💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ramban%20on%20Leviticus%20… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:51:46. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Ramban on Leviticus 14:4

Home

Torah

4 ‎[1] THEN SHALL THE PRIEST COMMAND TO TAKE FOR HIM THAT IS TO BE CLEANSED TWO LIVING, CLEAN ‘TZIPORIM’ (BIRDS). “*Living*, this excludes birds which are *treifah*. *Clean*, this excludes a bird unfit for food. Since the plagues of leprosy came as a punishment for slander, which is done by chattering, therefore Scripture required for the leper’s cleansing that he bring birds which always twitter with a chirping sound.” This is Rashi’s language.

Now in view of the fact that Rashi wrote, “*Clean*, this excludes a bird which is unfit for food,” we can deduce that the [unqualified] term *tziporim* does not denote a permissible species of birds, but is instead a generic term for all birds [those permissible as food and those forbidden]. If so, the question appears: what is this “chirping” that they found [among the *tziporim*]? For there are many birds among which *there is none that openeth the mouth, or chirpeth*! Moreover, the interpretation [which Rashi quoted]: “*Living*, this excludes birds which are *treifah*,” is really subject to a controversy of opinion, and according to the Sage who says that a *treifah* can survive, this interpretation [of Rashi] is not correct. And in the Torath Kohanim we find this interpretation: “*Living*, not slaughtered. *Clean*, not unfit for food. *Clean*, not *treifoth*.” Now the scholars who follow the simple meaning of Scripture say that every kind of bird [whether permissible as food or forbidden] is called *tzipor*, as is evidenced by the verses which state: *‘tzipor’* (*the fowl*) *of the air, and the fish of the sea;* *every ‘tzipor’* (*bird*) *of every sort;* *And thou son of man … speak ‘l’tzipor’* (*unto the birds*) *of every sort*. Similarly, it says, *and ‘hatzipor’* (*the birds*) *he did not divide*, with reference to the turtle-doves and young pigeons [which are permissible birds, thus proving that the term *tzipor* is used with reference to both permissible and forbidden birds].

The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the term *tzipor* is a generic term for all small birds that rise early in the morning to chirp and to sing, the term being associated with the Aramaic word *tzaphra* (morning). Similarly, the expression *let him return v’yitzpor’* means, and arise “early in the morning.” The expression *‘tzipor’* (*the fowl of*) *the air* is said with reference to these small birds, because it is mostly they that fly high in the air. *Every ‘tzipor’* (*bird*) *of every sort* refers to two kinds, all the little ones and the big ones. *If a ‘kan tzipor’* (*bird’s nest*) *chance to be before thee* speaks about the little ones which are many [and therefore likely to chance to be there], to teach that even when they are young, the finder must exercise mercy towards them. Similarly, *therein ‘tziporim’* (*the birds*) *make nests* [means the little ones], for it is they that dwell on the boughs of the cedars of the Lebanon. *Speak ‘l’tzipor’* (*unto the birds*) *of every sort* means that even the little ones should gather upon [the flesh of the mighty that have fallen in battle], for the big marauding birds will come by themselves. Similarly, *Wilt thou play with him* [the leviathan] *‘katzipor’* (*as with a bird*)? *Or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?* [refers to the little birds], for it is the way of young boys to play with little birds. The language of the Sages also follows that usage: Any statue which bears in its hand a staff or *‘tzipor’* (a bird) [one may not derive any benefit from, since these objects indicate that the statue is worshipped as an idol]; “If a man wove into a garment one *sit’s* length of a Nazirite’s hair [from which one is forbidden to derive any benefit], the garment is to be burnt,” [and when the Sages of the Gemara raised the question, “why is this small piece not neutralized by the larger part of the garment?” it was answered that this is a case where he wove into the garment “the form of] a *tziporta*” [a small bird, which made the whole garment more valuable, and therefore it is not neutralized by the larger part thereof, and hence must be burnt]. The Sages also speak of “*tziporoth* (birds of) the vineyard [however small].” They also said: “the meat of *tziporim* (birds) brings back a sickness to a sick man [who is recovering, and makes it worse” thus indicating that the term *tzipor* refers to a bird which one may eat]. Scripture further states, *All ‘tzipor’* (*birds*) *that are clean ye may eat*, meaning all these many species of [permissible] birds, thus including [the living bird sent away by] the leper [into the open field as permissible food], by means of the word *kol* (*‘All’ birds that are clean ye may eat*). And the verse which states, *But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the great vulture, and the bearded vulture, and the osprey* is [to be understood] as if it said, “and these are they, from the flesh of which ye may not eat.” It is for this reason [i.e., since the term *tzipor* includes both permissible and forbidden birds], that the Sages found it necessary to interpret: “*Clean*, not forbidden birds” [but they would not have been able to derive it if the word *tziporim* had not been qualified]. In any case it is clear that *tziporim* are the small chirping birds. Similarly, *Yea, the ‘tzipor’ hath found a house, and the swallow a nest for herself* also indicates that the word *tzipor* is not a name for all birds [for otherwise why should the verse mention both *tzipor* and the swallow, if the term *tzipor* already includes all birds]. Likewise, *Wherein tziporim* (*the birds*) *make their nests, the stork makes the fir-tree her house* [indicates that *tziporim* does not include all birds, since the verse proceeds also to mention some specific birds].

It would appear from the words of our Sages that all birds permissible as food are called *tzipor*, but the leper was commanded to bring *tziporei dror* [“free birds,” a term which, as explained further on means birds which live in the house as well as in the field], for we have been taught in the Torath Kohanim: “*And he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open field*. Rabbi Yosei the Galilean said: ‘This means a bird that lives outside all cities. And what kind of bird is it? It is the bird called *dror*’” [the free bird that lives in the house as well as in the field]. It is on the basis of this interpretation of the Rabbis that they further mentioned [in connection with the leper’s birds] that they “chatter” [since it is usually these free birds which twitter].

It is possible that the requirement that the birds be of “the free” kind is a commandment [which is to be observed if possible, but is not indispensable], so that if it has already been done, they are all valid [whether free or unfree]. Therefore the Sages in the Torath Kohanim found it necessary to exclude forbidden bird’s [which do not possess this characteristic of living in the house and in the field]. And so we have been taught in a Mishnah of Tractate Negaim: “And he [the leper] brought two birds that are of the free type of bird.” And it is furthermore taught there: “It is a commandment that the two birds of the leper should be alike in appearance, in size and in value, and that they should be brought at the same time. Yet even if they are not alike, they are valid. If one was slaughtered and it was found that it was not a ‘free bird,’ he should buy a partner for the second one.” The reason [why he must buy a partner for the second one] although [as we have said above] if it has already been done, all birds [whether free or unfree] are valid, is that if they were of two different kinds [as in this case, where the slaughtered one was a non-*dror*, and the living one a *dror*], they *are* invalid. And in the Chapter *Eilu Treifoth* the Sages of the Gemara have said: “A bird which scratches, is valid to be used for the purification of the leper. This is the white-bellied swallow concerning which Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages differed” [as explained further on]. From these texts [it is clear] that the birds for the purification of the leper are not limited to one species, and that the purification is not to be done with *any* permissible bird, but rather the commandment is that it be done only with those birds that are *dror*, that is to say, “which live in the house as well as in the field.” Therefore the Rabbis said [in the above-quoted text] with reference to the white-bellied swallow, that since according to the Sages it is a bird which may be eaten, it is also valid for the purification of the leper, as it is included within [the category of those birds that are] *dror* [living in the house as well as in the field]. Yet nonetheless *all* permissible birds [even those that are not “free birds”] are valid, if the purification of the leper has already been done with them, since they are all included within the phrase, *two living clean birds*.

And we have been taught in the Sifre: “Rabbi Yashiyah said: ‘Wherever it says in Scripture *tzipor*, it speaks of a permissible bird.’ Said Rabbi Yitzchak: ‘A permissible bird is called *oph* (fowl) and also *tzipor* (bird), but a forbidden one is only called *oph*.” Similarly the Rabbis mentioned also in the Gemara [of Tractate Chullin], in the Chapter *Shilu’ach Hakan*, where they resolved that the term *living* [*two ‘living’ clean birds*] means “the ends of whose limbs ‘live’ (exist), thus excluding birds from whom a limb is missing.” Similarly [permissible] birds which are *treifah* are invalid [for the purification of the leper]. The Rabbis also interpreted there the term *clean* [*two living ‘clean’ birds*] to exclude those birds which are of a permissible species but are forbidden to be eaten [for some special reason], such as birds belonging to a person of a city that went astray, or a fowl that killed a human being, or those that have been exchanged for an idol. This interpretation was derived by the Sages from the very language itself, since the term *tzipor* denotes only a permissible bird. It is clear then from this text, that all permissible birds [whether they are of the dror-type or not] are included within the category of *tzipor*.

I have further seen in the Yerushalmi of Tractate Nazir that the Sages of the Gemara said: “But does an impure Nazirite really bring *tziporim*? It is turtle-doves or young pigeons that he brings! [To this question the reply was made:] ‘There are some authorities who teach that all edible birds are called *tziporim*, and there are other authorities that teach that all birds, whether permissible or forbidden, are called *tziporim*.’” Thus we are now left with a divergence of opinion [as to what the term *tzipor* denotes]! Yet it is possible that the name applies only to the small birds. This appears so in the Gemara from what the Rabbis have said in Tractate Sotah: [In the process of his purification the leper is commanded to] “bring a sufficient amount of water that the bird’s blood may remain discernible in it. And how much is this? The fourth of a *log*.” Upon this the Sages queried: “If the bird was a large one so that the blood thereof ‘pushed away’ the water [so that it was imperceptible], or the bird was a small one so that its blood was ‘pushed away’ by the water [so that the blood was indiscernible], what is the ruling on these cases?” On these questions [the Rabbis of the Talmud] explained: “All standard measures laid down by the Sages were fixed with precision. The Sages estimated with reference to a ‘free bird’ that you will not find one so big that the blood thereof will ‘push away’ the water, nor will you find one so small that the blood thereof will be ‘pushed away’ by the water.” Now if all kinds of permissible birds were valid for [the purification of the leper], there are some birds the blood of which would “push away” many *logim* of water! Perhaps the Sages established the above standard only with reference to a “free bird” which one is commanded to bring if this is possible, according to the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, [but if the purification has already been done with a large bird, it is also valid]. It has already been mentioned in the Gemara: “Perhaps he saw a large *tziporo* (bird) and he called it *gamal* (camel).”

The correct [and final] conclusion which emerges from all this discussion is that we say on the basis of this interpretation that any bird which is not a “free one” is invalid for the purification of the leper, even if the purification has already been done, since in the Mishnah thereof it was not taught: “It is a commandment [to be fulfilled if possible] that the birds should be ‘free birds,’ but even if they were not ‘free birds,’ they are valid,” as it taught concerning the requirement of equality [in appearance, size and value, that “even if they are not alike, they are valid”]; also, the correct conclusion is that all birds that are “free birds” are those that chatter. And that which the Rabbis said in the Torath Kohanim, “*Clean*, not those forbidden as food,” is because even among the forbidden birds there are some species that possess this quality of *dror* [living in the house as well as in the field], such as the white-bellied swallow according to Rabbi Eliezer. Or perhaps the meaning of the Torath Kohanim is that it excludes those birds [whose prohibition is not because they belong to the forbidden species, but because of special circumstances] which make them “forbidden to you,” such as those birds which are nonetheless forbidden [as food or benefit, because they belonged to a person of a city that had gone astray, or those that have been exchanged for an idol], or those which are *treifah*, just as the Rabbis resolved in the Gemara in the Chapter *Shilu’ach Hakan*. This is the correct interpretation in my eyes. In the Agadah of the [Midrash] Rabbah we find this statement: “Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Simon said: These birds [brought by the leper for his purification] are noisy ones, symbolic of he who speaks slander [and as a punishment for which, the slanderer is stricken with leprosy]. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Let that which is accompanied by sound [namely, these noisy birds] come to bring atonement for the evil sound [of the slanderer].’ And Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Levi said: The birds [brought by the leper for his purification] are of the ‘free kind’ [that live in the house as well as in the field] and thus ate of the leper’s bread and drank of his water. Now the following statement follows logically with stronger reason etc.”

‎[2] AND CEDAR-WOOD, AND SCARLET, AND HYSSOP. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that “[the cedar-wood and the hyssop] represent the tallest and the lowest in species of vegetation, as is evidenced by the words of wisdom of Solomon. Thus the law of the leper and the law of the house stricken with leprosy and the [law of] impurity [conveyed by] a corpse are closely related, and they resemble the Passover in Egypt. And the meaning of the expression *into the open field* is to an uninhabitated place, so that no infection might be caused.” [Thus far are the words of Ibn Ezra.].

And in the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have said: “*Into the open field*, this means that he is not to stand in Joppa [which is on the sea] and let it go into the sea, nor is he to stand in Gabbath [a city which is on the edge of the desert] and let it go into the desert.” Now if so, [that he may not let it go into the sea or into the desert], then the reason why it is sent into the open field is like the secret of the goat sent to Azazel, except that there it is sent *for Azazel into the wilderness*, and here it is sent to the flying [destructive spirits] of the field. I will yet explain this with the help of G-d.

Version Info

Version: Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976

Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108945/NLI

License: CC-BY

Jewish Texts