<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>***********************************************************<BR> THE
TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]<BR> In Memory
of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> for PARSHAT
KI-TETZEH [& CHODESH ELUL!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> There are two psukim in
this week's Sedra that can be<BR>understood in many different ways, yet no
matter how we<BR>interpret them, their underlying message is
especially<BR>important for the month of Elul (and the rest of the year
as<BR>well). In the following shiur, we take a break from our<BR>thematic
study of Sefer Devarim, to delve into the world of<BR>'parshanut' [Biblical
commentary].</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>INTRODUCTION<BR> Although
most of the laws in Parshat Ki-Tetzeh deal with<BR>'mitzvot bein adam
le-chavero' [man and his fellow man], one<BR>exception calls our
attention:<BR> "Be very careful with regard to [the laws concerning]
a<BR> 'nega tzara'at' (a type of skin infection) - do exactly<BR> as
the levitical priests instruct you" (24:8).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This sort of warning - to observe the laws
of 'tzara'at'<BR>[leprosy] - is certainly an anomaly in Sefer Devarim.<BR>
First of all, the laws of leprosy were first presented in<BR>Sefer Vayikra (see
chapters 13 &14) together with numerous<BR>other laws of 'tum'a' &
'tahara' [spiritual uncleanliness].<BR>However, Sefer Devarim does not remind us
concerning any of<BR>those laws (nor any other laws from the first 18 chapters
of<BR>Sefer Vayikra), other than this lone mention to keep the laws<BR>of
tzara'at.<BR> Secondly, most all of the other laws in Parshat Ki
Tetzeh<BR>deal with 'bein adam la-Makom' [matters between man and God],<BR>while
this warning seems to be quite different.<BR> Finally, this pasuk doesn't
appear to teach us anything new.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Therefore, when studying
this pasuk, we must consider<BR>these three issues: i.e. 1) Why do we find
here a mitzva bein<BR>adam la-Makom? 2) What specific law is being added
that has<BR>not already appeared in Sefer Vayikra? 3) Why does
Sefer<BR>Devarim introduce, uncharacteristically, a law from the first<BR>half
of Sefer Vayikra?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>LEPROSY & MIRIAM
[Rashi]<BR> The simplest answer to the above questions
is based on<BR>its connection to the next pasuk:<BR> "Remember what God
did to Miriam, on your journey when<BR> you left the land of Egypt"
(24:9).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This pasuk clearly refers
to the incident recorded in<BR>Parshat Beha'alotcha, when Miriam contracts
tzara'at following<BR>her complaints regarding Moshe's marriage to an 'isha
kushit'<BR>(see Bamidbar 12:1-16).<BR> This juxtaposition of the
commandment to remember how Miriam<BR>was punished with tzara'at for speaking
'lashon ha-ra' [evil<BR>talk] against her brother, leads many commentators to
the<BR>obvious conclusion that the Torah's 'reminder' concerning<BR>tzara'at is
in essence a reminder not to slander. In other<BR>words, by reminding us
not to speak lashon ha-ra immediately<BR>after the warning concerning the laws
of tzara'at, the Torah<BR>seems to enlist the laws of tzara'at as a (polite)
reminder<BR>not to speak lashon ha-ra!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> For example, Rashi's
opening commentary to this pasuk<BR>seems to make exactly this
point:<BR> ["Remember what God did to
Miriam" (24:9):]<BR> "If one wants to be careful not to contract tzara'at
at<BR> all - then don't speak lashon ha-ra [in the first place].<BR>
Remember what happened to Miriam when she spoke against<BR> her
brother..." (see Rashi 24:9).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Not only does this
interpretation reveal the underlying<BR>significance of these laws, it also
answers the questions<BR>raised earlier. The laws of tzara'at are
mentioned in Parshat<BR>Ki Tetzeh specifically because they in fact do relate to
bein<BR>adam le-chavero! It also explains why the pasuk here
includes<BR>only a very general warning concerning tzara'at, to get to
the<BR>point of lashon ha-ra. However, there is no need to repeat<BR>the
technical details of tzara'at, as they have already been<BR>discussed in Sefer
Vayikra.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>DRASH = PSHAT [Ibn
Ezra]<BR> It is worthwhile to note in this context Ibn
Ezra's<BR>comments on this pasuk. Not only does he apparently
agree<BR>with Rashi's interpretation, he even adds a comment that the<BR>pshat
of these psukim in Devarim, supports a midrashic<BR>interpretation in Sefer
Vayikra:<BR> "From here (this pasuk) we find support for the
midrash<BR> (of Vayikra Rabba 16:1): don't read 'MeTZo'RA' -
rather<BR> 'MoTZi shem RA'" (a cute abbreviation).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In other words, Ibn Ezra
(a big 'fan' of pshat) finds<BR>support for the midrash in Sefer Vayikra
concerning the laws<BR>of metzora based on the pshat of the psukim in Sefer
Devarim!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>NOT SO FAST<BR> Despite the
simplicity and beauty of this interpretation,<BR>several serious questions
emerge.<BR> First of all, why doesn't the Torah just
tell us 'don't<BR>speak lashon ha-ra? What is gained by merely inferring
this<BR>conclusion from the story of Miriam and the laws of
tzara'at?<BR> Furthermore, does it make sense for the
Torah to recall a<BR>'bad story' concerning Miriam in order to teach us not to
tell<BR>'bad stories' about other people?!<BR> Finally,
why does the Torah emphasize (in 24:8) that we<BR>must follow the procedures
specifically in accordance with the<BR>kohanim's instructions? If the
message is simply not to speak<BR>lashon ha-ra, the first half of the pasuk
would have sufficed<BR>as ample warning.<BR> Due to
these difficulties, Rashbam & Chizkuni will<BR>explain these two psukim in a
radically different manner. On<BR>the other hand, Rashi and Ramban will
remain 'loyal' to the<BR>lashon ha-ra approach; however, their commentaries
will<BR>reflect how they grappled with these difficulties as well.<BR> [It
is highly recommend that you first study (or at least<BR> read) those
commentaries on your own before continuing.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>DON'T BE YOUR OWN DOCTOR!
[Rashi]<BR> Let's begin with the 'simple' question: If
24:8 simply<BR>serves as a general warning to follow the proper
procedures<BR>regarding tzara'at (as we concluded above), then it would
have<BR>sufficed to say, "Be careful to keep the laws of tzara'at."<BR>What are
we to learn from the second clause: "follow exactly<BR>what the levitical
priests instruct you" (see 24:8)?<BR> Based on this
redundancy, the Gemara in Makkot (22a)<BR>concludes that this pasuk includes
more than just a general<BR>warning; rather it teaches us an additional
law. Rashi cites<BR>the Gemara's explanation that this pasuk forbids an
individual<BR>to surgically remove a tzara'at infection from his skin
(by<BR>himself) before showing it to the kohen.<BR>
Basically, according to this interpretation, this pasuk<BR>teaches us that one
'cannot be his own doctor' with regard to<BR>tzara'at. Instead, he must
show his infection to the kohen<BR>(priest) and obediently follow the kohen's
'diagnosis'.<BR> Here we find a classic example of
midrash halacha.<BR>Chazal derive an additional halacha (which does not
appear<BR>explicitly in the text) from an 'extra' phrase in a pasuk,<BR>based on
the content and context of the otherwise superfluous<BR>expression.<BR>
[It is important to note that this midrash halacha does<BR> not contradict
our earlier conclusion concerning the<BR> connection between tzara'at and
lashon ha-ra; it simply<BR> adds an additional law. Note that Rashi
brings down both<BR> interpretations! See also Further Iyun
section.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Let's continue now with
the more obvious question: i.e.<BR>what does the Torah gain by recalling the
incident with<BR>Miriam? Would it not have been more effective to
simply<BR>admonish in straightforward fashion: 'Don't speak lashon
ha-<BR>ra'?<BR> Most probably for this reason, Rashbam
and Chizkuni's<BR>suggest a very different approach.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!
[Rashbam]<BR> In contrast to the approach of Rashi
& Ibn Ezra (and our<BR>original explanation), that the primary purpose of
these<BR>psukim is to prohibit lashon ha-ra, Rashbam points us in a<BR>totally
different direction. Let's take a look:<BR> "Be careful to keep the
laws of tzara'at: [This comes to<BR> teach us that] even with regard to
[an important person]<BR> like King Uziyahu - do not honor him (should he
become a<BR> metzora / see Divrei Hayamim II 26:11-22). Instead,
send<BR> him outside the camp [as Miriam was sent]… for remember<BR>
what happened to Miriam: Even though she was a prophetess<BR> and Moshe's
sister, they did not honor her; instead, they<BR> sent her outside the
camp..."<BR> [See Rashbam 24:8-9 / In that story in Divrei
Hayamim,<BR> King Uziyahu was struck with tzara'at after he
haughtily<BR> entered the kodesh kodashim to offer
ketoret.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> According to Rashbam, the
primary focus of these psukim<BR>relates indeed to the laws of leprosy and
'protektzia' - and<BR>hence has nothing to do with lashon ha-ra.<BR> Note
how this interpretation resolves almost all our<BR>questions (raised
above). Although the technical details of<BR>tzara'at have already been
recorded in Sefer Vayikra, Sefer<BR>Devarim (in its discussion of various laws
concerning daily<BR>life in the community of Israel) commands us not to make
any<BR>exceptions for special people - i.e. no
'protektzia'!<BR> Hence, the Torah mentions the case of
Miriam to emphasize<BR>precisely this point of 'no exceptions' (with regard
to<BR>tzara'at). We cannot, therefore, according to Rashbam, infer<BR>from
these psukim a conclusive connection between the cause<BR>for tzara'at and
lashon ha-ra.<BR> Note as well that the story of Miriam
in Parshat<BR>Beha'alotcha provides only 'circumstantial evidence' for such<BR>a
connection. Recall that the Torah never states explicitly<BR>that lashon
ha-ra was the cause of Miraim's leprosy! In fact,<BR>most other
occurrences of tzara'at in Tanach involve the<BR>problem of 'ga'ava' [arrogance]
- e.g. the cases of Uziyahu<BR>(see Divrei Hayamim II 26:16-20) and Na'aman and
Gechazi (see<BR>Melachim II chapter 5). See also Shmot 4:6-8,
'Ve-akmal'.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Rashbam is not alone in
his approach. Chizkuni (on 24:8-<BR>9) explains these psukim in a similar
fashion:<BR> "Keep the laws of tzara'at: Do not grant special honor
to<BR> important people by exempting them from banishment from<BR>
the camp. Remember what God did to Miriam - even though<BR> she was
sister to the king and high priest, she was<BR> nevertheless banished
outside the camp for the entire<BR> seven-day period."<BR>
<BR> Rashbam and Chizkuni agree that the primary purpose of
these<BR>psukim is to teach us that everyone is equal under the law,<BR>and
hence, not to make exceptions for VIP's. Note, that this<BR>approach as
well provides us with a good reason for including<BR>this law in Parshat Ki
Tetzeh, as it falls into the category<BR>of bein adam le-chavero, and it
reflects God's expectation<BR>that Am Yisrael live by higher moral
standard.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> How about Ramban?
We've intentionally saved him for<BR>last, because his approach (as usual) is
the most<BR>comprehensive, addressing textual and thematic parallels to<BR>other
parshiot in Chumash. We will show how his approach (in<BR>this case) is
both 'educational' like Rashi's and faithful to<BR>pshat no less than
Rashbam's.<BR> [Incidentally, this is why Ramban's commentary is
usually<BR> much longer and complex than Rashi's. On the other
hand,<BR> specifically because of his brevity, Rashi has earned<BR>
more widespread popularity.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>REMEMBER THE OTHER 'ZACHOR'S'!
[Ramban]<BR> Note, that just about all of the
interpretations of 24:8-<BR>9 thus far how considered the warning to follow the
laws of<BR>leprosy in 24:8 ['hi-shamer...'] as the primary point- and
the<BR>'reminder' to remember what happened to Miriam in 24:9<BR>['zachor...']
as secondary. Ramban will do exactly the<BR>opposite, showing how the
Torah's primary commandment is<BR>zachor in 24:9, and hishamer in 24:8 simply
serves as a lead<BR>up to the primary point in 24:9!<BR>
Ramban begins by quoting Rashi's explanation that<BR>guarding one's tongue
against lashon hara prevents the onset<BR>of tzara'at; and (for a change), this
time Ramban actually<BR>quotes Rashi because he agrees (and not as a set up
to<BR>disagree). However, Ramban takes Rashi's approach one
step<BR>further, demonstrating that what Rashi considers 'drash' may<BR>be not
only 'pshat', but should even be counted as one of the<BR>613 mitzvot!<BR>
"In my opinion this [commandment of zachor in pasuk 24:9]<BR> should be
considered a positive commandment - [i.e. it<BR> should be counted as] an
actual mitzvat aseh" [see Ramban<BR> 24:9].</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> To our amazement, Ramban
considers zachor - what appeared<BR>to be simply a 'reminder' - as a positive
commandment to daily<BR>remember (or possibly even recite) the incident
involving how<BR>Miriam contracted tzara'at after speaking about her
brother.<BR> How does Ramban reach such a daring conclusion that
this<BR>should be counted as one of the 613 mitzvot!?<BR>
<BR> One could suggest that Ramban's approach stems from
his<BR>'sensitive ear' to the Torah's use of key phrases. When<BR>Ramban
hears the opening phrase: "Zachor et asher asa<BR>Hashem..." he is immediately
reminded of three other instances<BR>where the Torah introduces a mitzva with a
similar expression:<BR>* 1) Shabbat - "Zachor et yom ha-shabbat" (Shmot
20:7)<BR>* 2) Yetziat Mitzrayim - "Zachor et ha-yom..." (Shmot 13:3)<BR>* 3)
amalek - "Zachor et asher asa lecha
Amalek..."<BR> (see
Devarim 25:17)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Ramban cites these three
examples as proof that a pasuk<BR>beginning with the word zachor... constitutes
a positive<BR>commandment (a 'mitzvat aseh'); and hence, our case should
be<BR>no different.<BR> But what is this mitzva?
Why would the Torah have us<BR>remember a 'not so nice' story about
Miriam?<BR> Like an artist, Ramban beautifully 'puts all
the pieces<BR>together,' explaining this seemingly enigmatic pasuk in
light<BR>of our earlier questions. Like Rashi and Ibn Ezra, he
points<BR>to lashon ha-ra as the central topic of these psukim. This
is<BR>why the incident of Miriam is introduced and why the issue of<BR>tzara'at
is mentioned altogether in Parshat Ki-Tetzeh, in the<BR>context of mitzvot bein
adam le-chavero.<BR> However, Ramban's interpretation also explains the
advantage<BR>of employing Miriam to present this mitzva (rather than<BR>stating
it explicitly):<BR> "... Hence, this is a warning (of the Torah) not to
speak<BR> lashon ha-ra, commanding us to remember the terrible<BR>
punishment that Miriam received [even though she was] a<BR> righteous
prophetess, and she spoke only about her<BR> brother (not someone outside
the family) and only<BR> privately with her brother (Aharon), not in
public, so<BR> that Moshe himself would not be embarrassed...
But<BR> despite these good intentions, she was punished.
How<BR> much more so must we be careful never to speak lashon
ha-<BR> ra... (see Ramban 24:9).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> According to Ramban, the
Torah doesn't mention Miriam to<BR>tell us how bad her sin was. On the
contrary, the incident of<BR>Miriam (who, as everyone knows, was righteous and
had only<BR>good intentions) emphasizes how careful we must all be in
all<BR>matters which may involve even the slightest degree of
lashon<BR>ha-ra. This pasuk reminds us that punishment was
administered<BR>even in the case of Miriam's mild lashon
ha-ra.<BR> Based on the parallel to other instances of
the word<BR>zachor, the Ramban concludes that mere recollection does
not<BR>suffice. We are obligated to verbally recount this<BR>unfortunate
incident every day [just as Kiddush on Shabbat<BR>fulfills the obligation of
'zachor et yom ha-shabbat<BR>lekadsho...']! Ramban understands these
psukim as not merely<BR>some good advice, but as a commandment to retell this
incident<BR>on a daily basis, in order that we remember not to make a<BR>similar
mistake, even should we have 'good intentions'.<BR> [See also Sifra on
Vayikra 26:14 [Torat Kohanim<BR> Bechukotai Alef 2-3]. This probably
explains the<BR> 'minhag' [custom] of reciting this pasuk each day
after<BR> shacharit - see the six 'zechirot' at the conclusion
of<BR> shacharit in your siddur!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Ramban's closing remarks
are most significant, as they<BR>reflect another important aspect of his
exegetical approach:<BR> "For how could it be that lashon ha-ra - which
is<BR> equivalent in its severity to murder - would not be<BR>
considered a [full fledged] mitzva in the Torah! ...<BR>
Rather, this pasuk serves as a serious warning to<BR> refrain [from lashon
ha-ra], be it in public or in<BR> private, intentional or
unintentional...and it should be<BR> considered one of the 613 mitzvot..."
(see Ramban 24:9).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Ramban here employs
'conceptual logic' - the very essence<BR>of his pshat approach - to support his
comprehensive<BR>interpretation of these psukim. Because logically there
must<BR>be a mitzva in the Torah against speaking lashon ha-ra,
Ramban<BR>prefers to interpret this pasuk as one of the 613 mitzvot.<BR>
In this manner, Ramban utilizes a wider perspective of pshat<BR>to reach a
conclusion not only similar to the Midrash, but<BR>also more poignant.<BR>
[If you would like to see an 'enhanced version' of<BR> Ramban's
explanation of this mitzva, read his commentary<BR> to Rambam's Sefer
Ha-mitzvot. At the conclusion of the<BR> 'mitzvot aseh' section,
Ramban adds several mitzvot which<BR> (in his opinion) Rambam had
overlooked. In 'hasaga' #7,<BR> Ramban adds this mitzva, that we
must constantly remind<BR> ourselves of the incident of Miriam in order to
remember<BR> not to speak lashon ha-ra.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>An 'AM' KADOSH with a 'PEH'
KADOSH<BR> Note as well that according to Ramban's
interpretation,<BR>the mitzva which emerges from these two psukim in Parshat
Ki<BR>Tetzeh is not only yet another mitzva bein adam le-chavero, it<BR>also
forms one of the most basic 'building block' towards<BR>achieving the ultimate
goal of Sefer Devarim to create and<BR>establish an am kadosh.<BR> Recall
how the mitzvot of the main speech form the<BR>guidelines for the establishment
of God's model nation in the<BR>land of Israel. Imagine an entire nation,
where each<BR>individual reminded himself daily of these stringent<BR>guidelines
concerning lashon ha-ra!<BR> Anyone who would like to be
'machmir' [adhere to a more<BR>stringent opinion] - especially on the
'de-'oraita' level, is<BR>invited to take upon himself this 'chumra'
[stringency]<BR>explicated by
Ramban.<BR>
shabbat
shalom,<BR>
menachem</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>==========================<BR>FOR FURTHER
IYUN<BR>A. Try to arrange the various opinions of the
Rishonim<BR>mentioned above into the following categories. Who
considers:<BR> 1) 24:8 is the primary pasuk - 24:9
supports it.<BR> 2) 24:9 is the primary pasuk - 24:8
introduces it.<BR> 3) 24:8-9 should be read together,
like one long pasuk.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>B. Carefully review Rashbam and Chizkuni's
comments on our<BR>psukim. According to them, to whom is the prohibition
in 24:8<BR>directed? According to Rashi /
Ramban?<BR> A corresponding debate exists regarding
Vayikra 13:2: "Ve-<BR>huva el Aharon ha-kohen…" ("He shall be brought
before<BR>Aharon…"). See Sefer Hachinuch 169 as opposed to the
Rosh's<BR>commentary on Masechet Zavim 3:2.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>C. We noted Chazal's Midrash Halacha that
interprets the<BR>first of our two psukim as forbidding the surgical
detachment<BR>of a tzara'at infection. As we pointed out, Rashi adopts
this<BR>peirush of that pasuk, despite the fact that he understands<BR>the
reference to tzara'at here as primarily related to
lashon<BR>ha-ra.<BR> The question, of
course, arises, why would the Torah<BR>mention specifically this particular
detail of the laws of<BR>tzara'at if the main focus here is on lashon
ha-ra? Why is<BR>this prohibition singled out from all of hilchot tzara'at
for<BR>mention here in the context of the prohibition of lashon
ha-<BR>ra?<BR> Try to answer this question by reviewing
the general<BR>process imposed upon the metzora. See Rashi, Vayikra 13:47
&<BR>14:4. In light of this, explain the prohibition of removing
a<BR>tzara'at infection and how this may reflect the severity of<BR>lashon
ha-ra. Bear in mind as well that the Ramban here<BR>(24:8) extends this
prohibition beyond severing the infection,<BR>to mere refusal to show it to the
kohen (thus avoiding the<BR>entire process).<BR> In
honor of Elul, relate this concept to the process of<BR>'teshuva' in
general.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>D. Those Rishonim who do not derive the
prohibition of<BR>removing a tzara'at infection from 24:8 (as the Gemara
in<BR>Makkot does) would presumably derive the prohibition from<BR>Vayikra 13:33
- see Torat Kohanim there. Based on the context<BR>of that pasuk, what
advantage is there to learning the<BR>prohibition from our pasuk instead?
What might be the<BR>difference between these two prohibitions? See
Sefer<BR>Hachinuch 170, as opposed to Ramban in his 'hasagot' to<BR>Rambam's
Sefer Hamitzvot lo ta'aseh 307-8. [There is also some<BR>question as to the
precise text of that passage in Torat<BR>Kohanim - see Sefer Hachinuch's
citation of Torat Kohanim in<BR>mitzva 170 and Torah Shleima, Vayikra
13:109.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>E. Recall that according to Rashbam and
Chizkuni, 24:9<BR>teaches us not to make exceptions for public figures
with<BR>regard to the laws of tzara'at. Review their comments and<BR>note
that the 'hava amina' (original possibility) of exempting<BR>leaders from these
laws evolved from the honor and respect due<BR>to them. We may, however,
add another element to this hava<BR>amina: national interests. A nation
would understandably be<BR>very reluctant to quarantine an important public
official for<BR>an indefinite period of time. Explain how, along the lines
of<BR>the Rashbam & Chizkuni but with our variation, we may explain<BR>a
seemingly superfluous phrase in the pasuk: "… on your<BR>journey when you left
the land of Egypt." (For a subtle hint,<BR>see Targum Yonatan's explanation of
this phrase.) Consider<BR>especially the final clause of Bemidbar
12:15. (If you want<BR>to cheat, look up Rav Zalman Sorotzkin's 'Oznayim
La-Torah' on<BR>our pasuk.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>F. For an interesting twist, see Targum
Yonatan Ben Uziel on<BR>24:9. According to his understanding, what sin
does this<BR>pasuk address? Is this wrongdoing related to lashon
ha-ra?<BR>Based on this Targum Yonatan, explain more fully Rashi's<BR>comments
on Shemot 4:6.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>G. Note that the mitzva of 'kil'ayim' (see
22:9-12) is<BR>another mitzva bein adam la-Makom, and hence seems out
of<BR>place in Parshat Ki Tetzeh. Based on the various laws<BR>concerning
forbidden marriages which continue in 22:13-23:9,<BR>can you suggest a thematic
connection between these mitzvot?<BR> In this context,
note Ramban's association between the<BR>prohibition of plowing with an ox and
donkey (pasuk 10) and<BR>that of interbreeding (Vayikra 19:19). See also
Rambam, Moreh<BR>Nevuchim 3:49, who explicitly bases the prohibition here
with<BR>the halacha forbidding interbreeding. [Regarding
sha'atnez,<BR>however, he offers a much different explanation -
Moreh<BR>Nevuchim 3:37.]</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>