right hand / left hand balance

There is a Meshech Chochma in this week's parsha that fits hand in glove with a Meshech Chochma we discussed a mere 5 years ago.  In parshas Vayechi, we read how Yaakov reversed his hands and placed his right hand on Ephraim's head, even though he was the younger son, and his left hand on Menashe's head, even though Menashe was older.  Why was the placing of the hands so significant?  Meshech Chochma writes that right represents the revelation of Hashem derech nes; left represents the revelation of Hashem within teva.  אַף־יָדִי֙ יָ֣סְדָה אֶ֔רֶץ וִימִינִ֖י טִפְּחָ֣ה שָׁמָ֑יִם (Yeshayahu 48:13).  The right hand is used to create the heavens; the left hand to create earth.  We read in Zos haBracha that "mi'mino aish das lamo," that Torah is given with Hashem's right hand, kavyachol, but when we abandon the Torah, "af choveiv amim," Hashem gets is angry with us and as a result the nations are beloved, and "kol kidoshav b'yadecha," we are held in His left hand, kavyachol. 

In Zos haBracha, Rashi comments on the words וְהֵם֙ רִבְב֣וֹת אֶפְרַ֔יִם וְהֵ֖ם אַלְפֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה that רִבְב֣וֹת are the multitudes killed by Yehoshua, who was from sheivet Ephraim, and the אלפים are those killed by Gidon, who was from Menashe.  Meshech Chochma connects Moshe's words to the pasuk (Teh 91:7) יִפֹּ֤ל מִצִּדְּךָ֨ אֶ֗לֶף וּרְבָבָ֥ה מִימִינֶ֑ךָ אֵ֝לֶ֗יךָ לֹ֣א יִגָּֽשׁ.  He explains that וּרְבָבָ֥ה מִימִינֶ֑ךָ, on the right, because it corresponds to  רִבְב֣וֹת אֶפְרַ֔יִם, and Yaakov placed his right hand on Ephraim's head.  מִצִּדְּךָ֨ אֶ֗לֶף, on the left side, corresponds to אַלְפֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה, and Yaakov placed his left hand on Menashe.  Ephraim devoted himself exclusively to Torah study.  He lived a life detached from normal day to day events, a "right handed" life.  Therefore, his descendent Yehoshua merited open miracles like the sun stopping in the middle of the sky to help him pursue and defeat his enemies, the rivivos Ephraim.  Menashe helped deal with the mundane affairs that Yosef had to administer.  He was his father's "left hand."  His descendants would work within the derech ha'teva to defeat the enemies of the Jewish people, the alphei Menashe. 

 

When we take the Torah out we say the pesukim of "va'yehi bi'nso'a" where Moshe davened for Hashem to scatter our enemies.  When we put the Torah back, we say "shuvah Hashem rivivos alphei Yisrael" -- rivivos and alaphim, Ephraim and Menashe, l'maaleh min ha'teva and b'toch ha'teva as one.

 

The gemara (Sota 47a) writes  רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר, יצר תינוק ואשה תהא שמאל דוחה וימין מקרבת.  The Meshech Chochma in our parsha uses a slightly different formulation, but his basic point in interpreting this Chazal is consistent with this right/left split.  We don't believe in eschewing materialism completely.  There is a role even for the yetzer, or otherwise we might not procreate.  However, we have to always keep in mind what the end goal is.  The right-handed l'shem shamyim ימין force should guide us, not the left-handed force of gashmiyus for its own sake. 

 

The gemara (Menachos 25, a recent daf yomi) tells us that while ordinarily the left hand cannot be used for avodah, it is allowed on Yom Kippur, when the kohen carries the ketores into kodesh kodashim using a kli held in that hand.  On Y"K we completely separate ourselves from the material world, so on that day even the left hand is empowered for holiness.

 

What does all this have to do with our parsha?  In the process of the taharah of the metzora, the oil to be dabbed on him is placed in the kohen's left hand  וְטָבַ֤ל הַכֹּהֵן֙ אֶת־אֶצְבָּע֣וֹ הַיְמָנִ֔ית מִן־הַשֶּׁ֕מֶן אֲשֶׁ֥ר עַל־כַּפּ֖וֹ הַשְּׂמָאלִ֑ית (14:15)  The kohen who exemplifies leading a life where the left has its proper place -- his eating is done b'kedusha, e.g. kodshim and terumah; he is barred from marrying certain women; he cannot do avodah when he is tamei -- such a person can serve as the role model for the metzora of how to achieve a proper balance in life.  We are not meant to live בּדד ישׁב like a hermit, divorced from the world, but at the same time.  That is a temporary measure designed to enable a return to the right balance. 

korban oleh v'yoreid vs korbanos of metzora

In the case of korban oleh v'yoreid the Torah allows a poor person to bring 2 birds, a chatas and olah, in place of animals.  Sefer haChinuch (mitzvah 123) has a chiddush that if the poor peson voluntarily brings the higher priced animal korban instead of the birds, he is not yotzei.  He explains that the Torah does not want a person to extend himself beyond his means, even if for a good cause.  (Kal v'chomer a person should not live beyond his means and waste $ on nahrishkeit). 

 

Achronim ask the following kashe: a metzora is chayav to bring a chatas, asham, and olah.  If a person cannot afford to bring three animals, the Torah says he can subatitute bird offerings for the chatas and olah.  There is a mishna mefureshes at the end of negaim (14:12) that says that a poor person who brings the regular korban of three animals instead of the birds is yotzei.  If so, that should serve as the binyan av paradigm.  The same din should apply to korban oleh v'yoried.  Why, according to the Chinuch, is there a difference betweem these cases and the poor person is not yotzei with the higher priced korban in the case of oleh v'yoreid?   (See Chasam Sofer Shabbos 132a and see my son's post from 5 years ago on this topic.)

 

The Imrei Emes was asked this kashe and gave a cryptic one sentence answer: oleh v'yoreid is different because the person is missing a korban.  No one understood what he meant -- the poor peson brings a korban, a more expensive one than required in fact, so what is he missing?  When R' Menachem Zemba heard the answer, he deciphered it.  In the case of metzora, the rich person brings a chatas, olah, and asham, as does the poor person.  The only difference is that the poor person substitutes birds in place of animals.  In the case of oleh v'yoreid, the rich person brings one animal as a chatas; the poor person brings 2 birds, one as a chatas, one as an olah.  When the poor person who is chayav chatas and an olah brings a rich person's korban of a single chatas, he is missing something -- he is missing the korban olah that goes with his chatas.  True, he may have spent more money on that single animal, but that doesn't make up for the fact that he is getting off with one korban in place of two. 

 

This is such a great answer you have to wonder why all the other achronim who were spinning their wheels trying to work out a solution didn't come up with it.  There's a great explanation for that as well.

 

The Ohr Sameich once had a dream that he was in the yeshiva shel maalah and the giants of the past were sitting and learning and the Rashba stood up and announced in front of everyone that there is a Jew in Dvinsk who was mechavein l'amita shel Torah more than he was.  The gem (Chulin 22) has a hava amina that an olas ha'of can be offered at night.  Asks the Rashba: avodah is always done during the day.  How can there be even a hava amina of bringing a korban at night?  There must be an error in the girsa.

 

A bunch of years ago I posted the Meshech Chochma's brilliant answer to this Rashba.   He quotes Ibn Erza who explains why it is that the poor person who brings a korban oleh v'yoreid has to being 2 birds in place of the single korban chatas.  When a korban chatas animal is offered there are fats brought on the mizbeiach and meat eaten by the owner.  A bird chatas ha'oef has no fat or meat that is offered.  Just the blood is offered.  Therefore, says Ibn Erza, the chatas bird has to be paired with an olah.  The olah is offered in its entirety, with all the meat, and it therefore makes up for the missing fats that are normally part of the chatas. 

 

Avodah cannot be done at night, but hekter chalavim, the burning of the korban fats, can be.  Since the bird olah is a substitute for the fats of the animal chatas, one might therefore have a hava amina that it can be brought at night, akin of hekter chalavim, kah mashma lan. 

 

Queue applause from the Rashba.

 

In light of this yesod the Imrei Emes's argument takes a hit.  The reason a poor person has to bring the olah bird is because he needs to make up for the missing fats.  Were he to bring an animal chatas, he is not missing anything.  He doesn't need the make up korban because the animal korban is all inclusive.

paskening tzaraas al tnai

If you're still a reader here you know in the past few weeks we've been doing some of R' Shteinman's torah on the parsha.  It's shabbos ha'gadol and everyone is into inyanei Pesach, but at this point I feel bad skipping a week.  

R' Shteinman raises the question of whether a kohen can be metaheir a metzora al tnai.  Tos (Kesubos 74) holds that you can only make a tnai in a matter that lends itself to shlichus (see this post).  The ability to appoint a shliach to take care of something indicates that you have control over the outcome, and that is the key ingredient necessary in order to be able to make a tnai that will effect the outcome.  In the case of tzaraas, the kohen has to personally declare whether something in tamei or tahor -- he cannot appoint a shliach to do so on his behalf.  It would seem, therefore, that he cannot make a tnai either.

There seem to be exceptions to the above rule, e.g. you can make a tnai in nezirus (see Tos Nazir 11), or in nedarim.  R Akiva Eiger writes that someone who is afraid that they will miss zman krias shema should read shema before davening al tnai that if they make the zman during birchos krias shema, they want to be yotzei only with the later recitation with the brachos. You can't have a shliach read k"s for you, so this sounds like yet another exception to the rule.  A number of Achronim hold that Tos rule is limited to cases where an action is being done.  However, when it comes to dibur -- the case of neder, nezirus, etc. -- a tnai can be made to undo dibur even if a case where a shliach cannot be appointed.  This would seem to cover the declaration of the kohen as well.

The reason R' Shteinman has this on his radar is because Rashi at the beginning of the parsha quotes a din ביום טהרתו – מלמד שאין מטהרין אותו בלילה.  What would happen if the kohen saw the nega during the day, and declared it tamei or tahor al tnai that the psak goes into effect after dark?  Is it the maaseh of psak at night which is barred, or is it the chalos of the psak?  Would such a tnai even work?  (This is reminiscent of R' Akiva Eiger's safeik with regards to the issur of mekach u'memkar on shabbos -- is it the act of buying/selling which is prohibited, or is it the chalos of the sale?  What if you made a sale on Friday which is chal on Shabbos?)  

Later on in the parsha (14:36) by nigei batim there is a din  וְצִוָּ֨ה הַכֹּהֵ֜ן וּפִנּ֣וּ אֶת־הַבַּ֗יִת בְּטֶ֨רֶם יָבֹ֤א הַכֹּהֵן֙ לִרְא֣וֹת אֶת־הַנֶּ֔גַע to clear out the house before the kohen comes to pasken on the nega afflicting it so that the kelim inside do not become tamei.  If it is possible to pasken on a nega al tnai, why couldn't the kohen give his psak al tnai that it does not take effect for another hour or however long so that the house can be cleared?  It seems from here that tnai does not work.

R' Shteinman rejects this proof.  Forget about tnai; one can ask more fundamentally why the house needs to be cleared before the kohen gets there -- let the kohen just hold off on paskening until the kelim are removed?  It must be (as Ohr haChaim spells out) that the kohen is obligated to pasken as soon as he sees the nega and put the house in a state of hesger, if required.  By that same token, tnai cannot work either because of that same obligation to enforce hesger as soon as the nega is seen.

2) Rashi comments that nigei batim is a gift from Hashem.   וְנָתַתִּי֙ נֶ֣גַע צָרַ֔עַת בְּבֵ֖ית אֶ֥רֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶֽם Rashi writes 

בשורה היא להם שהנגעים באים עליהם, לפי שהטמינו אמוריים מטמוניות של זהב בקירות בתיהם כל ארבעים שנה שהיו ישראל במדבר, ועל ידי הנגע נותץ הבית ומוצאן.

R' Shteinman points out that the gemara implies that negaim come as punishment for sin.  How then can Rashi tell us that Hashem did this in order to give a person a rewrd and allow them to find buried treasure?

He answers that there is no contradiction.  A person might need to receive a punishment, but at the same time, Hashem can bless them with a buried treasure.  Had they not sinned, they might have gotten that treasure without having to destroy their house, but given the circumstances, this is how it had to work out.

root causes

Parshas Ki Teitzei (24:8-9) juxtaposes  הִשָּׁ֧מֶר בְּנֶֽגַע־הַצָּרַ֛עַת לִשְׁמֹ֥ר מְאֹ֖ד וְלַעֲשׂ֑וֹת with the warning/mitzvah of זָכ֕וֹר אֵ֧ת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֛ה ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ לְמִרְיָ֑ם.  B'shlama if the warning of הִשָּׁ֧מֶר בְּנֶֽגַע־הַצָּרַ֛עַת comes to tell us to avoid the root cause of tzaraas, which is speaking lashon ha'ra, the connection to what happened to Miriam is obvious.  However, as the Netziv already notes, ואינו לפי פשט ענין הכתוב.  Furthermore, the gemara darshens that הִשָּׁ֧מֶר בְּנֶֽגַע־הַצָּרַ֛עַת comes to prohibit cutting off a baheres.  What does that have to do with what happened to Miriam?  

Meshech Chochma explains that had there been no issur, instead of holding back everyone from travelling because Miriam became a metzora, they could have simply cut off the baheres.  The juxtaposition of the pesukim shows us the severity of the lav, that even at the cost of everyone waiting, Miriam's tzaraas had to be dealt with properly.

Ohr haChaim (R' Yaakov Shapira's develops this idea in a sicha on the parsha) explains that the issur of cutting off a baheres also teaches us something about lashon ha'ra, and that is the link to the episode with Miriam.  

השמר בנגע וגו׳ זכור וגו׳ – לדבריהם ז״ל (שבת קל״ב:) שאמרו שבא להזהיר לבל יקוץ בהרתו, נתכוין בהסמכת זכור את אשר עשה ה׳ למרים להודיע שורש שממנו יהיה הנגע ואותו יצו ה׳ לקוץ ורפא

Cutting off a baheres is wrong because it just removes the surface symptom without addressing the root cause of the disease.  

Not speaking lashon ha'ra is not just about controlling your mouth (thought that is certainly part of it).  A person who speaks lashon ha'ra is a person who views the world with negativity, a person who has trouble seeing the best in others.  Were such a person to tape their mouth shut, it would be a temporary band-aid that fixes the surface symptom, but not the root cause.   

kedushas arei chomah and machaneh yisrael

A naara ha'meurasa who engaged in znus is given skila on her father's doorstep.  However, if her father is no longer alive, in a city where the majority of inhabitants are Jewish, the punishment is carried out at the gates of the city; in a city where the majority of inhabitants are not-Jewish, the punishment is carried out on beis din's doorstep (Kesubos 45b).  

Tosfos asks: there is a din that the location of the beis ha'sekila must be outside the machaneh, which would mean outside the walls of the city.  How then can the naara be stoned on the doorstep of beis din?  Beis din sits in the city somewhere, not outside it!

Tosfos answers with a chiddush: a city which is majority aku"m no longer has the din of machaneh yisrael.  A metzora would not have to be sent outside its walls, and neither must the beis ha'sekila be located outside its walls.   

What's the basis for this idea?  Rashash suggests that Tos follows the view that when an aku"m has a kinyan in Eretz Yisrael it removes the kedushas ha'aretz.  

R' Shachter and R' Bakshi Doron each offer alternative explanations for the shitas haTos, the common denominator between them being that it has nothing to do with kinyan.  (Mishne la'Melech writes that the Rambam agrees with Tos din, but the Rambam does not hold that an aku"m's kinyan has an effect on kedushas ha'aretz, so there must be some other hesber.)  R' Shachter (p24 here) quotes a GR"A that cites a Yerushalmi that holds a city that is rov aku"m is like a ruin.  R' Bakshi Doron writes (seems to me that the language gets a bit muddled at the end of this teshuvah) that having a rov yisrael in a city is what endows it with the potential to be a machaneh yisrael if it has a wall.  

Either way, based on this Tos, R' Shachter and R' Bakshi Doron suggest a deeper meaning behind the gemara that says it is better to live in a city in Efretz Yisrael where there are a majority of aku"m than to live in chu"l in a city with a majority of frum residents (Kes 110).  One might have thought that the mitzvah of yishuv haaretz does not apply to a city of rov aku"m because there is no kedushas yisrael to that city anymore.  Kah mashma lan that the mitzvah of yishuv haaretz is not dependent on the kedusha of the land, but rather simply on its geographical location, i.e. the shem Eretz Yisrael, not the kedushas ha'aretz (as RYBS formulated the distinction -- see these posts I, II for more on that.)  

In the Oznayim laTorah, R' Sorotzkin is medayek in the language of the pasuk regarding nigei batim.  "V'kipeir al ha'bayis" (19:53) -- is it the house, an inanimate object, which needs kaparah?!  He explains that a Jewish home that has a mezuzah on the door, where Torah is learned, a home that is the center of a frum life, becomes a makom kadosh.  When there is a nega, that kedusha is defiled temporarily and needs to be restored.  

The same can be said about a city which has a rov yisrael living in it in Eretz Yisrael.  The religious life of its inhabitants makes the city a special place.

sharing is caring

 הָיָ֞ה כִּֽי־תָבֹ֣אוּ אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֧ן ה׳ לָכֶ֖ם כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֣ר דִּבֵּ֑ר וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הָֽעֲבֹדָ֥ה הַזֹּֽאת: (12:25) 

Pesach is not a mitzvah ha'teluya ba'aretz, so why is it, asks the Tiferes Shlomo in his torah for Shabbos haGadol, that the Torah presents it as such?  

Chasam Sofer in his derashos develops a yesod that Dr. Who put best in describing the TARDIS: "It's bigger on the inside than on the outside."  When you are invested in a life of pnimiyus, then no matter how little of the chitzoniyus of this world you have -- your house is small, you barely scrape by, you don't have the latest gadget or other "stuff" -- it doesn't really matter, because your inner space is huge.  However, if you are invested in the outside and that's all that really matters and exists for you, you will find the opposite to be true: you will always feel you don't have enough space, time, possessions, "stuff."

Eretz Yisrael is such a small country, yet who does Ukraine call on to admit more and more refugees?  Us, of course. Eretz Yisrael is called "Eretz Tzvi," the gemara explains, because if you skin a deer and take out the meat, you will find that it's impossible to stuff the flesh back inside the skin.  Somehow, there is more inside than the outside can hold.  So too Eretz Yisrael, even though based on geography and physical space it seems there is not room there for all of us, but somehow it works.  Similarly, Chazal tell us that no matter how many people came to Yerushalayim, no one ever said, "tzar li ha'makom," that there was not enough space. In the Mikdash itself, "omdim tzefufim u'mishtachavim revachim."

Compare that with my neighborhood in NY where big houses are torn down so that people can build even bigger houses.  I think each family member who lives in such homes must have their own wing or something!  No matter how big a mansion they have, some people need an even bigger mansion. 

Eretz Yisrael, Yerushalayim, the makom Mikdash -- these are holy, pnimiyusdik places.  They are bigger on the inside than on the outside, so there is room for everyone.  But no matter how big your home is, if you are empty on the inside, it's never going to be big enough.

We start the haggadah by inviting whoever is in need to come join us in eating the food we once ate while enslaved, "Ha lachma anya...,  and we end that opening passage by saying that next year we will be in Eretz Yisrael.  What's the connection between the reisha and the seifa? 

Chasam Sofer explains that even though we are eating the same lechem oni that we ate as slaves, even though we prepared just enough for our family sitting around the table, we still say "kol dichfin..., " there is enough for anyone who wants to come and eat, there is room for everyone at the table, and the same "lechem oni" we ate as slaves it still will satisfy us now.  

וְהָיָ֞ה כִּֽי־תָבֹ֣אוּ אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ...  When we invite everyone in, says the Chasam Sofer, "Harei hu m'ein Eretz ha'kedosha," it's in some small way like Eretz Yisrael, where the inside is bigger than the outside, where the table and the food expand and provide enough even though if you measure the physical dimensions b'derech ha'teva it does not seem possible.  

That's perhaps the answer to the Radomsker's kashe.  That's how to celebrate Pesach in Eretz Yisrael even if physically you may be far away.

Our parsha warns, if you come to Eretz Canaan, you may find a nega on your walls:

וּבָא֙ אֲשֶׁר־ל֣וֹ הַבַּ֔יִת וְהִגִּ֥יד לַכֹּהֵ֖ן לֵאמֹ֑ר כְּנֶ֕גַע נִרְאָ֥ה לִ֖י בַּבָּֽיִת

Why the punishment?  The Midrash finds the answer in one word --  אֲשֶׁר־**ל֣וֹ **הַבַּ֔יִת , it's HIS house, to the exclusion of anyone else who may want to come in.  וּבָא אֲשֶׁר לוֹ הַבַּיִת, מִי שֶׁיִּחֵד בֵּיתוֹ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לֵהָנוֹת לַאֲחֵרִים  That's the klipa of כִּ֤י תָבֹ֙אוּ֙ אֶל־אֶ֣רֶץ כְּנַ֔עַן -- Eretz Canaan, which has not yet been transformed into Eretz Yisrael, Eretz Tzvi, where there is room enough to share.

We end ha lachma anya by saying next year in Eretz Yisrael because midah k'neged midah, if you manage to transform your home into the "m'ein Eretz ha'kedosha," as the Chasam Sofer puts it, by opening your door to all, then that is the siman that you don't belong in galus, that you are deserving of the real thing, Eretz Tzvi, not just the mei'ein.  

solutions and bread do not grow on trees

The haftara for Metzora opens in medias res, and you have to turn back a few pesukim to get the full picture of what's going on.  Shomron was under seige, and a famine raged throughout the land.  King Yehoram was approached by a woman who had literally eaten her own child and she begged the king to have mercy and help her.  Faced with such a stark example of the people's suffering, the king swore that he would have Elisha killed because Elisha had failed to pray to G-d to help the people (Rashi, Radak to Melachim II 6:31)  The king came to Elisha with one of his officers, and Elisha prophesized that on the very next day a se'ah of flour and 2 se'ah of barley would both sell in the market for a shekel.  The king's assistant then jumped into the conversation and declared the navi's promise impossible,  to which Elisha responded that the king's man will see it happen with his own eyes, but never get to benefit from the miracle.

This is the point at which our haftara begins, telling us about the miraculous downfall of Hazael's army and the end of the seige and the famine, exactly as Elisha predicted, culminating with the king's officer being trampled to death at the gates of the marketplace as the people scrambled for the food that was now readily available and priced exactly as Elisha had foretold.

Why did the king's officer not believe Elisha?  It's not like he thought Elisha was incapable of doing a miracle or incapable of helping the situation.  The king was angry precisely because he though Elisha could have done something to help, could have pulled off a miracle, but had failed to do so!

Chasam Sofer has many answers to this question, and one in particular struck me as relevant to Yom ha'Atzmaut and our situation of aschalta d'geula.  He writes (Derush for Shabbos haGadol, 5662) that the king's officer certainly believed that Elisha could do miracles.  He also knew that without a miracle, the only way to get bread was to plant, harvest, mill, and bake, and that was impossible given the seige and the famine.  So the expectation was that Elisha will do a MIRACLE, something extraordinary and supernatural, like the gemara says, l'asid lavo bread will grow on trees.  But that's not what Elisha promised.  Elisha promised barley, meaning raw stalks that would have to have the kernel separated and milled into flour.  He promised flour that would have to be baked to get bread, not bread growing on trees.  That's what the king's officer found impossible to believe.  If G-d is going to do a miracle, then it would be MIRACLE, not some half-way solution.

But that's not always how it works.  Hashem sometimes does miracles, but couched in derech ha'teva.  Hashem will provide the barley and the flour, but it's up to us to put in the rest of the work and make the bread.

Thinking that geulah means Moshiach riding in on a white donkey and waving a magic wand to solve all our problems -- a MIRACLE -- and not celebrating or believing anything less is yad Hashem is exactly the mistake the haftara speaks to.  Easy solutions will not grow on trees; Hashem has given us raw materials and siyata d'shemaya, but we have work of our own to do.

seeing the nega -- a means of birur or a din?

Is seeing something through a telescope the same as seeing it in person?  Is seeing though a microscope or through eyeglasses the same as seeing with one's own eyes?  Nafka mina for many halachos, e.g. seeing ervah, seeing ner chanukah in a window, electric light for havdalah, seeing moon through a window for kiddush levana, etc.

The gemara (Chulim 10b) discusses what the source for the din of chazakah is.  The gemara brings proof from our parsha:

מנא הא מלתא דאמור רבנן אוקי מילתא אחזקיה אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן אמר קרא ויצא הכהן מן הבית אל פתח הבית והסגיר את הבית שבעת ימים דלמא אדנפיק ואתא בצר ליה שיעורא אלא לאו משום דאמרינן אוקי אחזקיה

When the kohen walks out of the house afflicted with a nega to declare it tamei, how does he know that the nega that he saw is still there?  Maybe in the few seconds or minutes it took for him to walk out the nega vanished?  It must be that we rely on chazakah.

Asks the Rogatchover (Shu"T #13): maybe the kohen took out a telescope or put on a better pair of glasses and can see that the nega is still there?  

Q.E.D. that seeing means seeing with your own two unaided eyes, not seeing through some instrument.

Yesh lachkor: is there a din that the kohen must see the nega in order to declare it tamei, or is seeing the nega just a means of birur to determine that the nega is actually there?

The Mishna in Negaim (3:1 and see Mishna Achrona there) tells us that only a kohen has the power to declare a nega tamei or tahor, but if the kohen is am ha'aretz and doesn't know the difference, he can be coached by a talmid chacham and told "Say tahor," or "Say tamei."  

Compare the Rambam's formulation with Rashi:

Rambam Hil Tzaraas 9:2

כיצד כהן שאינו יודע לראות החכם רואהו ואומר לו אמור טמא והכהן אומר טמא. אמור טהור והכהן אומר טהור

Rashi Archin 3a:

 שאינו בקי. י] והולך תלמיד חכם ישראל ורואה עמו ואומר לו אמור טמא והוא אומר טהור והוא אומר שהטומאה והטהרה תלויה במאמר הכהן והכי תניא בת"כ: 

The Rambam writes that החכם רואהו ואומר לו , the talmid chacham who is a yisrael sees the nega and just tells the kohen what to say. Rashi, however, writes הולך תלמיד חכם ישראל ורואה עמו , that the kohen has to actually see the nega along with the talmid chacham.  

According to the Rambam, seeing the nega is just a means of birur -- it is just a means to an end.  So long as somehow the kohen knows the nega is there, that's sufficient.  According to Rashi, there is a chiyuv for the kohen to actually see the nega, eyes on.  It's not about what he knows -- it's what he sees that matters.

The Rogatchover's proof should hinge on this machlokes.  If one assumes that all that is needed is birur, than a yisrael standing by the door and telling the kohen that the nega is still there, or the kohen himself seeing it though a telescope, should also work.  However, if actual seeing is required, then a telescope may not be sufficient.

dig a little deeper

 כִּ֤י תָבֹ֙אוּ֙ אֶל־אֶ֣רֶץ כְּנַ֔עַן אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֛י נֹתֵ֥ן לָכֶ֖ם לַאֲחֻזָּ֑ה וְנָתַתִּי֙ נֶ֣גַע צָרַ֔עַת בְּבֵ֖ית אֶ֥רֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶֽם׃

The parsha tells us that when we come into Eretz Canaan, Hashem will bring negaim on our houses.  

Why does the parsha phrase this like a promise, "I will bring niga'im...," and not "If you find a nega on your house...," similar to the way the Torah puts it by nigei bigadim, "וְהַבֶּ֕גֶד כִּֽי־יִהְיֶ֥ה ב֖וֹ נֶ֣גַע צָרָ֑עַת?"  

Rashi answers:

 בשורה היא להם שהנגעים באים עליהם, לפי שהטמינו אמוריים מטמוניות של זהב בקירות בתיהם כל ארבעים שנה שהיו ישראל במדבר, ועל ידי הנגע נותץ הבית ומוצאן.

It's like when you have buried treasure and X marks the spot on the treasure map.  Hashem wanted Bnei Yisrael to find the treasure that the Amoriim hid in the walls of their homes, so he brings negaim to mark the treasure spot to tell us where to dig.

Sefas Emes explains:

והנה בנ"י כן עשו שהוציאו ארץ כנען מיד הטומאה והכניסוהו בקדושה שכשנקרא ארץ ישראל השרה הבורא ית' שכינתו בבהמ"ק. וזה בכלל ובכל מאודך שצריכין להביא לכל הנכסים הארת הקדושה. ומצד זה יכול להיות טומאת נגע צרעת גם בבתים. וזאת הבשורה טובה שיוכלו לתקן כל המקומות ג"כ. והוא באמת מטמוניות. שבכל דבר הגשמיי ביותר. מוטמן בו ניצוצי קדושה ביותר. וגם לפי פשוטו הי' נסיון גדול לסתור כל הבנין ע"י שחפץ איש הישראלי להיות שורה קדושה וטהרה במקומו. ובאמת איתא כי המטמוניות מצאו כדי שלא יהיו נפסדין בסתירת הבנין:

You might think that Hashem is giving us a strange gift, the land of Eretz Canaan, a place that was been filled with tumah by its inhabitants, a land where the very walls of the houses are saturated with sin.  

How can you celebrate Yom ha'Atzmaut when all you see are spiritual negai'im surrounding you?  What is there to celebrate?

But the lesson of the parsha is that you can knock those walls down and rebuild them, you can rip out the stones that have been defiled and replace them, you can make a makon kadosh on what once was a makon tumah.  You can transform Eretz Canaan into Eretz Yisrael.  

וְנָתַתִּי֙ נֶ֣גַע צָרַ֔עַת בְּבֵ֖ית אֶ֥רֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶֽם  In no other place are those nigei batim visible because in no other place can we effect that transformation.  In no other place can the kedushas yisrael have such an impact that the most chol and gashmi things can become rebuilt in holiness.  

