Spiritual “infection”?
Our tehillim (psalms) group at the office has been known to bring in cake and other junk food for Rosh Chodesh. At our little psalms-reading get-together yesterday, one of my co-workers commented that she wouldn’t eat any of the leftovers from the men’s mincha (afternoon service) minyan’s own Rosh Chodesh celebration because she generally didn’t eat food that might have been touched by other people (such as cookies) because they may not have done n’tilat yadayim (the ritual washing of the hands, done before eating bread and after going to the Ladies’ or Gent’s room, and, according to some, at other times, as well), and she didn’t need any more of the Sitra Achra. Huh? My understanding was that the translation of the term Sitra Achra (it’s either Aramaic or Talmudic Hebrew—I can’t tell the difference) is “the Other Side,” meaning Satan (for the record, that’s pronounced Sahtahn in Hebrew). Judging by the manner in which my colleague used that term, I gather that it can also mean the yetzer hara/evil inclination.
I don’t understand the role of indirect contact in Jewish tradition. There are those who “hold” (are of the religious opinion/haskafah) that it’s forbidden for a married woman to hand anything (some say even their baby) directly to her husband until she’s gone to the mikvah—she must put the object/baby on a surface from which he can pick it up. Some say that a man is not permitted to sit in a seat that was previously occupied by a woman who’s niddah. Now, I learn that there exists a minhag/custom that the yetzer hara can be transmitted by a person putting cookies on a plate???
Sorry, I just don’t get it.
I don’t understand the role of indirect contact in Jewish tradition. There are those who “hold” (are of the religious opinion/haskafah) that it’s forbidden for a married woman to hand anything (some say even their baby) directly to her husband until she’s gone to the mikvah—she must put the object/baby on a surface from which he can pick it up. Some say that a man is not permitted to sit in a seat that was previously occupied by a woman who’s niddah. Now, I learn that there exists a minhag/custom that the yetzer hara can be transmitted by a person putting cookies on a plate???
Sorry, I just don’t get it.
posted by Shira Salamone at 1:45 PM
17 Comments:
First, stop taking random comments from colleagues as Halacha... plenty of idiots out there, and the fact that they wear a Frum costume doesn't make them knowledgeable... :)
There are LOTS of stringencies for Niddah, as to how applicable they all are... and how much people follow them... I personally find the idea that we can't share a bag of nuts/chips without someone reaching in in between us completely absurd, especially pre-children when there wasn't anyone there to grab them.
That said, she's probably pushing her OCD fear of someone touching the food without washing (the soap and water kind) and leaving germs around and wrapping it up in a frummy-sounding (but Halachically meaningless) phrase...
Personally, I take random superstitious fears, no matter how many Hebrew/Aramaic/Yiddish words get throw together, about as seriously as I take people that are ACTUALLY scared of a black cat crossing their path or stepping on a crack in the sidewalk... Although I do avoid walking under ladders.. something actually can fall on you... but if you walk under it, walking backwards back under it without watching where you are going is REALLY stupid... :)
"First, stop taking random comments from colleagues as Halacha... plenty of idiots out there, and the fact that they wear a Frum costume doesn't make them knowledgeable... :)"
True. I've encountered all kinds, from the numerous rabbis who work for our organizations to yeshiva grads who, despite 12 or more years of Jewish education, show rather startling gaps in their knowledge.
True. I've encountered all kinds, from the numerous rabbis who work for our organizations to yeshiva grads who, despite 12 or more years of Jewish education, show rather startling gaps in their knowledge.
Absolutely terrifying, isn't it? Makes you wonder what that expensive education covers... you would freak out if you spoke to a secular school graduate that had such a limited grasp of science, history, or other subject taught in school, you'd suggest the school be shut down...
I forget where in the talmud it appears; it may be in Berakhot or in Shabbat, but I'd have to check, that speaks of a demon that lives in every bathroom, and how n'tilat yadayim defends against it.
The Zohar takes this and runs with it.
Given the time of authorship for both, demonology as a theory of disease makes sense - it does what a theory is supposed to do - supplies explanation for observed phenomena and uses that explanation to predict future outcome.
Since hands must be clean prior to n'tilat yadayim, the ritual results in the elimination germs from our hands. Hence the theory worked until Leeuwenhoek cam along, invented the microscope, and brought germs into the realm of the observable.
One would expect that in modernity, germ theory would be a sufficient reason to not want to eat what other people have eaten; but lately it has become fashionable in certain circles to establish a dichotomy between science and emunah.
I like to point out that the rabbis used the best science available to them. I don't think they would expect less of their heirs, but there are those who think otherwise.
"I like to point out that the rabbis used the best science available to them. I don't think they would expect less of their heirs, but there are those who think otherwise."
Apparently. Let's hope that Rabbi Slifkin, he of the Torah and Science books, continues to be supported by the majority of the Orthodox community, despite the ban against his books by some Chareidi rabbis.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Received via e-mail from mordechai y. scher:
In this post, you've fallen, I believe, into a common mistake. You have lumped things together based on their outcome or appearance, but then assumed that the reasons or driving factors must be the same, too. This is the same mistake folks make when they see the grouping 'women, children, and incompetents'. All may be exempt from the same thing, but for entirely different reasons. Similarly, women (new brides) and kings may wash their faces on Yom Kippur. They, too, are not equal (sorry!) except in the effect/outcome; the reasons are entirely different.
In this topic, if I understand correctly, the prohibition of a husband and wife handing things directly to each other during niddah time is a fence to prevent affectionate contact. I will unmodestly tell you that in my house such affection can be very spontaneous and come at surprising or unexpected times. The prohibitions involved in niddah are so severe, that historically so are the legal fences. There aren't many strictures where we find it explained that 'Jewish women accepted upon themselves'; but we do in regard to niddah.
The avoidance of sitting where a niddah had just sat would be an issue of tumah, so called 'impurity'. (I despise the ineffective translations into English of unique terms in Torah!) There is no practical application to this in our time, that I know of. Even when the notions of tumah and taharah are genuinely reestablished, the applications are somewhat limited to particular parameters. It reminds me of the story my wife tells from her dating days before we met. A fellow who knew she was doing a pathology fellowship refused to date her because of tumah from her contact with organs and dead bodies. Somehow it escaped him that the halacha presumes today that we are all 'defiled' by contact with the dead, directly or be extension.
You are probably familiar with the notion that we are to wash our hands/n'tilat yadayim as soon as we arise. This is because of a tumah which is death-related that lingers at our fingers when we awake. Many holy books point out that until one washes, one should not touch one's orifices, prepare food, etc. This is probably where your colleague got this notion of avoiding the cookies. She is probably unaware that there is no actual halachic prohibition involved here, no matter how worthy the notion of washing is. I would certainly bet she didn't consult with the shul's rav. For that matter, we are obligated to judge another favorably unless we have real reason not to do so. So she is probably mistaken in assuming these people didn't wash upon rising from their beds, or at least some time prior to their contact with the food. "The power of permitting is to be preferred", when there is no clear reason to prohibit.
Received a clarification via e-mail from mordechai y. scher:
I just reread your post. You stated, and I missed it, that your colleague wouldn't eat the cookies because maybe people didn't do n'tilat yadayim at times such as before eating bread or leaving the bathroom.
Again, someone clearly lumped things together that do not relate to each other!
Washing before eating bread is a halacha that was established after the destruction of Hashem's holy Temple, in order to preserve one of the behaviours associated with eating in taharah/purity. This is a zecher/a memorial, since the entire concept does not actually apply until the reestablishment of the use of the ashes of the Red Heifer.
Washing when coming out of the toilet has several possible reasons. Although universally accepted, it is not even clear that one must wash by n'tilat yadayim at this time. Regular washing *may* be sufficient.
My other comments stand, I think.
b'vrachah,
mordechai y. scher
So I have to be careful to remember that what appears to be the same result may have a different halachic "cause." Thanks for the tip.
And one of these seeming similarities occurs with n'tilat yadayim/ritual hand-washing. Ritual hand-washing before eating bread is required, whereas *ritual* hand-washing, as opposed to the soap-and-water kind, after going to the bathroom *might* not be.
At the risk of exposing myself to more of Mordechai Y. Scher implied interest in looking into me and my past (if no threat was intended there, my apologies, but it certainly read that way, since I have been VERY clear on this blog that I have no Torah education to speak of, just a cynical BT that loves his Jewish community and loves Shabbat, while hating the silliness that fills our actual Frum life), something to consider on the hand washing..
