Purity and Impurity

chapter 4 Purity and Impurity

Purity and Impurity are central religious categories in Judaism. They delineate space, objects and people.1 They divide the sacred and from the profane, the per- mitted from the forbidden, the moral from the immoral, the attractive from the repulsive, and the Jew from the gentile.2 A heightened concern with purity, together with the avoidance of impurity, lies at the center of Jewish religious, spiritual and communal life from Biblical times until the late Talmudic period.3 We have already seen the powerful concern with ritual purity that charac- terized Ashkenazic synagogue life. In this chapter, we will show how care for purity and the avoidance of impurity extended to other areas of religious prac- tice and awareness.

Torah Study and Worship

Jewish tradition, first Biblical and then Rabbinic, posited several types of ritual impurity, of different levels of gravity. The most severe source of pollution, lit- erally the ‘grandfather’ of all pollutions (Avi Avot ha-Tum’ah), was that imparted by direct or indirect contact with a dead human body (Tum’at Met).4 Of the

1 See et, xix, 1–71; and xx, 456–495. Cf. J.Z. Smith, Map is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions, Leiden: Brill 1978, 289–310 and idem, To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1987, 1–23. 2 See M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, London 1966; R. Fardon, Mary Douglas: An Intellectual Biography, London 1999, 75–101; J. Klawans, ‘Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism,’ ajs Review 20 (1995): 285–312; idem, ‘Idolatry, Incest, and Impurity: Moral Defilement in Ancient Judaism,’ Journal for the Study of Judaism 29 (1998): 391–415; idem, ‘Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, New York: Oxford University Press 2000; idem, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, New York: Oxford University Press 2006; C. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2002, 1–3. 3 To various degrees, this was true of all Jewish sects in the Second Temple era. See V. Noam, ‘The Dual Strategy of Rabbinic Purity Legislation,’ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 39 (2008): 471–512 and idem, Me-Qumran la-Mahapekhah ha-Tanna’it, Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi 2010. 4 Cf. Ex. 19, 14–22 and et, xx, 463–487. The designation ‘Avi Avot ha-Tum’ah,’ does not appear in either Tannaitic or Amoraic literature. It first appears in Rashi’s Talmudic

132 chapter 4 other sources of pollution, the most ubiquitous and significant are those brought about by a genital discharge (tum’ah ha-yotzet mi-gufo).5 In Temple times, one who was rendered impure via tum’ah ha-yotzet mi-gufo was barred from the entire Temple Mount.6 Subsections of this group, e.g. menstrual and gonorrheal discharges (niddah and zavah), also generated a prohibition against marital relations prior to purification by immersion in a miqveh, the violation of which bore the dire punishment of excision (karet).7 Over time, Talmudic and post-Talmudic authorities significantly extended the parameters of these forms of impurity. A menstruant, whose Biblical impurity had been set at seven days, was now additionally classified as a zavah and was required to wait seven ‘clean’ days, after her last blood discharge, before

commentaries (Rashi, Shabbat 66a s.v. ve-en tameh; Rashi, Pesahim 14b s.v. be-halal herev. Cf. Tosafot Baba Bathra 20a s.v. be-havit), and then in the twelfth century midrashic anthol- ogy, Midrash Aggadah, ed. S. Buber, ad Num. 19 pars. 16 and 21. Rabbi Daniel Wolf, of Yeshivat Har Etzion, observed to me that he is convinced that the phrase was Rashi’s invention. If so, its presence in Midrash Aggadah, which is of Ashkenazic provenance, testifies to the speed with which it became part of the halakhic vocabulary. Cf., e.g., Cf. mt, Hil. Tum’at Met 5, 9. Ashkenazic discussion of death pollution is somewhat anemic. Prima facie, this is due to the simple fact that, in the absence of the ashes of the Red Heifer, purification from death pollution was impossible. I address this question in a forthcoming study. 5 Cf. Lev. 15 and Deut. 23, 11–12. According to the Bible, almost all discharges of blood or of semen render the individual impure. The exception is post-partum bleeding which, as far as the Bible was concerned, did not render the woman impure, after the parturient impurity of one week (for a male-child) or two weeks (for a female child). Later developments included these blood discharges as well. See et, iv: 130–148 (Ba’al Qeri); ix: 621–654 (Zav and Zava); and xxii: 297–362 (Yoledet). By contrast, Islamic tradition views all bodily emissions as defil- ing. Cf. M. Holmes, Body of Text: The Emergence of the Sunni Law of Ritual Purity, Albany: suny Press 2002, 1–13. 6 Cf. B. Pesahim 68a. One who has contracted the most severe form of impurity, contact with a corpse (tame met), is only restricted from entering the actual Temple precincts. One who emits semen, whether man or woman after relations (Ba’al Qeri and Poletet Shikhvat Zera), on the other hand, was allowed entry to the Temple Mount after immersion in a miqveh. This is the most reasonable explanation for the large number of Second Temple era ritual baths that have been uncovered around the site of the Temple Mount. See, per contra, E. Regev, ‘The Ritual Baths near the Temple Mount and Extra-purification Before Entering the Temple Courts,’ Israel Exploration Journal 55 (2005): 194–204. 7 Lev. 20, 18 and M. Keritot 1, 1. There are varying opinions as to the nature of karet. See E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. I. Abrahams, Jerusalem: Magnes 1989, Index s.v. karet.