Rabbinic “Silver Linings”
R. Yaakov Bieler
Parshiot Tazria-Metzora, 5770
As I have often said, the topic of Taharot, ritual purity and impurity, the sixth order of the Tractates in ShaS (Shisha Sidrei Mishna,) is considered the most esoteric of Tora topics. The laws appear to be unadulterated Chukim, i.e., Mitzvot whose rationales are most elusive,[1] and therefore it is difficult to fathom what their purpose or intended effect upon the Jewish people might be.[2] However, while the Rabbis might be stymied by the specifics of Taharot in terms of their theological and moral implications, they nevertheless offer ingenious homiletical readings of the biblical texts discussing these laws, generated by the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the various conditions comprising Tzora’at, in order to draw forth deep personal lessons.
One such
inconsistency that draws Rabbinic attention is the manner in which the Tora
presents the topic of Tzora’at that affects houses (in contrast to the
affliction that strikes clothing, furniture and people themselves.) On the one hand, the introduction of this
topic appears to be specifically tied to the entering into the
VaYikra 14:34
When you come to the
While any number of positive Commandments that are dependent upon the land (Mitzvot HaTeluyot Ba’Aetz) are introduced by similar words,[3] and, according to Ibn Ezra on this verse as well as RaMBaN on 18:25, Tzora’at can only take place in the holy land of Israel due to the land’s hyper-sensitivity to sin and iniquity, it is difficult to understand why an introduction that is consistently used with respect to positive Commandments is used in the instance of a plague on a house. While there might be necessary actions that arise due to the suspicion, followed sometimes by the confirmation that Tzora’at has struck—you have to seek out a Kohen to inspect the stricken area (v. 35,) the contents of the house must be emptied before the inspection (v. 36,) the house may be quarantined as a result of suspicions that the discolored area is really Tzora’at (v. 38,) sections of the walls may have to be removed in order to see if the spread has been stopped (v. 40-2)and ultimately, the entire house may have to be leveled and a new one built in its place (v. 45,) such actions entail responses to a untoward situation rather than positive Commandments per se. So how should this introduction be accounted for?
A second curiosity is noted when comparing the introduction for Tzora’at affecting houses with the other instances of this supernatural affliction discussed in the Tora. All other cases are introduced with a language of conditionality, i.e., if the following thing were to happen, then this must be the response.[4] In contrast, the description of eruptions occurring on the walls of a dwelling is introduced with a statement of certainty, in effect a Divine Promise/Decree:
VaYikra 14:34
…and I will Place a plague of Tzora’at in the house in the land of your inheritance.
Why should the implication be given by the text that this form of discoloration is inevitable and to be expected, whereas the others listed in the previous chapter (13) are not, and therefore possibly may be more theoretical than practical? And if the standard Rabbinical association between Tzora’at and Lashon HaRa (speaking badly about another) is accepted,[5] [6] based upon both what takes place in BaMidbar 12,[7] as well as the summary of that incident suggested by the juxtaposition of the verses in Devarim 24:8-9:
Be careful regarding the plague of Tzora’at to be
exceedingly careful, and to do all that the Kohanim of the tribe of Leviim
instruct you, you will be careful to do.
Remember what the
Lord your God did to Miriam on the way when you were leaving from
why should any form of Tzora’at be inevitable? Wouldn’t the assumption of free choice when it comes to personal actions for which we are accountable[8] dictate that it would be at least theoretically possible[9] for this phenomenon never to take place, thereby requiring a similar language of conditionality, i.e., “and I might Place a plague of Tzora’at in the house in the land of your inheritance,” or for even greater consistency, “and if there is a plague of Tzora’at in the house…”?
Perhaps it is just for the two reasons stated above, i.e., that there is an emphasis upon the land of Israel and the suggestion that a plague affecting houses is inevitable, that led RaShI to choose the particular Midrashic approach that he favors with respect to VaYikra 14:34:
It is a report (of good tidings) for them that the plagues are coming to affect them. This is because the Emorites (as well as other Canaanites) had hidden their golden treasures within the walls of their homes throughout the forty years that the Jews were in the desert (in anticipation of the time when they would invade.) It was because of the plague that the house would come to be destroyed and they would find them (the hidden treasures.)
Such an interpretation now accounts for why the emphasis is upon this phenomenon occurring in the land of Israel, referred to in this verse specifically as “Eretz Canaan, ”[10] i.e., that it is the Canaanites that will be hiding their valuables within the walls of their homes, as well as why the inevitability of this plague should not be considered as a punishment, but rather a potential gift.[11] The concept that the destruction of one’s home, a situation that could only cause consternation and great distress to the homeowner, could ultimately turn into a cause for celebration is a remarkable symbol for how one might address all ostensible problematic times in one’s life, i.e., what is the good that might ultimately come about from the midst of this terrible situation? [12] But what about the risk that should one await and even expect something good to result, but then it is never forthcoming, in the immediate case in VaYikra, one’s house happens to be devoid of hidden treasure, and when the walls are pulled down, all that one is left with is rubble and homelessness, would that not breed cynicism and undercut belief in the veracity of the Tora? R. Eliezer Brody (see fn. 12) claims that RaShI’s comment (which is based upon the Sifra on this verse) is not to be taken literally, but rather viewed as a parable.[13] What will result from this difficult situation, and from parallel upsetting personal circumstances, is something good, tantamount to finding a treasure within the walls. The positive expectation is not to be a certainty, counted on in an absolute and immediate manner, thereby potentially leading to disappointment, but rather a state of mind concerning what might, but not necessarily will, take place in the future.
In effect, the “gold in the walls” approach to Tzora’at affecting the house, is the Rabbinic version of the theme of a “silver lining” to be found within “dark clouds portending rain and stormy weather.” While Noel Coward apparently felt that presuming that good could eventually emanate from bad is overly optimistic and unrealistic:
There are bad times just around the corner,
There are dark clouds travelling through the sky.
And it’s no good whining
About a silver lining,
For we know from experience that they won’t roll by, [14]
others, thankfully, do not take such a bleak view:
Was I deceived, or did a sable cloud
Turn forth her silver lining in the night?
--John Milton
Comus I:93, 1634.[15]
Keep the home-fires burning,
While your hearts are yearning,
Though your lads are far away
They dream of Home.
There’s a silver lining
Through the dark cloud shining;
Turn the dark cloud inside out,
Till the boys come Home.
--
“Till the Boys Come Home” 1914.[16]
Ms. Ford adds a subtle twist to this line of thought by
stating, “Turn the dark cloud inside out,” a subtle contrast to
…the Tzaddik (righteous individual) must bring a sensibility of holiness to everything that has any relevance to him, even including plant life and inanimate objects. Behold this is what the Jewish people did, for they extracted the Land of Israel from the grasp of impurity, and they entered into it in holiness, for when it was eventually called “Eretz Yisrael” (as opposed to Eretz Canaan,) the Creator, may He Be Blessed, Caused His Presence to Dwell in the Temple. This is included in the meaning of “BeChol Me’odecha” (with all of your might,)[17] that one has to bring to/insert into all of his possessions a sense of holiness. And from this perspective, it is possible for the plague of Tzora’at to also affect houses. And the good news (that God is Promising to Jews within this verse) is that all of these places are reparable (their ritual impurity can be replaced with purity and holiness.) And this is what the hidden valuables are. For in everything, even the most material, hidden within it are sparks of extreme holiness…[18]
It is one thing to continue to believe, even in the face of stiff adversity that things will work out; quite another when one proactively goes about trying to assure to the best of his/her ability that they do so. The idea of Tzora’at affecting a house can serve as an inspiration for each of us to not only make the best of our respective situations, but also to go forth courageously from strength to strength, MiChayil LeChayil.
[1] Whether Chukim have no humanly-accessible rationales, or do have explanations that are extremely difficult to ascertain, but nevertheless possible, is the subject of a fundamental debate among Rabbinic commentators, summarized at length by RaMBaN on Devarim 22:6.
[2] I very much agree with RaMBaM’s contention in Mishna Tora, Hilchot Temura 4:13:
“…and the majority of the laws of the Tora are directives from the Source of Directives to improve personal character and to correct all behaviors…”
While it could always be contended that the laws of ritual purity fall into the category of Commandments not included in “the majority of the laws,” it could equally be argued that they do, and then the question of how they impact upon an individual observing them is in order.
[3]a) Pesach in general, and the Seder in particular:
Shemot 12:25
And it will be when you come to the land that God will Give to you as He Spoke, and you will observe this service.
b) Arlah—the requirement not to partake of the first three years of produce from newly-planted fruit trees:
VaYikra 19:23
When you come to the land, and you will plant every type of edible tree, and you will desist from its fruit three years, it will be to you off-limits, you shall not eat.
c) The Omer offering that is brought on the second day of Pesach:
Ibid. 23:10
Speak to the Children of Israel and you will say to them: When you come to the land that I am Giving to you, and you harvest your harvest, and you will bring the Omer, the first of your harvest, to the Kohen.
d) The Sabbatical year involving allowing the land to lie fallow once in seven years:
Ibid. 25:2
Speak to the Children of Israel and you will say to them: When you come to the land that I am Giving to you, and the land will rest a Shabbat for HaShem.
e) Wine libations that are to accompany various types of sacrifices:
BaMidbar 15:2
Speak to the Children of Israel and you will say to them: When you come to the land of your habitations that I am Giving to you, and you will make a fire-offering to HaShem, a whole-burnt offering or sacrifice to fulfill a vow or to give a gift or on your Festivals to make a pleasant spirit for HaShem from cattle or from sheep. (The libations are mentioned in v. 5, 7, and 10.)
f) The appointment of a king over the Jewish people:
Devarim 17:14
Speak to the Children of Israel and you will say to them: When you come to the land that the Lord, your God is Giving you, and you inherit it and dwell in it, and you will say, “I will place upon myself a king like all of the nations that are around me.”
[4] a) VaYikra 13:2
A person if there is in the skin of his flesh Se’et or Sapachat or Baheret…
b) Ibid. 13:9
The plague of Tzora’at if it will affect a person…(“Tzora’at” is used generically to apply to all forms of this condition as well as specifically to a certain type that affects an individual’s body.)
c) Ibid. 13:18
And flesh if there is in its skin a boil and it is healed.
d) Ibid. 13:24
Or flesh if there is in its skin a burning of fire and there is on its scar a pink Baheret or white.
e) Ibid. 13:29
And a man or a woman if there is plague on the head or the beard.
f) Ibid. 13:37
And if the patch remains stationery in appearance and there is a black hair grown up in it…
g) Ibid. 13:38
If a man or a woman have in their flesh bright white spots.
h) Ibid. 13:47
And the clothing if there is in it the plague of Tzora’at…
[5] RaMBaM’s integration of the various forms of Tzora’at with one another, forming a progression of Divine Indications of Displeasure regarding the individual’s persistence in continuing to sin in this manner, illustrates well the general Rabbinic assumption:
Mishna Tora, Hilchot Tumat Tzora’at 16:10 (based upon Ruth Rabba 2:10):
…This is not something that is natural (lit. the custom of the world), but rather a sign and wonder was among the Jews in order to warn them regarding Lashon HaRa, because one engaging in Lashon HaRa, the walls of his house change. If he repents, the walls of his house will be purified; if he remains in his evil to the point where his house is destroyed, the articles made of leather in his house upon which he sits and lies (furniture) will change. If he repents, they will be purified; if he remains in his evil until they are burned, the clothing that is upon change. If he repents they will be purified; if he remains in his evil until they are burned, his skin changes and he is afflicted with Tzora’at and he will separated and it will be public knowledge and he will be alone until he no longer engages in the speech of the wicked which is mockery and Lashon HaRa…
[6] While it cannot be denied that there is ample evidence in the Written and Oral Tora’s of the assumption that there is a causal relationship between sin, on the one hand, and afflictions/disease/death on the other, I have often iterated my contention that while such thinking, at least in the short term might possibly be affective in the sense of “scared straight,” not only will it preclude the development of a loving and joyous relationship with God, but it also has the potential to be socially poisonous and deeply injurious. It is not for naught that the Mishna includes those who cast aspersions upon individuals who are experiencing difficulties among the guilty of “Ona’at Devarim” (verbal abuse)—see Bava Metzia 58b. While “Divine goads to repentance” is a possible interpretation of painful events that might affect an individual, it is not the only interpretation. Concepts such as “afflictions of love” and “tests,” particularly as manifested in the Biblical book of Iyov, present an alternative view, i.e., that even an individual free of sin, may nevertheless experience hardship, tragedy and pain during the course of his life. Furthermore, one could argue that since sickness and death are part of the human condition, unless one accepts the non-Jewish concept of Original Sin, then these conditions are by definition part of life rather than necessarily punishments or “wake-up calls.” (Of course it could be argued that even if the objective facts of maladies and death are built into the construct of our lives, the degree of discomfort, languishing, etc. comprise variables that still could be interpreted either way—naturally or supernaturally.) And if this is true about how one approaches individual cases of infirmity, it is all the more true when a calamity affects an entire community or nation. How can anyone presume to understand God’s Ways and therefore cast aspersions on entire groups of people who inevitably include the righteous and the innocent? (There are rationales for this as well, i.e., sometimes the guiltless are swept away by the punishments meted out to sinners—see Bava Kama 92a “Together with the thorn, the cabbage is smitten.”) At the end of the day, theodicy is the most difficult problem for any and all religions to deal with, and a poor, simplistic answer is certainly much worse than the humble (and humiliating?) statement, “I don’t/can’t understand this.”
[7] BaMidbar 12
1. And Miriam and Aharon spoke
concerning Moshe regarding the Cushite woman that he married…
9. And God became Angry at them and He Left.
10. And the Cloud Turned away from upon the tent,
and behold Miriam was plagued with Tzora’at like snow…
13. …For seven days must Miriam be quarantined outside of the encampment and afterwards she can be gathered in.
[8] See RaMBaM, Mishna Tora, Hilchot Teshuva, Chapter 5.
[9] If it is contended that the sin of Lashon HaRa is so ubiquitous that for all intents and purposes one can count on it occurring, then it would stand to reason that all instances of Tzora’at listed in the Tora should be preceded by language indicating that they all inevitably going to take place.
[10] Thanks to Chaim Sanders for pointing this out to me.
[11] RaShI’s approach does raise the question as to whether the plague on the walls is at all related to the house’s inhabitants engaging in Lashon HaRa, or whether this is a completely independent situation that has nothing at all to do with prior sinfulness. Particularly in the latter instance, if there are cases of Tzora’at that are independent of the RaMBaM’s construct of a series of messages directed at a transgressor to repent, this will go far in discouraging outsiders from automatically drawing the conclusion that when someone is affected by this condition, it is necessarily due to falling out of God’s Favor. In fact, just the opposite might be the case in terms of a windfall of treasure!
[12] An interesting Halachic application of such a frame of mind is raised by R. Eliezer Brody (Pi HaBe’er, Ashdod, 5766, p. 223.) Typically, the blessing that is recited upon being confronted with bad news is “Baruch Dayan HaEmet” (Blessed is the Judge of Truth.) But if we are supposed to believe that there is no such thing as a totally bad circumstance, represented by finding the gold inside the walls of the house as it is being demolished, then is such a blessing ever appropriate? R. Brody points out that Shulchan Aruch, Orech Chayim 222:4 states categorically that even if one can already see (as opposed to believing in or hoping for) a long-term benefit from a terrible circumstance, “Baruch Dayan HaEmet” is still required. The commentary Be’er Halacha on the Shulchan Aruch suggests as a rationale the fact that no property, including our homes, is really ours, but rather its use has been granted to us by God, and therefore we should be able to be philosophical and reflective when that which doesn’t really belong to us in the first place, is taken away due to a variety of causes. Consequently, even if something good will ultimately result, it would be improper to be so Pollyanna’ish that we deny altogether any sense of loss or tragedy. It’s just that we should not wallow for an unduly long period in our loss, and be able to not only get on with our lives, but to do so somewhat optimistically, looking forward to a positive future.
[13] The non-literalness of R. Brody’s approach to the idea suggested by RaShI is reminiscent of Ktav VeHaKabbala’s understanding of Beraishit 15:14, in which HaShem promises Avraham that when his offspring are redeemed from their servitude, they will emerge with “Rechush Gadol” (great possessions.) While most commentaries interpret this as referring to the literal wealth that the Jews “borrowed” from the Egyptians when they were departing, R. Yaakov Zvi Mecklenberg in his commentary understands the “possessions” as figurative, i.e., the great lessons learned regarding sensitivity to those who are underprivileged and subservient, empathy for the suffering of others, witnessing the Power of God during the Plagues and the Splitting of the Sea, etc., during the period of slavery. Just as the “possessions” there might refer to a frame of mind, the “gold in the walls” here could be understood similarly.
[14] “There are Bad Times Around the Corner” (1953 song), cited in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, ed. Elizabeth Knowles, Oxford U. Press, New York, 1999, p. 238
[15]
Cited in The Yale Book of Quotations, ed. Fred Schapiro,
[16] Ibid. p. 283.
[17] The commentator is referring to an interpretation appearing in Berachot 61b:
(Concerning Devarim 6:5 “And you will love the Lord, your God, with all of your heart and all of your soul and all of your might.”)
It was taught: R. Eliezer says, “If it is stated, ‘with all of your soul,’ why does it say ‘with all of your might’ (isn’t one element included in the other?) And if it states, ‘with all your might,’ why does it say, ‘with all your soul’? Since if there is a person whose body is more important to him than his possessions, therefore it says, ‘with all of your soul.” And if there is a person whose possessions are more important to him than his body, therefore it says, ‘with all of your might.’”
[18] Sefer Sefat Emet, Chelek Shlishi (VaYikra), Yerushalayim, pp. 139-40.