Questions for Tazria Metzora

1.  Our pesukim tell us that certain halachos stem from childbirth. Assuming that the word “וילדה” is only natural childbirth and not a caesarian section, what four halachos that apply after natural childbirth will not apply after a caesarian section.

☆2. The Gemara in Shabbos 135 darshens from our parsha that the din of milah b’shemona even on Shabbos does not apply by a caesarian delivery. What would you say about a regular delivery of a baby that resulted from IVF, an implanted fetus. 

3.  In mid seventeen hundreds, the Frankist cult arose that claimed that Mashiach would only come in one of two conditions:  if the Jewish People kept the Torah perfectly or if it totally broke all the laws of the Torah, and since perfection is extremely unlikely, we should try the opposite. This idea that you can bring Mashiach by breaking all the Torah laws was even given a name- antinomianism.  What passuk in our parsha was used to support this belief.  

4.  Why is a bald man like a shmatteh.

☆5.  Is there a geographic limitation on where a section of the law of Tzaraas applies?  Is this true with all the types of Tzaraas?

☆6. There are three kinds of Tzaraas. One, for example, is Tzaraas of people. Of the three kinds, two need a korban to become tahor, and one does not. Which, and why?

☆7.  We make a bracha on counting Sefiras HaOmer because of the Mitzva of וספרתם לכם. There are two mitzvos of counting in the parsha but no bracha is made on them. What are they, and why are they different than Sefiras HaOmer.

8.  What issur deoraysa does a metzora have to transgress in order to become tahor.

9.  What word in the parsha can be either a verb or an adjective.  Hint: it's a color.

☆10.   A man came to Rav Chaim Kanievsky with a shailah. He had a very uncomfortable rash or psoriasis. The doctor had prescribed a medicated ointment. The question was whether he could put it on the rash on Shabbos, or whether there would be an issue of dissolving a thick cream, or refuah, on Shabbos. Rav Chaim asked to see the rash and said "You should be asking whether you can use the cream during the week, not only on Shabbos, because the rash has the symptoms of tzaraas, and the Torah forbids removing the signs of Tzaraas." 

Was this man allowed to walk into the old city of Yerushalayim?

 

 

1.  Our pesukim tell us that certain halachos stem from childbirth. Assuming that the word “וילדה” is only natural childbirth and not a caesarian section, what four halachos that apply after natural childbirth will not apply after a caesarian section.

12:1-6, and Shabbos 135a-b

After a caesarian birth, there are no special laws of tuma and tahara; There is no korban. The child’s bris can be but does not have to be on the eight day. If the bris is done on the eighth day, it is not docheh Shabbos.

2. The Gemara in Shabbos 135 darshens from our parsha that the din of milah b’shemona even on Shabbos does not apply by a caesarian delivery. What would you say about a regular delivery of a baby that resulted from IVF, an implanted fetus. 

No. (Based on Taama d’Kra, but he does not say it:)

Tazria tells you that a child born from an implanted fetus does not generate the dinim of tumas leidah. The Gemara in Shabbos ties tumas leida to dichuy of Shabbos, and possibly to the whole din of Shmoneh.

Here are his words:

פי״ב. ב. אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר. לכאו’ כי תזריע מיותר דהול״ל אשה כי תלד זכר ובגמ׳ דרשו ע״ז, וי״ל עוד דבא לומר בהא דחולין ע׳ א׳ הדביק שני רחמים ויצא מזה ונכנס לזה, וקאמר כאן דלענין טומאת לידה אין השני׳ טמאה בכה״ג דבעינן כי תזריע וכאן אע״פ שילדתו מ״מ לא הזריעתו.

R Shlomo Zalman (3:98:4) holds that a child born from artificial insemination is not docheh Shabbos according to Rabbeinu Chananel.

https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=47990&st=&pgnum=14

Most poskim do not hold like this. See Nishmas Avraham YD 260:2

https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=51474#p=321&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr=

But we are not talking about artificial insemination. We are talking about IVF.  Even if you aren’t choshesh for Rabbeinu Chananel, in a case of IVF you still need to consider Reb Chaim’s very clear diyuk in the passuk, at least for being docheh Shabbos.

 I want to make this clear. The Gemara in Chulin tells us that Rava asked whether a fetus that was not the result of this woman's insemination, but rather a transfer to a woman after it already began developing, is called a petter rechem for laws of Bechoraa, such as pidyon haben. It is an איבעיא דלא איפשטא, meaning that the Gemara does not make a decision. The Rambam in Bechoros 4:18 brings it as a safek. 

Reb Chaim Kanievsky extrapolates this hypothetical to our parsha, and states that such a child would clearly not be included in כי תזריע, and it's hard to disagree with that. The Gemara in Chulin only discusses whether it is called her "פטר רחם." Reb Chaim states that it would certainly not be called כי תזריע. Given that it is not כי תזריע, he says, there would be no tumas leida. 

 I am only adding the obvious consequence, based on the Gemara in Shabbos 135, that where there is no tumas leida, such as in the case of a cesarian section, it is a machlokes whether the mila would be docheh Shabbos, and we are machmir and do not make the bris on Shabbos. Similarly, indistinguishably, a child born from IVF would not generate Tumas Leida. If there is no Tumas Leida, we would not make the bris on Shabbos. 

UPDATE: I spoke to my father in law shlitah about this on 4/20/26 (my עזר כנגדו made me speak to him about it,) and he said that he sees no proof that tumas leidah depends on tazria. Tumas leida depends on the matzav of leidah. The safek in the Gemara in Chulin about IVF petter rechem does not prove anything about tumas leidah.

3.  In mid seventeen hundreds, the Frankist cult arose that claimed that Mashiach would only come in one of two conditions:  if the Jewish People kept the Torah perfectly, or if it totally broke all the laws of the Torah. Since perfection is extremely unlikely, we should try the opposite. This idea that you can bring Mashiach by breaking all the Torah laws was even given a name- antinomianism.  What passuk in our parsha was used to support this belief.  

13:13

וראה הכהן והנה כסתה הצרעת את־כל־בשרו וטהר את־הנגע כלו הפך לבן טהור הוא

As the Gemara (San 97a) there says,

דאמר רבי יצחק: אין בן דוד בא עד שתתהפך כל המלכות למינות. אמר רבא: מאי קרא? ״כלו הפך לבן טהור הוא״.

 

 

4.  Why is a bald man like a shmatteh.

Because he is called a קרח  or a גבח, and a shmatteh is called קרחת או גבחת.

Man- 13:42, by someone who is bald.

וְכִי יִהְיֶה בַקָּרַחַת אוֹ בַגַּבַּחַת נֶגַע לָבָן אֲדַמְדָּם צָרַעַת פֹּרַחַת הִוא בְּקָרַחְתּוֹ אוֹ בְגַבַּחְתּוֹ.

Shmatteh- 13:55, by a piece of material.

וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אַחֲרֵי הֻכַּבֵּס אֶת הַנֶּגַע וְהִנֵּה לֹא הָפַךְ הַנֶּגַע אֶת עֵינוֹ וְהַנֶּגַע לֹא פָשָׂה טָמֵא הוּא בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרְפֶנּוּ פְּחֶתֶת הִוא בְּקָרַחְתּוֹ אוֹ בְגַבַּחְתּוֹ.

 

5.  Is there a geographic limitation on where a section of the law of Tzaraas applies?  Is this true with all the types of Tzaraas?

Yes.  Nig’ei battim is exclusively in Eretz Yisrael.  This limitation is unique to the Tzaraas of houses. There is no such limitation for Tzaraas of people or of cloth and leather

14:34

כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם לַאֲחֻזָּה וְנָתַתִּי נֶגַע צָרַעַת בְּבֵית אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם׃

One more: Not explicit in the pesukim, but a metzora is only banished from walled cities in Eretz Yisrael that were given a special kedusha. This is how Chazal understand the words  (13:46) "בָּדָ֣ד יֵשֵׁ֔ב מִח֥וּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֖ה מוֹשָׁבֽוֹ"

 

6. There are three kinds of Tzaraas. One, for example, is Tzaraas of people. Of the three kinds, two need a korban to become tahor, and one does not. Which, and why?

Tzaraas of people and Tzaraas of houses require a korban to become tahor. Tzaraas of clothing does not require a korban. This was pointed out and explained by the Rama in his sefer Toras HaOla volume III chapter 68  see there. My simple explanation is that the first two hurt kedusha; of a person, and of a house, symbolized by the mezuza. Clothing has no inherent kedusha, so no korban is required to restore kedusha.

 

7.  We make a bracha on counting Sefiras HaOmer because of the Mitzva of וספרתם לכם. There are two mitzvos of counting in the parsha but no bracha is made on them. What are they, and why are they different than Sefiras HaOmer.

15:13, a Zav:

וכי־יטהר הזב מזובו וספר לו שבעת ימים לטהרתו וכבס בגדיו ורחץ בשרו במים חיים וטהר

15:28, a Zavah

וְאִם־טָהֲרָה מִזּוֹבָהּ וְסָפְרָה לָּהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וְאַחַר תִּטְהָר׃

Both have to count, neither makes a bracha. Why is this different than Sefiras HaOmer?

1.      Sefiras HaOmer is an independent mitzvah. The counting of tahara is only a הכשר, it is just a prerequisite for becoming Tahor.  If they don’t care to become tahor, they don’t have to count.  (pashut.)  (problems – Machlokes Beis shammai + Beis Hillel against R Yosi b’reb Yehuda in Nidah 30a. BSh and Bh hold טבילה בזמנה מצוה So it’s not just optional.  Also, Shechita is a macshir and you still make a bracha.)

2.      Sefira is a set number of days. In the case of Tahara, if tuma interrupts, you have to start over. (Tosfos Kesuvos 72a)-

וספרה לה לעצמה - וא"ת אמאי אין מברכת זבה על ספירתה כמו שמברכין על ספירת העומר דהא כתיב וספרה וי"ל דאין מברכין אלא ביובל שמברכין ב"ד בכל שנה שלעולם יוכל למנות כסדר וכן עומר אבל זבה שאם תראה תסתור אין לה למנות:

Explanation of Tosfos in Noda B’Yehuda II YD:23 arguing with Shelah who makes it into a mitzvah:

כוונתן דביובל ועומר שתמיד הזמן נמשך כסדר לא צריך קרא למכתב וספרת שהרי אין צריך בזה השגחה כלל א"ו מצוה היא אבל בזבה שאם תראה תסתור ואין הזמן עובר ממילא וצריך השגחה על זה ואם כן אין כוונת הפסוק בוספרה לה על הספירה אלא על ההשגחה שיהיו נקיים ולא למצוה לכך אין לה למנות. זהו הנלע"ד לדחות עיקר דברי השל"ה. אבל לדידן אפילו אם יהיבנא ליה להגאון השל"ה סברתו שפסוק זה וספרה לה למצוה הוא אכתי אין לדבריו קיום בנשי דידן דהרי זה פשוט אף אם נימא שהיא מצוה מ"מ מצוה זו שייכא להטבילה דאטו אם לא תטבול כלל ואין רצונה לטבול מי יש מצוה בספירה הזו אתמהה

 From my son Rav Mordechai:

Another reason not to count with a beracha for nidah is... maybe because you don't know if you will finish betaharah...

9.  What issur deoraysa does a metzora have to transgress in order to become tahor.

Shaving his head and face with a razor- 14:9 – a double issur for any man, and an extra issur if he is a nazir, but a metzora who needs to become tahor has to shave all his hair.

והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את־כל־שערו את־ראשו ואת־זקנו ואת גבת עיניו ואת־כל־שערו יגלח וכבס את־בגדיו ורחץ את־בשרו במים וטהר

And partially entering the Azara (for putting the dam and oil on him) before he is tahor, as in Zevachim 32a if you hold ביאה במקצת שמה ביאה.

Just interesting – the Gimmel in והתגלח is written large. Reasons given are:

1.    Three people have this halacha of being shaved as bald as an egg- The initial group of Leviim during their inauguration, every nazir after his term ends; and the metzora.

2.      That this taglachas supersedes three issurim – peios harosh, peios hazakan, and nazir. (Some meforshim say they did not cut their peiyos.)

3.      That a boy’s first haircut should be at three years old.  I’m not making this up. It is said in the name of the Arizal. And it’s passuk 33, so you should do it on Lag BaOmer. If you believe that the passuk numbering is holy, which is isn’t. Even though נעשה ונשמע is 24:7.

 

7.  What word in the parsha can be either a verb or an adjective.  Hint: it's a color.

Yarok. ‘Green’ and ‘will spit’.

Green- 14:37

וְרָאָה אֶת־הַנֶּגַע וְהִנֵּה הַנֶּגַע בְּקִירֹת הַבַּיִת שְׁקַעֲרוּרֹת יְרַקְרַקֹּת אוֹ אֲדַמְדַּמֹּת

Spit- 15:8

וְכִי־יָרֹק הַזָּב בַּטָּהוֹר

 

10.   A man came to Rav Chaim Kanievsky with a shailah. He had a very uncomfortable rash or psoriasis. The doctor had prescribed a medicated ointment. The question was whether he could put it on the rash on Shabbos, or whether there would be an issue of dissolving a thick cream or refuah on Shabbos. Rav Chaim asked to see the rash and said "If the medicine is to cure the rash, and not just for the discomfort, you should be asking whether you can use the cream during the week, not only on Shabbos, because the rash has the symptoms of tzaraas, and the Torah forbids removing the signs of Tzaraas." 

Was this man allowed to walk into the old city of Yerushalayim?

Yes, he is allowed to go into Yerushalayim. 

The Tuma and Tahara status, and the banishment of the Metzora, only go into effect when the Kohen says "Tamei" or "Tahor" (as the Meiri says in MK 7b d'h אפילו,  

'אפילו היו סימני טומאה של מצורע או סימני –רפואה ניכרים לכל אדם אינו לא טמא ולא טהור, עד שיטמאנו הכהן או יטהרנו'.)

Rav Kanievsky was not a Kohen so despite his psak halacha, the man remains tahor.

However, the prohibition of removing signs of Tzaraas is inherent. It is Safeik Issur Deoraysa to remove what might be symptoms of tzaraas (Devarim 24:8, השמר בנגע הצרעת) until an expert, Kohen or non-Kohen, says that they are not tzaraas.   

 

Note: There is one and only one solitary shittah that obvious tzaraas is immediately tamei, with or without a kohen. That is the Yaavetz, שו"ת שאילת יעבץ א, קלח. The only achron  (the Minchas Yitzchak in  ה, א, יד; ו, קלב ד"ה והנה) who cites him lehalacha does so for purely political reasons, to keep people off of the Har Habayis, an issur kares.   Everyone else only mentions him as a curiosity: 

Ayeles Hashachar here in 13:2;   Lehoros Nassan, 13:2;  and more.

 

Questions for Tazria Metzora

1.  Our pesukim tell us that certain halachos stem from childbirth. Assuming that the word “וילדה” is only natural childbirth and not a caesarian section, what four halachos that apply after natural childbirth will not apply after a caesarian section.

 2.  In mid seventeen hundreds, the Frankist cult arose that believed that Mashiach would only come if the Jewish People kept the Torah perfectly or if it totally broke all the laws of the Torah, and since perfection is extremely unlikely, we should try the opposite. This idea that you can bring Mashiach by breaking all the Torah laws was even given a name- antinomianism. As the Gemara says,  אין בן דוד בא עד שתתהפך כל המלכות למינות   What passuk in our parsha was used to support this belief.  

3.  Why is a bald man like a shmatteh.

4.  Is there a geographic limitation on where a section of the law of Tzaraas applies?  Is this true with all the types of Tzaraas?

5. There are three kinds of Tzaraas. One, for example, is Tzaraas of people. Of the three kinds, two need a korban to become tahor, and one does not. Which, and why?

6.  We make a bracha on counting Sefiras HaOmer because of the Mitzva of וספרתם לכם. There are two mitzvos of counting in the parsha but no bracha is made on them. What are they, and why are they different than Sefiras HaOmer.

7.  What issur deoraysa does a metzora have to transgress in order to become tahor.

8.  What word in the parsha can be either a verb or an adjective.  Hint: it's a color.

9.   A man came to Rav Chaim Kanievsky with a shailah. He had a very uncomfortable rash or psoriasis which he showed to Reb Chaim. The doctor had prescribed a medicated ointment. The question was whether he could put it on the rash on Shabbos, or whether there would be an issue of dissolving a thick cream, or refuah, on Shabbos. Rav Chaim asked to see the rash and said "You should be asking whether you can use the cream during the week, not only on Shabbos, because the rash has the symptoms of tzaraas, and the Torah forbids removing the signs of Tzaraas." 

Was this man allowed to walk into the old city of Yerushalayim?

1.  Our pesukim tell us that certain halachos stem from childbirth. Assuming that the word “וילדה” is only natural childbirth and not a caesarian section, what four halachos that apply after natural childbirth will not apply after a caesarian section.

12:1-6

After a caesarian birth, there are no special laws of tuma and tahara; There is no korban. The child’s bris can be but does not have to be on the eight day. If the bris is done on the eighth day, it is not docheh Shabbos.

 

 2.  In mid seventeen hundreds, the Frankist cult arose that believed that Mashiach would only come if the Jewish People kept the Torah perfectly or if it totally broke all the laws of the Torah, and since perfection is extremely unlikely, we should try the opposite. This idea that you can bring Mashiach by breaking all the Torah laws was even given a name- antinomianism. As the Gemara says,  אין בן דוד בא עד שתתהפך כל המלכות למינות   What passuk in our parsha was used to support this belief.  

13:13

וראה הכהן והנה כסתה הצרעת את־כל־בשרו וטהר את־הנגע כלו הפך לבן טהור הוא

As the Gemara (San 97a) there says,

דאמר רבי יצחק: אין בן דוד בא עד שתתהפך כל המלכות למינות. אמר רבא: מאי קרא? ״כלו הפך לבן טהור הוא״.

 

 

3.  Why is a bald man like a shmatteh.

Because he is called a קרח  or a גבח, and a shmatteh is called קרחת או גבחת.

Man- 13:42

כי־יהיה בקרחת או בגבחת נגע לבן אדמדם צרעת פרחת הוא בקרחתו או בגבחתו

Shmatteh- 13:55

וראה הכהן אחרי הכבס את הנגע והנה לא הפך הנגע את עינו והנגע לא פשה טמא הוא באש תשרפנו פחתת הוא בקרחתו או בגבחתו

 

4.  Is there a geographic limitation on where a section of the law of Tzaraas applies?  Is this true with all the types of Tzaraas?

Yes.  Nig’ei battim is exclusively in Eretz Yisrael.  This limitation is unique to the Tzaraas of houses. There is no such limitation for Tzaraas of people or of cloth and leather

14:34

כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל־אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם לַאֲחֻזָּה וְנָתַתִּי נֶגַע צָרַעַת בְּבֵית אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם׃

 Not explicit in the pesukim, but a metzora is only banished from walled cities that were given a special kedusha. This is how Chazal understand the words  (13:46) "בָּדָ֣ד יֵשֵׁ֔ב מִח֥וּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֖ה מוֹשָׁבֽוֹ"

5. There are three kinds of Tzaraas. One, for example, is Tzaraas of people. Of the three kinds, two need a korban to become tahor, and one does not. Which, and why?

Tzaraas of people and Tzaraas of houses require a korban to become tahor. Tzaraas of clothing does not require a korban. This was pointed out and explained by the Rama in his sefer Toras HaOla volume III chapter 68.   https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=35871&st=&pgnum=206&hilite=  see there. My simple explanation is that the first two hurt kedusha; of a person, and of a house, symbolized by the mezuza. Clothing has no inherent kedusha, so no korban is required to restore kedusha.

6.  We make a bracha on counting Sefiras HaOmer because of the Mitzva of וספרתם לכם. There are two mitzvos of counting in the parsha but no bracha is made on them. What are they, and why are they different than Sefiras HaOmer.

15:13, a Zav:

וכי־יטהר הזב מזובו וספר לו שבעת ימים לטהרתו וכבס בגדיו ורחץ בשרו במים חיים וטהר

15:28, a Zavah

וְאִם־טָהֲרָה מִזּוֹבָהּ וְסָפְרָה לָּהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וְאַחַר תִּטְהָר׃

Both have to count, neither makes a bracha. Why is this different than Sefiras HaOmer?

1.      Sefiras HaOmer is an independent mitzvah. The counting of tahara is only a הכשר, it is just a prerequisite for becoming Tahor.  If they don’t care to become tahor, they don’t have to count.  (pashut.)  (problems – Machlokes Beis shammai + Beis Hillel against R Yosi b’reb Yehuda in Nidah 30a. BSh and Bh hold טבילה בזמנה מצוה So it’s not just optional.  Also, Shechita is a macshir and you still make a bracha.)

2.      Sefira is a set number of days. In the case of Tahara, if tuma interrupts, you have to start over. (Tosfos Kesuvos 72a)-

וספרה לה לעצמה - וא"ת אמאי אין מברכת זבה על ספירתה כמו שמברכין על ספירת העומר דהא כתיב וספרה וי"ל דאין מברכין אלא ביובל שמברכין ב"ד בכל שנה שלעולם יוכל למנות כסדר וכן עומר אבל זבה שאם תראה תסתור אין לה למנות:

Explanation of Tosfos in Noda B’Yehuda II YD:23 arguing with Shelah who makes it into a mitzvah:

כוונתן דביובל ועומר שתמיד הזמן נמשך כסדר לא צריך קרא למכתב וספרת שהרי אין צריך בזה השגחה כלל א"ו מצוה היא אבל בזבה שאם תראה תסתור ואין הזמן עובר ממילא וצריך השגחה על זה ואם כן אין כוונת הפסוק בוספרה לה על הספירה אלא על ההשגחה שיהיו נקיים ולא למצוה לכך אין לה למנות. זהו הנלע"ד לדחות עיקר דברי השל"ה. אבל לדידן אפילו אם יהיבנא ליה להגאון השל"ה סברתו שפסוק זה וספרה לה למצוה הוא אכתי אין לדבריו קיום בנשי דידן דהרי זה פשוט אף אם נימא שהיא מצוה מ"מ מצוה זו שייכא להטבילה דאטו אם לא תטבול כלל ואין רצונה לטבול מי יש מצוה בספירה הזו אתמהה

 

8.  What issur deoraysa does a metzora have to transgress in order to become tahor.

Shaving his head and face with a razor- 14:9 – a double issur for any man, and an extra issur if he is a nazir, but a metzora who needs to become tahor has to shave all his hair.

והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את־כל־שערו את־ראשו ואת־זקנו ואת גבת עיניו ואת־כל־שערו יגלח וכבס את־בגדיו ורחץ את־בשרו במים וטהר

Just interesting – the Gimmel in והתגלח is written large. Reasons given are:

1.    Three people have this halacha of being shaved as bald as an egg- The initial group of Leviim during their inauguration, every nazir after his term ends; and the metzora.

2.      That this taglachas supersedes three issurim – peios harosh, peios hazakan, and nazir. (Some meforshim say they did not cut their peiyos.)

3.      That a boy’s first haircut should be at three years old.  I’m not making this up. It is said in the name of the Arizal. And it’s passuk 33, so you should do it on Lag BaOmer. If you believe that the passuk numbering is holy, which is isn’t. Even though נעשה ונשמע is 24:7.

 

7.  What word in the parsha can be either a verb or an adjective.  Hint: it's a color.

Yarok. ‘Green’ and ‘will spit’.

Green- 14:37

וְרָאָה אֶת־הַנֶּגַע וְהִנֵּה הַנֶּגַע בְּקִירֹת הַבַּיִת שְׁקַעֲרוּרֹת יְרַקְרַקֹּת אוֹ אֲדַמְדַּמֹּת

Spit- 15:8

וְכִי־יָרֹק הַזָּב בַּטָּהוֹר

9.   A man came to Rav Chaim Kanievsky with a shailah. He had a very uncomfortable rash or psoriasis which he showed to Reb Chaim. The doctor had prescribed a medicated ointment. The question was whether he could put it on the rash on Shabbos, or whether there would be an issue of dissolving a thick cream or refuah on Shabbos. Rav Chaim asked to see the rash and said "If the medicine is to cure the rash, and not just for the discomfort, you should be asking whether you can use the cream during the week, not only on Shabbos, because the rash has the symptoms of tzaraas, and the Torah forbids removing the signs of Tzaraas." 

Was this man allowed to walk into the old city of Yerushalayim?

Yes, he is allowed to go into Yerushalayim. 

The Tuma and Tahara status, and the banishment of the Metzora, only go into effect when the Kohen says "Tamei" or "Tahor" (as the Meiri says in MK 7b d'h אפילו,  

'אפילו היו סימני טומאה של מצורע או סימני –רפואה ניכרים לכל אדם אינו לא טמא ולא טהור, עד שיטמאנו הכהן או יטהרנו'.)

Rav Kanievsky was not a Kohen so despite his psak halacha, the man remains tahor.

However, the prohibition of removing signs of Tzaraas is inherent. It is Safeik Issur Deoraysa to remove what might be symptoms of tzaraas (Devarim 24:8, השמר בנגע הצרעת) until an expert, Kohen or non-Kohen, says that they are not tzaraas.   

Note: There is one and only one solitary shittah that obvious tzaraas is immediately tamei, with or without a kohen. That is the Yaavetz, שו"ת שאילת יעבץ א, קלח. The only achron  (the Minchas Yitzchak in  ה, א, יד; ו, קלב ד"ה והנה) who cites him lehalacha does so for purely political reasons, to keep people off of the Har Habayis, an issur kares.   Everyone else only mentions him as a curiosity: 

Ayeles Hashachar here in 13:2;   Lehoros Nassan, 13:2;  and more.

Should Women Say the Parshos Hakorbanos.

This post was elicited by an experience I had while saying my Halacha Shiur. We are learning Siman 70. Two members of the shiur commented, and each was a very strong stimulus for deeper analysis.

The mechaber begins Siman 70 by saying, from the Mishna in Brachos 20a, that women are not obligated to say Krias Shema, and adds that it is correct and proper for them to do so. 

Hachaver Michoel (Mike) Nussbaum questioned the application of Mitzvas Asei shehazman gerama to krias shema. He said that Shofar is a clearly time-bound mitzvah, and, as such, it is not obligatory for women. But Shema is an application, or a parallel, of the universal mitzva of Kabalas Yichud Hashem, and as such, it should apply to women despite the general rule of zeman gerama. 

So we spent a day going through the Chinuch, who says that the mitzva of achdus (417) is derived from the word "shema," and the mitzva of kerias shema (420) is derived from vedibarta bam; and the Rambam, that the mitzva of achdus (2) is from Hashem echad, and the mitzva of Shema is from vedibarta, and the Ramban that achdus is from Anochi. In any case, the two mitzvos are clearly separated, and as such, although achdus is universal, its rules are entirely different. For example, we do not know how often one is obligated to be meyached Hashem. Only when faced with a life or death decision? Once a year like mechiyas amalek? Once a day, like Tefillin? But Shema has specific times and specific words, albeit in any language. 

Still, his sevara is shared by the Sefer Ohel Moed, brought in the Beis Yosef. 

כתוב באהל מועד נראה דעבד ואשה חייבים הם בקבלת הייחוד דהיינו פסוק ראשון:

According to him, the Mishna that says that women are pattur is only if you hold the mitzva requires the whole parsha or two parshios. But if you hold the mitzva is only the first passuk, then women are equally chayav.

(Who, you ask, is the Sefer Ohel Moed?  It was written by Harav שמואל ירונדי, who was born a few years before the petirah of the Baal HaTurim, and was highly respected, but overshadowed by the Tur. It is brought down only a few times in the Beis Yosef.)

As for Korbanos; Should women say the parshios of korbanos?

Because the mechaber says women have no obligation to say Shema, the Mishna Berura reviews what he had said in other places about what parts of tefilla women are required to say. A glimpse at the Aruch Hashulchan here and in Siman 106 will illustrate the many differences of opinion on this topic, and indeed there is a wide range of opinion in women's mosdos hachinuch today regarding the practical requirements and priorities of tefilla for women. But I mentioned that back in the end of Siman 47, the Biur Halacha brings that women have to make birkas hatorah because, among other reasons, they have to say the parshios of korbanos.  He holds that once a person has an obligation to read a parsha in the Torah, reading that parsha requires Birkas HaTorah.

This halachic opinion is well founded; it is brought in the Beis Yosef from the Agur quoting the Maharil, and reaffirmed by the Magen Avraham and the Taz and the Shulchan Aruch Harav ((וְעוֹד שֶׁבִּרְכַּת הַתּוֹרָה מְבָרְכִין קֹדֶם "פָּרָשַׁת הַתָּמִיד" וּבִקְרִיאַת "פָּרָשַׁת הַתָּמִיד" הֵן שָׁווֹת לָאֲנָשִׁים, שֶׁהֲרֵי תְּפִלָּה בִּמְקוֹם תָּמִיד תִּקְּנוּהָ) and the aforementioned Biur Halacha. This is an authoritative and impeccable list of poskim.  

And now that the new teshuvos of the Maharil have been published, we find the original teshuva quoted by the Agur. He is talking about women's obligation to say birkas hatorah, and says

 ועוד נראה דעדיף משאר מצות שפטורות מהן, דרבנן תקנו פרשת וידבר משום נגד התמיד כדאמר מר כל העוסק בפרשת עולה וכו', ואטו נשים מי לא מחייבי בתמיד וקרבנות כמו אנשים, הא חייבות בתפילות וכנגד תמידין תקנו, וא"כ מחייבי נמי לסדר ענייני קרבנות, קראי, ושמא נמי מתני' דאיזהו מקומן. ותפלות אין שייך דאינן מבינות, ומ"מ הוי כאילו הקריבו קרבן משום עקימת שפתים, דליגרוס איניש אע"ג דלא ידע [מאי קאמר], ופשיטא דאיש חייב לברך אע"ג דאין מבין קריאתו וגרסתו וכו'.

Please note the circuitous three part reasoning: Are women not chayav in the Tamid and Korbanos like men?  1. They are obligated to say Shemoneh Esrei. 2. Shemoneh Esrei corresponds to the korbanos. 3. Therefore, they are chayav to say the Korbanos.

The question is often asked, why don't women say the parsha of korban Yoledes from the beginning of Tazria. In fact, this question was asked by the Cheshek Shlomo in his Teshuvos Binyan Shlomo: 

https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1866&st=&pgnum=93

Why don't our siddurim have the parsha of zava and yoledes? He says that they are wrong, and that it is a mistake to not have it in the siddur, because women are absolutely obligated to say these parshios. Or, perhaps, their husbands are obligated to say it for them. 

Similarly, many ask on that parsha, why does it describe the korban ashir of yoledes, then say Zos Toras hayoledes to bring a korban, and only then say that if she can't afford it she should bring a pair of birds, the korban dalus.  It should have said korban ashir, korban ani, then Zos Toras. 

וּבִמְלֹ֣את יְמֵ֣י טׇהֳרָ֗הּ לְבֵן֮ א֣וֹ לְבַת֒ תָּבִ֞יא כֶּ֤בֶשׂ בֶּן־שְׁנָתוֹ֙ לְעֹלָ֔ה וּבֶן־יוֹנָ֥ה אוֹ־תֹ֖ר לְחַטָּ֑את אֶל־פֶּ֥תַח אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד אֶל־הַכֹּהֵֽן׃ 

וְהִקְרִיב֞וֹ לִפְנֵ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ וְכִפֶּ֣ר עָלֶ֔יהָ וְטָהֲרָ֖הֿ מִמְּקֹ֣ר דָּמֶ֑יהָ זֹ֤את תּוֹרַת֙ הַיֹּלֶ֔דֶת לַזָּכָ֖ר א֥וֹ לַנְּקֵבָֽה׃ 

וְאִם־לֹ֨א תִמְצָ֣א יָדָהּ֮ דֵּ֣י שֶׂה֒ וְלָקְחָ֣ה שְׁתֵּֽי־תֹרִ֗ים א֤וֹ שְׁנֵי֙ בְּנֵ֣י יוֹנָ֔ה אֶחָ֥ד לְעֹלָ֖ה וְאֶחָ֣ד לְחַטָּ֑את וְכִפֶּ֥ר עָלֶ֛יהָ הַכֹּהֵ֖ן וְטָהֵֽרָה׃

Several achronim (most famously the baal haHaflaah) answer that the words Toras by korbanos is used elsewhere to teach that if there is no Beis Hamikdash, you can fulfil your chiyuv korban by saying the parsha. If that is what Toras alludes to, it doesn't make sense to say it after the korban dal. If all you're doing is saying the parsha, you should say the parsha of the korban ashir! That is why it says zos toras after ashir and before ani. This answer also assumes that a yoledes can fulfil her obligation by reading the parsha. (Unless you say it refers to her husband.)

