The Mishnah on TB Nazir 54a lists sources of tumah, ritual unreadiness, which a nazir does not have to shave and begin counting the days of his nezirut from the very beginning all over again. All the land outside of Israel is on this list. “And the land of the nations, i.e., a nazirite left Eretz Yisrael for another land. The Sages decreed that all land outside of Eretz Yisrael is ritually impure.” (Sefaaria.org translation) The Gemara asks the question what is the source of this tumah? “A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did the Sages decree the land of the nations impure with regard to the air, i.e., is one rendered impure merely by being there? Or perhaps they decreed it impure with regard to the earth, i.e., one who touches the ground or overlays it becomes impure.” (Sefaria. org translation)
At first the
Gemara tries to connect the above question to a disagreement between two tanna’im. “Let us say that this
is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is
taught: With regard to one who enters the land of the nations not on
foot but in a chest, a box, or a cabinet, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems
him ritually impure. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems him pure.
What, is it not correct to say that they disagree in this regard: Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi, who deems him impure, holds that the Sages decreed
impurity with regard to the air, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds
that the Sages decreed impurity with regard to the earth, and consequently
he is not impure, as the container prevents him from overlying the impurity?”
(Sefaria.org translation)
Then the
Gemara offers different interpretations where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi
Yosei don’t disagree about the land or the air is the source of contamination,
but they disagree on something else. One conclusion caught my attention. “The
Gemara concedes that the previous explanation of the dispute is incorrect. Rather,
one must say that everyone agrees that the decree of impurity concerning
the land of the nations is with regard to its air, and one Sage,
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that since it is not common
for one to move around in an enclosure (earlier the case was a person was in a
closed chest, box, or cabinet-gg) the Sages did not decree impurity with
regard to this case. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds
that although it is not common the Sages nevertheless decreed
impurity with regard to it.” (Sefaria.org translation)
I agree that
back when this law was being discussed, traveling in a closed container was not
common all; however, we do it all the time. Who hasn’t flown in an airplane?! We’ve
already seen that the laws of a nazir
are very similar to the laws of a kohen.
Just like the nazir in the past, an observant
kohen today will not enter a cemetery
except for his closest relatives, mother, father, wife, son, daughter, brother,
and sister. Many Jewish funeral homes will have a completely separate room for
kohanim so that they will not be under the same roof where the deceased is
kept. Should and observant kohen fly?
Rabbi Daniel
Wolf has written on this topic. He does not decide Jewish law at all. His goal
is to explain the complexity of the issue and why different rabbinic sages
disagree whether a kohen should fly
in an airplane.
“Could the plane itself
block the tum'a for the kohen? Two different approaches need to be
investigated: 1] ohel; 2] tzamid patil. As we mentioned before, an ohel
can separate from or block the tum'a. Can the space at the bottom of the
plane, since it measures more than a handbreadth above the source of tum'a,
serve as an ohel to block it? This heter (permission-gg) encounters two
problems: 1] ohel zaruk (an ohel in motion-gg); 2] anything that is tamei
cannot block tum'a. Let us deal with each problem separately. The
mishna in Ohalot (ch. 8) addresses a situation of an ohel in motion, such as
large boxes during transport, and determines that such an ohel loses its formal
status as such. It is considered an ohel for neither spreading nor
blocking tum'a. The gemara in Eruvin (30b) determines that this
issue is debated by the tanna'im. Tosafot and the Rambam concur that an
ohel in motion cannot block tum'a. Though there might be some exceptions
(see Tosafot there), it is unlikely that any would exclude an airplane.
However, the Rashba prefers the opinion that an ohel in motion can block tum'a;
according to the Rashba, then, this problem (of ohel zaruk) is solved.
The second problem arises from the general rule that anything that is tamei or
can become tamei cannot block or separate from tum'a. Can an airplane
contract tum'a? Rav Moshe Feinstein deals with this issue (with regard to the
related issue of a corpse transported on the same plane as a kohen). The
question revolves around the issue as to whether aluminum, which, together with
its alloys, constitutes 80% of a plane's weight (my thanks to Dr. Farber, an
eminent metallurgist), is susceptible to tum'a. On the one hand, metallic
utensils are generally assured capable of contracting tum'a. On the other
hand, the Torah mentions only the six metals that were known to man at that
time. Can tum'a apply to metals that were discovered only after Matan
Torah? Rav Moshe wavers on this very issue, and also questions whether
aluminum is a new metal or a combination of the six mentioned.
Scientifically, we know that aluminum is, in fact, a new metal, and not a
composite of other metals.
“As for Rav
Moshe's first question, this point is not new and seems to be a dispute between
the Rambam (who holds that all metals are tamei) and Rashi (who limits tum'a to
just the six mentioned). The Vilna Gaon and Tiferet Yisrael concur with
Rashi, and in the introduction of the Tiferet Yisrael to Taharot, a
parenthetical comment of unknown origin questions the limitation to the six
metals. (Interestingly, in another responsum about tevilat kelim, Rav
Moshe determines that aluminum is not tamei as a metal utensil, but it
nevertheless requires immersion as it is included in the rabbinic requirement
to immerse glass utensils.) Therefore, there is a clear opinion that aluminum
objects are not tamei. The existence of rivets or other parts of the
plane can be overlooked so long as all the major components are aluminum or
carbon composites. There might be another possibility, that ships are not
defined as "utensils" capable of contracting tum'a because of their
size; this may apply to airplanes, as well. As this possibility is
speculative at best, it certainly would not merit a heter on its own right, but
it may be included as an additional consideration when reaching a final
conclusion ("senif le-hakel").
“In order to accept this heter, both assumptions must be correct. We must
assume that an ohel in motion is an ohel, and that airplanes are tahor (for any
reason). As we noted, however, both assumptions are not at all clear;
this heter thus leaves much to be desired.
“Another possible heter involves the halakha of "tzamid patil."
I struggled to come up with a proper translation and eventually gave up; I will
nevertheless try to explain it. If a sealed utensil is in an ohel with a
corpse, it and its contents remain tahor. Of course, this is not so
simple. There are certain prerequisites for the application of this
halakha: 1] The utensil cannot be mekabel tum'a from its exterior. This
halakha is thus limited to earthenware utensils (which contract tum'a only from
the inside) and utensils which are not mekabel tum'a at all, such as stone or
mud utensils. The inclusion of aluminum planes, then, depends on our
previous discussion as to whether they are susceptible to tum'a.
“2] It must be
closed and sealed with a lid and a material such as mud, wax, dough, etc. We
may consider several reasons why such a seal is required. Two logical
reasons might be a requirement for a hermetical seal or for a seal which is not
easily opened. One could reasonably argue that the seal of airplanes
fulfill this requirement since the door seals are hermetic (hopefully) and
cannot be opened during flight. However, given the subject matter in
question, it is hard to rule out the possibility of a gezeirat ha-katuv - that
the requirement for a seal made from the aforementioned materials - provision
constitutes an edict with no explanation. I have not found any definitive
indication in either direction.
“In summary, there are two possible bases for a heter: 1] ohel 2] tzamid patil
(a sealed utensil). Both, however, are faulty on two accounts, one that
they share in common and another unique to each. The common problem
involves the tum'a of airplanes themselves. The heter based on ohel
encounters the problem of an ohel in motion, and the tzamid patil heter raises
the question regarding the nature of the seal required.
‘How, then, should we deal with this question in pesak, in determining the
final halakha? Although it is hard to consider either heter as certain, perhaps
both together should yield a lenient ruling. At first glance, the
operative principle we should follow here should be "safek de-oraita
le-chumra" (we rule stringently in situations of doubt concerning Torah
law). On the other hand, perhaps we may consider this issue a situation of
sha'at ha-dechak, extenuating circumstances, which allows reliance on a
minority opinion. A leniency on these grounds, however, would naturally apply
only to travel for certain purposes and barring reasonable alternatives.
We might also consider the rule, "safek tum'a be-reshut harabim
tahor" - any questionable instance of tum'a in public areas is considered
tahor. However, the application of this rule to our case is far from
clear. Although the plane is considered a public area, we must take into
account two other issues: 1] does the prohibition against kohanim coming in
contact with dead bodies follow the guidelines of the laws of tum'a, or of
standard issurim? The Minchat Chinukh leaves this as an open
question; the Marcheshet and the Noda Be-Yehuda took compromise positions
regarding this issue. The provision of "safek tum'a" would apply in
our case according to the Noda Be-Yehuda, whereas the Marcheshet would render
it inapplicable. Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor applied it hesitantly (if
two other authorities would agree) to the issue of trains riding over
cemeteries. Our issue, regarding airplanes, bears some similarity to the
issue of trains (ohel zaruk and the dispute between the Rashba and Tosafot),
but, in some respects, differs. Some of these differences render the
situation of planes more problematic (trains have direct contact with the
ground), while others render it less problematic (planes have a better chance
of being tahor since they contain major components of aluminum). There
seems to have been a minhag in Jerusalem for kohanim to place a board
underneath their car when they traveled to Jericho, a trip that required
passing over part of the famed cemetery on Har Ha-zeitim. This minhag is
more difficult to justify than either allowing one to travel without a board or
forbidding the trip even with a board. Some Acharonim (Penei Yehoshua and
Shevut Yaakov) claim that on the level of Torah law, an ohel in motion is an
ohel; it is only as a result of rabbinic enactment that we do not consider it
as such. This would thus allow room for leniency in cases of doubt.
This position, however, though widely quoted, seems to my mind very doubtful.
If this were true, then an ohel in motion should spread tum'a, just as it
blocks it (recall our earlier discussion as to the two different roles of an
ohel), and this is clearly not the case.
“Where does that
leave us, if not altogether confused? Hopefully, it leaves us with an
understanding of both positions and a bit more knowledge of the fascinating and
complex world of taharot (ritual readiness and ritual unreadiness.-gg).
Sometimes it is better to be perplexed and confounded rather than confused.” (https://www.etzion.org.il/en/publications/books-yeshiva-faculty/publications-philosophy-and-current-affairs/kohanim-flying)
I’ll leave it
up to the individual kohen whether he
will travel via airplane.
No comments:
Post a Comment