Parshath Tazria‘ (Leviticus XII,1-XIII,59) 4/1/11

A.

אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר וטמאה שבעת ימים כימי נדת דותה תטמא: וביום השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו: (“A woman, for she will conceive and bear a male, and she will be tamé’ a period of seven days; like the days of her menstruation will she be tamé’. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin [‘orla] will be circumcised”; XII, 2-3).

The language of verse 3 appears essentially to repeat that of a commandment originally given to Avraham, already recorded:זאת בריתי אשר תשמרו ביני וביניכם ובין זרעך אחריך המול לכם כל זכר: ונמלתם בשר ערלתכם והי' לאות ברית ביני וביניכם: ובן שמנת ימים ימול לכם כל זכר לדרתיכם וגו' (“This is My covenant which you will keep between Me and you, and between your seed after you; be circumcised, every male of you. And you will be circumcised, the flesh of your foreskin, and it will become a covenantal sign between Me and you. And eight days old every male of you will be circumcised for your generations”; Genesis XVII, 10-12). Given that this commandment is incumbent on all descendants of Avraham for all generations to come, why does the Torah find it necessary to repeat it here?

B.

The Talmud records several different halachoth derived from verse 3 above, for example, that the entire eighth day is kosher for performing a circumcision (mila), but that, since זריזין מקדימין למצות, the “zealous hurry to do mitzvoth,” it is customary to do it in the morning (פסחים ד.); that even if, e.g., the baby is ill and mila must be postponed, it should still be performed in the daytime (יבמות ע"ב:); or that one should not perform mila until after the sun has cleared the horizon (מגילה כ.). But the halacha most widely associated with our verse is that mila on the eighth day overrides shabbath (שבת קל"ב., נדרים ל"א:).

The Hizquni, for one, declares that this halacha is the reason for our verse. He is not alone; indeed, others perceive a deep, intimate connection between shabbath and mila. The Ba‘al ha-Turim, for instance, notes that verse 3 contains five Hebrew words, the same as Genesis II, 1: ויכלו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם (“And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their host”), which immediately precedes the first shabbath. The Mëchilta suggests that the reason the Torah mandates waiting eight days before mila is so that the baby experience the strengthening sanctity of at least one shabbath before being enrolled in the bërith mila, an idea echoed by the Or ha-Hayyim, who notes that the created universe similarly only gained stability and permanence through the holiness with which the first shabbath was imbued. This last idea arouses our interest, for Hazal several times observe that a human being, an adam, is in many ways a microcosm of the universe which he inhabits. Thus כל המקיים נפש אחת מישראל כאילו קיים עולם מלא (“Anyone who preserves one life [nefesh] of Israel is as though he has preserved an entire world”; סנהדרין ל"ז. במשנה, וע"ע במדבר רבה פכ"ג סי' ו' ופרקי דר' אליעזר פמ"ח); or האדם הוא עולם קטן (“An adam is a small world”; עיי' פירוש לספר היצירה רי"ב וע"ע בין השאר זוה"ק ח"ג רנ"ז: ורנ"ח. ברעיא מהימנא ומורה נבוכים לרמב"ם ח"א פע"ב ). Hence, the parallel between physical Creation at its culmination and the bërith mila between a human being and the Holy One, Blessed is He, noted by the Ba‘al ha-Turim and Or ha-Hayyim cited supra.

But the parallel seems only to go so far, if only because physical Creation achieved stability and permanence in seven days, through the sanctity of shabbath, whilst bërith mila, the parallel process in a human being, requires an eighth day. Why?

C.

The Maharal mi-Prag notes in at least two places in his Hiddushei Aggada that המילה ביום השמיני כי המילה היא על הטבע שכל אשר נברא בז' ימי בראשית הוא הטבע וגו' (“Mila [occurs] on the eighth day because mila is above nature [teva‘], for everything which was created in the seven days of Creation is teva‘....”; ח"ב לקידושין ל.), and "גדולה המילה שדוחה את השבת" דבר זה פשוט כי המילה היא ביום השמיני ומספר שמונה למעלה מן הטבע לגמרי כי שבעה ימים הם נגד ימי בראשית והמילה היא הוי' למעלה מן הטבע ולכך המילה ביום השמיני שהיא אחר שבעה ואין לה צירוף אל ימי החול. כלל הדבר כי המילה היא על השבת במדריגה ולכך המילה היא דוחה את השבת (“‘So great is mila that it supersedes the shabbath’. This matter is simple, for mila [occurs] on the eighth day, and the number eight is completely above teva‘, for seven days [of the mother’s tum’a] are apposite the days of Creation, and mila is [a level of] existence above and beyond teva‘, and therefore mila [occurs] on the eighth day, which is after seven and has no relationship to the [six] mundane days. The totality of the concept is that mila is on a higher level than shabbath and for this reason mila supersedes shabbath”; שם ח"ב לנדרים ל"א:). The seven days of tum’a which the new mother undergoes bear a relationship to the full seven days of Creation, and the seventh day, which would be shabbath, is undifferentiated from the rest, since, as the Or ha-Hayyim suggests, the effect of shabbath was to allow physical Creation to “set,” to acquire stability and permanence, and hence was its culmination. For this reason, there is no distinction between the seventh day and the preceding six. This suggests that there might still have been some measure of provisionality even after the first shabbath, something involving the unique potential of mankind.

