๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:13:34. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2 โ[1] ** ืืืช ืชืืื ืชืืจืช ืืืฆืืจืข, "This shall be the law of the "leper," etc.** The entire verse seems superfluous. All the Torah had to tell us was that the afflicted person shall purify himself and be brought to the priest. *Torat Kohanim* explains the word ืืืช as excluding the purification ritual on an altar other than the one in the Temple. The word ืชืืื is explained as including people in our own times who suffer from the symptoms described in the Torah. *Torat Kohanim* on verse 4 relates that Rabbi Tarphon had a staff with which he used to purify "lepers" in his day [he was a survivor of the period during which the Temple was destroyed by the Romans. Ed.]. The word ืชืืจืช is explained as teaching us that even though the different symptoms produce different kinds of ืฆืจืขืช, and different regulations regarding quarantine etc., they are all terminated by the offering of the same kind of offering as outlined in this chapter. The word ืืืื means that the process of purification described here must take place by day. One might think that the slaughtering of the birds for the offering and the afflicted person's shaving himself would be permissible at night; to prevent us from thinking this the Torah wrote ืืืช. Thus far *Torat Kohanim*.
โ[2] You note that the author of *Torat Kohanim* used the word ืืืช exegetically **both** to exclude temporary altars or altars outside the Temple, as well as to forbid the afflicted person shaving himself at night, etc. The basis for these multiple inferences from the same word is that the Torah wrote two restrictive clauses (ืืืช, ืืืื) **before** mentioning the word ืืืจื, "purification." If the Torah had wanted to make only a single exclusion, the main subject of the verse, i.e. the purification, should have appeared next to either one of these ืืขืืืื, restrictive expressions. For example, the Torah could have written: ืชืืจืช ืืืฆืืจืข, ืืืช ืชืืื ืืืื, "the law of the leper; this shall occur by day." We would then have understood that only the word ืืืื was to serve as a restrictive clause. The purification rites would then have been permissible on whatever altar was in use by the Jewish people at that time. The Torah could also have written the following sequence: ืืืื ืืืจืช ืืืฆืืจืข ืืืช ืชืืื ืชืืจืชื, "on the day the 'leper' is purified, this shall be the law of his purification rites." The restrictive clause would then have applied only to the offerings, not to the time of day when the offering had to be brought. This latter version would not have contained a single additional letter except that the words would have been rearranged.
โ[3] *Vayikra Rabbah* 16,2 derives the idea that the person afflicted had been guilty of slander from the unnecessary words ืืืช ืชืืื. We need to understand why the Torah chose to allude to this fact at this point just when the afflicted person undergoes the rites of purification. I believe that the fact that his first offerings have to be the birds which are characterised by their constant twittering is the key to this. These birds are a reminder of the afflicted person's loose tongue, the sin of ืืฉืื ืืจืข. The Torah first wrote these unnecessary words to allude to the reason why the first offerings in his rehabilitation process must be the birds.
โ[4] We may also understand these verses as follows: the affliction of "leprosy" develops due to pollutants in the body and gradually these negative influences within the body gain in strength until their presence becomes noticeable on the skin. Such physical symptoms also are accompanied by psychological symptoms developing. The afflicted person becomes morose, miserly, and his mind becomes depressed. The natural antidote are activities which help to cheer up a person, cause him to laugh and to enjoy himself. Now that the person under discussion has become afflicted with ืฆืจืขืช, it was natural for him to think that his disease was a natural occurrence. If someone were to tell him that it was his loose tongue which had resulted in this affliction he would not believe such a person, nor would he admit that he had been guilty of a loose tongue. This is why G'd in His wisdom decided to decree isolation for such a person, for his garments, (13,45) etc. While quarantined, such a person is apt to take stock of himself and to regret his former conduct. He will then observe that he has not been able to use his tongue against other people and that during this period his symptoms recede or vanish although by natural law he would have expected the symptoms to increase; he will find that the very affliction opened his eyes and he will realise why he had been afflicted. He will repent, confess his sin, and purify his tongue and realise that he was not the victim of a chance disease. When the Torah writes ืืืช ืชืืจืช ืืืฆืืจืข, this is an allusion to the new insights the afflicted person has discovered and which will lead to his purification. His new insights will prove all this to him ืืืื ืืืจืชื, on the day of his purification; i.e. that although his isolation deprived him of what would naturally have served to cheer him up, he was healed despite the fact that he should have been morose and depressed while in solitary confinement. This will convince him that it was the wrong use he had made of his tongue which had resulted in his affliction and he will henceforth guard his tongue carefully. When the Torah concludes verse 3 with the words ืืื ื ื ืจืคื ื ืืข ืืฆืจืขืช **ืื ืืฆืจืืข**, and behold, the "plague of leprosy has been healed **'from the leper,'"** the extra words ืื ืืฆืจืืข tell us that the cure was due to the disease itself.
โ[5] **ืืืืื ืื ืืืื, and he is brought to the priest.** Seeing the Torah had previously spoken of ืืืื ืืืจืชื, on the day of his purification, the formerly afflicted person could have thought that his purification was complete already seeing his symptoms had disappeared; the Torah therefore explains that until he has been declared "clean" by the priest this is not so. Our sages in *Torat Kohanim* also observe that the words "he will be brought to the priest" imply that there is to be no delay. The reason that the Torah uses a passive form "he will be brought," instead of the usual "he shall come to the priest," indicates that the court will obligate him to go to the priest, or that the priest will take hold of him forcing him to leave his present residence. The same may apply when the symptoms had first shown up; he is obligated to go to the priest and to have the priest examine him.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY