Yevamos 60b: Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said, “The graves of non-Jews do not transmit tumah through a roof, as it is written, “And you, My flocks, the flocks of My pasture, you are man” (Yechezkel 34:31). You are called “man” but the non-Jews are not called “man”.
Tosafos: The Ri said that the halacha does not follow Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, but rather Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who disagrees with him in Oholos.
Oholos 8:1: A large wooden closet can block tumah from ascending.
Raavad Nezirus 5:15: The kohanim nowadays are already tamei meis, so they are not liable for the sin of coming in contact with tumah.
יבמות ס ע”ב: תניא, וכן היה ר״ש בן יוחאי אומר קברי עובדי כוכבים אינן מטמאין באהל, שנא׳: (יחזקאל ל״ד) ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם, אתם קרויין אדם, ואין העובדי כוכבים קרויין אדם.
תוספות יבמות סא ע”א ד”ה ממגע. ואר״י דאין הלכה כר״ש דרשב״ג פליג עליה כדתנן במס׳ אהלות (פרק יח מ״ט כתובות עז.) והלכה כמותו במשנתנו וצריכים כהנים ליזהר מקברי עובדי כוכבים.
אהלות פ”ח מ”א: אלו מביאים וחוצצים.השדה והתבה והמגדל.
ראב”ד בהשגה על הלכות נזירות פ”ה הט”ו: מעתה טומאה וטומאה אפילו פירש וחזר ונגע פטור והכהנים בזמן הזה טמאי מת הן ועוד אין עליהן חיוב טומאה והמחייב אותם עליו להביא ראיה.
The philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) specified in his will that he wanted his body to be preserved as a lasting memorial, and this instruction was duly carried out by his friend Dr. Thomas Southwood Smith.
In 1850, Southwood Smith donated the body to University College London, which Bentham had helped found, and from then until 2020, the body was displayed at the end of the South Cloisters in the main building of the college. Upon the retirement of Sir Malcolm Grant as provost of the college in 2013, however, the body was present at Grant’s final council meeting. As of 2013, this was the only time that the body of Bentham has been taken to a UCL council meeting. (There is a persistent myth that the body of Bentham is present at all council meetings.)
Bentham had intended this “auto-icon” to incorporate his actual head, mummified to resemble its appearance in life. Southwood Smith’s experimental efforts at mummification, based on practices of the indigenous peoples of New Zealand and involving placing the head under an air pump over sulfuric acid and drawing off the fluids, although technically successful, left the head looking distastefully macabre, with dried and darkened skin stretched tautly over the skull.
The auto-icon was therefore given a wax head, fitted with some of Bentham’s own hair. The real head was displayed in the same case as the auto-icon for many years, but became the target of repeated student pranks, with students from rival King’s College London often the culprits. The head is said to have at one time been found in a luggage locker at Aberdeen station, and to have been used as a football by students in the Quad. These events led to the head being removed from display.
In 2020, the body was put into a new glass display case and moved to the entrance of UCL’s new Student Centre on Gordon Square.
In 1965, Dayan Aryeh Leib Grossnass of the London Beth Din published a teshuva written to kohanim who were students at University College. Dayan Grossnass describes the question as follows: “Many years ago, the leading professor of that university, who was one of the most famous in the world, left a will instructing that his body be kept permanently in the hall of the university. He also instructed that at special gatherings, his body should be displayed as he looked in his lifetime, sitting at his place and giving a lecture. After he died, they removed the head from the body, mummified the body and connected an artificial head made of wax, and placed him on a chair in a glass box with wheels on the bottom to transport it from place to place, with a book in his hand, as if giving a lecture. His knees touched the glass of the box. All the time, they keep this box inside a large wooden closet next to the wall, with a door that opens and closes. Sometimes they open the closet to show the body to whoever wants to see it. When there is a gathering, they take the glass box out of the wooden closet and display it in the middle of the hall. The head that was removed from the body was mummified and placed in a small wooden box atop a platform on the wall of the hall. Occasionally, if people are interested in seeing it, they take down the wooden box and open it. According to the information given to me, it has been about 20 years since they last took the box off the platform. Anyone attending any lecture or visiting the library must pass through this hall; there is no other entrance. May kohanim pass through the hall when the body is inside the glass box inside the closet? And may they participate in gatherings when the glass box is taken out of the closet and wheeled to the center of the room?”
Dayan Grossnass then proposes two reasons to be lenient: 1) The body of a non-Jew, according to some opinions, has no tumas ohel (does not transmit tumah to those under the same roof with it); and 2) The wooden box and/or the glass box might serve as a roof over the body, which would block the tumah from ascending the ceiling of the building and spreading to everyone in the building.
Regarding the first argument, he shows that a non-Jew’s tumas ohel is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (Yevamos 60b) and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (Oholos 18:9). Tosafos and the Rosh rule strictly, while the Rambam (Hilchos Tumas Mes 1:13) rules leniently. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 372:2) concludes that it is better for kohanim to be strict and avoid coming under the same roof with a dead non-Jew.
Regarding the second argument, he says that the wooden closet, although not connected to the building, is an ohel of its own, blocking the tumah from ascending to the ceiling of the building and spreading through the hall. The reason is that a large wooden closet is not susceptible to tumah, and we have a rule that anything not susceptible to tumah is able to block tumah. Although other vessels made of material that is not susceptible to tumah (e.g. stone) would nonetheless not block tumah from ascending, that is because they are physically small like any other vessel and simply can’t contract tumah for a technical reason. But a large wooden closet has the status of an ohel, not a vessel, and therefore blocks the tumah. This is explicit in the Mishnah, Oholos 8:1.
Dayan Grossnass wrote the above based on what he was told by students. Later, he visited the college himself and saw that the wooden closet was actually bolted to the floor. Thus it was definitely considered an ohel to block the tumah.
However, he counters, perhaps the closet can only block the tumah from going up, so that, for example, if the body of Bentham were in this wooden closet outdoors, a kohein would be allowed to sit on top of the closet. But in our case, the closet was indoors, and the Rambam writes in Hilchos Tumas Mes 20:1 that if a small tent stands inside a large tent, and a dead body is in the small tent, everything in the large tent becomes tamei. And although the Raavad disagrees, that is only when the small tent has its own entrance to the outdoors, and thus the body will eventually be carried out directly to the outdoors without passing through the large tent. But in our case, the wooden closet only had one exit – to the college hall. This principle is known in the Gemara as סוף טומאה לצאת – since the tumah will eventually go out through that door to the college hall, the college hall is tamei even now.
To solve this problem, Dayan Grossnass proposes that since Bentham’s body is in a glass box, and even when they take it out for gatherings, they wheel out the entire box, not just the body, this is not called “the tumah will eventually come out”. This is because the glass box is also an ohel within an ohel. But that would depend if glass has the same property as wood – does a large glass box act as an ohel?
The tumah of glass vessels is Rabbinic: because they are made from sand, Chazal gave them the status of earthenware (Shabbos 16b). Regarding earthenware, there is a dispute between Rashi and his teachers as to whether a large earthenware vessel can act as an ohel to block tumah (Shabbos 44b). But even according to Rashi who is strict with earthenware, glass certainly acts as a blocker. We see that Reb Chaim Brisker (Tumas Mes 19:1) learns that the Rambam holds like Rashi and the Raavad holds like Rashi’s teachers. Yet even the Rambam is explicit that a large glass vessel blocks tumah (Hilchos Keilim 3:3).
One objection could be raised: the glass box containing Bentham’s body has wheels and can be moved from place to place, despite its large size. (This was written in 1965, but as of 2020, the body is in a glass box without wheels.) Tosafos (Shabbos 84a) says that a large wooden vessel that can be dragged by men is considered a regular vessel and is susceptible to tumah. Rav Grossnass however theorizes that, perhaps, with glass we would not be so strict. Also, perhaps this glass box is different because it was made never to be opened.
Thus the argument to be lenient goes as follows: first of all, maybe a non-Jew has no tumas ohel. And even if he does, maybe the halacha is like the Raavad that a tent inside a tent is not a problem. And if you say, even the Raavad is strict in cases where the tumah will eventually come out – here the tumah will never come out because it’s inside a glass box. And if you say, a large box does not block the tumah because it is moveable by virtue of its wheels, maybe glass is different.
What about the box holding the head? Even though it is a wooden box made to rest, and therefore not susceptible to tumah, still it’s too small to be an ohel. Dayan Grossnass responds, based on a Chazon Ish, that that is only true according to the Rambam Tumas Mes 13:4, but according to the Raavad 28:5 even a small box is considered an ohel. So for the Rambam l’shitaso, we can rely on the Rambam’s own ruling that non-Jews are not metamei baohel. And according to the opinion that a non-Jew is metamei, we can rely on the Raavad, who holds the box is an ohel.
However, there is another problem: perhaps the wooden closet or the glass box itself has the status of a “kever” – a grave (i.e. a mausoleum)? True, the Rambam (chapter 12 of Tumas Mes) says a wooden coffin is not a kever. But the Raavad disagrees. And even the Rambam only said it regarding wood, because it’s not earth, but glass is made from sand, which is earth. And although the body is visible and burial usually means it is hidden from view, in this case the wooden closet makes it hidden, so it should be considered a kever and thus be forbidden. This is especially true in light of the bolts holding it to the floor; perhaps even the Rambam would agree that wood can be a kever in that case. To these arguments, Dayan Grossnass replies that the floor of the college hall separates the glass from the ground, so it’s not a kever.
After discussing the matter with the Tchebiner Rav, Dayan Grossnass realized that there is yet another reason to be lenient: the Raavad (Hilchos Nezirus 5:15) holds that a kohein who is already tamei (which applies to all kohanim nowadays) is not forbidden Mid’oraisa to come in contact with a meis. Since it’s only Mid’rabanan, we can rely on the opinion that non-Jews are not metamei ba’ohel. He quotes many teshuvos who relied on this combination, including a very interesting teshuva of the Maharsham (1:215) about visiting a royal museum containing Egyptian mummies.
Since Dayan Grossnass’ heter is based on a combination of several disputed opinions, we must ask: what about the rule that a sofek tumah in a private domain is always tamei, even if there are several sfeikos? To this, Dayan Grossnass provides three answers: 1) That rule applies only to a sofek about the facts, not to a sofek in the law. 2) The college hall is a public domain because many people are constantly walking through it. 3) The rule of “private domain” only applies when we’re not sure if something became tamei or not, and we need to decide what to assume. But tumas kohanim is an issur, and so it follows the regular rules of issur v’heter.
Source: Pamphlet published by the London Beth Din, 1965, #14, “B’inyan Dinei Ohel Hameis.”
[Utilitarianism teaches that people should do whatever results in the most happiness for the most people. It’s ironic that Jeremy Betham, as the founder of utilitarianism, thought he was giving people happiness by putting his body on display forever; he confidently envisioned that “if it should so happen that my personal friends and other disciples should be disposed to meet together on some day or days of the year for the purpose of commemorating the founder of the greatest happiness system of morals and legislation, my executor will from time to time cause to be conveyed in the room in which they meet the said box or case with the contents therein, to be stationed in such part of the room as to the assembled company shall seem meet.” But who did he end up benefiting? Scholars of the Torah, which teaches not utilitarianism but right and wrong, mutar and assur – from whom his strange request continues to serve as a springboard for discussion of the deepest sugyos in Shas. Indeed, everything that is done in the world is “for Israel, that they should learn Torah” (Avodah Zarah 2b).
It’s also ironic that Bentham chose not to be buried, but according to one possibility brought up in this teshuva, he was indeed buried in the glass box, which is like sand.]
Read and Remember 