torah portion

[cellio]

I drew the "leprosy" portion this week (Tazria-Metzora). Everyone is going to be talking about lashon hara (gossip, approximately), because that's the apparent cause of the affliction (midrash, and one data point in Torah). "Everyone" includes my rabbi tomorrow night (he mentioned it tonight). I'd like to say something Saturday morning that they haven't already heard a zillion times and one of them within the previous 14 hours. I wonder if inspiration will strike. (I suppose there's always the haftarah as a source of material, though we have a fairly strong convention of talking about the Torah portion.)

Comments

[juuro.livejournal.com]

I cannot quote any authority, I'm afraid, and it is possible that this differs from Judaic view. But it strikes me as interesting that while patches of the affliction are an indication of uncleanliness, begin completely covered by the changed skin is considered clean. This would not match with the idea of inner uncleanliness being brought to surface.

There are a number of items in the law that emphasize being either one or the other, not something in between. I've thought that there could be a parallel there as well.

[cellio]

I cannot quote any authority, I'm afraid, and it is possible that this differs from Judaic view. But it strikes me as interesting that while patches of the affliction are an indication of uncleanliness, begin completely covered by the changed skin is considered clean. This would not match with the idea of inner uncleanliness being brought to surface.

Ohr Somayach, citing Ha'amek Davar (I don't know what this is) and Rabbi S. R. Hirsch (I do know of him :-) ), makes the following interesting point: "The answer is that he is so far from being cured, having ignored all the warnings to do teshuva repentence, that the disease ceases to perform any further purpose. Thus the Torah specifically says not that the Kohen shall declare him pure, rather that 'the affliction is pure' - he, on the other hand, is as far from purity as is possible."

In other words (this is me talking now), the whole point of tazra'at is to get the person's attention so he is forced to mend his ways, but if it gets to the point where he's completely covered, he's so oblivious that he's never going to do that so there is no further purpose in keeping him outside the camp. (Speculation: even a grievously-sinning Jew is still a Jew, and we should at least give him the chance to be influenced by other Jews so maybe he'll learn better in time. Or something. I'm not sure how far I'd want to carry that; there are things for which the sages specify excommunication, after all.)

There are a number of items in the law that emphasize being either one or the other, not something in between. I've thought that there could be a parallel there as well.

Good point.