Parsha #27 & 28 : “Tazria / “[She] Conceives” And
“Metzorah” / “Person Afflicted with Tazria”
(V’Yikra / Leviticus *12:1 through 15:33*
Edition: 15d25
“Clean Outside – Clean Inside”
Greetings Sojourners, Friends, Guests and Other Readers! Welcome!
A few years ago some friends and I joined forces for a short period in order to ‘make our fortunes’ in the field of real estate. While it didn’t last too long in my situation, I did learn a few valuable lessons about assessing appropriate properties to purchase, upgrade and later either rent or sell – a process which, due partly to so-called ‘reality television’ became known widely as “Flipping”. One of first things to take into account, we learned, was “curb appeal”… how did the property strike you in the first couple of minutes of seeing it for the first time?
As human beings in a social world, we have that same predicament. How do we appear to others when we first are met by a stranger? This is especially true (and important) if we intend to have an on-going relationship with that ‘new friend’. I remember my father saying that when he was interviewing applicants for a position in the company for which he worked – he had 2 unswerving character measurements which applied even before they spoke the first word. These were shiny dress shoes and neat business attire. From there, a firm handshake was all important and finally a strong vocabulary and speaking skills which were assessed through the interview process, (if the applicant made it that far).
A few years ago some friends and I joined forces for a short period in order to ‘make our fortunes’ in the field of real estate. While it didn’t last too long in my situation, I did learn a few valuable lessons about assessing appropriate properties to purchase, upgrade and later either rent or sell – a process which, due partly to so-called ‘reality television’ became known widely as “Flipping”. One of first things to take into account, we learned, was “curb appeal”… how did the property strike you in the first couple of minutes of seeing it for the first time?
As human beings in a social world, we have that same predicament. How do we appear to others when we first are met by a stranger? This is especially true (and important) if we intend to have an on-going relationship with that ‘new friend’. I remember my father saying that when he was interviewing applicants for a position in the company for which he worked – he had 2 unswerving character measurements which applied even before they spoke the first word. These were shiny dress shoes and neat business attire. From there, a firm handshake was all important and finally a strong vocabulary and speaking skills which were assessed through the interview process, (if the applicant made it that far).
|
I believe that we all judge very quickly those we meet – even just in passing – based on the visual clues we get – the way a person carries him/herself; the condition and
|
|
appropriateness of their clothing; bodily cleanliness, the condition and appearance of their hair, excess jewellery; tattoos, their smile, their eyes (The Greeks believe that the eye is the doorway to the soul); and yes, if involved, their handshake. All of this is assessed within seconds of meeting a person – and they haven’t even spoken a word.
And for those of the younger generation – the post-boomers – who may be taking time to read this – you often claim that your generation is above all this, but I beg to differ. We are still in the environment of ‘just the right’ labels on our clothing, for instance. I see school kids who absolutely must have rips in their jeans so that their friends won’t ostracize them; depending on the neighbourhood in which one lives, the ‘right’ vehicle is a must. Yes, you can pass it off with whatever excuses you want but we all try to influence (or impress) our neighbours with the things we own, or do. One of the other things I learned about houses, and thus people, was that modern executives must have a house with a manicured lawn, a wide paved (or better yet an interlocking stone) driveway, a double car garage and an impressive garden – even if they aren’t at home to care for these things, and inside the home, (which of course is entered through a fake double door entry), there absolutely has to be a ‘huge’ lobby where you can greet your guests. In many houses we ‘viewed’, we found that often the other rooms suffered so as to have this large entranceway.
In other words, we all put on ‘airs’ to impress others, at one level or another. We ‘wear masks’, the psychologists would say, which hide our true selves, and present to the world an image which is beyond reproach.
But there is One before whom we can not hide our true selves – Our Creator. “It is He that has made us, and not we ourselves.” Psalm 100:3 BCP claims. The point is that Elohim knows us to our very core. While He certainly loves us, when we allow our sinful selves to rise up and affect our behaviour and even our thinking, He will step in and deal with it one way or another.
I am reminded, once again, of the story of Kayin. When Kayin realized that his offering was not accepted, he was downcast. The Lord tried to give him an opportunity to repent of his unsatisfactory offering. He gave him this warning: “Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do not improve yourself, sin rests at the door. It’s desire is toward you, [but] you can conquer it.” (Gen 4:6) When the Lord caught him after he had murdered his brother, again He tries to illicit repentance and a change of heart – to no avail, so the Lord banished him to live 'in the East’. In doing so however, Adonai placed a mark on him, a mark we refer to as “The Mark of Kayin”.
I have referred to this incident previously in this series of reflections, and noted that the mark was placed on Kayin to keep him safe against the attack of other pagan wanderers, etc. However, I strongly suspect that the mark also affected Kayin in his own daily ‘walk’. Every time he saw it, he must have remembered how he got it. We don’t know this, but I suspect that the Lord always hoped that it would lead Kayin to repent of his actions.
All this by way of leading us into this week’s Parsha passages. Once again we have a doubling up of two Parshiot. During a regular year, both Parshiot are read together due to the number of weeks in the year. On a leap year, however, they would be read separately. It is good to have these passages particular passages united as they both deal – on the surface at least – with laws around contaminations of the body. The first passage “Tazria” (12:1 to 13:59) deals with the Law around contamination after giving birth. (be patient!) while the second: “Metzora” (14:1 to 15:33) deals with contamination related to skin diseases. I hasten to add here, before all the female readership gang up and come looking for my head, that the commonality is not that giving birth is compared with skin rashes. It goes much deeper than this.
Tazria translates as “She Conceives”, but it is actually in the giving birth that contamination rises up. Today, in most cultures, giving birth is a relatively sterile process. I suspect this may not have been the case in the time of the desert wanderings, or even before that. While the undertaking of creating and developing a child is a magnificent privilege which actually makes us co-creators along with God, (who planned out this process, and who is responsible for the implanting of the soul in the fetus / child), it can also be very messy. No birth takes place without blood and various other bodily fluids being expelled, along with the placenta from the womb. The ancient Hebrew people believed that blood was the transporting medium of life itself. [In reality, it does carry oxygen and nutrients to every part of our bodies, thus sustaining life, so the ancients weren’t that far off.] Because of this spillage of blood, etc., a process had to be developed to allow time for cleansing. In today’s Jewish community, as with most communities, a woman who has given birth is given time to recoup before going out into the community. Again dealing with the Jewish community, when the new mother is rested and able, she will attend synagogue where she is able to hear the service, and where her husband will be given the honour of making aliyah to the bema, where he will read a part of the Torah passage for the day. This indicates the end of the cleansing period for the new mother.
In Biblical times however, more care and time were set aside for her ‘recuperation’. The details found in our passage this week seem packed full of miniscule details, but each does have its purpose. Let us look at the requirements of the Law in a little different order than recorded in V’Yikra. Generally there was a fourteen day period in which the mother was considered contaminated by the blood etc. expelled at birth. During this time she was considered “tamei” (a contaminated person) and “Niddah”, meaning ‘separated’. In other words, for the most part she was in isolation, in a manner similar to when she would be menstruating.. At the end of this period, she was to bathe, and could (basically) rejoin the community. However, for a further 66 days there were limitations upon her in that she could not touch anything that was holy so as to not ‘pass along’ her [now semi-] contamination to that which would be, or that which had been, in the presence of God. Thus it was a total of 80 days that she was either Niddah, or unable to take part in any sacrificial event. At the end of those 80 days, she then would bring a sin-offering and an elevation (burnt) offering to the tabernacle and, having offered it up, would be considered cleansed. By the way – I hasten to point out that none of this, and in particular neither of the sacrifices, were imposed because giving birth was a sin. They are intended to represent repentance and atonement for words of anger and frustration which may have been exclaimed during the birth process, and aimed at either God, or the woman’s husband. As an example, when Joan was in labour with our first born, she was in a lot of pain. I was with her, rubbing her back and trying to comfort her. At one point she cried out [something along the lines of] “I you ever do this to me again, I will kill you!” Perhaps other such vows were made in Moshé’s time.
Now, there is an exception to these standards. They may seem sexist to some who are uninitiated, but again - there is a purpose. In the event of having given birth to a male child, there is a Law which completely over-rides all other related laws and ordinances (except in the case of the health of the child). That Law commands that a male child is to be circumcised on the eighth day after birth. [Note: once again the presence of the number 8, indicating “New Beginnings”]. In this situation, the mother, after just seven days, may bathe and join the family for the ceremony free of the conditions of tamei and Niddah. Then, once that is completed, everything else is also ‘cut’ in half, so that the total period of contamination lasts only 40 days. These are the Laws dealing with Contamination around birthing processes. [NOTE: here we have all sorts of significant numbers: ‘7’ being the number of completion and perfection, ‘8’ as already noted above, the point of ‘New Beginning’, ‘40’ indicates the time of waiting, preparing and getting ready for that which is to come, and of course ‘80’ which is simply the double of ‘40’. Every one of these numbers are important and revealing of God’s plan.]
It is far more complicated when dealing with “skin rashes” as we begin to discover in chapter thirteen. Concern regarding infections and impurities would have been cause for heightened apprehension in the Hebrew encampment almost from the outset, and even more so whenever they were stopped for a length of time. We have all heard of the situations around refugee camps whenever a large group of people gather. The housing is generally poor quality, individuals are free to wander in most cases, pure water for drinking, and water for bathing is generally at a premium. In these conditions, severe health problems spring up suddenly and spread rapidly. Even in our own age, diseases such as Ebola, Cholera, Malaria and Hepatitis E are common. Could it have been any different in the time of the Exodus? Diseases such as Leprosy are thought to have been common in Biblical times – but was this dreaded disease we think we know about because of Scriptural stories, actually the same as the Leprosy of Today?
Before we begin this passage in depth, let me try to reiterate something which Rabbi Hirsch (1808 - 1888) attempted to set straight. We are about to encounter a word (Tzara’at), which for centuries was interpreted as “Leprosy”. It is hard to say when this erroneous understanding began, but it’s popularity can certainly be attributed, in a large part, to the rapid spread of the translation of the Bible written under the authority of King James, beginning in 1611. Still today, generations after the correction was made known, we still see the word translated as ‘Leprosy’. Along with this, we have also been engrained with erroneous reasoning around the Laws dealing with Tzara’at.
We are all familiar with stories of the Lepers of Scripture who were forced to cry out “unclean, unclean” as soon as anyone approached them. Correctly, Leprosy was [and is] a tragic disease present in Biblical times, and still found in some of today’s third-world nations. But this is not what Tzara’at is meant to portray. What we have is two completely different afflictions, and not wanting to confuse the issue, I will now move away from Leprosy and focus on what it is we ARE speaking about in chapter 13.
In what I believe is a wise move on the part of the author or editors, the Stone Edition Art Scroll Chumash (SEASC) [a commentary on the Tenakh which includes the insights of many of the Biblical scholars (sages) of their age, as well as having multiple references to the Talmud and other sources] decided to leave untranslated the words which have led to such misunderstanding over the centuries. Therefore, in order to gain any insight into what the words mean, one needs to have a modern translation of Scripture available. This will give us a starting point at least in recognition, though it should be noted that these terms will not necessarily be correct…. as ‘proven’ by the disagreement between versions. Included within the main disease Tzara’at, there are three types of affliction commonly described or translated as follows:
In the Chumash, we have: In the New International Version: In the New American Standard V:
Tzara’at Infectious Skin Disease Infection of “Leprosy”
a. S’eis Swelling Swelling
b. Sapachas Rash Scab
c. Bahares Bright White Spot Bright Spot
And for those of the younger generation – the post-boomers – who may be taking time to read this – you often claim that your generation is above all this, but I beg to differ. We are still in the environment of ‘just the right’ labels on our clothing, for instance. I see school kids who absolutely must have rips in their jeans so that their friends won’t ostracize them; depending on the neighbourhood in which one lives, the ‘right’ vehicle is a must. Yes, you can pass it off with whatever excuses you want but we all try to influence (or impress) our neighbours with the things we own, or do. One of the other things I learned about houses, and thus people, was that modern executives must have a house with a manicured lawn, a wide paved (or better yet an interlocking stone) driveway, a double car garage and an impressive garden – even if they aren’t at home to care for these things, and inside the home, (which of course is entered through a fake double door entry), there absolutely has to be a ‘huge’ lobby where you can greet your guests. In many houses we ‘viewed’, we found that often the other rooms suffered so as to have this large entranceway.
In other words, we all put on ‘airs’ to impress others, at one level or another. We ‘wear masks’, the psychologists would say, which hide our true selves, and present to the world an image which is beyond reproach.
But there is One before whom we can not hide our true selves – Our Creator. “It is He that has made us, and not we ourselves.” Psalm 100:3 BCP claims. The point is that Elohim knows us to our very core. While He certainly loves us, when we allow our sinful selves to rise up and affect our behaviour and even our thinking, He will step in and deal with it one way or another.
I am reminded, once again, of the story of Kayin. When Kayin realized that his offering was not accepted, he was downcast. The Lord tried to give him an opportunity to repent of his unsatisfactory offering. He gave him this warning: “Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do not improve yourself, sin rests at the door. It’s desire is toward you, [but] you can conquer it.” (Gen 4:6) When the Lord caught him after he had murdered his brother, again He tries to illicit repentance and a change of heart – to no avail, so the Lord banished him to live 'in the East’. In doing so however, Adonai placed a mark on him, a mark we refer to as “The Mark of Kayin”.
I have referred to this incident previously in this series of reflections, and noted that the mark was placed on Kayin to keep him safe against the attack of other pagan wanderers, etc. However, I strongly suspect that the mark also affected Kayin in his own daily ‘walk’. Every time he saw it, he must have remembered how he got it. We don’t know this, but I suspect that the Lord always hoped that it would lead Kayin to repent of his actions.
All this by way of leading us into this week’s Parsha passages. Once again we have a doubling up of two Parshiot. During a regular year, both Parshiot are read together due to the number of weeks in the year. On a leap year, however, they would be read separately. It is good to have these passages particular passages united as they both deal – on the surface at least – with laws around contaminations of the body. The first passage “Tazria” (12:1 to 13:59) deals with the Law around contamination after giving birth. (be patient!) while the second: “Metzora” (14:1 to 15:33) deals with contamination related to skin diseases. I hasten to add here, before all the female readership gang up and come looking for my head, that the commonality is not that giving birth is compared with skin rashes. It goes much deeper than this.
Tazria translates as “She Conceives”, but it is actually in the giving birth that contamination rises up. Today, in most cultures, giving birth is a relatively sterile process. I suspect this may not have been the case in the time of the desert wanderings, or even before that. While the undertaking of creating and developing a child is a magnificent privilege which actually makes us co-creators along with God, (who planned out this process, and who is responsible for the implanting of the soul in the fetus / child), it can also be very messy. No birth takes place without blood and various other bodily fluids being expelled, along with the placenta from the womb. The ancient Hebrew people believed that blood was the transporting medium of life itself. [In reality, it does carry oxygen and nutrients to every part of our bodies, thus sustaining life, so the ancients weren’t that far off.] Because of this spillage of blood, etc., a process had to be developed to allow time for cleansing. In today’s Jewish community, as with most communities, a woman who has given birth is given time to recoup before going out into the community. Again dealing with the Jewish community, when the new mother is rested and able, she will attend synagogue where she is able to hear the service, and where her husband will be given the honour of making aliyah to the bema, where he will read a part of the Torah passage for the day. This indicates the end of the cleansing period for the new mother.
In Biblical times however, more care and time were set aside for her ‘recuperation’. The details found in our passage this week seem packed full of miniscule details, but each does have its purpose. Let us look at the requirements of the Law in a little different order than recorded in V’Yikra. Generally there was a fourteen day period in which the mother was considered contaminated by the blood etc. expelled at birth. During this time she was considered “tamei” (a contaminated person) and “Niddah”, meaning ‘separated’. In other words, for the most part she was in isolation, in a manner similar to when she would be menstruating.. At the end of this period, she was to bathe, and could (basically) rejoin the community. However, for a further 66 days there were limitations upon her in that she could not touch anything that was holy so as to not ‘pass along’ her [now semi-] contamination to that which would be, or that which had been, in the presence of God. Thus it was a total of 80 days that she was either Niddah, or unable to take part in any sacrificial event. At the end of those 80 days, she then would bring a sin-offering and an elevation (burnt) offering to the tabernacle and, having offered it up, would be considered cleansed. By the way – I hasten to point out that none of this, and in particular neither of the sacrifices, were imposed because giving birth was a sin. They are intended to represent repentance and atonement for words of anger and frustration which may have been exclaimed during the birth process, and aimed at either God, or the woman’s husband. As an example, when Joan was in labour with our first born, she was in a lot of pain. I was with her, rubbing her back and trying to comfort her. At one point she cried out [something along the lines of] “I you ever do this to me again, I will kill you!” Perhaps other such vows were made in Moshé’s time.
Now, there is an exception to these standards. They may seem sexist to some who are uninitiated, but again - there is a purpose. In the event of having given birth to a male child, there is a Law which completely over-rides all other related laws and ordinances (except in the case of the health of the child). That Law commands that a male child is to be circumcised on the eighth day after birth. [Note: once again the presence of the number 8, indicating “New Beginnings”]. In this situation, the mother, after just seven days, may bathe and join the family for the ceremony free of the conditions of tamei and Niddah. Then, once that is completed, everything else is also ‘cut’ in half, so that the total period of contamination lasts only 40 days. These are the Laws dealing with Contamination around birthing processes. [NOTE: here we have all sorts of significant numbers: ‘7’ being the number of completion and perfection, ‘8’ as already noted above, the point of ‘New Beginning’, ‘40’ indicates the time of waiting, preparing and getting ready for that which is to come, and of course ‘80’ which is simply the double of ‘40’. Every one of these numbers are important and revealing of God’s plan.]
It is far more complicated when dealing with “skin rashes” as we begin to discover in chapter thirteen. Concern regarding infections and impurities would have been cause for heightened apprehension in the Hebrew encampment almost from the outset, and even more so whenever they were stopped for a length of time. We have all heard of the situations around refugee camps whenever a large group of people gather. The housing is generally poor quality, individuals are free to wander in most cases, pure water for drinking, and water for bathing is generally at a premium. In these conditions, severe health problems spring up suddenly and spread rapidly. Even in our own age, diseases such as Ebola, Cholera, Malaria and Hepatitis E are common. Could it have been any different in the time of the Exodus? Diseases such as Leprosy are thought to have been common in Biblical times – but was this dreaded disease we think we know about because of Scriptural stories, actually the same as the Leprosy of Today?
Before we begin this passage in depth, let me try to reiterate something which Rabbi Hirsch (1808 - 1888) attempted to set straight. We are about to encounter a word (Tzara’at), which for centuries was interpreted as “Leprosy”. It is hard to say when this erroneous understanding began, but it’s popularity can certainly be attributed, in a large part, to the rapid spread of the translation of the Bible written under the authority of King James, beginning in 1611. Still today, generations after the correction was made known, we still see the word translated as ‘Leprosy’. Along with this, we have also been engrained with erroneous reasoning around the Laws dealing with Tzara’at.
We are all familiar with stories of the Lepers of Scripture who were forced to cry out “unclean, unclean” as soon as anyone approached them. Correctly, Leprosy was [and is] a tragic disease present in Biblical times, and still found in some of today’s third-world nations. But this is not what Tzara’at is meant to portray. What we have is two completely different afflictions, and not wanting to confuse the issue, I will now move away from Leprosy and focus on what it is we ARE speaking about in chapter 13.
In what I believe is a wise move on the part of the author or editors, the Stone Edition Art Scroll Chumash (SEASC) [a commentary on the Tenakh which includes the insights of many of the Biblical scholars (sages) of their age, as well as having multiple references to the Talmud and other sources] decided to leave untranslated the words which have led to such misunderstanding over the centuries. Therefore, in order to gain any insight into what the words mean, one needs to have a modern translation of Scripture available. This will give us a starting point at least in recognition, though it should be noted that these terms will not necessarily be correct…. as ‘proven’ by the disagreement between versions. Included within the main disease Tzara’at, there are three types of affliction commonly described or translated as follows:
In the Chumash, we have: In the New International Version: In the New American Standard V:
Tzara’at Infectious Skin Disease Infection of “Leprosy”
a. S’eis Swelling Swelling
b. Sapachas Rash Scab
c. Bahares Bright White Spot Bright Spot
It is of interest that the sufferer was told, not to go to see a doctor or medical person when they discovered what might be exhibiting Tzara’at, but rather to go show the Cohen. In this respect, I would draw the attention of the reader to the passage in which Y’shua cured the ten men suffering from what we have generally accepted as Leprosy – in fact the segment is often referred to as “Ten Lepers Cleansed” (NASB – Luke 17:11ff) Y’shua and His talmidim enter a village somewhere between Samaria and Galilee. There, they encounter ten men suffering from Tzara’at. These men are within the village limits, unlike Lepers who would be confined to live outside the community. Nor do they cry out “Unclean!” as one suffering from Leprosy would have to do ‘by Law’, but rather they cry out to Y’shua for mercy. Y’shua tells them to go and show themselves to the Cohen. Along the way, they realize that they have been “cleansed” (not healed [though that term is used subsequently]) of their affliction. One sufferer returns to Y’shua, falls at His feet and “glorifies God”, giving thanks”. Y’shua asks him “Were there not ten cleansed? But the nine – where are they? Was no one found who turned back to give glory to God, except this [Samaritan]?” At this point, Y’shua declares that the person, having shown himself to THE High Priest, may ‘go your way; your faith has made you well.”
In debunking the concept that Tzara’at is Leprosy, Rabbi Hirsch “shows that the symptoms of Tzara’at, as outlined in our Sidrah, are far different from those of Leprosy. Furthermore, if the reason for the Metzora’s confinement is to ‘prevent contagion’” He continues, “then some of the laws would be ludicrous. For example if the malady covers the victim’s entire body (13:13) he is NOT tamei (contaminated), but if his skin begins to heal, he becomes tamei. In the case of a house that is afflicted, the Torah prescribes that before the house is pronounced tamei, all its contents should be removed, because they would become contaminated if they were left inside at the time of the pronouncement. But if there were a danger of contagion, it would be irrational for the afflicted household items to be excluded from the quarantine! In perhaps the most telling example, the Talmud teaches that if the symptoms of Tzara’at appear on a newlywed or during a festival season, the Cohen does not examine the affliction or declare it to be tamei, in order not to interfere with the celebration. If the purpose of these laws is to prevent the spread of disease, it would be absolutely imperative to enforce the laws at a time of great overcrowding and mingling. Clearly, as the sages teach, then – Tzara’at is not a bodily disease,” …. but it is something else. (SEASC pgs 609-610)
Today, our doctors often have posters and charts up on the wall to describe various illnesses, to show bone or muscle structure or to assist in the aid of understanding what is going on within our bodies in a clear way. I can not imagine (and I have tried) what the chart must look like for the various intensities and qualifying characteristics of Tzara’at. I’m not convinced that a simple 2-dimensional chart would even work. It all seems quite complicated to me – different shades of white (The initial sign of a problem), hairs, depth, spreading, receding. Perhaps it is best that only the Cohen has the authority to declare a rash as an affliction of Tzara’at. It should be noted that if the Cohen has NOT made the proclamation / “pronouncement”, then whatever it may be, it is simply not Tzara’at.
When the pronouncement IS made by the Cohen that a rash is indeed Tzara’at – then there is a definite, though still convoluted – process to go through for the cleansing procedure to occur. In all cases, when Tzara’at is proclaimed [NOTE: all the commentaries are very careful to use “pronounce or proclaim” rather than diagnose – and this too is for a reason] the person is quarantined. The periods of quarantine are effective for groups of seven days. The number of quarantines suffered through depends on the progress of the affliction through a variety of ‘measures. At the end of the quarantine period, the metzora must bathe, and wash his/her clothing, and may rejoin the community. The puzzle in all of this, as mentioned above, is the confusion over a ‘partial’ healing which puts one back in quarantine, while a completely covering rash gets a pass as “pure” from the Cohen. All of this is mind-boggling until we begin to comprehend what God is doing through the Tzara’at. In a sense, we are taken back to the mark placed on Kayin. Tzara’at is a mark upon one’s flesh, applied by God directly, as a sign – for the afflicted person (metzora) and for the community. It is applied to a sufferer’s skin so as to encourage him or her to repent of some sinful act.
Tzara’at is brought about by any one of a number of sinful behaviours. The sages teach that it is a “punishment for the sins of bloodshed, false oaths, sexual immorality, pride, robbery, and selfishness” – but the primary cause is the sin of Slander. In fact, the term “metzora” (one who suffers) is a contraction of “[raycAm” which translates as “one who spreads slander”.
This is why it is the Cohen, and only the Cohen, who can make the judgement call. The rash is a “’Divine Retribution’ for the offender’s failure to feel the needs and share the hurt of others.” I often hear people ask the question “What have I done to deserve this ‘situation’?” In many cases, the things which befall us are simply the result of some action we have taken. We suffer a broken leg because we foolishly tried to walk along a fence. We get a ticket or (worse) cause an accident in traffic because we elected to drive while under the influence of alcohol – these are our own doing and – yes - they have consequences – but these are not Tzara’at afflictions. When Tzara’at is proclaimed upon us, it is a direct rebuke from God for ‘anti-social’ or ‘selfish’ behaviour – and the only way to recover from such an affliction is repentance, confession, and redemption from that behaviour.
The rest of the Parsha deals with other forms of Tzara’at afflictions. We have seen in the earlier verses that houses and furniture can be pronounced ‘tamei’. In subsequent verses we see that garments and material can be affected, as can hair, beard, head or face and… bald spots. The following chapters, in Parsha Metzora, (the parsha connected to Tzara’at) we learn about various stages and rites of cleansing which follow the quarantine, from bathing to the offering of sacrifices. One move [transformation] ‘early on’ which strikes me as one which would be central, is the move from arrogance to humility. As Sha'ul would say we have nothing to boast about ourselves, but we can only boast about what God is doing in and through us to improve His people. This requires humility, and God desires humility in His children. {NOTE: humility infers “teach-able-ness”.]
In debunking the concept that Tzara’at is Leprosy, Rabbi Hirsch “shows that the symptoms of Tzara’at, as outlined in our Sidrah, are far different from those of Leprosy. Furthermore, if the reason for the Metzora’s confinement is to ‘prevent contagion’” He continues, “then some of the laws would be ludicrous. For example if the malady covers the victim’s entire body (13:13) he is NOT tamei (contaminated), but if his skin begins to heal, he becomes tamei. In the case of a house that is afflicted, the Torah prescribes that before the house is pronounced tamei, all its contents should be removed, because they would become contaminated if they were left inside at the time of the pronouncement. But if there were a danger of contagion, it would be irrational for the afflicted household items to be excluded from the quarantine! In perhaps the most telling example, the Talmud teaches that if the symptoms of Tzara’at appear on a newlywed or during a festival season, the Cohen does not examine the affliction or declare it to be tamei, in order not to interfere with the celebration. If the purpose of these laws is to prevent the spread of disease, it would be absolutely imperative to enforce the laws at a time of great overcrowding and mingling. Clearly, as the sages teach, then – Tzara’at is not a bodily disease,” …. but it is something else. (SEASC pgs 609-610)
Today, our doctors often have posters and charts up on the wall to describe various illnesses, to show bone or muscle structure or to assist in the aid of understanding what is going on within our bodies in a clear way. I can not imagine (and I have tried) what the chart must look like for the various intensities and qualifying characteristics of Tzara’at. I’m not convinced that a simple 2-dimensional chart would even work. It all seems quite complicated to me – different shades of white (The initial sign of a problem), hairs, depth, spreading, receding. Perhaps it is best that only the Cohen has the authority to declare a rash as an affliction of Tzara’at. It should be noted that if the Cohen has NOT made the proclamation / “pronouncement”, then whatever it may be, it is simply not Tzara’at.
When the pronouncement IS made by the Cohen that a rash is indeed Tzara’at – then there is a definite, though still convoluted – process to go through for the cleansing procedure to occur. In all cases, when Tzara’at is proclaimed [NOTE: all the commentaries are very careful to use “pronounce or proclaim” rather than diagnose – and this too is for a reason] the person is quarantined. The periods of quarantine are effective for groups of seven days. The number of quarantines suffered through depends on the progress of the affliction through a variety of ‘measures. At the end of the quarantine period, the metzora must bathe, and wash his/her clothing, and may rejoin the community. The puzzle in all of this, as mentioned above, is the confusion over a ‘partial’ healing which puts one back in quarantine, while a completely covering rash gets a pass as “pure” from the Cohen. All of this is mind-boggling until we begin to comprehend what God is doing through the Tzara’at. In a sense, we are taken back to the mark placed on Kayin. Tzara’at is a mark upon one’s flesh, applied by God directly, as a sign – for the afflicted person (metzora) and for the community. It is applied to a sufferer’s skin so as to encourage him or her to repent of some sinful act.
Tzara’at is brought about by any one of a number of sinful behaviours. The sages teach that it is a “punishment for the sins of bloodshed, false oaths, sexual immorality, pride, robbery, and selfishness” – but the primary cause is the sin of Slander. In fact, the term “metzora” (one who suffers) is a contraction of “[raycAm” which translates as “one who spreads slander”.
This is why it is the Cohen, and only the Cohen, who can make the judgement call. The rash is a “’Divine Retribution’ for the offender’s failure to feel the needs and share the hurt of others.” I often hear people ask the question “What have I done to deserve this ‘situation’?” In many cases, the things which befall us are simply the result of some action we have taken. We suffer a broken leg because we foolishly tried to walk along a fence. We get a ticket or (worse) cause an accident in traffic because we elected to drive while under the influence of alcohol – these are our own doing and – yes - they have consequences – but these are not Tzara’at afflictions. When Tzara’at is proclaimed upon us, it is a direct rebuke from God for ‘anti-social’ or ‘selfish’ behaviour – and the only way to recover from such an affliction is repentance, confession, and redemption from that behaviour.
The rest of the Parsha deals with other forms of Tzara’at afflictions. We have seen in the earlier verses that houses and furniture can be pronounced ‘tamei’. In subsequent verses we see that garments and material can be affected, as can hair, beard, head or face and… bald spots. The following chapters, in Parsha Metzora, (the parsha connected to Tzara’at) we learn about various stages and rites of cleansing which follow the quarantine, from bathing to the offering of sacrifices. One move [transformation] ‘early on’ which strikes me as one which would be central, is the move from arrogance to humility. As Sha'ul would say we have nothing to boast about ourselves, but we can only boast about what God is doing in and through us to improve His people. This requires humility, and God desires humility in His children. {NOTE: humility infers “teach-able-ness”.]
By way of reflection and application, in this modern age of specialized medicines, sophisticated treatments, and computer diagnoses, do we still need to worry about Tzara’at? I would say that just the fact that this question occurs to us, would infer that the answer must be ‘yes!’. When we have an obvious medical predicament, what do we do? We go to the doctor as soon as possible. In many cases, in fact, it is foolish not to have some strange new illness checked into. By the same token, [and I would say even if a rash isn’t visible] if we have niggling thoughts about our own behaviour, then we should be seeking the guidance of a Rabbi or Cohen / Priest or Minister of the faith just to be sure. [Obviously, it would have to be a faith leader well versed in the properties of Tzara’at and other similar afflictions so that we would receive Godly advice.] As the sages have said, “One who suffers God’s apparent displeasure should never dismiss his or her discomfort as inconsequential”. We must always question ourselves and our deeds, and take reverses [in our selves or our situation] as possible signs from Adonai that we must remedy our ways. “God, [the commentators add,] begins by inflicting minor pain, but if that is not taken to heart, much worse may come.” (R. Moshé Feinstein) SEASC pg 616) And to this I would add that we ignore what may be a Divine Revelation at our own peril. Isn’t it better to be safe, than sorry?.
Shavua Tov!! - Have a Great Week!!
= = = ================================================== = = =
Shavua Tov!! - Have a Great Week!!
= = = ================================================== = = =
EndNotes: (The following passage is excerpted from a commentary “Beyond Today”, a web publication of the United Church. You might find this of interest as it relates to our Parsha Study.)
“In fact, "until this century, all previous societies, except for the Israelites who followed God's medical laws regarding quarantine, kept infected patients in their homes—even after death, exposing family members and others to deadly disease. During the devastating Black Death [or bubonic plague] of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease [which killed half of Europe and seemed unstoppable] was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to 'bad air' or 'evil spirits.' However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus would have saved untold millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical medical law, 'The laws against leprosy in Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of a sanitary legislation' (Arturo Castiglione, A History of Medicine... 1941, p. 71). Fortunately, the church fathers of Vienna finally took the biblical injunctions to heart and commanded that those infected with the plague... be placed outside the city in special medical quarantine compounds. Care givers fed them until they either died or survived the passage of the disease. Those who died in homes or streets were instantly removed and buried outside the city limits. These biblical sanitary measures quickly brought the dreaded epidemic under control for the first time. Other cities and countries rapidly followed the medical practices of Vienna until the Black Death was finally halted" (Jeffrey, pp. 149-150).
No, Moses simply could not have understood the need to institute such laws through the natural means available to him at the time. But the Creator God did understand. And in commanding that His instructions for handling such situations be preserved in the Bible, the Eternal has given us one more amazing proof that this wonderful book is truly His inspired Word.”
= = = ======================================================== = = =
“In fact, "until this century, all previous societies, except for the Israelites who followed God's medical laws regarding quarantine, kept infected patients in their homes—even after death, exposing family members and others to deadly disease. During the devastating Black Death [or bubonic plague] of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease [which killed half of Europe and seemed unstoppable] was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to 'bad air' or 'evil spirits.' However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus would have saved untold millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical medical law, 'The laws against leprosy in Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of a sanitary legislation' (Arturo Castiglione, A History of Medicine... 1941, p. 71). Fortunately, the church fathers of Vienna finally took the biblical injunctions to heart and commanded that those infected with the plague... be placed outside the city in special medical quarantine compounds. Care givers fed them until they either died or survived the passage of the disease. Those who died in homes or streets were instantly removed and buried outside the city limits. These biblical sanitary measures quickly brought the dreaded epidemic under control for the first time. Other cities and countries rapidly followed the medical practices of Vienna until the Black Death was finally halted" (Jeffrey, pp. 149-150).
No, Moses simply could not have understood the need to institute such laws through the natural means available to him at the time. But the Creator God did understand. And in commanding that His instructions for handling such situations be preserved in the Bible, the Eternal has given us one more amazing proof that this wonderful book is truly His inspired Word.”
= = = ======================================================== = = =
Acknowledgements – A General List
For these weekly reflections at least some of the following sources are used to resource basic and foundational information which augment’s the reflections offered.
Alexander, D and P, et al, The Eerdman’s Handbook to the Bible, William H. Eerdman Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI 1983
Ausubel, Nathan, The Book of Jewish Knowledge, Crown Publishers, New York, NY, 1970
Gehman, H. S. The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA 1970
Barker, Kenneth, General Editor, The New International Study Bible, (NIV) Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1985
Scherman, R. Nosson; and Zlotowitz, R. Meir; Editors, Stone Edition Art Scroll Chumash, (SEASC) Mesorah Heritage Foundation / Mesorah Publications, Ltd., Brooklyn, New York, 2008
Stern, David, The Complete Jewish Bible, (CJB) Jewish New Testament Publications Inc, Clarkville, Maryland. 1998
Zodiates, Spiros, Exec Editor, The Hebrew Greek Key Word Bible (New American Version Bible) (NASV) AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN 1977
, The Book of Common Prayer… of the Anglican Church of Canada, The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada, Toronto, 1962
Wikipedia and other Internet sources for background information and some images. Other images are from personal files.
http://bible.ucg.org/bible-commentary/Leviticus/Laws-concerning-leprosy/ (EndNote Article)
==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ====
For these weekly reflections at least some of the following sources are used to resource basic and foundational information which augment’s the reflections offered.
Alexander, D and P, et al, The Eerdman’s Handbook to the Bible, William H. Eerdman Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI 1983
Ausubel, Nathan, The Book of Jewish Knowledge, Crown Publishers, New York, NY, 1970
Gehman, H. S. The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA 1970
Barker, Kenneth, General Editor, The New International Study Bible, (NIV) Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1985
Scherman, R. Nosson; and Zlotowitz, R. Meir; Editors, Stone Edition Art Scroll Chumash, (SEASC) Mesorah Heritage Foundation / Mesorah Publications, Ltd., Brooklyn, New York, 2008
Stern, David, The Complete Jewish Bible, (CJB) Jewish New Testament Publications Inc, Clarkville, Maryland. 1998
Zodiates, Spiros, Exec Editor, The Hebrew Greek Key Word Bible (New American Version Bible) (NASV) AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN 1977
, The Book of Common Prayer… of the Anglican Church of Canada, The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada, Toronto, 1962
Wikipedia and other Internet sources for background information and some images. Other images are from personal files.
http://bible.ucg.org/bible-commentary/Leviticus/Laws-concerning-leprosy/ (EndNote Article)
==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ====
