๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:07:07. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
35 โ[1] **ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืืืจ, and he shall tell the priest, saying**, etc. The word ืืืืืจ appears to be superfluous. *Torat Kohanim* explains that the word means that the priest is to tell the afflicted person words of admonition, explaining to him why he had been so afflicted. This is pure homiletics, seeing that the Torah speaks of the owner of the house doing the talking, not the priest. Our sages simply used the principle of ืื ืืื ื ืขื ืื ืืืืจื ืืขื ืืืืช ืชื ืื ืขื ืื ืืืืจื ืืื, "if we could not find a reason for the owner to say something other than what the Torah recorded here, we may apply the words exegetically to what the priest says instead." The author of *Korban Aharon* explains the sequence as follows: ืืืืื ืืืื, the reason the owner of the affected house is forced to tell the priest about his problem is ืืืืื, so that the priest can sermonize to him and explain why he was made to suffer this plague. If this explanation were correct the Torah should have written the word ืืืืืจ **after** the words ืื ืืข ื ืจืื ืื ืืืืช, "it seems to me that the house has developed a plague." No doubt the approach of *Torat Kohanim* is quite correct.
โ[2] However, the question remains why the Torah did not simply write that "the priest spoke, etc.," and I would not have had to search for the meaning of the verse? Clearly, the Torah wanted to leave something for us to exploit exegetically. Our sages have articulated this very principle themselves in *Torat Kohanim*. This is what is written there: "why did the Torah not write that the owner said ื ืืข, but describes him as saying ืื ืืข, "something like the plague?" They answer that the letter ื teaches that even if the owner is very learned and he has no doubt that the symptoms he has found are those of a ื ืืข, he must not take it upon himself to pronounce judgment but he must leave it to the priest. What forced the author of *Torat Kohanim* to explain the extra letter ื in this manner? Perhaps the Torah was afraid that if it wrote simply ื ืืข the owner would feel that unless he was certain that the symptoms were really those of the ื ืืข ืฆืจืขืช there was no need to call in the priest. The Torah therefore made it plain by the additional letter ื that the priest has to be called in regardless of whether it is doubtful if the symptoms were truly the ones resulting in the house having to be torn down. What the author of *Torat Kohanim* meant was that all the Torah had to write were the words ืืืืื ืืืื. The words "I think that something like a ื ืืข appears on my house," were quite unnecessary. It was clear from the context of the paragraph that the owner referred to this. Considering these extra words, *Torat Kohanim* concluded that the reason was to teach us that the priest has to be called in regardless of whether there is doubt or not. This explanation is based on the scholar who holds that on occasion the Torah wrote things in order to encourage us to engage in exegesis.
โ[3] *Torat Kohanim* continues to exploit practically every word here in a similar fashion. The words ื ืจืื ืื, are explained as "appeared to me and not to my light," i.e. I could see it with my own eyes unassisted by artificial light. This is the basis for the rule that one need not open the windows of a house in order to start searching for symptoms of a ื ืืข. The word ืืืืช, "in the house," is taken to mean that even if the stain occurred in the upper floor, the whole house is afflicted. Many other *halachot* are all derived from these basically superfluous words of our verse. Even though our sages often use the above mentioned method of exegesis, it is preferable to derive a rule from a direct sequence of words such as ืืืืืจ ืื ืืข in this verse. It means that regardless of how definite the appearance of that stain, the owner has to report it as being only "like a ื ืืข." We are not bound by the exegetical method used by our sages in deriving certain rulings from the presence of or absence of certain words or letters provided we follow accepted norms of exegesis. The major restriction we are bound by is that our exegesis must not result in ืืืืืช directly opposed to those arrived at by the classical commentators.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY