Parshat Achrei/kedoshim

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1207.html

Answers to Tazria Metzora

(Tazria-)Metzora 5722

Alef.

1. a) The afflictions of the houses that lead to their being deconstructed is a means by which the new Jewish owners can discover the hidden treasures left there by the Canaanim who abandoned their homes.

b) The afflictions become a means of punishing anti-social individuals who deny having various articles when others ask to borrow them; before the house is declared impure, the contents are brought outside and everyone can then see how the owner really did possess the things that he had previously denied having.

2.    The beginning of 14:34 where there is an emphasis upon God Giving the Jews the land of Canaan as an inheritance would be more in keeping with an interpretation that the houses that they will come to possess will further strengthen their inheritance when they discover hidden treasures within, than to warn them that their sins are going to result in the houses being condemned and their property exposed. Therefore not only will HaShem Give them the land, He will also Give them treasure.

3.    By the other forms of skin conditions, the phrases “Ki Yihyeh” or “Ki Tihyeh” (when it will be) are used: 13:2, 9, 18, 24, 29, 38, Similarly with regard to clothing and furniture, the Tora states, (v. 47-8) “Ki Yihyeh” However, by the plague affecting the house, the language is “VeNatati Nega Tzora’at” (and I will Cause a plague of Tzora’at). The more personal nature and the inevitability of the language is what R. Yehuda might be picking up on.

4.    MaLBIM explains that when the verb “N-T-N” is used in connection with a Divine Decree, it always has a good purpose, even if in the short term it appears like a plague and therefore a punishment. The verse in II Shmuel 7:14, albeit mentioning plagues, says at the outset that the relationship between God and His People is that of a father and son. Even if a father punishes a son, it is out of a sense of love and desire to correct the shortcomings of the son for the long-term.

Beit.

1.    V. 35 could have simply served the purpose of stating that the Kohen must be summoned in order to inspect the house and determine if Tzora’at has broken out or not. And such a summons could have been carried out by anyone. Since the Tora goes out of its way to state that the owner of the house must go to  make the request, it implies that there is some special reason why specifically he must interact with the Kohen even before the latter comes to inspect the house’s walls. The second citation in the Sifra provides the rationale, i.e., that the Kohen, in addition to technically inspecting the house, is to give Mussar to the house’s owner from the perspective that the existence of Tzora’at implies some sort of sinful behavior has taken place, specifically Lashon HaRa, as derived from the case of Miriam in BaMidbar 12,  and ought to be rectified.

2.    The language of “U’Ba” (and he will come) implies that he has to be able to traverse the distance between the house and the Kohen. Someone who is elderly or infirm will not be able to do so and therefore would be precluded from such a requirement. (The Kohen could still give such individuals Mussar once he arrives at the house. However, someone might be more vulnerable and open to rebuke when given it in unfamiliar surroundings, particular on the Kohen’s home turf.)

3.    “H-G-I-D” appears to deal with technical information, i.e., how exactly did this condition develop, where is it, what does it look like, etc. “A-M-R” is associated with a personal discussion, where instead of the question “how,” what is not being discussed is “why”? What caused this condition to develop?

4.    It would appear that “Leimor” (saying) is completely superfluous in this verse and therefore must be accounted for in some other way, as the MaLBIM states should be done for other verses in which “Leimor” is superfluous. Consequently, it would appear that the principle, “Im Eino Inyan LeInyano, Tenaihu LeInyan Acher” (if it does not seem to serve its own immediate purpose, apply it to some other purpose) should be invoked, leading to the conclusion that “Leimor” is not referring to something that is said to the Kohen, but rather something that the Kohen says in response to what he has just been told.

5.    Not only is the story of Miriam a paradigm for Tzora’at being associated with Lashon HaRa (BaMidbar 12 along with Devarim 24:9), but also the story of the signs Given to Moshe in order to convince the people that he has been sent by God. In Shemot 4:6-7 whereby Moshe gets Tzora’at temporarily, this is understood by one approach in the Midrash as a result of what he said in Shemot 4:1, “And they (the Jewish people) will not believe me…” thus casting aspersions on their level of belief and trust in HaShem.

6.    One might claim that as long as the subject of the evil speech is not aware of what has been said, it is relatively less harmful and injurious; consequently, to say something directly in the presence of the party being discussed will by definition cause more hurt and pain.

Gimel.
        It would seem that the imagery of having one’s house threatened first with partial and then with full destruction leading to homelessness and disorientation is a situation so disconcerting that it inspires thoughts of various aspects of Jewish history past, present and future

Tazria/Metzora Qs

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/421.html

Answers to Shmini

Shmini 5725 

Alef.

1.  Although the “Ziknei Yisrael” are included in Moshe’s invitation, only Aharon is addressed in verses 2 and 3, begging the question why “Ziknei Yisrael were originally included.

2. In verse 3 the verb “Tedaber” appears, which is second person singular, implying that a single person, i.e., Aharon, is expected to carry out this Commandment.

Beit.

1. The difficulty with which Ibn Ezra and RaMBaN are grappling is the order of the verses. V. 23 reflects the fulfillment of Moshe’s promise that once the sacrifices have been properly offered, the Glory of HaShem will Appear.  If starting with v. 7 the instructions that were given starting in v. 2 were carried out, it is unclear why v. 6 is located where it is. It appears to be more of an introductory verse, than one that should appear at the end of the instructions given by Moshe.

2. + 3.  Ibn Ezra’s approach to the following biblical texts, understanding the verb forms as “past perfect”:

a) VaYikra 9:6

         Moshe had already told Aharon, “approach the altar…”

b) Shemot 4:19

  HaShem had towards the beginning of His Discussion with Moshe (3:10), already Informed him that his mission was to return to Egypt to lead the Jewish people into freedom. Consequently, 4:19 would appear redundant. (However, there is a new piece of information in the verse which could justify its repetition at this point as a means of further encouraging and reassuring Moshe regarding his mission—those who were our to kill Moshe, have “died.” ChaZaL interpret this as a reference to Nadav and Avihu who were supposed to have been the protagonists in the fight that Moshe broke up in 2:13-14, and who were reputed to be the informants to Pharoah [2:15]. However their “deaths” are only metaphorical, since they explicitly show up again in the Korach rebellion [BaMidbar 16:1 ff.] Consequently, ChaZaL [Nedarim 64b] make the general statement about how impoverished people, among others, are considered “dead” in the sense that they have markedly diminished influence as a result of their lack of wealth.)

c) Ibid., 33:4

The proper place for v. 4 is between v. 5 and 6. Ibn Ezra is not bothered when verses are out of sequence.

d) Beraishit 24:14 (even though it is dealing with a problem on 24:23)

In v. 23 the servant asks about Rivka’s geneology after acting towards her in v. 22 as if she was the designated bride-to-be, his having given her gifts of jewelry. Ibn Ezra will claim that v. 23 takes place before v. 22, i.e., he had already asked her about her family.

e) Tehillim 78:23

This Psalm presents a poetic summary of Jewish history. V. 18-20 describes their complaints re food. V. 23 describes God Causing Manna to rain down. However the complaints about food (BaMidbar 11:4 ff)  come after the Manna has been given (Shemot 16). Therefore Ibn Ezra says that v. 23 is to be understood as something that has already happened, rather than an event that takes place at this point of the Psalm.

4. RaMBaN explains Ibn Ezra on VaYikra 9:2 as understanding the verses as originally stating what the people have to do without revealing to them what will occur at the end, i.e., God will Reveal Himself as a result of these sacrifices. Only upon the completion of the instructions does Moshe include this piece of information.

5. RaMBaN has difficulty in assuming that information already known would be repeated a second time. Therefore he interprets 9:6 as emphasizing not only the bringing of these sacrifices, but also their being offered up in the particular order that was mentioned.

6. RaMBaN explains the new information in v. 6 (see 5 above). The overall approach is consistent with his opposition to the employment of the principle “Ein Mukdam U’Me’uchar BaTora”, i.e., he rejects the reliance upon looking at the Tora in a non-chronological manner with respect to the order of the verses.  

Gimel.

1.   Ohr HaChayim is bothered by the fact that instead of identifying the location where the people were standing as the Ohel Moed, the text states that they are standing “Lifnai HaShem.” When earlier Moshe told them to bring sacrifices that were to be offered “Lifnai HaShem”, this is understandable because the purpose of sacrifices (Korbanot—root K-R-V, close) is to come closer to, stand before HaShem. However, this is more a metaphysical value than an empirical location. When the text states that they stood “Lifnai HaShem” this appears to this commentator to be more of a matter of a state of mind than an actual place, particularly since in the immediately preceding phrase it says that they already were “ Lifnai Ohel Moed.” (My difficulty with such an interpretation is the means by which Moshe was able to tell what their state of mind was. Is this part of his prophetic powers? Was there  some tangible evidence upon which Moshe could base such a conclusion?)

