๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:44:54. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2 โ[1] ** ืืืจื ืื ืื ื ืืฉืจืื ืืืืจืชื, "speak to the children of Israel and say to them, etc."** This entire verse appears redundant in view of verse 1 before it. Perhaps we may understand it in light of *Torat Kohanim* which explained that whereas the Israelites confer ritual impurity when they suffer from the involuntary seminal emissions called ืืืื, the Gentiles do not confer such ritual impurity if they come into contact with Jews or touch their belongings, etc. The Torah therefore employed the expression ืืืจื to indicate the relative severity of this legislation. Expressions such as ืืืจ always indicate some degree of harshness when compared to the expression ืืืืจ. A Jew suffering from this disease transmits ritual impurity to anything he sits on or lies on, even. The Torah continued with the softer ืืืืจืชื to console the Israelites that the fact that they transmit ritual impurity is a compliment for them as it shows that prior to that disease they were in a state of ritual purity, a status never enjoyed by Gentiles. The word ืืืจ is used as indicating spiritual superiority in Deut. 26,17 where G'd described the mutual bond between G'd and Israel in those terms. The considerations we have just outlined form the mystical dimension of the statement in *Shabbat* 13 that a ืฉืืื, a person of unsound mind, does not suffer afflictions. The meaning is that he does not realise that he is discriminated against by suffering what others do not suffer.
โ[2] **ืืืฉ ืืืฉ ืื ืืืื ืื, any man that has an issue, etc.** Why did the Torah repeat the word ืืืฉ? Perhaps the Torah wanted to inform us of something we learned in *Tanna de bey Eliyahu* chapter 15 that if a man experiences a seminal emission he is obligated to immerse himself in a ritual bath. Such a person may reason that inasmuch as no outsider is aware of this emission, he need not bother to go to a ritual bath. He will use the same kind of reasoning when it occurs a second time. If he experiences such an emission a third time without having purified himself in the interval, he would become guilty of what is written in Job 33,29 ืคืขืืื ืฉืืืฉ ืขื ืืืจ, "twice or three times with a man;" i.e. that G'd lets man get away with his inadequacies twice or three times before disciplining him severely. Ignoring the need for ritual immersion will eventually result in such a man becoming a ืื, afflicted with the flux which forms the subject matter of our paragraph. The word ,ืืืฉ ืืืฉ alludes to the person who ignores the need to purify himself repeatedly. We find the word ืืืฉ used in Deut. 23,11 where the Torah speaks of a man experiencing nocturnal seminal emissions and becoming ritually impure as a result. The Torah hints that such a person cannot expect to get away with his failure to purify himself more than twice.
โ[3] **ืืืื ืืื ืืื, in his issue, he is impure.** Our sages in *Torat Kohanim* understand the last three words of the verse, i.e. ืืืื ืืื ืืื as belonging together. The verse tells us that the flux he emitted is ritually impure. You may ask that this could have been arrived at by simple logic, seeing that the Torah had told us that the person who emitted the flux is ritually impure although he is one step removed from the cause of the impurity; it would therefore stand to reason that the agent causing the impurity would be ritually unclean! We may counter that we do not apply this kind of reasoning in connection with the scapegoat which is considered pure although it confers ritual impurity on the persons touching it (compare Leviticus 16,28). The Torah therefore had to write that the emission itself is ritually impure. *Torat Kohanim* uses another argument justifying the statement ืืืื ืืื ืืื. The emission is ritually impure whereas any blood issuing from the same bodily orifice of this afflicted person is not impure. Had it not been for these three words I would have reasoned that seeing that the spittle of the afflicted person is impure although it issues forth from a pure area of the individual, blood which issues forth from the same orifice as the seminal discharge would most certainly be ritually impure! The Torah therefore wrote ืืืื ืืื **ืืื**, that only "it," i.e. the seminal discharge from that canal is ritually impure. The scholar quoted in *Torat Kohanim* uses similar reasoning in reverse when he needs to find an otherwise unnecessary word or letter to include the urine of the person afflicted with ืืื as conferring ritual impurity. This is based on the letter ื in the word ืืืืช in verse 3. Had it not been for that extra letter I would have reasoned that if the spittle which issues forth from a "clean" part of the afflicted person's body transmits ritual impurity then urine which issues forth from an already impure part of his body certainly does so? Why then did the Torah have to include such a ืืืื by writing ืืืืช? Answer: Seeing above reasoning is not true in the case of any blood issuing forth from that orifice which nonetheless does not transmit impurity, the Torah had to write a letter to include urine in the liquids which do transmit impurity. *Niddah* 56 raises the question of why blood is included in the list of liquids which does not transmit impurity whereas urine is included in the list of liquids which does transmit impurity. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai answers that urine leaves the body only after a quantity has collected, similar to spittle, whereas blood leaves the body one drop at a time. Besides, both spittle and urine can be re-absorbed by the body in the form in which they left the body, something that is not possible with blood seeing it congeals and hardens.
โ[4] The difficulty with this answer is that if true, all the Torah had to write was the word ืืืืช in order to include urine. I would then have applied the previously mentioned contradictory two ืงื ืืืืืจ to arrive at the conclusion that the logic of either cancel each other out. This would have led me to realise that the Torah wrote the inclusive letter ื in ืืืืช in order to demolish the ืงื ืืืืืจ. Seeing that the letter ื could include only one liquid, I would have known that the liquid in question had to be urine according to the explanation offered by Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. I would therefore have excluded blood. I would not have needed the word ืืื to exclude blood as not transmitting ritual impurity. [I have omitted a few more arguments along this line presented by the author. Ed.]
โ[5] The author concludes from all this that there is a moral-ethical dimension to the restrictive word ืืื. The Torah teaches by means of the superfluous word ืืื that not only the body of the afflicted person causes him to be impure but there is a meta-physical dimension. G'd is trying to impress the afflicted person that his affliction is due to his sinful conduct. The word ืืื refers back to the afflicted person, not to the seminal fluid. This is why the Torah decreed that the entire person becomes a primary source of ritual impurity, i.e. ืื ืืืืืื. In that capacity the afflicted person confers ritual impurity on both humans and all kinds of vessels he will come in contact with. Although the scholar in the *Torat Kohanim* had used the word ืืื to exclude the afflicted person's blood from conferring impurity on others, this was prior to the exegetical use made by the interpretation of the word ืืืืช. After having explained the word ืืืืช, the previous interpretation of the word ืืื became subject to revision and to different interpretations. There are numerous instances in which *Torat Kohanim* proceeds in this manner. The author of Torat Kohanim thus left room for subsequent scholars to offer their own interpretations.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY