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]
[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.
