๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:00:12. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
7 โ[1] ** ืืืื ืขื ืืืืืจ ืื ืืฆืจืขืช, and he shall sprinkle on him that is to be purified, etc.** Why did the Torah have to write the words ืื ืืฆืจืขืช? Is it not obvious that we speak about someone who had suffered from "leprosy?" Perhaps the fact that this sprinkling of the blood mixed with ืืื ืืืื of the slaughtered bird still did not complete the purification process and the former "leper" still has to remain outside his home for another seven days shows he is comparable to a woman who had suffered from vaginal secretions, ืืื. During these seven days before the former "leper" brings his final offerings and undergoes the procedure outlined in verses 9-20 he is still a primary source of ritual impurity, ืื ืืืืืื. The Torah therefore emphasised by the words ืืืืืจ ืื ืืฆืจืขืช that the person is being cleansed only of the actual plague called ืฆืจืขืช; he is not yet "clean." If we learn in verse 9 that this person must wash his garments on the seventh day this proves that his body conferred impurity on his clothing during the preceding seven days. This proves in turn that he was a primary source of ritual impurity as secondary sources of impurity do not confer ืืืืื on clothing. The words ืื ืืฆืจืขืช are amply justified then.
โ[2] *Torat Kohanim* offers a different explanation, saying that the words ืื ืืฆืจืขืช are intended to teach that if someone's ritual impurity is due to contact with a dead body he does not have to undergo seven sprinklings of ืืื ืืืื. Had the Torah not written the words ืื ืืฆืจืขืช, I would have concluded through a ืงื ืืืืืจ that if a "leper" who does not require sprinklings of water from a well (mixed with the ash of the red heifer) on the third and seventh day of his purification process nonetheless requires seven sprinklings of blood, then a person whose impurity is due to contact with a dead body would certainly need these seven sprinklings of ืืื ืืืื spring water mixed with the blood.. Hence the Torah wrote the words ืื ืืฆืจืขืช in order to teach me that such a ืงื ืืืืืจ is not admissible. At the end of that *Baraitha* it is stated that the word ืืืืจื in verse 7 is restrictive and teaches that the "leper" does not have to undergo sprinklings of well water mixed with the ash of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of his purification rites as does the person who purifies himself from ritual impurity due to contact with a dead body. Had the Torah not written the word ืืืืจื, I would have learned a ืงื ืืืืืจ that if such a ืืื ืืช who does not require the seven sprinklings of ืืื ืืืื plus blood, nonetheless requires sprinkling of well water mixed with the ash of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of his purification rites, the "leper" who even requires the seven sprinklings of blood mixed with ืืื ืืืื certainly would also require the sprinkling with well water (containing ash from the red heifer) on the third and seventh day of his own waiting period. The word ืืืืจื therefore means that the ritual described previously is sufficient.
โ[3] I do not understand this. Seeing we have already used the words ืื ืืฆืจืขืช to teach us that a comparison between a ืืื ืืช and a ืฆืจืืข, leper, is inadmissible, why did I need the word ืืืืจื to teach me the same thing?
โ[4] We may explain this as follows; In the case of the ืืื ืืช the Torah legislated sprinklings of ืื ืคืจื on the third and seventh day respectively (Numbers 19, 18-19) without mentioning how many of these sprinklings there had to be. On the other hand, the Torah did mention the number of sprinklings to be administered to someone whose ritual impurity was due to the plague, but it did not mention on which days these sprinklings had to be administered. It would have been quite reasonable to argue that a purification procedure requiring seven sprinklings is a more comprehensive procedure than one which occurs only on the third and seventh day respectively because it takes place only twice. The Torah therefore had to write the word ืืืืจื to teach that such reasoning is invalid. On the other hand, one could have argued with equal force that if the Torah legislated sprinklings to occur on **two days** in the case of a ืืื ืืช, whereas the ืฆืจืืข requires sprinkling only on one day of the seven days he is waiting, this is proof that the purification procedure of the ืืื ืืช is of greater force than the one involving the "leper." Different scholars each adopt one of these two arguments in their approach to our problem. Accordingly, one scholar would have learned the ืงื ืืืืืจ using as his point of departure the case of the ืืื ืืช, whereas the other scholar would have used the ืงื ืืืืืจ using as his point of departure the case of the "leper." As a result the Torah had to write two restrictive expressions, i.e. ืื ืืฆืจืขืช as well as ืืืืจื in order to invalidate either ืงื ืืืืืจ.
โ[5] Seeing that the logic of at least one of the two scholars arguing in opposite directions must be faulty, you may ask why the Torah should have to bother to invalidate faulty reasoning by writing an extra word! The answer is that we find that the Talmud *Berachot* 47 on the words ืขืืื ืืืจ ืงืจื, explains that there are numerous instances in Tannaitic exegesis when a verse is used to refute a statement whose logic was faulty in the first place.
โ[6] I have seen a comment by the outstanding scholar Rabbi Yehudah Rosenish, author of *Mishneh Lamelech* (commentary on the ืื ืืืืงื by Maimonides) on *Hilchot Chametz Umatzah* 6,2, where he quotes a *Baraitha* similar to the one we have quoted before whose text is as follows ( *Torat Kohanim* chapter 11 on Leviticus 23,6): the words ืืื ืื ืืืฆืืช, mean that on this day *matzot* are mandatory; on *Sukkot*, however, *matzot* are not mandatory. We could have learned a ืงื ืืืืืจ reasoning that if a festival (Passover) which does not require that we move into a *Sukkah* still requires us to eat *matzot*, then surely a festival on which we have to move into a *Sukkah* requires us to eat *matzot*. The Torah therefore wrote ืืื ืื ืืืฆืืช to make it clear that *matzot* are mandatory only on Passover. In chapter 14 of the same *Torat Kohanim* on Leviticus 23,34 on the sequence of the words ืืื ืื ืืกืืืืช, the following *Baraitha* is quoted: These words mean that only the festival of *Sukkot* requires us to move out into huts whereas the festival of Passover does not include such a requirement. I could have learned a ืงื ืืืืืจ saying that if this festival which does not require us to eat *matzot* nonetheless requires us to move into huts, then a festival, i.e. Passover, which does require us to eat *Matzot* most certainly also requires us to move into huts. The Torah therefore writes ืืื to teach us that only on the festival of *Sukkot* are we required to move into huts. The author of *Lechem Mishneh* there raises the same questions we have raised in connection with the *Baraitha* concerning the words ืื ืืฆืจืขืช and ืืืืจื in our portion. It will be worth your while to see what Rabbi Rosenish answers there although I consider his words slightly forced. There are a number of authorities who do not consider it worth their while to examine Maimonides' rulings critically when what is at issue is a lenient ruling concerning a matter whose biblical origin is doubtful at best. [This is relevant because Maimonides' ruling concerns whether it is adequate to swallow the bitter herbs without tasting them. Ed.]
โ[7] I believe that the solution to why both of these *Baraithot* are quoted by *Torat Kohanim* is quite self-explanatory as we explained earlier. The whole point of our moving into the *Sukkah* is to remind ourselves of the miracles G'd performed for us after the Exodus as we know from Leviticus 23,43. This move into the *Sukkah* is an additional dimension of our recalling the Exodus. It was quite natural therefore to suppose that we should also eat *matzot* on that festival to symbolise our remembrance of that miracle seeing the Torah commanded us to sit in the *Sukkah*, something we do not have to do on Passover. The Torah had to write the word ืืื to teach us that there is no need to do this. On the other hand, the festival of Passover also reflects a dimension of that miracle which is not present in the festival of *Sukkot* in that we celebrate it on the anniversary of its occurrence, on the 15th of Nissan. One could have supposed therefore that it would be in order to observe it while sitting in *Sukkot*, seeing that we have to sit in the *Sukkah* even when we observe this remembrance without it being on the anniversary of the event it commemorates. It was reasonable then for the author of the *Baraitha* to assume that but for the extra words ืืื on both occasions such a ืงื ืืืืืจ would have been in order. The author tries to demolish the explanation by *Lechem Mishneh* arguing that if the whole ืงื ืืืืืจ was only based on a possible ืืืื as opposed to a definite one, it could not have been called ืงื ืืืืืจ at all. [I have left out some of the details of this reasoning. Ed.]
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY