Kedoshim answers

Kedoshim 5720
Alef.

1.  RaMBaN: How can the “ל” of לרעך” be explained? The problem in the phrase “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” is that this is unnatural, i.e., it is setting a requirement that is impossible to fulfill. Consequently RaMBaN, focusing upon the usage of the preposition “ל” as opposed to the word introducing a direct object “את” suggests an asymptotic approach whereby one still loves himself more than anyone else, and yet still wishes good things for his neighbor, even if the extent of these good things will not be equal to that which he wishes for himself.

   Sephorno: The apparent problem for this commentator is that this phrase appears to be relevant and the underlying basis for many of the Commandments that are listed in the preceding verses. Consequently he does not see this phrase as a stand-alone Mitzva, but rather as a rationale for the preceding Mitzvot beginning in v. 9: Why must one allow a poor person to glean one’s fields (v. 9-10); not lie, steal, deny having what legally belongs to another (v. 11); not swear falsely (presumably in a legal case that will affect another’s status or possessions; v. 12); not oppress financially , steal brazenly or fail to pay a worker’s wages in a timely fashion (v. 13); not take advantage of someone who is handicapped either physically or knowledge-wise (v. 14); not engage in favoritism when judging others (v. 15); not be a tale-bearer or stand idly by when another is in difficulty (v. 16); not hate someone in your heart but rather give him/her rebuke if necessary (v. 17); not take revenge or bear a grudge against another (v. 18)? Because you should love him as you love yourself and you would not appreciate it if someone would do these things to you.

   Wiesel: In addition to the problem cited by RaMBaN above, other difficulties with the verse include: how can Commandments be given with regard to emotions which are not always controllable; if you have to care about every person as you do for yourself, then you have to be concerned about their troubles as well. This will lead to the untenable situation whereby you will always be depressed and beset by all sorts of troubles. Consequently this commentator concludes that the phrase is a justification for why no human being should be ill-treated, i.e., everyone is just like everyone else in terms of having been created in the Image of God.

   R. Moshe ben Menachem: The phrase in question is making a statement about the quality of love that one extends to another. Since a person feels differently about different things, inevitably certain things he will feel more strongly attached to and therefore love than others. The quintessential love object is the self. Consequently, if there will be no harm to the self when one extends love to another, then that is what one is expected to do. However, if by loving one thing, by definition that will detract from another, particularly the self, then one can place the self as the priority.

      Buber: The problem for Buber is to explain what is being added when the text states the word “כמוך”; why didn’t it simply say that just as you are not to hate another, you should love him? The phrase is appealing to an individual’s sense of empathy, i.e., just as one knows that he would want to be loved, so too do others. I should extend the same relationship towards them that I know I would like to be extended towards me.

2. RaMBaN deals with the impossibility of loving another literally as much as one loves himself.

   Sephorno explains how the phrase is the basis for many if not all Mitzvot Bein Adam LeChaveiro.

   Wiesel reflects upon the basic commonality of all human beings who are therefore deserving of equal treatment.

   Ben-Menachem feels that one can control his emotions and, short of the action being personally hurtful or disadvantageous, the next person should be treated just as one would treat himself.

   Buber states that our desires for ourselves gives us insights into what others want for themselves, and we should therefore attempt to fulfill their dreams for them.

3.  Wiesel makes two points based upon verses in TaNaCh and one re the trop as a commentary on the contents of a verse:

a. Beraishit 44:18; 41:39. In these two instances, the term “כמוך” indicates people of equal rank. Consequently in VaYikra 19:18, the idea suggested is that all human beings are of equal rank existentially in terms of their being created in the Image of God.

b. I Shmuel 18:1; 20:17; II Shmuel 1:26. In these instances, a literal love that was completely equal between two individuals is considered miraculous and exceptional, implying that this is not the standard to which all Jews, let alone all of mankind is held.

c. יח לֹֽא־תִקֹּ֤ם וְלֹֽא־תִטֹּר֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י עַמֶּ֔ךָ וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵֽעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ אֲנִ֖י ה': ׃ Since “כמוך” is separated from the previous phrase “ואהבת לרעך” it is not subject to the narrower interpretation that the only people you are Commanded to love are those who are just like you. Therefore the verse is to be read that you must love your fellow, just as you would love yourself.

4.  אבן עזרא שמות פרק כ פסוק יג

(יג) לא תחמוד אנשים רבים יתמהו על זאת המצוה, איך יהיה אדם שלא יחמוד דבר יפה בלבו כל מה שהוא נחמד למראה עיניו. ועתה אתן לך משל. דע, כי איש כפרי שיש לו דעת נכונה, והוא ראה בת מלך שהיא יפה, לא יחמוד אותה בלבו שישכוב עמה, כי ידע כי זה לא יתכן. ואל תחשוב זה הכפרי שהוא כאחד מן המשוגעים, שיתאוה שיהיה לו כנפים לעוף השמים, ולא יתכן להיות, כאשר אין אדם מתאוה לשכב עם אמו, אעפ"י שהיא יפה, כי הרגילוהו מנעוריו לדעת שהיא אסורה לו. ככה כל משכיל צריך שידע, כי אשה יפה או ממון לא ימצאנו אדם בעבור חכמתו ודעתו, רק כאשר חלק לו ה'. ואמר קהלת (לאשר) ולאדם שלא עמל בו יתננו חלקו (קהלת ב, כא). ואמרו חכמים, בני חיי ומזוני לאו בזכותא תליא מילתא אלא במזלא. ובעבור זה המשכיל לא יתאוה ולא יחמוד. ואחר שידע שאשת רעהו אסרה השם לו, יותר היא נשגבה בעיניו מבת מלך בלב הכפרי, על כן הוא ישמח בחלקו ואל ישים אל לבו לחמוד ולהתאוות דבר שאינו שלו, כי ידע שהשם לא רצה לתת לו, לא יוכל לקחתו בכחו ובמחשבותיו ותחבלותיו, ע"כ יבטח בבוראו שיכלכלנו ויעשה הטוב בעיניו. והנה נשלם פי' עשרת הדברים...

Therefore, in Ibn Ezra’s view, as well as according to  Ben-Menachem who is quoting him, a person can convince himself intellectually and spiritually that certain things are beyond is grasp and he will accept that as HaShem’s Will.

5. No portions of these commentaries were underlined on the Gilayon that was online.

6. The verse in question is dealing with the sojourner, whom a Jew is instructed to love as himself, since he at least historically went through similar travails. Not only are you to harbor feelings of love for those who are quite similar to you, but even for those who seem to come from a different culture and upbringing, nevertheless they too are Created in the Image of God.

Beit.

1. RaMBaN: A “Chaver”, implying all people.

   Sephorno: All sorts of people, including the poor.

   Wiesel: All people Created in Image of God.

   Ben-Menachem: All people.

   Buber: All people even “Geirei Toshav”.

   RaShBaM: Specifically Jews who comply with the Commandments.

   Emek Davar: All Jews.

2.  Shemot 11:2 which discusses “borrowing” from the Egyptians prior to the Exodus, clearly defines “ריע” as a non-Jewish neighbor. This then would serve as a proof to all of the interpretations with the exception of RaShBaM and NeTzIV (Emek Davar).

   Shemot 20:12-3 regarding not swearing falsely on behalf of another, while the last of the Ten Commandments deals with not lusting after things that belong to or are associated with another could be applied to all the points of view. However, by extension, it would be implied that with respect to the interpretation of RaShBaM, it would be OK to do this and feel this way re not only non-Jews but even unobservant Jews, while according to NeTzIV, it would appear that non-Jews would be precluded from these prohibitions.

3.    ויקרא פרק יט

(יח) לא תקם ולא תטר את בני עמך ואהבת לרעך כמוך אני יקוק:

   If “בני עמך” is considered a synonym of “רעך” with literary parallelism serving as the frame of reference, then a basis has been established with respect to the interpretations of RaShBaM and NeTzIV. However, if we consider “בני עמך” as a more limiting and limited category, in contrast to “רעך”, in accordance with commentators such as MaLBIM and R. S.R. Hirsch, who look for  specific meaning in every turn of phrase, no matter how poetical it might initially appear,  then while the directive at the beginning of the verse might apply specifically to Jews, that does not logically follow with respect to the second part of the verse.

4.  It seems to me that NeTzIV is going along an independent path in his interpretation. He is focussing upon a more metaphysical, mystical approach articulated in the Yerushalmi, i.e., that all Jews are as one body, spiritually if not physically. Consequently, when you love another, you are literally loving yourself, and vice versa. The other commentators do not appear to go that far.

Parshat Kedoshim

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1263.html

Achrei Mot answers

Acharei Mot 5703
Alef.

1. RaMBaM and Ibn Ezra explain the various prohibitions of sexual taboos involving relatives as a means of limiting sexual activity, i.e., since these women are more proximate than others in terms of day-to-day existence, by prohibiting intimacy with them, overall sexual activity will be restricted.

2. RaMBaN raises the following objections to this approach:

a) Karet is the most serious punishment. Does it make sense that such a punishment would be applied if all that was involved was a diminution of general sexual activity?

b) If it was permitted to Bnai Noach to marry one’s daughter, why does it suddenly become prohibited for the Jewish people?

c) Yaakov was married to two sisters, Rachel and Leah, so how bad could such an arrangement be?

d) Wouldn’t having one’s son marry one’s daughter and for them to live in the father’s house, have children and share the family’s resources be an efficient and fulfilling way to populate the world?

Beit.

a) With respect to Mitzvot whose explanations are obscure, there is internal pressure (the Yetzer HaRa) to violate them since they don’t make sense.

b) “Lalechet BaHem” apparently does not only mean to observe them, but also to remain involved in their study. A person apparently out of frustration with ideas and concepts that he fails to understand might be driven to study some other system of laws and beliefs. Consequently the Tora is warning against such a tendency.

Gimel.

The fact that in VaYikra 18:5 the article is used before the noun “Adam”—HaAdam—supports the contention that we are dealing not with a particular individual who could very well be Jewish, but rather with humanity, the human race, including both Jews and non-Jews.

Daled.

1. a) Yoma 85

   “VeChay BaHem”= the ability to violate Shabbat in order to assist someone who is in danger of losing his life. Mitzvot are intended to help one live, not result in someone’s non-survival.

b) R. Yosef Albo, Targum Onkelos, RaShI, RaShBaM.

     The promise made in the verse is for life of the soul in the Afterworld.

R. Y. Albo: Even though the Mitzvot may entail taking a path of greater resistance as compared to the practices of other cultures and societies, there is an ultimate payoff in the World to Come. The essential wholeness of a person is realized in the Afterlife and therefore the extra effort should be welcomed rather than resented.

Targum Onkelos: The Chaim that is being discussed is eternal life.

RaShI: The Chayim cannot be this-worldly life, since everyone dies sooner or later.

RaShBaM: The phrase suggests that Karet can be avoided, which, at least according to some interpretations, is understood as the soul being cut off from the World to Come. (According to the interpretations that it involves dying childless or at an early age, then RaShBaM would be placed in the category that sees the phrase as focusing on life in this world.)

c) RaMBaN: These laws are necessary for a stable society in this world. In this regard it appears that the commentator is focusing upon the Mishpatim mentioned in the vese rather than the Chukim, since the former are associated with laws governing interpersonal relationships.

2. Whereas the other commentators focus upon either life in this world or the Next, RaMBaN in the final section of his remarks demonstrates that dependent upon one’s intent while performing Commandments, this will determine in which world one will succeed:

a) If a person does Mitzvot due to ulterior motivations associated with success in this world, he will be successful only in this world.

b) If a person’s entire focus is in order to enter the World to Come, that is where he will ultimately end up.

c) If a person performs Mitzvot out of love, as is appropriate, then he will meet with success in both this and the Next Worlds.

d) If a person is completely uninterested in this worldly matters, then he will live forever in this world as well as ultimately achieving the World to Come, as in the case of Eliyahu.

Achrei Mot

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1385.html

Metzora Answers

Tazria-Metzora 5720

(תלמוד בבלי מסכת חולין דף צא עמוד א

+בראשית ל"ב+ ויותר יעקב לבדו - אמר רבי אלעזר: שנשתייר על פכין קטנים, מכאן לצדיקים שחביב עליהם ממונם יותר מגופם וכל כך למה - לפי שאין פושטין ידיהן בגזל.)

Alef.

1. The problem in 14:36 is why should the house be emptied prior to the Kohen’s visit? If in fact Tzora’at is present, then everything in the house is contaminated and needs to be purified. By emptying the house before the Kohen has a chance to make a pronouncement, you may be sparing certain articles the ritual of purification when in fact they are in need of it.

2.  RaMBaM states in all three citations that Tzora’at is a supernatural malady brought about as a punishment for someone who has engaged in improper speech.

3.  Peirush HaMishnayot:

   a) Quarantine to protect others from being exposed to evil language of transgressor.

     Mishneh Tora:

   a) Quarantine intended to prevent sinner from continuing to transgress by evil speech.

   b) A discussion of Miriam’s sin.

   c) What people who are scoffers talk about.

   d) What those who are God-fearing should talk about.

     Moreh Nevuchim:

   a) The reason why there are so many forms of Tuma in general.

   b) Just as people are revolted by “real” Tzora’at disease, they come to be revolted by “spiritual” Tzora’at as well.

4.  Peirush HaMishnayot:

   a) Cloth and houses are inert, inanimate and therefore any sort of “disease” that affects them would have to be of supernatural origin.

   b) When the entire body is affected by Tzora’at, the individual is declared Tahor, which would not be the case if this was a natural disease. In the latter case, the more area covered, the more severe the sickness is assumed to be.

   Mishneh Tora:

   a) According to the sequence that RaMBaM posits (which is not the sequence that appears in the Tora) the fact that it first affects the house, then the leather furniture or hangings, then the clothing and finally the person’s body demonstrates that this is some sort of supernatural message to the person at whom all of these signs are directed.

   b) Miriam’s being afflicted with this malady, immediately following her speaking negatively about her brother Moshe suggests that Tzora’at has something to do with Divine Punishment.

   Moreh Nevuchim:

   a) Everyone knows that Tzora’at is parallel to the physical affects of the drinking of the Mai Sota (the waters that a woman accused of being unfaithful to her husband is made to drink publicly in the Temple, with the assumption that if the charges are true, her stomach will swell up leading to her death. Just as that is clearly supernatural, so too Tumat Tzora’at.

5.  Peirush HaMishnayot:

         קריאת התורה על הדמיון    - The Tora calls the spiritual malady Tzora’at, the same name as the actual natural disease, but this is only a loose comparison, not an actual equation of the two.

ואמנם הם עניינים תוריים, לפי מה שזכרנו, ולזה השורש נקרא "רשע".     – The Tzora’at that the Tora refers to are supernatural, as opposed to being a natural illness, based upon what we have already stated (e.g., when the disease covers the entire body, the individual is declared ritually pure rather than extremely ill), and for this reason part of the root of מצורע is רע, connecting it to a רשע, evil doer.

   Mishneh Tora:

שם האמור בשותפות     --Tzora’at is a noun that is used in “partnership”, I.e., for both natural and supernatural maladies.

שמרבים לדבר גדולות ונפלאות    --If Miriam is punished for speaking about her brother Moshe, what can be said for those who are foolish and evil and who speak against great things and miraculous things?

