๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:07:06. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
4 โ[1] ** ืืฆืื ืืืื ืืืงื ืืืืืจ, and the priest will command to take for the person to be purified, etc.** According to *Torat Kohanim* the priest issues the instruction but anybody is authorised to take the birds. In the following verse *Torat Kohanim* again understands that according to the view of Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Yossi the priest issues the instructions but that any non-priest is qualified to slaughter these birds. Rabbi disagrees, insisting that also the slaughtering of the birds must be performed by a priest. Why did Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi not disagree concerning what is written in verse 4?If we were to assume that in verse 4 the word ืืฆืื applied only to another verb, i.e. ืืืงื instead of to an object, this is not an adequate reason as even in verse 5 the word ืืฆืื refers to another verb, namely ืืฉืื, and we do not know that it refers to any other object. In fact, in verse 4 we are entitled to assume that the word ืืฆืื implies that the birds be brought to the priest and he would receive them personally from those who bring them to him so that he would perform two commandments, something that is not so in verse 5 if we read it to mean that the words ืืฆืื ืืฉืื apply to one and the same person, i.e. the priest.
โ[2] I have seen a comment by *Korban Aharon* according to which the commandment is that the priest command that two birds be brought to him so that he could choose one of them as the offering and one to be released later (verse 7). The reason that Rabbi did not disagree with Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Yossi in verse 4 insisting that only the priest is to take the birds is, that he could not tie the word ืืฆืื to the commandment, i.e. he could not prove that the priest had to make this selection. Thus far *Korban Aharon*. I do not agree with the author of *Korban Aharon* as there is no indication from the words that the commandment to select the birds had to be performed by the priest and that it could be derived from the word ืืฆืื. On the contrary, we may infer that the word ืืฆืื as positioned in this verse indicates that the selection of the bird may be performed either by the priest or by someone else, whereas the slaughtering of the bird selected had to be performed by the priest, and Rabbi could explain verse 4 along the same lines as he did verse 5 saying that the selection of the birds could be performed only by the priest. It would then have appeared that Rabbi disagrees with Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Yossi and thought that the slaughtering of the birds also could be performed only by priests.
โ[3] The reason, however, would not be because of something specific in our verse, but because it corresponds to the nature in which the subject matter is described by the Torah. G'd had commanded that the slaughtering take place in a vessel made of earthenware over water running from a well. This is not an act which is only "slaughtering," seeing a second action must accompany it immediately afterwards. This latter act is the principal ingredient of the purification ritual. Seeing that this is so it is reasonable to assume that it can be performed only by the priest. This kind of reasoning cannot be applied in verse 4 in which no action is demanded that is part of the purification process. There was therefore no reason to assume that the Torah demanded it to be performed by the priest exclusively unless the Torah had so indicated by some extra word or letter. The Torah preferred to leave the matter to be decided by the scholars.
โ[4] Furthermore, we may assume that the plain meaning of verse 4 in which the Torah mentions the taking of the birds is that the Torah addresses the priest. The reason for this is that there was no need to mention the word "the priest" in the verse in connection with each separate activity. The Torah had repeated the word "the priest" already several times in verses 2-3. In the absence of a further repetition of that word at the beginning of verse 4 we would have reasoned that the commandment is not restricted to the priest as the Torah did not again mention the word "the priest" until the end in verse 5. These considerations are invalid seeing the Torah did write the word "the priest" at the beginning of verse 4. This indicates that just as everything which had been mentioned in verses 2 and 3 had to be performed by the priest the same is true of what is said in verse 4. Seeing that the Torah bothered to write the words ืืฆืื ืืืื once more in verse 5, the meaning must be that at least something of what is described in verse 4 need not only be performed by the priest. The word ืืืงื therefore does not refer to the priest. If everything in verse 4 could only be performed by a priest, why did the Torah have to write the words "the priest" again in verse 5? All the Torah had to write in verse 5 was ืืฆืื ืืฉืื, and I would have known that it is the priest who is the subject of these instructions. Clearly then the instructions in the Torah have to be split up differently. When the Torah writes the word ืืืงื in verse 4 for the first time, this refers to anybody, not only to the priest. The same interpretation cannot be applied to the word ืืืงื in verse 5 as we have no indication from Rabbi that he holds that the ืืืื is based on the plain meaning of the verse. This is especially so as both the word ืืฆืื and the word ืืฉืื are positioned next to the word ืืืื on either side of it.
โ[5] Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Yossi, however, feels that seeing we found in verse 4 that the word ืืืงื does not need to refer to the word ืืืื although it is written adjoining to the word ืืืื we may interpret what is written in verse 5 in a similar manner.
โ[6] All this would be fine except for a statement in *Torat Kohanim* at the beginning of our portion. This is what is written there: The law about purifying the "leper" is entrusted to the priest. I would have thought that the priest's function is only to declare the "leper" either impure or healed, i.e "clean." How do I know that the priest also has to offer the birds and perform the sprinklings of the blood as well as shave the "leper?" This is why the Torah says: ืชืืจืช ืืืฆืืจืข ืืืื. Seeing this is so, I would have thought that also the taking of the birds and the sending away of the live bird and the washing of the "leper" and his clothing are to be performed only by the priest? To teach me that this is not so the Torah wrote ืืืช. Thus far *Torat Kohanim*. From the plain text of the *Baraitha* it seems clear that only three parts of the purification process of the "leper" have to be performed by the priest. In view of this there was no need for the Torah to command the priest about taking the birds or slaughtering them. From the combined text of the two *Baraithot* it emerges clearly that both Rabbi and Rabbi Yehudah ben Yossi hold that the priest must issue directives concerning two procedures. There appears to be a clear contradiction then between these two *Baraithot*.
โ[7] Perhaps the reason why the author of the *Baraitha* did not mention the two clear directives to the priest contained in verses 4 and 5 is that he considered only things which involve the body of the "leper" as part of his purification ritual; he had already excluded numerous things as a result of the restrictive word ืืืช. If the Torah had not specifically demanded in verses 4 and 5 that the priest perform the act of selecting the birds and slaughtering them, I would have concluded that the word ืืืช in verse 2 had already relieved the priest from these two duties. The author of the *Baraitha* therefore only mentioned matters included in the definition ืชืืจืช ืืืฆืืจืข. He was well aware that he would make separate comments on verses 4 and 5; hence he ignored these aspects in his earlier comments.
โ[8] However, I have seen in chapter 11,5 of *Hilchot Tum-at Tzora-at* by Maimonides that only the slaughtering of the birds and the shaving of the body-hair of the "leper," as well as the sprinkling of the blood of the bird have to be performed by the priest. No mention is made of the priest having to select the birds. In fact, Maimonides mentions specifically that all the rituals he has not mentioned may be performed by ordinary Israelites as well as by priests. Although we have a *Tossephta* in chapter eight of tractate ื ืืขืื according to which only three things have to be performed by the priest, -just as Maimonides has written,- the matter of the directives the Torah issued to the priest in verses 4 and 5 is not mentioned at all. Ordinarily, we would not need to consider the fact that the *Tossephta* does not conform to the views expressed in *Torat Kohanim* as unduly disturbing. We could even argue that the author of the *Tossephta* presumably dealt with verses 4 and 5 in a different context, something that we cannot say about Maimonides who is under an obligation to deal with those verses in his treatise on the subject.
โ[9] We cannot argue that what the Torah has written in verses 4 and 5 is not clear enough to require Maimonides to refer to it in his treatise on the afflictions suffered by a "leper." After all, the authors of the *Baraithot* did consider it necessary to derive these ืืืืืช from a biblical source. Neither can we argue that Maimonides thought that the plain meaning of the *Tossephta* which said: "and the other matters may be performed by any person" include even the ones concerning which the Torah issued directives to the priest, and that he would therefore ignore the views of both Rabbi and Rabbi Yehudah ben Yossi. If we were to assume this there is an additional difficulty, namely that a *Tossephta* which ignores both the views of Rabbi and of Rabbi Yehudah ben Yossi need not be considered authentic at all. What has been recorded in the *Sifra de bey Rav* is a carefully edited text, much more reliable than the collection of *Tossephtot* at our disposal.
โ[10] Perhaps we may resolve the contradictions resulting from Maimonides' text by assuming that Maimonides relied on the first Baraitha in *Torat Kohanim* in which the items the priest has to perform in connection with the purification of the "leper" under the heading ืชืืจืช ืืืฆืืจืข are discussed. Maimonides understood those rites to be so mandatory that any deviation would cancel the whole procedure. The directives given in verses 4 and 5, however, Maimonides understood as something that would be performed preferably by the priest. Anything which is commanded by the priest is imbued with additional importance. We know this principle from Genesis 41,40 where Pharaoh issued a directive to his subjects that all of Joseph's directives were to be considered as binding on the Egyptians. In our instance, the Torah issued a directive that the steps of the purification rites mentioned in verses 4 and 5 should be **initiated** by a command from the priest but that they may be carried out by non-priests. If, for some reason, these instructions were not carried out at his initiative but someone else issued the instructions this would not invalidate the procedures. There is also a ืงื ืืืืืจ which can be applied to reinforce this logic. If the Torah had made it plain that the releasing of the live bird is not mandatory, then the instructions of how and by whom they have to be selected and slaughtered is certainly not mandatory. If Rabbi holds that even the slaughtering of the bird must be performed by the priest, he did not base this on the words in verse 5 but on his understanding that it is part of the procedures called ืชืืจืช ืืืฆืืจืข seeing it is similar to the sprinkling of the blood and the need to have the hair of his body shaved off. This corresponds to the view held by the first Rabbi quoted in the Baraitha according to whom the slaughtering is included in the three procedures which have to take place by day.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY