Tum'at Met - Chapter 2

Nevertheless, if Jess than 40 days have passed since conception, it does not convey impurity (Mishneh LeMelech).

“Any” implies an inclusion even of a fetus.

It must be emphasized that, a k’zayit, an olive-sized measure cannot be determined by measuring an average olive today. Rather, it is dependent on the measure established by the Sages and this is the subject of debate among the authorities. The Pri Chadash (Orach Chayim 486) explains that the Rambam considers an olive as one third the size of an egg (a k’beitzah, another common Talmudic measure). In terms of modem measurements, this conception of an olive-sized measure would be between 19.2 grams according to Shiurei Torah and 33 grams according to Chazon Ish.
Tosaf ot (Chullin 103a) differs, and defines an olive-sized measure as one half the size of an egg (between 25.6 and 36 grams respectively according to the above opinions). With regard to the practical application of the law (halachah lima’aseh), the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 486) advises that in all questions of Torah law, Tosafot’s opinion should be followed. However, in questions of Rabbinic law, the more lenient opinion can be relied upon.

Nevertheless, if the flesh has become brittle to the point that it crumbles, it does not impart ritual impurity, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 10. Compare to Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 1:13, Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 2:18, from which it appears that, in this context, the rulings applying to the impurity of a human corpse are more severe than other forms of impurity.

Our translation follows the version used by the Shabsie Frankel printing of the Mishneh Torah.

In the Sifri Zuta. Although a law conveyed as a halachah to Moses at Sinai does not require a rationale, in this instance, our Sages provided one.

This law is significant with regard to surgical practices today. If a limb or organ is amputated or removed surgically, it cannot be treated as simply a “body part.” Instead, it must be buried with the same respect showed to a corpse.

Even if it is smaller than an olive-sized portion, if it is intact, it imparts ritual impurity.

The implication is that it is unnecessary for the Torah to single out this instance. If it does, it must be doing so to convey a lesson.

I.e., although a verse is cited, the concept is not derived from the exegesis of the verse, but is rather conveyed by the Oral Tradition. The verse is merely an asmachta, “allusion.” See the Rambam’s Introduction to his Commentary to the Mishnah where he explains the meaning of that term.

For a sword could sever a limb from a living person and leave it intact. See another concept derived from this same verse in Chapter 5, Halachah 3.

The Hebrew term eiver, translated above as “limb,” can also have the connotation “organ.”

And they do not cause ritual impurity when severed from a living person, as stated below.

Different laws apply with regard to a bone severed from a corpse as stated in the following halachah.

I.e., in contrast to a bone, even if a large amount of flesh was removed, the limb is still considered as intact.

As stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 1:9), the Rambam explains that Numbers 19:14, the prooftext that speaks of the ritual impurity associated with ohel, states: “When a man will die in a tent,” implying that this impurity is relevant only when a man’s entire person is present. By extension, our Sages derived that a limb that is intact can be considered as “a man.” This, however, applies only when the limb is intact. Otherwise, it is not considered as “a man” and does not impart impurity in this manner.

We are speaking about a situation where there is less than an olive-sized portion of flesh on the limb. Otherwise, it imparts ritual impurity regardless, because of the flesh, as stated in Halachah 1.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that such a limb does not cause a person to contract ritual impurity when under the same structure. Moreover, as he states, it appears that the Rambam himself follows that approach in his ruling in Chapter 3, Halachah 2. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling here.

The laws pertaining to such bones are discussed in Halachah 8.

I.e., because it has dried out, it is dislodged from the bone. In such a state, it will not cause flesh to regenerate.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 5.

Thus just as an olive-size portion of flesh would impart ritual impurity, an olive-sized portion of marrow does.

We are speaking about an instance where the flesh and/or limb were dislocated from their natural place in the body and are hanging limply. Though they are not severed, there is no way that they will ever recover their vitality. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 9:7).

For the verse that teaches the concept of impurity states: “When one will die,” and in this instance, the person is still alive.

There is no question that as long as the person whose flesh or limbs were hanging limply is alive, they do not impart impurity. The laws here apply when they separate from the person’s corpse after his death. Since they were dislocated during the person’s lifetime, it is considered as if they were already detached. Hence they are considered as limbs that are separated from a living person and not as limbs separated from a corpse.

And do not impart ritual impurity. It is only the limb as entire, intact entity, which imparts impurity. The commentaries question if the intent is that bones or flesh separated from such a limb do not impart impurity at all or that they only impart impurity through touching or being carried, but not through ohel.

As mentioned in Halachot 1 (with regard to flesh) and 7-9 (with regard to bones).

This applies even when there is less than an olive-sized measure of flesh on the limb. Limbs of this size could exist in a fetus or an infant.

These 248 limbs are listed by the Mishnah (Ohalot 1:9). From that listing, we see that the intent in the term limbs is “bones when covered by flesh and sinews,” not entire organs.

Because they are not permanent parts of the body, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 13.

The three extra limbs are in the woman’s genital area (see Bechorot 45a). The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam’s interpretation of that passage, because seemingly, it does not conform to the standard understanding of the text from which it appears that a woman has 252 limbs.

The impurity imparted when under the same structure is derived from Numbers 19:14: “When a man dies in a tent....” Implied is that the law must apply equally to the corpses of all humans, without distinction between the sexes (Bechorot, loc. cit.).

A person was born with six fingers instead of five.

See the following halachah.

I.e., it grows in a row together with the person’s other fingers.

I.e., it projects out abnormally from another part of the person's hand.

Regardless of its size, even if it is less than an olive-sized portion. Indeed, here we are speaking only of a finger that is smaller than an olive-sized portion. Were it to be that size or larger, a finger from the limb of a corpse would impart ritual impurity according to Scriptural Law.
The above applies to a finger from the limb of a corpse. It is, however, necessary to mention this concept with regard to a finger from the limb of a living being, because in this context, the concept of impurity because of the flesh does not apply.

Terumah and sacrificial meat that contract Scriptural impurity must be burnt. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to burn these substances when they are not impure. Hence, burning such a substance because of Rabbinic impurity would violate Scriptural Law. By making this distinction, the Sages made it clear that the substances should not be burnt if they incur such impurity. Instead, they are left and burnt only after they become Scripturally impure or the time in which they could be eaten passes.

From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 2:1), which is replete with references to Biblical prooftexts, it would appear that this concept is Scriptural in origin. This is also apparent from Chapter 3, Halachot 1-2.

I.e., they have not decomposed, as stated in Halachah 11.

Numbers 19:16 states: “Anyone who touches... a corpse, the bones of a man, or a grave.” As long as it is apparent that they are “the bones of a man,” they impart ritual impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. Although only one form of impurity is mentioned in the verse, the Sifri uses Biblical exegesis to show that the same law applies to all forms of impurity.

See Hilchot Shechitah 10:2 which states that an animal is considered as treifah if even one of its vertebrae is removed.

And governed by the laws mentioned in Halachah 9.

A Roman coin of the Talmudic era, also minted by Bar Kochba. These coins were one inch in diameter, approximately the size of an American quarter.
This figure is given because Ohalot 2:3 states that the hole must be sufficient to cause the person’s death. As stated in Hilchot Shechitah 10:5, when there is a hole that large in an animal’s skull, it is considered as tereifah.

The commentaries question the Rambam’s ruling that either a skull or a backbone alone can be considered as an entire corpse, for Nazir 52a questions whether that ruling should be followed or whether both together are necessary to be considered as an entire corpse and seemingly, does not resolve the matter. The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rav Yosef Corcus who gives an interpretation of the passage that supports the Rambam’s ruling.

For a man who possesses 248 bones, as stated in the previous halachah.

In the previous halachah.

A kab is comprised of four luggim. A revi'it (fourth) of a log is a commonly used Talmudic measure, comprising 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc according to Chazon Ish. Thus a fourth of a kab would be 344 cc or 600 cc depending on these opinions. The Rambam (and his sources, Ohalot 2:1 and Ediyot 1:7) speak of a fourth of a kab rather than a log, because a kab is also used as a dry measure of volume, while a log is a liquid measure.

As the School of Hillel states in Ediyot 1:7, these bones must come from a single corpse and not from more than one. See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the above mishnayot use the expression: “A fourth [of a kab] from the majority of the number, or the majority of the structure [of the corpse].” The implication is that, in contrast to the ruling here, if the fourth of a kab of bones constitute neither the majority of the number, nor the majority of the structure of the corpse, they do not convey impurity through ohel. He notes, however, that the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah reflects the ruling here and hence, offers a somewhat forced interpretation of the wording of those mishnayot.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 3, and notes which discuss the Rambam’s assertion that this impurity is not of Scriptural origin.

For, as stated in note 16, the impurity is brought about through ohel only when the corpse of”a man” is involved and this amount of bones cannot be considered as “a man.”

This rendition of the verse, though slightly incorrect, is found in the accepted texts of the Mishneh Torah.

As stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 15, although small, this is a minimum measure; a smaller piece of bone does not impart impurity.

See the Rambam’s Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah where he explains his approach to this matter.

This represents a change in the Rambam’s thinking. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (the Introduction to the Order of Taharot), he writes that this impurity is a Rabbinic decree. See Nazir 7:2 which states that a Nazirite must shave if he comes into contact with this source of impurity, indicating that this is a point of Scriptural Law.

I.e., a quantity that can be held when two hands are cupped together. This understanding is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 17:12).

This is speaking about an entire corpse that has decomposed. The particular laws applying to this source of impurity are described in Chapter 3, Halachot 4-8.

It is made up of separate elements that cannot be combined together [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 2:1)].

See Chapter 3, Halachah 3 and notes, which discuss whether this impurity is of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin.

A fourth of a log, 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah, 150 cc according to Chazon Ish.

As Rashi, Chulin 87b, explains, this is speaking about an instance where blood coagulates and a liquid is left. As long as that liquid has a red tinge, it imparts ritual impurity.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 2:2), the Rambam states that this name is derived from Ezekiel 16:6: “And you were weltering in your blood.” See Chapter 9, where the term tevusah is used in a related, but not identical context.

According to Scriptural Law, when a substance is mixed with other entities of that substance, it is batel, subsumed to the larger quantity, and considered as if it did not exist. Thus each drop of blood from the corpse becomes batel to the blood that had flowed out from the person’s body while alive and is not considered as an independent entity. See a parallel concept in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 16:28.

Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 15:8.

If the corpse is disinterred, see Chapter 8, Halachah 5.

And there is an empty space, one handbreadth by one handbreadth, between the corpse and the covering of the grave over it (Ohalot 7:1). Leaving such an empty space creates an ohel and causes the entire structure to impart impurity.

If, however, the structure above the corpse has an opening that is one handbreadth by one handbreadth, the impurity can depart through that opening. Accordingly, the structure is not considered as a grave and touching it does not impart ritual impurity.

The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this is referring to keilim that do not usually contract impurity, e.g., keilim made of stone. Otherwise, the fact that they are positioned over the corpse causes them to contract impurity.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 2:4), the Rambam writes that the substances from which a gollel or dofek are made are not significant. Whether they are from stone, wood, or other substances, they become impure.

This represents a change of position for the Rambam. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), he maintains that the impurity is of Scriptural origin and explains how the concept is derived from Numbers 19:16. This idea, based on Chulin 72a, is also cited by the Ra’avad in his gloss to this halachah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam considers the verse as merely an asmachta.

E. g., the foundations on which the dofek rests [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

Even according to Rabbinic Law.

A field containing a grave was plowed. Afterwards, the corpse was not found. Our Sages fear that small pieces of its bones had been scattered throughout the entire field.

The laws pertaining to a beit hapras are discussed in Chapter 10. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 2:3, 17:1), the Rambam explains that the term pras means “spread out,” referring to the pieces of bone that were spread out and scattered throughout the entire field. See also Hilchot Nizirut 7:6.

See Halachah 10.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 2:3), the Rambam writes that in the Diaspora, people are not as careful with regard to burial and will bury a corpse anywhere. Accordingly, our Sages feared that perhaps a small portion of a bone would become mixed together with earth. Hence, they decreed that all earth from the Diaspora — even if brought to Eretz Yisrael — conveys ritual impurity. The laws pertaining to such earth are outlined in ch. 11.

Chapter 9, Halachah 12.