   Moreh Nevuchim:

   ובאלו הפעולות תתמיד היראה ויגיע ההתפעלות המביא לכניעה המכוונת—Due to the restrictions on entering the Mikdash as a result of ritual impurity, a greater sense of awe and fear of the Divine will be preserved and will lead to the inspiration that will result in the sense of subservience that was intended.

Beit.

1.  Beraishit: (3:5) The Serpent says about God that all He Wishes by restricting man from eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is to assure that He will Remain superior to man.

   Shemot: (4:1, 2-5, 6-8) Moshe speaks LaShon HaRa about the Jewish people when he says “They will not believe me.” Consequently, among the signs that he is shown is a serpent (see above for Beraishit) as well as his hand becoming afflicted with Tzora’at.

   VaYikra: (19:16) “Do not go around as a talebearer amongst your people…”

   BaMidbar: (12) The story of Miriam speaking to Aharon against Moshe.

   Devarim: (24:9) “Remember what HaShem Did to Miriam…”

2.  The author of the Midrash was interested in the word “Metzora” as a Notrikon for Motzee Shem Ra, which is a more severe form of Lashon HaRa. (MS”R—is an unflattering untruth about someone else; LH”R—is the truth, but one that casts unfavorable light upon an individual or group of individuals.) Since the other verses did not contain this word, he preferred to cite the verse that did mention Metzora.

3.  Commentators like MaLBIM see Tehillim 34:13

(יג) מי האיש החפץ חיים אהב ימים לראות טוב:

   Who is the man that desireth life, and loveth days, that he may see good therein?

as the continuation of the previous verses, 34:10-12,

(י) יראו את יקוק קדשיו כי אין מחסור ליראיו:

(יא) כפירים רשו ורעבו ודרשי יקוק לא יחסרו כל טוב:

(יב) לכו בנים שמעו לי יראת יקוק אלמדכם:

O fear the LORD, ye His holy ones; for there is no want to them that fear Him. The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger; but they that seek the LORD want not any good thing. Come, ye children, hearken unto me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD. 

מלבי"ם תהלים פרק לד פסוק יג

(יג) מי האיש, נזירי העכו"ם פרשו א"ע מן העולם, או מצד שמאסו בחיים, או מצד שמאסו בטוב העולם ובחרו לחיות חיי צער, אבל אני אלמד יראת ה' גם להאיש החפץ חיים, וגם להאיש האוהב ימים לראות טוב, שיוכל לחיות עם יראת ה' חיי ההצלחה והטוב, כי יראת ה' לא תבקש מן האדם שיפרוש לגמרי מן הישוב, רק זאת תבקש:

Since “Fearing God”  is so all-encompassing, most might despair from ever reaching such a level.

R. Yanai comes to realize that in fact v. 13 is an introduction to what comes after, which is not as amorphous as “Fearing God”, but rather quite specific.

תהלים פרק לד

(יד) נצר לשונך מרע ושפתיך מדבר מרמה:

(טו) סור מרע ועשה טוב בקש שלום ורדפהו:

Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. 

4. 

איוב פרק כ

(ו) אם יעלה לשמים שיאו וראשו לעב יגיע:

(ז) כגללו לנצח יאבד ראיו יאמרו איו:

Though his excellency mount up to the heavens, and his head reach unto the clouds; Yet he shall perish for ever like his own dung; they that have seen him shall say: 'Where is he?' 

The Midrash assumes that those who engage in evil speech often do so because of their high opinion of themselves. However, since Tzora’at affects such individuals, not only will they not achieve notability by means of their slanders, but no one will know them, they will be avoided like all disgusting things are avoided. (The last line of the earlier citation of Moreh Nevuchim suggests a similar fate for those who are afflicted with Tzora’at.)

5.  Perhaps, even if a certain Nega does not faze a particular person in terms of discouraging him from refraining from transgression, since there are so many forms, and there could be so many situations that would result in the Kohen declaring the individual Tameh that this would give him pause, particularly because he wishes to be known, and not avoided like the plague.

Parshat Tazria

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1262.html