๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:51:53. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
8 โ[1] ** ืืืืก ืืืืืจ ืืช ืืืืื, and the person to be "cleansed" is to wash his garments, etc.** Why does the Torah decree this washing of the garments seeing that during the ensuing seven days the ืืืืจ keeps on conferring impurity on garments by contact with them? I have explained on verse 7 that the words ืื ืืฆืจืขืช refer to the impurity his body had suffered from up until now and which he is rid of, and this requires that at some stage he washes his garments in order to purify them, why do it now when they will likely become defiled again immediately by a different level of ritual impurity? I have found the following answer to this in *Torat Kohanim*. "What does the word ืืืืก teach us? If it is to tell us that the "leper" conferred ritual impurity on these garments through touching them, I did not need a verse to tell us this as I could have arrived at this by a ืงื ืืืืืจ based on the status of the afflicted person while he awaits the priest's final decision. During those days he does not confer impurity on people by reason of his entering the camp (based on Leviticus 13,3) although his garments become impure on contact. During the purification days when he would confer impurity on entering the camp, surely his garments also absorb impurity from him during those days? The verse therefore informs us about the additional ways the ืืืืจ confers impurity, i.e. through someone sitting on those garments or lying on them even without touching them. Thus far *Torat Kohanim*. According to this, the word ืืืืก would indicate that after this washing the garments of the person undergoing purification rites will no longer confer impurity by someone lying on them or sitting on them. The main thrust of the *Torat Kohanim's* comment on **the word** ืืืืก is based on our very question that the **procedure** seems useless seeing the clothing will become impure again immediately. There was no need to question the plain meaning of the word ืืืืก, seeing washing will result in purification of the garments. There would have been nothing unusual in the Torah requiring someone to remove impurity at the first possible opportunity; we would not have had to look for any explanation beyond this were it not for the question of what function such washing of the clothing would serve at that stage. The Torah did issue similar directives when it comes to the shaving of the hair of the ืืืืจ which also is something that has to occur both on the first day of the purification rites as well as on the seventh day.
โ[2] I have seen that Rabbenu Hillel actually writes that the conclusion of *Torat Kohanim* that as of the time of this washing the clothing of the ืืืืจ no longer confers impurity by sitting on them or lying on them should be stricken from the text. The reason he advances for this is a statement in *Pessachim* 67 that the ritual impurity of a person suffering an involuntary seminal emission, ืื, is more severe than that of a person afflicted with ืฆืจืขืช seeing that a ืื confers impurity on anything he sits or sleeps on and also is a cause of impurity by entering areas forbidden to him. If Rabbenu Hillel were correct we would have to emend the text of a number of *Baraithot* in which it is expressly stated that the "leper" causes impurity to things he sits on or lies on. The author of *Korban Aharon* has already refuted the arguments voiced by Rabbenu Hillel. It is argued there that the claim that a ืื is indeed afflicted with a deeper degree of impurity is true during the days he counts towards his purification when he causes impurity to what he sits on and lies on whereas the ืืืืจ does not. The ืืฆืืจืข on the other hand, does not cause this kind of impurity during the days he counts towards final purification. This is precisely what we learned from the words ืืืืก ืืืืืจ occurring both in verse 8 and in verse 9. Maimonides and all the other authorities are unanimous in this ruling. Rabbenu Hillel was not correct in this instance.
โ[3] ืืจืืฅ ืืืื ืืืืจ, and he will bathe himself and be "clean." *Torat Kohanim* write that the additional word ืืืื means that even immersion in a ืืงืื, a ritual bath, is acceptable. If not for that word, we could have learned the following ืงื ืืืืืจ. If a ืื who does not require to be sprinkled with running water from a well, nonetheless has to immerse himself in running water from a well, i.e. ืืื ืืืื, the ืืฆืืจืข who does require to be sprinkled with such running water would most certainly also have to immerse himself in such running water from a well; the Torah therefore writes: ืืจืืฅ ืืืื to teach us that the water of a ritual bath suffices for this washing. The author of *Korban Aharon* explains the extra word ืืืื in the same vein. The difficulty with this exegetical comment is that according to the author of *Torat Kohanim* the Torah had already informed us in 15,13 on the words ืืจืืฅ ืืฉืจื ืืืื ืืืื that only the ืื requires immersion in running water from a well and not a ืืฆืืจืข. The reasoning presented there is identical to that presented here. The only difference is that in 15,13 the word ืืฉืจื is the one considered extraneous whereas in our verse it appears to be the word ืืืื. The author of *Korban Aharon* also concurs. If all this is correct, why did the Torah write the word ืืืื in our verse? Perhaps one may answer that the author of *Torat Kohanim* considers the word ืืืื in our verse as crucial to his inference that the words "in water" are a suitable expression if the subject is a ritual bath, ืืงืื. The word ืืฉืจื, his flesh, is really needed primarily to exclude the need to wash his clothing in running water from a well but that it may be washed in any kind of water. *Torat Kohanim* on 15,13 explains this also. The author overcomes the accusation that he wanted to use the word ืืฉืจื for two exegetical comments by mentioning the word ืืืื in our verse for this combined exegesis. *Korban Aharon*, on the other hand, bases himself on the Torah not writing ืืจืืฅ ืืื, but merely ืืจืืฅ ืืฉืจื. If you adopt our approach you do not need all this.
โ[4] Concerning another comment by *Torat Kohanim* on Leviticus 6,21 ืืืจืง ืืฉืืืฃ ืืืื, "it shall be scoured and rinsed in water," where the Torah speaks of the vessel wherein the sin-offering has been cooked, we find another definition of the Torah's use of the word ืืืื when not defined further. Here is the text of *Torat Kohanim* there. "If the Torah had only written ืืฉืืฃ, I would have concluded that it is required to be immersed in at least 40 *Sa-ah* of water, i.e. a ritual bath. The additional word ืืืื teaches that a minimal amount of water is sufficient. The word ืืืื also excludes wine as the liquid in which such an earthenware vessel may be scoured." We cannot compare the superfluous word ืืืื the Torah wrote in connection with the sin-offering with the superfluous word ืืืื in our verse. If the Torah had not written the word ืืืื in Leviticus 6,21 I would not have required more than 40 *Sa-ah* of the waters of a ritual bath. We would not have jumped to the conclusion that the vessels in question had to be scoured in ืืื ืืืื, running water from a well, and that the extra word ืืืื precluded this requirement. I would simply have concluded that the word was necessary to tell us that what is required is 40 *Sa-ah* of "mikveh-water" rather than any quantity of any kind of water. This is not so in our context. If not for the restrictive word ืืืื, I would have had cause to assume that what is required is running water from a well. The extra word ืืืื therefore teaches us that no ืืื ืืืื, running water from a well, is required. If *Torat Kohanim* on Leviticus 6,21 added that the word ืืืื means that the vessel must not be scoured in wine, this is not derived from the word ืืืื being extraneous but from the plain meaning of the word, i.e. "water, yes, wine , no."
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY