(All rights reserved to Keren Yishai)

I would like to take this opportunity to make some remarks in favor of Parashat Tazria. As a rule, this parashah has no "independence" – it is either linked with Parashat Metzora, or connected with one of the Four Parashiot – Shabbat Hahodesh or Shabbat Hagadol. It's very rare for Tazria to have the luxury of a Shabbat to itself, so to speak. I think it's a very good thing that we have this opportunity to explore the issue of tahara (purification) in all its aspects – purification of the body and purification of the soul. These topics find expression in the parashiot that we read during this period, with Purim behind us but before the advent of Pesach. We are dealing with the lowest and basest issues – discharges and emissions, every kind of impurity – yet it is precisely here that purity and holiness attain their most exalted form of expression.

The Parashah begins as follows (Vayikra 12:1-4): "And God spoke to Moses saying, Speak to the children of Israel and say: If a woman has conceived seed and born a son, she shall be unclean for seven days, according to the days of separation for her infirmity she shall be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for thirty three days. She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are fulfilled".

Rashi comments: "If a woman has conceived seed – R' Simlai said, Even as the formation of man took place after that of every cattle, beast and fowl when the world was created, so, too, the law regarding man is set forth after the law regarding cattle, beast and fowl." Forty seven verses in Parashat Shemini deal with cattle, beasts, fowls, crawling creatures and insects – from the highest to the most insignificant. Rashi here explains the continuity between the parashiot in the form of the answer to a question – why is the order reversed? Should it not begin with man, loftiest of God's creations, and go on from there? Very good! But in that case, shouldn't the question be – why is the order of creation the way it is? Why, indeed, was man created last?

What disturbs Rashi here? As we know, Rashi's commentaries always explain some problem or discrepancy that we didn't notice, but once we have read his commentary, we approach the text in a new light. I think every one of us is slightly disturbed by the name of the Parasha. Nowhere in the Torah have we dealt with the biological facts of creation – how living creatures are conceived. Now we are dealing with a topic which could be entitled "The Impurity of a Woman Who Has Given Birth." This immediately presents more questions: why is she impure? Why is impurity an issue altogether? What is purification? And then we have sub-sections: the woman who bore a son; the woman who bore a daughter; seven days; fourteen days… All this is well and good, but what does it have to do with conception and the formation of the embryo?

This entire topic – impurity and purification, beginning with the uncleanness of childbirth and ending with the defilement engendered by leprosy, and everything in between – the whole section opens with something that appears quite irrelevant. A woman who bears a child is unclean by reason of her bleeding. This act of conceiving and giving birth, the actual conception, is very important. It pertains to human relationships, although the actual act is common to all living things. I'm not certain, but I think this is what Rashi is referring to in his commentary, and if so, we must understand his meaning. But even if this is not what he meant, it's still an important question with which to open the Parasha. The entire Parasha is named for this act – conception. "Leprosy" is certainly not a more pleasant name, but at least leprosy is the topic of the Parasha.

"And God spoke to Moses saying, Speak to the children of Israel and say: If a woman has conceived seed and born a son, she shall be unclean for seven days, according to the days of separation for her infirmity she shall be unclean." Logically, the following verse should be: "And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for thirty three days." She is unclean for seven days, and for the next thirty three days she cannot enter the Mishkan – altogether forty days. The first seven days are days of uncleanness, and the next thirty three days are days of purification. This verse should follow the previous two, but it is actually the fourth verse. The third verse is very nice indeed – "And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised." A Brit Mila, a celebration, mazel tov! However, it is totally unconnected to the parasha – what is it doing here? Just to remind you, in Bereshit an entire parashah is devoted to Brit Mila. So why does it recur here? Merely because we are dealing with the birth of a son? So when we mention the birth of a daughter will we discuss the bat mitzva? The Malbim asks the same question, referring to the word 'and' which opens the third verse and implies a connection with what went before. He says that even if the third verse belongs in the context, the vav hachibur – the word 'and' –implies a continuity which doesn't actually exist. The text reads: "… according to the days of separation for her infirmity she shall be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for thirty three days…" I understand the second vav hachibur – it continues that which went before, the section which was interrupted by the third, unconnected, verse.

These are the two questions that I want to deal with: the act which gives its name to the entire parasha is not really the topic of the parasha. Entire sections are devoted to men – emissions, spilling of seed and so on, and to women – niddah and so forth. But here the act of conception is followed by details of all that pertains to defilement – defilement of one's house, pollution of clothing, one's surroundings – all of this begins with the act of conception. Why does it appear here? And the second question is in regard to the Brit Mila – why is it inserted, and moreover, why is it preceded by a vav hibur, which implies continuity with the preceding verse?

Rashi doesn't address himself directly to these questions, but he brings a midrash which we will look at presently. Before we do so, however, I would like to draw your attention to the Netziv of Volozhen's commentary, which appears in the middle of Parashat Metzora. At the conclusion of the section on leprosy in Parashat Metzora, chapter 15 goes on to discuss the pollution caused by a "running issue in the flesh." This chapter deals with all the laws of uncleanness and purification pertaining to emissions ('keri') and running issue ('zivah'). The Netziv of Volozhen was a great commentator and Talmudist, but first and foremost he was an educator, head of the Volozhen Yeshiva which, by the way, was the yeshiva of R' Kook. The Netziv opens the parashah with a comment which is so prosaic that it is almost boring, but he uses it to derive a profound message.

The section on 'ziva' opens as follows (Vayikra 15:11-2): "And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say to them: When any man has a running issue from his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean." The Netziv points out that this form of address does not appear elsewhere in the Torah. Nowhere else is the plural form used for the instruction to 'speak' ('dabru'). Moses and Aaron are both commanded to speak to the children of Israel. Moses, of course, is frequently ordered to address the people. How important is this difference, and indeed, why does it appear here? We are accustomed to see the word 'speak' ('daber') in singular form – Moses is instructed to transmit to Aaron the Torah that he acquired in forty and days and nights and Aaron in turn imparts it to the people. If so, says the Netziv, then the form 'dabru' implies that Aaron, also, had already heard everything, in which case the word 'and say' ('ve'amarta') is redundant. There is no similar form of address anywhere else in the Torah.

The section deals with emissions and running issues in the flesh. In his "Ha'amek Davar", the Netziv of Volozhen writes as follows: "It is difficult to speak of emissions and running issues, since one's thoughts will turn to those organs. It is preferable, therefore, to speak of them as little as possible. Moses was constrained to teach the people of Israel these matters, so the people would not perish. But once these matters have been taught, there is no commandment to study them, as is the case with studying the other mitzvot in the Torah, which we are commanded to study even where no practical use derives from learning and remembering them." The Netziv says that, seeing that the imagination tends to be active all the time, it is better not to dwell on this section but to move on to something else.

We would therefore assume that it is preferable to keep the study of this section to a minimum, but the Netziv, surprisingly, goes on to explain that particularly because we would prefer, for the above reasons, to cover the material as fast as possible, the words 've'amarta aleihem' appear here – not only should Moses instruct the people on this matter, but Aaron should repeat the lesson. "Every teacher should teach these matters to his students," says the Netziv, "because in truth, nothing in the Torah is bad." This is the educational message to be learned here – simple, yet profound.

All aspects of purification, the sections on day and night defilement, water for purification, seven days impurity, it is all here in the section beginning "If a woman has conceived seed…" - the section to which Rashi has the answer.

Rashi quotes R' Simlai, using as his source the Midrash Rabba: "If a woman has conceived seed – as it is written, 'You have formed me behind and before, and set the palm of Your hand upon me'" (Psalms 139:5). King David is describing how he was created 'behind and before.' This phrase can be variously interpreted. Psalm 139 is exceptional, according to the Ibn Ezra, who begins his commentary with the claim that this is the greatest chapter in all of the books of King David.

Let's see exactly what this great psalm is all about: "To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know when I sit and when I rise up, You understand my thoughts from afar. You are acquainted with all my ways. – I cannot escape You – There is no word on my tongue, O Lord, but You know it altogether. You have formed me behind and before, and set the palm of Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it – I can never understand Your knowledge, not only because it is technically so much greater than I am capable of, but because it is simply, entirely, completely different from my knowledge – Where shall I go from Your spirit? Where shall I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there, if I may my bed in hell, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand will lead me, and Your right hand will hold me. If I say, surely the darkness shall cover me, even the night will be light about me. For You have possessed my reins, You have covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Your works are marvelous, and my soul knows this well. – And now comes the heart of the matter, the main point he wishes to make – my substance was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth." I come from a stinking drop – I was made in secret. Is this, then, a testament to Your greatness or the reverse? What does it mean?

We will return to this soon. In the meantime, let's turn to a wonderful midrash: "If a woman has conceived seed – as it is written 'man that is born of woman, his days are short and full of anger' - this phrase comes from the book of Job. The accompanying midrash is difficult and extremely pessimistic. "A man sees a fine pillar and says, how pleasant and how fine is this pillar! His friend says to him, you are impressed by this pillar. If you were to see the quarry from which it was carved, you would be far more impressed – this is 'small potatoes' compared to the immense mountain from which the pillar was taken – So it is with man. He sees a large beam and he is filled with wonder. But his friend says to him, if you were to see the tree from which is was hewn, how impressed you would be – the original is always more impressive. And if he were to see a fine man of high quality, with a full head of curls – it would appear that the finer the man, the more curly his hair, the greater the tragedy which will befall him! – He praised him, and his friend said to him, this is what you praise? If you were to see the filth and stink from which he came, you would not be able to look upon him. Stone and wood are more comely than man - very encouraging! – As Akiva ben Mahallel said, Look upon three things, and you will not come to transgress: Know whence you came, and whither you are going, and before whom you will be called to make a full report. Whence you came? From a stinking drop…" Yet King David said: "My substance was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret…" What is this substance? We are still engaged with the issue of "…if a woman has conceived", trying to understand why the section on purification of the self begins with this phrase.

I will return to the Midrash, which will soon clarify the matter: "This is what is written – 'You have formed me behind and before' – Rabbi Yochanan said, man has merited to inherit two worlds, both this world and the world to come, which is meant by 'You have formed me behind and before' and if not, he will give a full report, as is said 'You have set the palm of Your hand upon me.' Rabbi Ishmael said in the name of Rabbi Tanchum, 'behind' – after all other creatures – and 'before' – all punishments (man is the first creature to be penalized). Rabbi Yochanan said, even his praise only comes at the end, as it is written (at the end of Psalms) 'the animals, and every beast, each creeping thing and winged fowl', and only then 'kings of land and all the nations'… will praise the Lord."

A wonderful midrash relates that upon completion of the Book of Psalms King David rejoiced. The Almighty brought before him a frog, which said to him: 'Don't be so happy – you have sung one hundred and fifty times, but I sing all day.' If singing is an indication that one is aware of one's destiny, then you have now become aware of yours – but I am equally aware of mine! Nevertheless, we learn the psalms of King David, not those of a frog, and the reason points to the difference between the man who merits both worlds and the one who plunges to the very depths: "R' Simlai said, Even as the formation of man took place after that of every cattle, beast and fowl when the world was created, so, too, the law regarding man is set forth after the law regarding cattle, beast and fowl."

The Sefat Emet quotes the same midrash, adding that "man is formed in the image of the entire world – when he is dragged down by his material side he is the lowest of the low, since his form is most holy of all." This can be understood as follows: If you break an inanimate object, you are left with broken pieces – you have destroyed its molecular structure and it remains inanimate – dust, nothing! If you destroy the life force of a plant it will wither and smell of decay - it isn't inanimate. In contrast, if you remove the life from a living creature you are left with a carcass – which can constitute a health hazard. A withered plant is not dangerous to one's health. But if you remove the life force from a human being, what you are left with is far more than a carcass. Impurity, then, is a state in which the life force is not present. A live animal is never impure, so one cannot be in a state of impurity through contact with a live animal. Contamination, impurity, defilement – this is only possible after the creature is dead. If it is ritually slaughtered, it does not defile, because to a certain degree it is still fulfilling its destined purpose. Man can defile even in life – the greater he is, the greater the capacity for defilement. When his life departs, his impurity begins. Impurity is not a curse, it is a lack, a deficiency. The greatest impurity is that of a dead person. The spilling of seed is a mild form of impurity - a drop of life that has missed its purpose. The man or woman with a running issue of the flesh is unclean. This is a biological period of impurity and a spiritual period of inability to express life, to create life, to produce new life and bring it forth into the world. The days of a woman's separation are also a time of inability to express new life. Impurity is something one lives with constantly, and one must constantly purify oneself from it. The greater the form of the creature, the more it encompasses, and the greater will be its fall. This is how the Sefat Emet begins, by pointing out that when man is dragged down he nullifies his human form. He does not become a decaying plant or animal carcass but something completely different. Thus, the defilement of a Kohen is worse than the defilement of Yisrael. He continues: "And even though he acts with will and reason, unlike those creatures whose are lesser than he by their very essence, yet the stuff of which he is formed is more base than that of all other creatures. Man was so formed that he needs to complete himself through his deeds. By making whole the stuff of which he is formed, which is more base than that of all other creatures, he brings and perpetuates holiness to all creatures, great and small. All other creatures precede him in the order of creation, but if merits to attain this, he precedes them all." There is one way to bring the Shechina, the holy spirit, to dwell in the world: man and woman, 'woman who conceives and bears a son'. Among the beasts this is a technical act, but among human beings it is Torat HaAdam.

At the end of Chapter 15 we read: "Thus shall you put apart the children of Israel from their uncleanness, that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile My dwelling that is among them." This is apparently a reference to the Mishkan, but the Netziv says: 'Man himself is the dwelling place of the Shechina, because he was created in the image of God." If so, when will they 'die in their uncleanness?' When they defile their Mishkan – themselves – which was 'made in secret and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth." This is the true Mishkan, with greater power to purify than that of the Temple itself, because the Temple must be entered in holiness (kodesh), while this is kiddushin. Part of the wedding ceremony is a blessing to God who 'sanctifies His people Israel through huppa and kiddushin.' No other blessing describes God as sanctifying His people by means of something specific. We have returned once again to the 'woman who conceives…'

The Law of Man (Torat HaAdam) differs from that of animals, beasts and fowls, because the quarry from which he was hewn is so base, yet his form is so holy. There is no contradiction. Whenever you encounter defilement and impurity, you encounter a yearning for life that has not been formed. The greater the impurity, the greater the yearning for life. When we encounter the greatest defilement of all, the greatest tum'ah, which is death, it is difficult to comprehend that the greatest purification resides there – paradise, whence we were cast out by our sins.

Our sages explain it clearly: The Torah ordains a period of separation between a man and a woman when she menstruates. "He who separates from his wife at the time of her menses will have male children, as it is written, 'To distinguish between what is impure and what is pure' which is close to 'a woman who conceives..' Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says, not only will he have sons, but his sons will be worthy of teaching (Torah), as it is written, 'to separate and to teach.' Rabbi Yihye bar Abba and Rabbi Yochanan said that all those who make havdala with wine at the end of the Sabbath will merit to have male children, for it is written, 'to separate between the holy and the secular' and this is what is meant by 'to distinguish between what is impure and what is pure' which is close to 'a woman who conceives…' Rabbi Binyamin bar Yafet and Rabbi Elazar said, all those who sanctify themselves during the act of consummation will merit to have sons, as it is written, 'you shall sanctify yourselves and you will be holy' which is close to 'a woman who conceives.'"

The Maharal of Prague (Hidushei Agadot) comments: 'Rabbi Binyamin bar Yafet maintained that the proximity of the two passages indicates one who sanctifies himself during the act of consummation, since the act itself, when performed without chastity, is carried out in a beastly fashion, since a beast has no chastity. If he does not sanctify himself during the act, he is base and beast-like, but if he sanctifies himself during the act, the act is chaste and worthy.'

How is this connected to the Havdala wine on Motzei Shabbat? What's the connection with separation during the period of menstruation? He who performs the Havdala ceremony on Motzei Shabbat acknowledges, in effect, that the holiness, the sanctity, has departed. We could therefore assume that a man who merits male offspring would be a person who performs Havadala on Friday afternoon – one who keeps Shabbat all week long. Such a person, basing himself on the rulings of the Poskim, would make Kiddush a few hours later and once again find himself dwelling within the Shabbat. But – not so, says the Maharal – we are not talking about such a man, but rather about precisely the sort of person who knows very well when and how to make Havdala on wine, thus bringing the wine of Shabbat into the secular weekday. This is the person referred to in connection with the 'woman who conceives,' because he knows how to imbue the act with immense holiness. "My substance was not hidden from You" - what is this substance? It is my ability to be "..made… in the lowest parts of the earth" and yet to rise above it and attain holiness.

Why do the man and the woman separate at the time of the menses? Because it is natural, it is ordained by my intellect, I create holiness, I conduct my life. This is how Rashi interprets it. He is not perturbed by the need to find a more apt and fitting name for Parashat Tazria, rather he is struck by the fact that only man has the ability to ascend so far above the 'stinking drop.' The stuff of which I am made is crude and base, but it is also constitutes my holiness. The strength of my ability to combine the two is what the Netziv was referring to when he said that nothing bad can come from the study of Torah. No other section of the Torah is more deserving to be studied, examined and explored, than Tazria-Metzora. Now we can add the vav hahibur that indicates continuity with the preceding verse, to introduce the topic of brit milah. The fact of impurity denotes that something is lacking, something is lacking because we are in an imperfect world, we feel the lack as desire, because we are not always governed by our intellect. For this reason, we are told that, on the eighth day, 'the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised' – this is the tikkun, the correction.

Now we can proceed to learn about defilement and purification. The Rambam teaches that the whole source of the mitzvah is to be found in this parasha, which goes on to itemize all its aspects, culminating finally in the holiness of the High Priest in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur.