๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:13:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
37 โ[1] ** ืืืืจ ืืื ืืืืจื ืืืื, "he is 'clean;' and the priest shall declare him "clean" (ritually pure)."** This apparent repetition is explained in the *Torat Kohanim* as follows: We would have thought that it suffices if the priest simply allows the afflicted person whose ื ืชืง has remained unchanged in appearance except that black hair grew on it, to go back to the camp; to teach me that this is not sufficient, the Torah tells us that the priest must first declare such a person as "clean." I would also have thought that if the priest erred and erroneously declared a ritually impure person "clean," that he would henceforth be considered "clean;" this is why the Torah had to write ืืืืจ, he is objectively "clean;" the priest merely confirms it. This is an exegesis which Hillel taught when he came from Babylonia as the scholars in Israel at the time had been unable to furnish proof for this *halachah* from the text of the Torah (compare Jerusalem Talmud Pessachim 6,1). We need to understand why the scholars who had disagreed with Hillel at that time did so.
โ[2] It seems clear that the meaning of the line is as explained by *Torat Kohanim*. If the word ืืืืจ had not appeared, I would naturally have assumed that the priest, who is after all the expert in all these laws, would decide the status of the person in question. As a result, if the priest is aware that there is a ืืืง, a dull white spot, he will release the person from his quarantine so that he can go home to his family. The Torah therefore writes both ืืืืจ ืืืืจื to inform us that there is a formality to be observed. This **exegesis** could not be confirmed until Hillel returned to the land of Israel and quoted it in the name of his teachers Shmayahu and Avtalyon. Let us now return to the statement that this ruling of Hillel (resp. his teachers) is good only if the priest did not err and declare someone as "clean" whose skin had not undergone the necessary changes. Do not ask that perhaps what the Torah meant with the word ืืืืจ was that even if the afflicted person was himself aware that he was "clean" by then, the priest's declaration was still essential for him to resume his normal life. Such reasoning is very forced and if one had to choose between both possible approaches Hillel's exegesis is far superior. Seeing that the reasoning we apply is the basis of a religious ruling, it is preferable to accept the approach of *Torat Kohanim* rather than getting involved in forced explanations.
โ[3] I have seen a statement in *Vayikra Rabbah* 22,1 that there is nothing in the way of Torah exegesis which had not been taught to Moses while he was on Mount Sinai, including what renowned scholars thought they revealed for the first time in the distant future. At the same time we have a statement in *Bamidbar Rabbah* 19,6 that Rabbi Akiva expounded exegetically matters which even Moses did not know. The *Midrash* is based on a verse in Isaiah 42,16: "these things (such as making the blind see, etc.) I have done (G'd speaking)." It does not say there that G'd **will do** these things in the future, but that He has already done them. When did He do them? When He revealed to Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues Torah insights He had not even revealed to Moses." Thus far the *Midrash*. We appear to be faced with a contradiction between the two *Midrashim* we have quoted. Many statements in a similar vein abound in our Midrashic literature.
โ[4] I think we have to understand these statements in the following manner: It is true that everything which is of a Biblical nature was revealed to Moses and no one since has become privy to something Moses did not already know at that time. The difference between Moses and subsequent generations of scholars is that Moses had been given both the written and the oral Torah from G'd directly. G'd, in His wisdom, had recorded all the parts of the oral Torah He had revealed to Moses in the written Torah also. He had not, however, revealed to Moses where all the parts of the oral Torah He had taught him were to be found in the written Torah. The labour of discovering all these allusions to the oral Torah in the written Torah was left for all the Torah scholars after Moses. It is their task to find proof in the written Torah for all the *halachot* G'd had taught Moses orally. The reason the scholars of the *Mishnaic* period compiled commentaries such as *Torat Kohanim* was to provide us with the key that enables us to find where the oral law is anchored in the written law. This labour is an ongoing process and it remains our task to establish this linkage between the oral and the written law. The labour is generally called ืืจืฅ ืืืืื. Moses was not informed about all this and this is why the sages could state that Rabbi Akiva had become privy to insights not even revealed to Moses. The proof of how this works is found in Hillel's reconstructing from the written text a ืืืื which had been revealed to Moses at the time but whose "anchor" in the written Torah had been unknown until that time.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY