A Thought On Parshas Tazria
A Thought on Parshas Tazria
"...yimol basar arlaso..."
"...his body shall be circumcised..." (12:3)
The Torah commands us to perform the covenant of bris mila here. The ritual of circumcision is well known to us and Jews have observed this commandment for centuries, baruch HaShem.
Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel cites a debate which took place between the Jews and the Christians - a controversy which has likely occurred time and again over the centuries - with regard to what the Torah intends by commanding "circumcision." The priests used to claim that it was a symbolic "softening of the heart." They looked at the term arla as used elsewhere in the Torah and Prophets and believed it to mean a removal of callousness and arrogance. They insisted that it could not mean the literal foreskin, since skin is orr in Hebrew and our verse says basar, which is the substance of the body. Since it could not mean that someone has their substantive body flesh removed (think Merchant of Venice), it must mean a symbolic part of the metaphoric "body", namely the psychological husk around the emotional heart. That was the claim of the Christian scholars.
He refutes their argument by showing that in many Biblical verses, bris mila involves using a flint or sharp instrument and if the Torah only intended it metaphorically, no tool would be needed other than that of a good "musar sefer" to help one learn how to overcome tough midos. (I guess it would have been known as bris mida rather than mila if they were correct!). Clearly, argues Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, bris involves a physical change.
His final argument is that had the Torah intended the circumcision as an emotional change alone, rather than an actual surgery, why would women be exempt? Women too would have to "soften their callous hearts" according to the Christian interpretation.
Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel was then asked to defend his own position, explaining why indeed the Torah only requires this covenant of men. Why are women not given an entrance into the covenant by way of some surgical procedure?
His answer has a mystical undertone to it. He first refers back to their contention that the Torah says basar which implies substantive flesh and not a minor strip of the outer skin.
He begins by asking a riddle: "Two partners share merchandise and one of them pays the taxes on it. Does the second partner have to pay as well?" He explains: according to the Biblical account in Genesis, "woman" was taken or created from the side (tzela) of "man." Every wife, he suggests, is symbolically the missing side of her husband, as Dovid HaMelech proclaims "u'v'tzali samchu v'nesafu" - for with my side they rejoiced and united (Tehillim 35:15). If so, he suggests, like the man who pays a tax to exempt his partner, when a male undergoes the covenant of bris, it is on behalf of the future partnership. The circumcision affects both the man and his missing "side". The woman who will one day be his life partner also enters into the covenant at the moment of bris mila. This is why, he darshans, the word in our verse is basar and not orr. The circumcision of orr actually affects the basar which was taken from man and formed into woman. The bris mila is called a bris basar arlaso because it is a covenant between HaShem and the fusion of man and wife.
Wishing you a good Shabbos bris olam. D Fox
"...yimol basar arlaso..."
"...his body shall be circumcised..." (12:3)
The Torah commands us to perform the covenant of bris mila here. The ritual of circumcision is well known to us and Jews have observed this commandment for centuries, baruch HaShem.
Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel cites a debate which took place between the Jews and the Christians - a controversy which has likely occurred time and again over the centuries - with regard to what the Torah intends by commanding "circumcision." The priests used to claim that it was a symbolic "softening of the heart." They looked at the term arla as used elsewhere in the Torah and Prophets and believed it to mean a removal of callousness and arrogance. They insisted that it could not mean the literal foreskin, since skin is orr in Hebrew and our verse says basar, which is the substance of the body. Since it could not mean that someone has their substantive body flesh removed (think Merchant of Venice), it must mean a symbolic part of the metaphoric "body", namely the psychological husk around the emotional heart. That was the claim of the Christian scholars.
He refutes their argument by showing that in many Biblical verses, bris mila involves using a flint or sharp instrument and if the Torah only intended it metaphorically, no tool would be needed other than that of a good "musar sefer" to help one learn how to overcome tough midos. (I guess it would have been known as bris mida rather than mila if they were correct!). Clearly, argues Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, bris involves a physical change.
His final argument is that had the Torah intended the circumcision as an emotional change alone, rather than an actual surgery, why would women be exempt? Women too would have to "soften their callous hearts" according to the Christian interpretation.
Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel was then asked to defend his own position, explaining why indeed the Torah only requires this covenant of men. Why are women not given an entrance into the covenant by way of some surgical procedure?
His answer has a mystical undertone to it. He first refers back to their contention that the Torah says basar which implies substantive flesh and not a minor strip of the outer skin.
He begins by asking a riddle: "Two partners share merchandise and one of them pays the taxes on it. Does the second partner have to pay as well?" He explains: according to the Biblical account in Genesis, "woman" was taken or created from the side (tzela) of "man." Every wife, he suggests, is symbolically the missing side of her husband, as Dovid HaMelech proclaims "u'v'tzali samchu v'nesafu" - for with my side they rejoiced and united (Tehillim 35:15). If so, he suggests, like the man who pays a tax to exempt his partner, when a male undergoes the covenant of bris, it is on behalf of the future partnership. The circumcision affects both the man and his missing "side". The woman who will one day be his life partner also enters into the covenant at the moment of bris mila. This is why, he darshans, the word in our verse is basar and not orr. The circumcision of orr actually affects the basar which was taken from man and formed into woman. The bris mila is called a bris basar arlaso because it is a covenant between HaShem and the fusion of man and wife.
Wishing you a good Shabbos bris olam. D Fox
posted by Rabbi Dr. Fox at 9:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home