The Logic of Impurity

THE PORTION

By David Kraemer

Published July 08, 2005, issue of July 08, 2005.
  • Print
  • Share Share

The ritual of the Red Heifer is one of the most mysterious rituals in the entire Torah. (I have no doubt that this first sentence has been written many times before, but the ritual is so mysterious — so contrary to “logic” — that it is virtually impossible to write about it without commenting on its mystery at the very beginning.) The nature of the mystery is simply explained: The human corpse is, according to the Torah, the most powerful source of ritual impurity there is. It is so powerful that the corpse can render the one who contacts it himself a source of impurity for other individuals or objects he touches. In the language of the rabbis, the corpse is “the grandfather [or, if you prefer, the “big daddy”] of all impurities” (“av avot hatum’ah”). The only way to eliminate corpse impurity is through administration of the waters produced with the ashes of the Red Heifer; that is how powerful these waters of purification are. (Yes, this means that today, in the absence of the Red Heifer waters, everyone is impure by virtue of “contact” with the corpse, and that impurity is impossible to remove.) Yet anyone who is involved in the production of the Red Heifer waters is himself rendered impure. “The impure one is purified and the pure one is rendered impure” — how could this be?

To me, the only way to make any kind of sense of this paradox is to recognize that power sometimes overwhelms a system, and when an input is too powerful, the logic of a system cannot be maintained. In the Torah’s purity system, I want to argue, the impurity of the corpse represents a kind of systemic overload. Hence the “illogic” of the outcome. But if this is true, the real challenge is to understand the overload: Why is the impurity of the corpse so powerful? If we understand this, we can begin to understand the Red Heifer paradox.

Of course, corpse impurity is part of a broader system of impurity, so the real question is: What does it signify when the Torah marks something as “impure” (“tameh”)? Needless to say, innumerable answers to this question have been proposed, and the debate concerning the best explanation of the Torah’s purity system will continue forever (I do not exaggerate). But there is one answer to this question that has barely been mentioned in the literature — whether ancient or modern — and it is an answer that, to my mind, provides the key to making sense of the whole thing.

I am referring to the answer offered by Rabbi Eliezer, a teacher of Talmud, to the question, “What is the difference between the impure and the pure [animals]?” “The pure one, its soul belongs to heaven and its body belongs to its [human] owner, but the impure one, both its soul and its body belong to heaven” (Mishnah Nedarim 4:3). Before fully articulating what Eliezer says here, I must emphasize the relevance of this comment to our immediate question. Interpreters of the Torah’s system have often distinguished between the “impurity” of the Torah’s impure animals and the impurity of things like the corpse or menstrual blood (or the blood of childbirth!). They have insisted that, despite the fact that the same Hebrew term is used for both, the meaning of the term in the two contexts is not the same. This is the only way most have of making sense of the Torah’s notion of impurity. But the Torah doesn’t admit of such a distinction; it is an imposition of the commentators, who are otherwise at a loss to connect what seems to them unconnected. If the Torah doesn’t make this distinction, neither should we. What we say about the impurity of impure animals must relate to what we say about blood impurities, and vice versa.

So what has Eliezer said? He has suggested that the impure animals are “impure” because they belong, in their entirety, to God. In other words, marking something as “impure” means marking it as being somehow in God’s realm, touchable but in some profound sense inaccessible to us. We cannot eat the “impure” animal (the pig, for example) because God, its creator, has not given us the right to do so. Its impurity marks it as “out of bounds.”

By the same token, life and death are in the realm of God. As the Bible says repeatedly, in one form or another, “God gives life and God takes away life.” Both, therefore, are marked as “impure.” The same is true of menstrual blood, which emerges from “the source” of human life, deep in the womb, and the same is true of birth blood — the blood that issues forth when a woman gives birth. Not surprisingly against the background of this explanation, it is also true of semen, which likewise contributes to the making of life. In contrast, neither urine nor feces is impure because, while both might be “unclean” (an unfortunate translation of “tameh”), neither is in the realm of God. But “leprosy” is impure because it was understood to be an outbreak of death in life, and, as we have said, death is in the realm of God and is therefore impure.

But why is death so powerfully impure? The answer, I think, is that, under ordinary circumstances (putting aside war or self-defense, for example), humans should have no place in death. It should be entirely the work of God. By contrast, humans do have a place in reproduction and childbirth. By marking death as so powerfully impure, the Torah signals to humans to stay away, to leave to God what is fully God’s.

Because of death’s power, it is difficult to overcome the impurity it generates. The Torah provides a formula for overcoming its impurity, but the impurity has a remainder — one that affects those who prepare the purifying agent. If you will, the impurity of death “leaks,” and when you are involved in “cleaning up” this impurity, it is inevitable that you will be stained in the process. There is no protective garb that could be powerful enough to avoid these consequences.

So, in a world where impurity is technically irrelevant (there is no sanctuary to avoid in our impurity) — and in a world where we are all impure in any case — does any of this matter? If we see “impurity” as a signpost, or even as a boundary marker, the answer is an unhesitating “yes.” “Impurity” asks us to notice God’s realm and exercise extreme care in its presence. Yes, this system says, God claims the territory of pregnancy and birth and death, and we should not forget that. God even claims the pig and the lobster — just two among thousands of God’s creatures that God retains a full claim on and which we, therefore, may not consume. The purity system signals what should be (but is not) obvious to us: The whole earth may not be the Lord’s, but much of it still is.

David Kraemer is Joseph J. and Dora Abbell Librarian and professor of Talmud and rabbinics at the Jewish Theological Seminary.






Find us on Facebook!
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • "'What’s this, mommy?' she asked, while pulling at the purple sleeve to unwrap this mysterious little gift mom keeps hidden in the inside pocket of her bag. Oh boy, how do I answer?"
  • "I fear that we are witnessing the end of politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I see no possibility for resolution right now. I look into the future and see only a void." What do you think?
  • Not a gazillionaire? Take the "poor door."
  • "We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else. No more apologies."
  • "Woody Allen should have quit while he was ahead." Ezra Glinter's review of "Magic in the Moonlight": http://jd.fo/f4Q1Q
  • Jon Stewart responds to his critics: “Look, obviously there are many strong opinions on this. But just merely mentioning Israel or questioning in any way the effectiveness or humanity of Israel’s policies is not the same thing as being pro-Hamas.”
  • "My bat mitzvah party took place in our living room. There were only a few Jewish kids there, and only one from my Sunday school class. She sat in the corner, wearing the right clothes, asking her mom when they could go." The latest in our Promised Lands series — what state should we visit next?
  • Former Israeli National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror: “A cease-fire will mean that anytime Hamas wants to fight it can. Occupation of Gaza will bring longer-term quiet, but the price will be very high.” What do you think?
  • Should couples sign a pre-pregnancy contract, outlining how caring for the infant will be equally divided between the two parties involved? Just think of it as a ketubah for expectant parents:
  • Many #Israelis can't make it to bomb shelters in time. One of them is Amos Oz.
  • According to Israeli professor Mordechai Kedar, “the only thing that can deter terrorists, like those who kidnapped the children and killed them, is the knowledge that their sister or their mother will be raped."
  • Why does ultra-Orthodox group Agudath Israel of America receive its largest donation from the majority owners of Walmart? Find out here: http://jd.fo/q4XfI
  • Woody Allen on the situation in #Gaza: It's “a terrible, tragic thing. Innocent lives are lost left and right, and it’s a horrible situation that eventually has to right itself.”
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.