In memory of Rabin's assassination,
Conservative Jews around the world have been learning Mishnah with Rabbi Simchah
Roth.
B E T M I D R A S H V I R T U A L I
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel
___________________________________________________________________
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Mishnah Study in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth (of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel)
April 29th 2001 / Iyyar 6th 5761 (Yadayyim 01)
___________________________________________________________________
TRACTATE YADAYIM, CHAPTER ONE, MISHNAH ONE:
One quarter of water should be provided for the hands per person, or even
for two. One half-log [provides] for three or four. More than one log
[provides] for for five, for ten and for one hundred. Rabbi Yose says:
provided that there is no less than one quarter for the last of them.
More may be added to the second [pouring of water] but none may be added
to the first.
EXPLANATIONS:
1:
Before we begin to study this Mishnah we must first review some
introductory material that is essential to our understanding of this
rather recondite tractate.
2:
Many aspects of religious life separate our religious experiences from
those of the Tanna'im and the Amora'im - the sages of the Mishnaic and
Talmudic periods respectively. But one aspect in particular is so strange
to our experience that, apart from one or two vestiges, it is quite beyond
our religious experience - and this has been the case for more than 1500
years. I refer to the whole question of ritual purity. In the written
Torah the laws of ritual purity are detailed thoroughly in many places -
particularly in some of the more recondite chapters of Leviticus and
Numbers. Last Shabbat we read from the Torah the laws of the woman who
has given birth, the laws of the man who has a genital emission, the
leprous person - even the leprous textile and the leprous building!
Almost none of these considerations play any part in our religious lives
today, but to the sages of the Mishnah and Talmud they were of utmost
importance. In the Mishnah of Rabbi Yehudah the President of the Sanhedrin,
which was published around the beginning of the third century CE, one
whole Seder, containing twelve tractates (some of them very long), is
devoted to the topic of ritual purity. Of these twelve tractates only one
has Gemara in the Babylonian Talmud, which was arranged less than two
hundred years later! This must be some indication of the reduction of
importance of the topic: it had ceased to be part of everyday life.
3:
The more difficult a mitzvah [commandment] is to keep the more it is
likely to be ignored by some and elevated by others. Modern examples are
so obvious that there is no need to mention them: Shabbat and Kashrut
immediately spring to mind. In the time of the sages this was true in
particular regarding the laws of ritual purity. The vast majority of the
people were not punctilious in observing the multitude of minutiae
associated with these mitzvot. The sages, however, made every effort to be
paragons of virtue in this matter. Those who seriously took upon
themselves the uttermost observance of the multifarious laws of ritual
purity were termed "Chaverim", "Colleagues". The overwhelming majority of
the people who did not were termed "Am ha-Aretz", and this must be the
origin of the pejorative nature of the term (which means literally "the
people of the land", peasants).
4:
The basic concept which underlies these laws is that ritual impurity is
"contagious"; that is to say that it can be transferred from a source to
people and things that came into physical contact with that impurity, and
that to a certain extent these secondary sources of impurity could also
transmit it further down the line. Thus it was deemed imperative that
everyone make every effort to remain aloof from contracting ritual
impurity and if rendered ritually impure the person or the thing must be
ritually purified according to law.
5:
The primary source of ritual impurity is a human corpse. The Torah
teaches:
Anyone who touches a human corpse shall be impure for seven days... If a
person die inside a tent anyone who enters the tent ... shall be impure
for seven days [Numbers 19:11-14]
The only way in which this primary ritual impurity could be corrected was
by having water which contained ashes of the "red heifer" sprinkled over
the person who had contracted the impurity. This ceremony is described in
detail in Numbers 19. According to the Mishnah [Parah 3:5] the ceremony
of the burning of the carcass of the red heifer (as described in Numbers
19) was performed only nine times from its inception until a few years
before the destruction of the Bet Mikdash in the year 70 CE. If we
examine that Mishnah carefully we can glean that in "historical" times the
ceremony was performed three times between the years 160 BCE and 60 CE, a
period of 220 years. This would suggest that each ceremony provided
enough material for approximately 70 - 80 years. Thus the material
created the last time the ceremony was carried out, around the year 60 CE,
should have lasted well into the second century; and there are indications
in our sources that this was indeed the case. But from the moment that
the material ran out there was no way to remove primary ritual impurity.
6:
Other major sources of ritual impurity are insects and reptilia [Leviticus
11:29ff], the carcasses of animals [Leviticus 11:27-28], people who suffer
excretions from their genitalia [Leviticus 15], women during and after
menstruation and childbirth [Leviticus 12], and various forms of skin
disease [Leviticus 13 and 14].
7:
The most severe form of ritual impurity is what derives from physical
contact with a human corpse as we have already said in paragraph 5. This
source of ritual impurity is termed "the supreme major source of impurity"
[Avi Avot ha-Tum'ah]. The other sources, mentioned in paragraph 6, are
termed "major sources of impurity" [Avot ha-Tum'ah]. The practical
halakhic difference between them is the fact that anyone who comes into
contact with a human corpse (the "supreme major source") immediately
becomes "a major source" himself or herself; whereas anyone who comes into
contact with the others only becomes a "minor source" of ritual impurity
[Vlad ha-Tum'ah].
8:
But it is not only people who can contract and transmit ritual impurity.
The list also includes clothing and utensils made out of metal, wood,
leather or bone and earthenware pottery. Foodstuffs that have come into
contact with liquids and liquids themselves can contract ritual impurity
(but they do not transmit it further down the line).
9:
Apart from ritual impurity contracted through the "supreme primary source"
(which required the ashes of the red heifer as explained) human beings
and utensils could be purified by the waters of a Mikveh [ritual bath].
However, this is now meaningless since all human beings are considered to
be in a state of ritual impurity through contact with a corpse; and if the
supreme impurity cannot be removed what point is there in removing lesser
impurities? The outstanding exception to this are human hands. Hands do
not require the water of a Mikveh to remove ritual impurity and it is
deemed sufficient to wash them.
10:
This finally brings us to the topic of our tractate (but not,
unfortunately, to the end of our introduction).
___________________________________________________________________
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Mishnah Study in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth (of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel)
May 1st 2001 / Iyyar 8th 5761 (Yadayyim 02)
___________________________________________________________________
TRACTATE YADAYIM, CHAPTER ONE, MISHNAH ONE (recap):
One quarter of water should be provided for the hands per person, or even
for two. One half-log [provides] for three or four. More than one log
[provides] for for five, for ten and for one hundred. Rabbi Yose says:
provided that there is no less than one quarter for the last of them.
More may be added to the second [pouring of water] but none may be added
to the first.
EXPLANATIONS (continued):
11:
We continue with our introduction to the concept of ritual purity, and we
now turn our attention to the hands in particular. According to the Torah
one's hands can only contract ritual impurity if they come into contact
with a "prime source" of ritual impurity [see previous shiur for a
definition of this concept] and not with any lesser level of ritual
impurity. In all our discussion so far we have not seen any reason to
assume that the minutiae of the rules and regulations governing purity and
impurity as given in the Torah had any purpose other than purely ritual
purposes. It was the sages who added the dimension of hygiene to the
issue and it was in connection with the ritual purity of the hands that
they did so. To begin with they decreed that priests (and the members of
their households) must have ritually pure hands in order to touch terumah.
12.
We have explained the concept of terumah on several occasions. Here's
what we said on January 7th 1966:
Terumah was originally an amount varying between 1.666% and 2.5% of the
produce, depending on the farmer's generosity, and was to be set aside as
a perquisite for the Kohen [priest] of his choice... Today, the amount to
be deducted from the produce is minimal: 'something'.
Food prepared from this terumah ['donative'] could be eaten only by
priests and the members of their household. (A kindred work to the
Mishnah, the Tosefta [Ketubot 5:1], mentions incidentally that Rabbi
Tarfon, who was a Kohen and certainly was not poor, one year married 300
women simply so that they could eat of his food during a period of severe
drought.)
13:
The sages had several ways of influencing the development of halakhah.
One certainly was the method of interpretive exegesis - "explaining" the
text until it says what you want it to say! We have noted this on many
occasions. However sometimes even the greatest ingenuity of rabbinic
exegesis could not make the Torah say what they wanted it to say. In such
circumstances the sages did not hesitate to issue "decrees". Rabbinical
decrees could be both positive and negative in formulation: positive
decrees (called 'takkanot') requiring something to be done and negative
decrees (called 'gezerot') requiring us to refrain from doing something
that would otherwise be permitted. All such decrees were explained as
being for "the well-ordering of society" ['tikkun olam']. The sages based
their right to issue such decrees on the passage in the Torah [Deuteronomy
17:11] -
According to the Torah as they teach it to you and according to the law as
they tell it to you shall you do: do not depart from their instruction to
the right or to the left.
In our present case the sages issued a 'gezerah' prohibiting the eating of
terumah with unwashed hands.
14:
The reason given for this 'gezerah' is that "people's hands are fidgety"
['askaniyyot']. That is to say that our hands get into all sorts of
places (on our bodies and elsewhere) that are unclean (not necessarily
'impure') without us even being conscious of the fact. It is
inappropriate that hands that may well be unclean come into contact with
terumah, they argued. In order to reinforce this decree they further
decreed that
a) even someone who was certain that their hands were clean was required
to wash them before touching terumah; and
b) even if it is not from terumah produce, bread requires us to wash our
hands before touching it.
15:
One last introductory comment is surely required to explain the rather
quaint Hebrew term for washing the hands before eating bread: 'netilat
yadayyim'. The mishnaic Hebrew verb 'natal' means quite simply "to take",
so the original meaning of the phrase means "taking water to or for the
hands". This can be understood as originating in the social customs of
Talmudic times. When people ate together one of their number was always
selected to be the "waiter" ['shammash'] whose task it was to set the food
before the diners, to pour them wine - and to bring them water to wash
their hands. Thus the waiter 'taking' water to or for the hands of the
diners became the origin of the term "netilat yadayyim".
16:
Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Berakhot 6:1, sums up all the preceding succinctly
as follows:
Anyone who eats bread over which the berakhah is 'ha-motzi' must first ...
wash their hands even if the bread is from non-sacred produce and even if
the hands are not dirty and there is no presumption of ritual impurity:
one may not eat without washing both hands...
Later in the same chapter [6:6] he lists the major requirements concerning
netilat yadayyim:
Anyone doing netilat yadayyim must be careful as regards four things:
a) that the water itself not be disqualified for netilat yadayyim;
b) that there be at least "a quarter" for both hands;
c) that the water poured come from a utensil; and
d) that the water be poured by human effort.
The first chapter of Tractate Yadayyim will be concerned with items a), b)
and c).
___________________________________________________________________
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Mishnah Study in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth (of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel)
May 3rd 2001 / Iyyar 10th 5761 (Yadayyim 03)
___________________________________________________________________
TRACTATE YADAYYIM, CHAPTER ONE, MISHNAH ONE (recap):
One quarter of water should be provided for the hands per person, or even
for two. One half-log [provides] for three or four. More than one log
[provides] for for five, for ten and for one hundred. Rabbi Yose says:
provided that there is no less than one quarter for the last of them.
More may be added to the second [pouring of water] but none may be added
to the first.
EXPLANATIONS (continued):
17:
We can now, at last, proceed to the study of our present Mishnah. Rambam,
in his Mishnah Commentary, states that our Mishnah is referring to "the
second water" and not to "the first water". What he means is that it was
the custom in Talmudic times to wash the hands twice before eating.
Firstly water was poured by the waiter on the hands of the diner up to the
wrist. Then water was again poured over the hands. The idea was that
"the first water" had become impure when it came into contact with the
hands and the hands only became pure when "the second water" removed the
impurity that attached to "the first water".
18:
According to this no less than "one quarter" of water must be poured over
the hands of each diner and the water must reach from the fingers to the
wrist. However, less water could be used for "the second water", which is
the subject of our present Mishnah. The "quarter" to which our Mishnah
refers is one quarter of a "log". In RMSG of November 26th 2000 we noted:
The basic unit of cubic measurement was "an egg's bulk" [Betzah]. It is
customary to compute this as the equivalent of about 80 cubic centimetres.
Twenty-four of these made up one 'kav', which would bring us to about
1.92 litres. Six 'kabim' made up a 'se'ah' (11.52 litres) Thirty of these
made up on 'kor'.
Because our main interest was at that time to explain the enormous size of
the "Ash Pile" on the main altar in the Bet Mikdash we did not bring the
smaller equivalents. Six "eggs' bulk" made up one "log", which was
therefore about 480 cc. It follows that "one quarter" of a log would
yield about 120 cc. (I must add here that there are today two main views
concerning these equivalents. For various reasons, that should not detain
us here, Rabbi Avraham Yeshayah Karelitz (1875-1953), the "Chazon Ish",
was of the opinion that "their eggs were then bigger than ours today" and
computed a maximalist table of amounts. Another view, for equally cogent
reasons, was minimalist. According to the maximalist view "one quarter"
[revi'it] contains about 140 cc's, whereas according to the minimalist
view it contains only about 90 cc's. I mention these details because of
their implications regarding other minimal amounts, such as wine for
Kiddush.)
19:
Thus our Mishnah, according to this interpretation, says that when pouring
"the second water" over the hands of the diners the waiter may assume that
90 cc's (using the minimalist view) provides enough water for one or two
diners, 180 cc's provides enough for three or four diners, 360 cc's would
suffice for any greater number. This is because the purpose of "the
second water" is only to purify "the first water", therefore the smallest
amount will suffice.
20:
Rabbi Yose qualifies this view of Tanna Kamma. Rabbi Yose
agrees that even the smallest amount of water is sufficient for the
purposes of "the second water". However, he requires that regardless of
the amount actually poured there must remain "one quarter" in the jug
until the last diner has been served.
21:
The Seifa of our mishnah states that "more may be added to the second
[pouring of water] but none may be added to the first". This means that
if "the first water" did not completely cover the diner's hand from the
fingers to the wrist the deed may not be considered as having been
completed by "the second water", and the hands must be completely washed
once again and only then "the second water" may be poured over them.
However, there is no such requirement regarding "the second water".
DISCUSSION:
When I wrote my response to David Rosenthal in the previous shiur I was
reasonably sure that a further question would be asked, but decided to
"leave well enough alone". I have received several messages dealing with
the same question (some also raising tangential issues that I shall deal
with separately). Here is the simplest form of the question as asked by
Jay Slater:
>>In your answer to David Rosenthal you wrote: "Therefore we are all in a
state of ritual impurity from the moment we are born". Why from the moment
we are born? Certainly the newborn has not been exposed to the "supreme
major source of impurity".<<
I respond:
I originally likened "ritual impurity" to a contagious disease, in that it
is deemed to be passed on from one person to another (and from one object
to another and from an object to a person and vice versa) by physical
contact. (Negative implications of "disease" should not be seen as
implied here.) Once someone has touched a corpse they have contracted
ritual impurity; if the "waters of purification" have not been sprinkled
over them they remain ritually impure and will transmit that ritual
impurity by physical contact. It is a rabbinic assumption that since the
cessation of the "waters of purification" (about 1700 years ago) we are
all in a permanent state of ritual impurity. (My guess is that the
reasoning is that since the mother is presumed to be in a state of ritual
impurity any child that she carries must also be in such a state because
of physical contact.)
___________________________________________________________________
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Mishnah Study in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth (of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel)
May 6th 2001 / Iyyar 13th 5761 (Yadayyim 04)
___________________________________________________________________
TRACTATE YADAYYIM, CHAPTER ONE, MISHNAH TWO:
All utensils may be used for pouring water over the hands, even utensils
made from dung, stone or earth. Water may not be poured on the hands from
the walls of utensils, from the edges of a bucket or from the plug of a
barrel. One person may not pour water over the hands of another from his
cupped hands since only a utensil may be used to fill, sanctify and
sprinkle the waters of purification or over the hands. Only a utensil
which has a tight lid can save; [such] utensils only can save from an
earthenware utensil.
EXPLANATIONS:
1:
Having dealt with the amount of water needed for Netilat Yadayyim in the
previous mishnah, our present mishnah now turns our attention to the
nature of the utensil from which the water may be poured.
2:
Our mishnah teaches that any utensil may be used to hold the water that is
to be poured over the hands, even utensils which logic might have assumed
were not acceptable. It is no surprise that the rich may use metal jugs
(of silver and even gold) to pour water over the hands; but it must be
very surprising that the poor were permitted to use jugs and pitchers made
from baked animal ordure and from earthenware either fired (called "stone"
in our mishnah) or unfired ("earth"). None of the classical commentators
find any need to comment on this beyond noting the fact that utensils made
from such materials do not contract impurity. But we must ask ourselves
how such leniency is possible.
3:
My own view is that the answer must be sought in the dual nature of the
society of the sages. This has been noted and documented beyond all doubt
by several scholars, not the least of whom was Rabbi Eli'ezer (Louis)
Finklestein z"l, a former Chancellor of the Jewish theological seminary in
new York, in his works on the Pharisaic movement and society. (The most
readable of these for the ordinary lay reader is surely his biography of
Rabbi Akiva: Scholar, Saint and Martyr.) Throughout the tannaitic period
the society of the sages was a dual society, consisting of both landed
gentry and wealthy burgers on the one hand and peasants and the
proletariat on the other. Each of these components had its own
leadership, traditions and peculiar customs, which the members of the
other component were obliged to respect. (In this sense the society of
the sages was a truly pluralistic society.) In the first and second
centuries of the present era these two components coalesced into Bet
Hillel and Bet Shammai. Bet Shammai represented the more wealthy and more
conservative elements, whereas Bet Hillel represented the much more
liberal and poverty-stricken element. It was essential to the pluralistic
ethos of the society of the sages that the utensils which the poorest of
the poor had to recognized as no less acceptable than the utensils of the
monied citizens and the landed gentry.
4:
The only condition concerning the utensil was that it had to be whole.
"Water may not be poured on the hands from the sides of utensils, from the
edges of a bucket or from the plug of a barrel." The "sides of utensils"
and the "edges of a bucket" means fragments of broken utensils, which may
well have served the poor. Even though they could still hold water, such
as what had once been the walls of a jug, such fragments could not be
used. On the other hand, the rich could not use the plug which bunged
their huge storage barrels - even if its hollow inside was large enough to
hold the necessary amount of water it could not be used.
5:
One person may not pour water over the hands of another from their cupped
hands. This is because only a utensil may be used for this purpose -
presumably to ensure that the minimum amount of water was used. This is
also linked with the fact that when the "waters of purification" which
contained the ashes of the red heifer were prepared and used this could
only be done by using a utensil: the container that would be used to house
the "waters of purification" had to be filled with water from a living
spring by a utensil; the ashes had to be added to it with a utensil; and
the mixture had to be removed from the container by a utensil in order to
sprinkle a small amount of it over the person who had been rendered impure
by a corpse.
6:
Leviticus 11:29-33 reads:
These are they which are unclean to you among the creeping things
that creep on the earth: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard,the
gecko, and the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink, and the
chameleon. These are they which are unclean to you among all that creep.
Whoever touches them when they are dead, shall be unclean until the
evening. On whatever any of them falls when they are dead, it shall be
unclean; whether it is any vessel of wood, or clothing, or skin, or sack,
whatever vessel it is, with which any work is done, it must be put into
water, and it shall be unclean until the evening; then it will be clean.
Every earthen vessel, into which any of them falls, all that is in it
shall be unclean, and you shall break it...
Our mishnah conveniently points out that the above prescription of the
Torah does not apply if the animal in question did not have access to the
earthenware container because it was properly sealed with a tight lid.
Furthermore, even if the earthenware utensil is in the same room as a
corpse its contents does not become ritually impure if it was sealed with
a tight lid: it is "saved" from the ritual contamination.
DISCUSSION:
Juan-Carlos Kiel writes:
The present Mishna deals with the removal of ritual impurity (tum'ah) from
the hands, but I am not sure I understand WHAT IS ritual impurity. What
was the implication of being ritually impure in ancient times? Was the
impure person forbidden to share the tents - be sent "michutz lamachane"
[outside the camp -BF]?
Was he precluded from participating in certain rituals? Contacting people?
Working? Eating? Reading the Torah? Could you please elaborate the
concept? What are the present day implications of the tum'ah? If we are
all tameh, why are cohanim excluded from cemeteries?
As far as the first question of Juan-Carlos is concerned - see Numbers
19:11-16.
Obviously the ritually impure person is not precluded from society and
ritual since we are all permitted these activities today. No ritually
impure person (a menstruant woman for instance) is precluded from touching
even a Sefer Torah or a Mezuzzah or Tefillin since "the words of Torah
cannot contract ritual impurity but constantly maintain their sanctity"
[Rambam, Hilkhot Sefer Torah 10:8].
As for the last question that Juan-Carlos asks: all Kohanim today are
Kohanim only by presumption and their ritual status is that of ritual
impurity just like everyone else. Our tradition requires them to remain
aloof from contact with a corpse so that the duties of the priesthood in
this regard will not be forgotten and die out.
___________________________________________________________________
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
Mishnah Study in the climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
Rabbi Simchah Roth (of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel)
May 8th 2001 / Iyyar 15th 5761 (Yadayyim 05)
___________________________________________________________________
TRACTATE YADAYYIM, CHAPTER ONE, MISHNAH THREE:
Water that is unfit as animals' drinking water is unacceptable if it is in
utensils but is acceptable if it is on the ground. If ink, resin or
vitriol have fallen in [the water] and it has changed colour it is
unacceptable. If the water has been used for some purpose or if one has
soaked one's bread in it, it is unacceptable. Shim'on ha-Temani says that
even if one meant to soak it in one [bowl of] water but it fell into
another the water is acceptable.
EXPLANATIONS:
1:
Having dealt, in the two previous mishnayot, with the amount of water
needed for Netilat Yadayyim and the utensil that may be used for pouring
it over the hands, our present mishnah now turns our attention to the
quality of the water to be used. Obviously, the conditions described in
our mishnah seem very strange in an age which offers clean piped water on
demand.
2:
Water that animals would not drink may not be used for Netilat Yadayyim,
if the water is stored: obviously, if animals refuse to drink water out of
a drinking trough (for example) there must be something wrong with the
water. On the other hand, if the only problem with the water is that it
is not stored, but is (for example) a puddle of clear water on the ground,
it may be used for Netilat Yadayyim.
3:
Water whose colour has changed is unacceptable for Netilat Yadayyim: our
mishnah gives the example of water that had been used for creating ink.
(My translation of the ingredients comes from the dictionary of Marcus
Jastrow.) In our own times we could think of water in which dishes had
been rinsed and contained detergent.
4:
Also water that has been used for any other purpose may not be used. In
our own times we could think of water from a vase of flowers, even though
the water was still clean. One purpose that may seem strange to us is
using water to soak bread in before eating it. Presumably in Mishnaic
times bread was much coarser than our emasculated bread today, and
sometimes it was necessary to soak it so that it could be eaten - by the
aged for instance. The Tanna Shim'on ha-Temani disagrees with Tanna
Kamma, but his opinion is very difficult to understand. The problem is
the word "even". One way of interpreting his words would be: if one did
not intend to soak the bread but by accident it fell into the water that
one intended to use for Netilat Yadayyim the water is acceptable.
Alternatively, he may mean that when Tanna Kamma disqualifies such water
it is only where the bread was soaked deliberately; but if the bread got
into the water unintentionally it does not disqualify the water. Rambam
has a slightly different slant on this view. In his commentary on our
present mishnah he understands the words of Shim'on ha-Temani to be a
question: "Are you, Tanna Kamma, suggesting that even if one did not mean
to put the bread in the water it would still be unacceptable? This is not
the case, but it is acceptable." However we understand the statement of
Shim'on ha-Temani is immaterial to halakhah, which follows Tanna Kamma, of
course. Water that has been used for any other purpose may not be used
for Netilat Yadayyim.
DISCUSSION:
I can continue the above thought by bringing some wonderful lines written
to me by Naomi Koltun-Fromm:
In my research concerning ritual purity in the bible (primarily the first
half of Leviticus) there are no value judgments placed on the status of
impure or pure. Hence to be impure was not a bad thing, not a negative.
Impurity happens - to everyone - and it is unavoidable (menstruation for
women, for instance). Therefore the Israelites are directed to purify
themselves and their things when impurity happens - but not necessarily to
avoid impurity at all costs (because basically that was impossible).
Naomi also writes:
Do you understand from the rabbinic texts that the rabbis "up the ante"
and attempt to avoid situations which might render them impure? (I take my
question from the comment you wrote: "Thus it was deemed imperative that
everyone make every effort to remain aloof from contracting ritual
impurity and if rendered ritually impure the person or the thing must be
ritually purified according to law.")
I respond:
The duty to remain aloof from ritual impurity devolves mainly on the
priests (when the Bet Mikdash was in existence) who were expected to go to
as great a length as possible in order to maintain their ritual purity for
the sake of the Temple Ritual. (One source describes how the priests on
duty found out that one of their number had officiated when in a state of
ritual impurity and they forcibly removed him from the bet Mikdash and
clubbed him to death!) Lesser mortals are not required to go to
extraordinary lengths to avoid ritual impurity, but on the other hand they
should not deliberately do so.
Naomi also writes:
Furthermore, this addition of hand washing - you understand it to be
hygenic - but could it not just be another fence around purity? (Again
coming from the statement: "It was the sages who added the dimension of
hygiene to the issue and it was in connection with the ritual purity of
the hands that they did so.")
I respond:
Netilat Yadayyim is part and parcel of ritual purity and that is its
purpose. The sages "added the dimension of hygiene", but they did not
replace ritual purity with hygiene. The Torah does not require us to wash
our hands before eating bread: this is a rabbinic invention which is
explained by hygiene. But the concept was originally prompted by the need
to ensure that priests ate bread made from their Terumah when in a state
of ritual purity, which was then extended to all bread and all people.
____________
To dedicate a shiur (lesson) send an amount of your choice,
CLEARLY MARKED "For BMV", to:
The Masorti Foundation for Conservative Judaism in Israel,
6525 Belcrest Rd., Suite 602, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
(Contributions are tax-deductible in the US.)
YOU MUST ALSO send a private e-mail, stating the requested date and
the occasion for the dedication, to Rabbi Simchah Roth
bmv@masorti.org.il
PLEASE NOTE THAT bmv@masorti.org.il is also the address for
discussion, queries, comments and requests. Please feel free to pass this
material on; my request is that you cite me as the source.
I am investing considerable effort to make the whole of the RMSG Archive
available once again to everyone. This will, however, take time. In the
meanwhile, if you have a query please send me a request
(bmv@masorti.org.il) and I will do my best to locate the material for you.
If you have not subscribed you can do so by sending a message to
bmv@masorti.org.il The body of the message should be a request to
subscribe and should be sent from the address at which you want to
receive the Shiurim.