Siman 366

1. It is stated in Bava Batra (Bava Batra 100b): One who sells his grave, the path to his grave, the place of his standing, or his eulogy house—members of the family come and bury him against his will, due to the family blemish. And they return the money to the buyer. For it was their way that every family had its own burial place where they would bury all the members of the family. And if a stranger is mixed among them—it is an eternal disgrace for them. And it is not similar to what I wrote in siman 344, that if he said "do not eulogize him"—we listen to him. (See Beit Yosef, and Bach, and Shach subsection 2. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.) And likewise the path, and the place of standing, and their eulogy house—they have an eternal disgrace when others have dominion over them. (See Perisha letter 1. And his words were not clear to me, and also the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch did not bring this. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

We learned in Semachot (chapter fourteen) regarding a woman who died, and her husband says "let her be buried with me," meaning with his family, and her father says "let her be buried with me" – she is buried with her husband. This is the version of the Tur. However, the version before us is "she is buried with her father." It appears that the primary version is like the version of the Tur. And if she has sons, and she commanded to bury her with her sons – they bury her with her sons. And I wonder: why did we not learn what the law is regarding her father and husband when she commanded? Perhaps because it is obvious that we listen to her. And if her father says "she shall not be buried with me," and her husband says "she shall not be buried with me" – they bury her with her husband against his will, because he is obligated in her burial (and from this there is proof for the version of the Tur).

It is further stated there: A woman who inherited a grave from her family—she is buried within it, but not her offspring, unless she saw them during her lifetime. This is the version in the Tur. However, the version before us is very corrupted. And this fact that her offspring are not buried with her is because they are attributed to the family of their father, and it is a disgrace to the members of her family that members of another family should be buried with them. Therefore, those whom she saw during her lifetime, and they are as though attached to her—this is not a disgrace. And it appears to me that this fact that she is buried within it applies even when the husband says "let her be buried with me," because we estimate her intent that it is more comfortable for her to be buried in the grave she inherited.