Contagion in Jewish Law

🖨️ Print post

Somewhere in Europe around the year 1560, two men entered into a rental agreement. Subsequent to the rental agreement—but before the renter and his fam­ily had actually moved in—the renter’s wife developed a case of jaundice. The landlord tried to break the con­tract and block the renter’s family from moving into his apartment because the landlord lived nearby and he was afraid of catching jaundice from the renter’s wife. The renter claimed this was not a sufficient reason to break the contract.

As was common in cases of this type between religious Jews throughout the centuries, the landlord and would-be tenant decided to take their dispute to one of the great rabbinic Judges of their day. In this instance, they turned to a man named Rabbi Moshe Isserles. Rabbi Isserles’ prestige and great­ness cannot be overstated. He was a leader of the Krakow Jewish commu­nity in the sixteenth century and one of the greatest rabbis of the period. Up to the present day, his works are studied as some of the most authoritative on Jewish Law. He is affectionately known in the Jewish community as “the Rama,” which is simply the acronym formed from the first letters of his name.

“COMPLETE NONSENSE”

After a brilliant analysis of the parameters of rental contract law, in which he sided with the renter, the Rama responded specifically to the issue of contagion:

“And that which he says—that the disease is contagious—is complete nonsense and only someone whose heart pushes them (to rationalize their unreasonable decision) would say such a thing. God makes us sick and heals. If it was like the words of the landlord (that Jaundice is contagious) it would disqualify all the Torah laws of visiting the sick: because we never find in any place that [the Talmud] differenti­ated between infectious diseases and non-infectious diseases except by raasan regarding which [the Talmud said] that it’s prohibited to sit next to him. The proof for this is from the Talmud (Tractate Kesubos, Chapter HaMadir, folio page 77b) which states that the only disqualifying condition for a potential marriage partner is nichfeh, which is a form of raasan.”¹

In plain language, he said that the only disease that is “contagious” is “raasan.”

The word raasan requires explanation. Raasan is actually a family of diseases the Talmud discusses a number of times, which don’t easily correspond to any diseases we have nowadays. The Talmud describes a number of features of this illness. First, it states that the illness is spread by contact with a certain parasitic flying bug and that these bugs are often found near a person afflicted with raasan. Were someone to cut open the skull of someone af­flicted with raasan, according to the Talmud, they would find this parasite feeding on the person’s brain.

The Talmud describes the main symptoms of raasan as including a form of epilepsy or related neurological disorder; skin deterioration and abnormalities such as rashes or boils; and/ or watery eyes, runny nose and drooling. One could protect oneself from getting this disease by eating nutritious foods—especially beets and beer—and taking other precautions, such as not overexerting oneself or putting too much pressure on the body, thereby weakening the immune system.

“STICKING” FROM AN OUTSIDE SOURCE

As far as raasan being “contagious,” the Hebrew word used for “contagious” literally means “that sticks.” The meaning is not that the illness “sticks” from one human body to another, but rather that it “sticks” onto a person from an outside source. Although this linguistic phenomenon is found in basically every classic rabbinic source on this topic and can generally be seen from the context, I think the clearest confirmation comes from the acclaimed kab­balist Rabbi Avraham Azulai who, about four hundred years ago, discussed the spiritual un­derpinnings for the cause of plague. He said, “And among these you learn that plague is not an infectious disease from the spoilage of the air” [emphasis added].² Here, he clearly used the same word “infectious” or, more literally, “sticking” to refer to infection from a toxic environment.

Now we can begin to understand, superfi­cially at least, the Rama’s position based on the Talmud. He said that raasan—a disease caused by a parasite—is the only disease “stuck” onto a person from outside his own body. This seems to imply that all other instances of a disease af­flicting a person are caused by something built by the body inside the body, independent of the occurrence of that disease in other people.

This was a pretty radical position from one of the greatest rabbis in the last thousand years. Jewish Law (or halacha) touches every aspect of life, so a position like this has very definite, far-reaching ramifications in many areas of Jewish Law—and not only tenant law. Interestingly, though, his position actually didn’t cause as much of an uproar as one might expect. In fact, it was received fairly well by scholars for several hundred years, with Rabbi Chaim Beneviste (1603–1673), one of the great Sefardic rabbinic authorities, codifying the Rama’s posi­tion straight into law.³

The most well-known rabbi to take issue with the Rama’s position was Rabbi Chaim Palacci (1788–1868), the chief rabbi of Turkey.⁴ His main reason for disagreeing was based on the following passage from Nachmanides’ (1194–1270) Commentary to the Torah:

“There is yet another matter. Looking upon the atmosphere of a plague and all conta­gious diseases is very harmful, and they may stick to him. And thinking of them is harmful. . . . It was for this reason that Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt⁵: for the plague entered her mind when she saw the brimstone and salt which descended upon them from heaven, and it stuck to her.”⁶

Rabbi Palacci deduced from this passage that illness can sometimes spread through psychological channels. He also mentioned, more than once, “If it were true that plague isn’t ‘contagious,’ one would need to under­stand why so many people run from it?” This is not only a proof from the common practice of fleeing a plagued city (which many great rab­bis—including Rabbi Palacci⁷ and the Rama⁸ himself—did at some point), but it is actually a proof from the Rama’s own stated position on the requirement, in certain cases, to flee a city at the time of plague to ensure one’s own safety.⁹ This requirement is well documented in Jewish Law.¹⁰ So, Rabbi Palacci was leveling a very powerful attack against the Rama’s opinion as we currently understand it.

“NOT CONTAGIOUS AT ALL”

Why did the Rama flee the plague if he didn’t think it was contagious? Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (1915–2006) addressed this ques­tion. Rabbi Waldenberg was one of the previous generation’s greatest Judges of Jewish Law and especially well regarded in the field of medi­cal halacha. He was the rabbi of a synagogue adjacent to one of Jerusalem’s main hospitals. In that capacity, he received many inquiries on Jewish medical law and ethics. He compiled his responses into an extraordinary, many-volume encyclopedic work, Tzitz Eliezer, which covered many topics, chief among them his medical halacha writings. In 1976, he won the Israel Prize in Literature for the publication of this work. He eventually sat on the Jerusalem Reli­gious High Court.

In Tzitz Eliezer 9:17:5, written in the mid- 1960s, Rabbi Waldenberg discussed whether a doctor has the obligation, under Jewish Law, to treat a patient with a contagious disease. In his responsum (a written decision from a rab­binic authority), he gave a number of reasons why a doctor would be obligated to put himself at risk—if there is any—in order to heal the patient. The brunt of his analysis, however, centered on the Rama and Rabbi Palacci as quoted above—and whether or not diseases are contagious at all. He explained:

“It seems the understanding of the Rama regarding this question was since we only have the words of our Sages (upon which to rely) and in the Talmud there’s only men­tion of contagion with regard to raasan, therefore we should not concern ourselves with what they (medical authorities) say nowadays that other illnesses are also con­tagious. And we see, truthfully, regarding many, many illnesses that the doctors once said were contagious that nowadays they’re certain that they’re not contagious at all like, for example, epilepsy (see Responsa Chasam Sofer Eh”E 1:116). And regarding the very illness that the Rama was discuss­ing, Jaundice, also the doctors today say it isn’t contagious.”

Later on, in the same responsum, Rabbi Waldenberg summed up his own position on this matter:

“And according to my differentiation stated above it comes out that what was spoken about in the responsum of the Rama was a contagious disease of a single person who got sick, and the environment is not filthy (with toxins). But where the environment is filthy (with toxins), then the Rama would also agree that it is prohibited to visit the sick, rather he should be careful not to enter into the filthy environment, as we find from the Rama himself who says to flee a city at a time of plague.”

Rabbi Waldenberg explained that there is a difference between a single person getting sick and a plague affecting an entire city. The Rama was only discussing the former situation when he said the only contagious disease is raasan. In other words, if the disease was caused by a raasan parasite, there would be reason to be con­cerned that the parasite would reproduce or that there could be other parasites in the same vicin­ity—whether one person or multiple people be­came sick. However, his reasoning was different for the example of a so-called “viral” disease, the cause of which he attributed to toxins (filth) in the environment. If only one person became ill, it would indicate that either the toxins were not plentiful enough to sicken the other people around him, or he happened to have had access to them but the general air wasn’t filthy and there was no concern with being in the vicinity of the sick person. Conversely, in a situation where the toxins in the environment had shown their strength and sickened many people, then one would be required to maintain his distance and try to escape the city, if possible, so as not to be sickened.

Rabbi Waldenberg went on to express his bewilderment that Rabbi Palacci thought he was disagreeing with the Rama, given that Rabbi Palacci limited his whole discussion to the sce­nario in which disease was actively spreading through a city—a situation that the Rama would also have considered “contagious” due to the toxins present in the environment. In the end, Rabbi Waldenberg contended, all would agree that there is no cause for concern about going near a single individual who just happens to come down with a non-parasite-based disease.

BRING BACK REASON

Recent events have shown how shockingly accurate the Rama’s analysis was all those years ago: “Only someone whose heart pushes them would say such a thing.” We’ve seen a form of science ruled by agendas, fear and widespread anxiety.

I remember, nostalgically, just a couple of years ago when people were still only considered “contagious” if they had some kind of illness. There was a certain measure of sense in that. But then people started testing “positive” for Covid-19 without any symptoms. Suddenly, we’re mostly at a point where the healthier someone is, the more he or she is to be avoided at all cost. People are thought of as walking repositories of illness and death for no other reason than that they exist. In the cur­rent environment, almost no one ever considers simply reexamining the testing process.

This is not the way of reason. A look back at the great men of faith in the past can remind us, ironically or perhaps expectedly, to commit ourselves to a truer science—one that is not distorted by fear.

REFERENCES

1. Shu”s Rama #20 (toward the end).
2. Chesed l’Avraham, Even Shetiya, Maayan 5, Nahar 28.
3. Shiyurei Knesses Hagedolah YD 335:9.
4. Nishmas Kol Chai Ch”M 2:49.
5. Genesis 19:26.
6. Nachmanides, Commentary to the Torah, Genesis 19:17.
7. Chikikei Leiv Ch”M 2:51.
8. Mechir Yayin Introduction.
9. Shulchan Aruch YD 116:5.
10. Maharil teshuva #50. The sources for leaving the city at a time of plague are also closely impacted by the question of how diseases spread, but that is beyond the scope of this article.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Summer 2024

🖨️ Print post