From: Netvort@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 2:54 AM
To: JoshHoff@aol.com
Subject: Netvort : parshas Tazria, 5765





                                                    The Anti-Drug
                    
                    By Rabbi Joshua (proactively  known as The Hoffer) Hoffman


Rabbi Avrohom Abbba Yudelevitch, in his Darash Av to parshas Tazria, cites a very unusual midrash - a 'midrash peliah' - according to which Iyov's (Job's) mind was not  set at ease, after all of his suffering, until he reached the section of the Torah, in parshas Tazria, that deals with the laws governing a yoledes, a woman who has just given birth. This midrash, is extremely difficult to understand, because there seems to be no connection whatsoever between Iyov's suffering, which included the loss of his children and possessions, as well as bodily suffering, to the laws of the yoledes. Rabbi Yudelevitch therefore explains that the midrash is referring to a later section of the parsha in the Torah in which the laws of yoledes occur, namely, the section dealing with the laws of a condition called tzora'as, commonly although not necessarily accurately translated as leprosy. This condition, as described in the Torah, can occur on one's body, on one's clothing, and on the walls of ones's house. The midrash tells us that each successive occurrence of tzora'as is a warning signal from God to cease the errant behavior - primarily the speaking of 'leshon hora', or evil talk - that leads to tzora'as. God first brings tzora'as to a man's house. If he takes the message to heart and changes his ways, then all will be well for him. However if he persists in his sinning, then tzora'as will occur on his clothing. If he then continues to engage in his illicit behavior, then his own body will exhibit the symptoms of tzora'as, and he will have to dwell, for a time, outside the community, until the condition disappears and he goes through a purification process. According to the midrash, then, this is the progression of the various kinds of tzora'as that comes as a punishment from God.


We have noted in the past that many commentators have pointed out that the Torah itself presents the progression of the different kinds of tzora'as in an order that is the opposite of that which is described in the midrash. Parshas Tazria gives us, first, the laws of tzora'as that occurs on a person, then the laws of tzora'as on clothing, and only in parshas Metzora are we given the laws of tzora'as of houses. Many solutions to this variance have been given, but Rabbi Yudelevitch himself suggests that this midrash must be understood in light of an other midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 15:4), which says, in connection with the verse in Tazria that begins the laws of tzora'as, "When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising (Vayikra 13:2), that when  Yisroel heard this section of the Torah, they became afraid. Moshe, however, told them that the section is meant for the wicked nations, but as far as Yisroel is concerned, they are meant to eat, drink and be joyful, as it says, " Many are the sufferings of the wicked, but he that trusts in God, mercy encompasses him (Tehillim 32:10). Rabbi Yudelevitch explains that God brings the punishment of tzora'as in a gradual way, starting with tzora'as of the house, only to those who have a reasonable possibility of learning the lesson being suggested. However, if someone is unlikely to take the message to heart, God begins directly with the punishment of tzora'as of the flesh. Therefore, when Yisroel saw that tzora'as of the flesh is mentioned first in the Torah, they became afraid, thinking that God did not think they would ever change once they sinned. Therefore, Moshe told them not to be afraid, because that progression was meant for the evil nations, and not for Yisroel. As far as they were concerned, the afflictions of tzora'as that they would suffer would come in a gradual progression, because it was certain that they would understand the message and change their ways. In a similar way, says Rabbi Yudelevitch, when Iyov reflected on his sufferings and realized that they came in a gradual way, first touching his possessions and only in the end touching himself personally, he realized that God considered him as a person who was likely to change through his suffering, and, therefore, his mind was set at ease.  

Rabbi Yudelevitch's explanation, despite its ingenuous and inspiring nature, carries many difficulties. First, he assumes that the midrash is not referring at all to the opening section of parshas Tazria - the laws of the yoledes - but it is in fact the opening verse of that section which the midrash quotes. Secondly, there is a dispute in the Talmud about the identity of Iyov. There are opinions that he was not Jewish, and there is even an opinion that he never lived at all, and that the entire book of Iyov is a parable that carries a universal message, using Iyov as a kind of everyman. This opinion, in fact, was favored by my teacher, Rav Aharon Soloveichik,zt"l, because of the consequent universal nature of the book. According to Rabbi Yudelevitch's explanation, however, the midrash seems to be identifying Iyov as a Jew, and the message of this midrash is consequently narrowed to be dealing with specific halachic issues rather than to more general life issues. I would like to suggest a different explanation of the midrash, which avoids both of these difficulties.


Rashi, in the beginning of parshas Tazria, cites a midrash (Vayikra 14:1) in which Rav Simlai notes that the laws of the yoledes are recorded in the Torah only after the laws of the kashrus of animals, fowl and fish, as well as other laws regarding the status of these creatures and their capacity to render a person impure. R. Simlai explains that this is in accordance with the order of creation, in which the creation of man came after the creation of all these creatures. Just as man's creation came after their creation, so, too, the laws governing man are recorded in the Torah after the laws in regard to the other creatures. Rabbi Yosef Salant, in his Be'er Yosef, notes that a significant difference between man and all other beings is that it takes a human being much longer to mature from infancy to adulthood than it takes any other creature. Thus, parents play a much greater, protracted role in the rearing of children than other creatures play in bringing their offspring to maturity. Although Rabbi Salant presents this aspect of human maturation in the context of the applicability of the laws of purity and impurity to human beings, it is equally if not more applicable to the general maturation of a person into a responsible human being who eventually takes his place in society. As Rav Elimelech Bar Shaul points out in his Min HaBe'er to parshas Tazria, although the mother becomes impure as a result of the process of birth, after her period of impurity passes, she takes an active role in the nurturing of her child, as does the father, and this role continues throughout life. This educational process is most pronounced in the case of a son, who, as the Torah goes on to tell us in the beginning of parshas Tazria, must be circumcised on the eighth day, after the mother has gone through her purification process. As we showed at length in Netvort to parshas Tazria, 5763 (available at Torahheights.com), the inclusion of the requirement of circumcision on the eight day within the laws of the yoledes serves to underline the role that the parents play in the education of their child. With this factor in mind, we can now return to our enigmatic midrash about Iyov and his understanding of the section of the Torah about the yoledes.


Rav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik, zt"l, in his classic essay, Kol Dodi Dofeik, discusses Iyov and his encounter with God. Once Iyov admitted that he cannot know the reason for suffering, God spoke to Him, and told him that, while this was true, he could grow from his suffering. Although Iyov was a righteous person, says Rabbi Soloveitchik, who regularly brought sacrifices to God in case his children sinned in the course of the parties they often held, and who contributed very generously to charity, he was, still very insulated, and did not take the trouble to go out and actively seek opportunities to help others. He helped individuals, but he did not take a broader interest in the troubles of the community, nor did he truly join with those suffering individuals who needed the receptive ear and heart of another person who would feel the enormity of  their plight. This was the message that God was giving to him when He appeared to him from out of the whirlwind. Although Rav Soloveitchik does not mention this, I believe that God's message to Iyov extended to his relationship with his children, as well. It is true that Iyov brought sacrifices after the parties which his children held. However, a more concerned and responsible parent would have taken a pro-active role in these parties and made sure that the possibility of sin could not occur in them. On a wider scale, he should have raised them in a way that he would not even have to worry that such a possibility could exist. When he studied the section of laws about the yoledes, this sense of responsibility came home to him, and he realized that he had not taken the proactive role in his children's upbringing that he needed to. This reactive, rather than proactive, attitude then spilled over into other areas in his life, until it defined his entire personality, as Rabbi Soloveitchik explains in his essay. Upon understanding this message, Iyov's mind was set at ease, because he now understood the function of the suffering that God had brought upon him, namely, to move him to galvanize his talents for the betterment of mankind by becoming a proactive member of society.



Please address all correspondence to the author (Rabbi Hoffman) with the following address - JoshHoff @ AOL.com.

To subscribe to Netvort, send a message with subject line subscribe, to Netvort@aol.com. To unsubscribe, send message with subject line unsubscribe, to the same address.