Leviticus Tazria & M'tzora (Double Portion)

Tazria and M’tzora (Double Portion)
Leviticus 12:1 – 13:59
Leviticus 14:1 – 15:33

I. Summary of Tazria

A. Tazria = (when a woman at) “childbirth” (bears a male)

B. Parasha defines priest’s role in identifying and purifying (but not treating) physical conditions that result in ritual impurities.

C. God describes the rituals of purification for a woman after childbirth (new mother cannot enter Tabernacle). (12:1-8)

D. God sets forth the methods for diagnosing and purifying a variety of skin diseases, including tzara-at (a leprous “affection”), as well as methods for purifying affections of clothing. Persons declared by priests to have tzara-at separated from community. (13:1-59)

II. Commentary on Tazria (Plaut, various websites and prior Hevreh discussions)

A. Black or white v. gray - Parasha takes an "either/or" approach to tzara-at, i.e. entirely normal skin and entirely discolored skin indicate clean, but patchy discoloration indicates unclean; however, this either/or, black-or-white mind-set may prevent us from seeing important nuances—call them "shades of gray".

B. Separation from community - Lev. 13:46 ("Being unclean, he shall dwell apart; his dwelling shall be outside the camp") assumes that a problem with one individual affects the whole community. When we send someone “outside of the community”, are we doing it to protect ourselves or to protect the individual? This raises two important ethical teachings: 1) do not separate yourself from the community and 2) all Israel is responsible one for the other.

C. Excerpt from Rabbi Debbie Zecher’s on-line D’var Torah (1998) – Circumstances of the times perhaps justified concepts we find difficult to accept today … uncleanness following childbirth, blood purification, different time periods based on the birth of a boy or a girl, and sin offerings after the birth of a child. Long ago, the physical stresses of childbirth and the care needed by a newborn demanded total attention and time away from the activities and needs of the rest of the community. It was not a state of uncleanness (as we might interpret the word today) but a state of inaccessibility to what was considered sacred by the community as a whole.

D. Restricted activity on occasion of birth of a boy v. girl - Since all births were regarded as frightening, the birth of a female who will also be capable of giving birth (in the future) was considered doubly frightening. This implies that there is something unique and powerful about bringing only women together … whether it be at birth or as adults. Also, the boy must be circumcised on the eighth day. As a result, the boy leaves the community of women and, through a distinctly male ritual, enters into the community of men. All this indicates that time must be allowed for both male and female "bonding."

E. Disease of superficiality - Jews in ancient times were afraid of skin disease and had an elaborate system to deal with it. So, too, we should be afraid of the skin-deep disease that is the lure of superficiality.

F. The “magic” of ritual - The ritual of declaring a person to be "clean" again was more than just an announcement by the priests that the “patient” was now disease-free (though priests only declared “disease” present or absent … they never treated disease). It had the power to reinstate the despised, the rejected, and the outcast as a full community member. By means of the priestly ritual, an outsider's social status was transformed. The ritual made something happen by declaring it to be so.

G. Characteristics of impurities – 1) Ritual impurities are distinct from their causes. They come from those conditions whereunder the forces of life escape from the body. 2) Conditions causing impurities have no moral significance … it is simply a fact of nature. 3) It is not a sin to become impure; however, it is a sin not to dispose of impurity (via purification from priest) thereby allowing impurity to spread (too much impurity in community will drive away God).

H. Lashon harah – Viewing tzara-at as punishment for a sin grows from midrash which recast the word metzora (“leper” and name of next parasha) into motzi shem ra, one who spreads evil words. Contra, difficulty in viewing physical ailment as punishment.

I. Anthropological view of disease leading to determination of uncleanness - If you are afflicted by certain diseases, it is because you are infected with impurity, not possessed by demons. Disease or barrenness is not the fault of the victim. It was the work of the later commentators to read good and bad into the divisions between pure and impure.

J. Purpose of purification rituals – Protect community (re-integration)? Protect individual (opportunity to repent)? Carry out mandate of God?

K. Why the priests? - Could lay people have carried out same rituals, i.e. was there anything inherent in priests’ knowledge and/or position that said only priests could carry out rituals? Just as prayer replaced sacrifice (and most of priestly role folded into responsibilities of all as a nation of priests), did priests’ ability to purify evolve into an individual’s obligation for teshuvah and mitzvot?

L. Priests’ decisions - Were judgments of priests at all subjective? Were their judgments = judgments from God? Priestly judgments carried responsibility of being “correct.” Did priests carry out these rituals because Israelites not yet ready for such responsibilities?

M. Uncleanness – In Torah, being unclean is not necessarily being germ-laden, unhygienic, etc. but rather simply not pure. Segues into impurity of today’s immoral behavior as apt analogy. In turn, leads to today’s obligation of individual (as part of nation of priests, inheritor of priestly responsibility to purify uncleanness) to purify “unclean” behavior, e.g. lashon harah requires one to take active steps to stop another from engaging in malicious gossip/slander.

N. Separation from community OK for “just” purposes – Can/should standards for determining if a separation is just vary with circumstances, e.g. “norms” acceptable at the moment and/or higher purposes? Applying it to today, what about rendition of mere suspects (“unclean” by today’s standards?) in light of fight against terrorism? Should separation be justified by opinion (what about differing opinions?), motive (what about conflicting priorities?) or fact (what about differing perceptions of what actually exists?)

O. Intentionally v. unintentionally created conditions – Should it make a difference (re: separation) whether an impurity is or is not a result of something within an individual’s control?

III. Summary of M’tzora

A. M’tzora = leper

B. Describes three-stage ritual to cure tzara-at when it afflicts humans (priest’s announcement of completed cure, cleaning of individual on 7th day and sacrifice on 8th day including priest putting blood on ear, thumb and toe). (14:1-32)

C. Describes rituals to rid dwelling places of tzara-at (questionable whether it ever occurred). (14:33-57)

D. Denotes male impurities resulting from a penile discharge or seminal emission. (15:1-18)

E. Concludes with accounts of female impurities caused by a discharge of blood. (15:19-33)

IV. Commentary on M’tzora (Plaut, various websites and prior Hevreh discussions)

A. Equal v. proportionate acts - M'tzora distinguishes among the kinds of sacrifice to be brought by “leper”, based on the leper's economic position. Suggests that there are obligations that fall on every member of society that ought to be apportioned on a sliding scale and in ways that are fair to everyone v. sliding scale doesn’t prevent perception of lesser giving so Exodus 30:15 required every person to give exactly a half-shekel of silver when census is taken, (shows that all people, by virtue of their humanity, share a basic equality).

B. Lashon Hara - Midrash recasts the word metzora to mean motzi shem ra, one who spreads evil words. Spreading of lashon hara is viewed as identical to the spilling of blood. Tzara-at is punishment of the soul for committing sin of lashon hara (in Hazeroth, Miriam and Aaron publicly chastised Moses for some unmentioned aspect of his relationship with a Cushite woman and, as a result of that public rebuke, Miriam broke out in tzara-at).

C. Cause v. symptom - Discussions of M’tzora generally revolve around one of two topics: 1) the horrendous disease of leprosy (onset of tzara-at indicates that God has departed from sufferer) as the punishment for l'shon harah, harmful language, and 2) the "otherness" of both the outcast lepers and even the kohanim in their roles as health inspectors-healers. However, efforts to purify must address underlying cause rather than just the symptoms.

D. Re-entering community - The ritual requiring the purified individual to remain outside his dwelling for seven days after his separation reminds us that it takes time to reenter the world following the isolation of illness. It takes time to adjust to a new identity. This ritual serves to publicly introduce the individual to his community: He is welcomed as a "new" person. There is a need to “re-embrace” those who have recovered from illness and injury.

E. "House" = community - Many communities need repair and attention for them to be safely inhabitable again and become centers of life instead of centers of blight. Our responsibility as Jews requires us to purge our own homes of the plagues that might affect them, to assume responsibility for the guilt we may carry into our houses, and to repair and restore all the dwelling places in our own communities.

F. Blood on ear, thumb and toe - Priest putting blood on ear, thumb and toe in tazar-at purification ritual is same ritual as consecration of priest. Ear = words are judged by hearing. Thumb = hand is the symbol of action. Toe = foot is the pilgrimage of life”. Alternative = ear thumb and toe is symbolic of covering entire body without submersion.

G. Body and soul as one - Viewing the body and soul as one suggests that tzara-at is a malady of the soul as well as the body. Accordingly, purification and cure needs to address body and soul.

H. What looks bad can be good - When a person breaks out in a rash or a fever, although things look bad, it's actually a sign that the body is eliminating toxins, and going through a cleansing process. We can apply this idea to our own lives. Sometimes it seems like we're burdened by difficulties and confusion. In one sense, this a positive sign - the toxins are all rising to the surface, as a precursor to purification.

I. Mary Douglas (Leviticus as Literature) - Leviticus reveals itself as modern religion, legislating for justice between people, God and animals. The body of the worshipper is made analogous to the sanctuary and the altar: whatever will render the altar impure will do the same for the Israelite’s body (justifies Tzara-at as punishment for sin).

J. Where is the impurity? - Male and female maladies involve release of bodily fluids. Is impurity in the fluid itself (given that blood historically seen as life force, cleansing oneself of impurity is a physical process rather than a spiritual process)? in the underlying condition (v. physical malady = punishment for being impure)? in the person (with the malady simply being a flag that the person is impure)?

K. Alternative to priestly purification rituals - Could individual expel impurity without priestly ritual? Is simply changing behavior not enough? Was direct appeal to God feasible?

L. Process v. end result – Specificity of required rituals suggests that the process is more important than the purification objective (which seems to be improper priority).

M. Distinctiveness of lashon hara - Why is lashon hara the only improper behavior specifically discussed as attached to tzara-at (especially since the linkage is built on midrashic interpretation of word root of metzora … a stretch). Does this give lashon hara some special significance, i.e. is lashon hara a particularly bad thing?

N. Tzara-at ritual as a mandate to repent - Given that commentators note that tzara-at rarely, if ever, showed up on dwelling, can entire tzara-at purification ritual simply be a mandate to seek forgivance from God for sin? Suggests that while sinning is not good, it is repentance (teshuva) that really counts.
(Revised 4/21/08)