Torah Tidbits: Parshat Acharei

16:2-3 - "...and the LORD said unto Moses: 'Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil, before the ark-cover which is upon the ark; that he die not; for I appear in the cloud upon the ark-cover. Herewith [בְּזֹאת] shall Aaron come into the holy place [הַקֹּדֶשׁ]: with a young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering."  So when, exactly, can Aaron come into the "holy place"?  The translation here of b'zot ("herewith") isn't very good; I prefer Kehot's "with this," suggesting that when he comes with the sin- and burnt-offerings, then he can come into the Holy of Holies.  But it isn't clear.  I know that Yom Kippur is the only day Aaron can enter, but it certainly isn't made clear here.  Why not?

16:7-8 - "And [Aaron] shall take the two goats, and set them before the LORD at the door of the tent of meeting.  And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for Azazel [לַעֲזָאזֵל]."  Interesting!  Who -- or what -- is "Azazel"?  The modern Hebrew phrase, lech l'azazel, means, basically "go to hell!"  So it's interesting to see this word here in the Torah.  Rashi explains that Azaael

is a strong and hard mountain, [with] a high cliff, as the Scripture says [in describing Azaael] (verse 22 below), "a precipitous land (אֶרֶץ גְּזֵרָה)," meaning a cut-off land [i.e., a sheer drop]. - [Torath Kohanim 16:28; Yoma 67b]

Fascinating!  So "hell" is a place cut off from everything, some place hard to reach.  Neat!
16:16 - "And [Aaron] shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins; and so shall he do for the tent of meeting, that dwelleth with them in the midst of their uncleannesses [הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם]."  Interesting...  So Aaron had to "make atonement" not only for the people and their sins, but for the very tent of meeting -- the ohel mo'eid itself.  First of all, this echoes what we read in metzora, about a house itself having leprosy, that uncleanliness can adhere to things as well as people, and that things need to be atoned for as well..  Second, there's something to my mind poetic about saying:  'because of our since, the very place in which we meet you, God, is itself in need of atonement.'

16:21 - "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins [וְהִתְוַדָּה עָלָיו אֶת-כָּל-עֲו‍ֹנֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶת-כָּל-פִּשְׁעֵיהֶם לְכָל-חַטֹּאתָם]; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness."  Question:  How in the world is Aaron supposed to know what all of the sins of all of the people actually are?  (Unless what is intended here is a more general statement.)

16:22 - "And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land which is cut off [אֶל-אֶרֶץ גְּזֵרָה]; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness."  Is this "land which is cut off," this eretz g'zeirah, the same as Azazel?  (The New JPS calls this "an inaccessible region.")  Although I'm sure it's not meant this way, I like the symbolism of putting the collective sins of the people into a goat, who is sent off to a place far from human habitation, a place not reachable by normal means. 

16:29 - About Yom Kippur:  "And it shall be a statute for ever unto you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls [תְּעַנּוּ אֶת-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם], and shall do no manner of work, the home-born, or the stranger that sojourneth among you."  Is something objective and specific intended here by t'anu (e.g., fasting), or is this meant in a more general sense, that on this day, we should, literally, afflict ourselves in the course of atoning?  I like the idea, though, that on YK, the point is to afflict one's self through the contemplation of sins.

16:31 - "It is a sabbath of solemn rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls; it is a statute for ever [חֻקַּת עוֹלָם]."  Something I'm noticing:  There are places, like here, where the Torah says something is to be "for ever," while in other places, no mention is made of time.  Is this to imply that, where for ever is not explicitly mentioned, that a law/ordnance is not meant to be forever?  Are things "for ever" weightier than others?

17:7 - "And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs [לַשְּׂעִירִם], after whom they go astray. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations."  The "satyrs"?!?  Who are these?!?  Rashi explains that "to the satyrs" means "to the demons [לשדים], like, 'and satyrs (וּשְּׂעִירִים) will dance there' (Isa. 13:21). - [Torath Kohanim 17:100]."  Demons!  Weird...

17:10-11 - "And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set My face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.  For the life of the flesh is in the blood [כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר בַּדָּם הִוא]; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life."  Two thoughts.  First, it is a bit jarring to me that God would want this kashrut-related law applied to non-Jews.  Is eating blood something so generally moral that anyone who does it violates God's laws?  Strange.  Second, we find here an actual reason for not eating blood, that, basically, it contains the life of the living thing and is meant for sacrifice, not eating.  But once a reason is given, that reason is open to analysis, and this reason -- that "the life of the flesh" is in it -- is pretty weak.  Living things can't live without water either, but that's not considered to be something super holy.  Same for bile.    I guess my point is premodern societies viewed blood as something more magical and mysterious than it is...so what's the point of the prohibition against eating it?

17:15 - "And every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even; then shall he be clean."  This verse seems to imply that it is at some level "okay" to eat such non-kosher animals, if the only thing you have to do afterwards is wash in order to become clean.  But I thought you simply aren't supposed to do this?

18:2 - "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: I am the LORD your God."  You know when a chapter starts out with this, some heavy laws are going to follow.  Rashi adds

I am the Lord, your God: I am the One Who said at Sinai, “I am the Lord, your God” (Exod. 20:2), and you accepted My sovereignty upon yourselves [at that time]; consequently, accept My decrees. Rabbi [Yehudah Hanassi] says: “It is openly known before Him, that they would eventually be scourged by [transgressing the laws of] immoral relations, in the days of Ezra. Therefore, [concerning these laws,] God came to them with the decree: I am the Lord, your God! You should know Who is placing these decrees upon you-the Judge Who exacts retribution (אלֹקִים), but Who is faithful also to pay a reward (ה ) ! ”- [Torath Kohanim 18:138]"

18:3 - "After the doings of the land of Egypt [כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ-מִצְרַיִם], wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan [וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ-כְּנַעַן], whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their statutes [וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם לֹא תֵלֵכוּ]."  First, what are the "doings" (ma'aseh) of Egypt and Canaan as opposed to their "statutes" (chukot)?  The Torah doesn't make this clear, nor whether these are meant to be comprehensive statements (i.e., should the Israelites do nothing that the Egyptians?  nothing of what the Canaanites did?  or only those things that violate other Torah laws?).  Rashi tries to explain that their "statutes" in this context as follows:

and you shall not follow their statutes: What did Scripture omit [until now] that it did not state [and includes in this clause]? However, these are their social practices, things that assumed the status of law (חָקוּק) for them, for example, [certain days set aside for attendance at] theaters and stadiums. Rabbi Meir says: These [practices referred to here,] are the “ways of the Amorites,” [the superstitious practices] enumerated by our Sages. — [see Shab. 67ab; Torath Kohanim 18: 139]

Uh, so the things the Egyptians and Canaanites did that the Israelites aren't supposed to do involve attending "theaters and stadiums"!?!  Is the point that in every possible way they were supposed to be different, even down to things that are not proscribed by Torah?  Rashi quotes another Rabbi Meir implying that the social practices in question are "superstitious practices," presumably involving soothsaying, etc.  But then why cite the examples of attendance at theaters and stadiums?  There's a lot in Judaism about not doing things that other peoples do, almost for the sole reason of differentiation...  Not sure what I make of this.  I suppose there was a time and a place where from a social psychological perspective, differentiation made sense from a social cohesion perspective, but I'm not sure that the take home message is that savory for today's world...
18:4-5 - "Mine ordinances shall ye do, and My statutes shall ye keep, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall therefore keep My statutes [חֻקֹּתַי], and Mine ordinances [מִשְׁפָּטַי], which if a man do, he shall live by them [אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם]: I am the LORD."  So...if he doesn't keep them, then he dies?  Or is it that one's life is through them, so if you keep them, then you live "by" them?  Rashi has two interesting things to say here.  First, he distinguished betrween "statutes" and "ordinances."  The former

are the “King’s decrees” [without apparent rationale to man], against which the evil inclination protests, “Why should we keep them?” Likewise, the nations of the world object to them. Examples are: [The prohibition of] eating pig and wearing shaatnez [a mixture of wool and linen] (see Lev. 19:19), and the purification procedure effected by purification water [the mixture including the ashes of the red cow] (see Num., Chapter 19). Therefore it says, “I am the Lord.” I have decreed [these] upon you; you are not permitted to exempt yourselves [from fulfilling them]. — Torath Kohanim 18:140]

Ordinances, on the other hand,

are the laws stated in the Torah in justice, [i.e., which human intellect deems proper,] which, had they not been stated [in the Torah], would have been deemed worthy to be stated [e.g., not to steal, not to murder, etc.]. — [Torath Kohanim 18:140]

Fascinating!  So the Torah makes an explicit distinction between statutes (chukim) which lack any apparent rationale, and ordinances (mishpatim), which do have underlying reasons.  So on the one hand, it suggests mishpatim are open to some kind of interpretation, while chukim are not:  they are as they are because God says so.  But does not the prohibition against doing things as others do them (e.g., the Egyptians, Canaanites) suggest a logic behind chukim?  They mix their fabrics, so we don't; they eat milk and meat, so we don't.  It's hard to view some of these things as anythingng other than a system of social control vis-a-vis the other peoples of the time, whose codes of laws were far less onerous.  I need to think about this some more...

18:7-16 - "The nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness."  And so forth and so on.  Here we find a series of laws concerning illicit sexual relationships.  I'm curious to know whether these practices were common among the peoples from whom the Israelites were trying to be different.  Did the Egyptians take siblings as wives?  Did the Canaanites sleep with their children?  Someone must have been doing these things or it wouldn't have been necessary to expliciutly prohibit the behavior.

18:9 - "The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether born at home, or born abroad [מוֹלֶדֶת בַּיִת, אוֹ מוֹלֶדֶת חוּץ], even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover."  Why is it necessary to stress that it doesn't matter where the sister is born?  And why not say the same about sons?

18:17 - "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; thou shalt not take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness: they are near kinswomen; it is lewdness [זִמָּה הִוא]."  So...this is lewd, but not all the other things?  Why only say this here?

18:21 - "And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD."  Who is Molech, and what's the big deal?  Rashi explains that Molech was

[a] form of idolatry...and this was the manner of its worship, that one would hand over one’s child to the pagan priests, who would make two huge fires. The child was then passed through on foot between these two fires. — [Sanh. 64b.]

Hmmm.  This is one of those passages that gives pause.  On the one hand, reference is made to the specific practices of a specific religious group/cult that existed thousands of years ago and is now no more.  On the other hand, we're supposed to view the Torah as being above and beyond time, something perfect and permanent forever.  That's a bit hard to do...
18:22-23 - Oy:  "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination [תּוֹעֵבָה]. And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto; it is perversion [תֶּבֶל]."  So there we have it, right?  No homosexual behavior (or bestiality).  In this context -- of the many different illicit sexual relationships -- I see this as a differentiator in some way:  others do it, so therefore we will not.  It's a mixing of things that others allow, but Judaism will not. 

I suppose if one believes that God said so, that this is simply one of God's chukim, and therefore no explanation is needed or given, then there's not much to discuss.  But is homosexuality really an "abomination"?  Are my friends who are gay doing something at odds with the natural order of the universe?  I just can't accept this.  It makes no sense.  Having relations with siblings or children isn't the same as homosexuality.  It just isn't.  I can understand why God would create a world in which people had y'zirei hara (evil inclinations) to do things prohibited by moral law, but to create a world in which people are hard-wired to want to do things that are prohibited by chok (statute) rather than mishpat (ordinance)...what could possibly be the point of this?  Right, I know, who am I to ask why God does as God does.  But in this world, where gay friends would suffer terribly if the sexual aspect of their identities were suppressed -- heck, where most gays in the world do suffer in this way -- where there are so many terrible things happening...how am I supposed to buy that this is so important to God?

By the way, what's the difference between a toevah (abomination)and a tevel (perversion)?

18:24-28 - "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations are defiled [כִּי בְכָל-אֵלֶּה נִטְמְאוּ הַגּוֹיִם], which I cast out from before you. And the land was defiled, therefore I did visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomited [וַתָּקִא הָאָרֶץ] out her inhabitants. Ye therefore shall keep My statutes and Mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you--for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled--that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. "

Yikes!

Some thoughts:  There is a tension here.  On the one hand, there are statutes from God that have no rationale, that God has explicated in Torah.  On the other hand, we are to understand that even before the Torah was given, non-Israelites were "defiled" by not observing certain prohibitions, which caused God to make the land "vomit" (!) them out.  But how could these peoples have known what God wanted and, more to the point, why should it have mattered?  A counterargument would be that these sexual prohibitions are mishpatim -- and therefore logic-based and applicable to non-Israelites.  But then what is the logic according to which homosexuality is an abomination?  What is the underlying morality, other than the fact that God "said so"?  What troubles me even more about this passage, though, is that it seems to say that even chukim apply to non-Jews:  "Ye therefore shall keep My statutes and Mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you."  But why should chukim apply to non-Jews, no matter where they live?

Am I missing something here?

Torah Tidbits: Parshat Metzora

14:2 - "This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing..."  Rashi's comment again speaks to the socially constructed nature of un/cleanliness:  "This teaches [us] that [one afflicted with tzara’ath] is not [pronounced] clean at night. — [Torath Kohanim 14:3, Meg. 21a]."  In other words, it is the pronouncement of cleanliness -- not the objective lack of the leprosy -- that makes one clean.

14:4 - "...then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two living clean birds, and cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop."  So why birds?  Why the scarlet and hyssop?  Here, Rashi again draws the (unfortunate) connection between one's behavior and having leprosy:

[Why are birds required for this cleansing rite?] Because lesions of tzara’ath come as a result of derogatory speech, which is done by chattering. Therefore, for his cleansing, this person is required to bring birds, which twitter constantly with chirping sounds. — [Arachin 16b]

What is the remedy that he may be healed [of his tzara’ath]? He must humble himself from his haughtiness, just as [symbolized by] the תּוֹלַעַת [lit., “a worm,” which infested the berries from which the crimson dye was extracted to color wool], and the [lowly] hyssop. — [Tanchuma 3]

I suppose one could draw a lesson that derogatory speech makes one unclean (X causes Y) rather than inductively assume that the presence of leprosy is a sign of having engaged in loshon hara (the presence of Y is evidence of the prior occurrence of X).  But that's not really what the parsha says, does it?

14:5 - "And the priest shall command to kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water."  Am I the only who things this is strange, to take two birds, kill one but not the other?

14:7 - Some confusion in this verse.  Back in 14:3, we read "And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper," implying that we're talking about someone cured of leprosy.  But here, in 14:7, we read "And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times..." Is this to say that once one is cured of leprosy, one still needs to be cleansed?

14:10 - "And on the eighth day he shall take...three tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour for a meal-offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil [וְלֹג אֶחָד שָׁמֶן]."  The Hebrew for "log" is log [לֹג]?  Is log a Hebrew word?!?

14:18-20 - "And the rest of the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall put upon the head of him that is to be cleansed; and the priest shall make atonement for him [וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן] before the LORD.  And the priest shall offer the sin-offering, and make atonement for him that is to be cleansed [וְכִפֶּר עַל הַמִּטַּהֵר] because of his uncleanness; and afterward he shall kill the burnt-offering. And the priest shall offer the burnt-offering and the meal-offering upon the altar; and the priest shall make atonement for him [וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן], and he shall be clean."  For what, exactly, is the priest making atonement?  For the (supposedly) underlying loshon hara that caused the leprosy?  For the fact of having been unclean?  It seems wrong that someone afflicted should have to make atonement at all.  The reason for needing to atone is obviously assumed in the text, but I don't get what it is.

14:28 - More social construction:  "And the priest shall put of the oil that is in his hand upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering [עַל מְקוֹם דַּם הָאָשָׁם]."  Rashi has an interesting comment here.  Why does the Torah say upon the place of the blood rather than just on the blood itself?  Because the priest is to put the oil on the place where the blood was "[e]ven if the blood had been wiped off. This teaches us that the blood is not the determining factor, but the place is the determining factor. — [Torath Kohanim 14:54; Men. 10a]." 

14:34-57 - This series of passages -- of what to do with a house that has leprosy -- is remarkable.  First you empty the house before the priest goes in.  Then you see if it's on the walls (?).  If so, you wait a week and come back.  If it's still there, you remove the stones from the wall, then scrape around the mortar holding the stones together; then you replace the stones.  If leprosy remains, you break down the house entirely.  To me, these passages are a powerful metaphor for the diligence with which one needs to root out uncleanliness, though I realize that it is not intended to be metaphorical.  This makes me a little uneasy:  drawing my own lessons from the text while remaining aware that it was surely not intended that I, as an individual, should do so...

14:34 - A remarkable verse:  "When ye are come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you [אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם ] for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy [וְנָתַתִּי נֶגַע צָרַעַת] in a house of the land of your possession..."  It's as if God is saying, on the one hand, I give you this land, while on the other hand saying, I put -- actually, the Hebrew word is the same, natati or "I give" -- a plague in the house I'm giving you.  What is the meaning of this?  Rashi offers a strange explanation:

and I place a lesion of tzara’ath [leprosy]: Heb. וְנָתַתִּי, lit. and I will give. This is [good] news for them that lesions of tzara’ath will come upon them, (Torath Kohanim 14:75), because the Amorites had hidden away treasures of gold inside the walls of their houses during the entire forty years that the Israelites were in the desert, and through the lesion, he will demolish the house (see verses 43-45) and find them. — [Vayikra Rabbah 17:6]

Sooooo...all this talk of leprosy literally being in the house isn't because of the loshon hara we read about earlier, but rather a kind gesture from God so that the Israelites will find the gold hidden in the former inhabitants' houses?!?  Aside from this being -- I'm sorry -- thoroughly ridiculous, it's also a bit creepy:  So the Israelites wipe out the Amorites, move into their houses...and then God points out to them the riches in the walls?!?  Ugh.  In any case I don't buy it.  But it leaves open the question:  Why give with one hand while taking with the other?  Surely it speaks to the fact that leprosy can't be because of loshon hara, right, if God is putting it in the house simultaneously with its being given to the Israelites.  Hmmm...
14:37 - "And [the priest] shall look on the plague, and, behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house [וְהִנֵּה הַנֶּגַע בְּקִירֹת הַבַּיִת] with hollow streaks, greenish or reddish, and the appearance thereof be lower than the wall..."  How is this even possible, to have leprosy in the walls of the house?!?

14:43-44 - "And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, after that the stones have been taken out, and after the house hath been scraped, and after it is plastered; then the priest shall come in and look; and, behold, if the plague be spread in the house, it is a malignant leprosy in the house: it is unclean."  Rashi has a lot to say about this, and what he has to say is strange.  I'll quote at length, but bold the relevant portions:

[From here,] one might think that a recurrent lesion [in a house] can be deemed unclean only if it spreads. However, the term צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת, “malignant tzara’ath,” is mentioned in reference to houses, and צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת is mentioned in reference to garments (see verse 13:52). [Through the exposition of a גְזֵרָה שָׁוָה we derive that] just as over there [in the case of garments,] a recurrent lesion is deemed unclean even if it had not spread, here too, [in the case of houses,] a recurrent lesion is deemed unclean even if it has not spread. If so, what does Scripture teach us here when it says, “Now, [if] the lesion… has spread…”? [in answer to this question, Rashi explains that the verses here should not be understood in the order in which they are written. Rather, they should be read in a different order, because] this is not the place for this verse. [I.e., the first section of this verse, namely, “Then the kohen shall come and look [at it]. Now [if] the lesion in the house has spread,” is to be understood by inserting it elsewhere within these verses, as follows]: “He shall demolish the house…” (verse 45), should be [understood as if] written after “And if… the lesion returns…” (verse 43), [skipping over the first section of verse 44], and then [reinserting this first section of our verse] “Then the kohen shall come and look… the lesion in the house has spread.” Thus, [when our verse says that the kohen looks at the lesion, the phrase, “[if] the lesion…has spread”] comes to teach [us] only about a lesion which remains the same during the first week [of quarantine], but when he came at the end of the second week [of quarantine], he found that it had spread. For in the earlier verses, Scripture does not explicitly tell us about a case where the lesion had remained with the same appearance after the first week [of quarantine]. Here, though, Scripture teaches you with this mention of spreading, that it is referring only to a lesion that has remained the same for the first week but spread during the second [week]. So what shall he do to it? I may think that he should demolish it, as is written immediately following it, “He shall demolish the house….” (verse 45). Scripture, therefore, says (verse 39), “the kohen shall return,” and [here], “the kohen shall come.” Just as in the case of “returning” [i.e., when the kohen returned after one week and the lesion had spread], he must remove [the unclean stones], scrape, and plaster, and give it another week [of quarantine], likewise, in the case of “coming” [i.e., where the lesion has remained the same for the first week, but spread during the second week], he must remove [the unclean stones], scrape, and plaster and then give it a week [of quarantine]. And, if it recurs again, he must demolish [the house]. If it does not recur, [however,] it is clean. Now, how do we know that if it remained the same during this and this, [i.e., during the first and second weeks], he must [also] remove [the unclean stones], scrape, plaster, and give it a [third] week [of quarantine]? Therefore, Scripture [here] says, “the kohen shall come (וּבָא),” and [in verse 48, it says], “if the kohen comes and comes [again] (בֹּא יָבֹא) ” What is Scripture referring to? If [you suggest that it means a lesion] that spread during the first week [of quarantine], this has already been mentioned [in verse 43]; if [you suggest that verse 48 is referring to a lesion] that spread during the second [week], this has already been mentioned [in our verse]; so [one must conclude that verse 48], “if the kohen comes and comes [again],” [is referring to the case that] he comes (בֹּא) at the end of the first week [of quarantine] and comes [again] (יָבֹא) at the end of the second week [of quarantine], and looks, and [as is continued in verse 48], “behold, the lesion did not spread” [i.e., it has remained the same throughout]. What shall he do to it? One might think that he should dismiss [the case] and depart, as it is written here (48) “the kohen shall pronounce the house clean.” Scripture, however, continues there, “because the lesion has healed.” [God says:] I deemed clean only what was healed. What shall be done with it [if the lesion has remained the same during the first and second weeks, and has not yet healed]? “Coming” is stated above [in verse 44, “the kohen shall come”], and “coming” is stated here [in verse 48, “if the kohen comes…and comes [again]”]; just as in the case above (verse 44), he must remove [the unclean stones], scrape, plaster, and give it a week [of quarantine], a law which we learned through the link made between the terms “returning” and “coming,” likewise, in the case below, [in the question of a lesion that has remained the same through the two weeks, the owner shall remove the unclean stones, scrape, plaster, and observe a week of quarantine]. The above is taught in Torath Kohanim (14:105). The conclusion of this matter is: Demolition [of an afflicted house] is required only when the lesion recurs after the removal [of the unclean stones], scraping, and plastering. The recurring lesion does not require spreading [to necessitate demolition]. Hence, the sequence of the verses is as follows: (Verse 43), “And if [after he had removed the stones, and after the house had been scraped around and after it had been plastered, the lesion] returns” ; then (verse 44, second section),“it is malignant tzara’ath …it is unclean”]; then (verse 45), “He shall demolish the house…,” and (verse 46), “Anyone entering the house […shall become unclean],” and (verse 47), “[And one who lies down…] and one who eats in the house [shall immerse…]” ; [at this juncture, just before verse 48, the second section of our verse (44) is now inserted in the sequence, namely,] “Then the kohen shall come and look…the lesion in the house has spread”- [and, as above, now we know that] Scripture here is referring to a case where the lesion remained the same during the first week [of quarantine], so a second week of quarantine is applied, and at the end of this second week of its quarantine, he comes and sees that it has spread. What should he do with it? The owner must remove [the unclean stones], scrape, plaster, and give it another [i.e., a third] week [of quarantine]. Now, if the lesion recurs, he must demolish, but if it does not recur, [the house is deemed clean, and] birds are required [along with the whole cleansing procedure, because lesions are never quarantined for more than three weeks.

Remarkable!  Rashi is saying that the order of verses in the Torah is wrong!  So no reason is given for the order in which re read them, only a complicated argument is to why it "should" be different.  What are we to make of this?  That God dictated the Torah incorrectly to Moses?  That Moses wrote it down wrong?  Or -- gasp! -- that the Torah is an imperfect, incomplete, problematic document?
14:53 - "But [the priest] shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open field; so shall he make atonement for the house [וְכִפֶּר עַל-הַבַּיִת]; and it shall be clean."  How can one make atonement for something that can't sin?  Weird...

Now we get into the gross stuff...

15:2 - "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When any man hath an issue out of his flesh [זָב מִבְּשָׂרוֹ], his issue is unclean."  This verse -- indeed, the entire chapter -- is in certain respects very strange.  Why would something over which one has no control -- something entirely natural and part of being human --- be a source of uncleanliness?  A possibility is that uncontrollable bodily emissions are powerful things precisely because they cannot be controlled; if purity is in part a function of performing certain rituals and taking incredibly great care to perform them correctly, then anything that might through a monkey wrench into that precision might by its very nature be viewed as a "threat" to the maintenance of purity.  The problem, of course, is that it's hard to make the case in modern terms that there's anything actually "wrong" with bodily emissions other than the taboos concerning them (which probably come from pre-modern superstitions).  Maybe one way of approaching the issue (no pun intended) is to think of involuntary emissions as signs or reminders that our bodies are not entirely under our control, which is to say, they belong to God.  Hmmm...

15:24 - "And if any man lie with [a woman who as had an issue], and her impurity be upon him [וּתְהִי נִדָּתָהּ עָלָיו], he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean."  Let's put aside for the moment the issue (!) of whether a woman's menstrual blood should be an impure thing.  By framing this verse in the conditional "if" -- if a man lies with an impure woman and her impurity is upon him -- it implies that a man might lie with a woman who has had an issue but the issue wouldn't touch him.  But I thought men were supposed to be extremely diligent about not getting into this situation in the first place?  Why not just say, don't do it, or X, Y and Z will happen?  Is it possible that a man could sleep with a menstruating woman and not get her blood on him?  Is this what the verse is contemplating?!?

15:30 - "...and the priest shall make atonement for her [וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן ] before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness."  Again, why make atonement for something beyond her control?!?

15:31 - "Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness [וְלֹא יָמֻתוּ בְּטֻמְאָתָם], when they defile My tabernacle that is in the midst of them."  Aha!  Here's part of the explanation for all this...  To the extent that a thing makes one ritually impure to enter the mishkan -- which would cause one to die -- it is uncleanliness and therefore something to be dealt with. 

Maybe a way of approaching these clean/unclean and pure/impure issues has to do as much with being aware of one's appearance and state of being -- one's holiness, perhaps? -- before coming into the presence of God.  There's something very archaic about it, but at the same time -- when the premodern aspects can be overlooked -- something poetic about it, that being aware and mindful of our physical state should be related to our readiness to approach God.  The problem is how to separate this idea from the distasteful aspects.  How does orthodox men not touching women in public not, in practice, constitute discrimination or misogyny?  How does basing any kind of distinctions on whether or not a woman is menstruating entail anything less than superstition?  The problem, for me at least, is that I don't see these things is inherently dirty, embarrassing, impure or "unholy," so using them as some kind of touchstone for determining ritual cleanliness seems wrong.  Not to mention the fact that in the absence of a priesthood/the Temple, who are the arbiters supposed to be of what is un/clean or im/pure?  The Rabbis of the Talmudic period?  This seems insane.  It seems to me that if the priest's pronouncement of un/cleanliness or im/purity is a critical step -- indeed the sine qua non -- of something actually being un/clean or im/pure, then the absence of a priesthood means there's no central authority to make these calls and, therefore, no basis for making them.  Indeed, once the Temple itself is gone, the very point of maintaining cleanliness and purity -- to avoid defiling the mishkan -- is gone.  So if we want to still maintain cleanliness and purity, then we need a different justification, and that justification surely cannot be rooted in a set of premodern ideas that existed thousands of years ago.

Torah Tidbits: Parshat Tazria

For me, this is a trying parsha on several levels.  With the subjects of post-natal uncleanliness and leprosy, we're getting our first glimpse here at some of the most pre-modern aspects of the Torah.  I can search these verses for more contemporary meanings, but it's tough.  I'm just glad Tazria wasn't my Bar Mitzvah parsha...

12:2-5 - "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If a woman be delivered, and bear a man-child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her sickness [כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּו‍ֹתָה]...But if she bear a maid-child, then she shall be unclean [וְטָמְאָה] two weeks, as in her impurity [כְּנִדָּתָהּ]; and she shall continue in the blood of purification [תֵּשֵׁב עַל-דְּמֵי טָהֳרָה] threescore and six days."  Oy.  In the first place, why could there possibly be a difference between delivering a male versus a female baby in terms of the length of post-birth "uncleanliness"?  By my reading, the Torah is saying that having a girl makes the mother six times as impure as having a boy.  Aside from this being abhorrent (do the Orthodox observe this difference?), I just don't get why there should be any difference at all.

The second thing is an interesting difference in translation, not exactly what I would expect.  Machon-Mamre translates kiyimei nidat dotah [כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּו‍ֹתָהּ] as "the impurity of her sickness" while Kehot translates this [12:2] instead, more sensibly, as "the days of her menstrual flow."  Sickness isn't exactly the same as menstrual flow, is it?  Rashi has a rather unfortunate explanation for the connection between "menstrual flow" and "sickness" in terms of this word dotah:

flow: Heb. דְּוֹתָהּ This expression denotes a substance that flows from her body. Another explanation: It denotes illness (מַדְוֶה) and sickness, for there is not a woman who sees [menstrual] blood without feeling ill, [since] her head and limbs become heavy upon her.

Nice, right?  A woman's period is a "sickness" because it makes women ill to see their menstruation.  Ugh.

12:6-7 - "And when the days of her purification are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtle-dove, for a sin-offering, unto the door of the tent of meeting, unto the priest.  And he shall offer it before the LORD, and make atonement for her [וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ]; and she shall be cleansed from the fountain of her blood [מִמְּקֹר דָּמֶיהָ] ..."

In the first place, why does any atonement have to be made at all?  Surely having a child doesn't in itself constitute some kind of sin, but then why must a sin-offering be made?  (I get the idea of a burnt-offering, though, as a way of giving thanks to God.)  Second, look again at this strange translation here:  mim'kor dameha [מִמְּקֹר דָּמֶיהָ] is translated as "from the fountain of her blood," while Kehot translates this as "from the source of her blood" (emphases mine).  Both translations are technically right, though fountain hardly makes sense here.  But the difference, actually, is important:  If we accept the first translation - fountain - it implies that the woman is cleansed from the blood itself; the second translation - source - on the other hand suggests that she needs to be purified from something deeper:  not the blood itself but rather its source.  But what is that source?  The text doesn't say.

13:2 - From menstruation to leprosy:  "When a man [אָדָם] shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it become in the skin of his flesh the plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests."  What's interesting is that no mention is made of a woman who exhibits such scabs or spots.  We know the word used here - adam - refers to a man and not a woman because later on, in 13:29, we read "And when a man or woman [וְאִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה] hath a plague upon the head or upon the beard..." implying that in this case, it could be either.  Why is this?

But note Rashi's completely fascinating comment here.  The question for Rashi is why does a person with skin lesions have to be brought before the priests?  Isn't it obvious what his problem is?  Rashi's answer, I think, not only drives at the heart of why the Priesthood is so important, but it says something incredibly important about the social construction of meaning in Judaism in general.  Why does the person have to be brought before the priest and his sons?  Because

[i]t is a Scriptural decree that the uncleanness of lesions and their cleanness do not come about except by the pronouncement of a kohen. — [Torath Kohanim 13:43]

In other words, the a lesion isn't inherently clean or unclean; it only becomes so when someone in authority says it is.  Incredible!  By my read, it is the Priest's interpretation that matters -- in the context of his authority and in light of the textual direction, of course -- not some underlying reality.  So, unlike pork -- which is inherently unclean even in the absence of a specific interpretation that a particular piece of meat is indeed pork -- leprous lesions are not unclean unless and until the relevant authority says so.  I need to give more thought to the implications of this difference...

13:2-8 - These verses, indeed the entire 13th Chapter, deal with leprosy and how the priests should deal with it as an uncleanliness.  On the one hand, I can understand how this affliction might have been seen as frightening back in the day.  Indeed until very recently it was viewed in extremely pejorative, highly charged terms.  On the other hand, we know better today, and therefore it's hard to read these verses as anything other than ancient superstition.  What to make of the fact that the disease for all intents and purposes has a cure and has been virtually wiped out in the developed world?  That "impurity" and "uncleanliness" only exists in the southern hemisphere?  It's chapters like this that make me look at much of the Torah differently.  If some parts are clearly pre-modern, then what about others?  How can we tell the difference, and what are the implications?

Also worth noting is that, as with the mishkan, we see an incredible amount of detail concerning different kinds of skin problems and their meanings, much more so than we see concerning the more "moral" aspects of the Torah.  What is this trying to tell us?

13:14 - "But whensoever [וּבְיוֹם] raw flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean."  Mechon-Mamre unhelpfully translates u'vayom as "but whensoever"; the more correct translation, I believe, is Kehot's: "but on the day."

Why say "on the day"?  Note Rashi's comment, which echoes his comment on 13:2 above:

But on the day [that live flesh] appears: [The verse could have simply said, “But when live flesh appears.”] What does Scripture teach us [by saying,] “on the day”]? It [comes] to teach that there is a day on which you [the kohen] look [i.e., examine the suspected lesion], and there is a day on which you do not look [i.e., when he may not examine it]. From here [our Rabbis] say that a bridegroom is exempt [from having a lesion examined] throughout all the seven days of the wedding feast, for himself, his garments, and his house. Similarly, during a Festival [people] are exempt [from having a lesion examined] throughout all the days of the Festival. - [Torath Kohanim 13:87]

Incredible!  So basically when it comes to this kind of impurity, sometimes it's best to operate on a "hear no evil, see no evil" basis.  If the priest doesn't check, then there can't be any impurity, right?  And if there isn't impurity, then there can't be any basis to postpone a wedding, celebrate the Festival, etc. 

Could this entire approach to leprosy be saying something about its relatively lower importance in terms of causing one to be impure?  But then it seems to go against the grain of so much of Judaism, where being exact, and checking a million times, is the order of the day.  Fascinating!

13:46 - "All the days wherein the plague is in him he shall be unclean; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone [בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב]; without the camp shall his dwelling be."  Rashi brings up a good point:  Why should someone afflicted with leprosy be kept apart, isolated even from others who have it as well?  He quotes chazal:

Our Sages said: “Why is he different from other unclean people, that he must remain isolated? Since, with his slander, he caused a separation [i.e., a rift] between man and wife or between man and his fellow, he too, shall be separated [from society].”- [Arachin 16b] [This rationale is based on the premise that a person is stricken with tzara’ath as a result of his talking [loshon hara] לְשׁוֹן הָרַע, i.e., speaking derogatorily of others, although he may be telling the truth.]

Ouch.  So the assumption is made that loshon hara, and specifically slanderous talk that causes problems between other people, is the cause of leprosy, which is, of course, insane.  But what I don't get is if  loshon hara indeed caused leprosy, then why would its diagnosis be dependent on what the priest says?  Is this to suggest that if the priest doesn't diagnose the affliction, then the loshon hara didn't take place?  Makes no sense, but it's the logical conclusion to this line of reasoning...