Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 June 16

= June 16 =

Ritual impurity due to contact with a dying person in Judaism
Hiya: I was surprised to see the claim in Amy-Jill Levine's book Short Stories by Jesus (with relation to the Parable of the Good Samaritan) that, according to Jewish tradition, ritual impurity is not transmissible through contact with someone near death (as opposed to a corpse). To my knowledge this is false, as I remember having read several times about just this concept being a well-established part of halakha. In particular, I remember there being a specific Hebrew term describing an ill or injured person with whom contact would render one impure should they die within a certain period of time. It began with a G, I believe--or rather, a gimel. I can't remember the particular word, though. Any help? Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 03:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a decent article on the topic and the subsection you want is Tumah_and_taharah. The answer is that the source is misleading. Though some/most authorities prohibit a Kohen from visiting a dying person, that's not because they're ritually impure, but because of a [reasonable] fear that they might become a source of impurity by dying. This is a complex and poorly understood area of Jewish law and anyone thinking of applying it in a practical situation should a) remember it only applies to Kohanim, even in the strictest interpretation and b) consult a competent rabbi, not rely on a Wikipedia talk page, as there's clearly room to rule leniently. I'm not aware of a single word for a person who is going to die. An unwell person is a choleh (ch pronounced gutturally, as in the way Scots pronounce "loch", see Heth). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 06:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful. The term I was thinking of was goses or גוסס, and it looks like I was slightly misremembering things. There is a general injunction on any interference with such a person that may artificially lengthen life or cause them any additional pain. The regulations relating to purity, as you note, are generally thought to apply only to kohanim at the present time, and it's only an ordinance designed to prevent the communication of impurity. Presumably a kohen could hypothetically act improperly by coming into contact with such a person, while not thereby becoming tamei. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 11:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In Temple times, all religious Jews were subject to a host of laws relating to tumah and tahara, a small number perpetuate to this day in halacha. The laws for the Kohen were much more stringent and in a parallel manner the few surviving injunctions for the Kohen are also very stringent. Yes, there are various different intersections of these two sets of laws. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, I understand the general principle fairly well, just had a particular misunderstanding in this case. I knew you or one of our other contributors knowledgeable in Judaism would be of help. Out of curiosity, how do purity regulations for Kohanim differ halakhically (or in actual practice, for those who still observe them) from those for Levites? Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 11:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Today? Massively. The Levites have no particular demands on them above and beyond other Jews. In Temple times? Again, I can't think of any differentiation with the hoi polloi, but I'm not totally sure. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, that was my assumption. Thanks! Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 13:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There's an interesting article in the current issue of a Jehovah's Witness magazine.  In the 19th century a Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweiss identified a possible link between high death rates in new mothers attended by doctors who had just performed autopsies and "poisons" transmitted by corpses.   He introduced handwashing procedures which reduced the death rate to 1%.   The article observes:
 * There's an interesting article in the current issue of a Jehovah's Witness magazine.  In the 19th century a Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweiss identified a possible link between high death rates in new mothers attended by doctors who had just performed autopsies and "poisons" transmitted by corpses.   He introduced handwashing procedures which reduced the death rate to 1%.   The article observes:

"According to the Mosaic Law, which dates to the 16th century B.C.E., anyone touching a corpse became unclean for seven days and had to undergo a cleansing procedure that included bathing and washing his garments. During this time, the person was to avoid physical contact with others. - Numbers 19:11-22."

Public image of government organisations
Why are government organisations often seen as arrogant, rude and unproductive, compared to their private sector counterparts? 2A02:C7D:B954:1900:C891:AF9C:BA89:F05C (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Who says they are? And didn't you ask this same question a week or two ago? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Because of the media's passion for headlining every possible failure by any government, however trivial, and however good the overall work may be. "Government Agency messes up man's application" is a good headline. "Government Agency handles 9,999 applications correctly" won't even get a tiny paragraph. 86.191.126.192 (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Partly it's due to caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware"). If the people at your grocery store are arrogant, rude and unproductive, it's considered to be your fault if you continue to shop there rather than going to a better one down the street. If you don't like the people at the DMV, though, you're stuck with them and thus it's their fault for being terrible. You see this effect in non-governmental entities without competition, as well. Cable and telephone companies often have a natural monopoly, and where they do they're often derided as arrogant, rude and unproductive. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've rarely seen a "natural monopoly" that was not in fact a regulatory monopoly. —Tamfang (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)