after its burial needs, the burial of which is a religious duty <span>מת מצוה</span>.</i> This applies only to the time when the [funeral] escort was not yet held, but during the [funeral] escort all must abstain from [work]<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>N</i> quoted by <i>Tur.</i>  <i>Asheri</i> M.K. III end and Ket. 17a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>להוצאת המת</span>.</i> as will be explained infra.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>infra</i> § 361, 2.</i>
In a country town one must not extend a greeting of 'peace' to others whilst the corpse is in town.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). I, 7, ‘One must not extend a greeting of peace to others whilst the corpse is in town. This applies to a country town, but in a large town one is permitted to greet.’ The reason for this is that in a country town it becomes known to everyone when there is a corpse in town; not so in a large town. Hence, in the latter case it is permissible.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>So much the more that one must not extend a greeting of 'peace' to others when there is a corpse</i> [<i>awaiting burial</i>] <i>on the cemetery</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Thus in the writings of <i>Isserlein</i> c. 25 on the authority of <i>Sefer Ḥasidim</i> — <i>G.</i> Cf. <i>B.Yos.</i> a.l. This ruling is applicable even in a large city — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>but when there is no corpse there, one may extend a greeting of 'peace' to others at a distance of four cubits from the grave</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Addenda to Alfasi; Kol Bo</i> on the authority of <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg — G.</i></i>

Siman 344

It is an important religious duty to lament the dead fittingly;<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Shab. 105b.</i> and the religious duty [is fulfilled] when one raises his voice [in funereal lamentations] to utter over him [the dead] words which break the heart in order to cause much weeping, and to mention his praise.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 6b and <i>Rashi ibid.</i> s.v. <span>דלויי</span>; Y.M.K. III, 5(82d): ‘If one sheds tears for a worthy person, the Holy One, blessed be He, counts them and places them in His treasure house.’ Shab. <i>ibid.</i>: ‘He who is slothful to lament a Sage deserves to be buried alive … and will not prolong his days.’</i> It is forbidden to over-praise him too much, save to mention his good characteristic features [to which] a little may be added,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">The reason for the additional praise may be explained as follows: In the performance of a religious duty, e.g., if one dispensed charity, we assume that had a little more been required of him he would have given the additional amount too. Hence, we may add a little to his praise — <i>Ta</i>Z. Or, since it is very difficult to give an exact and precise evaluation of one’s deeds in words, consequently, it is better to add a little more praise in speaking of one’s characteristic features — <i>A.H.</i></i> provided one does not overexaggerate. And if he possessed no good characteristic features whatever, one should not mention [this] regarding him. [With respect to] a Sage and a pious man one may mention their wisdom and piety [respectively].<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). III, 6; Y.Naz. VII, 1(56a); Shab. 153a; Meg. 28b; M.K. 28b; San. 11a.</i> And one who mentions [aught] regarding one who did not possess [it] at all, or exaggerates too much that which he did possess, causes harm to himself<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 62a.</i> and to the dead.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri</i>, M.K. c.  The same applies to inscriptions on tombstones — <i>Ḥ.Adam.</i></i>
Just as [funerary] lamentations are made for men, so too, are [funerary] lamentations made for women as is fitting for them.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XII, 5, derived from Meg. 28b: ‘Rafram had a funerary lamentation made for his daughter-in-law in the Synagogue, saying, ‘To pay honour to me and the dead all the people will come.’ R.H. 25a: ‘On that day the mother of Ben Zaza died, and Rabban Gamaliel made a great funerary lamentation for her etc.’ Cf. also Ket. 72a top. Nowadays the law is that a corpse should not be taken into a Synagogue save in the case of a well known Rabbinic scholar — <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>) I, pp. 13, 99-100.  <i>infra</i> pars. 19-20.</i> <i>And they are lamented amongst men and scholars</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> — <i>G.</i></i>
In a locality where it is customary to hire wailing women to make the lamentation, one is dutibound to hire wailing women to make the lamentation for his wife. If he [the husband] was unwilling [to provide wailing women], her father comes and provides [this] and collects from him [the husband] against his will.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XIV, 7.  also Ket. 46b, Mishna: ‘Even the poorest in Israel should provide not less than two flutes and one wailing woman.’ Cf. Tosef (Ẓ). Ket. IV, 2.</i>
How old must an infant be with respect to making a lamentation for him? — With respect to the poor<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">The poor man suffers more grief on the loss of a child since this is his only joy — <i>Rashi.</i></i> [a lamentation is made] for children of five years old; with respect to the rich, for children of six years old, and with respect to the children of elders, they are [regarded] as the children of the poor.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 24b.  Sem(H). III, 2-4 for variants.</i> However, one should recite Z<i>idduk Haddin</i> and <i>Kaddish</i> for an infant [who died] after thirty days have passed [from birth].<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>R. Hai Gaon.</i> Thus also <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>We do not follow this practice</i><sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">To recite <i>Ẓidduk Haddin</i> and <i>Kaddish</i> for an infant thirty days old.</i> <i>unless the infant is twelve months old</i><sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>ShaK</i> rules that the former custom should be adopted.</i> <i>and is taken out</i> [<i>for burial</i>] <i>on a bier as explained infra</i> § 353, <i>par.</i> 5.
[In the case of] the children of the rich and the children of scholars, one may add a little to the praise of their deeds.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). III, 4 cited by <i>Asheri</i>, M.K. c.  This is done out of deference to their parents — <i>Shak.</i> Regarding the consciousness of the dead until the <i>Golel</i> closes the grave, v. Shab. 152b.</i>
For a child who knows how to argue,<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">For the expression <span>נושא ונותן</span> in the sense of ‘to argue’ or ‘to debate,’ v. Tanḥ. <i>Shemoth</i> s. 18.</i> a lamentation is made on account of his own deeds; and if he has no deeds, a lamentation is made for him on account of his parents' deeds;<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">The parent’s deeds are mentioned. Similarly, in the case of his relatives stated anon.</i> and if they [the parents] possess no deeds, a lamentation is made for them<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">The reading <span>אותו</span> ‘him,’ as in the other cases would be more correct.</i> on account of the deeds of his relatives.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). III, 5.</i>
For a<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘the.’</i> daughter-in-law a lamentation is made both on account of her father's deeds as well as on account of her husband's deeds.<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). <i>ibid.</i>  Ket. 48a, 61a: ‘For she rises with him but does not go down with him,’ which means that the wife rises to the husband’s social position and can claim its comforts and advantages, if it be a higher one than her own, but she does not suffer his disadvantages. Consequently, a lamentation is made for her on account of her husband’s deeds too. This ruling refers to the seven days of the wedding-feast — <i>A.H.</i></i>
[For an embryo that came out] by pieces or with its feet foremost;<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"> Nid. III, 5.</i> for premature-born children; for a [viable] birth [which takes place after] eight [months of pregnancy] or a still birth [after] nine [months of pregnancy]; for a heathen or slaves, one does not engage in making a lamentation nor does one follow the funeral procession.<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). I, 8-9. One must however, attend to the preparations of the bier and the burial — <i>Tur.</i> Although we have seen (<i>supra</i> par. 4) that a lamentation is never made for a child before it is five years old, and the present case would follow <i>a fortiori</i>, nevertheless, in the case of a normal birth one may, if he so desires, have a lamentation made even prior to that age. Not so, however, in the cases enumerated here — <i>A.H.</i></i>
Heirs who refuse to pay the honorarium of the funerary orator are made to pay against their will.<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">In accord with the final decision of the Talmud (San. 46b) that a funeral lamentation is made in honour of the dead and not the living. Hence, the heirs cannot dispense with it and are obliged to pay. For this reason we comply with the instructions of a person who dies that no lamentation be made for him.  also Ḥ.M. § 253, 30. This law however, is applicable only if the heirs inherited the estate of the deceased. Otherwise, they cannot be made to pay the honorarium against their will (v. <i>infra</i> § 348, 2) — <i>ShaK.</i></i>
One who left instructions that no lamentation be made for him, is obeyed.<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">San. <i>ibid.</i> However, if a prominent scholar leaves such instructions he may be disobeyed. Cases are cited by the <i>Codifiers</i> where such instructions left by very prominent scholars, were not followed — <i>P.Tesh.</i> Others make no distinction between illiterate or learned people with respect to this ruling. In both cases no funeral oration should be pronounced — <i>Bir. Yos.</i></i> <i>But if one instructed not to observe for him the seven or the restrictions of the thirty</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>] <i>is not obeyed</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIW</i> s. 7 — <i>G.</i> Some hold, <i>contra Isserles</i>, that even with respect to the observance of the seven days of mourning and the rending of garments, the instructions of the deceased should be obeyed, since these too, fall into the category of ‘honouring the dead.’ Others agree with <i>Isserles</i> — <i>P. Tesh.</i>  however, <i>R. A. Eger</i> a.l. If parents instructed children not to observe the mourning period of twelve months, their wishes should be carried out. The reason for this is that since this mourning period applies to parents only and not to other dead, it becomes part of the Biblical injunction of ‘honouring parents’ — <i>ShaK.</i> If one instructs that the <i>Kaddish</i> be not recited for him, he is obeyed — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i>
The prohibition against tearing the hair or lacerating the flesh [in token of mourning] for a dead person, is found [supra] § 180.
The people who are engaged in the lamentation, as long as the corpse lies before them, they slip out one by one and read the <i>Shema</i> and recite the <i>Tefillah</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">Were this permitted in the presence of the dead, it would be considered ‘mocking or deriding the poor,’ i.e. the dead (v. Prov. XVII, 5). Cf. <i>supra</i> § 341, n. 4.</i> [if] the corpse does not lie before them,<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">e., either the lamentation is not made in the same room wherein the corpse lies, or if in the same room, not within four cubits of the dead.</i> they sit and read [the <i>Shema</i>] and the <i>Onen</i> sits in silence;<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">An <i>Onen</i> is exempt from these.  <i>supra</i> § 341.</i> they stand and recite the <i>Tefillah</i> and he acknowledges the justice of the [Divine] verdict, and says, 'May it be Thy Will, O Lord, my God, that Thou repare our breaches and the breaches of Thy people the House of Israel.'<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 19a. Cf. Y.San. II, 2(20a); Y.Ber. III, 2(6b).</i>
After burial, the lamentation is interrupted both for the purpose of reading the <i>Shema</i> as well as [the recital of] the <i>Tefillah</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote">O.H. § 72 — <i>G.</i> This ruling follows from <i>supra</i> par. 12. According to <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> (who, it seems had a different reading in Y. <i>ibid.</i>), before burial, in the presence of the dead, one may slip out to read the <i>Shema</i> but not to recite the <i>Tefillah, contra Caro</i> (<i>supra</i> par. 12) — <i>W.G.</i></i>
Two lamentations<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote">For the same person — <i>N.</i></i> are not made [simultaneously] in the same city, unless there is a multitude of people that could be divided into two [groups, so that] at every lamentation there will be a sufficient number of people [present].<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XI, 5.</i>
Two lamentations<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote">For two persons — <i>N.</i></i> are not made [simultaneously] in the same city, unless there is [a funerary orator available] in order to tell the praises of one [dead] and [another funerary orator to tell] the praises of the other [dead].<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). <i>ibid.</i>  <i>Ḥid. Hagahoth</i> for additional comments on the source of this law in Sem. The translation follows here the interpretation of <i>A.H.</i></i>
One may discuss in the presence of the corpse only those matters which concern the dead person, e.g., [matters pertaining to] his burial needs and lamentation; but all other matters are forbidden.<sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote"><i> supra</i> par. 12, n. 27.</i> And this ruling obtains only with respect to Torah discussions, but in [the case of] secular matters we do not mind.<sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 3b in accord with the first version. Thus also <i>Alfasi</i>, <i>Asheri</i> and others. According to this ruling it seems that <i>Caro</i> holds that Torah discussions are forbidden even outside of the four cubits from the corpse, and secular matters are permitted even within the four cubits. <i>BaḤ</i> rules that Torah discussions are forbidden even outside of the four cubits and secular matters are forbidden only within the four cubits. Matters which concern the dead, if they fall into the category of Torah discussions, are permitted within the four cubits. The common practice is to expound Aggadic material and Biblical verses leading to the praise of the dead, even within his four cubits (v. <i>infra</i> par. 17). The entire room in which a corpse lies is considered four cubits — <i>ShaK.</i> Cf. also Shab. 153a; Y.Naz. VII, 1(56a); Sem(H). III, 6.</i>
It is permissible to recite Biblical verses and [render] expositions in honour of the dead person<sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote">Contrary to those whose sole desire is to demonstrate their speaking ability — <i>Ta</i>Z. If one receives a report of a death after twelve months had elapsed from the time of death, a lamentation is no longer made — <i>T.H.</i></i> within his four cubits,<sup class="footnote-marker">39</sup><i class="footnote">For outside of his four cubits it is permitted in any case.  Y.Ber. III, 1(6a); Y.Naz. VII, 1(6a) — <i>W.G.</i></i> or on the cemetery.<sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Isaac Abuhab</i> in commentary to (<i>Tur</i>) <i>O.Ḥ.</i> in accord with <i>R. Mord. Halevi</i> — <i>G.</i> This is derived from B.K. 16b: <i>‘And they did him honour at his death’</i> (II Chron. XXXII, 33), this indicates that they set up an academy near his sepulchre.’ From this we learn that if, for the sake of honouring the dead, one studies or expounds the law in the latter’s presence, it is not disrespectful.  <i>N.Yos.</i> to M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i>
When a <i>Hakam</i><sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> dies, his Academy is in recess, for they make a lamentation for him throughout the seven [days of mourning]; but [all] the other Academies engage in [the study of] the Torah, even during the time that the lamentation is held; and after the lamentation his disciples do not assemble in his Academy,<sup class="footnote-marker">42</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 22b.</i> but join in pairs and study at their homes.<sup class="footnote-marker">43</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i>, derived from <i>Asheri</i> on the authority of <i>RaBaD.</i></i> When an <i>Ab Beth Din</i><sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> dies, all the Academies of the city are in recess, and those who are in the habit of saying their prayers [the <i>Tefillah</i>] in the Synagogue, change their [customary] places.<sup class="footnote-marker">44</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i>: ‘Those who sit in the north sit in the south, and those who ordinarily sit in the south sit in the north.’</i> When a <i>Nasi</i><sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> dies, all Academies, wherever a lamentation is made for him, are in recess; and after the lamentation, they do not enter the Academy, but join in pairs and study at their homes, and all the townspeople say their prayers [the <i>Tefillah</i>] in the house of mourning, both on a weekday and on the Sabbath save the reading of [the weekly portions] of the Torah on the Sabbath, the second and the fifth [days of the week] which they read in the Synagogue. And they should not walk about in the street, but they sit [at home] in family groups and feel the affliction all day.<sup class="footnote-marker">45</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i>  Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IX, 13-15.</i>
Lamentations are made for scholars and their wives in the Synagogue and in the Academy, but not for the rest of the people.<sup class="footnote-marker">46</sup><i class="footnote">Meg. 28b.  <i>supra</i> par. 2, n. 7.</i>
A <i>Hakam</i><sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> or an <i>Aluf</i><sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> or a <i>Gaon</i><sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> is brought into the Academy<sup class="footnote-marker">47</sup><i class="footnote">For the entire ruling v. <i>Tur</i> a.l. on the authority of <i>R. Hai Gaon.</i></i> and the bier is placed on the spot where he used to lecture and a lamentation is made for him there, and when they take the bier out they make a lamentation for him until [they reach] the cemetery, and on the seventh day they go up to the cemetery and visit him,<sup class="footnote-marker">48</sup><i class="footnote">Unless the seventh day falls on <i>Rosh Ḥodesh.</i></i> and likewise on the thirtieth day, and [thus] for twelve complete months they visit [him] and recite the <i>Hashkabah</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i>

Siman 345

One who commits suicide wilfully is not attended to at all;<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘in every respect.’ For it is written: ‘And <i>surely your blood of your lives will I require’</i> (Gen. IX, 5), regarding which R. Eleazar remarked that it means, ‘I will require your blood if shed by yourselves’ (B.K. 91b). <i>RaShBA</i> writes that although the law is that we do not attend to one who commits suicide, nevertheless, this does not apply to burial and shrouds, but only to rending of garments and baring the shoulder in mourning — <i>ShaK.</i></i> and one does not mourn for him and no lamentation is made for him, nor does one rend [garments] or bare [the shoulder in mourning for him], but one stands for him in the line [of comforters], and one recites over him the mourners' blessing, and whatever [brings] honour [only] to the living [may be done].<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). II,  Thus also Yad, <i>Ebel</i> I, 1 <i>N</i> holds that garments are rent for a suicide and that the passage in Sem. from which our ruling is derived refers to strangers only but not to near-of-kin — <i>ShaK.</i> In a case where the surviving members of the family of a suicide would suffer shame and humiliation, it is permitted to allow them to observe mourning rites — <i>P.Tesh.</i> If no doubts are entertained as to the commision of suicide, the law is that where there are other mourners present at the Synagogue services, the children of a suicidal case should not recite the <i>Kaddish.</i> But if any doubts exist as to whether the person really committed suicide, the children should recite the <i>Kaddish</i> — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i>
Who is [considered] a wilful suicide? — For example, if one stated that he is going up to the roof-top, and they saw him go up at once in anger; or he was in distress, and [then] fell down<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">By throwing himself down from the roof-top.</i> and died, — [the law is that] such a person is presumed to have committed suicide wilfully. But if they discovered him<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Sem. has ‘they found him.’</i> strangled and hung upon a tree, or [they found him] killed<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>infra</i> § 364, 4.</i> and thrown upon his sword, he is presumed to be like all [other] dead,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">For it may have been the result of an accident and unintentional.</i> and they attend to him and withhold not from him anything.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Yad <i>ibid.</i>, derived from Sem(H). II, 2-3. The following rules determine a suicidal case: a) The actual commission of suicide must be observed. A mere indication of suicide is not relied upon, unless the suicide’s previous actions clearly indicate such commision. b) It must be committed wilfully and clearheadedly. c) The expressed intention for such commision must be followed by the act proper. d) In the case of a person found hung, even if the surrounding circumstances lead one to believe that the person took his life, nevertheless, he is not considered a suicide — <i>P.Tesh.</i> If one was not seen going up to the roof-top to take his life in accord with his previous expressed intention, the law is that even if he was later found dead, he is not presumed to be a suicide (<i>RaSHaL</i>) — <i>ShaK.</i>  <i>supra</i> c.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>One who stole or robbed</i><sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">The fact that stealing or robbing are punishable by death in no way indicates that the culprit, being aware of the outcome of his crime, may have committed suicide, for it is quite possible that he might have thought that he would not be caught. Nor is he regarded as one who dissociates himself from the practices of the community (v. <i>infra</i> par. 5). If a thief or a robber die a natural death, they are mourned for, provided they repented (<i>supra</i> § 340, 5 refers to one who did not repent) — <i>ShaK.</i></i>, <i>as a result of which was executed by government law</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.</i> states that mourning rites are not observed for one who was executed by the government on account of theft. Such a case should be considered as suicide. <i>MaHaRIW</i> (source of this gloss) opposes the ruling of <i>Mord.</i>, and maintains that one executed by the government, should be mourned for and is not on an equal footing with a suicide. He holds that <i>Mord.</i> was misled by a corrupt text in Sem.  San. 47b where a distinction is made between one executed by a Gentile government and one executed by the <i>Beth Din.</i> In the former case, where execution is not in accordance with Jewish Law, one obtains forgiveness, and should be mourned for; in the latter case death is justly meted out and one is not forgiven. Cf. <i>D.M.</i> and <i>W.G.</i> a.l.</i> <i>is to be mourned for, if no danger will</i> [<i>result</i>] <i>through him on account of the fear of the government;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote"> San. 11a; Sota 48b. Otherwise, mourning could be regarded as an act of provocation. One who threw himself into the river is not considered a suicide, for prior to drowning, he is cast about by the waves, and no doubt, before he drowns, he repents — <i>G.Mah.</i> One who murdered a fellow Jew and was exemuted by government law is mourned for — <i>B.L.Y.</i> One who takes his life in order to avoid being subjected by others to inhuman torture is not considered a suicide — <i>B.L.Y.</i></i> <i>and he is not designated a wilful suicided</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIW</i> s. 114 — <i>G.</i></i>
A minor who commits suicide wilfullly, is considered as though it were [done] unintentionally.<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). II, 4-5. Since he is of immature mind. The same is applicable to an imbecile — <i>Tur.</i></i> And likewise, one who was of age, and committed suicide wilfully, [being under pressure, as [in the case of] King Saul,<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">For whom suicide was permitted lest the Philistines torture him.  Yeb. 78b: <i>‘“For Saul”</i> (II Sam. XXI, 1) because he was not mourned for properly.’  also Gen. R. <i>Noah</i> XXXIV, 1 Thus also <i>N</i> and <i>Asheri.</i> On King Saul’s tragic death v. I Sam. </i> — [the law is that] they withhold not from him a thing.
An excommunicant who died, is adjudged as one who committed suicide wilfully.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> Since he is put to shame by the stone which is placed upon his coffin (v. <i>infra</i> n. 15), it follows that no honour should be extended to him. However, honour which accrues to the living is extended, viz., forming the line of comforters in order to console the mourners. With respect to burial and shrouds he is considered like all other dead — <i>ShaK.</i></i> They rend no [garments], nor bare [the shoulder in mourning], nor make a lamentation for him,<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> Since he is put to shame by the stone which is placed upon his coffin (v. <i>infra</i> n. 15), it follows that no honour should be extended to him. However, honour which accrues to the living is extended, viz., forming the line of comforters in order to console the mourners. With respect to burial and shrouds he is considered like all other dead — <i>ShaK.</i></i> and they place a stone on his coffin.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 15a in accord with R. Judah. Cf. also Sem(H). V, 13. This is done in order to carry out the ordinance of stoning.  Josh. VII, 25.</i> This ruling obtains in [a case where the person was excommunicated for] sheer contumacy,<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. M.K. 16a.</i> [i.e.,] where one transgresses the teachings of the Law [out of contempt], but in [a case where one was excommunicated because of refusal to pay] indemnities, — [the law is that] as soon as he<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">The excommunicant.</i> dies, he is declared free from their<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">The Rabbis.</i> decree, and they do not place a stone on his coffin, and they make a lamentation for him as is fit.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">This entire ruling is found <i>supra</i> § 334, 3.</i>
All those who dissociate themselves from the practices of the community, viz.,<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘and they (are).’</i> those people who have cast off the yoke of the precepts from their neck,<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">e., they reject all religious obligations.</i> and are not included within the community of Israel in the observance thereof,<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote">e., the precepts.</i> [nor] in [showing] respect [towards] the Festivals, [nor] in attending Synagogues and Study-Houses, but are as freemen for themselves, like the [people of] other nations [who have not accepted God]; and likewise, those who are apostates and informers, — [the law is that] for all these, one does not observe <i>Aninuth</i><sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 341.</i> or mourning rites<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">However, their burial needs are attended to — <i>P.Tesh.</i> One should observe mourning rites at the time apostasy is committed — <i>B.L.Y.</i> This is the accepted practice and applies only to one whose son or daughter committed apostasy, but not to other near-of-kin. In <i>Hag. Asheri</i> to M.K. it is stated that <i>R. Gershom</i> observed mourning rites for his son who became an apostate. According to <i>Ta</i>Z and <i>Ḥatam Sofer</i> the mourning rites were observed by <i>R. Gershom</i> after his son died. <i>T.T. wa-Da‘ath</i> maintains that the mourning rites were observed during the son’s lifetime, after he committed apostasy.</i>, but their brethren and other relations put on white clothes and wrap themselves in white<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">It follows that mourners should wear dark clothes, and every locality should abide by its accepted practice — <i>Ghayyat</i> cited by <i>Tur.</i>  also <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>) I, p. 29, s. 10.</i> and eat and drink and rejoice.<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). II, 8; Yad, <i>Ebel</i> I, 10. The reason for rejoicing is based on Prov. XI, 10: <i>‘When the wicked perish, there is joy.’</i> (cf. San. 39b). Sem. <i>ibid.</i> cites Ps. CXXXIX, 21-22: <i>‘Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate Thee</i>? <i>… I count them mine enemies.’</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>One who dissociates himself from</i> [<i>the practices</i>] <i>of the community and refuses to carry the burden with them of imposts and Arnona</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">Tax from crops and cattle paid in kind.</i> <i>is mourned for</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaShBA, Resp</i>. 663 — <i>G.</i></i> <i>but all the other townspeople are not required to abstain from work on account of him in order to attend to him</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">Implied in <i>N.Yos.</i> M.K. end — <i>G.</i>  <i>D.Moshe.</i></i>
A minor [who is] one or two years olld, who commits apostasy [along] with his mother,<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">Or his father.  <i>supra</i> § 340, 5 — <i>G.</i></i> and [then] he died, is not to be mourned for.<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote"><i>D.Merb.</i> rejects this ruling.</i>
One who fell into the sea or was drowned in the river or a beast devoured him, — [the law is that] one does not withhold anything from him.<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). II, 10.</i>
A coffin that passes [on its way] from place to place,—if the body, <i>i.e., the spinal column and its ribs</i>, is intact, they stand in the [comforters'] line and recite on account of him the mourner's benediction and offer condolence to the mourners, if there are mourners who mourn for him; but if the body is not intact, they do not stand in the [comforters'] line and do not recite the mourners' benediction, nor do they offer condolence to the mourners.<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 25a.</i>

Siman 346

One whose husband [who was] with her, was impaled in the [same] city [wherein she dwells], or his wife [who was] with him, was impaled in the [same] city [wherein he dwells], or [if such is the case with] one's father or mother, and the flesh [of the corpse] had not yet entirely wasted away, — [the law is that the near-of-kin] should not dwell therein,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">For people will refer to the impaled person as the near-of-kin of so-and-so, and thus cause degradation to the dead — <i>RaN.</i> But if the flesh became entirely decomposed, or if the corpse was interred, this ruling does not apply — <i>Perisha.</i> The law stated here applies only if the impaled person is within city limits — <i>BaḤ.</i></i> unless it<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">The city.</i> was as large as Antioch,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">The capital of Syria founded by Seleucus Nicator, situated on the Orontes (v. <i>Jastrow</i>).</i> where some<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘these.’ In a large city this does not apply since the near-of-kin is not well known.</i> [people] do not know others;<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘these.’ In a large city this does not apply since the near-of-kin is not well known.</i> and one should not dwell on this side,<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">In proximity of the impaled person.</i> but [rather] on the other side.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). II, 1 Cf. Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VI, 11; <i>Asheri</i> and <i>RaN</i> to M.K. 27b.</i>

Siman 347

One who suffered a bereavement prior to thirty days before<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘close to.’</i> a Festival, should not make a lamentation for him<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">The dead.</i> from [the time] that the thirty days before<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘close to.’</i> the Festival begin.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘enter.’ M.K. 8a; Y.M.K. I, 5(80d). Since the dead will not be put out of mind for at least thirty days (M.K. <i>ibid</i>. in accord with Samuel), and if a lament is held during this period, his grief and bitterness would be roused during the Festival. This applies even if the lamentation is performed <i>gratis</i> (cf. opinion of Rab <i>ibid</i>.).  <i>Tur</i> a.l. Prior to <i>Rosh Hashana</i> and <i>Yom Kippur</i> it would be permissible — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> [This applies] even if he has to make a lamentation<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>RaBaD.</i></i> [in any case] without this, e.g., [if] he suffered [another] bereavement within the thirty days [of the Festival], for whom it is permissible to make a lamentation, even if he died on the eve of the Festival,<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">For in the case of the new bereavement his grief would not be roused any more than it is, which would not be the case were he to make a lamentation for the old bereavement too, as a result of which the festive spirit of the Holiday would be greatly diminished.</i> [nevertheless], it is forbidden to make a lamentation along with him<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">The new dead.</i> for the bereavement that he suffered before thirty days prior to the festive season.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">If a renowned scholar dies, it is permissible to make a lamentation even within thirty days of the Festival, on accoun of the honour which we are dutibound to extend towards him — <i>P.Tesh.</i> The entire ruling as stated here is also found in O.Ḥ. § 547, 3.</i>
One who received tidings [of death] within thirty days before the Festival, it sems to me that it is permissible to make a lamentation<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Since the grief is fixed and will not be roused any more than it is on account of the lament. Consequently, this case is similar to a new bereavement suffered within thirty days prior to the Festival at which time it is permitted to hold a lament (cf. <i>supra</i> par. 1).</i> for him,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">The dead person.</i> although it is [already now] distant [tidings].<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">e., the death occurred before the thirty days prior to the Festival. This law is based by <i>Caro</i> on Y.M.K. <i>ibid.</i> and is also found in O.Ḥ. <i>ibid.</i> par. 4.</i>
Our accepted practice upon completion of the [first] year to bewail and to memorialize the souls [of the dead],<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Thus was the custom in Spain.</i> seems to me, is not included in this principle,<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> par. 1. The reason was that this memorial marked the conclusion of the mourning period at which time it was customary to change from dark to light garments.</i> and it is permissible to do so close to the Festival.<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">e., within the thirty days. It is permissible to memorialize the souls of departed ones for the first time, even during the Festival — <i>ShaK.</i> For the source of this ruling cf. <i>B.Yos.</i> to O.Ḥ. <i>ibid.</i> par. 5. One is permitted to recite the <i>Yizkor</i> Memorial prayers during the first year after death and must not wait until a complete year has passed — <i>Sukkath Shalom.</i> It is customary for those whose parents are living to leave the Synagogue during the <i>Yizkor</i> Service so as not to disturb those who recite these prayers — <i>Minhage Yeshurun.</i></i>

Siman 348

They burn at [the funerals] of Kings,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">A.Z. 11a. This is not considered an Amorite usage, for it is written: ‘<i>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</i>’ (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 — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>or</i> [<i>at the funerals</i>] <i>of princes</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Tosef.</i> — <i>G.</i> Princes are also mentioned in A.Z. <i>ibid.</i> Cf. however, Sem(H). VIII, 6.</i> their bed[s] and articles which they used,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">A.Z. 11a. This is not considered an Amorite usage, for it is written: ‘<i>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</i>’ (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 — <i>ShaK.</i></i> but for commoners it is forbidden [to do so].<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Tosef(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 <i>‘Do not destroy.’</i> From this we learn that one should not destroy wantonly any garment whatsoever for the dead unless it is required for the shrouds — <i>A.H.</i></i>
One who gave instructions<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">While in a dying condition.</i> [that when he dies] he should not be buried at the expense of his estate,<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">But should be a public charge.</i> is not to be obeyed,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Ket. 48a: ‘For he has no right to enrich his sons and become a public charge.’</i> but they collect from his heirs<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Even 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) — <i>ShaK.</i> If he left enough only for his wife’s marriage settlement (<i>Kethubah</i>), he must be buried at the public’s expense — <i>G.Mah.</i>  Ḥ.M. ibid. par. 30 where our present ruling is also found.</i> [for] all his burial needs against their will,<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Tur.</i> Cur. edd. have ‘his will.’</i> 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,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> derived from <i>Asheri, San.</i> § VI and in <i>Resp.</i> A tombstone may be erected over a grave at any time after the seven days of mourning — <i>Mishmereth Shalom.</i>  also Ket. 5a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>עד שיסתום</span>.</i> provided that they inherited money from their father.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Otherwise everyone is dutibound to share the costs — <i>ShaK.</i> 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 — <i>G.Mah.</i> and <i>B.Hillel</i>  <i>supra</i> § 344, 9, n. 24.</i>
Even one who has no money,<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> has, ‘even a dying person who has no heirs.’ Cf. <i>BaḤ</i> a.l.</i> who gave instructions [that when he dies] he should not be buried [in order not to become a public charge],<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"> 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. <i>ibid.</i> 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. <i>N</i> states that since this involves a doubt concerning a ritual question, we adopt the more stringent view. Hence, the ruling here. Cf. also Yad, <i>Zekiyah U-Matanah</i> XI, 24.</i> is not to be obeyed.<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> adds, ‘for it is a disgrace for all living and not only for his family.’  <i>supra</i> n. 11.</i>

Siman 349

[When] one dies, whether he is a Gentile'<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaShBA, Resp.</i> 365. Cf. also Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XIV, 21 who makes no distinction between a Gentile and an Israelite with respect to the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from a dead person. According to the following sources one may derive profitable use from a heathen corpse: Y.Shab. X, 6(12c); B.K. 10a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>שהשור</span>; <i>RaShBA</i> in his comments to B.K. <i>ibid., RaN</i> to Shab. 94b; <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i>; The case of David who married King Saul’s daughter, Michal for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. <i>W.G.</i> (Cf. also <i>Mishneh le-Melek</i>, Yad, <i>Ebel ibid.</i>) rules that one may derive profitable use from a heathen corpse. <i>Shebuth Ya‘akob</i> maintains that one is permitted to derive profitable use from a heathen corpse only if the latter was acquired by an Israelite (v. <i>Tosaf</i> B.K. <i>ibid.</i>) — <i>Yad Abraham. G.Mah.</i> cites a dissenting opinion. Jewish dead are forbidden to be put to profitable use, Biblically; heathen dead only Rabbinically — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> or an Israelite, his shrouds are forbidden [to be employed] for profitable use,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">This is deduced from the similar expression ‘there’ used both in connection with the heifer whose neck was to be broken (Deut. XXI, 4), and the death of Miriam (Num. XX, 1). Just as the heifer was forbidden to be employed for profitable use, so also in the case of a dead person and his shrouds, the same prohibition applies — <i>ShaK.</i>  A.Z. 29b. This holds even if the benefit thus derived was not the result of employing the article in its normal or natural way — <i>R. A. Eger.</i></i> and [this is applicable] only if one designated them for his need<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">e., the dead person. Derived from San. 47b-48a, where Abaye holds that ‘designation is considered a reality.’ Hence, by mere designation for the dead person, the article becomes subject to the prohibition against profitable use, as though it were already used for the designated purpose. Raba, however, maintains that ‘mere designation is not considered a reality.’</i> and also placed them upon him;<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">e., the dead person. Derived from San. 47b-48a, where Abaye holds that ‘designation is considered a reality.’ Hence, by mere designation for the dead person, the article becomes subject to the prohibition against profitable use, as though it were already used for the designated purpose. Raba, however, maintains that ‘mere designation is not considered a reality.’</i> but mere designation, even if one made them [the shrouds] for his<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">e., the dead person. Derived from San. 47b-48a, where Abaye holds that ‘designation is considered a reality.’ Hence, by mere designation for the dead person, the article becomes subject to the prohibition against profitable use, as though it were already used for the designated purpose. Raba, however, maintains that ‘mere designation is not considered a reality.’</i> need after he died, they [the shrouds] do not become forbidden [before being placed upon the dead], for mere designation is not a reality.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">In accord with Raba’s ruling.  O.Ḥ. § 42, 3.</i> Likewise, if one placed them [the shrouds] upon him,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">e., the dead person. Derived from San. 47b-48a, where Abaye holds that ‘designation is considered a reality.’ Hence, by mere designation for the dead person, the article becomes subject to the prohibition against profitable use, as though it were already used for the designated purpose. Raba, however, maintains that ‘mere designation is not considered a reality.’</i> but did not designate them for such a purpose in the beginning, they are still not considered forbidden.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">In accord with R. Ḥisda (San. <i>ibid.</i>) that we require both designation and the use of the designated article. Cf. <i>infra</i> § 364,  On this principle, if a person prepared shrouds for himself, he may change his mind later, and use them for another purpose — <i>A.H.</i> Changing the form and the name of the object <span>שינוי</span> does not apply, as it would in the case of an illegitimately obtained article — <i>Ba’er Heteb</i> on the authority of <i>BaḤ</i> in <i>Resp</i>. To perform an autopsy in order to determine the cause of death is forbidden. Thus <i>N.B., Ḥatam Sofer, Binyan Ẓion, MaHaRaM ShiK</i> a.o. The following reasons are advanced for this prohibition. a) Disgrace to the corpse <span>ניוול המת</span>. b) A corpse must not be put to profitable use <span>איסור הנאה</span> c) The possibility that certain parts of the corpse will not be buried. This prohibition stands even if only one of the above reasons applies. <i>Ḥatam Sofer</i> rules that even if one agreed during his lifetime that after he dies an autopsy be performed on him, it is still forbidden. Others, however, permit under these conditions. One who desires that his son should study medicine in which case autopsies play a very important role, should leave instructions that after he dies he grants permission to have an autopsy performed on him — <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>) I, p. 40-41; <i>Sh.M.B.</i> IV p. 255-6. On the question of embalming, v. Kol Bo(G) I, p. 51-53. Blood which was removed from the corpse through embalming requires burial —<i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>) <i>ibid.</i></i>
The ornaments of the dead which are attached to his body, e.g., a wig<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘strange (false) curls.’</i> and anything similar to that, are forbidden [to be employed for profitable use] just as the dead person proper;<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">‘Arak. 7b.</i> <i>and only when they are tied</i><sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Even if the hair is plaited and not tied or fastened, it is still prohibited. Only when not fastened at all, i.e., it (the wig) hangs on a peg or hook, is it permitted — <i>BaḤ</i>. Artifical teeth even if made from the bone of a <i>Nebelah</i> (v. Glos.) should not be removed from the corpse, but should be buried with it — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> <i>to the hair of the body, but if they are not tied, it is permitted.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from <i>Rashi</i>, ‘Arak. <i>ibid.</i> (s.v. <span>בפאה נכרית</span>) — <i>G.</i></i> <i>Accordingly it is permitted to remove rings from the hand</i>[<i>s</i>] <i>of corpses and anything similar to that</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">From this it follows that if a gold or silver ornament or the like is attached to the corpse, it should not be removed. But this may be questioned. For according to ‘Arak, <i>ibid.</i> only those ornaments which appear as part of his body (e.g., a wig or artifical teeth) should not be removed. But other ornaments, which do not appear as part of the corpse, even if attached, should not be any different from clothes worn at the time of death, which, even if fastened to the dead man’s body, do not become prohibited — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> This applies only to a case where no instructions were given,<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘an undefined (case).’</i> but if one instructed that the ornaments of his body which are attached thereto, should be given to his son or to his daughter, or for any other purpose, they are permitted;<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">‘Arak. <i>ibid.</i></i> but one's real hair, even if he left instructions regarding it, — [the law is that] it is forbidden to make any use of it.<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. also <i>Kesef Mishneh</i> to Yad, <i>Ebel ibid</i>. and <i>B.Yos.</i> a.l. <i>Maim.</i> and <i>SeMaG</i> rule that it is permitted to make use of a dead person’s hair. A closer examination of the Talmudic discussion in ‘Arak. <i>ibid</i> will reveal that the opinion which permits is correct — <i>Nek. Hak.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>If a woman is about to be put to death, use may be made of her hair</i>, [<i>for</i>] <i>although her trial is ended, her hair does not become forbidden until she is executed</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> — <i>G.</i> In accord with R. Naḥman b. Isaac (‘Arak. <i>ibid</i>.).</i>
If one's father and mother were throwing garments upon him,<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">Their dead son.</i> it is a religious duty for others to save them [the garments],<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">One is religiously dutibound to remove the garments from the corpse and thereby restore lost property, for the parents will certainly regret their action later — <i>ShaK.</i></i> [provided] if they [the garments] did not touch the bier which is buried with him.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">Upon which he was carried out for burial as was the custom in those days. Derived from San. 48a-b in accord with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And if one saved them he is bound to guard them, and if one returned them to his father and mother and again they threw them and</i> [<i>consequently</i>] <i>they became prohibited</i> [<i>for use</i>], <i>the one who restored</i> [<i>them</i>] <i>is responsible to compensate</i> [<i>the loss</i>], <i>for he is like one who threw them in a place where there are hordes of wild beasts and robbers</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Resp.</i> of <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i>, cited in <i>Mord</i>. B.B.  — <i>G.</i></i> However, if they [the garments] did touch it [the bier], they are prohibited [for profitable use],<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">The prohibition is Rabbinical, since the garments might be confused with the shrouds of the dead, and if permitted for use, people would apply this to the shrouds as well (San. <i>ibid</i>.).</i> [provided] if they belong to the one upon whom they threw them,<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> from <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> who derives it from Yeb. 66b. Otherwise the law is that a person cannot prohibit something which does not belong to him — <i>ShaK.</i></i> and provided [too] that one threw them with the intention<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">e., in a manner expressing extreme grief and embitterment, in order to bury the garments along with the corpse, and the garments touched the bier which is also buried. This excludes a mattress or cushion usually placed under the head of the corpse, or a sheet or <i>Talith</i> spread over the coffin or bier in which the corpse is carried out for burial — <i>ShaK.</i> If the dead person possessed a becoming <i>Talith</i>, it should not be exchanged for one of inferior quality, for the principle, ‘Do not destroy,’ does not apply here (cf. <i>supra</i> § 348, n. 2) — <i>B.L.Y.</i></i> that he should bury them with him.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri</i> M.K. end — <i>G.</i> Prohibited articles were not buried together with the dead person, in the same grave, but rather in the earth surrounding the grave which becomes the possession of the corpse — <i>T.H.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>The board upon which they cleansed</i> [<i>the corpse</i>] <i>and the entire equipment upon which they carry the corpse to burial, do not become prohibited</i> [<i>for profitable use</i>], <i>for one does not place them there for the sake of burying</i> [<i>them</i>] <i>with him</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIL Resp.</i> 55. Thus also <i>Asheri</i> quoted by <i>Tur</i> — <i>G.</i></i>
Whoever [throws recklessly] many garments upon the dead,<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> par. 3.</i> commits a sin because of 'Do not destroy'.<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). IX, 23. Cf. M.K. 27b; Yad <i>Ebel</i> IV, 2 and commentaries <i>ibid</i>.; Sem(H). Int. p. 81. This is in accord with the opinion of R. Meir (Sem. <i>ibid.</i>) who states: ‘One should not be reckless by throwing garments upon the dead to be buried with them.’</i>

Siman 350

If one desires one may untie the hair of [dead] brides<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">In order to deepen the poignancy of grief among the mourners.</i> and uncover the faces of [dead] grooms,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">In order to deepen the poignancy of grief among the mourners.</i> and one may place ink and a pen at his [the dead person] side,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">To show that had they been privileged to live, a marriage contract would have been written for them — <i>B.Hillel.</i> Or it may refer to other dead who were scribes — <i>N.Ya‘akob</i> to Sem. So also is to be explained the reference to one’s key and writing-tablet. Sem. adds, ‘and there is no supertitious practice in this.’</i> and one may hang the dead person's key and writing-tablet on his coffin because of grief of the soul,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">In order to deepen the poignancy of grief among the mourners.</i> and one may set up canopies for [dead] brides and grooms,<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">To indicate that had they been alive a marriage would have taken place.</i> and one may hang upon them only that which is inedible,<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘things which have not ripened as food for a person.’</i> but anything that is edible is prohibited [to be hung thereon] since they become forbidden for use.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). VIII, 1-7 in accord with the general opinion of the Sages <i>contra R.</i> Meir (<i>ibid.</i>), since causing edibles to become forbidden involves a transgression of ‘Do not destroy.’ Cf. <i>supra</i> § 348, n.   also <i>Asheri</i> to M.K. 27b. <i>BaḤ</i> writes that nowadays this practice is prohibited. Sem. <i>ibid.</i> states that it was also customary in ancient times for one to go out to the burial grounds and call upon the dead until three days after being placed in the sepulchral chamber, for it once happened, that one visited an entombed person and the latter was found alive and continued to live an additional twenty years. <i>Yabeẓ</i> (comments on Sem.) explains similarly other incidents recorded in the Talmud.  Pes. 50a, B.B. 10b. A similar incident happened to <i>MaHaRIL</i> (v. <i>Yabeẓ ibid</i>.).</i>

Siman 351

One is permitted to make the dead person's shrouds from diverse kinds.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna Kil. IX, 4.  <i>supra</i> § 301, 7. This ruling is based upon the following: ‘R. Yoḥanan said, What is meant by the verse, <i>“Among the dead I am free</i>” (Ps. 88:6), when one is dead, one is free from religious duties’ (Niddah 61b).</i>
One buries the dead only in a <i>Talith</i><sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> that has <i>Ẓizith</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that Ẓizith are not required;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>‘some say’</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>and the accepted practice is to bury him with Ẓizith, only that one first disqualifies the Ẓizith or one twines around</i><sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Tur has ‘tie around.’</i> <i>one of the corners</i> [<i>of the Talith</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Three opinions are recorded here with respect to fringes in the garments of a corpse. a) <i>Caro</i> holds that the corpse must be buried in a <i>Talith</i> that has fringes. Thus also opinion of <i>N</i>  Men. 41a. b) <i>R. Tam</i> maintains that fringes are not required (even when the corpse is carried out for burial).  Ber. 18a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אבל</span>; B.B. 74a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>פסקי</span>; A.Z. 65b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אבל</span>; Nid. 61b, <i>Tosa</i>f<i>.</i> s.v. <span>אבל</span>. Thus also <i>Or Zaru‘a.</i> This is the opinion of the first part of this Gloss. c) The general opinion of the Sages (v. Mas. Ẓiẓith(H) IX, p. 52), <i>contra</i> the individual opinion of Abba Saul in Sem(H). XII, 11 (v. also <i>ibid.</i> p. 241). that the accepted custom is to bury the corpse with fringes, provided some disqualification is made in them. The fringes are regarded as accessories of religious observances (<span>תשמישי מצוה</span>) which may be thrown away when disused, and hence in this case they do not have to be removed, <i>contra</i> Abba Saul who it seems considers them (i.e., the fringes) as accessories of holiness (<span>תשמישי קדושה</span>) which are usually stored away.  Meg. 26b. This opinion is also accepted by <i>RIBA</i> and <i>RaSHaL</i> (cited by <i>BaḤ</i>)<i>.</i> There are two more opinions regarding this problem, viz., that of <i>Ra’BIaH</i> who holds that one who observed the precept of <i>Ẓiẓith</i> during lifetime should be buried with <i>Ẓiẓith;</i> otherwise, he should not be buried with <i>Ẓiẓith;</i> and that of <i>R. Isaac b. Malki Ẓedek</i> and <i>RaZaH</i> to carry out the corpse for burial covered by a <i>Talith</i> with <i>Ẓiẓith</i> which is removed before burial. Thus is the custom of the Land of Israel (v. <i>Gesher ha-Ḥayyim</i> I, 10; II, 14). Thus also opinion of <i>RI</i> in <i>Tosaf.</i> B.B. <i>ibid.</i> Cf. also <i>Asheri</i> to M.K. III for a lengthy discussion on this problem and also suggestions in order to remove the difficulty between this ruling and <i>supra</i> par. 1 according to which the dead are exempt from religious observances. <i>Derisha</i> removes this apparent contradiction by stating that the precept of <i>Ẓiẓith</i> is different, since it is as important as all precepts put together. Furthermore, ‘diverse kinds’ are forbidden by the Torah only if they afford warmth to the individual, which is not applicable in the case of the dead. One who through no fault of his own but on account of unavoidable circumstances could not observe the precept of <i>Ẓiẓith</i> during his lifetime, may be buried in a <i>Talith</i>, provided he left sufficient funds with which to buy one. But if money has to be spent from the public charity fund, it is not permitted — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i>

Siman 352

The corpse is not buried in expensive shrouds even [if it is] for the <i>Nasi</i><sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> of Israel.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from M.K. 27b where it is reported that formerly the expense of taking the dead out for burial was more burden-some on his near-of-kin than his death proper, as a result of which the dead person’s near-of-kin would forsake him. Until Rabban Gamaliel, the Elder, who was <i>Nasi</i> in Israel, ordained, that he be buried in flaxen garments instead of woolen ones of an expensive sort, and this practice was adopted later by everyone, viz., to use for shrouds even rough cloth worth a <i>Zuz.</i> In addition to this measure adopted for the general good, — to be buried in expensive garments smacks of presumptuousness and is a transgression of the law prohibiting to ruin anything wantonly (Deut. XX, 19) — <i>ShaK.</i> Cf. Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IV, 2. However, the flaxen shrouds may be of a finer quality but not of the best — <i>ShaK.</i>  <i>Ba’er Heteb</i> a.l. Only the <i>Talith</i> should be of wool. However, it is permissible to bury one in a silken <i>Talith</i> if worn by the individual during lifetime — <i>Yad Sha’ul.</i> A new <i>Talith</i> should not be exchanged for an old one, for it is appropriate to bury the dead in the <i>Talith</i> he prayed during lifetime. This applies not only to the <i>Talith</i> but also to the other burial vestments — <i>Mishmereth Shalom.</i></i>
The accepted custom is to bury [the dead] in white garments.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">In accord with R. Yoshiah and R. Jeremiah in Y.Kil. IX, 4(32b); Y.Ket. XII, 3(35a), <i>contra</i> R. Yannai (quoted on the authority of R. Joḥanan, <i>ibid.</i>) in Shab. 114a and Nid. 20a, who requested to be buried in coloured garments.  also Tanḥ. <i>Vayyeḥi</i> (ed. <i>Buber</i>) sec. 6; Gen. R. c. 96 and c. 100; P.R.E. c. 33, <i>RaDaL</i> n. 77. Cf. Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IV, 1, who states that the garments should be white and even the thread used in sewing the garments should be of flax.  Sem(H). IX, 23: ‘R. Nathan says, that the very same garment which descends with him to the grave, enters with him in the hereafter, as it is written, <i>“It is changed as clay under the seal and they stand as a garment’”</i> (Job. XXXVIII, 14). Cf. Ket. 111b and <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>בלבושיהן</span> Y.Kil. and Ket. <i>ibid</i>.; Tanh. <i>Emor</i>, sec. 2; Midrash Samuel, sec, VI, 2 (ed. <i>Buber</i>); San. 38a, <i>Rashi</i> s.v. <span>תתהפך</span>.</i>
A<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘the.’</i> man does not wrap or tie [burial garments] around a<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘the.’</i> woman, but a<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘the.’</i> woman wraps or ties [burial garments] around a<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘the.’</i> man.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XII, 10. Because of obscene thoughts which is not applicable as much in the case of a woman attending a man — <i>ShaK.</i>  <i>supra</i> § 335, 10 and cf. Mas. Gerim(H) I, 4 (p. 69).</i>
One closes the eyes of the dead and if his mouth opens<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">O.Ḥ. § 311, 7 has ‘continue to open.’</i> one ties up his jaws and stops off the organs of the extremities after they wash him<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IV, 1 adds, ‘and annoint him.’</i> with various kinds of perfumes<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. Mishna Shab. XXIII, 5; Yad, <i>Ebel ibid.; supra</i> § 339, 1 and notes; O.Ḥ. <i>ibid.</i></i> and cut his hair; <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And</i> [<i>also</i>] <i>his nails. And one washes him thoroughly all over so that he be clean of all impurity</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Benjamin</i> Z<i>e’eb</i>. — <i>G.</i></i> <i>And one covers his head with eggs beaten</i> [<i>and mixed with oil or wine</i>] <i>together with their shell, for</i> [<i>this resembles</i>] <i>a sphere making a circuit in the world</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> — <i>G.</i> It was customary for the corpse to be borne beyond city limits and in order for the grave-diggers to know whether the corpse was Jewish they adopted this sign — <i>Kol Bo.</i> On eggs as a symbol of mourning v. B.B. 16b. Cf. <i>infra</i> § 378, n. 1.</i>

Siman 353

Formerly, they used to uncover the face of the rich [dead] and cover the face of the poor [dead] because their faces [i.e., of the poor dead] turned black in years of dearth and the surviving poor [near-of-kin] felt ashamed; hence, they ordained that one should cover everyone's face.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 27a. Cf. <i>ibid.</i> for other customs which were in vogue formerly but were changed later out of respect to those who would suffer embarrassment. Once the corpse is placed in the coffin and covered one must not open it in order to view the body — <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>) I, p. 36.</i>
A scroll of Law is not placed on a scholar's bier.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from M.K. 25a in connection with the death of R. Huna. Should, however, the scroll of Law be placed on a stool or the like in the presence of the dead, it would be permissible — <i>ShaK.</i> Nowadays even this is no longer practiced — <i>A.H.</i></i>
The honour of a scholar [requires] that he be taken out [in his bier] through the door and not to lower him from the roof; and [he should be taken out] on the first bier<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">The bed in which he died. Nowadays this is no longer practiced — <i>A.H.</i></i> and not to transfer him from one bier to another.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i>
An infant [who dies] within thirty days [after birth] is carried out in one's arms<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘bosom.’ This means that one is not required to carry out the infant save in one’s arms. Should one, however, desire to use a bier, it would be permissible — <i>ShaK.</i></i> to the cemetery and not in a coffin, and is buried by one woman and two men but not by one man and two women, on account of privacy.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. Kid. 80b where it is stated: ‘A man may not be alone with two women, but one woman may be alone with two men.’ If the two women are related to the infant it is permissible, for since they are in grief on the loss of the infant, they will not yield to temptation — <i>D.M.</i></i> And one does not stand in the line [of comforters] for him,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">e., one is not required to do so, but may, if he so desires. Upon returning from the cemetery, the people would pass by the mourners in a line and would say <span>תתנחמו</span> ‘Be comforted.’ Cf. San. 19a. Later this was reversed. The people would stand in two rows and the mourners would pass between them. This is the accepted practice today.</i> nor does one recite for him the mourners' benediction,<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">This refers to the <span>ברכת רחבה</span> ‘the benediction of consolation’ pronounced in open air upon the mourner’s return from burial.  Ket. 8b.</i> nor does one offer condolence to the mourners,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">During the seven days of mourning. The source of this ruling is M.K. 24a-b.</i> even if we are certain that his months [of pregnancy] were complete.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i>, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ואין</span> <i>contra Rashi</i>.</i>
One who is thirty complete days old, is taken out [for burial] in a case, (<i>i.e., a coffin; 'and he was put in a coffin</i>',<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Gen. L, 26.</i> <i>is rendered by Targum Jonathan</i>, <span>ושוון יתיה בגלוסקמא</span>),<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N. Yos.</i> — <i>G.</i> <span>גלוסקמא</span> or <span>דלוסקמא</span> is the Greek form γλωσσóκομαν.</i> that is carried in the arms,<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">By two people in a respectful manner.</i> (<i>i.e., a wide board;</i> <span>אגפיים</span> <i>means arms</i>); and one stands in the line [of comforters] for it, and one recites for it the mourners' benediction, and one offers condolence to the mourners.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 24b in accord with R. Judah. Cf. Sem(H). p. 23  <i>supra</i> par. 4 and notes.</i> One twelve months old is taken out [for burial] on a bier. For one who is taken out on a bier the public show their grief; for one who is not taken out on a bier the public need not show their grief.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> in accord with R. Simeon b. Eleazar.</i> And whoever is known to the people at large,<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">They used to see him leave his home — <i>Rashi.</i></i> the public should attend to him; and whoever is not known to the people at large, the public need not attend to him.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> in accord with R. Eleazar.</i>
[With respect to] an infant that died<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 263, 5; O.Ḥ § 526, 10.</i> before it was circumcised,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">e., it died before the eight day. The same ruling applies if the infant was eight days old or more but for valid reasons could not be circumcised — <i>ShaK.</i></i> [the law is that] one circumcises it at its grave<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote"> San. 110b where the question is raised, ‘From when may an infant enter the future world,’ and according to R. Naḥman b. Isaac, — from its circumcision. Cf. also <i>Asheri</i> M.K. III, who reports this ruling on the authority of <i>R. Naḥshon Gaon. Kol Bo</i> explains that the infant is circumcised in order to remove its disgrace.  <i>Hag. Maim.</i> Yad, <i>Milah</i> 1, 15; <i>supra</i> § 263, 5. If they forgot to circumcise it, the grave may be opened for this purpose. Thus <i>Kneseth Ezekiel. Nodah Bihudah</i> rejects this. <i>Me’ir Nethibim</i> writes that if the mother also died, and the infant was buried along with the mother, the grave should not be opened, but the child is named — <i>P.Tesh.</i> This applies even to an infant that was born after eight months of pregnancy — <i>G.Mah.</i></i> without [reciting the usual] benediction; and one [also] names it [then].<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 263, 5, where <i>Caro</i> adds: ‘as a sign that Heaven should have pity on it, and that it should live at the resurrection of the dead.’</i>
A corpse is not taken out [for burial] on a bier unless its head and the greater part of its body are intact.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XII, 13 in accord with the first authority. Cf. <i>infra</i> § 364, 3.</i>

Siman 354

A city wherein two corpses are [awaiting burial], one brings out the first one<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">The one who died first.</i> and then one brings out the second one.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">If the reason for adopting this procedure is that the obligation to bury the first corpse took effect first, then if they both died on the Sabbath at which time the obligation to bury the dead does not take effect, this ruling would not apply. But if the reason is that the first corpse emits a bad odour of decay before the second corpse, the above distinction with respect to the Sabbath would not apply — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> If one kept over<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘they kept over night.’ If they desire to keep over the first corpse for the sake of his honour, e.g., to wait for the arrival of relatives, or to bring a coffin or burial garments for him (v. <i>infra</i> § 357), they need not keep over the second one on account of the first, since the first corpse will not be brought out for burial at present in any case —<i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK.</i></i> the first [corpse], one brings out the second one. [If] a <i>Hakam</i> and a <i>Talmid</i><sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>Hakam</i><sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Sem. has only <i>‘Talmid.’</i> It follows that <i>Talmid Ḥakam</i> here means ‘a disciple of a <i>Ḥakam</i>’ in contradistintion to the same term used elsewhere.  Kid. 49b; E.H. § 38, 27-28 for the meaning of <i>Ḥakam</i>, and <i>Talmid.</i> Cf. also Ta‘an. 10b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>איזהו</span>; <i>M.Abr.</i> O.Ḥ. § 575 beg.</i> [are awaiting burial], one brings out [first] the <i>Hakam;</i> [if] a <i>Talmid Hakam</i> and an <i>Am Ha-arez</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Sem. has only <i>‘Talmid.’</i> It follows that <i>Talmid Ḥakam</i> here means ‘a disciple of a <i>Ḥakam</i>’ in contradistintion to the same term used elsewhere.  Kid. 49b; E.H. § 38, 27-28 for the meaning of <i>Ḥakam</i>, and <i>Talmid.</i> Cf. also Ta‘an. 10b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>איזהו</span>; <i>M.Abr.</i> O.Ḥ. § 575 beg.</i> one brings out [first] the <i>Talmid Hakam;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Sem. adds, ‘If both are <i>Ḥakamim</i> or both are <i>Talmidim</i>, or both are <i>Ame Ha-areẓ</i>, they bring out (for burial) the first,’ i.e., the one who died first.</i> [if] a man and a woman, one brings out the woman [first],<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Even if the man died first — <i>R. A. Eger. Tashbeẓ</i> states that in this respect there is no difference between a young girl, an elderly woman, and a pregnant or nursing woman — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> for she is prone<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘near.’</i> [to be subjected] to pudendal<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"><span>בית</span> refers euphemistically to the pudenda. This is on account of propriety. Sem. does not have <span>בית</span>. Cf. <i>infra</i> § 355 and Mishna M.K. 27a.</i> disgrace. [After] one brought out the first one and buried him, one does not stand in the line [of comforters] for him, nor does one recite the mourners' benediction for him, nor does one offer condolence to the mourners<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">In order not to delay the burial of the second — <i>ShaK.</i></i> until one brings out the second one. [After] one has brought out the second one and buried him, comforters come and stand in the line<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">The line of comforters is formed for both sets of mourners simultaneously — <i>ShaK.</i> Another reading in Sem. has, ‘and they come and stand in line and comfort.’</i> and [then the mourners] give leave of departure to the many [comforters].<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"> M.K. 27a.</i> Two [separate] mourners are not comforted simultaneously<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">Only one after another or they divide themselves into two groups and they each comfort the respective mourners — <i>ShaK.</i></i> unless their [degree] of honour and praise is equal.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XI,  Thus also <i>Asheri</i> M.K.  Sem. <i>ibid.</i> adds here, ‘they do not bring out two corpses on one bier unless their (degree of) honour and praise is equal.’</i>

Siman 355

A woman's bier is not set down in the open street out of respect;<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna M.K. 27a in accord with R. Eleazar <i>ibid.</i> 28a. Cf. Sem(H). XII, 4. The reason is on account of propriety.  <i>supra</i> § 354.</i> (<i>And one does not go up with the town scholar</i><sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"><span>חבר עיר</span> may mean a) the town scholar (v. Meg. 27b, <i>Rashi</i> top) who played a leading role in the town affairs and was maintained by the town, or b) the town council or group similar to the Roman Collegia (v. <i>Krauss, Synagogale Altertumer</i> pp. 20 ff.; Sem(H). Int. p. 46-7), or c) the local communal charity or religious organization (cf. <i>‘Aruk</i> s.v. <span>חבר</span>). Cf. <i>infra</i> § 403, 3. <i>Ta</i>Z explains that the meaning of <span>הבר עיר</span> in the present ruling is in accord with b), and that for reasons of propriety they did not proceed to the open street. <i>ShaK</i> adopts a), and explains that it was undignified for the town scholar to follow the funeral procession of a woman.</i> <i>for a woman's sake</i>)<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> — <i>G.</i> Derived from Sem(H). XI, 2. Cf. Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XII, 5. Nowadays this custom is no longer practiced.</i>.

Siman 356

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.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna Shek. II, 5. Although we accept the principle that ‘designation is not considered a reality’ (San. 47b; <i>supra</i> § 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 (<i>ibid.</i> 48a; <i>supra</i> § 253, 6). It follows therefore, that a woman may not collect her marriage settlement (<i>Kethubah</i>), nor a creditor his debt, from this surplus — <i>A.H.</i> The collection refers to money or other articles for the sake of the dead — <i>ShaK.</i> 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 — <i>P.Tesh.</i> 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.’</i>

Siman 357

It is prohibited to leave the corpse [unburied] over night, unless they left him over night for the sake of his honour, [viz.,] to provide for him a coffin or shrouds,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna San. 46a: ‘Whoever leaves his dead lie over night, transgresses both the positive command, <i>“but thou shalt surely bury him the same day,”</i> and the negative command, <i>“his body shall not remain all night upon the tree”</i> (Deut. XXI, 23). Cf. <i>ibid.</i> 46b. Some hold that only the negative command is transgressed, since the positive command refers only to those executed by Court. Cf. Yad, <i>Sanhedrin</i> XV, 8 and v. <i>Leḥem Mish.</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IV, 8.  however, Sifre Deut. <i>ibid.</i> and <i>Torah Temimah</i> a.l. Cf. also A.R.N. § IV; Zohar, <i>Emor</i> 88a-b; <i>Naso</i> 142b-144a. The prohibition is only against keeping the corpse over night until the morning, but if kept over only part of the night, there is no transgression involved, only that it is considered a praiseworthy act to bury the corpse as soon as possible (v. <i>infra</i> par. 2) — <i>P.Tesh., Yad Abraham.</i> Even if one was a completely wicked person throughout his life, he must not be kept over night. If there is a government law in force, forbidding burial immediately after death, the above prohibition does not apply. If a corpse was found and it is not known for sure who the individual is, the law is that it is permissible to keep him over until he is identified — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> or [professional] lamenting women,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">San. 47a.</i> or in order that relatives should [have time] to come,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Who live in another locality. Sem(H). XI, </i> or to assemble [surrounding] townships [for his funeral].<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"> San. <i>ibid.</i> where Pi‘el form (<span>שמע</span>) is found. Our text has the Hiph‘il form. Both may be used.  I Kings XV, 22; I Sam. XV, 4.</i>
[With respect to] all [other] dead, whoever removes the bier hurriedly<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">He hurries the burial.</i> is [considered] praiseworthy;<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">For other dead one does not make lengthy lamentations, nor does one observe much mourning. Hence, it is in order to hasten their interment. Not so, however, in the case of one’s parents where one is obligated to observe all the mourning rites rigidly. Hastening the burial would therefore, be considered reprehensible—<i>ShaK.</i></i> for one's father or mother it is [considered] reprehensible, unless it was on the eve of the Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 22a. Thus also <i>N</i> and <i>Asheri.</i> Otherwise, the burial would have to be postponed until the day after the termination of the Sabbath or the Festival.</i> or if rain was pouring down on his bier.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). IX, 9.  <i>D.S.</i> and <i>BaḤ</i> to M.K. <i>ibid.</i> This may refer to a case where the bier is in an open place exposed to the rain, or it may have commenced to rain on the way to the cemetery — <i>B.Yos.</i> Cf. <i>ibid.</i> for other reasons.</i>

Siman 358

They who carry the bier and they who relieve them and they who relieve these, both they who go before and they who follow the bier, — [the law is that] they who are needful for the bier are exempt (<i>from reciting the Shema</i>),<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos. Derived from Ber. 17a. The ruling here is in accord with Yad, <i>Kri’ath Shema</i> IV, 4; <i>Maim.</i> Mishna comment. Ber. <i>ibid.; Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>הכי גריס</span>; <i>Alfasi</i> and <i>Asheri.</i> According to these commentators the reading of the Mishnah is: <span>את שלמטה צורך בהם פטורים ואת שאין למטה צורך בהם חייבים</span> Thus also text in Y. a.l. <i>Rashi</i>, however, has the following reading: <span>את שלפני המטה צורך בהם פטורים ואת שלאחר המטה צורך בהם חייבים</span> according to which the obligation to carry the bier rests only upon those who go before the bier. Hence, only the are exempt, but not those who follow the bier, even if they are needful for the bier. <i>Caro</i> adopts <i>Maim.</i> interpretation. <i>Be’er Hagolah</i> states that the source of <i>Caro</i>’s ruling is the <i>Tur.</i> However, the latter’s interpretation is not quite the same as that of <i>Maim.</i>  <i>Eshel Abraham</i> to O.Ḥ. § 72, 1 where this ruling is also found. <i>Caro</i>’s ruling is applicable only in a city where there are special groups arranged to carry the bier, and since everyone wishes to take part in this religious duty, all are therefore exempt from reading the <i>Shema</i>, even those who stand at a distance, on the principle that ‘One who is engaged in a religious duty is exempt from performing another religious duty’ (Suk. 25a). But if there are no special groups arranged to carry the bier, only those who are in proximity of the bier are exempt, since they participate in carrying the bier, but not those who are at a distance — <i>M.Abr.</i> and Mishna Ber. <i>ibid.</i></i> and the others who follow the corpse, who are not needful for the bier, are not exempt.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"> O.Ḥ. § 72 — <i>G.</i> Although escorting the dead (<span>הלוית המת</span>) is a religious duty which falls into the category of ‘deeds of love’ (<span>גמילות חסדים</span>) which is Biblical and should alone suffice to exempt one from the reading of the <i>Shema</i>, yet, since those who merely escort the dead are not regarded as being busily engaged or troubled (<span>טרודים</span>), they can manage to read the first verse of the <i>Shema</i> in a standing position with the proper intention, and the rest of the <i>Shema</i> while walking. In any case they are exempt from reciting the <i>Tefillah.</i> Cf. O.Ḥ. § 106.</i>
The corpse is not brought out [for burial] close to [the prescribed period] for the reading of the <i>Shema</i><sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">According to one opinion this means half an hour prior to the prescribed period for reading the <i>Shema.</i> The expression ‘close to’ employed here is similar to the expression ‘close to <i>Minḥah’</i> found in Pes. 99b. Hence, in the morning, since the time for reading the <i>Shema</i> in the first instance (<span>לכתחילה</span>) is ‘when one sees his friend at a distance of four cubits and recognizes him,’ until the ‘sparklings of the rising sun’ appear (Ber. 9b; O.Ḥ. § 58, 1; § 89, 1), a corpse may be taken out for burial at least half an hour before this period. Otherwise, we apprehend that there will be insufficient time to complete the burial and read the <i>Shema</i> in time — <i>Disciples of R. Jonah</i> (Ber. 19a). In Y.Ber. III, 2(6b) one hour is mentioned, which is explained (v. <i>R. Jonah ibid.</i>) to mean, as long as there is sufficient time to complete the burial before the prescribed period arrives. Hence, ‘close to’ does not refer to the half hour period. In Y. <i>ibid.</i> the following question is raised: Since we learn in the following Mishna (Ber. <i>ibid</i>.): ‘When they have buried the dead and returned, if they can begin (the <i>Shema</i>) and complete it before reaching the (mourners’) line, they begin it; but if they can not, they do not begin it,’ it follows that the <i>Shema</i> is never read during the time that the corpse is borne for the purpose of burial (for as we have seen one must take the corpse out for burial prior to the prescribed time for reading the <i>Shema</i>). Consequently, we may ask, why does the Mishnah make a distinction with respect to the <i>Shema</i> at the time the corpse is carried out for burial? In order to remove this apparent difficulty, Y. <i>ibid.</i> explains that it applies only to a case where they thought that there was ample time to complete the burial before the prescribed time for reading the <i>Shema</i> arrived, and they erred. In Ber. <i>ibid.</i> it is stated that it refers to a distinguished person who may be taken out for burial even close to the prescribed period for the reading of the <i>Shema.</i> The custom today is to take out the corpse for burial after the morning Service at the Synagogue is over, so that many people will be able to attend the burial — <i>B.Hillel.</i> Cf. <i>G.</i> anon.</i> whenever there is no time to bring him out [and] to bury him before the time for the reading of the <i>Shema</i> arrives; but if they had [already] commenced to bring him out, they do not desist<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> n. 3.</i> in order to read [the <i>Shema</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 19a; Y.Ber. III, 2(6b); Y.San. II, 2(20a); Sem(H). X, 4; Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IV, 6.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>One must wait with the burial until it may be estimated that the majority of the community had recited the Tefillah; and there is no distinction in this</i> [<i>respect</i>] <i>between the reading of the morning or the evening Shema. Some are lenient regarding the evening</i> [<i>Shema</i>] <i>since its</i> [<i>prescribed</i>] <i>time extends throughout the night</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">O.Ḥ. § 72 — <i>G.</i></i>
In a locality where there are appointed pall-bearers<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘shoulderers.’ Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XIV, 1 considers carrying the corpse on one’s shoulder as a Rabbinical precept. Where, however, this is impossible the corpse may be borne by a hearse. <i>D.Hasade.</i> The driver should be Jewish. Cf. Gen. R. § 100; Gen. L, 1</i> to carry the bier, they [the pall-bearers] are forbidden to put on sandals<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">But must walk barefooted.</i> lest [a thong]<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Not found in text. However, cf. Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IV, 3 who adds: ‘a thong of etc.’</i> of one's sandal break<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Cur. edd. should be corrected to <span>תפסק</span>. Cf. source of this ruling <i>infra.</i> On the <i>Niph‘al</i> of the verb <span>פסק</span> in this sense, cf. Kel. XXVI, 4.</i> with the result that he is prevented<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">By being tripped up on account of the broken thong. This was applicable only in Talmudic times when they had special pall-bearers and no one else participated, but nowadays, since everyone takes part, they are not required to go barefooted — <i>B.Yos. Ta</i>Z writes that the custom in some communities to have special pall-bearers should be abolished. Otherwise, the same law should apply today. <i>Nek. Hak.</i> disagrees with <i>Ta</i>Z, and makes the following distinction: Our text speak’s of one’s sandal (<span>סנדלו</span>) in which case the breaking of a thong will preclude him from participating as a pall-bearer, and for this very reason one is not permitted to go out with sandals on the Sabbth, for since a sandal fits loosely on one’s foot, there is apprehension lest it fall off and the individual might carry it on the Sabbath, which is forbidden; but in the case of a shoe, which fits well, and there is no apprehension lest it fall off, it is permissible to be worn on the Sabbath (Cf. O.H. § 301, 4). Consequently, shoes (<span>מנעלים</span>) may be worn by the pall-bearers, even if the latter are the only ones appointed to discharge this duty.</i> from [observing] the religious act.<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">Of carrying out the corpse for burial. Y.Naz. VII, 1(56a); Y.Ber. III, 1(6a). Cf. Gen. R. § 96. (Albeck ed.) where we find the following reading: <span>ויערבבו את המצוה</span>) ‘and they will disturb (the performance) of the precept (of carrying out the bier for burial).’  <i>Hilkoth ha-Yerushalmi</i> by S. Lieberman, p. 29, n. 8. and also <i>T.A.</i> II, p. 481, n. 462.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>There are localities where it is customary that the</i> [<i>immediate</i>] <i>mourners leave the house first</i><sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">Tosef. Pes. III in accord with the reading of <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> Cf. Tosef(Ẓ). <i>ibid.</i> II(III), 16; <i>B.Yos. infra</i> § 359 end.</i> <i>and</i> [<i>then</i>] <i>the relatives and the bier after them, and the strangers</i><sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> adds, ‘and those who wash (the corpse).’  <i>Perisha.</i></i> <i>place the corpse on the bier</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> adds, ‘and they bring him out (i.e., the corpse on the bier) until he is out of his home.’</i> <i>and the</i> [<i>immediate</i>] <i>mourners and the relatives take the bier on their shoulders and afterwards</i> [<i>this is done by</i>] <i>the rest of the people</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>Some say that when they arrive with the corpse at the graveyard, they make halts with him</i> [<i>the corpse</i>] <i>every four cubits before he is buried</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> and <i>Benjamin</i> Z<i>e’eb</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>Thus is the common practice today</i>,—<i>to make halts with him two or three times before they recite Ẓidduk Haddin for him; and on days when Ẓidduk Haddin is not recited it is unnecessary to make halts with him</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">I found this stated on the authority of <i>MaHaRIL</i> — <i>G.</i></i>

Siman 359

Wherever it is the accepted custom for women to precede the bier, they may do so; wherever it is the accepted practice to follow the bier, they may do so.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">San. 20a; Y. <i>ibid.</i> II, 4(20b). In Y. the following reasons are advanced for these customs: a) The custom of women preceding the bier is due to the fact that they were the first to cause death in the world (cf. Gen. III); b) The custom of women following the bier is on account of propriety, so that the men should not have to gaze at the women. The latter custom was adopted, for it avoids the possibility of commiting a sin. Cf. San. <i>ibid., Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>נשים</span>; Gen. R. § 17, 8 and comment, of <i>MaHaRIF</i> and <i>RaDaL</i> a.l.</i> Now it is customary for them only to follow the bier, and [this custom] should not be changed.
Women should be withheld from following the bier to the cemetery.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">e., they may follow the bier in the funeral procession (as <i>supra</i> par. 1), but they are not permitted to enter the cemetery grounds when the corpse is interred. This is derived from Zohar, Ex. <i>Way-yakhel</i> 196a-b. Cf. Ber. 51a. <i>B.L.Y.</i> rejects this ruling.</i>

Siman 360

If a funeral procession<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘a corpse.’</i> and a bridal procession<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘a bride.</i> meet each other [on the way], the funeral procession is made to make way for the bridal procession.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Ket. 17a in accord with <i>Rashi</i>. A precept, the fulfilment of which serves the living, takes precedence over one which serves the dead. The main purpose of ‘bringing in the bride under the bridal canopy’ (<span>הכנסת כלה לחופה</span>) is on account of procreation, as it is written, ‘<i>He created it</i> (i.e., the world) <i>not a waste</i>. <i>He formed it to be inhabited</i>’ (Is. XLV, 18) — <i>ShaK</i>.</i> Likewise, if there are not sufficient [people] in the city [to attend] both,<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘for this and for this.’</i> they bring in the bride [under the bridal] canopy first, and then they bury the dead;<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> and <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> derived from Sem(H). XI, 6.</i> but after she has been brought in [under the bridal] canopy and there is before him [the duty] to comfort a mourner and to gladden a bridegroom, comforting the mourner comes first. Similarly the mourners' meal takes precedence over the bridegroom's [wedding-] feast.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XII, 5; <i>ibid</i>. p. 231 and Int. p. 20; Yad. <i>Ebel</i> XIV, 8 and comment.; <i>She’iltoth</i> Gen. § 50 end. The reason for this ruling is that in the case of a groom he eats of his own and serves others as well; whereas a mourner does not eat until others prepare the first meal for him — <i>ShaK.</i></i> When does this apply? — When one has the means to fulfil both [religious duties]; but if he does not possess the means to fulfil both, the bridegroom's [wedding-] feast comes first.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> n. 3. <i>Tur</i> and <i>Caro</i> follow <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> (v. <i>supra</i> n. 5) and hold that both in the case of the two processions meeting each other and in the case of attending a burial and a marriage where there are not sufficient people to attend to both, the law is that a marriage ceremony takes precedence. It is only in the case where the wedding ceremonies had already taken place that visiting the house of mourning takes precedence over the wedding-feast that follows the marriage. This applies only if the duty of attending the wedding-feast will not be neglected entirely, but should one not be able to attend to both, as a result of which, one precept will be completely neglected, attending the wedding-feast takes precedence. Cf. however, Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XIV, 8 according to which a bride takes precedence over a corpse only where the two processions meet each other, but otherwise, one must attend to the needs of the corpse first — <i>A.H.</i>  also <i>B.Yos.</i> and <i>W.G.</i> who had a different reading in Sem. <i>ibid.</i></i> [<i>If</i>] <i>a groom and a mourner are in the Synagogue, the groom and his friends</i><sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">His groomsmen or attendants.</i> <i>leave first and then the mourner and the comforters; and thus</i> [<i>also</i>] <i>their guests may eat with the groom if they so desire, and not with the mourners</i><sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Or if they wish, they may eat with the mourners — <i>A.H.</i></i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos</i> on the authority of <i>Hag. Maim.</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XIV, 8 — G.  also Ket. 17a, Tosaf. s.v. <span>ת״ר</span>. The latter add: ‘And thus in the morning when they lead the bride to the groom’s home, they lead the bride first if there is a corpse (awaiting burial) in the city. Or they bury him before the time of the wedding ceremonies arrives.’</i>. [In the case of] a corpse and a circumcision,—circumcision comes first.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i>  <i>supra</i> n. 3.</i> If, however, he is a corpse [the burial of which] is a religious duty,<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"><span>מת מצוה</span>  Glos. <i>Meth Miẓwah.</i></i> he comes first.<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">This refers to the entire paragraph. For a <i>Meth Miẓwah</i> takes precedence over everything, e.g., bringing a bride to the canopy; the study of the <i>Torah;</i> the Temple service; the reading of the <i>Megillah</i> (Scroll of Esther) ; overrides defilment etc. (Meg. 3b). Cf. <i>infra</i> § 374, 3; O.Ḥ. § 687 end; Yeb. 89b; Naz. 43b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>האי מת מצוה</span> — <i>Be’er ha-Golah, ShaK.</i></i>

Siman 361

One suspends the study of the Torah for the sake of taking out the dead [for burial].<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Ket. 17a and <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>מבטלין</span>. Here the reference is to dead in general (v. <i>supra</i> § 343, n. 3), and not only to a <i>Meth Miẓwah</i> (v. Glos.).  also Meg. 3b, 29a and Ket. <i>ibid. Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>להוצאת</span>. The suspension of Torah studies is obligatory — <i>ShaK.</i></i> 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 [<i>Mishna</i>], i.e., one who read [Bible] and studied [<i>Mishna</i>] but has not yet taught students, — if there are sixty myriads [attending the funeral], one need not suspend himself [from studies] for his sake.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Ket. 17a-b and parallel passages. <i>ShaK</i> states that according to this ruling a knowledge of both Bible and Mishna is required. Not so <i>RITBA</i> (cited by <i>B.Yos.</i>) where it is implied that a knowledge of either one is sufficient. The number sixty myriads is explained by the Gemara (<i>ibid.</i>) 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.’</i> For one who has not read [Bible] nor studied [<i>Mishna</i>], — as long as there is someone looking after [his burial needs], one need not suspend himself [from studies] for his sake,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>She’iltoth, Ḥayye Sarah</i> § 14; <i>ibid. Vay-yeḥi</i> § 34 quoted in <i>Rashi</i> and <i>Tosaf.</i> Ket. <i>ibid.</i> Thus also <i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>BeHaG.</i> 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); <i>Ha‘amek She’elah</i> to <i>She’iltoth ibid.</i> On the greater importance of practice over study, cf. the following sources: Sifre, <i>‘Ekeb</i> s. 41; Meg. 29a; Ket. 17a and <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>;להוצאת המת</span> Kid. 40b and <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>תלמוד</span>; B.K. 17a and <i>Tosaf.</i> <span>והאמר</span> Y.Pes. III, 7(30b); Y.Ḥag. <i>ibid.</i></i> provided that [at least] ten people are [present] there.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>R. Notrai Gaon.</i> Thus also <i>N</i> and <i>ShaK</i>, since the line of comforters, the <i>Kaddish</i> prayer, recital of <i>Ẓidduk Haddin</i> etc. require ten males to be present.</i> <i>Some say that today</i>, [<i>even</i>] <i>without knowing</i> [<i>one's scholastic ability</i>] <i>we suspend</i> [<i>studies</i>], <i>for there is no man from among Israel nowadays, who is not</i> [<i>versed</i>] <i>in Bible or Mishna</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> on the authority of <i>RITBA</i>, Ket. II, cited in the name of <i>SeMaG</i> — <i>G.</i> This ruling of <i>Isserles</i> applied to the period during which he flourished.</i> [With respect to] a woman, some say that her status<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘her law.’</i> is like one who read [Bible] and studied [<i>Mishna</i>];<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri</i>. 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.</i> and some say that her status<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘her law.’</i> is like one who has not read [Bible] nor studied [<i>Mishna</i>]. And thus is the accepted practice regarding a woman and a child, — to adopt the lenient view.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> 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.</i> 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.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Y.Pes. and Hag. <i>ibid.</i> Cf. also <i>Tur</i> a.l. and Ket. and <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> 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. <i>infra</i> par. 2) — <i>ShaK contra BaḤ.</i></i> School children are not suspended [from their studies] at all.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Y.Pes. III, 7(30b). Cur. edd. of Y. do not have <span>אין מבטלין תינוקות של בית רבן להוצא׳ המת</span> as recorded by <i>W.G.</i>  however, <i>Torathan Shel Rishonim</i> in Y. <i>ibid.</i> where such a version of Y. is cited by Sem. of <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i>, s. 46 Cf. also <i>Asheri</i> and <i>Mord</i>. 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 — <i>ShaK.</i></i>
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 [<i>Mishna</i>], for [the law is that] we make a distinction in the case of one who did not read [Bible] nor study [<i>Mishna</i>] 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 [<i>Mishna</i>] 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.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Ket. 17a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>להוצאת</span>; M.K. 27b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אסורין</span>  <i>supra</i> § 343, 1.</i>
One who sees a corpse and does not escort him transgresses thereby, '<i>Whoso mocketh the poor</i><sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">e., the dead.</i> [<i>blasphemeth his Maker</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">Prov. XVII, 5. This ruling is found in Ber. 18a. Cf. Derek Ereẓ Zuta § </i> and should be placed under a ban;<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i>  <i>supra</i> § 343 and notes.</i> and one should escort him at least four cubits.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Jonah</i> and <i>Asheri</i> to Ber. <i>ibid.</i> This applies only if there are sufficient people present at the funeral escort. Otherwise, one must escort the corpse to the grave.</i>
Even where one is not required to escort the dead he is dutibound to rise before him.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Derived 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) — <i>Ta</i>Z. Thus also <i>Bert.</i> Mishna Bik. III, 3.</i>
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).<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 25a.  <i>supra</i> § 345, 8.</i>

Siman 362

One who places his dead in a coffin and did not bury it<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">The coffin.  <i>Perisha.</i></i> in the earth, transgresses thereby a [negative command] because he keeps the dead over night [unburied].<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Derived 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, <i>‘Thou shalt surely bury him’</i> (Deut. XXI, 23). The emphatic infinitive (<span>קבור תקברנו</span>) denotes burial in the earth. Otherwise, one transgresses the injunction, <i>‘His body shall not remain all night’</i> (<i>ibid</i>.). Placing the corpse in a coffin is alluded to in the question that King Shapor asked R. Huna (San. <i>ibid</i>.). It is not obligatory to bury an amputated limb of a living being. However, since it defiles, <i>Kohanim</i> are prohibited against being in the same room with it — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> If he placed him in a coffin and buried it<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">The coffin.  <i>Perisha.</i></i> in the earth, he does not transgress [a negative command] on his account.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Y.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. <i>W.G.</i>), i.e., after the flesh became decomposed they were placed in a coffin. Thus also <i>Asheri.</i>  <i>infra</i> § 363, 4.</i> Nevertheless, it is [more]<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>BaḤ</i>.</i> appropriate to bury him in the earth proper even [when he is buried] outside the Land [of Israel].<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Y.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.’ <i>N</i> 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, <i>‘And to dust thou shalt return’</i> (Gen. III, 19). Cremation is forbidden according to Jewish Law.  <i>Beth Yiẓḥak</i>; <i>Eben Yekarah; ‘Arugoth Habosem; Imre Yosher</i> 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 <i>Aninuth</i> 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 <i>Halakoth Wa-Agadoth</i> pp. 161-183.</i>
The corpse [when buried] is placed on its back<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Y.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: <i>‘Lying</i>, but not in a sitting position; <i>in the usual position</i>, — excludes the head lying between the thighs.’ (this corresponds to the expression <span>קמצוץ</span> i.e., a doubled position, found in Y. <i>ibid</i>). 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. <i>Tur.</i> who has the reading <span>על גבי</span> ‘on my back,’ which is emended by <i>Perisha</i> to <span>על סיטרא</span> ‘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 — <i>ShaK.</i>  however, <i>Tur</i> who quotes <i>Resp.</i> of <i>R. Natronai Gaon</i> regarding different customs of burial depending on dry or moist localities, and cf. also <i>Perisha</i> a.l.</i> and its face is upwards like a person who is asleep.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. 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.</i>
They do not bury two corpses one alongside the other,<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">In 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 — <i>A.H.</i></i> unless the [intervening] wall of the grave separates between them.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">According to the Mishna in B.B. 100b which deals with sepulchral chambers (<span>כוכין</span>), 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. <i>R. A. Eger; G.Mah.; Yad Abraham</i> and others) that the intervening wall should be one cubit in thickness. This follows the opinion of the First Tanna in the Mishna ibid. <i>Caro</i> here and in <i>B.Yos.</i> seems to rule in accord with the opinion of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel (<i>ibid.</i>  <i>W.G.</i> 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. <i>P.Tesh.</i> 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.  <i>Ta</i>Z § 364, n. 2. <i>A.H.</i> 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.</i> Nor [do they bury] a corpse alongside the bones [of another corpse], or the bones [of a corpse] alongside [another] corpse.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XIII, 8.  also <i>Baraithoth Ebel Rabbathi ibid.</i> p. 232, 236.</i> 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.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). <i>ibid.</i> 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 — <i>ShaK.</i> A man may be buried next to his wife — <i>Peri ha-Sadeh.</i></i>
They do not place two coffins, one above the other.<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">In <i>‘En Yiẓḥak</i> 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. <i>Lebushe Mordekai</i> states that this was done in the city of Presburg. This was also done in the city of Cracow — <i>BaḤ.</i> In <i>Beth Yiẓḥak</i> 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.</i> 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]<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote"> B.B. 101b: ‘R. Ashi said, if he deepens them.’</i> there are six handbreadths<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Tur.</i> But <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> has ‘three handbreadths.’  however, <i>Ḥiddushe Hagahoth</i> on <i>Tur.</i> Cf. <i>W.G.</i> and <i>R. A. Eger</i> a.l.</i> of earth, it is permissible.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i> on the authority of Sem.  <i>Baraithoth Ebel Rabbati</i> p. 233.</i>
They do not bury a wicked man beside a righteous one;<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">For it is written, <i>‘Gather not my soul with sinners’</i> (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 <i>Ḥatam Sofer.</i>  <i>infra</i> § 403, 5, notes. <i>Ma‘abor Yabok</i> 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 — <i>Resp. Hare Besamim</i>.</i> even a grossly wicked person [is not buried] alongside a moderately wicked one.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna San. 46a and Gemara <i>ibid.</i> 47a.</i> And likewise they do not bury a righteous person, and so much the more<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Tur, ShaK</i> and <i>Ta</i>Z. Cur. edd. read, ‘a worthy person.’</i> an average individual beside an extremely pious one.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from the story regarding the death and burial of R. Huna, related in M.K. 25a.</i> <i>However, they may bury a repentent sinner beside a perfectly righteous person</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Benjamin</i> Z<i>e’eb</i> — <i>G.</i>  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 — <i>G. Mah.</i> A male convert who wished to embrace Judaism and had already been circumcised, but had not yet performed the ritual immersion (v. <i>supra</i> § 268, 2), may be interred in a Jewish cemetery, since he had already performed an act (viz., circumcision) to enter the Jewish fold — <i>Minḥath Eliezer.</i> Likewise, in the case of a female convert who had declared that she accepts the Jewish faith (<span>קבלת המצות</span>), but had not yet performed the ritual immersion, may be buried in a Jewish cemetery — <i>‘Ikare Dinim.</i></i>
Two [people] who were enemies of each other,<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘this (one) to this (one).’</i> should not be buried together.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Sefer Ḥasidim.</i></i>

Siman 363

One should not remove a corpse and bones<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Two reasons are advanced for this prohibition: a) The disturbance of removal is hard on the dead — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK</i>. Cf. I Sam. XXVIII, 15; Job III, 13; b) Removal is considered a disrespectful treatment of the dead — <i>RIDBaZ</i> to Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XIV, 15. One who was buried in a non-Jewish cemetery may be removed to a Jewish one — <i>P.Tesh., G.Mah.</i></i> 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,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">To his family grave.</i> even from a dignified [grave] to an undignified one, is permissible,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>M.Abr.</i> to O.Ḥ. § 526, n. 18.</i> for it is pleasant for a man that he rest beside his ancestors.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Y.M.K. II, 4(81b); Sem(H). XIII, 7.  M.K. 13a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אין</span>.</i> And likewise, in order to bury him in the Land of Israel, it is permissible [to remove him].<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">For 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: <i>‘And his land doth make expiation for his people.’</i> 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 — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> If they placed him there [originally] with the intention that he be removed [later], it is permissible under all conditions.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. <i>infra</i> § 364, </i> 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,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">A 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.</i> it is a religious duty to remove him [therefrom].<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Asheri</i> to M.K. </i> <i>Some are wont to place some earth from the Land of Israel in the grave</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Or Zaru‘a</i> — <i>G.</i></i> (<i>and this custom has a basis</i>).<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Tanḥ. <i>Vay-yeḥi</i> s. 3 (B. VI) — <i>G.</i></i>
They do not convey a corpse from a city wherein there is a cemetery to <i>another</i> city, unless it is from outside the Land into the Land [of Israel],<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Asheri</i> to M.K.  For this is disrespectful to the other dead who are buried in the cemetery from which this corpse is removed — <i>ShaK.</i> 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) — <i>P.Tesh., R. A. Eger.</i>  however, <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Or if they convey him to the place of his ancestral sepulchre</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">Thus implied in <i>Or Zaru’a</i> — <i>G.</i> 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 (<i>ibid.</i>) <i>‘And after the death of the High Priest the slayer shall return to the land of his possession.’</i> The words, <i>‘land of his possession’</i> refer to burial in one’s ancestral grave. Cf. <i>supra</i> par. 1.  <i>Rashi</i> (Gemara <i>ibid.</i>) s.v. <span>תנא</span> and <i>W.G.</i> a.l.</i> <i>And if he left instructions to convey him from one place to</i> [<i>another</i>] <i>place, or</i> [<i>if</i>] <i>he left instructions to bury him at his home and not in the cemetery, he is obeyed</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Or Zaru‘a ibid.</i> — <i>G.</i> This means even if he was already buried — <i>G.Mah.</i></i> <i>It is permitted to place lime upon him, in order to decompose the flesh rapidly</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. Job XIV, 22: <i>‘But his flesh grieveth for him,’</i> 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 — <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> <i>and</i> [<i>then</i>] <i>to convey him to the place</i> [<i>concerning</i>] <i>which he left instructions</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaShBA Resp.</i> 369 — <i>G.</i>  <i>D.M.</i></i>
One may not collect bones from a<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘inside.’</i> coffin, nor [may one gather the bones] from a<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘inside.’</i> grave to one<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘this.’</i> side [in order] to bury therein another corpse, nor for the need of the place.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> on the authority of Sem. Not found in cur. edd.  Sem(H). <i>Baraithoth Ebel Rabbathi</i> § II, p. 23 <i>N</i> (<i>ibid.</i>) writes that this is based upon the verse, <i>‘Remove not the ancient landmarks’</i> (Prov. XXII, 28), for the grave becomes the possession of the dead person buried therein.  however, Sifre, <i>Shofetim</i> s. 188 where the prohibition is derived from, <i>‘Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark which they of old have set etc.’</i> (Deut. XIX, 14). According to <i>Or Sameaḥ</i> (to Yad, <i>Ebel</i> 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 <i>infra</i> par. 4.</i>
[In] a locality where it is customary to bury [the dead first] in depressions, (<i>i.e</i>., <i>deep pits</i>, — <i>derived from, 'into deep pits that they rise not up again'</i>,)<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Ps. CXL, 11. Cf. <i>Ibn Ezra, Me’iri</i> (ed. Mekiẓe Nirdamim, Jerusalem 1936) and <i>Meẓudath David</i> a.l.  <i>infra</i> § 403, n. 1.</i> without a coffin, until the flesh is decomposed, and afterwards one collects the bones and buries them in a coffin, it is permitted.<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 362, n. 3. One must be careful not to mix bones of two corpses.  <i>infra</i> § 403, 8.</i>
[If] one cleared a coffin [of its corpse] it is forbidden for profitable use. If it [was made] of stone<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> has, ‘if of stone it should be buried.’</i> or of earthenware, it should be broken; [if] of wood, it should be burnt.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XIII, 9; Y.Meg. III, 1(73d). Everything that is buried with the dead is forbidden to be employed for profitable use.  <i>supra</i> § 349.</i>
One who finds boards on the cemetery, should not move them from their place.<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">Sem. <i>ibid.</i> 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 — <i>Perisha.</i> He is not required to burn the boards, since he is not certain that they were part of a coffin — <i>A.H.</i></i>
It is forbidden to open the grave after it was closed [by] the <i>Golel</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">e., earth had already been put on the coffin. Otherwise, it may be opened. On <i>Golel</i> v. Glos.</i> even if the heirs protest to open it in order to examine [the corpse] whether he has grown<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘brought.’</i> two hairs.<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote">The 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 (<span>עגונה</span>) 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 — <i>A.H.</i> Likewise, if they forgot to include the shrouds, the grave may be opened — <i>A.H.</i> 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., <i>supra</i> 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 — <i>A.H.</i> On this entire chapter v. excellent digest of <i>Resp.</i> literature in <i>Sh.M.B.</i> IV, p. 265-9.</i>

Siman 364

A built grave is forbidden for profitable use, but natural<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘world.’</i> earth of a grave is not forbidden.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">San. 47b regarding the earth of Rab’s grave. This is derived (<i>ibid.</i>) from, <i>‘And he cast the dust thereof</i> (i.e., of the <i>Ashera</i>) <i>upon the graves of the common people’</i> (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, <i>‘Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations that ye are to dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains’</i> (Deut. XII, 2), i.e., their gods which are <i>upon</i> 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. <i>supra</i> § 145, 3).  Meg. 29a and <i>infra</i> § 363, 1, according to which even natural soil of burial grounds is forbidden for profitable use and consequently contradicts the present ruling. <i>B.Hillel</i> therefore, explains that in our case (Gemara San. <i>ibid.</i>) 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. <i>ibid.</i>) 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 <i>Mord.</i> Meg. <i>ibid.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say</i><sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Asheri</i> M.K. </i> <i>that the earth which they removed</i><sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘they took.’</i> <i>from the grave and then placed it back upon him</i> [<i>the dead person</i>], <i>which is</i> [<i>then</i>] <i>regarded as an object</i> [<i>originally</i>] <i>loose that one subsequently attached is forbidden for profitable use</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>R. Isaiah</i> — <i>G.</i> What is natural soil? — One who hews a grotto in a rock that was never detached (<i>Tur</i>). 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 — <i>ShaK. A.H.</i> elucidates the ruling here as follows: An object originally loose and subsequently attached (<span>תלוש ולבסוף חברו</span>) 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’ <i>contra R. Isaiah</i> and in agreement with those authorities who permit (v. <i>infra Isserles</i>).</i> <i>Furthermore</i>, <i>some prohibit to sit on the stone that is placed upon the grave as a monument</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>R. Isaiah.</i> Thus also <i>Hag. Asheri</i> in the name of <i>Or Zaru‘a M.K.</i> III — <i>G.</i> 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.  <i>A.H.</i> It is forbidden to sell a broken tombstone or to lean on a tombstone or to tread upon graves — <i>ShaK.</i> Two reasons are advanced for this prohibition, a) it is forbidden for profitable use, b) it is disrespectful to the dead — <i>P.Tesh.</i> Cf. also <i>G.Mah.</i></i> <i>and some differ with</i> [<i>this ruling</i>] <i>and permit.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Twr</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri</i> — <i>G.</i>  <i>supra</i> n. 5. Cf. B.B. 101a, <i>RaShBaM</i> s.v. <span>קמיתדשי</span> 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.  <i>supra</i> n. 6.</i> <i>The implements wherewith they dig</i> [<i>graves</i>] <i>and bury</i> [<i>the dead</i>] <i>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</i> [<i>cases of public</i>] <i>charity</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaShBA Resp.</i> 97 — <i>G.</i>  <i>supra</i> § 349.</i> 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 him<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">The dead person.</i> therein,<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">In accord with San. 48a that both designation and the material act are required.</i> even [if done] with the intention to remove him<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">The dead person.</i> [later];<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">In accord with the interpretation of <i>N</i> to San. <i>ibid.</i> s.v. <span>אע</span>’<span>ג דפנייה</span> i.e., the prohibition remains in force even if the corpse was later removed therefrom.  <i>supra</i> § 363, </i> and even if one placed therein a prematureborn child; but if one built it for his<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">The dead person.</i> sake and did not place him<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">The dead person.</i> therein, it is permitted [for profitable use]. Likewise, if he placed him<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">The dead person.</i> 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 him<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">The dead person.</i> [therefrom].<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">San. <i>ibid.</i></i> However<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘but.’</i> if he placed him therein with the intention that he remain<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘be.’</i> there forever, it is prohibited [for profitable use] even after he removed him [therefrom; and] even [if] he did not build it for his<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">The dead person.</i> sake.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">San. <i>ibid.</i> 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 — <i>A.H.</i></i> And if he did not build it for his<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">The dead person.</i> sake, and he<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">The dead person.</i> was placed therein and he added a single row of stones, <i>i.e., a layer, viz., a row of</i> [<i>stones</i>] <i>in the wall structure</i> for his<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">The dead person.</i> sake, the entire [structure] is prohibited [for profitable use]<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Since it is unknown which row was added.</i> even after he removed him, and even if he buried him therein with the intention to remove him [later].<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">San. <i>ibid.</i> 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 — <i>A.H.</i></i> If he recognizes the row of stones that he added for his<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">The dead person.</i> sake, he removes it and it alone is prohibited, but the rest of the grave is permissible [for profitable use].<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">San. <i>ibid.</i> 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 — <i>A.H.</i></i>
A grave that has been discovered<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">One in which the corpse was buried without the consent of the owner of the ground.</i> may be cleared;<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">We do not say that perhaps a <i>Meth Miẓwah</i> (v. Glos.) was buried therein who takes possession of his place (v. <i>infra</i> par. 3), for if this were so, the matter would have been known (San. 47b).</i> after it is cleared, the place thereof is [levitically] clean<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Since the corpse was buried therein without the consent of the owner of the ground, he does not take possession of his place.</i> and is permitted for use.<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">For 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. <i>supra</i> par. 1) — <i>ShaK.</i></i> A known grave<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">In which one was buried with the owner’s consent.</i> may not be cleared; if it has been cleared, the place thereof is unclean and forbidden for use.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote">San. 47b. This was a Rabbinical precautionary measure against unwarranted removal of bones.</i> Maimonides' [version] reads: A grave that has been discovered may be cleared; after it is cleared, the place thereof<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">‘The place thereof’ refers to the surrounding parts of the field where more bones may be discovered.</i> is unclean and forbidden for use. A known grave may not be cleared; if it has been cleared, the place thereof is [levitically] clean<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">Since it is known that no other graves are found in the environs.</i> and permitted for use.<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Tumath Meth</i> VIII, 5 ( <i>Kes. Mish.</i> a.l.) derived from Y.Naz. IX, 3(57d). Cf. Tosef(Z). Ohol. XVI, 9.</i>
A <i>Meth Mizwah</i><sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> whom one found in a field and buried him therein even without the knowledge of the owner of the field,<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from San. <i>ibid.</i></i> is forbidden to be cleared away, for a <i>Meth Mizwah</i> takes possession of his place, and when one finds him he must bury him on the spot wherein he found him.<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">One of the ten enactments laid down by Joshua upon entering the Land of Israel was that a <i>Meth Miẓwah</i> 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 — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK, A.H.</i></i> If he found him [lying broadways] across a narrow path<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">Obstructing the way so that people passing by are compelled to step over the corpse.</i> he must remove <span class="underline">him</span> therefrom on account of the public, so that they should not convey uncleanness by overshadowing him.<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">So 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.</i> If he found him between an uncultivated field, <i>i.e., one that is unplanted and unsown</i> and a fallow field, <i>i.e., one that was ploughed but unsown</i>, — he removes him to the uncultivated field;<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote">In order to reduce the damage as much as possible.</i> [if] between a fallow field and a field with seed, he removes him to the fallow field;<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote">B.K. 81b and ‘Er. 17b in accord with R. Bibi.</i> [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.<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(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, <i>Tumath Meth</i> VIII, 7 and <i>Sefer Ha-Eshkol.</i></i> When does this apply? — [If he found him] outside the [cemetery]<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>A.H.</i></i> limits, but if he found him within the [cemetery]<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>A.H.</i></i> limits he conveys him to the cemetery.<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">Y.Naz. VII, 1(55d-56a-b). Thus also in Sem. <i>ibid.</i> according to the version of <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> Not found in cur. ed. of Sem ( <i>Baraithoth Ebel Rabbathi</i> IV, p. 245).</i> He is designated a <i>Meth Mizwah</i> only if he found his head and the larger portion [of his body].<sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote">Y.Naz. <i>ibid.</i> and Sem. in accord with version of <i>N.</i> Needless to say that the law of <i>Meth Miẓwah</i> 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 <i>ibid.</i></i>
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.<sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Thus they do</i> [<i>with respect</i>] <i>to a woman in confinement who died, or regarding a person who fell down</i><sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote">E.g., from a roof top.</i> <i>and died</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">39</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIL</i> s. 65 — <i>G.</i> If there was bleeding, the <i>Tohorah</i> (v. Glos.) should not be performed, for the blood which also requires burial (v. <i>infra</i>) 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 <i>Tohorah</i> 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 <i>Log</i> (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 — <i>MaHaRIL</i> (<i>ibid</i>.), <i>Ta</i>Z and <i>ShaK</i>.  <i>P.Tesh</i>.</i> <i>Some say that they wrap them over their garments</i> [<i>with</i>] <i>shrouds</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Maim.</i> on the authority of <i>R. Isaac b. Meir Dueren</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>The accepted practice is that one makes no shrouds for them as</i> [<i>for</i>] <i>other dead, but one buries them in their garments over which</i> [<i>they place</i>] <i>a sheet as</i> [<i>in the case</i>] <i>of other dead</i>.
A grave which injures the public, e.g., it is close to the [public] road,<sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote">San. 47b. It thereby causes defilement to all passers-by.</i> even if he was buried therein with the knowledge of the owner of the field, may be cleared,<sup class="footnote-marker">42</sup><i class="footnote">Since this ruling follows the ruling (San. <i>ibid.</i>) of a ‘known grave’ (v. <i>supra</i> par. 2), it follows that in this case even if the owner’s consent was obtained, it may be cleared. Hence, <i>Caro’s</i> ruling — <i>W.G.</i></i> but is prohibited for use,<sup class="footnote-marker">43</sup><i class="footnote">The 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. <i>supra</i> par. 1 and notes) — <i>Ta</i>Z</i> [provided] the grave was there first;<sup class="footnote-marker">44</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from Y.Naz. IX, 3(57d).</i> but if the road was there first, the place thereof is permitted for use.<sup class="footnote-marker">45</sup><i class="footnote">On the principle that a person cannot prohibit that which does not belong to him. In this case the road belongs to the public — <i>ShaK.</i></i>
A grave which one cleared, where it is permitted for use,<sup class="footnote-marker">46</sup><i class="footnote">E.g., if the corpse was buried therein without the owner’s consent.</i> one may not make of it a shed for straw,<sup class="footnote-marker">47</sup><i class="footnote">Sem. adds: ‘or a stall.’</i> or a shed for wood or a storehouse.<sup class="footnote-marker">48</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XIII, 9; <i>Mord.</i> 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 — <i>A.H.</i></i>
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,<sup class="footnote-marker">49</sup><i class="footnote">San. 48a.  <i>supra</i> § 240, 9. Even ‘natural soil’ is considered forbidden in this case — <i>ShaK.</i> On account of one’s father mere designation prohibits.  <i>supra</i> n. 10.</i> but another [person] is permitted to be buried therein.<sup class="footnote-marker">50</sup><i class="footnote"> San. 47b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>איתביה</span>. <i>N</i> writes that this accords with Abaye; according to Raba it would be prohibited to everyone.  <i>supra</i> § 349 and notes. All relatives excluding the sons and daughters are permitted to be buried therein. The same ruling applies to the tombstone — <i>A.H.</i></i>

Siman 365

One who digs a sepulchral chamber for a corpse is exempt<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 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 — <i>A.H.</i></i> from reading the <i>Shema</i>, from [reciting] the <i>Tefillah</i><sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 341, 2.</i> 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 <i>Shema</i> arrived, one comes up<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> adds: ‘and washes his hands.’</i> and reads the <i>Shema</i> and recites the <i>Tefillah</i> and [then] he returns and digs and his companion comes up and reads the <i>Shema</i> and recites the <i>Tefillah.</i> [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.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> Cf. <i>infra</i> § 403, 9.</i>
Graves must be kept removed from a town [a distance of] fifty cubits.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna B.B. 25a. On account of the bad odour. Cf. Ḥ.M. § 155, 23.</i>

Siman 366

One who sells his [family] grave, the path to his grave, the place of his [funeral] halt<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Seven 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 <i>‘vanity’</i> is mentioned in Eccl. I, 2, three times in the singular and twice in the plural (B.B. 100b).  <i>RaShBaM ibid.</i> s.v. <span>משבעה</span>.</i> and the place of his lamentation, the members of the family may come and bury him against the will of the buyer,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">They may force the buyer to cancel the transaction and take back the purchase price.</i> and they return his money.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">B.B. 100b; Ket. 84a; Bek. 52b.  also Ḥ.M. § 217, 7 where the same ruling is found. The reason given in the Gemara <i>ibid.</i> is that it brings discredit to the family (<span>פגם משפחה</span>) 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 (<i>supra</i> § 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 (<i>supra</i>) 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 — <i>N, B.Yos.</i> and <i>ShaK.</i> This ruling applies also to one who sells his family pew in the Synagogue (Ḥ.M. § 175, 53 <i>G.</i>).</i>
A woman who inherited a grave from her family maybe buried in it herself, but not her descendants,<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Because 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 — <i>ShaK.</i>  <i>A.H.</i></i> unless she saw them during her lifetime.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XIV, 5 according to the version of <i>Tur.</i> Those whom she saw during lifetime were closer to her.</i>
[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.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Sem. XIV according to version of <i>Tur.</i></i> And some [versions] read,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XIV, 6 and cur. edd.</i> — 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.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Sem. <i>ibid.</i> For the husband is dutibound to attend to her burial needs.  Y.Ket. IV, 6(28d); <i>ibid.</i> XIII, 2(35d).</i>

Siman 367

One buries the dead of the Gentiles<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">If there is no one else available to make the burial arrangements. They are not buried in a Jewish cemetery.</i> and comforts their mourners in the interests of peace.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Git. 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.  <i>supra</i> § 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) — <i>B.Yos.</i> Similarly, when one sees a Gentile dead passing by, he is dutibound to rise before him (<i>Kol Bo</i>) — <i>B.Yos.</i></i>
One may not walk on the cemetery or within four cubits of a corpse while [wearing] phylacteries on his head, on account of, <i>'Whoso mocketh the poor blasphemeth his Maker'.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Prov. XVII, 5. The poor refers to the dead.</i> But if they are covered it is permitted.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 18a; <i>B.Yos.</i> to O.Ḥ. § 23 and 45.  also <i>Ta</i>Z to O.Ḥ. § 45, n. </i>
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 <i>Tefillah</i> [there].<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. <i>ibid.</i> The same reason <i>supra</i> par. 2 applies here.</i> Likewise, is it forbidden to recite [Biblical verses] orally [on the cemetery],<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>וםפר</span>.</i> unless it is for the honour of the dead as has been explained.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 344, 16 — <i>G.</i> Cf. also notes <i>ibid.</i> 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 — <i>P.Tesh.</i> 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 — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i>
One is permitted to enter the cemetery, or within four cubits of a corpse or a grave [while] wearing <i>Ẓizith</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> provided it<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">e., each fringe or <i>Ẓiẓith.</i> Derived from the story about R. Ḥiyya and R. Jonathan in Ber. <i>ibid.</i></i> is not dragged along over the grave;<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">e., each fringe or <i>Ẓiẓith.</i> Derived from the story about R. Ḥiyya and R. Jonathan in Ber. <i>ibid.</i></i> but if it is dragged along, it is forbidden on account of, <i>'Whoso mocketh the poor</i>'.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Prov. XVII, 5.  <i>supra</i> n. </i> When does this apply? — only in their days when they used to attach <i>Ẓizith</i> to the garment which they wore for their personal need,<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">For they attached fringes to all their garments. Hence, it was impossible to remove all such garments — <i>R. Jonah.</i></i> but today, since we wear it only for the sake of the religious duty,<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">e., of performing the precept of <i>Ẓiẓith</i> and not for personal wear. However, the small <i>Talith</i> (<span>טלית קטן</span>) may be worn there, because it is covered up by other garments — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK.</i></i> it is prohibited, even if they are not dragged along.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>R. Jonah</i> and v. Ber. <i>ibid. Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>למחר</span>.</i> And this is the case only if the <i>Ẓizith</i> are uncovered, but if they are covered, it is permitted.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tosaf. ibid.</i>  O.Ḥ. § 23, 1 for the same ruling.</i>
Some follow the practice to tie together two <i>Ẓizith</i> from<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘which are in.’</i> two corners [of the garment] when entering the cemetery, but they have profited nothing by their measure.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> to O.Ḥ. § 23 and <i>Sh. Ar. ibid.</i> par. 2. Derived from Men. 37b. Although two corners are tied together, the precept of <i>Ẓiẓith</i> 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 <i>Ẓiẓith</i> are regarded as spread out (v. O.Ḥ. § 10, 3). And even if the precept of <i>Ẓiẓith</i> is considered temporarily suspended, then later, when they are untied, the <i>Ẓiẓith</i> are invalid, for it would not be in keeping with the principle, <i>‘Thou shalt make’</i> (Deut. XXII, 12) which is explained that one must not use (<i>Ẓiẓith</i>) which are ready made (<span>תעשה ולא מן העשוי</span>) — Men. 33b. Thus <i>B.Yos.</i> and <i>M.Abr.</i></i>
As soon as one removes himself four cubits he may read [the <i>Shema</i>] and recite the <i>Tefillah</i> even if he [still] sees the grave or the cemetery; and if there is a partition there, he is permitted [to read the <i>Shema</i> and recite the <i>Tefillah</i>] behind the partition close by, even within four cubits of the grave.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaShBA Resp.</i> cited by <i>B. Yos. ibid.</i></i>

Siman 368

Burial grounds must not be treated irreverently,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Meg. 29a. The reason is because of respect to the dead (Gemara <i>ibid</i>.). 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 — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> — <i>e.g., to ease oneself therein</i><sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> — <i>G.</i> This must not be done even at a distance from the graves.</i> <i>or to eat or drink therein;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">This 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. <span>אין אוכלין</span>.</i> <i>and one does not read</i> [<i>Bible</i>] <i>nor study</i> [<i>Mishna</i>] <i>therein</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"><i>SeMaG</i> — <i>G.</i> On account of, <i>‘Whoso mocketh the poor</i> (i.e., the dead) <i>blasphemeth his Maker’</i> (Prov. XVII, 5).</i> <i>and one does not calculate accounts therein</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> on the authority of <i>R. Yeruḥam</i> — <i>G.</i> This refers to accountings made even on behalf of the public — <i>ShaK.</i></i> Cattle are not permitted to graze in them, nor is a water-channel conveyed through them,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Meg. <i>ibid. Asheri</i> and <i>Mord.</i> on the authority of <i>RI</i> state that even ‘natural soil’ is forbidden for grazing out of respect for the dead.</i> nor should one walk through them for the purpose [of using them] as a short cut,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Compendiaria</i>, sc. <i>via.</i>  Sem(H). XIV, </i> — <i>i.e., as a passage from one side to the other</i>; nor should one pluck grass from them; and if one did pluck [grass]<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘herbs.’</i> <i>or</i> one had to pluck it<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘them,’ i.e., the herbs.</i> on account of the need of the graveyard-space,<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">In order to inter someone therein — <i>Perisha.</i></i> he burns it<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘them,’ i.e., the herbs.</i> on the spot.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Meg. <i>ibid.</i> 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 — <i>Mord.</i> 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 — <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Similarly, must one not take</i> [<i>aught</i>] <i>from the natural soil of a grave</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">e., directly from the grave — <i>R. A. Eger.</i></i> <i>although it is permitted for use</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">Implied by <i>Asheri</i> and <i>Mord.</i> — <i>G.</i> 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.  <i>supra</i> § 364, 1 <i>Gloss</i> and notes. This would not apply to a built grave — <i>D.M.</i></i> <i>and all this is only out of respect to the dead. Therefore, if one requires it for a remedy, it is permitted</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from <i>Mord.</i> — <i>G.</i>  n. 13.</i> <i>Likewise, is it permitted to make use of the grass upon the graves or of the fruit of the trees that</i> [<i>stand</i>] <i>thereon</i>, [<i>provided this is done</i>] <i>for the benefit</i><sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘need.’</i> <i>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</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">As a bribe.</i> <i>and the means of the community suffice not</i>, — [<i>the law is that</i>] <i>they may sell these things in order to save the graves from the heathen's hand, for this is</i> [<i>considered</i>] <i>respect to the dead</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Terumath ha-Deshen</i> s. 284; <i>MaHaRIW</i> s. 3 — <i>G.</i> 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 <i>RaDaK</i> to Kings <i>ibid.</i> This shows that Ḥezkiah did this in order to save the Temple proper. Similarly in the present case.</i> <i>If there is nothing on the graves to sell for the sake of</i> [<i>meeting</i>] <i>the required expense</i>, — [<i>the law is that</i>] <i>if the means of the community suffice, and it is in their power to prevent</i> [<i>this desecration</i>] <i>through a small cost, they are required to prevent</i> [<i>him</i>] <i>if there is no apprehension that the ruler be thereby incited against them; but otherwise they are not required to prevent</i> [<i>him</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Terumath ha-Deshen</i> s. 284; <i>MaHaRIW</i> s. 3 — <i>G.</i> 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 <i>RaDaK</i> to Kings <i>ibid.</i> This shows that Ḥezkiah did this in order to save the Temple proper. Similarly in the present case.</i>
[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.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">Meg. 29a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ואין מרעין</span>. 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 — <i>ShaK.</i></i>
A new grave is measured, sold and divided and an old one is not measured nor sold nor divided.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XIV,  A new grave refers to one which was designated as a grave, but in which no corpse was buried as yet, and since ‘designation alone is not considered a material act’ (<span>הזמנה לאו מילתא</span>), consequently, measuring, selling and dividing the grave is permissible. In the case of an old grave in which a corpse was once buried, but for some valid reason was removed, it is forbidden for use. Actually measuring is not forbidden, but since an old grave is not sold or divided, for the reason just stated, it follows that measuring is not necessary — <i>A.H.</i> Cf. <i>Tur</i> for another explanation.</i>

Siman 369

The <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> is cautioned not to defile himself for a corpse,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen</i> stands cautioned with respect to defilement for the dead as is written: <i>‘There shall non defile himself for the dead among his people’</i> (Lev. XXI, 1). An abortion defiles through contact (i.e., to become unclean when touching uncleanness), carriage (i.e., to become unclean when carrying uncleanness) and overshadowing (i.e., levitical uncleanness arising from being under the same shelter with, or forming a shelter over, a corpse etc.).  Ohol. II, 1; VII, 4; XVIII, 7.  Ohol. II, 1, where among those things which defile by overshadowing, a corpse is mentioned, which refers according to Naz. 50a to an abortion of less than the size of an olive in which the limbs were not tied together by the sinews. Hence, if a woman miscarries after forty days elapse from conception, it is forbidden for a <i>Kohen</i> to be present in the same house where the miscarriage takes place. Prior to the forty days it is regarded as a mere fluid. This ruling applies even if the <i>Kohen’s</i> wife miscarried — <i>A.H.</i> In the case of the uncleanness of carrion (<span>טומאת נבלה</span>) creeping things (<span>טומאת שרצים</span>) or one experiencing a seminal emission (<span>זב, זבה</span>). the law of the <i>Kohen</i> is similar to that of the Israelite.</i> nor for all uncleannesses that emanate from him [the corpse],<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">E.g., blood and the like. Sifra Lev. <i>ibid.</i> Cf. <i>Torah Temimah</i> a.l.</i> nor<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">The sources of defilement enumerated here are mentioned in Naz. VII, 2-3 and Gemara <i>ibid.</i> For some of these sources of uncleanness, the Nazirite (v. Glos.) upon contracting them had to cut his hair; for others he did not have to cut his hair. In Sem(H). IV, 12 (cf. also Tosef(Z). Mak. IV, 17) it is stated: ‘Every defilement (contracted from a corpse), for which the Nazirite must cut his hair, (a <i>Kohen</i>, if he defiles himself for such uncleanness) receives forty (in reality thirty-nine) lashes; and a defilement for which the Nazirite must not cut his hair, (a <i>Kohen</i>) does not receive forty lashes.’ This is explained (v. <i>Be’er ha-Golah</i>) that even in a case where a <i>Kohen</i> defiles himself for an uncleanness which does not involve flogging, viz., when the Nazirite is not required to crop his hair, the prohibition still stands.</i> for a <i>Golel</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Golel</i> (<span>גולל</span>) refers to the stone that covers the corpse; <i>Dofek</i> (<span>דופק</span>), to the side stones. <i>Rashi</i> (Ket. 4b) explains that <i>Golel</i> is the cover on the coffin. The rt. is <span>גלל</span> which means ‘to roll,’ i.e., a stone that was too heavy to be lifted but had to be rolled into position.  Gen. XXIX, 3; Prov. XXVI, 27; Ezra V, 8. <i>Dofek</i> is from the rt. <span>דפק</span> ‘to knock or strike against,’ i.e., the frame supporting the <i>Golel.</i> Cf. other explanations in <i>Tur</i> a.l. and v. <i>J.E.</i> XII, p. 188; <i>Levy</i> s.v. <span>גולל</span>; <i>Krauss</i> T.A. II, p. 488ff; Ohol. II, 9.  <i>infra</i> § 373, 6, n. 36.</i> nor for a <i>Dofek</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Golel</i> (<span>גולל</span>) refers to the stone that covers the corpse; <i>Dofek</i> (<span>דופק</span>), to the side stones. <i>Rashi</i> (Ket. 4b) explains that <i>Golel</i> is the cover on the coffin. The rt. is <span>גלל</span> which means ‘to roll,’ i.e., a stone that was too heavy to be lifted but had to be rolled into position.  Gen. XXIX, 3; Prov. XXVI, 27; Ezra V, 8. <i>Dofek</i> is from the rt. <span>דפק</span> ‘to knock or strike against,’ i.e., the frame supporting the <i>Golel.</i> Cf. other explanations in <i>Tur</i> a.l. and v. <i>J.E.</i> XII, p. 188; <i>Levy</i> s.v. <span>גולל</span>; <i>Krauss</i> T.A. II, p. 488ff; Ohol. II, 9.  <i>infra</i> § 373, 6, n. 36.</i> nor for a limb [severed] from a living body which does not have sufficient [flesh] to produce a new healing [skin] were it attached [to the body],<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Even if it is a limb severed from the <i>Kohen</i>’s body.  Yad, <i>Tum’ath Meth</i> III, beg.</i> nor for a tree which throws a shadow over the ground, the branches of which are separated from one another, and an uncleanness is under one of them and it is not known under which one,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"> Ohol. VIII, 2. Although the uncleanness is doubtful, yet the <i>Kohen</i> is cautioned against defiling himself for it. If, however, it were known where the uncleanness is found, it would be permissible for him to stand under those parts which do not overshadow — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK.</i></i> [nor for] stones that protrude from a wall and an uncleanness is under one of them and it is not known under which one,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"> Ohol. VIII, 2. Although the uncleanness is doubtful, yet the <i>Kohen</i> is cautioned against defiling himself for it. If, however, it were known where the uncleanness is found, it would be permissible for him to stand under those parts which do not overshadow — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK.</i></i> [nor] likewise [for] a field wherein a grave was ploughed over and its place is not known,<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"> Ohol. XVII,  Also ‘Er. 47a.</i> and the entire land of the heathens is forbidden for a <i>Kohen</i> to defile himself for them.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">e., the graves which are unknown.  also Ohol. XVII,  This refers to the time when the soil of the Land of Israel was presumed to be clean and it was not permissible for a <i>Kohen</i> to go to the land of the heathens, i.e., outside the Land of Israel, for the heathens buried their dead everywhere — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that Kohanim</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>are forbidden to defile themselves for a sword</i><sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Or any other metalic object.</i> <i>that became unclean</i> [<i>through contact</i>] <i>with a corpse</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> on the authority of <i>Sefer Yere’im</i> and <i>RaShBA Resp.</i> on the authority of the <i>French Rabbis</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>and some are lenient</i> [<i>in this matter</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaShBA ibid</i>. on the authority of <i>RABaD</i> and  <i>Tosaf.</i> Naz. 53b s.v. <span>חרב</span> — <i>G.</i> Those authorities who forbid hold that a Nazirite cuts his hair for this type of defilement. Hence, a <i>Kohen</i> too, is cautioned against it and becomes unclean through overshadowing (v. <i>supra</i> n. 4). Those authorities, however, who permit, maintain that a) according to Tosef. Ohol. I, a Nazirite does not cut his hair for such defilement, and b) today we are all considered to be in the category of those made unclean through contact with a corpse and since we have no ashes of the red heifer used for lustration purposes (Num. XIX), we remain in the same state of uncleanness, but do not increase it — <i>W.G., A.H.</i></i> <i>and thus is the accepted custom</i> [<i>viz.</i>,] <i>to adopt the lenient view, and they are not careful with respect to this</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">e., they may defile themselves for a sword or the like that was in contact with a corpse. A <i>Kohen</i> may enter a house in which there is a tombstone that was removed from a grave — <i>Ḥokmath Adam</i> a.o.</i>

Siman 370

One whose neckbone and the larger portion of the surrounding flesh was broken,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Ḥul. 21a in accord with Rab Judah on the authority of Samuel.</i> and likewise, one who was torn up along the back<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">But not if one was ripped up along the front — <i>ShaK.</i></i> as a fish, even if he is still living, is regarded as dead and defiles [through overshadowing].<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Ḥul. <i>ibid.</i> in accord with R. Joḥanan and Samuel. In the case of an old man whose neckbone alone was broken without the larger portion of the surrounding flesh having been severed, he is considered dead and defiles (<i>ibid</i>.). If one’s neck was split widthwise into two or if the spinal column was cut towards its interior, or if split in two, he defiles by overshadowing — <i>ShaK</i>. Hence, a <i>Kohen</i> is prohibited to enter the same house or tent wherein these persons are present.</i> But a dying person<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 339.</i> and one in whom both organs<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">The windpipe and the oesophagus.</i> were cut, or one who is wounded [with] many [open] wounds, do not defile [men or vessels] until their soul departs.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from Git. 70b.</i> Nevertheless, it is forbidden [for a <i>Kohen</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> to enter a house in which there is a dying person,<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Naz. 43a.  <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>ומהכא</span>. The prohibition mentioned in connection with <i>Kohanim</i> (Priests) who are cautioned against defiling themselves for the dead who are not near-of-kin states: <i>‘To profane himself’</i> (Lev. XXI, 4), which is explained (<i>ibid</i>. according to one opinion) to mean that the actual profanation is forbidden until the time that the dying person is dead, although no defilement exists as yet, the reason being that the majority of dying persons, die. According to another opinion, since the Bible in speaking of the Nazirite’s prohibition against uncleanness even for near-of-kin, states: <i>‘When they die’</i> (Num. VI, 7), it follows that he may be present with them until they actually die. Hence, there is no profanation prior to death. <i>Caro’s</i> ruling here follows the first opinion.</i> <i>and some permit</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaN</i> to M.K. III end and <i>Mord. ibid.</i> on the authority of <i>BeHaG</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>and it is proper to adopt the stricter view</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">One is not required to arouse a <i>Kohen</i> from sleep in order to inform him that a dying person is present in the same house so that the <i>Kohen</i> should leave (this would be required in case a corpse were present there.  <i>infra</i> § 372 Gloss). If they did inform him and he was undressed, he may take time to dress himself and then leave — <i>ShaK.</i> A physician who is a <i>Kohen</i> may enter the house of a dying person in order to heal the latter even if there is another physician available who is not a <i>Kohen</i> — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i>

Siman 371

A <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> is forbidden to enter beneath an overshadowed space<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘a tent.’ Uncleanness through overshadowing (<span>טומאת אהל</span>) takes place in one of three ways: a) when a person or a vessel or food are present together with a corpse (or an olive’s bulk from a corpse) under the same roof space. In this case another object (the roof) forms a tent over the person etc. and the corpse (<span>דבר אחר מאהיל עליו ועל המת</span>); b) when a corpse or an olive’s bulk from a corpse overshadow from above, a person or vessels beneath. In this case the corpse forms the tent; c) when the person is present above the corpse or the olive’s bulk from a corpse. In this case the person overshadows. Cf. Num. XIX, 14.</i> under which there is a corpse, even if it is very large;<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Meg. 26b a.e.</i> and [he is] even [forbidden to enter] into another [adjoining] house or another [adjoining] upper storey, which open into that house by means of an opening a square handbreadth in size, and [the prohibition also applies to entering] a house [which opens] into that [latter] house ad infinitum.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"> Ohol. III, 6-7 from which the following principles are derived: a) If a corpse lies in a room, whatever is within the room suffers corpse-uncleanness, and if the room has many doors or exits, even if they are closed, all objects which lie beneath the lintels of these doors or exits become unclean, because we assume that the corpse may be removed through any one of the exits, at which time the corpse and the objects will be together under the lintels, and the objects will suffer uncleanness through overshadowing (v. <i>supra</i> n. 1a). Hence, we regard the objects and the corpse as if they were already present under the lintels of the door or exits. But if we know through which exit the corpse will be removed, then only that particular exit suffers uncleanness, not the others. This means that that particular exit saves the objects beneath the other exits from uncleanness through overshadowing. The minimum size of such an exit must be one handbreadth square for an olive’s bulk from a corpse in the room, to prevent uncleanness from spreading to the other exits, and a minimum of four handbreadths square opening will prevent the uncleanness from spreading to the other exits in the case where an entire corpse is present in the room. The reason for the different sizes regarding the openings, depends upon the size of the uncleanness, for it is feasible to remove an olive’s bulk from a corpse through an opening one handbreadth square, and an entire corpse through an opening four handbreadths square (v. also Ohol. VII, 3); b) If there are two adjoining houses or rooms and in the intervening wall there is an opening of one handbreadth square, and in one of the houses or rooms there is a corpse or an olive’s bulk from a corpse, the uncleanness passes to the adjoining room or house in which all objects become unclean. In this case the opening need not be more than a square handbreadth in order to give passage to the uncleanness of an entire corpse; c) An object (e.g., a board) which is one handbreadth square and one handbreadth high (i.e., between the board above and the olive’s bulk from a corpse which lies beneath, there is a space of not less than one handbreadth), brings uncleanness to other objects in the same space and forms a partition against uncleanness to objects above it. But if the roof (i.e., the top of the board) is less than one handbreadth high, the uncleanness breaks through the solid matter and rises and goes down. Cf. Ohol. VI, 6; VII, 1-2; IX, 13, 14, 16; X, 6-7; XII, 6-7; XV, 1, 3, 7. <i>ShaK</i> states that the wife of a <i>Kohen</i>, who is pregnant may enter the ‘tent of a corpse’ and there is no fear that she may give birth to a male child who would then be forbidden to be present there, for a double doubt exists: a) perhaps it will be a non-viable birth to which this apprehension does not apply, or b) if it is a viable birth, perhaps it will be a female child. This point, however, is questioned on the principle that ‘a clean object that has been swallowed (in this case, the child within the mother) cannot be rendered unclean’ (<span>טהרה בלועה</span>) (Hul. 71a). Consequently, the following explanation of the above case is offered: We deal here with a case where the time for giving birth has already approached, and there is fear that the child might push out its head and be regarded as born and hence is not regarded as a ‘swallowed object.’ Consequently, since there is a double doubt, the pregnant wife of the <i>Kohen</i> may enter the ‘tent of a corpse’ — <i>P.Tesh.</i> Uncleanness is not conveyed through many openings which together make up one square handbreadth, e.g., in the case of trellis-work. The square handbreadth must be open in one spot for the uncleanness to pass through. Otherwise, the opening is considered stopped up (cf. Ohol. XIII, 1) — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK.</i></i> But if one stopped up the opening, it is permissible for him to enter the other [adjoining] house, for the closure forms a partition [against the uncleanness], even if one has not renounced ownership therein<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">e., in the object which serves as a closure.</i> so that it remain there forever.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"> Mishna and Gemara Shab. 157a and <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>,הלקטי קטנה</span>. Cf. Meg. 26b. This applies only if one stops up the opening with a vessel that does not contract uncleanness (e.g., a wooden object that is not considered a vessel if it is intended merely for resting things thereon (<span>כלי עץ העשוי לנחת</span>) but if one stops up with foodstuffs even the entire opening, he must renounce his ownership therein — <i>P.Tesh., R. A. Eger.</i></i> This applies only if one stopped up the entire opening, but if one did not stop up the entire opening, but [only] reduced it from [the size of] a [square] handbreadth, — [the law is that] if one placed it<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">The object which serves as a closure.</i> to remain there forever, it reduces [the size of the opening] and forms a partition against<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘in the face of.’</i> the uncleanness so that it pass not through; and if [one did] not [place it<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">The object which serves as a closure.</i> to remain there forever], it does not reduce [the size of the opening].<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">B.B. 20a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>היא גופה תיחוץ</span>.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Everything that contracts uncleanness forms not a partition against uncleanness</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Alfasi</i> Meg. IV; Laws of Uncleanness by <i>Alfasi; N, Asheri</i> and <i>Mord.</i> B.B. II (derived from Ohol. VIII, 3) — <i>G.</i> Cf. Meg. 26b and B.B. 19b-20a. On the rules of uncleanness, v. Danby’s Mishna, Appendix I</i> <i>A closure in a window space is regarded</i> [<i>effective</i>] <i>only if it can remain</i> [<i>therein</i>] <i>without support.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> — <i>G.</i>, derived from Ohol. VI, 2. Cf. B.B. 19b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>רואין</span> according to which, a) anything that requires support is considered a temporary closure, and b) the object which supports the article that stops up the opening must be something which does not contract uncleanness, despite the fact that the object itself that serves as a closure does not contract uncleanness otherwise the closure is considered an object which contracts uncleanness.  <i>R. Samson of Sens</i> and <i>Maim</i>. to Ohol. VI, 2 and cf O.Ḥ § 629, 8. <i>Ta</i>Z reports the ruling of a certain authority in the following case which he analyses and rejects: There was an uncleanness in a house adjoining a Synagogue, which passed through the [Synagogue window in the women’s section, and a ruling was given by a certain authority, that in order to form a partition against the uncleanness, the window opening should be stopped up by the curtain which served as a partition between the men’s and women’s section, and was suspended on iron hooks. <i>Ta</i>Z opposes this ruling (v. however, <i>Ḥid. ha-Gershuni</i> who accepts it) and claims that it is erroneous for the following reasons: a) According to the Mishna Ohol. VIII, 1, a sheet or a mat form a partition against uncleanness only if spread out tentwise, which is not the case here, and hence, the curtain cannot form a partition against the uncleanness of the adjoining house (v. <i>R. Samson of Sens ibid.</i> and Yad, <i>Tumath Meth</i> XIII); b) The reason that the curtain cannot form a partition against the uncleanness is because the law states that vessels (in this case the curtain hooks) cannot form a partition, since the curtain without the hooks would not remain suspended. Consequently, the main items are the hooks and not the curtain (v. Yad <i>Tumath Meth</i> XVIII; B.B. 19b s.v. <span>רואין</span>  this note beg.) c) A partition formed by a door or window that cannot stand without the support of metal hinges is not considered valid (although the hinges are considered as attached to the ground and do not contract uncleanness.  Kel. XI, 2 and cf. Ohol. VI, 2). Hence, the same applies with respect to the curtain and the hooks. <i>ShaK</i>, however, rejects this. Cf. <i>G.Mah.</i> A closure of trellis-work in a metal door does not prevent passage of uncleanness (v. <i>ShaK</i> who modifies this ruling) — <i>Ta</i>Z. It is permissible for a <i>Kohen</i> to travel by train, although there is a possibility that a corpse is being transported. Likewise, is it permitted for a <i>Kohen</i> to travel by plane, although the plane passes over burial grounds — <i>Sh.M.B.</i> (vol IV, p. 278-9).</i>
A hatchway<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Ohol. X, 1ff. Quite a number of laws are enumerated <i>ibid.</i> with respect to overshadowing in connection with hatchways, yet the present law is stated because it contains a novel ruling, viz., that it is permissible to enter the ground floor where the uncleanness is found, and not the upper storey — <i>B.Yos.</i></i> that is between a house [a ground floor] and an upper storey, and there is not in it an opening of a [square] handbreadth [in size], and an olive's bulk from a corpse is in the house directly beneath the hatchway, — [the law is that] the house [ground floor] is clean and the upper storey is unclean<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">For the uncleanness breaks through and rises (<span>טומאה בוקעת ועולה</span> v. Ohol. VI, 6), since it lies directly under the hatchway, despite the fact that the hatchway is less than a square handbreadth in size. The uncleanness does not spread to the sides of the ground floor, for it has an opening above in order to rise — <i>ShaK.</i> The uncleanness does not cleave downwards, back into the lower floor, since the opening is less than a square handbreadth (<i>Asheri</i>). And again, since there is only an olive’s bulk from a corpse in the ground floor, the law is that although the uncleanness will eventually be removed through the door opening, the ground floor does not become unclean now, because the uncleanness which rose to the upper storey, is already regarded as present in the public domain, for the opening is less than a square handbreadth. Hence, we may infer that if a room in a ground floor has no roof space over it (but there is a roof over the upper storey. Thus <i>Ḥid. ha-Gershuni</i> on <i>Ta</i>Z), it is forbidden for a <i>Kohen</i> to be present in any part of the ground floor, for since the uncleanness will ultimately be removed through the door opening of this uncovered ground-room, the uncleanness cleaves back into it and thence through the door opening, for it must be borne in mind that the entire ground-room is uncovered unlike above where the hatchway is less than a square handbreadth in size (v. <i>Ḥid. ha-Gershuni</i>) — <i>Ta</i>Z.</i>.
Two rooms that open into a house and in each one there is half an olive's bulk from a corpse, and their doors are locked up,<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">And there are no other openings from the rooms save the one leading to the house.</i> — [the law is that] the house is unclean<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">For the uncleanness must eventually pass through the house. Hence, the house is regarded as having uncleanness of an olive’s bulk in size.</i> and they [the rooms] are clean.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">The rooms are clean because the uncleanness in one room must not pass through the other room. The closed doors form a partition against that which is in the rooms, but do not prevent the passage of the uncleanness into the house.  Kel. VIII, 6.</i> If they [the rooms] were opened, they too, are unclean.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Ohol. VIII, 6. For then the uncleanness passes into them too.</i>
A forecourt that is surrounded by wall-projections<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">A kind of moulding around the top part of the house.  ‘Aruk.</i> and porticoes,<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">The Greek ἐξέδρα a covered place or collonade in front of the house. The houses open on to the forecourt. Each house has openings, e.g., doors or windows facing the forecourt and likewise openings leading to the space behind the houses. The wall-projections and the porticoes were in the front facing the forecourt.</i> and there is uncleanness in one of the houses; if all the doors<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘openings.’</i> of the houses and the windows are locked up, the uncleanness spreads<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘goes forth.’</i> under the wall-projections and the porticoes,<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from Ohol. VII, 3. If all the doors of the house in which there is uncleanness are locked up, i.e., both those facing the forecourt and those behind the house, the uncleanness spreads under the wall-projections and the porticoes, and everything beneath them becomes unclean. For since the uncleanness will ultimately be removed through the opening facing the forecourt, it is regarded as if the uncleanness is already present there, and spreads under the overshadowed space to the other houses (<i>ShaK</i>) if the latter have an opening of a square handbreadth in size. But if all the openings or doors of the adjoining houses are locked up, the houses are clean. However, it is forbidden for a <i>Kohen</i> to stand under the wall-projections — <i>Later Authorities.</i></i> — <i>the reason being that since ultimately the uncleanness will leave therefrom, we regard</i> [<i>the uncleanness</i>] <i>as though it had already left</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"> Ohol. I</i> <i>Therefore, some adopt the stricter view</i> [<i>regarding</i>] <i>Kohanim</i><sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> — [<i>viz., not</i>] <i>to go through the city gate through which the corpse will ultimately leave</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">Decisions of <i>Isserlein</i> s. 25 and <i>Kol Bo</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>and some permit</i> [<i>this</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid</i> on the authority of <i>‘some say</i>’ — <i>G.</i>  Ohol. XI, 1 and <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> <i>And he who adopts the lenient view loses nothing in a locality where it is not the custom to adopt the stricter view.</i> And if a window or a door was opened<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote">To the extent of four handbreadths square — <i>Asheri.</i></i> from the other side,<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">In the back of the house where there are no wall-projections.</i> and those of the side [facing] the forecourt were all locked up, the uncleanness does not spread<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘goes forth.’</i> under the wall-projections.<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote"> Ohol. XI, 1.</i> And if one of them<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">Of the doors or windows.</i> was also opened toward the side of the wall-projections, the uncleanness spreads<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘goes forth.’</i> from the house under the wall-projections.<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">And enters the adjoining house or houses. Cf. <i>supra</i> par. 1.</i> Likewise, if [there is] uncleanness under the wall-projections, it enters from under them into the house.<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote">If the door of the house facing the wall-projections is open.  Ohol. XIV, 1ff.</i> So too,<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote">Thus reading of <i>Sha</i>K. Cur. edd. read, ‘And therefore.’</i> roofs that project above toward the outside over the doors<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘openings.’</i> of the houses, and [there is] uncleanness in one of the houses, — [the law is that] all the houses, the doors of which are open, are unclean.<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote">Hence if a <i>Kohen</i> is present in one of the houses or rooms to which the uncleanness spreads, the doors and windows of which are shut up, and he is aware that the uncleanness reaches his dwelling, it is forbidden for him to leave before the corpse is removed. Likewise, if there are two rooms, one within the other, i.e., the outer one opens into the courtyard and the inner one has right of way through the outer one, and the corpse lies in the outer one, the <i>Kohen</i> may enter the inner room and lock up all the doors and windows leading to the outer room. But if the corpse is in the inner room, the <i>Kohen</i> is forbidden to be present in the outer one, even if he locked up the doors of the inner room. However, if each room has a separate door leading to the outside, and it is intended to remove the corpse through the door of the inner room the <i>Kohen</i> is permitted to remain in the outer room. Likewise is it permissible to keep the corpse in a cellar which has a separate door leading to the outside. But if the cellar has no door leading to the outside, and the corpse will ultimately be removed through the house, two conditions must be fulfilled in order to permit the <i>Kohen</i> to remain in the house above the cellar, viz., a) that there should be an opening in the cellar at least four handbreadths square, and b) that there should be no overshadowing space a handbreadth in width over the cellar opening. So too, if the corpse is in an upper storey that has an opening through which the corpse will be removed, and the opening has no overshadowing space above it, <i>Kohanim</i> are then permitted to remain on the ground floor. If there is a cross-beam above an alley-entry (v. ‘Er. I, 1ff) which is one handbreadth in width, and this cross-beam connects houses from one side of the alley-entry to the other, even if one end of the cross-beam is less than one handbreadth in width, the law is that it gives passage to the uncleanness to the other side. And if there is uncleanness in one of the houses on one side of the alley-entry, it is forbidden for <i>Kohanim</i> to enter the houses on the other side — <i>Digest of Later Authorities.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Two roofs</i> [<i>alongside each other</i>] <i>that do not touch one another, although there is between them only</i> [<i>a space</i>] <i>of less than three</i> [<i>handbreadths</i>], <i>are not considered as connected with respect to uncleanness, for we do not apply</i><sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘say.’</i> [<i>the principle of</i>] <i>Labud</i><sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘joined.’ <span>לבוד</span>. A legal fiction according to which, if there is a gap of less than three handbreadths, the parts so separated are considered as a solid partition.</i> <i>in order to adopt a stricter view.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIW</i> in his <i>Decisions</i> — <i>G.</i>  Suk. 18a and cf. <i>supra</i> par. 2.</i> <i>And if they</i><sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote">The roofs.</i> [<i>projected</i>] <i>one above the other, although they</i><sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote">The roofs.</i> <i>do not touch</i> [<i>each other</i>], <i>we apply</i> [<i>the principle of</i>] <i>'press</i> [<i>and</i>] <i>throw</i> [<i>it</i>] <i>down,'</i><sup class="footnote-marker">39</sup><i class="footnote">Heb. <span>חבוט</span>. A legal fiction whereby an inclined projection is assumed to be like a horizontal plane.</i> <i>and</i> [<i>they are considered</i>] <i>as though they touched</i> [<i>each other</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N.Yos.</i> on the <i>Laws of Uncleanness of Alfasi</i> — <i>G.</i>  Suk. 22a. Cf. <i>Jastrow</i> s.v. <span>חבוט</span>. This principle is applied only when the roof projects a distance of at least a handbreadth — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>The Kohanim</i><sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>cannot compel the near-of-kin of the corpse that they remove the dead person in order that they be permitted to enter their</i> [<i>adjoining</i>] <i>house</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote">This is not done out of deference to the dead. Derived from Meg. 26b regarding the Synagogue of the Roman Jews which opened into a room where a corpse was lying. The <i>Kohanim</i> asked Raba whether it was permissible for them to pray in the Synagogue. From this question it follows that had they been able to compel the near-of-kin of the deceased person to remove the corpse they would have done so. Hence, we infer that they were unable to compel them.  <i>W.G.</i> One may be compelled to remove the corpse of a non-viable birth where the question of honour to the dead does not enter — <i>BaḤ. Ta</i>Z however, rules that this applies only if the <i>Kohen</i> makes arrangements for it to be removed. <i>ShaK</i> (in <i>Nek. Hak</i>) agrees with <i>BaḤ.</i></i> <i>unless</i> [<i>it is</i>] <i>in a locality where it is the accepted custom to take out all the corpses</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">42</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIL Resp.</i> 65 — <i>G.</i></i>
It is forbidden [for a <i>Kohen</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> to draw near within four cubits of a corpse<sup class="footnote-marker">43</sup><i class="footnote">Sot. 44a; Ohol. XV, 8. For a corpse affects four cubits with respect to communication of uncleanness. Hence, a <i>Kohen</i> must not come within four cubits of a corpse so as not to touch the corpse or overshadow him.</i> or a grave. This applies only if the grave is not marked by partitions at a height of ten handbreadths, but if it is distinctly marked by partitions at a height of ten handbreadths or by a ditch ten handbreadths deep, he must keep away only [at a distance of] four handbreadths.<sup class="footnote-marker">44</sup><i class="footnote">Gemara <i>ibid.</i>  B.B. 12a, <i>Rashi</i> and <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>פרץ</span>. Cf. <i>W.G.</i></i> <i>It is permissible for a Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>to stand beside a house in which there is a corpse and he is permitted to touch its walls, provided that nothing overshadows upon him</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">45</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaShBA Resp.</i> s. 136 — <i>G.</i> e., there should be no projection from the roof of the house. It is forbidden for a <i>Kohen</i> to deliver a funerary oration within the four cubits of a corpse that lies on the bier in an open space — <i>A.H.</i></i>
A corpse that lies in a boat, if it<sup class="footnote-marker">46</sup><i class="footnote">e., the boat.</i> is small [so] that it rocks when one treads in it, it is forbidden for a <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> to enter it.<sup class="footnote-marker">47</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from Zab. III, 1.  <i>Bert. ibid.</i> IV,  This applies even if the <i>Kohen</i> is outside of the four cubits, for it is impossible to avoid uncleanness as a result of the principle of <i>Hesset</i> (v. Glos.). In a large boat, however, which does not rock, the <i>Kohen</i> must keep away a distance of four cubits.</i>

Siman 372

In spite of the fact that the <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> is prohibited to enter a <i>Peras</i>-area, <i>i.e., a field in which there was a lost grave or</i><sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘and.’</i> <i>in which a grave had been ploughed up and the extent</i> [<i>of the prohibited area being</i>] <i>a hundred cubits</i> [<i>in every direction</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Heb. <span>בית הפרם</span>, lit. ‘an area of square <i>Peras’. Peras</i> — half the length of a furrow, i.e., fifty cubits. It refers to a field in which a grave was ploughed over and the position of the crushed bones is not known. Hence, the field is regarded unclean. This is only a Rabbinic prohibition. <i>Rashi</i> (Nid. 57a) derives <i>Peras</i> from the rt. <span>פרס</span> ‘to break’ and it refers to the area of the broken or crushed bones. <i>Maim.</i> (Ohol. XVII, 1) takes it from the rt. <span>פרס</span> — <span>פרש</span> ‘to spread or extend,’ i.e., an area of extension. For a full analysis of <i>Beth ha-Peras</i> with respect to uncleanness, v. Ber. 19b; Shab. 15b; Pes. 92a-b; Hag. 25b; M.K. 5b (v. <i>D.S.</i> a.l.) ; Kel.  3; Ohol. XVII, 1; XVIII, 1; Tohor. IV, 5; V, 1; Bek. 22a, 29a-b; Nid. 57a,  also <i>Jastrow</i> and <i>Lev</i>y s.v. <span>פרס</span>.</i> or the country of the heathens,<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Those parts of the Land of Israel where the population was predominantly Samaritan or non-Jewish (e.g., Phoenicia) and was declared by the Rabbis as unclean, similar to a <i>Peras-</i>area.  ‘Er. 30b; Ḥag. 25a; Naz. 19b, 54a-55a; Git. 7b. According to <i>Weiss</i> (<i>Dor</i> I, 105) this decree was issued in the days of <i>Alcimus</i> in order to stem the tide of emigration as a result of his persecutions. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 369, n. 9.</i> — if he must go there [in order] to take a wife or to study Torah, and he has no other road, he may pass through there,<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">A.Z. 13a and <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>ללמוד</span>. He must, however, not pass over the graves proper — <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> even if he can manage to study elsewhere.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">A.Z. <i>ibid</i>. in accord with R. Jose.</i> And so too, [with respect to] a mourner who passes through there, — [the law is that] he<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> may go after him to console him.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 19b in accord with R. Abba.</i> Likewise, may he<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> incur uncleanness [which is forbidden] by a Rabbinical decree, [viz., by going] to argue [matters] with heathens and to contest [in court the legality of their acts], for he is as one who saves [his property] from their hand, and so also anything that is similar to this.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">A.Z. <i>ibid.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>A Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>who lies undressed whilst in the</i> [<i>same</i>] <i>tent with a corpse and was not aware</i><sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘did not know.’</i> [<i>of this</i>], <i>should not be informed thereof, but he should be called</i> [<i>out</i>] <i>without specifying</i> [<i>the reason thereof</i>], <i>so that he leave</i>, [<i>and the grounds for not specifying the reason being</i>] <i>in order that he dress himself first</i>. <i>But if they had already told him</i> [<i>the reason</i>], <i>he is forbidden to remain</i> [<i>there</i>] <i>until he dresses himself</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">This applies only if the <i>Kohen</i> is in the same tent with the corpse, but if he is in one of the adjoining houses, although they too, become unclean (v. <i>supra</i> § 371, 4), nevertheless, this category of uncleanness is prohibited Rabbinically only, for the law is that only Biblically, a tent that has a hollow space of one handbreadth (i.e., between the outside and the uncleanness, or the cover of the coffin and the corpse it contains. Thus <i>Ḥatam Sofer</i> Y.D. § 340, 2), forms a partition against the uncleanness (Ber. 19b). And even when the house in which the corpse lies is closed up on every side, the principle ‘that ultimately the uncleanness spreads to the adjoining houses,’ is only Rabbinical. Consequently, if the <i>Kohen</i> is present in the adjoining house, he may dress himself first — <i>ShaK.</i> This ruling is rejected by quite a number of codifiers.  <i>M.Abr.</i> O.Ḥ. § 343, n. 2; <i>D.Merb.</i> a.l. and also <i>A.H.</i> Others defend <i>ShaK</i>’s ruling. <i>Isserles’</i> ruling here applies only where the <i>Kohen</i> entered the tent or house at which time the person was still alive. In this case his entry would not be considered a flagrant act, but if he entered the corpse’s tent when it was already forbidden to do so, even if done unwittingly, it is regarded as a flagrant act — <i>P.Tesh. Contra Isserles</i>, the <i>Kohen</i> should put on the most essential garments in the case where the reason for leaving was specified to him — <i>D.Merb.</i>  <i>P.Tesh.</i> for additional reasons <i>pro</i> and <i>con Isserles.</i></i> <i>And</i> [<i>this applies</i>] <i>only if he is in the corpse's tent, which is an uncleanness</i> [<i>forbidden</i>] <i>Biblically, but if he is in a Peras-area</i><sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Heb. <span>בית הפרם</span>, lit. ‘an area of square <i>Peras’. Peras</i> — half the length of a furrow, i.e., fifty cubits. It refers to a field in which a grave was ploughed over and the position of the crushed bones is not known. Hence, the field is regarded unclean. This is only a Rabbinic prohibition. <i>Rashi</i> (Nid. 57a) derives <i>Peras</i> from the rt. <span>פרס</span> ‘to break’ and it refers to the area of the broken or crushed bones. <i>Maim.</i> (Ohol. XVII, 1) takes it from the rt. <span>פרס</span> — <span>פרש</span> ‘to spread or extend,’ i.e., an area of extension. For a full analysis of <i>Beth ha-Peras</i> with respect to uncleanness, v. Ber. 19b; Shab. 15b; Pes. 92a-b; Hag. 25b; M.K. 5b (v. <i>D.S.</i> a.l.) ; Kel.  3; Ohol. XVII, 1; XVIII, 1; Tohor. IV, 5; V, 1; Bek. 22a, 29a-b; Nid. 57a,  also <i>Jastrow</i> and <i>Lev</i>y s.v. <span>פרס</span>.</i> <i>or in the country of the heathens, which is an uncleanness forbidden</i> [<i>only</i>] <i>Rabbinically, he should dress himself first, for human dignity</i> [<i>in proper appearance</i>] <i>is very important</i><sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ter. ha-Deshen</i> s. 285 — <i>G.</i>  Ber. 19b. If on <i>Yom Kippur</i> it happened that there was a corpse in a room adjoining the Synagogue, the Cantor, if a <i>Kohen</i>, should, in the first instance, not be informed thereof. However, even if the Cantor-<i>Kohen</i> knows about it, he may continue to lead the services, for it would be very disrespectful to the Congregation to remain without a Cantor — <i>T. T. Wa-Da‘ath.</i></i> <i>as has been explained supra</i> § 303 <i>regarding the subject of Kilay'im</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>A Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>who was asleep and there was a corpse with him in the</i> [<i>same</i>] <i>tent must be awakened and told</i> [<i>about it</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote"> Ber. 20a, <i>Rashi</i> and <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>שב</span>; <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.; W.G.</i> a.l.</i> <i>in order that he leave</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIL Resp.</i> 69 — <i>G.</i> According to <i>MaHaRIL</i> (<i>ibid.</i>) this prohibition is applicable although there is no tangible action involved, and ordinarily we do not administer flogging in such cases (v. Mak. 2b), yet in our case it is forbidden, because a Biblical prohibition is involved. It follows therefore, that were only a Rabbinical prohibition involved (e.g., where the <i>Kohen</i> is in the adjoining house.  <i>supra</i> n. 10), the <i>Kohen</i> should not be awakened. This is perhaps the meaning of <i>Isserles’</i> words, ‘and there was a corpse with him in the (same) tent’ — <i>ShaK.</i></i>
[With respect to] the graves of heathens, it is proper for a <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> to be careful not to walk upon them,<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i> and <i>Tosaf.</i> B.M. 114a-b — <i>G.</i>  also Yeb. 61a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ממגע</span> Cf. Ker. 6b.</i> <i>although there are some</i> [<i>authorities</i>] <i>who adopt a lenient view</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> III, 3; <i>Hag. Maim. ibid</i>. on the authority of <i>Sefer Yere’im</i> — <i>G.</i> Those who advocate the lenient view maintain that the law rests with R. Simeon b. Yoḥai (Gemara <i>ibid</i>.); those of the stringent view hold that the law rests with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel (v. Ohol. XVIII, 7). The proponents of the lenient view, however, maintain that heathen graves defile through contact and carriage (<span>מגע ומשא</span>) and that only the uncleanness of overshadowing is not applicable to them.</i> <i>And it is proper to adopt the stringent view. However, the grave of an</i> [<i>Israelite</i>] <i>who was an apostate in respect of idolatry</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">Or e.g., a Karaite Jew — <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>imparts uncleanness as</i> [<i>the grave</i>] <i>of one who was a</i> [<i>conforming</i>] <i>Israelite</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaShBA</i> s. 194 and 242 — <i>G.</i>  San. 44a s.v. <span>ישראל</span>; Yeb. 47b s.v. <span>למאי הלכתא</span>; Kid. 36a s.v. <span>בין כך ובין כך</span>.</i>

Siman 373

Even as the Kohen<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> is cautioned not to defile himself, so too, are the older [Kohanim]<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Or Israelites — <i>Perisha, A.H.</i></i> cautioned concerning the minor ones.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Yeb. 114a, for it is written: <i>‘Speak … and say’</i> (Lev. XXI, 1), where the verb <span>אמר</span> ‘to say or speak’ is repeated, whence the Rabbis derive that adults must not defile minors with their own hands. A minor <i>Kohen</i> who is asleep in the same tent wherein a corpse is present, need not be awakened and removed therefrom. However, in order to train the child in religious practices, it is advisable to awaken him (<i>Agudah</i>) — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>And</i> [<i>the warning applies</i>] <i>only with respect to defiling them with one's own hands</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Gemara <i>ibid.</i></i> <i>but if the minors defile themselves,  O.H. § 343, whether it is necessary to separate them</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaShBA</i> s. 128 and <i>MaHaRIW; Tur</i>, however, on the authority of <i>Maim.</i> (Yad, <i>Ebel</i> III, 12), writes that it is not necessary (to separate them) — <i>G.</i> ‘To separate them,’ means to take the uncleanness away from them. This refers to the <i>Beth Din</i>, but the minor’s father should separate him once he has reached the age for minors to be trained in religious practices (v. Yad <i>ibid.</i>).</i>
Even [a <i>Kohen</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> who has a blemish, is cautioned not to defile himself,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Sifra <i>Emor</i> beg.  also <i>Rashi</i> on Torah <i>ibid.</i></i> but one of profaned [Priestly stock]<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Heb. <span>חלל</span> i.e., one unfit for Priesthood on account of his father’s illegitimate marriage (Lev. XXI, 7; 14). Sifra <i>ibid.;</i> Yeb. 100b; San. 5b. The ruling here applies only to one who is regarded of profaned Priestly stock Biblically, e.g., one who was the issue of the illegitimate connection of a <i>Kohen</i> and a divorcee (v. Lev. <i>ibid.</i>), but if he is regarded so only Rabbinically, e.g., one who was the issue of a woman released from leviratical marriage by <i>Ḥaliẓah</i> (v. Glos.), he is forbidden to defile himself. Wherever it is doubtful if he is the issue of a divorcee etc., we adopt the stringent view and he is disqualified from the Priesthood (<span>םפיקא דאורייתא לחומרא</span>), but in a doubtful case which is only Rabbinical, he is considered a <i>Kohen</i> in all respects (<span>םפיקא דרבנן לקולא</span>). Thus <i>BaH</i> and <i>ShaK.</i>  E.H. § 7.</i> and a daughter of a <i>Kohen</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Sifra <i>ibid.;</i> Kid. 35b; Sot. 23b.</i> are permitted to defile themselves.
All the dead [near-of-kin] mentioned in the Scriptural section<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Lev. XXI, 2-</i> for whom a <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> may defile himself, — [the law is that] it is a religious duty that he defile himself for them; and if he does not wish to [do so], he is defiled against his will.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Zeb. 100a.</i> [This applies] both to the man and to the woman.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">If she is the daughter of a <i>Kohen</i>, she too is religiously dutibound to defile herself. Thus <i>N, Asheri, Tur</i> and v. Ket. 53a, <i>Rashi</i> s.v. <span>ולא מיטמאת</span>. According to <i>Maim.</i> (Yad, <i>Ebel</i> II, 6) this refers only to males and not to females.  however, <i>A.H.</i> who offers a logical explanation of <i>Maim.</i> point of view and removes the contradiction betwwen <i>Maim.</i> and the other codifiers.</i>
The following are the near-of-kin for whom [a <i>Kohen</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> defiles himself, [viz.,]<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"> Lev. XXI, 2-4 and Sifra a.l.</i> his lawful married wife, but for his unlawful wife,<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">Yeb. 90b, 21b.</i> or his divorced wife,<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">Even if he had children with her (Sem(H). IV, 3).</i> or [his wife who was only] betrothed [to him],<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">Sifra <i>ibid.</i></i> he does not observe the laws of <i>Onen</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> nor may he defile himself for her; and likewise, she [in the case of his death] does not observe the laws of <i>Onen</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> nor may she defile herself for him.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Sifra <i>ibid.;</i> Yeb. 29b; Ket. 53a a.e. She does not have to defile herself for him, only if she so desires, she may do so — <i>ShaK.</i></i> He defiles himself for his mother, even if she became profaned,<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">Sifra <i>ibid.</i> This refers to a case where after this <i>Kohen</i> was born, his mother was unlawfully married to another <i>Kohen</i> after having been divorced from her previous marriage — <i>ShaK. Tur</i> includes his father for whom the <i>Kohen</i> defiles himself. It is not mentioned here because it is self evident from the Biblical text in Lev. <i>ibid.</i>, and requires no further qualification.</i> and for his son and daughter, where it is certain that its [the infant's] months [of pregnancy] were complete, or that they are over thirty days old,<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">Even if the months of pregnancy were not complete.  Shab. 136a and Sifra <i>ibid.</i> For a doubtful non-viable birth he does not defile himself both in the case of a son, a daughter, a brother and a sister — <i>Shak.</i></i> even if they are illegitimate, excluding his son and daughter of a slave or a heathen.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Yeb. 22a a.e.</i> [He defiles himself] for his paternal brother and sister,<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">Sifra <i>ibid.</i></i> even if they are illegitimate, unless they are the offspring of a slave or a heathen.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Yeb. 22a a.e.</i> But for his maternal brother or sister he does not defile himself.<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">Sifra <i>ibid.</i>; M.K. 20b.</i> <i>And likewise he does not defile himself</i> for his betrothed sister, even if she were betrothed to a <i>Kohen</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"> n. 1. Yeb. 60a in accord with R. Jose and R. Simeon.</i> nor for [a sister] who was outraged or seduced,<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">Yeb. <i>ibid.</i> An adolescent, Heb. <span>בוגרת</span> (<i>Bogereth</i>) is a girl from the age of twelve years and a half plus one day and onwards.</i> but he defiles himself for his betrothed sister who was divorced<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">After betrothal (Erusin), the preliminary act of marriage, distinguished from <i>Nissu’in</i>, marriage proper, consisting in conducting the bride to the groom’s permanent (or improvised) home, after which cohabitation is permitted.</i> and [for] one who is adolescent<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">Yeb. <i>ibid.</i> An adolescent, Heb. <span>בוגרת</span> (<i>Bogereth</i>) is a girl from the age of twelve years and a half plus one day and onwards.</i> and [for] one who was wounded.<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">One who lost her hymen through an accidental lesion. Yeb. <i>ibid.</i> in accord with R. Jose, R. Judah and R. Meir.</i> He [likewise] defiles himself for a woman awaiting the [decision] of the levir,<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote">Where the widow of a husband who has died childless (v. Deut. V, 5-9) waits for the brother-in-law to marry or to reject her. He defiles himself for her because legally he inherits her <i>Kethubah</i> (v. Glos.) and is considred as her husband.  Ket. 81a. Cf. Yeb. 89b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>כיון</span>; <i>RaShBA Resp.</i> III, s. 252.</i> even if [her deceased husband] wrote in her <i>Kethubah</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> 'if you die childless, your <i>Kethubah</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> will return to the paternal house',<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">Because legally he inherits her estate (<span>נכסי מלוג</span>) of which a husband has the usufruct. Furthermore, no distinction was made by the Rabbis between this sister-in-law (<span>יבמה</span>) and other sisters-in-law (<span>יבמות</span>) — <i>B.Yos.</i> on the authority of <i>RaShBA.</i></i> <i>i.e., her father's house.</i>
All those [near-of-kin] for whom he<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> defiles himself [applies] even [to a defilement] which is not for the requirements [of the corpse].<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). IV, 7 (according to the reading of <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> cited by <i>B.Yos.</i>) where three opinions are mentioned with respect to how long he is permitted to defile himself for his near-of-kin: ‘How long is he permitted to defile himself for them? — R. Meir says, the entire day. R. Simeon says, three days. R. Judah says on the authority of R. Tarfon, until the closing of the tomb by the <i>Golel.’</i> From an actual case reported <i>ibid.</i>, the third view was accepted by the Rabbis (v. <i>infra</i> par. 6 and notes). Hence, we infer from this that he may defile himself for his near-of-kin even in the case where the defilement is not required for the corpse’s needs, e.g., preparation of shrouds etc. Accordingly, this defilement is considered obligatory — <i>ShaK.</i></i> And some say, only for the requirements [of the corpse].<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">E.g., all burial requirements, such as a coffin, shrouds etc. But if these are not required, the <i>Kohen</i> may not defile himself for them — <i>ShaK.</i>  Pes. 8a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>בשפחתו</span> end; Nid. 15b, Tosaf. s.v. <span>ובא</span> end.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And according to the former opinion, even if he</i><sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> <i>suffered a bereavement on the Sabbath where it is impossible to bury him the same day</i> [<i>on account of the Sabbath</i>], <i>he</i><sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> <i>is permitted to defile himself for him and guard him so that he should not lie in disgrace.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ter. ha-Deshen</i> s. 283 — <i>G.</i></i> <i>It is proper to adopt the stringent view according to the latter opinion</i> [<i>viz.</i>,] <i>that he</i><sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> <i>should defile himself only for the requirements of the burial</i><sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote">On a weekday the <i>Kohen</i> may be present in the house where his dead near-of-kin lies awaiting burial, even if there are others who attend to the burial needs, since there may be something with respect to the burial needs concerning which his presence is required. Hence, this is regarded as a defilement for the needs of the corpse — <i>P.Tesh. ShaK</i> in <i>Nek. ha-Kesef</i> states that the first opinion is the accepted custom.</i> <i>and</i> [<i>in order</i>] <i>to bring him a coffin and shrouds.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> on the authority of <i>Tosaf. Sens.</i> — <i>G.</i></i>
He<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> defiles himself for them<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote">The near-of-kin.</i> only until the closing of the <i>Golel</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">Sem. <i>ibid.</i> Regarding the meaning of the term <i>Golel</i> there is a difference of opinion between <i>Rashi</i> and <i>R. Tam</i> (v. Ket. 4b; <i>supra</i> § 369, n. 5). According to the former, it refers to the cover or lid of the coffin ; according to the latter, to the stone placed upon the grave (this should not be confused with the tombstone). From <i>Rashi</i>’s interpretation it might appear that once the coffin is covered in the house, the <i>Kohen</i> should not be permitted to defile himself for the corpse (since this would be regarded as the closing of the <i>Golel</i>), but in reality, <i>Rashi</i> too, it may be shown from Shab. 152a refers to the closing of the <i>Golel</i> when the coffin is placed in the grave. Hence, it follows that even in accordance with <i>Rashi</i>’s interpretation of <i>Golel</i>, the <i>Kohen</i> may defile himself for his near-of-kin while the coffin stands covered in the house — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>And if his intention is to clear him away</i> [<i>therefrom</i>], <i>he is permitted to defile himself for him for the sake of</i> [<i>his</i>] <i>needs until the closing of the second Golel</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaShBA Resp.</i> s. 292 — <i>G.</i>, as in the case of mourning rites (<i>infra</i> § 375, 3).</i>
It is forbidden for a <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> to defile himself for [another] corpse even while he defiles himself for his near-of-kin. Therefore, a <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> who suffered a bereavement must be careful and bury him [the corpse] at the end of the cemetery, so that he should not [have] to enter the cemetery and will not [thereby] defile himself through other graves when he buries his dead.<sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote"> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> II, 15.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And</i> [<i>this applies</i>] <i>only after he departs from his dead, but while he attends to his dead, he is permitted to defile himself even for other</i> [<i>corpses</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Tur</i> — <i>G.</i> Derived from Sem(H). IV, 8-10; Naz. 42b in accord with R. Tarfon <i>contra</i> R. Akiba, although ordinarily we rule in accord with R. Akiba when he opposes R. Tarfon, but since the latter (in Sem.) agrees with R. Huna (Naz. <i>ibid.</i>) the law rests with R. Tarfon. Furthermore, when an anonymous opinion is recorded in the Mishna (as in Naz. <i>ibid.</i>) followed by a difference of opinion in a Baraitha, the ruling is in accordance with the anonymous opinion of the Mishna, which in our case is in agreement with R. Tarfon. Cf. also Nid. 57a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ודילמא</span> for a similar view.  However, Y.Naz. III, 5(52d) where R. Tarfon agrees with R. Akiba.  <i>W.G.</i> a.l. There is no prohibition against the <i>Kohen</i> defiling himself for another corpse while on his way to attend to the burial rites. It is only on his return after having completed the burial of his near-of-kin, at which time he comes in contact with other graves, that the prohibition takes effect. <i>BaḤ</i> rules that the prohibition exists even when he is on his way to the cemetery, for he can bury his dead at the end of the cemetery grounds and not have to come within proximity of other graves. This seems to be the opinion of <i>Caro</i> here — <i>ShaK.</i></i>
A <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> whose parents dissociated themselves from the practices of the community, e.g., informers, — does not defile himself for them,<sup class="footnote-marker">39</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). II, 8; Sifra <i>Emor</i> beg.; San. 47a, where the verse, <i>‘among his people’</i> (Lev. XXI, 1-2) is expounded to mean that a <i>Kohen</i> may defile himself for his parents, provided the latter followed the practices of his people, but not if they were informers or apostates.  <i>supra</i> § 345, 5.</i> nor for those executed by a Jewish Court, nor for one who commits suicide wilfully,<sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> II, 8, derived from Mishna San. 46b, where it is stated that no mourning rites are observed for those executed by a Jewish Court, and since mourning rites are observed for those for whom a <i>Kohen</i> defiles himself (M.K. 20b), it follows conversely that a <i>Kohen</i> does not defile himself for those executed by a Jewish Court for whom no formal mourning is observed. The same reasoning applies in the case of a suicide (v. <i>supra</i> § 345).</i> nor for one of uncertain [parentage], e.g., if her child became mixed up with her friend's child,<sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote">And one of the fathers was a <i>Kohen</i> and it is now doubtful whether he is the son of the <i>Kohen</i> in which case he must not defile himself for the Israelite father.</i> or it is not known [whether] it is a nine months' child by the former [husband] or a sevenmonths' child by the latter [husband].<sup class="footnote-marker">42</sup><i class="footnote">This refers to a case where a woman did not wait the required three months’ period after her first husband’s death or after she was divorced from him before remarrying, and one of the two husbands was an Israelite and one was a <i>Kohen</i> (Sifra <i>ibid.;</i> Mishna Yeb. 100). According to one opinion the father does not defile himself for the son, but the son defiles himself for both fathers — <i>P.Tesh.</i> This is refuted by <i>Naḥ.</i> Z<i>ebi</i> and <i>R. A. Eger.</i></i>
The <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> does not defile himself for a limb [severed] from his father while [the latter] was still alive, nor for a bone of his father's bones.<sup class="footnote-marker">43</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from the story of the father of R. Isaac (another reading has R. Ẓadok), the <i>Kohen.</i>  Naz. 43b-44a; Yad, <i>Ebel</i> II, 14.</i> And so too, he who collects bones,<sup class="footnote-marker">44</sup><i class="footnote">Of the near-of-kin of the <i>Kohen</i> for whom he may defile himself.</i> — [the law is that] he<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> does not defile himself for them, although the spinal column is intact.<sup class="footnote-marker">45</sup><i class="footnote">Naz. <i>ibid</i>. in accord with Rab and the Elders. Thus also <i>Maim.</i>, <i>N, Asheri</i> and <i>Tur</i>.</i> [If] a small part is missing,<sup class="footnote-marker">46</sup><i class="footnote">From the corpse.</i> even if it lies beside him [the corpse], he does not defile himself for him, for he defiles himself only when he is whole.<sup class="footnote-marker">47</sup><i class="footnote">Naz. <i>ibid., “‘For his father,’</i> (Lev. XXI, 2) when he is whole but not when he is defective.” If the shrouds on a corpse are in perfect condition, but it is doubtful whether the corpse is whole or whether the limbs are disjoined, we adopt a lenient view and the <i>Kohen</i> may defile himself for him; but if it is known that the limbs are disjoined, although they are all contained in the coffin, he does not defile himself for him — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> And there is one [authority] who says that this applies only if he [the corpse becomes] defective after death,<sup class="footnote-marker">48</sup><i class="footnote">Or at the time of death, e.g., if he was decapitated and is now not as he was during lifetime. Hence, <i>‘For his father,’</i> when he is whole, does not apply — <i>ShaK.</i> Consequently, he may not defile himself for the corpse.  <i>supra</i> n. 47.</i> but if there is a limb missing from him during his lifetime, and [then] he died, — he<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> defiles himself for him [the corpse], although he is not whole.<sup class="footnote-marker">49</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> writes that the matter is still undecided.  <i>Be’er ha-Golah.</i></i> <i>And some say that he</i><sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> <i>does not defile himself for a slain person, for he</i> [<i>the slain person</i>] <i>is designated defective</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">50</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> on the authority of <i>R. Samuel b. Shneor of Evreux</i>— <i>G.</i> Thus also <i>B.Yos. A.H.</i> writes that to his knowledge there is no source for this ruling, and that this matter requires further elucidation.</i> <i>And it is proper to adopt the stringent view</i>.

Siman 374

It is a religious obligation to defile oneself for a corpse [whose burial is] a religious duty,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Heb. <span>מת מצוה</span>  Glos. s.v. <i>Meth Miẓwah</i> and cf. <i>infra.</i></i> even if one is a High priest or<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘and.’</i> a Nazirite and he was going to slaughter his Paschal lamb or<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘and.’</i> to circumcise his son and [on the way] he found a corpse [whose burial is] a religious duty, — [the law is that] he defiles himself for him.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 19b; Naz. 48b and <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> 47a s.v. <span>וכן משוח</span> according to which the <i>Kohen</i> may move the corpse from the sun to the shade in order that it should not spread stench — <i>R. A. Eger.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> § 364, 3.</i>
He is designated a corpse [whose burial is] a religious duty with respect to this matter [of defilement], only if he found his head and the larger portion [of his body].<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 364, 3 end and cf. <i>supra</i> § 353, 7; <i>infra</i> § 375, 7.</i> If, however, he found his head and the larger portion [of his body] save one limb, he may [later] return to defile himself for that limb [when he finds it].<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Y.Naz. VII, 1(55d). In this respect the limb is treated with more stringency than in the case of a near-of-kin for whom the <i>Kohen</i> defiles himself only if the corpse is whole but not for limbs or when the body is defective.  <i>supra</i> § 373, 9.</i>
Who is regarded as a corpse [whose burial] is a religious duty? — One whom he<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> found on the road or in a town of heathens, and there is no one [available] to bury him, and from the spot where he<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> found him he could not call upon an Israelite to answer him<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> and come to attend to him<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">The corpse.</i> and bury him, — [the law is that] he<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> is forbidden to depart therefrom and leave the corpse, even to go to the town [in order] to fetch [people] to attend to the burial rites, but he<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> should defile himself [for him] and bury him. But if there were Israelites [available] in proximity of the spot of the corpse, [so] that if the one who finds him<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">The corpse.</i> would call upon them, they would answer him,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> and come to bury him, — such a one is not regarded as a corpse [whose burial] is a religious duty for whom the <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> should defile himself, but he<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> calls upon them and they bury [him].<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 19b-20a; Yeb. 89b; ‘Er. 17b; Meg. 3b; Zeb. 100a; Naz. 43b; Y.Naz. VII, 1(56a); Y.Ber. III 1(6a); Sem(H). IV, 16.  also Ket. 103b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אותו</span> and Mid. Mishle §  A corpse whose burial is a religious duty is applicable only in a case where there are not sufficient people present to carry the bier and to attend to the burial rites — <i>Ta</i>Z. If there are heathens available to bury the corpse, he must not defile himself, provided he does not have to pay them for their services (v. <i>infra Gloss</i>) — <i>A.H.</i></i> [If] the townspeople came, [then the law is that] if his<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">The corpse.</i> needs are adequately attended to,<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Y. and Sem. <i>ibid.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> § 361, 1.</i> he<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kohen.</i></i> withdraws himself.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Cited from <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> and <i>Asheri</i> on <i>Laws of Uncleanness</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that if he is able to secure people to bury him only</i> [<i>if he hires them</i>] <i>for money, he is not bound to hire</i> [<i>them</i>] <i>with his own</i> [<i>money</i>], <i>but he may defile himself</i> [<i>for the corpse</i>], <i>if he so desires.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N.Yos.</i> to Yeb. X on the authority of <i>RITBA</i> — <i>G.</i></i> [<i>In the case of</i>] <i>a corpse that is found and we do not know whether he is a Gentile or an Israelite</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">This refers to a case where the signs of circumcision are no longer recognizable — <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>we decide</i><sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘follow.’</i> <i>according to the majority of those present there</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"> Y.San. V, 1(32c), ‘One who is found slain between Tiberias and Sepphoris is presumed to be a Jew.’ We decide according to the majority of the passers-by who are likely to frequent that spot or the majority of the surrounding cities. If the majority consists of heathens, the <i>Kohen</i> is not dutibound to bury him; if the majority consists of Israelites, the corpse is regarded as one whose burial is a religious duty. We do not decide on grounds of the nearer city, even if the nearness of that city shows evidence for such a decision, but we follow the majority, — for whatever comes out of a mixed multitude is presumed to have come from the majority, i.e., it has the legal status of the majority (<span>כל דפריש מרובא פריש</span>).  Ket. 15a a.e. — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>unless</i><sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Thus according to reading of <i>ShaK</i> and <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>we can apply</i><sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘say.’</i> [<i>the principle</i>] <i>that everything which is stationary is regarded as half to half</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos</i> on the authority of <i>RaShBA Resp.</i> — <i>G.</i> Concerning the principle ‘whatever is stationary is regarded as half to half’ (<span>כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה</span>) cf. Ket. ibid. and parallel passages. The point is this. We decide according to the majority only when the minority is not stationary or fixed (<span>קבוע</span>). Otherwise, it is equal to the majority. Were the case in question as follows: It is known that nine heathens and one Jew were present in the locality where the slain person was found, then we would consider it ‘fixed’ and would not follow the majority of heathens, but we would apply the principle ‘whatever is fixed or stationary is regarded as half to half,’ and because of the uncertainty we would adopt a stringent view. Hence, the <i>Kohen</i> would not defile himself for the slain person.  <i>supra</i> § 373, 8 — <i>ShaK.</i></i>
For all the near-of-kin for whom the <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> defiles himself, viz., his father, mother, son, daughter, [paternal] brother, paternal virgin sister and wife, — one is dutibound to observe mourning rites.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 20b.</i> To these they added one's maternal brother and one's maternal sister whether a virgin or married, and one's paternal married sister, — for whom one is dutibound to observe mourning rites, although a <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> does not defile himself for them.<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i></i> And even as he observes mourning rites for his wife, so too, does she observe mourning rites for him.<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">The reason being that since a mourner observes mourning rites for all near-of-kin for whom a <i>Kohen</i> defiles himself, it follows that just as a woman defiles herself for her husband, she also observes mourning rites for him — <i>B.Yos.</i> Cf. Mishna Yeb. IV, 10 (41a) and <i>infra</i> par. 6.</i> [This applies] only to one's lawful married wife, but for one's unlawful or betrothed [wife] one does not [observe mourning rites].<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 373, 4 for whom a <i>Kohen</i> defiles himself, and v. Yeb. 29b regarding a betrothed wife with respect to mourning rites.</i> For one's son, daughter, brother or sister, even if they are illegitimate, he observes mourning, save [in the case of] his son, daughter, brother or sister who are [the issue] of a slave or a heathen, for whom one does not observe mourning rites.<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna Yeb. II, 5 (22a). If one quarreled with his wife and decided to divorce her, and then immediately following the dispute, she died, the husband is not dutibound to mourn for her — <i>R. A. Eger</i> on the authority of <i>MaHaRShaL.</i> Nowadays, however, since one cannot divorce his wife against her will, but must obtain her consent, this does not apply — <i>P.Tesh.</i> (to E.H. § 90 n. 8) a.o. Hence, if the husband is a <i>Kohen</i>, he defiles himself and observes mourning rites for her. If she was divorced on a condition and subsequently the husband died, she is not dutibound to observe mourning rites for him. However, if she desires to adopt a stringency, she is permitted to weep over him and to follow his bier — <i>E.H.</i> § 145, 9, Gloss.</i>
A stranger who became a proselyte along with<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘and.’</i> his sons, or a slave who was emancipated<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">This refers to a Canaanite slave who was sold to a Jew and enjoyed a semi-Jewish status. He had to observe all religious duties that were binding on women. He was permitted to marry only a woman slave but not a Jewess. If he was set free by his owner, who then gave him a writ of emancipation to that effect, he then became entirely Jewish.</i> along with<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘and.’</i> his mother, do not observe mourning rites for one another.<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from Mishna Yeb. XI, 2 (97b).  also Gemara <i>ibid.</i>, ‘He who has become a proselyte is like a child newly born.’ Hence, all his previous family relationships cease to exist and mourning does not apply.</i> <i>Likewise</i>, [<i>if</i>] <i>a stranger became a proselyte along</i><sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘and.’</i> <i>with his mother, he does not observe mourning rites for them</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">e., for his sons or his mother. Deduced by <i>Caro</i> from <i>Mord. Laws of Sem.</i> from an actual case presented before <i>RI</i> in accord with the established principle that mourning observed on the first day is only Rabbinical — <i>G.</i>  <i>infra</i> § 399 end and cf. <i>supra</i> § 269, 3.</i>
Whomever he mourns for he [also] mourns with<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">One must share in the mourning rites of a relation at whose death he would have to observe mourning.</i> if he suffers a breavement.<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">E.g., if his father’s father dies, he mourns with his father. Similarly, if his son’s son dies.</i> [This applies] only whilst he is in his presence,<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">Since the reason for this type of mourning is out of respect to the mourning relative, it must therefore be observed only in the latter’s presence.</i> but when not in his presence, he is not bound to observe mourning rites save [in the case of] his wife, although he mourns for her, — [the law is that] he mourns with her only for her father or her mother [in the case of their death] out of respect to his father-in-law and his mother-in-law; but for her brother and her sister or her son and her daughter [who are the issue] of another man, he does not mourn with her.<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 20b.</i> Nevertheless, he may not compel his [mourning] wife to adorn herself, but she may mix his wine for him and make his bed and wash his face, hands and feet.<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i></i> So too, she mourns with him only when her father-in-law or her mother-in-law died, but [for] all his other near-of-kin who died, she does not mourn with him.<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>ibid</i>. where only her father-in-law and mother-in-law are mentioned. Cf. <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>אלא</span>. Thus also Yad, <i>Ebel</i> II, 4-5. However, according to Y.M.K. III, 5(83a) and Sem(H). XI, 8, she mourns with him for his other relatives too. <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> and <i>Asheri</i> adopt the latter view.  <i>W.G.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that nowadays we adopt a lenient view regarding this</i> [<i>type</i>] <i>of mourning with respect to those who mourn with him, for this is only out of respect to those who observe mourning rites, but now it is the common practice to forego</i> [<i>this honour</i>], <i>and thus is the accepted practice nowadays</i>, [<i>viz.</i>,] <i>not to mourn at all with those who observe mourning rites</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri</i> to M.K. III; <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> and <i>Hag. Maim.</i> Yad <i>ibid.</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>He who adopts a stringent view in this</i> [<i>matter</i>] <i>is one of those who make people wonder</i> [<i>at their strange conduct</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Maim. ibid.</i> — <i>G.</i> Although one who wishes to adopt a stringent view to observe mourning for one for whom he is not bound to mourn, may do so (v. <i>Gloss</i> a.l. end), this is applicable only to formal mourning, but if, as in the present case, it is done only in the mourner’s presence, it is regarded as a mockery — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>Nevertheless, it is the accepted practice that all the near-of-kin of the dead person who are disqualified to offer testimony in his</i><sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote">The corpse’s.</i> <i>behalf</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote"> Ḥ.M. § 33 regarding those who are considered disqualified to offer testimony.</i> <i>exhibit some</i> [<i>signs</i>] <i>of mourning</i> [<i>by placing</i>] <i>themselves</i> [<i>under this stringency</i>] <i>the first entire week, i.e., until after the first Sabbath</i> [<i>in</i>] <i>that they do not wash</i> [<i>themselves</i>] <i>nor change some of their clothes</i><sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote">The reading seems to be faulty here. <i>D.M.</i> has, ‘For all those who are disqualified to offer testimony on behalf of the corpse must change their places (in the Synagogue) and <i>not</i> change their clothes — <i>D.Merb.</i> We follow, however, the accepted custom — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>as on other Sabbaths.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">39</sup><i class="footnote">The distinguished scholars of Austria adopted this practice — <i>G.</i></i> <i>There are, however, localities where the accepted usage is to adopt additional stringencies in other matters</i> [<i>pertaining to this type of mourning</i>], <i>but</i><sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘and.’</i> <i>the fundamental principle is as I have written</i> [<i>above</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote">To adopt the lenient view.</i> <i>All this</i> [<i>pertains</i>] <i>to near tidings</i><sup class="footnote-marker">42</sup><i class="footnote">Received within the thirty days.</i> <i>or to one who was present at the</i> [<i>time of</i>] <i>death, but in</i> [<i>the case of</i>] <i>distant tidings</i><sup class="footnote-marker">43</sup><i class="footnote">Received after thirty days. On ‘near’ and ‘distant’ tidings, v. <i>infra</i> § 402.</i> <i>this type of mourning is entirely out of place.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">44</sup><i class="footnote">This is fully explained in <i>T. ha-Deshen</i> s. 251 — <i>G.</i></i> <i>One who desires to place himself under a stringency</i>, [<i>viz</i>.,] <i>to observe mourning rites for one for whom he is not dutibound</i> [<i>to mourn</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">45</sup><i class="footnote">e., even in the case of a good friend who dies. An example is the case of King David who ate the mourner’s meal in mourning for Abner (II Sam. III, 35) — <i>D.M.</i></i> <i>or to put on dark clothes</i> [<i>in mourning</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">46</sup><i class="footnote">For a period of twelve months — <i>D.M.</i></i> <i>for his near-of-kin, is not reproved</i> [<i>for doing so</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">47</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri Rule</i> 20 — <i>G.</i> However, if one should neglect the study of the Torah on account of this stringency, he may be reproved — <i>R. A. Eger.</i></i>
One mourns with [his] near-of-kin who mourn for them<sup class="footnote-marker">48</sup><i class="footnote">Their near-of-kin.</i> only when they mourn for a [blood] and flesh relationship, e.g., [in the case of] one's son and brother who mourn for a son and daughter of theirs; but for a relationship [only] through [their] marriage, e.g., if the wife of one's son died or the wife of one's brother or the husband of one's daughter or the husband of one's sister, — one does not observe mourning rites.<sup class="footnote-marker">49</sup><i class="footnote">For just as one’s near-of-kin do not observe mourning rites for such relations, so do we not mourn with them.  <i>supra</i> par. 6 and Yad, <i>Ebel</i> II, 5.</i>
For an infant throughout the entire thirty days [after birth]<sup class="footnote-marker">50</sup><i class="footnote">Shab. 135b in accord with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who derives this from the verse, <i>‘And those that are to be redeemed of them from a month old shalt thou redeem’</i> (Num. XVIII, 16). This shows that since he is redeemed only after the thirty days are completely over, it follows that only then is the infant regarded as a viable birth, but not before.</i> including the thirtieth day<sup class="footnote-marker">51</sup><i class="footnote">Bek. 29a in accord with R. Ashi. An infant who died on the thirty-first day after birth prior to the twenty-four hours from the hour of birth, is mourned for — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> [who died], one does not observe mourning rites, even if its hair and nails were fully developed;<sup class="footnote-marker">52</sup><i class="footnote">The case in question is where we are not certain whether the months of pregnancy were complete, although the infant’s hair and nails were fully developed <i>contra Hag. Asheri</i> and <i>BaḤ</i> who maintain that this ruling is applicable only in the case of an infant whose hair and nails were not fully developed — <i>ShaK.</i></i> and thenceforth one mourns for it unless it was known that it was [born after] eight months [of pregnancy].<sup class="footnote-marker">53</sup><i class="footnote">In which case one does not mourn for it, for it is doubtful whether the infant will live. Cf. Yad, <i>Ebel</i> I, 7-8; <i>ibid. Yibbum Wa-Ḥalizah</i> I, 5 and <i>Maggid Mish.</i> a.l.  also <i>W.G.</i> to O.Ḥ. § 331, 3.</i> But if one knows for certain that its months [of pregnancy] were complete,<sup class="footnote-marker">54</sup><i class="footnote">Shab. 136a; Nid. 42b.  <i>supra</i> § 340, 30 regarding the rending of garments in such a case.</i> e.g., [in the case] where [the husband] performed sexual intercourse and then separated himself [from her],<sup class="footnote-marker">55</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Maim., Ebel</i> I, 7 on the authority of <i>Rashi.</i></i> and [the infant] was born alive after nine complete months [of pregnancy],<sup class="footnote-marker">56</sup><i class="footnote">Even if some of the months of the nine months’ period consist of twenty-nine days, we mourn for the infant — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> even if it died on the day it was born, one observes mourning rites for it. <i>If it is not known whether it</i> [<i>was born after</i>] <i>nine months</i> [<i>of pregnancy</i>] <i>by the former</i> [<i>husband</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">57</sup><i class="footnote">From whom she was divorced and did not wait the required three months before her remarriage. Three months were required in order to determine whether she was with child from her first husband.</i> <i>or seven months</i> [<i>of pregnancy</i>] <i>by the latter</i> [<i>husband</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">58</sup><i class="footnote">Yeb. 36b, Tosaf. s.v. <span>הא</span> end. This ruling is applicable only if during the first three months after her marriage to the second husband she was in our presence, but we did not notice whether she was with child or not. Hence, we cannot apply the principle of following the majority of births which take place after nine months of pregnancy. Consequently, the majority is impaired and therefore both the first and the second husband are required to mourn for the child. But in a case where she was in our presence only after the three months’ period of her remarriage elapsed, we presume that she became pregnant by the first husband who alone is then required to mourn for the infant, since this birth belongs to the majority of births that take place after nine months of pregnancy. However, in the case of inheritance, we say that this child does not inherit the first husband after the latter’s death, for ‘in monetary matters we do not follow the status of the majority’ (<span>אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב</span>) — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> <i>both</i> [<i>husbands</i>] <i>observe mourning rites</i><sup class="footnote-marker">59</sup><i class="footnote">Although mourning is only Rabbinical, nevertheless in a doubtful case such as this, we adopt a stringent view, for it would be disrespectful not to mourn for the infant at all — <i>Ta</i>Z. But if the question of disrespect does not enter, e.g., where one of the husbands died, in which case, it would be said that he was the real father, we adopt a lenient view and the other husband observes no mourning rites for the infant, for mourning is only Rabbinical — <i>P.Tesh.</i> In the event that both fathers died, the son must mourn for both — <i>Ibid.</i></i> <i>for it</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">60</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord. Laws of Mourning; Hag. Maim.</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> I and <i>B.Yos</i> on the authority of <i>Tosaf.</i> — <i>G.</i></i>
There is an authority who says that twins of whom one died within thirty days [after birth] and the other [continued to] live after thirty days, one does not observe mourning rites for [the one who died].<sup class="footnote-marker">61</sup><i class="footnote">Thus according to the corrected version of <i>Ta</i>Z and <i>ShaK</i> who show that the source of this ruling (<i>O.</i>Z.) substantiates their emendation of <i>Caro</i>’s text. Cur. edd. are faulty and imply that the words, ‘one does not observe mourning for him’ refer to the second one, even if he dies after thirty days, on the principle that since the first was a non-viable birth, the second one should also be considered thus. This explanation is rejected by <i>Ta</i>Z and <i>ShaK</i> according to whom, if the second one dies after thirty days we are dutibound to mourn for him alone and we do not say that since the second one is a viable birth then the first should also be considered viable.  <i>Hag. Asheri</i> M.K. III end s.v. <span>תאומים</span> on the authority of <i>O.</i> Z. and Naz. 13a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>והפילה</span>.</i>
For his teacher who taught him wisdom, he observes the laws of <i>Aninuth</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">62</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos. Derived from Y.Ber. III, 1(6a) where mention is made of different customs adopted by certain scholars with respect to eating meat and drinking wine after the death of their teacher. Some accepted the observance of mourning rites, yet ate meat and drank wine. One scholar, it is recorded, ate only lentils. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 242, 27; 341, 1 <i>Gloss.</i></i> only that he may recite the benediction [before] and say grace [after meals],<sup class="footnote-marker">63</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 341, 1.</i> and he mourns for him by removing his sandals [or shoes], and [he observes] all the laws of mourning for one day [only].<sup class="footnote-marker">64</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. <i>supra</i> § 242, 25 where it is stated that part of the first day is sufficient.  M.K. 20b.</i> <i>Caro writes on the authority of R. Simḥa that he is required to change his</i> [<i>customary</i>] <i>place in the Synagogue</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">65</sup><i class="footnote"> M.K. 22b and cf. <i>supra</i> § 344, 18.</i> <i>However</i>, [<i>if one does this only</i>] <i>during part of the day</i> [<i>it</i>] <i>suffices</i>.
[With respect to] a <i>Nasi</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">66</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> despite the fact that all people may defile themselves for him, — [the law is that] one does not mourn for him.<sup class="footnote-marker">67</sup><i class="footnote">Y.Naz. VII, 1(56a); Y.Ber. III, 1(6a); <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.; RaBaD.</i> As far as defilement is concerned, he is regarded as a corpse whose burial is a religious duty, but mourning is not mentioned regarding him.  however, <i>supra</i> § 340, 7 and cf. <i>W.G. ibid.</i> n. 39.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that one does not mourn for his first son</i><sup class="footnote-marker">68</sup><i class="footnote">Who is not a firstborn.</i> <i>or</i> [<i>even</i>] <i>his firstborn son, who died</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">69</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo, RIBaSh</i> and <i>B.Yos.</i> cite the authority for this custom, but they write that the ruling is erroneous — <i>G.</i></i> <i>However, this custom is erroneous, but one is dutibound to mourn for them. Nevertheless, the custom has spread in our city that a father and mother do not follow</i> [<i>the funeral procession of</i>] <i>their first son</i> [<i>on its way</i>] <i>to the cemetery. Some say that during the time a plague</i> [<i>rages</i>] <i>one does not observe mourning rites out of fear</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">70</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIL Resp.</i> s. 3 — <i>G.</i> On account of the spreading epidemic.</i> <i>and I have heard that some have adopted this practice</i>.

Siman 375

From what time does the mourning [-period] take effect? — As soon as [the corpse] has been buried and the closing of the grave with earth has been completed, the mourning [-period] commences forthwith.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 27a in accord with R. Joshua. The meaning of ‘closing of the tomb by the <i>Golel’</i> is adopted here in accordance with the interpretation of <i>R. Tam contra Rashi</i> (v. <i>supra</i> § 373, 6 and notes). Cf. Ber. 19b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>מדלגין</span>; Shab. 152b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>עד</span>; Ket. 4b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>עד</span>; Suk. 23a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ולא</span>; San. 47b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>משיסתום</span>; Sem(H). IV, 7; X, 9; Mid. Sh. Tob Ps. XVI, 3: ‘“<i>As for the holy that are in the earth</i>,’ (The patriarchs) were called ‘holy’ only after they died, and the top-stone (<i>Golel</i>) closed the grave.” Thus also <i>Asheri</i> and <i>Tur</i> on the authority of the <i>Geonim.</i>  also Yad, <i>Ebel</i> I, 2 and <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i></i> He [the mourner] wraps his head [in mourning]<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"> M.K. 24a.</i> but does not remove his shoes until he reaches his house.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> — <i>G.</i>  Y.M.K. III 5(82d); Y.Ta‘an. I, 6(64c); Y.Ber. II, 7(5b); Y.Yoma VIII, 1(44d); Ta‘an. 13a; M.K. 15b; Sem(H). V, 12. The <i>Codifiers</i> also refer to Tosef. as one of the sources for this ruling. <i>W.G.</i> states that this is not found in our edition of Tosef.  however, Tosef(Z). Ta‘an. I, 6 where this ruling is found. Cf. <i>infra</i> § 382, 4.</i> Now it is customary to remove one's shoes [in mourning] immediately after the closing of [the grave] by the <i>Golel</i><sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> as stated in § 376. <i>Gloss</i>:<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 372, 1 — <i>G.</i> The reason why <i>Isserles</i> refers to § 372 may be as follows: For it is explained (<i>ibid.</i>) that human dignity (in proper appearance) is very important. Hence, only on the cemetery grounds the mourner should remove his shoes, but when he returns to his home he should put them on, since it is disgraceful to walk barefooted outside — <i>A.H.</i> It is, however, quite possible that the reference § 372 is a misprint and should be § 373 in which par. 6 deals with the defilement of a <i>Kohen</i> for his near-of-kin which is permitted until the closing of the tomb by the <i>Golel.</i> According to <i>Tosefeth Shabbath</i> it should read infra § 382 which see.</i> <i>If one thought that the grave had been closed and commenced to observe mourning rites and later it became known to him that he was mistaken, he begins the observance of mourning rites anew.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri</i> Rule 27, s. 8 — <i>G.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> § 340, 25. Here we deal with a case where one commenced the observance of mourning rites during the day and later he discovered that the burial had actually taken place at night. Consequently, the day cannot be counted as one of the seven days of mourning — <i>A.H.</i> Regarding the recital of <i>Kaddish</i>, v. <i>infra</i> § 376 difference of opinion between <i>Ta</i>Z and <i>ShaK.</i></i>
Those who are wont to send the corpse to another large town for burial and they know not when he [the corpse] will be buried, — [the law is that] as soon as they [the mourners] turn their faces [to come back] from escorting [the corpse], they begin to count the seven and thirty [days of mourning] and commence [forthwith] the observance of mourning rites,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> I, 5 — <i>G.</i> Derived from M.K. 22a in accord with Raba. This ruling applies only where they sent the corpse for burial in another city, but if the burial takes place on the outskirts of the same city, the law is that those who return from the city gates, commence their mourning rites only after they are informed that the corpse had already been buried. Thus <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> and <i>B.Yos.</i> — <i>ShaK.</i> However, if after returning from the city gates where the corpse was buried on the outskirts of the city, they removed their shoes and commenced the observance of mourning rites, and later, after nightfall, those who accompanied the corpse to the graveyard, returned and reported that the corpse was interred when it was still day, the law is that although the mourners commenced their mourning whilst being unaware of the time of burial, the day is regarded as part of the mourning period. This follows from <i>Isserles</i> ruling <i>supra</i> par. 1, where one is required to begin the observance of mourning anew, only when he discovered later that he was mistaken, from which it follows, that if subsequently, as in the present case, it was found that mourning rites began at the proper time, the mourning already observed counts as part of the required period — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> and those who accompany<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘go.’</i> him [the corpse], count [the days of mourning] from [the time] that he is buried. However, if the chief of the family accompanies him [the corpse — the law is that] even those who remain here, count only from [the time] he is buried.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Y.M.K. III, 5(82c) cited by <i>Tosaf.</i> M.K. 22a s.v. (<span>מהדריתן</span>) and <i>Asheri ibid.</i>, although both had different readings in Y. There are three interpretations on this ruling, viz., a) <i>Asheri</i> followed by <i>Tur:</i> If the chief of the family remains here, then even all those who accompany the corpse to the burial place, count the period of mourning from the time that the corpse leaves. If, however, the family chief accompanies the corpse, then even those who remain at home count from the time that the corpse is interred. b) <i>Tosaf.</i> adopts a stringent view, viz., that if the family chief accompanies the corpse, everyone counts from the time of burial (similar to <i>Asheri</i>), but if he remains here, then those who remain with him commence the observance of mourning forthwith, and those who accompany the corpse are required to begin the observance of formal mourning from the time of burial. However, those who accompany the corpse should observe some mourning rites forthwith out of respect to the family chief, although the seven day period of formal mourning begins for them after burial. c) <i>Caro:</i> If the chief of the family accompanies the corpse, then even those who remain here count from the time of burial, from which it follows that if the family chief remains here, we revert to the first ruling recorded at the outset of this par. viz., that those who remain here begin to count the seven days of mourning forthwith, and those who accompany the corpse from the time of burial. Hence, <i>Caro</i>’s interpretation is in accord neither with a) nor b). For according to b) even if the family chief remains here, those who accompany the corpse, it is true, commence the observance of formal mourning from burial, but they are also required to observe some mourning rites forthwith out of respect to the family chief, and according to a) if the family chief remains here, then all, — even those who accompany the corpse, begin the counting of the seven days of mourning from the time the corpse leaves. <i>Caro</i>’s interpretation may be the result of a) a different reading in Y. <i>ibid.</i>, or b) he follows <i>Maim</i>. in Yad <i>ibid</i>. and makes no distinction regarding the family chief and consequently does not take into consideration the stringency of <i>Tosaf.</i> — <i>ShaK. A.H. Caro</i>’s ruling, viz., that when the family chief accompanied the corpse, even those who remain here count from the time of burial, applies only if the family chief will reach the burial place within three days, otherwise they begin counting forthwith and the family chief from burial (v. M.K. 22a) — <i>ShaK.</i>  <i>infra</i> § 399, 14 where <i>Caro</i> rules that ‘one who suffered a bereavement on the eve of a Festival day and he was afraid lest he have not sufficient time to bury the corpse prior to the advent of the Festival whilst it is still day and gave the corpse over to Gentiles to attend to the burial, the law is that as soon as they carry the corpse out of the city and he can no longer be seen by the near-of-kin, mourning takes effect upon him, and if it is one hour prior to the Festival and he observed mourning rites therein, the restrictions of the seven days become annulled although he was buried on the Festival proper.’ This means that even if the corpse was buried on the Festival, in which case mourning is usually postponed until after the Holiday period is over, yet, since the corpse was transferred to the Gentiles prior to the advent of the Festival, it is considered as if the burial had taken place before the Festival and the seven days of mourning become annulled. This presents a difficulty. For in the present ruling it is implied (v. <i>supra</i> n. 7) that if the burial takes place on the outskirts of the city, the mourning period begins from the time of burial. How is it possible for <i>Caro</i> (<i>infra</i> § 399) to rule that the entire period of mourning becomes annulled even if the burial attended to by the Gentiles took place after the advent of the Festival? This apparent contradiction is removed only if we assume that <i>Caro</i> holds that in the case of a Festival the law is different, since from the moment the Jew transfers the corpse to the Gentiles for burial we regard the corpse as having been already interred which is similar to the case of one who is taken out for burial to another city where mourning rites begin from the moment they turn away their faces — <i>D.Merb.</i></i> The chief of the family<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 22a.</i> means the one upon whom [the people of] the household depend and who are guided by him, irrespective whether he is a brother or a young son.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Asheri, Tur</i> a.o. If one’s wife dies, the husband is regarded as the chief of the family — <i>ShaK.</i></i> However, there is one authority who says that he must be [at least] thirteen years old.<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos</i> on the authority of <i>Hag. Maim.</i> and <i>SeMaK.</i></i>
If they remove the corpse from one grave to another grave, — [the law is that] if they buried him in the first grave with the intention that he remain buried therein forever, only that subsequently they decided to remove him therefrom, they count [the days of mourning] only from the [time] that he was buried in the first grave, even if they removed him within the seven [days of mourning]. But if at the outset they buried him with the intention to remove him [therefrom] whenever the matter will come to hand, they commence the mourning [-period] forthwith; if, however, [in this case] they removed him within the seven [days of mourning], they [begin to] count again [the seven days of mourning] from [the moment] that he is buried a second time. If they did not remove him until after the seven [days of mourning, then] their mourning [-period] has passed, and they do not observe mourning for him a second time;<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">Y.M.K III, 5(82c) quoted by <i>Asheri</i> M.K. III and <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i></i> and if at the outset their intention was to remove him therefrom within the seven [days of mourning], they do not begin to count until he is buried in the second grave.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri ibid</i>. regarding the death of <i>R. Kolonymos</i>, the Elder, of Speyers. Cf. also Sem(H). X, 8 and references.</i>
If they placed the corpse in a coffin and put it<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">The coffin.</i> into another house because the city was under siege, they [should begin to] count for him forthwith the seven and the thirty [days of mourning], although their intention is to bury him in the cemetery after the siege [is over] and the closing of the coffin [in this case] is regarded as burial<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. Sem. and <i>Asheri ibid.</i> Although the law is that mourning takes effect only after burial (v. <i>supra</i> par. 1), in the case of a besieged city it is different. Hence, as soon as the closed coffin is placed in another house, this is considered its burial and is comparable to the ruling (v. <i>infra</i> par. 5) where hope was abandoned to bury the corpse, despite the fact that the mourners still entertain the hope of burying the corpse in the cemetery after the siege is lifted, for there is the possibility that the city might be conquered, and consequently, the corpse will have to remain in this condition — <i>ShaK.</i> This applies even if the siege was over within the seven days of mourning, at which time interment was made in the cemetery grounds — <i>A.H.</i></i> and mourning rites become effective upon them forthwith.
Those executed by the government<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> I, 3; Sem(H). II, 9.</i> who are not permitted [by the ruler] to be buried, — when does one begin to observe mourning rites for them and to count the seven and thirty [days of mourning]? — From [the moment] that they have given up hope to [continue] to request the ruler's [permission] to bury them,<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">And it matters not whether they had abandoned hope of recovering the body within or after the thirty days of mourning — <i>ShaK.</i></i> although they have not given up hope of carrying them off stealthily.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Thus accrding to the reading of <i>W.G.</i> in Sem. <i>ibid. contra Mord.</i>  <i>B.Yos. supra</i> § 345, 2 and <i>D.M. ibid.</i> For it is very unlikely to succeed in stealing the corpse. Furthermore, one endangers his life thereby and may be led to profane the Sabbath on account of this. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 341, 4 regarding <i>Aninuth</i> rites in such a case.</i>
One who was informed that heathens have impaled his near-of-kin in another town and [as a result of which] commenced the observance of mourning rites forthwith, but subsequently it became known to him that he<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">His near-of-kin.</i> is still awaiting impalement, — [the law is that] the mourning rites [already observed] do not count for him [as valid] and he must count again from [the time] that [the corpse] is buried or from [the time] they have given up hope of burying him.<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">Opinion of <i>RI</i> and <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> — <i>G.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> § 341, 4 and notes.</i>
For one who drowned in waters<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). II, 10; Y.M.K. III, 5(82a); M.K. 17b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>כשחל</span>; <i>Asheri ibid.</i></i> that have an end,<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">The shores of which one can see from all sides. Thus on the authority of <i>Alfasi</i>. For if the person drowns in waters that have no end, we do not permit his wife to remarry, since the presumption is that he is still living. Hence, no mourning would be observed in such a case. Cf. E.H. § 17, 5 <i>Gloss.</i>  also <i>ShaK</i> and <i>Ta</i>Z. Others maintain that in the case of ‘waters that have no end,’ mourning should be observed, and it goes without saying that the <i>Kaddish</i> should be recited, despite the fact that in the case of a woman who desires to remarry on these grounds, it would not be permitted — <i>P.Tesh.</i> In the case of one who drowned and hope was abandoned to recover the corpse, as a result of which mourning rites were observed, and after the mourning period was over, the body was found (and according to <i>A.H.</i> even if the corpse was found during the mourning period) and buried, one is not required to observe mourning again, unless it was his father, in which case he must rend garments only — <i>Ta</i>Z. Cf. Y.M.K. III, 5(82c) ‘There is rending without mourning.’</i> or for one regarding whom a rumour circulated that robbers have murdered him, or for one whom a beast dragged away,— from what time does one count [the days of mourning]? — From [the time] they have given up the search [for him].<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">Y. and Sem. <i>ibid.</i></i> [If] they found him in limbs and they recognize him through his body marks, one does not count [the days of mourning] for him until he finds his head and the larger portion of his [body], or if they have given up their search [for him].<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">Baraitha cited by <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> — <i>G.</i> This opinion accords with the first opinion in Y. and Sem. <i>ibid.</i> cited by <i>Asheri</i> M.K. </i> If he was found after they had given up hope of [recovering] him, the near-of-kin are not required to observe mourning rites again,<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> Thus also <i>Asheri ibid</i>. on the authority of <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i>.</i> but the children [of the dead person], if they were present there at the time he was found, observe mourning rites for him on that day [only],<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">Even if the children were not present there when the corpse was discovered but they were informed about it on the same day that the corpse was found, they must observe mourning rites the entire day (v. <i>infra</i> § 403, 5). This applies also to other near-of-kin, <i>contra Caro</i> — <i>ShaK</i>.  however, <i>A.H.</i></i> for this is not less important than [the case of] a collection [that is made] of his father's bones.<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">At which time mourning is observed by the near-of-kin.</i> However, if they [the children] are not present there, and they heard [about it] after the day was over, they are not required to observe mourning rites. <i>Gloss</i>: <i>If they sent their dead to another city</i> [<i>for burial, regarding which</i>] <i>the law is that they should begin</i> [<i>to observe</i>] <i>mourning rites from</i> [<i>the time</i>] <i>that they turn their faces</i> [<i>to return from the funeral escort</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">This applies only if the chief of the family did not accompany the corpse to the other city (v. <i>supra</i> par. 2). Thus also <i>D.M.</i> and <i>B.Yos.</i> Therefore, <i>Isserles</i> writes here, ‘if they sent their dead to another city etc.’ For if burial is in the same city, even those who return, mourn only from the time that they are informed that the corpse was interred — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>and they commenced to count the days of mourning, but subsequently the corpse was seized, and it was not released for burial for a long time, —</i> [<i>the law is that</i>] <i>they are not required to interrupt their observance of mourning rites, nor are they required subsequently</i><sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">When the body is released.</i> <i>to observe mourning rites again, for since the law</i> [<i>permits</i>] <i>them to begin</i> [<i>the observance of mourning rites</i>] <i>forthwith, they are not required to interrupt</i> [<i>the mourning</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.</i> M.K. III end — <i>G.</i></i>
One whose near-of-kin died<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 21b.</i> and he did not know [about it] until he arrived at the place where the person died or at the place of burial,<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri</i> M.K.  This has reference only to a case where he arrived at the place of death or burial. Otherwise, he counts on his own (<i>Hag. Asheri ibid.</i> quoted by <i>B.Yos.</i> and <i>D.M</i>.) — <i>ShaK.</i></i> — [the law is that] if he was [at the time the death occurred] in a near place, viz., a distance of ten parasangs [away],<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri ibid.</i> on the authority of the <i>Geonim;</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VII, 4; M.K. 21b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>מקום</span> on the authority of <i>BeHaG.</i></i> so that it was possible for him to arrive in one day,<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">The distance is eight thousand cubits — <i>P.Tesh.</i> It must be a distance that one can cover in a day in order to reach the locality of the corpse or the place of burial. Otherwise, he counts, on his own. Nowadays that one is able to cover much larger distances in a day via train or auto, it falls into the category of a near place. And this is the law — <i>A.H.</i> However, this does not apply to transportation by plane — <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>), <i>Sh.M.B.</i></i> even if he arrived on the seventh day,<sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 22a in accord with R. Simeon. This has reference to his arrival on the night preceding the seventh day or in the morning — <i>A.H.</i></i>—[the law is that] if [upon arrival] he found comforters in the presence of<sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote">Lit ‘beside.’</i> the chief of the household, even if they were [already] preparing [themselves] to get up<sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘bestirred themselves.’</i> [and leave, nevertheless], since he found comforters, <i>i.e., they were still observing mourning rites</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">39</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> and <i>RaShBA</i> Resp. 478 — <i>G.</i></i> he is credited [with the mourning already observed],<sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote">This is an undecided question in M.K. ibid., and we adopt the lenient view. If the mourners, however, observe mourning rites in another place, which is not the place of death or burial, the one who arrives counts on his own — <i>ShaK.</i></i> and he counts with them the completion of the thirty day [mourning period]. But if he did not find comforters [upon his arrival], he counts on his own. So too, if he was in a distant place, even if he arrived on the second day, he counts on his own the seven and thirty [days of mourning] from the day he arrives. <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And some say that even if one arrived and the chief</i> [<i>of the household</i>] <i>is not home, but had left</i> [<i>to attend</i>] <i>to the needs of the corpse,—</i> [<i>the law is that</i>] <i>if he returned within three days, he is regarded as if he were at home, and the one who arrives within the three days counts with them</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote">Thus in <i>Tur</i> — <i>G.</i> So too, if the chief of the family returned from attending to the corpse’s needs, even on the seventh day, in a case where the burial was nearby and the chief of the family had already begun the observance of mourning rites along with the other members of the family, — then the one who arrives from a ‘near place’ and was unaware of the death prior to his arrival, counts with them — <i>ShaK, A.H.</i> If the chief of the family arrived from a ‘near place’ and was unaware of the death prior to his arrival, he counts on his own — <i>ShaK.</i> Likewise, in the case where there is no family chief, the one who arrives counts on his own — <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>and the lenient view should be adopted in accord with this opinion. And one who in accordance with the law counts with them, —</i> [<i>the law is that</i>] <i>even if he later returned to his home, he</i> [<i>still continues to</i>] <i>count with them.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">42</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaShBA</i> s. 477 — <i>G.</i></i>
This<sup class="footnote-marker">43</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Supra</i> par. 8.</i> applies only [to a case] where he did not hear that he [his near-of-kin] had died until he arrived [at the place of death or burial], but if it became known to him [in his place] on the second day and he commenced to observe mourning rites, he should not shorten his [period of] mourning on grounds that he [now] has arrived in their midst.<sup class="footnote-marker">44</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri.</i> In the Talmud (M.K. <i>ibid.</i>) no distinction is made between his knowledge of the death before or after he arrives. In fact <i>N</i> holds that there should be no difference. <i>Asheri</i> disputes this and makes a distinction. <i>Caro</i> follows <i>Asheri</i> and this is also the view of <i>Maim.</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VII, 4 and is adopted as the final law — <i>A.H.</i></i>
One who was in mourning and within the seven [days] suffered another bereavement, counts seven days of mourning from [the time] of the latter bereavement, and [the days thus observed] are accounted for him also as the completion of the seven days of mourning after the first bereavement.<sup class="footnote-marker">45</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.</i> M.K. III end on the authority of <i>R. Shlomo of Troyes.</i>  also <i>Hag. Maim.</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VIII, 3.</i>
One who recited the evening <i>Tefillah</i> and it is still day,<sup class="footnote-marker">46</sup><i class="footnote">According to R. Judah in Mishna Ber. IV, 1, the afternoon <i>Tefillah</i> (<i>Minḥah</i>), may be recited until the ‘middle of the afternoon’ (<span>פלג המנחה</span>) i.e., until one hour and a quarter before sunset, after which the evening <i>Tefillah</i> (<i>Ma‘arib</i>) may be recited. Accordingly, the individual in the present case recited the evening <i>Tefillah</i> while it was still day.</i> and [then heard that he had suffered a bereavement, there is an authoriity who says that he counts [the days of mourning] from the following day and that day [the previous day] does not enter [into the counting].<sup class="footnote-marker">47</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord. ibid.</i> Were we to permit him to count the previous day as part of the mourning period, it would result in adopting two contradictory leniencies. For on one hand, by reciting the evening <i>Tefillah</i> (<i>Ma‘arib</i>) after the ‘middle of the afternoon,’ he considers it already night, and on the other hand, if we permit him to count the day as part of the mourning period, it would mean that he considers it still day. However, if he had not yet recited the evening <i>Tefillah</i>, the day is counted in his mourning period (<i>MaHaRShaL</i> and <i>BaḤ</i>), although the Congregation had already recited it — <i>ShaK.</i> One who received ‘near tidings’ (i.e., news of a death received within thirty days after death) at twilight, may count the preceding day as part of his mourning period — <i>P.Tesh. Caro</i>’s ruling has reference only to the observance of mourning rites, but as far as <i>Yahrzeit</i> (anniversary of death) is concerned, that day is counted as the day on which <i>Yahrzeit</i> is fixed — <i>P.Tesh.</i> Although in <i>Caro</i>’s ruling mourning begins on the following day, the <i>Tefillin</i> (phylacteries), however, should be donned (v. <i>infra</i> § 388) — <i>A.H.</i></i>

Siman 376

The comforters are not permitted to open [conversation] until the mourner opens first; and the mourner reclines at the head [of the mourner's meal];<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid</i>.; Ket. 69b. This refers to meals served in the house of mourning, and is derived from Job’s statement, <i>‘I chose out their way, and sat chief</i> (head), <i>and dwelt as a king in the army, as one comforteth the mourners’</i> (Job XXIX, 25). The last part of the verse, <i>‘as one comforteth the mourners’</i> is rendered as the Pu‘al <span>ינוחם</span> i.e., <i>‘one who is comforteth.’</i> This is in accord with R. Abbahu <i>ibid.</i> Mar Zutra derives this ruling from Amos VI, 7, which he interprets as, <i>‘he who is bitter</i> (of soul) <i>and distracted</i> (through bereavement) <i>is made the chief of those banqueting</i> (i.e., the mourner must sit at the head of the meal).’ E. has, <i>‘and the revelry of them that stretched themselves shall pass away.’</i></i> and as soon as the mourner nods his head in a manner from which it is indicative that he dismisses the comforters,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">So that they retire.</i> they are not permitted to remain seated by him.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 27b in accord with R. Joḥanan. For the mourner is not permitted to bid them farewell with the word ‘Peace’ <span>שלום</span> — <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> on the authority of <i>Ghayyat.</i></i> <i>A mourner or a sick person are not required to rise even on account of a Nasi</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos. M.K. III (27b) — <i>G.</i> For this is not considered rising that bestows honour — <i>R. A. Eger.</i>  Kid. 32b.</i>
To one who comes to show honour to his friend<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Who is an elderly or distinguished person.</i> and to rise at his presence, [the latter] should say, 'Be seated,' unless he is a mourner or a sick person,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Who rose, although he is not required to do so (cf. <i>supra</i> par. 1) — <i>A.H.</i></i> — for [such a statement] would imply, 'Be seated in your mourning,' or 'Be seated in your illness.'<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 27b.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>A man should not say, 'I was not punished in accordance with my</i> [<i>evil</i>] <i>deeds,' or anything similar to these words, for a man should never utter anything in such a way as to give Satan an opening</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Thus implied in Ber. 19a and <i>Hag. Alfasi ibid.</i> — <i>G.</i> Uttering such words would invite Satan to inflict more punishment.</i> <i>Neither should a man say to a mourner, 'What could you have done; it is impossible to change</i> [<i>God's verdict</i>],' <i>for this is regarded as blashphemy, since it implies that were it possible to change</i> [<i>the verdict</i>] <i>he would have done so; but one should accept God's decree out of love</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N.Yos.</i> to B.K. 38a — <i>G. MaHaRShaL</i> rejects this ruling in view of the fact that King David uttered a similar statement on the loss of his child, viz., <i>‘But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast</i>? <i>Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me’</i> (II Sam. XII, 23), which implies that were it possible to bring him back again, he would have done so. <i>Ta</i>Z opposes <i>MaHaRShaL</i> and defends this ruling on the grounds that in the case of King David he merely expressed the fact that after death, fasting etc. is of no avail, but prior to death, needless to say, one should engage in prayer and fasting in order to counteract impending death. But once a person has suffered a bereavement, prayer and fasting no longer help. Hence, if one says to a mourner, ‘What could you have done etc.’ it is tantamount to blashphemy.  also <i>P.Tesh.</i> For this very reason the <i>Taḥanun</i> prayer is not recited in a mourner’s home, since it contains the words, ‘I have sinned etc.,’ nor the penitential prayer (<span>והוא רחום</span>) which contains, ‘deal not with us according to our sins’ — <i>A.H.</i>  <i>infra</i> par. 3 and notes. The custom not to remove anything from the home of a mourner has no basis — <i>Yosef Omeẓ. R. A. Eger</i> however, adopts a stringency in this matter.<br>The mirrors are covered up in a home where mourning services are held because one is not permitted to recite prayers in front of a mirror so as not to pray to one's reflection — <i>Reshumoth</i> I, p. 371. For additional reasons, v. <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>) I, p. 262, 11.</i>
A corpse who leaves<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘has.’</i> no mournerrs to be comforted,— [the law is that] ten worthy people come and sit in his place<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">Where the person died. This is done every day. It is, however, not necessary that they remain there throughout the day.</i> throughout the seven days of mourning and the rest of the people assemble unto them. If ten permanent people were not present there daily, ten of the rest of the people assemble and sit in his place.<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">Shab. 152a. Cf. Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XIII, 4. This affords pleasure to the soul of the departed, as it is related (<i>ibid.</i>) about a certain individual who died in the neighbourhood of R. Judah, and since there were no survivors, he assembled ten men daily in the place where the person died. After the seven days, the dead person appeared to R. Judah in a dream and said to him, ‘Let your mind be at ease, for you have set my mind at ease.’</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>However, I have not seen this custom in practice. In the</i> [<i>writings</i>] <i>of Maharil it is stated that it is customary to recite the Tefillah</i><sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>in</i> [<i>the presence of</i>] <i>ten</i> [<i>males</i>] <i>throughout the seven</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>] <i>at the place where the person died</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"> O.Ḥ. § 134, 4 where it is stated that the <i>Taḥanun</i> prayer is not recited in the house of a mourner for the entire seven days (v. <i>supra</i> n. 10). Nor is the <i>Hallel</i> said in a mourner’s house on <i>Rosh Ḥodesh</i>, for it contains the verse, <i>‘the dead praise not the Lord’</i> and this would be regarded as mocking the poor (-dead) — <i>Ta</i>Z. It is customary, however, that <i>Hallel</i> is said in a house of mourning, only that the mourners leave the room when the <i>Hallel</i> is recited. There is a further reason why the <i>Hallel</i> is omitted by mourners. For it contains verses such as, <i>‘This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will be glad and rejoice thereon,’</i> which is not in keeping with mourning rites. A mourner may recite the <i>Habdalah</i> prayer during the mourning period, but should omit the introductory verses which express joy. Only the benediction of this prayer should be recited by him. If the seventh day of mourning coincides with <i>Rosh Ḥodesh</i>, the mourner should recite the <i>Hallel</i> after the morning services are over, for then he is no longer a mourner — <i>P.Tesh.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> par. 2 and notes. For a complete list of the prayers that are omitted in a mourner’s house, v, <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>) I, pp. 277-28</i> <i>i.e., for a person who left no known</i> [<i>near-of-kin</i>] <i>to observe mourning rites for him;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>infra</i> § 384, 3 <i>Gloss.</i></i> <i>but if he has</i> [<i>near-of-kin</i>] <i>somewhere who observe mourning rites for him, one is not required</i> [<i>to do this</i>]. <i>And this is the practice which is proper to adopt.</i>
Nowadays it is customary that after the closing of the grave with earth has been completed, — <i>or after the mourner turned his face from the corpse</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 375, 2.</i> — they [the mourners] remove [their] shoes and sandals,<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>infra</i> § 382 <i>Gloss</i> end.</i> and keep away a short [distance] from the burial grounds<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">At least four cubits, for the law is that a corpse takes possession of this distance. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 367, 6. If the interment takes place at night, <i>Ẓidduk ha-Din</i> and <i>Kaddish</i> are not recited at the cemetery.  <i>infra</i> § 401, 6 <i>Gloss.</i></i> and [then] say <i>Kaddish</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> [viz., 'May His great Name be magnified and sanctified in] the world that He will create anew etc.,'<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>T.H.</i></i> after which they detach earth<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">And one says, ‘<i>He remembereth that we are dust</i>’ (Ps. CIII, 14).</i> and pluck grass<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">An allusion to the resurrection of the dead. One says, ‘<i>And they of the city shall flourish like the grass of the earth’</i> (Is. XXVI, 19). <i>Kol Bo</i> writes that the grass is plucked together with the earth and thrown above the head, alluding to <i>‘and threw dust upon their heads toward heaven’</i> (Job. II, 12). Cf. Y. Sota II, 2(18a); Num. R. IX, 20, where the explanation is advanced why in the case of a woman suspected of faithlessness (<span>סוטה</span>) the Torah (Num. V, 12-31) required water, earth and writing in order to test her. ‘Water’ indicates whence a person comes; ‘earth,’ — whither one goes; ‘writing,’ — before whom one is destined to give an account (v. Aboth III, 1). The same symbolism may be seen here. An additional reason is that it alludes to purification from uncleanness through water, ashes and the hyssop (Num. XIX) — <i>T.H.</i> Grass may be plucked even on <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> (the weekday of the Festival).</i> [out of the ground] and cast it behind their back and wash their hands with water.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote">This has reference only to one who accompanied the corpse to the cemetery and returned after burial, but not to one who merely escorts the bier and returns before burial — <i>A.H.</i> When washing the hands one should say, <i>‘our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it … Forgive, O Lord, Thy people Israel … So shalt thou put away the innocent blood from the</i> <i>midst of thee’</i> (Deut. XXI, 7-9) — <i>Tur.</i> The custom to place a glass or vessel containing water in a house of mourning should be abolished, for this is considered a heathen practice. However, a candle or lamp should be lit, for <i>‘the soul of man is the lamp of the Lord</i>’ (Prov. XX, 27) — <i>A.H.</i> The candle should be lit for the entire seven days of mourning, even when the person died during the Festival in which case mourning rites begin after the Festival, — yet the candle or lamp should be lit forthwith — <i>Naḥlath Shibah.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that</i> [<i>after burial</i>] <i>they sit down seven times</i><sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 366, n. 1.</i> <i>because the</i> [<i>evil</i>] <i>spirits follow him</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">The corpse.</i> <i>and so long as they sit down, they</i><sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">The evil spirits.</i> <i>flee from him</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIL Resp.</i> 23 on the authority of <i>‘some say’</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>and in these countries the custom prevails to sit down only three times after they have washed their hands, and each time</i> [<i>they sit down</i>] <i>they say, 'And let the graciousness of the Lord our God be upon us etc.'</i><sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">Ps. XC, 17.</i> <i>'O thou that dwellest in the covert of the most High etc..'</i><sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> XCI, and should be recited seven times as follows: a) until the word <span>כי</span> incl. b) until <span>מלאכיו</span> incl. c) until <span>יצוה</span> incl. d) until <span>לך</span> incl. e) until <span>לשמרך</span> incl. f) until <span>בכל</span> incl. g) until <span>דרכיך</span> incl. — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>When the corpse is buried on a Festival, one may six thus three times as on a weekday</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">I found this stated in <i>Hag. Minhagim</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>Likewise, if one was buried close to</i> [<i>the advent of</i>] <i>the Sabbath, this is done</i> [<i>even</i>] <i>on the Sabbath. It is the adopted practice to be particular with one lest he enter another house before he washes</i> [<i>his hands</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">One should not take the burial implements, e.g., the spade or shovel directly from another person’s hands. The same applies to the vessel of water used for washing one’s hands. Those who did not visit the burial grounds for thirty days, say, <i>‘Blessed be the Lord … who formed you in judgment</i>.’  <i>Siddur</i>.</i> <i>and sits down three times, and the custom of our ancestors is</i> [<i>considered binding</i>] <i>law</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIL ibid.</i> — <i>G.</i> For the expression ‘the custom of our ancestors is law,’ v. Men. 20b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>נפסל</span>.</i> <i>In the Midrashim</i><sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>it is found that one should recite Keddish</i><sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>for a father.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo; RIBaSh</i> on the authority of Tanḥ. (<i>Noaḥ</i> II (Bub.); Sifre; <i>Baḥya</i> (comment. to <i>Shofetim</i> end) on the authority of Mas. Kal. (ed. Coronel pp. 4b, 19b); <i>B.Yos.</i> on the authority of Zohar (<i>Ruth</i>) ; <i>Or Zaru‘a</i> (ed. Jitomir II, 11) on the authority of Tanna debe Eliyahu Rabba — <i>G.</i> Cf. also the following sources: Otiyyoth de R. Akiba s.v. zayin; Tanna debe Eliyahu Zuta XII, XVII; <i>Menorath ha-Maor</i> I, 1, Pt. II, § 1; <i>Menashe b. Israel, Nishmath Ḥayyim</i> II, 27; Test of Abraham a, XIV; San. 104a; Gen. R. § 63; <i>Sefer Ḥasidim</i> (ed. Wiztinetzki) n. 32; <i>J.E.</i> Vol. VII, p. 401-2. All the above references stress the redeeming powers of the <i>Kaddish</i> recited by a son for his father. If one is survived only by daughters, the latter are not permitted to recite the Kaddish in the Synagogue, but they should respond by saying ‘Amen’ when the Kaddish is said in the Synagogue — <i>P.Tesh.</i> Cf. <i>Kol Bo(G</i>) p. 375, n. 33.</i> <i>Therefore, it is the adopted practice to recite the last Kaddish</i> [<i>concluding the services</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Kaddish</i> recited after <span>עלינו</span>.</i> <i>twelve months for a father and mother.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">Thereby the souls of one’s parents are redeemed from the torture of the Gehenna. Cf. ‘Ed. II, 10; R.H. 17a.</i> <i>Likewise, is it common usage</i> [<i>for a mourner</i>] <i>to recite the Haftarah</i><sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>in the Prophets and to lead the services at the evening prayers at the conclusion of the Sabbath, which is the time when the souls</i> [<i>of the departed</i>] <i>return to Gehenna; and when the</i> [<i>mourning</i>] <i>son leads the Services and sanctifies</i> [<i>the name of God</i>] <i>in public, he</i> [<i>thereby</i>] <i>redeems his father and mother from Gehenna.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> on the authority of <i>Hag.</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>It is the adopted usage to recite Kaddish for one's mother although the father is still living</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote">If both are living one should not say the mourner’s <i>Kaddish.</i> One may however, say the <i>Kaddish de Rabbanan</i> (scholars’ <i>Kaddish</i>) — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> [<i>and the latter</i>] <i>has no right to prevent his son from reciting Kaddish for his mother</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote">Thus the opinion of <i>B.Yos.</i> in accordance with the accepted custom — <i>G.</i></i> <i>It is a religious duty to fast on the day that one's father and mother died</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">39</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RIBaSh</i> and <i>Kol Bo</i> — <i>G.</i> Cf. Sheb. 20a and <i>infra</i> § 378,  If one finds it difficult to fast, he should contribute money to the poor. Throughout the twelve month period of mourning one should study Mishna (including the <i>Yahrzeit</i> day), for Mishna (<span>משנה</span>) is comprised of the same letters as <span>נשמה</span> (-soul). This has a redeeming influence.</i> [<i>In the case of</i>] <i>three brothers and a stranger</i><sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote">e., one who is not their brother although he is a resident in the community — <i>ShaK.</i></i> [<i>with respect to the rules of precedence concerning the recital of Kaddish, — the law is that</i>] <i>the three brothers get</i> [<i>priority to recite</i>] <i>three Kaddishim</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>and the other</i><sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote">The stranger.</i> <i>gets</i> [<i>priority to recite</i>] <i>one Kaddish</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">42</sup><i class="footnote">For we guide ourselves with respect to the rules of precedence in accordance with the living and not the dead. Mourners should recite the <i>Kaddish</i> in unison — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> <i>It is customary that when the day on which one's father or mother died, arrives, one always recites the mourner's</i><sup class="footnote-marker">43</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘orphan’s.’</i> <i>Kaddish for them. One who knows how to lead the entire Service should do so. However, if there are other mourners</i> [<i>present</i>], <i>it is customary that within the seven days of their mourning</i> [<i>period</i>], <i>they take precedence and he</i><sup class="footnote-marker">44</sup><i class="footnote">The one observing the <i>Yahrzeit.</i></i> <i>has no</i> [<i>priority</i>] <i>rights</i> [<i>regarding</i>] <i>the Kaddish at all; if within</i> [<i>their</i>] <i>thirty</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>], <i>he has</i> [<i>priority rights to recite</i>] <i>one Kaddish;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">45</sup><i class="footnote">Some, however, hold that a <i>Yahrzeit</i> takes precedence over one who is within the thirty days of the observance of mourning rites.  <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> [<i>if</i>] <i>after</i> [<i>their</i>] <i>thirty</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>], <i>— all the Kaddishim of that day belong to him.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">46</sup><i class="footnote">The following is a summary of the laws of precedence with respect to the recital of <i>Kaddish</i> based upon <i>ShaK, Ta</i>Z and the <i>Later Authorities:</i> a) A resident takes precedence over a stranger; b) It is only the first time a stranger comes to the services that he has a right to lead the service and has priority rights to recite one <i>Kaddish</i> where the resident has similar rights; c) Some adopt the practice that a stranger is on an equal footing with a resident with respect to <i>Kaddish</i>, as long as he is a permanent resident in the city, even if he does not pay taxes; d) One who is within the seven days of his mourning period, whether a resident or a stranger, whether of minority or majority age, takes precedence over the other mourners with respect to all the <i>Kaddishim</i> recited, and even if a Festival arrived at which time the seven or thirty days of mourning become annulled (v. <i>infra</i> § 399), it does not apply to the recital of <i>Kaddish.</i> Furthermore, with respect to <i>Kaddish</i> we do not apply the principle ‘that part of the day is considered as the whole day.’ This means that one is regarded to be within his seven or thirty days with respect to the recital of <i>Kaddish</i> until seven or thirty complete days have passed. As to the observance of mourning rites, the above principle applies (v. <i>infra</i> § 395) ; e) One who is within his thirty days of mourning and one observing <i>Yahrzeit</i> each have a right to recite one <i>Kaddish;</i> f) One who is within his thirty days of mourning takes precedence over one observing <i>Yahrzeit</i>, although the latter has a right to recite one <i>Kaddish</i> (v. however, <i>supra</i> n. 45) ; g) If there are many observing <i>Yahrzeit</i>, the one who is within his thirty days is overridden; h) If there are many observing <i>Yahrzeit</i> and one who is within his seven days of mourning, the latter has a right to one <i>Kaddish</i> and the others cast lots; i) If there are many who are within their thirty days of mourning, one observing <i>Yahrzeit</i> and one within his twelve month period of mourning, the latter is overridden entirely, and all the <i>Kaddishim</i> of that day belong to the one observing <i>Yahrzeit;</i> j) The <i>Kaddish</i> recited after the daily Psalm (<span>שיר של יום</span>) and after the Sabbath Psalm (<span>מזמור שיר ליום השבת</span>) belong to the mourners. In general, the laws of precedence have no fundamental basis in Jewish Law, and nowadays all recite the <i>Kaddish</i> — <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>The seven and thirty</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>] <i>are counted from the day of burial, even if</i> [<i>the mourner</i>] <i>had not heard</i> [<i>the death report</i>] <i>forthwith.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">47</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIL — G.</i></i> <i>Whether a stranger is regarded as one of the townspeople with respect to this Kaddish, we follow the accepted practice.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">48</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Agur</i> on the authority of <i>MaHaRIL</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>This</i> [<i>above-mentioned</i>] <i>Kaddish applies</i><sup class="footnote-marker">49</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘there is no place … but.’</i> <i>only</i> [<i>where it is recited</i>] <i>for a father and mother alone, but not</i> [<i>in the case of</i>] <i>other near-of-kin.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">50</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Benjamin</i> Z<i>e’eb</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>If there is no one present in the Synagogue who is in mourning for one's father or mother, that Kaddish</i><sup class="footnote-marker">51</sup><i class="footnote">e., the mourner’s <i>Kaddish.</i></i> <i>may be recited by one who has no father and mother on behalf of all the dead of Israel.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">52</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>There are localities where it is customary that other</i> [<i>surviving</i>] <i>near-of-kin recite Kaddish for their relations where</i> [<i>the latter leave</i>] <i>no parental mourners; and there are localities where even if there are parental mourners, the other</i> [<i>surviving</i>] <i>near-of-kin</i> [<i>may also</i>] <i>recite</i> [<i>the Kaddish</i>], <i>only that they</i> [<i>the latter</i>] <i>make a mutual agreement not to recite as many Kaddishim as would the mourners for a father and mother</i> [<i>proper</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">53</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIK</i>, Rt. 44 — <i>G.</i></i> <i>In this entire</i> [<i>matter</i>] <i>we follow the accepted custom, provided the custom is fixed in the</i> [<i>particular</i>] <i>city. The mourners recite Kaddish even on the Sabbath and Festivals</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">54</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Benjamin</i> Z<i>e’eb</i> on the authority of <i>RI</i> of <i>Corbeil</i> — <i>G.</i> One who suffered a bereavement on the Sabbath or Festival at which time it was impossible to bury the corpse, may recite the <i>Kaddish</i> on the Sabbath or the Festival, even before the corpse is interred. This ruling, however, does not apply to a weekday, for then he is an <i>Onen</i> and is exempt from <i>Tefillah</i> etc. (v. <i>supra</i> § 341) — <i>Ta</i>Z.  however, <i>ShaK</i> in <i>Nek</i>. <i>ha-Kesef</i> and also <i>Ḥid. ha-Gershuni</i> who oppose <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> <i>but it is not customary for them to lead the services on the Sabbath and Festivals</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">55</sup><i class="footnote">Thus in <i>MaHaRIL Resp.</i> — <i>G.</i> This applies likewise to a day on which <i>Hallel</i> is recited, unless there is no one available to lead the services or if one is a permanent Congregational reader of prayers. On <i>Rosh Ḥodesh</i> and <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> in the evening, the mourner may lead the services, but not at the morning service — <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>although there exists no prohibition against</i> [<i>this</i>] <i>matter. However, during the weekdays, whoever knows how to lead the Services, should do so, and</i> [<i>this</i>] <i>is</i> [<i>even</i>] <i>more efficacious than</i> [<i>reciting</i>] <i>the mourner's</i><sup class="footnote-marker">43</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘orphan’s.’</i> <i>Kaddish, which was instituted</i> [<i>originally</i>] <i>only for minors</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">56</sup><i class="footnote">The fundamental <i>Kaddishim</i> are those recited during the services. Those recited at the conclusion of the service, e.g., the Kaddish said after <span>עלינו</span> or the daily Psalm <span>שיר של יום</span> were instituted only for minors. Hence, it is most important for one to lead the services and be afforded the opportunity to recite the <i>Kaddishim</i> during the service. Many people err in this and are under the impression that the <i>Kaddish</i> recited at the conclusion of the services is fundamental — <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>And one who knows not how to lead the entire Service, should lead the Service</i> [<i>at least</i>] <i>from</i> [<i>the section beginning with</i>] <i>'For the chief musician etc.,'</i><sup class="footnote-marker">57</sup><i class="footnote">Ps. </i> <i>'And a redeemer shall come to</i> Z<i>ion etc.'</i><sup class="footnote-marker">58</sup><i class="footnote"><span>ובא לציון</span>. This <i>Kaddish</i> is more efficacious than the one concluding the service. <i>Benjamin</i> Z<i>e’eb</i> — <i>G.</i> Should the mourner happen to lead the services in another Synagogue where the version (<span>נוסח</span>) of the service ritual differs from that of his own Svnagogue (e.g., if his custom is to pray in the Ashkenazic version and he comes to a Sephardic Synagogue or vice versa), — he is permitted to change to the service ritual of the Synagogue he happens to be in — <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>).</i> <i>It is the adopted custom to recite Kaddish and lead the Services only for eleven months</i><sup class="footnote-marker">59</sup><i class="footnote">Less one day, even if it is a leap year. All the <i>Kaddishim</i> of that day belong to him. However, one observing <i>Yahrzeit</i> on that day has a right to one <i>Kaddish.</i></i> <i>so that</i> [<i>children</i>] <i>should not consider their father and mother wicked, for the judgment of a wicked person</i> [<i>in Gehenna lasts</i>] <i>twelve months.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">60</sup><i class="footnote">One whose father was a wicked person should recite <i>Kaddish</i> for twelve months.</i> <i>If there were mourners present here</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">61</sup><i class="footnote">e., at the Synagogue services.</i> <i>and later other mourners came, — the latter have</i> [<i>priority with respect to</i>] <i>the Kaddish and</i> [<i>leading</i>] <i>the Services throughout the thirty days</i> [<i>of their mourning</i>] <i>from the day of burial, although</i> [<i>the latter</i>] <i>did not hear</i> [<i>the death report until later</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">62</sup><i class="footnote">e., they were not present at the death or burial.</i> <i>Some say that</i> [<i>in the case of</i>] <i>an apostate Jew who was murdered by heathens</i>, [<i>the law is that</i>] <i>his children recite Kaddish for him.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">63</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaDaK</i> and <i>Benjamin</i> Z<i>e’eb</i> and cf <i>supra</i> § 340, 5 — <i>G.</i> The reason is that having been murdered his sins are forgiven.</i>

Siman 377

For male and female slaves no line [of comforters] is made, nor is consolation offered [to their master], but they say to him, 'May the Lord replace your loss,' even as they say to a man regarding his ox and his ass, ['May the Lord replace your loss'].<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 16b. Nowadays this law does not apply since we do not own slaves.</i>
A mourner who is an excommunicant must not be provided with the mourner's meal,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>infra</i> § 378.</i> nor is consolation offered to him.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>T.H.</i> because it is forbidden for one to be in his four cubits. Anything that brings honour to the living is not done for an excommunicant — <i>ShaK.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> § 345, 4.</i>
[If] an excommunicant died, his mourners may be offered consolation.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> § 345, 1.</i>

Siman 378

A mourner is forbidden to eat of his own at the first meal [after burial],<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 27b in accord with R. Judah on the authority of Rab. Derived from the words of God to Ezekiel, <i>‘And eat thou not the bread of men’</i> (Ezek. XXIV, 17) whence it follows that for others it is done. Should others, however, not provide him with the first meal, or in the case where he is the only Jewish resident in town, he may eat of his own — <i>Ta</i>Z. Some explain that the reason the first meal is provided by others is that usually the mourner immediately after burial refuses to eat and in some cases prefers death — <i>Perisha.</i> The main part of the mourner’s meal is the bread as may be seen from the verse in Ezek. <i>ibid.</i>, but he may eat other dishes of his own even at the first meal — <i>A.H.</i> It is customary to bring him bread with eggs or lentils. Cf. B.B. 16b where it is stated that on the day that Abraham our father died, Jacob made a broth of lentils to comfort his father Isaac (v. Gen. XXV, 29-30 and <i>Rashi</i> a.l.), and the reason it was of lentils is that ‘just as the lentil has no mouth (i.e., no cleft), so too, the mourner has no mouth (i.e., for speech)’. Others say, ‘Just as the lentil is round, so too, mourning rolls and goes around to all the denizens of this world.’ The practical difference between these two explanations is whether we should comfort with eggs, which have no cleft, but are not perfectly round. Hence, according to the first reason offered in the Talmud (B.B. <i>ibid.</i>) one may provide the mourner’s meal with eggs. Some of the <i>Later Authorities</i> hold that also beverages should be provided by others at the first mourner’s meal — <i>Leḥem ha-Panim</i>.</i> but at the second [meal] he is permitted [to eat of his own] even on the first day [of mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Thus also <i>Tur</i> and <i>Asheri</i> who explain that the words, ‘on the first day’ mentioned in M.K. <i>ibid.</i> apply only to the first meal. Cf. Pes. 36a where the expression ‘first day’ (<span>יומא קמא</span>) refers to one meal. So also <i>Hag. Maim. Ebel</i> IV, 9 citing <i>SeMaG</i>, for the underlying principle is that we follow the lenient authority in laws of mourning (M.K. 18a; ‘Er. 46a a.e.). <i>Tosaf.</i> (M.K. 20b s.v. <span>שכבר</span> and 27b s.v. <span>יום</span>) maintain that the mourner must be provided with all the meals he requires on the first day, for they take ‘first day’ to mean the meals of the entire day.</i> A religious duty rests upon his neighbours to provide food for him of their own in order that he should not eat of his own.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Y.M.K III, 5(82b). This refers only to the first meal.</i> One may provide food for another person during the latter's mourning and the latter may in turn provide food for the former during his mourning,<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Even though both are in mourning. M.K. 27b in the case of Rabbah and R. Joseph.</i> provided they do not make such a stipulation at the outset.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Asheri.</i> For if such a stipulation is made it would be considered as though each one ate of his own.</i>
If mourning befell a woman, men should not provide the mourner's meal for her,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XI, 2 because it offers an occasion for sin.</i> but women should provide her with the mourner's meal.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri</i> on the authority of <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg.</i> Cf. Lev. R. VI, 3 and Lam. R. IV, 10 (Buber), according to which a woman should provide the mourner’s meal for another woman in mourning.</i> If mourning befell a married woman, she may not eat the first meal [after burial] of her husband.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri ibid.</i> For since the husband is required to feed her, the food is regarded as her own. When she provides other women with the mourner’s meal, she does not have to obtain her husband’s consent, for this is considered a small matter for which the husband’s approval is unnecessary.  Ḥ.M. § 358 and <i>supra</i> § 248. However, if the husband refuses, she may not bring the mourner’s meal to other women. If both the husband and the wife are mourners, men are permitted to provide the mourner’s meal for both, since the meal in this case is provided mainly for the husband, and indirectly she eats too — <i>A.H.</i> For the same reason, one who obligated himself to feed his son and daughter-in-law or his daughter and son-in-law, and mourning befell them, the latter may not eat of his food — <i>A.H.</i></i> So too, one who has [in his employment] a scribe or a hired man, if [each of them] receives meals as his payment, and mourning befell him, he should not eat the first meal of his employer. But one who feeds a poor person or an orphan [because it is a meritorious act] or his son and daughter without any stipulation,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> par. 1, n. 5. Cf. B.B. 43b, <i>RaShBaM</i> s.v. <span>זה שייך</span>.</i> and mourning befell them, — [the law is that] they may eat the first meal of the master of the house.
If the mourner desires not to eat on the first day,<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from Y.Ber. III, 1(6a) according to the reading of <i>Tur</i> and <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> Cur. edd. of Y. have a different reading. This means that if the mourner desires to fast on the first day, he is permitted (<i>BaḤ</i>) — <i>ShaK. Or</i> Z<i>aru’a</i>, however, rules that the mourner is not permitted to fast unless it is a public fast day, and during the days of Penitence (<span>עשרת ימי תשובה</span>) even if it is his custom to fast, he is not permitted to do so, for it is a religious duty to eat the mourner’s meal — <i>A.H.</i> Cf. <i>M.Abr.</i> to O.Ḥ. § 581, n. 12 and <i>Ba’er Heteb.</i></i> he may eat of his own<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">e., on the second day or on the night following the first day, even if it is his first meal — <i>ShaK.</i></i> even the first meal. <i>Gloss</i>: <i>So too, if he was not provided with the mourner's meal on the first day until</i><sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘which extended to.’</i> <i>the night, he is permitted to eat at night of his own</i><sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">On the same principle as <i>supra</i> n. 10.</i> <i>and he is not required to be provided with the mourner's meal</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of the majority of the <i>Codifiers</i> — <i>G.</i> If the burial took place at night, the mourner’s meal is provided at night, and if he did not eat at night he is provided with same on the following day, for the day follows the night. <i>Isserles’</i> ruling applies only if the mourner’s meal was not provided during the day after burial for the reasons mentioned above — <i>P.Tesh.</i> If the burial took place late Friday afternoon, and there was not sufficient time to provide the mourner’s meal, it must be provided Saturday night — <i>Birke Yos.</i></i>
It was customary to fast on the day of the death of scholars.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">Y.M.K. III, 7(83b) in the case of R. Abbahu, cited by <i>Asheri</i>, Ta‘an.  Cf. Y.Ned. VIII, 1(40d) and <i>supra</i> § 376 <i>Gloss</i> n. 39. From this ruling it follows that the relatives also fasted and did not partake of the mourner’s meal — <i>A.H.</i></i>
[In the case of] one who was buried on the eve of the Sabbath close to nightfall prior to twilight,<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">On the time of the day designated ‘twilight’ (<span>בין השמשות</span>) v. Shab. 34b.</i> there is an authority who says that he should be provided then with the mourner's meal.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.</i> M.K. III end in accord with R. Jose in Pes. 99b.</i> But it seems to me that since this is not obligatory,<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> par. 3.</i> it is better not to provide him then with the mourner's meal on account of the honour due to the Sabbath.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">In order to partake of the Sabbath meal with appetite. Cf. O.Ḥ. § 249, 2. If the mourner desires to eat prior to the advent of the Sabbath, he must not eat of his own — <i>Ḥok. Adam.</i></i> And thus is the accepted custom.
The mourner's meal is not provided for [one whose] infant child died, unless it was thirty complete days old,<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">e., it died on the thirty-first day after birth.</i> or one knows for certain that its months [of pregnancy] were complete.<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">Shab. 136a in the case of the death of the grandson of R. Dimi b. Joseph. One who suffers another bereavement during his mourning period should be provided with the mourner’s meal, although he is in the midst of observing mourning rites for the first bereavement for which he was already provided with the mourner’s meal — <i>A.H.</i></i>
One may sprinkle or sweep [the floors] in the house of mourning and wash dishes, cups, flasks and drinking vessels.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 27a. This is not considered pleasure.</i> However, one does not bring therein perfumes or spices,<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i></i> but he may bring them into a house wherein the corpse lies,<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">For fumigation purposes on account of the bad odour emitted by the corpse.</i> and one does not recite a benediction over them.<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">Ibid., in accord with Bar Kappara. The benediction is not recited since the purpose of the perfumes and spices is merely to deodorize the house.</i> One does not expound legal matters or homiletical interpretations in the house of mourning,<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> 23a. This refers to a <i>Ḥakam</i> who died, whose Academy is in recess (v. <i>supra</i> § 344, 18), and according to Sem(H). X, 14 where the same ruling is found, it appears that this applies to those who assemble at the Academy where the mourning rites are observed at which place it was customary under normal conditions to raise legal and Aggadic questions. In the case of other mourners, studies may be conducted at the place of mourning — <i>A.H.</i></i> but one sits and is silent.
As soon as the corpse is buried, he<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">The mourner.</i> may eat meat and drink some wine<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote"> Ta‘an. 13b; Ned. 56a.</i> during the meal in order to dissolve the food in his bowels, but [he must] not drink to the full.<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote"> Ket. 8b where it is reported that ten cups were instituted to be drunk in a mourner’s home, — three before, three during and four after the meal (cf. Sem(H). XIV, 14 for a different version). Later four more cups were added. However, when this led to intoxication, they reverted to the ‘original practice.’ According to <i>Rashi</i> ‘original practice’ refers to the ten cups; according to <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> it refers to the three cups during the meal only. Cf. Y.Pes. X, 7(37d); ‘Wine during the meal does not lead to intoxication.’ On this ruling cf. also Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IV, 6.</i>
[In] a locality where it is the adopted custom to provide the mourner's meal with meat, wine and savoury dishes, they do so.<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XIV, 13 cited by <i>T.H.</i> and <i>Tur.</i> Cf. also Ned. 56a; Y.Ber. III, 1(6a).</i> [However], at first they provide the mourner's meal with eggs or a dish of lentils as a symbol of mourning,<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> par. 1, n. 1.</i> and then they eat their sufficient requirement.
A great number of people should not [assemble] to eat with the mourner, for this would necessitate that they separate themselves to two different places.<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Maim</i>. derived from Y.M.K. III, 2(82a). If they are obliged to divide themselves into two groups, it would appear more like a social gathering. Hence, the prohibition — <i>ShaK.</i> Those who are relatives may eat with the mourner. So too, those who make the lamentation.  Mishna M.K. 24b; <i>ibid.</i> 25a; Shab. 105b; <i>T.H.</i></i>
Where one is required to count seven [days of mourning] after the Festival,<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote">In the case of one who suffered a bereavement on the Festival or on <i>Ḥol ha-Moed.</i>  O.Ḥ. § 548, 2 and <i>infra</i> § 399, 13.</i> and so too, if one heard [near] tidings on the Sabbath,<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>D.M.</i> a.l. who rules in accord with <i>B.Yos.</i> that the mourner’s meal may be provided on the Sabbath. Cf. however, <i>Ba’er Heteb</i> a.l.</i> the first mourner's meal which is partaken of during the days of mourning must be provided [by others].<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote"> M.K. 20a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>שכבר</span>.</i> <i>However, some say that since the first day</i> [<i>of mourning</i>] <i>was postponed, the mourner's meal is not provided</i> [<i>by others</i>]. <i>And thus is the common practice</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.</i> M.K. III on the authority of ‘some say;’ <i>N.Yos.</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>even where the</i> [<i>first day</i>] <i>enters into the counting of the seven</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>], <i>e.g., in localities where two</i> [<i>Festival</i>] <i>days are observed</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote">In the Diaspora.  further on this ruling <i>infra</i> § 401, 4; O.Ḥ. § 547, 8-9.</i> [<i>in which case</i>] <i>the second</i> [<i>Festival</i>] <i>day is counted</i> [<i>in the seven days of mourning</i>].
The mourner's meal is not provided in the case of distant tidings.<sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.</i> and <i>N.Yos.</i> to M.K. end. Cf. M.K. 24b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v <span>אלא</span> In the case of ‘near tidings’ the mourner’s meal is provided even if the death occurred in another place — <i>A.H.</i> On near and distant tidings, v. <i>infra</i> § 402.</i>
The distinguished comforter among them breaks bread, <i>i.e., breaks bread to recite the blessing before the meal</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">39</sup><i class="footnote">During weekdays.</i> and on the Sabbath he<sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote">The mourner.</i> breaks bread in his usual manner.<sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote">Yalk. Prov. s. 947, on the verse, <i>‘The blessing of the Lord it maketh rich’</i> (Prov. I, 22) which refers to the blessing of the Sabbath, <i>‘and toil addeth nothing thereto</i>’ (<i>ibid.</i>) which refers to mourning. Hence, on the Sabbath which bestows its blessings upon us, the comforter need not hand the bread to the mourner, but during the weekdays when the mourner is engrossed in his mourning (-toil), the comforter hands the bread to the mourner, which is not done under normal conditions. Cf. also Y.Ber. II, 7(5b); Y.M.K. III, 5(82d) ; Gen. R. XI, 1; <i>ibid.</i> C, 7; Shab. 119a (ref. Deut. XIV, 22); Pesik. R. § 46; <i>Hag. Maim.</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IV, 9; Yad, <i>Berakoth</i> VII, 5; O.Ḥ. § 167, 18; Ginzberg L. <i>Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud</i> Vol. I, pp. 385-6.</i>

Siman 379

When grace is recited after meals in the house of mourning, one recites in the fourth benediction the following version:<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 46b.</i> 'Blessed art Thou, Lord our God, King of the Universe, O God our Father, our King, our Creator, our Redeemer, our Holy One, the Holy One of Jacob, [our Shepherd, the Shepherd of Israel, the good King, who does good to all, who day by day has dealt kindly and will deal kindly with us],<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">The words in brackets should also be included, for it goes without saying that these words which are part of the regular version should also be recited — <i>ShaK.</i>  <i>Siddur</i> of Daily Services and also <i>Oẓar Hat.</i> Vol. I, p. 765.</i> the living King, who is good and does good, God of Truth, Judge of Truth, who judges in righteousness. <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Who takes away souls in judgment, who is Ruler in His Universe to do as it pleaseth him in it, for all his ways are judgment and we are His people and His servants and for everything we are dutibound to give thanks unto Him and to bless Him. He who fences in the breaches of Israel will fence in this breach from upon us and from upon this mourner for the sake of life and peace</i>.'<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri</i> — <i>G.</i> Thus also Ber. 46b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>מר</span>. After inserting this version, the mourner continues with the regular text, ‘Thou hast bestowed etc.’ — <i>ShaK.</i> The mourner is given the priority to lead in the saying of grace and to recite the benediction over the cup of grace, even if he arrived towards the end of the meal, — only during the seven days of mourning, for then he sits at the head (v. <i>supra</i> § 376), but not after the seven days. Furthermore, this (viz., that during the seven days the mourner has priority) applies only if both the mourner and the comforter are of equal distinction, but if the head of the house is a mourner and there is a guest present, or even if the guest is a mourner, then the law is that if the head of the house desires to lead in the saying of grace and to recite the blessing over the cup (even after the seven days), he has a right to do so — <i>P.Tesh.</i> and <i>Later Codifiers.</i></i>
Some<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> s. 115. Thus also <i>R. Amram; Tanya</i> s. 68; <i>Abudraham, Laws of Benedictions.</i> Cf. the prayer <span>נחם</span> recited on the ninth day of Ab.</i> add in the third benediction,<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>Oẓar Hat. ibid.</i></i> ['and rebuild Jerusalem, the Holy City speedily in our days,' — the words], 'Comfort, O Lord our God, the mourners of Jerusalem and the mourners who are observing this mourning. Comfort them from this mourning and make them rejoice from their sorrow,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. Jer. XXXI, 1</i> as it is said, <i>one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Is. LXVI, 13.</i> Blessed art Thou, O God, who comfortest Zion in the rebuilding of Jerusalem.'<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">One should not say, ‘Blessed art thou … who comfortest mourners <i>and</i> rebuildest Jerusalem,’ for the closing formula must never contain two subjects. One may, however, say, ‘Blessed art Thou … who comfortest Zion <i>and</i> rebuildest Jerusalem, for both these subjects relate to the same idea. This latter closing formula is said at the <i>Minḥa</i> service on the ninth day of Ab in the <span>נחם</span> prayer — <i>Shak.</i></i>
Some say in the introductory benediction to say grace, 'Let us bless the Comforter of mourners whose food we have eaten.'<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>R. Amram.</i> Thus also <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> In introducing the grace, the leader says, ‘Let us bless the Comforter of mourners whose food we have eaten and through whose goodness we live,’ after which they respond, ‘Blessed is the Comforter of mourners whose food we have eaten and through whose goodness we live.’ This is repeated by the leader. When ten people are present, the leader includes the words, ‘our God’ after ‘Blessed be.’</i>
On the Sabbath [during the seven days of mourning], if the [mourner] said grace privately or even if grace was said with three mourners [present],<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Or more.</i> one recites the benediction in the same manner as it is recited during the weekdays,<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Since they are all mourners.</i> for this is [considered mourning of domestic] privacy; and if others<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">Who are not mourners.</i> ate with him and said grace, one does not mention the nature of the occasion,<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">The special additions in the grace after meals mentioned <i>supra.</i></i> for since there are others<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">Who are not mourners.</i> present, it is no longer [considered] private mourning.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">For public mourning is not observed on the Sabbath or Festival days. Thus <i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> Cf. M.K. 20b, <i>Tosaf</i> s.v. <span>קורע</span> end.  <i>infra</i> § 400.</i>
A mourner is counted in the number [requisite] for <i>Tefillah</i><sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> and the saying of common grace<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Mord. M.K. III end.  also Ket. 8b, <i>Rashi</i> s.v. <span>בברכת</span> and <i>Tosaf., ibid.</i> s.v. <span>כי</span>. However, at the first mourner’s meal which is provided by others, the mourner is not counted in the number required to say common grace. Thus it follows from <i>Mord. ibid.</i> and also <i>Rokeaḥ.</i> This is derived from Ket. 8b where it is stated that the mourners are not included in the number with respect to the benediction recited in the ‘open space’ (<span>ברכת רחבה</span>). The ‘open space’ is explained by <i>Rashi</i> (<i>ibid.</i>) to have reference to the place where the mourners were provided with the first meal by others (v. Meg. 23b). In the case however, of other meals that are partaken of by the mourners during the seven days of mourning, they are counted in the required number to recite grace in unison — <i>ShaK.</i></i> both with respect to the number of three and ten.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">When ten people say grace together, the words, ‘our Lord,’ are included in the introduction to the grace.</i>

Siman 380

The following are the things forbidden to the mourner:<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 15a-b; <i>ibid.</i> 21a and <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אלו</span>. In this chapter the question of work with respect to the mourner is explained.</i> [He is forbidden] to engage in work,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from, <i>‘I shall turn your feasts into mourning’</i> (Amos VIII, 10), whence it is inferred that just as it is forbidden to do work during a Festival, so too, is it forbidden to do work during mourning (<i>ibid.</i> 15b).</i> to bathe,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Infra</i> § 38</i> to annoint himself,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Infra</i> § 38</i> to put on sandals [or shoes],<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Infra</i> § 382.</i> to have marital intercourse;<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘use of the conjugal couch.’ <i>Infra</i> § 383.</i> he is forbidden to read the Pentateuch;<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Infra</i> § 384.</i> he is forbidden to greet one 'with peace,'<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Infra</i> § 385.</i> to wash [his garments],<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Infra</i> § 389.</i> and he is dutibound to muffle his head<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Infra</i> § 386.</i> and to invert his couch<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Infra</i> § 387.</i> throughout the seven [days of mourning]; and he is forbidden to put on <i>Tefillin</i><sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> on the first day [of mourning];<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Infra</i> § 388.</i> and he is forbidden to don laundried garments,<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Infra</i> § 389.</i> to cut his hair,<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Infra</i> § 390.</i> to rejoice<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Infra</i> § 39</i> and to resew a rent during the whole of the thirty days [of mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Supra</i> § 340, 14.</i> <i>And all matters pertaining to mourning rites apply both during the day and during the night</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote"><i>RaShBA Resp.</i> s. 446 — <i>G.</i></i>
In what respect [is a mourner forbidden to engage] in work?<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 21b.</i> — During the whole of the first three days he is forbidden [to engage] in work, even [if he is] a poor man who is supported from charity;<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">Y.M.K. III, 5(82b) in accord with the dictum of Bar Kappara which is in agreement with M.K. <i>ibid., contra</i> the first opinion recorded in Y. <i>ibid.</i>, according to which only the first two days are forbidden.  <i>T.H.</i></i> thereafter, if he is a poor man and he has naught to eat,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid., Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>מכאן</span>; <i>ibid</i>. a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אלו</span>; Sem(H). VI, 6; Yad, <i>Ebel</i> V, 8. Y. <i>ibid.</i> offers the reason for the three day period, ‘The soul hovers over the body for three days, thinking that it will return into the body, but as soon as it sees that the facial features have changed, it abandons the body and leaves.’  also Y.Yeb. XVI, 3(15c) bot.; Gen. R. C, 7; Lev. R. XVIII, 1 and cf. Shab. 152a. <i>R. Yeruḥam</i> citing <i>RaBaD</i> explains that since three days are required for weeping (M.K. 27b), engaging in work would cause the mourner to relax in his weeping rites.</i> he does [his work] in privacy in his house;<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">There is, however, one opinion (<i>R. Samuel</i> in <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> 21b, s.v. <span>מכאן</span>) that after three days, even one who is not a poor man may engage in work at his home. But the majority of the <i>Codifiers</i> rule in accordance with the ruling recorded here by <i>Caro</i> (v. Sem(H).  beg.).</i> and a woman plies the spindle in her house;<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">One is permitted to do work privately only of an accidental nature. However, if this is insufficient for one’s needs, even permanent work may be done privately (<i>Tur</i>) — <i>ShaK.</i></i> but the Sages said, 'May a curse<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote">e., poverty.</i> come upon his neighbours, who, [by not providing his maintenance] were the cause of his need to thus [engage in work].'<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">Y.M.K. III, 5(82b). But if the mourner refuses to accept and desires to engage in work in order to earn his livelihood, the neighbours are not held responsible — <i>A.H.</i> In the case of a poor man who does not receive any maintenance from the charity fund, or in a case where it is impossible for the neighbours to support him, he may do even skilled work on the first day, provided this is done in privacy — <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>In the manner that one is permitted to write on Hol ha-Moed</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>so is</i> [<i>the mourner</i>] <i>permitted to write during his mourning, but not in any other way</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> on the authority of <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i> and <i>Caro</i> in present chapter — <i>G.</i> Regarding writing on <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i>, v. O.H. § 545. This refers to the <span>כתב משיטא</span>, the ordinary handwriting of <i>Rashi</i> or the one we use today, not the printed square characters. In the case where a loss is involved, the <span>כתב משיטא</span> may be used without restrictions — <i>Me’ore Or. Isserles’</i> comparison between <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> and mourning rites with respect to writing, refers only to an individual who is a professional scribe and earns his living thereby, and should be understood thus: Just as one who makes a living from writing scrolls, <i>Tefillin</i> or <i>Mezuzoth</i> is forbidden to write on <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i>, unless he has naught to eat in which case he is permitted, so also, does the same law apply to a scribe who is a mourner — <i>A.H.</i> A professional scribe who is a mourner is permitted to be employed to write a divorce (if no other scribe is available), for there is apprehension lest the husband change his mind. Hence, in order to avoid the eventuality of the woman becoming a deserted wife (<span>עגונה</span> i.e., she remains tied to her husband and cannot remarry), the scribe is permitted to write the divorce, for this falls into the category of cases ‘where the public needs him’ — <i>Ha-Elef Leka Shelomo.</i> On the same principle, the scribe is permitted to repair a Torah scroll — <i>Sh.M.B.</i></i>
Just as he is forbidden to do work [during mourning] even so is he forbidden to engage in business or to go from one town to another with [his] wares.<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">Y.M.K. III, 8(83d) ; Yad, <i>Ebel</i>. V, 7; <i>ibid.</i> VI, 8 and v. <i>infra</i> par. 21.</i>
Even business that might be lost [if postponed]<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote">e., business that cannot be postponed without irretrievable loss.</i> the mourner is forbidden to engage in,<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 11b in accord with the inference made by Shisha, the son of Idi.</i> both he as well as his male and female slaves, his sons and daughters<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). V, 1 in accord with the interpretation advanced by <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i></i> whose labour belongs to him.<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">Even if they are of age. It goes without saying that minors who are supported by him, are prohibited to do his work. However, if they do not rely upon him for their support, even if they are minors, their labour belongs to them (Ḥ.M. § 74, 2) — <i>ShaK.</i></i>
[The mourner] is forbidden to do his work through [the agency of] others,<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). V, 1. Also implied in M.K. 11b.</i> <i>even</i> [<i>through the agency of</i>] <i>a Gentile</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.</i> M.K. II beg. — <i>G.</i></i> unless it is business that might be lost [if postponed], for any business that might be lost [if postponed], the mourner is permitted to engage in through [the agency of] others;<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote">Sem (H). V, 2. He is, however, permitted to do work, which, if postponed, would involve a loss to others. For this reason a physician is permitted to visit patients during the seven days of his mourning — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> even aught that is forbidden during [<i>Hol</i>] <i>ha-Moed</i><sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> on account of labour involved, is permissible [during mourning],<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.; Asheri</i> a.o. For only on <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> they forbade things which involve labour on account of honour or respect to the Festival, but in the case of a mourner who does his work through the agency of others, this does not apply (<i>Tur</i>) — <i>ShaK.</i></i> even if it is skilled work. <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And some say</i><sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote">Even if it involves labour and is considered skilled work. Thus R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in M.K. 11b, provided it is executed privately. <i>Alfasi</i> and <i>Maim.</i> do not accept this viewpoint. If it is impossible to do the work privately, one who is in difficult financial circumstances, may do it even publicly, for we compare the law of the mourner to <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i>, and as in the latter case it is permitted to engage publicly in work, which if postponed, involves an irretrievable loss, so too, in the case of the mourner — <i>Heshib Moshe, Ḥatam Sofer, Tifereth</i> Z<i>ebi</i>, <i>Sh.M.B.</i></i> <i>that if he is unable to do the work through</i> [<i>the agency of</i>] <i>others, and it is business that might be lost</i> [<i>if postponed, the mourner</i>] <i>is permitted to do</i> [<i>it</i>] <i>himself;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>T.H.; Asheri</i> and thus also <i>R. Yeruḥam</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>and after the first three days one may adopt the lenient practice, and even within the three days, if it involves a great loss.</i>
[With respect to selling] his wares in [the case of] business [which if postponed] might entail a loss, [namely], if he should not sell [now] he would suffer the loss of the principal, — [the law is that] the sale may be made through [the agency of] others. However, if he should not suffer the loss of the principal, only that if he sells it now, he will make more profit than if he sells it later, it is forbidden.<sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri</i> to M.K. 10b (v. <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>ובדבר</span>) after an analysis of Y.M.K. II, 3(81b). (<i>Asheri</i>’s version of Y. <i>ibid.</i> is different from cur. edd.). If a buyer should suffer a loss on account of the seller who is in mourning, the latter is permitted to sell through the agency of others, and it is quite possible that even the mourner himself may sell directly — <i>P.Tesh.</i> A distinction should be made between two kinds of business deals, viz., a) In the case of a business deal in which the mourner became interested only incidentally, but his main livelihood is derived from other sources, the law is that he is permitted to transact this incidental deal through the agency of others only when he suffers a loss if it is postponed; b) In the case of one, however, whose permanent source of income depends upon such transactions, even the prospective profit may be considered on the same footing as the principal, for the individual depends upon it for his livelihood. Consequently, the prohibition applies only in the case where he would make more profit now than later. But if, at present, he would make the same profit as later, it is permissible to sell through the agency of others, since there is also the possibility that later he will not make any profit at all — <i>A.H.</i></i> Yet, if caravans or ships arrived,<sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote">Similarly, if the market day coincides with his seven days of mourning, even if it is on a small scale, he is permitted to transact business through the agency of others. If a mourner has a shop, and should he keep it closed, it would entail a heavy monetary loss, his wife may keep it open for him — <i>Later Codifiers.</i> One who suffered a bereavement while he was out of town, and was unaware of this, the law is that his friends (or his wife and children, who normally would be forbidden to do his work, since their labour belongs to him) may carry on his work — <i>Ḥok. Adam.</i> If, while he was away from home, it became known to him that he had suffered a bereavement, but those at home were unaware of this, the law is that he is not required to inform them thereof in order that they close his store or business— <i>Resp. Heshib Moshe.</i></i> or desire to leave, and are selling [goods] at a low price, or are buying [goods] at a high price, it is permissible [for the mourner] to sell or to buy through [the agency of] others,<sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri</i> derived from Y. <i>ibid.</i> The reason being that it is a matter of infrequent occurrence (v. O.Ḥ. § 539, 4-5) — <i>ShaK.</i></i> even if it is not required for his [personel] use, but rather to transact business [in order] to make a profit.<sup class="footnote-marker">39</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Asheri ibid. contra N</i> in <i>T.H.</i></i>
[With respect] to lending money to a heathen on interest, [namely], to those who are accustomed to borrow from him, — [the law is that] he is permitted to lend money through [the agency of] others, for this is considered business which [if postponed] entails a loss.<sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri</i>, derived from <i>R. Tam contra N</i> in <i>T.H.</i>, on the same principle as stated in par. 6 <i>supra.</i> For in this case, if he does not lend them the money, they will go to others and thus become accustomed to return to the latter in the future for further business. Consequently, if the mourner were not permitted to lend the money through the agency of others, he would suffer a loss (<i>Tur</i>) — <i>ShaK.</i> The same principle applies also to other wares which they are accustomed to buy from him — <i>A.H.</i></i>
One who has a monetary claim against others, and now [during the seven days of mourning] he is able to find them, but afterwards he is not able to find them, is permitted to send [other people] to them [in order to recover his debt].<sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> For in this case too, it is considered an irretrievable loss should he have to wait until the seven day mourning period is over. But if it is possible to recover his money after the seven days of mourning, he is forbidden to do so during the first week of mourning.</i>
If he has a legal claim against another person, he should not summon [the latter to judgment] during the whole of the seven [days of mourning]. But if it is a matter which, [if postponed], entails a loss, e.g., if [the defendant] wishes to go to a foreign country,<sup class="footnote-marker">42</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘a province of the sea.’</i> or his witnesses are ill,<sup class="footnote-marker">43</sup><i class="footnote">And there is apprehension lest they die — <i>ShaK.</i></i> he may appoint a mandatory who litigates with him.<sup class="footnote-marker">44</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> and <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.;</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> V, 14 on the authority of the <i>Geoni</i>m. If it is obligatory for the mourner himself to appear in court, he is permitted to do so under the circumstances — <i>A.H.</i></i>
All matters which they<sup class="footnote-marker">45</sup><i class="footnote">The Sages.</i> permitted on [<i>Hol</i>] <i>ha-Moed</i><sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> on account of the Festival needs,<sup class="footnote-marker">46</sup><i class="footnote">But not because it entails a loss, if postponed. Mourning was compared to <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> only with respect to business which involves a loss, if postponed. Regarding the law of a poor mourner who has not what to eat, cf. <i>supra</i> par. 2 and notes.</i> are forbidden in [the case of] a mourner, even [if done] through [the agency of] others.<sup class="footnote-marker">47</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> and <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i></i>
A mourner whose field was in the possession of others on terms of metayage,<sup class="footnote-marker">48</sup><i class="footnote">As metayers who receive from the owner a certain share of the produce for their work.</i> or on a fixed rental lease,<sup class="footnote-marker">49</sup><i class="footnote">Who pay the owner a certain fixed annual rent in kind, irrespective of the yield of the crops.</i> or on a labour contract,<sup class="footnote-marker">50</sup><i class="footnote">Land tenancy on a fixed rent.</i> — [the law is that] such persons may work in their usual way during the [seven] days of mourning of the owner of the field.<sup class="footnote-marker">51</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 11b in accord with <i>RaBaD</i>’s explanation cited by <i>Asheri</i>, since they work for their own benefit, despite the fact that the mourner also profits thereby, for the field is considered to be in their possession — <i>A.H.</i></i> And even if the time of their tenure expired before [the owner commenced mourning rites],<sup class="footnote-marker">52</sup><i class="footnote">Or during the observance of mourning — <i>A.H.</i></i> and they remained in the field as they were [prior to the expiry date].<sup class="footnote-marker">53</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri</i> on the authority of <i>RaBaD</i>, who offers the following explanation: For the field remains for the same purpose, and since the very same people were farm-keepers, or tenant-farmers, or contractors before the expiry date, it is well to assume that the owner does not intend to dismiss them and the agreement is considered renewed automatically.</i>
If the mourner is a metayer<sup class="footnote-marker">54</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> par. 11, nn. 48-50.</i> [or a tenant farmer<sup class="footnote-marker">54</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> par. 11, nn. 48-50.</i> or a contractor of labour]<sup class="footnote-marker">54</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> par. 11, nn. 48-50.</i> in a field that belongs to others, he himself must not do the work, but through [the agency of] others it is permissible.<sup class="footnote-marker">55</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 11b. For we regard this as work done not for the mourner but for the owner of the field, although indirectly the mourner too profits thereby, for others are not obliged to suffer any loss on account of him. This applies even if the work does not entail any loss, if postponed — <i>ShaK, A.H.</i> and <i>Ḥok Adam.</i></i>
If there is a daily worker<sup class="footnote-marker">56</sup><i class="footnote">e., one employed on a day to day basis.</i> who cultivates the mourner's field, even [if he is] in another town,<sup class="footnote-marker">57</sup><i class="footnote">Where the mourner is unknown.</i> — [the law is that] he may not work.<sup class="footnote-marker">58</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> Since he is not employed on a tenancy or on a fixed rental lease or on a labour contract — <i>ShaK.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> par. 11 and notes. Under such conditions the field belongs to the owner <i>contra</i> par. 11. Moreover, since a daily worker may retract according to the law during any part of the day, there is no substantial loss involved — <i>Rashi</i> (M.K. <i>ibid.</i> s.v. <span>לא יעשה</span>).</i>
If the mourner has an ass or a ship rented<sup class="footnote-marker">59</sup><i class="footnote">For payment in kind.</i> or hired out<sup class="footnote-marker">60</sup><i class="footnote">For payment in money.</i> to another person, the latter should not engage in work during the [seven] days of mourning of the owner of the ass or the ship, unless he hired it before he [the mourner] began the observance of mourning and the period [of rental] had not yet expired;<sup class="footnote-marker">61</sup><i class="footnote">For as long as the rental period is in force, they are regarded as doing work for their own sake as in the case of a field (v. <i>supra</i> par. 11).</i> but if the period of [rental] had expired, it is forbidden [to do work].<sup class="footnote-marker">62</sup><i class="footnote">Contrary to the case of the field (<i>ibid.</i>) where the contract is considered renewed automatically — <i>A.H.</i>  M.K. <i>ibid.</i> in accord with <i>RaBaD</i>’s interpretation.</i>
If the ass or the ship were [rented out] to others on shares of one-half, one-third or one-fourth [of the earnings], some permit [them to work during the seven days of the owner's mourning],<sup class="footnote-marker">63</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> The principle is similar to the terms of metayage with respect to land (<i>supra</i> par. 11).</i> and others prohibit [this].<sup class="footnote-marker">64</sup><i class="footnote">Cited by <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i>, the law being that metayage applies only to land with respect to work done during the owner’s period of mourning.  A.Z. 21b. (Movable objects under such conditions are still called by the owner’s name, unless the agreement is on a strict rental basis, in which case the movable objects belong to the others as long as the agreement is in force (v. <i>supra</i> par. 14). Should, however, an irretrievable loss result on account of the postponement, even in the case of movable objects on a metayage basis, work would be permitted — <i>A.H.</i></i>
If the mourner is in the hire of another person [and the period of his employment had not expired], he must not engage in work during his mourning,<sup class="footnote-marker">65</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from M.K. 11b and <i>Rashi ibid.</i> s.v. <span>ואם</span>.</i> <i>but through</i> [<i>the agency of</i>] <i>others, he is permitted</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">66</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from <i>Asheri ibid.</i> — <i>G.</i> It follows from this that even if no loss is involved if the work is postponed, it is still permitted. Thus <i>Lebush. ShaK</i>, however, rejects this and maintains that even through the agency of others, it is forbidden, unless the matter entails an irretrievable loss, if postponed.</i>
[If] others' work was in his hand, even in the case of loose matter, e.g., [material] for weaving,<sup class="footnote-marker">67</sup><i class="footnote">Which may be done in privacy, and so much the more in the case of work done on immovables which one can only do in public — <i>ShaK.</i></i> whether it is a contract job or not a contract job, — [the law is that] he may not do [work on] it.<sup class="footnote-marker">68</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 11b.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And if it is a matter which entails an irretrievable loss</i> [<i>if postponed</i>], <i>he may do</i> [<i>work on</i>] <i>it through</i> [<i>the agency of</i>] <i>others</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">69</sup><i class="footnote">His (<i>Isserles</i>’) own opinion — <i>G.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> pars. 5 and 12. <i>Lebush</i> holds that even if it does not involve an irretrievable loss, it may be executed through the agency of others, since it is not his material, on the same principle as <i>supra</i> par. 16. <i>ShaK contra Lebush</i> maintains that <i>Isserles’</i> ruling applies in par. 16, but not here. <i>ShaK</i> himself rules as in par. 16 notes.</i> <i>One is permitted to receive work during the</i> [<i>seven</i>] <i>days of his mourning to be executed later, only that he should not weigh or measure</i> [<i>the material</i>] <i>after the manner in which he</i> [<i>usually</i>] <i>does this on other occasions</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">70</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord. Laws of Mourning</i> — <i>G.</i> Derived from M.K. 12a with respect to <i>Ḥol ha-Moed.</i></i>
[If] his work was in the hand of others on a labour contract, [viz.,] in [the case of] loose material, — they may not do [work on it] in his own house, but in the others' house they may do [work on it],<sup class="footnote-marker">71</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 11b. <i>R. Yeruḥam</i> writes on the authority of the commentators that from this we may derive the ruling that if a mourner engaged a teacher, a scribe or a labourer, they may not execute the work in the mourner’s house (cited by <i>B.Yos.</i>) — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>provided they received the work before he became a mourner</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">72</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.</i> M.K. III end and <i>R. Yeruḥam</i> — <i>G.</i> Cf. also <i>supra</i> par. 14.</i>
[If] one had a building [under construction] by others on contract,<sup class="footnote-marker">73</sup><i class="footnote">Before he became a mourner or prior to <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> — <i>ShaK.</i></i> — [the law is that] on a weekday, or on <i>Hol ha-Moed</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> they must not work, even if it is outside the city limits;<sup class="footnote-marker">74</sup><i class="footnote">For since people will come there, they will say that the work was given to them during the mourning or on <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i>, even if the contractors are non-Jews — <i>ShaK, A.H.</i></i> and if these contractors are non-Jews, they are permitted to built it on a Sabbath or Festival, which fell during the days of [his] mourning, if it is outside the city limits,<sup class="footnote-marker">75</sup><i class="footnote">In this case the above suspicion does not enter — <i>ShaK.</i></i> and [provided] there is no other city in which there are Jews within the limits of that house.<sup class="footnote-marker">76</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> derived from M.K. 12a in accord with Samuel’s dictum and the provision of R. Papa and R. Mesharshaya. Cf. <i>Rashi</i> and <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>אמר</span>.  also <i>Asheri</i> a.l.</i>
If others undertook [on contract] to plough and sow his field, some say that they are permitted to plough and sow during the [seven] days of mourning of the owner of the field.<sup class="footnote-marker">77</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri</i> on the authority of <i>RaBaD.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> par. 11 and 4 and <i>T.H.</i> For in such a case the owner of the field will not be suspected later that the one who ploughed his field was not a metayer.</i> However, there is [an authority] who prohibits [such work].<sup class="footnote-marker">78</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i> On account of the same suspicion that applies to the construction of a building. Cf. <i>supra</i> par. 19; O.Ḥ. § 244, 1.</i>
Two [individuals who were] partners in a shop,<sup class="footnote-marker">79</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘who are shopkeepers.’</i> and mourning befell one of them, close their shop so that the [other] partner should not do work publicly, but he may do work privately in his house, even work pertinent to the partnership. But if the mourner is a prominent person and the partnership is called by his name, so that even if [the other partner] will do work in his own house it is known that the mourner has a share in it, — [the law is that] the other partner is forbidden to do work even in his house.<sup class="footnote-marker">80</sup><i class="footnote">Y.M.K. III, 5(82) bot. where the ruling is mentioned that ‘two partners … must close their shop.’ However, from M.K. 11b in the case of Marion, the son of Rabin and Mar, the son of R. Aḥa, it appears that only in the case of a distinguished person we would rule thus, but not in other cases. This apparent contradiction is removed by <i>RaBaD</i> as follows: In Y. we deal with work done publicly (cf. the term <span>חנות</span> -shop used <i>ibid.</i>), whereas in B. it refers to work carried on privately. Hence, Caro’s ruling here. There are many authorities who adopt a lenient view with respect to partnership. Moreover, the leniency is extended even to cases where the shop belongs to the mourner alone, on the principle that it is impossible to keep one’s shop closed for the entire week which would entail great losses. The question, however, may be raised, — on what basis is such a leniency adopted? For even drawing up a bill of sale between the mourner and his partner or any other person, would not be helpful since the reason for the prohibition is on account of ‘appearance sake’ (<span>מראית עין</span>) and consequently, people will still know that the shop belongs to the mourner. <i>RaShaL</i> (<i>Resp.</i> 66) is lenient in this matter after three days (and part of the third day is considered a full day). Yet <i>Maim.</i> in Yad, <i>Ebel</i> V, 9 states that the prohibition remains in force for seven days. <i>A.H.</i> advances the following argument in favour of the lenient practice: With respect to a matter which entails an irretrievable loss if postponed, we find that mourning and <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> are on an equal footing (v. O.Ḥ. § 539 where it is stated that if the market day falls on <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> the individual may sit in his shop). Hence, we see that if a loss is involved, the question of conducting business publicly does not enter. Similarly, in the case of mourning. In Prague it was customary to dissolve the partnership or to transfer one’s business by means of <span>קנין סודר</span>, i.e., a legal form of acquisition by handing over an article (e.g., a scarf) from one party to the other as a symbol that the object itself has been transferred. Some would transfer the business while still in the observance of <i>Aninuth;</i> others, whilst the person was in his dying condition.  also <i>P.Tesh.</i> and <i>Later Authorities.</i></i>
Sweeping the house, washing cups and making the beds, are not considered as work [forbidden] to the mourner.<sup class="footnote-marker">81</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XI, 9. Cf. M.K. 27a; <i>T.H.; Mord.</i> M.K. </i> Likewise, is it permissible for a woman to bake and cook during the days of her mourning<sup class="footnote-marker">82</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIK</i> Rt. 55.</i> <i>all that she requires, but whatever she does not require is forbidden.</i> So too, a woman who is a servant in another person's home and mourning befell her, is permitted to bake, cook and do other household needs, whether she serves gratuitously or for remuneration.<sup class="footnote-marker">83</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ter. ha-Deshen.</i> There is no contradiction between this ruling and that of par. 16 <i>supra</i>. The latter case deals with real work for a profitable purpose, whereas here it refers to attending to the household needs, which work is permitted for the mistress proper. Consequently, a woman servant (or any attendant) whom mourning befell, is permitted to do only such work which pertains to the household needs. The servant, however, must not leave the house during mourning — <i>Ta</i>Z. A Synagogue attendant (<span>שמש</span>) who is in mourning, is permitted to attend to the Synagogue needs on the eve of the Sabbath — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i>
One who goes from place to place for business and received near tidings<sup class="footnote-marker">84</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>infra</i> § 402.</i> [while on the way], — [the law is that] if he can reduce [his work] not to conduct any business affairs in that city, it is well; if not, [i.e.,] if he will not buy in that city, he will not find [the same opportunity] elsewhere], he may [only] buy [what he requires] for the needs on the way<sup class="footnote-marker">85</sup><i class="footnote">Through the agency of others. This has no reference to business which involves an irretrievable loss, if postponed.</i> [those] things which are considered the necessaries of life.<sup class="footnote-marker">86</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N.Yos.</i> to M.K. 26b-27a; Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VI, 10; <i>T.H.</i> on the authority of <i>R. Ḥananel.</i></i>
For all [other] dead,<sup class="footnote-marker">87</sup><i class="footnote">After the seven days but within the thirty days of mourning when work and business are permitted.</i> if he desires to reduce his business affairs which are permissible for him [to engage in],<sup class="footnote-marker">88</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 22b.</i> e.g., any business which entails an irretrievable loss [if postponed], he may reduce; if he desires, he may not reduce; [but] for his father or mother he should reduce [his business].<sup class="footnote-marker">89</sup><i class="footnote">In accord with alternate explanation in <i>N.Yos. ibid.</i> Cf. <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i>, 27a s.v. <span>אם</span> and <i>Kes. Mish. Ebel.</i> VI, 9; Ta‘an. 12b. <i> Bedek ha-Bayith a.l.</i></i>
For all [other] dead, he is forbidden up to thirty days to go [out] for business on a distant [journey], for this involves great publicity and is similar to rejoicing, since one [ordinarily] travels in a caravan group and they rejoice much [while] on the road; in [the case of] his father or mother [he is forbidden] until his friends rebuke him<sup class="footnote-marker">90</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. <i>infra</i> § 390.</i> and say, 'Go with us'<sup class="footnote-marker">91</sup><i class="footnote">Y.M.K. III, 8(83d) ; Sem(H). IX, 13. Thus also <i>Tur</i> and <i>Asheri.</i> Today this ruling no longer applies — <i>A.H.</i></i>.

Siman 381

In what manner is bathing [forbidden]?<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 15b, derived from, <i>‘And Joab sent to Tekoa and fetched thence a wise woman and said unto her, I pray thee, feign thyself to be a mourner etc… and annoint not thyself with oil’</i> (II Sam. XIV, 2). Bathing is implied in the prohibition of annointing.  Ruth III, 3; Ps. CIX, 18; Yad, <i>Ebel</i> V, 3 and cf. Yoma 76b.</i> — He is forbidden to bathe his whole body even in cold water, but his face, hands and feet he is forbidden [to wash] in warm water,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">This includes even lukewarm water — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> [but] in cold water he is permitted.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Ta‘an 13b.</i> However, if he was soiled with mud or excrement, he may bathe in his usual way without any apprehension.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Yoma 77b. Cf. Ber. 16b, Tosaf. s.v. <span>אסטניס</span>.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And all this is forbidden legally only for seven</i> [<i>days</i>], <i>but subsequently he is permitted to bathe</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 19b in accord with the dictum of R. Amram citing Rab.</i> <i>only that nowadays it is the adopted practice to prohibit bathing throughout the thirty days</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Meir of Rothenberg, Laws of Sem.</i> (s. 105) ; <i>Hag. Maim. Yom Tob</i> VII; <i>ibid. Ebel</i> X — <i>G.</i> The translation here ‘bathing throughout the thirty days,’ follows <i>ShaK</i>’s reading. Hence, it follows that in cold water it would be permissible during the thirty days. The undefined term <span>רחיצה</span> (bathing) refers to warm water (v. Y.M.K. III, 5(82d) ; cf. <i>infra</i> § 399 and O.H. § 549). Moreover, bathing in cold water is not considered pleasure (<span>תענוג</span>) — <i>ShaK. D.Merb.</i> and <i>R. A. Eger</i> maintain <i>contra ShaK</i> that even in cold water it is permissible to bathe only one’s face, hands and feet, but the entire body should not be bathed in cold water for thirty days. <i>A.H.</i> agrees with <i>ShaK. Or Zaru‘a</i> explains that this prohibition regarding bathing within the thirty days is on account of combing the hair, which is forbidden within the thirty days. But since we permit combing of the hair today (v. <i>infra</i> § 390), it would be permissible to bathe after seven days. <i>RaShaL’s</i> reason for the prohibition of bathing is on account of hair-cutting. Hence, bathing should be forbidden just as hair-cutting is. On <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i>, however, we find that hair-cutting is forbidden and bathing is permitted. This difficulty may be removed on the grounds that on <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> the prohibition of hair-cutting applies to everyone as a result of which people will remember and be careful. Consequently, bathing is permitted. But in the case of mourning, it applies only to the individual mourner. Hence, there is fear lest he forget (cf. Mishna Shab. 147a, <i>Rashi</i> s.v. <span>אבל</span>) — <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> <i>and even to cleanse the head is forbidden</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Infra</i> § 390 and <i>Or Zaru‘a</i> — <i>G.</i> This refers to warm water only.</i> <i>And this custom should not be altered, for it is an ancient custom and was established by pious men</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Or Zaru‘a</i> on the authority of <i>RaShBA</i> — <i>G.</i> One, however, who is not in good health, although he is not considered a sick person, and requires a bath, is permitted to bathe within the thirty days, since the entire prohibition is only a custom and not a binding law (v. <i>supra</i> n. 5). During the seven days of mourning he is forbidden to bathe unless a physician instructs him otherwise, although he is not considered a dangerously ill person — <i>A.H.</i> Bathing in public, however, is forbidden throughout the thirty days.  <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>) I, p. 356.</i>
In what manner is annointing [forbidden]? — Any annointing<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">With oil or washing with soap or the application of perfumes or the like — <i>A.H.</i> The prohibition extends both to the body and the hair, whether in the case of a man or a woman — <i>A.H.</i></i> whatsoever is forbidden, if his intention is merely for the sake of pleasure;<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Ta‘an. 13b.</i> but if it is to remove dirt, it is permissible, and needless to say [that it is permitted if used] as a medicine, e.g., if he had scabs on his head.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Or a skin disease or the like. Y.Ber. II, 7(5b); Y.M.K. III, 5(82d); <i>T.H.</i> For even on <i>Yom Kippur</i> when annointing which is not for the sake of mere pleasure is also prohibited (Y.Yoma VIII, 1(44d), yet, in the case where one was sick or had scabs on his head, he may annoint himself in his usual way without any apprehension (Yoma 77b).</i>
A woman in mourning after childbirth who requires to bathe,<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">In warm water — <i>A.H.</i> Even on the first day. However, if the need is not so great, we should be stringent on the first day of mourning (<i>Later Authorities</i>) — <i>ShaK.</i></i> is permitted [to do so].<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri</i> to Ber. II and M.K. III, derived from Mishna Ber. 16b (cf. also <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>אסטניס</span>) in the case of R. Gamaliel.</i> Likewise, one who has scabs on his head,<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">Much more so in the case of scabs arising from wearing unclean garments which cause madness (Ned. 81a) is washing of raiment permissible for this is more serious.</i> is permitted to cleanse his head in warm water, for [this case] is not less important than [the case of] a delicate person, <i>i.e., one who is frigid in body and is overcome by cold</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"> Y.Ber. II, 7(5b) ; Y.M.K. III, 5(82d), where it is stated that even if it is not a serious case, bathing is permitted, <i>contra R. Hananel</i> who explains that a delicate person (<span>אסטניס</span>) refers to a case where the individual may become dangerously ill should he not bathe himself. One who has a skin disease on any other part of his body is likewise permitted to bathe in warm water — <i>A.H.</i></i> who is permitted to bathe his whole body. However, we do not permit anyone who says, 'I am a delicate person' [to bathe], unless it is known that he is a delicate person and comports himself in cleanliness<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>R. Hai Gaon</i>. Thus also <i>Asheri</i> citing <i>R. Ḥananel</i>.</i> and should he not bathe he would suffer much and take ill.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘will come to an indisposition.’ Thus <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i>, who explains the statement of <i>R. Ḥananel</i> that ‘a case which may lead to a person becoming dangerously ill’ (<span>סכנה</span>) refers to one who is very uncomfortable if he does not bathe in warm water.  <i>supra</i> n. 15.</i>
One who suffered a bereavement followed close on another [bereavement], [i.e.,] two mournings befell him, one immediately after the other, is permitted to bathe his whole body in cold water.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">Ta‘an. 13a-b ; M.K. 17b. e., after the seven days of the first bereavement expired. Likewise, after the termination of the thirty days from the first bereavement, he may bathe his entire body in warm water — <i>A.H.</i></i>
A menstruous woman whose time for immersion became due during her [seven days of] mourning, does not immerse.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>R. Tam</i> (<i>Tosaf.</i> Yoma 8a, s.v. <span>דכולי</span>) and other <i>Codifiers;</i> also <i>MaHaRIK</i> Rt. 35 — <i>G.</i> This ruling follows the opinion of R. Jose, son of R. Judah in Nid. 30a, whose view is that it is not a religious duty to perform immersion at the due time.  also Yoma 88a; Beẓ. 18b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>כל</span> and cf. Ta‘an. 13a. Furthermore, marital intercourse is not permitted in any case.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>So much the more that she does not bathe in order to put on</i> [<i>her</i>] <i>white garments</i><sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">The days after menstruation are called <span>ימי ליבונים</span> i.e., the days during which white garments are worn, while marital contact is still prohibited.</i> [<i>worn during the counting of the seven days of cleanliness</i>]. <i>However, immediately after the seven days</i> [<i>of mourning</i>], — <i>although it is the common practice to adopt a prohibition against bathing for the entire thirty days</i>, — <i>yet, she is permitted</i> [<i>to bathe then</i>], — <i>only that she should alter the</i> [<i>mode of</i>] <i>bathing a little</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Or</i> Z<i>aru’a, Laws of Mourning</i> end — <i>G.</i> Some, however, rule that she may bathe during her seven days of mourning and put on white garments then, only that she should change the mode of bathing, viz., to bathe even with warm water only the pudenda and between her thighs — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>and she may put on a plain white frock</i><sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote">A clean one, not completely white, if possible.</i> <i>and spread out a</i> [<i>clean</i>] <i>white sheet</i> [<i>on her couch</i>] <i>so that she does not come to any doubt</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIL, Resp.</i> 15 — <i>G.</i> This will avoid entertaining any doubts with respect to blood stains that she may notice henceforth. A menstruant woman whose time for immersion falls on the night following the Sabbath, and on Friday she was still within her seven days of mourning which end on the Sabbath, is permitted to comb and cleanse her hair on Friday (v. B.K. 82b) — <i>B.L.Y.</i> A <i>Sandek</i> who is within the thirty days of mourning for his father, may bathe on the night preceding the circumcision, since the prohibition against bathing for thirty days is not a binding law (v. <i>supra</i> par. 1) — <i>Ta</i>Z.</i>
A woman should not paint [her eyelids]<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>Rashi</i>, Ket. 17a for other meanings of these terms. Cf. <i>Jastrow.</i></i> nor rouge [her face]<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>Rashi</i>, Ket. 17a for other meanings of these terms. Cf. <i>Jastrow.</i></i> during the days of her mourning, for all these [things] are forbidden as bathing.<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">Ket. 4b; M.K. 20b. In a certain respect this is even more stringent than bathing, for it is forbidden after seven days, unless it is a case of a married woman (v. anon); whereas bathing is legally permitted after seven days (v. <i>supra</i> par. 1) — <i>ShaK.</i></i> A married woman is forbidden [to do this] only during the seven [days], but after the seven [days] she is permitted everything, so that she does not become repulsive to her husband.<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> derived from <i>Asheri</i>, implied in Sem. (not found in cur. edd.).  however, Sem(H). VII, 11 and list of Baraitoth (p. 230 <i>ibid.</i>) not found in cur. edd., but cited by earlier authorities, and Int. II, 6; V, 2. Cf. <i>Asheri</i> to M.K. III, ibid. Ket. I; Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VI, 3 and <i>Kes. Mish., RIDBaZ</i> a.l.; <i>T.H.;</i> M.K. 27b <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>לגיהוץ</span>; <i>infra</i> § 390, 5.</i> A bride whom mourning befell within the thirty days [subsequent] to her marriage, is permitted to adorn herself,<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">Ket. 4a in accord with <i>Asheri</i>’s interpretation.</i> even within the seven [days of mourning]. A girl who has reached adolescence,<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">Heb. <span>בוגרת</span> i.e., a girl from twelve and a half years and onwards.</i> whom mourning befell, — [the law is that] since she is ready for marriage, she is permitted painting [of the eyelids] and rouging [of the face],<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">Within the seven days.</i> but is forbidden to bathe the entire body in warm water.<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">Ta‘an. 13b. Cf. <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>אין</span>. The text here is faulty, and should read, ‘but is forbidden to bathe in warm water, and her entire body in cold water’ — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> A girl who has not reached adolenscence,<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote">Heb. <span>נערה</span> i.e., a girl between twelve years and a day and twelve years and a half plus one day.</i> who is a mourner, is forbidden even painting [of the eyelids] and rouging [of the face].<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote">Ta‘an. <i>ibid.</i> But a minor boy (<span>קטן</span>) or girl (<span>קטנה</span>) to whom mourning rites do not apply, are permitted the above-mentioned things, for with respect to mourning they do not fall within the category of <span>חנוך</span> i.e., the gradual introduction of children into religious practices (v. <i>Yad Abraham</i> and <i>Beth Hillel).</i></i>

Siman 382

A mourner is forbidden to put on sandals [or shoes]<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 15b, derived from God’s command to Ezekiel, <i>‘And put thy shoes upon thy feet’</i> (Ez. XXIV, 17), whence we infer that for everyone else this is forbidden.</i> only if [they are made] of leather, but a pair of shoes made of cloth,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Or felt.</i> reeds, hair or wood, is permissible,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Rubber is also permissible — <i>A.H.</i></i> for an [ordinary] shoe is [usually made] of leather.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from <i>Yom Kippur</i> where the same prohibition applies.  Yoma 78b; O.Ḥ. § 614. Thus <i>T.H.</i> Although the mourner is forbidden to wear shoes, nevertheless, he may recite the morning benediction, ‘Blessed art Thou … who hast provided for all my needs’ (v. <i>Siddur</i> Morning Benedictions) — <i>R.E.</i>Z. <i>Margolis</i> (Laws of Mourning).</i> However, if it [was made] of wood and covered over by leather, it is forbidden.
A woman after confinement<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Likewise, one who is sick (although not dangerously ill — <i>A.H.</i>), or one who has a wound on his foot (O.Ḥ. § 614, 3) — <i>ShaK.</i> So too, a pregnant woman, if she fears the cold — <i>A.H.</i></i> is permitted to wear [leather-] shoes throughout the thirty days [of mourning] because the cold is harmful to her.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i>, derived from <i>Yom Kippur</i> where the same ruling applies.  Mishna, Yoma VIII, I and Gemara <i>ibid.</i> 78b.</i>
Every person [in mourning] is permitted to put on shoes where there is danger of [being attacked by] a scorpion.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i>, derived from Yoma 78b. According to <i>Mord.</i> M.K. III end, where one must appear before a ruler during mourning and must wear shoes, the custom is to put some earth into the shoes. Hence, it follows that the same procedure should be adopted in the present ruling regarding danger, or in all cases where the mourner is obliged to wear shoes — <i>Ta</i>Z.</i>
A mourner or an excommunicant who were walking on the road, are permitted to put on shoes, and when they reach the city they remove [them].<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). V, 12; Tosef. Ta‘an. I, 6; Ta‘an. 13a; Y.Ber. II, 7(5b) ; Y.Yoma VIII, 1(44d); Y.Ta‘an. I, 6(64c); Y.M.K. III, 5(82d) ; <i>RIDBa</i>Z to Yad, <i>Ebel</i> V, 6.</i> There is, however, an authority who states that [in] a city, the majority of which, are Gentiles, one does not remove [his shoes] until he enters the Jewish quarters,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘the open place of the Jews.’  O.Ḥ. § 554, 17 <i>Gloss</i> and references.</i> [or a Jewish house].<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Tur</i> in O.Ḥ. <i>ibid.</i> Nowadays that we live amongst the Gentiles with no separate quarters of our own, one should not remove his shoes until he enters his courtyard — <i>A.H.</i></i>
Whether one is required to remove [his] shoes on the cemetery after the corpse is interred, has been explained in § 37<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 375, 1, n. </i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that one is required to go barefooted from the cemetery to his home, if his father or mother died</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> on the authority of <i>RI</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>but I have not seen this custom adopted</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. <i>supra</i> par. 4 and v. <i>ShaK.</i></i>

Siman 383

A mourner is forbidden marital intercourse,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘use of the conjugal couch.’ M.K. 15b, 21a. Derived from, ‘<i>And David comforted Bath-Sheba, his wife, and went in unto her’</i> (II Sam. XII, 24) whence we infer that during the period of mourning it was forbidden.</i> but any other type of contact is permissible, [namely], even the mixing of the cup [for him], making the bed [for him] and washing his face, hands or feet, [irrespective] whether it is his mourning or her mourning [that is being observed].<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>RaBaD</i>, derived from Ket. 4b. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 342 and notes. <i>Perisha</i> states that there is greater apprehension during the observance of her mourning, since he is prone to be tempted. <i>ShaK</i>, on the other hand, maintains that there is, <i>contra Perisha</i>, more fear that during his observance of mourning rites, he might be tempted, and she would obey his wish. <i>Shitah Mek.</i> (Ket. <i>ibid</i>.). cites a number of authorities whose explanation is similar to that of <i>Perisha.</i></i> <i>However with regard to embracing and kissing one should adopt a stringent view.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>R. Yeruḥam.</i>  also <i>Targum</i> to Koh. III, 5 — <i>R. A. Eger.</i></i> She is permitted to eat with him from the same dish,<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>RaBaD</i>, derived from Ket. 4b. In the case of a menstruous woman this would be forbidden (Mishna, Shab. 11a).</i> and she is [also] permitted to sleep with him, [provided] he [is] in his garment and she [is] in her garment.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">e., avoiding bodily contact. Cf. Shab. 13a. This is applicable even on the Sabbath and Festivals, since private mourning must still be observed — <i>ShaK</i>.</i> However, since we say, 'take a roundabout route, O, Nazirite, [and do not come near the vineyard'],<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">An expression used to convey a measure of precaution.  Shab. 13a; Yeb. 46a.</i> one should adopt a stringent view, so that he should not sleep [with her]<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Tur.</i></i> in the [same] bed at all.
The [above ruling] applies only with respect to [all] other [cases] of mourning, but if the father of the bridegroom died, or the mother of the bride, [in which case], they bring the corpse into a room, and the bridegroom and the bride into a bridal chamber, and he performs the dutiful marital act, and [then] separates [himself from her], and they observe [first] the seven days of the [wedding-] feast and after that [they observe] the seven days of mourning,<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 342 and notes.</i>—[the law is that] he is forbidden to be alone with her throughout the fourteen days, [and] he sleeps only among the men and she sleeps among the women as is stated in § 34<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">For since the Sages were lenient in this matter, viz., in permitting him to observe the seven days of his wedding-feast first, a further leniency, i.e., in permitting further types of contact (mentioned <i>supra</i> in par. 1) might lead him to treat this case lightly (Ket. 4b).</i> But if he [already] married her and the days of the [wedding-] feast had begun, and subsequently he suffered a bereavement, he is permitted to be alone with her as in [all] the other [cases] of mourning,<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Asheri</i> implied in Ket. <i>ibid.</i> In this case the seven days of the wedding-feast began legally and are not the result of leniency. Likewise, if one suffered a bereavement on a Festival, he is permitted to be alone with his wife (v. <i>infra</i> § 399, 2 <i>Gloss</i>), for here too, the Festival sets in by itself and the question of leniency is not involved. Furthermore, the joy experienced on a Festival is not as great as in the case of a groom — <i>ShaK.</i></i> provided he had cohabited with her;<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">In accord with the dictum of R. Joseph in Ket. 4a.</i> however, if he had not cohabited with her, he is forbidden to be alone with her throughout the days of mourning, whether on a weekday or on a Sabbath.<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">For in this case he may be tempted to perform the marital act.</i>

Siman 384

A mourner throughout the seven days [of mourning] is forbidden to read the Pentateuch, Prophets or Hagiographa, [or to study] <i>Mishna, Gemara, Halakoth</i> or <i>Aggadoth</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos. for Heb. terms. M.K. 15a, 21a, derived from the words of God to Ezekiel, <i>‘Sigh in silence.’</i> (Ez. XXIV, 17). According to Y.M.K. III, 5(82d) this ruling is derived from Job II, 13, <i>‘And none spoke a word to him,’</i> where <i>‘a word’</i> is taken in the sense of Torah. The study of the Torah is forbidden throughout the seven days contrary to the opinion of some authorities who hold that the prohibition against Torah-study should last for one day only as in the case of <i>Tefillin</i> (v. <i>infra</i> § 388). The underlying reason for the prohibition is that the study of the Torah affords one joy (cf. Ps. XIX; CXIX, vv. 14, 16, 24, 47). Hence, the prohibition applies to the entire week. Cf. also M.K. 21a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אלו</span> and <i>T.H.</i> A mourner is permitted to read Job, Lamentations, the sad parts of Jeremiah and the Laws of Mourning (<i>infra</i> par. 4). On a Festival day, however, when these subjects are forbidden to be studied, since they are not in keeping with the spirit of the Holiday, one may study all topics, for it is not proper to pass the time idly. On the fast day of the ninth of Ab (<i>Tish’a be-Ab</i>), a mourner may be called to the reading of the Torah or to recite the <i>Haftarah</i>, since everyone is then in mourning and only the study of calamitous topics is permitted — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> If, however, the public have need of him<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 21a. After the third day of mourning (according to <i>ShaK</i> even on the first day), a teacher (even if there is another teacher available — <i>G.Mah.</i>), may expound <i>Halakoth</i> to his pupils, for this comes within the category of ‘the public have need of him’ (<i>ShaK</i> adds that passing the time idly would be considered with regard to children who have to be taught, ‘a matter which entails an irretrievable loss, if postponed’). <i>Gelilah</i> (also <i>Hagbahah</i>) is permissible for the mourner — <i>Ta</i>Z. If the seventh day of mourning falls on the Sabbath, a mourner may be called to the reading of the Torah at the <i>Minḥa</i> service. Actually, from a legal point of view, this should be permitted even at the morning service (v. <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>infra</i> § 402, n. 5).</i> in order that they receive instruction [from him], he is permitted [to study and thus prepare for the lecture],<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>Ghayyat.</i></i> provided that [during the exposition of his lecture] he does not place [at his side] an interpreter, but he should expound [first] to another person, who, in turn, [conveys the exposition] to the interpreter, and the latter announces it to the public.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Or he may himself expound</i> [<i>directly to the public</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord. Laws of Mourning</i> — <i>G.</i> Thus also <i>Asheri.</i> Derived from the case of the death of the son of R. Jose of Sepphoris (M.K. <i>ibid</i>.).</i> <i>One may render decisions in matters of ritual law to an individual inquirer</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>M.Abr.</i> to O.Ḥ. § 554, n. 5.</i> <i>provided he is the only one available</i> [<i>to render such decisions</i>] <i>and the public have need of him</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Or</i> Z<i>aru’a</i> and <i>R. Yeruḥam</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>But he is forbidden to expound Halaka to his students. Thus is the common practice, although some are lenient</i> [<i>in this matter</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Toldoth Adam we-Ḥawah</i> on the authority of <i>‘some say’</i> — <i>G.</i></i>
If a mourner is a <i>Kohen</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Or a Levite.  Glos.</i> and there is no other <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Or a Levite.  Glos.</i> [present] in the Synagogue, he is forbidden to go up to the reading of the Torah<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Ghayyat</i>, since a lay Israelite may be called in the place of the <i>Kohen</i>, and much more so in a case where a distinguished lay Israelite is present, as in the case of Rab, who, although not a <i>Kohen</i> nor a Levite, read the Torah in place of <i>Kohen</i> (Meg. 22a). In par. 1 <i>supra</i>, we allow a mourner to engage in Torah study only when the public have need of him, but not in this case, since the law that a <i>Kohen</i> reads first was laid down in the interests of peace.  Git. 59a-b. Cf. however, <i>infra</i> § 400, 2, where <i>Isserles</i> states that if on the Sabbath there is no other <i>Kohen</i> present save the mourner, he may be called to the reading of the Torah. There is no contradiction between these two rulings. The ruling (<i>infra</i>) with respect to a <i>Kohen</i>-mourner on the Sabbath is due to the fact that on the Sabbath public mourning alone is forbidden. Hence, if the <i>Kohen</i> is not called to the reading of the Torah, it would indicate that he is observing public mourning which is forbidden on the Sabbath. The present ruling applies to a weekday when the study of the Torah is forbidden both privately and publicly — <i>ShaK.</i></i> [as <i>Kohen</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Or a Levite.  Glos.</i>
If there is no one else [present] who is [capable] of leading in the [Congregational] prayers to act on behalf of the public in order that they perform their duty, the mourner may lead in the [Congregational] prayers,<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">This implies that if there is someone else present who is capable of leading the service, the mourner is not required to do so, which contradicts the ruling mentioned <i>supra</i> § 376, 4 <i>Gloss.</i> This apparent contradiction may be removed as follows: In the ruling (<i>supra</i>) we deal with one who is mourning for a parent, in which case the law is that leading the services is even more efficacious than reciting the mourner’s <i>Kaddish;</i> whereas in the present ruling we deal with other cases of mourning where the mourner is not dutibound to recite the <i>Kaddish</i> — <i>Beth Hillel</i>. This ruling, however, is rejected by many authorities (v. <i>BaḤ</i>), and the law is that even in this case it is obligatory for the mourner to lead in the congregational services — <i>A.H.</i> A mourner may act as the Torah-reader if there is no one else available — <i>Mishmereth Shalom</i>.</i> and thus cause [the listeners] to perform their duty.<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>It is a religious duty to recite the</i> [<i>daily</i>] <i>prayers at the morning and evening services in the place where the person died, even if there is no</i> [<i>surviving</i>] <i>mourner, for this affords gratification to the soul</i> [<i>of the departed</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Or</i> <i>Zaru‘a</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>and the mourner is counted in the Minyan.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> —  Glos. on <i>Minyan</i>.</i>
A mourner is permitted to read Job, Lamentations, the sad parts of Jeremiah and the Laws of Mourning.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"> O.Ḥ. § 554, 2 — <i>G.</i> Thus <i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri</i>, since all the restrictions that apply to the mourner also refer to the ninth day of Ab (<i>Tish’a be-Ab</i>) during which one may read the book of Job, Lamentations and the calamitous sections of Jeremiah  Ta‘an. 30a; M.K. 21a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ואסור</span>. Cf. <i>T.H.</i></i> This applies only [if he reads or studies] privately, but he must not study with others, only that they [others] may sit and debate on the laws of Mourning [in his presence], and if they err, he may refute them in low indistinct speech,<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Lit ‘with lax lips.’</i> but he may not ask [them] questions.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). X, 11.  M.K. 21a and Var. Lect.; <i>R. Ḥananel; Asheri</i> and <i>Alfasi ibid.; M.</i> (Hur.) p. 240; <i>T.H.</i></i> However, this applies only if the public have no need of him, but if the public have need of him, — [the law is that] even with respect to other laws he is permitted [to engage in the study thereof] as we have already stated.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Supra</i> par. 1. Thus <i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri.</i> One is forbidden to apply himself diligently to the study of the permitted subjects of study during mourning, with the result that he will be led to make original novellae, since there is no greater joy than this — <i>Birke Yos. A.H.</i>, however, permits this. Moreover, one may record his novellae during mourning, for otherwise he may forget them later, and this is permissible on the principle that it is considered a matter which entails an irretrievable loss, if postponed.</i>
A mourner who has minor children should not suspend them from their studies.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Maim. Ebel</i> V, 16. The reason being that mourning does not apply to a minor.  M.K. 14b and cf. <i>infra</i> § 396, 3.</i>

Siman 385

In what manner is a mourner forbidden to extend a greeting of peace?<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 15a, derived from the words of God to Ezekiel, <i>‘Sigh in silence’</i> (Ez. XXIV, 17, 22-23). Cf. <i>Rashi</i> and <i>Tosaf.</i> a.l.</i> — [During] the first three days<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Which are designated for weeping (M.K. 27b).</i> he does not extend a greeting of peace to anyone. If others were unaware that he is a mourner, and extended to him a greeting of peace, he should not respond to them, but should inform them that he is a mourner. After three and to seven [days] he does not extend a greeting [of peace]. If others were unaware that he is a mourner and extended to him a greeting of peace, he responds to them..<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Out of respect.</i> After seven [and] to thirty [days] he extends a greeting of peace to others who abide in peace, but others do not extend to him a greeting of peace,<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">This, of course, applies to those who are aware that he is within the thirty days of mourning.</i> and so much the more that he responds to one who extended to him a greeting of peace.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">To one who is unaware that he is in mourning.</i> After thirty days he is regarded as all other people.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 21b.</i> This applies only in the case of other near-of-kin, but [one who is in mourning] for his father or mother, extends a greeting of peace to others after the seven [days of mourning], but others do not extend a greeting of peace to him until after twelve months.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> However, he may extend a greeting of peace to others after the seven days of mourning.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And since he is forbidden to extend a greeting of peace, so much the more is he forbidden to indulge in much conversation</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> V, 20 and <i>Kol Bo</i> — <i>G.</i> Cf. <i>infra</i> § 393, 2.</i> <i>However, if he does</i> [<i>so</i>] <i>out of deference to the public, e.g., if many</i> [<i>people</i>] <i>came to offer him consolation, he is permitted to say to them, 'Go to your homes unto peace,'</i> — <i>for out of deference to the public, it is permissible</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N.Yos.</i> to M.K. III; <i>Hag. Maim. ibid.; Mord. Laws of Mourning —G. Cf.</i> M.K. <i>ibid.</i> with respect to R. Akiba.</i> <i>There are some who adopt a lenient view nowadays with respect to extending a greeting of peace to the mourner after thirty days</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Who is in mourning for a parent.</i> <i>and</i> [<i>actually</i>] <i>they have no grounds for this</i> [<i>procedure</i>], <i>unless</i> [<i>it is possible</i>] <i>that they make a distinctoin</i> [<i>in this matter</i>] <i>by saying that our custom</i> [<i>today</i>] <i>of extending</i> [<i>a greeting to the mourner</i>] <i>is not regarded</i> [<i>on the same footing as</i>] <i>a greeting of peace extended in their</i> [<i>former</i>] <i>days</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Opinion of <i>Isserles</i> — <i>G. ShaK</i> rejects this distinction, for if this were so, it should be applicable even within the thirty days of mourning.  <i>D.M.</i> who has the reading ‘after seven days’ instead of ‘after thirty days.’ <i>Ba’er Heteb</i>, however, maintains that if one greets with the formula ‘Good morning’ or the like, it is not considered as a ‘greeting of peace.’ For only the formula containing the word ‘peace’ (<span>שלום</span>) is not to be used.  <i>B.Yos.</i> to O.Ḥ. § 85 and cf. Zohar <i>Pekude</i> 103a.</i>
One who meets his friend [who is a] mourner, [if] within the thirty days [of mourning], he offers him words of consolation, but does not extend to him a greeting of peace; [if] after thirty days, he may extend a greeting of peace to him, but offers him not words of consolation in one's usual manner, but [makes reference to his sorrow] indirectly, [viz.,] he does not mention to him the name of the dead, but [only] says to him, 'Be consoled.'<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 12b.</i> [If] his [friend's] wife died and he married another woman,<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">Within the three Festivals. Cf. <i>ibid.</i> 23a.  <i>infra</i> § 392, </i> he does not enter his home to offer him words of consolation;<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">For it is not good manners to make such remarks in the presence of his new wife.</i> [if] he met him in the street, he says to him, 'Be consoled' in an undertone and with a bent head.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">Without ostentation (M.K. <i>ibid</i>.).</i> But if he did not marry another woman, he may offer him words of consolation<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Whether in his home or in the street.</i> until after three Festivals have passed.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>T.H.</i> After this period he makes no mention of this at all. Nowadays this ruling is no longer in force.</i> However, [if he is in mourning] for his father or mother, he offers him words of consolation throughout the twelve months [of mourning]; after twelve months he makes reference [to his mourning] indirectly.<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 12b.</i>
[In] a locality where it is the adopted custom to extend to mourners a greeting of peace on the Sabbath, one may do so.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">Y.Ber. II, 7(5b); Y.M.K. III, 5(82d), where it is reported <i>inter alia</i> that R. Hoshaya, the Elder, once went to a certain place and met mourners on the Sabbath. He extended to them a greeting of peace and said to them, ‘I know not what is the custom of your place (with respect to greeting on the Sabbath); however, peace be unto you in accordance with the custom of our place.’  also <i>Asheri</i> to M.K.  Cf. O.Ḥ. § 287.</i> Furthermore, Maimonides writes that the mourner may offer a greeting of peace to everyone on the Sabbath,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> X, 1. Thus also <i>Tur</i> on the authority of the latter. <i>Kes. Mish.</i> (<i>ibid.</i>) states that the reason this law was not mentioned in B. is that it is quite obvious that otherwise it would be regarded as public mourning which is prohibited on the Sabbath.</i> for [otherwise] this comes under the class of things regarded as public [mourning, which is forbidden on the Sabbath]. <i>Gloss</i>: <i>It is forbidden to send</i> [<i>or bring</i>] <i>gifts to one who is in mourning for his father or mother, throughout the twelve months</i> [<i>of mourning</i>], <i>and even on the Sabbath, in a locality where it is the adopted custom not to extend to him a greeting of peace on the Sabbath;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIL, Resp.</i> 31 — <i>G.</i> With respect to sending gifts to a mourner on <i>Purim</i>, v. <i>M.Abr.</i> to O.Ḥ. § 696, n. 12 who permits and <i>Ta</i>Z (<i>ibid</i>.) who forbids. A mourner is permitted to recite the <span>שהחיינו</span> Benediction (‘Blessed art thou … who hast granted us life and sustenance and permitted us to reach this season’) whenever necessary, e.g., on <i>Ḥanukkah</i> or when partaking of a new fruit or the like — <i>R.E.</i>Z. <i>Margolis.</i></i> <i>but in a localtiy where it is the adopted custom to extend to him a greeting of peace on the Sabbath, this too, is permissible.</i>

Siman 386

A mourner is required to muffle the head,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 15a, derived from, ‘<i>And cover not thine upper lip’</i> (Ez. XXIV, 17) whence we infer that everyone else is required to do this.</i> i.e., to cover his head with a mantle or a piece of cloth [so that] part of it enfolds his mouth and the tip of the nose.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>R. Hai Gaon</i>, derived from the dictum of Samuel, ‘a covering that is not like the covering of the Ishmaelites (up to the lips) is not a mourner’s covering’ (M.K. 24a), and also from R. Naḥman who demonstrated this by covering himself up in his mantle up to the sides of the beard (<i>ibid.</i>). Only the nose and eyes remained exposed. Cf. also Y.M.K. III, 5(82d) top, ‘From this we learn that the mourner should cover his mouth. But let him cover his mouth from beneath? — So that they should not say, he has an ailing on his mouth (and therefore ties it up).’ On muffling the head with a mantle or a piece of cloth, cf. <i>T.H.</i> on the authority of <i>R. Mattathias Gaon</i>, derived from M.K. (<i>ibid.</i>) in the case of Abaye and R. Joseph.</i> And this [matter, viz.,] that a mourner is required to muffle [his head] all day, applies [only when he is alone], but when comforters come to him, he uncovers his head out of respect to them.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">On the authority of <i>T.H.</i>, derived from Sem(H). X, 9. Cf. references in Sem. <i>ibid.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that in these countries we do not adopt the practice of muffling the head.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Maim.</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> V, 19 — <i>G.</i> Cf. also M.K. 21a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אלו</span>. For this leads to mockery among the Gentiles.</i> <i>Thus is the common practice, and one should not adopt the stringent view to make changes regarding a matter which our fathers did not practice.</i>

Siman 387

A mourner is required to overturn the couch.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 15a-b, 27a: ‘A mourner is required to overturn his couch (bed), for Bar Kappara taught. “I (the Lord) had placed my image among you, and for your sins I upset it; upset now your beds”’ (cf. Ez. XXIV, 23). In Y.Ber. III, 1(6a); Y.M.K. III, 5(83a) this is derived from Job. II, 13, <i>‘So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days.’</i> It was customary in those days for people to sit on couches or beds throughout the year. Hence, the mourner is required to overturn his couch and sit on the ground. Cf. however, M.K. 27a where it is stated that in a case of mourning, on the eve of the Sabbath, from the time of the <i>Minḥa</i> (afternoon) service and onwards, the couches were placed in erect position, but the mourner did not sit down on them until it was dark. This shows that the overturning of the couches or beds was on account of the prohibition against sitting on them (v. ibid., Tosaf. s.v. <span>מן המנחה ולמעלה</span>). According to the opinion of Bar Kappara, even if the mourner sat or slept on the ground, he had to overturn all the beds or couches in his home save a couch used specifically for vestments (<i>ibid.</i> 27a).</i> When the time for sleeping or eating [arrives], he may sit [or sleep] on an overturned couch, but during the entire day he may not sit even on an overturned couch save on the ground. So too, the comforters are not permitted to sit save on the ground.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">On overturning the couch, consult the following sources: Sem(H). XI, 10-19; Tosef. M.K. II, 9; Y.Ber. III, 1(5b-6a); Y.M.K. III, 5(82c-83a) ; Y.San. II, 1(20a); M.K. 27a; San. 20a-b; M.K. 20a, 21a; <i>Asheri</i> to M.K. III; <i>RIBaSh, Resp.</i> s. 69; <i>Toldoth Adam we-Ḥawah</i> II, 266a; <i>Tur</i> a.l.; <i>T.H.; Shaare Simḥah</i> p. 46; B.B. 144a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אודייני</span>; Yalkut Shimoni II Sam. s. 149; Sem(H). VI, 2; <i>W.G.</i> a.l. for variant readings not found in cur. edd. of Talmud.</i>
Now it is not the common practice to overturn the couch because the Gentiles will say that it is [a kind] of sorcery. Moreover, our couches are not made like their couches in order that overturning should be discernible [as it was in former days].<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri.</i>  M.K. 21a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אלו</span> The mourners may sit on low stools (<i>contra Ta</i>Z and <i>ShaK</i>). Support for this may be found in Y.Ber. III, 1(6a); Y.M.K. III, 5(83a), where the reason for overturning the couches is derived from Job. II, 13, <i>‘So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days’</i> (v. <i>supra</i> par. 1, n. 1). The text for the words <i>‘upon the ground’</i> reads <span>לארץ</span> (lit. ‘(close) <i>to the ground’</i>) whence it is inferred that a mourner may sit on a low stool. One who is feeble in health or a pregnant woman may sit on ordinary stools or chairs. On the eve of the Sabbath, a few hours before nightfall, the mourner may rise from the low stools and close to the time of kindling the Sabbath lights, he may put his shoes on — <i>A.H.</i></i>

Siman 388

A mourner is forbidden to don <i>Tefillin</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos. M.K. 15a, derived from, <i>‘Bind thy headtire</i> (<i>Tefillin</i>) <i>upon thee’</i> (Ez. XXIV, 17-23.  <i>Targum</i> a.l.) whence it follows that for every one else this is forbidden. Cf. <i>ibid.</i> 21a.</i> on the first day;<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"> dictum of R. Joshua in M.K. 21a (cf. also Sem(H). VI, 3; Y.Ber. III, 1(5d); Y.M.K. III, 5(82b); Gen. R. § 7; Suk. 25b), where it is stated that the exemption from <i>Tefillin</i> is applicable only to the first day, since of that day it is said, <i>‘And the end thereof as a bitter day’</i> (Amos VIII, 10).</i> and after the sun rises on the second day, he is permitted<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri.</i> Thus also <i>T.H.</i></i> to put them on.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">If the mourner was unaware of this ruling, he must remove the <i>Tefillin</i> as soon as it is brought to his attention. However, if he became aware of this close to the time for the recital of the <i>Shema</i>, he should remove the <i>Tefillin</i> after he completes the reading of the <i>Shema.</i> This ruling (viz., not to don <i>Tefillin</i> on the first day) applies even if the burial does not take place on the same day as death. One who also puts on <i>Tefillin</i> prescribed by <i>R.Tam</i> (v. O.Ḥ. § 32), should not wear them during the seven days of mourning. One who receives near tidings should not don the <i>Tefillin</i> on the day the death report is received. One who buries his dead on a Festival day, in which case the law is that he observes mourning rites after the Festival, or one who receives a death report on the Festival, should don the <i>Tefillin</i> on the first day following the Festival — <i>Later Authorites.</i> On this ruling cf. also O.Ḥ. § 38, 5.</i>
A mourner is required to set his mind at ease [and] to pay attention to the <i>Tefillin</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos. M.K. 15a, derived from, <i>‘Bind thy headtire</i> (<i>Tefillin</i>) <i>upon thee’</i> (Ez. XXIV, 17-23.  <i>Targum</i> a.l.) whence it follows that for every one else this is forbidden. Cf. <i>ibid.</i> 21a.</i> [i.e.,] not to abandon his thoughts of them;<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">During the week of mourning excluding the first day when he is forbidden to don <i>Tefillin.</i></i> but during the time of lamentation and weeping, he does not put them on.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>T.H.</i> The same ruling applies to the mourner with respect to the religious duty of the <i>Sukkah</i> (Suk. 25b). Cf. Shab. 12a; Yoma 7b. The present ruling has reference only to the times when <i>Tefillin</i> were worn all day, but does not apply today.</i>

Siman 389

A mourner is forbidden to wash his garment during the entire seven days [of mourning],<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">In Talmudic days there were two kinds of washing: a) <span>כיבוס</span> i.e., plain washing, and b) <span>גיהוץ</span> i.e., laundry work. In Ket. 10b it is stated that ‘our (i.e., Babylonian) laundry work is like their (i.e., Ereẓ Israel) washing.’ In the Land of Israel the plain washing was superior to the Babylonian, because they had either better water or better ingredients for washing. In order to procure satisfactory results, they would have to do fine laundry work in Babylonia, and that would include smoothing the cloth or garment with a stone, or according to <i>Rashi</i> (<i>ibid</i>.) with a gloss-stone.  S. <i>Krauss T.A.</i> I, 156, 581 and cf. Ta‘an. 29b. There are two main views held among the authorities regarding these terms. 1) During the seven days of mourning every type of washing is forbidden for two reasons — a) It entails work. Hence, not only the mourner is forbidden to wash his clothes, but others are also forbidden to do this for him (v. <i>supra</i> § 380); b) There is a prohibition against wearing even garments that were washed prior to the time that mourning sets in. <i>This is derived from, ‘And Joab sent to Tekoa and fetched thence a wise woman and said unto her: I pray thee, feign thyself to be a mourner and put on mourning apparel, I pray thee, and annoint not thyself with oil but be as a woman that had a long time mourned for the dead’</i> (II Sam. XIV, 2) — M.K. 15a. With respect to the thirty days of mourning, no prohibition against washing (<span>כיבוס</span>) is found in the Talmud; only the prohibition against laundry work (<span>גיהוץ</span>) applies then. During the entire thirty days the mourner is forbidden to wear laundried garments (M.K. 23a), and R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon forbade only new white linen clothes, and Raba (<i>ibid.</i>) rules in accord with the latter.  also <i>ibid.</i> 27b; Yeb. 43a and <i>Rashi</i> a.l.; Yad, <i>Ebel</i> V, 1, 3; VI, 4. This represents the view of <i>Rashi, Maim.</i> and <i>Alfasi.</i> 2) Even washing (<span>כיבוס</span>) is forbidden for thirty days. This is derived from Sem(H). VII, 4, where it is stated, ‘One who did not wash garments on the eve of a Festival should not wash for thirty days.’ The Talmudic texts (cited <i>supra</i> 1) are explained as follows: Yeb. <i>ibid.</i> is interpreted according to this viewpoint as referring only to those persons enumerated in Mishna, M.K. III, 2. Regarding M.K. 27b, the text should be emended to read, ‘thirty days for washing (<span>כיבוס</span>), and as to M.K. 15a, it should be understood as referring to washing in water only, which is permitted during the thirty days save the seven days of mourning. However, washing with natron and lye is forbidden (M.K. 23a, Tosaf. s.v. <span>כל</span>). — This is the viewpoint held by <i>RIBA. Caro</i> accepts the first viewpoint which represents the majority of the authorities.</i> even [if washed] in water alone.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 17b, derived by R. Ḥisda from the Baraitha concerning one who suffered one bereavement immediately after another.  also Ta‘an. 13a.</i> However, after the seven [days of mourning], it is permissible.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">e., all types of washing.</i> Just as he is forbidden to wash [garments], so also is he forbidden to put on [garments] that were washed prior to this.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">e., prior to the mourning period (v. <i>supra</i> n. 1).  <i>T.H. contra Rashi.</i> Cf. M.K. 24b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ברכת</span>.  also O.Ḥ. § 551, 3.</i> <i>And after the seven</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>] <i>it is permissible, but people treat this as forbidden</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Thus opinion of <i>RIBA</i> and his followers — <i>G.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> n. </i> <i>However, it is customary that another person puts them on first, after which the mourner may wear them; and</i> [<i>this</i>] <i>custom is fundamental</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>SeMaK; Mord., Laws of Mourning</i> and <i>Kol Bo</i> — <i>G.</i> By ‘this custom is fundamental’ is meant that we should not think that this custom has no basis. On the contrary, is has a legal basis (v. <i>supra</i> n. 1) in accordance with the viewpoint of <i>RIBA.</i> However, as far as the law is concerned, we accept the view of the majority of the authorities. Thus also <i>B.Yos.</i> — <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>and this is the common practice in these countries after the seven</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>]. <i>If another person puts it</i> [<i>the garment</i>] <i>on even for an hour, it is sufficient</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> and <i>SeMaK</i> — <i>G.</i> Nowadays we do not practice the custom of giving another person the garments to put on first, for we adopt a lenient view with respect to an undergarment or shirt, since they are not worn for the sake of pleasure. One may therefore, change his undershirt on account of perspiration and <i>RIBA</i> may be referring to other garments usually worn on the Sabbath. During the seven days of mourning, one may put on a clean undershirt, if necessary, on account of perspiration or in a case where one suffers from a skin disease. It is only in the case of a garment that is worn for the sake of pleasure that the prohibition applies on the same principle as in the case of bathing (v. <i>supra</i> § 381 and notes) — <i>A.H.</i></i> Needless to say that it is forbidden to put on new garments. It is also forbidden to wash the sheets and bed-covers,<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">During the seven days of mourning.</i> or to spread out those already washed. And so too, hand-towels, although it is permissible to wash them during [<i>Hol-</i>] <i>ha-Moed</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos. On the Sabbath one is permitted to change the tablecloth (<i>Ta</i>Z) and the hand-towels, but during the week it is forbidden — <i>A.H.</i></i> and likewise, [the garments of] all those [persons] of whom we learnt<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna, M.K. III, 2.</i> that they may wash [their garments] during [<i>Hol-</i>] <i>ha-Moed</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos. On the Sabbath one is permitted to change the tablecloth (<i>Ta</i>Z) and the hand-towels, but during the week it is forbidden — <i>A.H.</i></i> e.g., one coming out of captivity or prison, or one under a ban and was released by the Sages, or one who applied to a Sage and was released [from a vow],<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Not to wash garments.</i> or one arriving from beyond the sea<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">From abroad.</i> [for the purpose of conducting business] in order to make profit and had no opportunity to cut his hair,<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">And likewise to wash his garments — <i>ShaK.</i></i> — are forbidden [to be washed] during one's mourning,<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">During <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> this would be permissible on account of the honour due to the Festival — <i>A.H.</i></i> — for if one of these [aforementioned] things happened to him [the mourner] prior to the [period of his] mourning, and he [thus] entered forthwith into the [period of] mourning, — [the law is that] he is forbidden to wash [his garments], unless one of these [aforementioned] things happened to him, following which he suffered one bereavement immediately after another, [in which case only] is he permitted to wash [his garments], even in natron and lye, and even during the seven [days of mourning], provided he does it in privacy in his home; and after [the period wherein] he suffered one bereavement immediately after another [is over], he is permitted to wash [his garments] in water, but not in natron, or in the [ingredients of the] alcalic plant.
It is permissible to wash the garments of minor children whose father<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">Or mother.</i> died.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hilkoth Sem.</i> of <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i> s. 24. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 384, 5. Children’s clothes must be changed frequently. The washing may be done in the house of mourning, for everyone knows that the clothes belong to the children — <i>A.H.</i></i>
It is forbidden to wear during the seven [days of mourning] new dyed garments or old clothes coming out of the press,<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>T.H.</i>, derived from M.K. 23a: ‘Our Rabbis taught: (Throughout the entire) thirty days (the mourner) is prohibited against wearing pressed garments. It matters not whether they be old or new garments coming out of the press. Rabbi says, They only forbade new garments. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon says, They only forbade new white linen garments.’ Since in matters of mourning we follow the lenient view, consequently, we adopt the lenient view of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon. This view, however, applies only during the thirty days, whence it follows that during the seven days of mourning it is forbidden.</i> <i>i.e., an instrument for pressing clothes</i>. <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that it is forbidden to wear Sabbath garments during the first four weeks</i> [<i>of mourning</i>], <i>but subsequent to that it is permissible, even</i> [<i>for one who is in mourning</i>] <i>for his father or mother</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Birke Yos.</i> (<i>infra</i> § 400) rules that on the Sabbath one is permitted to wear Sabbath garments, for otherwise this will be regarded as public mourning which is prohibited on the Sabbath. A woman during her mourning rites, whose first-born son has to be redeemed (<span>פדיון הבן</span>) is permitted to wear her festive garments — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> <i>So too</i>, [<i>is it permissible</i>] <i>to make new garments</i> [<i>after the first week of mourning</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> on the authority of <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i>. — <i>G.</i></i> <i>However, the common practice is to treat this</i> [<i>matter</i>] <i>as forbidden for the entire twelve months.</i>
[The mourner] is forbidden during the seven [days of mourning] to wash [garments] and put [them] away [for later use], whether he himself [does the washing] or through others.<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>T.H.</i> Cf. O.Ḥ. § 551. For the mourner must not work during the first week of mourning — <i>ShaK.</i></i> However, if his garment was in the hand of others on a labour contract, [the laundryman] may wash it in his usual manner as [in the case of] other work of his, [viz., his] loose material that is in the hand of others<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">And in the house of others.</i> under a labour contract.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 380, 18.</i>
[During] the entire thirty days [the mourner] is forbidden to wear, <i>or to spread out under him</i><sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> on the authority of <i>R. Yeruḥam</i> — <i>G.</i></i> a pressed garment, provided it is white and new,<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 23a in accord with Raba who accepts the view of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon who prohibits a mourner during the thirty days to wear new pressed garments only if white.  <i>T.H.</i> Thus also <i>Asheri</i> on the authority of <i>RaBaD.</i> Cf. also Sem(H). VII, 10; M.K. 27b; Y.M.K. III, 5(82a, 83d) ; <i>Hal. Ged. Laws of Mourning</i>; M.K. 23a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>רבא</span> and consult references in Sem. <i>ibid.</i></i> and even if it is a flaxen [garment].<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. O.Ḥ. § 551. In Ta‘an. 29b old flaxen garments are not included in the prohibition against laundry work, whence it follows that new flaxen garments are included.  also Y.M.K. <i>ibid.</i> and Pes. 109a.</i> [One in mourning] for his father or mother is forbidden [to wear pressed garments] until the [first] Festival after the thirty days arrives and his friends rebuke him.<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote">For debarring himself from wearing pressed garments. Sem(H). IX, 10; <i>T.H.</i> and <i>Asheri.</i> Although in Y. <i>ibid.</i> twelve months are mentioned, nevertheless, we adopt the ruling of Sem. For this is similar to hair-cutting (M.K. 22b), only that in the case of laundry work, the Festival is mentioned, because only then does it become noticeable to his friends. This is contrary to <i>Maim</i>. (Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VI, 4) who makes no mention of the Festival.</i>
[As to the meaning of] laundry work, some say<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i> citing <i>R. Hai Gaon</i>.</i> [that it corresponds to] SQL<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">The root SQL (<img src="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"> -saqala) in Arabic means to smooth or press. Hence, ironed or pressed garments. Cf. <i>Gesenius</i>, Dictionary s.v. <span>צקל</span>.</i> in the Arabic language; others say that it means washing [garments] in water and ashes or in natron and soap.<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N.Yos.</i>  O.Ḥ. § 551, 3.</i>
After the seven [days of mourning, the mourner] is permitted to do laundry work both for himself<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">To be worn after thirty days.</i> and for others. The [prohibition against] laundry work for thirty days was stated only with respect to wearing [laundried garments].<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>T.H.</i>  Sem(H). VII, 10 and <i>Asheri</i> to M.K. </i>
There is an authority<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> and <i>N.Yos.</i>  O.Ḥ. <i>ibid</i>.</i> who states that nowadays there is no prohibition against laundry work, for they<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote">The Sages.</i> said, 'Our laundry work is like their washing.'<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. <i>supra</i> par. 1 and notes.</i>

Siman 390

A mourner is forbidden to cut his hair,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 14a, b, derived from the Biblical injunction, <i>‘Let not the hair of your heads go loose’</i> (Lev. X, 6), whence we infer that for everyone else cutting the hair is forbidden. Cf. Ez. XLIV, 20. If a mourner is invited to be the <i>Sandek</i> at a circumcision, or if he is the <i>Mohel</i>, he is forbidden to cut his hair and this does not come within the ruling mentioned <i>infra</i> § 391, 2 <i>Gloss</i> on the authority of <i>MaHaRIL</i> — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> both the hair of his head as well as the hair of his beard, or any hair that he has [on his body], even that of the secret parts, — for the entire thirty days.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). VII, 1  also <i>ibid.</i> p. 230. Cf. <i>Asheri</i> to M.K. 23a; Yeb. 43a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>במקום</span>.</i> [As to] the hair of the upper lip and that which [droops] on the sides,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 18a in accord with Samuel.</i> — [the law is that] whatsoever causes a hindrance in partaking of food,<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> in accord with R. Ammi.</i> is forbidden [to be trimmed] during the seven [days of mourning] and permitted after the seven [days of mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Ghayyat</i> and <i>Hal. Ged.</i>  M.K. <i>ibid., Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ובגנוסטרי</span>. In <i>B.Yos. Caro</i> states that this was permitted only on <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> in accord with Yad, <i>Ebel</i> V, 2 and <i>RaBaD</i>, but not with respect to mourning.  <i>Kes. Mish. ibid.</i> Sem(H) <i>ibid.</i> is adduced that trimming the upper lip and the drooping sides was permitted only with respect to <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i>, but not regarding mourning. <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> cites Y.M.K. III, 1(82a) according to which even during the seven days of mourning this would be permitted. <i>Caro</i> (in <i>B.Yos</i>.) also quotes Y. <i>ibid.</i>, but makes a compromise and rules in accord with <i>Ghayyat. W.G.</i> states that the ruling of <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> is fundamental.</i>
[If a man] sat down to have his hair cut, and he was told that his father<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Or any other near-of-kin for whom he must observe mourning rites.</i> died, he may complete [cutting the hair of] his head, both if the hair-cutter as well as the one who was having his hair cut [suffered the bereavement];<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">On the principle that human dignity (in proper appearance) is very important (Men. 37b) — <i>Ta</i>Z.  Sem(H). V, 8; Y.Shab. I, 2(3a); M.K. 23b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ואינו</span>; <i>Asheri</i> to M.K.  Since this law is also found in Y.Shab. <i>ibid.</i> it seems that in the present ruling too, the same standard of time applies as in the case of hair-cutting on the eve of the Sabbath, viz., that hair-cutting commences from the time he places the hair-cutter’s wrap upon his knees (Shab. 9b) — <i>R.A.Eger.</i></i> and the fact that the hair-cutter may complete [the hair-cut, even after he was informed that he suffered a bereavement] applies [only in the case] where no other hair-cutter is available in the town.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.</i> to M.K. </i>
All those concerning whom they [the Sages] said that it is permissible [for them] to cut their hair during <i>Hol ha-Moed</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos. The following are permitted to cut their hair during <i>Ḥol ha-Moed:</i> One arriving from beyond the sea, or one coming out of captivity or prison, or one under a ban and was released by the Sages, or one who applied to a Sage and was released from a vow not to cut his hair, and a Nazirite or a leper who has come forth from uncleanness to cleanness (Mishna, M.K. 13b).  <i>supra</i> § 389, 1.</i>, — if any of these things happened to one prior to the [period of his] mourning, and [subsequently] he entered forthwith into the [period of his] mourning, — [the law is that] he is forbidden to cut his hair; but if one of these things happened to him [the mourner], and [following which], he suffered one bereavement immediately after another,<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 17b in accord with R. Ḥisda.</i> — [the law is that] he cuts his hair in his usual manner, both with a razor or a scissors, even during the seven [days of mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i>, for the Gemara <i>ibid.</i> mentions in the same Baraitha where the present law is taught, ‘and he washes his garment with water,’ and since the latter may be done even during the seven days of mourning (v. <i>supra</i> § 389, 1), so also here with respect to cutting the hair.</i> However, another person who suffered one bereavement after another,<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">e., one to whom the aforementioned things did not happen (v. n. 9 <i>supra</i>). The second bereavement was sustained at the conclusion of the thirty days of mourning after the first bereavement.</i> may make his hair lighter with a razor but not with a scissors,<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">He makes a change in the manner of cutting his hair. Hence, he uses a razor, for ordinarily one uses a scissors.</i> <i>provided he does it in privacy</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> on the authority of <i>N</i> — <i>G.</i> Cf. O.Ḥ. § 531.</i>
For all dead he cuts his hair after thirty days; for his father or mother [he lets his hair grow]<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">Thus Sem. and other texts.</i> until his friends rebuke him.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 22b; Sem(H). IX, 11; Y.M.K. III, 5(83d). It does not mean that it is obligatory for his friends to rebuke him. As long as the time limit for rebuke has passed, he may then cut his hair — <i>Birke Yos.</i> on the authority of <i>R. Isaiah.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>An</i> [<i>intervening</i>] <i>Festival has no legal effect</i>, [<i>viz., to suspend the aforementioned law</i>], <i>if it</i> [<i>the Festival</i>] <i>occurs prior</i> [<i>to the time</i>] <i>that his friends rebuke him</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> and v. O.Ḥ. § 548, 9 — <i>G.</i> Cf. also <i>supra</i> § 389, 5; <i>infra</i> § 399, </i> <i>As to the time limit</i> [<i>after which</i>] <i>a rebuke</i> [<i>should take place</i>], <i>there is a difference of opinion</i> [<i>among the authorities</i>], <i>and the common practice is</i> [<i>to wait</i>] <i>three months</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">In accord with the opinion of <i>Isserlein</i> in his <i>Decisions; Agudah; MaHaRIL</i> and <i>RaN</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>And in these localities it is the adopted practice not to cut one's hair</i> [<i>when in mourning</i>] <i>for a father or mother, during the entire twelve months</i> [<i>of mourning</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIL</i> in accord with the custom of some localities — <i>G.</i></i> <i>unless the need</i> [<i>is great</i>], <i>e.g., if his hair is too heavy upon him or he goes among gentiles and appears repulsive to them with his hair, in which case he is permitted to cut his hair</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">Thus. <i>Resp. Or Zaru‘a</i> — <i>G.</i> Some say that the present ruling has reference both to the hair of the head and the beard.  however, <i>Resp. MaHaRaM ShiK</i> (Y.D. § 371) who writes that after two or three weeks shaving the face (of course, in accordance with Jewish Law) is permissible, since the small hairs are very annoying and make one appear repulsive. This is in accord with <i>Nod‘a Bihudah</i> (O.Ḥ. § I, s. 14) and <i>Resp.</i> of <i>Ḥatam Sofer</i> (Y.D. s. 348) that all codifiers who speak of the time limit of a rebuke refer only to cutting the hair of the head but not to the beard. Cf. also <i>Ḥatam Sofer</i> (O.Ḥ s. 158) who reports that his teachers once permitted an individual, even during the seven days of mourning for his father, to cut his hair, wash and put on pressed garments in order to see the Duke or King with whom he had an appointment, the postponement of which would have entailed great monetary losses to the individual.  <i>Sh.M.B.</i> IV, p. 307 and <i>Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>) I, p. 352.  also articles of <i>R. L. Greenwald</i> in <i>ha-Pardes</i>, vol. 25, Feb. and March 1951, nos. 5 and 6, who permits a mourner in these countries where one shaves daily, to shave after the seven days of mourning (even one who is in mourning for a parent).</i>
A woman is permitted to remove hair after the seven [days of mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). VII, 11 cited by T.H.  Sem. <i>ibid.</i> pp. 19, 72, 230 for variant readings not found in cur. edd. Thus also <i>Alfasi</i> and <i>Maim.</i> (Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VI, 3. Cf. <i>RIDBa</i>Z a.l.).  <i>Asheri</i> to M.K. III; Yeb. 43a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>במקום</span>; M.K. 18a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ובגנוסטרי</span>.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And some declare this forbidden even for a woman;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>Tosaf.</i> M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i> <i>and thus is the</i> [<i>accepted</i>] <i>fundamental principle</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">The depilation of the upper temple and the lower temple is permissible for a woman where it is customary to remove superfluous hair — <i>ShaK.</i></i>
One is permitted to comb [the hair] of his head with a comb,<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">Some permit this only in the case of a woman — <i>Nek. Hak.</i></i> even during the seven [days of mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Yeruḥam</i> on the authority of <i>Rashi</i> a.o.  also <i>Hag. Maim.</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> V, 1; M.K. 19b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אתיא</span> on the principle that in matters pertaining to mourning rites we adopt the lenient view.</i>
Just as it is forbidden to cut hair during the entire thirty days [of mourning],<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 17b.  <i>supra</i> par. 1.</i> so also is it forbidden to cut one's nails<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 18a. This applies both to fiinger-nails and toe-nails in accord with R. Anan b. Taḥlifa.</i> with a nail-cutter, but [if done] with one's hands or teeth, it is permissible,<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> in accord with R. Ḥiyya b. Ashi.  <i>Asheri; Alfasi; T.H.;</i> M.K. <i>ibid., Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ובגנוסטרי</span>.</i> even during the seven days [of mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">In accord with Samuel (<i>ibid</i>.). Thus also <i>Alfasi</i> and <i>T.H.</i> cited by <i>Tur</i>, since this is not the normal way of cutting one’s nails.</i> A woman whose immersion [in the ritual bath] occurs after the seven, [but] during the thirty [days of mourning], if she should remove her nails with her hands or teeth, she would not remove them well, but she should [rather] instruct a Gentile woman to remove them for her with a razor or scissors.<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>B.Yos.</i> a.l. on the authority of <i>Hag. Maim.</i> (Yad, <i>Ebel</i> V, 2).</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And not necessarily a Gentile woman, but this may likewise be done by a Jewish woman</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote"><i>ShaK</i> forbids this to be done by another Jewish woman. <i>Ta</i>Z maintains that even she herself is permitted to remove her nails, if she will thus be able to remove them well. <i>A.H.</i> writes, ‘It seems to me that this (viz., <i>Ta</i>Z opinion) is the accepted custom.’</i> <i>but he</i><sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote">e.,. <i>Caro</i> in mentioning a Gentile woman.</i> <i>used the customary phraseology mentioned with respect to Hol ha-Moed</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos. His own opinion (comment on <i>Isserles’</i> Gloss) — <i>G.</i>  O.Ḥ. § 532.</i>

Siman 391

A mourner is forbidden joyous entertainment.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 22b.  <i>infra</i> par. 3.</i> Therefore, he should not take an infant in his arms<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘in his lap.’</i>, lest he be amused [thereby].<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 26b in accord with dictum of R. Papa on the authority of Ebel Rabbathi. This is one of the three texts cited by Amoraim in the Talmud not found in our texts of Sem.  Sem(H). pp. 14-15, 230. Amusement (<span>שחוק</span>) is not regarded as real joyous entertainment, but is related thereto. Hence, the prohibition applies only for seven days. Cf. Yad, <i>Ebel</i> V, 20. <span>שחוק</span> is the reverse of <span>בכי</span> (weeping).  Koh. III, 4: <i>‘A time to weep and a time to laugh.’</i> Therefore, during the seven days, the first three of which are for weeping (M.K. 27a), laughter or amusement is forbidden, but not during the remainder of the thirty days of mourning. Thus <i>Tur</i> and <i>Caro.</i> <i>Caro</i>’s text here, however, presents a difficulty. He begins with ‘joyous entertainment’ and then states ‘therefore he should not etc.,’ but as explained above, amusement (<span>שחוק</span>) is not complete joyous entertainment. The text should therefore, be understood thus, — ‘therefore etc.,’ i.e. since <span>שחוק</span> is not equivalent to joyous entertainment (<span>שמחה</span>), the prohibition lasts only for seven days — <i>A.H.</i> During the seven days of mourning a mourner may recite the prayers relating to the sanctification of the New Moon, provided that after the seven days the time limit to recite these prayers will have lapsed. On the <i>Habdalah</i> prayer during the seven days of mourning, v. <i>supra</i> § 376, 3, n. 14.</i>
[One in mourning] for all [other] dead may enter a house of feasting after thirty days; for his father and mother [not] until after twelve months [of mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 22b; Y.M.K. III, 8(83d); Sem(H). IX, 15. <i>Tur</i> and <i>Caro</i> use the term <span>בית המשתה</span> following Sem. In B. and Y. <i>ibid.</i> the term <span>בית השמחה</span> (house of joy) is found. Cf. <i>Tosef.</i> M.K. II end according to which these two terms connote two different aspects of joyous entertainment. <i>Tur</i> and <i>Caro</i> use <span>בית המשתה</span> (house of feasting) in a general sense including all types of joyous entertainment.</i> And even if the year is a leap year, he is permitted [to enter a house of feasting] after twelve months.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Since in the aforementioned texts twelve months are mentioned, not a year. Thus <i>Asheri</i> on the authority of <i>Ra’BlaH a.o.</i> Some texts omit this.  however, <i>Nek. Hak.</i></i> However, [in the case of] a joyous entertainment of companions,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">This refers to social gatherings of feasting which take place one day in the home of one person, and the next day in another’s home, and so on. Cf. Job. I, 4. This is not regarded as complete joyous entertainment. Moreover, the person is indebted to reciprocate.  M.K. <i>ibid., Rashi</i> s.v. <span>הא באריסותא</span>.</i> which he [the mourner] is obliged to reciprocate forthwith, he is permitted to hold it immediately after the seven days;<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> in accord with Amemar’s comments on the Baraitha.</i> but if he is not obliged to reciprocate it, he is forbidden to enter [the place of such entertainment] until thirty days;<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Thus M.K. <i>ibid.</i> in removing contradiction between two Baraithas.</i> and [one in mourning] for his father or mother, even if he is obliged to reciprocate it, he is forbidden <i>until</i> after twelve months.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Alfasi; Asheri;</i> Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VI, 7; <i>T.H.</i> The reason for this ruling is that the Gemara <i>ibid.</i> makes a distinction only with respect to the thirty days of mourning, whence we infer that in the case of one’s parent, the prohibition remains in force for twelve months even in the case where the mourner’s turn to reciprocate had arrived.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And in</i> [<i>the case of</i>] <i>a group</i> [<i>gathered</i>] <i>for a religious purpose, e.g., one</i> [<i>a mourner</i>] <i>who gives away in marriage a male or female orphan</i> [<i>thus performing a religious act</i>] <i>for the sake of heaven, and should he not eat there</i>, [<i>his meritorious</i>] <i>act might become suspended</i>, — [<i>the law is that</i>] <i>he is permitted</i> [<i>to join in the festivities</i>] <i>after thirty</i> [<i>days</i>];<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">This refers to one in mourning for a parent. In the case of other near-of-kin he is permitted even during the thirty days. Thus <i>BaḤ</i>. <i>ShaK</i> makes no such distinction. <i>Nod‘ah Bihudah</i> agrees with <i>BaḤ</i> — <i>D.Merb., P.Tesh</i>. For additional sources on <i>Isserles’</i> ruling, v. Koh. R. IX, 9; <i>M.</i> Ebel p. 238 (Hor.); M.K. 22b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v, <span>ולשמחת</span>; Yeb. 43b-44a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>שאני</span>; Ket. 4a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אבל איפכא לא</span>; <i>T.H.; Sem.</i> of <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i> s. 48-49 and <i>Maḥane Leviyah</i> a.l. ; <i>Asheri</i> to M.K. 22b, 23a; <i>RIDBaZ</i> to <i>Ebel</i> VI, 5-6; <i>Hag. Maim. ibid.</i> and cf. Sem(H). <i>ibid</i> for further references on this ruling.</i> <i>but within the thirty</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>], <i>he is forbidden</i> [<i>to join</i>] <i>in any feast whatsoever that is connected with a religious deed.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>RaBaD</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>However, he may enter</i> [<i>to join in</i>] <i>a feast that is connected with a religious act that has no joyous entertainment</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">For according to this viewpoint joyous entertainment refers only to a marriage feast where ‘<span>שהשמחה במעונו</span>’ (‘the joy is in his dwelling’) is recited — <i>N.Yos.</i></i> <i>e.g., the redemption of the</i> [<i>firstborn</i>] <i>son, or a feast of circumcision</i>, [<i>in which case</i>] <i>he is permitted to eat there, even during the seven</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>], <i>provided he does not leave the door of his house;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T. ha-Deshen</i> s. 251 — <i>G.</i></i> <i>but there are some who prohibit</i> [<i>this</i>] <i>in</i> [<i>the case of</i>] <i>a feast of circumcision.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord</i>. — <i>G.</i>  Shab. 130a (and cf. M.K. 22b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ולשמחת</span>) : ‘R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, Every religious duty which they accepted with joy, e.g., circumcision, as it is written, <i>“I rejoice at Thy word as one that findeth great spoil”</i> (Ps. CXIX, 162), they still continue to observe with joy.’ There are some nowadays who adopt the practice to go and participate in a circumcision feast or any other feast that is connected with a religious duty in accord with the ruling of <i>Ta</i>Z, for according to this viewpoint only a feast that has a secular nature is prohibited but not one that has a religious purpose — <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>The accepted practice, however, is, not to eat at any feast whatsoever, for the entire twelve months</i> [<i>of mourning</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">And likewise within the thirty days of mourning for other near-of-kin — <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> — <i>if it is outside of his home; and in his home we adopt the lenient view</i>, [<i>viz.</i>,] <i>that he may eat in his home at a feast of circumcision, and much more so at other feasts that have no joyous entertainment;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Likewise in the case of a feast held after the completion of a Talmudical tractate, or a Bar-Miẓwah celebration where the youngster delivers a legal discourse, or if the feast coincides with his thirteenth birthday, provided this takes place in his own home — <i>P.Tesh., D.Merb., ShaK</i> (<i>supra</i> § 246, n. 27) and <i>G.Mah.</i></i> <i>but in</i> [<i>the case of</i>] <i>a marriage-feast the stringent view should be adopted. Thus seems to me</i> [<i>to be the correct view</i>]. <i>A mourner who is a Sandek</i><sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>or a Mohel</i><sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>may wear Sabbath garments until after the circumcision, and he is permitted to enter a circumcision ceremony</i> [<i>and</i>] <i>to eat there, if it is after the thirty</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>], <i>although the circumcision does not</i> [<i>take place</i>] <i>in his home</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> on the authority of <i>MaHaRIL Resp.</i> — <i>G.</i></i>
[With respect] to [a mourner] entering [a place wherein] a marriage ceremony [is held], [i.e.,] not at the time that the wedding-meal is served, [but only] to hear the benedictions [recited under the canopy], — some permit,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">For the prohibition applies only to the wedding-meal.</i> and others prohibit, [unless] he remains only outside the building [wherein the marriage ceremony is held] in order to hear the benedictions.<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>R. Judah of Barcelona;</i> M.K. 22b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ולשמחת</span> end; and <i>SeMaG.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>But he should not enter the building at all at the time that</i> [<i>people who conduct</i>] <i>the musical entertainment for the groom and bride, are present therein.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote"> Ḥag. 14b and Y.Ḥag. II, 1(77a).</i> <i>And this is the common practice in Germany</i><sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> — <i>G</i>.</i> <i>and in these countries.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">e., Poland.</i> <i>However, all this</i> [<i>refers to</i>] <i>the house wherein the wedding</i> [<i>-feast</i>] <i>is held</i>, [<i>viz., to the place</i>] <i>wherein they eat, drink and make merry, but as to</i> [<i>the wedding ceremony under</i>] <i>the canopy which is held in the Synagogue</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote"> Suk. 25b.</i> <i>where they recite the betrothal and marriage benedictions, and where there is no joyous entertainment</i><sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">e., no music.</i> <i>at all, it is permissible</i> [<i>to enter therein</i>] <i>immediately after the seven</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Maim.</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>and some prohibit until thirty</i> [<i>days</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid</i> on the authority of <i>Ra’BIaH</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>and thus seems to me</i> [<i>to be the correct view</i>]. <i>There are some localities where a stringent view is adopted for the mourner to remain during the entire twelve months outside the Synagogue</i> [<i>with respect</i>] <i>to hearing the benedictions</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Glosses</i> in <i>MaHaRIL</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>Nevertheless, it seems</i> [<i>to me</i>] <i>that a mourner may recite the benedictions of betrothal and marriage under the canopy in the synaagogue</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">A Rabbi is permitted to officiate at a marriage ceremony, to recite the benedictions of betrothal and marriage, during the thirty days of mourning for a parent, provided there is no musical entertainment there — <i>G.Mah., A.H.</i> A Rabbi is also permitted even within the thirty days of mourning for a parent to attend the wedding-meal, if it is a question of losing livelihood — <i>Resp. Tub Ta‘am wa-Da‘ath. Minḥath Elazar</i>, however, forbids him to attend the wedding-feast.</i> <i>and he may likewise lead a groom</i> [<i>to the canopy</i>] <i>in accordance with the usage of our country that two persons lead the groom under the canopy, and he</i> [<i>the mourner</i>] <i>may wear some</i><sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">‘Some’ is deleted by certain authorities. He may wear all his usual Sabbath apparel — <i>ShaK</i>.</i> <i>of</i> [<i>his</i>] <i>Sabbath garments at the time that they lead</i> [<i>the groom under the canopy</i>], <i>provided it is after thirty</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote">His (<i>Isserles</i>’) own opinion — <i>G.</i> In the case of one in mourning for other near-of-kin, he is permitted even during the thirty days of mourning — <i>BaḤ</i> and <i>P.Tesh. contra ShaK.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> par. 2 <i>Gloss</i> and notes.</i> <i>And thus is the common practice</i>. <i>Some permit a mourner to eat at a wedding banquet or a circumcision with those who wait upon</i> [<i>the guests</i>], <i>provided it is not in a place of joyous entertainment, e.g.</i>, [<i>where</i>] <i>he is in another room</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> and <i>B.Yos.</i> on the authority of <i>SeMaK</i> — <i>G.</i> If there was one short for the requisite number of ten (<i>Minyan</i>), the mourner may enter the place of the wedding banquet and eat there — <i>R.A.Eger.</i></i> <i>and some prohibit</i> [<i>this</i>];<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Asheri</i> — <i>G.</i> According to the first opinion that permits, the prohibition applies only if the mourner eats together with all the guests. Hence, if he eats with the waiters in another room, it is permissible ; whereas, according to the second opinion that prohibits, even if the mourner eats in a separate room with the waiters, it is still designated a place of joyous entertainment — <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>and thus is the accepted practice, only that the mourner waits upon</i> [<i>the guests</i>] <i>there, if he so desires, but eats in his house of whatever</i> [<i>food</i>] <i>they send to him from the</i> [<i>wedding</i>-] <i>meal. Some permit a mourner to eat of the fishmeal</i><sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. Gen. I, 20-23 and Ket. 5a on the blessing given to the fish.</i> <i>which is</i> [<i>usually</i>] <i>prepared after the marriage</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">e., on the day following the marriage.</i> <i>for after they have already ceased to say, 'in whose dwelling there is joy,' there is a distinct indication that there is no joyous entertainment at that meal, and</i> [<i>consequently</i>] <i>he is permitted</i> [<i>to be present there</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> on the authority of <i>Rokeaḥ</i> — <i>G.</i> This is in accord even with those authorities who prohibit the mourner against participating in any feast whatsoever (v. <i>supra</i> par. 2 <i>Gloss</i>). It seems that in former days it was customary not to recite ‘in those dwelling there is joy,’ beginning with the second day after marriage. However, nowadays it is customary to recite this passage throughout the seven days of the wedding-feast. Consequently, the present ruling does not apply today.  <i>BaḤ</i> and <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>Some say that one is forbidden to eat at a feast, on the night of which the following day is the death</i> [<i>anniversary</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote">The <i>Yahrzeit</i> day.</i> <i>of one's father or mother</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Minhag.</i> on the authority of <i>MaHaRIW</i> — <i>G.</i> Some say that this refers only to the first year — <i>A.H.</i> In any case this refers only to a marriage feast that has musical entertainment, but at a circumcision, redemption of the first-born or a feast held after the completion of a Talmudical tractate, it is permissible — <i>P.Tesh.</i> One who makes a living as a musician is permitted to play music even during the twelve months of mourning for a parent or within the thirty days for other near-of-kin — <i>A.H.</i></i>

Siman 392

[The mourner] is forbidden to take a wife during the entire thirty days [of mourning],<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> derived from M.K. 23a.</i> even without [making] a [wedding-] feast;<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">The same ruling applies prior to the week during which the fast of the ninth of Ab occurs.  Yeb. 43a-b and O.Ḥ. § 551, 2 (Isserles (<i>ibid.</i>)rules, however, that it is prohibited to take a wife from the seventeenth of Tammuz until the ninth of Ab incl.). For the marriage proper is considered a joyous occasion. It matters not whether he is a bachelor or a widower, or whether he is marrying a spinster or a widow.</i> and after thirty [days], he is permitted, even [if he is in mourning] for his father and mother,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Although in all other laws pertaining to mourning, the law of twelve months applies to one in mourning for a parent, in the case of marriage, however, the Rabbis were not stringent and put the law of mourning for a parent on an equal footing with one who mourns the loss of other near-of-kin, who observes mourning rites for thirty days only. Consequently, he may even prepare a feast, despite the fact that he is in mourning for a parent.  Yeb. 43b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>שאני</span>; Ket. 4a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אבל</span>; <i>Asheri</i> on the authority of <i>R. Tam;</i> Sem(H). IX, 14; VIII, 15.</i> and he is even [permitted] to make a [wedding-] feast.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Although in all other laws pertaining to mourning, the law of twelve months applies to one in mourning for a parent, in the case of marriage, however, the Rabbis were not stringent and put the law of mourning for a parent on an equal footing with one who mourns the loss of other near-of-kin, who observes mourning rites for thirty days only. Consequently, he may even prepare a feast, despite the fact that he is in mourning for a parent.  Yeb. 43b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>שאני</span>; Ket. 4a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אבל</span>; <i>Asheri</i> on the authority of <i>R. Tam;</i> Sem(H). IX, 14; VIII, 15.</i> However, he is permitted to betroth a wife,<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">To become engaged.</i> even on the day of death [of his near-of-kin],<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VI, 5. Maimonides’ reason is that M.K. <i>ibid.</i> mentions only marriage, but not betrothal. Therefore, since in Yeb. <i>ibid.</i> there is a difference of opinion between R. Judah and R. Jose, the latter maintaining that it is forbidden to betroth, — yet, since M.K. would harmonize with R. Judah’s view, who permits betrothal, this is the law — <i>Leḥ. Mish.</i> Furthermore, just as we find that on the fast day of the ninth of Ab, one may betroth lest another man get ahead of him in proposing to the woman he desires to marry (<span>שמא יקדמנו אחר</span>), the same applies according to Maim. to mourning rites. However, most of the authorities dispute this ruling of <i>Maim</i>., for they hold that the law is in accord with R. Jose (Yeb. <i>ibid</i>.), and this law cannot be derived from the ninth of Ab, since in the latter case it is considered ‘an ancient mourning’ (<span>אבילות ישנה</span>). Accordingly, the reason M.K. <i>ibid.</i> mentions only marriage, is primarily for the sake of introducing a remarkable feature, viz., marriage during mourning, but this does not exclude betrothal from the same ruling. <i>Isserles</i>, therefore, rules (v. anon) that even betrothal is forbidden for the entire thirty days.</i> provided he does not make a feast [of betrothal], unless thirty days have gone by [at which time a feast is permissible].<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>Kes. Mish.</i> to Yad, <i>ibid.</i> and <i>B.Yos.</i> a.l.</i> <i>And some say that even betrothal is forbidden the entire thirty days</i> [<i>of mourning</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur, Asheri</i> and <i>N</i> — <i>G.</i> Cf. n. 5 <i>supra.</i> Negotiations preliminary to betrothal (<span>שידוכין</span>) are permitted even on the day of death (<i>BaḤ</i>), provided no feast is made — <i>ShaK, A.H.</i> Cf. <i>Sh.M.B.</i> IV, p. 309-10.</i> <i>And thus is the fundamental principle</i>.
If his wife died, he is forbidden to take another [wife] until three Festivals have gone by her [death].<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 23a in accord with the First Tanna; Sem(H). VII, 15. Thus also Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VI, 5 cited by <i>Tur, contra</i> second opinion stated by R. Judah (M.K. <i>ibid.</i>) that the prohibition extends only until the second Festival, but before the third he is permitted. <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>ער</span> state on the authority of <i>R. Jonah</i> that R. Judah’s opinion cannot be accepted on the principle that in all matters pertaining to mourning the law is in accord with the lenient authority (this is in fact the ruling of <i>Ghayyat, N</i> and <i>Asheri</i> that we we must accept R. Judah’s view since he represents the lenient opinion), for in the case of remarriage after his former wife’s death, the days of mourning (i.e., the thirty days) have already gone by and the reason for the requirement of three Festivals has no bearing upon mourning rites. <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> advances various reasons why the husband must wait until three Festivals have passed prior to remarriage, — a) that by waiting for three Festivals to pass without the joy of marital life, he will not forget his former wife’s love and consequently, he will be inspired to remarry; b) to give the husband a chance to forget his former wife’s love, so that when he remarries, he will not mention his former wife’s love and devotion to his second wife, and thereby will avoid domestic friction. The law of three Festivals applies whether his former wife was at the time of marriage a spinster or a widow, or whether it was his first or second marriage. Likewise, whether his former wife was healthy or sick, or whether he lived peacefully or had disputes with her — <i>A.H.</i> The lenient view of R. Judah that two Festivals suffice, may be relied upon in a case of emergency — <i>A.H.</i> In the case where her husband died, she mourns only for thirty days, but she is forbidden to become engaged or to remarry before three months go by, in order to determine whether she is with child by her former husband or not (v. E.H. § 13). <i>Mord.</i> states that the reason why a woman does not have to wait until three Festivals have gone by before remarriage, is that she is satisfied to lead a married life than to remain single (v. Kid. 7a), and consequently, she is more apt to forget her former husband after thirty days of mourning and to devote herself to her new partner. If it happened that he married her within her thirty days of mourning for other near-of-kin, she should not cohabit with him before the thirty days of mourning are over. Thus opinion of <i>Maim.</i> (Yad, <i>ibid</i>), in accord with <i>BaḤ’s</i> interpretation — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK</i>. <i>Shemini Aẓereth</i> is considered an independent Festival with respect to the waiting period of three Festivals — <i>D.Merb. R.A.Eger</i>, however, disagrees with the latter. One whose wife died on <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> of the Passover Festival, and he wishes to remarry on the twentieth of Adar II, i.e., after twelve months will have gone by, the law is that although three Festivals will not have elapsed, he is nevertheless, permitted — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> <i>However, as to entering a house of feasting, the law regarding him is as</i> [<i>in the case of</i>] <i>other near-of-kin</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> — <i>G.</i>  Yeb. 43b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>שאני</span>. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 391. With respect to all other matters pertaining to mourning rites, he observes only thirty days as in the case of other near-of-kin — <i>ShaK.</i></i> The New Year and the Day of Atonement are not regarded as Festivals in this respect.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">The New Year (<i>Rosh ha-Shana</i>) and the Day of Atonement (<i>Yom Kippur</i>) are not regarded as Festivals in Scripture (‘Er. 40b). The three Festival are Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles (cf. <i>supra</i> n. 8).  O.Ḥ. § 582, 8.</i> If he has not complied [yet] with the duty of propagation,<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i>  E.H. § 1.</i> or [if] he has small children, or [if] he has no one to attend to him,<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">Y.Yeb. IV, 11(6b)</i> he may betroth forthwith and wed [her] after the seven [days of mourning],<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">This is in accord with <i>Caro</i>’s ruling <i>supra</i> par. 1, who follows <i>Maim.</i> But according to <i>Isserles’</i> ruling (<i>ibid</i>.), even betrothal would be permitted only after thirty days. <i>Ta</i>Z raises the question why <i>Isserles</i> does not comment here as <i>supra</i> in par. 1. <i>Nek. Hak.</i> states that this is self-evident and does not necessitate a separate <i>Gloss</i> by <i>Isserles.</i></i> but he should not cohabit with her until after thirty days,<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">In accord with R. Papa in M.K. <i>ibid.</i> Cf. Sem. <i>ibid.</i></i> unless he has not [yet] complied with the duty of propagation, for [only] then is he permitted to cohabit with her after the seven [days of mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>R. Tam.</i> Thus also <i>Asheri</i> on the authority of <i>RaBaD</i> Also implied by <i>Alfasi.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>The same principle applies to other mourning, even to mourning for one's father and mother</i>, [<i>viz., that</i>] <i>he is permitted to marry and cohabit with her after the seven</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>], [<i>only</i>] <i>if he has not</i> [<i>yet</i>] <i>complied with the duty of propagation. Some say that even one who is wealthy and can afford to hire men and women servants</i> [<i>to attend to him</i>], — <i>yet, if his daughter or daughter-in-law are not present with him at his home so that</i> [<i>either of them</i>] <i>should be able to attend to him</i>, [<i>e.g</i>.,] <i>in the cleansing of his head or</i> [<i>in</i>] <i>other</i> [<i>private</i>] <i>matters, — for he feels embarrassed</i> [<i>when</i>] <i>others</i> [<i>do this for him</i>], — [<i>the law is that</i>] <i>he is regarded</i> [<i>as one who</i>] <i>has no one to attend to him, and</i> [<i>the same ruling applies to</i>] <i>everything similar to this</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Decisions of Isserlein</i> s. 13 — <i>G.</i></i> <i>And it is for this reason that the custom has spread that many people adopt a lenient view in</i> [<i>this matter, and take wives within</i> [<i>the period of</i>] <i>three Festivals, but a conscientious person should bethink himself</i> [<i>in doing this</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">One who has a store or other business and cannot rely upon strangers, is also regarded as one who has no one to attend to him.</i> [<i>In the case of</i>] <i>one who was seized by the Governor, and</i> [<i>the latter</i>] <i>refuses to let him go from his detention until he takes a wife within</i> [<i>the period of</i>] <i>three Festivals after his</i> [<i>former</i>] <i>wife's death, some permit</i> [<i>him to remarry</i>] <i>on account of his suffering</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>And thus seems to me to be the fundamental principle</i>.
One who had not [yet] complied with the duty of propagation and had completed negotiations with a woman preliminary to betrothal,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">e., he proposed to her and she accepted.</i> and after he made the wedding preparations, the brother of the woman who was proposed to [by him], died, — [the law is that] he is permitted to wed her and to cohabit with her after the seven [days of mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing case dealt with by <i>R. Tam</i> and <i>Asheri</i> in his decisions. Two conditions are required in order for him to be permitted to wed her according to the present ruling: a) If he has not yet complied with the duty of propagation; b) if postponed, a monetary loss will be sustained with respect to that which has been prepared for the wedding — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK.</i>  <i>supra</i> § 342.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Similarly, if he has small children and he agreed</i> [<i>to marry</i>] <i>his wife's sister, he is permitted to wed her</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">Forthwith, and he cohabits with her after thirty days, since he has already complied with the duty of propagation — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK.</i>  M.K. 23a in the case where the wife of Joseph the Priest, died, and the latter said to her sister on the cemetery: ‘Go and take care of your sister’s children.’</i> <i>for she shows mercy to her sister's children more than another</i> [<i>woman</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri; Hag. Maim.</i> and <i>Mord.</i> — <i>G.</i> This is permissible even if no monetary loss is sustained.</i>

Siman 393

A mourner does not go out during the first three days [of mourning] to a house of mourning nor to a cemetery [to attend a funeral];<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 21b. Cf. Sem(H). VI, 4; Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VII, 5 and <i>RIDBa</i>Z a.l. If he himself suffers another bereavement, he is permitted to attend the funeral — <i>P.Tesh., G.Mah.</i></i> thereafter, if others suffered a bereavement in his neighbourhood, he goes out after the bier to the cemetery,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i> on the authority of Ebel Rabbathi, not found in cur. edd. of Sem.  Sem(H). p. 239. After three days of mourning, a <i>Kohen</i> may go out to officiate at the ceremony of the Redemption of the First-born — <i>Shiyure Berakah.</i></i> but does not sit among the comforters, but [rather] among those who are to be comforted.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i> However, if there are not enough [people] there [to carry the bier] and to attend to its burial, he may leave [his house], even on the first day, and even [if this takes place] in another neighbourhood.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). <i>ibid.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And part of the third is regarded as a complete day</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Maim. ibid.</i> VII — <i>G.</i>  M.K. 21b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s, v, <span>מכאן</span> <i>ibid.</i> 21a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>משלישי</span>. Cf. Sem(H). <i>ibid.</i> 2, 4 with respect to greeting on the third day and v. <i>supra</i> § 380, 2, n. 18.</i> <i>but I have not seen this custom practiced now, for the mourner does not go to the cemetery nor to a house of mourning for the entire seven days</i> [<i>of mourning</i>], <i>and perhaps this</i><sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Caro</i>’s ruling.</i> <i>is not obligatory but is only optional, and</i> [<i>furthermore</i>,] <i>since one is not comforted now as</i> [<i>was the practice</i>] <i>in their days</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"> P.R.E. § XVII for different customs as to the place where mourners were comforted in former times which are no longer in vogue today. Cf. <i>T.H.</i> and <i>A.H.</i> a.l.</i> [<i>consequently</i>], <i>'Sit and do nothing'</i><sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">e., do not act in doubtful cases. On this legal principle, v. ‘Er. 100a a.e.</i> <i>is better</i>.
A mourner during the first week [of mourning] does not leave the door of his house,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 23a; Sem(H). X, 12; Y.M.K. III, 5(82b-c).</i> even to hear the benedictions of the marriage ceremony or the benedictions of the circumcision ceremony.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">For during the first week of mourning a mourner is dutibound to perform all positive precepts which he himself performs, e.g., <i>Ẓiẓith</i>, <i>Tefillin</i> or the circumcision of his son, but he is not permitted to attend a marriage or a circumcision of another person in order to hear the benedictions. Thus <i>Asheri, Resp.; Tur</i> and <i>R. Yeruḥam</i> on the authority of the codifiers — <i>ShaK.</i> One whose sister died and he has to meet his father (who is unaware of his daughter’s death), may go out during the first week of mourning in order to meet him so that the matter become not known to his father — <i>G.Mah.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>But one who adopts a lenient view</i>, [<i>viz</i>.,] <i>to go out at night</i><sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">After people are no longer present in the streets — <i>R.A.Eger.</i> A mourner observing the seven days of mourning not in his own home is permitted to go home at night in order to sleep at his own residence.  Sem(H). XI, 11.</i> <i>because of necessity, loses nothing;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T. ha-Deshen</i> s. 290 — <i>G.</i></i> <i>and as to the fact that he is forbidden to leave his house, it applies only to walking about</i> [<i>at leisure</i>], <i>or to engage in business or the like, but if a ruler summoned him</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord</i>. — <i>G.</i></i> <i>or where he must go on the road, or for other pressing matters that require him, e.g., a matter</i> [<i>which, if postponed</i>] <i>will entail an irretrievable loss, he is permitted to go out</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 27a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אם</span> end — <i>G.</i></i> <i>And thus is the accepted custom. As to the law with respect to wearing shoes, v. supra</i> § 38<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>ibid.</i> par. 3, n. 7.</i> The second week [of mourning] he goes out but does not sit in his [customary] place [in the Synagogue],<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 23a; Sem(H). X, 12; Y.M.K. III, 5(82b-c).</i> nor does he engage in conversation. The third week [of mourning] he may sit in his place but does not engage in conversation.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 23a; Sem(H). X, 12; Y.M.K. III, 5(82b-c).</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>However, if he desires not to sit in his</i> [<i>customary</i>] <i>place during the third week</i> [<i>of mourning</i>], <i>but</i> [<i>he desires</i>] <i>to engage in conversation, he has the right to do so</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Maim.</i> (<i>Ebel</i> VII) — <i>G.</i></i> <i>And now the accepted practice is that one does not sit in one's</i> [<i>customary</i>] <i>place</i> [<i>in the Synagogue</i>] <i>for the entire thirty days</i> [<i>of mourning</i>], <i>and</i> [<i>one in mourning</i>] <i>for his father and mother, — for the entire twelve months</i> [<i>of mourning</i>]. <i>However, this custom has no fundamental basis. Yet, one should not change from the accepted practice</i>, — <i>for every locality</i> [<i>should act</i>] <i>in accordance with its adopted custom</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. M.K. 23a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>רבי יהודה</span>; Y. ibid; D.M. a.l.</i> The fourth week [of mourning] he is like any other person,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 23a; Sem(H). X, 12; Y.M.K. III, 5(82b-c).</i> even if the first three weeks [of mourning] were not complete, e.g., [in a case] where the person died in the middle of the week, — [the law is that] as soon as that week and two [more] weeks following it, ended, the next week is considered the fourth.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur.</i></i>
The mourner does not go out on a weekday to the Synagogue, but on the Sabbath he may go out,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur.</i>  <i>Asheri</i> cited <i>ibid. R. Hai Gaon</i> writes that everything is in accordance with the prevailng custom. This ruling has reference only where the mourner has a <i>Minyan</i> (ten male worshippers) at his home for services (v <i>supra</i> § 376). Otherwise, he may go to attend services at the Synagogue in order to be able to recite <i>Kaddish, Kedushah</i> and <i>Bareku</i> with a <i>Minyan.</i> He should then go to the nearest Synagogue in his neighbourhood. Even if the Synagogue is far away from his home he is permitted to go there under the aforementioned conditions — <i>P.Tesh., Mishmereth Shalom.</i> The mourner, however, should not lead the services in the Synagogue, since certain sections of the prayers are omitted by a mourner — <i>Later Authorities.</i>  however, <i>supra</i> § 376, 4 <i>Gloss;</i> § 384, 3, n. 11.</i> <i>and thus also to the House of Study</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> — <i>G.</i>  Sem(H). X, 12. This substantiates the view of <i>Mord.</i> on the authority of <i>RI</i> that on the Sabbath a mourner may study Torah — <i>A.H.</i> On the source of the custom for the mourner to enter the Synagogue on the eve of the Sabbath prior to the Ma‘arib service, v. P.R.E. § </i> — and we adopt the practice that on every day [of the week] when the Torah is read, he goes to the Synagogue. <i>Gloss</i>: <i>However, in these countries, it is the accepted practice that he goes out</i> [<i>to the Synagogue</i>] <i>only on the Sabbath</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">The same applies to the eve of the New Year (<i>Rosh ha-Shana</i>) in order to recite the <i>Seliḥoth</i>, and to the fast of the ninth of Ab — <i>Me’ore Or.</i> On the day before the advent of the Passover Festival, a mourner is forbidden to go to the Synagogue in order to participate in the <i>Siyyum</i> (completion of a Talmudic tractate) conducted for the first-born — <i>Yosef Da‘ath.</i></i> <i>If the mourner is a Mohel</i><sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>or a Sandek</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> — [<i>if</i>] <i>after three</i> [<i>days of mourning have passed, — the law is that</i>] <i>he should</i> [<i>still</i>] <i>recite his prayers at home, and when the infant is brought</i> [<i>to the Synagogue</i>] <i>to be circumcised, the mourner may</i> [<i>then</i>] <i>go to the Synagogue;</i><sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Asheri</i> — <i>G.</i> But the father of the child may go out even during the first three days — <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>but within the three</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>], <i>he should not go, unless there is no other Mohel</i><sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> [<i>available</i>] <i>in the city</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Or Zaru‘a</i> — <i>G.</i> For only then is he permitted to go out and even on the first day — <i>ShaK.</i> The principle here is the same as <i>supra</i> par. 1, since it is a religious duty.</i> <i>Some adopt a lenient view even during the three</i> [<i>days of mourning</i>], <i>even if there is another Mohel</i><sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> [<i>available</i>] <i>in the city</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> — <i>G.</i>  <i>ShaK.</i></i> <i>He is permitted to prepare his nails and to cut</i> [<i>them</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Nek. Hak. supra</i> § 390.  also <i>P.Tesh</i>.; <i>D.M.; Be’er ha-Golah</i> and <i>R.A.Eger</i>, that this refers to his nails,—for cutting the hair is forbidden.</i> [<i>a matter which is</i>] <i>required</i> [<i>to be done</i>] <i>on account of the circumsicion, but if there is another Mohel</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> [<i>available</i>], <i>it is forbidden</i> [<i>to do this</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">For the thirty days of mourning — <i>R.A.Eger.</i> This is his (i.e., <i>Isserles</i>’) opinion <i>contra Or Zaru‘a</i> who permits without making any distinction (whether there is or is not another <i>Mohel</i> available) — <i>G.</i></i> <i>Likewise</i>, [<i>in the case of</i>] <i>every matter connected with a religious duty that cannot be performed without the mourner, he is permitted to go out in order to perform the religious duty</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">Opinion of <i>Isserles</i> and <i>Caro</i> — <i>G.</i></i>
Those who adopt the practice when they are mourners not to change their [customary] place in the Synagogue on the Sabbath, are correct in doing so.<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> For otherwise this would be regarded as public mourning which is forbidden on the Sabbath.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some say that on the Sabbath he should also change his</i> [<i>customary</i>] <i>place</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N.Yos.</i> to B.B. 100b — <i>G.</i> Cf. P.R.E. <i>ibid</i>. and <i>infra</i> § 400 beg. This would not be considered as public mourning for very often it happens that a person changes his place in the Synagogue, even when he is not in mourning — <i>ShaK.</i> When changing one’s place in the Synagogue during a weekday, one should remove himself at least four cubits from the previous place — <i>P.Tesh.</i> If one suffers a bereavement on a Festival, he should not change his place — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> <i>and thus is the common practice, and one should not alter</i> [<i>this</i>] <i>custom</i>.

Siman 394

One should not grieve excessively for the dead, and whosoever grieves excessively for him, will weep for another [dead]<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 27b in accord with Rab Judah on the authority of Rab.</i> save that three days [are designated] for weeping, seven for lamenting, thirty [to abstain from] cutting the hair and wearing laundried garments.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i>, for it is written, <i>“‘Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him”</i> (Jer. XXII, 10), which is explained as follows: <i>‘“Weep ye not for the dead”</i> — excessively; <i>“neither bemoan him”</i> — beyond measure. In what matter? — Three days for weeping and seven for lamentation etc.’ (<i>ibid</i>.).</i>
This applies to the rest of the people, but [as to] scholars [who died], everything is according to their wisdom;<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>RaShBA.</i></i> and one does not weep for them more than thirty days,<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from Rabbi’s instructions prior to his death, viz., ‘Reassemble the College after thirty days for I am not more important than Moses of whom it is written, <i>“And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days”’</i> (Deut. XXXIV, 8) — Ket. 103b.</i> nor does one make a lamentation for them more than twelve months,<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Ket. <i>ibid.</i></i> and likewise, a Sage whose [death] report was received after twelve months, is not lamented.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Yeb. 79a. Cf. M.K. 21b. This applies even on the day that the death report is received — <i>Shak.</i></i>
One may go out to the cemetery and visit the dead until three days [after being placed in the sepulchral chamber], for perhaps he is still alive.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). VIII, 1. According to some versions ‘until thirty days.’ Cf. A.R.N. § XLI; Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IV, 4 also <i>RIDBaZ</i> and <i>Migdol Oz</i> a.l.; Sem(H). Int. VI, 4. This custom refers to Talmudic days when it was customary to bury the dead in sepulchral chambers and it was possible to view the corpse in order to determine whether the person was really dead — <i>ShaK.</i> Cf. Sam. <i>ibid.</i> where it is related that it once happened that one visited an entombed person and the latter was found living and lived twenty years thereafter and begat children.</i>
During the first three days [of mourning], the mourner should look upon himself as if a sword is resting between his shoulders; from the third to the seventh, as if it is standing in the corner facing him; from the seventh to the thirtieth, as if it is passing before him in the market place; and throughout the entire year, the judgment is aimed against that family. But if a male child is born in that family, the entire family becomes healed.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 27b; Y.M.K. III, 7(83c): ‘This is comparable to a heap of stones; when one of them is shaken, all of them are shaken.’ Cf. Y.San. X, 1(27d).</i>
When one [member] of a company dies, the whole company should feel troubled.<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Shab. 105-106a. e., they should examine their ways.</i>
Whosoever does not observe mourning rites as the Sages commanded is a cruel person, but one should fear and be troubled and investigate his conduct and repent.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XIII, 12. Cf. Lam. III, 39ff., ‘<i>Wherefore doth a living man complain, a strong man because of his sins? Let us search and try our ways and return to the Lord. Let us lift up our heart with our hands unto God in the heavens etc</i>.’</i>

Siman 395

As soon as the comforters have risen [to leave] from the presence of the mourner on the seventh day, he<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">The mourner.</i> is permitted [to do] everything that he was forbidden during the seven [days of mourning], for part of the [seventh] day [is regarded] as the whole day,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 19b in accord with Abba Saul.  also Pes. 4a; Nid. 33a, <i>Rashi</i> s.v. <span>אין</span>; <i>supra</i> § 393, 1 <i>Gloss</i>. Among the commentators there is a difference of opinion as to whether the principle ‘part of the day is regarded as the whole day’ (<span>מקצת היום ככולו</span>) refers only to the day or also to the preceding night (since the day is comprised of the preceding evening and the following morning until sunset.  Gen. I, 5, <i>‘And there was evening and there was morning one day’</i>). <i>Tosaf.</i> (M.K. 21b s.v. <span>אפילו</span>) and <i>Asheri</i> (to M.K. <i>ibid.</i>) maintain that this principle applies only to the day. <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> holds that it refers to the preceding night as well. <i>Caro</i> as it may be seen rules in accordance with the first view, viz., that on the morning of the seventh day as soon as the comforters leave the mourner, the restrictions of the seven days become inoperative. However, in matters pertaining to the performance of a religiuos duty, e.g., Torah-study, marital intercourse we adopt the lenient view and consider part of the night of the seventh day as equivalent to the entire seventh day; in matters where no religious duty is involved, e.g., bathing, anointing etc. we rule that part of the seventh day following the night, is regarded as the whole day — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> [and furthermore, there is] no difference whether it is part of the seventh day or part of the thirtieth day [of mourning],<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 19b in accord with the Nehardeans.</i> for as soon as the sun has risen on the thirtieth day, the restrictions of the thiry [days] cease to exist for him.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri</i> and <i>R. Yeruḥam</i> — <i>G.</i> On the thirtieth day when no comforters are present, the restrictions cease with sunrise — <i>ShaK.</i> Cf. Meg. 20a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ספירה</span>.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And in these countries where it is not customary for the comforters to come on the seventh day, one is required to wait until the hour when it is customary for the comforters to come on other days, viz., after the departure</i> [<i>of the worshippers</i>] <i>from the Synagogue</i>, [<i>at which time</i>] <i>it is customary for comforters to come. Thus seems to me</i> [<i>to be the correct view</i>], <i>and not as the common practice is to wait an hour after the day</i> [<i>has commenced</i>], <i>for the matter depends solely upon the comforters rising</i> [<i>to depart</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Thus implied in <i>Asheri</i> — <i>G.</i></i>
One who heard [a death report of] distant tidings<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>infra</i> § 40</i> at night, — since one hour [of mourning] is sufficient [in such a case], it is accounted as valid even [if observed] at night.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i> and <i>Asheri</i> to M.K. </i>
One whose father or mother died on the first day of the month of <i>Nisan</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> — [the law is that] we do not say on the twenty-ninth day of <i>Adar</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> following, 'A part of the day [is regarded] as the whole day,'<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">As in the case of the seven and the thirty days of mourning. For this principle applies only to days and not to months — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK. RIDBaZ</i> adopts a lenient view in this matter — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> but one must observe those things that are prohibited during the twelve months [of mourning] until the first day of the month of <i>Nisan</i><sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> arrives.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T. ha-Deshen</i> s. 292.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>It is also customary to include the day wherein</i> [<i>one's</i>] <i>father or mother died</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">The anniversary of death or <i>Yahrzeit</i> even if it occurs on the Sabbath — <i>ShaK. T. ha-Deshen</i> (<i>ibid.</i>) states the reason as follows: Since on the <i>Yahrzeit</i> day the mourner leads the services, recites the <i>Kaddish, Bareku</i> and fasts on that day, it is treated as a day of mourning. <i>BaḤ</i> writes that in a leap year (v. <i>supra</i> § 391, 2) the <i>Yahrzeit</i> day is not regarded as a day of mourning since it takes place a month later and is not the concluding day of the twelve month period.  however, <i>Ta</i>Z a.l.; <i>supra</i> § 391, 3 <i>Gloss</i> end and notes; <i>infra</i> § 402, 12 <i>Gloss.</i></i> [<i>viz.</i>,] <i>to treat it</i> [<i>in accordance with</i>] <i>the law of the twelve months'</i> [<i>period of mourning</i>] <i>and this is the proper</i> [<i>usage</i>].

Siman 396

A mourner who did not observe his mourning rites during the seven [days of mourning], whether inadvertently or wilfully,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Or in the case of an unavoidable interference through no fault of his own — <i>A.H.</i></i> may make up for it<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘complete.’ e., the mourning rites.</i> during the entire thirty [days of mourning] save for the rending of garments<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 340, 18.</i> [concerning which the law is] that if he did not rend garments at the moment of excitement,<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Immediately after death.</i> he may rend only during the seven days [of mourning] save [in the case of] his father or mother [the law is] that he may rend even after the seven days [of mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>RaBaD</i>, derived from M.K. 20a where it is stated that if one <i>observed</i> the rite of overturning the couch three days prior to a Festival, he is not required to overturn it any more after the Festival. Since it states (M.K. <i>ibid.</i>) ‘if one <i>observed’</i> and it does not say, ‘one who <i>buried</i> his dead three days prior to the Festival,’ <i>RaBaD</i> infers that only if the mourner <i>observed</i> mourning rites before the Festival is the mourning period interrupted by the intervening Festival, but not otherwise. Consequently, the mourning rites must be observed after the Festival. However, this excludes rending of garments which must be done immediately after death from the moment of excitement’ (<span>שעת חימום</span>), and the entire seven days are considered a ‘moment of excitement.’ Hence, the ruling here. Thus also <i>Asheri</i> and <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> One who was ill or was not in a normal state of mind at the time his near-of-kin died and consequently, did not rend garments, should rend his garments when he becomes well again, even during the entire thirty days, for when he ultimately becomes aware of his loss, it is considered for him a moment of excitement — <i>ShaK, BaḤ</i> and <i>A.H.</i>  <i>Ba’er Heteb</i> and <i>Naḥ. Ẓebi.</i></i>
This<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">The ruling in par. 1 <i>supra.</i></i> applies only if he did not observe mourning rites at all for the entire seven [days of mourning], but if he was neglectful in [the observance of] some days during which he did not observe mourning rites, e.g., one who was informed on the first day that he suffered a bereavement, and [at the time this was reported to him] he was in another town and did not observe mourning rites,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">The same applies even if he were in the same town — <i>A.H.</i></i> and on the second day he arrived in his own town and observed mourning rites, — [the law is that] he is not required to complete [the days of mourning that he missed], but counts the seven days from the first day.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>Asheri Resp.</i> If one was informed that he suffered a bereavement and then commenced mourning rites, after which this report was denied, and consequently, he discontinued the observance of mourning rites, but then he was again informed that the original death report was correct, the law is that although on account of the denial he neglected the observance of mourning during some of the seven days, nevertheless, the days missed are counted in the seven days of mourning. Likewise, if one received a report that his father died and a relative of his informed him that the death report was incorrect and after two days elapsed the relative informed him that the original report was correct, the law is that the mourner counts from the time he received the first death report — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i>
A minor<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Mourning does not obtain in the case of a minor.  M.K. 14b and cf. Pes. 93a s.v. <span>וכן קטן</span>; San. 47b. s.v. <span>הלכך הואיל</span>.</i> whose father or/and mother died, even if he became of age within the seven [days of mourning], — the entire law of mourning lapses from him<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">On this question there is a difference of opinion between <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i> and his disciple <i>Asheri.</i> According to the former mourning does not obtain in the case of a minor, but he must count the seven and thirty days of mourning and thus observe mourning rites from the moment he becomes of age. The latter, however, exempts him even when he becomes of age (thus ruling of <i>Caro</i> here), since mourning did not apply to him at the time of burial. This is not to be compared to a Festival, in which case mourning is postponed until after the Festival (v. <i>infra</i> § 399), for in the latter case the individual proper was obligated to observe mourning rites, only that the Festival interrupts this. Moreover, on a Festival private mourning is still observed. Nor is this case be compared to the law of <i>Habdalah</i> with respect to a mourner (v. <i>supra</i> § 341, 23 and notes), for the <i>Habdalah</i> prayer may be recited during the first three days of the week (v. <i>ibid</i>.), whereas mourning rites take effect from the moment the tomb is closed by the <i>Golel</i>, and since at that moment the minor was exempt, mourning no longer takes effect.  <i>Ta</i>Z for lengthy discussion on this ruling who finally agrees with <i>Caro.</i></i> and he is not obligated therein.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">The twelve month period, however, should be observed by the minor who became of age after burial, since this is done out of deference to one’s parents and is considered an independent mourning rite not connected with the seven and thirty days of mourning. Consequently, it does not depend upon the closing of the tomb by the <i>Golel</i> — <i>A.H.</i> As to rending of garments in the case of a minor, v. <i>supra</i> § 340, 27.</i>

Siman 397

One observes mourning rites on the testimony of a single witness or [on the testimony of] a witness testifying to what he has heard from an [eye-] witness or if a Gentile makes an incidental statement [regarding] one's death.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>T.H.</i>, for the general principle is that any type of evidence on which we grant a woman permission to remarry, mourning rites are also observed (E.H. § 17, 3; <i>Asheri</i> M.K. III).  Pes. 4a; M.K. 20b; San. 5a on the question of mourning rites observed on the evidence of a single witness. Furthermore, the principle is that in ‘any matter which eventually will be exposed people do not lie’ (v. R.H. 22b; Yeb. 93b). Although we compare mourning to the laws of evidence on which a woman is permitted to remarry, we may ask the following: In the case of a woman there is an additional reason (excluding the reason of evidence) for granting her permission to remarry, viz., ‘A woman is careful to make inquiries prior to remarriage’ (<span>דיקא ומנסבא</span>) (Yeb. 116b), which is not so in the case of mourning. How can we therefore, compare the two cases? There are, therefore, some authorities who hold that the permission granted the woman is based mainly on the evidence of the single witness. It may, however, be possible that in the case of the woman we adopt a stringent view and require both the principle of evidence plus the fact that she also makes her own inquiries, whereas in the case of mourning a lenient view is adopted and the principle of evidence alone suffices — <i>A.H.</i> (Evidence offered in writing is also accepted in the case of permitting a woman to remarry.  E.H. <i>ibid</i>). One who received a letter informing him that his near-of-kin died, and in the letter it is not stated whether it is still within or after the thirty days of mourning, the law is that if the sender is not a learned person, we presume that the deceased person was alive until the time that the letter was written and dispatched (for an exposition of this type of presumption v. <i>A.H.</i> a.l.). Hence, the receiver of the letter must observe mourning rites. But if the sender was a learned person, we presume that the thirty day period is over, for were it possible for the letter to reach the mourner within the thirty days of mourning, the sender would not have stated the death report without defining the matter — <i>ShaK.</i> But if the deceased person was his father or mother, since the adopted custom is to inform the mourner about the death of a parent forthwith, in any case, the mourner is required to observe mourning rites — <i>Birke Yos.</i> If it happened that in a doubtful case it was ruled for one not to observe mourning, and subsequetly it became known to the individual that originally when the doubt was entertained regarding the death of his near-of-kin, the latter had really died, and it was still at the time the doubt was entertained within the thirty days, the law is that the mourner does not have to observe mourning rites (thus corrected text of <i>ShaK</i> in <i>Nek. Hak.</i>)  <i>supra</i> § 396 beg. (the reason being that now since it is already after the thirty days, mourning does not obtain) — <i>ShaK.</i> One who receives a death report via telegram should observe mourning rites — <i>Sh.M.B.</i> If a Gentile offers formal testimony (not incidentally), it is not accepted — <i>Mord.</i></i>
[If] two [witnesses] say, 'He died,' and two [other witnesses say, 'He did not die,' the [near-of-kin] does not observe mourning rites.<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">For in a doubtful case we adopt the lenient view and presume that he is still alive.  Sot. 31a, 47b and cf. Bek. 49a. In the case of one reported to be in a dying condition, v. <i>supra</i> § 399, </i>

Siman 398

[With respect to the observance of] mourning rites on the first day, — [the law is that] if it is the day of death and burial, it is regarded as Biblical and the remaining days [of mourning] are Rabbinical.<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">The following authorities differ with respect to mourning on the first day: a) The <i>Geonim, Maim.</i> (Yad, <i>Ebel</i> I, 1), <i>Alfasi</i> (Ber. II; M.K. III), <i>RaShBA</i>, hold that the first day of mourning is Biblical, provided the burial is held on the same day as death, and the remaining days are Rabbinical. b) <i>RaBaD</i> adds to a) the thirty days forbidden to wear laundried garments and the prohibition against hair-cutting, as Biblical. <i>T.H.</i> rejects this. c) <i>RI</i> and <i>R. Tam</i> hold that no mourning is Biblical. Thus also <i>R. Jonah</i> in Ber. <i>ibid.</i> citing the <i>French scholars. N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> agrees with a), but maintains that it refers only to those near-of-kin mentioned explicitly in Scripture and not to those dead relations added by Rabbinical interpretation (v. <i>Caro</i> anon). Cf. also Zeb. 100a; <i>Asheri</i> M.K. <i>ibid</i>.; O.Ḥ. § 548, 3.  further on the seven days of mourning, Gen. L, 10, <i>Torah Temimah.</i></i> This applies only to the seven dead [near-of-kin] explicitly mentioned in the Bible for whom a <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> may defile himself;<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">These are one’s a) father; b) mother; c) son; d) daughter; e) brother; f) unmarried sister; g) lawfully married wife.</i> but those dead [near-of-kin] which were added to them [by Rabbinical exposition]<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">These are one’s a) maternal brother; b) married maternal sister or a betrothed maternal or paternal sister; c) outraged or seduced sister. <i>Maim.</i> (Yad, <i>Ebel</i> II, 1) includes the wife among those near-of-kin derived by Rabbinical exposition. On this <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> writes that if the wife is of age, it is Biblical; if not of age, it is Rabbincal (v. however, <i>B.Yos.</i> a.l.).</i> as stated in § 374, — even on the first day are regarded as Rabbinical [regarding the observance of mourning rites]. However, some say that even mourning on the first day [which is both the day] of death and burial is regarded as Rabbinical in all cases of dead [near-of-kin].<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> n. 1c. This is the accepted ruling.  <i>infra</i> § 399, 13 <i>Gloss.</i></i>

Siman 399

One who buries his dead before a Festival in a case where mourning takes effect upon him, and he observed [mourning rites] accordingly even one hour<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">This does not refer to a twelfth part of the day, but even if he observed mourning rites for a short while it suffices — <i>ShaK.</i> Furthermore, this does not mean that he must observe all mourning rites, but even if he removed his shoes alone, he has discharged his duty — <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> prior to the [advent of] the Festival, — [the law is that] the Festival interrupts the mourning and annuls for him the restrictions of the seven [days of mourning],<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> derived from Mishna M.K. 19a and Baraitha <i>ibid.</i> in accord with the Sages.  O.Ḥ. § 548, 7 and cf. M.K. 24b.</i> and the Festival days are included for him in the counting of the thirty [days of mourning]; hence, there are seven [days] before the Festival<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">e., the short while prior to the advent of the Festival counts as seven days.</i> and [in addition] the days of the Festival [proper], after which he completes the thirty [days].<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 19b-20a.  <i>infra</i> par. 7ff.</i> This rule applies provided that he observed mourning rites at that moment,<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Just before the advent of the Festival. Thus <i>RaBaD.</i>  <i>supra</i> § 396, 1, n. 5.</i> even if he observed only matters pertaining to private [mourning],<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Tur.</i>  <i>infra</i> § 402, 7; O.Ḥ. § 548, 19.</i> e.g., [even if] he received near tidings on the Sabbath day which fell on the eve of the Festival, — [the law is that] although he observes [on the Sabbath] only matters pertaining to private mourning,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">E.g., he interrupts the study of the Torah for a short while or he observes any other matter which pertains to private mourning with the intention to observe mourning rites thereby — <i>A.H.</i></i> the Festival interrupts [the seven and thirty days of mourning]. However, if inadvertently <i>or</i><sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Tur.</i></i> wilfully he did not observe mourning [prior to the Festival], or it was close to nightfall, and [consequently], he was not able to observe [mourning rites], the Festival does not interrupt the mourning. And much more so if he was unaware of the person's death prior to the Festival, — [the law is] that the Festival does not interrupt [the mourning rites]<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">For than it is regarded as though the death occurred on the Festival, in which case the seven days are not annulled — <i>A.H.</i></i> save that he observes during the Festival matters pertaining to private [mourning]<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from the dictum of R. Joḥanan in Ket. 4a; M.K. 24a, that although there is no mourning on a Festival, nevertheless, one observes private mourning. Thus also <i>T.H.;</i> Ket. <i>ibid., Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>מסייע</span> ; M.K. <i>ibid., Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>הכי</span>; Tosef(Z). M.K. II, 6-9; Sem(H). VII, 7; Y.M.K. III, 5(83a). Matters of privacy refer only to the use of conjugal couch. Torah-study is permitted (<i>contra M.Abr.</i> to O.Ḥ. § 548, n. 5). So too, may the mourner be called to the reading of the Torah if this occurs on <i>Simḥath Torah</i> at which time everyone is called up. Otherwise, this would be regarded as public mourning, which is forbidden — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> and [begins to] count the seven days [of mourning] after the Festival,<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">The last day of the Festival which is observed only in countries outside the Land of Israel enters into the counting.</i> and during those seven days his work is done [for him] by others,<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">This refers to work, which, if postponed, would entail an irretrievable loss (M.K. 19b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ומלאכתו</span>) — <i>A.H.</i></i> and his male and female servants do [work] privately indoors,<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">In his house even if it is work, which, if postponed, would not entail an irretrievable loss — <i>A.H.</i></i> for since he has already been suspended from work during the seven days of the Festival, although he was not suspended [from work] on account of the mourning, but [rather] because of the Festival, — yet, after all, [the fact is that] he [automatically] observed the law [similar to that] of mourning with respect to work [during mourning], — hence, we do not adopt any stringency in this matter<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">After the Festival.</i> as in the case of other mourning, and his work may be done [for him] by others; and throughout the Festival days the public busies itself with him to offer him comfort;<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">For one may offer words of comfort to a mourner on the Sabbath or on Festivals.</i> hence, they do not busy themselves with him to offer him comfort after the Festival.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 20b.</i> However, the Festival enters into the counting of the thirty [days],<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 19b.</i> for the law of thirty, viz., [with respect to the prohibition against] laundry work and hair-cutting, applies to the Festival [as well], and not only on account of the legal status of the Festival is he forbidden [to do] those things, but also because of the law of mourning,<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">Similar to the case of work not done on a Festival.  this par. <i>supra.</i></i> — for as far as the legal status of the Festival is concerned, he is permitted to put on new white laundried garments and he may cut his nails with a scissors [on <i>Hol ha-Moed</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> and may rejoice at social gatherings,<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">Consequently, if he refrains from doing these things during the Festival week, he is regarded as having observed private mourning. Hence, the entire Festival week enters into the counting of the thirty days. On cutting the nails during <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> v. O.Ḥ § 532. Since here is not the principal source for the laws of <i>Ḥol ha-Moed, Caro</i> does not elucidate this matter here.</i> and [likewise] one arriving from beyond the sea or coming out of captivity and the others whom the Sages enumerated and permitted to cut the hair and to wash garments [on <i>Hol ha-Moed</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> but with respect to the law of mourning one is prohibited against doing all these things as on a weekday.
One who buries his dead during the Festival on <i>Hol ha-Moed</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> observes the law of <i>Aninuth</i><sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> so long as the [corpse] is not buried;<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 19b; <i>T.H.</i> Similarly on the second day of a Festival or on the first day, if he plans to have Gentiles attend to the burial (cf. <i>supra</i> § 341, 1) — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK.</i></i> and after it is buried he observes matters pertaining to private [mourning],<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> par. 1 for sources and references.</i>, — <i>nevertheless, he is permitted to be alone with his wife</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> citing <i>RaBaD</i> and <i>Asheri</i> and v. <i>supra</i> § 383; O.Ḥ. § 548 — <i>G.</i> Only in the case of a groom do we adopt stringencies in this matter (v. <i>supra</i> § 342); otherwise, privacy between man and woman is permissible, for this is equated to the case of a menstruant woman, in which case privacy is permitted — <i>A.H.</i> If he is a <i>Kohen</i> he may not pronounce the Priestly Benediction (v. <i>M.Abr.</i> to O.Ḥ. § 129, n. 6) — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> — and the Festival is counted in the number of the thirty [days of mourning], after which he completes the thirty.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> par. 1 for sources and references.</i> Even if he buried him on the Festival of <i>Sukkoth</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> we do not say that <i>Shemini Azereth</i><sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> annuls [the thirty days];<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 24b in accord with Rabina’s dictum. For even in the case where one observed mourning rites prior to the advent of the <i>Sukkoth</i> Festival, the law is that <i>Shemini Aẓereth</i>, which is regarded as an independent Festival, counts as seven days, but does not annul the mourning (v. <i>infra</i> par. 11), much more so in the present case where no mourning was observed before the Festival (cf. par. 1; <i>infra</i> § 402, 8) — <i>W.G.</i> Cf. Asheri M.K. III <i>T.H.;</i> M.K. <i>ibid., Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>דרבי אלעזר</span>. If the burial takes place during the <i>Sukkoth</i> Festival, <i>Shemini Aẓereth</i> counts as one day only. If the burial takes place before the advent of the <i>Sukkoth</i> Festival, <i>Shemini Aẓereth</i> counts as seven days <i>contra RaShaL</i> who writes that <i>Shemini Aẓereth</i>, it is true does not annul the mourning rites, but as to entering into the number of thirty days, it does count as seven days even if the burial took place during the Festival — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK.</i></i> and one may busy himself during the Festival to offer him comfort.<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 20a.  <i>supra</i> n. 15.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>And all work which is permitted to be done for him during ḥol ha-Moed</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> [<i>viz</i>.,] <i>a matter, the postponement of which, entails an irretrievable loss</i>, — <i>he</i> [<i>the mourner</i>] <i>is permitted to do himself; and if it is a matter, the postponement of which, does not entail an irretrievable loss, it may be done by others in their homes. However, his male and female servants may do</i> [<i>this type of work</i>] <i>privately in his house</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote"><i>B.Yos.</i> citing <i>R. Yeruḥam</i> — <i>G.</i></i> And after the Festival he begins to count the seven [days];<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote"><i>M.Abr.</i> states that on the first day the mourner may don the <i>Tefillin. Shebuth Ya’akob</i> contests this.  <i>supra</i> § 388, 1, n. 4.</i> and when the seven days after the person's death are over,— although the seven days of mourning are still not over, — his work may be done by others<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 20a, Tosaf. s.v. <span>שלשה</span>.</i> in their homes,<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Contra Tosaf.</i> M.K. 19b s.v. <span>ומלאכתו</span>.</i> and his servants may do [his work] for him privately in his home, and the public does not busy itself to offer him comfort after the Festival [for a period of days corresponding to] the number of days that they offered him comfort during the Festival, but they may visit him,<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘show him a friendly face.’ Y.M.K. III, 5(82b).</i> e.g., if he buried him during [any of] the three latter days of a Festival his work may be done by others during the three latter days of mourning. However, in localities where they make two Festival days, he counts the seven [days beginning with] the second and final day of the Holiday,<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote">The same applies to the second day of the New Year (<i>Rosh ha-Shana</i>) — <i>ShaK.</i>  also <i>Asheri</i> M.K.  This ruling holds even if the second day fell on a Sabbath. Some authorities state that this law refers only to a case where death and burial take place on the same day — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> [for] since it is only Rabbinical, it is counted in the number [of the seven days] and he counts thereafter only six [more] days.
If he buried his dead seven days before the Festival during which he observed the [mourning] restrictions of the seven [days], — the [advent of the] Festival annuls for him the [mourning] restrictions of the thirty [days],<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 19b.</i> even if the seventh day fell on the eve of the Festival, — for part of the day is regarded as the entire day, [and the seventh day] enters into the counting here<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote">As part of the seventh day.</i> and there;<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote">As part of the eighth day.</i> and he is permitted to wash garments, bathe and cut his hair<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">Although the restrictions for cutting the hair are in force for the entire thirty days, in this case, the advent of the Festival annuls it for him — <i>ShaK.</i></i> on the eve of the Festival,<sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> in accord with Abba Saul.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>close to nightfall</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> — <i>G.</i> For only then it becomes known that this is permissible on account of the Festival (<i>Ra’BIaH</i>) — <i>ShaK.</i> The source of this ruling is not found in <i>Tur</i> as indicated in <i>G.</i> of cur. edd., but the author of this law is <i>Ra’BIaH</i> cited by <i>Hag. Ash.</i> — <i>ShaK.</i> , however, <i>A.H.</i> who shows that <i>Isserles’</i> ruling is derived from <i>Tur.</i> In general this is a difficult ruling. Why should one have to wait until close to nightfall, if the Festival annuls for him the restrictions of the thirty days? Cf., therefore, <i>B.Yos.</i> who holds that in reality the entire day is permissible — <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>And on the eve of Passover he is permitted</i> [<i>to do</i>] <i>everything</i><sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote">With respect to bathing and washing garments on the eve of Passover, the law is that Passover is similar to any other eve of a Festival, where it is permissible only close to nightfall (<i>Resp. R. Judah Minẓ</i>) — <i>ShaK.</i>  however, <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>after mid-day, i.e., from the time the Passover sacrifice is slaughtered and onward.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">39</sup><i class="footnote"> Mishna Pes. V, 1.</i> <i>It is, however, preferable that he cut his hair before midday, since other people are forbidden to cut hair after midday.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Resp. R. Judah Minẓ</i> — <i>G.</i> For after midday in Temple days, the Paschal lamb was offered and work was no longer done from that time and onward. Hence, since everyone else is also forbidden to cut hair on account of the festive nature of the day (v. Pes. 55b; M.K. 13a), therefore, if he should wait until after midday to cut his hair, he will be compelled to do it by himself, for no one will be available to cut his hair for him — <i>ShaK.</i> Even if the eve of Passover occurred during the seven days of mourning, the restrictions of the seven days are also annulled for him after mid-day when mourning is no longer in effect — <i>Ḥok Adam, Mishmereth Shalom.</i> Likewise, if the eve of <i>Yom Kippur</i> occurred during the seven days, one is permitted to bathe an hour or two before nightfall — O.Ḥ. § 606 and <i>M.Abr. ibid.</i></i> Likewise, if the eighth [day] fell on a Sabbath which occurred on the eve of the Festival, he is permitted to wash garments, bathe and cut his hair on the eve of the Sabbath,<sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote">Since the eve of the Festival falls on the Sabbath when he is forbidden to attend to these matters, we allow him to do this on the eve of the Sabbath although it is not the Festival eve.</i> and [even] if he did not cut his hair on the eve of the Holiday, or on the eve of the Sabbath, he is permitted to cut his hair after the Festival, — for the restrictions of the thirty [days] have already been annulled for him. However, on <i>Hol ha-Moed</i><sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> he should not cut his hair, since it was possible for him to cut his hair before the Festival. If his seventh day fell on the Sabbath [which occurred] on the eve of the Festival, he is forbidden to cut his hair on the eve of the Sabbath,<sup class="footnote-marker">42</sup><i class="footnote">He may, however, wear Sabbath garments and return to his customary seat in the Synagogue (<i>Beth Hillel</i>) — <i>A.H.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> § 393, 4.</i> but he is permitted to cut his hair after the Festival,<sup class="footnote-marker">43</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 19b in accord also with the general opinion of the Sages.</i> and likewise, on <i>Hol ha-Moed</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> since he was unable to cut his hair before the Festival.<sup class="footnote-marker">44</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 17b.</i>
As [to the law] that an [intervening] Festival annuls the restrictions of thirty, — [it applies] to other dead; but in [the case of one in mourning for] his father and/or mother who is forbidden <i>to cut his hair</i> until his friends rebuke him, — [the law is that] even if the Festival occurred after thirty days, it does not annul [this prohibition].<sup class="footnote-marker">45</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>Asheri</i> derived from M.K. 22a. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 390, 4 <i>Gloss</i> n. 17. However, with respect to the prohibition against bathing, washing garments, laundry work and cutting nails, one in mourning for a parent is on an equal footing with one in mourning for other dead. Hence, the Festival annuls these restrictions of the thirty days — <i>A.H.</i></i>
If one of the days of mourning<sup class="footnote-marker">46</sup><i class="footnote">Even the first day.</i>, excluding the seventh day,<sup class="footnote-marker">47</sup><i class="footnote"> par. 3 <i>supra.</i></i> fell on the eve of the Festival,<sup class="footnote-marker">48</sup><i class="footnote">In which case the Festival merely annuls the restrictions of the seven but not the thirty days.</i> he is permitted to wash his garment,<sup class="footnote-marker">49</sup><i class="footnote">But hair-cutting is forbidden — <i>ShaK.</i></i> but must not put it on until night [arrives]; and it is better to be careful not to wash garments until after midday, so that it should be known that he washes his garments on account of the Festival;<sup class="footnote-marker">50</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri</i> M.K. III citing <i>RaBaD.</i></i> but to bathe<sup class="footnote-marker">51</sup><i class="footnote">Even in cold water, since he is permitted to bathe in cold water at night. On <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i> he is permitted to bathe even in warm water, since the restrictions of the seven days have been annulled for him — <i>M.Ber.</i></i> is forbidden until night [arrives].<sup class="footnote-marker">52</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 19b in accord with R. Huna.</i> Some permit bathing after the <i>Minḥa</i><sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> service,<sup class="footnote-marker">53</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid., Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>שאסור</span>; <i>ibid., Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ואמר</span> Only bathing is permitted, but other mourning restrictions e.g., the prohibition against wearing shoes, remain in force until nightfall. Other authorities (e.g., <i>RABaN</i>) are of the opinion that other restrictions fall away from <i>Minḥa</i> onwards — <i>M.Ber.</i> According to the present ruling one must recite the <i>Minḥa</i> prayer first, after which the holiness of the Festival takes effect — <i>M.Abr.</i></i> close to nightfall, <i>and this is the accepted custom.</i><sup class="footnote-marker">54</sup><i class="footnote">However, after the Festival bathing and washing of garments is forbidden until the thirty days are completed, since the restrictions of the thirty days were not annulled.  O.Ḥ. § 548, 10 where the same ruling is found. Cf. however, <i>Isserles ibid.</i> that bathing is forbidden which contradicts his ruling here (v. <i>Ta</i>Z and <i>Shak</i> a.l.). <i>Isserles’</i> ruling is fundamental here, since here is the source of the laws of mourning — <i>A.H.</i></i>
The New Year and the Dav of Atonement are regarded as Festivals [with respect] to annulling the mourning rites.<sup class="footnote-marker">55</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna M.K. 19a in accord with R. Gamaliel <i>ibid.</i> 24b. Although <i>Rosh ha-Shana</i> and <i>Yom Kippur</i> are not mentioned as Festivals in the Bible (cf. <i>supra</i> § 392, 2, n. 10), nevertheless, since we find the general designation, <i>‘These are the appointed seasons</i> etc.’ (Lev. XXIII, 2) the seasons of the year are all compared to each other — <i>B.Yos.</i></i>
[If] he observed one hour<sup class="footnote-marker">56</sup><i class="footnote">Not necessarily a complete hour, but even less than that.</i> [of mourning rites] prior to the Passover [Festival], — that hour is regarded as seven [days of mourning] and [with] the eight days of Passover, we have fifteen [days], and [then] he completes [the thirty days] by adding fifteen more [days after Passover].<sup class="footnote-marker">57</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 24b.</i>
[If he observed] one hour<sup class="footnote-marker">56</sup><i class="footnote">Not necessarily a complete hour, but even less than that.</i> [of mourning] prior to the Feast of Weeks, it is regarded as seven [days] and [as to the first day of] the Feast of Weeks, since [the law is] that if one did not offer the [prescribed] offerings of the Feast of Weeks on the Feast of Weeks he has a supplementary period of full seven [days], — it is regarded as seven days. Hence, we have fourteen [days], and he completes [the thirty days] by adding fifteen more [days after the Festival]<sup class="footnote-marker">58</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i></i>, and the second day of the Feast of Weeks enters into the counting of the fifteen [days].<sup class="footnote-marker">59</sup><i class="footnote">For the second day is only Rabbinical.  <i>supra</i> par. 2 end.</i>
[If he observed] one hour<sup class="footnote-marker">56</sup><i class="footnote">Not necessarily a complete hour, but even less than that.</i> [of mourning] prior to the New Year, the restrictions of the seven [days] are annulled for him on account of the [advent of] the New Year,<sup class="footnote-marker">60</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i> and the Day of Atonement annuls for him the restrictions of the thirty [days]; and he may cut his hair on the eve of the Day of Atonement.<sup class="footnote-marker">61</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri</i> M.K.  He may cut his hair even in the morning. This would be in accord even with <i>Gloss supra</i> par. 3 where <i>Isserles</i> rules that this should be done close to nightfall, since the eve of the Day of Atonement (<i>Yom Kippur</i>) is regarded as a festive day. Hence, he may cut his hair in the morning — <i>A.H.</i></i> Likewise, with respect to one who buries his dead on the third [day] of <i>Tishri</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> — [the law is] that he may cut his hair on the eve of the Day of Atonement.<sup class="footnote-marker">61</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri</i> M.K.  He may cut his hair even in the morning. This would be in accord even with <i>Gloss supra</i> par. 3 where <i>Isserles</i> rules that this should be done close to nightfall, since the eve of the Day of Atonement (<i>Yom Kippur</i>) is regarded as a festive day. Hence, he may cut his hair in the morning — <i>A.H.</i></i>
[If he observed] one hour<sup class="footnote-marker">56</sup><i class="footnote">Not necessarily a complete hour, but even less than that.</i> [of mourning] prior to the Day of Atonement, the restrictions of the seven [days] are annulled for him on account of the Day of Atonement, and the Feast [of Tabernacles] annuls for him the restrictions of the thirty [days], and he may cut his hair on the eve of the Feast [of Tabernacles].<sup class="footnote-marker">62</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. and <i>Asheri ibid.</i></i>
[If he observed] one hour<sup class="footnote-marker">56</sup><i class="footnote">Not necessarily a complete hour, but even less than that.</i> [of mourning] prior to the Feast [of Tabernacles, the restrictions of the seven days are annulled for him] and [with] the Feast [of Tabernacles] there are fourteen [days], and <i>Shemini Azereth</i><sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> [is regarded as] seven [days, so that in all] there are twenty-one [days],<sup class="footnote-marker">63</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid</i>. in accord with Rabina.  <i>supra</i> par. 2 and notes.</i> and [with] the second day of <i>Shemini Azereth</i> [<i>Simḥath Torah</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> there are twenty-two; hence, he completes [the thirty days] by adding eight more [days].
One who buries his dead one hour<sup class="footnote-marker">56</sup><i class="footnote">Not necessarily a complete hour, but even less than that.</i> prior to the Festival, — [the law is that] that hour and the Festival are together] regarded as fourteen [days] and immediately after the Festival, he [the mourner] has the legal status of the third week with respect [to the law] that [the mourner] may sit [then] in his [customary] place [in the Synagogue], but must not engage in conversation.<sup class="footnote-marker">64</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>R. Samson.</i> Thus also <i>Asheri</i> M.K. III; <i>Hag. Maim. Ebel</i> X; M.K. <i>ibid., Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>דרבי</span>.  <i>supra</i> § 393, 2.</i>
In localities where two Festival days<sup class="footnote-marker">65</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 340, 31 and notes.</i> are observed, — one who suffered a bereavement on the second Festival day, viz., the last Festival day of Passover or <i>Sukkoth</i><sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> or the second Festival day of Pentecost, and he buried [the corpse] on the same day, — [the mourner] observes on that [day] the mourning rites, since the second Festival day is [only] Rabbinical, and [since] mourning on the first day, — if it is the day of death and burial, — is Biblical, — [the law is] that a Rabbinical precept is superseded in face of a Biblical precept.<sup class="footnote-marker">66</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri</i> M.K. III citing decisions of <i>Hal. Ged</i>.; M.K. ibid., <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>דרבי</span> end.</i> However, if he died on the second Festival day of the New Year, and he buried him on the same day, he does not observe mourning rites, for both days [of the New Year] are [regarded] as one continuous day [of holiness].<sup class="footnote-marker">67</sup><i class="footnote"> Beẓ. 5b-6a.</i> This applies to the seven dead mentioned explicitly in the Bible for whom a <i>Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> may defile himself, but those who were added to them as stated in § 374, the observance of mourning rites for them is only Rabbinical. Hence, he does not observe mourning for them on any Festival whatsoever. [Furthermore], even those [dead] for whom we said that he observes mourning on the second Festival day, — [the law is that] he does not rend garments [on their account].<sup class="footnote-marker">65</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 340, 31 and notes.</i> People, however, have adopted the practice not to observe mourning rites on the second Festival day of the Diaspora for any dead whatsoever, even if it the day of death and burial,<sup class="footnote-marker">68</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. <i>supra</i> § 398 and notes.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>For they accept the opinion of those who say that no mourning is Biblical, and this is the accepted practice and should not be altered</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">69</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Tam, RI</i> and <i>Asheri</i> — <i>G.</i></i>
One who suffered a bereavement on the eve of a Festival day and he was afraid lest he have not sufficient time to bury him [before the advent of the Festival] whilst it is still day, and [consequently], gave [the corpse] over to Gentiles [in order] that they take him away for burial, — [the law is that] as soon as they carry him out of the city and he [the corpse] becomes hidden from the eyes of the near-of-kin, mourning takes effect upon him,<sup class="footnote-marker">70</sup><i class="footnote">The mourner.</i> and if it is one hour<sup class="footnote-marker">56</sup><i class="footnote">Not necessarily a complete hour, but even less than that.</i> prior to the Festival and he observed mourning rites therein, the restrictions of the seven [days] become annulled [with the advent of the Festival] although he was buried on the Festival [proper].<sup class="footnote-marker">71</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. <i>supra</i> § 376, 2 and notes for exposition of the present ruling.</i>

