Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries if the laws of tevusah apply to a person who was slain. Although Rashi (Nazir 65a) follows the Rambam’s view, Tosafot and others differ.

I.e., all of these situations do not indicate that this place was used for burial by Jews in an ordinary manner. Hence, once the corpse(s) are removed, there is no reason to think others are buried there. See Halachah 3, where the Rambam states that one can assume that corpses buried in these ways are those of gentiles.

The earth should be removed, because it absorbs the fluids of the corpse. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 9:3; Ohalot 16:4), the Rambam refers to Nazir 65a which states that, for this reason, Jacob our ancestor instructed his sons to take the earth on which his body had lain with his body to Eretz Yisrael when they transported his body for burial there.

A fingerbreadth is 2 cm according to Shiurei Torah.

Soil which appears never to have been overturned previously. Once this measure of soil has been removed, it is very unlikely that fluids from the corpse permeated any deeper.

As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir and Ohalot, loc. cit. and Ohalot 2:2; see also the notes to Chapter 2, Halachah 13), the term tevusah refers to the convulsive movements a person makes before dying, as in Ezekiel 16:22: “And you were weltering in your blood.” Both here and there, it refers to a mixture of the corpse’s blood and/or other fluids with different substances.

This refers to corpses that were not buried, but rather found on the surface of the field. It also refers to a situation where the laws pertaining to a meit mitzvah (see Chapter 8, Halachah 7) do not apply.

And obviously any other body parts.

We do not suspect that it was a cemetery and that other graves will be found there. In contrast to the previous halachah, in this instance, it is not necessary to remove the earth of the field together with the corpses.

As stated in Hilchot Eve! 14:15, generally, a corpse should not be moved from one grave to another. Permission is granted when one moves a corpse from property belonging to someone else to that belonging to the deceased or to a cemetery. Other instances where permission is granted to disinter and rebury 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 (Yoreh De’ah 363:1)]. Needless to say, it is permitted to disinter a corpse buried in a non-Jewish cemetery and bury it in a Jewish one.

Although these corpses were not lying open on the field as in the first clause, since they were not buried, the same laws apply.

See Halachah 1 for the definition of this term. Since the corpse was buried, it is necessary to remove the earth of its tevusah as well.

I.e., we do not suspect that other graves are present in the field.

Usually, there are one and half cubits between one grave and another (Hilchot Mechirah 21:6). Nevertheless, it is possible that there will be more space, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

I.e., according to the Rambam, the fact that it is necessary to check the area between the graves is taken for granted. In addition, it is necessary to check for another 20 cubits.

See Hilchot Mechirah, loc. cit., which explains that a burial crypt is four cubits by six cubits in which eight graves can be found.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 16:4), the Rambam writes that the open space before the burial crypts is six cubits by six cubits. Although the two burial crypts and the open space would be only eighteen cubits long, an extra two cubits are checked as a safeguard, lest one dig at an angle.

Since the graves are found in an organized manner, we assume that there may be other graves nearby.
The Ra’avad (and his approach is followed by several commentaries to Bava Batra 102a) suggests that the search should be made from the first grave. The Rambam, however, follows the approach of his teacher, Rav Yosef Ibn Migash, who maintains that the search should begin from the last grave.

Our translation is taken from the Kessef Mishneh. Although the term the Rambam uses, shechunat kevarim, is used in other contexts to refer to a cemetery, this is not the intent in this instance.

Buried in an ordinary manner.

Of course, this law holds true if the corpse is discovered any place within that area.

Because we do not assume that this was a Jewish cemetery.

As in Halachah 1.

Since this is not an ordinary way in which Jewish corpses are buried. From this ruling, we see that the stringency of removing the earth of the tevusah applies with regard to gentile graves as well.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 13.

The literal meaning of the term used by the Rambam is “the impurity.”

Because our Sages ordained this stringency only when an entire corpse was discovered. Other authorities (Tosafot, Nazir 51b) explain that this is a halachah leMoshe miSinai, a law transmitted to Moses at Sinai as part of the Oral Tradition. Nevertheless, it does not appear that the Rambam follows this understanding.

This is not an ordinary way a corpse is buried. Hence, it is unlikely, that others are also buried here.

This law was stated in Halachah 2 with regard to the corpses of people slain. Here it is restated to include even those who died naturally.

Since the corpses were not buried, there is no reason to suspect that other corpses were.

For whenever a complete corpse is buried, there is an obligation to remove the earth of the tevusah.

For there is no reason to suspect that an entire cemetery was made without the owner’s knowledge.

This follows the version of Nazir 65a possessed by the Rambam and which is reflected in the Tosefta (Ohalot 16:2). The standard published text differs.

Since the grave was placed there with the knowledge and the consent of the owner, it is not associated with the graves that were discovered there, having been placed there without his knowledge.

As mentioned, usually, there is a cubit and a half between graves, but at times, a smaller space was left. By digging in this manner, if there was a grave near the first grave, the person would discover it even though he did not dig up the entire area.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 16:6).

Obviously, a corpse would not be buried in any of the above places (ibid.). Nor is there a need to continue searching on the other side of the obstacle. Once the burial area has been interrupted, the interruption is considered as final. (Note that Rabbenu Shimshon rules otherwise.)

Although there is a suspicion that there are bones of a corpse in that earth, the person’s status does not change unless such bones are found. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 16:5), the Rambam states that this refers to a person who is carrying the earth which is removed from the field, but not one who entered the place of impurity itself.

Even though terumah may only be eaten by a person in a state of ritual purity, as stated above, we assume that the person is still pure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot, loc. cit., the source for this halachah), the Rambam states this is speaking about a situation where it was known that there were people under the landslide, but it was not known whether they were alive or dead. Whether according to that interpretation or the one given here, the intent is that since there is a high probability that the person contracted impurity, he may not partake of terumah. Nevertheless, here the ruling is more stringent than there.

I.e., there were three landslides, it was known that there were corpses buried under only one of them, but it was not known under which they were buried and which not. If no inspection is made, all three are considered as impure, because of the doubt.

For it appears that his original inspection was not thorough and in fact the remains of the corpse are still present.

Or of course, discovers the one which is impure. If the corpse is not discovered after such a thorough inspection, we assume that it was removed by predators or washed away by water [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nidah 9:5)].

Our translation is based on Rav Kappach’s translation of the Arabic term used by the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 3:3).

Our translation is based on Rav Kappach’s translation of the Arabic term used by the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bava Kama 1:4).

We are certain that there was a fetus there and there is only a suspicion that the moles and hyenas are found there. Hence, the original ruling stands.

As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1, even if a miscarried fetus is in a preliminary stage of development, it conveys ritual impurity. Nevertheless, if less than 40 days have passed since conception, it does not convey impurity (Mishneh LeMelech to that source; see Chapter 11, Halachah 8).

I.e., the case involves a sefek sefeikah, an instance of compounded doubt: Perhaps the fetus was not sufficiently developed to impart impurity. And even if it were developed to that degree, perhaps, it was eaten by the predators.

I.e., were it known that the person contracted impurity, the impurity would be Scriptural in origin. In these instances, however, there is no certainty. Nevertheless, as a Rabbinic safeguard, one must consider himself impure.

Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 18:17.

See Hilchot Kilayim 10:27; Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 16:1.
The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam, noting that Beitzah 3b, et al, state: “Whenever there is doubt regarding a Scriptural prohibition, we rule stringently.” The Kessef Mishneh explains that this principle itself is Rabbinic in origin.

The difference between the situations is that in the first clause, the existence of a prohibition was not definitely established. Hence, the safeguard is Rabbinic in origin. The second clause, by contrast, is speaking about instances where the existence of a prohibited substance was definitely established.
The implication is that if a prohibition involving karet is not involved, the prohibition is not of Scriptural origin. The Kessef Mishneh and others question if this clause was authored by the Rambam or was an addition made by the later printers.

Hilchot Shegagot 8:1.

In Chapter 2, Halachah 16, the Rambam mentioned that the Sages deemed a beit hapras impure. Here he explains the situation in detail. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 17:1), the Rambam explains that the name has the implication “spread out,” i.e., a place where portions of bones could have been spread out.

Thus, in this and in the subsequent instances, it is impossible that the bones of the corpse were disturbed.

Our Sages (Ohalot, loc. cit.,) estimated that it was possible that the bones of the corpse could be carried this far by a plow.

Not just the furrow plowed.

I.e., the 100 cubit by 100 cubit area.

As explained in Eruvin 23b, the area in which a se’ah can be sown is 50 cubits by 50 cubits.

Chapter 2, Halachah 16.

In either of these instances, any bone the plow was carrying would have fallen off.

After waiting, without shaking out the plow.

Even though he did not shake out the plow.

Because it is not common to bury animals, nor is it common to leave humans unburied.

From the Rambam’s wording, it appears that this leniency applies even if one plowed the entire field. Rabbenu Shimshon maintains that in such a situation, a beit hapras is created.

I.e., it was known that a grave had existed in that field, but its location was not known.

The grave that was discovered was not plowed. However, one might think that there was another grave in the field that had been plowed [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 17:3)].

This principle is stated in several sources, e.g., Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1, Hilchot Shechitah 2:21, Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 4:5. In those sources, however, the matter is dependent on the person’s intent and we can understand why a person’s thought cannot cause property belonging to a colleague to become forbidden. In this instance, however, a deed is involved and, in such a situation, as is in fact, mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit., the deed should have an effect, even with regard to the property belonging to another individual. From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), it would appear that since this is merely a Rabbinic stringency, and we are not certain that a prohibition is in fact involved, it need not be extended beyond the circumstances in which it was imposed. Hence, there is room for leniency when the field belongs to someone else.

Even though all these individuals have a certain measure of authority over the field, since it does not belong to them, they cannot create a beit hapras there.

The field extended 100 cubits from the grave. The person plowing owned the first 50 cubits and his colleague owned the second 50. He continued plowing into his colleague’s portion of the field.

For, as stated in the first clause, this portion of the field does not belong to him.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam states that this concept is motivated by the same rationale stated in the previous two halachot: Since a beit hapras is a Rabbinic decree, its stringency should not be extended beyond the initial circumstances for which it was instituted.

Because of the earth of the upper field.

And thus it was obvious that earth from the upper field had been deposited in the lower one.

See Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 11:5 for a description of the precautions necessary when harvesting the fruit growing in such an orchard.

The Ra’avad questions why the Rambam adds this point. Seemingly, since the fruit from these trees and bushes is harvested by picking them from the trees, far above the ground, the reaper would have no contact with the impurity. The Kessef Mishneh states that this rationale does not negate the Rambam’s statement.

Instead of being buried deep in the ground.

I.e., the only crops that are permitted are those which, like grain, are harvested by cutting off the stalks that protrude above the ground. For, in this way, any pieces of bone that are lying on or near the surface will not be gathered with them. In contrast, when vegetables or the like are uprooted, it is possible that the remainder of bones from the corpse will be uprooted together with the produce [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 18:2)].
As evident from a comparison to Chapter 8, Halachah 3, the laws governing such a field are directly opposite to those governing a field in which a grave was lost.

So that the impurity is not spread to another place.

A kor is 30 se’ah. Thus we are speaking about an extremely large field. Nevertheless, if many graves were plowed, the entire field could be governed by the laws of a beit hapras.

The Ra’avad protests the Rambam’s wording, maintaining that the Rarnbam was using an incorrect version of the Tosefta (Ohalot 17:4). As the Kessef Mishneh notes, the standard text of the Tosefta follows the Ra’avad’s ruling.
The Ra’avad also maintains that this Tosefta is speaking about a situation where a grave has been lost, not one in which a grave has been plowed over. Rav Yosef Corcus (as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh) disputes that thesis.

Because the plow would get stuck in the mud.

Since it is not plowed, we do not fear that the bones will be strewn here.

One that has been checked and no remnants of a corpse were discovered.

I.e., whether a grave was lost in it or a grave was plowed in it.

The Ra’avad states that this is speaking about an instance when the trees in a field were cut down, because it is forbidden for them to grow there. The Kessef Mishneh questions his rationale for choosing such an interpretation.

The clauses above are stated word for word in Chapter 8, Halachah 10. They are restated here for the points mentioned in the concluding clauses.

For the rider did not touch or move a bone. The rationale is that even if the person or the animal carrying the rider moved a bone, he or it did so on its own power. See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

In this instance, we fear that there was a bone under the stone and it was moved when the person walked upon it.

For our Sages made the decree universal, so it would not be open to argument on every occasion.

For it is possible that the person or the animal moved a bone and did so, because of the weight of the rider. Thus it is considered as if the rider moved it himself.

So that the pieces of bone will be caught. The Rambam also mentions sifting the earth of a beit hapras in Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:8 and Hilchot Eruvin 6:17.

For a plow will not stir earth more than three handbreadths below the surface. Hence even if there is a piece of bone there, it will not surface again.

For he has not removed all the earth that could be stirred by a plow or covered it sufficiently with new earth. It is possible that there was a piece of bone buried two handbreadth below the surface which will still be two handbreadths beneath the surface after this action was taken.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 18:5) which refers to Isaiah 5:2 and explains that the term refers to clearing a surface, smoothing it out and flattening it.

Since he is fundamentally interested in preparing his property, we are not confident that he will have checked it thoroughly for bones.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam speaks of stones large enough that they could not be moved by a person by hand even if he desired to do so.

I.e., all lands other than Eretz Yisrael [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 2:3).

The decree concerning the earth of the Diaspora was one of the safeguards enacted by our Sages on the unique day when the students of the School of Shammai outnumbered the students of the School of Hillel and eighteen different stringencies were instituted (Shabbat 15a). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam writes that the gentiles of that era treated corpses neglectfully and would bury them anywhere. Hence the Sages feared that a person walking in such countries might have touched or moved a bone from a corpse.

As evident from Halachah 3, this applies even if that earth was brought to Eretz Yisrael.

As stated above, an earthenware implement contracts impurity when the source of impurity enters its open space. Thus once its open space was exposed to the open space of the Diaspora, it contracts impurity.

Although terumah and sacrificial foods are forbidden to be eaten in a state of ritual impurity, it is also forbidden to destroy them purposefully. Thus one might think that since contact with the earth of the Diaspora does not render these foods impure according to Scriptural Law, one should not burn them. Hence the Rambam teaches that the stringency involving them is indeed that severe.

As is required when one contracts the impurity associated with a human corpse (see Nazir 54a-b).

The purification process for lesser impurities. The need to wait until nightfall to regain purity is, however, itself a stringency, for as stated in Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 9:1, in many instances where ritual impurity comes as a result of a Rabbinic decree, the person regains purity immediately after immersion.

Because according to Rabbinic Law, they are impure.

Because until they contract a more severe form of impurity, it is improper to burn them. The foods are thus left until they contract a more severe form of impurity or, in the cases of sacrificial foods, become disqualified because the time until when they may be eaten has passed.

In Halachah 1 and in Chapter 2, Halachah 16.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 17:5), the Rambam explains that we are referring to large sacks carried by travelers. They would be sealed closed by placing mud and clay over their openings.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 11:6), the Rambam defines this term as “Something like half a ball with a hole that is placed on the top of a sack-maker’s needle to serve as a weight, when weaving the sack.”

A vegetable was brought to market without the earth being washed off it.

And they do not impart impurity.

Which were sealed closed with mud and clay, as was common in that era.

Thus when collected together their measure would be much more than the seal of a sack.

Which were made from earth in the Talmudic era.

I.e., until they are fired, they are considered as ordinary earth and not utensils.

See Hilchot Keilim, ch. 15, with regard to the firing process. The Mishneh LeMelech maintains that this applies only if the utensils were fired in the Diaspora. If they were fired in Eretz Yisrael, they are considered pure.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 6.

As stated in Halachah 1. Even though it is not likely that a corpse will be buried in these places, our Sages enforced their decree there [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 18:6)].

Because corpses are never buried there (ibid.).

Which is slightly more lenient, as stated in Halachah 2.

One might think that since he is in a closed container, it is as if he has not entered the Diaspora and he does not contract the ritual impurity associated with such an entry. In the Talmudic era, this referred to a closed compartment that was carried. In the present era, this would apply to a car or airplane.

There is a debate among the commentaries concerning the nature of this impurity. Is he considered to have touched the earth of the Diaspora or merely to have entered its open space? From the following halachah which states that a person who enters Syria in such a closed compartment is pure, one might conclude that the intent is that the question concerns entering into its open space.

Hence the person is considered as if he is not in an enclosure and is considered to have entered the Diaspora.

As mentioned in Hilchot Terumah 1:3-4, the term Syria refers to lands which King David conquered before he conquered the totality of Eretz Yisrael. Hence, these lands were given an intermediate status. In certain contexts, they were considered as part of Bretz Yisrael and in other contexts, as part of the Diaspora. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 18:7).

The Kessef Mishneh states that in this context, the term beit hapras refers to a field in which a grave was lost and not one in which a grave was plowed over. He explains that we are forced to accept that interpretation, because a field in which a grave was plowed over does not impart impurity through ohel. Hence there would seemingly be no difficulty. Kin’at Eliyahu objects to this interpretation based on Chapter 10, Halachah 11. For it is likely that the weight of the carriage in which a person is being carried is significant enough to cause the one carrying it to shift its weight.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam speaks of there not being space for a row of crops (which comprises a handbreadth) between them.

As stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 12.

I.e., the Sages did not impose a decree on the open space of the lands of the gentiles that is directly adjacent to Eretz Yisrael. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, questioning its source. The Kessef Mishneh cites the Tosefta (Ohalot 18:1) as the Rambam’s source.

As explained in Halachah 2 above.

As stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 10:2, until 40 days after conception, a fetus is not considered as a living being.

I.e., to enforce a universal standard. This is not considered a gezeirah ligezeirah, a decree instituted to safeguard another decree,” because the Sages considered the entire matter as one decree.

Only at that age are sexual relations in which he engages considered significant (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 1:13). Hence the laws governing the dwelling of a gentile were not applied with regard to him.

The intent here could also be a servant of a Jew. Although he is not a full-fledged member of the Jewish people, our Sages accepted his word — and that of a woman and a minor — in matters involving merely a Rabbinic decree.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 3:7).

For it is feared that the fetus was dumped in these places.

And consume it [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 18:7)].

The fact that no one is living in it at present does nothing to diminish our suspicions that a fetus had been deposited there previously.

The Ra’avad notes that Ohalot 18:8 states that a gentile city that was destroyed does not require an inspection. He states, however, that a distinction can be made between an entire city and one dwelling. That concept is reflected in the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah which explains that a destroyed gentile city does not require an inspection. Since it is in ruins, predators prowl through it unchecked and will certainly destroy any trace of a body found there.

It was common that there be a covered walkway in front of stores where the shopkeepers would sit (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 345:21). Although it has a roof, it does not have walls. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

Huts similar to our sukkot that were built as an extension of a workshop or as a place to keep produce.

Tents shaped like an inverted “v” made of a rubbery substance [Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 18:9)].

The Kessef Mishneh relates that when a gentile lives in a house, the adjoining courtyard is considered impure because of the decree concerning the dwelling of gentiles.

Since the land is already impure, because it is part of the Diaspora, there is no need for any further decree [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op cit., citing the Tosefta).

In the Talmudic era, the Romans built several cities on the borders of Eretz Yisrael which were sparsely - if at all - inhabited by Jews. Although the Holy Land surrounded these cities on three of the four sides, they are considered as part of the Diaspora. -

The land there may be worked in the Sabbatical year and the produce grown is not endowed with the holiness of the produce of that year.

Since the festive pilgrims would seek to be in a state of purity, care was taken to make sure that the roads were not impure.