The Torah and... the Bearded Lady?

Before I started posting my weekly Dvar Torah to this blog, 
I wrote this article entitled Bald, Pure, and Loving It! 
This is the natural follow-up to that entry

Parshat Tazria

by Rabbi Avi Billet

I created a program several years ago, called ParshaDrama, in which I go to a school and present the weekly Torah portion to different grades through a combination of storytelling and dramatics – playing the roles of the various characters, while sometimes calling up some students to assist when there are multiple characters on the Torah’s storyline.

For Tazria, I typically call up volunteers in order to “point out” the kinds of blemishes that are described in the parsha, accompanied by an explanation of the process the person will now have to endure in order to be deemed “tahor” again.

Since I mostly deal with younger grades, I am often in a co-ed school with boys and girls together. 

Last week, immediately after presenting the parsha about the dedication of the Mishkan and the role of Aharon and his sons, including the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, one girl, who is in first or second-grade, asked me why I don’t include girls in the story. After accepting her critique, I told her I am unaware of Aharon having daughters. And I reminded her (with a smile… I was very nice) there are many “girls” in the stories in Bereshit, even if they are not as prominent as the “boys.”

It’s OK – I pick the girl volunteers to demonstrate many of the tzara’at afflictions of our Parsha, or for a unisex discussion about law in Mishpatim, as well as anytime I specifically need someone with a beard (e.g. some Kohen situations in Parshat Emor), because many of the girls are adept at bringing their ponytails round to front and tying them under their chins, aside from the female roles they play. It is an interesting point of note that the only person recorded by the Torah to have been afflicted with tzara’at is a woman (Miriam, in Bamidbar 13). It does not follow that tzara’at is a women’s disease any more than a men’s disease, as we encounter other “metzo’ra’im” (tzara’at inflicted individuals) in the rest of the Bible who are men as well.

Our parsha this week begins talking about the status of a woman who “has seed” and gives birth to a boy, or who gives birth to a girl. And while the parsha talks primarily about the generic “Adam” (human – male or female) who gets tzara’at, the Torah specifically mentions “a man or a woman” who have a “nega” (mark) on the head or on the beard. (13:29)

What? Is the Torah addressing the circus and the bearded lady (some interesting ladies have embraced their genetic disorder that causes facial hair to grow – amazing what you can find on Google)?

Rashi explains this strange language to mean that the Torah is distinguishing between tzara’at that occurs on hairy spots versus tzara’at that appears on skin where hair does not grow. Perhaps, on “the head” refers to women, who do not usually go bald, while on “the beard” refers to men, who usually (certainly in Biblical times) have facial hair. “The head” could refer to a bald spot (for men who suffer from hair loss) and “the beard” spot could refer to women who are usually naturally clean shaven.

Chizkuni simply says the head is speaking of the woman, while the beard speaks of the man. This explanation is eyebrow raising because the Torah generally follows the order of applying the first noun to the first noun (which are man and head) and the second noun to the second noun (which are woman and beard).

Alshikh ignores the cantillation mark which puts a significant pause between the man or woman (pause) - on the head or beard, suggesting that both man or woman is connected to “on the head,” while “on the beard” is a tag-on for the men, who are afflicted on their beard for not showing respect to other people (he explains what he means).

Or HaChaim explains the verse first saying that the word “or” as in “a man or a woman” is utilized to separate the experiences of the man and the woman, rather than using the word “and” which would otherwise suggest that the rule in this verse apply equally to man and woman on head and on beard – which it doesn’t, because, as he puts it, “a woman does not have a beard.” He concludes, however, suggesting that were it to be the case that a woman does grow a beard (I was right about the bearded lady!), the rules of the verse would apply to her equally. 

There you have it folks. Equality in the Torah. Men and women can both get the same affliction. And there is even no discrimination against women who grow beards.

While we yearn for a time when God’s presence will be felt and the laws of tzara’at will be relevant to our regular existence, we also pray that all of us – men and women – can behave in a manner that would never call for or cause anyone to get tzara’at, because that would mean that we fundamentally respect one another and look out for our fellow Jew and fellow human being in a manner befitting what should be our God-like natures.

Respecting Others' (Jewish) Decisions

Parshat Tazria Metzora

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The primary topic of our double parsha focuses on the affliction of tzaraat, its diagnosis and prognosis. The attention is primarily on the kohen, who is given detailed instructions for how to detect what is or is not tzaraat. He is also given tremendous autonomy in deciding whether the mark he is examining is tzaraat.

Interestingly, there is no mashgiach monitoring to see that what the kohen declares is "correct." He makes the call.

One can argue that even the Torah hints to the kohen's autonomy when it tells us how the kohen examines the tzaraat mark. 14 times the Torah says "V'ra'ah hakohen" - and the kohen sees it, yet only 5 times it says, "V'ra'ahu hakohen," and the kohen looks at it/him. The suffix "hu" added to the "V'ra'ah" leaves open the suggestion that the kohen not only examines the mark, but he also examines the person.

What is the circumstance? Has the person already learned the requisite lesson? Can the person afford to be away from home for a week? For an additional week?

Perhaps the kohen is allowed to make a diagnosis in this fashion due to the unique nature of the spiritual malady. Tzaraat is not like strep throat, where you either have it or you do not. (My mother often compares being honest to being pregnant – you either are or you are not.) Despite any markings on the flesh, you only have tzaraat if the kohen says you have it. And perhaps that determination is made based on factors beyond the textbook definition of a "nega" – a mark that looks like it might be tzaraat.

In this period of Sefirat Ha'Omer, when many people take upon themselves the custom of certain mourning practices in memory of the students of Rabbi Akiva, the feeling in the air often boils down to the question: are we guilty of the same arrogant behavior which the Talmud ascribes to his ill-fated students (Yevamot 62b)?

Let us take the Kohen case as an example. Imagine there were a Temple in Jerusalem, and people were afflicted with tzaraat symptoms and needed a kohen diagnosis to determine the status of the flesh marks in question.

How many kohanim, who are declared by God to be fit, on account of their DNA, to serve as kohanim, will now be called unfit by those who view themselves as 'holier than thou?' Of course every individual has the right to go to whichever kohen one prefers. But would people start ranking kohanim based on perceived levels of frumkeit? Would we call into question the decision of the kohen, claiming we know better what is and what is not tzaraat?

Ironically what we think or even what we know does not matter when it comes to tzaraat. The call belongs to the kohen alone, without the input of a non-kohen. How many of us recall stories of a bygone era, when our grandparents or great-grandparents would take a chicken, bring it to the shochet (slaughterer) and then to the rabbi to see if it was slaughtered correctly? After all, it is the shechita that makes the bird kosher (fit to eat) – not its merely being a chicken.

And how many of us can recount stories of a rabbi who looked not at the chicken but at the poor woman, sometimes a widow, who the rabbi knew could not afford to lose this chicken, and he declared with tears in his eyes that the chicken was kosher?

What would some of our brethren say today about such a rabbi? That he wasn't frum enough? That he was an 'am haaretz' (ignorant simpleton)? That he was unfit to be a rabbi?

Or perhaps he knew a lot more about Torah and Chesed, and about being "noheg kavod zeh lazeh" (respecting one another) than Rabbi Akiva's students knew, and than those of us who seek to criticize other Jews all the time know.

No one is perfect. We all klop "al cheit" on Yom Kippur. But it is time for all factions of the Jewish people to respect the fact that we are different and have different ways of serving God. Some are committed to Halakha, some are not.

Among those who are committed to halakha, some choose to follow a straightforward understanding, or even a liberal understanding of halakha – with basis in what is written in the Shulchan Arukh and its commentaries. Others choose to be more stringent for themselves, based on more stringent commentaries and poskim. Both approaches are admirable for the individuals who choose these routes for themselves.

