Tum'at Met - Chapter 9

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.