YESHIVAT HAR ETZION 
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH PROJECT(VBM) 
************************************************************** 
 
                    TALMUDIC METHODOLOGY 
 
                    by Rav Moshe Taragin 
 
 
 
Kedushat Arei Choma 
 
	The mishna in Keilim perek 1 mishna 6 describes the ten  
levels of kedusha which inhere in our physical world.  These  
ten levels represent 10 different 'rings' all of which are  
part of Eretz Yisrael.  The concept of kedushat makom does not  
apply outside the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael - quite the  
opposite - chutz la-aretz is metameh mi-derabanan.  The climax  
of these kedushot is the kodshei ha-kodashim while the  
'lowest' level is the general kedusha of Eretz Yisrael  
manifested by the ability to bring bikkurim and shtei ha- 
lechem - mitzvot which can only be performed with produce of  
Eretz Yisrael.  The second level (in ascending order after  
Eretz Yisrael) relates to kedushat arei choma - walled cities  
within Eretz Yisrael.  This article will attempt to dissect  
the anatomy of these cities and their kedusha. 
 
	The principle manifestation of 'kedushat arei choma' is  
that metzora'im must exit these cities during the period of  
their leprosy.  Grasping the essence of kedushat arei choma  
would seem to warrant analyzing this halakha - the primary  
manifestation of these cities' kedusha - very carefully.  Of  
course, this halakha of shiluach metzora'im is reminiscent of  
another zone of kedushat Eretz Yisrael - namely Yerushalayim.   
Can we compare arei choma to Yerushalayim and thereby discover  
something of the essence of the former? 
 
	The sources for shiluach metzora'im from Yerushalayim can  
be found in two locations in the Torah.  Firstly in Vayikra  
13:46 the Torah writes "badad yeishev mi-chutz la-machaneh  
moshavo - he should remain in isolation, outside of the  
encampment should be his dwelling."  In Bamidbar 5:1-4 the  
Torah writes "ve-yishalchu min ha-machaneh kol zarua...el mi- 
chutz la-machaneh teshalchum ve-lo yitamu et  
machaneihem...(they should send a metzora outside of their  
machaneh... they should be sent out of the machaneh so that  
the machaneh is not defiled."  These pesukim inform us that  
the metzora is the most stringent form of tum'a at least vis- 
a-vis departing machanot.  During the desert encampment three  
distinct machanot were established:  machaneh kehuna which  
included the mishkan, machaneh leviya where the levi'im  
dwelled, and machaneh Yisrael which included the area of the  
general population.  Unlike other people who are tamei, the  
metzora must depart from all three machanot.  The Tosefta in  
Keilim (perek 1) as well as the gemara in Zevachim (116b) each  
determine that this 'machaneh' structure existed even in Eretz  
Yisrael with Yerushalayim serving as machaneh Yisrael.  Hence  
the chiyuv upon the metzora to depart Yerushalayim stems from  
these pesukim which instruct him to withdraw from all three  
machanot - including machaneh Yisrael - Yerushalayim.   
 
	What about batei arei choma?  What is the source for the  
halakha of shiluach metzora'im from these cities?  The Rash  
Mi-shantz, in his comments to the mishna in Keilim, groups  
this halakha with the overall halakha of Yerushalayim.   
According to the Rash evidently, these walled cities as well,  
have a din of machaneh Yisrael just like Yerushalayim and  
hence, a metzora must withdraw.  Rashi reiterates this  
position in Erchin (32b) when he maintains that the walled  
cities were granted kedusha with the very same ceremony used  
to install kedushat Yerushalayim (two korban todot, shir, Beit  
Din mehalkhin etc.  See gemara Shavuot (15a) which describes  
this process).  Interestingly enough, Rashi in Shavuot (15a)  
writes "I don't know how they were mekadesh arei choma."   
Rashi in Pesachim (67a) Dibbur Ha-matchil Lifnim, however,  
does seem to equate kedushat arei choma with that of  
Yerushalayim.   
 
	In contrast to this first position, which equates arei  
choma with Yerushalayim, the Vilnaer Gaon in his comments to  
the Tosefta in Keilim asserts that this halakha of shiluach  
metzora'im from arei choma isn't universally accepted.  This  
raises the possibility that according to some positions  
shiluach metzora'im doesn't EVEN APPLY.  Indeed, Tosafot  
themselves in Erchin wonder what the mekor for shiluach  
metzora'im from arei choma could be; evidently they are  
unwilling to deem it machaneh Yisrael.  Even if we were to  
determine that the halakha does in fact apply we might  
consider it a de-rabanan, not stemming from any specific pasuk  
in the Torah.  These positions all discriminate between  
shiluach metzora'im from Yerushalayim and from arei choma.   
 
	A second example of distinction between the two can be  
found in the Rambam.  In Hilkhot Bi'at Mikdash (3;8) the  
Rambam maintains that a metzora receives malkut only if he  
enters Yerushalayim - not if he enters arei choma.  One might  
offer the following rationale for the Rambam's position.   
There are two dimensions to shiluach metzora'im - at least  
from Yerushalayim.  The first is derived from the pasuk of  
"ve-lo yitamu et machaneihem (Bemidbar)" which is a  
prohibition of defiling machaneh Yisrael.  Only areas defined  
as machaneh Yisrael are included within this issur.  Hence,  
according to the Rambam, Yerushalayim - part of machaneh  
Yisrael - is included, while arei choma - not considered  
machaneh Yisrael - aren't included within this issur.  There  
is, however, a second dimension to shiluach metzora'im marked  
by the words "badad yeishev" in Tazria.  This commands the  
metzora to remain isolated and dwell in uninhabited areas.   
This mitzvat assei has nothing to do with the area's halakhic  
definition as machaneh Yisrael.  Rather, it instructs the  
metzora to depart all populated areas.  In fact, the Torat  
Kohanim presents a hava amina that the metzora should depart  
ANY AND EVERY CITY, dwelling instead where no one else lives.   
This hava amina is rejected but the spirit of the halakha  
remains the same - the metzora must depart all large  
population centers - which generally were walled cities (which  
for security reasons attracted larger numbers).  A metzora has  
to depart arei choma even though they aren't considered  
machaneh, to fulfill the assei of badad yeishev.  However,  
this mitzva is only an assei, not a lav, and hence a metzora  
who enters an arei choma, though he has violated an assei does  
not receive malkut.  The Tzlach in Pesachim (67a) offers a  
similar distinction to explain the position of the Rambam.   
 
SUMMARY: 
--------------- 
	In analyzing the nature of kedushat arei choma as  
manifested by shiluach metzora'im, we questioned whether it's  
similar to kedushat Yerushalayim or not.  The Rash Mi-shantz  
in Keilim and Rashi in Erchin and Pesachim equate the two by  
asserting an identical source for the halakha itself.  In  
addition, Rashi maintained that an identical process of  
conferring kedusha was employed, further convincing us of  
their similarity.  The Gaon distinguished between the two in  
suggesting that arei choma is not a unanimous halakha.  The  
Rambam himself, in applying the lav only to one who enters  
Yerushalayim, possibly contends that only Yerushalayim is  
considered machaneh and included within the lav of 've-lo  
yitamu et machaneihem'. 
 
	An additional machloket between Rashi and Tosafot which  
might revolve around this question appears in the gemara  
Berakhot (5b).  Rashi explains that shiluach metzora'im  
applies even when the laws of yovel no longer apply.  Tosafot,  
by contrast, claim that these laws cannot apply in a period  
when yovel doesn't.  According to Rashi that kedushat arei  
choma is identical to that of Yerushalayim there is no reason  
to condition its kedusha upon the applicability of yovel.   
According to Tosafot, however, that kedushat arei choma is  
independent, it might reflect the overall status of kedushat  
Eretz Yisrael (an intensification of kedushat Eretz Yisrael)  
which itself might be contingent upon yovel.   
 
	Similar sentiments - that kedushat arei choma isn't  
comparable to kedushat Yerushalayim and hence may be  
contingent upon additional factors - appear in Tosafot Ketubot  
(45b) who maintain that if the majority of the population are  
Gentile, the ir choma losses it kedusha.  Obviously, this  
halakha doesn't apply to Yerushalayim, and its applicability  
with regard to arei choma might highlight the differences.   
Since kedushat arei choma stems form an intensification of  
kedushat Eretz Yisrael, possibly the demographics of the city  
would influence its halakhic status.   
 
METHODOLOGICAL POINTS: 
--------------------------------------- 
1.  As in the past, first question whether a halakha is based  
upon conventional models or is novel and unprecedented.  In  
this case we attempted to discern whether kedushat arei choma  
is based upon the conventional model of kedushat Yerushalayim,  
or represents a new halakha.   
 
2.  Inspecting the source of the halakha and comparing it to  
the source for the conventional one, helps illuminate their  
relationship, if any. 
 
3.  Similarly, examining the scope and application of the  
halakha also helps determine its nature.   
 
 
AFTERWORD: 
------------------ 
1.  In terms of the process of installing kedusha to arei  
choma and the longevity of this kedusha see mishna la-melekh  
Hilkhot Shemitta perek 12 and Turei Even Megilla (10a). 
2.  For a complete elaboration of kedushat arei choma see "Ir  
Ha-mikdash ve-kodoshav" by Rav Yechiel Tokshinsky, Part I  
chapters 3 and 4. 
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
VISIT OUR WEB SITE: HTTP://WWW.vbm-torah.org 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ 
 
To subscribe send e-mail to: majordomo@etzion.org.il: subject:(leave  
blank or type word 'subscription'), on first line of text  
type: subscribe YHE-METHO  . 
 
************************************************************** 
To participate in a weekly discussion group on this shiur  
moderated by the instructor, please subscribe to YHE-METH.D as  
described above.  For direct questions or comments to Rav  
Moshe Taragin, please send email to MT@VIRTUAL.CO.IL . 
************************************************************** 
 
Copyright (c) 1996 Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved. 
 
************************************************************** 
 
SHIURIM MAY BE DEDICATED TO VARIOUS OCCASIONS - YAHRZEITS, 
SEMACHOT, BIRTHDAYS, ETC.  PLEASE E-MAIL YHE@JER1.CO.IL FOR AN 
APPLICATION. 
 
 
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION 
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKYVIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH 
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433 
E-MAIL: office@etzion.org.il or OFFICE@ETZION.ORG.IL 
 
 
 

Visit

the Virtual Beit Midrash

What's New?VBM CoursesArchives Web Links
Subscribe Contact Us Yeshivat Har Etzion

© Virtual Jerusalem, Ltd., 1995-1996. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Send questions and comments to webmaster@virtual.co.il