Parsha Partner

View/Print the PDF Version of this Parsha Partner

 View/Print a Text Version of this Page

Parsha Perspectives

by OZER ALPORT

וראה הכהן את הנגע בעור הבשר ושער בנגע הפך לבן ומראה הנגע עמק מעור בשרו נגע צרעת הוא וראהו הכהן וטמא אתו

“The Kohen shall look at the affliction on the skin of his flesh. If hair in the affliction has changed to white, and the affliction’s appearance is deeper than the skin of the flesh, it is a tzara’as affliction; the Kohen shall look at it and declare him contaminated.” (Leviticus 13:3)

It is interesting to note that all “impurities” in the Torah take effect immediately upon contact with the impure item (e.g. a dead body, an impure person). On the other hand, the determination of the status of tzara’as (a spiritual blemish with physical symptoms appearing on the skin, often mistranslated as “leprosy”) isn’t dependent on the onset of the skin affliction or even upon the evaluation of the Kohen (Priest), but upon the Kohen who verbally proclaims, “Tamei,” – impure – which causes the commencement of the impurity. Why is this type of impurity determined in this unique manner?

The following story can shed light on this question. One day in Jerusalem, two old friends encountered one another on the bus. Excited at the opportunity to catch up with one another, they sat down together and began talking. In the middle of their conversation, one of them casually mentioned the name of an old friend. The other replied, “You didn’t hear? She just got engaged last week to so-and-so!”

Hearing this news left her friend both elated and shocked. “That’s so wonderful that she finally got engaged, but to him!? Who would have ever thought that she would settle for a person with so many problems?” Taking the bait, the one who had shared the news agreed and proceeded to list problems not only with the boy, but also with his family’s reputation. The conversation went back-and-forth, with each of them heaping more and more question-marks on the match.

After five minutes, a woman who was sitting behind them noticed her stop approaching and started to get up. Turning to the two young gossipers, she remarked, “I know you didn’t realize this, but I’m the aunt of the girl you’ve been discussing. We obviously didn’t know about these serious allegations against the boy and his family. As soon as I get home, I’m going to call my niece to convince her to break the engagement.”

Aghast at the unexpected turn of events, the friends begged her not to do so. They explained, “We were just innocently chatting about recent events. We didn’t mean many of the things we said, and most of them were exaggerated. Please don’t break-up this match because of our poor judgment.”

As the bus reached her stop, the wise woman paused before exiting and taught them an invaluable lesson. “You have nothing to worry about. I’m not really her aunt … but I could have been!”

Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, known as the Chofetz Chaim, answers our original question by explaining that one of the primary causes of tzara’as is the speaking of lashon hara – disparaging speech. Measure-for-measure, the status of its impurity is dependent upon the speech of the Kohen who rules upon it. Many times a gossiper justifies his actions by claiming that mere words can’t harm another person. Therefore, just as the two friends learned on the bus, we hint to him how much damage a person’s words can cause by showing him that his status hinges upon the verbal proclamation of the Kohen.

Return to top

Parsha Talking Points

1. A MATTER OF SURVIVAL

“On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” 12:3

The Eighth Day – “Why must we wait until the eighth day to circumcise the child? ‘[This demonstrates] how great Shabbat is that an infant may not be circumcised until he has lived through a Shabbat.’” – Mechiltah, Shmot

Lived Through Shabbat – Before infusing the child with the sanctity of the Brit Milah, the child must first undergo a Shabbat encounter, only after which point is he spiritually equipped to be circumcised.

Lived Through Shabbat – Before undergoing circumcision, a child must be healthy and vigorous. This vigor is acquired only on Shabbat, similar to the universe which did not achieve stability and permanence until Shabbat was created. – Or HaChaim (Rabbi Chaim Ibn Atar)

Circumcision is similar to a Korbon [temple-offering] in that both of them beget atonement for the Jewish people. Just as a korbon does not atone unless the animal is at least eight days old [VaYikra 22:27], so too, circumcision cannot atone unless the infant is at least eight days old. Just as those who merit atonement through the korbon partake of a meal, so too, the Brit Milah is accompanied by a festive meal. – Rabbeinu Bachya

The Eighth Day - This verse essentially repeats that which is already stated, “At the age of eight days every male among you must be circumcised, throughout your generations…” [Bereishis 17:12]? This teaches us that the circumcision must be performed on the eighth day even if it occurs on Shabbat. – Chizkuni – See Talmud, Shabbat [132a] that derives this from the extra word, “U’Bayom” [On the day].

This verse contains a total of five words, similar to the verse [Bereishis 2:1] that introduces the very concept of Shabbat. This is an allusion to the fact that circumcision overrides the Shabbat. – Baal HaTurim (RabbiYa’akov ben Asher, 1270-ca 1340)

Just as the universe depends upon Shabbat for its survival, the Jewish people depend upon Brit Milah for theirs. This explains, in part, why Brit Milah overrides the sanctity of Shabbat, similar to all instances in which we must violate the Shabbat when it concerns a matter of life and death. So vital is Brit Milah for the spiritual survival of the Jewish people, that it must be performed on Shabbat although it entails a violation of Shabbat.

2. CANNIBALISM IN THE TORAH

“When a person will have in the skin of his flesh a spot of intense whiteness …he shall be brought before Aharon the Kohen, or to one of his sons the Kohanim.” 13:2

In The Skin…A Spot – “Rabbi Yosi ben Zimrah said, ‘Negaim [skin afflictions] afflict one who speaks Lashon Harrah [slander].’” – Talmud, Eiruchin 15b

It is interesting to note that this parshah almost immediately follows the parshah that discusses kosher and non-kosher animals. Rabbi Yisroel Salanter zt”l explained this arrangement as a rebuke against those who are exceedingly particular about which animals they consume, but give nary a thought to the people they “consume” with their slanderous chatter. An animal, prior to it’s consumption must be slaughtered in meticulous fashion, whereas people can be “eaten alive” through libelous and defamatory speech. By juxtaposing the two Torah portions, the Torah is telling us that just as we must be careful not to eat an animal unless it meets specific criteria, we must exercise similar caution before consuming someone with our speech.

3. GRAVE DWELLERS

“And the person with Tzaraat (leprosy caused by speaking lashon hara) in whom there is the affliction…All the days that the affliction is upon him he shall remain contaminated…he shall dwell in isolation – his dwelling shall be outside the camp.” 13:45,46

His Dwelling Shall Be In Isolation – Why is a metzorah (person afflicted with tzaraat) singled out to live in isolation for the duration of his affliction? This is the Torah’s way of underscoring the enormity of his crime of Lashon Hara (evil speech) which caused his victims to be shunned by others. In this manner, he is made aware of the dreadful consequences of his actions which he casually dismissed as “just a few words” and refused to consider their devastation effects. – Rashi

“There are four types of people who are considered as dead…a metzorah…” – Talmud, Nedarim 64b

It is commonly believed that the comparison of a metzorah to a dead person is in recognition of the difficulty entailed in removing the contamination and the terrible shame it causes the afflicted. The reality, however, is that the difficulty notwithstanding, it still does not compare to death: a far worse fate. Indeed, Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt”l, explained that the comparison hinges upon the metzorah’s obligation to dwell in isolation: a fate as miserable as death itself. One who lives alone, without friends, and without the ability to reach out to others to offer and receive solace, is as one who is dead, so lacking is he in the essentials of life itself!

Return to top

Partner Talk

“MATCHMAKER, MATCHMAKER, MAKE ME A MATCH!”

by RABBI ELAZAR MEISELS

Dear Rabbi,

I am fascinated by the whole idea of a matchmaker in Jewish tradition and wish you could provide some information to me on the origins of this practice. Is it ancient in nature or a more recent phenomenon? Who would commonly hold this position and is it right to expect payment for rendering these services?

Jenny L.

Jenny,

Thank you for your question. The concept of matchmaking is well known, but largely misunderstood, thanks to highly misleading portrayals of traditional Shadchanim [matchmakers] in films like “Fiddler On The Roof” and others. While occasionally the town yenta confused herself with the shadchan, by and large, it was a highly esteemed occupation throughout the centuries. Oftentimes, rabbis who traditionally did not receive payment for their services, would serve as matchmakers in an effort to earn an honorable livelihood. Suggesting and overseeing a match requires much skills and tact and is best accomplished by respectable and sensitive individual.

The Midrash [VaYikra Rabba, 8:1] records a conversation between Rabbi Yosi and a prominent Roman matron, who inquired how Hashem spends his days since having concluded creating the world. Rabbi Yosi responded, “He has been occupied with pairing couples.” The matron expressed dismay at the fact that Hashem would engage in such a mundane occupation and insisted that she too, could do an equally satisfactory job of matching couples. She promptly took 1,000 male servants, randomly assigned them to 1,000 female servants, and informed them that they were now married to one another. By the next morning, she was besieged with complaints from servants who were bruised and battered after a disastrous first evening spent with their new spouse. The matron promptly sent for Rabbi Yosi and conceded, “Rabbi – your Torah is true indeed!”

The Talmud [Niddah 31b,] explains the societal custom that the man would travel to find a woman as an outgrowth of the fact that he “lost” a part of himself when Eve was taken from Adam. “One who loses an item, must be the one to pursue it,” says the Talmud. Drawing on this analogy, the commentaries have suggested that the one who introduces a couple to one another, has not only assisted them in fulfilling their obligation to marry and build a family, but he has also fulfilled the mitzvah of Hashovas Aveidah [returning a lost item].

In Tractate Shabbos [150a], the Talmud assures us that although mundane matters may not be discussed on Shabbos to preserve the sanctity of the day, conversations relating to Shidduchim [matchmaking] are perfectly permissible to conduct as they are considered sacred matters. This idea has been immortalized in a well known Shabbos zemer [song] entitled “Mah Yedidus.”

The use of a Shadchan and the involvement of the parents also contributed to the stability of traditional marriages. In considering the match, they tended to focus on the important aspects, not just the trivial ones that youngsters are prone to concentrating on. Additionally, the Shadchan could be called upon to assist by conducting and smoothing over the financial negotiations between the two families. This eliminated much of the personal animosity that is common in the entire dating process.

Payment for suggesting a match is generally expected, and there is a considerable amount of discussion in the halachic responsa regarding this point. Questions such as how to compensate two people who suggested the match, or a situation in which one person suggested the match, but another person did most of the negotiating, are dealt with in great detail.

Interestingly, Rabbenu Nissim of Gerona [Ra”n Tractate Shabbos 12a], posits that the word “Shidduch” is rooted in the word “Menuchah,” which means peace and tranquility. He bases this on the Targum Yonasan’s [Shoftim 3:11] rendering of the word “VaTishkot” – and (the land)was peaceful, as “V’Shidduchis.” Teshuvos HaGeonim [Siman 425] suggests that it stems from the word “Shadachi,” which refers to long stems that shoot forth and intertwine with one another. The word “Shidduch” then, means to knot or tie together.

May we hear of many happy matches and successful marriages!

Rabbi Meisels

Return to top

Soul Talk

We learn that one who wishes to come closer to Hashem must first abandon the evil of his ways and only then pursue positive action. This is based on the verse: סור מרע ועשה טוב, “Turn from evil and [then] do good” (Psalms 34:15). There are times, however, when this order must be reversed, as Rabbi Yoseph Ber Soloveitchik (known as the “Beis HaLevi”) explains in the introduction to his work on the Torah. He bases this on a Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Hoshea §529) that states: “One who is too embarrassed to repent should trade in his sins for good deeds, and then repent. This is akin to one who brings faulty coins (i.e., coins that are old and worn, which many people will not accept) to a money-changer; for a small fee, he can trade them in for good coins.”

Beis HaLevi explains: It is known that the Torah and mitzvot of a sinner are not accepted with favor in Heaven. It is therefore imperative that a sinner first abandon his sinful actions before pursuing actions of Torah and mitzvot; any effort at these seems to be entirely wasted. After he repents, he can then concentrate on doing good deeds, which will then be accepted by Hashem and accrue toward his merits in Heaven. However, there are times when a person, for whatever reason, cannot bring himself to repent right away. Should he then avoid all mitzvot due to their deficiency, in that they are mitzvot of a sinner? Is such effort really entirely futile?

The above Midrash teaches us that this is not the case. Just as one can exchange deficient coins for valid ones upon paying a small fee, so can the “deficient” mitzvot of a sinner later be transformed into proper mitzvot that can be accepted by Hashem. When a sinner repents completely from his sins, it is considered by Heaven as if he had never sinned — such is the power of true repentance. The mitzvot that he had performed are thus considered as if they had been performed by one free of any taint. The very same mitzvot, which before his repentance were deficient and not accepted, can now ascend and be accepted as the perfect and meritorious deeds of a righteous man.

The Midrash therefore advises one who has not yet repented: Pursue good deeds even now, while you are striving to repent. These actions, while now not up to par, can later be “traded in” for perfect merits if you add a “small fee” — repentance. If, however, you refrain from pursuing any mitzvot, then after repentance, while you will not have any sins, you will also not have any merits to speak of.

This is the concept expressed by the prophet Hoshea: תשא עון וקח כל טוב, Forgive every sin and accept goodness (Hoshea 14:3). Once all the sins are forgiven, then Hashem will retroactively accept all the good actions performed before the repentance.

With permission from Artscroll’s Daily Dose

Return to top

Table Talk

FOR DISCUSSION AROUND THE SHABBAT TABLE

א) Why would giving birth to a child, usually thought of as a beautiful and incomparable act of bringing new life into the world, render a mother ritually impure (12:1-5)? (Mishmeres Ariel by Rabbi Shmaryahu Arieli)

ב) If a person is afflicted with tzara’as (a spiritual blemish with physical symptoms appearing on the skin, often mistranslated as “leprosy”) on his entire body, from his head to his feet, this would seem to indicate that he has sinned terribly. Why would the Torah rule (13:12-13) that such an individual is pure and need not go through any process of healing or repentance? (Rabbi Reuven Zelig Bengis quoted in Peninim MiShulchan Gevoha)

Return to top

Hey I Never Knew That

Amazing Insights About the Weekly Parsha

by OZER ALPORT

1) Q: The Torah discusses the laws regarding an “Adam” (person) who has tzara’as on his skin (13:2). The Holy Zohar teaches that of the many Hebrew words used to describe a person, the word אדם (Adam) is used to connote a respected individual. Why is a person who has sinned and brought tzara’as on himself referred to with an expression signifying importance?

A: Rabbi Nissan Alpert explains that a person isn’t measured by his mistakes. All people are human and are prone to err from time to time. Rather, a person’s worth is measured by whether he learns from his mistakes. A Torah scholar who is content with the level he has reached and has no ambitions to continue improving himself can hardly be said to be a great person. On the other hand, a person who works to grow so as not to repeat his sins is certainly to be respected. In our case, although the person was stricken with tzara’as, if he comes to a Kohen (Priest) to understand what he did wrong and to learn how to correct his ways, the Torah teaches us that such a person is extremely important and deserving of our respect!

2) Q: Parshas Shemini concludes with a verse which discusses differentiating between pure (kosher) and impure (non-kosher) animals. Parshas Tazria begins by discussing the laws of a woman who gives birth to a male child. What is the connection between these two topics?

A: When he was six years old, the Vilna Gaon (Rabbi Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman) was asked this question. He immediately walked to the bookshelf, brought the Talmud tractate Yoma to the table, and proceeded to open to folio 82a.

The Talmud there discusses an episode in which two women were pregnant on Yom Kippur. Both smelled a pungent aroma which caused them to be seized with an overwhelming need to eat immediately. The Sages suggested that somebody whisper in the ear of each woman a reminder that it was Yom Kippur. One woman was able to regain her senses and successfully completed the fast, while the other continued to demand food. Because it was a question of saving her life, she was permitted to eat. The Talmud concludes that the first woman gave birth to the righteous Rabbi Yochanan, while the second woman gave birth to the wicked Shabsai Otzar Peiri, who used to hoard fruits to drive up the prices, thereby causing untold suffering to the poor.

The Vilna Gaon suggested that the juxtaposition may be read as hinting to this episode. Our parsha ends by teaching that a separation between the pure and the impure will be caused by the difference between the pregnant woman (often referred to in the Talmud as חיה -whose root meaning is life) who eats (on Yom Kippur) and the one who doesn’t, and Parshas Tazria begins by clarifying that the difference in purity will be manifested in the sons they will bear!

Return to top

Parsha Summary

Parsha Summaries are coming soon!