a Thought on Parshios Achrei Mos - Kedoshim

"...lo telech rachil..." "...don't go around gossiping..." (19:16) Many commentaries have focused on the word "rachil" which is used by the Torah here to refer to one who spreads gossip. We usually think of this word as a term for a perfumer or spice merchant. In context it refers to one who spreads gossip, so the commentaries take varying approaches to finding the link between these two types of people. The Gan endorses Rashi's view that both the gossipmonger and the perfumer enter into people's private lives and form a superficial sense of who their customer or victim is, then they move on and share what they have concluded. The Torah here means to say, then, that going around sharing your impression about someone else is bound to taint others' views of that person. We need to refrain from such conduct. We should not be sly, spying slanderers. The Gan, however, offers another view, quoting Rabbeinu Shimshon from Falaise, who offers support for the word rachil meaning "to thunder" or "to blast out". This view compares one who spreads slander and gossip to one who makes a lot of noise so as to envelop his victim with "the big lie." By making dramatic allegations and widespread defamation, "defamatory information blasts", the public cannot help but assume that he has his facts right. People may doubt or question the bearer of a little slander but if he makes a massive campaign to disgrace others, spreading "big slander", there is always the gullibility fill that reacts to his credibility gap. He thunders his accusations in a way that floods others with falsehoods which are bound to taint their opinions. His confidence when disgracing others leaves no doubt in the minds of his audience that he must be telling the truth. According to Rashi, the prohibition here is to spread information that may be based on speculation and conjecture, just as a hint of perfume or a trace of fragrance lingers after the substance is gone. According to Rabbeinu Shimshon, the prohibition is to take vigilante action in order to destroy someone through creative distortions and fabricated untruths. The former whispers his secrets; the latter thunders out against his victims. The Gan closes with a third interpretation, that rachil can refer to someone who, like the spice merchants, leaves tiny tastes of his wares with his customers so that they can sample the possibilities. He knows that when he next returns, something or other will have lingered in the minds of each customer so that he wants to procure more of the stuff. By analogy, this gossipmonger plants his words or his gestures so that each person is now curious and desires more substance. The deceitful luring of his "customers" will eventuate in their believing that what they have heard is real, that they know the facts, and that the "rachil" must have even more evidence to share. Lo telech rachil! Watch out for those who shame and ridicule those whom we look up to and trust. Ask questions, if you wish, upon sniffing the foul fragrance that is cast by the accuser. But consider the source, in contrast with what you already know and respect about his newly targeted victims. Fear of HaShem and adherence to Torah leaves one with a discerning sense for what is the aroma of truth, and what is malodorous. Those who have eared a chezkas kashrus - a respectable name - should not have their kashrus stained by those who have earned a chezkas tarfus through their ribald treachery, defamation, slander, and sensationalism. And, as our verse closes - lo ta'amod al dam rea'acha - we must not stand passively when good people are being slaughtered. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A thought on Parshas Tazria Metzora

"...v'chiper al ha'mitaher..." (14:19) "...and he shall provide atonement for the one who is purifying..." In the Torah's guidelines for purifying the person with negaiim - body afflictions which signified a form of plague - there are some "finishing touches" which involve sacrificial offerings. The Torah illustrates this process which, as our verse says, culminates in making this contaminated individual pure again. The difficult word in the Torah, for us, is "v'kiper". We know that kappara is atonement. It can also mean to clear away or expunge. We might tend to understand it as a synonym, in context, for cleansing or purifying, particularly because our verse says that "this kappara will happen to the one who is being purified." Virtually all commentaries and earlier sources understand that the word as used in our verse has nothing to do with atonement. Atonement is generally defined as a process whereby a person can be expiated or forgiven his sin or misdeed through the experience of suffering, or relinquishing something valuable or personal. That suffering or atonement in turn serves as a means of appeasing or reconciling with whomever or against Whom one had transgressed. What is the nature of the kappara mentioned in our passage? Is it purifying, cleansing or atoning? The Gan is emphatic: in context, the ritual process of the person with negaiim is not for atonement. He writes that literal atonement has no place at that stage in the person's life: he has already suffered therefore he has already atoned. Even though our perspective is that a negaa befell a person as a consequence of his having sinned, the negaa itself brings distress, discomfort and public humiliation. That is all considered kappara. When one suffers, even when his suffering is the result of his own misdeeds, that suffering serves to help him recognize that he has gone astray, and ideally he will recognize through self-scrutiny where and how he erred. By bringing a person to that introspection and humbling awareness, he has now attained kappara. Suffering constitutes atonement. This, writes the Gan, is the most compelling reason that we must understand the kappara of our verse as taking on a very different meaning. The ritual steps which the Kohanim take in addressing the person with a negaa cannot atone for him. The Kohanim are doing the work, not the sufferer. The "kappara" can only mean the cleansing or clearing the record of the repentant sufferer who has paid his dues and, through the sacrificial closure, is ready to move on. Good Shabbos. D Fox The Gan was written by 13th century Rabbeinu Aharon ben Yosi haCohen, Baal Tosfos More pirushim presented by Rabbi Dr. Dovid Fox at http://thoughtonparsha.blogspot.com/

A Thought on Parshas Shmini

"...v'al kol ha'aida Yiktzof v'achecheim kol Bais Yisroel yivku es ha'sraifa..." "...lest He exact wrath over the nation, and all of the Jews will cry over the burning..." (10:6) Aharon HaKohen posed a dilemma to Moshe Rabbeinu. There appeared to be a clashing of obligations following the death of his sons Nadav and Avihu, which was during the time of bringing offerings to consecrate the Mishkan. On the one hand, grieving was in order - two Kohanim had perished, in a tragic and traumatic manner. Surely this triggered deep hurt for which the only outlet was mourning. Yet, there were sacrificial offerings which needed to be brought. That requires an undistracted and pure focus, something which cannot happen when mind and heart are occupied with the sadness of sudden bereavement. True, one of those two priorities was a Heavenly one, for HaShem must be served at all times, and served properly; the second of those two priorities was a human one, that of managing one's internal reaction. We can understand that at times one's personal needs are set aside in order to address higher spiritual responsibilities. So, the choice seemed to be "shall we bring the offerings as if nothing else is troubling us, or should we refrain from offerings, even at this auspicious point in time, in view of the pain which we feel?" The Gan interprets the exchange between the exalted brothers, Moshe and Aharon, in view of the above dialectic. In our verse, the words "HaShem will exact wrath on the entire people", mean that "if we go ahead and offer sacrifices according to the Divine order, we are bound to fail, for our grief will cause us internal distraction, tainting the purity of our kavanoh, which will bar the offerings from being received and accepted Above with ratzon. We will fall short of the necessary kavanos and will not succeed in bringing Divine favor to the entire nation". Still, the time for those offerings has come, and is here now, and our responsibility is to bring them. Yet, to do so with undistracted spiritual focus would be a disgrace to the memories of Nadav and Avihu, whose passing, under any and all circumstances, cannot be ignored and must be marked by proper grieving. Are we at a standstill?" The second part of our verse, "and all of your Jewish brethren will cry over the tragedy" was Moshe Rabbeinu's solution. The challenge of how to bring offerings with absolute kavanoh and to concurrently mourn the loss of the two Kohanim was dissected into two elements of avodas HaShem . The avoda challenge for the surviving Kohanim was to go ahead, in this moment of unparalleled magnificence in inaugurating the Mishkan, with an intense unequivocal focus on bringing the offerings. That was the sole key to assuring that these offerings would be accepted b'ratzon. Meanwhile, the avoda of the nation was firstly, to consign all of that spiritual/ritual process to the Kohanim as of that moment, and secondly, for themselves, to take on the challenge of feeling grief over the lost Kohanim. The Kohanim would take charge of the spiritual rites, and the nation would take charge of the mourning processes. It is almost like something a friend of mine told me at my chasuna long ago. He had just returned from years of learning in Israel and was very sad about saying goodbye to the Holy Land. He said that he was unable to hold back his tears upon seeing the glass break, because it made him think of Jerusalem. For me and most of the guests, the avoda challenge was to focus on the simcha of the wedding despite the breaking of the glass. For him, it seemed like his avoda was to tune out the joy of the moment and sort of become the "designated mourner" of churban Yerushalayim. The Gan closes our parsha with a thought on the words (11:44) "and you shall be holy because I am Holy." Many interpretations have been offered to grasp the analogy between our "holiness" and HaShem's Holiness. The Gan takes a different view: the lesson here is not in analogy; it is much more basic. "It is fitting that the Holy One should have servants who are holy." HaShem's Holiness is defined by His being a separate Reality, accentuated by His being another dimension of Being, far removed from all things material, corporeal and worldly. This is also the role that HaShem demands of His people. We too must live a separate existence, far removed from immorality, greed, lust and dishonesty. We sanctify ourselves by consecrating our lives to good. As His servants, we too aim for holiness. The message of the verse is "I am Holy so you can only be My servants by living according to holy practices and standards". Wishing you a good and holy Shabbos. D Fox The Gan was written by 13th century Rabbeinu Aharon ben Yosi haCohen, Baal Tosfos More pirushim presented by Rabbi Dr. Dovid Fox at http://thoughtonparsha.blogspot.com/