๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-12 at 15:23:40. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
โฌ ๏ธ Previous capture (2024-05-10)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 โ[1] ** ืืืืืจ ืืณ ืื ืืฉื, ืืืืจ ืืืืณ G'd said to Moses: "say! etc."** Why does this paragraph begin with the word ืืืืจ instead of the word ืืืจ which is the customary introduction when G'd announces legislation? Furthermore, why did the Torah mention the "adjective," i.e. the priests before mentioning the noun that the "adjective" belongs to, i.e. the "sons of Aaron?" The correct description should have been ืื ื ืืืจืื ืืืื ืื! Our sages both in *Torat Kohanim* and elsewhere have offered a number of explanations why the Torah chose this order. Perhaps the *Tanchuma* is worth quoting. "G'd said to Moses: 'it is not fitting that someone who goes in and out of My Tabernacle should be exposed to looking at dead bodies all the time, etc.'" Thus far Tanchuma. The address with the word ืืืืจ implies a compliment, an advantage; the words ืื ืืืื ืื is intended to justify the compliment, i.e. because the priests go in and out in the Tabernacle, i.e. in G'd's Presence where they perform service for the King of Kings. What does this compliment or advantage consist of? The priests are not to defile themselves through contact with the dead, as mentioned in *Tanchuma.* Seeing the ืืื ืื are privileged to enter the Tabernacle and to be in G'd's presence most of the time, their present superior status is mentioned first before the Torah tells us how they came to be priests, i.e. through being descendants of Aaron. If the Torah had used the customary phraseology this point would not have come across.
โ[2] **ืืืืจืช ืืืื ืื ืคืฉ ืื ืืืื ืืขืืื, "and say to them not to defile himself for the dead amongst his people."** Why is the word ืืืืจืช i.e. ืืืืจ ืืืืจืช repeated? Our sages in *Yevamot* 114 as well as in *Torat Kohanim* offer a variety of commentaries on this. I believe that there is room for still other approaches not yet explored by our classical commentaries. We may do well to refer to what Maimonides wrote in chapter 3 of his treatise on the rules to be observed by mourners. This is what he wrote: "If someone deliberately defiles a priest and the priest co-operates of his own free will, the priest is subject to the corporal punishment of 39 lashes, whereas the person who initiated the defilement is guilty of transgressing the injunction not to place an obstacle in the path of a blind man (Leviticus 19,14). Neither *Radbaz* nor *Maharik* comment on this. The problem is whence does Maimonides get the ruling that the priest is liable to 39 lashes? *Lechem Mishneh* comments as follows: "Maimonides wrote in his treatise on *kilayim* that if someone dresses a fellow Jew in garments containing a mixture of wool and linen such a person is guilty of 39 lashes provided the person wearing this mixture is unaware of committing a sin." *Kesseph Mishneh* (Rabbi Joseph Karo) queries this ruling mentioning that the *Rosh* asked this question of the *Rashba* without receiving an answer. Perhaps Maimonides' source was *Nazir* 44 according to which the person who defiles a Nazir is not treated in the same way as the Nazir who became defiled as a result of that person's doing. This is based on Numbers 6,9: ืืืื ืจืืฉ ื ืืจื which means that under normal circumstances the same guilt applies to the person causing the sin as to the one committing it. This is why Maimonides writes in chapter 5,20 of his treatise about the laws of the Nazirite that in this case if the *Nazir* himself was unaware of committing a sin neither he nor the person defiling him deliberately is subject to ืืืงืืช, corporal punishment. Maimonides quotes the verse in Numbers 6,9 as the basis for his ruling. He understands that verse to mean that culpability does not occur until the Nazirite himself defiles his head. This ruling appears incomprehensible. 1) Why should the Nazirite legislation not serve as a ืื ืื ืื, as a model for many other similar situations where two parties are involved in committing a sin, the first one being guilty of ืืคื ื ืขืืจ ืื ืชืชื ืืืฉืื? Furthermore, the situation involving the Nazirite required a special verse to exclude culpability because I could have learned a ืงื ืืืืืจ from the situation in which he shaved his hair and is guilty. Seeing that defiling himself is a more serious sin than shaving off his hair, the Torah had to write a verse to tell us that even defiling himself does not carry the penalty of ืืืงืืช. If this is so, it follows that had it not been for this ืงื ืืืืืจ, I would not have needed to write a single verse to exclude the Nazirite's not being guilty of ืืืงืืช if someone had deliberately defiled him. In fact the query against Maimonides's ruling in chapter 3 of his treatise on the laws for mourners would have been still stronger!
โ[3] I believe the true reason why Maimonides ruled as he did is based on the Talmud in *Nazir* 44. This is what the Talmud writes there: "if in the case of someone defiling the Nazirite we do not treat the person causing the impurity as equally guilty as the person who has become defiled (although as a result of this action the preceding days of the Nazirite's abstention are completely invalidated), then in the parallel case of someone shaving off the Nazirite's hair I most certainly would not treat such a person as guilty of corporal punishment (seeing the result of his action did not cause the Nazirite to lose more than a maximum of thirty days of the preceding days during which he had not shaved)! The Torah therefore had to write the word ืชืขืจ ืื ืืขืืืจ ืขื ืจืืฉื that the Nazirite must not allow someone else to shave him, to insure that I do not learn such a ืงื ืืืืืจ. According to the Talmud we equate the spelling ืื ืืขืืืจ with the spelling ืื ืืขืืืจ, i.e. that he himself must not apply the razor to his own hair or to someone else's hair. Rashi corrects this wording by saying "someone else must not apply a razor to the hair of the Nazirite." We now need to examine why the Talmud assumes that the word ืื ืืขืืืจ (which is spelled defective) refers to someone other than the Nazirite himself applying the razor to his hair. If the Talmud applied the principle of using our tradition as the basis for the spelling, the word ืืขืืจ should have been spelled ืืขืืืจ with the letter ื to indicate the fact that it is meant transitively, i.e. ืืฉืื ืืคืขืื. Even if we were to argue that the absence of the letter ื is not crucial to the meaning, at least the word ืื is missing without which I would not know that the meaning of ืืขืืจ without the letter ื is transitive and that the Nazirite must not shave others!
โ[4] I believe that the Talmud concentrated on the fact that the Torah used the expression ืชืขืจ ืื ืืขืืจ ืขื ืจืืฉื, "a razor must not pass over his head," instead of the simple ืื ืืืื ืืช ืจืืฉื, "he must not shave his head," or at least ืื ืืขืืืจ ืขื ืจืืฉื with the letter ื to indicate the transitive meaning of the expression. If the Torah had used the simple expression we would have known that the prohibition applied to the **person** who was commanded not to shave rather than to the action of the razor. The word ืืขืืืจ would refer to the *Nazir* himself who is mentioned adjacently in that verse. The Torah would then have attributed the prohibition to the person committing it and not to the action of the razor. This would not be the impression if we accept the wording ืชืขืจ ืื ืืขืืืจ ืขื ืจืืฉื, "a razor must not be applied to his head;" this wording suggests that the principal concern of the Torah is the fact that the hair of the Nazirite is shaved, regardless by whom. This is what the Talmud had in mind with the words: ืงืจื ืืื ืื ืืขืืืจ ืืื ืืื ืืขืืืจ ืื ืืืจ, "read as if it said: 'neither he himself nor someone else must apply the razor to his head.'" Clearly the word is meant to prohibit shaving the Nazirite either by himself or someone else. The words ืงืจื ืืื in the Talmud are not really accurate but they describe a concept rather than a grammatical comment.
โ[5] We can now extrapolate to the laws of ืืืืื in 19,19 where the Torah wrote: ืืืื ืืืืื ืฉืขืื ื ืื ืืขืื ืขืืื, "a garment made of a mixture of linen and wool shall not cover you" (ืืขืื ืขืืื) instead of writing ืื ืชืขืื ืขืืื. The word ืชืขืื is transitive and applies to the person putting such a garment on the wearer. The word ืืขืื is intransitive and applies to the garment rather than to the person putting it on. The Torah's wording makes it plain that it is immaterial who puts the garment on the wearer. If he wears it knowingly he is guilty of violating the prohibition of ืืืืื. This is why Maimonides rules in chapter 10 subsection 1 of his treatise *Hilchot Kilayim* that "if someone deliberately places a garment containing a mixture of linen and wool on a fellow Jew he is subject to 39 lashes." Similarly, any ruling in our situation dealing with the defilement of the priest is based on the wording ืื ืืืื, "he (the priest) must not become defiled." The fact that the Torah does not add a pronoun indicating that it is only the priest himself who must not defile **himself** makes the verse a warning to anyone else not to contribute to the defilement of the priest. It follows that anyone who defiles a priest, be it the priest himself or someone else, is subject to the penalty of 39 lashes. Maimonides is consistent in all his rulings then.
โ[6] This brings us to the reason why the Torah saw fit to repeat the word ืืืจ, by writing ืืืจ ืืืืจืช. It is simply that the Torah commands **both** the priest himself and anyone else not to defile him. The word ืืืจ tells the priest not to defile himself, whereas the word ืืืืจืช tells others not to defile the priest. Perhaps the word ืืืื, "to them," refers back to the Israelites (not the priests) who are commanded to observe all the commandments. You will note that at the very end of this chapter (verse 24) the Torah writes: "Moses spoke to Aaron, to his sons and to all the children of Israel." This indicates that the legislation in this chapter is addressed to all of the Israelites. This justifies our explanation that also at the beginning of the chapter the Torah extends a warning to the whole people, not just to the priests, that they must not cause the priests to become ritually defiled. *Torat Kohanim* on 21,24 writes as follows: "The words ืืืืืจ ืืฉื are a warning to Aaron through his children whereas the words ืื ืื ืื ื ืืฉืจืื are a warning to the sons by the Israelites. They are each warned to ensure that the others do not become guilty of the sin of ritual impurity." Both what we read in *Torat Kohanim* and what we have written ourselves are ืืืจื ืืืืงืื ืืืื, legitimate exegesis of the text of the Torah.
โ[7] **ืื ืคืฉ ืื ืืืื, "he must not become defiled through a dead body."** *Torat Kohanim* derives from this word ื ืคืฉ that contact with an amount of blood equivalent to 86 grams (ืจืืืขืืช) is sufficient to confer ritual impurity on the priest. I have seen that Maimonides writes as follows in chapter 3 subsection 1 of his *Hilchot Avel:* "There is no halachic difference between impurities of the body of the dead and impurities which emanated in the body of the dead (such as blood which oozed out) seeing the Torah used the expression ื ืคืฉ when prohibiting ritual defilement through the dead." Commentators attack Maimonides for this statement basing themselves on a *Baraitha* in *Torat Kohanim* which writes as follows: "From our verse (21,1) I only learn that one defiles oneself through contact with the dead body itself. Whence do we know that one also becomes defiled through contact with the blood (of the dead person?)" Answer: This is why the Torah wrote the otherwise extraneous word ืื ืคืฉ. How do I know that all other excretions from the dead body also confer ritual impurity on contact? This is why the Torah added the word ืืืื." Thus far *Torat Kohanim. Kesseph Mishneh* defends Maimonides by pointing out that he must have thought that the word ืื ืคืฉ is sufficient to teach us that everything which originates in the dead body confers the same degree of ritual impurity on all those who come in contact with it; there is no need for further scriptural proof; any additional word in the Torah is only in the nature of an ืืกืืืชื, something to jog our memory. Thus far *Kesseph Mishneh.* I do not accept the comment by the author of *Kesseph Mishneh.* What gave Maimonides the right to come up with a new approach other than the one of the *Baraitha?*
โ[8] The fact of the matter is that Maimonides bases himself on another *Baraitha* which he found in *Pessikta.* This is what is written there: "The words ืืืจ ืืืืจืช are meant to tell us that the adults are warned to see to it that the minors do not become ritually impure; the words ืื ืคืฉ ืื ืืืื are intended to tell us that even a ืจืืืขืืช ืื, a small amount of 86 grams of blood is enough to confer ritual impurity on contact if it has escaped from the dead body." Thus far the *Pessikta.* The *Baraitha* we just quoted is mentioned in *Yevamot* 114. We are entitled to understand that *Baraitha* as including all other excretions from the dead body as being included in this legislation based on the word ืื ืคืฉ, seeing the author used the repetition of the words ืืืจ ืืืืจืช as commanding the adults to warn the minors concerning this legislation. I am quite certain that the author of the *Kesseph Mishneh* had not seen or remembered this latter *Baraitha.* Proof of this is to be found in something the same author wrote in the same chapter we have quoted earlier in subsection 12. "Adult priests are responsible to see that they do not cause a priest who is a minor to become ritually impure. If, however, the priest who is a minor causes himself to become ritually impure it is not the task of the Jewish court to prevent this." So far Maimonides on the subject. According to *Kesseph Mishneh* this is in accordance with Rashi's interpretation of the meaning ืืืจ ืืืืจืช. Clearly, if the author of *Kesseph Mishneh* had known about this *Baraitha* he would not have written that Maimonides based his ruling on Rashi's exegesis which is of much more recent origin.
โ[9] There remains the question of how anyone derived from the word ืื ืคืฉ that a ืจืืืขืืช of blood confers ritual impurity on contact? Perhaps we must understand that the meaning of the word ืื ืคืฉ is confined to the ability of blood to confer ritual impurity to the category of impurity called ืืืืืช ืืช, as distinct from other categories of ritual impurities. It would have sufficed for the Torah to write ืืืช ืื ืืืื that the priest must not become ritually impure through a dead body. The fact that the Torah added the word ืื ืคืฉ led our sages to conclude that an amount of blood which is sufficient to keep an organism alive is the amount which is capable of conferring the ritual impurity associated with dead bodies. People who are themselves ritually impure only through indirect contact with the dead are not included in that definition of ืื ืคืฉ.
โ[10] ืื ืืืื. "He must not become defiled." The Torah switched to the use of the singular although the verse had commenced with G'd addressing the Israelites in the plural, i.e. ืืืื. According to the reasoning of the scholar who explained the repetition of the words ืืืจ ืืืืจืช as a warning that a person other than the priest himself should also not cause the priest to become defiled, the switch from plural to singular is easy to understand, i.e. the people (pl.) are commanded not to defile the priest (sing.).
โ[11] In addition, the Torah may have been afraid to write ืื ืืืืื, "**they** shall not become defiled" as the impression would have been that the Torah only minded if the priests as a group became defiled, not if an individual priest became defiled. The Torah therefore worded the commandment in the singular i.e. ืืืื to show the Torah shows its concern for the defilement of each individual priest.
โ[12] Furthermore, the Torah had to avoid the comparison of this legislation with Leviticus 10,9 where the Torah commanded that the priests were not to enter the Tabernacle while intoxicated. In that instance the legislation was phrased as applicable only in connection with the priests entering the precincts of the Tabernacle drunk when they were about to perform the sacrificial service. The impression left was that at times when the priests were not engaged in service they were free to indulge in wine and alcohol. It would have been easy to deduce from there that when the priests were not about to engage in sacrificial service they are at liberty to defile themselves. The Torah used the singular when legislating this commandment to make it clear that the priests are not to defile themselves at any time, except for the occasions listed in subsequent verses. This teaches that the prohibition for a priest to defile himself is totally unconnected to the Temple-service and its requirements. The Temple-service, after all, is not in danger of becoming defunct due to the temporary impurity of a single priest. The duty of the priest to remain in a state of ritual purity is one that devolves upon him independent of any consideration for the function he can perform only while in such a state.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY