CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN DOES POLLUTION NEED STAIRS, AND DOES IT FILL SPACE

P. Oktor Skjaervo

Dealing with the inevitability of death and its earthly detritus-the remains of the deceased-are not only universals in human existence, but were also almost certainly the original impulses to religious development. Though all religions deal with death and its aftermaths-funerals, mourning-only some of them elaborate the rituals surrounding death with a scholastic discourse that eventually develops into a labyrinthine scholastic super structure of purity and pollution. Since two Sasanian religions-Zoroastrianism and Rabbinic Judaism-shared a long, mostly peaceful existence for the entire Sasanian period (and more), as well as many theological and ritual doctrines and practices,it should not come as a surprise that common elements crop up in this area as well. Since the proper disposal of the deceased's remains remained a flash-point of controversy between the two-whether to bury or exposeit is noteworthy that on the level of shared scholastic discourse they had much in common. In this article, we shall examine some interesting parallels in their views of corpse-pollution and its effects in these two scholastic cultures, focusing on particular means of transmission of impurity from the dead body to humans, utensils, food and interior spaces. By the second century CE the rabbis had already developed two forms of transmission that were specific to corpses, ohel ("overhanging") and boqa'at ve-olah, boqa'at ve-yoredet ("breaking out and ascending, break ing out and descending"), corresponding to the Zoroastrian sāyag abganēd ("overshadowing" in regard to sagdīd, or repulsing the corpse-demoness) and frōd barišn ("permeating downward"), respectively. We shall exam ine these from Rabbinic sources and two Pahlavi sources: The Šāyist nē šāyist and the Zand ī fragard ī jud-dew-dād. 1 These two papers were the result of ten years' collaboration on Pahlavi texts dealing with rituals and pollution. We are grateful to the ARAM Society for Syro-Mesopotamian Studies for giving us the opportunity to present some of the results of this collaboration at the Conference on "The Zoroastrians" and for accepting the edited papers for publication.

ARAM 26:1&2 (2014), CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN DOES POLLUTION NEED STAIRS, AND DOES IT FILL SPACE? PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ (Harvard University) YAAKOV ELMAN (Yeshiva University) Abstract Dealing with the inevitability of death and its earthly detritus—the remains of the deceased—are not only universals in human existence, but were also almost certainly the original impulses to religious development. Though all religions deal with death and its aftermaths—funerals, mourning—only some of them elaborate the rituals surrounding death with a scholastic discourse that eventually develops into a labyrinthine scholastic super structure of purity and pollution. Since two Sasanian religions—Zoroastrianism and Rabbinic Judaism—shared a long, mostly peaceful existence for the entire Sasanian period (and more), as well as many theological and ritual doctrines and practices,it should not come as a surprise that common elements crop up in this area as well. Since the proper disposal of the deceased’s remains remained a flash-point of controversy between the two—whether to bury or expose— it is noteworthy that on the level of shared scholastic discourse they had much in common. In this article, we shall examine some interesting parallels in their views of corpse-pollution and its effects in these two scholastic cultures, focusing on particular means of transmission of impurity from the dead body to humans, utensils, food and interior spaces. By the second century CE the rabbis had already developed two forms of transmission that were specific to corpses, ohel (“overhanging”) and boqa’at ve-olah, boqa’at ve-yoredet (“breaking out and ascending, break ing out and descending”), corresponding to the Zoroastrian sāyag abganēd (“overshadowing” in regard to sagdīd, or repulsing the corpse-demoness) and frōd barišn (“permeating downward”), respectively. We shall exam ine these from Rabbinic sources and two Pahlavi sources: The Šāyist nē šāyist and the Zand ī fragard ī jud-dew -dād.1 These two papers were the result of ten years’ collaboration on Pahlavi texts dealing with rituals and pollution. We are grateful to the ARAM Society for Syro-Mesopotamian Studies for giving us the opportunity to present some of the results of this collaboration at the Conference on “The Zoroastrians” and for accepting the edited papers for publication. In the Zoroastrian world view, positive, good things, including light and life, were made and set in place by the forces of good with Ahura Mazdā (Ohrmazd)2 at their head. Negative, evil things, including darkness and death, were made and set in place by the Dark Spirit, Angra Manyu (Ahrimen), and his collaborators. These two categories of objects are caught up in a relentless struggle, which will end only at the end of time, when evil will be contained forever outside the good creation. In this struggle, humans play a crucial role in their effort to contain and minimize evil in this world, and the central players among humans are the priests, who communicate directly with the other world and receive instructions from it. The first human to do so, we are told in the Avesta,was Zarathustra.3 ZaAll the readings and translations in this article are Skjærvø’s responsibility. Diacritics in the transcriptions are the usual ones. Note that <x> is like German ch in ach. 2 Ahura Mazdā is the Avestan form of the name of the creator god and Ohrmazd the form of the name in the Parthian and Sasanian times. It originally meant “the all-knowing (ruling) lord,” but already by the Achaemenid period it had lost its original meaning and was simply a name. 3 The Avestan form of the name was Zarathushtra, which later became Zartusht, Zardusht, etc., while the Greeks called him 1 2 CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN rathustra’s dialogues with Ahura Mazdā in question and answer form are contained in the Avestan Videvdad, which was the primary source for rules and instructions for dealing with evil.4 TABLE 1: APPROXIMATE TIME LINE OF THE TRANSMISSION OF THE AVESTAN AND PAHLAVI TEXTS 1000-500 BCE ca. 600/500 BCE 2nd-4th cents. CE 5th century ca. 600 7th century 9th + cent. Oral composition of the texts that were included in the Avestan Videvdad and Hērbedestān Crystalization in final form of the Avestan texts, which were then transmitted orally together with their translations and commentaries in the spoken languages Standardization of (?) oral Pahlavi translations + commentaries = the Zand Earliest known commentators; codification of the Pahlavi Videvdad commentaries Writing down of the Avestan Avesta, henceforth transmitted in manuscripts,alongside the (weakening) oral tradition Composition of the Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād The Zand written down and inserted in the Avestan text (earliest manuscripts 13 th century) and the composition of additional commentaries on the Zand, inclu ding those discussed here The orally transmitted Avesta, composed in one of the most archaic Iranian languages was hard to understand correctly already by the Achaemenid period, and, by Sasanian times, the priests only had a vague idea what most of it meant literally. Alongside the Avesta, however, there existed renderings and commentaries in the current, local, languages that contained centuries of exegesis on the sacred text, and this oral tradition (the dēn) is what the later priests would consult.5 In the Sasanian period, this body of translations and commentaries was in the current language, Pahlavi. This situation is paralleled by that of the Jewish rabbis, notably those who lived within the Sasanian Empire and, specifically, those in the Sasanian heartland, at Ctesiphon, the capital, the ancient Babylon, and whose traditions are transmitted in the Babylonian Talmud. Thus we can distinguish three levels of exegesis on the Avesta: 1. the “translations” into current languages inserted into the Avestan text; 2. the commentaries accompanying the “translations” (the zand); and 3. the further exegesis on the zand. Nos. 1 and 2 are found in the manuscripts of the Videvdad with the Pahlavi translation and commentary.6 No. 3 includes the two texts we shall be citing here: the Šāyist nē šāyist “what is proper and what is not,”7 on correct behavior, including in the face of pollution, and Zoroaster and interpreted it as “living (zō-) star (astēr).” On the Zarathustra figure in the Avesta, see Skjærvø, 2003. 4 Also known as Vendidad, the phonetically correct Pahlavi form. The original term, Avestan dāta vīdaēuua (Pahlavized as wī-dēw-dād and translated as Jud-dēw-dād) meant literally “the law (dāta) for keeping the demons (dēuua) away (vī-; see Benveniste, 1970). Common renderings as “against the demons” or “counter-demonic” are inexact. On the name, date, text, etc., of the Videvdad, see Skjærvø, 2007, pp. 105–16. 5 See Skjærvø, 2005–2006; 2012, pp. 20–25. 6 Ed., Jamasp, 1907. Jamasp did not collate the two oldest mss. of the Videvdad (K1 in The Royal Library, Copenhagen, and L4 in The British Library), so his edition is somewhat unreliable. Several manuscripts are available in the Avestan Digital Archive at <http://www.avesta-archive.com>. Of paramount importance is the realization that the interlinear Pahlavi in ms. Tehran University Library no. 11263 = ADA no. 4000_Ave976 was copied from the currently unvailable ms. IM, see Skjærvø, 2014. 7 Ed., Tavadia, 1930. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ & YAAKOV ELMAN 3 Zand ī fragard ī Jud-dēw-dād “a zand of the chapters of the Videvdad.” Here we shall give examples of these levels from the exegesis on the Videvdad.8 The Sasanian exegetical tradition was not entirely uniform, however, nor did the priests interpret it the same way throughout the centuries. Among other things, this caused disagreements among the priests, from the same and different generations, which we see in the literature. Compare the following statement at the beginning of the Šāyist nē šāyist: In the law of the teachers of old, there were some that disagreed. For Gušasp followed the teaching of Ādur-ohrmazd, Sōšyans that of Ādur-farrbay-narsē, Mēdōmāh that of Gōgušasp, Abarg that of sosyans.But all the teachers of old adhered to these four teachings, some more leniently (susttar), others more stringently (saxttar).9 It is only recently that the Videvdad tradition has become the focus of research, and a small, but committed, team of Iranists and Talmudists is now working on grasping the concerns of the exegetes. One of the problems they grappled with was the question of how dead matter might affect their surroundings with pollution and the degree of sinfulness caused to humans from pollution by dead matter. The scale of sinfulness was already given in the Videvdad, and the Sasanian priests labored to rate all sinful actions by this scale. Determination of degree of pollution—from nil to inexpiable for ever and ever—was made from a variety of parameters. Already the Avesta knows two categories of dead matter, the most common and most severe one was called nasu (nominative nasuš, accusative nasāum, whence Pahlavi nasuš and nasāy), the other, less severe, mentioned only a couple of times was hixra (Pahlavi hixr).10 One of the tasks of the Sasanian priests was therefore to determine to which of these two categories any dead matter belonged, as it affected the degree of sinfulness. The exact nature of the two is still unclear, but nasāy certainly applies to carcasses and, perhaps, (some) moist excretions, while hixr applies to dry excretions (hair, nails), as well as nasāy once digested and similar. Other parameters were knowledge versus ignorance, fear versus no fear, wetness versus driness, contact versus non-contact, and proximity versus distance. Here, I shall present examples of most of these parameters, leaving out knowledge and ignorance, for which Ahura Mazdā himself gave the rules: one cannot be found guilty of contact with dead matter if one does not know it is there. For if that were not so, all of humanity would be hopelessly and constantly guilty from contact with all the dead stuff that lies all over the earth (Videvdad 5.4) by the mechanism of “retroactive pollution.” According to the Sasanian priests, pollution from a dead object, such as a dead body on a tree, on a roof, or inside a house spreads both horizontally to the sides and vertically downward. It does not normally spread upward. The reason may be that, if the empty space above a polluting body became polluted, nothing would prevent the pollution from spreading up to heaven. The dead object can be the carcass of a human, but more commonly, probably, that of a large or small animal, for instance, a bird or an insect, but, most of the time, the identity of the dead object is not specified. To give you an idea of how these parameters work, we shall present three cases: a dead object on a tree branch, on a roof (Skjærvø), and inside a house (Elman). Typically, the cases are presented in a standard way, by specifying the following: 1. the locus of the 8 Facsimile of the manuscript TD2 ed., JamaspAsa and Nawabi, 1979. Cf., Tavadia, 1930, pp. 28–29. 10 Diacritics in the transcriptions are the usual ones. Note that <x> is German ach-Laut. Brackets in the texts indicate words missing in the manuscripts; in the translations brackets indicate words added by the translator. 9 4 CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN dead object; 2. certain conditions; and 3. the action of pollution. Note that, when something is polluted, it is also polluting. DEAD OBJECTS ON A TREE In this first example, which is from the Pahlavi Videvdad, we have to do with the dead object on a tree, and the parameters are on the trunk or on a branch: Pahlavi Videvdad 6.5 ka abar dār-ēw bē mīrēd ka abar mādagwar bē mīrēd zamīg rēman ka abar azg bē mīrēd ī-š aziš rust zamīg pāk If something dies on a tree: if it dies on the trunk, the earth is polluted; if it dies on a branch that grew from it, the earth is clean. Here we observe two things: 1. the concern is for pollution of the earth (which was considered sacred), and 2. the way the dead body is connected with the earth matters, even if there is a direct route for it, here via the branch to the trunk and via the trunk to the earth. When we turn to the later commentaries, we find that these two conditions have become much more elaborate: Šāyist nē šāyist 2.25 ka abar draxt-ēw bē mīrēd ka-š pōst tarun ud az bē ōbastan bīm nēst frōd nē barēd ud ka-š bīm tan-masāy frōd bārēd. If something dies on a tree, if the bark is moist and there is no fear of falling, it does not carry down. And, if there is (fear), it carries down the size of the (dead) body. Locus is again the tree, but two additional parameters are introduced: 1. moist (versus dry), 2. fear, that is of falling, or no fear; as well as two technical terms: 1. carry down, and 2. the size of the (dead) body. In this example, the question is whether the pollution “carries down,” that is, whether it permeates down from the dead object and thus potentially pollutes anything in its way, a person or an object happening to find itself directly below the dead object, and all the way down to the earth. The answer is NO — it does not carry down — on two conditions: 1. the bark has to be moist, and 2. there has to be no fear of the dead object’s falling down. For, if it falls down, it will pollute anything with which it comes into contact. What prevents the pollution from carrying down in this case must be the cleansing power of water.11 The answer is YES — it does carry down — also on two conditions: 1. the bark has to be moist, and 2. there has to be fear of the dead object’s falling down. Here, fear trumps moistness In this case, there is potential pollution corresponding to “the size of the body,” that is, to a column 11 See e.g. Boyce, 1992, Skjærvø, 2004, pp. 265–69, Karanjia, 2011. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ & YAAKOV ELMAN 5 (cylinder) whose circumference is the outline of the body. By changing the parameter ‘moist’ to ‘dry’, however, it carries down even when there is no fear: Šāyist nē šāyist 2.26 ud ka draxt pōst hušk ka-š bīm ud ka-š nē bīm frōd barēd And, if the bark of the tree is dry, whether there is fear or not, it carries down. In this case, we see that fear does not come into it at all: in either case it carries down. What matters is the dryness of the tree. The two conditions ‘fear’ or ‘no fear,’ we may find irrelevant or, at least, unmeasurable, but to them obviously they were not. Most likely, ‘fear’ corresponds to what we might call the ‘probability of falling’ or simply ‘risk’ of falling involving the concept of ‘prospective pollution’ (contrasting with ‘retroactive pollution,’ which, as we saw, is what Ahura Mazdā rejects). Following is a variation on the themes: here we are concerned with only a small branch of the tree, but with the possibility that part of the dead object “stands back to” = reaches the trunk, which will then enable the downward pollution. First the most positive scenario: moist branch and no fear of falling: Šāyist nē šāyist 2.27 ka abar tāg-ēw draxt bē mīrēd ī tarun ka az bē ōbastan bīm nēst frōd nē bārēd If something dies on a moist tree branch, If there is no fear of falling, it does not carry down. Next, the more ominous scenario: fear of falling, dry branch, and a connecting limb or hair: Šāyist nē šāyist 2.28 ka-š bīm ayāb tāg-ēw draxt ī hušk ka-š hambun-iz mōy-ēw ayāb handām-ēw abāz ō draxt ī mādagwar estēd tan-masāy frōd bārēd If there is fear (of its falling) or if it is a dry tree branch, if any hair or limb of it reaches the main tree (= the trunk), It carries down the size of the (dead) body. Without the connecting limb, however, only fear would prove critical: Šāyist nē šāyist 2.29 ka-š abāz ō ī draxt ī mādagwar nē estēd bē ka-š az bē ōbastan bīm tā frōd nē barēd If none of it reaches the main tree, except12 when there is fear of its falling, it does not carry down. Here we see a different kind of condition: an unless- or exception-condition, which is identical with 12 Here bē ... tā means “except,” see Skjærvø, 2009. 6 CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN a positive condition with a negative result (ka-š az bē ōbastan bīm frōd barēd, cf. 2.25). Let us now look at how these cases are evaluated in the later commentary on the Videvdad. Here we first have the moist tree and a dead body on a branch. The crucial parameter would be a connecting limb. In the case of a moist tree, distance from the trunk will again prevent pollution from carrying down, but the tiniest connectedness will cause pollution to carry down from the body: Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, p. 481a] ka abar dār-ēw tarr murd estēd čiyōn ka pad azg-ēw murd ast u-š tis-iz handām abāz ō 13stūnag ī mayān nē estēd frōd nē barišn ka handām-ēw abāz ō stūnag mayān estēd tan-masāy frōd barišn If something dies on a moist tree, how is it? If it died on a branch, and no limb of it at all reaches the central column (= the trunk), there is no carrying down. If (even) one limb reaches the central column, there is carrying down the size of the body. We notice here that the commentator has combined several conditions that were separate in the Šāyist nē šāyist. What is interesting, however, is the comment by some unnamed priestly authority on the function of the connecting limb: Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, p. 481b] pad čāštag ān handām ka tan-iz hušk ayāb nasāy abāz ō hušk-ēw estēd ān hušk ō zamīg paywastag ēnyā agar draxt az ān ī pōst tarr ka handām-iz abāz ō stūnag mayān estēd pas-iz rēman According to the teaching: That limb (is important only) when the body too is dry [i.e. hixr] or a nasāy reaches a dry (something), unless that dry (something) is connected with the earth. If the tree is of the moist-bark kind, and if the limb reaches the trunk, then too it is polluted. The authority comments on both scenarios. The second he regards as obvious, but the first—no limb contact—he says holds only when the body too is dry (i.e. hixr), as we saw already. If it is a nasāy indirectly connected with the earth via dry objects (i.e. not only the trunk), then the pollution carries down. When the tree is dry, however, according to the redactor, the other parameters function normally: Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, p. 481c] pas ka abar dār-ēw hušk murd estēd čiyōn. 13 The scribe of TD2 usually wrote <KN> = ōh for <OL> = ō “to”; this will not be noted in the following. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ & YAAKOV ELMAN 7 ka-š az ōbastan bīm nēst u-š handām abāz ō mādagwar nē estēd frōd nē barišn ka-š az ōbastan bīm ayāb handām-ēw abāz ō mādagwar frōd barišn Next, if it has died on a dry tree, how is it. If there is no fear of its falling and no limb reaches the trunk, there is no carrying down. If there is fear of its falling or a limb reaches the trunk, there is carrying down. These examples have introduced some important terminology: abāz ō ... estādan “stand (all the way) back to” about objects = to reach; frōd burdan “carry down” in the sense of “to be carried down, be propagated, permeate” about pollution; bīm “fear,” that is of potential contact, hence also potential pollution; tan-masāy “the size of the body,” i.e. the area/column covered by the dead object, either two-dimensionally or three-dimensionally. We have also seen the condition that pollution sometimes needs “help” in order for it to be carried down. In the cases we have seen here, a part of the dead object needs to be connected with the trunk, which will then act as a conduit for the pollution of the dead object that lies on one of its branches. The pollution does not, apparently, carry down via the trunk, however, but still straight down from the dead object, see Šāyist nē šāyist 2.28 cited above. DEAD OBJECTS ON A ROOF Let us now see what happens if something dies on a roof. This is obviously a much more serious concern, since a house may contain all kinds of objects that would suffer from pollution, including people, water, fire, and ritual objects, such as the barsom.14 We are somewhat hampered by not knowing exactly what kind of houses we are supposed to be envisaging, but modern Persian village houses may furnish good models. These have flat roofs (bān), often also domes (gunbad), which can cover living areas, as well as water reservoirs. To get to the roof, stairs or, more often, perhaps, ladders are used, inside or outside. They also have a ceiling, in our texts called aškōb, which may refer either to the vault that holds up the roof in some construction types common in Central Iran, but also, perhaps, to ceilings made with wooden joists and beams, common on the western Iranian plateau. Roofs are most often made from a mixture of mud, straw, and some lime or with reed mats. Some important descriptions are found in the Selections of Zādspram:15 Selections of Zādspram 34.22 čiyōn kadag pad 3 abzār frazāmīhēd ī ast būm dēwār ud aškōb as a room/house is completed by three means: floor, wall, and ceiling. Zādspram then goes on to describe in detail the construction of a house. Note here the complication that the aškōb (which will play an important role in the next examples) can be both above and below: 14 15 Sacred twigs representing the vegetal kingdom in the ritual, see Kanga, 1988. Gignoux and Tafazzoli, 1993. 8 CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN Selections of Zādspram 30.54 mān homānāg bawēd ī was-kadag ī bāmīg kē-š kadag andarrōn ud bērōn ud aškōb azērīg ud azabarīg (the earth, which is) like a house with many kadags (rooms or small buildings), with kadags outside and inside and aškōbs above and below. In addition, as we shall see in a moment, there is also the term škōbag, which corresponds to Persian aškub and aškube, which, according to Dehxodā’s Loγat-nāme (without examples) means the various “floors” (étage) of a building or an upper room. Let us, again, start with the Pahlavi Videvdad and then go on to the other two texts. Pahlavi Videvdad 6.5 ka abar bān bē mirēd ka tis-ēw abāz ō pillagān nē estēd bān tā ō aškōb rēman aškōb tuhīg pāk If something dies on a roof: If none (of it) reaches back to the stairs/ladder, (then) the roof is polluted to the aškōb, the aškōb (itself and) the empty (space) is clean. Here we are confronted with one of the most elusive terms in the discussions about pollution, the tuhīgīh, the emptiness or empty space.16 The term is crucial, because it provides the medium through which pollution is carried down when it is not transmitted through concrete materials. Since “air” is not a concept in Middle Persian, only wind (wād) and space (andarwāy), obviously they had to think of something the pollution would be transmitted through and came up with the concept of “emptiness” or “empty space.”17 We also see that the pollution travels from the dead body, through the roof, but, apparently, expends its energy on this and does not pollute the ceiling and the empty space beneath the ceiling. Finally, we note the addition of tā to ō “all the way to,” which specifies that the pollution goes all the way to an object but not into it. It stops just before it. If any part of the dead body reaches the stairs, however, we are in trouble: Pahlavi Videvdad 6.5 ka-š tis-ēw abāz ō pillagān estēd bān tā ō aškōb rēman zamīg tā ō āb rēman aškōb tuhīg nē rōšn If some of it reaches back to the stairs, (then) the roof is polluted (all the way) to the aškōb, the earth is polluted (all the way) to the water. (As for) the aškōb and the empty space, it is not clear. 16 There is some confusion in the manuscripts, as the word <twhyk> is sometimes spelled without the <w>, which makes it homographous with the word tāyag <t’yk> (probably) “time.” 17 The concept is part of the Sasanian Zorostrian cosmogony, as the area separating the world of light and life from the world PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ & YAAKOV ELMAN 9 Here, the whole thickness of the roof is polluted, and the stairs not only act as a conduit for the pollution, which permeates the roof, but the pollution of the roof carries down via the stairs to the earth, which becomes polluted all the way down to the water beneath the earth, after which it has expended its energy or been purified by the water. Interestingly, the composer of the Pahlavi Videvdad commentary had no authority for what happened to the ceiling and the empty space, whether the pollution bypassed it or not. A slightly different scenario is considered in the Šāyist nē šāyist. Here the touching point is not the stairs, but the edge of the roof: Šāyist nē šāyist 2.18a agar abar bān-ēw bē mīrēd ka-š handām-ēw ayāb mōy-ēw abāz ō kanār ī bān estēd bān tan-masāy tā ō āb rēman If something dies on a roof: if one of its limbs or a hair reaches the edge of the roof, the roof is polluted the size of the body down to the water. Again, the pollution is helped by something that is connected with the earth, here, evidently, the wall, and the pollution of the dead body apparently carries all the way down to the water through a column of pollution corresponding to the outline of the body. Note the difference between the Pahlavi Videvdad and the Šāyist nē šāyist: according to the Pahlavi Videvdad the area of pollution is the entire roof, but in the Šāyist nē šāyist only the outline of the dead body. The consequences of this pollution are dire for the barsom: Šāyist nē šāyist 2.18b ud hamāg barsom ī andar ān xānag az ān gyāg kū remanīh frōd barēd tā ō barsom 30 gām ī 3 pāy ast ā barsom nē rēman And all the barsom in the house (is polluted) from the place where the pollution carries down to the barsom. If there is (a distance of) 30 paces of three foot (each), then the barsom is not polluted. Here, all the barsom in the house is polluted, which makes immediate sense by the Pahlavi Videvdad scenario, where the entire area of the polluted roof carries down, but, in the Šāyist nē šāyist scenario, we apparently have to reckon also with horizontal spread of the pollution from the column of polluted space. Here we also see that there may be limits to how far the pollution can reach vertically and horizontally. If the horizontal distance from the polluting column of empty space is 90 feet (!), the barsom is not polluted. If the pollution has no assistance from the wall, however, it only pollutes the roof itself (all of it?) and of darkness and evil, and is therefore, logically, at least, the medium through which the forces of evil must move to contaminate the creations of Ohrmazd. 10 CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN presumably, the ceiling, but ends there: Šāyist nē šāyist 2.18c ka-š mōy ayāb handām ō pillagān nē mad estēd tā ō tuhīg rēman If a hair from it or a limb has not reached the ladder, it is polluted (only down) to the empty space. The later commentary expands on this: Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, pp. 482-483] ka pad bān murd estēd ast čiyōn ka-š tis-iz handām abāz ō pillagān nē estēd frōd nē barēd ka handām-ēw abāz ō pillagān estēd tan-masāy frōd barēd xānag andarrōn pāk If there is something dead on the roof, how is it? If no limb of it at all reaches the ladder, it does not carry down. If a limb reaches the ladder, it carries down the size of the body, (but) the house is clean inside. This is the same as the preceding, but with the stairs instead of the wall and put in positive rather than negative terms. The implication appears to be that the pollution only carries down to the empty space, leaving the inside of the house clean. An interesting variant is presented by replacing the house with a water reservoir: Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, pp. 482-483] ka abar bān ī wāristān murd estēd čiyōn. ka tis-iz handām abāz ō pillagān nē estēd nē rēman. ud ka-š handām-ēw abāz ō pillagān estēd frōd pad-iz āb frōd barēd āb pāk If there is a dead body on the roof of a water reservoir, how is it? If no limb of it at all reaches the ladder, it is not polluted. And if a limb of it reaches the ladder, it carries down also through the water, (but) the water is clean. We see that, in this case, although the pollution travels through the water, the cleansing power of the water apparently keeps the water itself clean, while, presumably, the ground below the water is polluted. According to this commentator, however, these scanarios do not apply to non-Iranians: Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, p. 455] anērān margarzānān dēwēsnān rēmanīh čiyōn. gyāg frōd nē barišn xānag ud tuhīgīh nē rēman ... ud ān zīndagān an-ērān margarzānān dēwēsnān ahlomōγān gyāg rēman nē kunēnd How is it with pollution among the demon-worshipping non-Iranians, who are (all of them) “worthy of death”? PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ & YAAKOV ELMAN 11 There is no carrying down (in) the place (where a dead object lies), so the house and the space are not polluted... And living infidels among the the demon-worshipping non-Iranians “worthy of death” do not make the place (where they are) polluted. CONCLUSION The most important elements and parameters for the spread of pollution that we have encountered here include the degree of connection between the locus of the dead body and the earth. Only if there is a continuous route between the dead object and the earth is it possible for the pollution to spread down and into the earth. Whether it does or not depends on other variables. Fear of falling is fatal and will permit the pollution to spread. Dryness expedites spread of pollution, while moisture prevents it. Presumably, this has to do with the way the Zoroastrians view living things as moist and full of the juices of life, but dead things as dry, desiccated, and lifeless. Thus the forces of life prevent pollution, while the forces of death enable it. When the pollution does not go all the way down to the earth, then it becomes important to know how the pollution spreads inside the house itself. DOES POLLUTION FILL SPACE? Yaakov Elman Generally speaking, in the Zoroastrian system of pollution, as in others, such as the Biblical and rabbinic ones, the main means of transmitting pollution is contact. In all of these systems, some place is also given to transmission through or into a space—in Numbers 19:14, the interior space of a tent, in rabbinic texts the interior space of houses, and, in one case, an earthen-ware vessel. In late Sasanian texts, too, we find the beginnings of an interest in whether spaces are polluted or not, depending on various circumstances. The following investigation of the significance of the term tuhīgīh has its point of departure with Skjærvø’s observation that “since ‘air’ is not a concept in Middle Persian, only wind (wād)and space (andarwāy), obviously they had to think of something the pollution would be transmitted through and came up with the concept of ‘emptiness’ or ‘empty space’.” It is linked to two other phenomena: the appearance of the term tuhīgīh in a sixth-century compilation, Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād, in contrast to the much more limited tuhīg, which appears in the late-fifth or early-sixth-century Pahlavi version of the Videvdad, and, along with that, the appearance of what we may consider a straightforward case (that is, of a person or dog dying in a house in which there is no worship service going on) in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād and its absence from the Pahlavi Videvdad. That is, though, as Skjærvø has demonstrated, Pahlavi Videvdad 6.5 and Šāyist nē šāyist 2.18, deal with death on a roof, on a wall, and so on, what one may consider the more basic case, that of a person (or a dog) dying in a house does not occur in the Pahlavi Videvdad. The closest that the Pahlavi Videvdad gets to such an issue is in its treatment of the Avestan case of a worship service in a house when suddenly a man or dog dies in that house, a case that the Avesta itself introduces. Zoroastrianism is often considered a very conservative religion, but some of that conservatism may be an optical illusion, the product of our scanty sources and how we measure conservatism. It went from the religion of a, probably, nomadic society in Central Asia, to one that had a part in the rule of the Ach- 12 CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN aemenid empire, then survived two losses, first with the coming of Alexander and then with the Arab Conquest. In the interim, it again shared in the rule of the Parthian and Sasanian empires, the rivals of Rome. Our sources are not only scant, but mainly priestly, and almost all are post-Sasanian, but we are comfortable in assuming that much of our post-Sasanian material reflects conditions of the earlier period. This is certainly what the priestly editors believed, and wanted their readers to believe. But should we? Some scholars have already concluded that the doctrine of church and state as twin pillars of the empire is a post-Sasanian invention. Of course, this is exactly the kind of thing that we might suspect priests of doing; but can we really assume that officials — and there were priests who were Sasanian officials — of a multi-religious, multi-ethnic empire really were intellectually frozen over a thousand years, or even a few hundred? Our knowledge of humanity as historians, anthropologists, psychologists suggests that that is not the case. Moreover, even with our relatively limited knowledge of Sasanian law, we can see important changes, such as that in the civil rights of upper-class women to testify in court, to run estates, and so on, in the wake of the Black Plague which reached the Middle East in 542 CE.18 Fortunately, we have a set of four texts that allow us to test that assumption, at least in the area of ritual pollution. I refer of course to the Young Avestan Videvdad and its two Pahlavi commentaries and one quasi-code. In his table summarizing the dates of essential developments in the Zoroastrian manuscript tradition, Skjærvø pointed out that while the earliest commentators on the Avesta are to be dated to the fourth/fifth centuries CE, the writing down of the Avesta took place around 600 CE, while the zand itself was not written down until the ninth century. However, before this lies a period of compilation and oral redaction. For the Sasanian period, we are fortunate to have two commentaries on the Videvdad, the Pahlavi Videvdad and Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād, and the code is Šāyist nē šāyist. The Pahlavi Videvdad is wellknown, if not yet edited in a satisfactory edition, and for Šāyist nē šāyist, we have a useable edition in J. C. Tavadia’s work from 1930. As to Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād, it was brought to my attention two years ago by Götz König of the Institut für Iranistik of the Free University of Berlin, who had been working on it, and provided me with his preliminary edition of the first 22 pages of this huge compilation. It takes up pp. 433-673 in the manuscript TD2, some 240 pages, 15 lines to a page, and approximately 35,000 words. Not only is it of a considerable size, but it is quite singular in that its compiler was interested in only one thing: systematic legal analysis, without the theological framework of the Pahlavi Videvdad, or its forays into Avestan exegesis. Daniel J. Sheffield, a doctoral student at Harvard, recently called my attention to a comment made by Friederich Spiegel in 1856, speaking of the Pahlavi Videvdad: Ich befürchte keinen Widerspruch zu erfahren, wenn ich behaupte, dass auch in diesen Glossen derselbe semitische Einfluss thätig ist, den wir auch in den Übersetzungen selbst erkannt haben. Namentlich die sehr ähnlichen Arbeiten der babylonischen Juden lassen sich hierher ziehen. Unter den beiden Rubriken der Haggada und Halacha lassen sich auch die parsischen Glossen füglich befassen; während die Glossen zum Vendidâd mehr halachisch sind, gehören die des Yaçna mehr zur Haggada.’19 As Sheffield commented to me when he sent me a copy of this work, ‘This already happened 150 yea18 For documentation of all of this see Elman, 2003. “I fear no contradiction when I maintain that the same Semitic influence is at work in these glosses [i.e. the zand] that we have also recognized in the translations themselves. In particular, we may adduce the very similar work of the 19 PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ & YAAKOV ELMAN 13 rs ago!’ The only cavil I would make to Spiegel’s observation is that I am certain — indeed I have proved — that the influence was not one-way, as it could not have been when a small, relatively powerless, minority faces a long-entrenched ruling ethnic group Two recent, as yet unpublished dissertations bear out Spiegel’s prescient comments, one by Yuhan S.-D. Vevaina (Stanford University), and one by Shai Secunda (Hebrew University). The first bears out Spiegel’s comment on the Aggada, the non-legal portions of the Talmud, and the second on the legal/ritual portion.20 When approaching Old Iranian literature, which had such a long life-span, we must all be historians to some extent. And as historians we must hope eventually to understand the redactional and intellectual history of these compilations. I date the extant version of the Pahlavi Videvdad to the late fifth century,21 and Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād to the mid- to late-sixth century. However, whatever the absolute dates, it is abundantly clear that Zand ī fragard ī juddēw-dād is later than the Pahlavi Videvdad. Thus, Sōšyans/Sōšāns, probably the earliest authority quoted, in the zands of whom we have a sizeable corpus of statements and who figures prominently in the Pahlavi Videvdad, appearing some 28 times, appears only 17 times in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād; likewise, Kay-ādur-bōzēd appears 18 times in the Pahlavi Videvdad, but only 7 times in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād. Again, Gōgušnasp/Gōgušasp appears 20 times in the Pahlavi Videvdad, but only 10 in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād. This telescoping of earlier authorities due to the exigencies of an oral tradition indicates that Zand ī fragard ī juddēw-dād is later than the Pahlavi Videvdad, especially when we consider that both cover much of the same area,22 since these authorities are concentrated in several technical chapters of the Pahlavi Videvdad (chapters 5, 6, 7, and 16). On the other hand, some names that never appear in the earlier compilations, such as <pyškyyyl> (reading uncertain, here “Pišksil” for convenience),23 Māh-ohrmazd, Mardbūd son of Dād-Ohrmazd, or Weh-šābuhr, hērbed of Sagestān (= Sīstān), do appear in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād. This is the other side of telescoping. But what is perhaps even more indicative of the later date of Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād is the fact that three prominent scholars recede in the memory of the compiler, while the schools they are associated with are regularly mentioned, those of Abarg, Mēdyōmāh, and <pyškyyyl>. These schools do not appear in the Pahlavi Videvdad, nor the Nērangestān or the Hērbedestān. That the school of Pišksil is later than the other two can be seen by the fact that his school seldom expresses an independent opinion, but merely joins one of the other schools against the third. Again, while one of the most prominent authorities in the other compilations, Abarg, who appears 25 times in the Pahlavi Videvdad, 25 in the Nērangestān, and 3 in the Hērbedestān, appears only 11 times in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād, his school appears some 35 times! The numbers for Mēdyōmāh/Medōmāh, who also founded a school, are even more lopsided. While he appears 9 times in the Pahlavi Videvdad, 4 in the Hērbedestān, and 8 in the Nērangestān, and only once in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād, his school is mentioned no fewer than 51 times! Thus, while the preference for the Mēdyōmāhites and the appearance of the Pišksilites may be attributed to the preferences of the compiler, the fact that the earlier authorities recede, while more recent Babylonian Jews here. The Parsee glosses may be conveniently addressed under the two rubrics of Aggada and Halakha; while the glosses to the Vendidad are more halakhic, the ones to the Yasna belong more to the Aggada” (Spiegel, 1856, 92). 20 See Secunda, 2007, 2014, Vevaina, 2007. 21 See Elman, 2005 [pub. 2009], pp. 15–26, and 2006 [pub. 2010], pp. 33–54. 22 The Pahlavi Videvdad runs to ab. 55,000 words, the Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād to ab. 34.500 words. 23 Macuch’s hypothetical reading of this name, which also occurs in the Mādayān ī hazār dādestān (Book of a thousand judgements), as Pēšagsīr is not obvious according to Skjærvø. They are mentioned twice in the Mādayān ī hazār dādestān, in 42.19 and 61.10; see Macuch, 1981; 1993, 301, 317, 410, 415. 14 CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN ones appear, and the schools become more prominent, is most easily explained by the later date of Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād. This is all the more important, since, as we shall see, in the interval between the Pahlavi Videvdad and Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād, interesting progress had been made on the Zoroastrian concepts of the nature and means of transmission of pollution. Once it has been carefully studied in its entirety, we will be able to trace its relationship to the Pahlavi Videvdad, on the one hand, and to Šāyist nē šāyist, on the other, with more confidence, but I hope to begin that process with this study. Thus, the new school of the Piškilites, of whose existence we were hardly aware before, while of particular interest, is not as important as it might have been in terms of intellectual history, because its members seldom took an independent stand; instead they sometimes supported the Abargites and sometimes supported the Mēdyōmāhites. So, not only does their presence in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād gives us some hint of the text’s date, it also indicates that the intellectual developments of the time were transmitted anonymously, by the redactor of Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād. With these preliminary remarks, let us begin the task of examining the views of each of these compilations on one set of cases, those relating to the parameters of pollution caused by a dead body on the roof of a house and one inside the house. Indeed, one of the most interesting fact about these cases is that, as I noted at the outset, it is only Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād which deals with the case of someone who dies in a house. In contrast, Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44, taking its cue from the Avestan Videvdad, deals only with the case of someone who dies in a house while a worship service is going on, and it is primarily concerned with the status of the ritual materials. But before proceeding to Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād’s innovation in regard to the transmission of corpse pollution, let us study the more traditional Zoroastrian notions, as Skjærvø has set them out. To sum up: Pollution is primarily transmitted by contact, and Pahlavi Videvdad 6.5, which deals with someone dying on a roof, is thus concerned to determine whether some limb of the dead body touches the stairs. If it does, the pollution descends the stairs. If not, it does not. In Šāyist nē šāyist, this concern is expanded to questions regarding whether the pollution descends into the ground from the legs of a couch (2.13) on which someone has died or down a wall (2.18). We begin with two initial assumptions taken from other legal systems, though especially the rabbinic one, with which our texts seem to have a special affinity, though the meaning of that affinity has yet to be thoroughly examined: the principles of parsimony and consistency. The principle of parsimony, as I apply it, dictates that we begin our interpretation of these texts with the assumption that each detail of a case presented is the product of conscious choice and is therefore legally or ritually significant. As Vevaina and Secunda have demonstrated in their dissertations, the late Sasanian exegetes seem to have employed this principle in their interpretation of Avestan texts. The principle of consistency requires that we at least begin with the assumption that our texts are consistent within themselves unless proven otherwise. This has two applications and