Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

We have used the term eulogy for the Hebrew hesped, because that is its meaning in modern Hebrew. In truth, however, the term implies much more than a speech given in honor of the departed. Hesped was a multi-dimensional mourning experience involving the chanting of dirges and other physical expressions of grief.

I.e., a measure of respect that should be given him, rather than a measure of respect for the living. See Sanhedrin 46b which discusses this issue.

I.e., were it a measure of respect for the living, the heirs could elect to forgo it. Since it is a measure of respect for the dead, if they are financially capable, we compel them to show him this measure of respect. See Sanhedrin 46b.

For he has the choice to decline the honor due him.

See Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 231), Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 537), and Hilchot · Sanhedrin 15:8 where this mitzvah is discussed. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 8, Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 11:24, Hilchot Ishut 14:23-24.
Since it is a mitzvah to bury the person, his individual desires are of no consequence and he should be buried.

Shabbat 105b states that he is judged measure for measure. Since he did not mourn for a person whose life was cut short, his own life will be cut short.

Shabbat, loc. cit., states that God “counts these tears and places them in His treasure stores.”

Mo’ed Kattan 25a states that this would be appropriate, as if to say: “He fulfilled what is written within that.” Nevertheless, this is not done, for it is not respectful to a Torah scroll to place anything else on the platform on which it is placed (see Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:6).

Instead, he is taken out on the first bier made for that purpose (Mo’ed Kattan, loc. cit.).

Even if the doorway must be widened so that the bier can pass through, we do so (Mo’ed Kattan, loc. cit.).

Bava Batra 100b states that this recalls the seven times the word Hevel (“emptiness”) is mentioned in Ecclesiastes 1:2: “Emptiness of emptiness.... Everything is emptiness.” (The term is mentioned actually only 5 times, but twice the plural form is used.)

In his commentary to Bava Batra 100b, Rashbam states that this rite is carried out after the burial. In his commentary to Megilah 23b, Rashi states that the rite is carried out before burying the dead. The Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Megilah 4:3) appears to follow Rashi’s view.
In the present day, some of the formalities are relaxed, but it is customary to rise and sit down, rise and sit down, seven times after a funeral and on the way to the burial, the pallbearers and those accompanying the corpse stop seven times.

Rosh HaShanah 25a relates how Rabban Gamliel arranged a large mourning ceremony for a woman and Megilah 28b tells how Rafram eulogized his daughter-in-law in the syngaogue.

Mo’ed Kattan 28a derives this from the Torah’s description of the death of Miriam. Numbers 20:1 states: “Miriam died there and was buried,” mentioning the two facts directly after the other to imply that this should be the order. A woman’s burial should follow her death.

To reinter them in a different grave. See Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 403).

The Tur (loc. cit.) states one praises God for He puts a person to death and will ultimately resurrect him, lowering him to the grave and raising him up from it.

Some interpret this as referring to the additions that mention mourning that are made to the fourth blessing in grace (see Hilchot Berachot 2:8). Others interpret it as referring to blessings given the mourner by guests coming to comfort him. As mentioned in the notes to the previous chapter, based on Ketubot 8b, there are some who interpret the term as referring to a blessing recited in the public thoroughfare after the funeral. The Rambam, apparently, does not accept this interpretation.

See Chapter 13, Halachot I and 2.

Or has others gather, for it is not proper for a person to gather his parents’ bones himself [Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 403:7-8), based on the Evel Rabati].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit. 403:1) state that one must observe mourning rites when the bones of any of one’s close relatives are gathered. Similarly, one must rend one’s garments and a meal of comfort is served.

Although this concept is stated in Halachah 6, the Rambam reiterates it here to teach that it applies even with regard to one’s parents (Kessef Mishneh).

Rashi, Mo’ed Kattan 24b, states that a poor person will feel greater distress than a rich person at the loss of his children, for he has no other source of happiness. The passage continues, explaining that the elderly feel the loss of their children as deeply as the poor do.

His corpse is carried by hand to the cemetery instead of being placed in a coffin. The Siftei Cohen 353:2 states that it is permitted to use a coffin if one desires.

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, ch. 22, which explains that this was a safeguard enacted to prevent licentious conduct. Usually, it is forbidden for many men to be together with one women unless one of them is married to her (loc. cit.:8). In this instance, because of the atmosphere of mourning involved, these restrictions were relaxed slightly (Kiddushin 80b).

Until a child is 30 days old, it is questionable whether his birth was viable. Accordingly, it is considered as if he was stillborn, in which instance, no mourning rites are observed for him. This applies even if we know that the pregnancy was full term [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 353:4)].

In which instance, his birth is assumed to have been viable.

As is an older person.

I.e., when a child was a year old or more.

I.e., attend the funeral.

I.e., the child was less than a year old.

The person would go out of his home and come in contact with his townsfolk.

Since it is a funeral, we are not concerned that men may gaze upon them (Sanhedrin 20a and commentaries). The Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 2:4) states that this custom was practiced as if to say: It is because of a woman (Eve) that death was brought to the world.

The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) states that this custom has an advantage for it is more modest. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 359:1) states that this is the custom that should be followed. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:2) continues, stating that even if they follow the bier, they should be prevented from entering the cemetery. Although there are communities where this advice is not followed, it is stringently adhered to in others. The Siftei Cohen 359:2 states that a woman’s entry into a cemetery brings evil into the world.

Berachot 16b implies that were one to do so, that would detract from the praise with which one eulogizes a fellow Jew.

In this and the following halachah, the Rambam describes the custom referred to as shurah, “line.” It is a fundamental element of the post-funeral rites.

Since the purpose of this custom is to comfort the mourners, the mourners should not be included in the quorum (Radbaz).

Sanhedrin 19a relates that, at the outset, the custom was that the comforters pass by the mourners as the Rambam describes. Afterwards, because of certain factors, it was ordained that the mourners should pass through the lines of comforters. Rami bar Abba states that Rabbi Yossi restored the original custom. Although the Tur (Yoreh De’ah 376) mentions this practice (albeit in brief), the Shulchan Aruch does not. In certain communities, the custom is observed as the Rambam describes. In others, the custom is that the mourners pass through the lines of the comforters.

On each of the seven days, each of the visitors should offer the traditional condolence wishes despite the fact that they offered them previously.

This law is not practiced today. Instead, the people who come to offer comfort sit on ordinary chairs.

As evident from this halachah, several of the laws of comforting mourners are derived from the account of how Job’s friends came and comforted him after his children’ s death.

A person is not able to be comforted until he has regained a certain measure of composure. When he can look at others and speak to them, he is inwardly prepared to accept the consolation they offer.

When restating this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 376:1) adds “in a manner in which it appears that he is dismissing the comforters.”

For even if the people offering comfort are sincere, the sorrow is after all, that of the mourner and he must come to terms with it himself.

I.e., none of the seven close relatives mentioned in Chapter 1.

The Radbaz states that the intent is not that the ten people must stay there the entire day, but rather that they come in the morning and in the evening for a certain time.
It must be noted that the Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, stating that it does not have a Talmudic source. The Migdal Oz cites Shabbat 152b. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo states that the ten do not sit in the deceased’s home, but instead sit in his place in the synagogue and have him recalled. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 376:3), however, he quotes the Rambam’s ruling. The Ramah writes that he did not see this custom observed, but notes that the Maharil writes that it is proper to pray in the deceased’s home together with a minyan if there are no mourners.
Kin ‘at Eliyahu notes that this is an example where the Rambam’s ruling reflects the Kabbalistic tradition. For it is well known that in the first seven days after a person’s passing, his soul frequently returns to his home.

A sick person may have difficulty standing because of the intensity of his illness and a mourner may have difficulty because of the intensity of his grief.

Who rose even though they were not obligated to do so (Kessef Mishneh). To them, the nasi says: “May the Omnipresent bless you. Do not trouble yourselves” (Nimukei Yosef to Mo’ed Kattan 27b).
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 376:2) quotes this law with regard to any scholar before whom a mourner or a sick person rise.

I.e., the mourner’s home need not be dirty and dingy.

For their pleasant fragrance is a source of pleasure which is inappropriate in these circumstances.
Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 378:7) states that before the funeral, if a corpse is being kept in a home, fragrances may be brought in to neutralize its undesirable odor.

The standard published text of Mo ‘ed Kattan 27a, the source of this halachah, and the Tur (Yoreh De’ah 378) speak of gold utensils. Perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that text.

I.e., our Sages did not desire that the meal of comfort be an opportunity for people to show off their wealth. As Mo’ed Kattan, loc. cit., relates, such ostentatious conduct had become the ordinary practice. They felt that were that to be allowed, the poor would never bring food for the meal of comfort for they would be embarrass to show that they did not possess expensive containers. To prevent such a situation from occurring, they established a uniform standard which everyone could meet.

So that the wine will not be seen.

See Ketubot 8b which states that it was customary for the comforters to give the mourner to drink to drown his sorrow. Our Sages saw, however, that things were getting out of control and imposed these limits.
The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that the Rambam is not requiring one to drink ten cups of wine, but rather prohibiting one from drinking more.

So as not to divert the mourner’s attention from his grief. Moreover, the mourner is forbidden to study Torah. It is, however, customary for others who are not mourning to study mishnayot in honor of the deceased. Similarly, teachings that are related to mourning or recited in praise of the deceased are permitted.

The Radbaz states that one should be careful even with regard to talking about ordinary matters so that the mourner will not be distracted from his grief. Needless to say, frivolity is not in place. Knowing how to comfort mourners - to balance one’s words so that they are allowed to release their feelings of grief, but result in feeling uplifted - is indeed a unique ability.

Eulogies in praise of him or details involving his burial.

Berachot 18a states that performing mitzvot in the presence of a corpse is “mocking the poor” (Cf. Proverbs 17:5), i.e., ridiculing the dead, as it were, by performing mitzvot which they cannot. For this reason, Torah study is forbidden. It is, however, common custom to recite Psalms in the presence of a corpse, not as study, but as prayer for his soul. See also Chapter 14, Halachah 25, which implies that when one studies in honor of the deceased, there is no prohibition.

Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, the author of the Mishnah.

For the time to mourn over the tragedy has passed and our energies should be focused entirely on the future.

For the verse would not be prohibiting all expressions of grief.

Or longer in the case of the death of one’s parents. Mo’ed Kattan 27b states that when a person shows excessive grief, God chastises him: “Are you more merciful than I?” And that source states that when a person cries excessively over losing one loved one, he is likely to lose another.

As Ecclesiastes 7:12 states: “And the living shall take it to heart.”

For God’s judgment is extended against all of them.

For a year (Mo'ed Kattan 27b, the source of this halachah).

I.e., his over-preoccupation in material things and lack of sensitivity to spiritual values. Compare to Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4.

In his Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 2), the Rambam elaborates in the negation of the opinion of Halachot Gedolot who maintains that certain of the mitzvot mentioned are Scriptural in origin, e.g., comforting mourners and visiting the sick. The Ramban (Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 1) differs with the Rambam and supports the position of Halachot Gedolot.

The Hebrew expression used by the Rambam literally means “to take out the dead.” Since the later clauses in the halachah which the details of actually carrying out a funeral, we assume that here the Rambam is speaking about the preparations for it.
The Rambam himself [Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 231) and Hilchot Sanhedrin 15:8] states that burying the dead is a Scriptural commandment. Moreover, based on Chapter 3, Halachah 8, it is apparent that the resolution advanced by some - that the Scriptural obligation is incumbent on the deceased’s relatives and the Rabbinic obligation on all others - is insufficient. For every Jew - even a priest - has an obligation to bury a corpse that has no others to tend to it.
Marganita Tava explains that the Scriptural obligation is to see that the burial is accomplished. The Rabbinic obligation is to become involved oneself.

The Hebrew expression used by the Rambam literally means “to bring a bride into [marriage].” It is not referring to the celebrations of the wedding for participation in that is mentioned in the later clauses of the halachah. Instead, it refers to helping a bride prepare to marry and set up home.

As was the practice in the funeral procession. See Chapter 4, Halachah 2.

I.e., with regard to the financial aspects of this mitzvah, there is a limit, for a person should not give more than a fifth of his resources to charity. But with regard to physically exerting oneself on behalf of others, there is no limit (Jerusalem Talmud, Pe'ah 1:1). This concept is considered so fundamental to Judaism that our Sages instituted its recitation every day, directly after the recitation of the blessings of the Torah in the morning.

I.e., the one Scriptural charge has many Rabbinic applications. Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXV, p. 75, explains that by stating that these mitzvot are included in the biblical commandment to love one’s fellowman, the Rambam is implying that not only is the effect of one’s deeds - that the sick be visited, the mourners be comforted, etc. - important, it is important that one carry out these deeds out of love. The recipient of his kindness must also feel the positive feelings that the giver has for him.

By adding the latter phrase, the Rambam implies that complete obligation of the mitzvah of loving one’s fellowman applies only to one’s fellow Jew, and more particularly, to observant Jews.

Sotah 46b states: “There is no measure to the reward one receives for accompanying guests.” There are two dimensions to this activity. First of all, accompanying a guest lifts up that person’s spirits. Secondly, it provides him with protection which in Talmudic times - and even today in certain areas - is very necessary.
It is possible to explain that accompanying guests is an activity that one performs with one’s physical person, while the other deeds of kindness are performed with one’s financial resources as well as with one’s person. The fact that one is willing to take the extra effort and exert himself physically on behalf of another person is thus more clearly expressed in the mitzvah of accompanying wayfarers. And to refer to the previous halachah, the Rambam is speaking about “deeds of kindness that one carries out with his person.”
Moreover, accompanying a guest, maintaining a connection with him even after he leaves one’s house, demonstrates one’s love and care. This endows all of one’s previous efforts in caring for the guest with greater significance, for it shows that they were an expression of sincere love (Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXV, p. 74).

As evident from the Biblical narrative in Genesis, ch. 18. See also the commentaries to Genesis 21:33.

Abraham was enjoying a vision of God and yet he abandoned that vision to care for the three wayfarers (Shab. 127a).

See Sotah 46b (quoted by the Rambam, Hilchot Rotzeach 9:3) which explains that when the elders of a city bring a calf as atonement for an unsolved murder, they say “Our hands did not shed this blood.” Now we do not suspect them of actually killing the person. Instead the intent is that we did not fail to provide him with accompaniment.

Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 7:10 states that a person who does not desire to give charity is compelled to give an amount appropriate to his wealth. If necessary the court seizes his property and sells it. Similarly, he is compelled to either physically accompany or pay for the accompaniment of a colleague.

Sotah 46b states that Pharaoh accompanied Abraham for four cubits and as a result merited to subjugate Abraham’s descendants for four generations.

The term used by the Rambam has a specific halachic definition: 72 cubits and a fraction beyond the city’s border.

2000 cubits (approximately a kilometer) beyond the city’s border.

Four mil; each mil is approximately a kilometer.

The person from whom he received most of his knowledge.

Nedarim 40a states that when the visitor is the same age as the sick person, he removes one sixtieth of his illness. The Rambam’s statements (based on Vayikra Rabbah 34:1) imply that this concept applies even when the visitor is not of the same age.

From Nedarim, loc. cit., it is apparent that one of the positive dimensions of visiting the sick is that one sees to his needs: e.g., making sure his room is neat and clean. Beyond that, one cannot underestimate the positive effect of the lift in a patient’s morale accomplished by a visit.

From Nedarim 40a and commentaries, it appears that the rationale is that the sick person’s enemies may become jealous of the attention he is getting and cast an evil eye against him. For this reason, relatives and close friends - whose visits would not be conspicuous - may visit immediately (Kessef Mishneh, based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Pe’ah 3:7).

The Radbaz notes that the Rambam ignores the reasons stated by the Talmud (Nedarim 40a) and instead supplies rationales of his own. The Radbaz suggests that perhaps this was motivated by the Rambam’s own experience as a doctor. Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 335:4) quotes the wording used by the Talmud.

People with stomach illnesses will be embarrassed if visited and people with eye illnesses and headaches will be strained by the necessity to receive company (Nedarim 41a). The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:8) states that although the visitor should not enter the sick person’s room in these instances, he should visit his home, inquire if there are any tasks that he could perform to ease his sickness, and pray for him.

Based on the statements of Tosafot (Shabbat 12b), the Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 335:3) states that these restrictions apply only when the invalid is lying on the ground. If he is lying on a bed, the visitors may also sit on a chair or bed.

Next to him or at his feet. Shabbat 12b states that the Divine Presence rests at the head of a sick person. Therefore a visitor should not sit there and he should wrap himself in a tallit in reverence.

I.e., in addition to lifting the spirits of the living, it also shows respect for the dead.
The expression “it appears to me” indicates a conclusion reached by the Rambam without a clear source from the earlier Rabbinic literature. The Radbaz questions the Rambam’s conclusion, noting that, as stated above (Halachah 4 and notes), visiting the sick is sometimes a life and death matter and that cannot be said about comforting mourners. The Or Sameach supports the Rambam’s ruling, bringing proof from Shabbat 12b which mentions comforting mourners before visiting the sick in the same statement. Implied is that they are mentioned in the order of priority.
The Siftei Cohen 335:11 quotes the Bayit Chadash who states that the Rambam’s ruling applies when it is possible to visit only one of them. When it is possible to visit them both, one should visit the sick first, lest there be a task that has to be performed that will help him recuperate.

Similarly, Ecclesiastes 7:2 states: “It is preferable to go to the house of mourning than the house of feasting.”

And it is impossible for both processions to pass side by side. Alternatively, even when there is room, but one would not want the two processions to meet for one will disturb the mood of the other.

For mitzvot involving the living take precedence over those involving the dead (Siftei Cohen 360:1).

For we are commanded to hold a king in awe (Radbaz, based on Ketubot 17a).
See Semachot, ch. 12, which states that King Agripas moved aside for a bride. The Sages praised him for his modesty and asked him to explain his conduct. He said: “I wear a crown every day. She gets only this one opportunity.”

I.e., we are obligated to nullify our studies for these purposes (Siftei Cohen 361:1).
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 361:2) states that this refers to attending the funeral. With regard to preparations for the funeral, it is proper that there be a burial society of select individuals who discharge this responsibility.

The Radbaz states that it is not customary to follow this ruling. Instead, people commonly rely on the leniency stated in the following halachah.

I.e., relatives and/or a burial society.

See the Siftei Cohen 361:2 who questions whether this refers to a person who has both read the Tanach and studied Torah law, or if it is sufficient merely to have been involved in only one of these branches of study.

So that others will attend. This token of respect is granted because of the deceased’s study. Ketubot 17a states: “Just as the Torah was brought into the world with 600,000 in attendance [at Sinai]; so, too, it [i.e., a sage who has studied it] is taken from the world with 600,000.”

Needless to say, in a separate cemetery (Radbaz).

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 368:1) states that it is forbidden to use the grasses which grow there. If the grasses have become overgrown and one must trim them, they should be burnt in their place.

This is an expression of honor for the dead (Siftei Cohen 368:1).
The Biurei HaGra explains that the prohibition against eating mentioned above stems from the prohibition against acting frivolously and the prohibition against studying stems from the prohibition against mocking the dead mentioned further in these notes. Kin’at Eliyahu differs and maintains that this entire clause is an explanation of the prohibition against benefiting from a cemetery stated at the outset.

I.e., even if he is not performing a mitzvah, carrying the religious article itself is forbidden (Radbaz).

Berachot 18a explains that fulfilling mitzvot in the presence of the dead is “mocking the poor” (cf. Proverbs 17:5), i.e., ridiculing them, as it were, by performing mitzvot which they cannot.

I.e., he should not sit on the bones, but rather hang them over the side of the donkey [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 403:10)]. Compare to Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:11 which speaks of transporting a Torah scroll.

For the disruption of their rest is difficult for the souls to bear (Jerusalem Talmud, Mo’ed Kattan 2:4). The Radbaz explains that being disinterred is denigrating to the deceased.

And the new grave was located in property belonging to the deceased or his heirs.

For a soul desires that its body’s eternal rest be in his own property, together with his family members (Jerusalem Talmud, loc. cit.; Siftei Cohen 363:1).
Among the other reasons license is given to disinter a corpse are: a) to bring its remains to Eretz Yisrael (see Hilchot Melachim 5:11), b) it was originally buried with the intent that it be moved, c) there is a possibility that the remains will be destroyed by water or looted by gentiles [Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)]. Needless to say, it is permitted to disinter a corpse buried in a non-Jewish cemetery and bury him in a Jewish one. See also Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:13-14.

If there is six handbreadths of earth between the two, it is permitted [Kessef Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 362:4)].

For each person should be given his own individual resting place.

Semachot, ch. 13, states that similarly, a father may be buried with his young daughters. The general principle is: Children that are permitted to sleep in the same bed as their parents may be buried with them. This principle is quoted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 362:3).

The Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 364:1) quotes opinions which maintain that if one removed earth from a grave and then returned it to the grave, it is forbidden to benefit from that earth.

The fact that it is designated for that purpose is not sufficient cause for it to become forbidden (Sanhedrin 47b). This is a general principle that applies in other halachic contexts as well (e.g., the designation of compartments for tefillin). The designation of an object for a ritual purpose has no effect. It must actually be used for that purpose.

A structure over a grave. There is a question if the same rules would apply to a grave dug out from the ground. See the Tur (Yoreh De’ah 364) and commentaries. This question also applies with regard to the following halachah.

With the intent that when he dies, he would be buried there.

For whom the monument was not built.

If a row of bricks was not added, as long as the corpse is within the monument, it is forbidden to benefit from it. Once the corpse is removed, it is permitted [Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 364:1)].

I.e., after his death.

Since the monument was designated for the corpse and the corpse was placed there temporarily, the two influences combine to cause the monument to be forbidden forever. Note the parallel to Hilchot Tefillin 4:9.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 364:7) rules slightly more leniently, stating that the son may not be buried there, but another person may.

The Radbaz mentions a difference of opinion if this applies only to a Jewish corpse or also to a gentile corpse. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 349:1) rules unequivocally that the ruling applies to both.

For the hair will remain unchanged after the person’s death (see Arachin 7b). See also to Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:4 and notes. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions the Rambam’s ruling and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 349:2), he rules that it is forbidden to benefit from the hair of a corpse.

For it was both designated and used for burial.

The Siftei Cohen 349:8 rules that, similarly, if an object was used for burial, even though it was not designated for that purpose, it is not forbidden.

As is evident from the following halachot, it was common for the relatives of the deceased to throw garments on the bier in their grief and aggravation.

I.e., were they to be permitted, one might also think that the shrouds are permitted.

Because of their aggravation, they are willing to cause their possessions to be forbidden (Rashi, Sanhedrin 48a). If, however, garments are placed on a corpse with the intent that they be removed, they do not become forbidden (Siftei Cohen 349:8).

For it is a mitzvah to prevent a person’s property from being lost, like it is a mitzvah to return a lost article (Rashi, Sanhedrin 48a).

Because they have already become forbidden as stated in the previous halachah.

I.e., to have it buried with the deceased.

See Hilchot Melachim 6:8-10 which describes this prohibition in detail. Although the strict Biblical context of the prohibition involves destroying fruit trees when besieging a city, our Sages understood the command as having a larger scope and involving all articles of value.

For as stated in Hilchot Melachim 2:1, after a king dies, no one else is allowed to ride his personal steed.

Injured to the extent that it will die within twelve months. If the leg was cut off above the knee, it is considered trefe, for it will not be able to continue to live after such an operation.

This refers to the tribute the Jewish people paid to King Chizkiyahu. The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that the verse appears to imply that this was a special measure of honor given to Chizkiyahu because of his righteous conduct. Why then does the Rambam refer to it as standard conduct with regard to all monarchs?

Bava Kama 16b. Although it is forbidden to involve oneself in Torah study in a cemetery or in the presence of a corpse (Chapter 13, Halachah 9), as long as one is studying in honor of the deceased, there is no prohibition. Others infer that the yeshivah is not meant to be convened on the gravesite itself, but close to it.

These were the instructions which Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi gave before his death.

See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 11:1 which mentions the prohibition against following gentile customs.

As reflected by Halachah 24, one might think that this would be forbidden. Nevertheless, Sanhedrin 52b states that since it is a measure of respect for a king to burn his personal items so that they will not be used by others, this is not considered as wanton destruction. It is, however, forbidden to carry out such a measure for an ordinary person [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 348:1)]. Such conduct would be considered as haughty (Siftei Cohen 348:2).

Communicating this prophecy to King Tzedekiah, the last king of the Davidic dynasty to have ruled. The fact that a prophet makes such statements to a righteous king indicates that the practice is permitted.