אף על פי שהכהן אסור ליכנס לבית הפרס (פי' שדה שאבד בה קבר ושנחרש בה קבר ושיעורה מאה אמה) או לארץ העמים אם צריך לילך שם לישא אשה או ללמוד תורה ואין לו דרך אחרת יכול לעבור דרך שם אפילו אם מוצא ללמוד במקום אחר וכן אבל העובר דרך שם יכול לילך אחריו לנחמו וכן מטמא בטומאה של דבריהם לדון עם עובדי כוכבים ולערער עמהם מפני שהוא כמציל מידם וכן כל כיוצא בזה: הגה כהן ששוכב ערום והוא באהל עם המת ולא ידע אין להגיד לו אלא יקראו לו סתם שיצא כדי שילביש עצמו תחלה אבל אם כבר הגידו לו אסור להמתין עד שילביש עצמו ודוקא אם הוא באהל המת שהוא טומאה דאורייתא אבל אם הוא בבית הפרס או ארץ העמים שהיא טומאה דרבנן ילביש עצמו תחלה דגדול כבוד הבריות (ת"ה סימן רפ"ה) כמו שנתבאר לעיל סימן ש"ג לענין כלאים. כהן שהוא ישן ומת עמו באהל צריכין להקיצו ולהגיד לו כדי שיצא (תשובת מהרי"ל סימן ס"ט):

In spite of the fact that the Kohen¹ is prohibited to enter a Peras-area, i.e., a field in which there was a lost grave or² in which a grave had been ploughed up and the extent [of the prohibited area being] a hundred cubits [in every direction],³ — half the length of a furrow, i.e., fifty cubits. It refers to a field in which a grave was ploughed over and the position of the crushed bones is not known. Hence, the field is regarded unclean. This is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Rashi (Nid. 57a) derives Peras from the rt. פרס ‘to break’ and it refers to the area of the broken or crushed bones. Maim. (Ohol. XVII, 1) takes it from the rt. פרס — פרש ‘to spread or extend,’ i.e., an area of extension. For a full analysis of Beth ha-Peras with respect to uncleanness, v. Ber. 19b; Shab. 15b; Pes. 92a-b; Hag. 25b; M.K. 5b (v. D.S. a.l.) ; Kel. 3; Ohol. XVII, 1; XVIII, 1; Tohor. IV, 5; V, 1; Bek. 22a, 29a-b; Nid. 57a, also Jastrow and Levy s.v. פרס. or the country of the heathens,⁴area. ‘Er. 30b; Ḥag. 25a; Naz. 19b, 54a-55a; Git. 7b. According to Weiss (Dor I, 105) this decree was issued in the days of Alcimus in order to stem the tide of emigration as a result of his persecutions. Cf. supra § 369, n. 9. — if he must go there [in order] to take a wife or to study Torah, and he has no other road, he may pass through there,⁵ s.v. ללמוד. He must, however, not pass over the graves proper — TaZ. even if he can manage to study elsewhere.⁶. in accord with R. Jose. And so too, [with respect to] a mourner who passes through there, — [the law is that] he⁷ may go after him to console him.⁸ Likewise, may he⁷ incur uncleanness [which is forbidden] by a Rabbinical decree, [viz., by going] to argue [matters] with heathens and to contest [in court the legality of their acts], for he is as one who saves [his property] from their hand, and so also anything that is similar to this.⁹ Gloss: A Kohen¹ who lies undressed whilst in the [same] tent with a corpse and was not aware¹⁰ [of this], should not be informed thereof, but he should be called [out] without specifying [the reason thereof], so that he leave, [and the grounds for not specifying the reason being] in order that he dress himself first. But if they had already told him [the reason], he is forbidden to remain [there] until he dresses himself.¹¹ is in the same tent with the corpse, but if he is in one of the adjoining houses, although they too, become unclean (v. supra § 371, 4), nevertheless, this category of uncleanness is prohibited Rabbinically only, for the law is that only Biblically, a tent that has a hollow space of one handbreadth (i.e., between the outside and the uncleanness, or the cover of the coffin and the corpse it contains. Thus Ḥatam Sofer Y.D. § 340, 2), forms a partition against the uncleanness (Ber. 19b). And even when the house in which the corpse lies is closed up on every side, the principle ‘that ultimately the uncleanness spreads to the adjoining houses,’ is only Rabbinical. Consequently, if the Kohen is present in the adjoining house, he may dress himself first — ShaK. This ruling is rejected by quite a number of codifiers. M.Abr. O.Ḥ. § 343, n. 2; D.Merb. a.l. and also A.H. Others defend ShaK’s ruling. Isserles’ ruling here applies only where the Kohen entered the tent or house at which time the person was still alive. In this case his entry would not be considered a flagrant act, but if he entered the corpse’s tent when it was already forbidden to do so, even if done unwittingly, it is regarded as a flagrant act — P.Tesh. Contra Isserles, the Kohen should put on the most essential garments in the case where the reason for leaving was specified to him — D.Merb. P.Tesh. for additional reasons pro and con Isserles. And [this applies] only if he is in the corpse's tent, which is an uncleanness [forbidden] Biblically, but if he is in a Peras-area³ — half the length of a furrow, i.e., fifty cubits. It refers to a field in which a grave was ploughed over and the position of the crushed bones is not known. Hence, the field is regarded unclean. This is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Rashi (Nid. 57a) derives Peras from the rt. פרס ‘to break’ and it refers to the area of the broken or crushed bones. Maim. (Ohol. XVII, 1) takes it from the rt. פרס — פרש ‘to spread or extend,’ i.e., an area of extension. For a full analysis of Beth ha-Peras with respect to uncleanness, v. Ber. 19b; Shab. 15b; Pes. 92a-b; Hag. 25b; M.K. 5b (v. D.S. a.l.) ; Kel. 3; Ohol. XVII, 1; XVIII, 1; Tohor. IV, 5; V, 1; Bek. 22a, 29a-b; Nid. 57a, also Jastrow and Levy s.v. פרס. or in the country of the heathens, which is an uncleanness forbidden [only] Rabbinically, he should dress himself first, for human dignity [in proper appearance] is very important¹² s. 285 — G. Ber. 19b. If on Yom Kippur it happened that there was a corpse in a room adjoining the Synagogue, the Cantor, if a Kohen, should, in the first instance, not be informed thereof. However, even if the Cantor-Kohen knows about it, he may continue to lead the services, for it would be very disrespectful to the Congregation to remain without a Cantor — T. T. Wa-Da‘ath. as has been explained supra § 303 regarding the subject of Kilay'im.¹ A Kohen¹ who was asleep and there was a corpse with him in the [same] tent must be awakened and told [about it]¹³ and Tosaf. s.v. שב; N in T.H.; W.G. a.l. in order that he leave.¹⁴ 69 — G. According to MaHaRIL (ibid.) this prohibition is applicable although there is no tangible action involved, and ordinarily we do not administer flogging in such cases (v. Mak. 2b), yet in our case it is forbidden, because a Biblical prohibition is involved. It follows therefore, that were only a Rabbinical prohibition involved (e.g., where the Kohen is in the adjoining house. supra n. 10), the Kohen should not be awakened. This is perhaps the meaning of Isserles’ words, ‘and there was a corpse with him in the (same) tent’ — ShaK.

footnotes: ¹ Glos. ² Lit. ‘and.’ ³ Heb. בית הפרם, lit. ‘an area of square Peras’. Peras ⁴ Those parts of the Land of Israel where the population was predominantly Samaritan or non-Jewish (e.g., Phoenicia) and was declared by the Rabbis as unclean, similar to a Peras- ⁵ A.Z. 13a and Tosaf. ibid. ⁶ A.Z. ibid ⁷ The Kohen. ⁸ Ber. 19b in accord with R. Abba. ⁷ The Kohen. ⁹ A.Z. ibid. ¹ Glos. ¹⁰ Lit. ‘did not know.’ ¹¹ This applies only if the Kohen ³ Heb. בית הפרם, lit. ‘an area of square Peras’. Peras ¹² Ter. ha-Deshen ¹ Glos. ¹ Glos. ¹³ Ber. 20a, Rashi ¹⁴ MaHaRIL Resp.

[With respect to] the graves of heathens, it is proper for a Kohen¹ to be careful not to walk upon them,¹⁵ and Tosaf. B.M. 114a-b — G. also Yeb. 61a, Tosaf. s.v. ממגע Cf. Ker. 6b. although there are some [authorities] who adopt a lenient view.¹⁶ III, 3; Hag. Maim. ibid. on the authority of Sefer Yere’im — G. Those who advocate the lenient view maintain that the law rests with R. Simeon b. Yoḥai (Gemara ibid.); those of the stringent view hold that the law rests with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel (v. Ohol. XVIII, 7). The proponents of the lenient view, however, maintain that heathen graves defile through contact and carriage (מגע ומשא) and that only the uncleanness of overshadowing is not applicable to them. And it is proper to adopt the stringent view. However, the grave of an [Israelite] who was an apostate in respect of idolatry,¹⁷ imparts uncleanness as [the grave] of one who was a [conforming] Israelite.¹⁸ s. 194 and 242 — G. San. 44a s.v. ישראל; Yeb. 47b s.v. למאי הלכתא; Kid. 36a s.v. בין כך ובין כך.

footnotes: ¹ Glos. ¹⁵ R. Meir of Rothenberg ¹⁶ Yad, Ebel ¹⁷ Or e.g., a Karaite Jew — A.H. ¹⁸ RaShBA