hence yields two questions: Is each text consistent in itself, and are some or all of them consistent among themselves? Consistency does not mean identity, so even if they are all consistent, we need not abandon the possibility of intellectual development, since one generation may work out the implications of an earlier generation’s new insight. It is also heuristically useful to begin with such an assumption, because it gives us purchase in our texts. DEAD OBJECTS INSIDE A HOUSE Let us then begin with two of the cases that Skjærvø presents above. The first is from Pahlavi Videvdad PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ & YAAKOV ELMAN 15 6.5, and the second is its parallel in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād, pp. 482-83. Both deal with the extent of the pollution, a by-product of when someone or something dies on a roof: Pahlavi Videvdad 6.5a ka abar bān bē mirēd ka-š tis-ēw abāz ō pillagān nē estēd bān tā ō aškōb rēman aškōb tuhīg pāk If something dies on a roof: If none of it reaches back to the stairs/ladder, (then) the roof is polluted to the aškōb, the aškōb (itself and) the empty (space) is clean. Pahlavi Videvdad 6.5b ka-š tis-ēw abāz ō pillagān estēd bān tā ō aškōb rēman zamīg tā ō āb rēman aškōb tuhīg nē rōšn If some of it reaches back to the stairs, (then) the roof is polluted (all the way) to the aškōb, the earth is polluted (all the way) to the water. (As for) the aškōb (and) the empty space, it is not clear. Skjærvø assumes that the “empty space” refers to the interior of the house below the ceiling. It is noteworthy that in either scenario, the empty space is either clean or its status is “not clear.” As we shall see below, in no case does tuhīg in the Pahlavi Videvdad clearly refer to entire interior of the house as being polluted, while Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād clearly does. At most, the Pahlavi Videvdad seems to suggest that pollution adheres to material structures in layers or strips—the space of a doorway, the interior or exterior surface of a roof or wall. In this case, the compiler of Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād merely recasts the case in the Pahlavi Videvdad in his own, more analytic, rivāyat-like style: Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, pp. 482-483; cf. above] ka pad bān murd estēd ast čiyōn ka-š tis-iz handām abāz ō pillagān nē estēd frōd nē barēd ka handām-ēw abāz ō pillagān estēd tan-masāy frōd barēd xānag andarrōn pāk If there is something dead on the roof, how is it? If no limb of it at all reaches the ladder, it does not carry down. If a limb reaches the ladder, it carries down the size of the body, (but) the house is clean inside. Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād adds an observation that is absent from the Pahlavi Videvdad: ‘it carries down the size of the body.’ That is, the pollution occupies space! In the end, as we shall see, Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād later on (on p. 667, see below) declares the interior space of a house in which someone has died as polluted: tuhīgīh rēman. In our case, parallel to Pahlavi Videvdad 6.5, we may perhaps imagine a virtual dead body marching down the stairs and polluting the airspace it occupies.The 16 CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN Pahlavi Videvdad, still viewing pollution as transmitted by contact, could not conceive of a dead body polluting the entire space of the house, though he might conceive of the space of a doorway, or one side or another of a wall, as we noted above and we shall see below. These strips or layers seem to have provided the germ of this conceptual revolution. In the Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44 the compiler does consider a variant of a case in which a person or dog dies in a house in certain circumstances: Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44a ēn az abestāg paydāg ān bawēd ka andar xānag ēw-dar yazišn-ēw sāxt estēd u-š sag-ēw ayāb mard-ēw andar widerēd yazišn sar čē tuhīg rēman This is apparent from the Avesta: That (principle) applies when a sacrifice is prepared in a house with one door and in it a dog or a man passes on. The sacrifice is at an end, because the empty (space of the door) is polluted (and also polluting). First, let us look at the context of this case in Videvdad 5.39, where “fire, barsom, cups, haomas and mortars are assembled, and a dog or a man dies: Avestan Videvdad 5.39 dātarə yōi nmānå hąm.barāmahi aš ̣āum ahura mazda ahmi aŋhuuō yat̰ astuuaiṇti ātrəmca barəsmaca taštaca haomaca hāuuanaca āat̰ pascaēta ahe nmānahe spā vā nā vā iriθiiāt̰ kuθa tē vərəziiąn aēte yōi mazdaiiasna O (Orderly) creator (of living beings with bones)! These houses that we assemble, O Ahura Mazdā, sustainer of Order in this existence with bones [all living beings have bones], fire, barsom, cups, haomas,24 and mortars, and then a dog or a man of this house dies, how should these Mazdayasnians behave? According to Ohrmazd’s answer in Pahlavi Videvdad 5.40, the ritual materials must be taken out of the house first, then the dead body; there is no mention of an empty space. Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44 does however refer to an empty space, tuhīg. According to Pahlavi Videvdad 5.42, no ritual materials may be brought back into the house before the elapse of nine nights in winter or a month in summer, at the penalty of transgressing a tanābuhl-sin. It is at this point that the compiler of the Pahlavi Videvdad introduces the question of what to do when a man or a dog dies in a house in which a worship service is being carried out. Please note the emphasis on ritual materials, while tuhīg —‘empty space’ — is restricted to confined spaces in layers or strips, with one possible exception, which we will discuss below. Let us continue with the zand of Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44: Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44b 24 The drink that is prepared and drunk during the ritual (Indic soma). PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ & YAAKOV ELMAN 17 az dō ēk harw čē pēš šāyēd burdan ā bē barišn ātaxš ka ēdōn bē šāyēd burdan ī ka pad rist bē dahēnd ā-iz bē dahišn dēwār nē brīnišn rōšn guft ay gilēn ōh brīnišn gačēn nē brīnišn Of two (things) one (has to happen?): Whatever is possible to take away before (the fire), should be taken away. The fire, if it can (only) be taken away in such a manner that it “gives” on the dead thing, then let it “give.”25 (But) the wall should not be breached. Rōšn said: It means that a mud-brick (wall) should be breached in the usual way, a gypsum one should not be breached (at all). Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44c nō-šabag ud māh-drahnāy xānag andarrōn bērōn hixr ī grāy harw čē ān gyāg estēd hixr ī grāy ān ī pas rasēd apādyāb (For) a nine-night period (or) for the duration of a month, the house, inside and out, is “more severe hixr.” All that is in that place [already, that is, it was in place when the man or dog died] is “more severe hixr.” Whatever arrives later (i.e. after the body is removed) is “ritually unclean.” (apādyāb, a lesser degree of uncleanness). Here at last we have an unequivocal statement that some empty space is polluted. The question is of course what part of the house the tuhīg, the ‘empty space’ refers. Skjærvø suggests that it refers to the empty space of the doorway. To understand why this interpretation is in all probability correct, we must consider the role of the door in this scenario; the principle of parsimony thus becomes relevant. What is the purpose of mentioning the door? The point is that the dead body will have to exit from that door, and thus we know that that door—or doorway—will become polluted. If we assume an alternative scenario that requires a larger volume of space, that is, that the space from the original place of death to that door will thus also become prospectively polluted (prospective pollution is adumbrated in Pahlavi Videvdad 16.2), we run into problems. For if tuhīg here refers to the space between the dead body and the one door, through which the pollution is drawn or flows retrospectively, how is it delimited? How much space is polluted? If it is the cross-section of the body, why is tan-masāy or its equivalent not mentioned? And what happens in the very likely case that the ritual materials are located on the far side of the corpse? Does the zone of pollution then extend on either side of the corpse? But then what purpose is served by mentioning the door; in that case the zone extends from the ritual materials to the body, rather than from the body to the door, except when they are directly opposite the door in a straight line. This remains problematical even if we assume that the zone of pollution reflects the shape of the corpse from from it to the door or from it to the ritual materials. The zone would then be 25 Does “give” here mean “touch”? 18 CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN tan-masāy, similar to all those passages that Skjærvø discussed, where the zone of pollution in descend- ing reflects the cross-sectional area of the corpse. Thus, our passage would reflect the same reasoning as Šāyist nē šāyist 2.25 or 2.28 or Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād 481c (see Skjærvø, above), as Skjærvø rendered it: “size of the body.” However, in those passages there is a material substance to direct the pollution’s transmission—a ladder, a wall, etc. Here the only relevant material substance would be the floor, but the floor covers the entire interior of the house. The fact that making a new door is prohibited indicates that the concern here is indeed the door, and it is the doorway’s shape that determines the zone of pollution. The Pahlavi Videvdad thus does not consider tuhīg as the three dimensional space of the house, as Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād does, but rather as a cross-section of the body, though here, in contrast to the pollution descending the ladder or wall, it is not the longitudinal cross-section of the body as in the case of a virtual body descending the ladder or stairs or wall, but rather the breadth of the corpse as it is carried out the door. There is another indication that Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44 considers pollution as transmitted linearly in connection with a material part of the house. Thus, in 5.44c, where it is stressed that “the house, inside and outside” is “more severe hixr,” we must consider how far the pollution extends “outside.” It cannot extend to some undetermined boundary that is not mentioned. Thus, once again the transmission of pollution is directed by a material substance, the wall. Thus, “inside and outside” refers to the inside and outside surfaces of the house wall, and not some undetermined three-dimensional space inside or outside the house. Let us now examine the next part of Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44: Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44d esm kē ān gyāg estēd bē tāšišn (Any) firewood that is in that place must be cut off (i.e. as much of the firewood as has been in contact). Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44e xwarišn sāxtag andar 3 gām pad yazišn yazdān hagriz nē šāyēd friyag guft ay wehān-iz kāmag xwarišn ud ān ī bē az 3 gām pas az 9-šabag māh-drahnāy pad pādyābīh šāyēd Prepared food within 3 paces can never be used in a sacrifice to the gods. Friyag said: It means that also the Zoroastrians (there) can eat less 26 (i.e. until the problem is resolved). Whatever is ouside of 3 paces, after a nine-night period (at a minimum during the winter, or at a maximum in the summer) the duration of a month (i.e. can be used). Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44f ān ī nē sāxt estēd ēd ka andar 3 gām ud ēd ka bē az sē gām pas az 9-šabag ud māh-drahnāy ka bē sāxtag pad hamāg kār šāyēd xwarišn sāxtag ēn kū nān ī poxt gōšt ī poxtag ud brištag ud xwardīg ī kardag ast kē ēdōn gōwēd ay harw čē-š kār-ēw abar nē abāyēd kerd a-sāxt bawišn 26 The manuscript reading kem “less” appears to be older than kāmag “(at) wish” and ham “also.” Cf. n. 33. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ & YAAKOV ELMAN 19 (As for) what has not been prepared, (both) this that is within 3 paces and this that is outside of 3 paces (can be used) after a nine-night period (or) the duration of a month. When prepared, it can be used for every purpose. And food that has been “prepared” includes the following: baked bread, cooked and fried meat, and edibles that have been made (processed?). There is one who says: It means that everything that does not need to be worked on is to be “unprepared.” The zone of pollution specified in section the last text is delimited by a distance of three paces from the body, that is, tan-masāy plus three paces. And, again, 5.44e provides that prepared foods within three paces of the body are polluted. However, if we take tuhīg as three-dimensional and the entire space of the house is polluted, why is only a linear measure of three paces’ distance mentioned? Moreover, the same problem then arises in 5.44f when the same measure is given for unprepared foods. My uncertainty issues from the fact that sections of the text refers to the situation after the body is removed, and so it might be thought that the pollution has abated somewhat; however, 5.44c also does provide that the house is “more severely” polluted (hixr ī grāy) for nine months, thus eliminating the distinction between the time before and after the body is removed. The contrast of all this with Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād could not be starker: Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, p. 667] tan-ēw ka andar xānag bē mīrēd xānag ud tuhīgīh hamāg rēman If a body dies in a house, the entire house and the empty space (inside it) are polluted. Given all this, it is unlikely that the compiler of the Pahlavi Videvdad considered the possibility that this empty space was three-dimensional except in the narrowest sense: that is, the space of the doorway and the like, layers and strips rather than full volumes. Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44 employs the word tuhīg twice more, and we must examine those uses as well. Let us begin with the following: Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44i ud ka azēr *škōbag-ēw ud azēr parzan-ēw bē mīrēd ān-and gyāg tuhīg rēman ka abāz stānēd pad gyāg pāk And when it dies beneath the *škōbag (= aškōb, roof?)27 and(/or?) beneath the parzan (parapet around the roof?), (only) that much of the empty space is polluted. When one takes away (the dead object), (the empty space) is immediately clean Unfortunately, the structure of a typical Iranian house of the fourth or fifth century is not clear to us, and the word *škōbag in 5.44i is likewise not clear. Nevertheless, we may still tease out the implications All the mss. have <škwck-1 = šknck-1> instead of <škwpk-1>, for which Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād has aškōb <’škwp'>. See above (p. 7 of ms.). 27 20 CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN of tuhīg here, for, whatever the exact denotation of the word, or of parzan, the point is that one who dies beneath either component of the house pollutes only the space that the body takes up—“(only) that much of the empty space (tuhīg) is polluted.” Once more the dimensions of the tuhīg are determined by the corpse and not a larger part of the house. The Pahlavi Videvdad’s ān-and gyāg “that much place” is equivalent to Šāyist nē šāyist’s tan-masāy “the size of the body.” Finally, we have the following: Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44h ud dargāh ka pad mayān rāst bē estēd az harw kustag-ēw tuhīg rēman ka ō *kust-ēw wēš ān kust And the vestibule, when it stands straight in the middle, the empty space is polluted all around, (but) if (it stands) more to one side, then that side (is polluted). Skjærvø tentatively understands dargāh “doorway” as a sort of entrance alcove (where dirty shoes etc. might be left behind). But, even if it refers to some other part of the house, for our purposes, the important point is the denotation of ka mayān ī rāst az harw kustag-ēw, “if it stands straight in the middle,” (then), on all sides, the empty space is polluted,” and ka ō *kust-ēw wēš ān kust, “if (it stands) more to one side, then that side (is polluted).” Why there is a difference (in terms of pollution) when the vestibule is in the exact middle rather than more to one side is unclear for the moment, but for our purposes the important point is that the zone of pollution does not encompass the entire house, as it would in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād. Whatever the zone of pollution includes, according to the Pahlavi Videvdad, it is only part of the house near the vestibule, either on one side or all around. Thus, though the compiler of the Pahlavi Videvdad has taken a step away from a purely linear concept of transmission to conceive of pollution in layers and strips, he still required that the zone of pollution remained tied to a material substance and not fill a large-scale three-dimensional area, like a house. The result seems to be that nowhere in the Pahlavi Videvdad do we find such a case as in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, p. 667], quoted above, where the entire interior of the house is polluted—tuhīgīh hamāg rēman. However, there is another possibility that must be taken seriously as well. For, while showing somewhat greater concern for the empty space(s) of a house than does the Pahlavi Videvdad, Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād still maintains the Pahlavi Videvdad’s concern with partial spaces, delimited by structural elements such as a vestibule versus the main room, or the dome versus the rest of the house or fire temple. It may then be that Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād, in systematizing traditional lore, merely took up a neglected case of a house without such structural elements demarcating separate areas. That this may be likely is suggested by Pahlavi Videvdad 6.5, where the compiler takes up seriatim the cases of a man who dies in various adjuncts of the house, a tree, branch, a couch, a roof, and a reed mat—but does not consider the extent of pollution generated by a man who dies in a room or a house, and, when it does consider the extent of the pollution, it does so in terms of a material substance as a guide, as we have seen. In essence, then, Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād has combined Pahlavi Videvdad 6.5’s concern with variations on that theme—a man dying in various adjuncts of a house, but considering the inside of the house as well, but then attached his discussion of these to the case considered in Pahlavi Videvdad 5.34 (see below), where a worship service is being carried out in a house and a person or a dog dies. Still, this is not merely a difference in quantity, but also of quality. For Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād’s statement about a house on p. 667, where we may assume that the house is without a vestibule will neve- PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ & YAAKOV ELMAN 21 rtheless have some structural element that will divide its interior space into segments—a dome or a pillar, and yet, recall Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād’s assertion that “the entire house and the empty space (inside it) are polluted.” The “entire house” is, as Zādspram tells us (see Skjærvø, above), a house made up of wall, roof, and floor, plus, as Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād reminds us, the interior space. For both Zādspram and the compiler of Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād, the house is a material artifact, xānag, but Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād adds that, as regards pollution, its tuhīgīh must also be taken into account. The effects of this new conception of pollution in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād can be seen in its interpretation of Pahlavi Videvdad 5.34, and especially the interpolation of the word tuhīgīh within the quotation of the Pahlavi Videvdad in regard to the question of the extent to which non-Zoroastrian dead matter can pollute. I first present Pahlavi Videvdad 5.34, and then Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād’s interpretation of it: Pahlavi Videvdad 5.34a rōbāh ud raspūg ud babrag ud nasāy ī zīndagān ud nasāy ī dēwēsnān gyāg ud kadag ud mard rēman nē kunēnd Foxes, weasels, beavers, and nasāy of living things [=that which was once part of these living animals and is now separated] and dead matter of demon-worshippers do not pollute a place or a house (in which it is), or a man. And this is even though such nasāy is polluting when separated from a human or a dog. Note that the Pahlavi Videvdad decides in favor of Sōšāns and against Gōgušnasp and Kay-ādur-bōzēd in another similar dispute (Pahlavi Videvdad 5.38 = Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād p. 456):28 Pahlavi Videvdad 5.34b rōbāh ud nasāy ī zīndagān ud nasāy ī dēwēsnān wastarg rēman nē kunēnd Foxes, dead matter of living things and of demon-worshippers do not pollute a garment. This is just as 5.34a regarding places, houses or humans; garments are thus also a matter of concern. Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, p. 455] rōbāh ud rafsūy ud babrag ī ābīg nasāy ī zīndagān (Dead matter from) foxes, weasels, and beavers (counts as) “nasāy of living things.” Interestingly, the compiler of Pahlavi rivāyat cites yet another opinion:29 Pahlavi rivāyat 44 sag sardag bē rōbāh ud rasūg ud babrag ī ābīg tā abārīg hamāg nasāy ēdōn čiyōn ān ī mardōmān ān ēn 3 rēman nē kunēnd gyāg xānag ud mard ast kē ēdōn gōwēd kū rōbāh wastarg rēman nē kunēd bē andar 3 gām pādyābīh rēman kunēd The “dog species,” with the exception of foxes, weasels, and beavers, and all other “dead matter” 28 29 Cf. Skjærvø, 2014, pp. 386–87. Williams, 1990, vol. 1, pp. 160–61. 22 CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN is like that of humans. Those three mentioned here do not pollute the place, the house, or a man. There is one who says that foxes do not pollute garments, but pollutes ritually clean (objects) within three paces. Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, p. 455 continued] anērān margarzānān dēwēsnān rēmanīh čiyōn gyāg frōd nē barišn xānag ud tuhīgīh nē rēman How is it with pollution (by dead matter) from non-Iranian “death-deserving” demonworshipers? There is no “carrying down” (of the pollution from where the dead matter lies), so the house and the empty space (in it) are not polluted (and non-polluting). Since Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād has determined that pollution can occupy space, tuhīgīh, the status of the space thus has to be determined.] Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, p. 455 continued] mard pad pixag nē šōyišn pad āb (nasāy pad āb ud) ātaxš (burdan) xwardan nigān kardan hamāg čiyōn nasāy ī grāy 30 ud ān zīndagān an-ērān margarzānān dēwēsnān ahlomōγân gyâg rēman nē kunēd A man (exposed to it) should not be washed with the “the stick with nine knots,”31 (but) with water [that is, some purification is nevertheless necessary]. (Carrying dead matter onto the water or) fire, eating (it), and burying (it) are all as in (the case of) “more severe dead matter.” (nevertheless, dead matter from) living things and from “death-deserving” infidel non-Iranian demon-worshipers does not pollute the place. The important point to note is that, where Pahlavi Videvdad 5.34 has gyāg kadag ud mard “place, house, and man,” the compiler of Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād has gyāg … xānag ud tuhīgīh “place, house, and empty space,” thus interpolating “empty space” and his new conception of pollution into an earlier (and presumably traditional) text. POLLUTION IN TENTS AND CONNECTED STRUCTURES Once this is established, the essential question for the compiler of Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād is then segmentation; pollution spreads only as far as the segments of the house allow. This is clear from two other passages in which tuhīgīh appears. I first give the second passage: Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, pp. 461-462] ka andar wiyān xānag-ēw kard estēd andar ān murd estēd čiyōn xānag rēman 30 31 The scribe has evidently left out several words, here in parenthesis. See Tavadia, 1930, pp. 9–10. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ & YAAKOV ELMAN 23 agar xānag ul stānēd tuhīgīh ēk-tag bē bawēd hamāg rēman. ka ān ī meh murd estēd ān ī meh rēman ān ī *keh pāk. ka ān ī meh ul stānēd hamāg pāk. If a “house” has been made inside a tent and something has died in that (house), how is it? The “house” is polluted. If they remove the “house” and the empty space becomes “single,”32 all is polluted. If something has died <in> the greater (outside structure), the greater is polluted (including the empty space between the greater and smaller), the smaller 33 clean. If they remove the greater, all is clean (i.e. the empty space becomes one with Space). The above passage explicitly provides us the principle of “singleness” (“consolidation,” as it were). Once the compiler of Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād began thinking geometrically in three dimensions, such hypothetical question could be formulated and examined, as in the passage preceding the one above (note that no named authorities appear in this passage): Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, pp. 460-461] gumbad čiyōn bawēd agar gumbad az ān ī pad 4-tāg abar estēd harw tāg-ēw ēk-ēw gumbad hamgōnag ud agar gumbad jud az 4-tāg hamāg rēman ud agar gumbad ī ātaxšān ātaxš ān gyāg tuhīgīh rēman nē kunēd How is with a gumbad (dome, fire temple)? If the gumbad is one of those that are on a čahār-tāg (four-vaulted), each individual tāg (is polluted) (and) the dome likewise. If the gumbad is not one with a čahār-tāg, (it is) polluted. If it is the gumbad of a major fire, it does not make that place and the emptiness polluted. Here the situation is more complicated. The phrase čahar-tāg (lit., “four arches”) seems to indicate a structure whose main floor is divided into four units. Here is what the Encyclopædia Iranica has to say about this structure: On a number of sites the gombad, made usually of rubble masonry with courses of stone, is all that survives, and so such ruins are popularly called in Fārs čahār-ṭāq or “four arches.” Archeological traces, and literary evidence, suggest that the gombad was regularly surrounded by a passage-way or ambulatory, for the use presumably both of the priests who tended the fire, and the worshippers. A typical small ātaškada [“fire-house, fire-temple”] appears to have consisted of the fire-sanctuary itself, with this passage-way; a smaller room or rooms for storing fire-wood, incense and utensils; and yazišn-gāh or “place of worship” where the priest or priests would celebrate the rituals of the faith. These were never performed within the gombad, where no veneration might be offered except directly to the fire itself. There are also at some sites the traces of a large hall, no doubt a place where a congregation would gather to celebrate the gāhāmbārs (q.v.) and other feasts.34 32 Cf. Persian yak tah “single-fold” = yak-lā, cf. do-lā “two-fold, double,” do-tah “doubled up, bent.” It is as if the two spaces were folded into one. We should probably also read dō-tag in Šāyist nē šāyist 4.6, 7, where the mss. have <2-twk> (Tavadia, 1930), pp. 87–88). 33 TD2 has <kts> kahas “(irrigation) channel, which is out of place here, where we need the antonym of meh “greater.” Cf. n. 26. 34 Boyce, 1987; Huff, 1990. 24 CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN Though we might expect that the dome is what causes the individual tuhīgs to combine into a single tuhīg, so that if each unit is topped by a dome, each one is polluted, the compiler (again there are no named authorities) seems to indicate that that is not so, for he asserts that the first two cases yield the same results (hamgōnag), in contrast to the third case, in which “all are polluted” (hamāg rēman). That must mean that the essential criterion is whether the dome is separate from the units or not. Whether each unit has its own dome or one dome serves all four units, each unit is polluted on its own. Each is separately susceptible to pollution; if there is a source of pollution in a particular unit, only it is polluted. This is not the only scenario possible, of course. The pollution can be located in the dome itself or even on its roof. If it is on its roof, then, as we have seen, the Pahlavi Videvdad would not have declared the interior house polluted, which of course does not require that Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād would have agreed. If the pollution is in the gumbad itself, presumably Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād would declare that gumbad polluted. However, it is clear that Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād is interested only in the state of the tāgs, and not the gumbad itself; the gumbad is important only in regard to its effect on the pollution of the tāgs. Thus, it would seem that Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād is in essential agreement with Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44 on this35 (Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād deals with gumbad in only two places: here and in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, p. 439]): Pahlavi Videvdad 5.44g pad wiškar jud-kardag pad gyāg ēdōn bawēd čīyōn andar ham xānag pas az 9-šabag ud māh-drahnāy gumbad ī ātaxšān ēdōn bēd čīyōn *wiškar (If it is) in an *outhouse36 (or) unconnected, it will right away be as in the house itself: after a ninenight period (or) the duration of a month (it becomes OK). A fire-dome is like an *outhouse. However, if the dome is separate from the units, then if the source of pollution is in any one of the units, all are polluted. However, for our purposes, the point is clear: once the compiler (or his predecessors) began thinking in three-dimensional terms, such hypotheticals became possible to contemplate. POLLUTION IN MENSTRUAL HUTS Two other attestations of tuhīgīh in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād are of interest, both on menstrual huts, where Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād provides a hint as to the source of his insight into tuhīgīh: Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād [TD2, p. 573] daštānestān paymānag ī rēmanīh čand ud tā kū-š rēmanīh pad ēw bār ī naxust ayāb 3 bār pad ān ī abargīg pad naxust bār ud pad ān ī pišksilīg pad 3 bār frāy ud pēšag ud hamāg tis-ēw hixr ī grāy mēdyōmāhīg ēg-iš tuhīgīh ān-and rēman ud pad-iz bālāy ēdōn What is the measure of pollution of a menstrual hut and how far does its pollution (reach)? For the text, see above (pp. 16–19 of ms.). In Dēnkard 6.153 and 6E.31g, a wiškar is where a young couple has a romantic picnic (Shaked, 1979, pp. 62–63, 200–201: “uninhabited place”). In other texts, wiškar is coupled with wiyābān “deserted area” and dašt “plain (where nobody dwells)” (Dēnkard 7.4.49). 35 36 PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ & YAAKOV ELMAN 25 At the first time (of menstrual onset) or (only after) three times?37 According to those following the teaching of Abarg, at the first time, and according to those following the Piškilites at three times (or) more, and limbs and every object (exposed to the menstruation are polluted so as to cause pollution to the degree of) “more severe hixr.” According to those following the (teaching) of Mēdyōmāh, then its empty space (tuhīgīh) is that much polluted (below) and above (the menstruant) too, likewise. ka nē pad daštānestān paydāgenīd estēd ēg-iš dādestān čiyōn ka-š daštān aziš āmad pad gyāg pāk ka *tōb-ēw pad ēd kār kard estēd čiyōn ka-š daštān andar nišast ēdōn bawēd čiyōn daštānestān mēdyōmāhīg tuhīgīh ān-and rēman pišksil-iz ham-ēdōn If it has not been made clear that it is a menstrual hut, how is it to be judged? When the menstruant woman has come (home) from it, it is clean right away. If a *layer38 has been made for this purpose (to catch the flow), how is it? If the menstruant women has sat down on it, it becomes like a menstrual hut. (According to) the Mēdyōmāhites, the empty space (tuhīgīh, i.e. below the extra *layer) is that much polluted. (According to) the (teaching) of Pišksil, likewise. First, a few background notes. A menstrual hut is a windowless hut in which a menstruating woman remains for nine or ten days following the onset of her period. Because of her state of impurity, the hut is of course also impure. The first question raised is when this state of impurity begins, with the very first time it is used, or only at the third time. On this question two of the three schools differ: the Abargites take the stringent view, while the later school, the Pišiksilites, take the more lenient. The redactor then adds another opinion, not directly relevant to the issue, on the question of how far the pollution extends. According to one of the earlier schools, the Mēdyōmāhites, the pollution extends in a column above and below the woman and with whatever she has come into contact, for which the technical term is “that much” (ān-and), which limits the zone of pollution to the area of contact, different from the similar measure “the size of the body” (tan-masāy), which includes the entire body. We are not therefore yet at the view of Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād, p. 667 cited above. It may be, of course, that the redactor of Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād, or his source(s), did not agree with the redactor/author of Šāyist nē šāyist, who asserted in Šāyist nē šāyist 3.29 that the evil eye of the demon (druz) of menstruation is more potent than that of any other demon, that is, also that of corpse-impurity, and so, unlike the case of a person or dog dying in a house, which pollutes the entire space of the house, here it does not. The same reasoning applies to the second case, where the expression ān-and is again used, except that here two of the schools agree. What, then, is the Abargite position on this matter? Here (and elsewhere) they tend to a more stringent 37 Here too there is an interesting rabbinic parallel, but the dispute in rabbinic literature is between those who hold that a presumption is created by an action done twice or three times. However, there is another question that was raised, as to whether designation creates a legal/ritual reality even without action or whether an action is necessary as well; see Moscovitz, 2003. 38 TD2 <tp'-1>, presumably for <twp'-1>. For tōb “*layer,” see also Dādestān ī dēnīg 39.2, about the making of the sacred shirt and belt (ed. Jaafari-Dehaghi, 1998, 154–65), and The Supplementary Texts to the Šāyist nē šāyist 12.13, where the question is how to make a toothbrush from a piece of wood: the tōbs have to be carefully scraped off, because, if a piece comes loose on the teeth and is thrown away and a pregnant woman steps on it, she might abort the child (ed. Kotwal, 1969), pp. 30–31). 26 CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN position. In this case it would be that the entire hut is polluted, but their opinion is not recorded. Since the redactor himself tends to stringent positions, it is unlikely that he would have suppressed that view. However, judging from their opinion in the first case, it would seem that, indeed, they took the lenient position, in this case that every object in the hut was polluted but not zones associated with those objects. It would seem that they too had not conceived of pollution extending to the space of the entire hut. This would then imply that that position was introduced either by the redactor of Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād or by one of his predecessors, but did not originate with one of the schools. The implication, if it is borne out in other cases, is that conceptual advances took place outside of the schools, which maintained traditional views. Thus, the redactor of Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād, whose ties to the Mēdyōmāhite school is evidenced by his citation of 51 of their positions (and one for Mēdyōmāh himself), as opposed to 35 of the Abargites (in addition to 11 of Abarg) and 34 of Pišksil or his school, expanded their emphasis on tuhīgīh. Moreover, he judiciously added tuhīgīh, where relevant, in scattered places in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād (pp. 455, 459, 461, 461, 573, 667). This is also revealing in another way: it would seem that this insight into the nature of pollution—that it occupies consolidated three-dimensional space— goes beyond the views of the school of Mēdyōmāhites, as seconded by the Pišksils. In addition, there are two other developments of note here. The fact that the question of when a daštānestān is considered a polluted area—upon first use or third, and what constitutes legal “use”—entrance into it by a menstruant, or her more concrete use, by her sitting in it, as well as the extent of the pollution—are all evidence of a systematic attempt to construct a coherent ritual system. This also sheds a bit of light on the dispute between Abarg and Mēdyōmāh in Pahlavi Videvdad 5.1-4 concerning the conversion of nasāy to hixr:39 according to Abarg it occurs when an animal ingests the nasāy; according to Mēdyōmāh, it occurs only when it is digested. Abarg, as the disciple of the conservative and literalist Sōšāns, takes the less abstract position, while Mēdōmah takes a more “learned” view. Indeed, the entire dispute seems quite academic, and neither Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād nor Šāyist nē šāyist records it, since it is of limited practical use, if any. But, by the same token, it indicates how quickly Zoroastrian legal thought reached such heights of abstraction. As I noted, though, these are all aspects of the attempt by Abarg and Mēdyōmāh to construct a coherent ritual system, which may indicate that, prior to their work, this had not been done. Having said all this, it is now clear that the real conceptual leap in regard to this issue took place with the redactor of Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād or his predecessors, but he, or they, built on a foundation provided by the Pahlavi Videvdad and the later debates of the schools that are recorded in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād. The conceptual leap, however, took place apart from those schools. I would like to add one more possible scenario. It may be that this conceptual leap was aided by the influence of the movement of the Athens academy to Iran in 529 CE, when Justinian, and its philosophers were welcomed in the Persian court of Xosrow I. As Mansour Shaki puts it:40 They were received by Ḵosrow I who, according to Agathias (q.v.), was a great admirer of the works of Plato and Aristotle (Christensen, Iran Sass., p. 422).41 As a matter of fact, the fresh ardor for Greek science was in great part indebted to Ḵosrow’s own partiality for foreign culture and thought. With this move came a large increase in the coinage of Greek-influenced loan-translations and the like. See Skjærvø, 2011, pp. 226–27. Shaki, 2002, 324a. 41 A. Christensen, L’Iran sous les Sassanides (2nd rev. ed., Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 1944). 39 40 PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ & YAAKOV ELMAN 27 Shaki goes on to say that “The Greek knowledge of Sasanian scholars has been abundantly reflected in the extant Middle Persian books, especially in the encyclopedic Dēnkard, as seen in some of its fundamental concepts,” and lists over a dozen such coinages, and additional evidence of Greek philosophical concepts and statements that appear in Middle Persian literature, especially in the Dēnkard. The redactor of Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād is not so blatantly philosophical; his interests are exclusively legal and ritual. But I suggest that his consideration of the wider geometrical consequences of the Pahlavi Videvdad’s suggestion that space in the form of layers and strips can be polluted into the concept that whole volumes of rooms and houses may be so polluted, together with the consideration of the čahar-tāg scenarios, betray early Greek influence from the time after 529 CE. As we might expect, the situation is still complicated, however. Greek influence began with the Achaemenids, and the Hebrew Bible contains the concept of pollution filling up the space of a house in Numbers 19:14. But at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, any such links are untraceable. My suggestion is rather that, in Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād, this kernel concept receives a decidedly geometric turn, which seems more Greek than anything else available at the time, if only because of the wealth of evidence of this sort of Greek influence. Zand ī fragard ī jud-dēw-dād has thus become an essential link in our understanding of late Sasanian intellectual history. More study will reveal whether this paradigm is evident in other areas, though my own studies indicate that it was. A creative mind is generally not limited to one narrow area. But more of that on another occasion—deo volente. BIBLIOGRAPHY Benveniste, Émile, ‘Que signifie Vidēvdāt?’, in Mary Boyce, and Ilya Gershevitch (eds.), W.B. Henning Memorial Volume, (London, 1970), pp. 37–42. Boyce, Mary, ‘Ātaškada’, in Encyclopædia Iranica III, 1 (1987), pp. 9–10.42 ——, ‘Cleansing i. In Zoroastrianism’, in Encyclopædia Iranica V, 7 (1992), pp. 693–700. Elman, Yaakov, ‘Marriage and Marital Property in Rabbinic and Sasanian Law’, in Catherine Hezser, ed., Rabbinic Law in Its Roman and Near Eastern Context, (Tübingen, 2003) pp. 227–76. ——, ‘The Other in the Mirror: Iranians and Jews View One Another: Questions of Identity, Conversion and Exogamy in the Fifth-Century Iranian Empire’, in Bulletin of the Asia Institute 19 (= Iranian and Zoroastrian Studies in Honor of Prods Oktor Skjærvø; 2005 [pub. 2009]), pp. 15–26; 20, 2006 [pub. 2010], pp. 33–54. Huff, Dieter, ‘Čahārṭāq’ i. In pre-Islamic Iran’, in Encyclopædia Iranica IV, 6 (1990), pp. 634–38. Jaafari-Dehaghi, Mahmoud, Dādestān ī Dēnīg. Part 1: Transcription, Translation and Commentary, (Paris, 1998). Jamasp, Hoshang, Vendidad. Avesta Text with Pahlavi Translation and Commentary. Vol. I—The Texts, (Bombay, 1907). 40 All Encyclopædia Iranica articles are also online at <http://www.iranicaonline.org>. 28 CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN JamaspAsa, K. M., and Y. M. Nawabi, eds., Ms. TD2: Iranian Bundahišn & Rivāyat-i Ēmēt-i Ašawahištān. etc., part 2 (The Pahlavi Codices and Iranian Researches 55; Shiraz, 1979). Gignoux, Philippe, and Ahmad Tafazzoli, Anthologie de Zādspram, (Paris, 1993). Dehxodā, ʻAlī-Akbar, Loghat-nāme (Tehran, 1372-/1993-<http://www.loghatnaameh. org/>). Kanga, Maneck F., ‘Barsom’, in Encyclopædia Iranica, vol. III, 8 (1988), pp. 825–27. Karanjia, Ramiyar P., ‘Pādyāb’ in Encyclopædia Iranica, published online 29 June 2011 <http://www. iranicaonline.org/articles/padyab> accessed 20 June 2014. Kotwal, Firoze M. P., The Supplementary Texts to the Šāyest nē šāyest, (Copenhagen, 1969). Macuch, Maria, Das sasanidische Rechtsbuch ‘Mātakdān i Hazār Dātistān’ (Teil, II), (Wiesbaden, 1981). ——, Rechtskasuistik und Gerichtspraxis zu Beginn des siebenten Jahrhunderts in Iran: Die Rechtssammlung des Farroḫmard i Wahrāmān, (Wiesbaden, 1993). Moazami, Mahnaz, Wrestling With the Demons of the Pahlavi Widewdad: Transcription, Translation, and Commentary, (Leiden and Boston, 2014; also as e-book at <http://brillonline.com/>). Moscovitz, Leib, ‘Designation is Significant: An Analysis of the Conceptual Sugya in bSanh 47b–48b’, AJS Review 27 (2003), pp. 227–52. Secunda, Samuel (Shai) I, ‘Dashtana-Ki Derekh Nashim Liʾ: A Study of Babylonian Rabbinic Laws of Menstruation in Relation to Corresponding Zoroastrian Texts’, Ph.D. dissertation, Yeshiva University, (New York, 2007). ——, ‘The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context’, (Philadelphia, 2014). Shaki, Mansour, ‘Greece iv. Greek Influence on Persian Thought’, in Encyclopædia Iranica XI, 3 (2002), pp. 321–26. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor, ‘Zarathustra: First Poet-Sacrificer’, in Siamak Adhami, ed., Paitimāna: Essays in Iranian, Indian, and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Hanns-Peter Schmidt. vols. I–II, in one (Costa Mesa, 2003), pp. 157–94. ——, ‘Smashing Urine: On Yasna 48.10’, in Michael Stausberg, ed., Zoroastrian Rituals in Context, (Leiden and Boston, 2004), pp. 253–81. ——, ‘The Importance of Orality for the Study of Old Iranian Literature and Myth’, Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān. The International Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies 5/1&2 (2005–2006), pp. 1–23. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ & YAAKOV ELMAN 29 ——, ‘The Videvdad: Its Ritual-Mythical Significance’, in Vesta S. Curtis and Sarah Stewart, eds., The Age of the Parthians, (London and New York, 2007), pp. 105–41. ——, ‘OL’ News—ODs and Ends’, in Werner Sundermann, Almut Hintze, and François de Blois, eds., Exegisti Monumenta: Festschrift in Honour of Nicholas Sims-Williams, (Wiesbaden, 2009), pp. 479–95. ——, The Spirit of Zoroastrianism, (New Haven and London, 2011). ——, ‘The Zoroastrian Oral Tradition as Reflected in the Texts’, in Alberto Cantera, ed., The Transmission of the Avesta, (Wiesbaden, 2012), pp. 3–48. ——, ‘Abar Rōdestān ī Babēl: Jewish-Iranian Encounters in Ancient Times’, in Uri Gabbay and Shai Secunda, eds., Encounters by the Rivers of Babylon: Scholarly Conversations between Babylonians, Iranians, and Jews in Antiquity, (Tübingen, 2014), pp. 371–89. ——, ‘Philological Gleanings from the Pahlavi Videvdad’, Iran-Nāmeh 29, 2 (2014). Spiegel, Friedrich, Einleitung in die traditionellen Schriften der Parsen (Vienna, 1856). Tavadia, Jehangir C., ed., Šāyast-nē-šāyast. A Pahlavi Text on Religious Customs, (Hamburg, 1930). Vevaina, Yuhan S.-D., ‘Studies in Zoroastrian Exegesis and Hermeneutics with A Critical Edition of the Sūdgar Nask of Dēnkard Book 9’, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 2007). Williams, Allan V., The Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg, 2 vols, (Copenhagen, 1990).

Log In

CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN DOES POLLUTION NEED STAIRS, AND DOES IT FILL SPACE

CONCEPTS OF POLLUTION IN LATE SASANIAN IRAN DOES POLLUTION NEED STAIRS, AND DOES IT FILL SPACE

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS