Tazria-Metzora

Between the Haftarah of Tazria, the Haftarah of Metzora and at least one of the cases of metzora described in the parsha, an interesting and unexpected theme arises. The story of the tzaraas of Na'aman, the story of the four metzoraim during the time of Elisha, and the laws regarding tzaraas of a house all have happy and positive results. One would think that the physical affliction of tzaraas caused by spiritual flaws would be an affliction of great punishment absent positive results. Additionally, it is not merely a 'happily ever after' result that one achieves after struggling through the affliction. Rather, the affliction itself produces positive results, results that occur within the affliction rather than as a result of it.

The tzaraas that afflicts Na'aman is what changes his life and leads to his conversion to Judaism. Na'aman's initial interaction with Elisha ends with his angry departure. Elisha does not even go out to greet Na'aman. Instead he sends a messenger to inform Na'aman that a dip in the Yarden river is the remedy for his illness. Na'aman is insulted at both Elisha's insolence in not greeting the Commander in person as well as his audacity in presuming that the rivers in Israel are more purifying and healing than the rivers of his homeland. It is only at the urging of his soldiers that Na'aman agrees to comply with Elisha's recommendation. After immediately healing, Na'aman's ego is checked, he returns to Elisha a new man, committed to a new life of avodas Hashem. Abiding by the laws of dealing with tzaraas told to him by Elisha, Na'aman is changed.

The tzaraas afflicting the four metzoraim changes their personality as well, leading to personal and communal salvation even while not delivering a cure for the particular affliction of tzaraas. The four metzoraim are exiled from their community - as the halacha requires. It is this exact exile that leads them to the camp of the enemy, ultimately delivering the previously prophesied salvation to Bnei Yisrael. It is not the healing of the affliction and the subsequent results that lead to salvation. Rather, it is within the affliction itself and the observance of the specific laws applied to it that the four metzoraim have a change of heart from selfishness to one of community, concern, and caring for all of Bnei Yisrael.

Lastly, the laws of a house afflicted with tzaraas requires the walls to be destroyed. Bothered by the word venasan which emphasizes a placement of the affliction rather than a mere occurrence, Rashi explains that the tzaraas is actually a gift from Hashem. The previous dwellers in Eretz Yisrael had been hiding their jewels and riches in the walls of their homes so that Bnei Yisrael will not find them upon entry into the Land. The affliction of tzaraas required Bnei Yisrael to break the walls, thereby finding the riches. Again, through the affliction itself and observance of the respective laws, a positive outcome ultimately occurs.

Why does this terrible physical affliction, caused by violating a severe sin - lashon hara - carry within it such positive consequences?

There are three unique laws of tzaraas. The first is the requirement to go to the Kohain. Tzaraas cannot be diagnosed or declared by anyone other than the Kohain. If a talmid chacham is afflicted with tzaraas and the Kohain is ignorant of the laws of tzaraas then the Kohain will need to go to the talmid chacham to learn the laws. Even so, the talmid chacham cannot declare the purity or impurity of the affliction. Only the Kohain can. Tzaraas requires one to recognize that he is not in control of everything. No matter how sure he is of the halachic status of the affliction, it is only the Kohain who can declare it pure or impure. He is not in control of his destiny in this regard. When a person feels that they can control everything they begin to have more anxiety. If things don't proceed as planned then one feels anxiety due to a presumption that he could do something about it. But once one realizes that Hashem is in control then the anxiety is relieved. He must do all he can to deliver the desired results. Nonetheless, the ultimate decision of the outcome is not in his hands but rather in the hands of Hashem. The affliction of tzaraas forces a person to relinquish control. It is within the observance of the laws themselves that one achieves a better state of being, improving his outlook on life as well as his physical health by removing anxiety.

This is what happened to Na'aman. Na'aman's initial interaction with Elisha is insulting. His ego has determined that Elisha should come out, 'wave his arms' and force a cure. After all, he is the commander of the most powerful army in the region. If he demands a cure from the Hebrew prophet then it will happen. Na'aman's first lesson was that he needed to humble himself and realize that his method of procuring a cure was not to be the one implemented. He needed to become subservient to Elisha's command and adhere to his instructions to assure the efficacy of the cure. Na'aman's realization that he was not in control is what changed his life. Observance of Elisha's command enabled him to return to Elisha begging his forgiveness and payment and, ultimately, becoming subservient to Hashem upon conversion.

The second unique law is the requirement for the metzora to dwell alone - badad yeisheiv. The metzora is commanded to live alone, apart from the community. This is not a state of loneliness but rather one of alone-ness. The metzora must realize that there is a community to which he belongs and one which he should strive to rejoin. The metzora is not left alone. Instead, each week he meets with the Kohain to check on his status. He must dwell alone but he is not alone. This alone-ness affords the metzora time for introspection. His life has become one of negative perception. Upset or disappointed with other individuals, he speaks ill of them, unconcerned with their feelings or the consequences of such actions upon their lives. His focus has become the action of others rather than his own actions. Introspection allows a person to analyze his actions and, thereby, develop an appreciation for the actions of others by realizing his own flaws. Being alone develops a sense of appreciation for community by yearning for it and recognizing its impact upon his own life.

The four metzoraim experienced this phenomenon. Exiled from their land and communities, they are given an opportunity to enrich themselves through the possessions left behind by the surrounding army. No one needs to know of the events that would lead to their sudden wealth. Perhaps they could even bribe their way back into the community by single-handedly ending the existing drought. Indeed, their initial thoughts are to do just that - fill their personal coffers with the riches of the enemy. But their actions are different. Being alone has changed them from selfish individuals to concerned citizens. Their time in exile has had an impact on their personalities. The affliction itself has positively impacted their lives.

The third unique law is that the metzora is declared pure even if he shows the slightest improvement. The affliction need not disappear for the person to be declared pure and allowed to re-enter the community. The lesson is simple: always look for and at the good. Beginning down the path toward the goal is even more important than achieving the goal. Chazal tell us that we merely need to open ourselves to Hashem in the smallest amount - the opening of the eye of a needle - and Hashem will create an opening the size of a large banquet hall. Beginning down the path of good and purity in even the smallest way leads back to Knesset Yisrael and avodas Hashem.

Tzaraas that afflicts a home requires the destruction of the home. Yet, there is a positive element to this destruction: riches well beyond the price of the home. Adherence to the law of tzaraas creates an opportunity for a positive outlook as one continuously seeks even the smallest improvement in his condition, even the slightest positive in his situation. By definition, this creates a positive outlook on life and a confidence for an even better future. The affliction itself delivers the opportunity for self improvement and positivity.

The laws of tzaraas and the episodes told in Tanach teach us that the concept of gam zu l'tovah is not only a belief that eventually everything leads to something good. Beyond that, it teaches us that the concept of gam zu l'tovah is that everything is good in and of itself. Somehow there is something good within a situation and our charge and challenge is to find it and, thereby, continue to better our lives.

Shemini

Many explanations have been given describing the events that led to the tragic deaths of Nadav and Avihu. I would like to focus on the immediate aftermath of these events.

The action that caused the deaths of Nadav and Avihu seems to be a violation of sorts that is non-negotiable. The Torah tells us vayakrivu lifnei Hashem aish zarah asher lo tziva osam - Nadav and Avihu brought a foreign fire into the Holies, one in which they were not commanded. Immediately, the verse continues by saying vatetzai aish milifnei Hashem vatochal osam - a Divine fire consumed them. There was no negotiation over their actions, no rebuke. Rather, the punishment came swiftly and harshly.

Immediately after these tragic deaths, Moshe Rabbeinu commands Aharon and his sons to act in a manner that forgoes a state of mourning and maintains the required level of holiness necessary for the Miluim celebration. Part of that command includes the requirement to eat of the sacrifices even though the normal halacha prohibits those in the onen stage of mourning from eating of the sacrifices.  However, this command was violated by the remaining sons of Aharon - Elazar and Itamar. Moshe is angry with them for violating his command. However, Aharon immediately intercedes by explaining his actions. Vayishma Moshe vayitav b'ainav - Moshe hears Aharon's claim and accepts it. Rav Ezra Bick explains that Moshe and Aharon were having a halachic dispute. Moshe had commanded that the normal halacha regarding an onen was to be suspended during the special events of the the Miluim and, therefore, Aharon and his sons needed to eat of the sacrifices. Aharon explains that presumably this command only applies to the sacrifices that were brought specifically in celebration of the Miluim. However, as Chazal explain, the sin-offering that was not eaten in violation of Moshe's command was the sacrifice for Rosh Chodesh. After all, the eighth day of the Miluim - when these events were happening - was also Rosh Chodesh Nisan and, therefore, carried with it the standard sacrifices of Rosh Chodesh. Aharon claimed that this sacrifice should not be included in the pardon from the standard laws regarding an onen. That is why this sacrifice was not eaten. After this halachic debate, Moshe agrees.

There is an obvious parallel to the story of Nadav and Avihu. The episode of Korach's rebellion uses much of the same language seen in the episode of Nadav and Avihu: ish machtaso; vayasimu alaihen ketores; Divine fire devouring sinners, etc. However, there is an interesting difference between the two episodes. The episode of Nadav and Avihu begins with a non-negotiable act and resulting punishment, followed by a halachic debate, whereas the episode of Korach begins with a halachic debate and is then followed by a non-negotiable act and punishment. Korach's initial approach to Moshe is a question about wearing the required techeiles strings on a garment that is completely techeiles. We might even suggest that his argument about all of Bnei Yisrael being holy and, therefore, questioning the special position of Aharon is also a halchic debate in its attempt to understand the halachic differences in Avodas Hashem. Moshe responds by conversing with Korach and explaining that there are multiple paths to avodas Hashem and that his tribe of Leviim were given special status as well. Moshe even gives Korach and his cohorts the night to further explore the matter in the hopes that they will reach a proper conclusion (boker, veyoda). It is only after Korach spends the night going from tent to tent trying to convince the people to join his revolt that Moshe demands non-negotiable restitution for Korach's obvious acts of rebellion.

What is the difference between these episodes and why is the punishment so severe while the violation of Moshe's command perpetrated by Elazar and Itamar is easily explained away?

The Talmud tells us that there are three crowns: the crown of malchus/royalty, the crown of Kehuna/priesthood, and the crown of Torah. The crowns of royalty and priesthood are inherited, passed from father to son. The crown of Torah is available to all. In contrast to the specific, clear boundaries determining who can sit in the throne and who can perform the services in the Beis HaMikdash, the crown of Torah has no boundaries. Attainment of the crown of Torah is not confined to any specific class, family, or community. It does not require wealth or status. The crown of Torah is available for any and all to attain. Anyone and everyone is welcome to wear the crown of Torah and with relentless effort and commitment anyone can add more and more jewels to it.

The episode of Nadav and Avihu is certainly teaching us the idea that there are boundaries in Yahadus and they must be adhered to. Certain boundaries are inviolable and non-negotiable. Vehazar hakareiv yumas - a non-Kohen who performs the priestly service in the Bais HaMikdash is subject to the death penalty. It is a non-negotiable and carries with it swift and harsh punishment. An attempt to usurp the throne carries similar consequences. The Ramban in parshas Vayechi explains that illegal usurping of the throne by the family of Chashmonaim is the reason why the Chashmonai family was completely wiped out. The crowns of royalty and priesthood have inviolable boundaries.

The crown of Torah does not have these boundaries and is available to all. Nadav and Avihu attempted to perform a service in the Holies that was not theirs to perform. The consequences came swiftly. The violation of Moshe's command by Elazar and Itamar was a halchic dispute. Aharon has the same right to attain the crown of Torah as Moshe Rabbeinu. Aharon merely wanted to understand the halchic details of Moshe's command. This halachic dialogue is welcome and encouraged as it refines the Torah and beautifies its crown. Moshe's initial anger is based on an assumption that Elazar and Itamar are violating a non-negotiable boundary in a similar manner as was done by Nadav and Avihu. Aharon immediately intercedes and explains that there is a halachic dispute that needs to be resolved, not a rebellion that needs to be suppressed.

Moshe's initial reaction to Korach is based on an assumption that Korach remembered the lesson of Nadav and Avihu and, therefore, was merely presenting a halachic inquiry to Moshe. Moshe responds in kind with a patient explanation of decisions. After all, Korach is merely pursuing a greater portion in the crown of Torah to which he is entitled. It is only after Moshe recognizes that Korach's discussion was not founded on Torah but predicated on rebellion. This is no longer negotiable.

One of the essential lessons of the episode of Nadav and Avihu is the concept that there are boundaries in Yahadus. In addition, an essential lesson of the aftermath of the episode, the actions and discussion of Moshe, Aharon, Elazar and Itamar is that the attainment of the crown of Torah is available to all. There are no restrictions determining who can and who cannot achieve the greatest levels of Torah scholarship. Both lessons, performed simultaneously, constantly, and consistently, are essential ingredients to proper Avodas Hashem.