Pesachim 67 a, b

The rabbis are working to define who was permitted to participate in the Temple rites.  They consider those who are deemed as having ritual impurity, zavin and zavot, those with tzorah, women who are menstruating and women who have recently given birth.  The rabbis wonder about the difference between those who have had first degree contact with a corpse and others.  They wonder about groups verses individuals.  They ask about these people when they travel beyond their boundaried limits.  They question whether these Jews might attend the second Pesach instead of the first.** 

Some of their conversation refers to three camps of Jews.  Those closest to the Temple, those surrounding the Temple, and those in the rest of Jerusalem or other walled cities of Eretz Yisroel, we learn from Steinsaltz.  We also learn from his note that these three camps are parallel to the three camps of Jews in the desert: the holiest with the mishkan, the Levites surrounding that group, and the rest of the Israelites further from that centre point.  He tells us that notions of ritual purity coincide with these three levels as well.

The rabbis discuss how a negative mitzvah might become a positive mitzvah.  I was not aware of this possibility, but Steinsaltz shares that negative mitzvot were usually repaired by fixing the action; for example, a stolen object could be returned. In this way severe punishments often were avoided completely.

We are witness to a long conversation about differences between a corpse and the carcass of a creeping animal; restrictions on a zav and on a tzorah.  It seems that stringencies are more severe on a tzorah than on a zav.  I had not realized that a zav imparts ritual impurity through movement.  Steinsaltz offers some helpful information regarding a zav - someone who has gonorrhea.  He tells us that the first white discharge found requires the same actions as those for a man who has had a seminal emission.  They are impure for the day and must immerse in the evening.  Should a discharge appear again, the man takes on the status of zav and can impart ritual impurity to vessel he causes to move, anything he sits or lies upon, anyone or thing he touches.  He is forbidden to have marital relations (and, I would assume, non-marital relations :).  After seven clean days the zav can immerse. If discharge appears again, he must offer a special sacrifice.  

The tzorah, on the other hand, can impart ritual impurity to anything or anyone s/he touches, much like a corpse.  After two weeks of seclusion and a final determination of tzar'at, the tzorah grows his/her hair, rents his/her clothing, and wears a special head covering.  S/he is much more isolated than the zav.

A number of disturbing issues are stirred up by today's daf.  First, the concept of ritual impurity.  Was gonorrhea curable through waiting a few weeks?  Immersion, sacrifice... should we be offering that treatment today?  Or were people zavin/zavot forever once diagnosed?  And what about tzara'at - we still don't know whether we are speaking about leprosy, psoriasis, or some other unknown skin disease.  Was this ever cured?  And was it actually contagious, requiring isolation from the community?  I wonder how common these afflictions were in the times of the Talmud.  Was this so common that there was little stigma?  Or, more likely, was this uncommon enough that those diagnosed were shunned and rejected without any recourse?

I cannot help but continually connect ritual impurity with the experience of having a communicable disease.  The zav, someone with gonorrhea, and the tzorah, someone with a specific skin condition, should be isolated lest they infect others with these untreatable conditions.  These seem to be medically connected.  Further, I can understand that semen or other genital discharge might be seen similarly - these are almost sacred emissions, and they could be thought to carry power thus people should be isolated and immersed following contact.  And a corpse or the carcass of a creeping animal might carry germs that could make others very ill.  But how does menstrual blood or discharge/blood following childbirth fit into this group?  Were women's blood thought to carry disease, or be contagious in some way?  IS it dangerous, medically speaking?  Is it in the same category as semen, which is not what we want to touch accidentally, but not actually harmful?

As a feminist and someone who believes that people, not G-d, wrote these specific interpretations, I cannot help but see menstruation as somehow scary, powerful, and difficult to understand.  I want to believe another woman-affirming interpretation is available, but I haven't found myself convinced.  

Fortunately I have much to look forward to as other tractates examine this material in great depth.


** The "second Pesach" is not commonly observed in modern times except by some Chasidic/ultra-orthodox groups.  It occurs one month after Pesach, on the 14 of Iyar.  When Temple rites existed, this holiday allowed all people to participate, not just those who were 'ritually pure'.