Siman 344

In the Gemara it is implied in several places that the matter of the eulogy is an obligation for every deceased person that may be, as long as he is not a wicked person. And so it is clarified from the words of the Rambam at the beginning of the twelfth chapter, who wrote: The eulogy is for the honor of the deceased. Therefore, we compel the heirs to give the wages of male and female professional mourners, and they eulogize him, etc. Thus far his words. And so from the words of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch at the beginning of this siman, who wrote "It is a great mitzvah to eulogize, etc." – it is implied accordingly.

And according to this, what is it that they said in the Yerushalmi, fourth chapter of Ketubot, end of halacha 6: "It was taught: Every place where they are accustomed to eulogize – they eulogize"? Thus far its words. And in the Tosefta there, at the beginning of the fourth chapter, it is taught: The power of the husband is greater than the power of the father, and the power of the father is greater etc., the power of the father is greater in that the husband is obligated in her sustenance, in her redemption, and in her burial. In a place where they are accustomed to eulogize – they eulogize, which is not the case with the father. Thus far its words. Behold, it is explicit that the father is not obligated at all to eulogize, and also regarding the husband it depends on the custom. However, in truth this is a different matter, not regarding a standard eulogy but rather to hire flutes and professional mourners as is explained in the Mishnah there. And this is the intent of the Tur, who wrote: It is taught in Evel Rabbati: In a place where they eulogize, meaning that it is common to hire professional mourners to eulogize – he eulogizes for his wife. And if the husband did not want to – her father comes and buries her, and extracts the payment against his will. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3, see there. And this depends on the custom, but it does not deal with the obligation of the eulogy itself. Rather, to spend money on the eulogy depends on the custom. And the Rambam deals with a place where the custom is to hire.

However, it must be understood who exactly are those obligated in the hesped? For it will be explained in this siman that we eulogize everyone: man and woman, male infant and female infant. And is it possible that the entire city should eulogize them? This is a rhetorical question. Therefore, it appears that for ordinary people, the obligation of the hesped is upon the relatives, for they weep and eulogize the deceased, and recount their praises to the extent possible without exaggerations, or the deeds of their ancestors as will be explained. And if there is a custom to hire professional mourners and flutes for the hesped – they are obligated to do so, except for his daughter when she is married – the obligation is upon the husband as I have written. And if there is no custom in this, as in our times when we have not heard of this custom at all – they shall eulogize them themselves with words and weeping, whether a little or a lot. But for a person who is distinguished in wisdom and fear – this is an obligation upon the entire city, as we will explain with the help of Heaven. And so it appears to me that this is the essence of the law of the hesped.

The Tur wrote: It is a great mitzvah to eulogize the deceased appropriately. And anyone who is indolent in the eulogy of a proper person—his days will not be lengthened, and he is worthy of being buried in his lifetime. And its mitzvah is that he should raise his voice over him, to say matters that break the heart in order to increase weeping, and to mention his praise. And it is forbidden to exaggerate his praise excessively, but rather one mentions the good traits that were in him. And one adds to them a little, provided that he does not exaggerate excessively. And if he did not possess good traits at all—one should not mention them over him. And for a sage or a pious person—one mentions their wisdom and their piety. And anyone who mentions that which was not in him at all, or who adds to exaggerate excessively—causes evil to himself and to the deceased. Thus far his words.

Superficially, it implies that this requirement to raise the voice—this is specifically for a worthy person, as is clear from the continuation of his words. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: It is a great mitzvah to eulogize the deceased properly. And its mitzvah is that he should raise his voice, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, for any deceased person—it is a mitzvah to raise the voice. And so it implies from the beginning of Berakhot (Berakhot 6b): The reward for a eulogy is the lifting. That is to say: the raising of the voice. And in the Yerushalmi, the third chapter of Moed Katan (Halacha 5): "Sigh in silence"—from here we learn that one must cry out over the dead, see there. However, from the words of the Ramban in the book Torat HaAdam, it is explicitly clear like the Tur, for he wrote: The reward for a eulogy is the lifting—that he should raise his voice over the sages and the worthy. As Rav said to Rav Shmuel bar Shilat: Warm me up in the eulogy. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote explicitly that the raising of the voice is only for sages and worthy people, like Rav and those similar to him. And also the wife of Ezekiel was presumably a completely righteous woman. And the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, require further study.

And that which he wrote: "And it is forbidden to exaggerate in his praise excessively, etc., and one adds to them a little"—the explanation of the matter is as follows: for automatically there must necessarily be a little addition, for who can precisely target the praise exactly as it is? And one must necessarily either add a little or diminish a little, and it is better to add than to diminish. And this is not considered an addition, for such is the way of those who speak. (And so it is implied in the Bach, see there. And the words of the Taz, subsection 1, are forced.) And so it is clarified from the wording of the Ramban there (cited in the Beit Yosef), and this is his wording: One praises him according to his honor and more than this in the manner of those who praise, but not with excessive exaggeration. And if he is not worthy of this—one eulogizes him like the women of Shikanzib at the end of Moed Katan, who say: Death is like death, and the sickness is the pain. That is to say: like the death of the wealthy so is the death of the poor, but the sickness is the suffering and the mourning. And they said this because he died in agony, and he is not fit for any other eulogy. Thus far his words. And our sages, of blessed memory, said (Shabbat 105b): Anyone who sheds tears for a worthy person—the Holy One, Blessed be He, counts them and places them in His treasury.

And just as one eulogizes men, so too one eulogizes women, as is appropriate for them. And they are eulogized among the men and the sages, and this is not a disgrace. And if she is a prominent woman, such as if she was a practitioner of charity, or engaged in charitable acts, or supported her husband so that he could learn, and guided her children in the path of the Torah—one delivers a eulogy before her bier just as one eulogizes a prominent man. And in a place where it is customary to hire professional mourners to eulogize, the husband is obligated to hire them. And if he did not want to, the relatives extract it from him against his will, and likewise heirs who inherited money from their benefactor. And if the custom is to hire a eulogizer and they do not want to, one extracts it from them against their will. And the eulogy is the honor of the deceased; therefore, if he commanded not to eulogize him, one listens to him. And regarding a leader of the generation who commanded so, one who is lenient not to listen to him has not lost. And even regarding an ordinary person, specifically regarding eulogizing does one listen to him. But if he commanded not to sit shiva or sheloshim for him, one does not listen to him, for he does not have the power to nullify obligatory mitzvot, and only regarding a eulogy because it is only for the honor of the deceased. And for this reason, there are several places where they do not practice eulogies at all, and therefore one listens to him, but not in a matter that pertains to laws. And some say that regarding a father and mother who commanded not to practice twelve months of mourning for them, one listens to them, and they should practice thirty days like other mourners (Shach, subsection 9 in the name of Maharin). For the reason for twelve months is because of their honor, and they can waive it, and it is a mitzvah to fulfill their words.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said (Moed Katan 24b): How many years old must a minor be for one to deliver a funeral oration over him? For children of the poor, whose entire joy is in their children—five years old. For children of the wealthy—six years old. For children of the elderly, they are like children of the poor, for they too rejoice greatly in their children. However, the Tzidduk HaDin and Kaddish are recited for an infant once thirty days have passed over him. But the custom is not so, rather only once he is twelve months old such that he is carried out in a bier, as will be seen below in siman 353, see there. And for children of the wealthy and children of scholars, one adds a bit regarding their deeds because of the honor of their father. And a child who knows how to conduct business—one delivers a funeral oration over him regarding his own deeds. And if he has no deeds—one delivers a funeral oration over him regarding the deeds of his fathers. And if they too have no deeds—one delivers a funeral oration over him regarding the deeds of his relatives. And a bride within the seven days of feasting—one delivers a funeral oration over her regarding either the deeds of her father or the deeds of her husband. And a fetus that emerged in pieces or limbs, and stillborns, and an eight-month fetus or a nine-month fetus that emerged dead, and Cutheans and slaves—one does not occupy oneself with them to escort them, and certainly not to deliver a funeral oration over them, but one only buries them. And even though up to age five one does not deliver a funeral oration, and it is obvious regarding these, yet when one is born in the usual way, if he wished to deliver a funeral oration over him—he is permitted. But regarding these—he is not permitted. And there is a prohibition to tear hair over the dead, and it was explained above in siman 180, see there.

The people engaged in the eulogy, as long as the deceased is lying before them, slip away one by one and recite the Shema and pray. If the deceased is not lying before them—they sit and recite, and the onan sits and remains silent. They stand and pray, and he justifies the Divine decree upon himself. And he says: "May it be Your will before You, Hashem my G-d, that You shall mend our breaches and the breaches of Your people, the House of Israel, with mercy." And specifically the people who come to hear the eulogy slip away and recite and pray. But the eulogizers themselves are exempt. And specifically on the first day, but from here onward—even the eulogizers are obligated. (Tur. And see Beit Yosef Orach Chaim siman 72 and in the Taz there section 2). And some say that all this is before burial. But after burial, they interrupt the eulogy, whether for the recitation of Shema or for prayer, and see in Orach Chaim siman 72. And they do not perform two eulogies as one in one city, unless there is a multitude of people there to divide into two, and there will be in each eulogy people according to its need as per the honor. And all the more so they do not perform two eulogies unless there is enough to arrange the praises of this one and of that one. That is to say: that there should be two deliverers of eulogies, that this one shall deliver for this one, and that one for that one. But otherwise, they eulogize one and bury him, and afterward they eulogize the second and bury him. Or it is possible to eulogize the second before the burial of the first.

