Visiting Art Museums
From Halachipedia
Halachic Issues of Visiting an Art Museum
The simple museum contains a vast amount of potential halachic issues. We will begin by summarizing them, and then address each of them independently in the subtitles that follow.
Visiting a museum as bitul Torah
Kohanim visiting Museums
Most contemporary museums have a large collection of human remains. In particular, many museums display mummies, the embalmed bodies of ancient Egyptians. The Torah prohibits Kohanim from becoming impure to a dead person (See Kohanim Not Becoming Tameh for further reference). Are Kohanim prohibited from entering museums because of the presence of mummies?
First, are Kohanim prohibited from interacting gentile bodies?
Some allow a kohen to be under the same roof as a non-Jewish corpse, but ideally we try to be strict.[1]
Even if Kohanim are prohibited from entering under the same roof as a non-Jewish corpse, are mummies considered to have the status of corpses?[2] A mummy is a corpse that has undergone mummification. Mummification consists of the removal of organs from the corpse and the uses of spices as human preservative. Ultimately, everyone agrees that mummies are considered human remains because of how solid they are.[3]
Third, even though mummies are considered corpses, are the glass cases surrounding the mummy considered a sufficient covering to block the impurity of the mummy?[4] Normally, a covering prevents impurity from spreading. However, a coffin or grave is considered to be an extension of the dead body and does not prevent impurity from spreading. Impurity extends up from the grave and touching the side of the grave makes a person impure. Thus even though a glass cases may be considered a sufficient converting to block the impurity of the mummy, if it is considered a grave, then it does not block the impurity.
Some say that the glass or plastic case around the mummy is considered to be a grave, and thus it does not prevent the impurity of the mummy from spreading. Others say that since museums often move the mummies around, their display cases are not considered graves, but rather coverings, and hence the display cases prevent impurity from spreading.
Avodah Zara in Museums
- ↑ Rambam Hilchot Avel 3:3 rules a gentile does not give off Tumat Ohel, and hence it is permitted to step on the grave of non-Jew. However, Tosfot Bava Metzia 114 rules that gentiles give off tumat Ohel. See Birkeiy Yosef 372; Aruch Hashulchan 372:5. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 372:2 says it is proper to be strict and the Rama quotes those who are lenient, but says it is appropriate to be strict. Shach Y.D. 372:4 says that even those who are lenient about tumas ohel, prohibit touching or lifting a non-Jewish corpse. Hagos Maymonios Hilchos Avel 3:2 quotes the Yerayim that a kohen does not have to avoid these forms of tumah by a non-Jewish corpse. ↑
- ↑ The level of tumah of the mummies was first raised in the late seventeenth century by a group of Egyptian poskim. Throughout the medieval ages, mummies were sold and ground to dust a medical remedy. The rising Jewish involvement brought the poskim wondering whether such mummia” as it was known, could be dealt with by kohanim. Ginas Veradim YD 1.4
- ↑ The Ginas Veredim first ponders whether a mummy could still be considered human remain sfor the prohibition of impurity. He references the dispute in the gemara in maseches niddah 54b-55a. The mishna there quotes a dispute about whether dried flesh is impure, the first clause of the mishna advocating that it remains impure, while Rabbi Yosi resolutely argues that only flesh that may regain its previous moisture may be considered impure. The gemara questions the source for the opinion that dry flesh remains impure. It quotes in response a dispute among the later amoraim. Reish Lakish argues that it stems from the Torah classifying as impure everything which comes from the body. In contrast, Rabbi Yochanan explains that the classification as flesh comes from the parallel to bones. Just as bones are dry so too flesh retains human identity as dry. The gemara notes a practical difference in the derivation- if the flesh is dry to the extent that it crumbles, thus lack the solidity of bones, Rabbi Yochanan would consider it pure, while Reish Lakish would assert that it still retains the tumah. The gemara raises an objection to the position that Reish Lakish would still consider it pure from a tannaic baraisa that maintains that broken up flesh is becomes pure. The gemara explains that this baraisa is rather speaking about a case where the flesh is broken completely to powder, which even Reish Lakish would agree is pure. The Rambam concludes by firmly paskening like Reish Lakish that flesh remains impure unless it becomes like flour. The Ginas Veredim exclaims that even the more lenient Rabbi Yochanan would agree that a mummy retains impurity because it remains solid unless ground. The Ginas Veredim also angrily rebuts the notion that the use of preservatives should render the mummy any less of a human body. He exclaims that no where in the talmudic sources do we see that the sages distinguished between the sources of preservation. At the end of the day, flesh is flesh. The Cheshek Shlomo quotes the challenge of Rav Matisyahu Strausand, who criticized the Ginas Veredim for his search for reasons. Rav Strausand noted that the Torah describes how Yosef was mummified and also how the gemara describes that the men who were impure and thus unable to participate in the korban pesach were Yosef’s casket bearers. This was seen by Rav Strausand as a definitive proof that mummification does not render the body any less impure.
- ↑ The mishna in ohalot (7.1) explains that the size of a kever is a cubic tefach (8-9.6cm). Less than this, the mishna asserts, the space does not have the unique stringencies of a kever. In contrast, the gemara in berachot 19 bexplains that a grave that has an empty spot of one cubic tefach between the body and the coffin blocks impurity and thus permits kohanim to stride over them in certain circumstances.The gemara explains that kohanim are only prohibited on a rabbinic level from going on graves because of a concern for the minority of coffins that do not have such an empty space. The gemara in berachot contradicts the mishna in ohalos. In berachot the gemara says that empty space in the coffin prevents a coffin from being considered a grave. In ohalot the Mishna explains that a grave needs empty space between the body and the covering to be considered a grave. The Rambam (Tumat Meit 7.4) states that the gemara in berachos is not dealing with a grave but rather a coffins. Coffins not considered graves. The Raavad responses to the Rambam’s problem with a three tiered hierarchy of cases. He explains that a grave with total volume less than a tefach spreads impurity comparable to the actual corpse. If the total volume is a cubic tefachh it is treated as a full dead body. If there is empty space of a tefach in addition, the impurity goes down and it only spreads impurity by touch and anything directly above it. The Raavad takes the gemara in berachos as referring to an additional volume, the final case. In such a case, he claims the empty space blocks the impurity,. The Rambam asserts that once a space has the nominal volume it is considered to have the full status of a kever. In contrast the Raavad explains that a grave only functions as such if it has empty space of less than a tefach. The Rambam requires the dimensions merely to establish the place as an kever. Once that is taken care of, the space carries the impurity. In contrast the Raavad not only requires the space to be established as a kever, but also close physical proximity of the walls to the deceased. Rav Daniel Woolf in his brilliant Mincha Tehara explains their dispute according to an understanding of how an ohel and kever mechanism function. He notes that one could view the spread of the impurity in an ohel because the ohel functions as an intermediary of the impurity of the dead body to the extent that one by being in the space is touching the dead. In contrast one may understand the process as the area being classified as a place of the dead. According to these dual understandings we may now classify the dispute of the Rambam and Raavad. The Ravaad requires physical proximity so that the space can spread the impurity while the Rambam merely requires the presence of a space defined as one of the dead. Tosafos explains the difficulty in a similar manner to that of the Rambam. He explains that the minimum required is a square cubic tefach. Then how does he deal with the permissiveness of Berachos. As we noticed prior, the Rambam explained that Berachos was not dealing with an actual grave, while the Raavad asserted that empty space blocks impurity. Tosafos makes an interesting further distinction. He claims that the case in berachos is that of a coffin with a hole. He states that a coffin with a hole has a lesser status than a grave. In order to be a grave it must be a sealed unit, a space bound unto itself. It is important to note that regardless of complexities of the opinions of the Rishonim, the gemara still describes any case of a grave as a rabbinical prohibition. The Beis Yosef concludes by quoting Tosafos’ opinion as the final word; that a kever has a minimum size and only loses said tumah in the event that there is a hole. However, in the case where the mummy container is closed, there is less than a tefach between the body and the sarcofogus. In such a case, no one would consider it to be blocked and the impurity would fill the ohel. The Maharsham (1835-1911) in a question written on the event of the display of a mummy argues that Tosafos’ opinion is the one accepted and thus prohibits entrance. However, he states that in a time of great need one could enter. However Rav Belsky is quoted in Medrchei Ilonos as having held that even Tosfos would agree with the Rambam that an item not meant as a final resting place could not be considered a grave and thus would permit a museum case and that it would not become a grave to spread impurity. The gemara in Bava Basra explains that if a room is locked, it does not get the status of a grave unless the hinges are removed, thereby indicating intent to return to the item. Rav Belsky argues that since museums intent to move bodies, they do not become graves. Instead it is treated as closed space and does not become impure.
