Shulchan Arukh Yoreh De'ah · Siman 372

Shulchan Arukh Yoreh De'ah 372 — English translation

Translation: Code of Hebrew Law by Chaim N. Denburg, Montreal, 1955. Section numbers match the Hebrew text above.

1. 1In spite of the fact that the Kohen is prohibited to enter a Peras -area, i.e., a field in which there was a lost grave or in which a grave had been ploughed up and the extent [ of the prohibited area being ] a hundred cubits [ in every direction ], — half the length of a furrow, i.e., fifty cubits. It refers to a field in which a grave was ploughed over and the position of the crushed bones is not known. Hence, the field is regarded unclean. This is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Rashi (Nid. 57a) derives Peras from the rt. פרס ‘to break’ and it refers to the area of the broken or crushed bones. Maim. (Ohol. XVII, 1) takes it from the rt. פרס — פרש ‘to spread or extend,’ i.e., an area of extension. For a full analysis of Beth ha-Peras with respect to uncleanness, v. Ber. 19b; Shab. 15b; Pes. 92a-b; Hag. 25b; M.K. 5b (v. D.S. a.l.) ; Kel. 3; Ohol. XVII, 1; XVIII, 1; Tohor. IV, 5; V, 1; Bek. 22a, 29a-b; Nid. 57a, also Jastrow and Lev y s.v. פרס . or the country of the heathens,area. ‘Er. 30b; Ḥag. 25a; Naz. 19b, 54a-55a; Git. 7b. According to Weiss ( Dor I, 105) this decree was issued in the days of Alcimus in order to stem the tide of emigration as a result of his persecutions. Cf. supra § 369, n. 9. — if he must go there [in order] to take a wife or to study Torah, and he has no other road, he may pass through there, s.v. ללמוד . He must, however, not pass over the graves proper — Ta Z. even if he can manage to study elsewhere.. in accord with R. Jose. And so too, [with respect to] a mourner who passes through there, — [the law is that] he may go after him to console him. Likewise, may he incur uncleanness [which is forbidden] by a Rabbinical decree, [viz., by going] to argue [matters] with heathens and to contest [in court the legality of their acts], for he is as one who saves [his property] from their hand, and so also anything that is similar to this. Gloss : A Kohen who lies undressed whilst in the [ same ] tent with a corpse and was not aware [ of this ], should not be informed thereof, but he should be called [ out ] without specifying [ the reason thereof ], so that he leave , [ and the grounds for not specifying the reason being ] in order that he dress himself first . But if they had already told him [ the reason ], he is forbidden to remain [ there ] until he dresses himself . is in the same tent with the corpse, but if he is in one of the adjoining houses, although they too, become unclean (v. supra § 371, 4), nevertheless, this category of uncleanness is prohibited Rabbinically only, for the law is that only Biblically, a tent that has a hollow space of one handbreadth (i.e., between the outside and the uncleanness, or the cover of the coffin and the corpse it contains. Thus Ḥatam Sofer Y.D. § 340, 2), forms a partition against the uncleanness (Ber. 19b). And even when the house in which the corpse lies is closed up on every side, the principle ‘that ultimately the uncleanness spreads to the adjoining houses,’ is only Rabbinical. Consequently, if the Kohen is present in the adjoining house, he may dress himself first — ShaK. This ruling is rejected by quite a number of codifiers. M.Abr. O.Ḥ. § 343, n. 2; D.Merb. a.l. and also A.H. Others defend ShaK ’s ruling. Isserles’ ruling here applies only where the Kohen entered the tent or house at which time the person was still alive. In this case his entry would not be considered a flagrant act, but if he entered the corpse’s tent when it was already forbidden to do so, even if done unwittingly, it is regarded as a flagrant act — P.Tesh. Contra Isserles , the Kohen should put on the most essential garments in the case where the reason for leaving was specified to him — D.Merb. P.Tesh. for additional reasons pro and con Isserles. And [ this applies ] only if he is in the corpse's tent, which is an uncleanness [ forbidden ] Biblically, but if he is in a Peras-area — half the length of a furrow, i.e., fifty cubits. It refers to a field in which a grave was ploughed over and the position of the crushed bones is not known. Hence, the field is regarded unclean. This is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Rashi (Nid. 57a) derives Peras from the rt. פרס ‘to break’ and it refers to the area of the broken or crushed bones. Maim. (Ohol. XVII, 1) takes it from the rt. פרס — פרש ‘to spread or extend,’ i.e., an area of extension. For a full analysis of Beth ha-Peras with respect to uncleanness, v. Ber. 19b; Shab. 15b; Pes. 92a-b; Hag. 25b; M.K. 5b (v. D.S. a.l.) ; Kel. 3; Ohol. XVII, 1; XVIII, 1; Tohor. IV, 5; V, 1; Bek. 22a, 29a-b; Nid. 57a, also Jastrow and Lev y s.v. פרס . or in the country of the heathens, which is an uncleanness forbidden [ only ] Rabbinically, he should dress himself first, for human dignity [ in proper appearance ] is very important s. 285 — G. Ber. 19b. If on Yom Kippur it happened that there was a corpse in a room adjoining the Synagogue, the Cantor, if a Kohen , should, in the first instance, not be informed thereof. However, even if the Cantor- Kohen knows about it, he may continue to lead the services, for it would be very disrespectful to the Congregation to remain without a Cantor — T. T. Wa-Da‘ath. as has been explained supra § 303 regarding the subject of Kilay'im . A Kohen who was asleep and there was a corpse with him in the [ same ] tent must be awakened and told [ about it ] and Tosaf. s.v. שב ; N in T.H.; W.G. a.l. in order that he leave . 69 — G. According to MaHaRIL ( ibid. ) this prohibition is applicable although there is no tangible action involved, and ordinarily we do not administer flogging in such cases (v. Mak. 2b), yet in our case it is forbidden, because a Biblical prohibition is involved. It follows therefore, that were only a Rabbinical prohibition involved (e.g., where the Kohen is in the adjoining house. supra n. 10), the Kohen should not be awakened. This is perhaps the meaning of Isserles’ words, ‘and there was a corpse with him in the (same) tent’ — ShaK.
2. 2[With respect to] the graves of heathens, it is proper for a Kohen to be careful not to walk upon them, and Tosaf. B.M. 114a-b — G. also Yeb. 61a, Tosaf. s.v. ממגע Cf. Ker. 6b. although there are some [ authorities ] who adopt a lenient view . III, 3; Hag. Maim. ibid . on the authority of Sefer Yere’im — G. Those who advocate the lenient view maintain that the law rests with R. Simeon b. Yoḥai (Gemara ibid .); those of the stringent view hold that the law rests with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel (v. Ohol. XVIII, 7). The proponents of the lenient view, however, maintain that heathen graves defile through contact and carriage ( מגע ומשא ) and that only the uncleanness of overshadowing is not applicable to them. And it is proper to adopt the stringent view. However, the grave of an [ Israelite ] who was an apostate in respect of idolatry , imparts uncleanness as [ the grave ] of one who was a [ conforming ] Israelite . s. 194 and 242 — G. San. 44a s.v. ישראל ; Yeb. 47b s.v. למאי הלכתא ; Kid. 36a s.v. בין כך ובין כך .

License: CC-BY