Tumeah of a Kohen:

Theory and Practice

R.bbi Alfred S. Cohen

mong the more recondite aspects of the Jewish religion is the

A concept of Tumeah, which is usuaHy translated, for lack of a
better term, as ·"spiritual or ritual impurity." Most of the laws of
Tumeah are delineated in the Book of Leviticus, and many of them
concern the special level of purity mandated for kohanim, the
priests involved in the Temple service. With the destruction of the
Temple, (Beth Hamikdash,) some nineteen hundred years ago and
with the elimination of the sacrifices and rituals which required the
high level of purity, many of the laws of Tumeah have lapsed, all
the more so since the means of purification from Tumeah have in
many cases ceased to be available. Consequently,· the awareness of
Tumeah has all but vanished from the daily lifestyle of even the
observant Jew.
But one of the few requirements concerning Tumeah which
has definitely not been suspended by the destruction of the Beth
Hamikdash concerns the biblical injunction that a male kohen not
come in contact with a corpse or limb of a dead person, I This
prohibition is not connected with the Temple service and is not

Rabbi, Young Israel of Canarsie; Instructor of Talmud,

Yeshiva University High School.
 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA

dependent on the requirement for a kohen to serve any ritual

function. It is, and has always been, a special requirement for male
kohanim not to become Tameh (defiled) through contact with the
dead. (The only exceptions sanctioned by the Torah are for his
father, mother, brother, unmarried sister, wife, son, or daughter.!)
This special mitzvah of kohanim is one which they have taken care,
throughout the ages, to observe meticulously.
As stated in the Torah, the issur teaches that it is forbidden for
a kohen not only to touch a dead body,J but even to be in the same
room. From the sheer volume of rabbinic responsa which have been
written on the subject, we may conclude that this prohibition can at
times present considerable difficulties for the kohen. Recent decades
have brought some surprising permutations to questions which had
been raised in an earlier, simpler age.
The present study will address a number of these problems as
well as the more novel situations which have arisen, and report the
opinions of the Torah scholars as to how the kohen should proc.eed.
Special attention will be given to some of the unexpected problems
presented by travel in the jet age. Among the other topics to be
covered herein are medical training for a kohen, potential pitfalls in
seeking medical attention, employment limitations. Through
analysis of the very complex issues involved and suggested
solutions, hopefully there will emerge a heightened appreciation for
the ingenuity, scope, and preciseness of the halachic process.
Fortunately, death is not such a common occurrence that the
prohibition to be under the same roof as a corpse need present an
inordinate burden to a kohen. Under ordinary circumstances in the
past, it often amounted to little more than an occasional restriction
or modification of his lifestyle. But myriad changes wrought in our

2. But he may only attend their funerals if the body is whole. What if the
deceased had an amputated limb" Is thE' body "whole" if some internal organ
has been removed? See n"Op .:l p'm ;x"'n ,.." mun m'lX.
Is he permitted to go to the burial iF other people are buried nearby? S~
:rn &: \l"n, ,"'" :1\!1't1 nnlX.
3. ~ in!> .on J1xn,o m~"n D"~t1'.
TUMEAT KOHEN

everyday living patterns in recent decades require a reassessment of

even the most mundane activities, for hidden halachic pitfalls crop
up in unexpected ways. Within the past few years, the Orthodox
Jewish world has been made aware of potentially serious difficulties
in an area which had seemed quite innocuous - travel. Specifically.
the question has been raised whether a kohen may fly in an
airplane!
One may well ask, what problem could there be in flying? Yet
there are two which might be major: if the plane flies over a
cemetery, it might constitute a violation of the purity which the
kohen is bound to maintain. Secondly, in the past few years much
more than in the past, people are choosing the option of burial in
Israel,· and the almost universal mode of transport is via airplane.
More often than not, El AI is the carrier chosen, Maya kohen who
wants to visit Israel fly with El AI? Does he have to be concerned
that there may be a body in the aircraft hold?S Does he have to
make inquiries prior to boarding?
To explain the problem a bit more fully, we should note that
although the coffin is carried in a separate cargo area of the plane.
it may nevertheless be asswr for the kohen to be on board because,
according to most rabbinic opinions, the kohen must not come
under the same roof as a dead person (Tumeat Ohel). Since halacha
considers that Tumeah "rises", then even if the body is in the
underbelly of ·the aircraft it may render the entire plane Tameh as
far as the kohen is concerned.
The issue of airplane flight for a kohen has been raised only
recently, with the result that not many poskim have responded to it
in writing. Consequently, it is difficult to establish specific
guidelines. It is reported that a Rav in Bnei Brak permitted kohanim
to fly EJ AI, relying on the reasoning that since most planes do not
carry coffins,6' a kohen is entitled to proceed on the assumption that

4. This is not Ih~ plac~ for a full discussion of Ih~ wisdom of such a praclic~,
although wt' should note that at times Rav Moshe Feinstein did express
opposition to this practice.
s. SeEo:l nll'( ::l." l'dm::l D'l'lYT.I D")lIO.
6. On this point. of going according to the majority. s~
 THE JOURNAL OF HAlACHA
"
his plane is free of any problem. But the premise upon which this
ruling is based seems highly questionable: the public relations
department of E1 Al estimates that during the winter, when there
are fewer flights per week, some 80% of the planes leaving New
York for Israel have a body aboard; in the summer, when flights
are more frequent, the percentage is about 60%.
This author has been told that one of the Roshei Yeshiva in
Baltimore allegedly ruled that a kanen may fly in an airplane
without concern, because there is a separation between the cargo
area and the seating area - the carpet on the floor. (The deck itself,
being made of metal, cannol serve as a barrier to the Tumeah, as
will be explained later.) This carpet becomes a barrier which
prevents the Tumeah from "rising" any further; consequently, the
kohen is not "together" with the dead body.
On the face of it, this argument bears a superficial resemblance
to the position expressed earlier in the century by Rav Tzvi Pesach
Frank,7 which was itself based on the advice which Rav Diskin
gave to a kohen who had to ride in a wagon which was to pass over
a cemetery. He told him that a plain wooden board (yy ,c,:J l"1W!l)
placed underneath the body of the wagon would constitute an
effective barrier between the Tumeah of the cemetery and the
interior of the wagon. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach a
takes exception to a comparison of the wagon and the plane. A
wooden plank, being of a material which does not itself "absorb
Tumeah" (i11<1311:1 C,:Ji'13), can be an effective barrier. However, the
plane is made entirely of metal, and metal certainly does absorb and
transmit Tumeah. The carpeting on the floor of the cabin is held in
place by the metal underflooring, and because of this cannot be
considered as constituting a barrier between the cargo hold and the
seating area of the aircraft.

::n, ,nJ Jl"'t/< H< "Jl:! ",y ll:l."J DI'I '''!I '''I' "0 D',m "tI as ~ll as
" pl:!n 'n ml'l J", OlJl:!OlJ C'l1'Yr.l C"VIV.
7. tI'" ,"" ':lY ,;,.
8. l:!"ln l'lYJ ")1 n", :1")1 nDl:!1V nOlD based on the Mishnah in 1'1-' ml:!;,I'I. This
is the same reason that one may not rest the S'chach of a Succah on metal
supports - metal "receives" Twmeah.
 29

TUM EAT KOHEN

Some kohanim have tried the expedient of calling the airline

before the flight to ascertain whether there will be a coffin
transported. However, this too is not a fail-safe manu ever. Very
often, El Al does not know until an hour or two before takeoff
whether there will be a body on board, and this leaves the traveler
in limbo. Furthermore, Rav Breisch seriously doubts whether one
can rely on the airline personnel to be strictly candid in responding
to such a question. Since some passengers might be squeamish
about flyihg on a plane carrying a dead body, they may well decide
to suppress such information. "It is well known that the
administrators of the airline hide this information from the
passengers so that they will not know that a corpse is also flying
with them."9 Accordingly, some kohanim have taken to calling the
undertakers who arrange for burial in Israel, to find out if a body
will be transported on a particular flight.
In response to the need for clarification of the issue and in
order to obviate any problems which might arise for a kohen, the
Institute of Science and Halacha in Israel has proposed that if the
coffin were encased in a large plastic box or sheath in the cargo
hold, the problem would be eliminated,tO for the sheath would
function as a barrier blocking the Tumeah from rising. It is
reported that EI AI has purchased one thousand such boxes, but
only time will tell if these tactics will be considered adequate in the
eyes of halachic authorities. l l
We have noted that a basic problem for the kohen in travel
derives from the halachic principle that Tumeah "rises" or
"spreads" from the dead body (or part thereof). Accordingly, there
would be a problem not only in a plane carrying a corpse, but also
for one flying over a cemetery, or for that matter, for a train or bus

9. l'":lP ':1 , ••" ?I<'nv \)!l1U1':) ;pl<; :-I'", U"P 'lIU p'm :lPV' Mp'm.
10. The Institute for Science and Halacha has published a book (see note 13)
which sugg~ts solutions for the problems of Kohanim in hospitals. Some of
the 5Olutions will be appropriate for other situations as well.
11. Rabbi Auerba<:h has serious reservations about accepting this lenient ruling.
See :1"31 :-JO"IU MMlI':).
 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA

crossing a bridge which traverses a cemetery.

In assessing the halachic difficulties, it is necessary to get some
definitions of the situation, to understand the scope and extent of
the difficulties. Some specific questions have to be asked: How far
does Tumeah rise? How is it contained? How have cognate
situations been handled in the past?
In Berachot 19b, the Gemara tells about kohanim in Jerusalem
who, in their great desire to get a glimpse of the king, used to
"jump over the coffins" so as to get a closer look. How were they
allowed to do this, wasn't there Tumeah rising from the coffins?
Here the Gemara explains that there was the space of a tephach
(about 3-5 inches) between the body and the top of the casket, and
this space created a barrier to the spread of Tumeah. From here we
learn that if there is the space of a tephach separating the dead from
a wall or other partition, that puts a stop to the spread of Tumeah
- but only insofar as biblical law (d'oraitha) is concerned'. For fear
that a kohen might not be careful enough, the rabbis enacted an
additional regulation to the effect that even if there does exist a
tephach space between the dead person and a wall, the Tumeah
spreads anyway. However, this Tumeah, being rabbinic and
therefore of lesser potency, may be waived for the sake of a
mitzvah - in the talmudic case, to see the king.
Moreover, this precedent is not sufficient for us to be able to
consider the Tumeah emanating from a casket as only rabbinically
but not biblically forbidden. Tosafot 12 comment that the kohanim
were permitted to "skip over the caskets" because these were
undoubtedly not entirely dosed. If the container or room in which a
dead person lies is completely closed, a different rule applies: it is
then considered a "sealed grave," a "kever satum" from which
Tumeah does most definitely rise. Nor does a tephach within the
container halt the spread of Tumeah. 1l Since aU caskets nowadays

12. :1" nlJ,J.

13. Differing opinions on ~ "Kever Saturn" are discussed by R. Leyi Yitzchak
Halperin in D'nn!l n,1"I0 (purity of the Gatn), Institute for Science ~nd
H~I~ch~, Jerusalem, 1976. p. 80. An ~dditional e)(lension of the Tumeah of ~
TUMEAT KOHEN

are shut tight, we cannot employ this rationale in seeking a lenient

ruling. In fact, most if not all poskim conclude that Tumeah does
rise from a coffin and from a cemetery, and this Twmeah is
probably biblical in degree.
How, then, can Tumeah be contained? The operative principle
which is most germane to a solution of this problem is that any
material which does not itself "absorb" the Tumeah can serve as an
effective barrier to its spread. But if the' object itself receives the
Tumeah, it cannot be efficacious as a barrier. In the words of
Ramo: 14
yYm U'K nlClJ1IJ ?:I;mn ,:I,?:J
Anything which receives Tumeah cannot separate [the
Tumeah from its surroundings].
Included in this category of "ineffective barrier" is anything
made of metal, even if it is only plated with metal. lS Furthermore, a
vessel or receptacle, no mailer how large, cannot act as a screen to
stop the flow of Tumeah.
However, there is a potential mitigating factor of great import
in the present circumstance and, for that matter, in many of the
questions concerning Tumeah for a kohen: there is substantial

corpse mentioned in , P'lJ .m'ml< is the principle nl<:r7 .,l<l:IlO '1\0. Ultimately.
Ihe body will have to uit the room. to be buried. The palhw~y which will be
taken by those transporting th~ body out of the room also be.::omes Tomeh,
even befoTe the body is carried out. However, in a plane the coffin will be
removed via Ihe cargo door, so this will not affect the status of the
passengers. However, in a ship or a hospital, the body may have 10 be taken
through halls. stairs. decks, and elevators. spreading the Tumellh considerably.
There is diKussion among Ihe poshm whether Ihis applies to all the
doorways and halls the body p~s§eS through. or maybe all the possible exil
ways. Some question whelher the principle affects Ihe status of the kohen al
all. See 'r.J ""::I.1) ,·w ,-r;Jn "Ir' :1)'I<"YIV lmlw;, lnY; see also '::IY ,;,
l"ln "'1'. Set' also last paragraph of "." "0 " p7n "Y;,\ pI< ,;'\II/J:l nnll<.
14. I< • I<"YIV '''1'.
15.. 1)-1<"" 1r"1< 11m writes about an alloy or mixture of metal with other
substances. ""Yi" ::I",,' ;,\Wl') nn)K rules that we consider the object 10 be
composed of ils majorily component.
JZ THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA

rabbinic opinion to the effect that the corpse of a non-Jew does not
convey Tumeah at all, or at least not to the extent of a Jewish
corpse. It is evident that resolution of this point of law is crucial in
arriving at a halachic decision on the matter.
Already in the Gemara 10 there is recorded a debate on this very
issue, although no conclusion is offered. The Shu/chan Aruch,
while indicating that it is not forbidden for a kohen to be in contact
with the body of a non-Jew, nevertheless warns that "it is proper to
be careful"17 and the Ramo in his glos5 adds "and it is proper to be
strict."18 Because these are worded as admonitions and not rulings,
it is clear that the two major halachic dedsors do not consider the
body of a non-Jew as rendering Tumeah, however desirable it might
be to avoid it. Consequently·, this diminishes the extent of the
problem of flying over a cemetery, since the overwhelming majority
of them will not be Jewish.

The problems which have been discovered in airplane flight,

while novel, are really just a new twist in the perennial problems
which travel has raised for kohanim. These problems have
protiferated over the decades and centuries, but there does not seem
to have evolved a uniform rabbinic resolution to them.
In the last century, Rabbi Yitzchak E!chanan Spector (the
Kovno Rav) wrote that he would be willing to sanction a kohen's
traveling on a train which passed through a cemetery, if two other
rabbis would concur with the ruling. 19 A mitigating factor, as far as
he was concerned, was that the cemetery in question was not a
Jewish one. As we have seen, many poskim tend to be lenient on
this point. Writing about a kohen's flying over a cemetery in a
plane, Rav Breisch comments that "it seems that people are not

16, "'''0 mD:::".

17. '::1 :::'''YIIl ""1'.
18. Dill.
19. ';>I(111l ;0'" '''1' '::l~ '11 ;'n nl'" "'..,., ,.'1' IU'''' 111M ;1 m", l"p ""1' "'YIn" 'D"r.
,l"J:l':::' '1 p';>n ::l'IUDl
TUMEA T KOHEN
"
careful about this, and they have [adequate precedent] upon which
to rely."lO
Despite this trend, there have been outstanding poskim. who
disagree: the Chaz.ol1 ish forbade it 21 and there were others who
objected to the ruling of the Kovno Rav. 12 When a new highway
was being built over an ancient burial ground in the nineteenth
century, the Maharam Schick advocated exhumation and transfer of
the coffins - ordinarily a very strict prohibition - rather than
permit a road to be constructed in a place where kohanim would be
exposed constantly to the Tumeah. 1J
A further complication to the whole question of travel in a
bus, train, or plane which pass through or over a cemetery is the
fact that a moving object (such as the vehicle), according to some
opinions, is not a sufficient barrier to the Tumeah. The controversy
arises from a discussion in the Gemara 14 concerning an eruv
techumim. On Shabbat a Jew is not permitted to walk beyond the
city limits more than 2000 amah (about 7/8 mile), unless before
Shabbat he deposited some articles of food along the road - an
erutJ techumim. If he has done so, he is able to continue for another
2000 amah. However, the food for the eruv must be accessible to
the person; in the particular talmudic case, the person was a kohen
and the food was deposited in a cemetery adjacent to the road. Was
it a valid erutJ, since the kohen could not enter the cemetery and
thus would not have access to it? R. Yehudah opines that it was still
valid because theoretically, if the kohen were transported into the

20. n n11< ::I' '0 It"n ::IjHT' njim.

21. U nll<-.It'" T·I'.
22. CIU ,""Y1m ,tl70 Set' also 1"0 ,::1"0 • ::I' "Y"JoC ry who discuss6 a similar
problem for iI kohen in a bus, as well as the problem of trees from a
cemetery overhanging the road, and what effect it might have on the
question. Sl't' i1lso nu T'1' ;ro"IU ,,, ~"JoCn :0111 '!l10 onn :::1 - ::I"l/IU ;1<'"'111 !':"1t:1
for discussion about a room adjacent to a room in which there is a body;
whether this situation is similar to two cars in 11 train is discussed in
::I'" n::l"n::l 0'l'1YT.l 0")l1U, who also raises the question iF the kohanim must
leave the shul iF someone dies in the adjoining house. See also l""F n::l1lUn.
23. 1"11U '''1' F'IU O",:-IP.
24. ,,::1 1'::11')1.
 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA

cemetery in a box, he could retrieve the food. At that point, the

Gemara objects that a moving barrier cannot be considered an
adequate divider (?i11K 'l'3lU p'" ?ilK ,JOp). However, another
viewpoint recorded in the Gemara maintains that even if the box or
screen is moveable, it might nevertheless qualify as a barrier and the
kohen remain undefiled inside the container. 15
The laller opinion is not accepted by the majority of rabbis,
neither in the Talmud nor in the Codes; in writing his compilation
of Jewish law, the Rambam rules 16
"lK:l c'n'U)i1 ?1m, il:l'n il1'llIJ C"l:Jl1il Y'K? OJ:Jli1
r,"K "'i' lJ'K P"l ?ilKllI ,Kl'JU

if someone enters a forbidden area in a "box or tower that move

through the air" he becomes Tameh, because a moving container
(p"l ?ilK) cannot qualify as a sufficient barrier, and thus he is not
shielded from the Tumeah.

When rabbinic scholars approach a question of Jewish law,

they often do not address it from one angle only. Rather they are
apt to take into account also other general principles of halacha
which transcend the specific issue. These general principles of
halachic jurisprudence require deeper explication than is possible
here, but we shall allude to one which has been discussed in the
context of the Tumeah of a kohen.

25. ,., ,DIU SeealfO ill l'll. It is interesting to note that this law is not codified in
the Shukhlm A,"ch. Tosafot consider that the debate in the Grmara is only
about a moving container after it comes to rest whether it <:in separate the
Tumeah from others. Tosafot consider that all agree that while it is in motion
it cannot serve illS a banier. In this re5pect it is like a flying bird as discussed
in Mishnah Ohololh, chapter 8, first mishnah.
26. 1'-1(' nlJ nl<l:11U n1:l711
See also 1I1U1i'1' 'J!l ;1<-1('
1'-' ":lll'lI ,C:U:ll
,,,c"
Also U-1 nn'l) n0711 ,D"':lCl.
i'1JIUl:I ;.lC l'll ;1-1 7:l1< n1:l"i1 ,C":lCl See
if this is a biblical or a r"bbini( stricture.
TUMEAT KOHEN

It is contrary to Torah law to get any pleasure or benefit

whatsoever from idolatry. In Pesachim 25b, the Gemara takes up
the question of a person who passes by an idolatrous temple and
whiffs the aroma of its incense, which is a forbidden pleasure. Is he
liable for sniffing the aroma? It depends, responds the Gemara:
1'1:1'n I<p1 '\lJ!lJ(- if he could have gotten to his destination by
taking a different route and, when he passed by the altar, if he
intentionally sniffed its incense - then he is definitely guilty of a
transgression. Even if 1'1:1 1 npl ,\lJ!l1< 1<7 he could not have gone by a
different path but nevertheless, when he passed by he did intend to
enjoy the aroma, once again he is culpable. However, '\lJ!l1< 1'<7
l'l:l'n Kp 1'<71 ifIthere was no other way he could go and he had no
intention or desire to sniff the incense, then it is permissible for him
to go, and he incurs no sin.
In their analysis of the talmudic text, the Tosafot limit these
terms somewhat: '\lJ!l1< "It was possible for him to go another way"
means that he could have found an alternate route without
excessive bother (n,u,). And as concerns his "intent", there cannot
be any question about a person's intent if a situation is inevitable
(illV" P'C!I). If the result is automatic and inevitable, it is
considered that the person intended it to happen. These refinements
of the terms by Tosafot are accepted as the proper meaning of the
talmudic passage.
Rav Breisch and Rav Gifler, of the Telzer Yeshiva in Ohio,
engaged in an extensive exchange of letters, debating to what extent
the talmudic passage cited above impacts on the situation of a
kohen's difficulties in travel, and whether we may draw some
halachic precedents from il. U Does the kohen really have a choice
about his mode of travel, or his selection of carrier? Does he have to
go by boat or train, QJ"'switch planes a few times, in order to avoid
the problem of flying in an El AI plane? Is it really his intent to be
on the same plane with a coffin, and does that make any difference
in the halacha?
Rav Breisch was inclined to see the lack of viable alternative
 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA

methods of travel as well as lack of any benefit for the kohen in

traveling on the same conveyance with a coffin as mitigating
factors, which might permit such travel for a kohen. Rav Gifter,
however, was adamant in refusing to accept this rationale as an
excuse to permit a kohen to fly in the same plane as a coffin.

Safek Tumeah
In most issues of Jewish law, if an element of doubt arises
concerning the facts, we tend to be strict if infringement of a
biblical requirement is involved (it,r.nn" Kn""K, y!)o) but more
lenient if the doubt exists on some issue of rabbinic enactment. The
one exception to this rule is Tumeah. When there is a question
about Tumeah, the principle which determines whether to be strict
or lenient depends on the location. If the doubtful situation arises in
a private domain (1'n ' il mil") then the person is considered
definitely Tameh,u but if it occurs in the public domain, he is
"pure" (Tahor).29
Now, then, what type of "domain" is a bus or a plane? On the
one hand, it fits the description of a "private domain" since it is an
enclosed place. Yet, in a different sense it is a "public domain", for
the Gemara rules that if three or more people are present, it is
public. JO If the latter designation applies, it would result in more
lenient rulings, for "in case of doubt of Tumeah in a public place, it
is permitted." In practice, however, there has been a certain degree
of hesitancy on the part of rabbis to accept and apply this leniency
categorically.31
Moreover, it is important to note that this leniency can pertain
only to the question of passing over a cemetery in a conveyance and

28. cn" "." ,0 1"ln ,nl!lDln.

29. See :1' -"Il regarding the application of this hala(ha, and Tosafot :M::I 1'1010
nlV'1::1 n", who maintain that if it oc(urs at night, we are always more Slri(t.
30. Il "11.
31. :::I nll< :::I'" - K ::It'l1' nt"n. In U"lIt' ':::I ::It'l1' np'm Rav Breisch writes to R.
Mordechai Gifter that even if the three persons are women or non-Jews, the
rule holds true.
TUM EAT KOHEN

has no effect on the separate issue of flying or riding in a vehicle

which contains a deceased person.
Ultimately, on the question whether a kohen may enter a plane
on which there is a good chance that a body is being transported,
lenient rulings are not easy to come by. Rav Moshe Feinstein
writes: 32
It is forbidden for a kohen to enter there, because all
the airplanes... have a place underneath where the
packages are placed, and a corpse (might] be there... It
is all one vessel, and it is made of metal which absorbs
the Turneah, and consequently [the metal] does not
separate the Tumeah, and thus the kohen becomes
Tameh.
Parenthetically, we should note that Rav Feinstein himself
suggests a possible argument which would attentuate his strict
position, but he refuses to accept it because he finds no precedent
for .it in the Talmud: One could argue that since the Torah
enumerates specific metals - gold, silver, copper, iron, stannum
and lead - only these metals and none other acquire the Tumeah
which th~y enclose. One could theorize that a plane constructed of
aluminum or some other metal not listed by the Torah does not
absorb Tumeah. However, Rav Feinstein rejects this rationale,u and
Rav Breisch concurs that this cannot l?e the basis for a heter.
What should a kohen do if in the middle of his trip he
discovers that a body is being transported along with him? Must he
disembark at the first possible stop? Obviously this is not a modern
dilemma only, and could easily have arisen in the past. In fact,
much has been written on it. Rabbenu Tam 3 ' rules that a kohen

32. Regilfding an Ohtl Lrruk and whether it serves <IS <In enclosurt, RiI'" Feinstein
in "'lj) ,::1.,"1' "IUD nnlK says very lillie need be Silia, since the Kohen
bouas the plant when it is not in motion and becomes Tllmrh right aWily.
5«
101::17 ,mD 'K1 " .., 'n n1K ,::I'" l"I::I7l"1::1 D'l'lYD C"lIlU.
33. DIU.
34. ::I'.p '::I p7n ::It'll' np7n.
3S .•::ID "11 ,'''' n1l11::l1l.l.
 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA

who knowingly remains in contact or on a vessel with a dead body,

thereby violates his priesthood. Ramo wdtes J6 that "if a kohen is
sleeping and a person dies in the same house, others must wake him
and tell him so that he can leave." These dicta clearly indicate that
the traveler must leave his conveyance at the first feasible
opportunity. However, many rabbis note that if the traveler will be
stranded on the road or if it is very cold outside, he might rely on
the opinion of the Shach who considered it an issur of rabbinic (and
not biblical) origin, which is of less severity. In cases of great
discomfort or inconvenience, therefore, the regulation might be
waived. J7
Our study of rabbinic writings leaves no room for doubt that
the issur for a kohen to travel in a vehicle with a dead body has
been universally accepted. Poskim even debate whether the kohen
needs kapara (atonement) if he unwittingly found himself in such a
situation. Ja They conclude that formal kapara is not required, based
on the position of the Shulchan Aruch'9 that kapara is due only if
the person knew that he should take precautions and failed to do
SO.40

Taking the issue one step further, for many poskim it is so

obvious that flying on a plane with a body is assur for a kohen that
they go so far as to question whether any Jew is permitted 10 put a
body on a plane - inadvertently causing a kohen to transgress.
Since no Jew may do anything which could cause a fellow Jew to

36. 1'( - :)"}/IU.

37. l"Y tJ' ':) p';.n D'lPI1"l
'YIU ,l:) Ml'n 1'''''1''11:1 1"1""\11 :1-::1"'... \11 1"I::11\l1n 'nn!!.
See also" Ml/< ,DIU ;18 n,y1"l 1"1 l1'l'D 01';.:)1'( ';.y 1:) ,:). There he discusses
whether one must inform a chaz/In who is a Kohen, and leading the services
on Yom Kippur, that someone has died in the synagogue. Perhaps he should
be allowed to 'ontinue without being informed 1 Similarly, he discusses
whether Kohanirn should remain in shul to "duchan" if suddenly someone
dies.
38. l"'-' ,u"p-:J, :)pV' np'n.
39. i"I"!!P "'1'.
40. Whether or not we can apply this lenient ruling to flying on planes bound
For Israel in this day and age is questionable.
TUMEAT KOHEN 39

sin (,nl 'J!l7), would it not be a violation to place a coffin on a

plane?
In answer to this question, Rav Breisch u permits it, based on a
precedent set by the Taz, who ruled that "it is permilled to give
charity to a poor person even if he is in doubt whether the beggar
will wash his hands before eating, for the doubt [whether the
beggar will fulfill the mitzvah of washing] cannot exempt one from
the certain obligation to fulfill the mitzvah of Tzedaka, "n
We see from this that one may take a chance on being the
instrument for causing another person's sin, if in doing so, he will
fulfill a mitzvah himself. In the plane situation, there also exists a
doubt - maybe there won't be a kohen on board - and arranging
for the burial of the dead is a great mitzvah;u therefore, one may
proceed without qualms.

There is one further "escape hatch" which has to be

considered in dealing with laws for kohanim, relating not just to
travel situations, but to all the problematic situations which the
kohen might encounter: maybe the kohanim of today are not "real"
kohanim?
In past ages, many Jewish families proudly maintained their
"family tree", a detailed genealogical list which was passed on from
generation to generation, to substantiate their lineage. At that time,
it was felt that a kohen could prove without doubt his
unimpeachable descent. Today, however, it is rare for a kohen to be

41. U"P '::1 pc'n ::I?Y' nrc,n.

42. See DIU 'C"'::Jl< PI:l who eyen pl'rmits giying charity and food to a beggar
even if one knows that he will not wash his hands prior to eating, due to
ignorance. 5ft also 1"0 '::I pc'n 'TV'''I< rJr who discussn whether a restaurant
owner may sell food to customers who he knows will not wash their hands
before eating.
43. See ::I'" 1'1"n "!I\O enn if the prohibition of '1:'> '~!l" applies in a case whl're it
is ":1:1 :-nlO 11'1<10 11<".
See also 11l'11<J nl:l C'''':lll:ll''n 1'1'" n 011< J'" ;':1"1'1::1 C'l'lJrI:l C·'1/1U.
Howevl'r, om.' should note his caution in .:1 011< to a Kohen not to entl'r a
tunnel if h.e knows that there is also a hearse in the tunneL transporting a
bo.ly.
'0 THE JOURNAL OF HAlACHA

able to do so. It is possible that two or three generations ago a

grandfather of the kohen might have married a woman forbidden to
him, and doubt arises whether his offspring are indeed entitled to
be considered pure kohanim. 44 Should we take this element of
doubtful lineage into account in applying the laws to kohanim
today? Some rabbis bristle at the very suggestion: "G~d forbid that
we spread calumny about the lineage of kohanim in this age. "U On
the other hand, there are quite a number of rabbis who do take the
element of doubt into account in weighing their decisions regarding
kohanim.'6

Let us turn now to other areas of concern for the kohen in

trying to preserve his "pure" status in the modern world. In some
ways, this has become more difficult in the complex. urbanized
society in which we live in the twentieth century, The following
discussions are intended only to highlight some new areas of
concern for the kohen.
Hospitals
Since invariably some of the people who are treated in

44. Do the laws of a Kohen apply to a Kohen-marnle,?

See ~"r ~l\:l Dl' mv n"lllT ;'''::' C:1'~f( ,::., ;''''-' "'\:1 "lI:1 pte. If a Kohen
has a physical blemish which would have disqualified him from serving in the
Temple, he is nevertheless definitely included in all the regulations for
Kohanim. However a chilial is definitely not (a chilial is the child of a Kohen
who married a divorcee or some other woman forbidden to him).
45. ::I"Y '"~ .~ :1~"lID lr.m 'lIlT.
46. I'("Y r ,"" "!llD enn .::1'-1'( :lrY' nr'm ;11)'1" 1 r"n IT.1n 'lIlT lind n"'1'(1lT
:1"li"1'( PY' challenge the notion that we should consider Kohanim today as
"doubtful"concerning their lineage (and therefore be lenient about the laws of
Tllmellh). If we consider a Kohen as only possibly a true Kohen, we ought to
apply the same standard to a female Kohen, and say that if the daughter of a
Kohen givl'S birth to a son, he must have a pidyon hllben because maybe he
is not descended from a Kohen. Since we don't do this for a female, we
cannot cast doubt only on the malK.
TUMEAT KOHEN

hospitals do not recover, these are considered as places where a

dead body is likely to be found. Does this mean that a kohen
should not check into a hospital for treatment (of a non*life
threatening illness), since there might be a body in the morgue?
Even if no one has died that day, difficulties can arise from limbs
which are amputated or which may be in the hospital lab, for parts
of a body convey the same Tumeah as the corpse itself. (Of course,
if his life is in danger, there is not the slightest question that he
may seek treatment). This is a practical question whose solution is
of primary concern for every kohen.
We have already noted that most poskim have concluded that
the presence of a non-Jewish corpse does not render a kohen
Tameh; this conclusion opens the way for permitting kohanim to
utilize hospitals freely for (certainly outside the land of Israel) the
majority of patients there are not Jewish. Relying on the majority
rule, we posit that the bodies in the morgue are probably not
Jewish, thus removing any problem. 47
Another basis for being lenient in this regard derives from the
position of the Shach 4S who contends that if the kohen is not in the
same room with the dead but only in an adjacent one, albeit under
the same roof, a violation of rabbinic law takes place, but not of
biblical law; while most poskim do not accept his contention, at
times they do let it serve as a contributing factor for a lenient
ruling. In order to abide by a rabbinic enactment, a person is not
obligated to expend extraordinary amounts of money, such as
would be required for equivalent medical care at home, nor does he
have to endanger his health, as he would have to do if he could not
enter the hospital for treatment. (If it were a biblical violation, his
health or wealth would not necessarily be sufficient reasons for
waiving the issur),49

47. 1~'1( ~i'V' np7n :1"0i'-:J , .." nllm 1'1"1101; ;ny'l( ~?V' 1'I1~1U.
48. ~"lIlU ,"" T'w.
49. For discussion of the question of the wife of " Kohen giving birth in "
hospital, see I( :10 I('P'l "nd the commentaries thereon, .1.5 well il5 1"~1U n"'1e
with puticular attention to the cn,:J1e po,
 THE JOURNAL OF HAlACHA

Kohen-Doctor
In all cultures and in all ages, the medical profession has been
revered and admired. Small wonder, then, that many young Jewish
persons aspire to join this noble calling. Are there any grounds for
condoning a kohen's becoming a doctor? Not only does the training
require him to dissect cadavers, but he will also constantly be
exposed to (at least to risk of) dead bodies in the hospital where he
practices. There is virtually no rabbinic authority who sanctions
medical training for a kohen, despite the hardship this decision may
bring.
A number of years ago, a certain kuntress (pamphlet) was
published on this question and came to the attention of Rav
Shimon Schwab of Washington Heights, who sent it to Rav Moshe
Feinstein for comment. Rav Feinstein at first refused to read it,
vehemently rejecting the very premise of the kuntress that medical
training for a kohen might be permissible. 50 His immediate reaction
was that it is so obviously forbidden that .even were the greatest
rabbis in the world to try to permit it, we would not consider their
opinion. He compared it to a passage in the Gemara (Yevamot 104)
which declares that even if the Prophet Elijah himself appears and
expounds a law contrary to our prevailing custom, we are not to
listen to him.
At first, Rav Feinstein was under the impression that the
author's thesis was that since all]ews nowadays are considered to
be unavoidably Tameh anyway, there is no reason not to increase
their Tl-lmeah; this premise he dismissed as totally unaceeptable.~l

50. 1"In1i' .} , .." 1"IIOZl n'll(,

51. The Raavad, contemporary of lhe Rambam, upresses·the notion that once a
person is T/lmeh he is totally T/lmeh, and there is no addition to it. This
would mean, then, that since every Jew today is considered as being
unavoidably T/lmeh, the Kohen would not need to be careful about the laws
of Tlimt//h. None of the early rabbis (Rishonim) and none of the later ones
(Ach/lrol1im) accept this position. Interestingly enough. however, some rabbis
were willing to take his opinion into consideration as a mitigating factor
(although nt'ver the deciding ont') in ruling for a Kohen.
Set' , ..,-:) fill( 1"Il'1"I:) '0:) :1(-1 ,'J::II( ,,'JZl'J 1"Illlm ;1'" nn'Wl '1"1 i',n '''::1)('
TUMEAT KOHEN

However, finally he acceded to the request to respond to the

specifics of the kuntress.
Rav Feinstein notes that the author attempts a lenient ruling
based on the argument of pikuach nefesh - that the kohen-doctor
would be able to save lives. This reasoning, too, he rejects as
"emptiness and nonsense" (movJl ?:m). One is only obligated to
heal the sick if he knows how; there is no requirement for any
person to go out and study medicine so that he will be able to
practice it! In the same way, one is not obligated to go out and earn
money to become rich so that he will have what to give a poor man;
rather, if he has money when a beggar asks, then he must give him.
He also responds to the contention that many leading kohen-
rabbis in the Middle Ages (Rishonirn) were practicing physicians~l
by noting that in those days, medical training and practice did not
entail dissection of bodies nor treatment of the ill in hospitals.~J
Consequently, medieval medical practice did not necessitate
exposure to the many halachic prohibitions which would be
presented to the kohen today.
In the early part of this century, Rabbi David Z. Hoffman
wrote that he was asked whether a kohen who was presently
studying in medical school could receive the synagogue honor of

Furthermore, the Mishnrh LtMtlech lind the Nodah Biythudah maintain

thill it was never the intention of the Raavad to permit a Kohen to add
Twmeah to his previous Tumtah. Rather, hr only meant that the Kohen does
not Tet:ein the punishment of m.:llkol (lashing) for doing so. This conclusion
is based on the Raavad's T"mim Drah 236.
52. A comprehensive list of early ubbis who were doctors although they were
Kohanim can be found in Jewish Medical Ethics by Rabbi Immanuel
Jakobowitz, chapter 20. footnote 27.
53. FOT an el.borate discussion of the topic of iI kohen in medical school, see the
::J"::J nlK ,';, ID'O ,nl7::JJ't ';Iv 1:1 7:1 wheN the author finds no justification for
any lenient ruling. U":lP "'1' :lD' ,. forbids a Kohen to attend any school
where there is a skeleton pre~nt (quoted by 1":1 tllK 1:1 7:1). illthough not
everyone agrees that it is forbidden for him to be in the SlIme room as a non_
Jewish body.
 THE JOURNAL OF HAlACHA

being called up to the Torah as a kohen. 54 In his responsum,55

Rabbi Hoffman expresses reservation about how strong a protest
ought to be made about the kohen's attendance in medical school,
since we may be fairly certain he will not change his ways,
convinced as he is that his undertaking is noble. Furthermore,
Rabbi Hoffman distinguishes between one who is presently in
school and one who has already completed his studies, for if we
honor a person who is currently violating the halacha, it may look
as if we are giving credence to his (mistaken) belief that he is
allowed to attend. However, the situation is not analogous for the
one who has already graduated; in this case, Rabbi Hoffman feels
we may be lenient.
The question of training for dentistry, while presenting similar
difficulties, is not quite the same. Dental practice itself scarcely
poses any danger that the kohen will have to come in contact with
the dead, but the training does usually involve extensive dissection
of cadavers. However, possibly one could argue that if the kohen
had a lab partner who did all the physical dissection while he
watched, it might be permissible, since the cadavers are almost
certainly those of non~Jews. However, many rabbanim advise
kohanim not to undertake such a course of action.
If despite the negative indications about medical training, a
kohen has nevertheless completed his studies, he is faced with
additional painful decisions in the conduct of his practice. Is he
permitted to enter the room of his patient who is in death throes?
May he enter after the demise in order to certify the cause of death?

54. The question of refusing to call the medical student up as a Kohen for the
reading of the Torah does not hinge upon his open violation of Torah law; if
he were a known eater of bacon there would still be no question about calling
him up to the Torah as a Kohen. But a Kohen who openly violates the laws
regarding his status as Kohen is not entitled to ~ given the honor of a
Kohen. Other questions such as this have also been addressed by halachic
decisors, May a non-Sabbath observant Kohen go up to the Duchlln!
I""'" n"l'" :l~ n'll<. May a non-believer get an IlIiYllh n"ll< :lIOn nnll(
91-' ., n"ll<l ~~ .I<~ ,~"l Also ,-'" 0-1('" 'IV'''I< rJl'.
55. 1("" n"ll( "'lIm" 'n"n.
TUMEAT KOHEN

Are conscientious Jews permitted to call in a kohen-doctor to

examine the body for the purpose of signing a death certificate, or
would they be guilty thereby of tempting a fellow Jew to violate the
Torah, which is in itself a transgression for them ('1>' ')!l';,)?
Everyone agrees that until the patient is actually dead, there is
no Tumeah in the room. Nevertheless, the Gemara (Nazir 43)
debates whether by merely entering the room where a person is
about to die, the kohen has not desecrated his priestly status. In the
Shulchan Aruch,~ the law is codified that
OOll DW W'1lJ 0'::1';, O):l'';, ,10K I'J"I'J

It is forbidden [for a kohen] to enter a house wherein

someone is dying. .
Here the Ramo adds,
/

Although there are those who permit it, it is good to

be strict on this.
However, there is no dispute that if the kohen enters the room
with the intent and hope of treating the ill person, he may do so.
This is true even if there is another physician available, for the
patient's own personal doctor is always preferred above any other,
his treatment being considered most effective and desirable for the
patient. 17
But once the patient has died, the kohen must definitely avoid
entering his room. Only if the government will not allow the dead
to be buried without a medically certified death certificate and there
is no one else who can do it, may Jews call him in to perform this
task. In this case, the dispensation arises from the great disgrace of
leaving a Jew unburied - the Torah commands even the High
Priest to defile himself in order to attend to the burial of a met
mitzvah, a body which will not be buried without his personal
intervention. 51

56 Y"V , .. ,> 1ny lmlU.

57. For various opinions, see /('P mc,:ue 'IJM "IU.
58. /( Y"IU ;,:J'lUn 'nn!!. A Met MitzvAh i5 a corpse which has no one to take care
 THE JOURNAL OF HAlACHA
"
Employment
Are there any reasonable grounds for a kohen 10 accept em-
ployment in a hospital, even nol as a doctor? Indeed many poskim
forbid a kohen from taking such a job. R. Moshe Feinslein~ opines
that even if it is "only" a rabbinic ;ssur, there is slit! no sanction for
violating a precept just to earn a living. However, he would allow
him to take the position provided he could leave the building as
soon as someone died there. There are olhers60 who consider it assur
because of the limbs or body parts that are often in the hospital;
however, outside the land of Israel. one CQuid probably be lenient
on this point, since the majority of bodies or limbs would be those
of non~Jews; as we have noted, most Acharol1im61 rule that we can
be lenient regarding the cadavers of non-Jews.
A diFFerent approach to this question also appears in other
responsa: when the kohen starts working on his shift, we may
assume that there are no dead bodies in the hospital. and he is
permitted to be there. If in the course of the day people died and
the kohen were obliged to leave, his departure would endanger the
welfare of the patients in the hospital; this would justify his staying
on the job. However, this line of reasoning only applies to a kohen
whose work is essential for the welfare of the other patients, and
the rationale cannot be extended to all kohanim. 61 The Kol 80,
however, does Find grounds to justify a kohen's taking employment
in a large hospital6J and even permits him to accept a chaplaincy
there.~

of its burial. Jewish law requires that the fiN;t person who passes by even if it
is the Kohen Gada!, the high priest must immediately see to it that the body
is buried.
59. n"r.n '''1' OlWIl lln11<.
60. .] - :J' M:I';",:I D'l'lYIl D"),IW.
61. n":lll ,.'1' 'U '1:11< ;n I<H?),I' lll:lllUll ;'M ,no,lwOl 1"),1 ;:J - :J"),IW n:J.:J'1l 0,11'.
62. :J'"" ::1 ?o,n '1 'llO ,1"),1'1 D),I1l :l11l n"\w.
63. '-1< 1ll0,:l1< 0,:1' 1:1 7'.
64. 'I n11< ,CIU,
TUMEAT KOHEN

Transplants
A question which could not have been asked forty years ago is
potentially of great concern for kohanim: is it permissible for a
kohen to get an organ transplant? Halachically this might present a
major problem even if the organ were removed from a live donor,
for once removed, the organ is considered "dead" and thus
transmits Tumeah.6~ In an undated responsum, without indication
to whom he is writing, Rav Feinstein addresses this problem; after
lengthy examination of the principles involved he does permit the
transplant, explaining that since the organ will be placed within the
body cavity, there will only be "Tumeah be-luah", Tumeah which
is covered up and hence no longer subject to the ordinary rules of
Tumeah. He follows a somewhat different line of reasoning for a
transplant which will not be internal, such as a cornea, but he does
ultimately permit it. 66
Rav Unterman, at the lime he was Chief Rabbi of Israel.
expressed his opinion that an organ that can come alive" again
after transplantation cannot logically be considered "dead" and
therefore transmits no Tumeah. 67

Kohen-Soldier
While the establishment of the State of Israel has brought un-
told benefit to millions of Jews, the creation of a totally Jewish
society has engendered novel situations which the halacha must
address. One of these concerns the kohen in Israel, where universal
conscription makes it virtually inevitable that a goodly number of
kohanim will serve on the front and be involved in warfare. The
Shukhan Aruch teaches that a kohen who has killed someone, even

65. According to the ,,'", T'1' ,"1;'1"'J V"11l the prohibition for a Kohen to come in
contact with a dead limb extends even 10 his own! Thl' only exception is a
tooth. See 1"1 nl"m< .UWr.l as well as 1"')'" ,"1' 'J:r ,n.
66. 5« also I<"!l' , " " 'J::r ,01 :"", ,"1' OIWO 01,11(.
67. I("J 111l1K' 'lIt> 01,101' "Jill.
.. THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA

accidentally, may no longer go up to the Duenan 10 bless the

nation: U

'7'~K l'!J~ me Kill' xc, JJWJ:J le,'!J/'( VJ!JJil nK nnw lil:J

,n:llllJn il1CJV

However, Ramo amends this ruling somewhat/·II

711 ?Pil!;l 1'1'1 ...l'!l:J KlUU i1:nvm illVV DKtu C"t.lU( IV"
..11m ':Jill ,Oil'J!J::l nc', 'HI)' K?lU n::l1lUn ·!;I1I:J

There are those who say that if he did teshuva

[repented) he may [recite the blessingJ. .. and we
should make it easy for those who repent, not 10 shut
the door in their faces; and this is the custom [i.e., to
allow them to go up to the Duehan].
If the Shulchan Aruch's dictum were to be followed
stringently, it would have the effect of imposing a severe penalty on
kohanim who have served on active duty in the Israeli army. In
seeking redress for this problem, the poskim have to determine
whether the law applies regardless of whether a Jew or a non-Jew is
killed, what is the "repentance" which is required, and whether the
reality that the kohen was acting in self·defense makes any
difference in the ultimate halacha. A most exhaustive study of the
entire problem was undertaken by Rabbi She'ar Yashuv Cohen in
Teenumin,1O where he explains the viewpoints of numerous rabbis
who find reason to allow the soldier to go up to the Duenal1. Rabbi
Ovadia Yosef, in dealing with the question, arrives at similar
condusions. 71

68. ,T'" n":1p n"'K.

69. OIU.
70. Volume 6 (OI'"1'llUtl)
71. '''' :1 p':>n mn 1"I1n'. In '''0 :01 p'm he also discusses the status of a Kohen
who accidentally killed a fellow Jew while driving a car. Here the situation is
not SO simple: a great deal will depend on the culpability or negligence of the
driver, whelher he was the cause or contributing cause to the fatality, or
whether it was totally Myond his control. The judgment of the 5«ular court
in delermining guilt is also to be taken into consideration.
l1JMEAT KOHEN

This brief survey of the laws of Twmeah as they pertain to a

kohen in modern times is certainly not intended to be an exhaustive
study. It has been our intention simply to draw attention to some
new variations of an age-old situation. In reviewing these problems,
we are stirred by the hope that the time will soon come when
"death will be vanquished forever," and these laws will become
obsolete. At that time, kohanim can look forward to learning and
implementing those other laws which are given exclusively to them
- the laws of Avodah (service) in the Beth Mikdash.