Parshat Tazria - Metzora

When you come to the land of Canaan, which I am giving you as a possession, and I place a lesion of tzara'at upon a house in the land of your possession.

(Vayikra 14:34)

 

...tzara'at of houses is one of the things described in the Torah that lack any relation to actual reality. It is precisely because lesions of houses are very strange - one might say supernatural - that the details mentioned in connection to lesions of houses are used as symbols. This passage invites allegorization and is presented as something relevant to natural human - and even historical - reality...

The midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Vayikra 14: 563) states: "A man says to his fellow: 'Lend me a kav of wheat.' He answers: 'I have none.' 'A kav of barley' - he answers: "I have none.' 'A kav of dates' - and he answers, 'I have none.' And similarly, a woman asks her friend: 'Lend me a sieve,' and she answers: 'I have none.' And she says, 'Lend me a sieve-basket,' and she answers: 'I have none.'" That is to say: evil-heartedness keeps people from being kind to their friends. And the midrash continues: "What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He causes there to be lesions in his house [in the house of the person who would not lend] and when he takes out all his things, people look and say: 'But he said he has nothing - look how much wheat there is here, how much barley there is here, how many dates there are here! This house is cursed because of the accursedness of this man and the wickedness of his heart.'" This relates to the verse: the priest shall order that they clear out the house, before the priest comes to look at the lesion (Vayikra 14:36). The home-owners must clear out all the content of their house and then their shame is revealed to all.

(Y. Leibowitz: Sheva Shanim shel Sihot al Parashat HaShavu'a, pg. 493)

 

 

The Women's Tractate

Dalia Marx

The notion of "marginality" usually brings to mind thoughts of exclusion and disavowal. Marginality may, however, embody exciting possibilities and unexpected opportunities - Sometimes, as Yankale Rotblitt's popular song tells us, "you can see things from there that you can't see from here." I shall now offer such a reading of one case of marginality.

Parashat Tazria opens with a description of the purification process to be undertaken by a woman following childbirth. The process is two-staged: first come the days of her flow (Vayikra 12:2) - seven days when a boy is born and a fortnight for a girl, and then the stage in which the mother must remain in the blood of purity (12:4) for thirty-three days when a boy is born and sixty-six days for a girl. During that latter period she is permitted to her husband but she shall not touch anything holy, nor may she enter the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification have been completed (ibid). Upon completion of the days of purification she must go to the priest and offer a lamb as a burnt-offering and a young dove or a turtle dove as a sin-offering (12:6). The requirement that a woman bring a sin-offering after giving birth is itself fascinating, but it will have to be dealt with in a separate discussion. Scripture mentions an alternative offering for women who cannot afford a lamb: And if she cannot afford a sheep, she shall take two turtle doves or two young doves: one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. And the priest shall effect atonement for her, and she shall become clean (12:8).

There is room to assume that many women could not afford to sacrifice a lamb and found themselves following "Plan B" - the offering of two birds. Birds were the smallest and least expensive of animals that could be sacrificed; they also constituted the offering made by marginal people: the leper (who cannot afford a lamb), the men and women who suffer discharges, the Nazirite who was made impure by a corpse, and, of course, of the woman who has given birth.

Tractate Kinnim of the Mishnah deals with the fowl sacrifice, or, to put it more precisely, it deals with special complications that can occur in connection with that sacrifice. The tractate is marginal in many different ways:

1) It is the shortest tractate of the order Kodashim, and therefore the last tractate found in the order. It has no corresponding tractates in either of the two Talmuds or in the Tosefta.

2) Kinnim treats the smallest of the sacrifices, and even so, it only deals with complications that can arise during the sacrifice, i.e., errors that can stem from the sacrifice of young birds as burnt-offerings when they were intended to be used in sin-offerings, and vice-versa, and errors due to the ability of young birds to fly from one pair of birds to the other. Kinnim can actually be seen as a kind of footnote to the discussion of the fowl sacrifice in the seventh chapter of Tractate Zevahim.

3) The tractate's marginality is also reflected in the people who offer the fowl sacrifice; their status is marginal in relation to the Temple experience (women after birth) or their situation in life is liminal (the leper) or they chose marginality (the Nazirite).

4) The fowl offering is brought by the new mother and the leper only if they cannot afford to buy a lamb to sacrifice. Even in those cases, the fowl offering is not preferred.

5) The tractate's laws are almost always set out in terms of women bringing offerings, for example: "Two women, this one has two pairs of birds and the other one has two pairs of birds..." (2:2). One might say that the "Reuven" (the ubiquitous character of Talmudic case law) of this tractate is a "Dinah." Many have claimed this is so because the standard bringer of sacrifices in the tractate is a woman, since most of the fowl-offerings were made by women (after birth or because they suffered discharges). However, I will try to demonstrate that there may be something inherently feminine about this sacrifice itself.

Given the multi-dimensional marginality of Tractate Kinnim, R. Eliezer ben Hasima's dictum is somewhat surprising:

Kinnim and pit'hei niddah [ascertaining when menstruation begins] are essential laws, tekufot and gematriyot are the after-courses of wisdom. (Avot 3:18)

R. Eliezer marks a range of topics for study beginning with what he calls "essential laws" - the mainstays of learning - and ending with the "after-courses of wisdom," which are tekufot (astronomical calculations) and gematriyot (the Tannaitic term for mathematical calculations, not our understanding of it). These latter are enjoyable intellectual pursuits, but they are mere "desserts" in comparison with the "main dishes." R. Eliezer counts Kinnim - the fowl-offerings - among the "essential laws," together with pit'hei niddah. These two topics are closely related to family matters, and are even more intimately connected to women and the commandments with which women are obligated. However, while pit'hei niddah - issues relating to the laws of family purity - were still relevant to family life in the days of the Sages, the laws of fowl-offerings had by then become of completely theoretical interest. Kinnim is of merely theoretical interest not only because it has no practical application after the destruction of the Temple, but also because the situations it deals with are mostly hypothetical. Consider, for instance the case of the woman who must bring a hundred offerings (1:3); such multiple obligations had already been made void by the decree of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (who lived in the generation of the Temple's destruction) made his decree in order to make life easier for women when the price for fowl in Jerusalem became exorbitant. Rabban Shimon, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin, swore in the name of the Temple to remedy the injustice: "By this abode [of the Lord], I shall not sleep tonight until [a pair of birds is sold] for a dinar!" (Keritot 1:7). This decree is founded upon the sensitive assumption that it is unreasonable to require a woman to leave her home and responsibilities to visit Jerusalem each time she gives birth. It allowed women to make a single offering upon each festival pilgrimage to Jerusalem - and prices plunged together with demand. Prof. Hannah Safrai z"l said that the decree demonstrates that what was good for women was thought of as good for the Temple.¹

R. Shimon's decree makes many of the laws in Tractate Kinnim redundant and completely theoretical. Some of the laws of Kinnim read like challenging intellectual puzzles. Prof. Moshe Koppel, who wrote a new commentary on the tractate, called it "the mathematical tractate."² This tractate was (and still is) studied as a source of intellectual pleasure free of practical consequences (and, of course without consequences for contemporary Jews). Pit'hei niddah - the other topic listed as "essential laws" - also involves mathematical calculations, but it still has application to contemporary life.

Can we find a real connection between the fowl offering and women - in particular, women who have recently given birth? I think so. When a woman gives birth, the fetus that was hidden inside her becomes a self sustaining being in the world. In the fowl sacrifice - and, in particular, when fledglings are being offered - the fledglings hidden in their nest remind us of a fetus in its mother's womb.³ The mother is asked to sacrifice other "babies"⁴ in exchange for her own; similar practices are found in other cultures.

The Mishnah grants extensive authority to a woman who brings a fowl-offering: she can determine which of the fledglings will be the burnt-offering and which the sin-offering. In this connection we must remember that these two sacrifices involved different procedures (Mishnah Zevahim Chapter 7). Such a pair of birds is called a ken mefureshet [literally: "a designated nest"]. When particular birds were not designated for particular sacrifices, it was called a ken stuma ["undesignated nest"] and the priest would determine which of the fledglings would be sacrificed as a sin-offering and which as a burnt-offering. It was easier to deal with a ken stuma: we might imagine the hectic activity in the Temple, with women bringing more and more pairs of birds. It must have been quite a commotion. When undesignated fowl were brought, there was less possibility of mix-ups and confusion. The tractate seems to be subtly making the unspoken suggestion that women should leave the designation of the sacrifices to the priest. Nevertheless, the Mishnah never questions the woman's right to predetermine which bird will be used for which sacrifice.

All of this is somewhat surprising, considering that men made no similar sacrifice upon founding a family. Men were obligated to fulfill the commandment of seeing the Temple (and being seen there by God) and visiting it on the pilgrimage festivals that marked the year's seasonal events, while women's visits to the Temple marked personal events related to the human (and especially the feminine) life-cycle. A father is required to circumcise his son, but not to celebrate his birth in the Temple. The actors involved in the mother's offering are the woman and the priest - it is she who must bring the offerings to the priest and instruct him how to sacrifice them. The woman brings the pairs of birds and takes care of them. Regarding the verse, And when the days of her purification have been completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring... to the entrance of the tent of Meeting, to the priest (12:6), the midrash states: "This teaches that she cares for them [the offerings] and brings them to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to the priest" (Sifra Tazria 3:4).

In at least one place we find discomfort regarding this state of affairs and the possible ties between priests and women that might arise from it. In the course of a discussion regarding the purity of Temple vessels, R. Bon bar Hiyya relates an incident that occurred: "I say that one of the priests there went out to speak with a woman about the fowl offering and a bit of spittle from her mouth sprayed on his clothing, defiling them" (J. Hagigah 3:8; 79d). The woman who spoke with the priest about the fowl offering accidentally defiled his clothing with her spittle; thus, the encounter between priest and woman may be dangerous and threatening. Nevertheless, the Sages did not try to avoid it or bypass it.

This short investigation of the fowl offering demonstrates that even if women had a marginal role in the activities of the Temple, and even if their participation in the Temple rites invited mixed reactions, they did have a valid connection with it; they visited the Temple and actively participated in its rites. Even if there were some qualms regarding women choosing birds for sacrifice, it was the woman's choice (if she wanted to choose) that was decisive. If the priest failed to follow her instructions, the sacrifice was invalid. This is, in fact, the most feminine tractate in the entire Mishnah. Other tractates (Niddah, for example) deal with topics which are inherently feminine, while here the Sages decided to lay out the rules of the fowl offering (which is obligatory upon both men and women - in different circumstances) almost entirely in terms of examples involving women!

While marginal and theoretical, Kinnim opens a door for the empowerment of women, brings them into the public space and makes their voices heard.

1. Hannah Safrai, Parashat Tazriya on the Kolech website. I thank R. Shlomo Fox and Prof. Moshe Koppel fro their important comments on this article.

2. Moshe Koppel, Biur hadash LeMassekhet Kinnim al pi Torat HaHeshbon, Jerusalem 1998. It is interesting to note that although Kinnim has no parallel tractates in the Tosefta or Talmud, many exegetes throughout the generations chose it as the subject for special commentaries, including those of the RaAVaD, ROSh, and R. Zarhiya HaLevi.

3. Prof. Zohar Amar believes that most of the fowl offerings involved dove fledglings. See his Masoret Ha'Of Tel-Aviv 5764, pp. 191-213.

4. The formulation of the commandment to send away the mother bird makes explicit reference to her motherhood, see Devarim 22:6-7.

Dalia Marx is currently involved in feminist exegesis of Tractate Kinnim, and welcomes relevant comments and communications. Her book, B'eit Ishan Ve'a'ira: Hatefilot Ha'otfot et Halayla [When I Sleep and When I Awake: the Prayers that Envelope the Night] will soon be published.

 

Holocaust and Independence

In the past, grave things were said in connection with the Holocaust: There were those who claimed that the Holocaust was a preparation, a kind of price that the Jewish People had to pay in exchange for the creation of the State of Israel. There were those who clamed that the State of Israel serves as a kind of compensation for the Holocaust. They also claimed that this was the only way to cause the Jews, or rather to force them, to immigrate to the Land of Israel. These are very grave words, which are difficult to hear.

(From Harav Yehudah Amital's "Af al Pi shemeitzar umeimar li",

quoted in M. Miyah's Olam Banuy, Hareiv, Uvanuy, pg. 64)

 

There is no accomplishment or blessing in this world that can compensate for the burning of those sinless multitudes of people. All of these words about the creation of the State in the wake of the Holocaust - they are hollow words. Neither the actual State of Israel, which occasionally must bleed to survive, nor the ideal State of Israel described in the prophecy of each man beneath his vine and beneath his fig-tree can begin to justify what the Jewish People went through during the years of the Holocaust.

(HaRav Amital's lecture on the Yom Kaddish HaKlali - Ot Ve'Eid,

Perek Iyyun Ve'Meida, quoted in Miyah op cit pg. 64)

 

Certainly we view the State of Israel as a healing process. I cannot imagine what would have happened to the Jewish People if the state had not arisen. It was so necessary for the rehabilitation of the survivors! When I think of the refugees from destruction, if they had to continue wandering from shore to shore, not finding a safe-haven in the Land of Israel, what would have happened to the Jewish People? In this sense, of course there is a connection...

The first expression of independence was "bringing home the individuals." There is nothing greater than a home... not only individuals who came and found a home after years spent in concentration camps and death camps.

(HaRav Amital, as quoted in M. Miyah, Olam Banuy, Hareiv, U'Vanuy, pg. 68)

 

 

We need your support in order that the voice of a religious Zionism committed to peace and justice will continue to be heard through the uninterrupted distribution of Shabbat Shalom in hundreds of synagogues, on the Internet and via email in both Hebrew and English.

In Israel, checks payable to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

Please note that the NIF is no longer accepting donations under $100

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions to either the NIF or PEF should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project. For Donations to NIF, please mention that Oz veShalom is registered as no. 5708.

If you wish to subscribe to the email English editions of Shabbat Shalom, to print copies of it for distribution in your synagogue, to inquire regarding the dedication of an edition in someone’s honor or memory, to find out how to make tax-exempt donations, or to suggest additional helpful ideas, please call +972-52-3920206 or at ozshalom@netvision.net.il

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

·        Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700

·        English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

4,500 copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.

Shabbat Shalom is available on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il