Daf Ditty Pesachim 14-15: “a sword is like a corpse”

And in the open, anyone who touches a person who was killed or who died naturally, or
human bone, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.

NUM 19:16

RASHI

‫[על פני השדה‬AND EVERYTHING WHICH TOUCHES] ON THE OPEN FIELD — Our Rabbis
explained that this is intended to include the upper board and the side board of a coffin (which
were on the surface of the field — that these, too, render a person unclean) (Chullin 72a). The
literal meaning of the words ‫ על פני השדה‬is, however, that even where there is no ‫אהל‬, covering,
there too, the dead body may cause uncleanness, but only by contact with it.

1
Yesterday’s Daf:

It was stated in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva added: In all the days of the priests, they did not
refrain from lighting teruma oil that was ritually disqualified by coming into contact with one
who immersed himself during that day, in a lamp that was rendered ritually impure with first-
degree impurity through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by
a corpse. The Gemara asks: Now consider, what is the status of oil that was disqualified by one
who immersed himself during that day? As one who immersed himself during that day assumes
second-degree impurity, the oil that he touches assumes third-degree ritual impurity status. And
when he lights it in a lamp that was rendered ritually impure through contact with one who
became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, who has first-degree impurity status,
what is the impurity status of the oil? It assumes second-degree ritual impurity status.

2
If so, what is Rabbi Akiva teaching us by this halakha? This statement apparently teaches us that
with regard to an object that is ritually impure with third-degree impurity status, it is permitted
to render it impure with second-degree impurity status. Yet this is the same halakha as that
which was taught by Rabbi Ḥanina the deputy High Priest. What is novel about the halakha taught
by Rabbi Akiva? Rav Yehuda said: Here, we are dealing with a metal lamp, which has a unique
halakhic status. As the Merciful One states:

“And whoever touches one who is slain with a sword in the open field, or one who dies on his
own, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days” (Numbers 19:16).

The Sages derived from the phrase: One who is slain with a sword, that the legal status of a metal
sword in terms of its degree of impurity is like that of one who is slain. Any metal vessel that
becomes impure through contact with a corpse assumes the impurity status of a corpse, the ultimate
primary source of ritual impurity. The same is true with regard to a metal vessel that came into
contact with a person or vessel that became impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. In that
case the metal vessel assumes the impurity status of that person or vessel, and therefore, this metal
lamp is a primary source of impurity. And yet Rabbi Akiva maintains that it is permitted to
render this oil, which is impure with third-degree impurity, impure with first-degree impurity
through contact with the metal lamp.

RASHI

One may light oil that was disqualified by contact with a person who immersed himself during that
day and thereby assumed third-degree ritual impurity status, in a metal lamp that came into
contact with one who is impure with impurity imparted by a corpse and who thereby assumed first-
degree ritual impurity status. This ruling is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s testimony and Rav
Yehuda’s ensuing explanation (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:6).

3
4
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes1

There are different opinions with regard to this halakha.

Some commentaries explain that any metal vessel other than a sword that touches a dead body is
rendered a primary source of ritual impurity (Maharam Halaqa).

Others maintain that the legal status of metal and all other types of vessels, e.g., wooden or
earthenware utensils, is similar with regard to their degree of impurity due to contact with a corpse
(Rambam; Rashba). Yet others contend that earthenware vessels that come into contact with a
corpse assume first-degree ritual impurity status, while other types of vessels that touch a corpse
are rendered a primary source of impurity.

Metal vessels, however, are rendered an ultimate primary source of impurity, like the corpse itself
(Rabbeinu Tam).

Some authorities suggest that this halakha applies only to a weapon used to kill a person. They
explain that the Gemara is referring to a case where the lamp was used to kill someone (cited in
Rabbeinu Ḥananel, based on the ge’onim).

1
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/vault/DafYomi/Pesahim/Pesahim_14.pdf

5
One may light oil that was disqualified by contact with a person who immersed himself during
that day and thereby assumed third degree ritual impurity status, in a metal lamp that came into
contact with one who is impure with impurity imparted by a corpse and who thereby assumed
first-degree ritual impurity status.

This ruling is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s testimony and Rav Yehuda’s ensuing
explanation.

RAMBAM Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:6

6
When the meat of a sacrifice of the most sacred order became impure in [the Temple Courtyard],
it should be burnt in [the Temple Courtyard]. When it became impure outside [the Temple
Courtyard], it should be burnt outside [the Temple Courtyard].24 [This applies] whether it became
impure because of a primary source of ritual impurity or a derivative of ritual impurity.25

The priests never refrained from burning meat that contracted impurity from a primary source of
impurity - and thus it is defined as impure to the first degree - with meat that contracted impurity
from a derivative of impurity,26 even though this would increase the level of its impurity.27 For [an
entity that is] of third degree impurity that touches an entity of first degree impurity is considered
as of secondary impurity, as explained in [the appropriate] place.28 Moreover, even oil that
became impure because it touched a person who immersed on that day,29 which is of third degree
impurity is permitted to be burnt in a metal lamp30 that was touched by a person who is impure
because of contact with a human corpse, in which instance, the lamp is a primary source of

7
impurity.31 Although the oil becomes impure to the first degree when it touches the lamp, since it
was already deemed impure, we are not concerned with the increase of the impurity. We are only
careful that an entity that is pure will not become disqualified.

Notes
24.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3-4.
25.
In the original, an av tumah, literally, "a father of impurity," and a v'lad tumah, literally, "the offspring of impurity." See Chapter
18, Halachah 12, for more details regarding these terms.
26.
The Rambam is borrowing the wording of the Mishnah (Pesachim 1:6), even though - as he states in his Commentary to the
Mishnah - the intent is "a derivative of a derivative," i.e., an entity of third degree impurity as mentioned here. Thus, we are speaking
about meat that touched an entity that had touched an entity that had touched a primary source of impurity. Indeed, the Kessef
Mishneh and others suggest that text of the Mishneh Torah should be emended to reflect that understanding.
27.
The meat becomes impure only according to Rabbinical decree. According to Scriptural Law, food does not cause other food to
contract ritual impurity [Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 7:1; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].
28.
See Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 4:15.
29.
To emerge from most types of ritual impurity, a person must immerse in a mikveh and then wait until nightfall. Even if a person
has already immersed in a mikveh, he does not regain impurity until night. Until that time, he can impart ritual impurity to certain
entities (Tivul Yom 2:1).
30.
But not an earthenware lamp touched by a person who became impure because of contact with a corpse, for an earthenware utensil
never becomes a primary source of impurity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].
31.
For the impurity resulting from contact with a corpse is so severe that even an entity that touches it becomes a primary source of
impurity.

"CHEREV HAREI HU K'CHALAL"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Torah teaches that certain objects acquire the same level of Tum'as Mes as the object which
they touched, and which gave them the Tum'ah. This concept is called "Cherev Harei Hu
k'Chalal" (literally, "a sword is like a corpse").

To which objects does this concept refer?

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-014.htm

8
RASHI explains that this concept refers to metal objects, similar to the "Cherev" mentioned in the
verse from which this rule is derived. This rule does not apply to any type of non-metal utensil,
and thus all other types of objects descend a level of Tum'ah from the Tum'ah of the object which
they touched. This is also the opinion of RABEINU TAM3

RAMBAM above (Perush ha'Mishnayos to Ohalos 1:3; Hilchos Tum'as Mes 5:3) and RABEINU
YITZCHAK of Simfonte assert that this principle applies to all types of utensils.

Therefore, even non-metal utensils acquire the same Tum'ah as the object they touched.

Why, then, does the Gemara here specifically say that the lamp that is Metamei the oil inside of it
is a metal lamp that became Tamei as an Av ha'Tum'ah, like the corpse that it touched?

The Gemara's intention is to exclude an earthenware lamp, because earthenware is the only type
of utensil which does not acquire the same level of Tum'ah as the object which it touched. All
other types of utensils, though, become Tamei as an Av ha'Tum'ah when they touch an Av
ha'Tum'ah. (Lamps are normally made either from earthenware or metal, and not from other
materials.)
These Rishonim cite proof to their words from the Toras Kohanim, which derives the principle
(that a utensil that touches another utensil which is an Av ha'Tum'ah also becomes an Av
ha'Tum'ah) from the clothing upon a person who touched a corpse. The Torah teaches that the
clothing becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah, just like the person who touched the corpse. We see from there
that even non-metal utensils (clothing) become an Av ha'Tum'ah when they touch an Av
ha'Tum'ah.4

The GE'ONIM (cited by Rabeinu Chananel here) and RABEINU YITZCHAK of Simfonte in
his second explanation (as cited by the Rash in Ohalos, loc cit.) explain that the principle of
"Cherev Harei Hu k'Chalal" applies only to the actual object that killed the person.

3
in Nazir (54b, Tosfos DH Ta Shema) and the RASH in Ohalos (1:3).
4
Rabeinu Tam in Nazir (54b), who maintains that "Cherev Harei Hu k'Chalal" applies only to a metal utensil, explains that when
the Toras Kohanim says that the clothing of the person becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah, it refers to metal jewelry and ornaments that a
person wears.

9
That object becomes Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah. No other object, even a metal one, becomes Tamei with
the same degree of Tum'ah as the object it touched. (The Ge'onim explain, therefore, that the metal
candlestick mentioned in the Gemara here is one that was used to kill a person.)

This opinion appears to distinguish between an object that was used for murder and thus touched
an Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah (the corpse), and an object that was not used for murder and touched only
an Av ha'Tum'ah.

The principle of "Cherev Harei Hu k'Chalal" obviously does not apply to an Av ha'Tum'ah,
because an object that is an Av ha'Tum'ah has not been murdered. However, the Mishnah clearly
states that even a utensil that touches an Av ha'Tum'ah becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah!

How do the Ge'onim understand our Mishnah?

From the words of Rabeinu Chananel and the Rash, it appears that according to the Ge'onim it is
not the principle of "Cherev Harei Hu k'Chalal" that makes the utensil an Av ha'Tum'ah when it
touches an Av ha'Tum'ah. Rather, it is a different principle that makes the utensil an Av ha'Tum'ah
-- the principle of "Chiburin."

While an object is still in contact with an Av ha'Tum'ah, it is considered an Av ha'Tum'ah and it

makes whatever touches it Tamei as a Rishon. Once it is removed from the Av ha'Tum'ah, though,
it does not make whatever touches it Tamei as a Rishon.

This Halachah applies to all utensils except earthenware.5 This is the Tum'ah which the Toras
Kohanim derives from the clothing of a person who touches a corpse; since his clothes were
touching him at the time that he touched the corpse, they become an Av ha'Tum'ah like him. This
also appears to be the opinion of the RA'AVAD (Hilchos Tum'as Mes 5:3).

Cherev Ke-chalal - The Intensity of Tum'a in Metal Utensils

Rav Moshe Taragin writes:6

In general, the transfer of tum'a is characterized by descending levels. Halakhic impurity (tum'a)
can be conveyed by physical contact, by the impure item being moved (even indirectly) – known
as 'heseit,' or through 'ohel' – location within the same 'tent' (or any other canopy-like structure) of
an impure item.

Though tum'a can be transferred item-to-item, its intensity tends to diminish. For example, a dead
body is known as 'avi avot ha-tum'a' - the "grandfather" and first source of tum'a - capable of
conveying impurity to any item through the above-mentioned tracks. The recipient of this tum'a
is referred to as 'av tum'a' - literally a "parent" (though itself a child of the grandfather). An av

5
A similar Halachah applies to objects that are in contact with a Zav or a Mishkav.
6
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/Cherev-ke-chalal-intensity-tuma-metal-utensils

10
tum'a can convey tum'a to another item but cannot recreate an av tum'a. Instead, that item itself
will be referred to as a rishon (a 'first' level). This classification, however, is somewhat misleading
since the rishon is actually the third possible logical level of tum'a. A rishon's level of tum'a is less
in that:

a) only one day of tum'a applies instead of seven

b) a rishon can no longer confer tum'a to a person or to a utensil- only to food or drink.

In other words, the general trend of tum'a is for a derivative to be - in some way – a less intense
form of tum'a than its parent. This week's shiur will address an exception to that rule – the principle
of Cherev harei hu ke-chalal.

When the Torah enumerates the items capable of conferring seven-day tum'a to their recipients:

And in the open, anyone who touches a person who was killed or who died naturally, or
human bone, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.

NUM 19:16

it mentions a chalal Cherev (literally a body slain by the sword). This cannot refer to the actual
body since the same pasuk explicitly mentions a dead body. Evidently, the Torah is indicating an
additional and parallel form of tum'a. From this redundancy the gemara in several locations
(see Nazir 53b, Pesachim 14a) induces the principle "Cherev harei hu ke-chalal" - a sword is like
a dead body for tum'a purposes. In other words, a sword which came into contact with a corpse
maintains and conveys tum'a in a manner which is equal to the corpse's capacity.

If a PERSON were to touch a corpse, he would become an av tum'a – impure for 7 days but
incapable of conveying that same tum'a to another person; instead, the second person who touches
the first person an 'av' (who himself touched the corpse) becomes a rishon – impure for only a day
and incapable of conveying tum'a to a third person. These descents are, as mentioned earlier,
consistent with the general pattern of tum'a.

A Cherev is different. When coming into contact with a corpse, it ITSELF becomes an AVI AVOT
TUM'A - just like the corpse. A person who touches it becomes an AV tum'a – impure for seven
days and capable of conveying tum'a to a second person. The Cherev acts precisely as the corpse
would act even though it RECEIVED its tum'a from the corpse is its derivative.

An interesting question can be drawn from the manner in which this halakha was phrased. Does
the Cherev actually become an 'independent' first source of tum'a like a corpse?

11
Are we to assume that the Torah specified two parallel forms of AVI AVOT Ha-tum'a - a corpse
and a Cherev? Or do we see the Cherev as receiving tum'a from the corpse in the usual manner of
conveyance but deviating from the norm of tum'a transfer in that the level of tum'a is not
reduced? How literally do we take the comparison between a corpse and a Cherev?

Linguistically, this question revolves around one letter – the 'kof' in the word ke-chalal. Is a
Cherev exactly like a dead body or does it merely behave in terms of its level of tum'a) like a
chalal?

I. Distinctions between a corpse and a Cherev:

One possible application of this question could be the consequences for a nazir who comes into
contact with this 'Cherev.' Though a nazir is prohibited from coming into contact with any form
of tum'a he doesn't shave his head for all forms.7 In general, a nazir only shaves his head after
contact with a dead body. What would happen if he received tum'a from a Cherev?

Would this be tantamount to receiving tum'a from a dead person and would gilu'ach (shaving) be
required? The Rabenu Tam8) claimed this to be the case; contact with a Cherev demands gilu'ach
in the same manner as contact with a corpse. The mishnayot themselves in Nazir might suggest
otherwise, limiting shaving to actual contact with corpses and clearly stating that contact with
impure utensils - assumably even a Cherev – would not require shaving(see Nazir 54b). The
Rabenu Tam reinterprets these mishnayot as referring exclusively to utensils which are not
categorized as Cherev - an issue soon to be discussed.

A parallel question might pertain to the issue of sprinkling on the 3rd and 7th day. Even if we
assume that a nazir must shave his head for a Cherev since it 'stems' from a corpse, would we force
him – or, for that matter, anyone else to undergo the sprinkling of the para aduma (red heifer)
mixture of water and ashes as we would someone who was tamei through an actual corpse? The
Ramban in his commentary to Chukat and in his commentary to Bava Batra (20) claims that the
sprinkling ceremony only applies to people who were tamei though a dead person.

If the tum'a was transferred through a Cherev - even though it is ke-chalal - like a chalal – no
sprinkling ceremony applies. Evidently, the Ramban felt that a Cherev merely RECEIVES ITS
TUM'A from a dead corpse but does not ITSELF becomes halakhically designated as a corpse.

II. Through which transfer can a Cherev become 'like' a 'chalal:'

A third question might pertain to the manner in which a Cherev can receive its tum'a. The most
extreme position in this regard is cited in the name of the R” i Mi-simpont.9 A Cherev only
becomes an avi avot ha-tum'a if it was used to kill a person. Contact with a dead body or other
classic forms of conveying tum'a do not classify this Cherev as a chalal. Evidently, according to
this position, a Cherev can actually become AS a corpse. The sword which was used to kill a

7
See Mishna Nazir 7:2-3 for the details.
8
cited in Tosafot in Nazir 53b and the Rishonim in Ohalot 1:2
9
one of the members of Tosafot whose position is cited in the commentary of the Rash to Ohalot 1:2

12
person has the exact same status as that corpse. Had the Cherev ke-chalal halakha merely reflected
a transfer of tum'a without any mitigation of intensity we certainly could not limit the halakha only
to the sword which slayed. Any sword which would have received tum’a from a corpse - in any
of the standard forms of transferring tum'a - would become impure to the exact same degree.

A similar question can be glimpsed in a famous machloket between Rabenu Tam and Rabenu
Chayim as to which types of utensils acquire the status of 'chalal.' Though the Torah employs the
example of a sword, all Rishonim (with the exception of the R. Mi-simpont) assume that a broader
range of Keilim (utensils) is intended. The Rabenu Tam assumed that all metal utensils would be
candidates for this halakha. In a very moving and poetic response Rabenu Chayim (himself a
kohen) wrote a response to Rabenu Tam in which he exclaimed 'eizeh bayit asher tivnu li ve-eizeh
makom menuchati.' This passage taken from:

‫ְקרוָֹבה‬-‫ ִכּי‬:‫ ִשְׁמרוּ ִמְשָׁפּט ַוֲﬠשׂוּ ְצָדָקה‬,‫א ֹכּה ָאַמר ְיהָוה‬ 1 Thus saith the LORD: Keep ye justice, and
.‫ ְוִצְדָקִתי ְלִהָגּלוֹת‬,‫ְישׁוָּﬠִתי ָלבוֹא‬ do righteousness; for My salvation is near to
come, and My favor to be revealed.
Isa 56:1
and referring to the Beit Hamikdash, literally means "which house would you build for me and
where would my resting place be?" Rabenu Chayim paraphrased this verse in his response to the
Rabenu Tam. Assuming all metallic utensils are susceptible to Cherev ke-chalal then a kohen (like
Rabenu Chayim) may not enter any house. It is quite possible that nails or other metal parts used
in house construction were once part of a structure which housed a dead person, received tum'a
(through the conveyance of 'ohel'), would now be defined as 'chalal' and would therefore prevent
a kohen from entering the new house. Where should a kohen live?

One might answer this quite disturbing question in the following manner. Although we do not
adopt the extreme position of the R. Mi-simpont (who ruled that a utensil only becomes like a
chalal if it slew the dead person) we still require a direct physical contact between the utensil and
the corpse. In general, tum'a can be conveyed through manners in which no physical contact
occurs. However, turning a Cherev into an avi avot ha-tum'a is more serious than just conveying
to it a form of tum'a which is not reduced. Instead, we define the Cherev as a pseudo-chalal, as
something which can only occur through direct contact.

Indeed, a kohen cannot enter a house containing items which were in direct contact with a corpse;
these are considered tamei with the full force of a corpse. However, utensils which never touched
a corpse would not necessarily be defined as a chalal. Assuming that a 'Cherev' (according to
Rabenu Tam defined as any metal utensil) doesn't receive tum'a from a corpse but becomes a
pseudo-corpse, we might require direct contact between Cherev and corpse and not merely tum'a-
transfer through ohel.

Though this solution to Rabenu Chayim's concern is logically feasible, the Rabenu Tam himself
specifically rejects this notion. In his comments cited in Tosafot Bava Batra 20a s.v. Be-chavit,
he clearly states that a Cherev can achieve a status of chalal even if it received its tum'a through
the process of ohel. The question remains according to the Rabenu Tam's position - where should
a kohen live?

13
An interesting perspective on Cherev ke-chalal can be gleaned from a Tosafot in the beginning of
Bava Kama. The beginning of Bava Kama addresses the phenomenon of avot and toladot. In a
few rare situations, Halakha allows for the extension of biblically defined issurim. These
extensions – also biblical in nature are derivatives of the biblically delineated rule. They differ
slightly with the original model but share many similar characteristics. The classic example of
course is Hilkhot Shabbat in which 39 distinct categories of Shabbat violation, though not
explicitly enumerated in the Torah, are derived from the actions performed in the mishkan. These
and only these actions are referred to as avot while similar actions are called toladot. The gemara
recognizes the hierarchical structure of tum'a as reminiscent of avot and toladot - sources and
derivatives of tum'a. It also reminds us that toladot of tum'a are always different from their source-
avot as was outlined in the beginning of this shiur. The transfer of tum'a to a tolada is always
accompanied by declining levels of tum'a. Tosafot (Bava Kama 2b) question this unequivocal
definition of toladot - isn't there one tolada in which the spin-off is similar to the parent: 'Cherev'
- which acts exactly like a chalal - its parent? Why doesn't the gemara recognize that the world of
tum'a contains both toladot which depart from their parent and those that remain identical?

How does the label 'tolada' as applied to a Cherev influence our issue? Clearly, if the Cherev
condition reflects standard tum'a transfer without the usual tum'a-level reduction, we would easily
classify it as a tolada. If, however, Cherev represents a completely new form of tum'a - basically
assigning metal utensils which come into contact with corpses as the corpse themselves we might
not view the Cherev as a tolada. Instead, we might view it as an av - structurally parallel to a
corpse!!! Did this Tosafot view Cherev ke-chalal as a typical tum'a transfer?

Harav Yaron Ben Zvi writes:10

‫ח ר ב כ ח ל ל – פ ס ח ים ד ף ע ט‬
‫ בגמרא מובאת ברייתא אשר מרחיבה את‬.‫במשנה שבסוגייתנו מובאים המצבים בהם מביאים את קרבן הפסח בטומאה‬
‫האמור במשנה‬:
‫ ואפילו‬,‫ או שהיו ישראל טהורין וכהנים וכלי שרת טמאין‬.‫ וכהנים וכלי שרת טהורין‬,‫ הרי שהיו ישראל טמאין‬:‫תנו רבנן‬
‫ שאין קרבן ציבור חלוק‬,‫ יעשו בטומאה‬- ‫ישראל וכהנים טהורין וכלי שרת טמאין‬.
‫ הגמרא בהמשך הסוגיה מגבילה‬.‫נאמר שאם רוב ישראל הינם טהורים וכלי השרת טמאים – עושים את הפסח בטומאה‬
‫את את הכלל הגורס שכאשר כלי השרת טמאים כולם עושים את הפסח בטומאה‬.
‫ וקא מטמא‬,‫ חרב הרי הוא כחלל‬- ‫ דרחמנא אמר בחלל חרב‬,‫ לא שנו אלא שנטמא הסכין בטמא מת‬:‫אמר רב חסדא‬
‫ דמעיקרא כי מיתעביד בטומאת הגוף דכרת קא מיתעביד‬.‫לגברא‬.
‫ על פי‬,‫ זאת מכיוון שבמקרה זה‬.'‫מדובר רק במקרה שבו נטמא הכלי על ידי נגיעה באדם הנטמא במת – 'טמא מת‬
‫ כלי השרת מוגדר כאב הטומאה ולמעשה מי שיחזיק אותו יטמא‬,'‫הכלל של 'חרב הרי הוא כחלל‬.
,'‫ גוף המת נחשב 'אבי אבות הטומאה‬,‫ למשל‬,‫ כך‬.‫ רמת הטומאה יורדת‬,‫ כאשר טומאה עוברת מחפץ לחפץ‬,‫בדרך כלל‬
‫ טומאתו של ראשון נחשבת‬,‫ לכן‬.'‫ ומה שנוגע באב הטומאה נחשב 'ראשון לטומאה‬,'‫ומה שנוגע בו נחשב 'אב הטומאה‬
‫ כמו כן הוא יכול לטמא רק אוכלים‬,‫ שכן הוא טמא רק יום אחד ולא שבעה ימים‬,‫לטומאה קלה יותר משל אב הטומאה‬
‫ ולא אדם וכלים‬,‫ומשקים‬.
‫ התורה קובעת‬- ‫ החריגה לכלל זה היא מה שנאמר בסוגייתנו‬,‫;)במדבר יט טז(ברם‬: " ‫שֶּׂדה‬ ָ ‫שׁר יִַגּע ַעל ְפּנֵי ַה‬
ֶ ‫ו ְכ ֹל ֲא‬
‫ שכן 'חלל חרב' הוא סוג של‬,‫ בפסוק זה ישנה כפילות‬." ‫שְׁבַעת י ִָמים‬
ִ ‫ַבֲּחַלל ֶחֶרב אוֹ ְבֵמת אוֹ ְבֶעֶצם אָָדם אוֹ ְבָקֶבר יְִטָמא‬

10
https://www.etzion.org.il/he/%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%9B%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%9C

