๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:06:56. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
30 โ[1] ** ืฉืขืจ ืฆืื ืืง, thin blond or yellowish hair;** according to *Torat Kohanim* the word "yellowish" is intended to exclude hair which is of a greenish, reddish or black colour. The use of the word "yellowish," serves to exclude all colour except white. The colour white did not need exclusion. We might have arrived at this through simple logic. Just as the colour yellow is not a colour mentioned in connection with other afflictions of the skin considered as leading to ritual impurity, so the colour white, which is the prime colour for skin-afflictions resulting in ritual impurity would most certainly also qualify for such impurity if it occurred in the area of the beard. The Torah therefore mentions "yellowish" to tell us that white would not qualify as a colour resulting in ritual impurity in this legislation dealing with hair discolouring in the area where the beard grows. I find it difficult to follow this ืงื ืืืืืจ, inference from minor to major. Maybe the word ืฆืื, yellowish, is needed to teach us the basic law that this colour if present in a ื ืชืง, scall, confers ritual impurity on the person concerned even though the colour has no negative implications in other skin-discolourations. If so, white would cause ritual impurity in the case of a scall just as it does in other skin afflictions which the Torah has legislated previously. This reasoning is reinforced by the mere fact that the author of *Torat Kohanim* did not spell out a ืงื ืืืืืจ saying: "if yellowish, which does not normally confer ritual impurity etc.," until after he had established that yellowish does confer ritual impurity in a scall. From the sequence of the reasoning in *Torat Kohanim* you may infer that the Torah did not exclude your right to make the ืงื ืืืืืจ we have just mentioned. If so, how does the word ืฆืื, yellowish, demolish the validity of the ืงื ืืืืืจ?
โ[2] I must assume therefore that the exegetical approach of *Torat Kohanim* goes along these lines: "The Torah writes about the afflicted person who has already been mentioned ืืืื **ืืืชื** ืืืื, instead of the shorter ืืืืื, which the Torah used already on several occasions (verses 8,11,15,20). The extra word ืืืชื is used to exclude a white scall from causing the afflicted person to become ritually impure. We would translate the verse as follows: ืืืื ืืืชื, i.e. "the yellowish colour confers impurity;" it is as if the author of *Torat Kohanim* had said: "the word 'yellowish' teaches that **only it** and no other colour including white results in ritual purity in this instance." If you will examine what the author of *Torat Kohanim* has written every other time the Torah wrote ืืืื ืืืชื instead of ืืืืื, you will find an approach consistent with what he wrote in this instance. Why did he not bother to tell us that he used the word ืืืชื to arrive at his conclusion? The reason may be that he still wanted to use the word ืืง which preceded the word ืืืชื for an additional exegetical message. A careful scholar does not jump from the right to the left and rely on his reader to read his mind so as not to arrive at a faulty conclusion about his true intentions. You will find that after explaining the exclusion contained in the word ืืืชื, our author of *Torat Kohanim* explains the exclusion contained in the sequence of the words ืืืื ืืืชื ืืืื ื ืชืง **ืืื** using only the word ืืื in that sequence as an exclusion. The reason he did so is because he had already used the word ืืืชื in the sense we explained.
โ[3] You may reason that if all this is correct, why do we not use a ืงื ืืืืืจ type of reasoning to prove that just as the colour yellow results in the afflicted person becoming ritually impure when he contracted a ื ืชืง, the same should hold true for yellowish hair in other situations where hair is a factor in the afflicted person contracting ritual impurity in connection with skin turned white? The logic is simple. If a white hair which which does not confer ritual impurity when present in a ื ืชืง, nevertheless confers ritual impurity when present with other skin afflictions, then a yellow hair which even confers ritual impurity when present only in a ื ืชืง, certainly confers ritual impurity when it appears in conjunction with other skin afflictions. Perhaps the very fact that the Torah needed to exclude white as a colour resulting in ritual impurity in the case of a scall was equivalent to telling us that we should not engage in learning the ืงื ืืืืืจ in reverse as applying to situations such as ืืืจืช ืื ืฉืืช. You may wish to read what we have written on Leviticus 14,7 in connection with the *Baraitha* which explains why the person afflicted with ืฆืจืขืช has to experience seven sprinklings of ืืื ืืืื in his purification process as opposed to the person who contacted ritual impurity through contact with a dead body, and who has to undergo only two such sprinklings one each on the third and on the seventh day of his purification rites. This is so in spite of the fact that I could have arrived at the opposite conclusion by using the ืงื ืืืืืจ type of reasoning.
โ[4] In that instance, the author falls back on the explanation of the word ืฆืื he has given on our verse here. Why is the colour ืฆืื the only one which confers impurity in the case of a scall? *Torat Kohanim* explains that this colour symbolises gold. Maimonides explains in his commentary on tractate *Nega-im* 6,1 that ืฆืื is a colour which is a mixture of red and green. I have seen that Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explains it as follows: "The word means something close to egg-white in Arabic." It appears therefore that Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra understood the word ืฆืื as ivory coloured. We, who live under Mohammedan rule, know that the Arabic word *tzahov* means some kind of dim white. This would all contradict the opinion expressed by the Tannaim in the Mishnah. I do not see what purpose would be served to explain words in the Torah in terms of the Arabic language; this would lead to making our Torah into a book of lies, G'd forbid. What is so objectionable in our traditional sources explaining the word ืฆืื as yellowish-gold? I am afraid that Rabbi Ibn Ezra lent his hand to those who make a mockery of our holy Torah. Anyone who toys with commentaries of this nature would do better to suppress them and not to publish them.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY