Few subjects in the Torah are misunderstood as much as that of הטמא (the tamei) and הטהר (the tahor). Even finding appropriate translations are fraught with difficulty. While ‘pure’ just about covers tahor, the choices for tamei, ‘impure’, ‘contaminated’ and ‘unclean’, all have the wrong implications, especially once applied to people. While the laws of tuma and tahora are among the most obscure in the Torah, certain patterns can be observed that can help us to understand them.
It is sometimes argued that the key to understanding tuma and tahora is to see it as a system for dealing with loss of potential, especially with loss of potential for life. As we shall see, this explains many of the complexities of the system.
Hashem is described as the God of Life, so it is no surprise that death is considered the key source of tuma. A human corpse no longer has the potential to do anything and so is the ultimate source of tuma.
However, other sources of tuma come from the other end of the lifecycle. The emission of semen or menstrual blood represents a loss of potential life from within the body. The potential for future life was there, but is no longer. This is therefore a source of tuma.
Apparently at odds with this is the fact that childbirth is also a source of tuma. However, this is logical if we recall that loss of potential life from within the body is the main source of tuma. At birth, potential life within the body is converted to actual life outside the body. This loss of potential life is a source of tuma. It is interesting to note that the tuma resulting from the birth of a girl lasts twice as long as that from a boy. The explanation for this may lie in the fact that a baby girl is born with all the ova she will produce in her lifetime, whereas a boy does not begin to produce sperm until he reaches puberty. In other words a baby girl, unlike a baby boy, contains within her the potential for a second generation of life. This means that at birth, the mother has lost two generations of potential life, making her tamei for twice as long.
Further proof that tuma is not related to issues of cleanliness comes for the fact that animals associated with decay and decomposition do not cause tuma. Only large dead animals cause tuma. The reason why only some animals cause tuma may lie in the fact that, according to Ethan Dor-Shav, animals have two types of souls. Lower animals, such as insects, only have nefesh, the lowest type of soul, responsible for movement, while larger animals have nefesh and also ruach, which allows them to identify individuals within a group and, more importantly, to develop a group ethic. For example, pack animals such as wolves have been seen to hide food from the rest of the pack and then show signs of guilt, suggesting they have a basic social ethic. Obviously this ethic is not as advanced as the true free will exhibited by humans, but it means that the death of such an animal sees the loss of greater potential than in the death of an insect, hence some tuma is produced. Interestingly, kosher animals are only tamei when not slaughtered properly, perhaps because a properly slaughtered kosher animal still has potential, as it can be eaten.
This is just a brief overview of the nature of tuma as it seems to me. There are still plenty of unanswered questions within this framework. For example, how is it that tuma can be transmitted through objects? Why does sexual intercourse render the woman tamei as well as the man? Is it simply that his tuma is passed on to her by physical contact? How does the separate, but related, phenomenon of tzara’at fit into this schema? Nevertheless, I find this a useful way of approaching this difficult topic.
[To give due credit, I first heard the idea of tuma being about potential from a friend of mine when I was still at university. I have expanded on that idea over the years and have since heard other people say things that corroborate his and my ideas.]
It is sometimes argued that the key to understanding tuma and tahora is to see it as a system for dealing with loss of potential, especially with loss of potential for life. As we shall see, this explains many of the complexities of the system.
Hashem is described as the God of Life, so it is no surprise that death is considered the key source of tuma. A human corpse no longer has the potential to do anything and so is the ultimate source of tuma.
However, other sources of tuma come from the other end of the lifecycle. The emission of semen or menstrual blood represents a loss of potential life from within the body. The potential for future life was there, but is no longer. This is therefore a source of tuma.
Apparently at odds with this is the fact that childbirth is also a source of tuma. However, this is logical if we recall that loss of potential life from within the body is the main source of tuma. At birth, potential life within the body is converted to actual life outside the body. This loss of potential life is a source of tuma. It is interesting to note that the tuma resulting from the birth of a girl lasts twice as long as that from a boy. The explanation for this may lie in the fact that a baby girl is born with all the ova she will produce in her lifetime, whereas a boy does not begin to produce sperm until he reaches puberty. In other words a baby girl, unlike a baby boy, contains within her the potential for a second generation of life. This means that at birth, the mother has lost two generations of potential life, making her tamei for twice as long.
Further proof that tuma is not related to issues of cleanliness comes for the fact that animals associated with decay and decomposition do not cause tuma. Only large dead animals cause tuma. The reason why only some animals cause tuma may lie in the fact that, according to Ethan Dor-Shav, animals have two types of souls. Lower animals, such as insects, only have nefesh, the lowest type of soul, responsible for movement, while larger animals have nefesh and also ruach, which allows them to identify individuals within a group and, more importantly, to develop a group ethic. For example, pack animals such as wolves have been seen to hide food from the rest of the pack and then show signs of guilt, suggesting they have a basic social ethic. Obviously this ethic is not as advanced as the true free will exhibited by humans, but it means that the death of such an animal sees the loss of greater potential than in the death of an insect, hence some tuma is produced. Interestingly, kosher animals are only tamei when not slaughtered properly, perhaps because a properly slaughtered kosher animal still has potential, as it can be eaten.
This is just a brief overview of the nature of tuma as it seems to me. There are still plenty of unanswered questions within this framework. For example, how is it that tuma can be transmitted through objects? Why does sexual intercourse render the woman tamei as well as the man? Is it simply that his tuma is passed on to her by physical contact? How does the separate, but related, phenomenon of tzara’at fit into this schema? Nevertheless, I find this a useful way of approaching this difficult topic.
[To give due credit, I first heard the idea of tuma being about potential from a friend of mine when I was still at university. I have expanded on that idea over the years and have since heard other people say things that corroborate his and my ideas.]
0 comments:
Post a Comment