פירוש על ברכות 35:23

......Rashi explains that it is not necessary for one to make the Hamotzie blessing from that we learn that if he wants to make the blessing he has permission. This does not seem to be the implication in the conversation of this idea which teaches that even outside the area of four amot is also prohibited because there is a general rule that one may not bless. And there are those who say that from the conversation we learn the prohibition to bless is only at a time when one is engaged in the needs of the dead person but if one has already completed the persons needs or there are others to take care of the dead person's needs - then he may bless. And in the Yerushalmi that implication does not seem to be accepted because we explain there/translate "doesn't eat" as he doesn't eat meat and he doesn't drink wine and he doesn't make a blessing. And if he blesses others do not answer him, amen. And if others bless they are not answered with amen. And in the answering of amen, one does not invalidate the needs of the dead even though here it is technically prohibited to say amen. And further we say above in our chapter on page 19 "if the dead person isn't in front of you - you can sit and read Shema and he sits silently while they stand and pray the Amidah and he stands and justifies the law and he isn't involved in the needs of the dead ______________ and he can focus on the first pasuk of Shema. Therefore we see its prohibited to pray while one is in front of you who is in Aveliut.

WITH PHYLACTERIES ON HIS HEAD AND A TORAH SCROLL IN HIS ARM AND READ [FROM IT]. The Braiso says that one may not walk in a cemetery while carrying a sefer Torah and reading from it. Since the reason for this prohibition is because it seems as if we are ridiculing the deceased who can no longer fulfill mitzvos, Tosfos points out that the Braiso is not to be taken literally
And the same ruling applies, that it is prohibited to recite Torah by heart.

AND RIDE ON THEM. One is not allowed to put the remains of a corpse in a box and ride on the box. However, if he slings the box over his shoulder and it hangs on his back as he rides on a donkey that is fine. And the same is true of a sefer Torah. One may ride on a donkey while carrying a sefer Torah slung over his shoulder. And even if it is in your mindset to prohibit that arrangement for a sefer Torah, but for the Prophets and Writings it is certainly fine.¹The text is emended by Maharsho who says that Tosfos should read: However it appears that for a sefer Torah it is also fine to carry it as it is slung over one’s shoulder. See Rosh Chapter 3, Simon 7, and Tosfos HaRosh. It is evident that he had the text that Maharsho suggests.
However, it appears that for a sefer Torah it is also permissible since the Braiso mentions that a sefer Torah has the same rule as a corpse and the Braiso definitely indicates that a corpse in a box may be carried as it is slung over his shoulder and hanging on his back.
Tosfos now questions this point. Perhaps the Braiso only spoke of a sefer Torah to tell us that if it is in danger of being seized by gentiles or bandits, it is permitted to ride while sitting on it? And it is not logical to say that the sefer Torah is mentioned only to tell us that it is permitted to ride on it when running away from gentiles or bandits and not to allow one to carry it as it is slung over his shoulder, for it is simple that it is permitted to rescue the sefer Torah by riding on it for why would that possibly be prohibited?²This seems to contradict the Gemara that says that the reason the sefer Torah is mentioned is to tell us that the rule in the end of the Braiso applies to the sefer Torah and not the rule at the beginning of the Braiso. See Rosh (ibid) and Tosfos HaRosh where you will find a slightly different text that resolves this question. We must therefore conclude that the reason the sefer Torah is mentioned in the Braiso is to tell us that when there is no danger, it is permitted to ride with it slung over one’s shoulder and hanging from his back.
Tosfos offers further proof that it is permitted to ride with a sefer Torah slung over one’s shoulder. And furthermore, it is explicitly stated in Yerushalmee: a box full of s’forim or there were in it bones of a deceased person, one may sling them over his shoulder and let them hang from his back and ride on the donkey. The Yerushalmee is clearly stating that whatever is mentioned in our Braiso may be carried while riding on a donkey if the rider slings them over his back and does not sit on them.

RATHER [ACCORDING TO] THE LATTER CLAUSE, IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO RIDE ON THEM BECAUSE OF BANDITS. And the same comparison of sefer Torah to a corpse applies for carrying a sefer Torah hanging from one’s back. It is permitted even when there are no bandits pursuing him.

TOMORROW, [THEY WILL] COME TO [BE BURIED WITH] US, AND NOW [THEY ARE] INSULTING US. The Gemara says that the dead are upset with the living who are showing that they, the living, are obligated to keep the mitzvos while the dead have no mitzvos. Tosfos will begin a lengthy discussion about this particular ruling and why it has changed over the generations. The underlying ruling is based on the verse “ridiculing a poor man embarrasses him”. The Rabbis understand that the “poor man”, is one who can no longer perform mitzvos, the dead. He is embarrassed by his inability to perform the mitzvos. When one walks with tzizis dragging on his grave, the deceased is upset.
Tosfos asks: This Gemara that teaches us that the dead are upset when the living wear tzitzis near their graves is bewildering. For the Gemara says in perek Hat’chailes (M’nochos 41a), in a discussion of whether one is required to have tzitzis on garments that are to be used for burial, that at that time, when one is actually buried, we certainly put them on for him. The explanation: we place tzitzis on their talisos because of the verse of “ridiculing the poor man”. It seems that precisely for this reason, that the dead should not be upset that they have no tzitzis we do place tzitzis on their garments. If so, how can the Gemara say here that when we wear tzitzis near their graves they are upset?
Tosfos answers: And we can answer: that this is the explanation here in our Gemara. Even though the dead also have tzitzis on their shrouds as we see from the Gemara in M’nochos, they are embarrassed by the fact that the living are obligated to perform the mitzvos and the dead are not obligated to perform the mitzvos, and one who is obligated to perform a mitzvo is greater than one who is not obligated to perform a mitzvo. See Bovo Kamo 38a. This inherent difference between the living and the dead is a source of anguish for the dead.
Tosfos is satisfied with this answer. However, he has a difficulty understanding why we do not follow the Gemara in M’nochos that clearly says we should put tzitzis on the shrouds of the dead.¹Literally שנא ומאי means: and what is the difference? Maharsho emends the text to read טעמא ומאי, and what is the reason? And this is difficult. That Gemara in Hat’chailes says that we should put strings, tzitzis, for the garments of the dead, and now we remove the tzitzis from their shrouds. And what is the reason for this?
Tosfos explains that this custom of removing the tzitzis from the dead reflects a change in the general practice of wearing tzitzis in the times of Rabainu Tam as compared to the practice during the times of the Gemara. According to Torah law one is required to wear tzitzis only when he is wearing a four cornered garment. During the times of the Gemara it was customary to wrap oneself with a four cornered garment. During the times of Rabainu Tam, the Jews of Europe did not generally wear a four cornered garment. Rather, as we do today, they put on a special Talis for prayer so that they could fulfill the Mitzvo, but this was not part of their regular dress.
Rabainu Tam says: that the Gemara in M’nochos that requires that we put tzitzis on the shrouds of the dead is exclusively for them, who lived in the times of the Gemara, who usually during their lifetime all wore a Talis of four corners and wore tzitzis on those talisos, and also all those involved in taking care of the needs of the dead had tzitzis, and in that situation it would be ridiculing “a poor man” if they, the deceased, had no tzitzis. Or perhaps because it is written that the mitzvo of tzitzis is לדורתם for their generations. On the simplest level this means that the mitzvo applies for all future generations. However the world לדורתם is spelled with only one “vov” before the “ר”, the “vov” after the “ר” is omitted. It is as if we read the word תם לדור, for a perfect generation, i.e. those who always fulfilled the mitzvo should have tzitzis on their garments for all time. Those who did not fulfill the mitzvo full time should not have tzitzis on their garments for all time.
However, we who even during our lives it is not our custom to constantly wear tzitzis, if we would place tzitzis for the dead, that would be ridiculing the “poor man”, since we would be treating them as if they always wore tzitzis during their lifetime when they actually did not.
This reason explains why we do not put tzitzis on the shrouds of those who did not constantly wear tzitzis during their lifetime, but what about those who did? And if you should say that we should place tzitzis on the shrouds of those who did wear tzitzis constantly during their lifetimes? If we were to do so, then it would be a case of “ridiculing the poor man” for others who did not constantly wear tzitzis during their lifetime.
Rabainu Tam suggests another possible reason that we do not put tzitzis on shrouds. And furthermore, Rabainu Tam says, that he heard from the people of Lozere that we remove the tzitzis from shrouds because the word ציצית comes to a numeric value of six hundred thirteen, the word itself equals six hundred,²צ=90, י=10, צ=90, י=10, ת=400, total = 600. together with the eight strings and five knots. And if one wears tzitzis when in the grave it appears as if he fulfilled all of the Torah and that seems like a falsehood. It is an unpleasant situation when we testify that a person fulfilled all the mitzvos during his lifetime and he really did not.
Rabainu Tam rejects this idea. And this is not clear. For if that were the reason we do not put tzitzis on shrouds then even the living nowadays are subject to the same rationale. Why do they wear tzitzis, they did not fulfill the entire Torah? There are many mitzvos related to the temple service and the laws that apply only in Eretz Yisroel that we cannot fulfill. Since the living, do wear tzitzis even though they do not fulfill all of the mitzvos, the dead could also have tzitzis on their shrouds even though they did not fulfill all the mitzvos during their lifetime.
Up until this point we have been searching for reasons why the ruling of the Gemara in M’nochos does not apply to us. Now Rabainu Tam presents a source in Chazal for our custom. However, we can say that we rely on Maseches S’mochos (perek 12) which relates that Abbo Shoul, a Tano, commanded his sons that they should remove his t’chailes, tzitzis, from his garment. We see that even during the times of the Tanoim there were those who held that we should not leave tzitzis on shrouds.
This source from Maseches S’mochos is questionable. Those small M’sechtos, printed in our Gemara after Maseches Sanhedrin, are referred to as the “outside s’forim”. They are not included in the Talmud. Rabainu Tam must show us that they can be used as a source for our customs even though they are not part of the Talmud. And even though the Gemara in M’nochos 41a argues with him, Abbo Shoul, there are certain areas of halacha where we depart from our Gemara and we do as in the outside s’forim.
One example of where we follow the outside s’forim: For example the reading of the Haftorah חזון ישעיה that we always read on the Shabos before the ninth of Ov as is taught by the P’sikta, whereas in our G’mara it is only read on Shabos Rosh Chodesh Ov.
A second example of where we follow the outside s’forim: And also for example the reading of ויחל, that in the Gemara we find (M’giloh 31a) that on a fast day we read the blessings and the curses of B’chukosai, and in Maseches Sofrim it says that we read ויחל, which is what we do. We see that in these two instances we follow the outside s’forim. So too, as far as removing the tzitzis from shrouds, we follow the outside s’forim.
Tosfos presents another opinion about this issue: And the Ritzva customarily did not remove the tzitzis from the corners of the garment of the dead; rather he tied and fastened them to the corner, within the corner³Perhaps there was a pocket on the corner as we sometimes find on the tzitzis manufactured today. in order to keep himself away from of an argument. His rationale was that if they are obligated to have tzitzis, they do have tzitzis, albeit they are not hanging as tzitzis ordinarily do. And if they are not obligated to have tzitzis, they are covered by the pocket.

TWO ALTAR-HEARTHS OF MOAB. The temple is referred to as שני אריאל מואב, For the names of David and Solomon, who built the temple and descended from Ruth the Moabite.
On a simple level the Gemara us asking: Are all others the children of dead men? Certainly the use of the expression “son of a living man” must have some special connotation. In the precise books the text is as follows: In the prophets it is written חי, living, and we read חיל, mighty. And the Gemara deduces from the written text חי, because חיל is not written as it is read, rather חי. If the word חיל was written as it is read, the Gemara would have no question at all. It is only because the written word is חי that causes us to ask, in what way was this man different than others and why is he called the son of a living man.
The Gemara says That B’noyohu studied the entire Sifra d’bai Rav on a short winter day. Sifra d’bai Rav expounds all the verses in Vayikra and is the most difficult of the books that explain the verses of the Torah. How does the Gemara know that it was this specific book that B’noyohu learned? The Gemara knows that he studied Sifra d’bai Rav from the use of the word ארי to describe the book, because that is the most difficult of all the books that expound the verses of the Torah.
This term is also used to teach us that the book he studied is the Sifra d’dai Rav. The term הבור בתוך implies that the subject is in the center. Since Sifra d’bai Rav expounds Vayikra it can be described as in the center, because Vayikra is in the middle of the s’forim of the Torah.
The Gemara presents the story of Shmuel’s conversation with his father as proof that the dead are aware of what happens among the living. Rashi says that this can be seen from Shmuel’s father knowledge that Shmuel was considered an important person among the living. Tosfos understands that the proof that the dead are aware of what transpires among the living is that he told Shmuel that he would soon be leaving this world. Tosfos has a problem with his explanation. The Gemara just said that there is an angel Dumoh who announces who is about to arrive from this world to the next. If so Shmuel’s father’s knowledge of Shmuel’s imminent arrival does not prove that the dead are generally aware of what transpires on this world. Perhaps Rashi anticipated Tosfos question and wrote that the proof is that his father knew that he was an important person. This of course is not information that he would have received from Dumoh. Tosfos on the other hand may not accept Rashi’s explanation because Shmuel’s father was telling him that he is an important person in the next world not in this world as Rashi explained.
The proof that the dead are aware of what happens on this world is because Shmuel’s father said that you will soon be coming to the next world. And the Gemara could not have answered as it did earlier that Dumoh preceded Shmuel and told them that Shmuel will soon die. For Dumoh’s announcement is only when death is imminent, but so far ahead of Shmuel’s death, Dumoh does not advance the information of who will soon die, for he himself does not know, so far in advance.¹It seems that Tosfos knows that Shmuel did not die immediately and that Dumoh does not have very advanced information. He only knows who is about to die imminently. Perhaps Tosfos knew that Shmuel did not die immediately because it must have taken some time for Shmuel to contact the people who had deposited the orphan’s assets with his father. In the previous story the dead girl said that her friend was coming tomorrow and the Gemara suggested that perhaps she heard from Dumoh. We see that Dumoh has knowledge of what is about to happen imminently. There is no proof that Dumoh knows well in advance who is going to die.

"Reading Shema' and Tefillah" is added by M. and is found in Semahot x (cf. Mo'ed Katon 23 b) from which this quotation is taken. Tefillin is not mentioned becaase the phylacteries are not worn on the Sabbath.

M. : Rabban Gamaliel.

Shema' and Tefillah.

Between Rabban Simeon and the other Rabbis that the former raises this point.

When this, as it sometimes does in Jewish law, becomes a duty, then Rabban Simeon does not allow it to be an exception to the rule that all signs of mourning must be discarded on the Sabbath.

In contradiction to the inference drawn from our Mishnah.

Not to the mourner who eats in another room or in a neighbour's house ; thus the Baraita presents no contradiction.

Rejecting Rab Pappa's solution, Rab Ashe declares that "lying before him" is not to be understood literally, but means the duty of burial is still his.

When he said "before me," Abraham was addressing the sons of Heth and was not in the actual presence of the body.

The Jewish custom is not to leave the body alone until burial, there being somebody always present to "watch." See Oesterley and Box, p. 332. The reason is to protect the body from mice. Cf. below.

There is none so poor as the dead. Cf. fol. 3 b, p. 10 n. 4.

They do not take it in turn to watch and pray.

Sit on them to escape on his ass.

In time of danger he may pack the scroll into the saddle-bag and ride on the ass.

M. adds: a distance of four cubits.

An act of respect shown to the dead stands in a higher scale, according to Rabbinic teaching, than to the living, because it is disinterested. On the phrase "Deal kindly and truly with me" (Gen. xlvii. 29) the Rabbis comment that "kindness of truth" is that performed to the dead; Gen. Rab. xcvi. 5.

"Upon the graves" is added by M. The "fringes" are the Sisit attached to the corners of the garment.

So literally; R.V, : a valiant man.