Tazria, Vayikra 13:3. A Kohen Must See the Tzara'as.

 The Torah says that if a nega appears, only a kohen may pasken whether it is Tzara'as. If he is not a Talmid Chacham, he has to take a lamden with him to tell him what to pasken. But the Kohen has to examine the nega'im, and, ultimately, he has to pasken.

Rabbi Dr. Gary Schreiber pointed out that the avoda of the miluim, the process by which the Kohanim were inaugurated, has similarities to the tahara process of the metzora. If you carefully compare the two, you will find that they have avodos in common which are rarely found elsewhere. He said an excellent, and, I think, new, pshat that explains both connections of Kehuna to Tzara'as.

A kohen is subject to the temptation of gaavah, because of his entitlements (the twenty four Matnos Kehuna) and his kedusha (which enables him to do the avodah and requires him to be tahor). Also, Kohanim are aware of everyone’s sins, because whoever brings a korban chatas has to be misvadeh; furthermore, when someone brings a chatas, he has to clearly explain to the Beis Din of the Kohanim why he is bringing it, so they can be sure that the Korban Chatas is indeed required and that it is not chulin ba'azara. So he might say lashon hora. This is a dangerous position to be in: you are born with superior kedusha, Klal Yisrael has to sweat to wrest a living from the earth while you sit at home and get your food-- grain, fruit and meat-- delivered tied with a bow, and you are privy to all their embarrasing failures and sins. It would not be surprising if Kohanim viewed the rest of Klal Yisrael as if they were a bunch of donkeys. This natural tendency to ga'avah and lashon hara can bring Tzara'as.

So the Torah says that the kohanim must personally look at nega’im. They need to see what the result of gaavah and lashon hara are. This constant visual reinforcement will help them control their yetzer hora. Very few oncologists smoke, and many dermatologists obssesively avoid exposure to sunlight, because day after day they see the deadly results of irresponsible and self destructive behavior; so, too, Kohanim are obligated to closely examine the nega'im of Tzara'as, and this will remind them to eschew the traits that bring Tzara'as - Ga'avah and Lashon Hara.

And this explains why the Avodas HaMilu'im recalls Taharas Metzora. The foundation ritual of Kehuna mirrors the taharas metzora process, so that every kohen will read this parsha and remember that the superior status he was granted brought with it a concomitant danger, and that every day he must be on guard against the temptations of ga'avah and lashon hara. Indeed, this concept is found in the Bracha the Kohanim give Klal Yisrael: Yevarechacha Hashem Veyishmerecha: every blessing brings along a heightened risk and the need for shemira. Kohanim, too, are blessed with many things, and these blessings create the need for greater shemira.

(Dr. Schreiber's words:
"...the similarity between the avoda of the taharas hametzora and the miluim of the kohanim which requires blood placed on the the bohanos of each of them. The kohen will hopefully carry the initial impression with him through his years of avodah and refrain from the failings that lead to one becoming a metzora.")

Update 2017: R Avrohom Bukspan sent a comment that connects a Medrash on this inyan. Vayikra Rabba 15.

רבי בשם רבי חמא בר חנינא: 

צער גדול היה לו למשה בדבר, כך הוא כבודו של אהרן אחי להיות רואה את הנגעים?! 

אמר ליה הקב"ה: לא נהנה (אותו) מהם כ"ד מתנות? 

מתלא אמר: דאכיל בהדי קורא ילקה בהדי קילא, (= האוכל מן הקור לוקה מן הקורה).

There are too many pshatim on the words דאכיל בהדי קורא so we won't go into that, but, as I responded to Reb Avrohom, 

Very interesting pshat in the Medrash. Pashtus, it means that if a person shares his blessings with you, you can't turn your back on him when he's suffering and say it has nothing to do with you, you have to share his pain as well. But the way you're connecting it to this pshat, it's Chazal's way of describing what Gaavah is all about- that when it comes to taking, you think you're entitled, so that when the man needs sympathy, you don't feel any obligation to him. "I took because I deserve, and it's an honor for him to give me. I owe nothing to him!" So the Torah says, no. It was a gift, and you should be makir tov to the extent that his pain is your pain.

Update 2021:

Just to outline the similarities between Taharas Metzora and Chinuch Kohanim and Leviim. Chinuch Leviim is in Behaaloscha, and Kohanim is in Tzav.

1. Taglachas: 

Metzora, (ויקרא יד, ט) 

וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי יְגַלַּח אֶת כׇּל שְׂעָרוֹ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְאֶת זְקָנוֹ וְאֵת גַּבֹּת עֵינָיו וְאֶת־כׇּל־שְׂעָרוֹ יְגַלֵּחַ 

Leviim וְהֶעֱבִירוּ תַעַר עַל כָּל בְּשָׂרָם" (במדבר ח, ז)

2. Kibus:

Metzora וְכִבֶּס אֶת בְּגָדָיו" (ויקרא יד, ט) 

Leviim וְכִבְּסוּ בִגְדֵיהֶם וְהִטֶּהָרוּ" (במדבר שם)

3. Tevilla.

4. Tenufa, by Metzora on his living Korban, by the Leviim on them personally.

5. Dam and Shemen on the persons:

Metzora  וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִדַּם הָאָשָׁם וְנָתַן הַכֹּהֵן עַל תְּנוּךְ אֹזֶן... וכו" (ויקרא יד, יד, י'ז)

וּמִיֶּ֨תֶר הַשֶּׁ֜מֶן אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־כַּפּ֗וֹ יִתֵּ֤ן הַכֹּהֵן֙ עַל־תְּנ֞וּךְ אֹ֤זֶן הַמִּטַּהֵר֙ הַיְמָנִ֔ית וְעַל־בֹּ֤הֶן יָדוֹ֙ הַיְמָנִ֔ית וְעַל־בֹּ֥הֶן רַגְל֖וֹ הַיְמָנִ֑ית עַ֖ל דַּ֥ם הָאָשָֽׁם׃

Kohanim, (ויקרא ח, כד-ל)וישחט ויקח משה מדמו ויתן על־תנוך אזן־אהרן הימנית ועל־בהן ידו הימנית ועל־בהן רגלו הימנית

ויקרב את־בני אהרן ויתן משה מן־הדם על־תנוך אזנם הימנית ועל־בהן ידם הימנית ועל־בהן רגלם הימנית

Shemen, by the Kohanim, ויקח משה משמן המשחה ומן־הדם אשר על־המזבח ויז על־אהרן על־בגדיו ועל־בניו ועל־בגדי בניו אתו ויקדש את־אהרן את־בגדיו ואת־בניו ואת־בגדי בניו אתו 

UPDATE 2022.

I just saw an email from R Zweig's yeshiva in Miami. He says that the lesson of davka these three limbs is that a kohen, elevated to Keser Kehuna, holier than every other Jew, needs to be reminded that his is a position of service, not self-aggrandizement. So you put the dam on his hand, leg and ear - The kohen is charged with the work of doing for others, and going to others, and listening to others.  The same lesson is taught the Metzora, who needs to change from self centered to sympathetic.

His words:

In this week’s parsha, we find Hashem giving Moshe instructions for the official installation of Aharon and his sons as kohanim – the priestly class of Bnei Yisroel. Moshe then gathers all of Bnei Yisroel to watch as he follows a step-by-step process for initiating Aharon and his sons as the kohanim.

Aside from the steps that might be expected in the process of elevating their status – immersion in a mikveh, dressing them in priestly vestments, applying and sprinkling the special anointing oil to all the vessels in the Mishkan and to Aharon and his sons as well, etc. – we find a very unusual ritual.

Several sacrifices were offered: a bull was brought as a sin offering, a ram was brought as a burnt offering, and a second ram was brought as a peace offering (see 8:22 and Rashi ad loc). Moshe then applied the blood of the peace offering to Aharon’s and his sons’ right ear lobes, right thumbs, and right big toes.

This ritual is only performed in one other place in the Torah: by the purification of a person who has been struck by tzora’as – commonly (and incorrectly) translated as leprosy.

hat is the meaning of this enigmatic ritual and what is the relationship between initiating the kohanim and cleansing one who has recovered from tzora’as?

Aharon and his sons were being elevated to a new status over the rest of the Jewish people. They were now receiving forevermore one of the three crowns that Hashem gifted to this world; they were receiving the crown of kehuna. Without proper perspective, being crowned can be a dangerous affair as it can easily lead one to harbor false notions of self-importance. A person can actually begin to believe that he is receiving this honor because there is something intrinsically great about himself.

The unique ritual of placing the blood on the ear lobe, thumb, and big toe is intended to address this issue. The unifying connection between all of these parts of the body is that the ears, fingers, and toes represent the person’s extremities. When a person gets cold, the first parts that are affected are the extremities – namely the ears, fingers, and toes – because they are the furthest from the core of the body. Yet, when a person is asked to point to himself, he always points to his core. Thus, by emphasizing the extremities, this ritual demonstrates that the position is not about them personally, it’s about what they can do for others.

The message they receive is that while being anointed a kohen is an honor, it is more significantly a great and awesome responsibility. The Talmud has a dispute about whether the kohanim are agents of the people to Hashem or agents of Hashem to the people, but everyone agrees that they are merely agents. In other words, they are facilitators not principals. This is the message conveyed by placing the blood on the extremities.

This is also true of a person who has been struck by tzora’as. This punishment comes as a consequence of speaking loshon hora. The core motivating force of one who speaks loshon hora is the desire to elevate oneself by putting others down. While every sin contains an element of self-centered behavior, loshon hora is the sin of focusing on the perceived importance of oneself and trying to elevate the opinions of others regarding one’s own self-importance. This is why a person needs a kohen to declare them unclean and the process of purification is the same as the kohen’s initiation. The message they are supposed to receive and internalize is that they need to focus less on themselves and their own importance.

ADDITIONAL UPDATE 2022

Dr. R' Hertzka Grinblatt offered another very good explanation for the commonality among Metzora and Kohen and Levi. He said that all three need to be kovei'a themselves in a machaneh.

The Metzora needs to be allowed into Machane Yisrael; the Levi into Machane Levi'ah; the Kohen into Machane Shechina.

This is a case of תן לחכם ויחכם עוד, and also an application of די לחכימה ברמיזה. Because you can cavil that the Metzora was already muttar to enter the machane after the Shtei Tziporim; and the Levi? He doesn't need any hetter to go into the Har HaBayis. But the point is still excellent. There are three machanos. Each of the three is the place of the parts of Klal Yisrael. For all three of these people, it is part of the process that is KOVEI'A them into their machane position. Again, I can explain it for you, I can not understand it for you. 

The Importance of Mesibas Preida, Tzeischem L'Shalom, Goodbye Party.

 Three parts.

Part One: Sources in Chazal for the idea of marking a person's departure from his home city with a סעודת או מסיבת פרידה, וצאתכם לשלום

Part Two: The story of the Beilis Trial, and how it relates to the idea of a Seudas Preida.

Part Three: An insight into the interconnectedness of all men, and even more so the people in the Jewish community, and the beauty that is hidden in so many people כפלח הרימון, and how important it is to try to understand, and appreciate, and admire our fellow Jews. 

 Part I

To some extent, you don't need a makor in Chazal for things that are obviously good and true. On the other hand, we do like to cite sources for everything, such as in Gittin 6a, 

והא בבל לצפונה דא"י קיימא דכתיב (ירמיהו א, יד) ויאמר ה' אלי מצפון תפתח הרעה

So, is there a source for gathering to wish a friend off when he leaves the community?  I have three. 

Two are from the stories of Eliahu and Elisha.

The first is in Malachim I 19:19-21.

וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ מִ֠שָּׁם וַיִּמְצָ֞א אֶת־אֱלִישָׁ֤ע בֶּן־שָׁפָט֙ וְה֣וּא חֹרֵ֔שׁ שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂ֤ר צְמָדִים֙ לְפָנָ֔יו וְה֖וּא בִּשְׁנֵ֣ים הֶעָשָׂ֑ר וַיַּעֲבֹ֤ר אֵלִיָּ֙הוּ֙ אֵלָ֔יו וַיַּשְׁלֵ֥ךְ אַדַּרְתּ֖וֹ אֵלָֽיו׃

וַיַּעֲזֹ֣ב אֶת־הַבָּקָ֗ר וַיָּ֙רָץ֙ אַחֲרֵ֣י אֵֽלִיָּ֔הוּ וַיֹּ֗אמֶר אֶשְּׁקָה־נָּא֙ לְאָבִ֣י וּלְאִמִּ֔י וְאֵלְכָ֖ה אַחֲרֶ֑יךָ וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לוֹ֙ לֵ֣ךְ שׁ֔וּב כִּ֥י מֶה־עָשִׂ֖יתִי לָֽךְ׃

וַיָּ֨שָׁב מֵאַחֲרָ֜יו וַיִּקַּ֣ח אֶת־צֶ֧מֶד הַבָּקָ֣ר וַיִּזְבָּחֵ֗הוּ וּבִכְלִ֤י הַבָּקָר֙ בִּשְּׁלָ֣ם הַבָּשָׂ֔ר וַיִּתֵּ֥ן לָעָ֖ם וַיֹּאכֵ֑לוּ וַיָּ֗קָם וַיֵּ֛לֶךְ אַחֲרֵ֥י אֵלִיָּ֖הוּ וַיְשָׁרְתֵֽהוּ׃

The Radak in 21 says

וישב מאחריו. לנשק לאביו ולאמו אף על פי שלא ספר הכתוב ואחר כך שחט הבקר ועשה סעודה באותו השדה לחורשים ולעם אשר באו אחריו ללוותו וזהו שאמר ויתן לעם כי מהעם לא היו אתו בשדה כי אם אחד עשר החורשים אלא זהו פירושו כי הלך לקחת רשות מאביו ומאמו ובאו אחריו מאנשי עירו ללוותו כי הוא נפרד מהם:

The second is in Melachim II 2:9.

וַיְהִ֣י כְעָבְרָ֗ם וְאֵ֨לִיָּ֜הוּ אָמַ֤ר אֶל־אֱלִישָׁע֙ שְׁאַל֙ מָ֣ה אֶֽעֱשֶׂה־לָּ֔ךְ בְּטֶ֖רֶם אֶלָּקַ֣ח מֵעִמָּ֑ךְ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלִישָׁ֔ע וִֽיהִי־נָ֛א פִּֽי־שְׁנַ֥יִם בְּרוּחֲךָ֖ אֵלָֽי׃

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִקְשִׁ֣יתָ לִשְׁא֑וֹל אִם־תִּרְאֶ֨ה אֹתִ֜י לֻקָּ֤ח מֵֽאִתָּךְ֙ יְהִֽי־לְךָ֣ כֵ֔ן וְאִם־אַ֖יִן לֹ֥א יִהְיֶֽה׃

It certainly was a hard request to fulfill!  What did Eliahu mean, that the only chance it will come true would be if Elisha saw him taken away? 

I believe the idea was that we don't truly understand and certainly do not fully appreciate what we have until the moment before it is taken away from us. 

Eliahu told Elisha that to be truly inspired by him, by Eliahu, to the degree that his heart and mind would open up to siyata dishmaya of such great ruach hakodesh and nevuah, he would need to witness Eliahu being taken away from him. 

We see that to understand and appreciate our fellows, we need to face the imminent reality of their going away, and that will give each side the opportunity to be inspired by the other's middos tovos.

The third is ... that you don't need a makor for a seudas preida because it is a kal vachomer from halvoyas orchim. As one small example of the importance of levoyas orchim, see Rambam Aveil 14:2

שכר הלויה מרובה מן הכל. (!)  והוא החק שחקקו אברהם אבינו ודרך החסד שנהג בה. מאכיל עוברי דרכים ומשקה אותן ומלוה אותן. וגדולה הכנסת אורחים מהקבלת פני שכינה. שנאמר וירא והנה שלשה אנשים. ולוויים יותר מהכנסתן. אמרו חכמים כל שאינו מלוה כאילו שופך דמים:

If being melaveh orchim is so vitally important, that its schar is "Merubah min hakol," that one who does it is keeping him alive, and one who fails to do so is like a rotzei'ach, then kal vachomer that applies to an individual that lived in your community and who is now leaving. If you do it for some tumbleweed orei'ach, how much more so must you do it for a member of the community that is moving away!

Part II

I just had the honor and privilege to make a Kiddush to mark a member of our community leaving Chicago. He was born and raised here, and his parents were born and raised here, and his great grandparents came here in 1912. The Kiddush was on Parshas Tazri'a Metzora. We found a perfect connection of being melaveh our friend with the parsha of Tzaraas, as odd as that may sound.

The Alshich in Vayikra 12:1 asks, the appellation "Adam" for the Metzora seems inappropriate. Adam is the term used for an elevated human being, and here it is used for a hateful despicable person. 

ועל פי דרכנו נשית לב אל מלת אדם. כי הוא לפי האמת התואר המשובח שבתוארי המין האנושי כנודע מספר הזוהר ולמה נתייחד באשר שנא ה'.

Rav Galinski answered the question with the story of the Beilis trial in 1911. Harav Galinski says the story his way, but I will tell it as my father did, which is much better.

The prosecutor enlisted an alleged religious expert in Judaic rituals, a notoriously anti Semitic Catholic priest, Justinas Pranaitis. While the defense had emphasized that Judaism famously abhorred the taking of human life, Pranaitis said that this was a lie, and he could prove it from the Talmud. The Talmud says that the Jews consider the Gentiles as not human. True, a Jew would never kill a fellow human being, but the Jews consider Gentiles as animals, and no more care about their lives than they would about a cat, or a chicken. They would kill a Gentile for even the most trivial reason, or for no reason at all. After all, the Talmud says in Yevamos 60b

ניא, וכן היה רשב"י אומר: קברי גוים אינן מטמאין באהל שנאמר: 'ואתן צאני מרעיתי אדם אתם', אתם קרויין אדם ואין הגוים קרויין אדם

Clear. The Jews view the Gentiles as subhuman, and would kill them with absolutely no mercy or pang of conscience.

This accusation struck fear in the Jewish community. Pogroms were being prepared, priests were preaching against the deicide Jew, and a repeat of the Khmelnytsky massacres was imminent.

The defense desperately sent a message to Rav Meir Shapiro. What should we do? How can we answer this accusation??

Rav Shapiro told him exactly what to say, and this was the defense.

The Talmud means something entirely different.  The Jews have forever been pacifists who never shed blood.. Only the blindly antisemitic would misunderstand the Gemara, because its meaning is very clear.

When a Gentile looks at the newspaper, and he sees that thousands of people are starving in China, and if he reacts at all he will sigh, and shake his head, and then turn the page. But if a Jew finds out that there is a Jew in China that doesn't have Matza for Pesach, he will be at the Chinese embassy the next morning with a box of Matza. The Gentile may pity the distant stranger, but the Jew feels the pain of a fellow Jew as if it were his own, even though he never met him, and will never meet him. 

This is what the Gemara means. We, the Jewish People, are Adam, in the singular. We are not separate individuals with a common religion. We are all like one, all parts of one organism. That is what אתם קרויין אדם ואין הגוים קרויין אדם means. We are all like one.

And if you deny this, I will prove that not only is it true, but that you yourselves know that it to be true. 

If you open the newspaper, and there is a story about Ivan, who murdered his neighbor, you will say, "Terrible! Ivan is a murderer." But if you open the paper, and you see a story about Yankel Kohen who murdered his neighbor, you won't say "Yankel Kohen is a murderer." You will say "Terrible! The Jews are murderers!" Why? What's the difference between Ivan the murderer and Yankel the murderer? The answer is that you yourselves know, you yourselves believe in your hearts, that all the Jews are Adam, one person, but the Gentiles, each one is separate from the other.

This response struck like a bolt of lightning. It hit at both the priest's misinterpretation of the Gemara, and also spoke directly to the tens of thousands of Russians that were sharpening their knives, waiting to kill the Jews because of one Menachem Mendel Beilis.

This answers the Alshich's question. A Jewish neshama is not separate from other Jews. We are all one, and we mourn each other's pain and celebrate each other's happiness. If a Jew does not act like that, if he is a ganov and a holeich rachil and az ponim, that means that he is like a limb that is cut off of a body. This spiritual disease manifests itself in Tzaraas, where the person loses his own limbs. Davka because we are Adam, because our neshamos are all interconnected, a man who behaves in the opposite manner has a deadly and mortal spiritual affliction.

When a person is a member of the community, he is not just one person by himself. He is an integral part of everyone else that lives there. When he has the opportunity to do good for others, he takes advantage of the moment. If he has a snow plow, all the neighbors have clear sidewalks. If he has left over from Shabbos, he makes sure it is delivered to someone that might not have enough to eat. When some people came to Chicago from South Africa, he made sure that they would become part of the community, and he shepherded them along until they found their land legs. These are only small chasadim that I happen to know about, but the point is that this person is a vital part of the entire community, or each and every one of us. The connection is mutual and indivisible. On the one hand, that means that with his leaving, we all are losing an important part of our lives, but on the other hand, wherever he goes, he remains part of what and who we are.

Part III

Robert Fulghum

The Barber

Hair grows at the rate of about half an inch a month.  I don't know where he got his facts, but Mr. Washington came up with that one when we were comparing barbers.  That means that about eight feet of hair had been cut off my head and face in the last sixteen years by my barber.

 I hadn't thought much about it until I called to make my usual appointment and found that my barber had left to go into building maintenance.  What?  How could he do this?  My barber.  It felt like a death in the family.  There was so much more to our relationship than sartorial statistics.

 We started out as categories to each other:  "barber" and "customer."  Then we became "redneck ignorant barber" and "pinko egghead minister."  Once a month we reviewed the world and our lives and explored our positions.  We sparred over civil rights and Vietnam and lots of elections.  We became mirrors, confidants, confessors, therapists, and companions in an odd sort of way.  We went through being thirty years old and then forty.  We discussed and argued and joked, but always with a certain thoughtful deference. 

After all, I was his customer.  And he was standing there with his razor in his hand.

 I found out that his dad was a country policeman, that he grew up poor in a tiny town and had prejudices about Indians.  He found out that I had the same small-town roots and grew up with prejudices about Blacks.  Our kids were the same ages, and we suffered through the same stages of parenthood together.  We shared wife stories and children stories and car troubles and lawn problems.  I found out he gave his day off to giving free haircuts to old men in nursing homes.  He found out a few good things about me, too, I suppose.

 I never saw him outside the barber shop, never met his wife or children, never sat in his home or ate a meal with him.  Yet he became a terribly important fixture in my life.  Perhaps a lot more important than if we had been next-door neighbors.  The quality of our relationship was partly created by a peculiar distance.  There's a real sense of loss in his leaving.  I feel like not having my hair cut anymore, though eight feet of hair may seem strange.

 Without realizing it, we fill important places in each other's lives.  It's that way with a minister and congregation.  Or with the guy at the corner grocery, the mechanic at the local garage, the family doctor, teachers, neighbors, co-workers.  Good people, who are always "there," who can be relied upon in small, important ways.  People who teach us, bless us, encourage us, support us, uplift us in the dailiness of life.  We never tell them.  I don't know why, but we don't.

 And, of course, we fill that role ourselves.  There are those who depend on us, watch us, learn from us, take from us.  And we never know.  Don't sell yourself short.  You may never have proof of your importance, but you are more important than you think.

 It reminds me of an old Sufi story of a good man who was granted one wish by God.  The man said he would like to go about doing good without knowing about it.  God granted his wish.  And then God decided that it was such a good idea, he would grant that wish to all human beings.  And so it has been to this day.

 Mr. Fulghum's story strikes me as a very good reminder of the real and true interconnectedness of every member of the Jewish community, of the preciousness of every Jewish soul and its drive to do tzedaka and chesed, and how important it is to remember that it is not the great and feted philanthropists and tzadikim that make us who we are, it is those quiet heroes with shining souls that live next door to us.

Part IV

It's a great opportunity for the guest of honor to sing So Long Farewell from The Sound of Music.

The Ancient and Tragic History of Racial Profiling

Breishis 39:1

ויוסף הורד מצרימה ויקנהו פוטיפר סריס פרעה שר הטבחים איש מצרי מיד הישמעאלים אשר הורדהו שמה

Medrash Rabba Vayeishev Breishis 86:3

וַיִּקְנֵהוּ פּוֹטִיפַר אִישׁ מִצְרִי, גְּבַר עָרוּם, וּמָה הֲוַת עֲרִימוּתֵיהּ, אֲמַר בְּכָל מָקוֹם גֶּרְמָנִי מוֹכֵר כּוּשִׁי, וְכָאן כּוּשִׁי מוֹכֵר גֶּרְמָנִי, אֵין זֶה עָבֶד

Clever man, that Potiphar. He knew that something was amiss.  

I found this somewhat puzzling, because even given the norms of this peculiar institution, it seems to me that you could kidnap or vanquish anyone and sell him in another country, no matter what color he might be. Evidently, people were categorized by color and commodified, and a person that did not fit into that schema was not thought of as a natural slave.

But let us assume that Potiphar, and the Medrash, were describing the reality of the slave trade. What do the words גרמני and כושי mean?

Vayikra 13:4

ואם בהרת לבנה היא בעור בשרו

Mishna Negaim 1:1

מראות נגעים שנים שהן ארבעה.

בהרת עזה כשלג ...

How do we know that Baheres is bright white?

Abayei in Shavuos 6b

ומנלן דבהרת עזה היא אמר אביי אמר קרא (ויקרא יג, ד) ואם בהרת לבנה היא היא לבנה ואין אחרת לבנה

So in Negaim 2:1, the Mishna says 

בהרת עזה נראית בגרמוני כהה, והכהה בכושי עזה.

and the Rambam there explains that Garmani is related to the Aramaic for "bone."  They are as white as bone.

גרמני שם הלבן ביותר מיוחס אל העצם אשר שמו גרמא

Rabbi Yishmael in the Mishna points out that we Jews are of an intermediate, woody color.

רבי ישמעאל אומר, בני ישראל, אני כפרתן, הרי הן כאשכרוע, לא שחורים ולא לבנים, אלא בינוניים.

From the Medrash, though, it is clear that the Jew's hues are much closer to that of the Germanim than that of the Kushim.  Apparently the Yishmeailim that were selling Yosef were of a swarthier hue than Yosef, even before we were supplanted by the Khazars.

The Gaon in Eliahu Rabba (and Reb Elyah Bachur in his Tishbi) says that the word Garmani refers to the descendents of Gomer, who lived up North, while the Kushim lived in the South.

בגרמוני – זה איש מבני גומר כדאמרינן ביומא גומר זה גרממיא, וגרסינן גרמניא וכ"ה בילקוט. והוא שבני נח דרים בג' רוחות העולם, שם במזרח, יפת בצפון, חם בדרום, ומפני שהחמה בדרום נמוך הוא מאוד בני אדם הדרים שם שחורים וכוש הוא מבני חם ודר בסוף דרום, הלכך הם שחורים ביותר מחמת השמש, ובני יפת הם דרים בצפון ורחוקים הם מהשמש, הלכך הם לבנים. וגומר דר בסוף צפון הלכך הם לבנים ביותר וכו'.

The Tiferes Yisrael brings the Gaon but he says that their color has nothing to do with their environment. They just are like that naturally. Germani and Kushi are just place names.

ולם לפע"ד הרי לפי"ז לא תלי כלל באיזה אקלימא הוא דר, שיש שנולד כך משונה בעורו, ונקרא בל"א אלבינוס, והוא מום באדם ונקרא בלשון המשנה לבקן [בכורות פ"ז מ"ו], ולמה לא קראו תנא גם הכא כן, ותו מסתבר דכמו כושי שהזכיר תנא, נקרא על שם ארצו, כך גרמני על שם ארצו נקרא].

The Tosfos Anshei Sheim there adds the sefer Beis Dovid who says that the Germans are not the whitest. They are not nearly as white as Hollanders.

מכאן תשובה למ"ש הרמ"ז, וז"ל, בגרמוני אנשי גרמניא הם לבנים ביותר, וכ"מ במוסף ערוך (ערך גרמן ב), ע"כ, וליתא דגרמוני אין פירושו איש מגרמניא דתנא בא"י קאי, ואילו היה המוסף הערוך בגרמניא היה רואה בעיניו שאינם לבנים כ"כ כמו אנשי הולנדיא שהיא ארץ מולדתו.

His complaint is not really valid, though, because in Megilla 6b it says 

גרממיא של אדום שאלמלי הן יוצאין מחריבין כל העולם כולו.

which says that Germamia is from Edom, the son of Shem, while in Yoma 10a it says they are from Yefes - 4

בני יפת גומר ומגוג ומדי, גומר זה גרמניא

and the Gaon says that the correct girsa in both places is Germanya, not Germamya. So are they from Sheim or Yefes? Evidently, they are both white, but there was some movement of populations such that the original Germamians ended up in Holland, while the current residents, who are slightly less white, are really of Italian origin.

Ayy, you're going to say that Sancherev mixed up all the nations?

בשנת תרנ"ח כשביקר וילהלם קיסר גרמניה בירושלים וכל בני העיר בראשות גדולי התורה יצאו לבקר את פניו, השתמט רבינו באומרו כי מה שאמרו חז"ל (ברכות ט ב) א"ר יוחנן לעולם ישתדל אדם לרוץ לקראת מלכי ישראל ולא לקראת מלכי ישראל בלבד אלא אפי' לקראת מלכי עובדי כוכבים שאם יזכה יבחין בין מלכי ישראל למלכי עובדי כוכבים, לא נאמר לגבי מלך מזרעו של עמלק.

עי' בס' אורחות רבינו מהגרי"י קנייבסקי זצ"ל שקיבל את דברי רבינו, ולא היה תמוה בעיניו על שהורה שלא לברך אף שהיה בידו סמכות של מלך, אלא דהקשה שהרי במסכת ידים (פ"ד מ"ד) מובא שכבר עלה סנחריב מלך אשור ובלבל את כל האומות א"כ מנין לנו שהגרמנים המה מזרע עמלק. ואמר הגריי"ק זצ"ל דאפשר שדעת הגרי"ח מקורה במגילה, דאמר יעקב לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבש"ע אל תתן לעשיו הרשע תאות לבו, זממו אל תפק זו גרממיא של אדום, שאלמלי הן יוצאין מחריבין כל העולם כולו. וכתב הגאון ר' יעקב עמדין בהגהותיו על מסכת מגילה שכוונת הגמ' על ארץ גרמניה, וכ"ה גירסת הגר"א, ולפי"ז מבוארת דעת הגמ' כאן דאומה זו לא בלבל סנחריב, וחולקת על המשנה דמס' ידים.

So the Germanic people, or at least the Nordic people, are not included in the bilbul of Sancherev.

As for Kush/כוש, that name appears in Breishis 2:13, וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשֵּׁנִי גִּיחוֹן הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב אֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ כּוּשׁ. Later, Cham named his son Kush. Perhaps the names used in Breishis are al shem ha'asid. I think it is self evident that the Kush in Megillas Esther has nothing to do with the African Kush associated with the usual Kushim and the son of Cham. That Kush refers to the mountain range that runs from Afghanistan through Pakistan, north of today's India.

(Much of the above is derived from here.)

Tazria Metzora. Death and Life

This has two halves that make a whole.


Part one is from Rabbi Abraham Bukspan.

"וְהַצָּרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ הַנֶּגַע בְּגָדָיו יִהְיוּ פְרֻמִים וְרֹאשׁוֹ יִהְיֶה פָרוּעַ וְעַל שָׂפָם יַעְטֶה וְטָמֵא טָמֵא יִקְרָא. כָּל יְמֵי אֲשֶׁר הַנֶּגַע בּוֹ יִטְמָא טָמֵא הוּא בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה מוֹשָׁבוֹ". (ויקרא יג:מה-מו)

הדברים נראים ככפל הלשון. הפסוק משמיענו ש"כל ימי אשר הנגע בו יטמא", וחוזר ואומר "טמא הוא". מה ביאור הדבר?

ישנו הבדל מהותי בין טומאת צרעת לכל הטומאות; נגע הצרעת אינו 'טומאה' בעצמו, אלא הוא מורה שהאדם בכללותו הינו טמא. הצרעת היא טומאה רוחנית ביסודה, ובאה כתוצאה מהחטא (ערכין טז.). מראה הנגע הינו אך ביטוי חיצוני של נגע רוחני פנימי וטומאת הנפש הנמשכת מכך.

מסיבה זו חייבה התורה את המצורע להכריז על טומאתו, מה שלא מצינו בשאר הטומאות. כי כאשר יגע האדם בדבר טמא, אין הטומאה חלק מעצמותו - אלא היא חיצונית, שבאה עליו מהדבר הטמא. מגעו בגוף המת, לדוגמא, גורמת לטומאת המת להתפשט בכל גופו והוא זקוק לטבילה במקוה בכדי ליטהר.

לא כן הדבר בטומאת צרעת - אלא להיפך!

מקור הטומאה הוא בתוככי האדם עצמו. מטבע החטא שהוא מוליד טומאה בעצם גוף האדם, כטומאת המת והנבלה עצמם. מראה הנגע שבידו אינו אלא סימן חיצוני לטומאתו הפנימית ונגעו הרוחני. הטומאה אינה מתפשטת מהמראה שבידו לכל גופו; גופו טמא במהותו ומראה הנגע הוא רק סימן וביטוי חיצוני לכך.

משום כך חייבה התורה את המצורע לשבת בדד מחוץ למחנה; מוכרחים להגן על כולם מפני האיש הזה, מפאת היותו מקור הטומאה הממארת במהותו. ולכן גם ציוותה אותו התורה שיכריז המצורע על טומאתו (רש"י יג:מה).

וזה גם ביאור כפל הלשון "יטמא טמא הוא" - שאל תדמה בדעתך שהצרוע הינו טמא מפני שיש בגופו נגע, לא כן - אלא הוא טמא כי "טמא הוא"! הוא ועוונותיו הם סיבת הטומאה. טומאתו הינה שורשית ואישית. הוא גרם לה בעצמו, ורק בידו לתקנה.

ונראה שזוהי כוונת רבינו האבן עזרא (פסוק מו) במילותיו השקולות: "כל ימי אשר הנגע בו יטמא - כי טמא הוא באמת".

כי טומאת המצורע - טומאת המהות היא.

*

Part two is from Rabbi Yisroel Raisman from Rav Pam.

Rav Pam would often describe his mother, someone who never spoke Lashon Hara, but not because she learned Hilchos Lashon Hara, not because she learned the Sefer Chofetz Chaim. It was because she looked at people with a good eye, she always looked to see a person in a positive way.

The trick to avoiding Lashon Hara is not to fight it every single time, but to battle the root cause of Lashon Hara. 

The root cause of Lashon Hara is the bad eye with which a person looks at others. When a person has complaints about others. That’s the problem, the problem is we don’t look at people with a happy enough eye, with a happy enough face. We don’t Fargin other people. 

*

Combining the two parts, one can discern that the living death of Tzaraas and the guarantee of life of Shemiras HaLashon are opposite ends of one spectrum.

Shemiras HaLashon per se, i.e., refraining from Lashon Hara, is not the opposite of Tzaraas. The Shemiras Halashon of Rav Pam's mother, the Ayin Tov that allows you to see the good in other people, to be happy at their success and to mourn their failings, that Ayin Tov that is the real essence of not saying Lashon Hara, because you respect the other person and wish him well. That is the opposite of the spiritual corruption of Tzaraas.

The contrast is between the teva of jealousy and not fargining, on the one hand, and true joy at another's happiness on the other. That v'ahavta is the reason for the bracha of oheiv yomim and lir'os tov, or arichus yomim and a pleasant life, precisely the opposite of the spiritual corruption of the metzora that brings removal from society and death of the body piece by piece. It brings me'urav im habriyos/daas habriyos nocheh and chiyus to the entire body.



We often see righteous fulminations against extravagant weddings and vacations and homes, all expressed as distaste with such crass exhibitionism, such boorish vulgarity, such heartless selfishness. The vast majority of such diatribes are based not in mussar or even in "good taste," but just green eyed jealousy or a sense of inferiority.  Oh, that's disgusting, look at his private jet, oh, look at the Olympic pool in his basement, of, look at his Saville Row suits and million dollar jewelry.... why doesn't he give his money to the poor, or pay the rabbeim, or......

If, lu yetzuyor, a Rothschild would say that he is opposed to such extravagance and will henceforth not wear million dollar jewelry or buy a hotel in the Alps for a pied a terre for the occasional yomtov or fly in the Philharmonic for a Bar Mitzvah, it might mean something. If it's just you or me burchering, it's most probably just jealousy. If the interest on the cash in your CD were ten million dollars a year, and if you were giving the right amount of tzedaka of your money and your time, if when you made that wedding you paid for the weddings of three poor yesomim, you would be entirely right in making a fantastic extravaganza for your simchos. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with it. That's how you celebrate.  You're happy! You want to go overboard! You want to express your excitement and joy!  If you, the complainer, want to be rich, and you are not, that's not the fault of the rich. It is because you are not smart enough, or not disciplined enough, or not driven enough, or too timid to commit, or, of course, you don't have the siyata dishmaya. Or, as Reb Moshe once said to someone, maybe you had a tzadik ancestor that prayed that you should not have the nisyonos of wealth.

Instead of working on other people's middos, work on your own. If you see someone doing an aveira, then give him mussar.  If you see someone and it looks like they're having too good a time, they're being so self indulgent - just try to not be a metzora. Be a Tov Ayin hu yevorach and be happy for him.

Coincidentally, this point was limned by Rabbi Dr. Nachum Stone of Maalei Adumim in his shul bulletin, which I reproduce in entirety.

Parashot Acharei –Mot and Kedoshim   

Nachum J Stone

.ויקרא 18:3

כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ־מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם־בָּהּ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ־כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם לֹא תֵלֵכוּ׃

In our parsha we read"  and their customs do not follow”

When a passuk is written with an abstract clause, it can't be interpreted literally. One cannot “walk” in a set of laws or behaviors. This invites a wide range of interpretations. Some interpret, not to follow the laws of the gentiles. Some interpretations are hairstyle, behavior, architecture, dress, fashion. Rambam following a number of Talmudic citations rules “all the above”.

[11 avoda zara 1-3]

Rashi quoting the medrash halacha explains:

ובחקתיהם לא תלכו. מַה הִנִּיחַ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר? אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ נִימוֹסוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן — דְּבָרִים הַחֲקוּקִין לָהֶם — כְּגוֹן טַרְטִיָּאוֹת וְאִצְטַדִיָּאוֹת,

 “their theaters and circuses” in other words, their leisure activities. Rambam did not bring this at all in his longer list of forbidden activities.

As we (hopefully) enter the last stages of our CoronaVirus isolation, I think that we can better appreciate Rashi’s interpretation, which seems to be more metaphoric or abstract than Rambam. 

 To a large degree, many of us have been forced into almost full-time leisure mode. What did we do with our time? A lot of everything, of course. The mix of activities are on a continuum of spiritual, intellectual, mundane, mindless and perhaps even embarrassing. The choices we made to a large degree indicate our values. 

Rashi is instructing us to avoid the entertainments that do not promote or perhaps are even in conflict with our ideals and mores. As we emerge from our isolation, we can use the opportunity to evaluate how we used our time.

*******

In today's (Wednesday) Daf, Shabbat 54b, the discussion surrounds a certain cow who walked about on Shabbat improperly adorned with a decorative ribbon. (It is forbidden to have one’s animal carry an unnecessary burden in the public domain on Shabbat.) The cow is identified as belonging to Ribi Elazar ben Azariya, even though it was not his. The gemara explains that Ribi Elazar ben Azariya is assigned responsibility for the cow, which belonged to a neighbor, because he didn't protest the inappropriate decoration. The leaders of a community are responsible for the behavior of the collective.

Each of us has a leadership role to play within our families, communities, employment. And that is leading by example. Certainly, no one should stick their noses into anyone else's affairs. We must all get our own priorities in order. Have we taken steps to welcome God into our lives? Does our behavior properly express the purpose of our being?

As we strive to make our day-to-day lives reflect the ideals of Judaism, we help each other and all of Am Yisrael. When we accept Rashi’s advice to limit our adoption of entertainments of the gentiles, we can start walking in the Godly path. 

The Living Dead: Four Kinds of People with Moribund Souls

Avoda Zara 5a, and Nedarim 64b:  Four are considered as if dead: the poor; the blind; the leprous; and the childless.

ארבעה חשובים כמתים אלו הן עני סומא ומצורע ומי שאין לו בנים

I saw a very striking pshat from Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz that I want to share.  He says that Chazal's expression, as if dead, means that the person lacks a what in a healthy human being would be a pathway to empathy and assistance to others.  This is not to say they are incapable, it means that it is not as simple for them.

The poor refers to one who is so burdened with his need to make a living, to find what he needs, (whether because of actual or only perceived poverty- איזהו עשיר השמח בחלקו and vice versa, as Shlomo HaMelech says in Koheles 6:4, איש אשר יתן לו האלקים עשר ונכסים וכבוד ואיננו חסר לנפשו מכל אשר יתאוה, ולא ישליטנו האלהים לאכל ממנו-) that he doesn't have the time to think about the needs of other people, and certainly doesn't have the means of helping others.  This is reminiscent of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

The blind, because we all have experienced the effect of the powerful image.  We were all fully aware, intellectually, of starvation in Biafra, but it was a terrible photograph in Life magazine that shocked millions into a full emotional awareness and sympathy.  

A leper, or more accurately, a Metzora, because both the cause and the effect of Tzara'as is being outside the community.  The causes of Tzaraas are all manifestations of a basic indifference to the suffering of others, and the punishment of Tzaraas is to be driven out of the community.

One who has no children, we know, may not sit on the Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 36b, and Rambam 2 Sanhedrin 3 -
 אין מעמידין בכל הסנהדרין לא זקן מופלג בשנים. ולא סריס מפני שיש בהן אכזריות. ולא מי שאין לו בנים כדי שיהא רחמן
Rashi explains זקן. ששכח כבר צער גדול בנים ואינו רחמני וכן סריס, A person who has not experienced, or who has forgotten, what it means to raise a difficult child and to love him despite the pain he causes, is missing something that teaches a person to be merciful.  Having children enhances the ability to sympathize, and one who has no children has a challenge in achieving that degree of sympathy.

I want to stress that there are poor people, and blind people, and people who have no children, that are gedolim and saints of kindness.  What Chazal mean is that while a normal and emotionally healthy Ben Yisrael has a natural rachmanus, and has to be a rasha to choose to harden his heart and ignore those that need his help, these four people might have not that natural and automatic reaction of rachamim.

It is also possible that Chazal are speaking metaphorically.  There are people who can see, but they are blind when it comes to to the needs of others.  There are some that are so busy accumulating things that they are totally uninterested in helping others to make it.  There are those that simply never experienced what it means to have a child, which means that your heart is walking around outside of your body.  And there is the Metzora, who exhibits every one of these traits.  Such people may be healthy, and wealthy, and happy, but they are dead men walking.

Metzora. The Living Dead and the Asymptomatic Metzora.

The Tuma of a Metzora shares many dinim with the Tuma of a dead body.  Most famously, Tzara'as and Meis are the only Tum'os which cause Tuma to everything else that is under the same roof, Tumas Ohel.   Why is this so?  Is it because of his necrotic limbs?  Is it because he is separated from the community as if he had passed away?  When it comes to the arcane philosophy of Tuma, speculation is particularly unreliable.  But we may speculate if we keep in mind that it is, ultimately, only conjecture.  But here's a fascinating thing.  The Gemara (Eirchin 15) says that the sin that leads to Tzara'as is extreme egosism and antipathy.  It is possible that this has some connection with his macabre halachic status.  I saw a remarkable thing on this topic by Rabbi Joshua Hoffman, and I quote the relevant paragraph:

Readers familiar with the playwright Eugene O'Neill's semi-autobiographical masterwork, Long Day's Journey Into Night, may recall the final scene of the play, in which Jamie, the older son in the family, who is an alcoholic and a failed writer and actor, reveals the innermost depths of his heart to his younger brother, Edmund. Jamie tells Edmund, in the midst of a drunken stupor, that, although he loves him and is devoted to him, part of his inner-self wants him to fail. In part, Jamie says, he wants his brother to fall into dissolution, as he had, so that he would not make him look worse in light of his success as a writer. Jamie, in explaining this to his brother, tells him that it is the dead part of himself that seeks to do this. This is exactly what a person who is addicted to leshon hora does,and to the extent that he is obsessed with his evil talk, he is, in effect, dead, and bringing death to those around him, as well. In this way, he is effectively killing the 'adam' aspect of his own personality as well as those of others. When this happens among Jews, the entire nation suffers, because it loses the unique contributions that only these people can make. For this reason, the metzora must be isolated from society until he is able to once again become a productive member of it by actualizing his own potential, and allowing others to actualize theirs.

The dialogue in the play:

Jamie:....I’ve been rotten bad influence.  And worst of it is, I did it on purpose.

Edmund: Shut up!  I don’t want to hear–

Jamie: Nix, Kid!  You listen!  Did it on purpose to make a bum of you.  Or part of me did .  A big part.  That part that’s been dead so long.  That hates life.  My putting you wise so you’d learn from my mistakes.  Believed that myself at times, but it’s a fake.  Made my mistakes look good.  Make getting drunk romantic.  Made whores fascinating vampires instead of poor, stupid, diseased slobs they really are.  Made fun of work as sucker’s game.  Never wanted you succeed and make me look even worse by comparison.  Wanted you to fail.  Always jealous of you.                                        

A page later–

Jamie: .... Oscar Wildes’ “Reading Gaol” has the dope twisted.  The man was dead and so he had to kill the think he loved.  That’s what it ought to be.  The dead part of me hopes you won’t get well. ....  He wants company, he doesn’t want to be the only corpse around the house!  

Rabbi Hoffman's complete dvar Torah is reproduced at the end of the post.)

Reb Yeruchem also says something that relates to this question.  In 13:2 it says אדם, כי-יהיה בעור-בשרו שאת או-ספחת או בהרת, והיה בעור-בשרו, לנגע צרעת--והובא אל-אהרן הכהן, in 13:9 it says נגע צרעת, כי תהיה באדם; והובא, אל-הכהן, and in 14:2 it says זאת תהיה תורת המצרע, ביום טהרתו:  והובא, אל-הכהן, on the day of his cleansing he shall be brought to the Kohen.  The Sforno in Bamidbar 6:13 points out that this expression of being brought somewhere is found in four places: Metzorah, Sottah, Eved Ivri that will be nirtza, and Nazir in Bamidbar there.  But Chazal say that “yavi osso” by Nazir really means “yavi es atzmo.”  So the Sforno, as interpreted by R’ Yeruchem, explains that the difference is whether a person floats downstream or struggles upstream.  The metzorah, sottah, and eved all take the path of least resistance, and give in to their yetzer hara, or the bad influence of society or their friends.  They are what an acquaintance of mine calls “floaters,” and they are taken places.  The nazir, on the other hand, is what he calls a “doer,” he takes his life in his own hands and with courage and discipline determines his own path. (Others call them leaners and pushers.  Same idea.)  This person is taking himself where he needs to go.  I saw this brought in a sefer called “Maayan Hashavua,” on last week’s parshah, and he shtells tzu the Gemara in Chullin that only a kosher fish can survive in fast flowing waters.  A kosher fish will fight the current and survive, while a non-kosher species will be pushed and pulled to death.

Truth is, the Sforno’s he’ara is mostly homiletic, not interpretive.  The expression ‘v’huvah’ by the three really don’t need explanation. By a sottah, although she needs to prove her innocence, she won’t want to go because the whole thing is a terrible disgrace.  By eved ivri the din of v’huvah makes sense, because he is formalizing his cession of mastery over himself to the other person, so it is necessary that his master bring him.  We find a similar din by eved knaani, where his tvila l’sheim geirus/avdus has to be through the act of his master who puts him into the water.  And by metzorah, chances are the person will not go willingly to be declared a metzora, especially since it is only the kohen’s declaration of diagnosis that creates the tumah status.  So the he’arah is not strong in last week’s parshah, where it is talking about going to the kohen to be declared a metzora.  BUT in this week’s parshah, which is talking about his becoming tahor, and it still says v’huvah el hakohen, you could say that ‘v’huvah’ teaches that he needs to be shown that he should learn to be master of his fate, and not be so easily swayed by his flawed character traits.  He should learn to be a mentsch, not a shmatteh.  So you can use THIS ‘v’huvah’ to show that all three are meant to teach the same lesson.

In any case, this is another example of a metzora sharing the characteristic of a person who is dead.  He is a floater.

And finally, there is the famous Medrash in Vayikra 16:2, that says:

 ד"א "זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע" הה"ד (תהלים לד, יג): "מִי הָאִישׁ הֶחָפֵץ חַיִּים" מעשה ברוכל אחד שהיה מחזיר בעיירות שהיו סמוכות לציפורי והיה מכריז ואומר מאן בעי למזבן סם חיים אודקין עליה ר' ינאי הוה יתיב ופשט בתורקליניה שמעיה דמכריז מאן בעי סם חיים א"ל תא סק להכא זבון לי א"ל לאו אנת צריך ליה ולא דכוותך אטרח עליה סליק לגביה הוציא לו ספר תהלים הראה לו פסוק "מִי הָאִישׁ הֶחָפֵץ חַיִּים" מה כתיב בתריה (יד): "נצור לשונך מרע סור מרע ועשה טוב" א"ר ינאי אף שלמה מכריז ואומר(משלי כא, כג): "שֹׁמֵר פיו ולשונו שומר מצרות נפשו" א"ר ינאי כל ימי הייתי קורא הפסוק הזה ולא הייתי יודע היכן הוא פשוט עד שבא רוכל זה והודיעו "מִי הָאִישׁ הֶחָפֵץ חַיִּים" לפיכך משה מזהיר את ישראל ואומר להם "זאת תהיה תורת הַמְּצֹרָע" תורת המוציא שם רע

What is the elixir of life?  Avoiding Lashon Haran. And it's not enough to merely avoid lashon hara.  The passuk continues- (14-15) נצור לשונך מרע;    ושפתיך, מדבר מרמה. טו  סור מרע, ועשה-טוב;    בקש שלום ורודפהו  It's not good enough to avoid lashon hara by isolating yourself from society.  Involve yourself, seek peace, pursue a just society.   If avoiding lashon hara is life, if involvement in the community and the pursuit of peace and justice is life, then, of course, מכלל הן אתה שומע לאו, the person who constantly spreads lashon hara, the miser, the misanthrope, is, in a sense, dead. 


The physical manifestation of Tzara'as no longer occurs.  It is a metaphysical disease that exposes in a person's body the degeneration of his soul, as the Ramban says, and the physical manifestation of Tzara'as can only occur under certain conditions which no longer pertain.  But don't make the mistake of thinking that the parsha of Metzora is no longer relevant.    Just because the physical expression of this ailment no longer occurs does not mean that the underlying spiritual disease no longer occurs.  On the contrary, as spirituality declines, the disease of the neshama occurs more and more often.  We just have no way of knowing who among us suffers from the disease.  But one thing is for sure:  A person that deserves to have Tzara'as, the rumor monger, the one who hates to see others happy and successful, the miser who turns away from the needy, the person who is constantly bickering and smirking and sneering, that person is an asymptomatic metzora, and he causes Tuma to everyone and everything around him.  Even being in the same room with him contaminates you.

Rabbi Hoffman's complete dvar Torah, entitled "Dead Man Walking."

This week's Torah reading deals in large part with the laws of tzara'as, which is usually translated as leprosy. These laws begins with the statement, "If a man will have on the flesh of his skin a s'eis, or a sapachas, or a baheres, and it will become a tzara'as affliction on the skin of his flesh, he shall be brought to Aharon the kohein or to one of his sons the kohanim (Vayikra 13 . 1). It is interesting to note that while in the Hebrew language there are four words for man - ish, gever, enosh and adam, the word used here is 'adam,' which, according to the Zohar, connotes the highest level of man. Why would the Torah use this expression when dealing with a person who has contracted the highest level of impurity? Wouldn't he seem to be on a lower level?As we have noted in the past, the Talmud ( Bava Kama,38a) tells us that the word 'adam' applies only to a Jew. Rabbi Ephraim of Lunshitz,in his Olelos Ephraim, explains that this term is different from the other three Hebrew terms for man in that the other three words take on a different form in the plural that in the singular.  The plural of ish is ishim of gever is gevarim, and of enosh is anashim. However, the plural of adam is adam.By saying that only a Jew is called adam, what Chazal are telling us is that the individual Jew is inextricably bonded with the collective of the Jewish people. This is not true of any other nation.  As my teacher, Rav Aharon Soloveichik, explained, if someone from England moves to America, after a generation or two his family will no longer be identified as English,but as American. A Jew, however, no matter where he comes from and no matter where he goes,is always identified as a Jew. Based on this explanation, we can understand the qualification made by Rabbeinu Tam,that a non- Jew is sometimes referred to, in Scripture, as 'ha-adam,'but not as 'adam.' Ha-adam - the man- refers to a specific person, and, so, can be used in reference to a non-Jew,as well.However,'adam'-man-can only refer to a Jew, because it implies that the individual is inextricably bound to the collective. If we now take another look at the term adam, and connect it to the term for primeval man-adam harishon-we can understand it to be an allusion to the uniqueness of the individual, and the special mission he is given to accomplish in the world.  The mishnah in Sanhedrin (37a) tells us that man was created as a single individual in order to impress this quality of his uniqueness upon him.  Man, says the mishnah, is obligated to say, each day, that the world was created for him, meaning that he has a unique role to play in the world that no one else can fulfill.  When we see this notion in the context of the connection of each individual Jew to the Jewish collective, the message conveyed is that the unique mission that each individual Jew is charged with is inextricably connected with the goals of the Jewish nation as a collective. With this observation in mind, we can return to the use of the term adam in connection with the affliction of tzara'as.

Although the rabbis view tzara'as as a punishment for any of seven different sins, the primary sin that it is associated with is leshon hora, or evil talk.  One of the nefarious effects of such talk is to impair the self-image of the person who is spoken about.  Actually, the rabbis tell us that leshon hora kills three people-the one who speaks it, the one of whom it is spoken, and the one to whom it is spoken. We can explain this to mean that in all three cases, the activity of leshon hora impedes the person involved from actualizing his true self and accomplishing his mission in life, because his attention is focused on the evil talk and what it communicates about that person, rather than each person focusing on what he really has to contribute. When this happens, not only is the individual involved effected, but society as a whole loses, because the unique roles that these people were charged with accomplishing will now not be fulfilled, and, so, in a sense, these people can be considered as dead in terms of their contribution to the nation. Perhaps this is why the rabbis tell us that a metzorah is considered as being dead.                                      
Readers familiar with the playwright Eugene O'Neill's semi-autobiographical masterwork, Long Day's Journey Into Night, may recall the final scene of the play, in which Jamie, the older son in the family, who is an alcoholic and a failed writer and actor, reveals the innermost depths of his heart to his younger brother, Edmund. Jamie tells Edmund, in the midst of a drunken stupor, that, although he loves him and is devoted to him, part of his inner-self wants him to fail. In part, Jamie says, he wants his brother to fall into dissolution, as he had, so that he would not make him look worse in light of his success as a writer. Jamie, in explaining this to his brother, tells him that it is the dead part of himself that seeks to do this. This is exactly what a person who is addicted to leshon hora does,and to the extent that he is obsessed with his evil talk, he is, in effect, dead, and bringing death to those around him, as well. In this way, he is effectively killing the 'adam' aspect of his own personality as well as those of others. When this happens among Jews, the entire nation suffers, because it loses the unique contributions that only these people can make. For this reason, the metzora must be isolated from society until he is able to once again become a productive member of it by actualizing his own potential, and allowing others to actualize theirs.

On a completely different topic:  I was checking the precise definition of the word "macabre," because I used it in the first paragraph to mean "death like," or "gruesome."  I found the history of that word very surprising- as was the explanation of Mel Gibson's incongruous project- as follows:

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

macabre (adj.) 

early 15c., from O.Fr. (danse) Macabré "(dance) of Death" (1376), probably a translation of M.L. (Chorea) Machabæorum, lit. "dance of the Maccabees" (leaders of the Jewish revolt against Syro-Hellenes; see Maccabees). The association with the dance of death seems to be via vivid descriptions of the martyrdom of the Maccabees in the Apocryphal books. The abstracted sense of "gruesome" is first attested 1842 in French, 1889 in English.

The typical form which the allegory takes is that of a series of pictures, sculptured or painted, in which Death appears, either as a dancing skeleton or as a shrunken corpse wrapped in grave-clothes to persons representing every age and condition of life, and leads them all in a dance to the grave. ["Encyclopaedia Britannica," 11th ed., 1911] 

From The Free Dictionary:

ma·cabre·ly adv.

Word History: The word macabre is an excellent example of a word formed with reference to a specific context that has long since disappeared for everyone but scholars. Macabre is first recorded in the phrase Macabrees daunce in a work written around 1430 by John Lydgate. Macabree was thought by Lydgate to be the name of a French author, but in fact he misunderstood the Old French phrase Danse Macabre, "the Dance of Death," a subject of art and literature. In this dance, Death leads people of all classes and walks of life to the same final end. The macabre element may be an alteration of Macabe, "a Maccabee." The Maccabees were Jewish martyrs who were honored by a feast throughout the Western Church, and reverence for them was linked to reverence for the dead. Today macabre has no connection with the Maccabees and little connection with the Dance of Death, but it still has to do with death.

And from The Oxford Dictionary:

Origin:

late 19th century: from French macabre, from Danse Macabre 'dance of death', from Old French, perhaps from Macabé 'a Maccabee', with reference to a miracle play depicting the slaughter of the Maccabees

When I showed this to a good friend, a scholar of the classics and alumnus of Oxford and the University of Chicago, this was his reaction:

I first came across that etymology a few years ago while I was researching the concept of yiras hashem in the Middle Ages. I'm sure it's true. The role played by the  Maccabees in the history of Christian thought and culture (including etymology!), and their significance for Christian theology in particular is far, far greater than in Judaism.  Unlike the Jews, the Catholics include The Books of Maccabees  in their text of the O.T. Bible (Vulgate) and it's heroic figures are (mis)interpreted as the archetypes for all future Christian martyrs, to whom the Church owes its' very existence. ( Hence Mel Gibson's work over the last several years to produce a film about the Maccabees  is misunderstood by Jews as only a cheap, fraudulent means to curry favor with the Jewish community. In fact, a deeply committed Catholic such as Gibson would have long felt a very profound attachment to the Maccabees and, as an actor and producer, would wish to see their deeds glorified on stage).