Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Since the time of Maimonides (cf. Guide 3:46), most modern people associate  the biblical term טֻמְאָה  (tuma = “uncleanliness”) as something dirty, or filthy. Among farm animals, the pig has the worst reputation. Many societies used to clean their sewers with pigs, which delight in eating human excrement (Maimonides refers to the Franks as a case in point). There is also a common tendency to reduce the idea of  tuma to a purely physical phenomena.

Biblical translations by and large also reinforce this popular misunderstanding. Oftentimes the biblical  translation renders טֻמְאָה as “filth” or “contamination.” As proof for this notion, examples are frequently cited from the list of “unclean” animals which were considered too “detestable” and revolting to eat.  In contrast, people often think animals that are considered tahor are because they are perceived as being clean and bereft of filthy habits.

If impurity were just a purely “physical” phenomena, then a ritual bathing would certainly suffice for reentry into the temple or shrine. However, in order for a person to be ritually purified, there are many ritual steps that must be undertaken. To mention a few, one may also have to bring an offering in addition, wait for the sun to set, and lastly, undergo ritual immersion.

To really appreciate what purity and impurity is, we must examine these terms according to the symbology of ancient Israel. To begin with, both of these terms are relative only in relationship to faith community’s relationship to the Sacred.

Anthropological studies show that cultic boundaries serve to keep the integrity of sacred space intact;  it also serves to protect the secular realm from invading its space. To gain entry into a sacred space, the worshiper must first be in a “pure” state; being “impure” does not allow entry into the sacred at all.

Commoner and High Priest alike cannot enter or participate at the sacred precinct without undergoing the necessary cultic purification. To willfully do so, was believed by the ancients to imperil one’s soul. By the same token, to partake of holy foods, one must be in a state of ritual purity (Lev. 7:20-21; Deut. 26:14).

From a structural and mythic perspective, all the substances mentioned in the Torah which induce ritual impurity are all–in one way or another–associated with the reality of death. Whether it be a human corpse, or the carcass of a permitted or an unclean animal, touching these items, or being even within an enclosure with a man who has just died, renders all the persons who were in it or might enter it, and all the open vessels that were there (Num. 19:11, 14-16).

Not only does this pertain to the loss of actual life, it applies even to the unfulfilled potential for life. The Torah has said on many occasions that blood is the carrier of the life principle commonly referred to as the soul. Saadia Gaon was probably the first medieval Jewish thinker to observe that once any organ or for that matter, any part of the body which becomes  detached from life, has  the power to convey ritual impurity.^[1]

Saadia’s theory would also explain at least in general comprehensive terms^[2] why all body fluids, e.g, menstrual blood, semen and other discharges  (Lev. 15) all symbolized the flow of life, and on some level, represented, a kind of death^[3] or at the very least, reminded a person of the bodily decomposition which occurs after the time of death, when the bodily secretions run amok inside and outside the body. The rabbis went so far as to say that two-thirds of a pint of blood (a.k.a. a “log”) ritually defiles as well.^[4] Continue Reading

At one of my classes, some student asked a pretty interesting question: In Orthodox Judaism, can a woman perform brit milah (ritual circumcision)?

A Talmudic Discussion

There is a controversy in the Talmud  regarding this very issue between Daru bar Papa who cites in the name of Rav, and Rabbi Yochanan, who differs with Rav. Here is the substance of the argument. Daru b. Papa held that only someone who is obligated to observe the precept of circumcision can act as mohel (the one who performs the circumcision) for others, whereas R. Yochanan felt that a woman can act as a mohelet as indicated in the story of Tziporah (see Exod. 4:24‑26 for details). [1]

In practical terms, R. Yosef Caro, the Halacha follows R. Yochanan and a woman may act as mohelet [2] but Maimonides adds one stipulation: this only applies in the event that a male Mohel is not available, however, she is certainly permitted to do so as a religious duty.[3] However, Rema cites authorities who differ on this matter, and discourages a woman from doing acting in this capacity. In fact, the same passage in the halacha states there is no legal obligation on the part of the mother to even circumcise her child, for the duty falls upon the father.

To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single Haredi or Hasidic scholar living today who would literally endorse such a scandalous halachic position. Were such an opinion like this considered halachically normative, many young Jewish men would choose never to get circumcised.

By the way, some rabbinic commentaries assert that Tziporah merely started the act of circumcision on her son, but it was really Moses who completed it.

Adding a Psychological Perspective

From a psychological perspective, the reluctance to utilize a female mohelet may have something to do with Freud’s theory of the “castration complex.” Freud theorized that castration anxiety is based on a deep‑seated fear or anxiety in boys and men said to originate during the genital stage of sexual development; Freud asserts that a boy, when seeing a girl’s genitalia, falsely presumes that the girl had her penis removed probably as punishment for some misbehavior. The young boy then becomes anxious lest the same happen to him.[4]

It is worth noting that in some cultures, notably 19th century Europe, it was not unheard of for parents to threaten their children with castration, or to otherwise threaten their genitals, a phenomenon Freud documents several times.

Freud’s Castration Complex in Patriarchal Religious Societies

Freud’s controversial theory may also help clarify why some Halachic authorities are reluctant to go along with a female mohelet. Freud’s controversial theory may even help explain why male dominated societies like the Muslim and Haredi fundamentalists fear women’s liberation.

The fear that the patriarchal conceptions of masculinity being broken, may explain in part why there exists such an animus directed toward women in these closed societies. Basically, male dominated cultures are fearful of appearing “impotent,” and will do almost anything to promote the image of strength and virility–the trademark of mullahs and Haredi Gedolim (“Giants” ) alike (obviously, another example of Freudian wish-fulfillment, or the Nietzschean “will to power”).

The unraveling of the patriarchal order frightens men, perhaps on a very primordial level. Some scholars suggest that the ascendancy of the patriarchal religions of antiquity was because of their unconscious fear of the goddess religions. Whether this theory is correct or not, remains to be seen. However, it does fit a Freudian castration theory quite well. Continue Reading