This week’s double parasha centres on the topic of tum’a. The word, which has no actual English equivalent, signifies a state of metaphysical unfitness. The state (in which an object or person is said to be tamé’) can be incurred by physical contact, or proximity within an enclosed area (technically an ohel or “tent”) with someone or something already tamé’; it can be induced by the departure or separation of something sacred, such as a nëshama, whether through death or, as at the beginning of out parasha, the birth and separation of a child from its mother’s womb; or a particularly potent and virulent form of it can be induced through improper actions, especially the defamatory mode of speech called lashon ha-ra‘. In this case, the state has a physical manifestation in the form of one of several nëga‘im, a condition called collectively tzora‘ath.
Tzora‘ath is termed in the Septuagint, leukousía, (from the Greek word leukós, “white,” due to the white appearance of the nëga‘im) a term which came to refer to Hansen’s Disease, or “lep-rosy”; hence the common mistranslation, born of later change in the Greek word’s meaning. Careful reading of our parasha reveals that the symptoms of tzora‘ath are not those of leprosy; tzora‘ath is a manifestation of a spiritual or metaphysical ill, not a physical one.
Tum’a in general mandates a degree of separation or distance between the person or object which is tamé’ and the rest of the world. Even in the case of the rather stringent tum’ath méth, the tum’a associated with a corpse, as the Maharal mi-Prag notes in his Gur Aryeh, המת הוא מטמא אבל אין זה משום פחיתות המת רק שהמת נבדל מן החיים ומרוחק מהם ולכן הנוגע במת טמא ומרוחק (“the dead induce tum’a, but this does not disparage the dead; rather, because the dead are separated from the living and distanced from them, therefore one who touches a dead person is tamé’ and distanced”).
But even in the case of the potent tum’ath méth it is enough for the living to avoid contact or close proximity within an enclosed area, whilst in the case of the tum’a of tzora‘ath the Torah mandates that the mëtzora‘, the sufferer, be driven from contact with settled life, to dwell בדד מחוץ למחנה (“alone, outside the camp”; XIII, 46). Why is this so? What is actually going on here?
B.
The offense with which tzora‘ath is most commonly associated is that if lashon ha-ra‘, speech which, even though true, is both defamatory and unnecessary, that is, it serves no useful purpose. Though the detailed provisions of the laws concerning lashon ha-ra‘ are intricate (detailed study of the classic work Shëmirath ha-Lashon is definitely called for), the preceding sentence captures the essence of the offense.
As the midrash famously relates, commenting on XIV, 2: מעשה ברוכל אחד שהי' מחזיר בעיירות שהיו סמוכות לצפורי והי' מכריז ואומר מאן בעי למזבן סם חיים וכו' ר' ינאי הוה יתיב כו' א"ל אנת לא צריך לי' ולא דכוותך כו' אטרח עלי' סליק לגבי' הוציא לו ספר תהלים הראה לו פסוק "מי האיש החפץ חיים" מה כתיב בתרי' "נצור לשונך מרע סור מרע ועשה טוב" א"ר ינאי אף שלמה מכריז ואומר "שומר פיו ולשונו שומר מצרות נפשו" וגו' (“a story concerning a certain peddler who was going about the municipalities near Sepphoris, declaring and saying, 'Who wishes to buy an elixir of life?' ... Rabbi Yannai was sitting... [The peddler told him], ‘You don’t need [this], nor does anyone like you’... and [Rabbi Yannai] confronted him; he took out the book of Psalms and showed him the verse, ‘Who is the man desirous of life?’ What is written thereafter? ‘Guard your tongue from evil; turn from evil and do good....[XXXIV,13]’ Said Rabbi Yannai, 'Shëlomo, too, declares and says, "Who guards his mouth and tongue is protected from the woes of his life" [Proverbs XXI, 23]'”; ויקרא רבה פט"ז סי' ).
Guarding one’s tongue is the elixir of life, so failing to do so is a drug of a different sort. Chazal cite the poisoning of the social fabric resulting from such talk as the reason for the mëtzora‘’s isolation: הוא הבדיל בין איש לאשתו בין איש לרעהו לפיכך אמרה תורה "בדד ישב" (“He came between man and wife, man and fellow; therefore the Torah has said, ‘he will dwell alone’”; ערכין ט"ז:).
Elsewhere, though, we see that other transgressions can result in tzora‘ath: על י' דברים נגעים באים על ע"ז על ג"ע ועל ש"ד ועל חילול השם ועל ברכת השם ועל הגוזל את הרבים ועל הגוזל את שאינו שלו ועל גסי רוח ועל ל"ה ועל עין הרע (“Because of 10 things nëga‘im come: Because of idolatry, sexual impropriety, bloodshed, desecration of the Divine Name, cursing Ha-Shem, robbing the public, robbing what does not belong to one, being coarse of spirit [gasei ruach], lashon ha-ra‘, and the evil eye”; ויקרא רבה פי"ז סי' ג'). For each of these the midrash adduces a Biblical illustration.
Putting aside the precise definition of each of these offenses, it is striking that, over and over again, Chazal emphasize two of them in particular: Lashon ha-ra‘, as already noted, and gasuth ruach, which can be defined as the immediate result of a midda called ga’ava, or pride (עיי' למשל במדבר רבה פי"ט סי' ג', תורת כהנים, פרשת מצורע, אבות דרבי נתן פי"א, ועוד).
C.
Hence it is clear that the root and source of all of the above transgressions lies in a measure of arrogance. Idolatry is, e.g., quintessentially egotism; when one fashions one’s own god of stone, metal or wood, is not the “god-maker” the greater being? Similarly, harming others in various ways, rebelling against G-d, and so on, can only be justified by a sense of superiority and entitlement over others, who “obviously” must be less important that oneself.
However, this midda is an inherent part of the human condition, and again a little thought reveals why: human beings are, after all, created in the dëmuth Eloqim, the “likeness of G-d.” With this in mind, consider the following passage, which should be familiar from every qabbalath shabbath: ד' מלך גאות לבש (“Ha-Shem rules utterly, cloaked in pride [gé’uth]” Psalms XCIII, 1).
Analyze the phrase: The main verb, malach, is perfective, not a “past tense”; it rather signifies that something is done to perfection, to the ultimate, nth degree. Here, it signifies the complete, total, uncompromised mastery of the Creator over His creation. From the point of view of the creatures over whom He reigns, then, He is “cloaked in pride”, much as a flesh-and-blood king overawes his subjects (עיי' ראב"ע ומצודת דוד על אתר ).
This is entirely appropriate for G-d, but the midda is replicated in us, where it is much less appropriate; hence, constant vigilance is required to keep it under control and in subjection, lest it do its self-destructive worst on us as individuals and as members of society at large.
D.
זאת תהי' תורת המצורע ביום טהרתו כו' וצוה הכהן ולקח למטהר שתי צפרים חיות טהרות ועץ ארז ושני תולעת ואזב: (“This will be the Torah of the mëtzora‘ on the day of his purification.... And the kohén will command and he will take for the one being purified two living, kosher birds and cedar wood and worm-scarlet [shëni thola‘ath] and hyssop [ézov]”; XIV, 2-4).
The Talmud tells us (יומא ס"ב:) that two birds are specified, even though the minimum plural is already two, because the birds must be utterly equal in all regards, for they represent the sinner and his victim; equality must be restored between the parties before peace can be reëstablished (the gimatriya or numerical value of tzippor, “bird,” is 376, the same as shalom).
The Maharal takes note of the two extremes prescribed in our passage, the wood of the very tall cedar tree, and the strip of scarlet, dyed with a preparation made of a worm. In between the two, it would seem, is the hyssop, a low bush; yet the tola‘ath, the worm, directly follows the cedar and precedes the ézov, in contradiction of the apparent continuum. Why?
דודאי מתחלה יש להשפיל עצמו כתולעת שהוא שפל מאד שיתרחק מן העבירה שהי' מתחלה חטא בגאוה, ואם לא יפרוש לצד אחד לאחוז במדת השפלות מאד מאד לא יצא מידי חטאו כו' ואחר כך יהי' כאזוב ואין צריך להשפיל עצמו כתולעת ולפיכך מקדים הכתוב שני התולעת ואחר כך האזוב כי השפלות יותר מדאי אין ראוי כי כל מדה טובה בעולם יש לו מצוע וגו' (“For certainly from the start [of repentance] one should humble oneself like a tola‘ath, which is very lowly, in order to distance himself from the transgression which was in origin a sin of ga’ava, and if one doesn’t remove to one side and grasp the quality of being very, very humble, he will not emerge from the grip of his sin... Afterward, he will be like the ézov, and it is not necessary to humble himself like a tola‘ath, and therefore Scripture precedes the shëni thola‘ath and afterwards the ézov, for humility to too great a degree is not proper, for every good midda in the world has a middle range....”; ע"ע רמב"ם הקדמה למס' אבות).
Having acknowledged standing at the extreme of the tall cedar’s inappropriate exaltation, one must reach toward the other extreme of excessive humility, but then pull back from the nadir to the midrange represented by the ézov, a low bush. Either extreme has its own dangers, and one must avoid occupying either position for too long a time.
The sefarim ha-qëdoshim tell us that each of these qualities has its place in a healthy personality. One must be sufficiently humble to accept one’s rôle as a servant of the Al-Mighty, subject to His commands, but also be sufficiently proud to stand up for the këvod ha-Boré’ vë-Thoratho when necessary. This is why such qualities are called middoth, measures, and the relative optimal amounts can be deduced from the position of the low ézov bush between the tall cedar and the lowly tola‘ath.
No comments:
Post a Comment