The Kohanic Prohibition of Tumah

Continuing on in מנחה טהורה to the chapter on איסור טומאה לכהנים, the main chakira here is the question of how to characterize the prohibition on Kohanim:

• It is forbidden for Kohanim to become impure from Tumat Met
• It is forbidden for Kohanim to come in contact with a corpse

For most cases, these conditions coincide, but there are nevertheless many cases where only one condition occurs, for example:

1. If a Kohen is already tamei met, is he still forbidden from contact with a corpse? If the prohibition is on becoming impure, then it apparently wouldn't apply.
2. Can a Kohen come into contact with a גוסס on his deathbed, who is not yet tamei yet still has the status of a corpse to some degree? It may be a problem of contact with a corpse.
3. Why can the pregnant mother of a potential Kohen enter the tent of a dead body? No Tumah can reach the baby, yet the baby is still in a place of death so we may need the Rokeach’s sfeik sfeika to allow it.
4. Are cherev kechalal or sof tumah latzeit forbidden to a Kohen? There is tumah, but no hitkarvut lamet.

Rav Wolf also points out that the psukim reflect both approaches, so it may be that there are two independent issurim, at least for a Kohen Gadol:

• "לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו"(ויקרא כא:א)
• "ועל כל נפשת מת לא יבא"(ויקרא כא:יא)

On Cherev Kechalal

The time has come, dear friends, for us to have a serious talk about Cherev Kechalal.

Cherev Kechalal is a rule by which a sword receives the same level of Tumah as the corpse itself. While not explicit in the Torah, this rule is nevertheless learned exegetically (נזיר נג:) from the pasuk "וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה בלל חרב או במת" חרב—הרי זו כחלל.

Not only that, but the actual parameters of Cherev Kechalal are a matter of some controversy:

• The Rambam says it applies to all kelim that touch a dead body
• Rabeinu Tam says it applies only to metal kelim that touch a dead body
• The Raavad says it applies specifically to a sword(or other weapon, I assume)

In explaining this debate, Rav Wolf(מנחה טהורה, "חרב כחלל") returns to the classic chakira of Haavara vs. Hagdara. He points out that the Rambam seems to see Cherev Kechalal as a type of Haavarat Hatuma, while Rabeinu Tam and the Raavad seem to see it as Hagdarat Tuma Chadasha.

Similarly, Rav Wolf points out another distinction based on the source of the Cherev’s tumah:

• If a corpse itself was the source, then perhaps we’re talking about Hagdara
• If, however, some other tamei met object is the source, then apparently we’re talking about Haavara

This possibility that Cherev Kechalal is a type of Hagdara raises a number of interesting halachik questions as to what degree it is similar to normal Tumat Met. Some examples of this are the debates over whether it is Metamei Beohel, and whether it is forbidden to Cohanim.

Two Understandings of Tumat Met

A corpse is one of the Torah's Avot Hatuma, and the tumah it creates, Tumat Met, has its own special status. Tumat Met is generated by a complete corpse, but in many cases it can also come from incomplete parts. Rav Wolf opens his chapter on טומאת מת וקבר in מנחה טהורה, with a general distinction about the status of parts of a corpse that cause Tumat Met:

• Part of a Corpse: the part creates tumah because it is part of a corpse. In this case we require a quantitative measure for it to be a significant enough part to be a source of Tumat Met.
• Represents the Entire Corpse: the part represents a whole corpse. Here, conditions for the part to be a source of Tumah are qualitative in nature.

General Nafka Minot

Rav Wolf brings two general cases from Rav Aharon Lichtenstein(שיעורי הרא"ל טהרות) as to how this distinction may play out halachically:

1. Combination

For one, there is the issue of combining. If we’re dealing with part of a corpse and thus a quantitative measure, then two parts, individually considered too small, can combine to create a larger one that does produce Tumah. If, however, we’re concerned with a part that qualitatively represents a whole corpse, then insignificant parts can’t combine into a significant one.

2. Nothing Significant Left

There are cases where no significant portion of the corpse is left and yet, what is left carries tumat met. These cases must be understood as qualitatively representing the entire corpse, rather than being a quantitative part of the corpse.

Specific Cases

Rav Wolf applies this distinction to many different cases. Here's the abbreviated version:

• כזית בשר מן המת- a qualitative or quantitative measure?
• רביעית דם- a qualitative or quantitative measure?
• מת שנשרף ושלדו קיימת- apparently qualitative according to Hachamim
• דם קטן שיצא כולו- R. Akiva that says it’s tamei must consider it qualitative
• מלוא טרוד רקב(rotted remains)- apparently qualitative
• חרב כחלל- apparently qualitative if Nazir must shave for touching it

Safek Tumah Birshut Harabim

Rav Wolf’s chapter on ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים וברשות היחיד in מנחה טהורה begins with the question of source. I remember, while I was in Rav Noam Vershner’s shiur, he would often begin a sugiya with an investigation of the source source of a Halacha, before getting into the lomdus. I found this methodology helpful. Knowing where a din comes from is an important key in attempting to understand it.

Related to the question of source, one of the most basic chakirot is whether a din is deoraita or derabanan(see “The Conceptual Approach to Torah Learning”, Lichtenstein). This distinction alone has a big effect on what sort of svarot we’re willing to consider. Also, if a halacha is derived from another din, then this gives us further conceptual fodder, assuming the comparison is a fundamental one.

Reshut Harabim

Source

So there’s a general rule in Taharot about dealing with sfeikot. If the safek occurred in a public space then we’re lenient, but if it occurred in a private space then we’re machmir. Rav Wolf cites four possible sources for this rule:

1. Tosafot in Chullin(ט: ד"ה התם הלכתא) learns both sides of this rule(reshut hayachid/reshut harabim) from Sotah, whose potential tumah occurred in a private space and who is therefore forbidden to her husband.
2. Tosafot in Sotah(כח: ד"ה מכאן), on the other hand, says that there is always a chezkat tahara. Only the chumra in reshut hayachid is derived from Sotah
3. The Tosefta(טהרות ו:יז) and Yerushalmi also learn reshut hayachid from Sotah, however they learn reshut harabim from a kal vachomer from the din that the korban Pesach can be brought betumah if most of the nation are tmeiim
4. The Rambam(שאר אבות הטומאה טז:א) also learns the kulah of reshut harabim from Pesach, but he argues that this is the default option for Taharot. He says, the chumra in reshut hayachid is derabanan.

Why is there a difference?

Rav Wolf then moves on to his main chakira for this chapter: whether the difference between reshut hayachid and reshut harabim is due to a difference in the level of safek or due to some difference in how we relate to tumah in particular:

• Raglayim Ladavar- Reshut Hayachid is an enclosed space so ‘raglayim ladavar’. Therefore our doubt is weighted towards suspicion of tumah, like Sotah.
• Becoming Tamei in Reshut Rarabim is Less Severe
• Knas- should have been more careful in Reshut Hayachid, since it's easy to do so.
• Social Neccessity- it's not practical to be machmir in Reshut Harabim.

Mapping Sources to Svarot

So how do these explanations match up with the sources we suggested earlier?

Raglayim Ladavar- This explanation works with the first three derivations, which all learn Reshut Hayachid from Sotah. It’s clearly incompatible with the Ramabam, however, who thinks the comparison with Sotah is not fundamental

Knas- This sounds much like the Rambam who says that the chumra birshut hayachid is derabanan.

Social Neccessity- This sounds most like the Tosefta/Yerushalmi, who compare reshut harabim to the Korban Pesach. In Pesach too, the leniency with regard to tumah sounds more like a practical necessity than an ideal.

More on Tuma by Hagdara

The third chapter of Rav Wolf’s מנחה טהורה discusses tuma and tahara of נבלת עוף טהור as well as the possibly related cases of פרה אדומה, שעיר המשתלח, ופרים ושעירים הנשרפים. The main chakira in this chapter is whether these are cases of tuma by העברה or הגדרה.

Rav Wolf first shows that the Rambam holds that Nivlat Of Tahor is metamei by Haavara, while Seirim and Parim are all Hagdara. For example, he brings the Rambam on Tumat Ochlin. The Rambam distinguishes between Nivlat Of Tahor which needs no hechsher(סופו לטמא טומאה חמורה—אינו צריך הכשר), while Seirim and Parim need הכשר שרץ. This is apparently because Nivlat Of Tahor is an av hatuma which creates its own inherent tumah, while Seirim and Parim don’t actually possess their own tumat haguf.

