From: hillel@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz)
Subject: Re: Questions About Uncleanliness
Keywords: unclean menstruation
Organization: AT&T Migration Systems
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:09:01 GMT

In article <23593@scorn.sco.COM> jcohen@sco.COM (Jon Cohen) writes:
>
>
>I have two questions about Laws of uncleanliness as
>stated in the book of Levitticus. I have never studied
>these laws before this month, so I am really clueless.
>
>1) Is being unclean equal to or similar to being bad?
>   Is uncleanliness--for example, the uncleanliness of
>   a menstruating woman--a kind of sin, or something the
>   "unclean" person should feel ashamed about?
>

Absolutely NOT.  These laws have to deal with a spiritual state in
which one can or cannot eat sacrifices, touch other people or items
and similar matters.  It has NOTHING to do with sin or shame.  For
example, the most stringent kind of tumah (unclean is really not a
good translation) is that of someone who touched a dead person.
Yet it is a requirement to ensure that a dead person is buried
properly.  In fact, if no one else is available, tthe high priest
was supposed to bury the person therebye making himself tamei.
Each kind of tumah has its own method of purification as detailed
in the Torah.  I believe that Aryeh Kaplan Z"L wrote on this
subject in some of his books but I do not recall the title.  I do
recall a book by the name "Waters of Eden" which may be by Rabbi
Kaplan which discusses the family purity laws and their application
to modern days.

>   For example, a woman friend told me that she
>   was introduced to an Hasid who did not want
>   to shake her hand, because she might have been
>   "unclean". In this situation, is the Hasid
>   saying that she is bad or dirty or inferior in
>   some way?
>

No, this is not the case.  This has to do with the fact that one
must avoid "impurity" in any case.  Also, it has to do with modesty
in that one should not know whether or not a woman is in niddah or
not.

>
>2) Why do Orthodox Jews continue to practice these Laws
>   as they relate to menstruation, abstinence from
>   sex, purification in a ritual bath--all in relation
>   to sexual relations in marraige; yet, they do not
>   practice the similar laws that relate to persons
>   with skin diseases, etc.??
>

The "disease" referenced is not Hanson's disease (leprosy) in spit
of the King James translation.  Tzoraas was a physical symptom of a
spiritual disease and required the priest to diagnose.  Since we do
not have the Temple or sacrifices, we cannot do this nowadays.  In
a similar manner, since we cannot bring the Parah Adumah (Red Cow)
we cannot become Tahor ("pure") after touching a dead person.

We can however follow the laws of family purity.

>I am not asking because I want to criticize these Laws and
>practices--I'm just trying, right now, to understand them
>and the way they relate to the practice of Orthodox Judaism.
>
>***


Hope this helps.

_______________________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz        |    Im ain ani li mi li             |
| H_Markowitz@att.com     |    Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha      |
|_________________________|____________________________________|