We learn in the Gemara (Moed Katan 22b): Our Rabbis taught: When a chakham dies – his beit midrash is closed. The Ramban, of blessed memory, explained that it is closed for all seven days so that they should not study in it, in order that they should not be negligent in eulogizing him. But other batei midrashot – they engage in Torah even during the time of the eulogy, for one does not cancel Torah study for a eulogy. Thus far his words. And his intention is: when they have already eulogized him, or heard one eulogy. When an av beit din dies – all batei midrashot in the city are closed, so that everyone shall engage in the eulogy for all seven days. And all the people of the city change their places in the beit kenesset: those who sit in the south shall now sit in the north, and those who sit in the north sit in the south. And so too in all directions they should see to change from this to that, and from this to that. And when a nasi dies – all the towns, all of their batei midrash are closed for all seven days, and they shall engage only in the eulogy. And the intention regarding a chakham, an av beit din, and a nasi is not that they should not engage in Torah for all seven days, for it is impossible to eulogize all day and all night for seven consecutive days, as the eulogy is for a few hours. Rather, they should not study in the beit midrash, but shall join together in pairs and study in their homes after the eulogy of each and every day.

And regarding a Nasi there is a further stringency: that the residents of the city where he died do not enter the beit knesset to pray, but rather all of them pray in the house of the mourner all seven days, whether on a weekday or on Shabbat, due to his honor and the honor of the living. And only for the reading of the Torah on Shabbat and on Monday and Thursday do they read in the beit knesset. And it seems to me even if there is also a sefer Torah in the house of the Nasi, so as not to completely nullify the beit knesset. And they shall not stroll in the marketplace, but rather sit family by family in their homes, and grieve all day until after the seven days. And we have not had such a Nasi for many hundreds of years, and this law is no longer applicable now.

Not all the deceased are brought into the beit knesset and the beit midrash to be eulogized, but rather talmidei chachamim and their wives. And a distinguished sage, a leader and a gaon – they bring him into the beit midrash. And they place the bed in the place where he used to lecture, and they eulogize him there. And when they take out the bed – they eulogize him until the cemetery. And on the seventh day they go up to the cemetery and visit him, and likewise on the thirtieth day, and at the completion of twelve months. And they lay him to rest, which is to say: they perform a memorial service for him. And now we do not know of this custom, but rather they perform memorial services in the beit knesset and the beit midrash after the reading of the Torah. And there are those who for the entire thirty days do not perform a memorial service, and according to the custom so shall they do. And after twelve months one should not eulogize at all, and also not with a memorial service.

One says in the presence of the deceased only matters concerning the deceased, such as his burial needs and a funeral oration, for the deceased hears everything that is spoken. However, one should not speak of other matters, even outside of four amot. And these words apply to matters of Torah that do not pertain to his funeral oration, for this is like "mocking the poor." But regarding mundane matters – we have no concern even within four amot. And some say that mundane matters within four amot are also forbidden, but rather only what pertains to the deceased and his funeral oration, for in this case even near his stretcher it is permitted to speak words of Torah and simple matters pertaining to his funeral oration. And it is permitted to say verses and homilies in his honor, near him or in the cemetery. And such is the custom.

One must wonder why the matter of the eulogy for a talmid chacham is very weak in our hands, and there are countries where they do not eulogize at all. Except in Lithuania and Zamut, they still practice that one who is able to eulogize stands, and they eulogize him in his presence, whether a little or a lot. But in other countries, the mitzvah of the eulogy is almost entirely forgotten. And in truth, the reason is: because they are not accustomed to this—there is no one among them who knows how to eulogize, to arrange words of Torah and inspiration. Nevertheless, in every single place, if the obligation of the eulogy for a talmid chacham, those who fear G-d, and those who engage in mitzvot would enter their minds—they would find someone who is able to eulogize. However, they have abandoned this matter entirely, and see in section 7. And perhaps everyone has waived their right in this.