So you have a sterling list of poskim who say that that women are obligated in Tamid no less than men, and also that they have the din of saying korbanos to fulfil their korban obligation, whether it be Tamid or Musaf or yoledes or zava or chatas or asham or todah. 

But there are three strong questions on this idea. 

1. Women are pattur from Machatzis hashekel so they should be pattur from all korbanos tzibur

2. The rule that learning is in place of hakrava makes sense when you have a mitzva of talmud torah, because then the limud is an equal part of the etzem mitzvah. But if you have no mitzva of talmud torah, who says the rule in Menachos 110 that כל העוסק בתורת חטאת כאילו הקריב חטאת וכל העוסק בתורת אשם כאילו הקריב אשם applies? They have no mitzva of La'asok. 

3. Just as Musaf is zman grama, the Tamid is also Zman Grama. Bishlema tefilla is Rachami. But Musaf is not, and the Tamid is no more Rachami than the Musaf.

The first question was stated by Reb Akiva Eiger, the second by the Chasam Sofer, and the third by the Noda Biyehuda in the Tzlach. All directly contradict the Maharil/Beis Yosef/MA/TAZ/ShAHarav/Biyur Halacha.

RAE in Tshuvos 9 (and there's a nice piece in the Kehilas Yaakov in Zevachim siman daled on this)

דלכאורה נראה דנשים פטורות מתפלת מוסף כיון דנשים לא היו שוקלות אין להם חלק בקרבנות ציבור

The second point is made by the Chasam Sofer in in the new version al hatorah in Tazria, which I don't have, and the Kli Chemda in Tazria is mechavein.

(The Chasam Sofer says as follows: What does Rashi/the Gemara mean that chatas comes first except "למקראה"? But when you read it, you are yotzei, so it should have the same order as hakrava! He answers that this may be true by other korbanos, but not here, because it's a women's korban, and she doesn't have a mitzva of Talmud Torah, so her reading the parsha is indeed mikra b'alma, not k'ilu hikriv.

שבכל התורה כל העוסק בפרשת הקרבנות כאילו הקריב אותו קרבן, וא"כ לעולם צריך להקדים החטאת לעולה, משא"כ פרשת יולדת דלא שייך בהו כאילו הקריב, שהרי ת"ת אינו אלא לזכרים, ובהו לא שייך יולדת, ואינו כאילו הקריב רק מצות קריאה בעלמא, ומשום הכי ראוי להקדים עולה דחשיב טפי מחטאת.)

The third point is from the Tzlach in Brachos 26a

https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37718&st=&pgnum=49

But most importantly, nobody does this. So if someone says, let's make a campaign, tell him it is not a good idea. Saying korbanos is not a chiyuv even for men, and certainly not for women. And their time is better spent saying Tehillim.  When it says that all the yeshuos of Jewish history were in the zechus of nashim tzidkaniyos, I guarantee that their tzidkus was not expressed in saying איזהו מקומן.

This sounds like a lot of effort to explain the self evident, but it's not. When I said the shiur, I said that technically, women have the same mitzva as men to say korbanos, but not one women in ten thousand actually does it. One guy (Howie Borenstein) in the shiur said "My wife says korbanos." I said no she doesn't, bring her to the computer (the shiur was one Zoom.) She came and said she heard it from Rabbi Eliezer Krohn, Rav Pesach's son. My reaction was not positive. She then wrote him, asking if he indeed told his family members to say the parshios of korbanos, and he answered "Thank you for listening and for your email. I did not tell my family members to say tamid. But that's great that you do." I suspect that he was so surprised by the Maharil that he did encourage people to do it, but later realized that it was not normative practice, so he backed off, which is perfectly fine. I don't have the patience to search for his shiur, and there's no benefit in doing so. And anyway, Howie's wife is a tzadeikes, so she's no raya.

The Importance of Mesibas Preida, Tzeischem L'Shalom, Goodbye Party.

 Three parts.

Part One: Sources in Chazal for the idea of marking a person's departure from his home city with a סעודת או מסיבת פרידה, וצאתכם לשלום

Part Two: The story of the Beilis Trial, and how it relates to the idea of a Seudas Preida.

Part Three: An insight into the interconnectedness of all men, and even more so the people in the Jewish community, and the beauty that is hidden in so many people כפלח הרימון, and how important it is to try to understand, and appreciate, and admire our fellow Jews. 

 Part I

To some extent, you don't need a makor in Chazal for things that are obviously good and true. On the other hand, we do like to cite sources for everything, such as in Gittin 6a, 

והא בבל לצפונה דא"י קיימא דכתיב (ירמיהו א, יד) ויאמר ה' אלי מצפון תפתח הרעה

So, is there a source for gathering to wish a friend off when he leaves the community?  I have three. 

Two are from the stories of Eliahu and Elisha.

The first is in Melachim I 19:19-21.

וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ מִ֠שָּׁם וַיִּמְצָ֞א אֶת־אֱלִישָׁ֤ע בֶּן־שָׁפָט֙ וְה֣וּא חֹרֵ֔שׁ שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂ֤ר צְמָדִים֙ לְפָנָ֔יו וְה֖וּא בִּשְׁנֵ֣ים הֶעָשָׂ֑ר וַיַּעֲבֹ֤ר אֵלִיָּ֙הוּ֙ אֵלָ֔יו וַיַּשְׁלֵ֥ךְ אַדַּרְתּ֖וֹ אֵלָֽיו׃

וַיַּעֲזֹ֣ב אֶת־הַבָּקָ֗ר וַיָּ֙רָץ֙ אַחֲרֵ֣י אֵֽלִיָּ֔הוּ וַיֹּ֗אמֶר אֶשְּׁקָה־נָּא֙ לְאָבִ֣י וּלְאִמִּ֔י וְאֵלְכָ֖ה אַחֲרֶ֑יךָ וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לוֹ֙ לֵ֣ךְ שׁ֔וּב כִּ֥י מֶה־עָשִׂ֖יתִי לָֽךְ׃

וַיָּ֨שָׁב מֵאַחֲרָ֜יו וַיִּקַּ֣ח אֶת־צֶ֧מֶד הַבָּקָ֣ר וַיִּזְבָּחֵ֗הוּ וּבִכְלִ֤י הַבָּקָר֙ בִּשְּׁלָ֣ם הַבָּשָׂ֔ר וַיִּתֵּ֥ן לָעָ֖ם וַיֹּאכֵ֑לוּ וַיָּ֗קָם וַיֵּ֛לֶךְ אַחֲרֵ֥י אֵלִיָּ֖הוּ וַיְשָׁרְתֵֽהוּ׃

The Radak in 21 says

וישב מאחריו. לנשק לאביו ולאמו אף על פי שלא ספר הכתוב ואחר כך שחט הבקר ועשה סעודה באותו השדה לחורשים ולעם אשר באו אחריו ללוותו וזהו שאמר ויתן לעם כי מהעם לא היו אתו בשדה כי אם אחד עשר החורשים אלא זהו פירושו כי הלך לקחת רשות מאביו ומאמו ובאו אחריו מאנשי עירו ללוותו כי הוא נפרד מהם:

The second is in Melachim II 2:9.

וַיְהִ֣י כְעָבְרָ֗ם וְאֵ֨לִיָּ֜הוּ אָמַ֤ר אֶל־אֱלִישָׁע֙ שְׁאַל֙ מָ֣ה אֶֽעֱשֶׂה־לָּ֔ךְ בְּטֶ֖רֶם אֶלָּקַ֣ח מֵעִמָּ֑ךְ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלִישָׁ֔ע וִֽיהִי־נָ֛א פִּֽי־שְׁנַ֥יִם בְּרוּחֲךָ֖ אֵלָֽי׃

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִקְשִׁ֣יתָ לִשְׁא֑וֹל אִם־תִּרְאֶ֨ה אֹתִ֜י לֻקָּ֤ח מֵֽאִתָּךְ֙ יְהִֽי־לְךָ֣ כֵ֔ן וְאִם־אַ֖יִן לֹ֥א יִהְיֶֽה׃

It certainly was a hard request to fulfill!  What did Eliahu mean, that the only chance it will come true would be if Elisha saw him taken away? 

I believe the idea was that we don't truly understand and certainly do not fully appreciate what we have until the moment before it is taken away from us. 

Eliahu told Elisha that to be truly inspired by him, by Eliahu, to the degree that his heart and mind would open up to siyata dishmaya of such great ruach hakodesh and nevuah, he would need to witness Eliahu being taken away from him. 

We see that to understand and appreciate our fellows, we need to face the imminent reality of their going away, and that will give each side the opportunity to be inspired by the other's middos tovos.

The third is ... that you don't need a makor for a seudas preida because it is a kal vachomer from halvoyas orchim. As one small example of the importance of levoyas orchim, see Rambam Aveil 14:2

שכר הלויה מרובה מן הכל. (!)  והוא החק שחקקו אברהם אבינו ודרך החסד שנהג בה. מאכיל עוברי דרכים ומשקה אותן ומלוה אותן. וגדולה הכנסת אורחים מהקבלת פני שכינה. שנאמר וירא והנה שלשה אנשים. ולוויים יותר מהכנסתן. אמרו חכמים כל שאינו מלוה כאילו שופך דמים:

If being melaveh orchim is so vitally important, that its schar is "Merubah min hakol," that one who does it is keeping him alive, and one who fails to do so is like a rotzei'ach, then kal vachomer that applies to an individual that lived in your community and who is now leaving. If you do it for some tumbleweed orei'ach, how much more so must you do it for a member of the community that is moving away!

Part II

I just had the honor and privilege to make a Kiddush to mark a member of our community leaving Chicago. He was born and raised here, his parents came as infants, and his great grandparents came here in 1912. The Kiddush was on Parshas Tazri'a Metzora. We found a perfect connection of being melaveh our friend with the parsha of Tzaraas, as odd as that may sound.

The Alshich in Vayikra 12:1 asks, the appellation "Adam" for the Metzora seems inappropriate. Adam is the term used for an elevated human being, and here it is used for a hateful despicable person. 

ועל פי דרכנו נשית לב אל מלת אדם. כי הוא לפי האמת התואר המשובח שבתוארי המין האנושי כנודע מספר הזוהר ולמה נתייחד באשר שנא ה'.

Rav Galinski answered the question with the story of the Beilis trial in 1911. Harav Galinski says the story his way, but I will tell it as my father did, which is much better.

The prosecutor enlisted an alleged religious expert in Judaic rituals, a notoriously anti Semitic Catholic priest, Justinas Pranaitis. While the defense had emphasized that Judaism famously abhorred the taking of human life, Pranaitis said that this was a lie, and he could prove it from the Talmud. The Talmud says that the Jews consider the Gentiles as not human. True, a Jew would never kill a fellow human being, but the Jews consider Gentiles as animals, and no more care about their lives than they would about a cat, or a chicken. They would kill a Gentile for even the most trivial reason, or for no reason at all. After all, the Talmud says in Yevamos 60b

ניא, וכן היה רשב"י אומר: קברי גוים אינן מטמאין באהל שנאמר: 'ואתן צאני מרעיתי אדם אתם', אתם קרויין אדם ואין הגוים קרויין אדם

Clear. The Jews view the Gentiles as subhuman, and would kill them with absolutely no mercy or pang of conscience.

This accusation struck fear in the Jewish community. Pogroms were being prepared, priests were preaching against the deicide Jew, and a repeat of the Khmelnytsky massacres was imminent.

The defense desperately sent a message to Rav Meir Shapiro. What should we do? How can we answer this accusation??

Rav Shapiro told him exactly what to say, and this was the defense.

The Talmud means something entirely different.  The Jews have forever been pacifists who never shed blood.. Only the blindly antisemitic would misunderstand the Gemara, because its meaning is very clear.

When a Gentile looks at the newspaper, and he sees that thousands of people are starving in China, and if he reacts at all he will sigh, and shake his head, and then turn the page. But if a Jew finds out that there is a Jew in China that doesn't have Matza for Pesach, he will be at the Chinese embassy the next morning with a box of Matza. The Gentile may pity the distant stranger, but the Jew feels the pain of a fellow Jew as if it were his own, even though he never met him, and will never meet him. 

This is what the Gemara means. We, the Jewish People, are Adam, in the singular. We are not separate individuals with a common religion. We are all like one, all parts of one organism. That is what אתם קרויין אדם ואין הגוים קרויין אדם means. We are all like one.

And if you deny this, I will prove that not only is it true, but that you yourselves know that it to be true. 

