Siman 371

It has already been explained that a corpse imparts impurity in a tent. Therefore, a kohen must be careful in this matter, and it is necessary to explain some laws of the impurity of a tent. The tent in which the corpse is located, even if the room is very large—the whole of it is impure. However, when there is a partition from the ground to the ceiling across the entire room, in a manner that there is no hole of a tefach by a tefach—the kohen may sit on the other side of the partition. And the partition may be of any material whatsoever, from wood or from stones or from glass, even though the corpse is visible through there; provided that it is not of a material that is susceptible to impurity, for example, to make a sheet or other garment into a partition—it is not effective, for a thing that is susceptible to impurity does not interpose before impurity. But if he performed a physical change to it and nullified it for the purpose of a partition—it is no longer susceptible to impurity. As we learned in Kelim (Chapter 20, Mishnah 6): A sheet that is impure with midras impurity and one made it into a curtain—it is pure from midras. But it is impure with corpse-impurity, because the attendant warms himself against it, as we say in Beitzah (Beitzah 14b). But without this—it is completely pure. And this refers to where they performed a physical change to it, as the commentators wrote there. And so too all types of vessels or foods that one makes into a partition, if he nullifies them for the partition and performs a physical change to them—they are not susceptible to impurity, and they interpose before impurity. (And this matter is explained from Tosafot in Bava Batra 19b, starting with the words "Veteifok." And so wrote Tosafot at the end of Shabbat, see there.)

According to this, if the deceased is in this room – the kohen may sit in another room when a wall separates them, and there is no space of a tefach. And if there is a door in the wall – they shall not open it at all. And even though the door hangs on iron hinges, it has already been explained at the beginning of the eleventh chapter of Kelim that iron attached to the ground – it is like the ground, and it does not contract tumah, see there. And similarly, iron that serves wood – is tahor, as the Rambam wrote in the ninth chapter of Kelim, and this is his wording: All metal vessels etc. contract tumah. Except for the door etc. and the pipe, because since these are made for the ground or to serve the wood – they do not contract tumah etc. Thus far his words. And this is explicit in the Mishnah of Kelim chapter thirteen, that wood that serves metal – is tamei. And metal that serves wood – is tahor, see there. And according to this, the iron door hinges are tahor for two reasons: that they are attached to the house which is attached to the ground, and they serve the door which is of wood.

And so wrote the great Acharonim (Derisha and Shach, subsection 15), and this is their wording: Even when the tumah comes into a certain house, if it is the intention of the kohanim to close the entrance of their houses and their windows and not to exit them until after the removal of the corpse—they do not need to exit their houses. For as long as the room is not opened, the tumah does not enter into it. And on the contrary: it is forbidden for him to exit by way of opening the door that is on the side of the room in which the corpse is located, for when he opens it, the tumah will enter immediately. Unless he is able to exit by way of another entrance that is not on the side of the room in which the corpse is located, for then he is not obligated to exit, but he may exit if he wishes. However, he should only not exit through the entrance where they will remove the corpse, due to the reason that the tumah is destined to exit, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

And know that one of the great authorities elaborated that any door whose standing is by means of iron hinges does not interpose before tumah (Taz, subsection 3). According to his words, all of our doorways and windows do not interpose, for they all hang on iron hinges. And they have already rejected his words (Nekudot HaKesef and the Ramaz in the book Devar Shmuel by Maharash Aboab, and the Rash himself in siman 223, and the Panim Meirot part two siman 53). And the entire foundation of his basis is from the Mishnah in Ohalot at the beginning of the sixth chapter, "those burying the dead," who were passing through an exedra, and one of them closed the door and supported it with a key; if the door can stand on its own—it is tahor. And if not—it is tamei. Behold, the support of the key brings the tumah. But in truth, there is proof from there to the contrary. For the Rambam in his commentary explained that it refers to the person, that if the door can stand on its own, meaning without the support of the person, see there. But if it stands without the support of the person—it is tahor. And so he wrote in his composition, chapter eighteen of Tumat Met, halacha 3 (Rambam, Laws of Tumat Met 18), see there. And even according to the commentators that it also refers to the key—it is not dealing with a key attached to the door, but rather a key on its own. And so the language "and supported it with a key" proves, for if it were attached to the door, it should have said "and locked it with a key." And there is clear proof for this: for there are some of our teachers who explained that it deals with a key that is not susceptible to tumah, and nevertheless there is no interposition by means of a vessel (Tosafot Bava Batra 19b, beginning with "ro'in" in the name of the Ri, see there). However, in any case, if it were attached to the door—it is not a vessel. Rather, certainly the key is a vessel on its own, and so is the primary ruling.

According to this, when one dies in a house—the kohen may sit in the cellar or on the roof even opposite the corpse, if a space of a tefach does not exit to there. For a space of a tefach by a tefach with a height of a tefach brings the tumah even from room to room without limit. And this matter is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai, that a space of a tefach brings the tumah. And when it is diminished from a tefach even by a minute amount—it does not bring it. However, the diminution must not be by means of an object susceptible to tumah. And this is explained from the Mishnah in Ohalot at the end of the thirteenth chapter, and it concludes there in the Mishnah: This is the rule: That which is tahor—diminishes. And that which is tamei—does not diminish. And the Rambam explained this in the fifteenth chapter of Tumat Met (Rambam Hilkhot Tumat HaMet 15), see there. And the same law applies when he wishes to plug the entire hole—he must plug it with an object that is not susceptible to tumah. And if not—it is not effective. Therefore, plugging by means of a vessel or a garment does not avail, but rather by means of pebbles and stones. And even by means of flat wooden vessels it seems to me that it does not avail, for they are susceptible rabbinically, and there are those among them that according to several opinions are susceptible to tumah even from the Torah (see Tosafot Bava Batra 66a s.v. "shani").

And know that in the language of the poskim it is common that a tefach brings the tumah. However, in truth, this is only regarding a hole made for use. But a hole made to bring in light or air – does not require a tefach, but rather only the measure of a drill, as we learned in the thirteenth chapter of Ohalot. And this measure is slightly more than a sela (Tosafot Bava Batra 19b, s.v. rakik). And that window which is made for light – is not diminished by a minimal blockage since it contained the required measure, unless it is diminished such that there does not remain in the remnants a height of two fingers by a width of a thumb (ibid.). Furthermore, it is explained there that there is a hole that requires more than a tefach, that it must be large enough for a person's head to enter. And this refers to a hole that was not made by human hands, such as one made by creeping animals or by water. However, if he intended it for use – its measure is a tefach. And if he intended it for light or for air – its measure is like a drill (and they were explained in the Rambam, the fourteenth chapter of the Laws of Tumat Met, and in Tosafot there). And this hole of a tefach or a drill or like a person's head – must be a single hole. But if there are many small holes, even though in their combination they would be like the measure or more than the measure – they do not combine with one another, even if they are adjacent to one another. And similarly, we do not say "lavud" to be stringent, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

And just as a hollow space of a tefach brings the tumah, so too a tent of a tefach. For if a tent of a tefach by a tefach is spread over the corpse, or a kezayit from the corpse – it is forbidden for a kohen to stand under this tent, and even if the tent is not in a house but in a garden or a courtyard or in the street. Furthermore, even if the tent was made of an object that is susceptible to tumah – it also brings the tumah. And as we learned in the mishna at the beginning of the sixth chapter of Ohalot: A person and vessels – can become tents to transmit tumah but not to protect from tumah, etc. And therefore a kohen must be careful, for sometimes they place the corpse on its bed under the protrusion of the roof which they call "kapes," and it is more than a tefach as is known – it is forbidden for a kohen to stand then under the protrusion, even if the protrusion is many miles long when it is connected together. Like in the large cities where all the walls are connected to one another, and also the protrusions are connected to one another – it is forbidden for a kohen to stand along the entire length of the street under the protrusion. But when there is a gap of air between protrusion and protrusion – he may stand under the protrusion that is after the gap, and even if the gap is like a fingerbreadth. And we do not say that anything less than three tefachim is considered "lavud," for it is a received halacha that we do not say "lavud" regarding tumah.

And know that there is one matter that is very difficult for kohanim to be careful about in the large cities, and it is this: for we maintain that whenever the impurity is destined to exit—that opening is tamei, as is taught throughout the fourth chapter of Ohalot. If so, in the large cities where the street is very long, and the walls and the protrusions are connected to one another, and there are found in the street several hundred souls, and if so, when there is a corpse in one of the houses and perforce they must bring the corpse out through the opening to the street, then under the entire protrusion it is as if the corpse is placed there. And it is forbidden for kohanim to enter any house in the entire street, or to exit any house of this street, for when he enters or exits—it is as if he is in one ohel with the corpse, namely under the protrusion that overspreads him and the corpse.

However, in truth, according to what has been explained to us from the beginning of the eleventh chapter of Ohalot, it is explicitly proven that we do not say "the end of the tumah is to exit" except regarding the first opening where the corpse is placed, and not from the first opening onwards. According to this, the prohibition is only relevant if the corpse is placed in the first room adjacent to the street. And this matter is not common at all, for the first rooms of all stone houses are corridors, and no corpse is placed there. This is the wording of the Mishnah: A house that was cracked etc. tumah is inside, vessels that are outside, Beit Shammai say: until there is four tefachim in the crack. And Beit Hillel say: any amount, see there. And if it should enter your mind that we say "the end of the tumah is to exit" regarding all openings, what benefit is the crack? For ultimately they will also take the corpse out from the second opening. Rather, it is certain that this is only regarding the first opening, and consequently the crack is considered the first opening, and it no longer renders impure.

And behold, in all the mishnayot at the end of the third chapter and the fourth chapter of Ohalot, and Mishnah 3 of the seventh chapter there (Ohalot chapter 7 mishnah 3), "a corpse is in a house and it has many openings, etc.," which is cited in the Shas in Eruvin (Eruvin 68a) and in Beitzah (Beitzah 10a, 37b) – in all of them it deals only with the first opening, as is clear to one who examines it there. However, from the Tosefta of the eighth chapter of Ohalot it is implied somewhat otherwise, as it is taught: Houses that open to an exedra, and the corpse is in one of them, if it was the way of the corpse to go out through the courtyard of the beit shaar – all the houses are tahor. And if not – the beit shaar is tamei, and all the houses are tahor. See there. And the Rash explained it on Mishnah 3 of the seventh chapter (Ohalot chapter 7 mishnah 3), and this is his wording: That there is an exedra before the houses, and the exedra is open on all its sides, and the houses have a beit shaar from another side (for there is also a beit shaar of a house, as the Tosafot wrote in Yoma 11a in the name of the Rif, see there), and the corpse is in one of the houses; if its way is to go out to the courtyard to the exedra – he calls it "courtyard." (For it is across the entire courtyard, as Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote in Sukkah 17a, s.v. "ve-khen," see there.) That from the side of the exedra is its way to go out and not through the beit shaar – all the houses are tahor, etc., for through the courtyard they will take out the corpse and not through the beit shaar. And if not, that its way is not to go out from the courtyard but from the beit shaar – the beit shaar is tamei, and all the openings of the houses are tahor. Thus far his words. And behold, regarding the corpse that is placed in the house – the beit shaar is in any event the second opening. And nevertheless, it is tamei.

And according to this, we will need to distinguish from that mishna in the eleventh chapter: either we say that a gatehouse is secondary to the house, and it is like the house itself; or we say that specifically when airspace intervenes, like that mishna of a house that was cracked, then the "end of the tumah to exit" is severed. But as long as airspace has not intervened, even if there are several rooms and several openings—all are tamei. And if we say so, there would be no permission for kohanim in the large cities unless they take the deceased out through the courtyard. But when they take it out from the houses to the street—the entire overhang is tamei. And even according to this, most walls open to the courtyards, and they take the deceased out from the wall to the courtyard, and from the courtyard to the street. And the kohanim are able to enter there whether by way of the street or by way of the courtyard, for even though the overhang continues also over the face of the courtyard gate, nevertheless, since the airspace of the courtyard intervened—we do not say "the end of the tumah to exit," like the mishna of "a house that was cracked, etc."

And behold, from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his book Kesef Mishneh in the seventh chapter of the Laws of Defilement of the Dead, law 3 (the Rambam, Laws of Defilement of the Dead 7), where he brought that the Rambam cited this Tosefta with a different version, and the Ra'avad disagreed with him and wrote according to the version of the Rash. And for this law there is no practical difference, except that at the end of the matter our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, and this is his wording: And nevertheless, the exedra is tamei because it is subordinate to the house. Thus far his words. And from this is a proof for our first resolution.

But from the words of the Gra in his commentary to the Mishnah there—it is explained like the second resolution we wrote. For he also cited this Tosefta at the beginning of the eleventh chapter, and wrote that it does not contradict the Mishnah because airspace intervenes. This is his wording: And from this Tosefta—we learn from it that we do not render the opening tamei because "the tumah will eventually exit through there," except where the tumah will exit through there entirely, by way of a closed ohel where there is no intervening airspace. But where it exits from its ohel through airspace first where there is no ohel, and afterwards exits through the opening—it is tahor. And this is to exclude those who are stringent whom the Rema cites in Yoreh Deah siman 371 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 371) that the kohanim should not walk through the city gates, etc. Thus far his words.

And behold, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 371:4) that because of the principle "the impurity will eventually exit" – therefore, some are stringent for kohanim regarding walking through the city gate, as the impurity will eventually exit from there. And some permit it, and one who is lenient loses nothing in a place where they did not practice stringency. Thus far his words. And according to what has been explained, there is no basis for this stringency, and it is a great wonder regarding those who are stringent. The source of this law is from the rulings of the author of Terumat HaDeshen (siman 24), and from his words I have clear proof for the two resolutions we wrote. I also learned from his words a great leniency regarding the matter of protrusions from roofs, that the kohanim would be permitted in this in any case, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.

This is the wording of the Terumat HaDeshen: Regarding that which you asked me concerning the kohanim who are stringent not to exit through the gates of the courtyards, the city, and the cemetery gate until the deceased has passed, etc., for our teacher, the Maharil, forbade the kohanim in Vienna from exiting through the city gate, etc., whereas our teacher, the Maharsah, did not concern himself with this prohibition. And so they practiced in our borders. And it seems the reason is that since Rashi explained in the chapter "Hadar" that the rule that the opening is impure because "the impurity is destined to exit" is a law given to Moses at Sinai and there is no underlying reason for the matter (and in Beitzah 10a Rashi explained that the sages decreed, etc., but this is not precise, for a law given to Moses at Sinai is also included in this phrasing, as the Tosafot Yom Tov wrote in Ohalot chapter seven, mishnah 3, starting with the words "And Beit Hillel," see there), we can say that since it is a matter without a reason—we should not add to it. And let us say that such is the law specifically regarding that opening through which they first remove it from within the tent into the air; since through that exit the tent becomes pure, the law was stated (so it must be said) that that opening shall become impure, but not from here onwards, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote the reason of "air." And also, specifically the first opening, for the room in which the deceased lay becomes pure upon its exit, but the other rooms were never defiled when the opening was locked. Behold, from his own reasoning he wrote according to our reasoning, that only the first opening becomes impure and no more. And he further explained a great leniency, as will be explained with the help of Heaven in the next section.

And he wrote further, and this is his wording: And similar to this was taught in the Tosefta: A large entrance and a small entrance, if he intended to take it out through the small entrance – he has purified the large one, etc., such as where there is a large gate and within it is a small entrance, etc. Behold we see that even though the corpse passes through the ceiling of the large gate, nevertheless it is tahor, etc. Thus far his words. And behold, according to his words, even though it goes out through the ceiling of the large gate, nevertheless since the passage is through the small entrance within it – it is tahor. And if so, according to this, there is no tumah upon the projections extending from the roofs, even when passing through there, because the exit is only through the entrance lower than it. And in truth, were it not for his interpretation, I would have interpreted it according to its plain meaning, that the small entrance stands in a row after the large gate, and their lintels are not in connection with one another, and therefore it is tahor. However, in any event, we have learned a merit from several perspectives for the kohanim in the large cities, as we have explained with the help of Heaven. (And it is a wonder that the Terumat HaDeshen was not aroused by the Mishnah in the eleventh chapter. And I saw that the Dagul Mervavah was also aroused by this Mishnah.)

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 371:1): It is forbidden for a kohen to enter under a tent that has a corpse beneath it, even if it is very large, and even into another house or another upper story that opens to that house through a hole that is a tefach by a tefach, and from house to house forever. And if he closed the hole—he is permitted to enter the other house, as the closure partitions, even if he did not nullify it to remain there eternally. And these words apply when he closed the entire hole. But if he did not close the entire hole but rather diminished it to less than a tefach, if he placed it to remain there eternally—it diminishes and partitions before the tumah so that it shall not pass. And if not—it does not diminish. And any object that is susceptible to tumah—does not partition before tumah. And it is not called a "closure" unless it can stand without support. Thus far his words. And the principles of these matters have already been explained.

The proper sealing is with wood, stones, and bricks, which do not contract tumah. And an earthenware vessel, even though it contracts tumah from its interior and its airspace, nevertheless, since its back does not contract tumah. As it was taught in a Mishnah at the beginning of the second chapter of Kelim: one may seal with an earthenware vessel if the back is toward the place where the tumah is (Bach). And so it is in Bava Batra (Bava Batra 20a): and likewise a large wooden vessel made for resting, meaning that it rests in one place and is not moved from place to place—it is a sealing, as is explained in Megillah (Megillah 26). But if it does not seal—the entire window requires permanent nullification (Beit Yosef). And it was taught in the eighth chapter of Ohalot: the lattices in the windows—they interpose. The explanation: that if there was a window between two houses, and the tumah was in one house, and there were thin pieces of wood or iron plates in the windows in a lattice weave, even though there is airspace between them, since there is no opening of a tefach in any one of the holes—it interposes, see there (Bach and Shach, subsection 2).

And that which he wrote, that the thing which closes must be able to stand without support, apparently this is only when the support would be by means of something susceptible to tumah, for then it is not effective. But to support it with something that is not susceptible to tumah—it is permitted. However, our teachers the authors of the Tosafot wrote in Bava Batra (Bava Batra 19b) another reason that even in such a case it is not effective, because anything that requires support is called a "temporary closing," see there. And it does not imply such from the Rambam and the Rash in the sixth chapter of Ohalot. (See Taz subsection 3. And see Shach subsection 1 that a pregnant wife of a kohen is permitted to enter the tent of a corpse for the reason of a double doubt, see there. And there is no need for this, for swallowed purity does not become impure, as the Magen Avraham wrote in siman 343 subsection 2.)

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 2 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 371:2) and section 3 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 371:3): A hatchway between a house and an upper story, which does not have an opening of a tefach, and a kezayit of the corpse is below in the house directly beneath the hatchway – the house is tahor and the upper story is tamei. Two rooms opening into a house, and in each one is a half-kezayit of the corpse, and their doors are locked – the house is tamei and they are tehorim. And if they were opened – they too are tamei. Thus far their words. Now, the laws of a hatchway are numerous in Tractate Ohalot chapter ten. And why did they choose these two laws? Rather, it is because in them there is a great novelty (Beit Yosef). That is, in the first law where the tumah is in the house, yet it is tahor and the upper story is tamei. And the reason is because the tumah rises directly above it since it is placed under the hatchway. And it does not have the power to return and bring the tumah down into the house, since it does not have an opening of a tefach. For if it had an opening of a tefach – the tumah would return and descend into the house. So wrote the Rosh, see there. And the second law also has a novelty, for the tumah is in the rooms, yet they are tehorim and the house is tamei. And the reason for the matter: since they are locked, such that the tumah does not enter from one to the other, and there is not a kezayit in each room, it is impossible for them to become tamei. However, the house is tamei because of the principle "the tumah will eventually exit," and it is as if the two half-kezayit pieces were placed in one location.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch further wrote in section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 371:4): A courtyard surrounded by moldings and porticos, and tumah is in one of the houses—if all the doorways of the houses and the windows are locked, tumah exits to beneath the moldings and the porticos. And if a window or doorway was opened on the other side, and those on the courtyard side are all locked, the tumah does not exit to beneath the moldings. And if one of them was also opened toward the side of the tumah, it exits from the house to beneath the moldings. And likewise, if tumah is beneath the moldings, it enters from beneath them into the house; and likewise roofs that protrude above outward over the doorways of the houses, and tumah is in one of the houses—all the houses whose doorways are open are tamei. Thus far their words, and this is the essence of the law of "the end of the tumah is to exit." And their words require clarification, and this is their explanation: that this courtyard is surrounded by moldings on one side, such as toward the street, and on the second side there are no moldings, and there is in every house a doorway toward the side of the moldings and a doorway toward the second side; therefore, when all the doors are locked—meaning primarily the doors that are on the second side, for as for the doors that are on the side of the moldings, it makes no difference if they are locked or open, obviously—and presumably they will take the deceased out by way of the moldings, therefore from now the tumah exits there by reason of "the end of the tumah is to exit." And likewise if they are all open, the law is so. But if those doors that are on the side of the moldings are locked, and on the second side one of them was opened, and this is a sign that they will take the deceased out through there, and if so there is no "the end of the tumah is to exit" by way of the moldings—they are tahor. However, if one doorway was also opened toward the side of the moldings—it is tamei. For the general principle of the matters is that when there is no proof, we say presumably they will take the deceased out through the doorway that is on the side of the moldings, for that is the primary exit. And only when there is proof that they will take him out from the second side, then it is tahor beneath the moldings. And that which they wrote, that when the tumah is beneath the moldings, the tumah enters all the houses open there—it is simple, for the ohel of the moldings brings the tumah. And it is simple that every doorway or window must have in its space four tefachim by four tefachim, for if not so, it is not a doorway at all.

It appears to me that all the matters that have been explained apply in an unspecified case. However, if he stated explicitly that he will take the deceased out through this doorway, or through this window – we are not concerned at all whether it is open or locked. And similarly, whether the other doorways and windows are locked or open, since he says explicitly from which place he will take the deceased out – it is designated as "the end of the tumah to exit" and not in another place. And more than this is implied explicitly in the Mishnah regarding a deceased in a house, that even with thought it is effective, see there. And it is taught in the Tosefta of Ohalot, chapter eight: If he had one doorway to the north and one doorway to the south, and he thought to take him out through its north, and afterward his brothers or his relatives came and said, "We will not take him out except through its south" – the southern one has purified the northern one. Provided that he does not act with deception. And if he acted with deception – behold, these are tamei. Thus far its wording. And we have learned from this that thought is effective, and that he can retract from this to that, provided only that it be without deception. And it is difficult to understand what deception is relevant in this? And it appears to me that this is its explanation: For example, that his relatives saw that many vessels were standing in the northern doorway which would become tamei, and therefore they said to take him out through the southern one until they remove the vessels from the northern one, and afterward they will take him out through the northern one – this is deception, and both are tamei. Or it is possible that since they acted for the sake of the purity of the vessels, even if they took him out through the southern one – the northern one is tamei. And it requires further study.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 4 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 370:4): Two roofs that do not touch each other, even though there is only less than three [tefachim] between them—it is not a connection regarding tumah, for we do not say "lavud" to be stringent. And if they were one above the other, even though they do not touch, we say "chabut rami," and it is as if they touch. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote, that we do not say "lavud" to be stringent, implies that to be lenient we do say "lavud." But in truth, regarding tumah we do not say "lavud" at all, as the Tosafot wrote in Eruvin regarding the leather of the stool (Eruvin 10b). Furthermore: even regarding the partitions of Shabbat we do not say "lavud" to be stringent. Rather, our teacher, the Rema, merely employed a common expression, because here it would be a stringency (see Taz). And that which he wrote, that we say "chabut rami," its explanation is: that if we were to strike it down—they would touch each other, and there would be no gap. And what he wrote, "even though they do not touch," his intention is because of the height. And all the laws of tumah are a law given to Moshe at Sinai, and we do not question them. And know that we say "chabut rami" even at a height of more than three tefachim, provided that it has [an area of] a tefach by a tefach (Bach and Shach). And these laws are explained in the Gemara of Sukkah (Sukkah 22b), see there.

He further wrote that the kohanim cannot compel the relatives of the deceased to remove the deceased from his place so that they may be permitted to enter their homes, except in a place where it is the custom to remove all the deceased. Thus far his words. That is to say: there are places where they do not perform the purification in the house but rather at the cemetery, and there, if they wish to perform the purification in the house—they may protest. And it is simple that if the kohen is ill and cannot leave his house, and there is a way to remove the deceased so that the tumah does not enter the room of the kohen, that they compel this. And some say further that if the deceased was a nefhel, in any case the kohanim can compel them to remove it from the house (Bach and Nekudot HaKesef). And there is one who disagrees with this (Taz subsection 11). And it appears more like the first opinion, for it is like "this one benefits and this one loses nothing." For regarding a nefhel, the lack of honor is not applicable when they remove it immediately.

The Rambam wrote in the twelfth chapter of Tum'at Met, law 7: A beam placed from wall to wall and the tum'ah is beneath it, if it has a width of a tefach—it brings the tum'ah beneath all of it. And all the vessels and a person beneath it are tamei even though it is not all equal, and part of it is less than a tefach, because part of it is part of an ohel. Thus far his words. And he inferred this from the language of the Mishnah, the twelfth chapter of Ohalot, Mishnah 6, see there. However, it seems to me that this is in any event when the majority of the length of the beam has a width of a tefach, for then the minority is nullified to it. But if only a part of it has a width of a tefach, and its majority does not have a width of a tefach—the part brings the tum'ah, and its majority does not bring it.

The poskim wrote in the name of the Or Zarua, that in a place where there is an eruv and they made beams that have a circumference of three tefachim (so it must be said), for then its width is a tefach, and the beams extend from mavoi to mavoi, and the ends of the beams extend under the roofs from here and from there, and the tumah is beneath it—the beam brings the tumah from roof to roof, and it spreads into all the houses from here and from there. And when there is a corpse in one of the houses—a kohen is not permitted to be in any house, etc. Thus far his words. And it is clear that this is when there are protrusions from the roofs of a tefach opening, and it results that it is all one ohel. And if there is a doorway or an open window from the room where the kohen is sitting—the tumah enters there. And this is according to the law of roof protrusions, for we have already explained all the laws regarding this. (And the Derisha, and the Taz in small subsection 9, and the Shach in small subsection 14, explained this. And it is difficult to ascertain their intent, and therefore I did not bring their words, for regarding the halacha certainly their intent is the same as well. Examine closely and you will find it simple.)

It is stated in Sotah (Sotah 44a) that a corpse occupies four amot for tumah. That is to say: the sages were stringent that one must distance himself four amot from the corpse, so that he does not touch it and does not form an ohel over it. And so too one must distance himself from the grave four amot. In what case are these things said? When the grave is not demarcated by partitions ten tefachim high. But when there are partitions of ten tefachim around the grave, there is a recognition, and he only needs to distance himself four tefachim. For in such a narrow place, there is certainly a concern of touching and ohel. And the same law applies to a trench ten tefachim deep, which is like a fence. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 371:5): it is permitted for a kohen to stand near a house that contains a corpse, and it is permitted to touch its walls, provided that nothing forms an ohel over him. Thus far his words. That is to say: that there should not be a protrusion from the roof which is over the house. Therefore, there are those who forbade a kohen who is delivering a discourse to speak near the bier of the corpse when he stands within four amot of the bier (Derishah). And there is one who permits, for specifically in a closed house that makes its entire surroundings tamei it occupies four amot, and not when the bier is in the street (Shach subsection 18). And the custom is according to the first opinion. And regarding the graves of Cutheans, it will be explained in siman 372.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 371, 6): A corpse lying in a boat, if it is small such that it wobbles when one steps in it – it is forbidden for a kohen to enter it. Thus far his words. For perhaps he will move the impurity, and it is like carrying (see Rav in Zavim chapter four mishna 6 (Zavim chapter 4 mishna 6)). But in a large boat – it is permitted at a distance of four amot. And there are those who permit it even in a small one (see Taz subsection 12). And one should be stringent.