Dwelling Outside the Camp

Tazria

Lev. 12:1-13:59

Précis: Tazria begins with laws concerning the need for ritual purification of women following the birth of children, and the laws of what is usually referred to as “leprosy” of the skin and on garments (although this translation is most certainly erroneous; it appears to refer to an affliction which renders the person, garment, or home ritually impure).

Lev.13:45 “As for the person with a scaly affliction, his clothes shall be rent, his hair shall be left bare, and he shall cover his upper lip; and he shall call out ‘Impure! Impure!” He shall be unclean as long as the disease is upon him. Being unclean, he shall dwell apart; his dwelling shall be outside the camp.”

This parasha is so often the bane of the bar or bat mitzvah student who is preparing a lesson for the congregation. With its emphasis on what is usually (and erroneously) described as “leprosy” it is not an easy subject for an adult, let alone a 13 year old. One way to help these students is to focus on the phrase “his dwelling shall be outside the camp.”

            According to the text, an individual struck with this mysterious illness is forced from the community and isolated. This certainly seems at odds with traditional Jewish mitzvot to help those in need, particularly those who are ill.

            But the parasha also includes ritual details about how to restore that stricken individual to the community. Here, then, is the lesson for the bar or bat mitzvah student (and for us):

            Today, many who are stricken with serious illness may feel isolated and alone, even if we try to be kind and to help. Think of the tragedy of Alzheimer’s on the stricken family. Even if friends and family try to help, those efforts of assistance often fade over the years of struggle, even as the symptoms worsen and the burden on care-givers increases. In a very real sense, the “survivors” all too often find themselves “outside of the camp” at a time when their need for belonging to a larger community is at its greatest.

            The rituals for “healing” described in this parasha provide a way to restore an individual to the community. We need to find ways of engagement so that those who have been “excluded” through our own inaction are restored to our communities. 

Fair or Fowl?

Shmini

Lev. 9:1-11:47

Précis:  On the final day of the week-long ordination ceremony Moses instructs Aaron and his sons on the proper rituals. Aaron makes his offering. Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu offer “strange” fire before God. They are slain. Moses tells Aaron that he must not engage in the normal mourning rituals. The Priests are prohibited from drinking alcohol while they are engaged in their sacred duties. Next, God tells Moses and Aaron to instruct the people about the animals they are permitted to eat (part of the laws of kashrut). A general warning to guard against defilement and to be concerned about ritual purity is given.

Lev. 11:13 “And these you shall abhor among the birds; they shall not be eaten, and they are a detestable thing: the great vulture, and the bearded vulture, and the osprey...”

            I’ve mentioned this historical fact before in connection with the American holiday of Thanksgiving, but it’s worth another visit. As we all know, only certain animals are “kosher.” Animals that have a cloven hoof and chew the cud are kosher; fish are kosher if they have fins and scales.

            When it comes to birds, things are a bit trickier. Instead of general rules (as with animals and fish), we have specific listings of particular species which are acceptable. Trying to define fowl “characteristics” which render them kosher or “treif” has been an important question for the rabbis to consider, particularly since the translation of some of the birds listed in the Torah is uncertain.

            According to Maimonides, the most important distinguishing characteristic for birds is their “character” as demonstrated by their behavior, particularly their cruelty. Hence, carrion eaters and birds of prey are not kosher.

            There are two interesting examples of rabbinic examination in defining that status of certain birds. Rashi notes that the white stork (“chasidah”) merits its name (associated with the Hebrew root of “chesed” or loving-kindness) because it shows kindness to its friends by sharing food. So why is it not kosher? According to other sources, because the white stork only shares with friends, and not with birds out of its immediate circle, it differentiates between the recipients of its acts of kindness, and is thus acting cruelly. The real act of kindness is when it is done for the stranger. I might conclude this d’var on that important note, but can’t resist another interesting example.

            When Cortez arrived in South America, he found not only Incas and gold, but he also found domesticated turkeys. These were taken back to Europe, where they quickly became quite popular because they were very easy to breed, grew quickly, and produced more flesh than chickens. (Footnote: the Pilgrims brought these domestic turkeys with them back to Plymouth Rock, introducing them to North America just in time for the first Thanksgiving.) When Eastern European Jews began to consume turkey as well, some rabbis expressed reluctance to add any new birds to their “permitted” list, since they were outside of the accepted ancient tradition (“mesorah”). But the majority of rabbinic authorities soon declared that turkeys were indeed “kosher.” Some suggested this was the case because turkeys were similar in many ways to accepted kosher birds. But another rationale was very significant: because so many Jews were already eating turkey, the rabbinic authorities did not want to suggest that large number of Jews were sinful. And so they accepted this custom (minhag) across European communities.

            This last point is the second important note in this analysis. Rabbinic decisions and interpretations are never made in a vacuum. While they must always rely upon precedent, they must also take into account the facts of life.