14
‫מת‪ .‬לכן‪ ,‬חכמים הסבירו שמהפסוק ניתן ללמוד‪ ,‬בנוסף לכך שלא רק הנוגע במת נחשב אב הטומאה וטמא שבעת ימים‪,‬‬
‫אלא גם הנוגע בחרב שהרגה את המת‪ ,‬אף שלא נגע במת עצמו משום "חרב הרי הוא כחלל"‪ .‬במקרה זה‪ ,‬החפץ שנגע‬
‫‪ *.‬במת נחשב אב הטומאה‪ ,‬ומי שנגע באותו חפץ נחשב ראשון לטומאה‬
‫מכל מקום‪ ,‬מהאמור בגמרא משתמע כי אדם שנגע בכלי שנגע בטמא מת‪ ,‬אם נכנס למקדש הוא יהיה חייב כרת‪ .‬אולם‪,‬‬
‫‪:‬הרמב"ם לא פסק כך‪ .‬ההלכות ביאת המקדש )פרק ג הלכה יד( הוא כותב‬
‫כללו של דבר כל הטעון ביאת מים מן התורה חייב כרת על ביאת המקדש‪ ,‬ואפילו אחר שטבל עד שיעריב שמשו‪ ,‬אבל‬
‫המתטמא בטומאות מן המת שאין הנזיר מגלח עליהן אף על פי שהוא טמא טומאת שבעה הרי זה פטור על ביאת‬
‫‪.‬המקדש‬
‫דהיינו‪ ,‬אף על פי שהאדם הנוגע הוא ראשון לעניין שמטמא תרומה וקדשים‪ ,‬אם נכנס למקדש – פטור‪ .‬יתכן להסביר את‬
‫דברי הרמב"ם‪ ,‬על פי הרש"ש‪ ,‬בכך שהגירסא שלו בגמרא הייתה 'שנטמא הסכין טמא מת' ולא כפי הגירסא שבידנו‬
‫‪''.‬בטמא מת‬
‫יתכן להציע הסבר נוסף‪ ,‬על פי דברי רבי יוסף קארו בדעת הרמב"ם )לחם משנה הלכות טומאת מת פרק ה הלכה ה(‪.‬‬
‫לדעת ר' יוסף קארו אף על פי שהתקבלה הלכה לפטור מעונש ומקרבן על ביאת מקדש‪ ,‬מכל מקום הוא עובר על איסור‬
‫תורה‪ .‬כיון שטומאת הגוף חמורה שכן היא בכרת‪ ,‬לכן אפילו כאשר אין עונש של כרת היא חמורה מטומאת בשר ‪ -‬על‬
‫אף שהבשר נטמא‪ ,‬אין לעשות בטומאת הגוף‪ .‬כלומר‪ ,‬בפסח לא הותרה טומאת הגוף כשנטמא הבשר משום שטומאת‬
‫הגוף חמורה לכשעצמה; ממילא מובן מדוע אין עונש כרת בכניסת כהנים – שכבר בהכנסת הסכין הם מתחייבים בכרת‬
‫‪.‬עמוד ב( משום שהכניס כלי טמא למקדש‪ ,‬ואין כל תוספת בכרת הכהנים שנטמאו עירובין דף קד ‪),‬רש"י‬

‫‪Rashi explains this to mean that a metal implement that touches a dead body acquires the same‬‬
‫‪).11‬הטומאה אבות אבי ‪degree of tumah as the body itself, i.e.,‬‬

‫‪There are different degrees of tumah. The most potent level of tumah is, e.g., a corpse. A corpse‬‬
‫הטומאה ‪which touches a vessel will transfer its tumah to the vessel (or person) rendering them an‬‬
‫‪ will make a rishon letumah, a rishon will transfer to a sheni, and a sheini to a‬הטומאה אב ‪. An‬אב‬
‫‪shlishi. A metal implement is an exception to this rule.‬‬

‫‪, it acquires the same‬הטומאה אב ‪ or an‬אבות אבי הטומאה ‪When it comes into contact with either an‬‬
‫‪degree of tumah as its source.‬‬

‫‪Rambam (1) rules that this exception to the rule of the transferal of tumah is not across the board.‬‬
‫‪). However,‬מגע טומאת( ‪It only applies to tumah contracted through direct contact with the source‬‬
‫‪ that the corpse will transfer tumah to that which is found with‬אהל טומאת ‪this law does not apply to‬‬
‫‪ one who lifts the body, even without touching it, becomes‬משא טומאת ‪items under the same roof and‬‬
‫‪tamei.‬‬

‫‪. Thus, someone who is under the‬אהל טומאת )‪Tosfos (2) argues that this law would also apply to (3‬‬
‫‪same roof as the metal implement will become tamei This has practical relevance in regard to a‬‬
‫‪kohen. Is it permissible for him to visit a museum that has metal implements which were used in‬‬
‫?‪battle and came into direct contact with dead bodies‬‬

‫‪11‬‬
‫‪https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20014.pdf‬‬

‫‪15‬‬
Rema (4) and other poskim (5) state that the custom is to be lenient.

R. Chisda said: This only applies if the knife became tamei through ‘corpse tum’ah.’ For the
Merciful One says, “a sword becomes a dead person (i.e., the metal of the sword takes on a status
of tum’as meis). Thus, the knife contaminates the person from the outset, so that the pesach is made
by those in a state of body tum’ah and would be subject to kares. But if the knife is contaminated
with tum’as sheretz, it’s better to be in violation of a negative transgression than to eat the korban
with body contamination and be chayav kareis.

The Gemara later (79a)12 explains that one who became ritually impure from a knife which
touched a corpse, and then ate from the Korban Pesach, would be chayav kareis.

Rambam (1) rules according to this opinion. The opinion of the Raavad (2), however, is that one
is not chayav kareis. He holds3 that the chiyuv kareis only applies according to R. Meir in the
Tosefta, but the Raavad holds that the halacha follows the Rabbis, that one is not chayav kareis.
The aforementioned discussion applies to kodashim.

In our days the Poskim (4) discuss whether kohanim need to be careful not to touch, nor be in a
home (5) where one of the metal utensils which touched a corpse or was in the same house (6) as
a corpse, because of the law of “a sword that touches the dead contracts tum’ah like the dead.”

In practice, the Rema (7) writes that most act leniently in the matter. This is also the opinion of
the rest of the Poskim (8).
12
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20079.pdf

16
Even though I am not a kohen I felt a profound inner revulsion in disturbing the sanctity of the
human body when I arrived in medical school in 1969. The dissection lab was divided into
groups of 8 medical student with 4 on each side of the corpse for dissection.

Clearly one had to pass this rite of passage (and pass the anatomy examinations) in order to
proceed to clinical medicine.

I approached my anatomy instructor, a religious Christian who came down from Cambridge to
tutor us, and expressed my concerns.

He fully understood and allowed me to observe the entire 18 months without ever touching the
corpse. I felt the divine hand present in this moment.

The Study of Medicine by Kohanim13

Edward R. Burns writes:14

13
Dr. Burns is Executive Dean and Professor of Medicine and Pathology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva
University.
14
https://www.yu.edu/sites/default/files/legacy//uploadedFiles/Academics/Seminary/RIETS/Programs/Jewish_Medical_Ethics/Ve
rapo_Yerapey/The%20Study%20of%20Medicine%20by%20Kohanim.pdf

17
There is a strong and well-known tradition that a kohen, a priestly descendant of the Biblical tribe
of Levi, is not permitted to study medicine. While the reasons behind this prohibition clearly stem
from concerns of ritual defilement, the blanket proscription is a relatively new phenomenon. Many
illustrious rabbinic scholars through the ages were both kohanim and physicians. The Talmud
relates that both Rav Yishmael and Samuel along with Rav Chanina ben Dosa filled the dual
position of being great scholars and physicians despite being priests. It was only from the
eighteenth century onward, when the study of human anatomy on deceased corpses became an
integral part of a physician’s education, that the issue of kohanim studying medicine became
problematic.

BASIS OF THE PROHIBITION

The Torah:
;‫ַהֹכֲּה ִנים ְבֵּני ַאֲהֹרן‬-‫ ֱאֹמר ֶאל‬,‫ֹמֶשׁה‬-‫א ַויּ ֹאֶמר ְיהָוה ֶאל‬ 1 And the LORD said unto Moses: Speak unto
.‫ ִיַטָּמּא ְבַּﬠָמּיו‬-‫ ְלֶנֶפשׁ ל ֹא‬,‫ְוָאַמ ְרָתּ ֲאֵלֶהם‬ the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto
them: There shall none defile himself for the
dead among his people;
Lev 21:1

forbids the sons of Aaron to defile themselves by contact with a human corpse either by direct
touch or by being under the same roof, known as tumas ohel: And the Lord said to Moses: Speak
to the priests the sons of Aaron, and say to them: There shall none defile himself for the dead
among his people; except for his kin that is near to him, for his mother and for his father, and for
his son, and for his daughter . . .

There is thus a Biblical prohibition against a kohen touching or being in the same room as a Jewish
corpse except for the abovementioned close relatives, as well as a wife, brother, and sister.

Numerous Talmudic and post-Talmudic discussions have dealt with the defiling nature of a Jewish
versus a non-Jewish corpse. The prevailing opinion is that a Jewish corpse can defile both by touch
and tumas ohel, whereas a gentile corpse only defiles by touch but not by being in the same room.
There is, however, considerable disagreement on this last point, with a number of authorities
opining that even gentile corpses defile by tumas ohel similar to Jewish corpses.

Given that the study of gross anatomy, defined as the dissection of a human cadaver by a medical
student, is a major requirement of virtually every medical school in the United States, it is clear
that an observant kohen cannot undertake the study of medicine if active dissection is required.

One question that remains open is whether a kohen may be permitted to study medicine if given
special permission to fulfill his anatomy requirement by observing, but not participating in, the
dissection. According to the opinion that gentile corpses do not cause impurity simply by being
under the same roof or, more specifically, room ceiling, it is conceivable that there is room for a
permissive approach.

18
Based on known data, one can be confident that the overwhelming majority of cadavers made
available for medical student dissection are not of Jewish origin. Using the legal concept of rov,
or majority rule, there is ample allowance to consider every cadaver as being non-Jewish. Thus,
there would be no intrinsic objection to a kohen’s standing in an anatomy lab and observing a
dissection, provided he does not actually touch the cadaver. He could, for example, use a laser
pointer to specifically designate anatomic structures for learning or exam purposes.

This allowance would only be countenanced by those who hold the opinion that gentile corpses do
not defile by being in the same room. There is a strong minority view, however, that gentile corpses
defile priests in an identical manner to Jewish corpses. It should be noted that the use of the
masculine pronoun when referring to a kohen is intentional, as women who are the daughters of a
kohen are totally permitted to study medicine. The practical defect in the reasoning of the
preceding paragraph is the great unlikelihood that any medical school would grant an exemption
from the dissection requirement. Physical participation in the dissection of a corpse is widely
considered one of the most important aspects of medical training that sensitizes future physicians
to respect their patients, and is therefore unlikely to be dispensed with. Indeed, the introduction of
computerized virtual 3-D anatomy to replace conventional dissections has not occurred because of
the perceived importance of this rite of passage.

Should such an exemption be given, or were computerized substitutes for dissection introduced,
then a reexamination of the prohibition would be in order. There have been rabbis who have ruled
that kohanim who are very desirous of studying medicine should be allowed to study anatomy
because of their future ability to save lives, but these rabbis are not considered by rabbinic scholars
to be authorities on this matter.

Indeed, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, arguably the twentieth century’s leading Orthodox Jewish legal
scholar, strongly objected to this line of reasoning, stating that one is only obligated to heal and
save lives if one is already a practicing physician. He states: It is prohibited for priests to study
medicine in medical schools in countries where it is necessary to have contact with corpses. One
should not point to some of our ancient sages who were both priests and physicians and were able
to learn all of medical science by oral teaching without any observations on or physical contact
with corpses. In our times, this is impossible and therefore is prohibited.

One semi-permissive opinion is that of the Chatam Sofer, who argued that a kohen is able to study
medicine if he can do so without becoming ritually defiled, even if in the future, as a practicing
physician, he may have to set aside the sanctity of the priesthood in life-saving situations. The
relevance of this opinion, however, is minimized by the unlikelihood of finding a medical school
in the United States that would permit a medical student to be excused from the anatomy dissection
requirement.

In summary, then, it is prohibited for a kohen to participate in the dissection of cadavers. If a kohen
is given an ironclad written exemption from this requirement as well as the handling of other
human tissues, such as bones and human histology and pathology specimens and slides, then it
may be permitted for him to attend medical school, providing he can pass all exams in gross and
microscopic anatomy without actively participating in these activities.

19
KOHANIM IN THE HOSPITAL

Another problem with a kohen’s studying medicine is the high probability that he will encounter
a deceased Jewish body during his clinical training, when, as a student, he is incapable of
functioning as a fully trained physician licensed to provide life-saving care. If a kohen is already
a physician, then the injunctions against defilement do not apply in situations where life-
threatening disease is present, since a kohen is allowed to defile himself “to save a life.” That
permissive ruling does not, however, extend to the study of medicine, but only to the practice of
medicine.

The argument that today’s study will permit a kohen to save lives in the future is non-operative
inasmuch as the permissive principle of practice only applies if the patient with life-threatening
illness is immediately at hand. Once a priest has become a physician, the question arises as to
whether he is permitted to practice medicine, to treat terminally ill patients, and to visit and treat
non–terminally ill patients in a hospital where corpses are frequently present. Many authorities
allow these visits, but some are more restrictive and permit them only when there are no other
physicians present.

Most authorities do, however, permit a kohen to treat terminally ill patients. According to Rabbi
Feinstein, the problems of defilement by corpses in a hospital are mitigated for practicing
physicians (as opposed to students) by the physical structure of hospitals, where each patient room
and treatment area is considered to be a separate compartment.

Therefore, a kohen passing by in a corridor or who is in another room is not considered to be in

the same room as the corpse.

CONCLUSIONS

The overwhelming majority of authoritative rabbinic scholars prohibit the study of medicine by a
kohen in any school where the dissection of human corpses is required. If a student is given
permission to learn anatomy by observation of dissection without participation there is room for
leniency, although the problem of encountering corpses in the hospital for an as yet unlicensed
medical student remains.

Medical schools in the United States remain heavily committed to the teaching of gross anatomy
because of the strong feeling that dissection provides a multidimensional understanding of the
human body, highlights anatomical variability, fosters learning in a peer group as part of a team,
and incomparably introduces medical students to the comprehension of death and humanistic care.

Non-participation in dissection is either not permitted or severely frowned upon because of the
strong belief that the study of anatomy involves far more than learning the names of the body’s
parts and that dissection provides a multidimensional understanding and unique appreciation of
the human body.

20
The use of plastic models and computerized technologies is still considered an adjunct to the
teaching process. If a kohen chooses to ignore the stated prohibitions and studies anatomy
nevertheless, he is permitted to practice medicine once he achieves his medical degree and license.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Priests as Physicians,” in Immanuel Jakobovits, Jewish Medical Ethics, Bloch, New York, 1959, pp. 238–243.

“Kohanim as Medical and Dental Students,” in J. David Bleich, Judaism and Healing, Ktav, New York, 1981, pp. 37–42.

“Priests Studying and Practicing Medicine,” in Fred Rosner, Modern Medicine and Jewish Ethics, Yeshiva University Press, 1986,
pp. 45–58.
“Kohen Studying Medicine,” in Fred Rosner and Moshe Tendler, Practical Medical Halacha, 3rd ed., 1990, p. 16.

“Priest Studying Medicine,” in Avraham Steinberg, Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics, Feldheim, New York, pp. 839–847.

Older J: Anatomy: A must for teaching the next generation. Surg J R Coll Surg Edinb Irel 2:79–90, 2004.

Johann Ludwig Casper by H. Löwenstein, 1832.15

15
Johann Ludwig Casper (11 March 1796 – 24 February 1864) was a German forensic scientist, criminologist, pathologist,
pediatrician, pharmacologist, professor and author.
Casper was born in 1796 in Berlin, Germany. He studied pharmacology and medicine in Berlin, Göttingen and Halle, and he
officially graduated with a doctorate in 1819. Casper traveled to familiarize himself with medical science in France and England,

21
Forensic medicine developed in relation to law and it was often legal requirements
that pushed improvements in forensic medicine forward. The Justinian
enactments between AD 529 and 564 represent, according to Sydney Smith, the
highest point of achievement in forensic medicine in the ancient world. The Italian
town charters played an important role from the 11th to 13th century. The period
from the late 16th to 18th century was characterized by books published on
forensic medicine.

One of the most remarkable experts in forensic medicine in the 19th century was
Johann Ludwig Casper, the founder of modern forensic medicine in Prussia. In
Vienna an institute of forensic medicine had been founded by 1804 as the Institute
of Forensic Pharmacology and Medical Police. In the UK the development of
forensic medicine lagged behind Italy, France and Germany due to differences in
legal systems and practices.

Forensic Science Techniques from Ancient Rome Reveal Shocking

Gaps in Modern Methods

Kristina Killgrove writes:16

The modern practice of forensic science is generally agreed to date back to at least the early 19th
century in Europe, but ancient Roman history contains examples of three seemingly modern
techniques that were used to solve crimes centuries before that. Shockingly, some of our modern
techniques are not based in accepted science and are not significantly different than the Romans'.

and then returned to his native city in 1822. He became a professor at the Medicinal College of the Province of Brandenburg and,
in 1824, a private docent at a medical facility. His primary interests were pathology and pediatrics. Casper joined the Scientific
Deputation a decade later.
In 1839, he became a professor at the Medicina Forensis and Publica[1] and then the director of an educational institution for
forensic medicine in 1841. In 1852, Casper published Über Nothzucht und Päderastie und deren Ermittlung Seitens des
Gerichtsarztes. In 1858, he proposed a consistent ratio of the time taken for a body to putrefy in different substances – 1:2:8 in air,
water and earth. This would later be known as Casper's Dictum.
Casper may have been the earliest writer to include colored lithographs in books about forensic pathology. Before his sudden death
in 1864, Casper published colored lithographs of gunshot wounds in cadavers in his textbook, Atlas zum Handbuch der
gerichtlichen Medicin

16
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2018/11/28/these-three-forensic-science-techniques-from-ancient-rome-reveal-
shocking-gaps-in-modern-methods/?sh=37a3544958fe

22
Enlightenment era practices in the Age of Reason led to the creation of modern forensic science,
with methods in toxicology, fingerprint analysis, and ballistics coming into vogue. High-profile
cases like Jack the Ripper in England and the Parker-Webster murder case in the U.S. employed
new forensic techniques in the second half of the 19th century. This was also the time period in
which the term forensics became widely used, related to the Latin word forum, as the Romans
would present legal charges in the public square.

While the ancient Romans did not have a specific term for forensic science, nor a full
understanding of techniques of criminal investigation as science, there are historical examples of
their using bloodstain pattern analysis, footprints and drag marks, and dental markers in figuring
out whodunnit.

A bloody handprint looms large in an instructional legal case written up by the Roman jurist
Quintilian or one of his students in the early 2nd century AD. The case is titled "Paries Palmatus"
or "The Wall of Handprints" and involves a blind son accused of stabbing his father in his sleep in
order to obtain his inheritance. Purportedly, the blind man took his sword from his room, walked
across the house in the dead of night, entered his father and stepmother's bedroom, and stabbed his
father once, killing him instantly and not waking up his stepmother, who found her husband dead
in bed when she awoke. A trail of bloody handprints led from the parents' room back to the blind
son's room, and his blood-covered sword was found as well.

Quintilian's proposed defense, however, is that the stepmother did it, upset because she would lose
out on the father's fortune to his blind son -- so she framed the blind man using his own father's
blood:

It was the stepmother, yes, the stepmother who set this up with her sure sight; it was she, with her
right hand, who brought that poor blood there and made the imprint of [her] hand [on the wall]
intermittently! The wall bears the imprints of one palm, has them at intervals, with a certain empty
space in the middle, and everywhere the palm-print is intact; a blind man, on the other hand,
would have dragged his hands [along the wall].

(Pseudo-Quintilian, Declamationes Maiores, 1.11-12)

Modern bloodstain pattern analysis in forensic science dates to the end of the 19th century. In
1895, Dr. Eduard Piotrowski of the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Poland published paper on
the shape and direction of bloodstains following head wounds. While scientifically performed,
Piotrowski's experiments were not exactly ethical, having been done on live rabbits. But what
Quintilian is describing is now called a "transfer stain" that results from an object or body part
coming into contact with fresh blood and then leaving a print elsewhere.

Quintilian goes on in his case example, explaining how the stepmother's grasp on the hilt of the
sword prevented her palm from getting blood on it, and thus the handprints along the wall - with
an empty space in the middle - suggest the person who killed the father was also the one creating
the prints. This is an example of interpretation of a bloodstain pattern that we can imagine being
proposed in court today.

23
Roughly, then, in spite of the lack of modern understanding of the properties and classification of
blood, the Romans appear to have been reasonably skilled at bloodstain pattern analysis and
reconstruction.

In another spouse-killing story, drag marks helped convince the Roman emperor Tiberius of
murder most foul. In his Annals, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote in the 2nd century AD that:

... Plautius Silvanus, the prætor, for unknown reasons, threw his wife Apronia out of a window.
When summoned before the emperor by Lucius Apronius, his father-in-law, he replied
incoherently, representing that he was in a sound sleep and consequently knew nothing, and that
his wife had chosen to destroy herself. Without a moment's delay Tiberius went to the house and
inspected the chamber, where were seen the marks of her struggling and of her forcible ejection.
He reported this to the Senate, and as soon as judges had been appointed, Urgulania, the
grandmother of Silvanus, sent her grandson a dagger. This was thought equivalent to a hint from
the emperor, because of the known intimacy between Augusta and Urgulania. The accused tried
the steel in vain, and then allowed his veins to be opened. Shortly afterwards Numantina, his
former wife, was charged with having caused her husband's insanity by magical incantations and
potions, but she was acquitted.

(Tacitus, Annales, 4.22; translation by Church & Brodribb 1876)

While not as cut-and-dried an example of forensics as the Wall of Handprints, the story related by
Tacitus includes an element of forensic pattern matching or pattern recognition that is sometimes
used today -- for example, comparisons of footprints, fibers, bite marks, and tire tracks in a
homicide case are done by pattern matching.

Pattern matching, although still used, is quite problematic. There are few standards for what
constitutes a good match for many techniques, and juries are often swayed by CSI-sounding
methods like fiber and hair analysis. In fact, the Innocence Project estimates that about 45% of
wrongful convictions in the U.S. are due to shady forensic science, much of it involving pattern
matching, and the FBI in 2015 admitted that over-estimation of the reliability of hair analysis
generally favored the prosecution.

A final tale of ancient forensics more directly concerns the imperial family and one Lollia Paulina,
a wealthy, beautiful woman who was Caligula's third wife for a short time. After Caligula's death,
the new emperor Claudius began to court Paulina but was also interested in Agrippina, who was
his niece and Caligula's younger sister.

Agrippina was not interested in having Lollia Paulina hanging around, even though she eventually
married Claudius and became empress. So she did what many ancient Romans did to eliminate
people they didn't like: she accused Paulina of witchcraft.

Paulina got no trial -- her property was taken away, she was exiled from Italy, and was forced to
commit suicide. Of course, Agrippina couldn't leave it at that, not knowing for sure whether or not
Paulina was gone for good. Historian Cassius Dio wrote in the early 3rd century AD:

24
Indeed, [Agrippina] even destroyed some of the foremost women out of jealousy; thus, she slew
Lollia Paulina because she had been the wife of Gaius [Caligula] and had cherished some hope
of becoming Claudius' wife. As [Agrippina] did not recognize the woman's head when it was
brought to her, she opened the mouth with her own hand and inspected the teeth, which had certain
peculiarities.

(Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, Book LX, 32.4; translation by Earnest Cary 1914)

Bite mark analysis is another issue-plagued forensic technique, explained thoroughly by Radley
Balko and others, that has been recently and widely discredited. But forensic odontology or
forensic dentistry has firmer scientific grounds to stand on.

Dental evidence can reveal age-at-death as well as post-mortem x-rays that can be compared to
known x-rays taken during life, if the goal is to figure out the identity of an unknown skull or jaw.
Each person's dental pattern is fairly unique, and when we add cavities, root canals, crowns, and
other dental appliances to the mix, forensic odontology can be an inexpensive and very reliable
method of identifying the deceased.

The ancient Romans did have dentistry, although not as sophisticated as our own -- it largely
involved extractions, but there is a bit of evidence for appliances to hold in false teeth. We can't
know whether Agrippina thoroughly examined the teeth of the head brought to her, nor whether
Paulina had uniquely identifying dental features. But the similarity seems to have mollified
Agrippina, who may not have had anyone else murdered for a full five years after that.

The ancient forensic techniques of bloodstain analysis, pattern recognition, and odontology may
date back two millennia, but that doesn't mean they've necessarily improved in reliability and
accuracy over the years. Pattern recognition covers a vast array of techniques, including bite marks,
fibers and hair, and footprints and tire marks, but is now considered highly problematic and liable
to wrongfully convict someone. Bloodstains and odontology, on the other hand, have benefitted
from a more scientific approach dating back to the Enlightenment.

But forensic techniques are not foolproof -- research like this into their Roman origins may not be
useful for more than a history lesson, but research into modern forensic science should be one of
the U.S. government's imperatives as it weighs in on literal situations of life or death . Forensic
scientists are doing amazing work negotiating the space between science and the law, but they
need more funding to help bring our judicial system into the 21st century.

25