Avel - Chapter 3

A priest is, however, allowed to become impure from other sources (Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 16:9).

As is appropriate for the violation of a negative commandment. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 166) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 263) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Covering a corpse with a portion of one’s body creates a “tent,” as it were, and this conveys ritual impurity (Hilchot Tumat Meit 1:10). Similarly, carrying a corpse, even if one does not touch it, coveys ritual impurity (ibid.:6).

E. g., blood that flowed from a corpse, bones from a corpse, a corpse that has decomposed or the like.

See the exegesis of this verse in the Sifri.

See Chapter 2 of those halachot.

See Hilchot Tumat Meit 2:15, based on Numbers 19:16, 18.

The clothes become an av tumah, a source for ritual impurity. Nevertheless, they are not considered as equivalent to the corpse itself. See Hilchot Tumat Meit 5:3, 13; Hilchot Nazirut 7:8.

This refers to a building next to the building where a corpse is located. There is a window or roof connecting the two through which the ritual impurity enters the structure. The Siftei Cohen 372:2 argues with the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that such ritual impurity is merely Rabbinic in origin. Hence lashes are not given. The Magen Avraham 343:2 justifies the Rambam’s ruling.

Hilchot Tumat Meit, chs. 14-19.

As explained in those chapters, the term ohel, “tent,” is used to describe any roof, shelter, overhang, or any substance that covers both a person and a corpse or portion of a corpse.

See Hilchot Tumat Meit 13:2.

Hilchot Tumat Meit 1:12.

One does, however, become impure through touching or carrying a non-Jewish corpse.

I.e., a corpse.

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:23 which speaks of the prohibition against remaining within the Temple courtyard while impure. There it states that if a person waits in the courtyard for the period which it takes “to kneel, to prostrate oneself face down on the ground and to give thanks to God who is good, whose kindness is everlasting,” he is liable.
The commentaries question: Why should he be lashed? One is not liable for lashes unless one commits a deed in violation of a transgression (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2). Here, seemingly, one’s violation is passive.
Among the explanations offered to resolve this difficulty is that since he had the potential to remove himself from ritual impurity and did not do so, he is considered as if he performed a deed to contract ritual impurity (Ritbah, gloss to Makkot 21 a). Others cite the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Hilchot Sechirut 13:2 which explains that whenever a transgression usually involves a deed - as a priest usually performs a deed to contract ritual impurity - one is liable for lashes even when one violates the transgression without performing a deed.

For each involves a separate transgression.

I.e., his actions are considered as a single, extended transgression. The Radbaz refers to the difference of opinion mentioned in the notes to Chapter 2, Halachah 15, stating that according to the Rambam, it would appear that although the priest does not receive lashes, he is considered to be violating a prohibition. According to the other view mentioned there, there is no prohibition at all to come into contact with other corpses.

See Hilchot Rotzeach 12:14 which interprets this as a general prohibition, warning a person against. causing a colleague to transgress.

Although he is not himself a priest.

Because of the greater sanctity associated with his position, he is given greater restrictions. He is, however, obligated to observe all the mourning rites for his relatives (Chapter 7, Halachah 6).

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 167) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 271) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 168) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 270) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

A High Priest; an ordinary priest, however, would be liable for only one transgression (Radbaz).

As long as the High Priest is in this container, he is not liable, because the container separates him from the corpse and it is as if he is not in the same place. When, however, the top of the container is removed, he is considered to have entered the place where the corpse is located and he becomes impure.
There are some who cite Nazir 43a which states that this is speaking about a situation where the High Priest helped the other person remove the top. Otherwise, the High Priest will not have committed a deed in his violation of these prohibitions. According to the explanations offered in note 16, however, that explanation is not necessary.
See also Hilchot Nazirut 5:18 which cites a similar law applying to a Nazirite and states that he must open the top “with [the Nazirite’s] consent.” For otherwise, the Nazirite - and the High Priest - will become impure because of factors beyond their control.

The Radbaz asks why the Rambam speaks about a High Priest; the same laws would also apply with regard to an ordinary priest. He explains that the Rambam is speaking about the prohibition against entering a place of impurity and that applies only with regard to a High Priest. If he would have spoke about the prohibition against incurring ritual impurity, then this ruling would also be applied to an ordinary priest.

As explained in the notes to Halachah 4, as long as he has ceased contact with a corpse - even though he is still ritually impure - he is liable for entering a shelter where a corpse is located (Radbaz).

We have translated the term according to its practical meaning. Literally, the terms the Rambam uses mean: “A corpse which it is a mitzvah [to bury].” For every Jewish corpse should be buried as soon as possible. Thus if there are no others to tend to it, even a priest or a Nazirite who would ordinarily be forbidden to touch the corpse are under obligation to bury it. Torat Kohanim derives the obligation for a priest to become impure for the sake of such a corpse from the exegesis of Scriptural phrases.

The Turei Zahav 374:1 emphasizes that there must be enough people besides the priest to give the person a proper burial.

Today with the proliferation of cell phones and satellite phones, this halachah is becoming less relevant. For in most instances, it is possible to call to others to tend to the corpse. Also, there are legal restrictions in most countries against burying a corpse oneself and a person is not obligated to place himself in danger by burying an unattended corpse. Needless to say, however, if a priest is not certain that a person is dead, he should approach him and try to offer first aid.

I.e., it continues only for the extent of his vow. Moreover, even if the nazirite took a vow to continue this practice indefinitely, his obligation to avoid a corpse is not an inherent dimension of his being, but an incremental factor. A priest's holiness, by contrast, is inherent to his existence (Radbaz).

See Hilchot K’ lei HaMikdash 4:19 which lists various different levels of holiness among the priests.

The assistant to the High Priest (ibid.:16).

See Hilchot Melachim 7:1.

Although in Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash, loc. cit., the Rambam rules that the priest anointed to lead the army is on a higher level, in this halachah, he relies on Nazir 47a which grants the s’gan precedence. The rationale is that if the High Priest becomes disqualified on Yom Kippur, the s’gan assumes his position.

The head of the Supreme Sanhedrin. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 1:3.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Nazir 7:1) relates that when Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi died, Rabbi Yannai announced: “There is no priesthood today.’’

For it is not befitting for a nasi to be mourned merely by his family and friends. Instead, the entire Jewish people should show him respect. Everyone is considered as if he was his relative. See also Chapter 9, Halachot 2, 6, 12, and 14, which mention other mourning rites undertaken as a token of respect for a nasi.
There are authorities who maintain that this law is not only relevant in the Talmudic era. Tosafot, Ketubot 103b quotes Rabbi Chayim Cohen as stating: “Were I present when Rabbenu Tam died, I would have become impure for his sake.” The Radbaz, however, questions that license. Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 374:11) which mentions only the laws which are relevant in the present age, mentions the obligation to become impure for the sake of a nasi.

I.e., they should not eat meat or drink wine until his burial as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 6.

I.e., women born to the priestly family.

Offspring born to a priest by a woman whom he is forbidden to marry (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, Ch. 19). The Radbaz and the Siftei Cohen 373:2 emphasize that this leniency applies only to individuals who are considered challalim by Scriptural Law. One who is, however, considered as a challal according to Rabbinic Law, e.g., a person born to a priest and a woman who performed the rite of chalitzah, must keep these stringencies. For according to Scriptural Law, he is a priest.

Thus excluding challalim who are considered as non-priests with regard to all matters (see Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 19:10; Hilchot Terumah 6:7; Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 11:8).

Yevamot 114a derives this concept from the use of the similar terms emor and vi’amarta by Leviticus 21:1.

I.e., the Jewish community as a whole does not have the obligation to train every child in observance. Instead, the obligation is a personal one, incumbent on the child’s father. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 17:27-28 where this issue is also discussed.

Sotah 44a explains that this is a Rabbinic decree, enacted to compel priests to keep their distance from corpses lest one accidentally, pass his hand over the corpse or the like. If, however, a barrier is erected around the corpse, this stringency need not be observed [Radbaz; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 371:5)]. In such a situation, he should nevertheless keep a distance of four handbreadths.

The punishment given for the violation of a Rabbinic decree.

A field in which a grave had been located, but which had been plowed over. The Sages forbade a priest from entering such a field for 100 cubits, lest he accidentally step on a small piece of bone from the corpse.

This applies in the era when the laws of ritual impurity were strictly observed in Eretz Yisrael. See Siftei Cohen 369:2.

A mixture of blood, some which was lost before the person passed away and some which drained from his corpse after his passing.

Chapter 2, Halachot 13-16.

For by stepping on a grave, he becomes impure, because he creates an ohel, “shelter,” over the grave. The Radbaz emphasizes that this law applies only when there is no way to enter the cemetery except by walking on the graves. Different rules apply, however, if there is a path through the cemetery. In such an instance, if a priest walks within four cubits of a grave, he receives stripes for rebellious conduct and if he remains more than that distance away, he is not liable at all.

I.e., even priests.

Since there is a handbreadth of space between the top of the coffin and the corpse, the impurity is contained and does not extend beyond the coffin according to Scriptural Law. Our Rabbis, however, ruled that according to Rabbinic Law, one contracts impurity from a coffin (Berachot 19b).

I.e., with the coming of Mashiach.