Mark mentions various other details relating, contextually at least, to the washing of hands, such as: ‘the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles [and beds]’ (Mk 7.4). These practices appear to have been grounded in biblical law but expanded and interpreted in Second Temple Judaism. We have already seen the context of the biblical precedent for such laws in Lev. 11.30–33 and we can add another: ‘Any earthen vessel that one with the discharge touches shall be broken; and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water’ (Lev. 15.12). This is expanded more generally in the numerous passages dealing with the uncleanness of wood in the Mishnah such as the following: ‘Utensils of wood, leather, bone, or glass that are flat are not suscep- tible to uncleanness. If they form a receptacle they are susceptible’ (m. Kelim 15.1). With Lev. 11.30–33 in mind, the practice of immers- ing other kinds of utensils was developed in rabbinic literature. There are more general statements in rabbinic literature concerning the immersion of vessels such as the following: ‘R. Meir says: Vessels may be immersed in the water but not in the mud. R. Joshua says: Either in the water or in the mud . . . ’ (m. Miqw. 3.10). Like the bronze kettle of Mk 7.4, m. Kelim 11.1 indicates that metal objects are indeed susceptible: ‘Utensils of metal are susceptible to unclean- ness whether they are flat or whether they form a receptacle . . .’ (m. Kelim 11.1).
One material that Mark would not have been referring to was earthenware because earthenware had to be smashed if impure (Lev. 11.33). Another material probably not implied by Mark because, according to the Mishnah, for instance, stone was not necessarily susceptible to impurity: ‘an oven made of stone or metal is clean . . . A stove made of stone or of metal is clean . . . These utensils afford protection with a tightly stopped-up cover: vessels [made] . . . of stone . . . ’ (m. Kelim 5.11; 10.1). In fact, a key archaeological find to support a widespread dedication to purity outside the Temple is stone vessels. Throughout the whole of Palestine/Israel stone vessels have
been found. For some scholars this suggests that at least some people were concerned with having meals in a state of purity in different geographical areas and, given that the ruling on stone vessels is found in rabbinic literature and given the connections between the Pharisees and the rabbis, that this practice can probably can be said to have been a Pharisaic concern in the first century.
One particular utensil mentioned in some manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel, and which has caused confusion among ancient copyists and modern scholars alike, is the mention of the immersion of ‘beds’ or, better, ‘dining couches’ (Mk 7.4). The confusion is typically over the impossibility of the given interpreter imagining people to have done such things and it has even been known for scholars to claim Mark invented the practice. However, it is quite clear that certain practices were discussed in rabbinic literature as in the following passages:
[If] one
i
mmersed the bed/dining couch therein, even though its legs sink down into thick mud – it is clean, because the water touched them before [the mud did]. (m. Miqw. 7.7)He who unties the bed/dining couch to immerse it . . . (m. Kelim 19.1)
While some have argued that this could be a reference to the ‘beds’ of Leviticus 15 which become impure, this is probably not the case. In addition to the word for ‘bed’ in Leviticus 15 not typically having the connotations of ‘dining couches’ (in contrast to Mark 7 and the above passages from the Mishnah), there is no mention of immersion for the ‘beds’ of Leviticus 15. Instead, the ‘beds’ of Mark 7 and the Mishnah passages are part of the same general laws of ‘utensils’ found in Lev. 11.32 and 15.12.5
Why immerse all these kinds of utensils and furniture? Again, the issue involves the transmission of impurity and we have a notable discussion of a directly related issue in a passage recorded in Matthew (and Luke):6
THE NEW TESTAMENT AND JEWISH LAW
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup [and of the plate], so that the outside also may become clean. (Mt. 23.25–26; see also Lk. 11.39–41)
The cleansing of cups and the idea of insides and outsides of cups are further complex purity issues discussed in rabbinic literature. We have already seen m. Ber. 8.2: ‘The House of Shammai say, “They wash the hands and then mix the cup [of wine]”. But the House of Hillel say, “They mix the cup and then wash the hands”’ as well as the important interpretation of this dispute in the Tosefta:
The House of Shammai say, They wash the hands then mix the cup – lest liquids on the outer surface of the cup become impure through contact with hands and in turn render the cup impure. The House of Hillel say, The outer surface of the cup is always deemed impure. (t. Ber. 5.26)
The other most prominent text in discussions of washing cups is m. Kelim 25 where the distinction between the inside and outside of certain things is made bluntly at the beginning: ‘All utensils have outsides and an inside’ (m. Kelim 25.1). The idea of a third part of utensils is also present but not without controversy, firstly between R. Tarfon and R. Aqiba and then R. Meir and R. Yose. The passage is difficult and ought to be quoted at length: (m. Kelim 25.7a)
All utensils have outer parts and an inner part, and they [further] have a part by which they are held. R. Tarfon says, [This distinc- tion in the outer parts applies only] to a large wooden trough. Aqiba says, To cups. R. Meir says, To the unclean and the clean hands. Said R. Yose, They have spoken only concerning clean hands alone. How so? [If] one’s hands were clean, and the outer
parts of the cup were unclean, [and] one took [the cup] with its holding part, he need not worry lest his hands be made unclean on the outer parts of the cup. [If] one was drinking from a cup, the outer parts of which are unclean, one does not worry lest the liquid which is in his mouth be made unclean on the outer parts of the cup and go and render the [whole] cup unclean. A kettle [unclean on the outside] which is boiling – one does not worry lest the liq- uids go forth from it and touch its outer parts and go back to the inside [and make it unclean]. (m. Kelim 25.7–8)
The discussion between the houses of Shammai and Hillel previously mentioned accord with the two different positions of R. Meir and R. Yose in this passage from Kelim. As R. Biban in the name of R. Yohanan put it according to the Palestinian Talmud, ‘The opinion of the House of Shammai accords with the view of R. Yose, and the opinion of the House of Hillel accords with the view of R. Meir’ (y. Ber. 8.2).
The position of Yose and the House of Shammai is this: ‘[If] one’s hands were clean, and the outer parts of the cup were unclean, [and] one took [the cup] with its holding part, he need not worry lest his hands be made unclean on the outer parts of the cup’ (m. Kelim 25.8). But, as the House of Shammai put it, this position cannot apply to impure hands ‘lest liquids on the outer surface of the cup become impure through contact with hands and in turn render the cup impure’ (t. Ber. 5.26).
The position of Meir and the House of Hillel is this: ‘[If] one’s hands were clean, and the outer parts of the cup were unclean, [and] one took [the cup] with its holding part, he need not worry lest his hands be made unclean on the outer parts of the cup’ (m. Kelim 25.8). Where Yose and the House of Shammai first washed the hands, Meir and the House of Hillel do not think the issue of liquids on the outer surface of the cup is relevant and so even impure hands could not make the whole cup impure through contact with the liquid on the outside of the cup.
THE NEW TESTAMENT AND JEWISH LAW
How can an outside of a cup become clean if we follow Matthew’s polemic that Pharisees wash the outside of the cup? This idea of washing the outside of the cup can get even more confusing because if utensils such as cups became impure then, as we have seen, the simple solution was to immerse them. But when cups are immersed then the whole cup is obviously immersed, not simply the outside (cf. m. Miqw. 5.6; 6.2, 5–6). However, there were outer parts of the cup (the handle, the rim, the handles etc) which were not immersed but wiped according to Kelim:
Bases of utensils, and their rims, and their hangers, and the handles of utensils which hold [something = which have a receptacle], on which fell [unclean] liquids – one dries them, and they are
clean . . . A utensil, the outer parts of which have been made
unclean with liquids – the outer parts are unclean. Its inside, its rims, hangers, and handles are clean. [If] its inside is made unclean, the whole is unclean. (m. Kelim 25.6)
It may well be, then, that this wiping of certain outside parts of cups is reflected in the polemic recorded more generally in Mt. 23.25–26.