That's the buried treasure that Hashem promises us.  Don't get dismayed by what you see on the surface.  Dig a little deeper.

ain mevatlin issur l'chatchila

The gemara (Kid 57b) writes that the bird used for taharas ha'metzora which is sent away is permitted to be eaten:

ת״ר, צפור המשתלחת מותרת באכילה, מאי טעמא ושלח אמר רחמנא, ולא אמרה תורה שלח לתקלה

Why do you need a special pasuk to tell you that the bird is permitted?  Even if it was assur, it would be bateil b'rov?

The Torah Temimah (14:7) writes that the concern here is not for the person eating the bird, but rather for the person sending it away.  This is a doraysa source for the din of ain mevatlin issur l'chatchila.

The problem is that with the exception of the Raavad, most Rishonim hold that ain mevatlin issur l'chatchila is a din derabbanan.  How do they deal with this sugya?

1) One can accept the proof as valid, and qualify the views of the other Rishonim:

It's a little strange that the Torah Teminah would be unaware of a chiddush of the Noda b'Yehudah (Mh"T Y.D. 45) quoted by his father in the Aruch haShulchan Y.D. 99:27 , who writes "divrei taam heim." The Noda B'Yehuda writes that the principle of bitul comes into play only when we cannot distinguish between issur and heter.  If I have two items that I can clearly tell apart, ain mevatlin issur l'chatchila because there is no question of which is heter and which is issur.  When dealing with yaveish b'yaveish, dry items that are distinct units, everyone holds ain mevatlin issue l'chatchila is a din d'orsaysa.  The machlokes Rishonim is only in a case where liquids are being mixed and the end result is an entity where the composite parts can never be separated.  

According to this approach, in the case of birds where are are dealing with distinct units, everyone will hold that ain mevatlin issur is a din d'oraysa and so there is no contradiction to any of the shitos.

2) Or, one can argue that the proof itself is flawed.  

It seems that Rashi did not agree with the T"T's reading of the gemara: 

דלא אמרה התורה שלח לתקלה שתהא למכשול עון וילכדנה אדם ויאכלנה

The concern is for the person who might eat the bird sent away, not the act of sending it away, the act of bitul.

What possible " מכשול " could there be once the bird is bateil b'rov?

R' Shimon Shkop in Shaarei Yosher (3:6) explains that there are two dinim in rov:

1) Rov in the case of a mixture where all the items are jumbled together in the same location, in which case the miyut  gets transformed into the rov and it's like it no longer exists;

2) Rov in a case where multiple items all fall under the same safeik, but they are not mixed together in one spot.  Here, the Torah says you can follow rov, but the miyut remains lurking out there.  

All the birds in the world fall into the safeik of whether they are/are not the bird sent away by the metzora, but those birds are scattered everywhere.  The miyut still exists b'metziyus, just the Torah allows a person to follow the rov -- the Torah allows a person to play the odds.  

Playing the odds is never a guarantee.  Had the metzora bird been assur, the Torah would have not allowed it to be sent away given the chance, however, small, that someone might come to eat it.

Notes from the Underground -- Monday morning edition

1) Apologies for starting off your day with an opinion note instead of Torah -- skip to part 2 if you like -- but I want to get this off my mind.

"We must not look for pro forma loopholes or so-called solutions which --at best-- may mitigate, but certainly will not eliminate, the dangers of this disease. The Torah absolutely condemns and forbids acting in a way which - under any circumstances - may allow for the death of a Jew."  (source for the quote, emphasis added by me)

If this is the standard our Rabbis are now adopting, then forget leaving your house ever again.   You drive a car -- you may get into an accident.  You walk the streets -- you may get attacked, run over, etc.  It is simply impossible to eliminate danger from life, whether it be from this disease or any other illness, threat, or source of danger.

Especially in the current situation, there is simply no way to prevent the death of a Jew "under any circumstances."   See here -- one of what I fear will be many suicides to come.  See here -- "Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who researches health policy at Stanford University, said...The coronavirus can kill...but a global depression will, as well."  See here -- "The looming global recession... could cause hundreds of thousands of child deaths..."  I could go on and on with many similar citations and examples.  This is a trolley problem -- there will be deaths no matter what course of action is taken.  The ONLY strategy that makes any sense is to try to MITIGATE the worst of the consequences.  By not realizing that that is the goal -- not the elimination of death due to the disease -- we risk wasting time, money, and resources and doing more harm than good. Again, just my opinion.  With all due respect, I am really at a loss to understand the thinking here. 2) On to something a little more inspiring since we are still stuck in our bunkers: 

V'nasati nega tzaraas b'beis eretz achuzaschem...  Rashi explains that the Amoraim hid treasure in their homes, so the nega was actually l'tovah, as it brought about the discovery of those riches when the house walls were knocked down.  The Aish Kosdesh asks: so why must the house become tamei for 7 days?  Why not just say that when the nega is found, you have to immediately tear down the house?

 

He answers that the Torah wants to teach us that even if the "bayis" -- the beis knesses, the beis medrash -- has to remain closed for a period of time, in the end it will be l'tovah; you will walk away with a treasure.  

Notes from the Underground -- erev Shabbos + Rosh Chodesh Iyar

The parsha tells us that the metzora would have to sit isolated in his bunker for seven days to see if his nega would heal.  Why davka seven days?  R' Leibel Eiger writes in Imrei Emes that Shabbos is the source of all refuah -- Shabbos can transform the lowest of the low, the nega, into oneg, oneg Shabbos.  You can't have seven days without a Shabbos, so the metzora needs seven days.  If one Shabbos is not enough, so he waits for a second Shabbos, another seven days. 

Shabbos has the power to bring us the refuah we need, b'frat, as R' Leibele Eiger writes, this Shabbos, where the parsha contains the words "nirpeh nega hatzara'as..., and I would add b'frat Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Iyar, roshei teivos "Ani Hashem Rofecha."

K'nega nirah li ba'bayis -- Chazal say that even if the person knows for sure that it's a nega, he should still use the kaf ha'dimyon and not say so with certainty.  The masorah brings that there is one other pasuk in Tanach that uses that expression "nirah li" -- "mei'rachok Hashem nirah li Hashem."  The Ba'al haTurim (see also Agra d'Kallah) connects the two: when you see something from a distance, it is unclear, you can't be certain what it is.  So too, when you come with your nega, don't judge things in advance and don't be certain things are as they appear to you.  Just show it to the kohen and let him pasken.

 

Chazal (see Kli Yakar who quotes this Yalkut) interpret this parsha homiletically as referring to the churban of Beis haMikdash.  Hashem comes to the kohen, to Yirmiyahu haNavi, and says that his house is filled with negaim, with the avodah zarah that the people have put in to defile it. 

 

The sefer She'eiris Menachim (two doses of it this week) puts these two Chazals together.  Hashem certainly knows what's going on in the Beis haMikdash, Hashem sees how things have been defiled.  But when speaking about Eretz Yisrael, when speaking about the Beis haMikdash, when speaking about Klal Yisrael, even Hashem does not say "nega" -- it's just "k'nega," with the kaf ha'dimyon.  Hashem does not want to be the one to say affirmatively, with complete certainty, that the makom Mikdash, that Eretz Yisrael, that Klal Yisrael is bad.

 

Mah hu -- af atah.  The lesson is obvious.

R' Tzadok haKohen (Pri Tzadik #5 l'girsas ha'Geonim) quotes from Sefer Yetzira that the month of Iyar corresponds to the letter vav.  You can't have a mattan Torah in Sivan without the freedom from the arayos and avodah zarah of Mitzrayim in Nisan; you can't have the freedom of Pesach without "ta'avdun es ha'Elokim al ha'har ha'zeh" of Sivan to control it.  Iyar is the vav ha'chibur that connects the two holidays.  It's when we work on acquiring for ourselves the gifts Hashem gave to us through is'arusa d'l'eila on Pesach so that we are prepared to be a kli kibul for Torah on Shavuos. 

I would suggest that the vav ha'chibur means working on the connection between each other.  As we discussed, Pesach was the first step -- to take a korban with "shecheino ha'karov el beiso," recognizing your neighbor should be close; that was when the Tanaim sat up darshening "kol oso ha'layla," oso = os vav, the vav ha'chibur.  Shavuos is the culmination, the "k'ish echad b'lev echad."  But it takes work to get there.; it takes overcoming the "lo na'hagu kavod zeh la'zeh" that led to the demise of R' Akiva's students.  That's the avodah of Iyar -- to connect with each other, to not be "badad yeisheiv" like the metzora.  Even when you are convinced 100% that you are right and Ploni is dead wrong, remember it's only k'nega nirah li...  It really may only be 99%, if that much.  

Road to recovery

Zos ti'hiyeh tahras hametzorah byom taharaso...  The parsha then continues that the metzora comes to the kohen who must perform an exam and check if the tzaraas is cured.  If it is, then the metzora may proceed to bring the required korbanos and undergo the process of becoming tahor.  Shouldn't the pasuk of "zos ti'hiyeh taharas hametzorah" come after the kohen's exam, i.e. only once it is actually determined that the metzora is cured and can undergo the tahara process? 

Aside from the physical blemish of tzaraas, the metzora needs to cure the bad midos that caused his punishment.  Chazal tell us that no one can pasken on their own negaim.  A person will always see themselves in the best light. Until a person is willing to listen to the advice and judgement of others, they are not ready to escape the pain of the tzaraas affliction.

Zos ti'hiyeh toras hametzorah... V'huva el hakohen.  The very fact that the metzora is willing to got out -- to leave his comfort zone and preconceived notions -- and meet with the kohen to seek his help already proves that he is on the road to recovery.  The cure of the physical nega is sure to follow.

only skin deep

"V'haya b'or besaro l'nega tzara'as..."  Chazal tell us that as a general rule that the word "v'haya" portends something good happening.  What's so good about having a nega tzara'as?  (I haven't done a survey of all the places it comes up, but my off the cuff impression is that the Ohr haChaim frequently addresses how pesukim that seem to be an exception do in fact fit the rule.  Interestingly, here he is silent about the issue.)  

The answer in two words, says the Alshich, is "b'or besaro."  Sometimes the rot you see on the surface is indicative of some deep rooted problem.  Here, the Torah says that when a Jew gets tzara'as, which comes because of cheit, the sin is literally only skin deep.  At his/her core, a Jew is always unspoiled.  Cheit is just mikra, not b'etzem, to borrow the Maharal's formulation.  It's like when you have to have your car brought to the mechanic after a collision and you think it's a goses and it's all over.  When you hear that it just needs some body work to get out the dents you almost feel like saying "Baruch Hashem -- that's great!"  because it means everything under the hood is OK and it will keep running.  Tzara'as is a sign that repairs are needed, but there is a note of simcha there because under the hood we are all OK.   

The sin that is the cause of tzara'as is lashon ha'ra, but nowhere does the Torah say not to speak lashon ha'ra.  Instead, the Torah tells us to remember what Hashem did to Miriam when she spoke against Moshe.  1) If the point is to prohibit us from lashon ha'ra, then why not say so directly?  2) Hashem didn't do anything to Miriam -- Hashem doesn't deliberately choose to bring harm on people.  People suffer because they bring punishment upon themselves by their behavior.  If you put your hand on a hot stove, you get burned, but it's not like the stove decided to do anything -- you brought the burn upon yourself.  Why does the Torah tell us to remember what Hashem did to Miriam instead of telling us to remember what Miriam did?  

Sefas Emes (5638) these questions with the same yesod we learned from the Alshich.  The point of "zachor eis asher asah Hashem Elokecha l'Miriam..." is not to warn us against speaking lashon ha'ra -- there are other sources for that.  The pasuk is not an issur and not a threat of punishment; the pasuk is a gift of great news.  An analogy: imagine someone who lives on the worst fast food out there -- the greasy, fatty, salty stuff three meals a day every day.  You can serve up the most unhealthy meal and that person can eat it without a problem.  If someone else who is used to eating healthy, who eats only good food prepared well, is served the same meal, they will vomit it right up.  That's not a sign of weakness -- aderaba, it's a sign that their body is healthy.  The whole world is busy munching on lashon ha'ra, the worst fast food for the neshoma, all day every day.  Hashem here is telling us that if we try that same diet, we are going to break out in tzara'as.  He made it -- it's not natually that way -- so that we can't absorb that food.  It's because our neshomos are pure and healthy that we react that way. 

P.S. My wife had an interesting original idea on the parsha here.

tiferes shlomo on parshas metzorah

It’s very hard to devote the needed time and energy to learn Parshas Metzora when Pesach is rapidly approaching and you are either busy cleaning your house or packing your bags to go to some resort.

The Radomsker in Tiferes Shlomo sees the kohen who is charged with being metaheir the metzorah as an archetype representing the tzadik, the talmid chacham, the rebbe, who can bring redemption and healing to the individual who is outside the camp, afflicted, conflicted, lost.

Our parsha opens with a seeming contradiction: on the one hand, “v’huva el ha’kohen,” (14:2) the metzorah has to be brought to the kohen, yet on the other hand, “v’yatzah ha’kohen el m’chutz lamachaneh,” (14:3) the kohen has to go out to the metzorah. Which is it? See Netziv for a pshat approach, but in line with the Tif Shlomo perhaps the Torah is alluding to the idea that rehabilitating those outside our camp involves meeting them halfway.  The metzorah has to do his/her part to rejoin the community, but the community needs to go out and encourage and welcome the metzorah’s return as well.

Tif Shlomo reads “v’shav ha’kohen…” (14:39) as meaning more than just a return checkup by the kohen.  He reads it as an allusion to teshuvah. This shifts responsibility from the metzorah to the kohen.  Rather than the burden of repentance resting exclusively on the sinner, it also rests on the one who wants to bring the metzorah back.  Whether by means of serving as an example or by generating energy in higher olamos that affect this world, the kohen’s own return is what precipitates the metzorah’s teshuvah. 

The Tiferes Shlomo goes one step further.  “V’yatzah ha’kohen… v’hinei nirpah negah tzara’as min ha’tzaru’ah” (14:3): 1) Why add the words, “min hatzaru’ah” -- obviously it is the person who had tzara’as who has been healed?  (Again, see Netziv) 2) Why “nirpah,” in the passive voice, as if the healing just happened on its own? The Rishonim explain that the suffering of the metzorah is a punishment for sin; therefore, shouldn’t the healing be a function of his teshuvah, not something that just happens? 

Tif Shlomo inverts means and end. Instead of seeing the metzorah's suffering as a means to elicit his teshuvah and the kohen's visit as a spot-check, the Tif Shlomo sees the suffering of the metzorah as a means to bring the kohen out, to draw the kohen to him.  "V'yatzah ha'kohen" is the goal.  M'meila, "nirpah nega tzara'as" once the kohen's mercy and rehabilitative power is elicited.  "Min hatza'ruah," from this tragic situation of tzara'as comes an opportunity for goodness and growth.

Rashi as an explainer of ta'amei hamitzvos

Rashi (14:4) explains that the taharah process of the metzorah uses birds because birds chirp, symbolic of the chatter of gossip that causes tzara’as; it uses cedar wood because the metzorah was haughty and thought of himself like a high and mighty cedar; it uses an eizov because it is a low plant and shni tol’as because worms also signify smallness, which teaches the metzorah to have humility.

Is there some difficulty in pshat that drives Rashi to give a reason why each of these items was used? I couldn’t think of any. Compare with Rashi Bamidbar 19:22 where he explains why the same eitz erez, eizov, and shni tola’as objects are used in connection with parah adumah, but he does so only when he quotes the midrash aggadah of R’ Moshe haDrashan, not when he is simply explaining pshat in the pesukim. It seems that Rashi in our parsha is stepping out of  character from being simply a commentary on pshat (by which I mean syntax or language) and offering us ta’amei hamitzvos, yet if that is Rashi’s goal, why does he focus only on the objects and not on anything else in the process, e.g. why place things on the ear lobe, the thumb, and the big toe?

There are other places where Rashi seems to offer explanations that sound like ta’amei hamitzvos, e.g. Bamidbar 8:7 from yesterday’s post. Does anyone have a rule that works to explain where and why Rashi does this?

equal but separate

If want to try to add up some of the details of tzara’as and the process of taharah and see if we can make some sense of the picture as a whole. 

The metzorah must take two identical birds as part of his taharah process. One of them is shechted and the blood is used for sprinkling etc. The second one, however, is just sent away. What’s the point of taking this bird just to release it again into the wild? Ramban already touches on this question and tells us that it is the same idea behind the “sod” of sending away the sa’ir l’azazel, which doesn’t help us too much unless you are privy to the sod. Abarbanel suggests that the lesson here is that all is in G-d’s hands. Just as you can have two seemingly identical birds yet one is shechted and one lives, so too, two seemingly identical people may suffer different fates in life. 

Another interesting detail in the metzorah’s taharah process is the korban asham which is brought. The Torah in fact gives almost no attention to the other korbanos (see Ramban) but focusses almost exclusively on the asham. Why an asham? Seforno explains that a korban asham is brought for an issur me’ila, stealing from hekdesh. A metzorah is guilty of being haughty, and Chazal tell us that someone who is haughty, a ba’al ga’avah, drives away the Shechina, [which amounts to taking himself so to speak away from hekdesh.]

The final point I want to call attention to is an observation made by R’ Ya’akov Medan from Gush, who points out that the command to the metzorah to cut his hair and rip his clothes is the exact flipside of the instructions given in Shmini to Aharon and his children not to tear their clothes or touch their hair. Similarly, while the metzorah musty remain outside all the camps, the kohen is entitled to enter into the holiest sections of the mishkan. The metzorah is affected with tumah; the kohen is empowered to declare him tahor. I would add that Rashi later in Bamidbar (8:7) writes that the process of shaving done to the Levi’im to inaugurate them into service is a direct parallel to the shaving of the metzorah. So we have direct opposites and direct parallels, both of which point to some kind of relationship.

Last week I mentioned a Midrash that explains that the officer who did not believe the navi Elisha’s prophecy that the famine would end and wheat would be dirt cheap did not deny G-d’s power to perform miracles and did not deny the ability of the navi to see the future – what he denied was that his generation, a generation that he considered on the same level as the dor hamabul, was worthy of such a miracle. Rav Tvi Tau describes this as a failure to recognize the “segulah” aspect of Am Yisrael. The worthiness of the nation to merit salvation is not something that can be reduced to a calculus of plusses and minuses alone; there is a transcendent element to the bond between G-d and the Jewish people that goes beyond that. G-d is not too holy to help even the worst sinners. All that is necessary is to believe that G-d will in fact do so, and it is that belief that the king’s officer dampened. 

This idea – the denial of a qualitative imperceptable segulah element – is what I think is the hallmark of the sin of metzorah and is why the story of the king’s officer is the haftarah for the parsha. Two identical birds are taken by the metzorah -- one is killed, one is sent away. What’s the difference between one and the other? That’s exactly the point – nothing noticeable is different, and yet the fates of the two diverge. The king’s officer could not see a difference between his generation and the generation of the flood, yet af al pi kein, there is a segulah aspect to Am Yisrael that does makes a difference, even if it doesn’t add up in our minds. Two objects appear identical on the surface, yet by using one of them a person becomes chayav in meila and must bring an asham and the other not. What’s the difference? Again, it’s not something that can be seen, but it is the segulah aspect, the fact the one of the objects is hekdesh, which makes the difference. A kohen or levi looks like anyone else, yet again, it is the segulah aspect of their election that sets them apart. When Miriam spoke against her brother Moshe because she thought he was no different than any other navi, she is afflicted with tzara’as; her sin was not recognizing the segulah of a Moshe Rabeinu.

But don’t Chazal say that tzara’as is a punishment for lashon ha’ra? How does that fit this framework? The answer is that this gufa is the underlying crime of lashon ha’ra. The sin of gossip is not just about speaking harmful words – it’s about denying the inherent worth of the individual spoken about. Just as the officer of the king saw only the faults of Klal Yisrael and did not recognize that in G-d’s eyes they were still worthy of help, evil gossip focusses on the negative traits in others and does not see the segulah that makes each individual special.

nigei batim and the zechus of Eretz Yisrael

1) Why is it that Reuvain, who advised that Yosef be thrown into a pit even though he knew “ha’bor reik ain bo mayim – aval nechashim v’akravim yesh bo,” that there were scorpions and snakes down there, gets credit in the Torah for saving Yosef, “vayishma Reuvain vayatzileihu m’yadam,” but about Yehudah, the one who actually pulled Yosef out of that dangerous pit, albeit to sell him to Yishmaelim, but sof sof Yosef lived and went on to greatness from of that sale, Chazal say that “ko ha’mevarech es Yehudah ain zeh elah men’eitz?” Why does Reuvain get credit and Yehudah gets scorn?

The R' Shmuel Ya'akov Rubenstein in his She'eiris Menachem answers that true Reuvain had Yosef thrown into a pit, but that pit was a pit in Eretz Yisrael. Even if there were scorpions and snakes in there, Reuvain knew that in Eretz Yisrael the zechus of Ya’akov Avinu, if not Yosef himself, would ensure Yosef’s safety. Yehudah, however, pulled Yosef out to sell him to travelers headed into chutz la’aretz. No matter that Yosef would rise there to the greatest heights – at the end of his life he would be forced to ask Klal Yisrael to take an oath and would plead that they remember “pakod yifkod…” and take his bones when they leave because chutz la'aretz is not a place that  Jew can know rest.  
 
2) Rashi explains that nigei batim were brought by Hashem because the Canaanim had hidden treasures in the walls of their homes. When a nega came and a person was forced to tear down the walls, they would discover the buried treasure. We build walls around ourselves with our ga’avah and ta'avah for olam hazeh that prevents us from thinking and communicating properly.  Hashem sometimes does us a favor and sends us difficulties to contend with to help us break down those walls. When we do so, we can discover the treasures buried inside ourselves (based on the Kozhiglover in Eretz Tzvi).

It’s interesting that the halachos of nigei batim only apply in Eretz Yisrael. Ibn Ezra (14:34) explains that this is a testament to the kedushas ha’aretz, which does not tolerate sin. The gemara (Brachos 5) distinguishes between negaim in Eretz Yisrael and nega’im that come in chutz la’aretz; one is yisurim shel ahavah, the other not. The Netziv explains (contrary to Rashi) that it is the nega’im of Eretz Yisrael, where the metzorah must suffer being expelled outside the camp, that are yisurim shel ahavah, because through suffering the metzorah merits to be cleansed of his sin. Extending the thought of the Kozhiglover, perhaps davka in Eretz Yisrael, which is one of the things that is only acquired through yisurim, do we face challenges because davka in Eretz Yisrael do we have the siyata d’shemaya to be able to break break down the walls of the yetzer ha'ra and dig up those treasures inside ourselves.

3) “Who wants long life?” cried the peddler in the market. Rav Yanai followed the gathering crowd to see what elixir this salesman was hawking. The peddler gave the secret away: Mi ha’ish he’chafetz chaim? Netzor leshoncha mei’ra… Stop speaking lashon ha’ra! The Midrash ends by telling us that Rav Yanai said that he never understood the pasuk before he heard it from that peddler. 

We’ve discussed this Midrash many times before, but there is always something new to add. Even when the Torah promises “v’ha’arachta yamim,” a reward of long life, as it does in the parsha of kibud av and shiluach ha’kan, Chazal reinterpret that promise to mean a long life in olam ha’ba, not that you will outlive your peers in the old age home. The Torah speaks to our eternal reward and salvation, not to what will necessarily make life easier in olam ha’zeh (see Kiddushin 40). Before hearing that peddler, Rav Yanai understood that the “chofetz chaim” refers to life in olam ha’ba as well. What he learned from the peddler, as the Dudai Reuvain explains, is that not speaking lashon ha’ra makes life better even in olam hazeh. The remedy for the metzorah – sitting outside the camp in isolation – is not some spiritual hocus pocus, but is designed to cause the person to reflect on how he can manage his interpersonal relationships better. It’s a remedy that makes life better in the here-and-now, not just the hereafter.

miracles can happen for a dor even as bad as the dor hamabul

1. I wrote in my last post, “Anyone who feels any connection to the world of YU/modern orthodoxy/religious Zionism in America or Israel must feel a profound sense of loss at the passing of R’ Aharon Lichtenstein.“ Someone commented that even those not connected to those worlds feel a profound sense of loss. Y’yasher kocho for making that important point. The feeling of loss may be more poignant and there may be a greater need and responsibility to mourn for those who most benefited from R’ Aharon’s influence, but the loss of a gadol like Rav Aharon Lichtenstein should have an impact on everyone. R’ Aharon Kahn shlit”a (you can listen to the hespeidim on yutorah) remarked in his hesped that his “beard and the kapote bespeak perhaps slightly different percecptions and orientations” than R’ Aharon, but still, he "loved him [R’ Aharon] very, very much. Such a statement says as much about R’ Aharon Kahn‘s gadlus as it does Rav Lichtenstein’s.  The fact that we may have different perspectives need not preclude us from having great ahavas yisrael.

2. M'inyana d'yoma of the positive things we celebrate this week, the haftarah for Metzorah (Melachim 2 ch 7:3-20) tells the story of the four lepers who discovered the destruction of the camp of Aram.  If you just start reading from where the haftarah starts you are missing important background.   There was a horrible famine going on as a result of the siege by Aram and people were literally starving. Elisha prophesied that the famine would be broken and the next day a se’ah of flour would sell for just a shekel. One of the king’s officers heard this prediction and he couldn’t believe it. “Hinei Hashem oseh arubos ba’shamayim, hayi’yeh hadavar hazeh?” Even if G-d opens windows in the sky, can such a thing be possible? Elisha responded that this man would indeed see the miracle with his own eyes, but he would not get to eat from the food. The last pasuk in the haftarah confirms that Elisha's prophecy came true, as this officer saw the markets open and flooded with food, but he is trampled to death before he can eat anything.

The pashtus is that the king’s officer was a scoffer who did not believe in nevuah or that G-d could make such miracles.   The Torah Shleima on Parshas Noach (quoted by R’ Chaim Drukman in his sefer Kim’a Kim’a), however, brings a Midrash that sheds a completely different light on things. The Midrash picks up on the officer’s use of the term “arubos ha’shamayim,” language which echoes the description of the punishment given to dor habamul upon whom G-d opened the “arubos ha’shamayim” and brought down rain. It’s not that the officer did not believe G-d could do miracles – the officer did not believe G-d would do miracles for a generation that was a wicked as the dor hamabul!

The lesson the navi leaves us with is that we should not dismiss a dor as unworthy of miracles, no matter who they are, no matter if they are chilonim or even worse. 

Should we dismiss or question the miracles that have occurred time and time again in Eretz Yisrael just because it happens to be that there are non-religious Jews defending our country and building our country, or should we celebrate each of those miracles, the greatest of all of them being the existence of the State itself?  It's not for us to know G-d's cheshbonos of who he does miracles for or why he does them -- it's us for us to show appreciation for them.

the pshat that led the Rashba to sing the Meshech Chochma's praises

The Meshech Chochma asks why the Torah writes with respect to the korban of a metzorah who is poor and brings birds instead of sheep that the kapparah takes place “lifnei Hashem” (14:31) – a phrase that is absent in all the other pesukim that deal with the metzorah's korbanos.  He answers by reminding us of a comment of the Ibn Ezra back in parshas Vayikra with respect to korban oleh v'yoreid.  If someone could not afford a sheep, he could bring two birds, one as an olah one as a chatas.  Why does the poor person have to bring two birds, asks Ibn Ezra, but only one korban if he brings an animal?  He answers that an animal korban chatas has two parts: the fats offered on the mizbeiach, and the food portion that is eaten.  A bird chatas has no fats that are offered on the altar; Therefore, it must be paired with an olah bird to make up the difference.  Coming back to our parsha, since a poor metzorah need only offer a chatas bird but not an olah, you might have thought his kapparah is incomplete.  Our pasuk therefore writes that the kapparah is “lifnei Hashem,” and Hashem does not need a portion to grant complete kapparah.

Now for the behind the scenes of what makes this Meshech Chochma special.  If you have the edition with R’ Kopperman’s notes or you take a look before the mafteichos in some editions of the Ohr Sameich, they quote the following story: the Meshech Chochma once had a dream in which he witnessed the giants of Klal Yisrael learning in the yeshiva shel ma'alah.  At that gathering, the Rashba stood up and declared that there is a Jew in Dvinsk who was mechavein l’amito shel Torah more than he was.  The Rashba writes in a teshuvah that it made no sense that there should even be a passing hava amina (see Chulin 22) that an olas ha’of could be brought at night -- it must be a girsa error.  We already know from pesukim that avodah always takes place during the day, no exceptions.  But the Ohr Samayach says the hava amina is a good hava amina.  Based on the Ibn Ezra, we know that an olas ha’of corresponds to the fats of an animal korban.  Since those fats can be burned on the mizbeiach even at night, one might have thought that an olas ha’of could be brought even at night as well, kah mashma lan that it can’t.  The Meshech Chochma then woke up and reportedly was in a good mood that entire day.  After all, it’s not every day that the Rashba sings your praises in the yeshiva shel ma’alah!

Rav Kopperman adds in his notes that this yesod also helps us explain a difficult Rambam.  The Rambam suggests that the reason the entire korban mincha of a kohein is burned on the mizbeiach, as opposed to just a small kemitza portion, is because were only a small portion offered it would look like the kohein is not offering anything – he brings a korban, but the majority of his “gift” amounts to a meal for himself.  The Tur asks: but someone brings a chatas ha’of, he eats the whole thing and the mizbeiach gets nothing – why in that case are we not concerned with it looking like the person’s gift is really just an excuse for dinner?   Based on the Ibn Ezra, the difference is clear.  True, the owner eats the entire chatas bird, but along with that chatas he has to being an olah that is entirely consumed on the mizbeiach to complete the parallel to an animal korban.  The two birds are two halves of a single whole, not two separate parts.