Ohalos, Chapter 18, Mishnah 9. This chapter deals with the tumah that Chazal attached to the dwelling places of ovdei kochavim, "medar ovdei kochavim," out of the concern that stillborn infants (nefalim) were buried there. Our mishnah continues in that subject: which structures are excluded from this decree, and which specific locations in and around Eretz Yisrael were treated as tamei or as tahor.
Haistavniyos
The mishnah opens with the haistavniyos, teaching that they carry nothing of the tumah imposed on a gentile dwelling place, "ein bahem mishum medar" ovdei kochavim. What were the haistavniyos? Benches and colonnaded porches put up along the front of a house, where a person could settle down and rest. They also served a decorative purpose: they gave the home a handsome look as one came toward it.
Two features of such a place remove it from the concern of medar ovdei kochavim. First, it was built plainly for the sake of adorning the house, not as a private living space. Second, it stood wide open to the reshus harabim, exposed to the passersby. Nobody would bury a nefel in a spot like that. Therefore, explains the Bartenura, there is no requirement to examine (bodek) such a place for tumah at all.
Ir Shecharva: A Destroyed City
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel then introduces the case of an "ir shecharva," a city that has been laid waste. He is speaking of a settlement inside Eretz Yisrael whose inhabitants had been ovdei kochavim and which was later destroyed. Such a place, he rules, is no longer subject to the tumah decreed on the dwellings of ovdei kochavim.
The reason lies in the nature of a ruin. Once the population is gone, wild animals (chayos) move in and make the place their own, and chayos will sniff out the nefalim that lie buried there. With no people present to keep them away, the animals will have discovered and removed whatever was buried, so the original concern no longer applies.
Kisrin: A Place Held to Be Tamei
The mishnah continues: "Mizrach Kisrin u'ma'arav Kisrin kvoros." To the east of Kisrin and to the west of Kisrin there were graves, a genuine beis hakvaros. This location, though situated in Eretz Yisrael, was muchzak b'tumah, established as tamei, because it was a known fact that kevarim were there.
Where exactly was Kisrin? The mefarshim locate it up north, in the upper Galil. One view identifies it with Tzipori. Another identifies it with Tzor, which in fact lies past the borders of Eretz Yisrael and yet is "mevulas," notched into the boundary line: Maseches Gittin teaches us that the border indents at that spot. Drawn as a straight line, the frontier would take Tzor in; in practice it curves around the city and leaves it outside. Tzor accordingly bears the tumah of eretz ha'amim. What our mishnah adds is that the stretches of land on the city's eastern and western sides hold precisely the same status, since those were the areas where the meisim were in fact interred.
East of Akko
"U'mizrach Akko hayah safek, v'tiharu chachamim." Akko is a city in the northwest of Eretz Yisrael, and it was divided: part of it lay within the boundary of the land and part of it lay outside. Regarding the eastern side of Akko there was an initial doubt (safek) whether it belonged to Eretz Yisrael or to chutz la'aretz. Out of stringency, the tumah of chutz la'aretz was practiced there.
That was only for a period of time. Eventually the chachamim looked into the matter and investigated it, and they declared: this area may be treated as tahor. So the mishnah is describing a history: at first there was a safek, and in the end the chachamim were metaher it.
Rebbi and His Beis Din Regarding Keini
The mishnah closes with a ruling about Keini, a locale within Eretz Yisrael: "nimnu al Keini v'tiharu." Rebbi, sitting with his beis din, took a formal count and issued a decision about the place. Until then its status had been unclear, and people had conducted themselves there with the stringencies of a spot that might be tamei. That court now ruled otherwise, declaring that no chashash of tumah attaches to Keini at all.
Just where Keini stood is not spelled out by the mefarshim; some situate it in the northern portion of the land, others in the south. Its precise location aside, its story runs parallel to that of eastern Akko: the practices of tumah were maintained there solely on account of an unresolved doubt, and they fell away once Rebbi's court determined that the site is tahor.
The mishnah thus moves from a general principle, that an open, decorative porch is never included in the decree of medar ovdei kochavim, to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's ruling about a ruined city, and finally to a record of actual places: Kisrin and its surroundings, which were held tamei; and eastern Akko and Keini, which began in doubt and were ultimately declared tahor by the chachamim and by Rebbi and his beis din.