๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:59:52. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
6 โ[1] ** ืืื ื ืืื ืื ืืข, and the affliction has dimmed, etc.** Rashi explains this to mean that if the appearance of the affliction remains either stationary or has spread, the person suffering from it is impure. Maimonides writes in chapter one of his treatise *Hilchot Tum-at Tzora-at* that the word ืืื means that if the appearance is less white than any of the four degrees of whiteness the Torah had described, the person afflicted by it is now ืืืืจ, "clean." Similarly, if it neither spread nor dimmed nor sprouted a white hair in the area of the affliction, the person who suffered these symptoms is "clean" also. Thus far Maimonides.
โ[2] According to Rashi the expression ืืื in the Torah describes a comparison to a previous condition which definitely was one of the other three symptoms qualifying for the description ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช, whereas the present appearance is not one which does not qualify for any of the four degrees of whiteness which would constitute the presence of a ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช. Had the Torah wanted to exclude the presence at this stage of all the four possible symptoms which constitute the presence of a ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช, the Torah should have written that there was no appearance of anything which looked like ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช. We must conclude therefore that our verse discusses someone who had previously displayed at least one of the three other kinds of white areas which would signify ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช such as the ืืืจืช described in verse 2 which had a subcategory ืกืคืืช. If, however, the appearance had already been at the lowest end of the scale of white, i.e. the skin covering an egg, it could not have dimmed any further [and still be of concern to us halachically at all. Ed.] Alternatively, we would have to assume that there is a lower degree of whiteness in any of the four categories ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช the Torah has discussed thus far, and it is this relatively dimmer appearance the Torah describes here as ืืื ืื ืืข. The ื ืืข described as ืืืจืช itself would consist of either of two degrees of whiteness, both being close in appearance to snow-white. One of these degrees existed prior to the stage described in the Torah as ืืื, the other after that stage had been reached. We find the following statement in *Nega-im* 1,4: Rabbi Chanina says there are altogether 16 shades of a colour which could qualify as ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช. Rabbi Dotha claims that there are 36 such shades. Akavyah ben Mahallel says that there are no fewer than 72 such shades which have to be examined. We may assume that these Rabbis do not disagree as to which shades constitute an affliction resulting in the victm becoming declared ritually impure, etc; they disagree only as to the number of shades there are that a priest must be familiar with in order to render the proper ruling. [these shades include also other kinds of skin afflictions such as ืืืจื and ืฉืืื, ื ืชืงืื, etc.. Ed.] Maimonides in his commentary on the *Mishnah* also writes that the disagreements do not concern basic categories which would qualify as ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช. Only a few of these shades actually qualify as ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช. There are two basic methods which may bring about a change in the legal status of the afflicted person, seeing that the "dimming" is what determines the process of the afflicted person becoming "clean." Either there has to be a dimming from one basic category to a lower basic category of whiteness, or there only needs to occur a dimming from the higher level of a category to a lower level of whiteness within the same basic category. One may make a case for either of these approaches except that the first method appears somewhat forced. Rashi is true to his method of interpretation of the Torah and adopts the approach that the word ืืื ืื ืืข is followed in the Torah by the word ืื ืืข indicating that the affliction has not been totally uprooted though it has improved. It has only improved in appearance. Therefore he arrives at the conclusion that if the appearance even dimmed only relatively, within the major category it belonged to previously, this is sufficient to have this person declared "clean."
โ[3] According to Maimonides, when the Torah speaks of the ื ืืข having dimmed, this means that it has become dimmer than any of the four basic categories of whiteness which cause the priest to pronounce the person so afflicted as impure. The present state of colour is dimmer than any of the four degrees of whiteness described in the Torah. In this respect Maimonides agrees with Rashi that if the whiteness had dimmed to a degree of whiteness less bright than the four categories listed, the person concerned is declared "clean." If, however, we were to understand that the words ืืื ืื ืืข, are a dimming which is darker than the original white but still within the four shades of white which constitute ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช, what news does the Torah reveal by saying that such a person remains impure? We have to explain the words of Maimonides as referring to the need for the afflicted person to wash his clothing [complete ritual immersion. Ed.] even if the present appearance of the formerly white spot is dimmer than any of the four categories of whiteness which result in the priest declaring such a person as afflicted with ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช.
โ[4] If we accept Rashi's opinion, why did the Torah not make the dimming of the afflicted spot conditional on it reverting to its original colour just as the Torah made the declaration by the priest that the person is definitely afflicted dependent on the area of the whiteness spreading? According to Maimonides, when the Torah speaks of the afflicted area as not "having spread," the meaning is that it has not dimmed in colour either. According to Rashi we do not know what the legal status of the person under observation at the end of the second week would be in such a situation.
โ[5] As mentioned previously, we can approach the problem in two ways. According to method one, both expressions i.e. ืืื and ืื ืคืฉื ืื ืืข describe conditions which result in the formerly afflicted person being considered "clean." Seeing that we do not need both expressions in order to teach us the same ืืืื in the same setting, one of these expressions is used exegetically as applicable to a situation other than the one described in our verse. [something which in the thirteen exegetical rules of Rabbi Yishmael is called ืื ืืืื ืขื ืขืฆืื ืืฆื ืืื ืขื ืืืื ืืืื ืืฆื; Ed.] In our case one example, i.e. that the whiteness has dimmed, teaches that if it resumes its former brightness the person previously under suspicion of being a ืฆืจืืข will this time be considered as **definitely** afflicted. This will be so even though the white spot he suffers from now is no brighter than the whiteness of the spot he suffered from previously while he was only under observation. This is only true however, if previously the white spot had never dimmed enough to be less white **than any** of the basic four categories of whiteness which potentially make him impure, afflicted. Seeing he had previously not been declared impure, his again having a spot of that degree of whiteness on his skin would not make him worse off than before, i.e. under observation by the priest only. Do not ask concerning the example of ืคืฉืืื, spreading, which the Torah describes as one following the afflicted person having come under the priest's scrutiny and isolation and having been declared ritually pure. The person in question is one who is again ritually pure. Nonetheless the Torah ordered that if such a spread occurred **again**, the person afflicted is considered impure and the Torah does not allow for a situation where the area concerned either contracted or remained stationary. Why does the Torah not allow for a situation there where the afflicted person reverts to the status prior to the white area having spread, i.e. his status would be one of suspended ritual purity pending further developments? This is not a valid question because in a situation of ืคืฉืืื, a horizontal spreading of the affected area, the priest declares such a person as definitely ืฆืจืืข already at the end of the first seven days of quarantine, unlike the situation described in verses 4-6 where the shade of white is the determining factor. Perhaps Rashi thought that the second approach to our problem is based on reasoning and does not require a specific verse to confirm it. This is an essential weakness in Rashi's approach.
โ[6] Personally, I prefer to explain our verse in the following manner: ืืื ื ืืื ืื ืืข; "and behold, the affliction has dimmed;" it has become dimmer than its original appearance but it still is white enough to qualify under one of the basic four categories as a ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช, (just as Rashi had said). However, the intention of our verse is that even if the appearance of the white spots had dimmed, the individual in question is to be declared "clean" only if there had not been a horizontal expansion of the afflicted area on the skin during the week in question. If the white area on the skin has expanded horizontally, the person retains the same status as he had at the previous inspection by the priest a week earlier. My only difficulty is to know on what basis our verse arrives at this conclusion.
โ[7] Meanwhile I have seen the following statement of our sages in *Torat Kohanim*. "You might have thought that the words ืืื ื ืืื ืื ืืข mean that the appearance of the white spot is dimmer than any of the four basic categories of white which would qualify as ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช; therefore the Torah adds the word ืื ืืข, to tell you that the Torah speaks of one of these four categories. If the Torah had only written the word ืื ืืข you would have thought that it could have remained looking the same as on the last inspection. Therefore the Torah had to write ืืื ื ืืื, it had definitively dimmed when measured against its previous appearance but not sufficiently to be dimmer than any of the four categories of white which qualify as a ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช. The words ืืื ื ืืื also mean that if its whiteness intensified during that week and dimmed subsequently it is as if it had not intensified; the word ืื ืืข means that if it had first dimmed during that week only to intensify again, it is as if it had never dimmed at all." Thus far *Torat Kohanim*. Clearly, the author of *Torat Kohanim* feels that the dimming was not sufficient to result in such a dim appearance that it no longer would have qualified as a ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช at all, unlike the comment of Rashi. However, from the statement that if the afflicted area had intensified in whiteness at some time during that week or dimmed and intensified again, we disregard all dimming or intensification respectively as if they had not occurred, it is clear that this conforms to our own interpretation. It is the intention of our verse that if a certain degree of whiteness was not visible **originally**, then even if it had become much whiter in the interval as long as it had dimmed by the time the priest inspected it again it would be declared healed, provided it had not spread horizontally. Having established this, the author of this *Baraitha* clearly disagrees with both Rashi ad Maimonides. Nonetheless, as mentioned we still have no source for the opinion offered by the author of *Torat Kohanim*. Perhaps it is simply a condition that there has to be a dimming of some kind before the quarantined person may qualify for the description "clean."
โ[8] I have found another comment in *Torat Kohanim* on our portion which is as follows: "the meaning of the word ืืกืคืืช in our verse is that though it did not change its appearance." This means that even if it did not become weaker in appearance the person under observation is declared "clean" on the second inspection by the priest. If so, we can once more revert to explain that the reason is that the word ืืื means that the priest does not **initially** examine if the whiteness has dimmed; neither does he immediately consider if it had intensified. Both the words of Rashi and Maimonides need further examination and seem very difficult to reconcile with *Torat Kohanim*.
โ[9] **ืืกืคืืช ืืื, it is a scab.** This means that it is not a ืฆืจืขืช, similar to the word ืืืง ืืื in Leviticus 13,39: "it is a brightness." Nonetheless the Torah commands people afflicted with such symptoms to wash their clothing, i.e. an indication that they have contracted a minor form of impurity. If we look for a homiletical meaning for this law it may be that it indicates that the victim was guilty of something called ืืืง ืืฉืื ืืจืข, a peripheral form of loose talk about a third party. We find an example for this in *Erchin* 15 where a person who described a fire in a neighbour's house is described as guilty of ืืืง ืืฉืื ืืจืข.
โ[10] Another meaning of the expression ืืกืคืืช ืืื is simply that this is a form of affliction which requires the person so afflicted to "wash the clothing he wore when this affliction was diagnosed by the priest." [actually it means ritual immersion. Ed.] We derive this from the sequence of the words ืืกืคืืช ืืื ืืืืก ืืืืื. From the words ืืืืจื ืืืื just prior to this sequence it seems clear that the priest first has to say to the afflicted person "you are clean" before he is back to normal. This appears to be difficult to understand. It makes sense that the person quarantined because of certain symptoms would not be considered ืืื, impure, unless so declared by the examining priest; but why should a person who has not so far been declared as impure require to be declared pure by the priest before returning to society? Granted that Rashi says somewhere that this is because the person had already been quarantined, this is not a sufficient reason. When you accept our approach to the whole verse there is an adequate reason for the priest having to declare such a person as "clean." We had characterised this symptom as a form of skin-affliction. If so, it is reasonable that the victim cannot be purified from it without the formal declaration by the priest that he is "clean" henceforth.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY