Siman 343

The Tur wrote: If there is a deceased person in the city – all the residents of the city are forbidden from labor. And if there are societies in the city, where each one occupies itself with the deceased on its day – each one is permitted on the day that is not its day. In what case are these things said? When it is not at the time of his being taken out. But at the time of his being taken out – everyone is idle. Thus far his words. And it is in Moed Katan (Moed Katan 27b). And seemingly it implies that the reason for the prohibition is so that there will be someone to occupy himself with his burial. But as long as there is someone to occupy himself with his burial – it is permitted. And so it is explicitly explained from the wording of the Rambam, chapter fourteen, law 10, who wrote: If he has someone to occupy himself with his needs – they are permitted. Thus far his words. And so it is explained from the wording of the Rif, who wrote: And if he has someone who stands over the needs of the deceased – it is permitted. Thus far his words.

But the opinion of the Tur is not so, for he wrote after this, and this is his wording: The Ritz Gi’at wrote: The Ba’al HaHalachot Gedolot establishes this specifically regarding a met mitzvah who has no one to bury him. But it does not seem correct; rather, it deals with any deceased person, as Rav Hamnuna etc. And the Ramban wrote: From here I hear that anyone who sees a deceased person and does not escort him—until he has all his needs—is subject to excommunication etc. Thus far his words. That is to say: the Tur brought proof for the Ritz Gi’at from the Ramban, for according to the words of the Ba’al HaHalachot Gedolot, what is the connection between one and the other? And this is the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in the Shulchan Aruch, who wrote: If there is a deceased person in the city—all the people of the city are forbidden from work, for anyone who sees a deceased person and does not escort him—until he has all his needs—is subject to excommunication. And if there are societies in the city etc. Thus far his words. And according to these our teachers, one must say the reason: because of the honor of the deceased. For when there are societies—behold, there are many occupied with him. But when only individuals are occupied with him—this is not for the honor of the deceased, and therefore all the people of the city are forbidden from work. But according to the Ba’al HaHalachot Gedolot, the Rif, and the Rambam, the reason is only so that he will have those occupied with him. And nevertheless, I wonder at our teacher, the Beit Yosef: how did he omit their opinion? For it is his way in every place to rule like the Rif and the Rambam, and all the more so since the Ba’al HaHalachot Gedolot also stands like them. (And so I wonder at the Nimukei Yosef there, who brought the words of the Ramban upon the words of the Rif there, see there. And this is a contradiction, and it requires further study. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

And behold, among us in every single city there is a Chevra Kadisha who occupy themselves with the burial, and all the residents of the city are permitted to work. And the custom is that when they carry an important person past the shops – they close the shops until the bier passes. And when the greatest person in the city dies, such as the rabbi of the community or the like – they lock the shops until after the burial. (And in the Rashdam, he brings that among them they do so for every important deceased person.)

In a small village – one does not greet another with shalom when the deceased is in the town. This is the wording of the poskim based on Masekhet Semachot. And it appears to me that the same law applies to a small city, as long as the deceased is felt within the city. From this it appears to me that when a great man dies, even in a large city – one does not greet another with shalom. And it is a kal vachomer that one does not greet with shalom in the cemetery when there is a deceased person there and he has not yet been buried. But when there is no deceased person there – one greets at a distance of four amot from the grave. And it appears to me that also in the house of a mourner one does not greet another with shalom, since it is a place of sorrow, it is not fitting to appear in shalom. And there are those who are lenient, because our greeting of shalom is not like their greeting of shalom. And Heaven forbid to be lenient. (And one should not say the reason is because in the presence of the deceased it is like "mocking the poor," and if so, in the house of a mourner this would not apply. For what "mocking the poor" applies to this? Rather, the reason is as I have written. Furthermore: perhaps also in the house of a mourner it is like "mocking the poor," meaning: you are dwelling in sorrow and we are in shalom.)