Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

Among the various manifestations of "tzara'at" outlined in Parashat Tazria is "tzara'at noshenet," or "old tzara'at." The skin becomes infected in the same manner as it does through standard tzara'at, only that a scab has begun forming within the infection. The Torah declares such an infection as tzara'at that had infected the skin earlier, thus accounting for the scab.

Interestingly, Rav Moshe Feinstein derives an important lesson from this form of tzara'at. Upon seeing the growth of fresh, healthy skin, the individual is led to believe that the infection does not constitute tzara'at. After all, the area has already begun healing. The Torah tells us otherwise - so long as the infection has not completely healed, it cannot be dismissed; the individual is a metzora. This tzora'at symbolizing a situation in which we find "bright spots" within our faults. We probe our personalities and find many uncomplimentary qualities, but we are sometimes tempted to excuse these deficiencies as soon as we can identify some mitigating factor, justification, or perhaps even a positive byproduct of these shortcomings. The Torah teaches us that an infection remains an infection even when it is accompanied by some healthy skin. Faults are still faults, even if we can find some good associated therewith. We must therefore work on ourselves until the dim elements of our personalities brighten entirely, and never stop halfway.

[Prepared by David Silverberg.]

Commenting on 12:8, Rashi notes that despite the verse's initial implication to the contrary, sin-offerings ("chatat") always take precedence over burnt-offerings ("ola"). In other words, whenever someone brings both an "ola" and "chatat" together, the officiating kohen first tends to the "chatat," and only then to the "ola." What is the underlying significance of this halakha?

Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin suggests that we take a closer look at what these two sacrifices represent. One brings a "chatat" after inadvertently violating a severe Torah prohibition. An "ola," by contrast, does not relate to a transgression. The Torah provides no specific circumstances that warrant the offering of an "ola," but Chazal teach us that one brings an "ola" for the inadvertent neglect of a mitzvat asei - a positive commandment - rather than for an actual transgression.

Rav Zevin develops this distinction a bit further. The "chatat," which comes to atone for a severe violation, signifies the individual's quest to avoid wrongdoing, to rise above the human tendency to sin. The "ola," however, symbolizes the individual's drive to achieve greatness, not just to ensure the avoidance of sin. The Torah tells us that the "chatat" must always precede the "ola." Before one actively involves himself in religious activity, he must first cleanse himself from his inappropriate qualities and conduct.

Performing mitzvot is a privilege. One must earn the right to serve his Creator by first disciplining himself to obey the Torah strictures, and only then may he proceed to engage in mitzvot.

Additionally, we may add, one must never stop after offering the "chatat." It is certainly admirable to avoid wrongdoing, but this is not enough. Beyond the abstention from bad, one must pursue good, consistently striving for greater achievement in Torah knowledge and performance of good deeds.

[Prepared by David Silverberg.]

Parashat Tazria commences with several post-birth ordinances. Included is the mitzva of Brit Mila,

The Talmud learns from this that circumcision is performed on the eighth day even on Shabbat, which involves activities that are normally prohibited. The Tanaaim argue in the mishna (Shabbat 130a) whether ancillary activities can also be performed, such as carrying the knife in the public domain (R. Eliezer) or only activities that could not possibly have been done before Shabbat, namely the Mila itself (R. Akiva). The halakha follows Rebbi Akiva (Shulchan Arukh Orach Chaim 331:6)

Would more activities be permissible if performed by a non-Jew? Perhaps the non-Jew could enable us to perform the mitzva by doing ancillary activities that are prohibited to Jews. Normally, to instruct a non-Jew to violate Shabbat involves violating Rabbinic prohibition against the instructing Jew. The Talmud (Eruvin 67b) relates a case where a non-Jew was instructed to carry a Mila accessory in a Rabbinically prohibited area. What can we learn from this case? In fact the Rishonim have four basic approaches regarding instructing a non-Jew to violate the Shabbat in order to enable performance of a mitzva.

1. Ramban (Nachmanides) - the case in the Eruvin is limiting and we only learn for itself. Only a Rabbinic prohibition is permitted to instruct a non-Jew and only for Mila. That since Mila has a general allowance in that it is performed on Shabbat.

2. Baal Halakhot Gedolot (BeHaG) - permits to instruct a non-Jew only for Mila, but also for violation of what is Biblically prohibited for a Jew.

3. Rambam (Maimonides) - That one can instruct a non-Jew to perform what would be a Rabbinical Shabbat prohibition in the case of nearly any mitzva. The principle for this is that instructing the non-Jew is of Rabbinic nature, so in this case there is a prohibition which is double Rabbinic and in the case of a mitzva we are lenient.

4. Baal HaIttur - That in all cases of a mitzva one can instruct a non-Jew to violate a Biblical Shabbat prohibition.

The basic halakhic decision is found in the Shulchan Arukh Orach Chaim 307:5. R. Yosef Karo (Tzfat - 16th century) decides like the Rambam - that for nearly any mitzva it is permissible to ask a non-Jew to violate what would be a Rabbinic prohibition for a Jew. R. Moshe Isserles (Rema - Cracow 16th Century) states that there are those who are lenient even with a Biblical prohibition, like the Baal HaIttur. The Mishna Brurah (Chofetz Chaim - Poland d. 1933) states that this is a solitary opinion and one should be more stringent like the Rambam. With regards to actual practice, one should consult a competent Rabbi.

We have seen how a seemingly simple pasuk can teach us an important law and how the Sages through the centuries with this law tried to apply principles to a seemingly unrelated law, a law that could have an important effect on relevant practice. In other words, the halakha is a living organism, where the different, apparently unrelated parts and limbs affect each other.

[Prepared by Larry Goldsmith]

Heaven Knockin' on our Doors

The topics of this weeks parasha, tzara'at and zav, lies unique as the only identifiable spiritual diseases. The nature of these diseases, since they have no physical basis, lies beyond the scope of medical intervention. However, based upon the verses dealing with these illnesses, and what Chazal have to say about them, we can construct a workable and meaningful definition of what tzara'at may be.

At the end of this week's parasha, a person afflicted with tzara'at is called an "Ish Tzaru'a"- a tzara'at afflicted man. Here, the disease defines the person. To illustrate, this would be similar to a Mashgiach telling an easily distracted student "True, everybody wastes time, but you are a time- waster." In fact, the fifteenth chapter of Tanya profoundly describes the plight of one who serves God by making a very similar distinction between a "servant" and "one who is presently serving" (the latter being more desirable because of the struggle- Ayen Sham). The usage of the word "Metzora" occurs precisely when he is on the verge of regaining purity. In contrast, when the Torah first speaks of tzara'at it's "Adam ki yihiyeh..." Every other time it uses "Ish" or "Isha." Chazal tell us that the Torah reserves the word "Adam" for people of stature. Jews, and no other nation, warrant being called "Adam." The Alei Shor explains that this word encapsulates the dual nature of man- it compares to both the word "adama"- earth, dirt, and "adameh"- I will emulate [God]. The true Adam recognizes this dual nature. If the Torah introduces tzara'at with this term, then it must be telling us that only people of stature- this will sound funny- can become worthy of tzara'at. And then the tzara'at becomes so much a part of the person that they are called "Metzora!" He is entirely identified with his disease. What a downfall! - and yet, the Torah tells us that this is the final stage before purity - and necessarily so.

The Ramban (Hilkhot Tum'at Tzara'at 16:10 and Moreh Nevuchim 3:37) explains that tzara'at sends us a message from God. First He sends it to our houses, and tzara'at afflicts them. Then our furniture, then our clothes, then our bodies - until we finally get the message. Quite possibly, the different manifestations of tzara'at combat different levels of problem, ranging from the external to the more internal. It seems that this structure could be paralleling another saying of Chazal - that when a person sins once he feels guilt; by the second time, it becomes permissible; by the third time, it becomes a mitzva. The more internal the reason for the tzara'at, the closer to home it must hit (no pun intended). The paradigm of all reasons for tzara'at is lashon ha-ra- corruption of the power of speech. Chazal tell us that the power of speech is the meeting point between the physical and spiritual nature of man. The spiritual intellect clothes itself in words and expressed in physical form. Lashon ha-ra shows that there is a corruption in the relationship between the physical and spiritual components of man. Tzara'at restores the proper balance; the greater the imbalance, the stronger the tzara'at. Interestingly, the word which best identifies man's nature as a dual creature is "Adam."

Billy Joel sang "Only the good die young." If this hypothesis were to prove correct, it would be quite perplexing. Since no statistics regarding this issue exist, we can only try to come up with an idea of why this may contain a kernel of truth. Perhaps the only people that God goes out of his way to punish have achieved a level worthy of being punished. How many times have each and every one of us performed acts which warrant corporal or capital punishment according to Jewish law? Why don't we get tzara'at when we slander? This may offer little comfort to those who have experienced it, but whenever tragedy strikes, and whenever a person meets an untimely death, God proclaims that this person was worthy of His intervention. Yesurei Ahava (tribulations imposed out of love) have occupied a prominent place in our national history. Yes, God still sends the messages; we just don't have the ears to listen to them. The Chofetz Chaim lamented this situation in his work Shemirat Ha-lashon- would we only be able to return to the days when we had tzara'at.

One of the most famous sayings of Chazal on this weeks parasha maintains that when the Israelites entered Canaan, God struck their newly conquered houses with tzara'at in order to show where the previous inhabitants had hidden their treasure. Tzara'at becomes a reward; we only have to dig a little bit to find it. Perhaps then tzara'at of the flesh carries the same characteristics- it is truly a reward and there is a much more significant treasure buried within it.

The text dealing with tzara'at of the house places God at the center of events. He is the afflictor. This is no the case in reference to the tzara'at of the flesh. God plays a seemingly passive role. Similarly, the home- afflicted person goes to the Kohen for guidance about tzara'at, he takes an active role. The Metzora, whose body is afflicted, is brought to the Kohen. The house afflicted person is immediately aware that this is from God and can rectify the situation rather painlessly and by himself. He barely has to dig to find his treasure. The Metzora has a bigger and subtler problem. Remember, he had been an Adam- a true man of stature, yet he does not recognize that his "Adamhood" has broken down. He does not realize God's role in his affliction until he spends a week outside of society. He must transform himself into a Metzora, which entails becoming aware of the rupture between his physical and spiritual nature and absence of God in his life (interestingly, this is what the prophet Ma'lachi bemoans in next week's haftara). Moreover, he must identify with it to the extent that he becomes defined by it. In order to fix this truly deep-rooted problem he must take the fall from Adam to Metzora, and then he is brought to the Kohen. This parallels Chazal's remark that when a person feels that he is in the grasp of the evil inclination, he should drag it to the house of Torah. This seems not to be an act of cognition, rather of sheer will to momentarily overpower to strengthening urges. His legs must carry him to the Beit Midrash. Furthermore, one must be aware of the problem in order to act upon it. The Metzora has become aware, and is thus compelled by his awareness to go before the Kohen as a natural reaction to his condition.

Once the Metzora has reached his desperate state after a lonely week of introspection, he can begin his climb back to Adamhood. The first step is attachment to a spiritual guide- the Kohain. The Kohen prepares a series of sacrifices through which the Metzora becomes pure- and his spiritual balance restored. First the Metzora must take two birds, sacrifice one, and free the other. This symbolizes the coexistence of submission on one hand, and independence on the other, a basic prerequisite for true Adamhood. The Kohen then takes a rod of cedar wrapped in hyssop and bound with red wool, and uses it to sprinkle the blood of the sacrificed bird onto the Metzora. Rashi points out that hyssop is a lowly plant and that the Hebrew word for red wool- Tola'at- also means worm, a lowly creature. This reminds the Metzora that his origin is adama, and that he is lowly. However, the tall, mighty cedar plays a role as well. Hyssop and cedar must balance each other out. The cedar must stand tall and mighty - so must Adam. But Adam must also recognize his lowliness, his fragility - like the hyssop.

[Prepared by Elli Fischer]

Rashi comments on this verse quoting the gemara in Zevachim stating that the Torah places the two sacrifices in the reverse order i.e. in practice the "chatat" precedes the "ola."

The Nachalat Eliezer provides an insightful parallel regarding human growth and these korbanot: the "chatat" represents the approach to the final goal which is fraught with difficulties and failings and consists of the gradual escalation from level to level. The "ola" however, represents our ultimate aspirations as humans, the final level of "shleimut" (completeness).

In personal growth one must begin with the stage of "tzur me-rah" (detachment from evil) and then progress onto the level of "aseh tov" (performing goodness) and since the "chatat" comes to correct our sins this forms part of "tzur me-rah" therefore, it naturally should precede the "aseh tov."

The flow in this approach is that human nature tends to settle with less than the best in relation to spiritual growth and could possibly be comfortable with the basics of "tzur me-rah" not strive for completeness (i.e. aseh tov). Therefore, the "ola" has to be placed first in order for one to strive for perfection through the process of "tzur me-rah" always have and eye on the ultimate goal.

[Prepared by Jarred Myers]

If one were to ask someone born in this century, "what is the most powerful expression of freedom?", most often the answer would probably be speech. Freedom of speech is the battle cry of the revolutionary. It is the cry of the revolutionary, the person seeking to overthrow evil, as well as the individual stating an opinion. Indeed, in Jewish tradition the power of speech is seen as the fullest expreof humanity. Translating the phrase,"a living spirit", which God gave to Adam, Onkeles (2^nd century) renders the translation, "the spirit of speech". Likewise, Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, in the Kuzari, notes that it is speech that separates humans from animals.

Speech is the tool that humans have to express thoughts, feelings, and moods. It is our method of interacting with the other and therefore enabling us to forge relationships with others. Our Torah portion discusses the plight of the metzorah, a unique form of leprosy. The rabbis have asserted that one who speaks Lashon Hora, gossip, slander, etc., is afflicted with this leprosy. The Torah describes how this person must sit alone, outside of the camp. Furthermore, this person must declare aloud "Tameh" (impure). For the abuse of speech, the power which makes us human and allows us to forge a relationship and community, the transgressor is banished from the community, disallowed from forging human contact. Likewise, they must learn to express themselves, anew. By declaring "impure" they are using speech appropriately: they are expressing their status, their essence to others. This process is indeed remedial for the abuses of speech.

As Pesach approaches and we begin to ponder the meaning of freedom, let us remember that one meaning of freedom is the expression of each being unfettered by the demands of others. This must begin with the essence of man, speech . As Rav Matis Weinberg notes, when the Jews left Egypt, one of the first steps was "Pi Hattirot" which can be translated as the mouth of freedom. As the Jews left Egypt, they needed to learn how to assert freedom, one of the ways must be through speech.

From the parasha and the holiday of Pesach, we should take to heart the meaning of freedom and the power of the human to express it. We can do so negatively to destroy relationships or even a community. We can also do so positively to build and construct ourselves and those around us.

[Prepared by Aytan Kadden.]

Why do we wait twice the amount for a girl?

In this week's parasha we begin with the laws of the sacrifice brought by a woman who has given birth. This is only brought after the mother completes a process of spiritual purification, including a period of separation from her husband, begun straight after birth. This process is twice as long if her child is a girl. What do we learn from this?

The answer in the Talmud (Nida 31b) is as follows: In the throes of the pain of childbirth, the mother promises herself that she will never go near her husband again. He is the cause of her becoming pregnant and of all this pain that she is going through. After the birth this feeling remains and it is only after two weeks of separation that she is ready to go near her husband again. Unless, that is, the child is a boy. Then everyone around her is so happy that it only takes her a week to be reconciled to her husband. This is also why the circumcision is delayed until the eighth day, so that it should not be that everyone is happy at the circumcision except the parents.

What if her community only values girls or has no preference for boys? What if her feelings for her husband remain the same despite the pain of childbirth? What if she takes longer to get over it? There are two ways to answer these questions:

The first way is to solve the problems posed. We are talking about the standard case. It is necessary to generalize when making one law for all generations of the Jewish people. This is especially the case here, where there is no practical way to measure the wife's feelings. As for the extra happiness for boys, even if we are talking of a society where boys and girls are equal, the baby boy still has the mitzvah of circumcision, a joyous mitzvah that the girl does not have.

The second way is to undermine the assumption behind the questions. The Sage in the Talmud is not explaining why G-d made the law as it is – far be it from us to do that! Rather, the Sage is giving us his insights into how we can see the good effects of G-d's law. We can see that these laws bring a husband and wife back together after the birth of a baby. Only when they are back together will G-d have them circumcise their son. This parallels the saying of the Sages that when a husband and wife live peacefully together, the Divine Presence dwells in their home. G-d wants us to live peacefully with our spouses and if we do, He wants to live with us!

The time of childbirth is a time of crisis. Out of great pain on the part of the mother comes a great joy for both parents, a baby. G-d's first priority after the birth is not that this child should enter His covenant. If it is a boy, the covenant of circumcision can wait. G-d's first priority is that the couple should learn to live together in harmony. And if it is G-d's first priority, it should be ours too!

[Prepared by Samuel Jackman]

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning partof your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

(c) YeshivHar Etzion1997 All rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion

Yeshivat Har Et
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il