To render the hands "pure" requires washing them in water. If you go to a stream, immersing your hands is sufficient, no reason to play with washing cups (though when they come out at BBQs, I go along and chuckle). The washing twice is because when you wash your hands the first time, your hands are now pure, but the water that came in contact with your hand is impure, so the second wash washes it away. The third wash, Halachically, is a stringency in case you missed a spot, so everything is hit twice... I'm sure that there is a Kabbalistic explanation that will sound very serious and I will silly as well.
Remember, ritual hand washing predates indoor plumbing. You had to go to the well or pump to get water.. a lot of work. Pouring small amounts of water over the hand would minimize the usage of water while fulfilling a Halachic obligation. In the actual Temple Service, it was no doubt a relatively fancy action, with lots of flash and pomp.
I would think that by the actual Halacha, putting ones hands under a faucet ought to be sufficient, albeit with losing the very important Jewish custom of washing. The pitcher for the morning wash would no doubt have been filled before bed, as part of the night time ritual. While we don't have that, we do at least take a cup and wash our hands making it significant.
If in a bind, having one hand open and close the faucet for the other hand counts as one hand washing the other, which is why I think that logically, the running water ought to be sufficient. However, ritually washing our hands is just that, a ritual, so the actual Halachic reason is less import than a time honored custom that Jews around the world do.
My sincerest apologies to both you and Mordechai Scher--I had intended to delete that part of the e-mail before posting it, as Mordechai requested--he was concerned that you might be upset, and never intended for you to see that question. I had hoped that you hadn't seen that part before I deleted and reposted the comments.
Thanks for the info re hand-washing. The theory sounds more complicated that the actual ritual is.
For the record, I haven't quite gotten into that first-thing-in-the-morning (negel vaser?) hand-washing yet. I do my first ritual hand-washing after my first morning trip to the bathroom. I guess I'm just not into the notion that we have "a tumah which is death-related that lingers at our fingers when we awake." To me, that sounds suspiciously like a superstition. (I don't suppose that remark will endear me to my Orthodox readers, but, with all due respect, that's my opinion.)
Alex, I certainly meant no "threat" (threat? how so...?). I am always curious about someone when they are very confident in their opinions, and seem to actually know something. I'm also often intrigued why people don't just use their names on up-and-up blogs such as this one.
I would point out in response to your last post that the halacha does prefer 'koah gavra'-human action for washing. Dipping one's hands in water is discussed among the rishonim, but not universally accepted. As a result, for instance, using a faucet by intermittently opening and closing it (as you described yourself) would probably be preferable. The faucet, however, is not completely koah gavra, either.
Remember that even though we wash before bread or other foods as a zecher/memorial, these halachot are real and well established. People kept them in the time of the Temple, and will again in the time of the Temple. :-)
Also, washing three times on rising is for different reasons than washing twice before eating (though a guest recently told me Chabad does three before eating as well, but that is not normative practice).
In all cases where washing/n'tilat yadayim is required, the issue of whether or not one had plumbing is simply irrelevant. And, since the issues are tumah and taharah, which have not scientific basis whatsoever (even in the minds of our sages), richardf8's observations don't really apply. Undoubtedly, the whole subject of tumah and taharah is one of those notions in Torah that has no connection to the scientific realm.
I have to disagree with Alex's assertion that this is just 'ritual'. Actual, the washing addresses a real issue in Torah, tumah and taharah. That issue exists uniquely within Torah, and is treated/approached consistently according to it's own logic and law. But the topic is very real in halacha, not some sort of pageantry or play-acting.
"I'm also often intrigued why people don't just use their names on up-and-up blogs such as this one." Er, Mordechai, sorry, but this blog may not be quite as "up-and-up" as you think: I don't blog under my real name because I like my job and must maintain at least a modicum of plausible deniability in order to keep it. As a former synagogue-choir singer (alto), I chose my blogger pseudonym to honor the Italian Jewish Renaissance composer Salamone Rossi, whose most famous Jewish work was the choral collection known as HaShirim asher Li-Sh'lomo (hence, Shira).
You state, if I understand correctly, that the real issue with the, apparently, various forms and/or reasons for n'tilat yadayim (after arising, before meals, after using the bathroom, etc.?) is tumah and taharah (probably poorly translated as ritual impurity and ritual purity). I have trouble with the whole concept that one could be ritually fit or unfit for what you yourself say are reasons totally unrelated to science.
Shira, I'm crushed! I've been engaged in dialogue with a pseudonym! :-)
"I have trouble with the whole concept that one could be ritually fit or unfit for what you yourself say are reasons totally unrelated to science."
So, are you saying that Hashem's Torah is based on/must conform to science? Then why do we need Torah at all? If science dictates our spiritual activity as well as physical (an absurd notion, in my opinion), then Hashem creating a world of both science and Torah is redundant and unnecessary.
???
Mordechai -- because my opinions, privately voiced amongst friends is one thing... on an anonymous blog is another. In the real world, people that I am somewhat friendly with deciding that I am a heretic for whatever reason from a blog post is not reasonable. Further, the Internet creates a written record of what is said, bringing this above the level of a casual conversation.
I am quite confident in my opinions... :) But I realize that they are my opinions, and binding upon nobody but myself (and arguable my wife and children), but I have zero religious education... I picked somethings up online, others from just being Jewish, and finally from the occaisional learning activity.
Ritual, whether important for Halacha or not, is part of the customs of our people. Some of our customs are bound in Halacha, some are clearly simply Middle Eastern in origins, and others are clearly Greek or Roman in nature. Nonetheless, they provide us with that cultural connection that makes us one people. The fact that I can walk into a Synagogue anywhere in the world and the Prayers are the same (minor Nusach differences aside), the ritual for eating is the same, etc., it what makes us a unified nation, despite living amongst multiple nations.
So, are you saying that Hashem's Torah is based on/must conform to science? Then why do we need Torah at all? If science dictates our spiritual activity as well as physical (an absurd notion, in my opinion), then Hashem creating a world of both science and Torah is redundant and unnecessary.
Torah and its teachings are our best explanations for ways of pleasing and serving the Divine. Science is our best explanation for the world that the Divine put us in.
Tumah and Taharah are not scientific in nature, because they are at their basis the division of the world into Holy and non Holy. The various reasons for it are less significant than the fact that to approach the Holy places, one must separate themselves from the rest of the world and render themselves ready.
It's the same reason you dress up for Shabbat, dress up for Shul (even during the week, you dress a bit nicer when you Daven with a Minyan than if you sleep in and Daven at home), etc. When preparing to be hold, one generally steps it up a notch.
Sleep and death have a connection... death is described as a long sleep... historically, dying in ones sleep of unknown causes was no doubt more common... each time you go to sleep, there is a chance of not awakening (being eaten by a Lion/Bear)... that's part of why babies/little kids are tough to get to sleep, sleep is a little bit of death.
"So, are you saying that Hashem's Torah is based on/must conform to science? Then why do we need Torah at all? If science dictates our spiritual activity as well as physical (an absurd notion, in my opinion), then Hashem creating a world of both science and Torah is redundant and unnecessary.
???"
Mordechai, point taken--religion and science are different ways of looking at life and the world. I guess I tend to think in somewhat different terms. I tend to look upon n'tilat yadayim, the ritual hand-washing, as a way to make myself spiritually prepared in the same way that my ancestors made themselves spritually prepared, rather than specifically as a way to wash away tumah and make myself taharah (tahorah?). For you, it's a matter of halachah/Jewish religious law, whereas, for me, it's a time-honored ritual. Rituals and halachic practices are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they may or may not involve different ways of perceiving the reasons for the actions involved.
"Torah and its teachings are our best explanations for ways of pleasing and serving the Divine. Science is our best explanation for the world that the Divine put us in."
Alex, that's a good way of putting it. Not being quite as literal in my beliefs, I would, personally, say that Torah and its teachings are our best explanations for the way our ancestor thought and acted, and how we can understand and maintain (or change, if necessary) that tradition.
"Tumah and Taharah are not scientific in nature, because they are at their basis the division of the world into Holy and non Holy. The various reasons for it are less significant than the fact that to approach the Holy places, one must separate themselves from the rest of the world and render themselves ready."
That's fairly close to the way I think. From my perspective, ritual cleanliness is a matter of separating oneself from that which is ordinary and preparing oneself for that which is sanctified.
Post a Comment
<< Home