Komentarz do Liczb 19:16

על פני השדה [AND EVERYTHING WHICH TOUCHES] ON THE OPEN FIELD — Our Rabbis explained that this is intended to include the upper board and the side board of a coffin (which were on the surface of the field — that these, too, render a person unclean) (Chullin 72a). The literal meaning of the words על פני השדה is, however, that even where there is no אהל, covering, there too, the dead body may cause uncleanness, but only by contact with it.

AND WHOSOEVER TOUCHETH IN THE OPEN FIELD. “Our Rabbis have said that this includes the upper board and the side board [of a coffin, when found in the open field]. And the plain meaning [of the verse] is: in the open field where there are no tents, a corpse conveys uncleanness [only] by contact.” This is Rashi’s language. But in the opinion of the Sages³⁵The reference here is to Rabbi Yishmael, whose opinion on this matter is, according to Ramban, the accepted decision of the law. Rashi’s comment, however, follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiba (Chullin 72a) who does derive the principle of the upper board and the side board of the coffin from the verse before us (Mizrachi). the [law that the] upper and side boards of the coffin [convey uncleanness] is not derived from Scripture, but is a tradition [handed down by Moses who received it at Sinai]. Therefore a Nazirite [who has become impure by coming into contact with them] is not subject to [the law of] shaving his hair,³⁶See above, 6:9. In other words, since this impurity is not derived from a Scriptural verse, although it is in fact a law of the Torah and not merely of the Rabbis, the Nazirite is not considered as having defiled himself to the extent that he must start his period as a Nazir anew. and likewise [one who becomes impure through contact with them] is not liable to punishment for defiling the Sanctuary [by entering it when impure] or [by eating] the hallowed offerings [in such a state of uncleanness]. Rather, [the expression] in the open field is to be understood according to our Rabbis in its literal sense, i.e., that he touches a person who is slain by the sword, who has fallen in the open field, and there is nothing covering over the corpse. And since this verse is now [seemingly] superfluous, [since it has already been stated in Verse 11 above that one who touches a corpse becomes impure], the Rabbis derived from it the following interpretation, and they said in Tractate Nazir in the Chapter “The High Priest:”³⁷Nazir 53b. “And whosoever toucheth in the open field. This refers to one who ‘covers over’ a corpse” [and tells us that he becomes impure], since by covering over it he “touches” the open field. [According to this interpretation of the Rabbis the expression] bachalal cherev (slain by the sword) is lacking the [connective letter] vav — u’bachalal cherev, [meaning: “or slain by the sword”].³⁸Thus according to the interpretation of the Rabbis, two separate principles are enunciated in this verse: 1) and whosoever ‘touches’ upon the face of the field, i.e., who leans over a corpse or covers it with his body, because in doing so he “touches” the corpse; 2) or whosoever touches directly one slain by the sword. And since Scripture says ‘pnei’ hasadeh [literally: “the face” of the field] and does not [just] say “the field”, Rabbi Yishmael further interpreted it³⁹Chullin 72a. to exclude the [case of a] foetus which died whilst still in its mother’s womb [so that if the midwife put her hand inside the mother and touched it, she does not become impure], because it is impurity which is “swallowed up,” and is not “upon the face” of the place.
Scripture states slain ‘by the sword’ because it speaks of the usual [way of events], but the same law applies if the person was slain by a stone or fist. It mentions those killed and those who die [naturally, stating: one that is slain by the sword, or one that dieth of himself] in contrast to animals for [those animals, which are permitted as food] are pure if they are slaughtered properly, but if they die of their own accord [or were not slaughtered properly] convey impurity as carrion; whereas all human corpses convey impurity, regardless of how the person met his death]. Since it appears superfluous, however, our Rabbis interpreted it in the following manner, namely [that the expression one that is slain by the sword is intended to teach us] that the sword [with which the person was slain] is exactly like the slain person himself, and the whole purpose of the verse is to equate the slain and the sword, so as to say that it [the sword] becomes an avi avoth hatumah (a progenitor of a primary source of impurity),⁴⁰In the process of conveying impurity from one source to another, the general rule is always that the defilement of the recipient is of a lesser degree than that of the conveyor. But here in the case of a dead body there is a point of novelty. Since the corpse itself is considered an ‘avi’ avoth hatumah (a progenitor of a primary source of impurity) the sword which touched him should have become only an av hatumah (a primary source of impurity), while the rule is that it becomes an avi avoth hatumah just like the dead itself. Hence a person that touches the sword which was so defiled becomes an av hatumah (a primary source of impurity), and not a rishon l’tumah (a first degree of impurity) as would be the ordinary rule. See further on these laws in Vol. III, p. 148, Note 252. It should also be pointed out [for the sake of the following text of Ramban] that the above principle of the sword [becoming an avi avoth hatumah just as the corpse] applies also to all metal vessels which have been rendered impure by a corpse. just like the dead person himself, and it conveys impurity of seven days’ duration to people and vessels. It appears from the text of the Mishnah and Gemara⁴¹See Ramban in his commentary to Baba Bathra 20a where he discusses at length these “texts of the Mishnah and Gemara” which corroborate his opinion. It is of interest to note that Ramban cites there also the varying opinion of Rabbeinu Tam [the outstanding authority among the masters of the Tosafoth] who holds that the sword is equated entirely to a corpse, even in regard to the impurity of ohel (see Note 32 above). — For the term Gemara see in Vol. II p. 132, Note 204. that it [the sword and all metal vessels] convey impurity by contact and through carrying just like the corpse, but it is unlike the corpse in [that it does not] convey impurity by ohel³²Literally: “a tent.” This refers to the law that anything “spread over” an unclean object has the same effect as “a tent.” Hence if a tree shaded a corpse, the law of a dead body in a house or tent applies. [i.e., if it is in a tent or building together with a person or object, that person or object remains pure]. Perhaps the Rabbis based this exclusion on the verse dealing with the tent, which says: when ‘a man’ dieth in a tent,⁴²Verse 14. [thus implying that the law of “the tent,” i.e., that of conveying impurity by ohel], applies only to the dead body itself. And if a sword [or metal vessel] which became impure by [touching] a corpse were to convey impurity of ohel, the priests would be forbidden to enter all buildings [even after the removal of the corpse], for they all have a “sword” [i.e., some metal vessel]⁴³See Note 40 above. which has become impure, and it would defile them by ohel³²Literally: “a tent.” This refers to the law that anything “spread over” an unclean object has the same effect as “a tent.” Hence if a tree shaded a corpse, the law of a dead body in a house or tent applies. [and it is obviously impossible to say that priests may never enter all buildings]!⁴⁴This problem was proposed by Rabbeinu Chayim Hakohen to Rabbeinu Tam: “If so, what house would you build for them [the priests], and what place may be their resting place?” (see my Hebrew commentary p. 270). It further appears in the Gemara⁴⁵Nazir 54b. See my Hebrew commentary p. 270. that a sword [or metal vessel] which touches a corpse does not render a person [who touches it] impure to the extent that he requires to be sprinkled [with the waters of purification] on the third and seventh days,⁴⁶Verse 12. even though the person who touches [the sword or vessel] becomes a “father of impurity.” This is because in the second verse where He states and he shall sprinkle upon the tent⁴⁷Verse 18. The fact, that in this verse which speaks of the sprinkling of the waters of purification upon the impure, it does not mention that he became defiled by having touched “one that is slain with a sword,” indicates that he is rendered impure for a seven days’ duration, yet he does not require the sprinkling of the waters mentioned. it says, and upon him that touched the bone, or ‘the slain,’ or the dead or the grave,⁴⁷Verse 18. The fact, that in this verse which speaks of the sprinkling of the waters of purification upon the impure, it does not mention that he became defiled by having touched “one that is slain with a sword,” indicates that he is rendered impure for a seven days’ duration, yet he does not require the sprinkling of the waters mentioned. but it does not say “or one that is slain with a sword.” If so, the sword [and all metal vessels] are like the corpse [in degree of impurity] only to the extent that one who touches it is rendered impure for seven days’ duration, but not [to the extent that a sword conveys impurity] by ohel³²Literally: “a tent.” This refers to the law that anything “spread over” an unclean object has the same effect as “a tent.” Hence if a tree shaded a corpse, the law of a dead body in a house or tent applies. [as does a corpse], nor [to the extent that one who touches it] requires sprinkling [of the waters of purification]. Likewise a Nazirite does not have to cut off his hair [on account of being in a tent together with it], nor is there any prohibition at all against a priest touching it [whereas he is prohibited from touching the corpse itself.]⁴⁸Leviticus 21:1. This is the most likely and reasonable explanation, based on the words of our Rabbis. But we because of our sins are now impure in the exile, and we do not know of the purity of holiness until the spirit be poured upon us from on High,⁴⁹Isaiah 32:15. and G-d will sprinkle clean water upon us⁵⁰Ezekiel 36:25. and we shall become pure. Amen, and may this be the will [of G-d] speedily in our days.

וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה, if one enters a closed area, roofed area in which the remains of the deceased are present one becomes ritually unclean, whereas if the remains of the deceased are in an open area such as a field, only direct contact with the deceased confers such ritual impurity.

בחלל חרב, “one slain by the sword,” Nachmanides writes that here too the Torah uses a scenario that is commonplace, but the same law would apply if the dead had been slain by a stone or other means even if he had become the victim of his killer’s fist. The reason why the Torah uses the word מת, “someone dead,” without elaborating, as well as the detailed description חלל חרב, “slain by the sword,” is to make us aware of the halachic difference of an animal that was killed by ritual slaughter, (sword-like instrument) and only thereby does not become ritually unclean upon death, and a human being where such a death confers immediate severe ritual impurity. Our sages add another lesson to be learned from the word חלל חרב, namely that the sword that killed the person in question contracts the same degree of ritual impurity as the corpse, not one degree less as is commonly the case when one touches the source of the ritual contamination.

בחלל חרב או במת, “someone slain by the sword or one that died naturally;” if the Torah had wanted to equate the two examples of corpses it should have used the expression: בחלל או במת, “someone slain or dead of natural causes.” Why did the Torah mention חרב, “sword?” The Torah chose an example of most victims who die a violent death. Although the Torah chose the example of the “sword” as the cause of death, the same contamination occurs when the victim was killed by a stone or a wooden arrow, for instance (Maimonides Hilchot Tumat Met 1,2).
Our sages in Shabbat 101 point out, however, that the example חרב, i.e. a metal tool, means that the metal weapon contracts the same degree of impurity אבי אבות הטומאה, the absolute primary cause of ritual contamination, as does the corpse itself. The reason is that the sword, by definition, is a means for causing death, is designed to cause death and therefore ritual impurity. The sword, while halachically contracting a degree of impurity equaling that of its victim, the corpse, in that the impurity it confers upon those touching it lasts for seven days, and requires the same purification rites as does the one who became defiled through contact with the corpse itself, does not confer such impurity by the person being merely in the same airspace with it. We derive this from the words אדם כי ימות באהל, “i.e. when a human being dies inside a tent, etc.” the corpse can confer ritual impurity upon such a person, the sword by which he was killed, however, cannot confer that particular type of impurity. The truth of this statement is guaranteed, as if such a sword could confer impurity by a survivor being in the same tent with it, all the priests would be forbidden to enter their own houses seeing each of them contains a sword or metal tool such as a nail which by its very presence would confer impurity on the priest concerned.
This concept has been illustrated by Rabbi Chayim from Germany who sent the following inquiry to Rabbeinu Tam (grandson of Rashi): Seeing that every house at one time or another contains a corpse, and it also has metal nails which are an integral part of its construction, what house can one build in order to avoid ritual contamination by these factors? (The Rabbi quoted Isaiah 66,1 “which is the kind of house that you (man) can build for Me (G’d)” as the gist of his question.) Clearly, Rabbi Chayim understood the reference to חרב in our verse as including all kinds of objects made of iron, otherwise his question does not make sense. [this is in contrast to some authorities who understand the word חרב as applying only to the murder weapon or other weapons made of the same material]. The question therefore presupposes that Rabbi Chayim applied the term חרב to mean that any metal object would confer the status of absolute prime cause of ritual contamination on anyone in the same airspace as it. This understanding of the halachah is based on a statement in Shabbat 101 where Samuel said that a ship (and contents) which lay at anchor and was connected to the harbor by means of iron chains will incur ritual impurity of primary severity (אב הטומאה) if the chain touched such a source of ritual impurity on the quay. Samuel’s statement was meant to apply to degrees of ritual impurity which are of Biblical force, as opposed to ritual impurity due to Rabbinic decree. At any rate it is clear from what he said that he did not distinguish between a sword and some other tool made of metal.
In Pesachim 14, where mixing oil of the Menorah which has been disqualified by differing degrees ritual impurity is discussed, the Talmud states that the words בחלל חרב in our verse mean that a metal lampstand which has become contaminated by a primary cause of impurity has the same degree of impurity as the corpse which made it impure in the first place. This is beyond dispute where the lampstand was in direct contact with the corpse (after death) as opposed to it having been the cause of death of the person who contaminated it.
We have learned in Keylim 1,1: “primary causes of ritual impurity are: 1) a dead unclean reptile; 2) semen which is still virile; 3) a person who became ritually unclean through a corpse. Seeing the person who was in some kind of contact with a corpse becomes a primary source of ritual impurity, it is clear that the source of that impurity, i.e. the corpse itself must be of a higher degree of impurity, i.e. the one known as אבי אבות הטומאה, “the root cause of impurity.” It is well known that derivatives of such a root cause of impurity have the ability to confer descending degrees of impurity to a sixth level (generation) not further. [In other words, anyone more than six persons or objects removed from the root cause cannot be negatively affected by such a root cause. Ed.] The six levels of ritual impurity are known in descending order of severity as: 1) אבי אבות הטומאה, 2) אב הטומאה, 3) ראשון לטומאה, 4) שני לטומאה, 5) שלישי לטומאה, (applicable only to תרומה, produce imbued with a low level of holiness. 6) רביעי לטומאה, (applicable only to matters imbued with high levels of sanctity such as sacrificial meat). We do not encounter a further 7th level of impurity as permanent purity is attached to anything that far removed from a primary cause of impurity. These waters are known as מים טהורים, “pure waters,” as we know from Ezekiel 36,25: “I will sprinkle upon you (the people of Israel) pure waters.” During periods of exile, these waters are known as שערי דמעה, “the gates of tears,” seeing that tears are a derivative of the power reposing in water. Our sages in Baba Metzia 59 are on record that even when all other “gates” (such as the gate of prayer) are locked, the gates of tears always remain open, i.e. our prayers when accompanied by tears always can reach heaven. This seventh level of purity [i.e. a level beyond possible contamination, Ed.] is known as the מים העליונים, the waters of the upper regions (Chagigah 15). This is another name for the attribute (emanation) of חסד which is the seventh emanation counting from the lowest one, מלכות. In the Torah these waters are described as מים חיים, “waters which retain the quality of life.” They are the waters which the prophet Zecharyah refers to as emanating from Jerusalem on the day heralding the redemption (compare Zecharyah 14,8). When the prophet describes these waters as coming forth from Jerusalem, he refers to celestial Jerusalem. When you peruse the Torah’s report of the creation you will find the word מים mentioned 5 times in connection with the second day of creation and 2 more times in connection with the third day of creation. These seven occasions when מים is mentioned on those two days allude to the fact that the work of the second day was not really complete until the third day. [This is also why the words: “G’d saw that it was good,” are absent in the Torah’s report of what was created on the second day. Ed.].
Our sages in Tractate Machshirim 6,4 speak of the existence of seven different kinds of liquids and the potential ability or otherwise of these liquids to contract and confer ritual impurity. The liquids in question are 1) dew; 2) water; 3) wine; 4) oil; 5) blood; 6) milk; 7) bees’ honey. The first time the word מים appears in the Torah in the report of G’d’s creative activity on the second day corresponds to the basic concept of water, a regular liquid. The other six times when the Torah refers to מים in its report of G’d’s activity on the second and third day what are meant are the derivatives of the basic element water, i.e. the six additional liquids (something fit to drink) mentioned in Machshirim. All the six other liquids listed in the Mishnah in Machshirim appear in the Bible as “drinks” employing either the term שתיה or השקאה. In Exodus 17,6 the Torah writes: “some water emerged (from the rock) and the people drank.” In Genesis 24,43 Eliezer asks Rivkah to let him drink some water. In Leviticus 10,9 the Torah forbids the priests to drink wine or liquor on certain occasions. In Jeremiah 35,2 G’d told the prophet to go to the house of the Rechabites and to give them wine to drink. The term used there is והשקית. Oil is used as a liquid used for drinking in Isaiah 25,6: “the Lord will make on this mount for all the peoples a banquet, משתה, containing rich oils.” Blood is mentioned in the Torah as a drink in Numbers 23,24: “Israel will drink the blood of the slain” (Balak’s prophecy/blessing). Another verse mentioning blood as a drink is found in Ezekiel 39,17 where G’d tells the prophet to address the birds promising them: “assemble and gather from all around for the sacrificial feast I am preparing for you;..... eat flesh and drink blood.” Dew is referred to as water, מים, in Judges 6,38 where Gideon is described as “squeezing the dew from the fleece, a bowlful of water.” Bees’ honey is mentioned as a drink in Deut. 32,13: “He made him suck honey from a rock.” Finally, milk is described as a drink in Judges 4,19: “she (Yael) opened a skin-bottle of milk and gave him some to drink.”

The gollel and dofek. Which are normally found in the open field. A gollel is the board that is placed over a casket as a cover, while those that form the walls are called dofek (Rashi to Sanhedrin Perek Nigmar Hadin 47b). There are those who explain (Tosafos there) that the gollel is the headstone, as it is written וגללו את האבן ["and roll the stone"] (Bereishis 29:3). And dofek is [understood] like the first explanation.

V. 16. וכל אשר יגע וגו׳. Von טומאת מגע war bereits Verse 11-13 abgeschlossen die Rede. Mit V. 14 זאת התורה wird die dem מת eigentümliche טומאת אהל-Lehre eingeleitet, V. 15 fortgesetzt und ihr gehört nach der Gruppierung der Sätze auch dieser V. 16 an. In der Tat wird auch Nasir 53b זה :על פני השדה המאהיל על פני המת erläutert und ebenso Chulin 72a: אשר יגע על פני השדה לרבות גולל ודופק. Die beiden vorhergehenden Verse sprechen nämlich von dem mit einer Leiche unter einer Überdachung sich Befindenden, der gewöhnlichen unter טומאת אהל verstandenen Weise, dieser Vers spricht von der zweiten Art טומאת אהל, dass etwas מאהיל על המת sei, dass etwas selbst in perpendikulärer Richtung über einem מת sich befinde, ein מת überdache, womit auch noch eine dritte Art טומאת אהל korrespondiert, dass das מת מאהיל עליו, dass etwas von einem מת überdacht werde, dass etwas in perpendikulärer Richtung unter einem מת sich befinde. Alle drei אהל-Arten sind nach der Halacha in ihren טומאה-Wirkungen völlig gleich (Oholot 3, 1). Dass aber hier diese טומאת אהל, das נגיעה ,מאהיל על המת genannt wird, darin dürfte eine Lehre רבאs (Chulin 125b) eine bedeutsame Bestätigung finden. Es wird dort nämlich eine טומאת אהל auch unter den Begriff מגע subsumiert, so, dass es eine אהל נגיעה, eine mit מגע im weiteren Sinne verwandte אהל-Art, und ein אהל גרידה, eine schlechthinnige אהל-Art gibt, und erläutert אהל נגיעה :רבא sei jedes מאהיל על המת, eben die אהלArt unseres Verses, wo das Überdachen als in Berührungkommen begriffen wird. אהל גרידה sei aber בהמשכה, dass, wie רש׳׳י erläutert, דבר אחר מאהיל עליו ועל הטומאה, dass ein drittes das reine Objekt und das מת zugleich überdache und dadurch ממשיך את הטומאה עליו die טומאה auf das bis dahin reine Objekt überleite, also eben die אהל-Kategorie, von welcher in Versen 14 und 15 gesprochen. Die Konsequenz, ob eine טומאת אהל als מגע zu begreifen wäre, liegt in צירוף, nach dem Kanon זה הכלל כל שהוא משם אחד טמא משני שמות טהור (Oholoth daselbst). Diese Unterscheidung רבא s scheint nach der ganzen dortigen Abhandlung sich als Halacha darzubieten. (Siehe תוספו׳ Chulin 126a רשב׳׳א ,ד׳׳ה מאן daselbst, רא׳׳ש zu Oholot daselbst und ist es auffallend, dass 14 ,4 הל׳ טומאת המת ,רמב׳׳ם diese Unterscheidung רבאs nicht adoptiert und ר׳׳ש im Kommentar zu Oholot 3, 1 ihrer nicht erwähnt וצ׳׳ע.)

וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה, “and anyone in an open field who touches, etc.;” seeing that it is under open skies, only actual touching of the body confers ritual impurity.

בחלל חרב, es heißt nicht einfach wie V. 18: בחלל, sondern בחלל חרב; es supponiert somit das Gesetz die Gegenwart des חלל und des חרב, des Werkzeugs seiner Tötung; aus der Anwesenheit des חרב ist ja überhaupt bei einem על פני השדה liegenden חלל erst zu schließen, dass er ein חלל חרב sei. Indem aber das Gesetz hier beide vergegenwärtigt, will es nach der Halacha (Nasir 53b) חרב הרי הוא כחלל sagen: es hat dieselbe Wirkung, ob er den חלל oder das חרב berührt, oder, nach der vorhergehenden Erläuterung מאהיל ist über den einen oder über das andere. Es ist aber nach der Halacha הרב nicht als Werkzeug des Totschlags, sondern einfach in Folge der Berührung des Toten diesem an טומאה-Wirkung gleich, und zwar hat nicht nur חרב, sondern jedes כלי מתכות, jedes Metallgerät, die gesetzliche Eigentümlichkeit, dass es in Berührung mit einem מת oder einem טמא מת den טומאה-Charakter des Berührten erhält, von einem מת wird es אבי אבות wie מת, von einem טמא מת wird es אב wie dieser. Jedoch nur in Berührung mit einem Menschen, כלי באדם, geht auf das כלי der טומאה-Charakter des berührten Menschen über, nicht aber כלי בכלי. Jedes אבי אבות und אב הטומאה ist טמא שבעה, jedes ראשון nur טמא טומאת ערב (siehe Verse 11 u. 22), אדם וכלים sind, wie bereits zu Wajikra, Ende Kap. 11 bemerkt, nur מקבל טומאה מאב הטומאה. Auf diesen gesetzlichen Tatsachen beruhen die Oholot 1, 1-4 gegebenen Sätze: שנים טמאים במת אחד טמא טומאת שבעה ואחד טמא טומאת ערב שלשה וכו׳ וארבעה טמאים במת שלשה טמאין טומאת שבעה ואחד טמא טומאת ערב כיצד שנים וכו׳ כיצד שלשה וכו׳ כיצד וכלים באדם )wird ואדם בכלים (אב, (sie werden ארבעה כלים נוגעים במת (אבי אבות (werden auch טמאים טומאת שבעה ,הרביעי בין אדם בין כלים טמא טומאת ערב (אב. Nach obigem sprächen somit diese Sätze nur von כלי מתכות. Es ist dies die Auffassung des ת׳׳ר. Der Auffassung des רבי יצחק מסימפונט zufolge, die auch diejenige des5 הלי טומאת מת רמב׳׳ם ist, haben alle כלים mit Ausnahme von כלי חרש, die ja überhaupt nie אב הטומאה geschweige denn אבי אבות werden, die durch חרב הרי הוא כחלל gegebene Eigentümlichkeit und sprechen diese Sätze von allen תוספו׳) כלים Nasir 54b ר׳׳ש .ד׳׳ה ת׳׳ש zu אהלות 1,2siehe Wajikra Kap. 11, Ende).

בחלל חרב, “regardless if death occurred as a result of the sword,” you should not say that the Torah had ruled only natural death as conferring ritual impurity on those touching the corpse, not unnatural death such as by violence of any kind, instruments designed to be used as weapons.

או במת או בעצם אדם, nicht nur eine ganze Leiche ist מטמא באהל, sondern auch schon הגלגלת ,השדרה ,כזית מן המת usw. (Oholot 2, 1) und um מטמא במגע ובמשא zu sein, bedarfs noch geringerer Teile, schon עצם כשעורה usw. (daselbst 3) sind מטמא במגע ובמשא, wenn gleich nicht באהל.

או בעצם אדם, “or by a human bone,” this verse teaches that in order to confer ritual impurity the corpse does not to be whole, even a bone suffices to confer such impurity (if a little flesh or skin is attached to it). The impurity this conferred on a person last a minimum of seven days even when all the rules of purification have been observed.

או בקבר: Nasir 53b heißt es: זה קבר סתום, indem hier von מאהיל על הקבר die Rede ist, so kann dies nur von einem allseitig geschlossenen Grabe reden, und zwar, wie תוספו daselbst erläutert, שיש בו פותח טפח innerhalb dessen zwischen der Leiche und der sie deckenden Erdschicht ein freier Raum von mindestens einem Kubik-טפח sich befindet. Durch diesen leeren Raum erhält erst die Erdumgebung der Leiche den eigentlichen Charakter als "Grab", und wenn dies, wie hier vorausgesetzt, von allen Seiten סתום, geschlossen ist, so ist es als קבר selbst מטמא כל צדדין, und wer darüber, selbst שלא כנגד המת wegschreitend מאהיל ist, wird טמא. Liegt aber die Erdschicht dicht auf der Leiche und fehlt הלל טפה, so ist nicht das קבר, sondern das מת מטמא, es ist dies dann: טומאה רצוצה, eine eingeengte טומאה, die בוקעת ועולה בוקעת ויורדת, die in Höhe und Tiefe unbeschränkt in perpendikulärer Richtung sich mitteilt, so lange sie nicht irgendwo durch ein אהל טפת, durch eine Kubik-טפח große Überdachung gehemmt wird. Es würde dann nur der טמא werden, der das Grab an der die Leiche deckenden Stelle überschreitet, und zwar nicht durch das Grab als solches, sondern durch das מת, das als בוקעת ועולה :טומאה רצוצה ist. So auch. 4 ,7 הל׳ טומאת מת :רמב׳׳ם ראב׳׳דhat eine andere Auffassung.

או בעצם אדם או בקבר, “or direct contact with the bone of a human being, or contact with a grave;” of all the types of ritual impurity the one caused by a human copse is the most severe. This is why the sages define a human corpse as אבי אבות הטומאה, ”the original forefather of all ritual impurities.” The reason appears to be that the Torah wishes to insure that living human beings not spend their time with the corpses out of their love for the departed, nor out of the mistaken belief that these corpses could reveal secrets of the afterlife to them, or that they would make idols of the skins of such corpses, seeing that the skins could be preserved indefinitely when turned into leather. Alternately, they would demean their parents by making utensils out of their skins or bones, the very reverse of revering them. Even if the motivation is simply to treat the dead with respect, the Torah prohibits this as not the way to mourn and show respect for one’s ancestors. [The Nazis have demonstrated how by making lampshades out of Jews’ skins, they had found dead Jews useful, whereas they had no use for living Jews. Ed.] Our sages in tractate yadayim, chapter 4, Mishnah 6, already forbade making carpets out of human skins, i.e. walking on the skins of their parents. They similarly forbade using one’s parents’ bones to convert them into spoons and similar utensils. All of this is forbidden even if intended to be proof of how beloved one’s parents had been by their children, so that they felt the need to keep part of them around to remind them of their having existed. This may be why the bones of donkeys are not ritually unclean and do not confer ritual contamination, while the bones of one’s parents are.

Ein Feld, in welchem sich durch Umackerung eines darin befindlichen Grabes Gebeinsplitter an die Oberfläche "verbreitet" haben können, heißt בית הפרס, von (פרש) פרס verbreiten (siehe hierüber Oholot 17,1 f.).