Siman 400

The Sabbath does not interrupt the mourning and enters into the counting of the seven [days],<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna M.K. 19a. For were the Sabbath not included there would never be seven consecutive days of mourning. Thus Y.M.K. III, 5(83a).  also Gen. R. § C. For the reason why a Festival day does not enter into the counting of the seven days, v. M.K. 23b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>מאן דאמר</span> end.</i> for some of the laws of mourning are observed therein, viz., matters of privacy, as the use of the conjugal couch and bathing, but matters that affect public mourning [<i>one does</i>] <i>not</i> [<i>observe</i>]. [Hence, he should] remove the mourner's wrapping,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 24a in accord with Samuel. Thus also ruling of <i>Alfasi</i> and other commentators who accept Samuel’s ruling, for R. Naḥman and R. Joḥanan (<i>ibid.</i>) concur with him, <i>contra Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>שמואל</span>.</i> <i>and</i> [<i>this applies</i>] <i>only if he</i> [<i>the mourner</i>] <i>is wrapped up in a covering of Ishmaelites as was explained supra</i> § 386, <i>but</i> [<i>if</i>] <i>only</i> [<i>wrapped in</i>] <i>part of a covering, which is the practice in some localities for the entire thirty</i> [<i>days</i>], <i>he is not required to remove</i> [<i>it</i>] <i>on the Sabbath, since he has shoes on his feet</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIW</i> s. 5 — Wearing shoes is sufficient evidence that he is not observing mourning rites.</i> and [he must]<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>ShaK.</i></i> put on his shoes<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>Asheri</i> in his <i>Decisions</i>, since nowadays it is no longer customary to go barefooted. At the termination of the Sabbath he removes them. It is wrong on the part of some people to terminate the mourning rites on Friday after midday, but the mourner must observe mourning rites on Friday until two and a half hours prior to nightfall. An hour refers to one twelfth of the day which begins with sunrise and ends with sunset — <i>Codifiers.</i></i> and put up the couch from its overturned [position],<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> in accord with the dictum of Samuel.</i> and he should not wear a rent garment, but changes it; and if he has no [garment] to change [into], he turns the rent side [of his garment front] to back. [With respect to] the study of Torah, it is [regarded] as a matter pertaining to private [mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing <i>Asheri</i> in his <i>Decisions.</i> So also <i>Hag. Maim.</i> to Yad, <i>Ebel</i> IV citing <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i>.</i> However, to review the [weekly Biblical] portion, — [the law is that] since a person is dutibound to complete [the weekly Biblical] portion with the Congregation,<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 8a. As to reading the Hebrew text twice and the Aramaic version (<i>Targum</i>) once (v. Ber. <i>ibid.</i>) it is also permitted — <i>ShaK.</i> A mourner whose son’s circumcision takes place on the Sabbath, may be called to the reading of the Torah — <i>P.Tesh. contra Ta</i>Z. Likewise, if the mourner is observing <i>Yahrzeit</i> on the Sabbath, he may be called to the reading of the Torah.</i> he is [regarded] as one who reads the <i>Shema</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> and is permitted. If the mourner was called to the reading of the Torah, he is required to go up, for should he refrain [from so doing], it would be [regarded as] a matter of public [mourning, which is forbidden on the Sabbath]. <i>R.Tam</i> would always be called [to the reading of the Torah on the Sabbath as] third, and [when] mourning [once] befell him and the <i>Hazzan</i><sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> did not call him [as usual], he went up of his own accord and stated [that since] he was accustomed to be called as third on every Sabbath, one who notices that he does not go up [now] will say that on account of mourning he refrained [from going up] and [consequently], this would be regarded as a matter pertaining to public mourning [which is forbidden on the Sabbath]. <i>Likewise, if the Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>is a mourner, and there is no other Kohen</i><sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>in the Synagogue, it is permissible to call him</i> [<i>to the reading of the Torah</i>], <i>but otherwise it is forbidden</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Maim.</i> to Yad, <i>Ebel</i> III — <i>G.</i></i>
If a beast dragged him away or [there is a rumour that] robbers have murdered him,<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Y.M.K. III, 5(82a); M.K. 17b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>כשחל</span>; <i>Mord.</i> citing <i>R. M. of Angleterre</i>, quoted in <i>B.Yos.</i> § 403.</i> and on the Sabbath the search [for him] was given up,<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">Hence, the corpse is considered as buried. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 375 and notes.</i> — [the law is that] since he observes matters pertaining to private [mourning] on the Sabbath, it enters into [the counting] of one day<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">Even as the first day (v. <i>infra</i> § 402, 7) — <i>ShaK.</i></i> [of the seven days of mourning]. <i>Gloss</i>: <i>If the thirtieth day of mourning fell on the Sabbath and the twenty-ninth day on the eve of the Sabbath, he is permitted to bathe on the eve of the Sabbath</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from M.K. 17b. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 399, 3 and notes.</i> <i>even in localities where it is customary not to bathe for the entire thirty</i> [<i>days</i>], <i>for since legally</i> [<i>bathing</i>] <i>is permissible after the seven</i> [<i>days</i>], <i>only that</i> [<i>people</i>] <i>have adopted a stringent view for the entire thirty</i> [<i>days</i>], — <i>in a case such as this, it is permissible out of respect to the Sabbath</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Maim.</i> citing <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i> to Yad, <i>Ebel</i> X; <i>ibid.</i> to Yad, <i>Yom Tob</i> VI — <i>G.</i> Hair-cutting and removing nails are, however, forbidden — <i>D.Merb., A.H.</i> Some authorities permit—<i>P.Tesh.</i></i> <i>And likewise, anything similar to this, e.g.</i>, [<i>it is permissible for him</i>] <i>to return to his</i> [<i>customary</i>] <i>place in the Synagogue on the Sabbath night and to wear Sabbath garments, for this too, is merely a custom</i><sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Thus it seems to be implied in words of <i>RaShaL</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>as has been explained supra</i> § 389 <i>and</i> § 390; <i>and although a distinction may be drawn between bathing, which is forbidden on the Sabbath and these</i> [<i>aforementioned</i>] <i>matters which it is possible for him to do on the Sabbath, yet, it does not seem to me</i> [<i>that there is a need for</i>] <i>making such a distinction</i>.

Siman 401

The bier is not to be set down in the open street during <i>Hol ha-Moed</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> so as not to give occasion for lamentation;<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna M.K. 27a.</i> for it is forbidden to give occasion for lamentation during <i>Hol ha-Moed</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> unless it is [done] out of deference to a scholar.<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 27b; Meg. 3b; <i>infra</i> par. 5.  however, O.Ḥ. § 547, <i>M.Abr.</i> end.</i> Therefore, the corpse is not taken out to the cemetery during <i>Hol ha-Moed</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> unless the entire grave is prepared and is at one's disposal.<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N.Yos.</i></i>
Only one who is required to rend [garments] during <i>Hol ha-Moed</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> does so, as stated in § 340,<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna M.K. 24b.  <i>supra</i> § 340, 31 and notes.</i> but one who is not dutibound [to do so] and desires to rend [garments during <i>Hol ha-Moed</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> out of respect [to the dead], is forbidden [to do so].
[If] one received during the Festival a report of near tidings,<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>infra</i> § 402.</i> he is dutibound to rend [garments].<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Yeruḥam; RaBaD; R. Meir of Rothenberg; Mord.; Hag. Maim.</i> to Yad, <i>Ebel</i>  Cf. <i>supra</i> § 340, 31-32 and notes.</i>
One does not bare the shoulder [in mourning] during [<i>Hol</i>] <i>ha-Moed</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> and only the near-of-kin of the dead are provided therein with the mourner's meal.<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna M.K. 24b.</i> However, [this means that] the mourner's meal is provided [only for] the near-of-kin [who are dutibound to observe mourning rites].<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">Y.M.K. III, 7(83b); M.K. 20a, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>שכבר</span>; <i>ibid.</i>, Tosaf: s.v. <span>אלא</span>; <i>Tur</i> in accord with <i>Asheri</i> in his <i>Decisions;</i> N; Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XI, 2 a.o. The ruling here is <i>contra SeMaG</i> and <i>SeMaK</i> who hold that the mourner’s meal is not provided at all on <i>Ḥol ha-Moed.</i> Thus also <i>Rashi</i> in <i>Sefer ha-Orah.</i></i> Likewise, on <i>Hanukkah</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>Purim</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> and <i>Rosh Hodesh</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> [the same rule applies].<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote"><i>SeMaG</i> on <i>Laws of Ḥol ha-Moed.</i> The mourner’s meal should consist on these days of meat and wine not of eggs or the like — <i>Ḥok. Adam.</i> On the eve of Passover, in the forenoon, when it is still permissible to eat leaven, the mourner’s meal may be provided. Otherwise not — <i>M.Ber.</i></i> And when the mourner's meal is provided [during <i>Hol ha-Moed</i>],<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> it is done only on couches set up [in the usual manner].<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna M.K. 24b.</i> However, on a Festival day, even on the second Festival day [of the Diaspora], one does not rend garments, nor bare [the shoulder in mourning], nor does one provide the mourner's meal.<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XI, 1; <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.; RaN</i> to Beẓ. 6a.</i> And during <i>Hol ha-Moed</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> all [who are in mourning] for a Sage, may be provided with the mourner's meal in the open space [of the town]<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 25a, 27b in accord with R. Papa’s dictum, ‘With respect to a scholar (who died) no regard is paid to the Festival week (i.e., <i>Ḥol ha-Moed</i>).’</i> in the [same] manner as the near-of-kin<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">Yad <i>ibid</i> has ‘mourners’ instead of ‘near-of-kin.’  also O.Ḥ. § 547, 8-9.</i> are provided with the mourner's meal, for all are like his near-of-kin.<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">Yad <i>ibid</i> has ‘mourners’ instead of ‘near-of-kin.’  also O.Ḥ. § 547, 8-9.</i>
During <i>Hol ha-Moed</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> women may sing dirges, i.e., they all sing dirges in chorus, but may not clap, i.e., to clap their hands [in grief].<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna M.K. 28b.</i> On <i>Rosh Hodesh</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i>, <i>Hanukkah</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> and <i>Purim</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> they may sing dirges and may clap their hands [in grief], but may not wail, i.e., when one speaks and all respond after her. After the corpse has been interred, they neither sing dirges, nor clap their hands [in grief].<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">Mishna M.K. 28b.</i> This ruling obtains only with respect to an ordinary person, but as regards a scholar [who died, the law is that] both during <i>Hol ha-Moed</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> as well as <i>Rosh Hodesh</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>Hanukkah</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> and <i>Purim</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> they may sing dirges and may wail as is their usual custom during a weekday.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from the dictum of R. Papa, M.K. 27b.</i> However, this ruling obtains only in his [the corpse's] presence, but away from his presence no [lament is permitted]. And the day of [receiving] the tidings [of his death], — even distant [tidings], is regarded the same as in his presence.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from M.K. <i>ibid.</i> in the case of R. Kahana who made a lamentation for R. Zebid. Nowadays these laws do not apply save that we may learn from this that during <i>Ḥol ha-Moed, Ḥanukkah</i> and <i>Purim</i>, one should reduce weeping and lamenting in the case of a scholar provided it is done in his presence — <i>A.H.</i></i>
[On <i>Hol ha-Moed</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> one recites for the dead <i>Ẓidduk Ha-din</i> and <i>Kaddish</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> as usual; likewise, on the second Festival day [of the Diaspora], but on the first day of a Festival, since we do not attend to [the burial needs of] the dead, it [<i>Ẓidduk Haddin</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> is not recited.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Ghayyat, Rashi.</i> Thus also <i>N.</i>  O.Ḥ. § 420, 2.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Some differ</i> [<i>with this ruling and maintain</i>] <i>that Ẓidduk Haddin</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>should not be recited on</i> [<i>Hol</i>] <i>ha-Moed</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> citing a number of authorities — <i>G.</i></i> <i>and thus is the common practice in these countries</i>, [<i>viz</i>.,] <i>not to recite Ẓidduk Haddin</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>on all days during which Taḥanun</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>is not recited</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Minhagim</i> — <i>G</i>.</i> <i>Hence</i>, [<i>it</i>] <i>is also not said after midday on the eve of the Sabbath</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">But on the eve of <i>Rosh Ḥodesh</i> and <i>Ḥanukkah</i> (likewise <i>Purim</i>) it may be recited after midday — <i>ShaK.</i> On the <i>Fast of Esther</i> and on the eve of <i>Lag Ba-Omer</i>, after midday, <i>Ẓidduk Haddin</i> may be recited. On the eve of <i>Tish‘a be-Ab</i> (ninth of Ab) after midday, <i>Ẓidduk Haddin</i> may be recited although the ninth of Ab is designated a Holiday (Lam. I, 15) — <i>P.Tesh.</i> For a scholar, <i>Ẓidduk Haddin</i> may be recited on <i>Lag Ba-Omer</i> and on <i>Tish’a be-Ab</i> and on the eve of <i>Rosh ha-Shana</i> before midday—<i>Ta</i>Z (to O.Ḥ. § 420). On days when <i>Ẓidduk Haddin</i> is not recited, the customary halts on the cemetery (v. <i>supra</i> § 358, 3 <i>Gloss</i>) are not made. <i>R. Yoel ha-Lewi</i> did not recite <i>Ẓidduk Haddin</i> during the seven days after the Feast of Weeks (<i>Shabuoth)</i>, for the law is that if one did not offer the prescribed offerings on the Feast of Weeks, he has a supplementary period of seven days after the Festival — <i>Be’er ha-Golah.</i></i> <i>Some say that if the corpse is interred at night, Kaddish</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>and Ẓidduk Haddin</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>are not recited</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> — <i>G.</i> It is customary not to recite the <i>El Male Raḥamim</i> (<span>אל מלא רחמים</span>) prayer on days when <i>Ẓidduk Haddin</i> is not recited. It is unknown when this prayer was composed. In Geonic times it was called <span>אשכבתא</span> or <span>השכבה</span>, (<i>Hashkabah</i>), a name by which it is still known among Sephardic Jews today.  <i>supra</i> § 344, 20.</i>
One who suffered a bereavement before <i>Purim</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> and then <i>Purim</i><sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> occurred,<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘met him.’</i> it does not interrupt [the period of] mourning. Yet, no mourning is observed therein, neither on the fourteenth nor on the fifteenth [day of <i>Adar</i>];<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> only matters pertaining to private mourning one observes,<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg.</i> For since these days were accepted as days of Feasting and Rejoicing (Es. IX, 22-23), they enjoy the same status as the Sabbath with respect to mourning. Hence, only private mourning is observed (v. <i>supra</i> § 400, 1). <i>RaShaL</i> writes that all laws of mourning must be observed on <i>Purim.</i> Thus <i>Caro</i> in O.Ḥ. § 696, 4. The apparent contradiction between <i>Caro</i>’s ruling here and in O.Ḥ. <i>ibid.</i> is removed by <i>Derisha</i> as follows: In O.Ḥ. <i>Caro</i> deals with a case where the death occurred on <i>Purim;</i> in the present ruling he deals with a case where the death occurred prior to <i>Purim. ShaK</i>, however, claims that this is a strained interpretation. <i>Isserles</i> (in O.Ḥ. <i>ibid.</i>) rules like <i>Caro</i> here and writes that this is the accepted custom (i.e., even if the first day of mourning falls on <i>Purim.</i> Thus <i>D.Merb.</i>). Some remove the contradiction between <i>Caro</i>’s rulings by suggesting that in O.Ḥ. <i>ibid.</i> an error crept into the text (<span>בחנוכה</span> which is found in all our cur. edd. should be emended to <span>בחנוכה .בצינעא</span> is out of place among the laws dealing with <i>Purim</i>) and the ruling (in O.Ḥ.) should read as follows: ‘All matters of mourning apply (only) in privacy on <i>Purim’</i> — <i>Ba’er Heteb.</i> A mourner during the seven days of mourning is forbidden to read the <i>Megillah</i> (Scroll of Esther) in the Synagogue — <i>Imre Baruk</i> on the authority of <i>MaHaRIL.</i> But if no other competent reader is available who could read as well as the mourner according to the laws of the accents (<span>טעמים</span>) and the principles of Grammar, the mourner may read under the circumstances — <i>Binyan Olam; Resp. Maḥane Ḥayyim.</i> On Purim the mourner is permitted to wear shoes and to sit on a ordinary chair. Otherwise, it would be regarded as public mourning which is prohibited — O.Ḥ. (§ 696). If a mourner has a store, he may keep it open on <i>Purim</i> on the same principle — <i>Hag. Maharsham.</i> A mourner who is a musician, — if he is after the seven days, but during the thirty days of mourning for other near-of-kin; or after the thirty days of mourning for a parent, — is permitted to play music on <i>Purim</i> which occurs during that period, especially if he goes to play at a religious affair — <i>P.Tesh</i> (O.Ḥ. § 696).</i> and one is dutibound to send gifts [to others as is customary on <i>Purim</i>];<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> and although one observes no mourning rites therein, they [i.e., the fourteenth and the fifteenth of <i>Adar</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> enter for him into the counting of the seven [days of mourning] as [in the case of the] Sabbath.

Siman 402

One to whom a report came that he suffered the loss of a near-of-kin [for whom one is dutibound to observe mourning rites], — if the report reached him within thirty days [after burial],<sup class="footnote-marker">1</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> VII, 1 derived from M.K. 20a. One who receives a death report and does not know whether it is still within or after the thirty days, — there is a difference of opinion among the <i>Codifiers. Ta</i>Z rules that he does not have to observe mourning rites.  <i>supra</i> § 397, 1, n. </i> even [if he received it] on the thirtieth day proper,<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>Alfasi</i> and <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> This is derived (M.K. 20b) from the case of one who receives near tidings on the Sabbath, and by the termination of the Sabbath it has become distant tidings in which case the law is that he observes one day of mourning only (actually one hour.  <i>infra</i>). From this we conclude that the Sabbath must have been the thirtieth day, and since one observes on the Sabbath only mourning pertaining to private matters, formal mourning cannot continue after the Sabbath. Hence, with the termination of the Sabbath the death report is regarded as distant tidings. Were the Sabbath the twenty-ninth day, the entire seven days of formal mourning would have to be observed. Consequently, we may conclude that a death report received on the thirtieth day (excluding the Sabbath) is regarded as near tidings. The thirtieth day is calculated according to the locality of the mourner and not the place of death, e.g., if one who lives in United States or Canada receives a death report from Europe on the thirtieth day, although in Europe at that time it was already the thirty-first day, we follow the locality of the mourner with respect to determining whether it is near or distant tidings — <i>Resp. Abne Zikaron</i>.</i> it is considered near tidings and he is dutibound to observe seven days of mourning from the day that the [death] report reached him, and he rends [garments]<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote">Derived from M.K. 20b where the question is raised whether or not one rends garments on hearing near tiding on the Sabbath which becomes distant tidings at the termination of the Sabbath, whence it follows that during the thirty days one must rend garments. Furthermore in M.K. 25a it is stated that if a <i>Ḥakam</i> died all must rend garments. This undoubtedly refers to near tidings, for if not, i.e., if it refers to the time between death and burial, then even in the case of any worthy person <span>אדם כשר</span> who dies one must rend garments, and not only in the case of a <i>Ḥakam.</i>  § 401, 3 and <i>W.G.</i> a.l.</i> and counts thirty days <i>from the day the report</i> [<i>is received</i>]<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">Thus implied in <i>Maim.</i> (Yad, <i>ibid.</i>) and <i>N.Yos.</i> and <i>Mord.</i> M.K. III — <i>G.</i></i> with respect to [the prohibition against] hair-cutting [and] with [regard to] other matters [which obtain in the case of other dead.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote">E.g., the mourner’s meal and everything else which obtains on the day of burial — <i>Asheri</i> and <i>Tur.</i></i> The general principle of the matter is [that] the day of his [receiving] near tidings [is regarded] as the day of burial.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">One should not don <i>Tefillin</i> on the day one receives a death report of near tidings (<i>B.Yos.</i> on the authority of <i>N</i>) — <i>Ta</i>Z. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 388, 1, n. 4.  however, <i>Nek. Hak.</i> that this follows from par. 2 <i>infra.</i> The thirty days of near tidings are calculated from the day of burial and not from the day of death. Thus <i>D.Merb</i>. <i>Ta</i>Z and <i>ShaK</i> state that we should calculate from the day of death (v. <i>Nek. Hak.</i> who writes that the matter requires further elucidation). Thus also <i>Peri Megadim</i> and <i>Ḥ. Adam. Mishmereth Shalom</i> after a lengthy analysis of this problem concludes that the law is in accordance with the lenient view. <i>A.H.</i> maintains that we should calculate from the day of burial (v. Zeb. 100b).</i> However, if he received the report after the thirtieth day and onward, — he is required to observe [mourning rites] only for one hour,<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 20a in accord with R. Akiba.  <i>supra</i> § 399, 7, n. 56.</i> [and] there is no difference whether he received the [death] report during the day<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote">E.g., the thirty-first day.</i> or during the night,<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">E.g., the night of the thirty-first day.  <i>supra</i> § 395, 2.</i> [for even] if he received the [death] report at night and observed some mourning rites at night for one hour,<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote">Cf. <i>supra</i> § 388, 1, n. 4.</i> it counts for him [as valid]; and even if he received a report [of distant tidings] about [the death of] his father and/or mother [the same principle obtains].<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> and <i>Asheri</i>, derived from the following case of Rab and R. Ḥiyya in M.K. 20a-b and parallel references: ‘. . he (R. Ḥiyya) said to his nephew (Rab), “Is father alive”? — He replied, “Mother is alive.” (Again) he asked, “Is mother alive”? — He replied, “Father is alive.” R. Ḥiyya then said to his attendant, “Take off my shoes and bring along my things to the (public) bath-house.” From this we learn three things: We learn that a mourner is forbidden to put on shoes; that (on hearing) distant tidings (one observes mourning rites) for one day only; and that part of the day is (regarded) as a whole day.’ According to R. <i>Ḥananel</i>, R Ḥiyya referred to his own parents when questioning Rab about them (v. <i>Rashi and Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>אייבו</span> for other interpretations). The same ruling is derived from the case of R. Ḥinena (<i>ibid.</i> 20a) who received tidings from Be Ḥozai about the death of his father, and after consulting R. Ḥisda, the latter told him, ‘On (receiving) distant tidings, mourning is observed for one day only.’</i> And this, — [viz., that even in the case of receiving distant tidings about the death of one's parents, one hour of mourning suffices], applies only with respect to the restrictions of the seven [days of mourning which fall away in the case of distant tidings],<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> on the basis of a logical deduction.</i> but as to the restrictions of the thirty [which apply in the case of other dead],<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">e., whatever restrictions obtain in the case of other near-of-kin with respect to the thirty days, e.g., laundry-work, hair-cutting, obtain in the case of one’s parents until he is rebuked etc. — <i>Ta</i>Z.</i> — he observes [in the case of receiving distant tidings] about [the death of] his father and/or mother the [prohibition against] hair-cutting until his friends rebuke him, and with respect to laundry work, — until the Festival arrives and they rebuke him, and likewise, with respect to extending a greeting of peace or entering a house of feasting. However, [in the aforementioned restrictions],<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">With respect to distant tidings received about the death of a parent.</i> he counts<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">The twelve months.</i> from the day of death and not from the day that the [death] report [is received]. Therefore, if a report reached him about [the death of] his father and/or mother after twelve months [from the day of death], he observes only one day<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">e., one hour. For we apply the principle that ‘part of a day is regarded as a whole day.’</i> of mourning [and] even with respect to the restrictions of the thirty [days in the case of other dead the same principle applies].
One who hears distant tidings is not required to observe the entire law of mourning rites, but it is sufficient for him to remove [his] shoe[s] and he is not required [to observe in addition] muffling [of the head] or overturning the couch, and he is permitted to work, bathe, annoint himself, use of the conjugal couch and Torah-study. However, if he has no shoes on his feet [at the time the distant tidings are reported to him], he is required to overturn his couch or to muffle his head, for he is required to perform a [positive] act whereby it may be seen that he acts [thus] on account of mourning. If, however, he was engaged in the study of the Torah, or work, or he was bathing or annointing himself, and a [belated death] report came to him, — he interrupts [this] for one hour on account of mourning, and [subsequently] returns to what he was doing.<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘to what was in his hand.’ <i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i>, derived from the case of R. Ḥiyya and Rab.  <i>supra</i> n. 11. R. Ḥiyya merely removed his shoes but went to the bathhouse which is forbidden to a mourner for a recent bereavement.</i> But if he was wearing <i>Tefillin</i><sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> [at the time the distant tidings were received], he is not required to remove them.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Thus <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> derived from R. Ḥiyya (<i>ibid</i>.), who, we assume was wearing his <i>Tefillin.</i> at the time he was informed about the death of his parents, and yet no mention is made that he removed them (v. <i>supra</i> n. 11). For if R. Ḥiyya were required to remove his <i>Tefillin</i>, it would mean that distant tidings of death would be considered more stringent than mourning for a recent bereavement, in which case the law is that the <i>Tefillin</i> should be worn during the observance of formal mourning save on the first day.  <i>supra</i> § 388 and notes.</i> Yet, he does not discharge his duty of mourning through this [aformentioned] interruption, and is required to perform a [positive] act whereby it may be seen that he acts [thus] on account of mourning, e.g., [by] removing [his] shoes or over-turning the couch and muffling [the head]. However, one [such act] is sufficient.
One does not provide the mourner's meal on account of distant tidings.<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N.Yos</i> and <i>Mord.</i> Derived from the case of R. Ḥiyya (<i>ibid.</i>) where this was not done.  M.K. 25b, <i>Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>אלא</span>. Regarding the laws of the mourner’s meal, v. <i>supra</i> § 378.</i>
[For all other near-of-kin] one does not rend [garments] on account of distant tidings;<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 20b in accord with R. Mani.  <i>Tosaf. ibid.</i> s.v. <span>קורע</span>. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 340, 18 and <i>W.G. ibid.</i> n. 40.</i> for one's father and/or mother one always rends [garments],<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i> in accord with R. Zera. Thus also <i>N, Alfasi</i> and <i>Asheri</i>, derived from Y.M.K. III, 5(82c).</i> — <i>and in a case where one does not have to rend</i> [<i>garments</i>], <i>one is forbidden to place himself under greater stringencies</i> [<i>than the law requires</i>] <i>and rend</i><sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">Unless it is done for his parents or for a distinguished person whom he consulted on halachic matters and before whom he always stood in awe on account of the latter’s erudition. Where one is not required to rend, rending garments is regarded as a transgression of <i>‘Do not destroy anything wantonly’</i> (Deut. XX, 19).</i> [<i>garments</i>].<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Or Zaru‘a</i> — <i>G.</i></i>
One who received a [death] report on the Sabbath or on a Festival and at the termination of the Sabbath or the Festival it became distant [tidings], observes but one day<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">e., one hour. <i>BaḤ</i> states that in the case where the seventh day of mourning terminates on the Sabbath, since only matters pertaining to private mourning are observed on the Sabbath, the mourner should observe one hour of mourning at the termination of the Sabbath. This is, however, refuted by the <i>Codifiers</i>, and the accepted custom is not to observe one hour of mourning at the termination of the Sabbath — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>ShaK</i> and <i>A.H.</i></i> [of mourning]<sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 20b.</i> and on the Sabbath or the Festival day he is forbidden matters pertaining to private [mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i></i>
One who received distant tidings on the Sabbath or on a Festival, does not observe even matters pertaining to private [mourning], and at the termination of the Sabbath or the Festival he observes one hour [of mourning] and this is sufficient for him.<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i>
One who received near tidings on the Sabbath, — [the law is that] the Sabbath enters for him [into the counting of] one day [of the seven days of mourning], and the following day he rends [his garments], and the sixth day [after the Sabbath] is considered for him the seventh day of mourning.<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T.H.</i> on the authority of <i>SeMaG.</i> Thus also <i>BeHaG</i> and other <i>Codifiers.</i> The present ruling is <i>contra R. Yeḥiel</i> (cited by <i>Tur</i>) who maintains that the Sabbath does not enter into the counting if it is the first day. Hence, according to <i>R. Yeḥiel</i>, the following Sabbath would be considered the seventh day of mourning. <i>Caro</i>, however, makes no distinction whether the Sabbath is the first day of mourning or not — <i>Ta</i>Z, <i>A.H.</i></i>
[If] ten days after the Festival of <i>Sukkoth</i><sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> one received a report that he had suffered a bereavement on the eve of the Festival [of <i>Sukkoth</i>], — although, if we should count one hour before the [advent of] the Festival [of <i>Sukkoth</i> as equivalent to] seven [days] and the seven days of the Festival [of <i>Sukkoth</i>] and the day of <i>Shemini Azereth</i><sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> [which in itself counts as seven days, we would have] twenty-one days, and ten more days following, these would be [in all] thirty-one days, — [yet] this [death report] does not have the status of distant tidings,<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Zeraḥyah ha-Lewi</i> (<i>RaZaH</i>) to M.K. III, quoted by <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i>.</i> but [rather] of near tidings,<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote">Similarly in the case of one who died on the first day of the week, and was interred on the following day, we calculate the near tidings from the day of death. For in all matters we follow the day of death save the mourning period which begins from the closing of the tomb by the <i>Golel</i> — <i>Ta</i>Z.  however, <i>supra</i> par. 1, n. 6.</i> since the Festival does not enter [into the counting] for one who did not observe mourning prior to it [the Festival] at all, and much more so for one who knew not that he had suffered a bereavement.<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote"><i>R. Yeruḥam</i> on the authority of <i>Ba‘al ha-Maor.</i> Thus also <i>N — G.</i></i>
[If] one received two reports of distant tidings on one day, one observes for them only one day [of mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote">e., one hour. Cf. <i>supra</i> n. 16.</i> [If] they were [both reports of] near [tidings], or one suffered two bereavements simultaneously,<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote">Similarly, in the case of one bereavement following another (v. <i>supra</i> § 375, 10).</i> one counts for both at the same time the seven and thirty [days of mourning]. [If] one heard one<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘this one… that one.’</i> [report of near tidings] today and the other<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘this one… that one.’</i> [on] the following day, one counts for [the first from the first day and] for the second from the day the [death] report [is received] the seven and thirty [days of mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> on the authority of <i>Ghayyat</i> derived from the case of R. Ḥiyya (v. <i>supra</i> par. 1, n. 11) who was informed about the death of his parents on the same day, and yet, observed for both mourning rites for one day (since it was a case of distant tidings). It follows, therefore, that the same principle applies in a case of near tidings as recorded in the present ruling.</i>
One who received near tidings on the Sabbath [that fell on the] eve of the Festival, — [the law is that] since one observes [then] matters pertaining to private [mourning], that Sabbath [day] enters for him into the counting of the seven [days of mourning].<sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.</i> to M.K. III on the authority of <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg.</i> Thus also <i>Hag. Maim.</i> With the advent of the Festival, the restrictions of the seven days of mourning become annulled.  <i>supra</i> § 399 beg.</i>
One who had already recited the evening <i>Tefillah</i><sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> and it is still day and [then] received near tidings, counts [the days of mourning] from the following day and that [previous] day does not enter for him [into the counting].<sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote">But one who received near tidings towards the end of the thirtieth day after having recited the evening <i>Tefillah</i> (<i>Ma‘arib</i>) and it is still day, does not regard the day as night and must observe formal mourning, for we regard the day as night only if a stringency will result (as in the present ruling), but if, as in the above case, a leniency will result, i.e., on the next day the tidings will be considered distant, the day is not regarded as night— <i>Ta</i>Z. <i>Ḥid. ha-Gershuni</i> disputes this and disagrees with <i>Ta</i>Z. On the present ruling v. <i>supra</i> § 375, 11, nn. 46-47.</i>
One who suffered a bereavement and it was not known to him, — [the law is that] it is not obligatory that they inform him [thereof], even in [the case of] his father and/or mother [who died],<sup class="footnote-marker">39</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 20a-b, derived from the case of R. Ḥiyya.  <i>supra</i> par. 1, n. 11.  also Naz. 44a, where it is reported that the father of R. Isaac died at Ginzak, and the son was informed about it three years later.</i> and regarding such a one, [i.e., who does inform], it is said, <i>'And he that uttereth a slander is a fool'</i>;<sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote">Prov. X, 17.</i> and it is permissible to invite him to a feast of betrothal and marriage and [likewise to] every [type of] festivity, since he knows not thereof.<sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Hag. Maim.</i> to <i>Ebel</i> VI on the authority of <i>Rashi.</i> A husband who knows that his wife suffered a bereavement of which she is unaware, is permitted to cohabit with her — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> However, if he asks about him, one should not lie and say that he is alive,<sup class="footnote-marker">42</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Mord.</i> and <i>Hag. Maim.</i> In reporting a death one should phrase his statement in such a manner so as to convey a double meaning, i.e., there should be the possibility of interpreting his words both for life and death — <i>Ta</i>Z. Cf. case of R. Ḥiyya <i>supra</i> par. 1, n. 11. On a Festival, however, one should not report a death, so as not to grieve the mourner which is not in keeping with the festive spirit of the Holiday — <i>P.Tesh.</i></i> for it is written, <i>'Keep thee far from a false matter</i>.'<sup class="footnote-marker">43</sup><i class="footnote">Ex. XXIII, 7.</i> <i>Gloss</i>: <i>Nevertheless, in</i> [<i>the case of surviving</i>] <i>male children it is customary to inform</i> [<i>them thereof</i>] <i>so that Kaddish</i><sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>be recited, but in</i> [<i>the case of surviving</i>] <i>daughters it is not customary to inform them at all</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">44</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIW</i> s. 13 — <i>G.</i></i> <i>It is a religious duty to fast</i> [<i>on</i>] <i>the day that one's father or mother died</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">45</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Kol Bo</i> on the authority of <i>R. Meir of Rothenberg</i> and other <i>Codifiers.</i> By fasting a person will repent, investigate his conduct and improve it. This has a redeeming power for the parents. At the Afternoon Service (<i>Minḥa</i>) on the <i>Yahrzeit</i> day, one who fasts should recite the <span>עננו</span> prayer (v. <i>Siddur</i>) as in the case of any other fast day.</i> <i>and one fasts on the day of death and not on the day of burial</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">46</sup><i class="footnote"><i>MaHaRIW</i> s. 121 and <i>Isserlein</i> s. 296 and <i>Later Codifiers</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>unless one was present at the burial and not at the death</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">47</sup><i class="footnote">On tradition from a distinguished Elder, <i>R. M. Landau</i> — <i>G.</i> The anniversary of death (<i>Yahrzeit</i>) and the fast are always observed on the day of death — <i>Ta</i>Z. If, however, three or four days elapsed between death and burial, the law is that the first year one observes the <i>Yahrzeit</i> on the day of burial and every succeeding year on the day of death —<i>ShaK.</i> On the <i>Yahrzeit</i> day a lamp is lit. If one observes <i>Yahrzeit</i> for both parents on the same day, two lamps or candles are lit — <i>Sefer Amarkol.</i> For one who died at twilight (<span>בין השמשות</span>), one observes the <i>Yahrzeit</i> on the following day — <i>Resp. Minḥath Elazar.</i> If one who observes <i>Yahrzeit</i> on the Sabbath, forgot to light the <i>Yahrzeit</i> lamp before the advent of the Sabbath, — if he reminds himself on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight, he may instruct a non-Jew to light it for him — <i>M.Abr.</i> (O.Ḥ. § 261, n. 6). One may light a <i>Yahrzeit</i> lamp on a Holiday — <i>Ketab Sofer.</i> One who is in doubt whether the <i>Yahrzeit</i> should be observed on the fourth or the fifth day of the month, — the law is that if he has other brothers elsewhere who know the exact day when <i>Yahrzeit</i> falls (it is understood that he is unable to contact them in order to determine the correct day), he should observe the <i>Yahrzeit</i> on the fourth day (i.e., the first doubtful day). But it there is no one else in the family to observe the <i>Yahrzeit</i>, he must observe both days — <i>Ḥatam Sofer.</i></i> <i>If this day occurred on a day during which Taḥanun</i><sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos.</i> <i>is not recited, one does not fast at all</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">48</sup><i class="footnote">Thus also if the <i>Yahrzeit</i> day falls on the day when one’s child is to be circumcised, the father or the <i>Sandek</i> or the <i>Mohel</i>, who may be observing <i>Yahrzeit</i>, do not fast. Likewise, in the case of the redemption of a first-born child, the father or the <i>Kohen</i> who may be observing <i>Yahrzeit</i>, do not fast — O.Ḥ. <i>ibid.</i> par. 9.  <i>Ta</i>Z and <i>Sha‘are Tesh. ibid.</i> So too, a groom during the seven days of his wedding-feast, does not fast on the <i>Yahrzeit</i> day. However, one observing <i>Yahrzeit</i> is not permitted to eat at the feast held on the completion of a Talmudical tracate (<span>סיום</span>) — <i>ShaK.</i> One who does not know the day of his father’s or mother’s death, should select a certain day during the year on which to observe the <i>Yahrzeit</i> and fast, but he may not encroach upon the rights of others with respect to the <i>Kaddish</i> — <i>M.Abr.</i> (O.Ḥ. § 568, n. 20). If one who has to observe <i>Yahrzeit</i> is unable to say Kaddish, e.g., when he is on the road, he may recite <i>Kaddish</i> at the evening service (<i>Ma‘arib</i>) following the <i>Yahrzeit</i> day — <i>Matte Efrayyim</i>. If at the place of death it was already night when the person died and at the place of the near-of-kin it was still day, the <i>Yahrzeit</i> day is fixed according to the place of death — <i>Sh.M.B. contra Kol Bo</i>(<i>G</i>). Cf. <i>supra</i> par. 1, n. 2.</i> <i>If they died during</i> [<i>the month of</i>] <i>Adar</i><sup class="footnote-marker">49</sup><i class="footnote">In an ordinary year.</i> <i>and the year was a leap year</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">50</sup><i class="footnote">e., the following year or years when <i>Yahrzeit</i> is observed. Thus <i>M.Abr.</i></i> — <i>the fundamental principle is to fast</i> [<i>and observe Yahrzeit</i>] <i>during</i> [<i>the month of</i>] <i>Adar I</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">51</sup><i class="footnote"><i>T. ha-Deshen</i> s. 294 and <i>R. Judah Minẓ</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>although there are some who differ with</i> [<i>this</i>], — <i>yet, thus is the fundamental principle. However, if they died in a leap year during Adar II, one likewise fasts in a</i> [<i>subsequent</i>] <i>leap year during Adar II</i><sup class="footnote-marker">52</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Ibid.</i> — <i>G. e.</i>, in a subsequent leap-year he fasts during the <i>Adar</i> that death occurred, and in the following ordinary years he fasts during <i>Adar.</i> If the death occurred during an ordinary year, then in a subsequent leap-year he fasts during <i>Adar</i> I and during <i>Adar</i> II he recites the <i>Kaddish</i> but does not take precedence over others in leading the services etc. — <i>ShaK, P.Tesh., M.Abr.</i> The month of <i>Ḥeshvan</i> is sometimes full (i.e., it consists of thirty days in which case the first of the month (<i>Rosh Ḥodesh</i>) of <i>Kislev</i>, following, consists of two days, of which the first day of <i>Rosh Ḥodesh</i> is the thirtieth day of <i>Ḥeshvan</i> and the second day of <i>Rosh Ḥodesh</i> is the first day of <i>Kislev</i>) and sometimes the month of <i>Ḥeshvan</i> is defective (i.e., it consists of twenty-nine days, in which case, <i>Rosh Ḥodesh Kislev</i>, following, is observed only one day). Consequently, if one dies on <i>Rosh Ḥodesh Kislev</i> when <i>Rosh Ḥodesh</i> is observed only one day, — the law is that in a subsequent year when <i>Rosh Ḥodesh Kislev</i> consists of two days, the <i>Yahrzeit</i> should be observed on the second day of <i>Rosh Ḥodesh</i>, which is the first day of the month of <i>Kislev.</i> However, if one died on the first day of <i>Rosh Ḥodesh Kislev</i> when <i>Rosh Ḥodesh</i> consisted of two days, the question is — when should one observe <i>Yahrzeit</i> in a subsequent year when <i>Rosh Ḥodesh Kislev</i> consists of one day only? Should one observe the <i>Yahrzeit</i> on the twenty-ninth day of <i>Ḥeshvan</i>, since the death took place on the last day of <i>Ḥeshvan</i>, or do we say that since in matters pertaining to vows (v. end of <i>Gloss anon</i>) we follow the language of the people, he should observe <i>Yahrzeit</i> on <i>Rosh Ḥodesh Kislev?</i> — The following procedure should be adopted: If during the first year following the death, <i>Rosh Ḥodesh Kislev</i> is observed for one day only, the <i>Yahrzeit</i> should be observed on the twenty-ninth day of <i>Ḥeshvan.</i> Thus also whenever the month of <i>Ḥeshvan</i> is defective, then on the following day (i.e., <i>Rosh Ḥodesh Kislev</i>), if there are no mourners in the Synagogue, he should also recite the <i>Kaddish</i> and lead the services. But if during the year following the death, <i>Rosh Ḥodesh Kislev</i> consists of two days, consequently, the <i>Yahrzeit</i> becomes fixed for <i>Rosh Ḥodesh Kislev</i> and he should observe it thus every subsequent year, even when <i>Rosh Ḥodesh Kislev</i> consists of one day. The same principle applies to other months which are sometimes full and sometimes defective — <i>M.Abr.</i> Since <i>Rosh Ḥodesh Tebeth</i> is sometimes observed one day, in which case the sixth day of <i>Ḥanukkah</i> is the first of <i>Tebeth</i>, the seventh day, — the second of <i>Tebeth</i> and the eighth day, — the third of <i>Tebeth;</i> and sometimes <i>Rosh Ḥodesh Tebeth</i> consists of two days, i.e., the sixth and seventh day of <i>Ḥanukkah</i>, in which case the seventh day of <i>Ḥanukkah</i> is the first day of <i>Tebeth</i> and the eighth day, — the second day of <i>Tebeth</i>, — consequently, one who observes <i>Yahrzeit</i> during these days should not err by counting the days of <i>Ḥanukkah</i>, but one must always count the days of the month — <i>M.Abr.</i></i> <i>and  O.H.</i> § 568, 8. <i> supra</i> § 391 <i>that one should not eat at a feast on the night of</i> [<i>which the following</i>] <i>day is the death anniversary of one's father or/and mother</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">53</sup><i class="footnote"> <i>supra</i> § 391, 3, <i>Gloss</i> n. 38.</i> [<i>If</i>] <i>this fast falls on the eve of the Sabbath, the law is as</i> [<i>on</i>] <i>other fastday</i>[<i>s</i>]. <i> O.H. § 249</i>. <i>In any case</i>, — [<i>the law is that</i>] <i>if the first time one fasted the whole day, one should adopt this practice all the days of his life</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">54</sup><i class="footnote">For it is then regarded as a vow. Hence, he must always fast on that day. Should one, however, be ill or should there be any other reason which prevents him from observing the fast-day, he must first be released from his vow. But if, prior to observing the first fast-day, one explicitly stated that he fasts on the condition that this should not be regarded as a vow for the following year, he does not require any release (v. O.Ḥ. § 568 and <i>Ḥ. Adam</i>).</i>

Siman 403

One who collects his father's [or his mother's] bones<sup class="footnote-marker">2</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 8a.</i> or [the bones] of other near-of-kin for whom one observes mourning rites,<sup class="footnote-marker">3</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i> Thus also <i>Asheri</i> M.K. I, derived from Sem(H). XII, 7 in accord with R. Akiba.</i> mourns for them all day<sup class="footnote-marker">4</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid.</i></i> in [that he observes] all matters which apply to a mourner, [viz.,] by over-turning the couch, muffling the head, [by debarring himself from] wearing shoes, [from] using the conjugal couch, [from] bathing and annointing himself.<sup class="footnote-marker">5</sup><i class="footnote"><i>N</i> in <i>T.H.</i>; <i>Asheri</i> and <i>R. Yeruḥam</i>.</i> However, in the evening one does not observe mouring rites for them, even if he had them by him tied up in a sheet.<sup class="footnote-marker">6</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. <i>ibid., Tosaf.</i> s.v. <span>ולערב</span>. <i>Rashi</i> (<i>ibid.</i>) explains that this means even if he himself did not collect the bones and did not see them, mourning still obtains for one day.</i> [If] he was standing and collecting [the bones] and night fell, he is permitted [the aforementioned matters which are forbidden to a mourner], on the following day. Therefore, one should not collect them close to nightfall so that it should not turn out that he observed no mourning rites for the collection of his father's [or mother's] bones.<sup class="footnote-marker">7</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XII, 4. Since only the parents are mentioned, it follows that in the case of other near-of-kin, one may collect bones close to nightfall — <i>A.H.</i></i> <i>Aninuth</i><sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos. and <i>supra</i> § 34</i> <i>does not</i> [<i>take effect</i>] <i>in</i> [<i>the case of</i>] <i>a collection of bones</i> [<i>for final burial</i>];<sup class="footnote-marker">9</sup><i class="footnote">He is therefore, permitted to eat meat and drink wine which is forbidden to an <i>Onen</i> (v. <i>supra</i> § 341), but mourning becomes effective forthwith, even prior to the final burial of the collected bones.  <i>supra</i> § 375, 7. A <i>Kohen</i> is forbidden to collect the bones of his father lest the corpse is defective, in which case he is for-bidden to defile himself for him (v. <i>supra</i> § 373, 9) — <i>ShaK, Derisha</i>.</i> <i>only mourning rites become effective forthwith</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">10</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of <i>Asheri</i> — <i>G.</i></i>
Whosoever rends [garments] for him at the time of his death, rends [garments] for him at the time of [his] bone-collection; and every [rent] which is not resewn at the time of his death, is not resewn at the time of [his] bone-collection.<sup class="footnote-marker">11</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XII, 3 cited by <i>N</i> and <i>Asheri.</i></i>
[With respect to] bones [which are collected for final burial], one does not stand for them in the line [of comforters], but one says words of comfort on their own account.<sup class="footnote-marker">12</sup><i class="footnote">e., one tells the praise of the departed in accordance with their deeds.</i> One does not provide the mourner's meal for them<sup class="footnote-marker">13</sup><i class="footnote">e., on account of the collected bones.</i> in the town-group,<sup class="footnote-marker">14</sup><i class="footnote">e., publicly. For the meaning of <span>חבר עיר</span> v. <i>supra</i> § 355 and notes. Sem. has, ‘One does not go up for them etc.’</i> but one provides the mourner's meal for them in his<sup class="footnote-marker">15</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). has, ‘in the mourner’s house.’</i> house.<sup class="footnote-marker">16</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XII, 4; <i>N</i> in <i>T.H.; Asheri.</i> Cf. also Sem(H). XI, 2; <i>ibid.</i> Int. II, 11, pp. 46-47.</i> One does not recite for them lamentations and elegies, but one says for them [words of] praise,<sup class="footnote-marker">17</sup><i class="footnote">Y.M.K. I, 5(80d) ; Y.Pes. VIII, 7(36b). Thus also Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XII, 6-8; <i>Alfasi; N</i> in <i>T.H.; Asheri.</i></i> [i.e.,] <i>the praise of the departed</i> [<i>whose bones were collected</i>] <i>and one praises the Lord who puts to death and makes alive</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">18</sup><i class="footnote">You will find this explained in the <i>Tur</i> — <i>G.</i></i>
One may not collect his father's [or mother's] bones on [<i>Hol</i>-] <i>ha-Moed</i>, and needless to say, the bones of other near-of-kin.<sup class="footnote-marker">19</sup><i class="footnote">Yad, <i>Ebel</i> XI, 3 derived from Mishna M.K. 8a in accord with R. Jose, for the principle is that wherever there is a difference of opinion between R. Meir (who permits this, <i>ibid.</i>) and R. Jose, we rule in accord with R. Jose. The Mishna <i>ibid.</i> adds, ‘for it is an occasion of mourning for him.’</i>
One who heard that today they collected the bones of his near-of-kin for whom he observes mourning rites, — although he was not [present] there, — observes mourning rites for them.<sup class="footnote-marker">20</sup><i class="footnote">Y. <i>ibid.</i> in accord with R. Ḥaggai. A woman whose husband died and she remarried and subsequently the bones of her first husband were collected for final burial, is not required to observe mourning rites for him on the day that his bones are collected, for her second marriage releases her from her previous relationship — <i>P.Tesh.</i> Cf. <i>supra</i> § 362, n. 16.</i> <i>But if he heard that</i> [<i>the bones</i>] <i>were collected yesterday, he does not observe mourning rites for them</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">21</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur</i> on the authority of Y. — <i>G.</i></i>
One must not take apart the [collected] bones nor sever the sinews.<sup class="footnote-marker">22</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XII, </i>
A collection of bones [for final burial] is made only after the flesh has become decomposed;<sup class="footnote-marker">23</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XII, </i> [for] once the flesh is decomposed, the shape of the corpse is no longer discernible through the bones.<sup class="footnote-marker">24</sup><i class="footnote">This 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.  <i>supra</i> § 375, </i> Therefore, one may collect by himself<sup class="footnote-marker">25</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘with his hand.’</i> 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.
A person may collect the bones of two corpses at one time, [viz., he places the bones of one corpse] at the end of [his] <i>epikarsion</i><sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote">The text has <span>אפרסקל</span> a corruption of <span>אפיקרסין</span> a sheet or anything similar to that.  <i>supra</i> § 340, n. 59.</i> on one side, and [the bones of another corpse] at the [other] end of the [same] <i>epikarsion</i><sup class="footnote-marker">26</sup><i class="footnote">The text has <span>אפרסקל</span> a corruption of <span>אפיקרסין</span> a sheet or anything similar to that.  <i>supra</i> § 340, n. 59.</i> on the other side. These are the words of R. Joḥanan b. Nuri. R. Akiba<sup class="footnote-marker">27</sup><i class="footnote">Thus in Sem.</i> says, eventually the <i>epikarsion</i> will rot and it will turn out that the bones of two corpses will be mixed up [which is forbidden]; [therefore], one should rather collect and place [the bones of] each one separately in a coffin of cedar wood. Said R. Eliezer b. Ẓadok, — thus said my father to me at the time of his death, — 'At first bury me in a depression<sup class="footnote-marker">28</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘a valley.’  <i>supra</i> par. 1, n. 1; § 363, 4; § 362, n. 3.</i> and later [after the flesh is decomposed] collect my bones and place them in [a coffin] of cedar wood and do not collect them yourself,<sup class="footnote-marker">29</sup><i class="footnote">Lit. ‘with your hand.’  <i>A.H.</i> who asks why R. Eliezer b. Zadok stated on the authority of his father not to collect the bones himself. In any case this was impossible since he was a <i>Kohen?</i> (v. <i>supra</i> par. 1, n. 9).  however, <i>Ya’abeẓ, Toledoth Yisrael</i> VI, pp. 281-282.</i> so that they do not become reprehensible to you'.<sup class="footnote-marker">30</sup><i class="footnote">Sem(H). XII, 8-9.</i>
One who collects bones [for final burial] and one who guards the corpse and the one who carries them from place to place is exempt from the reading of the <i>Shema</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos. and <i>supra</i> § 341.</i> <i>from Tefillah</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos. and <i>supra</i> § 341.</i> from <i>Tefillin</i><sup class="footnote-marker">8</sup><i class="footnote"> Glos. and <i>supra</i> § 341.</i> and from all religious duties enjoined in the Torah, both during a weekday as well as during the Sabbath,<sup class="footnote-marker">31</sup><i class="footnote">This applies on the Sabbath only to guarding the corpse or the bones, for no collection of bones is made on the Sabbath.</i> and there is no difference whether [these are] the bones of near-of-kin or of strangers, both if he is in a boat or on the road, even if the collectors [of the bones] are many.<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote">This refers to those who collect the bones, but if there are many who guard the corpse or the bones, one guards and the other reads the <i>Shema</i> (v. O.Ḥ. § 71, 4) — <i>ShaK.</i> Cf. also <i>supra</i> § 341, 6, n. 51.</i> If one desires to place himself under greater stringencies [than the law requires] he should not do so out of deference [to the collected] bones.<sup class="footnote-marker">32</sup><i class="footnote">This refers to those who collect the bones, but if there are many who guard the corpse or the bones, one guards and the other reads the <i>Shema</i> (v. O.Ḥ. § 71, 4) — <i>ShaK.</i> Cf. also <i>supra</i> § 341, 6, n. 51.</i>
One who carries bones from place to place should not put them in a sack or saddle-bag and place them across [the back of] an ass and sit on them, because it is a disrespectful way of treating them;<sup class="footnote-marker">33</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. 18a. Cf. <i>supra</i> § 282, 3. The same would apply to one who transports the bones by any other means of conveyance — <i>A.H.</i></i> but if he throws it<sup class="footnote-marker">34</sup><i class="footnote">The sack containing the bones.</i> over his shoulder on the ass,<sup class="footnote-marker">35</sup><i class="footnote">While he sits on the ass.</i> it is all right.<sup class="footnote-marker">36</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Asheri.</i></i> However, if he was afraid of robbers and rovers, it is permitted [to sit on them].<sup class="footnote-marker">37</sup><i class="footnote">Ber. <i>ibid.</i></i> <i>Gloss</i>: [<i>R. Meir used to say, it is written, 'It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting; for that is the end of all men</i>] <i>and the living will lay it to heart'</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">38</sup><i class="footnote">Eccl. VII, 2.</i> [<i>viz.</i>,] <i>matters pertaining to death; if one makes a lamentation, others will make a lamentation for him; if one helps at burial, others will bury him; if one carries</i> [<i>the bier</i>], <i>others will carry him; if one raises</i> [<i>his voice in funereal lamentations</i>], <i>others will raise</i> [<i>their voice</i>] <i>for him</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">39</sup><i class="footnote">M.K. 28b a.e.</i> <i>Great is the peace that was given to the righteous, for when a righteous man departs</i> [<i>this world</i>] <i>three companies of ministering Angels extend to him a greeting of peace</i>,<sup class="footnote-marker">40</sup><i class="footnote"><i>Tur, Asheri</i> and <i>Kol Bo</i> — <i>G.</i></i> <i>and exclaim, 'He shall enter into peace'</i>.<sup class="footnote-marker">41</sup><i class="footnote">Is. LVII, 2.  entire passage in Ket. 104a.</i> (<i>And everyone that is written unto life shall be called holy</i>).<sup class="footnote-marker">42</sup><i class="footnote"> Is. IV, 3.</i><br>'HE WILL SWALLOW UP DEATH FOR EVER; AND THE LORD GOD, WILL WIPE AWAY TEARS FROM OFF ALL FACES'.<sup class="footnote-marker">43</sup><i class="footnote">Is. XXV, 8, cited in last Mishna of M.K. (28b) as a comforting conclusion.</i>