The leper begins the purification process by collecting cedar wood, scarlet and hyssop, and two birds. The first bird is slaughtered and the blood is collected in an earthen vessel filled with water. The Kohen proceeds to dip the other bird and the branches into the earthen vessel and the living bird is then set free. The freeing of the bird is strikingly similar to the Yom Kippur service. On Yom Kippur, two goats were selected in the mishkan. One goat was slaughtered and the other was sent into the wilderness as an offering to Azazel. It was this ritual that atoned for the sins of the Children of Israel. The leper thus mimics the Yom Kippur ritual as an act of identification with the entire nation of Israel.
After setting the living bird free, the leper washes his clothes, shaves off all of his body hair, washes his body, enters the camp of Israel, and sits for seven days outside his tent. The shaving of the leper's body hair is reminiscent of a similar ritual performed during the initial purification rites of the Levites (see Bamidbar 8:7.) While the Levites were being consecrated for service in the mishkan, they too were required to shave their body hair. By imitating this Levite ritual, the leper further identifies with another segment of his community, namely the Levites--or put in broader terms, the leper is made aware of the tribal distinctions within Israel. Where at first the leper symbolically rejoined the entire nation, he now symbolically affirms the tribal differentiation that characterizes Israel's social matrix. Now the leper, after asserting his national identity, accepts the social and cultural variation that is part and parcel of every community.
On the seventh day of the leper's purification process, he again shaves his body hair and washes his body. On the eighth day, the leper brings of series of sacrifices and the blood of one of the sacrifices is placed on the leper's right ear lobe, right hand thumb and on the big toe of his right foot. Following this, oil is placed on the leper's head, as well as on the right ear lobe, right hand thumb, and the big toe of the right foot. This ritual is remarkably similar to the consecration rituals of the Kohanim (see Vayikra 8: 12 & 23). When the Kohanim were being initiated into the service in the mishkan, oil was placed on their heads and sacrificial blood was placed on their right ear lobes, their right hand thumbs, and on the big toe of their right foot. By mimicking the Kohen ritual, the leper also identifies himself with the Kohanim--those who were sanctified for Divine service. Thus, besides reaffirming his nationality and recognizing his community's social diversity, the leper must also endorse the spiritual specialization that exists in Jewish society.
What emerges is a series of rituals that effectively aims to transform the leper's personality and world-view. The offenses that the leper committed were directed against a community and a religion that he was not willing to identify with. Therefore, the leper's purification must result in total identification with every segment and strata of the Jewish people. The leper must reaffirm his faith in both G-d and in his fellow Jew. Then, and only then, can he be allowed rejoin his community.
Two Birds and a Baby
Michael Gewirtz
The first eight verses of the parshah, which deal with the laws of childbirth, engage us in a challenge to understand them. Why does a new mother become temeiah, impure? And why does the Torah distinguish between the birth of a son and the birth of a daughter? Furthermore, what prompts the Torah to repeat the laws of circumcision here; wasn’t their previous mention in Sefer Bereishis enough? Additionally, why does the Torah require the mother to bring a sacrifice at the end of her period of impurity?
To begin to answer these questions we must understand the causes and roots of tumah. We must exclude the possibility of impurity resulting from sin; a new mother, who fulfills G-d’s original directive to "be fruitful and multiply," has obviously not acted wrongly. We may, however, posit that tumah is a natural consequence of man’s distancing himself from G-d, the Source of purity. Although a new mother’s small disengagement from G-d may be completely unintended, it nonetheless is a typical result of her preoccupation with her new child. This weakened connection with the divine is the source of her tumah.
This idea explains the Torah’s repetition of the laws of circumcision, for this is the mother’s chance to show her dedication to G-d. The bris milah, the symbol of G-d’s covenant with Avraham, represents complete devotion to G-d. When a mother circumcises her son on the eighth day she dedicates him and, by extension, herself as well, to G-d. When a mother gives birth to a girl, however, she has no immediate way of rededicating herself; she must wait until the next step of the process. This inability to express and concretize a mother’s devotion results in the longer period of impurity of one who gives birth to girls.
The final step of rededication is the mother’s bringing of two sacrifices, an olah and a chatas. Through these two sacrifices she returns to her original spiritual level. The olah, which is completely burnt on the altar, symbolizes the mother’s readiness to surrender totally before G-d. The chatas is brought in repentance of her inevitable distancing of herself from G-d.
B’ris Taharah
Shraga Goldenhersh
The Torah in the first pasuk of Parshas Tazria teaches us various laws concerning tum’as ishah. It seems a little strange that in the third pasuk the Torah tells us "u’vayom hashemini yimol b’sar orlaso" - "And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised." Why does the Torah choose to command us regarding the laws of milah here, when on the surface it has nothing to do with tumah and taharah?
The Sforno suggests that one reason that a boy has to wait eight days before his bris is that for the first seven he is also tamei with his mother's tum’as yoledes. Therefore, it is only on the eighth day that he is tahor and can properly receive a bris. Thus, according to the Sforno, the pasuk is indeed addressing a tumah v’taharah issue -- the baby's taharah.
The Targum Yonasan adds that the purpose of this pasuk is to teach us that on the eighth day, the mother is pure and the parents are permitted to each other. Hence, milah was set for the eighth day -- a day of reunion and happiness. Thus, also according to Targum Yonasan, the pasuk is discussing an issue related to tumah and taharah.
However, perhaps a deeper understanding of milah and taharah could explain their juxtaposition. Tumah and taharah have both practical and mystical implications with regard to a person's relationship with Hashem. Practically, when a person is tamei, he is unable to perform the mitzvos that require ritual purity. When he becomes pure again, he is once again able to fulfill these mitzvos. On a mystical level, when a person is tamei, he is distanced from Hashem. The Torah describes a sinner as tamei. This idea is reflected in the Torah’s description of Yom Kippur as being "L’taher eschem mikol chatoseichem" - "To purify you from all your sins."
Milah, as well, shares the same theme. Rabbeinu Bachaye, in his preface to Parshas Shemini, says that performing milah emphasizes that the first thing a person does when he is born is a mitzvah. So too, throughout the rest of his life, the reason for his existence is for performance of mitzvos. A Jew who has not had a bris is limited from performing many mitzvos. In addition, the Mechilta says that milah symbolizes the bond between Bnei Yisrael and Hashem, as the literal meaning of "bris" is "covenant."
Thus, we see that bris and taharah are connected. They enable us to bond with Hashem and to keep His mitzvos. Just as the woman who gives birth must subsequently purify herself to enable herself to serve Hashem, a newly born boy must establish a bond with Hashem by undergoing a bris milah, enabling him to keep the mitzvos.
(The following article, on Parshas Shemini, was omitted from last week’s issue.)
Ruminant Ruminations
Rabbi Eliyahu W. Ferrell
L'ilui Nishmas Reb Chaim Yosef Ze'ev ben Reb Yitzchok Avrohom Ha-kohen Queen, a"h
In chapter 11 of Parshas Shemini, the Torah lists the animals that are kosher. The Torah states (11:3) that cloven-footed ruminating quadrupeds are permitted. In 11:4-6, the Torah explains that the gamal, the shafan, and the arneves are ruminants without cloven hooves and are therefore not kosher. The Gemara in Chullin 59a [cited by the Torah Temimah here] states that Hashem, the Ruler of His world, knows that these are the ONLY ruminants that are tamei, which is why with reference to the gamal, the Torah emphasizes, "Tamei HU Lachem," "IT is impure for you." [The Torah Temimah here says that this applies to the shafan and the arneves, as well.] The apparent meaning of the Gemara is that Hashem knows that these are the ONLY ruminants without cloven-hooves, so He wrote in the Torah, "IT [the gamal, shafan, and arneves] is impure for you--IT and NO OTHER ruminant is Tamei, for all others have cloven-hooves."
The listing of the gamal, shafan, and arneves would be remarkable in and of itself, for zoologists know of NO OTHER ruminants without cloven-hooves. However, the Gemara explains that the Torah means to say that these are the only ones! Indeed, the Gemara later (60b) asks rhetorically, "Was Moshe Rabbeinu a hunter or an archer [that he would know these zoological facts]? Here then is a response to one who would say ‘Ain Torah Min Ha-shamayim,’ 'the Torah is not of Divine origin.'" [My source for this zoological fact and this Gemara is a Discovery program sourcebook.]
What is interesting to note here is that to use these verses as a proof of the Divine origin of the Chumash, one must accept a Midrashic technique of the Torah she-b'al Peh! One must understand the "HU" in the verses as Chazal expound it here (and in Shabbos 24b, for example: "HU levado--HU v'lo mach'shirin," "IT alone--IT and not its prior preparatory activities"). Without Chazal's understanding of "HU," all we have is a remarkable listing of three animals--but NOT a striking statement from the Torah itself about their being unique.
It is also worth noting the fact that the gamal is described as "U'parsa einenu MAFRIS," the shafan is described as "U'parsa lo YAFRIS," and the arneves is described as "U'parsa lo HIFRISAH." One might ask, why does the Torah changes tenses when the message would appear to be the same, viz., "it doesn't have cloven hooves"?
The answer is unknown to me. However, it is interesting to note that the Gematria of "gamal shafan arneves" is 1156. The Gematria of "Torah Min Ha-shamayim" is 1096, a difference of 60. The letters that make the different tenses are the "MEM" in MAFRIS, the "YUD" in YAFRIS, and the first "HAY" and last "HAY" in HIFRISAH. The Gematria of MEM YUD HAY HAY is 60!
Please note: This concludes our final issue of Enayim L’Torah for 1997-98. We will iy"h resume publication toward the end of August (i.e. the beginning of Elul, 5758).
