Thus indicating that it would not be used as an entrance in the future.
I.e., anything under the overhang of its roof or under balconies projecting from it.
See Halachah 4. Since the building is closed, it is considered as a structure built over a grave and any portion of it can impart impurity.
As long as the doorframe is intact, it can be assumed that this will serve as the entrance to the building. Hence, only the area around it imparts impurity.
It can be assumed that the corpse will be removed from the building through this entrance. Therefore even while the corpse is located in the building, the impurity departs through this entrance.
Even if it is smaller than an olive-sized portion, e.g., a tiny fetus. Conversely, even if the corpse is that of a giant, this small measure is sufficient (see Eruvin 30a).
More specifically, four handbreadths by four handbreadths.
Since we do not know through which entrance the corpse will be removed, we operate under the assumption that it could be removed through any one of them. Therefore, the overhang over any of them imparts impurity to any person of object under it.
Although the entrance is closed, since one intended to remove the corpse through it, its overhang imparts impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 7:4)].
As stated in the gloss of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura, et al, the fact that thought is sufficient to change the status of the entrances indicates that this entire situation is based on a Rabbinic decree and according to Scriptural Law, none of the entrances impart impurity.
This follows the opinion of the School of Hillel in the above mishnah. The School of Shammai requires that the decision be made before the person dies.
And persons or objects under their overhangs do not contract impurity.
Because one of the entrances is or will be opened. Hence, the impurity departs through it, as it were.
Since the opening did not exist beforehand, thought is not sufficient to establish its presence and one must actually complete creating an opening of the minimum measure.
Because it is unlikely that the corpse will be removed through a window. Hence unless one had the explicit intent to remove the corpse through a window, the window does not impart impurity (Rav Yosef Corcus, as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh). The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam is speaking about windows that are smaller than four handbreadths by four handbreadths. Since they are not the size of entrances, they do not save the doors. Were they to be that size, they would.
Rabbenu Shimshon explains that often gateways would have a large entrance through which goods and merchandise could be brought. Within that larger entrance, there was also a smaller portal through which people would enter and depart. According to the Ra'avad's understanding, we are speaking about a small door that is next to a larger door.
And only the overhang above the small entrance imparts impurity.
The Ra’avad explains that this refers to two doors side by side with a doorpost in the middle. The Kessef Mishneh offers another interpretation.
Indviduals closer to the deceased whose opinion could determine through which entrance he would be removed.
I.e., the first individual should not make these statements to purify the objects to be placed near the southern entrance, nor should those who come later have the intent of purifying the objects to be placed near the northern entrance.
[According to certain opinions, the ruse could only be effective with regard to articles placed there after the decision to use another entrance was made. If articles were under the overhang of an entrance before a decision was made, they are impure even if shortly afterwards, the decision is made to remove the corpse through another entrance. We do not say that retroactively, it is considered as if this was the intent initially (see Beitzah 10a). On the other hand, others maintain that even retroactively, the status of the entrances is changed (see the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus).]
This refers to a patio-like structure of the Greek-Roman period with a roof in the center and a continuous bench along the side wall. At times, several houses would open up into the same exedra.
According to the Kessef Mishneh, this term refers to the exedra, because it is like an entranceway to the houses. The Rambam’s ruling is based on the Tosefta (Ohalot 8:4). The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling. Although the Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s understanding, he has certain difficulties in the wording.
Since the exedra is roofed, the impurity enters the other houses from it if their doors or windows are open.
I.e., the house in which the corpse was located has another entrance that does not pass through the exedra and the deceased’s relatives desired to remove him through it.
Seemingly, if the door of the house where the corpse is lying is closed, the exedra should not be impure. And if it is open, the other houses could also contract impurity. The Kessef Mishneh states that this is speaking about a situation where the door is closed. Nevertheless, the exedra contracts impurity, because it is a subsidiary of the house.
I.e., the door connecting the room to the remainder of the house is closed.
This translation of the term tum’ah is based on the gloss of the Ra’avad.
The portion outside the room.
Even though were the door of the room to be opened, the impurity would enter the house.
Although generally, it is assumed that a corpse will not be taken out through a window, since in this instance, it was brought in through the window and the door is closed, we assume that it will be removed through that path as well (Kessef Mishneh).
The translation of the term kever as grave in this context is somewhat misleading. Here we are speaking about a monument built over the corpse.
I.e., the entire monument does not become impure.
I.e., regardless of its size, the entire structure imparts impurity.
In an open field. Diagram
To the extent that there was not a cubic handbreadth of empty space [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 15:7)].
The laws of a building no longer apply to it (ibid.).
I.e., a portion of a corpse.
That are not touching it.
I.e., imparts impurity to humans, food, and keilim in it.
For the portion of the corpse is flush with its covering. Hence, as explained in the previous halachot, it would not impart impurity from its sides.
Since the wall is part of the structure, everything in the structure is impure.
The Rambam’s ruling is based on his understanding of Ohalot 7:1. The Ra’avad has a different conception of that mishnah and hence, differs with the Rambam here. The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam’s position. Diagram
