In Order to Receive Notifications of New Blogs, Click The Like Button Find us on Google+

Monday, April 23, 2012

The Avoidance of Negative Experiences

(First Post)


Clean Hands versus Dirty Hands
In my future book, I discuss the Biblical and rabbinic desire to control or even avoid negative experiences -- to avoid impurity.  In this post, instead of reviewing all the halakhot of purity and impurity, we will turn to discuss the lowest level of rabbinic impurity, the impurity of hands.  Famously, the Pharisees[1] and later the Tannaim, expected civilized people to clean their hands before eating (m. Hagiga 2:5).  Tannaitically that meant to wash the hands twice in order to remove dirty material found on the hands and to wipe them afterward in order to completely clean them of the dirt and dirty water left on one’s hands (m. Yadayim 2:2-3 and t. Yadayim 1:3).
Since the issue is cleanliness, some Tannaim allowed one who eats a small item to place it in a cloth (m. Sukka 2:5).  That way not only will one’s dirty hands not touch the food (cf. baraita of Beit Menashe in b. Yoma 77b=Hullin 107b) but one’s unwashed hands and food will also not become moistly dirty, “muddy” (as we will discuss shortly).  Similarly, since many poorer peoples in the Hellenist world did not waste their fetched and drawn water on washing hands before eating, the Tannaim did not demand that every Jew wash hands for every-day food (m. Bikkurim 2:1 and more explicit Bavli parallel).  In fact, some Babylonian Amoraim even opposed the haughtiness of washing hands for mere snacks (R. Nahman in b. Hagiga 18b).  As an Israeli Amora expressed it, it is only the snack that is eaten wet that requires clean hands (R. Eleazar in the name of R. Oshaya in b. Pesahim 115a) – presumably in order to avoid having the food get “muddy”.
Similarly to the Tannaim and Amoraim, Medieval German Judaism mandated that people wash their hands not only from contact with objects and events associated with death and mortality but also from dirt.  Its rabbis even posited that one who doesn’t regulate his behavior to be clean finally forgets the Torah he has learned and can lose his sanity or self-control, presumably due to his loss of self-dignity or even fall into nihilism (Mahzor Vitry #524; Tashbetz Katan #276).[2]  This claim persisted.[3]
In short: an examination of both the most severe and most lenient types of impurity show that they are negative emotional states which the Biblical and rabbinic norms try to avoid or at least address, that there is a general Biblical proscription or meta-proscription against disgusting behavior.  As the tanna, R. Pinhas b. Yair, stated: the process of character development begins with personal cleanliness (m. Sota 9:15).

The Framing of Biological Needs
This approach, which calls for behaving in a self-controlled fashion as regards cleanliness, self-dignity and human death - extends into the biological activities that humans share with animals: ingestion, expurgation and copulation.  Thus, the sages also called for eating with manners.  At the very least, Tannaim expected all Jews to minimally sanctify their food consumption by not simply grabbing the food and eating it, by first blessing God.  One who ate without pausing to bless was denigrated as having abused Temple property; the earth and its goodness were to be perceived as holy property that one is expected to use in holiness (t. Berakhot 4:1).  Beyond that, there is a tradition that R. Akiva directed his students to politely tear off their part of the vegetable with one hand and to hold the part that is left behind in place with the mere heel of their hand instead of their whole hand when eating a vegetable from a common dish (Tractate Derekh Eretz, Pirkei Ben Azzai 5:2 ??check alternative versions??).[4]  Similarly, Eretz-Israel sages directed a person both to not hold too large a piece of food in his hands from which he continuously chews and to not drink too much too quickly (Tractate Derekh Eretz, Pirkei Ben Azzai 4:5).[5]  In a further step, the Israeli Amora R. Isaac (3rd century CE) used to dignify the cultural norm of eating with one’s hands.  He would indicate with his clean fingers the ten mitzvoth that had been fulfilled in preparing the food before he ate with his hands (y. Hala 1:6).[6]
In parallel to these rules of consumption, there are also Talmudic rules about how one should expurgate and how one should copulate.  As regards expurgation, one is expected to attend to personal bodily functions while partially clothed as opposed to as a naked animal releasing its droppings, [7] and R. Tanhum b. Hanilai did in fact exhort to such modesty by pointing out its practical benefits (b. Berakhot 62a).  As regards copulation, Leviticus limits excessive priestly indulgence in sex by impurifying for a whole day the couple that had sex at night (Leviticus 15:16,18);[8] the Israeli Amora, R. Yohanan, declared sex during the daytime – when one can be productive – to be degrading (Bereishit Rabba 64:8); and several Amoraim called upon fellow sages to limit sex to once per week, to the Friday night of rest (b. Ketubot 62a = b. Bava Kamma 82a) when the man should indeed consume an aphrodisiac (y. Megilla 4:1; b. Bava Kamma 82a).[9]  In conjunction, the Amora R. Dimmi (b. Bekhorot 8a) called for sex to be framed as a human relational act by being engaged in face to face as an act between fellow humans who have contact with the Divine.  Face to face is clearly more respectful [especially on a regular basis].[10]


[1] Mark 7:1-23 = Matthew 15:1-20.
[2] Although we have explained Ashkenazic practices, Maimonides unknowingly condemned some of them as Sabian foolishness in Guide of the Perplexed 3:47.  As he explained there: Although the purpose of such rules is “to keep men away from disgusting things”, these rules should not include “unpleasant restrictions” and “burdensome usages”.  Nonetheless, Maimonides’ son, R. Abraham b. Rambam (Sefer Ha-Maspik Le-Ovdei Hashem, Trait of Humility [p.70]), stated independently but in agreement with his contemporary twelfth century sage, the French‑German R. Eliezer from Metz (Sefer Yere’im #434), that although expensive clothing makes a person haughty being dirty or disgusting degrades and impurifies a person.
[3] It made its way to the Land of Israel and to the Jews exiled from Spain (BY citing his teacher ?? in my source sheets).  It was repeated in the offshoots of Ashkenazic Jewry by diverse rabbinic figures, including the Hasidic R. Nahman of Bretzlav, 1772-1810 (Likutei MoHaRa”N #29; Likutei Halakhot, Tzitzit #1; Sikhot ha-Ra”N #100).
[4] For a less strict version, which merely forbids biting out one’s portion from the shared dish, see the citation in Mishna Berura 170:25.
[5] The definition of quickly, without control, may very well depend on the specific food or drink and on the specific person’s caloric and liquid needs. See the response of R. Yishmael b. R. Yossi in b. Pesahim 86b.
[6] Additionally: the idea that there are ten obligations, both to our fellow humans and to God, that we must and have fulfilled before filling our own bellies also raises our conduct to more than animalistic.
[7] This is especially so in cultures in which one squatted instead of sitting on a seat (see Josephus, War of the Jews 1471-49 and the description of “covering feet” in m. Yoma 3:2), although this rule was not necessarily limited to those situations; it probably included situations in which one used a toilet seat inasmuch as such were continuously found among some people in Israel (cf. m. Tamid 1:1, t. Para 12:17) since the Iron Age (Magness 2002, 107).
[8] Although these laws are understood by many to apply to all Israelites (eg. Halberstam 2010, 20-22), these laws only make sense as directives to priests.  While we do find that the impurity of carrion consumption is to be avoided and the impurity from contact with death is to be overcome, there is no directive here to overcome sexual impurity or to avoid it.  There is simply a description of impurity.  Thus, this descriptive statement would be relevant only to people for whom the attempt to avoid impurity is a directive.
[9] As the Zohar elaborated later, the righteous couple should reframe sex as holy by limiting it to and engaging in it on the peaceful Shabbat when a Jew and the Divine unite (תיקוני זוהר תקונא שתיתאה, כב ע"ב; תיקוני זוהר תקונא עשרין וחד ועשרין, סא ע"א), when the parties are less harried and can reclaim their mutual affection (תיקוני זוהר תקונא עשרין וחד ועשרין, נז ע"א).
[10] This injunction, which is repeated in the Zohar, is clearly not a weirdly specific instruction (contra Beitchman 1998, 33) but rather a call for mutual dignity in sex.

No comments: