Purity Halakha in the Story of the Hemorrhaging Woman

Does concern for ritual purity explain why the hemorrhaging woman touched Jesus' tzitzit?

How to cite this article: Ze’ev Safrai, “Purity Halakha in the Story of the Hemorrhaging Woman,” Jerusalem Perspective (2025) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/30401/].

There are numerous instances of ancient Jewish halakhot that are attested in the New Testament Gospels.^[1]For instance, sick people are frequently described as touching the fringes (צִיצִת [tzi·TZIT]) of Jesus’ garment (Matt. 14:36 ∥ Mark 6:56), which is evidence that Jesus wore tzitzit, and therefore observed halakhot pertaining to this religious observance. One of the more complex cases of halakha in the Gospels is that of the hemorrhaging woman who touches Jesus’ tzitzit.^[2]

Different impurities had the ability to pass on greater or lesser contamination and required longer or shorter and more or less complicated methods of purification. Contamination from a corpse required seven days before purification and sprinkling with the ashes of the red heifer. Persons with scale disease also required seven days from the time their symptoms disappeared before they could be purified. This was also the case for people with abnormal genital discharges. Normal discharges could render a person impure for longer periods after childbirth, intermediate periods after the onset of menstruation, or only for one day in the case of sexual intercourse. People impure from contact with semen were not “contagious.” Contact with the carcasses of certain reptiles and rodents could render a person or object impure for one day. All impurities required immersion and greater impurities also involved other rites of purification.

Impurity of the Hemorrhaging Woman

The hemorrhaging woman herself was a source of ritual impurity, and whatever she touched was “first degree impure” (m. Zav. 5:6), and remained in a state of impurity until evening (Lev. 15:6). So if the woman had touched the body of a ritually pure man, he would have contracted first degree impurity. But if she touched his garment, it would be the garment that contracted first degree impurity, while the man wearing the clothing would be impure at a lower level (the second degree of impurity).^[3]But according to the Gospels of Matthew (Matt. 9:20) and Luke (Luke 8:44) the impure woman did not touch Jesus’ garment directly, but only his tzitzit, which are not part of the garment, they are only attached to it.

Links in the Chain of Impurity

In rabbinic law, there is a special term, חִיבּוּר (ḥi·BŪR, “connection”), which refers to something that is firmly attached to an object, such as a garment or vessel, but that is not part of the object itself. Whether or not an object is considered to be ḥibūr has implications for its ritual purity status. If an object is ḥibūr it takes on the same level of impurity as the object to which it is attached. But if an object is not ḥibūr it acts as a buffer in the transmission of ritual impurity. For example:

וכרעים של שלחן ויד של סכין בזמן שהן קבועין חיבור לטומאה ולהזאה ניטלין ונתנין אינן חבור

The legs of a table, and the handle of a knife, while they are fixed, are a “connection” (ḥibūr) for impurity and sprinkling. (But if) they are given and taken (mobile) are not a “connection” (ḥibūr)… (t. Kelim Baba Metzia 8:4)

When they are mobile table legs are not a ḥibūr, but if they are attached with a nail, they become an integral part of the object.

Another example: “A stopper of a pitcher is not ḥibūr” (m. Kelim 3:6). Since the a stopper can easily be removed from the pitcher it is not ḥibūr, and therefore can have a different degree of purity than the pitcher. For instance, if something impure in the first degree is inside the vessel, the stopper only becomes impure in the second degree. Or if something impure in the second degree is inside the vessel, the stopper remains pure, since second-degree impurity does not defile to a third degree, but only renders a person or object פָּסוּל (pā·SŪL, “defective,” but not formally impure).^[4]

In Mishnah Kelim and in its associated Tosefta there are dozens of examples. Occasionally the reason for the halakhic decision is not certain, but these are the general rules. From the halakhic point of view, a real ḥibūr requires two conditions:

A strong and permanent physical attachment.
The part is required for the ordinary use of the vessel.

Reconstruction drawing by Helen Twena of a first-century *tzitzit* (ritual tassel). Much less complicated than a modern *tzitzit*, four cords, one of which was dyed blueish-purple, were passed through a hole in the *tallit*‘s corner and knotted, creating a tassel with eight strands. ©JerusalemPerspective.com

Halakhic Status of Tzitzit

We are not certain about the halakhic status of tzitzit—whether they are an integral part of the garment (a ḥibūr) or an addition. The closest example is found in Mishnah Kelim 29:1:

נומי הסדין והסודרין והטרטין והפליון של ראש שש אצבעות של אפקרסין עשר נימי סגוס והרדיד והחלוק והטלית ג′ אצבעות נימי כפה של זקנה והגומדין של ערביין והקולקין והפונדא והמעפורת והפרגוד נימיהן כל שהן

The fringe strings of a sheet, a scarf, a head-wrap and a felt cap [are regarded as connected] (ḥibūr) up to a length of six fingerbreadths; Those of an undergarment up to ten [fingerbreadths]. The fringes of a thick wool cloak, a veil, a shirt, or a light cloak [are regarded as connected] up to a length of three fingerbreadths. The fringes of an old woman’s head-wrap, of Arabian face wraps, of Cilician goat’s-hair clothing, of a money-belt, of a turban or of a curtain are regarded as connected whatever their length may be.^[5]

Because the fringe strings (נִימִין [ni·MIN]) in the above examples are the threads of the garment itself they are ḥibūr, and even so only a short string is ḥibūr. By contrast, the threads of tzitzit are not part of the garment, but merely tied to its corners and are detachable (Sifre Num. §115), so we may conclude that tzitzit are not a ḥibūr to the garment.

Conclusion

From the above explanation, we can understand why the hemorrhaging woman was careful not to touch the master’s body or his garment, but only his tzitzit. The hemorrhaging woman was a “source” of impurity; when she touched the fringes of Jesus’ garment, the fringes became impure in the first degree, the garment itself became impure in the second degree, but the man wearing the garment (Jesus) remained ritually pure. So, at least according to the Matthean and Lukan versions of the story (Matt. 9:20 ∥ Luke 8:44), the hemorrhaging woman was being careful not to make Jesus impure. Mark’s parallel does not specify that the woman touched Jesus’ tzitzit (Mark 5:27). Evidently in Mark’s community this halakhic background was either unimportant or even unknown, whereas the source(s) behind Matthew and Luke correctly understood the original halakhic undergirding of the story.

Late third-century fresco from the catacombs in Rome depicting the woman who touched one of the tassels (*tzitzit*) of Jesus’ garment.

This halakhic interpretation of the story of the hemorrhaging woman who touched Jesus’ tzitzit can also clarify all the other cases of sick people touching only the tzitzit of Jesus’ garment (Matt. 14:36 ∥ Mark 6:56). The problem is that other explanations for this behavior are also possible—such as that the sick people were touching a holy item; or that touching tzitzit was an expression of awe of the man wearing them, a gesture of respect; there are also ideological or eschatological explanations. The advantage of the explanation I have suggested is that these other suggestions have no parallel in the ancient sources, and are not known from any other culture or period either, whereas my halakhic explanation is based on actual halakhic data, even though they are not spelled out in the New Testament sources.

^[1] This article is an excerpt of a much longer investigation of the topic of halakha in the New Testament. For the full article, see Ze’ev Safrai, “Halakha in the Gospels,” Jerusalem Perspective (2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/28876/]. ↩
^[2] In Matt. 9:20 and Luke 4:44 the term is κρασπέδον (kras·PE·don, “hem,” “fringe”), but Mark 5:27 does not use the specific term. ↩
^[3] It should be noted that according to early medieval commentators a garment and its wearer are considered a single unit (since a garment is secondary to the person). Therefore, if the woman had touched the garment, the person would be impure at the first level, and if she touched the tzitzit and if the tzitzit is not considered part of the garment, then the person and his clothes would be impure at the second level. According to this scenario Jesus would have become impure, but at a lower level. However, the commentators’ interpretation that ‘the garment is secondary to the person’ is not found in Talmudic sources, so it is doubtful whether this opinion was accepted in earlier periods. ↩
^[4] There are special laws for תְּרוּמָה (t^e·rū·MĀH, “tithe”), but this is not the place to discuss them. ↩
^[5] Mishnah translation from Sefaria.org. ↩