2.    Ohr HaChayim is at variance with Ibn Ezra and RaMBaN in terms of what the antecedent of “Zeh HaDavar” (this is the thing) to which Moshe is referring when he says that it will bring about the Divine Revelation.  Ibn Ezra, by reversing the chronology of the verses, interprets the phrase as referring to the series of sacrifices that have already been listed. RaMBaN preserves the order of the verses, and explains that “Zeh HaDavar” is a reference to not only the sacrifices, but their sequence that must be specifically followed. Ohr HaChayim suggests that the catalyst for the Revelation is the attitude of the people, i.e., that they sense that they are standing in God’s Presence.

Daled.

RaMBaN on VaYikra 9:7

   The commentator, rather than accepting a literal understanding of the Midrash which would have stated that Aharon, when he looked at the altar, saw a calf, reminding him of the sin of the Golden Calf in which he at least indirectly participated, says instead that since the sin of the Calf was on Aharon’s mind and he felt guilty about it, the act of offering sacrifices on any altar was causing him concern and guilt. Consequently Aharon did not see the altar as a calf, but rather was reminded of the Calf by the altar. This led him to wonder how would he ever be able to achieve atonement for himself and others (in his role as Kohen Gadol) when he had this major blotch on his record and soul? His hesitancy and sense of inadequacy consequently requires encouragement from Moshe to proceed as God has Instructed Aharon to do.  

RaMbaN on Beraishit 11:28

רמב"ן בראשית פרק יא פסוק כח

...כי אברם אשר נולד בכותא חלק על דעת ההמון שהיו עובדים השמש, ונתן המלך אותו בבית הסוהר והיה עמהם בתוכחות ימים רבים שם, אחר כך פחד המלך שישחית עליו ארצו ויסיר בני האדם מאמונתם וגרש אותו אל קצה ארץ כנען אחר שלקח כל הונו. והנה על כל פנים במקום ההוא בארץ כשדים נעשה נס לאברהם אבינו, או נס נסתר, שנתן בלב אותו המלך להצילו ושלא ימיתנו והוציא אותו מבית הסוהר שילך לנפשו, או נס מפורסם שהשליכו לכבשן האש וניצל כדברי רבותינו:...

While RaMBaN is not ready to present  the Midrashic version for why Avraham was exiled from Ur Kasdim as does RaShI,

רש"י בראשית פרק יא

(כח) על פני תרח אביו - בחיי אביו. ומדרש אגדה יש אומרים שעל ידי אביו מת, שקבל תרח על אברם בנו לפני נמרוד על שכתת את צלמיו והשליכו לכבשן האש, והרן יושב ואומר בלבו אם אברם נוצח, אני משלו, ואם נמרוד נוצח, אני משלו. וכשניצל אברם אמרו לו להרן משל מי אתה, אמר להם הרן משל אברם אני. השליכוהו לכבשן האש ונשרף, וזהו אור כשדים. ומנחם בן סרוק פירש אור בקעה, וכן (ישעיה כד טו) באורים כבדו ה', וכן (שם יא ח) מאורת צפעוני. כל חור ובקע עמוק קרוי אור:

he doesn’t completely discount it either. After giving a rational explanation about what might have led to his being thrown out of the country, RaMBaN does reference the ChaZaL as a possible, but not the exclusive, explanation. The common denominator in these first two RaMBaN’s is that while cognizant of the Rabbinic perspective, RaMBaN retains his own objectivity and either modifies (guilty conscience vs. vision) or relegates the Rabbinic tradition, even a well-known and ubiquitous one, to the status of a mere possibility among others.  

RaMBaN on Beraishit 37:15

רמב"ן בראשית פרק לז

(טו) וימצאהו איש והנה תעה בשדה - יאמר כי הוא תועה מן הדרך ולא היה יודע אנה ילך, ונכנס בשדה כי במקום המרעה היה מבקש אותם. ויאריך הכתוב בזה, להגיד כי סיבות רבות באו אליו שהיה ראוי לחזור לו, אבל הכל סבל לכבוד אביו. ולהודיענו עוד, כי הגזרה אמת והחריצות שקר, כי זמן לו הקב"ה מורה דרך שלא מדעתו להביאו בידם. ולזה נתכוונו רבותינו (ב"ר פד יד) באמרם כי האישים האלה הם מלאכים, שלא על חנם היה כל הסיפור הזה, להודיענו כי עצת ה' היא תקום:

While RaMBaN acknowledges the ChaZaL that identifies the individual who guided Yosef to the location of his brothers as an Angel, he nevertheless does not go that far and simply explains that HaShem Orchestrated a “guide” to assure Yosef’s falling into his brother’s hands, but such a “guide” does not have to be supernatural per se.  

RaMBaN on Beraishit 37:17

רמב"ן בראשית פרק לז

יז) נסעו מזה - הסיעו עצמן מן האחוה. נלכה דותינה, לבקש לך נכלי דתות שימיתוך בהם. ולפי פשוטו שם מקום הוא, ואין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, לשון ר' שלמה. ואין הכונה לרבותינו שיפרש לו האיש נסעו מזה מן האחוה והלכו לעורר עליך דינין ותרעומות, שאם כן היה נמנע ללכת ולא היה מסכן בעצמו. אבל הכונה להם כי האיש גבריאל אשר הגיד לו הגיד אמת, ואמר לשון משמש לשני פנים, ושניהם אמת, והוא לא הבין הנסתר בו, והלך אחר הנגלה ממנו, וילך אחר אחיו וימצאם בדותן כאשר אמר לו. ודרשו זה, מפני שהאיש הזה הוא מלאך ואם כן יודע הוא אנה הם, ולמה לא אמר הנם בדותן, ואמר כמסתפק ששמע מהם שילכו שם ואינו יודע אנה הם עתה, ולכן יעשו מדרש במאמרו:

RaMBaN thinks that there is a disconnect between positing that the “guide” that directs Yosef is an Angel, and the fact that he does not tell Yosef exactly what his brothers are planning. Consequently, RaMBaN claims that were the “guide” to do so, Yosef would have aborted his mission. Therefore, the “guide” tells Yosef, but only in the form of a “double entendre”, which Yosef and the reader will come to appreciate only in retrospect, after the dastardly deed is done. The Midrash goes too far for RaMBaN, and therefore he interprets it in a more rationally accessible manner.

Heh.

1.  It would appear that some Rabbanim counted verses and letters to assure that the Tora was accurate, and in fact in the same form as the Tora that was received by Moshe and passed down throughout the generations. (See articles, e.g., http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_text.html )

2.  R. Epstein suggests that outsized letters hint at various significant points in the Tora text, e.g., the midway point in the Tora.)

3.  They are alluding to the inconsistencies between the claim of the Talmud regarding the spellings of certain words and what we have in the Tora’s in our synagogues.

Parshat Shmini

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/178.html

Tzav Answers

פרשת ויקרא




ויקרא פרק א



(ג) אם עלה קרבנו מן הבקר זכר תמים יקריבנו אל פתח אהל מועד יקריב אתו לרצנו לפני יקוק:



ויקרא פרק ב



(א) ונפש כי תקריב קרבן מנחה ליקוק סלת יהיה קרבנו ויצק עליה שמן ונתן עליה לבנה:



ויקרא פרק ג



(א) ואם זבח שלמים קרבנו אם מן הבקר הוא מקריב אם זכר אם נקבה תמים יקריבנו לפני יקוק:



ויקרא פרק ד



(ג) אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם והקריב על חטאתו אשר חטא פר בן בקר תמים ליקוק לחטאת:



ויקרא פרק ה



(ו) והביא את אשמו ליקוק על חטאתו אשר חטא נקבה מן הצאן כשבה או שעירת עזים לחטאת וכפר עליו הכהן מחטאתו:



--> עלה, מנחה, שלמים, חטאת, אשם



פרשת צו



ויקרא פרק ו



(ב) צו את אהרן ואת בניו לאמר זאת תורת העלה הוא העלה על מוקדה על המזבח כל הלילה עד הבקר ואש המזבח תוקד בו:



שם



(ז) וזאת תורת המנחה הקרב אתה בני אהרן לפני יקוק אל פני המזבח:



שם



(יח) דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר זאת תורת החטאת במקום אשר תשחט העלה תשחט החטאת לפני יקוק קדש קדשים הוא:



ויקרא פרק ז



(א) וזאת תורת האשם קדש קדשים הוא:



שם



(יא) וזאת תורת זבח השלמים אשר יקריב ליקוק:



--> עלה, מנחה, חטאת, אשם, שלמים.



Abrabanel in his commentary accepts the explanation given by RaMBaN for the change in order re Shelamim. This is the reason why Nechama quotes RaMBaN after the question posed by Abrabanel.



A distinction is made between Kodshai Kodashim1 and Kodshai Kalim.2 3 Consequently, since Parashat VaYikra is directed at the people in general, the distinction that is emphasized is between those sacrifices which are optional, i.e., Olah, Mincha and Shlamim, and those that are obligatory4 as a consequence of inadvertent or deliberate sin, i.e., Chatat and Asham. Such an arrangement reflects where the individual has choices and where he has none. With respect to the order in Parashat Tzav, since these verses are directed at the Kohanim, they have to be aware of the various ways in which the sacrifices must be offered and then subsequently handled. Therefore, they are best served by dividing between those of greater holiness-Kodshai Kodashim-and lesse holiness—Kodshai Kallim.





Beit.



The principle that we do not want to publicly humiliate a sinner is reflected in R. Yosi HaGalili’s interpretation (Sota 8:5) of Devarim 20:8, quoted by RaShI, regarding why a “fearful” person is allowed to leave the battlefield with respect to an optional (as opposed to Milchemet Mitzva) war. R. Yosi HaGalili posited that even the other reasons that allowed someone to disengage, i.e., he became engaged but has not been able as yet to perform Nesu’in, he built a house but has not dedicated it, he planted a vineyard but as yet has not enjoyed its produce, were created specifically so that when a person would leave, the onlookers could not automatically conclude that he had a guilty conscience, but rather he was leaving to participate in a happy occasion.5





Gimel.



Abrabanel (ד' כב.) explains that by referring to Chatat and Asham as Kodesh Kodashim, in contrast to Shlamim which are designated as Kodshai Kalim, the Tora is demonstrating its high regard for the Ba’al Teshuva. A Penitent is forced to bring a sacrifice as part of his atonement, and his readiness to repent and do what he has to to resurrect his life is viewed as more admirable than the act of someone who has no guilty conscience, and when he wishes to come close to HaShem, voluntarily offers a Shlamim. This becomes a concretization of the rule (Berachot 34b) that Penitents reach levels that the completely righteous are unable to occupy.





Daled.



If the phrase “Kodesh Kodashim” had a “Heh” in front of the second word, i.e., “Kodesh HaKodashim”, then it could be understood to be a form of Semichut, i.e., the (most) holy of (compared to other) holies, just as “Eved HaAvadim” (Beraishit 9:25) could be interpreted as the (greatest) slave of (compared to other) slaves. But in the absence of the “Heh” in these two phrases, Ibn Ezra interprets the phrase as “one holy” of many “holies” , parallel to “one slave” of many “slaves.”





Heh.



1. According to Ibn Ezra, the verb M-R-K is in a form that parallels B-Sh-L as well as Sh-T-F, even though a Cholam is used rather than a Kubutz since the Reish does not have a Dagesh.



Beiur claims that M-R-K, rather than a verb, is actually a noun referring to the mixture of water and the residue within the Klee from the offering that had been prepared within it. When something is polished, the intent is to remove the small deposits that are interfering with the shine. The same is true for the preparations that women may use to clarify their skin. Consequently the material that remains in the Klee from the Korban is comparable to these small deposits.





2. a. The textual difficulty is that there is an extra word “Lo” that is unnecessary since it had already been stated that the Korban is given “LaKohen HaMakriv Otah”.





b. RaShI assumes that the word has to be accounted for via some sort of Chidush, i.e., in this case, even though the sacrifice can be given to Kohanim beyond the one who offered it up, it nevertheless must remain within the Kohein who offered it up’s family unit. Ibn Ezra seems to be satisfied to say that it is simply an additional clarifier which has no practical significance, a type of “Dibra Tora B’Lashom Benai Adam.”



It would seem that the example from VaYikra is different from the two from Shmot. In the latter, the original reference is made via a pronoun, which is then clarified by an explicit noun. In VaYikra, the original designation is a noun, so it would seem to be superfluous to follow that up with a pronoun.

Parshat Tzav

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/839.html