Tzav: The Meaning of Tum’ah

Parshat Tzav continues the theme of korbanot, but it looks at them from a different direction: Vayikra described Moshe’s Mishkan, and Tzav—like with parshat Tetzaveh, we can sense it in its very name—describes Aharon’s Mishkan. Vayikra was from the point of view of those bringing the korbanot; Tzav is from the point of view of the kohanim. While Vayikra focuses on the experience of the person bringing the korban, and the korbanot are ordered starting from the optional and moving toward the mandatory, Tzav focuses much more on the eating of the korban, and the korbanot under discussion are ordered based on how they are eaten.

One particular discussion in Tzav is that of tum’ah and taharah[1], often seen nowadays as arcane and currently irrelevant, and somewhat “mystical.” Can we even talk about what those words actually mean? Is the concept within our grasp? It may be worth our while to investigate what these ideas actually are.

In the gemara[2], Rav Gidel says that if there is doubt as to whether a piece of meat in the Temple has become tamei, it can still be eaten—effectively considered tahor. On the other hand, he says that if there is doubt about whether the person who is supposed to be eating has become tamei, he cannot eat—he is effectively considered tamei. The difference, says Rav Gidel, is whether יש בו דעת לישאל—whether the carrier of potential tum’ah “has the knowledge to be asked.”

“The Torah here,” writes Rav S.R. Hirsch,

is apparently signaling to us, to keep us from mistaken notions: We should not think that when טומאה touches an object, it exerts upon that object an actual, magic and invisible influence. For were טומאה to exert a harmful, actual and magic influence, doubtful טומאה would not be treated more leniently than all other ספקות…. This is one of the proofs that הלכות טומאה belong to the category of symbolic laws; i.e., they call to mind and make us conscious of the most important truths.

So it appears that this form of tum’ah is symbolic. But what does it symbolize? For that we can also look at the writings of Rav Hirsch:

Clearly, טומאה signifies a lack of freedom. For man is destined to live in moral freedom; but whenever a living organism succumbs to compelling physical forces, this is liable to give rise to the notion that man lacks freedom. And there is nothing that fosters this notion more than a dead body.

The lack of freedom—that is real tum’ah, Rav Hirsch tells us. The tum’ah of objects, the tum’ah that we wash off in a mikvah—that is symbolic. As things come into focus from this angle, it appears that the only reason that tum’ah is so associated with death is because it is such a persistent reminder of our lack of freedom, when the whole meaning of being human is to be free. Perhaps this is why the most oppressive regimes always primarily leverage death; it is on pain of death that they force their citizens to comply. In the most real sense, those regimes are the source of the “actual” tum’ah that the tum’ah discussed in the parashah symbolizes. And in that case, the taxes, fines and harrassment to which Western governments subject their citizens are a lighter form of tum’ah—one that, on a smaller scale, but nevertheless—deprives humans of their freedom.

We can learn much from these symbolic laws. For example, when something tahor touches something tamei, the tum’ah often “infects” it. We see this routinely with populations of citizens who grow up and receive their educations under oppressive regimes; many can later never adjust to free life. Even we in the West have trouble adjusting to the idea of a freer life. This sheds a new light on the midrashim that state that the Jews in Egypt sank to the 49th level of tum’ah, and therefore had to be taken out prematurely, before they were completely lost; after all, as we will BE”H see when we reach parshat Shlach, the generation that left Egypt in fact never was quite able to adjust to a freer life.

At the same time, some of the greatest freedom fighters of the world, as well as some of the people who understand freedom best, are informed and motivated by their experiences under the most oppressive regimes. An experience of tum’ah need not have a permanent negative effect; indeed, it can ultimately be quite positive. It is a great mitzvah, for example, to bury the dead. The trick, perhaps, is to figure out what these freedom fighters’ mikvaot are.

It would be easy to claim, from this angle, that China is likely the epicenter of world tum’ah at the moment, but that it is alive and well in more tahor places too. Compare and contrast the truck convoys in the United States—where Senators came out and spoke to the protesters—and Canada—where protesters were beaten, trampled and robbed by police. Those regimes with the closest ties to China—Russia, Iran, North Korea—appear to have the highest levels of tum’ah. “Real-world” (as opposed to symbolic) tum’ah appears to be omnipresent, and to be magnitudinous rather than boolean—i.e. every regime and every person has a (dynamic) level of tum’ah, some lower, some higher, rather than it just being either present or not.

In our davening, as we prepare to say Shemah, we say about the angels that they open their mouths the same way that, according to the blessing we say after a snack, we will when Jerusalem is rebuilt: בקדשה ובטהרה—according to our understanding here, in holiness and freedom. There is no coercion in the upper world under discussion, and they make a free choice[3] to receive על מלכות שמים זה מזה. This is a world to which to aspire. We should not feel like slaves, even in the lightest of forms. After all, one of the first things we say to God in the morning is that the neshama he gave us is tehorah.

[1] Generally translated into English—awfully—as “purity” and “impurity,” or—completely horrifically—as “clean” and “unclean.” It is important to remember that there is nothing “dirty” about tum’ah, and cleaning an object will conversely not render it tahor.
[2] Sotah 29a, right in the middle
[3] How this is possible for angels who have no free will would make for a separate interesting discussion.