Could a Cohen burn a body to escape the impurity?

Question

Excuse the extreme hypothetical, but:

If a Cohen were locked in a room with no windows and a dead body, and just so happened to have lighter fluid and a pack of matches (and there were small holes in the ceiling for the smoke to escape), should he/could he burn the body in order to escape the prohibition of being in the same enclosure of a corpse (Rama YD 372:1 - the prohibition is not just to enter a place of impurity, but also to remain there)?

In more general terms, would alleviating his prohibition of being with a corpse override the seeming denigration of the body through burning it¹?

(I've heard before that in such a situation, the Cohen would be required to actually eat the body in order to get rid of it, but even if true it seems rather impractical, as he would have to eat practically all of the bone mass as well.)

^{1 Yes I am aware that the issue of burning a body does not have such a clear source}

Answer 1

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Recall that a Cohen -- even a Cohen Gadol -- is obligated to contact a dead body if that's the only way it will receive a proper burial -- this is known as meis mitzva.

So in your hypothetical scenario, the Cohen is now in a position whereby he is the only one who can ensure this corpse remains intact for proper burial. Hence, halacha requires him to do just that.

Answer 2

Rabbi Moshe Shemuel Glasner (1856-1924) writes in the introduction of his Dor HaRevi'i to Chullin that if one has the option to consume human flesh or non-kosher meat, even though the former is at most prohibited by a positive commandment, while the latter is prohibited by a more stringent negative commandment, it is preferable to consume the animal flesh. This stems from meta-halachic concerns which he discusses there at length. The primary issue is that cannibalism is something which ought to be repulsive to us even sans technicalities, and is to be avoided even at the expense of the prohibition of forbidden meat:

כל מה שנתקבל בעיני בני אדם הנאורים לתועבה, אפילו אינו מפורש בתורה לאיסור, העובר על זה גרע מן העובר על חוקי התורה . . . ועתה אמור נא, בחולה שיש בו סכנה ולפניו בשר בהמה נחורה או טרפה ובשר אדם, איזה בשר יאכל, הכי נאמר דיאכל בשר אדם שאין בו איסור תורה אע"פ שמחוק הנימוס שמקובל מכלל האנושי, כל האוכל או מאכיל בשר אדם מודח מלהיות נמנה בין האישים, ולא יאכל בשר שהתורה אסרו בלאו, היעלה על הדעת שאנו עם הנבחר עם חכם ונבון נעבור על חוק הנימוס כזה להינצל מאיסור תורה? אתמהה!

Answer 3

this is a good Question, very interesting. I want to separate it in a couple of different parts: Your first assumption is that Cohen, will be less unclean when the dead will disappear.

--> You consider the being in the same Ohel as a Tum'a bechiburim, and you rule as the opinion on Gemara that Chibure Adam Bemet Deorayta. So without dead in the Ohel, not chiburim. This opinion is agreed by Rambam and Shulchan Aruch follows it. But to reach this psak, we see 2 ways in Rishonim: 1.- following Tosfot Nazir 42b, Abbaye is the "Baal Hadea" aliba deRabba. But following Shut Harashba 324, Rav Yosef is Baal Hadea, against Rabba. Concerning Rambam, Lechem Mishne and Raavad learned it as the Rashba Psak. So, (lehagdil Tora Ulehaadira) the psak is of Rav Yosef.

Additionally, you need to deal with the Tosfot Rid in Avoda Zara 37b, who comments the above cited Gemara Benazir. The Gemara is seeking a case of nazir Tame who becomes tame again, Tum'a Veohel, Tum'a Vetum'a. He thinks that following one step of Rabba (at least at the starting of the Gemara) if someone touch a dead and after this is Maahil, he is flagelled twice. So, when he eat the dead, he touch it and adds a Lav. If he can burn it without any touching, may be good.

I will be very happy to discuss the topic and discover errors in my answer.

I was still not convinced that there is a Lav to leave a chiburin through Ohel which is by Shev Veal Taasse. But @DoubleAA show me Rambam Avelut 3, 4, and I have found there in Lechem Mishne in name of Kesef Mishne Kilayim in name of Ritba that a lav Sheein Bo maasse that you can cancel is considered as an act by uncancellation and as an Asse.

Answer 4

Acknowledging a distinction between the following and a full body, the Mishna (Ohelos 4:2) says that one is allowed to burn a piece of a dead body, seemingly for convenience:

תֵּבַת הַמִּגְדָּל, יֶשׁ בָּהּ פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח וְאֵין בִּיצִיאָתָהּ פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח, טֻמְאָה בְתוֹכָהּ, הַבַּיִת טָמֵא. טֻמְאָה בַבַּיִת, מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טָהוֹר, שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הַטֻּמְאָה לָצֵאת וְאֵין דַּרְכָּהּ לְהִכָּנֵס. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַהֵר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאָהּ לַחֲצָאִים אוֹ לְשָׂרְפָהּ בִּמְקוֹמָהּ:

[With regard to] a drawer of the cupboard, which is one cubic handbreadth, but whose outlet is not a square handbreadth, if there is uncleanness inside it, the house becomes unclean; But if there is uncleanness in the house, that which is within [the drawer] remains clean, for the manner of uncleanness is to go out and not to go in. Rabbi Yose declares [the house] clean, since he can remove [the uncleanness] by halves or burn it where it stands.

The distinction between a small piece of a dead body and a whole body is brought by Tosafos Chulin 125b.