The problem arises when people try to dictate for others how they should live. Every Jew who is a member of a shul, or who has a rabbi s/he turns to for halakhic guidance, demonstrates an acceptable halakhic authority figure that serves as the spot where the buck so-to-speak stops.

Just as the kohen did not need a mashgiach looking over his shoulders, our communities need to find a way to stop looking over others' shoulders or scaring people to submit to things they don't believe in because they must look over their shoulders to see who is watching.

Live and let live. Mind your own business. Grow in your Jewish experience, and let others grow in theirs' at a pace that works for them.

Human Development in Two Worlds

Parshat Tazria Metzora

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 Due to their not (yet) having been translated by the Jewish publishing houses much of the midrashic library is a treasure-trove of untouched gemstone mines. It is particularly fertile ground for rabbis to utilize in homiletical discourses, because not all Midrash is meant to be understood literally. Frankly, much of midrash can not be understood literally – an essential point to bear in mind before exploring any midrashic passage.

 It is fascinating to read through certain midrashim – and without the crutch of a translation, because it leaves the midrash open to interpretation, as well as the derivation of either important lessons, important messages, or both.

Parshat Tazria opens with laws and practices surrounding giving birth and the aftermath of boy or girl's arrival, vis-à-vis the baby's mother's responsibilities.

The Yalkut Shimoni on Tazria 547 recounts a debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in which they differ over how the fetus develops versus how a parallel development takes place in the World to Come. 

Beit Shammai says "In this world, the flesh and skin develops first, followed by the sinews and bones. In the World to Come, the sinews and bones develop first, and the completion is the development of skin and flesh." He proves this analysis from Yechezkel's depiction of the Dry Bones coming to life (37:8).

On the other hand, Beit Hillel thinks the two developments pan out in the same ways. "In this world the skin and flesh develops first, and [the body] is completed with the sinews and bones. In the future as well, development will begin with skin and flesh and will be completed with the sinews and bones." He proves his analysis from a comment made by Iyov in Iyov 10:9-11.

What are they talking about?

Unlike questions of a "halakhic" nature, I don't believe the conclusion to this difference of opinion is particularly important. But the debate does give us pause to consider how people develop – not only physically, but spiritually. Bones and cartilage certainly begin developing in the fetus two months into a pregnancy, long after the (somewhat) human shape has formed its skin. This is a fact that everyone – even Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel – can take for granted and cannot argue otherwise.

 Aside from the physical reality, the message of human development would seem to suggest that the vessel is created first, and then the human has the opportunity to develop what shape or form the vessel will take. Please read the following descriptive words with their multiple meanings intended: will the person be tall and straight or bent and crooked? Will the mind be full or empty? Will the vessel be growth-oriented to reach great potential or will it be sedentary and take the shape of the couch it sits on its entire life? These are questions we can all appreciate.

But what about the end of life? What will be in future, or in the World to Come? Many rabbinic figures of the past have weighed in on what the World to Come means and what it will be like for all of us on some "other side." I am not interested in entering that conversation, because I am comfortable saying "I honestly have no idea." But Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, in this minor debate, shared with us what their opinions are.

If some version of the World to Come refers to a resurrection of the dead, with former bodies somehow being reformed from DNA, then their debate in the physical realm of how bodies will be recreated speaks for itself.

But if the reality they speak of is a spiritual development, I think there is no harm in suggesting that the two approaches will both be influenced by how a person leads and lives life in this world.

 According to Beit Shammai, the bones and sinews will develop first. This would indicate that the form or shape that a person created in life will inform the person's reformulation in the World to Come.

In Beit Hillel's approach, on the other hand, one's "rebirth" is exactly as was one's original birth. In other words, one gets a new slate, just as each person had the first time around.

 There is no question that both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai would advocate living life to one's full potential – an honest, ethical, and morally upright existence. Their sons and daughters married one another because they respected each other greatly (Yevamot 14b). In a different realm, they also discussed the merits of living versus never having been born and concluded that now that we are born, we must constantly review, and presumably improve, our deeds (Eruvin 13b). But both approaches to the World to Come provide insight as to the long term merits of one's ethical existence.

Beit Shammai would seem to leave little room for error, while Beit Hillel would seem to leave open the possibility that no one is perfect, and every one of us will have the chance to try again to "get it right" in a world-to-come existence.

May we merit to get it right the first time, with no regrets.

Never Again? Not Again

This second week after Pesach always carries with it a cycle of emotions. Between the return to post-Pesach reality and the thought that the kids have “only” two months of school until summer, we note the continued passage of time. We are hit with Yom HaShoah, which comes with the realization that as grateful as we are for all the survivors who are still with us, their numbers dwindle with every passing year. And then, this weekend is the preview to the celebrations surrounding the independence of the State of Israel and Yom Ha’atzmaut.

It’s real life, it’s thoughts of future plans, reflection on past tragedies and great moments, with concern for where we are headed, all rolled into one brief time span.

In the echoes of the “never agains,” one merely needs to read a few headlines to see how bad things are in Europe. No, it won’t likely lead to another Holocaust, but what will be the end of the story?

We can be so proud of our people and our resolve, and the wonderful army we have in Israel. But what can we make of how even the United States – which has always supported Israel – is treating Israel and its citizens like pariahs and piranhas?

Perhaps there is an allusion to these questions in our parsha.

In discussing some of the laws of tzara’at, the Torah says (14:34), “When you come to the land of Canaan, which I am giving to you as an inheritance, I will place the mark of tzara’at in houses in the land you inherit.”

On a simple level, this verse seems to imply that houses will become afflicted with the spiritual disease merely upon the arrival of the people. More likely, the verse refers to the idea that once everyone is settled, there will come a time when individuals will notice this strange affliction on the home.

We ought to recall that the Talmud lists a number of causes for the affliction of tzara’at, including l’shon hara (gossip), murder, immorality, illicit oaths, arrogance, theft and stinginess (Erakhin 16a).

Regardless of the cause or effect, and what the outcome will be, before anything is declared by the kohen, before any decisions are rendered, the individual must go home and take action. He must remove everything from the home, lest the items become “tameh” along with the house in the event the house is indeed declared contaminated.

And so, I feel, it is with us. Except that the outside world is playing the role of the kohen, and they have it backwards.

The kohen is supposed to examine, reexamine, and bend over backwards to try his best not to declare the item in question tzara’at.

Please do not misunderstand. The blotch is a divine warning to the person. G-d is saying, “I have my eye on you.” And hopefully the person catches the hint and repairs his ways before he must suffer the degradation and humiliation of real tzara’at.

But the nations of the world that hold Israel to ridiculous standards (only because Israel will actually pay attention, for example, to the president of the United States), typically pass judgment before looking at the reality or the facts on the ground. Boycotts and violent crimes only stem from ignorance – though anti-Semites will claim their victims are guilty of the tzara’at-inducing crimes enumerated by the Talmud.

And it is not too far-fetched to say these things are happening because, “you have come to the land of Canaan,” and “have the audacity to presume you are there to stay forever.”

So what is our task?

I believe it is twofold.

Firstly, the Jewish people must live virtuous lives, because that is what G-d commands of us. A virtuous life could never yield even a warning blotch on a wall, let alone a genuine tzara’at affliction. If we all lived virtuous lives, how could any statements made against us be viewed as anything but pure, unadulterated gossip and slander?

Secondly, the kohen advised to take action, to avoid all of one’s belongings possibly becoming tameh. It is our job to take whatever steps we can to minimize the impact of the tzara’at. Whether this means to call our congressmen or representatives, or to flood the White House with letters and emails, this is a start.

But when we celebrate Israel’s 62nd year and watch the survivors age or disappear, we are the only ones who can assure that, in our lifetime, we continue to say “never again.”