רמבם שאר אבות הטומאה פרק ג

ה חישב עליה לאכילה, הרי זו מיטמאה טומאת אוכלין; והרי היא כאוכל ראשון לטומאה--אף על פי שלא נגעה בה טומאה אחרת, אינה צריכה הכשר.

ו [ג] פרה אדומה ושעירים הנשרפים אינן כן, אף על פי שהן מטמאין המתעסק בהן: אם חישב עליהן לאכילה--צריכין שתיגע בהן הטומאה, ואחר כך ייטמאו טומאת אוכלין.

Rav Wolf then brings the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim which seems to contradict this approach:

ומפני זה היה העוסק בפרה ובשעירים הנשרפים מטמא בגדים, כשעיר המשתלח אשר יאמן בו כי מרוב מה שנשא מן העונות הוא מטמא מי שנגע בו.(מורה נבוכים חלק ג, פרק מ"ז)

Rav Wolf explains that the Rambam sees Seir Hamishtalayach as

מטמא במידה מסויימת, ולא רק היכי תימצי להגדיר את המשלח בזהות של משלח את השעיר.

But he never elaborates how it can be that Seir Hamishtalayach is metamei by Hagdara, but at the same time somewhat Haavara. I’d like to suggest an explanation…

Hagdara and Haavara Revisited

I would suggest that this apparent contradiction in the different writings of the Rambam helps us sharpen our understanding of the difference between Haavara and Hagdara. When the Rambam in the Moreh says that one who deals with the Seir Hamishtalayach becomes Tamei because of the weight of the sins that have been cast upon it, he isn’t saying that the person becomes Tamei via Haavara rather than Hagdara. The scapegoat isn’t tamei with ritual tumah. That said, it does carry a less corporeal form of Tumah, as do all sins, along the lines of טומאת הנפש. I would argue that many, if not all, cases of tumah by Hagdara are like this in that their Tumat Haguf has some, somewhat more ethereal, source.

For example, חרב כחלל, according to the opinion that it only applies to a weapon. Its tumah wasn’t passed on by contact with the dead body, and yet the sword didn’t become tamei by Hagdara from nowhere. It’s the weapon’s association with the lethal act that gave it the high level of Tumah it now carries. The point is that Tumah by hagdara still comes from “somewhere”.

Definitions and the Passing-On of Tuma

The second shiur in Rav Daniel Wolf’s מנחה טהורה is on the classes of methods by which objects become tamei. The Rav offers 3 options:

1. Hagdara

The object is defined by the Torah as a source of tuma.

The classic example of this are all the avot hatuma defined in the torah: a dead body, a sheretz met, etc.

2. Haavara

Tuma was passed from one object to another.

The classic examples are the basic methods of passing on tuma: a person touching a sheretz met, for example.

3. Hachlala

A less common type of tuma. Here, the tuma is passed by association. The object becomes part of the same whole as the tamei object and thereby becomes Tamei, even though there wasn’t a formal Haavara.

Rav Wolf brings a number of examples, some more clear-cut than other: There’s the mishna in Taharot 1:9 where pure food becomes connected to food that is rishon and it also becomes rishon. Also, kelim that become tamei from being inside Ohel Hamet may be in this category.

Which class is it?

So there are the clear-cut cases, but then there are also the unclear ones. Much of this chapter in the book is dedicated to the unclear ones, and there are also references to later chapters where this chakira arises in other cases.

One of the clear-cut cases of Haavara that Rav Wolf mentions is a person who touches a dead body, Avi Avot Hatuma, and becomes tamei at the level of Av Hatuma. It seems clear enough: the person touches a dead body and the Tumat Met transfers to them at a lower level.

Cherev Kechalal: a simulation

And yet, I wonder if it’s really that simple. Rav Wolf discusses Cherev Kechalal and points out that it isn’t clear whether we’re dealing with Haavara or Hagdara. Is the sword tamei because it absorbed the tuma from the dead body, or is it a new source of Tumat Met, one that belongs to the weapon that struck the blow?

It seems to me that we could ask the same question about a person who touched a dead body. Did they absorb the existing tuma, or is there something in the experience of coming in such close physical contact with a corpse that creates a new source of Tumat Met?

Admittedly, it’s a bit of a chiddush to say that we can have Tumat met that doesn’t pass directly from the dead body. Then again, that’s essentially what Rav Wolf is saying about Cherev Chalal so I don’t see a big difference. That said, I’m still just getting into these sugiot, so maybe I’m missing something…

Passing On Tuma

Let's back-up and look at the first chakira in מנחה טהורה. Tuma can be passed from object to object, starting with an Av Hatuma and progressing through various levels of Vlad Hatuma. For instance:

1.  a Sheretz Met is an av hatuma
2. A kli that touches it can become rishon
3. Food that is put in the kli becomes sheni
4. Truma that touches the food becomes shlishi
5. Kodshim that touch the Truma becomes revii

Rav Wolf points out that there are two ways two understand this passage of Tuma from object to object:

1. Tuma Weakens as it is Passed On

Tuma weakens as it is passed on. The various categories of Av and Vlad hatuma represent the current strength of the Tuma.

2. Avot and Toldot

 

Only avot pass on tuma. Toldot are tamei but cannot pass it on. Truma/Kodshim become pasul but not tamei. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein suggests this explanation based on the Gemara in Bava Kama(ב.) that compares levels of tuma with Avot and Toldot from Melachot Shabbat(שיעורי הרא"ל טהרות עמ' 85). 

Difficulties with Both

Rav Wolf ultimately points out a number of difficulties with both explanations. For instance, if Tuma weakens as it is passed on, then why the distinction between Avot and Toldot? On the other hand, if only avot pass on Tuma, then how can we understand חרב כחלל where Av status is passed on to the kli?

In any case, I wanted to bring-up this chakira now since it is so basic and will no doubt be relevant in numerous places in the future.

Purity and Man

Well, I think it's time I picked up מנחה טהורה, Rav Daniel Wolf's book on Seder Taharot...

The Centrality of Man in Severity of Tumah

One interesting point Rav Wolf makes in the opening chapter is about the pattern in how Tuma is passed between objects, with a decreasing severity the further they get from Mankind:

נראה כי ההסבר לדיני העברת הטומאה מבוסס על השקפה שלפיה האדם הוא מרכז עולם הטהרות. לפיכך, דברים מקבלים טומאה על פי מידת קרבתם לאדם ומעמדם כמשמשיו.

As such, the greatest level of Tuma is a dead body, while at the other end of the spectrum, objects that belong to nature cannot become impure:

1. A Person can become Av Hatuma in life or Avi Avot Hatuma(Rashi's term) in death
2. A metal kli, which requires a high technological level to make, can also become Avi Avot Hatuma
3. Ohel, Moshav, and Mishkav serve Man so they can become an Av
4. Other Kelim can become an Av depending on how closely they serve Man
5. Earthen Kelim "serve the servants of Man" i.e. hold food and water. Therefore they can't become an Av
6. Food Serves sometimes serves man directly, sometimes through a kli, so it can become, at best, Rishon
7. Drink only serves man though a kli, so there is a machloket whether they can become Tamei. The Rambam says that only the 7 important liquids can mideoraita.

 A Lesson in Mindfulness?

The laws of Tumah and Taharah create an aura of respect and awe around the service of God. They raise the bar on our avoda of bringing Korbanot, Trumah, and visiting the Temple Mount.

At the same time, I wonder if there is a broader moral lesson here. We are taught to keep track of the purity/impurity of our bodies, our creations, and even our food. Perhaps this mindfulness, this consciousness of purity in the service of God, are meant to spill over to our broader pursuits, ultimately touching on the realm of טומאת הנפש.

Purifying the Impure

Continuing on in Mincha Tehora, Rav Wolf points out a similar pattern with regards to purifying Tamei items. The closer they are to Man, the easier they are to purify. As Rav Wolf describes it, "החמור בטומאה הוא קל בטהרה":

1. Avot Hatuma are purified in a Mikva
2. Earthen Kelim are purified only once broken
3. Food is purified by making it inedible
4. Impure drinks cannot be purified

This somewhat counter-intuitive result has interesting implications. It seems that the laws of טומאה וטהרה put everything on an axis of Man vs. Nature. That which is closer to Man falls under our realm of responsibility to keep pure or to purify, while that which is Natural is outside our sphere of influence.