Rabbi Blake, I felt your Yom HaShoah drash on Tazria-Metzora was brilliant--comparing the role of the Jewish People in diagnosing genocide to that of the Priest in determining tzara'at. I'm not sure the Jewish People wants this responsibility. But, then, I can't imagine that Aaron and the Priests particularly enjoyed their roles as tzara'at diagnosticians either...
I wonder whether the UN or the non-Jewish world would accept this metaphor. OK, I plan to bring in a sin-offering for mentioning the "UN" on this blog kadosh... :)
In an odd way, I wonder whether the descendants of the perpetrators of the Holocaust need to play a role in the diagnosis of genocide. I have been offended by the Holocaust denial of a modern Iranian leader (whose name begins similarly to that of our ancient Biblical enemy). Interestingly, I felt better when I heard Angela Merkel, leader of the German nation, join us in standing up to the politically motivated distortions of this Holocaust denier. I wonder if the curse of the perpetrator (and the victim) is to be expected to play the role of the "priest" in Tazria in perpetuity?
When I read the 25 verses that make up our third of the double parasha for this week, I jotted down a list of questions, in the spirit of “ma kashe leDavid”. I came up with about 15 questions.
Relax! I won't list them all here. :) But, I will pose one quandary I have. It relates to Lev.13:12-17.
Why is it that a person, who is completely covered in the (white?) skin affection, is considered ritually clean? And, how is it that when the person shows some signs of healthy skin again, in the midst of the blanketing skin affection, that person is considered ritually unclean? If that healthy patch turns white again with the skin affection, then the priest declares the person ritually clean again.
This would seem to be a proof text that severs any possible link between the actions of the priest and those of a modern day physician.
Given this, what is the significance of being ritually clean and unclean? I wonder if we are missing the point if we interpret the actions of the priest as community healer.
By the way, those of you who use the Jewish Study Bible may find the commentator's description of chapters 12-15 as representing the "disposal of impurity" on pp.232-233 very interesting.
So I get a rather simple message from this portion that for me is full of metaphors for how people should lead their lives. The concept of clean and unclean is mentioned many times in the Torah and yet the conclusion is the always the same, to me at least. That is that we as Jews and hopefully all humankind, will strive to lead clean, pure, unblemished lives. If you have something that is contagious, like the flu nowadays, stay away from others. In other words be considerate. The unclean thoughts or leanings are also to be looked at closely. Not to see if there is a hair, but to see if attention is needed to change the condition to in effect make it clean. It works physically as well as emotionally and spiritually. If we can work on clearing up our blemishes in all forms, we will be contributing to Tikun Olam.
I'm with Franklin. But, I am still puzzled by Lev.13:12-17. Let me try to go at this as follows:
1. Man whose skin is all flesh colored has no tzara'at. 2. Man who has a mixture of flesh-colored and white skin is at risk of tzara'at. 3. Man whose skin is blanketed completely in a white skin affection also has no tzara'at!
A modern physician would key in on the presence of any white skin affection and try to cure it--whether it is only just starting or whether it blankets the entire body.
I wonder whether the priest is looking to maintain ritual purity as "the absence of mixture"--in the same manner as shatnez. In our modern day, I wonder if this could be (mis?)interpreted as a prohibition against diversity?
Again, this leads me to the conclusion that this can have nothing to do with modern medicine. It is as if both normal and white-affected states are acceptable (no tzara'at) if they are complete or total. But, when they are mixed or partial, the person is ritually unclean with tzara'at.
Franklin, I'm not sure I can use your flu example for this. It is almost as if coming down with the sniffles and a sore throat would put me into a tzara'at state. But, if completely affected by the flu--i.e., unshaven, coughing, stuffed up, wandering feverish around the house in my socks--I am deemed to have no tzara'at...maybe the flu metaphor doesn't work too well with this. Trust me. When I'm wandering around in my socks, you're gonna want me to have tzara'at... :)
I realize I misspoke in my last comment. In case #3 where the body is completely covered in white affection: - the body is covered in tzara'at - the priest declares the person ritually clean.
I had implied erroneously that this person was deemed to no longer have tzara'at.
I hope my error--which doesn't change the thrust of my question--hasn't further confused matters.
Am I led to believe that the Priest, by dint of being a Kohanim, has the abilities to act as an "ancient" physician? When, in the Torah, does a "man of medicine" appear? If ever.
Ira, that is a winner of a verse! It seems to automatically grant bald men the superior, ritually clean status. Maybe this is why Jewish men naturally selected themselves into "bald-dom(e)"... my bad...
Hey, what about hairy guys? The contrapositive implies ritually unclean guys aren't bald...
Don, I guess my take on this is that I see this role of the priests as having little or nothing to do with health, medicine, or being a physician. Rabbi Blake talked about the priest's diagnostician role. While physicians also do that, it is my understanding that doctors generally try to cure a patient...or at least our bills would have us believe that... I don't see any action on the part of the priests that has to do with "curing" the "woolly adelgid syndrome".
The priest declares the individual "tame" or "tahor"--ritually unclean or clean.
The next question is...so what? What are the practical implications of being ritually unclean or clean?
Rabbi Blake, I felt your Yom HaShoah drash on Tazria-Metzora was brilliant--comparing the role of the Jewish People in diagnosing genocide to that of the Priest in determining tzara'at. I'm not sure the Jewish People wants this responsibility. But, then, I can't imagine that Aaron and the Priests particularly enjoyed their roles as tzara'at diagnosticians either...
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether the UN or the non-Jewish world would accept this metaphor. OK, I plan to bring in a sin-offering for mentioning the "UN" on this blog kadosh... :)
In an odd way, I wonder whether the descendants of the perpetrators of the Holocaust need to play a role in the diagnosis of genocide. I have been offended by the Holocaust denial of a modern Iranian leader (whose name begins similarly to that of our ancient Biblical enemy). Interestingly, I felt better when I heard Angela Merkel, leader of the German nation, join us in standing up to the politically motivated distortions of this Holocaust denier. I wonder if the curse of the perpetrator (and the victim) is to be expected to play the role of the "priest" in Tazria in perpetuity?
When I read the 25 verses that make up our third of the double parasha for this week, I jotted down a list of questions, in the spirit of “ma kashe leDavid”. I came up with about 15 questions.
ReplyDeleteRelax! I won't list them all here. :) But, I will pose one quandary I have. It relates to Lev.13:12-17.
Why is it that a person, who is completely covered in the (white?) skin affection, is considered ritually clean? And, how is it that when the person shows some signs of healthy skin again, in the midst of the blanketing skin affection, that person is considered ritually unclean? If that healthy patch turns white again with the skin affection, then the priest declares the person ritually clean again.
This would seem to be a proof text that severs any possible link between the actions of the priest and those of a modern day physician.
Given this, what is the significance of being ritually clean and unclean? I wonder if we are missing the point if we interpret the actions of the priest as community healer.
By the way, those of you who use the Jewish Study Bible may find the commentator's description of chapters 12-15 as representing the "disposal of impurity" on pp.232-233 very interesting.
So I get a rather simple message from this portion that for me is full of metaphors for how people should lead their lives. The concept of clean and unclean is mentioned many times in the Torah and yet the conclusion is the always the same, to me at least. That is that we as Jews and hopefully all humankind, will strive to lead clean, pure, unblemished lives. If you have something that is contagious, like the flu nowadays, stay away from others. In other words be considerate. The unclean thoughts or leanings are also to be looked at closely. Not to see if there is a hair, but to see if attention is needed to change the condition to in effect make it clean. It works physically as well as emotionally and spiritually. If we can work on clearing up our blemishes in all forms, we will be contributing to Tikun Olam.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Franklin. But, I am still puzzled by Lev.13:12-17. Let me try to go at this as follows:
ReplyDelete1. Man whose skin is all flesh colored has no tzara'at.
2. Man who has a mixture of flesh-colored and white skin is at risk of tzara'at.
3. Man whose skin is blanketed completely in a white skin affection also has no tzara'at!
A modern physician would key in on the presence of any white skin affection and try to cure it--whether it is only just starting or whether it blankets the entire body.
I wonder whether the priest is looking to maintain ritual purity as "the absence of mixture"--in the same manner as shatnez. In our modern day, I wonder if this could be (mis?)interpreted as a prohibition against diversity?
Again, this leads me to the conclusion that this can have nothing to do with modern medicine. It is as if both normal and white-affected states are acceptable (no tzara'at) if they are complete or total. But, when they are mixed or partial, the person is ritually unclean with tzara'at.
Franklin, I'm not sure I can use your flu example for this. It is almost as if coming down with the sniffles and a sore throat would put me into a tzara'at state. But, if completely affected by the flu--i.e., unshaven, coughing, stuffed up, wandering feverish around the house in my socks--I am deemed to have no tzara'at...maybe the flu metaphor doesn't work too well with this. Trust me. When I'm wandering around in my socks, you're gonna want me to have tzara'at... :)
Can anyone help me with this?
I realize I misspoke in my last comment. In case #3 where the body is completely covered in white affection:
ReplyDelete- the body is covered in tzara'at
- the priest declares the person ritually clean.
I had implied erroneously that this person was deemed to no longer have tzara'at.
I hope my error--which doesn't change the thrust of my question--hasn't further confused matters.
One of my favorite verses in the Torah is in this portion:
ReplyDeleteChapter 13, verse 40:
If a man loses the hair on his head, he is bald. He is clean.
Am I led to believe that the Priest, by dint of being a Kohanim, has the abilities to act as an "ancient" physician? When, in the Torah, does a "man of medicine" appear? If ever.
ReplyDeleteIra, that is a winner of a verse! It seems to automatically grant bald men the superior, ritually clean status. Maybe this is why Jewish men naturally selected themselves into "bald-dom(e)"... my bad...
ReplyDeleteHey, what about hairy guys? The contrapositive implies ritually unclean guys aren't bald...
Don, I guess my take on this is that I see this role of the priests as having little or nothing to do with health, medicine, or being a physician. Rabbi Blake talked about the priest's diagnostician role. While physicians also do that, it is my understanding that doctors generally try to cure a patient...or at least our bills would have us believe that... I don't see any action on the part of the priests that has to do with "curing" the "woolly adelgid syndrome".
ReplyDeleteThe priest declares the individual "tame" or "tahor"--ritually unclean or clean.
The next question is...so what? What are the practical implications of being ritually unclean or clean?