The necessary event was Mattan Torah, as the Maharal explains elsewhere, in his Gur Aryeh on our passage. He begins by quoting a midrash (also cited by Rashi): כשם שיצירתו של אדם אחר בהמה חי' ועוף כך תורתו אחר בהמה חי' ועוף הה"ד "זאת תורת הבהמה" כו' ואח"כ "אשה כי תזריע" (“Just as the formation of the adam comes after that of the animals, so does his Torah come after that of the animals, for it is written, ‘This is the Torah of a beast....’ [XI, 46], and afterward, ‘A woman for she will conceive....”; ויקרא רבה פי"ד סוף סי' א'). The Maharal then goes on to explain: וי"ל דגם תורתן איך יהיו מתנהגים הוא דבר דומה לבריאה כמו שהבריאה היא תיקונם הכי נמי תורתן היא תקון הווייתן לכך כשם שמקדים בבריאה חי' ועופות הכי נמי בתורתן דאין התורה אלא גמר תקונם ובשביל כך אמרו "הוסיף ד' בשישי" לומר שכל מעשה בראשית היו תלויים ועומדים עד ששי בסיון אם יקבלו ישראל התורה מוטב ואם לא יחזרו לתהו ובהו וזהו מפני שאין גמר בריאתן רק על ידי התורה שהיא מתקן העולם והוא עיקר תיקונו ואם לא יקבלו יחזרו לתהו ובהו שאין כאן תקון וגו' (“And one should say that also their Torah, i.e., how they conduct themselves, is a thing similar to Creation, just as Creation [means] the establishment of their norm [tiqqunam], so, too, is their Torah the tiqqun of their existence; therefore, just as the animals precede in order of Creation, so, too is it with their Torah, for Torah is nothing else than the final stage of their tiqqun; and for this reason [Hazal] said, ‘Ha-Shem added on the sixth’ to say that all the acts of Creation were conditional and provisional until 6 Sivan [2448]; if Israel would accept the Torah, it would be good; and if not, they would return to primordial chaos [שבת פ"ח.], and this would be because there was no final stage in their creation save through the Torah, which sets the norm and standard of Creation, the root of its tiqqun, and if they would not accept it, they would return to primordial chaos, because there would be no tiqqun here...”).

On completing each stage of Creation, G-d ratified what had gone before by pronouncing it tov, conventionally translated “good.” However, each of these stages remained provisional, unstable, until the final stage. With the advent of the adam, G-d pronounced Creation tov më’od, “very good,” and shabbath immediately ensued, setting and stabilizing the created structures. But this stabilized physical realm was still provisional, in that the metaphysical links which would render it sustainable were still unconnected and dormant. It possessed sufficient permanence to persist in the face of the forces of entropy which continually ate away at its “stuff,” until Israel came into existence and arrived at the foot of Sinai. 6 Sivan 2448 was the turning point, the moment at which Israel would either assume their responsibilities and accept the Torah, making those vital connections, or the universe would dissolve into chaos as entropy leveled all energy gradients.

This, then, is the process analogous to bërith mila. After nine months’ gestation in his mother’s womb, the baby is born, bë-‘ezrath Ha-Shem, physically whole and functional. However, in order to take his place amongst Israel, to be raised and trained to learn and observe Torah as an ‘eved Ha-Shem, thereby keeping the universe in existence and flourishing, the metaphysical “cap” represented by the ‘orla must be removed (עיי' נפש החיים ש"א פ"ו ובחרת בחיים שם סי' ו' ובמילואים וע"ע אור החיים ריש פרשתנו). That the actual meaning of the word ‘orla is a blockage or obstacle impeding a flow is evident from, e.g., Moshe’s words: ואיך ישמעני פרעה ואני ערל שפתים (“...and how will Pharaoh listen to me, and I am uncircumcised of the lips [‘aral sëfathayim]”; Exodus VI, 12).

And this leads us to one last comparison.

D.

The Torah of the various animal species, as the Maharal understands the term, relates in each case to the animals’ nefesh, the animating, vital force which differentiates them from dead matter. The adam also has a nefesh, which animates the body and hence can be understood as synonymous with “life,” but far more crucial, differentiating the adam from animals, is the presence of the overriding nëshama. As Rashi famously says in his comment on Genesis II, 7: זו של אדם חי' שבכולן שנתוסף בו דעת ודבור (“this [nefesh] of an adam is liveliest of all of them, for added into him is knowledge and speech”). This is only part of the contribution of the nëshama, whose purpose is to use those capabilities to learn Torah, and use it to direct the impulses and energies of the nefesh into positive channels. An allusion to this may be inferred from Leviticus XXII, 27: שור או כשב או עז כי יולד והי' שבעת ימים תחת אמו ומיום השמיני והלאה ירצה לקרבן אשה לד' (“An ox or sheep or goat, for it will be born and will be a period of seven days under its mother, and from the eighth day on it will be desirable as a burnt offering [qorban ishe] to Ha-Shem”). From the eighth day, the animal’s nefesh is ready for its purposes. So, too, is the nëshama enabled on the eighth day to begin the process of being maqriv the human nefesh to Ha-Shem.

Parshath Ki Thazria‘/Mëtzora‘ (Leviticus XII,1-XVI,33) 4/16/10

A.

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.

Parshath Thazria‘/M’tzora‘ (Leviticus XII,1-XV,33) 4/23/09

A.

Our double parasha very largely focuses on the issues of nega‘im, specific manifestations of a malaise more generally called tzora‘ath. Often quite erroneously translated “leprosy,” tzora‘ath is not Hanson’s Disease, as a careful review of the symptoms reported in our text will show. Tzora‘ath is a physical manifestation of spiritual or metaphysical disorders, the best known of which is lashon ha-ra‘. Also, entirely unlike any natural disease known to the medical arts, tzora‘ath can afflict inanimate objects, such as clothing (cf. XIII, 16-59) and houses, the subject of this essay.


כי תבאו אל ארץ כנען אשר אני נתן לכם לאחזה ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחזתכם: ובא אשר לו הבית והגיד לכהן לאמר כנגע נראה לי בבית: (“For you will come to the land of Canaan which I am giving you for a freehold; and I shall place a nega‘ tzora‘ath on the house of your freehold. And the one who has the house will come and tell the kohén, saying, Like a nega‘ [k’nega‘] has appeared to me in the house”; XIV, 34-35).


Like every other possible nega‘, this one requires the professional diagnosis of a kohén before it can be pronounced actual tzora‘ath. Hence, Chazal seize upon the term k’nega‘ to stress: ואפילו ת"ח ויודע ודאי שהוא נגע לא יגזור ויאמר "נגע" אלא "כנגע" (“And even [if the householder] is a scholar and knows certainly that it is a nega‘, he should not decide the issue and say nega‘ but rather k’nega‘”; נגעים פי"ב מ"ה).


Fair enough, but this applies equally to every manifestation of a nega‘, not only one which appears in a house, and yet in the other discussions of manifestations on the bodies of people we see no prescribed formula of what to say to the kohén in our parasha, merely that it be brought to a kohén for examination and diagnosis. Indeed, in the case of a manifestation on one’s clothing, we find: והי' הנגע ירקרק או אדמדם בבגד או בעור או בשתי או בערב או בכל כלי עור נגע צרעת הוא והראה את הכהן (“And [if] the nega‘ be greenish or reddish in the garment or in the leather, or in the warp or in the woof or in any article of leather, it is a nega‘ tzora‘ath and shall be shown the kohén”; XIII, 49), which certainly sounds as though one is permitted to diagnose oneself and seek confirmation from the kohén.


If we add to this the fact that the verb nir’a in v. 35 above also has the connotation "seem,” such that our householder would be understood by the kohén to be saying, “It seems to me that there is a nega‘” even without the comparative prefix k-, we appear justified in attached some additional meaning to the prefix. Indeed, Chazal apparently perceived such a meaning, and Rashi agreed, since along with the mishna cited above, he also mentions the following midrash: בשורה היא להם שהנגעים באים עליהם לפי שהטמינו אמוריים מטמוניות של זהב בקירות בתיהם ארבעים שנה שהיו ישראל במדבר וע"י הנגע נותץ הבית ומוצאן (“It is good news [besora] to them that the nega‘im befall them, because the Emoriyyim hid golden treasures in the walls of their houses the entire forty years that Israel were in the desert, and by means of the nega‘ the house was demolished and one found them”).

In other words, it was not a nega‘, a genuine affliction reflecting some sore deficiency in the householder, but rather “like” a nega‘, which in fact was interpreted as good news (at least, once the first few hoards of gold were found).

But these surely all occurred during the first year or two after the conquest of the Holy Land. Since the Torah’s message is timeless, what does this rather arcane story of tzora‘ath afflicting a house have to tell us in our age?

B.

The Talmud tells us: תנא משמי' דרבי עקיבא לעולם יהא אדם רגיל לומר כל דעביד רחמנא לטב עביד (“It was taught in Rabbi ‘Aqiva’s name, A person should always be accustomed to say, 'Everything the Merciful One does, He does for good'”; ברכות ס: ולהלכה מובא בשו"ע או"ח סי' ר"ל סע' ה'). Elsewhere, we find an account of Rabbi Nachum ish gam zo, whose watchwords were always גם זו לטובה (“Even this is for good”; תענית כ"א.).

At first glance, both aphorisms appear roughly equivalent, but some thought reveals a crucial difference. Rabbi ‘Aqiva’s statement is rather passive. It implies that one is to believe that G-d runs the world, and that everything which He brings about in it is for the good, regardless of how it is perceived by a human witness. Things may seem black, he tells us, utterly devoid of any discernible positive content; nonetheless, we are halachically mandated to believe that G-d knows what He is doing, and that everything will come out all right in the end. Rabbi Nachum ish gam zo is on quite a different level. He was capable of seeing mill’chat’chilla, “from the beginning” that whatever occurs is in fact good. With R’ Nachum, there was no negative perception in the first place; rather, what others might view as a negative development, he was able to grasp in its fullness and see immediately the good in it.

Rabbi ‘Aqiva’s formulation was for his students, regardless of their attainments; it is brought down l’halacha because it is the minimum requirement of emuna pshuţa, of simple faith in Ha-Shem, that everything will come out right. Rabbi Nachum illustrates the personal capabilities of a mature talmid chacham.

And this, I think, is what Rashi and the midrash see in our verse. K’nega‘ nir’a li, says our wise householder; a thing which to everyone else seems like a nega‘, but to me is a besora, has appeared in my house. This is the sort of faith engendered by the realization that ד' הוא האלקים אין עוד מלבדו (“Ha-Shem is the G-d [i.e. the true origo et fons of every force or function perceived in the world around us], there is nothing else beside Him”; Deuteronomy IV, 39; ע"ע נפש החיים ש"ג פ"ג).

C.

There remains, however, the question of why G-d should choose this particular form for the besora that golden treasure. Whilst, as perusal of the rest of the passage makes clear, this would surely guarantee that the householder would tear down the house and thereby find the treasure, one cannot help but think that He could have got the message across in some other way which did not necessarily suggest a spiritual deficiency in our erudite householder; as we have seen, the Torah appears at pains to suggest that such a person could be a scholar and tzaddiq of the lofty attainments of Nachum ish gam zo.

One must remember that the Emoriyyim were one of the seven Canaanite tribes. The Canaanites in general, and the Emoriyyim in particular, bore an apparently well-deserved reputation as sharp and unscrupulous traders (they were known to the Greeks as “Phoenicians”, because amongst their wares was cloth dyed with the blood of the phoinix, a shellfish, and to the Romans subsequently as Puni, with whom they fought the Punic Wars, largely over trade issues). Indeed, in later biblical Hebrew, the very word Kna‘ani came to mean a merchant, especially a sharp one (cf. e.g. Proverbs XXXI, 24; Isaiah XXIII, 8; and especially Zechariah CIV, 21).

What plots, what gloating and boasting did the walls of those Emori houses witness concerning the way in which that gold was gained? What crooked deals and practices were celebrated within them?

The spiritual deficiency being indicated, then, was that of the houses’ original owners, not the new ones, and the indication was a clear warning to the new occupants and their neighbors who were of course aware of Emori business ethics, not to follow the same path in their own deals. וכמעשה ארץ כנען כו' לא תעשו ובחקתיהם לא תלכו, “And according to the practices of the land of Canaan... you shall not act, nor shall you go in their laws”; Leviticus XIX, 2) does not necessarily only refer to their disgustingly licentious idolatrous rites. The ‘avon ha-Emori which had not yet fully matured in Avraham’s day (cf. Genesis XV, 16, Rashi ad loc.) covered a full range of activities.

D.

From all of the above, then, we see that at a minimum we are obligated to accept that every cloud has a silver lining, even if we are unable to perceive it in the immediate circumstances. This is the halacha, applicable to and attainable by everyone.

However, we are also able to strive for the higher and more sublime level which Rabbi Nachum had achieved, such that, with the spiritual “x-ray vision” afforded the talmid chacham by da‘ath Torah, through his complete immersion and suffusion with the Torah’s outlook, we are in fact able to pierce the grey veil from the cloud’s first appearance on the horizon, and see the silver lining for ourselves.