[Avodah] Noach and Lashon T'horah

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, November 9, 2006 7:45 pm, Ilana Sober wrote:
: One challenge in teaching or speaking about taharat hamishpacha with certain
: audiences is that women find the use of the term "tumah" to describe a
: natural, unavoidable bodily function degrading and insulting. In many other
: cases, as well, people become tamei quite involuntarily. So I am a little
: puzzled as to why harsh language is called for here. It is not assur to
: become tamei, and some important mitzvot (like pru urvu and caring for and
: burying the dead) require one to become tamei.

The word "tamei" is itself the "hearsh term" in question. The problem isn't
whether harsh language is appropriate for discussing tum'ah, but why the
gemara would characterized "beheimah temei'ah" as a more harsh turn of phrase
than "beheimah tehorah".

The "Maimonidian" position (put in quotes because I don't think it's the
Rambam's, but attributing it to certain contemporary camps that take a
particular approach centered on the Mishneh Torah) that tum'ah is simply a
halachic state with no negative value associated with it is simply untenable
in light of this (and many other) ma'amarei Chazal. But then, they believe in
a concept of Torah that is so contractual / legal that I can not understand
how it would fit Chazal -- or the Rambam, for that matter. A tangent for
another discussion, one we had once.

I think the problem is resolvable if we assume yahadus has multiple value
systems. There is a value to being tahor over tamei, there is a value to being
qadosh over chol. There are probably also more value systems. (Personally, I
identify three, but that's a blog entry waiting to happen. Another tangent not
to pursue right now.) Someone who performs chessed shel emes at the expense of
becoming tamei is choosing one value at the expense of another.

What does this mean for teaching taharas hamishpachah?

In the blog entries at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/machashavah/naran/taharah/> (as well as a
mesuqim article, some pre-blog writings, a few AishDas posts) I use RSRH and
the Ramchal to argue that tum'ah is that which shoves our faces in the fact
that we're physical beings having mamallian bodies. This isn't a good thing,
as it plays down the role of free will and man's destiny to ennoble himself.
However, it would mean that to be uncomfortable with the notion of niddah
being temei'ah is to deny that the biological process doesn't present the
woman with a feeling of her body being in control.

Chessed shel emes causes a conflict of associations -- on the one hand, there
is the kavod hameis, on the other, it's handling another human's body,
innanimate. Thus the conflict of values involved.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha at aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter