The paired terms clean/unclean, pure/impure, and holy/common or profane represent an overlapping set of biblical concepts related to the ritual suitability of people, objects, and places. The focus is on preserving the sanctity of the Tabernacle and Temple, but there are other contexts as well. Even though English words like “clean,” “unclean,” “cleansing,” “contamination,” carry implications of physical hygiene or moral judgment, the biblical use of these terms focuses on the cleanness and sanctity of the temple more than physical cleanliness. Similarly, in English “profane” can often carry a negative connotation, but its biblical sense is more often as common or ordinary instead of unholy. In the Hebrew Bible there are some cases where language of cleanness or uncleanness is used in discussions of morality or immorality, but for many of the sources of uncleanness, simply being unclean is not considered wrong or sinful.
In the Hebrew Bible, nouns and verbs related to the root ṭhr are the primary terms for cleanness and cleansing as well as purity and purification. In English versions, purity and cleanness have often been used as interchangeable translations for ṭhr. Other terms include zk and brr. Tmʾ and related forms are used for the contrasting concept of “unclean,” as sources of uncleanness or for causing something to become unclean. Another term for uncleanness is niddah, used primarily for impurity related to menstruation. Qdsˇ is the most common root for holiness and making someone or something holy, i.e., separate. The verb ḥll and the related noun ḥōl represent common or profane, the opposite of holiness. Ḥll is used frequently throughout the Tanakh, but ḥōl appears only six times—three of which are in Ezekiel. Both Lev 10:10 and Ezek 44:23 combine all of these terms in speaking of distinguishing between the holy and the common and the clean and unclean. Some English translations have used the word “common” for other senses as well, in terms of being normal or regular, as in Deut 3:11 (the “common cubit”) and 2 Kgs 23:6 (“graves of the common people.”) This sense of common uses different Hebrew terms, which are not used as contrasts to qdsˇ.
In the Hebrew Bible, rḥṣ is generally used for washing the body while kbs is used for washing objects. Htqds̆ is also sometimes used for washing or purifying the body. These same terms are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Rabbinic literature as well, although tbl (from bll) is introduced for immersion—as in the tebul yom, a person who has bathed but is unclean until sunset. The term nzh (sprinkle) is also used in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In the Septuagint, New Testament, and other Greek Second Temple texts, katharizō and related words are used for cleanness, while akathartos is the most common term for uncleanness. Holiness is expressed by hagnizō and related terms. Multiple terms are used for washing, such as niptō, plunō, and louō, translating both rḥṣ and kbs as plunō.) The New Testament also uses baptizō, but more in the sense of immersion baptism and with less direct connection to katharizō or hagnizō.
See the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Botterweck 1974) and David Wright’s entry on Unclean/Clean (Wright 1992) for further discussion of these terms.
In the Hebrew Bible, concerns of clean/unclean, etc. are concentrated in the Priestly source, particularly Leviticus, although scattered references can be found in other books as well. People, places, and objects can be identified as clean or unclean or can become unclean after contact with certain objects or materials. Leviticus identifies many sources of impurity: unclean animals (Leviticus 11), corpses (Numbers 9), menstruation (Leviticus 15) and childbirth (Leviticus 12), leprosy and mildew (Leviticus 13), and genital discharges for both men and women (Leviticus 15). Numbers 19 has many references to purity and purification in the discussion of the ashes of the red heifer, which can be used to cleanse impurity caused by contact with corpses. These references primarily use ṭhr and its derivatives for cleanness and tmʾ and its derivatives for uncleanness. Finally, Deut 23:9–14 requires toilets to be built outside the camp and specifies that those with nocturnal emissions must wash outside the camp.
Tmʾ, ṭhr, and related terms are also used in a moral or spiritual sense apart from the references to specific causes of impurity noted earlier. For instance, Isa 6:5 speaks of having “unclean lips.” See also Ezek 36:25, Jer 31:31, 33:8.
Leviticus also contains many references to holiness, using the root qdsˇ, particularly in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26), which outlines various practices the Israelites should follow. Given the sense of holiness as being separate described earlier and the statement “You shall be holy for I the LORD your God am holy” (Lev 19:2 and elsewhere), some of these laws could represent an attempt to distinguish the Israelites from their neighbors by avoiding specific practices of other cultures. It is hard to know much about these neighboring cultures since we have few references to their practices outside of the Bible.
The Torah also defines areas with different levels of holiness, which required different levels of purity for individuals and objects. Thus for instance the Tabernacle and Temple are holy and must be kept pure, but the most sacred part, the Holy of Holies requires extra purification of the high priests before they can enter (see, for example, Leviticus 21). In the discussion of Yom Kippur in Leviticus 16, Aaron is required to bathe before putting on the ceremonial vestments and entering the sanctuary and again after he is done with the sacrifice. This need for bathing and changing his clothes after leaving the sanctuary illustrates the difference between biblical purity concerns and general concerns over physical dirt and hygiene. Given the emphasis on the purity of the sanctuary, there would be no sources of uncleanness inside, so the washing after the sacrifice is not intended to remove any physical impurity.
The need for special precautions among priests extended to their practices regarding corpse impurity. While all Israelites are expected to purify themselves after contact with corpses, the priests are expected to avoid contact with corpses unless it is unavoidable in the case of immediate family members. (Leviticus 21 and Numbers 19)
Exodus 19 describes the Israelite’s washing and consecration before their encounter with God at Mount Sinai. They had to wash their clothes and “not go near a woman” (Lev 19:10, 15) to prepare for the third day on which God would come down upon Mount Sinai. The holiness of the mountain is emphasized in the sense that even after they were consecrated, the Israelites had to stay away from the mountain because it was holy (Exod 19:12–13). Except for the purification of priests before service in the Tabernacle or Temple, this is the only reference in the Hebrew Bible to purification in the context of theophany or encounter with God.
While most references to purity and purification in the Hebrew Bible are found in the Priestly source of the Torah, there are references outside the Torah. For instance, 2 Kings 5 tells the story of Na’aman, a commander in the Aramean army who had leprosy. The prophet Elisha tells him to wash seven times in the Jordan River to be cleansed. After initially objecting to the simplicity of Elisha’s instructions, he bathes seven times and is healed of his leprosy. While language of purity and cleanness are used here, this passage differs from the Priestly source texts concerning leprosy, which required the leper to be fully healed before being cleansed and declared pure. Ezekiel uses both cleanness and holiness terminology in its description of a restored Temple in chapters 36–44.
The Tanakh uses concepts of clean and pure and their opposites unclean and impure somewhat interchangeably. People and objects must be clean or pure to be brought into the Temple and anything unclean or impure is to be excluded. Some things can be permanently or inherently unclean, such as unclean animals and corpses. Other things can become unclean or impure by contact with something unclean, such as a person who touches a corpse, but then they can become clean or pure through the proper purification and sacrifices.
As already described , the primary focus of purity and cleanness is to protect the sanctity of the Temple by keeping away anything unclean. In one sense pure, clean, and sacred are thus closely related. However, common and profane, the opposites of sacred or holy, are not exactly synonymous with unclean or impure.
Second Temple period texts describe largely the same contexts for uncleanness and cleansing as the Hebrew Bible. Many of the sources of impurity are handled in similar ways to the Torah. Several new ritual contexts appear in these texts, including prayer (Let. Arist. 304b–306), Sabbath (2 Macc 12:38), proselytes (Joseph and Aseneth), gleaning (4Q284a 1 2–5), and latrines (11Q19-20 XLVI 13–18).
Rabbinic literature addresses issues of purity and cleanness at great length, building on the instructions in the Torah and addressing gaps and questions that arose. Tractate Tohorot of the Mishnah addresses many sources of uncleanness and how to deal with them, including an entire section on miqva’ot, ritual baths. Although the Mishnah discusses practices and teachers from the Second Temple period, its usefulness for describing practices in that time period is debated since it was written around 200 ce. Most of the Mishnaic material from Tractate Tohorot was omitted from the Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud has the section on Niddah and the Jerusalem Talmud only has four chapters from Tractate Niddah.
In the New Testament some references to Jewish ritual purity and washing are polemical, such as Mark 7, while others mention purity and examples of washing without much comment. Consider for instance, the presentation of Jesus and Mary at the Temple for purification (Luke 2:22), Jesus’ encounter with the woman with a hemorrhage (Mark 5:25–34, Matt 9:20–22, Luke 8:43–48), and his healing of lepers—Luke 17:11–19 and Matthew 8. In both stories about lepers, Jesus heals them and sends them to the priests for verification of their healing. There are also many references to Christian baptism, such as Acts 22:16. While much of the Jewish literature discusses washing along with purification, washing in the New Testament is often linked to baptism or metaphorical uses such as forgiveness of sins in the case of John the Baptist (Mark 1:1–18), rebirth (1 Cor 6:11), or dying and rising with Christ (Rom 6:3–5).
As already indicated, biblical concerns for purity and cleanness focus around protecting the holiness of the Temple. The following discussion will focus on the concept of purity and cleanness rather than the distinction between sacred and common. Ancient and modern commentators have proposed many explanations for the biblical purity laws. Many have argued that these laws, particularly the dietary laws and rules for leprosy promoted health and food safety. Others have suggested that followers should learn obedience by following the laws and not seek explanations for them. Others have suggested that the purity laws represent symbolic or allegorical interpretations of purity and impurity. For instance, rabbits have sometimes been seen as symbols of promiscuity and thus to be avoided as food, while cows have sometimes been viewed as symbols of docility and obedience and thus acceptable as food.
Many of the purity laws are connected by concerns over life and death. Contact with a corpse is one of the most, if not the most, severe forms of impurity in the Torah (Leviticus 21) and requires purification with the ashes of the red heifer (Numbers 19). While menstrual blood, genital emissions, and leprosy are not direct causes of death, they can be seen as reminders of life and death and thus something to be treated with extreme caution.
Many scholars have found Mary Douglas’s anthropological concepts useful for understanding the details of biblical purity. Many cultures have taboos and definitions for what is clean and unclean. Some of these taboos overlap between cultures, but her point is that they form a system that delineates order and disorder. Uncleanness causes disorder while cleansing and purification restore order. Thus identifying something as unclean may have less to do with the nature of the item or substance itself than its symbolic role in the system. While purity rules focus on individual bodies and behavior they can also address places like temples and even entire groups. This can explain why the Holiness Code and other biblical purity laws address the nation of Israel as a whole—the Israelites are called to be a nation that avoids certain sources of impurity in contrast to their neighbors who do not. These laws comprise a system that defines individual and group behavior and keeps order. It is possible however to view this system as an idealized system that may or may not have been fully implemented, but that is another question entirely.
In discussions of purity and impurity in the Hebrew Bible and later literature, two important concerns are whether the sources of impurity are avoidable and whether someone who is impure can spread it to other people or objects. Some sources of impurity can be avoided to a certain extent. For instance a person can choose not to touch the carcass of an unclean animal, eat unclean food, have contact with someone diagnosed with leprosy, or have intercourse with a woman who is menstruating. Biblical and medical scholars are unclear about what disease is being described in references to leprosy, but most agree that it is likely not the same as the modern disease of the same name.
On the other hand, some sources of impurity are unavoidable or beyond personal control. For instance menstruation, intercourse, and childbirth are natural parts of life. In fact they are unavoidable if people wish to have children. Similarly, each person will eventually die and corpses need to be properly disposed. Leviticus 21 describes the need for priests to avoid corpses but allows exceptions for most priests to assist in burying their closest relatives. This suggests there was a customary responsibility to ensure proper burial for close family that would involve touching their corpses. However, the High Priest was not allowed that exception and was not allowed to contact corpses even for his father or mother (Lev 21:10).
Since these sources of impurity are unavoidable the primary concern is to make sure that when someone encounters these impurities they treat them in the proper manner so as to avoid spreading the impurity. Some commentators have found negative connotations to these impurities, including claims that menstruation and menstrual impurity are inflicted on women as punishment for Eve’s disobedience. This is compounded by the very terminology of clean and unclean, since many modern readers assume that something unclean must be bad. Mary Douglas’s anthropological reading can be useful here in focusing on the symbolic implications of these impurities instead of the details of the sources themselves.
Some ancient Near Eastern cultures specified rituals and prayers to accompany washing and sometimes implied that purification was necessary for the healing of health-related impurities. The Hebrew Bible and later literature take a different attitude towards the timing of healing and generally omit prayers and rituals. The Torah describes the means of purification needed to cleanse various impurities. Purification can involve washing, sacrifices, waiting until sunset, or some combination of these actions. In the case of health-related impurities like leprosy, the Torah specifies that an individual with leprosy must be certified as healed from leprosy before purification. Apart from describing the means of purification, the Torah and most of the later literature do not describe the ritual actions or prayers involved in purification. A few texts in the Second Temple period and Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that prayers were involved, but some of the scrolls are fragmentary. It is possible that the omission of healing, rituals, and prayers in purification was an attempt to avoid any suggestion of sorcery or magic, but it is hard to know.
Since the Priestly source contains the bulk of purity references in the Hebrew Bible, discussions of when and how the purity system and purification practices developed hinge on the dating of these texts. An early, pre-exilic, date for the P source would suggest that the purity laws existed from the time of Solomon’s Temple and perhaps even in the time of the Tabernacle. On the other hand, a late, post-exilic, date for P would suggest that the purity laws developed as the Jewish community was rebuilding after the destruction of the first Temple. There are few references to purity, impurity, etc. in the Historical Books and many of the Prophetic references to purity are in later prophets such as Ezekiel. The absence of purity references in the Historical Books is not proof that purity laws developed in the Second Temple period, but it has caused some scholars to question when they actually developed.
Archaeologically speaking, there is no clear date for the introduction of washing for ritual purification. Washing in streams or other bodies of water does not require the use of formal structures and thus leaves no physical evidence. Miqva’ot or ritual baths seem to have been introduced in the Second Temple period with the earliest possible structures dating to around mid-second century bce. Once these structures were introduced, they became quite common in Jewish settlements, and especially common in Herodian-era Jerusalem.
There has been some debate among archaeologists and biblical scholars as to what kinds of bathing pools can be identified as miqva’ot. The section on miqva’ot in Mishnah Tractate Tohorot emphasizes the importance of mayyim hayyim, or living water (i.e., naturally flowing streams or rainwater) for purification. Water that was drawn or carried or flowing in pipes was not suitable for purification unless it has been mixed with at least 40 seahs of living water. It is unclear how much a seah was, but it is often assumed that 40 seahs was enough for a person to be completely submerged in the water. m. Miqw.6:1, 7–8 describes an arrangement of bathing pools where one pool could be filled with at least 40 seahs of rainwater and another with water carried from another source and then the two pools could be connected by a pipe to allow the waters to mix, making both pools suitable for purification. When a pool fitting this description was found at Masada, many scholars assumed that this style of pool was the standard style of miqva’ot in the Second Temple period and possibly the only acceptable style. However, numerous single pools have been found at various sites from the time period, and some scholars have argued that these should also be considered as possible miqva’ot. Since the Mishnah itself was not fully compiled until 200 ce, the accuracy of its descriptions of Second Temple period practices have been questioned by some scholars. Even if the Mishnaic descriptions are accurate, there still might have been multiple practices and styles for purification during that time.
Some have taken the reference in m. Miqw. 1:1–8 to seven aliyot, or levels, of miqva’ot to mean miqva’ot must have seven steps to meet Rabbinic requirements. Even the pool from Masada that included a stepped pool and a reservoir did not have seven steps, and there is no consistency in the number of steps in the many Second Temple period miqva’ot in Jerusalem. There does however seem to be a preference for bathing pools to be cut out of rock and then plastered rather than to be built out of masonry and then plastered.
Some archaeologists have suggested that the presence of miqva’ot can be seen as one indicator that Jews were present in a community. In some cases this identification has been bolstered by the absence of pig bones and the presence of stone vessels. Unlike wood or pottery, vessels carved from stone could be purified and reused. Consider for instance the reference to stone water jugs in John 2. Numerous such vessels are found in Second Temple period houses in Jerusalem and other sites as well. These indicators are still debated by scholars, and they do not prove that the residents of an individual house were Jewish but can suggest the presence of Jewish residents in the community. The use of miqva’ot for such identification also depends on whether or not single stepped pools are included as miqva’ot.
Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the excavations at Qumran, there have been extensive debates about the authorship of the Scrolls and whether the buildings at Qumran have anything to do with the Scrolls. While some scholars have linked the Scrolls to Essenes who were described by Josephus and Philo or the Therapeutae from Philo’s de Vita Contemplativa, others have avoided this question by referring to the “authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls” or the “Scrolls community.” The latter may still be problematic since it could imply that all of the scrolls were written by the same community.
There is still no consensus on whether the site of Qumran was used by the community described in the Dead Sea Scrolls or whether its proximity to the caves where the scrolls were found is coincidental. Some of the early excavators may have let their assumptions about the connection between the scrolls and the site influence their conclusions about the site and their identification of rooms like the “scriptorium.” At the same time, the Scrolls emphasize purity and washing and the large number of bathing pools at the site does suggest that there may have been a link. As with pools at other sites, there is no proof that these sites were used as miqva’ot, but the construction of steps reduces the volume available for water storage, so some have argued that these pools were used as miqva’ot rather than simply for water storage in an arid environment.
There are a few Second Temple period sites East of the Jordan River with possible Miqva’ot, including Machaerus, Atarot/Atruz, Saidiyeh, and ‘Umeiri. Machaerus was a Herodian palace, but the others seem to have been agricultural sites. In addition, the Jordanian site al-Maghtas, which has been proposed as an alternative site for Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist at the Jordan River, contains large stepped pools resembling those found at Qumran. This site appears to have been used later as a Byzantine period pilgrimage site with churches and monastic cells. Unlike Qumran, which went out of use with the Jewish rebellion in 66 to 70 ce, this site seems to have remained in use after the fall of the Second Temple and into the Byzantine period. The strata and site history are still unclear, but this site could represent a link between Jewish practice and developing Christian baptismal practices.
Once the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 ce, it was no longer possible to make sacrifices or obtain the ashes of the red heifer (Numbers 19) for purification from corpse impurity. At the same time there was no immediate need for purification since there was no Temple and thus no need to be purified before entering the Temple. Much of the Rabbinic writings about purity and purification has thus been hypothetical—either discussing how purification will be practiced if the Temple is rebuilt or discussing how it was practiced in the Second Temple period. As discussed earlier, Mishnaic and later discussions of Second Temple period practices may be of limited use in reconstructing actual Second Temple period traditions.
In Jewish practice, ritual bathing was likely a private matter with a concern for modesty. As Jews interacted with Hellenistic culture, which treated bathing as a more social experience, questions arose whether bathing in a public bathhouse could satisfy the requirements for ritual bathing. One interesting passage in m. Avod. Zar. 3:4 cites an argument from Rabbi Gamaliel that purification at a Greek bathhouse was acceptable. His reasoning was that even though bathhouses contained statues, which might lead to concerns about idolatry, people disrespect the statues by urinating in front of them and thus the bathhouses cannot be considered as sacred spaces to be avoided.
Even though the Temple was never rebuilt, concern for purity and purification has continued in the Jewish community, albeit in a narrower context. Jewish dietary laws still emphasize clean and unclean kinds of food and observant Jews still wash their hands before eating. Even though biblical and rabbinic references prescribed immersion for a range of impurities, modern Jewish practice focuses primarily on immersion for women after menstruation and after childbirth. Some observant Jewish men will also immerse before Yom Kippur and other festivals as well.
This focus on women’s impurity has led some feminist scholars to challenge the continuation of these washing practices due to their impact on women. Anat Zuria’s documentary Purity illustrates these debates through interviews with Israeli women who have a wide range of experiences and reactions to these practices. Other scholars like Elise Goldstein and the founders of Mayyim Hayyim, an immersion center in Massachusetts, have attempted to re-engage with these practices by offering new interpretations and prayers for immersion while preserving the traditional uses as well.