Tum'at Met - Chapter 11

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.