If you open the newspaper, and there is a story about Ivan, who murdered his neighbor, you will say, "Terrible! Ivan is a murderer." But if you open the paper, and you see a story about Yankel Kohen who murdered his neighbor, you won't say "Yankel Kohen is a murderer." You will say "Terrible! The Jews are murderers!" Why? What's the difference between Ivan the murderer and Yankel the murderer? The answer is that you yourselves know, you yourselves believe in your hearts, that all the Jews are Adam, one person, but the Gentiles, each one is separate from the other.

This response struck like a bolt of lightning. It hit at both the priest's misinterpretation of the Gemara, and also spoke directly to the tens of thousands of Russians that were sharpening their knives, waiting to kill the Jews because of one Menachem Mendel Beilis.

This answers the Alshich's question. A Jewish neshama is not separate from other Jews. We are all one, and we mourn each other's pain and celebrate each other's happiness. If a Jew does not act like that, if he is a ganov and a holeich rachil and az ponim, that means that he is like a limb that is cut off of a body. This spiritual disease manifests itself in Tzaraas, where the person loses his own limbs. Davka because we are Adam, because our neshamos are all interconnected, a man who behaves in the opposite manner has a deadly and mortal spiritual affliction.

When a person is a member of the community, he is not just one person by himself. He is an integral part of everyone else that lives there. When he has the opportunity to do good for others, he takes advantage of the moment. If he has a snow plow, all the neighbors have clear sidewalks. If he has left over from Shabbos, he makes sure it is delivered to someone that might not have enough to eat. When some people came to Chicago from South Africa, he made sure that they would become part of the community, and he shepherded them along until they found their land legs. These are only small chasadim that I happen to know about, but the point is that this person is a vital part of the entire community, or each and every one of us. The connection is mutual and indivisible. On the one hand, that means that with his leaving, we all are losing an important part of our lives, but on the other hand, wherever he goes, he remains part of what and who we are.

Part III

Robert Fulghum

The Barber

Hair grows at the rate of about half an inch a month.  I don't know where he got his facts, but Mr. Washington came up with that one when we were comparing barbers.  That means that about eight feet of hair had been cut off my head and face in the last sixteen years by my barber.

 I hadn't thought much about it until I called to make my usual appointment and found that my barber had left to go into building maintenance.  What?  How could he do this?  My barber.  It felt like a death in the family.  There was so much more to our relationship than sartorial statistics.

 We started out as categories to each other:  "barber" and "customer."  Then we became "redneck ignorant barber" and "pinko egghead minister."  Once a month we reviewed the world and our lives and explored our positions.  We sparred over civil rights and Vietnam and lots of elections.  We became mirrors, confidants, confessors, therapists, and companions in an odd sort of way.  We went through being thirty years old and then forty.  We discussed and argued and joked, but always with a certain thoughtful deference. 

After all, I was his customer.  And he was standing there with his razor in his hand.

 I found out that his dad was a country policeman, that he grew up poor in a tiny town and had prejudices about Indians.  He found out that I had the same small-town roots and grew up with prejudices about Blacks.  Our kids were the same ages, and we suffered through the same stages of parenthood together.  We shared wife stories and children stories and car troubles and lawn problems.  I found out he gave his day off to giving free haircuts to old men in nursing homes.  He found out a few good things about me, too, I suppose.

 I never saw him outside the barber shop, never met his wife or children, never sat in his home or ate a meal with him.  Yet he became a terribly important fixture in my life.  Perhaps a lot more important than if we had been next-door neighbors.  The quality of our relationship was partly created by a peculiar distance.  There's a real sense of loss in his leaving.  I feel like not having my hair cut anymore, though eight feet of hair may seem strange.

 Without realizing it, we fill important places in each other's lives.  It's that way with a minister and congregation.  Or with the guy at the corner grocery, the mechanic at the local garage, the family doctor, teachers, neighbors, co-workers.  Good people, who are always "there," who can be relied upon in small, important ways.  People who teach us, bless us, encourage us, support us, uplift us in the dailiness of life.  We never tell them.  I don't know why, but we don't.

 And, of course, we fill that role ourselves.  There are those who depend on us, watch us, learn from us, take from us.  And we never know.  Don't sell yourself short.  You may never have proof of your importance, but you are more important than you think.

 It reminds me of an old Sufi story of a good man who was granted one wish by God.  The man said he would like to go about doing good without knowing about it.  God granted his wish.  And then God decided that it was such a good idea, he would grant that wish to all human beings.  And so it has been to this day.

 Mr. Fulghum's story strikes me as a very good reminder of the real and true interconnectedness of every member of the Jewish community, of the preciousness of every Jewish soul and its drive to do tzedaka and chesed, and how important it is to remember that it is not the great and feted philanthropists and tzadikim that make us who we are, it is those quiet heroes with shining souls that live next door to us.

The Ancient and Tragic History of Racial Profiling

 Breishis 39:1

ויוסף הורד מצרימה ויקנהו פוטיפר סריס פרעה שר הטבחים איש מצרי מיד הישמעאלים אשר הורדהו שמה

Medrash Rabba Vayeishev Breishis 86:3

וַיִּקְנֵהוּ פּוֹטִיפַר אִישׁ מִצְרִי, גְּבַר עָרוּם, וּמָה הֲוַת עֲרִימוּתֵיהּ, אֲמַר בְּכָל מָקוֹם גֶּרְמָנִי מוֹכֵר כּוּשִׁי, וְכָאן כּוּשִׁי מוֹכֵר גֶּרְמָנִי, אֵין זֶה עָבֶד

Clever man, that Potiphar. He knew that something was amiss.  

I found this somewhat puzzling, because even given the norms of this peculiar institution, it seems to me that you could kidnap or vanquish anyone and sell him in another country, no matter what color he might be. Evidently, people were categorized by color and commodified, and a person that did not fit into that schema was not thought of as a natural slave.

But let us assume that Potiphar, and the Medrash, were describing the reality of the slave trade. What do the words גרמני and כושי mean?

Vayikra 13:4

ואם בהרת לבנה היא בעור בשרו

Mishna Negaim 1:1

מראות נגעים שנים שהן ארבעה.

בהרת עזה כשלג ...

How do we know that Baheres is bright white?

Abayei in Shavuos 6b

ומנלן דבהרת עזה היא אמר אביי אמר קרא (ויקרא יג, ד) ואם בהרת לבנה היא היא לבנה ואין אחרת לבנה

So in Negaim 2:1, the Mishna says 

בהרת עזה נראית בגרמוני כהה, והכהה בכושי עזה.

and the Rambam there explains that Garmani is related to the Aramaic for "bone."  They are as white as bone.

גרמני שם הלבן ביותר מיוחס אל העצם אשר שמו גרמא

Rabbi Yishmael in the Mishna points out that we Jews are of an intermediate, woody color.

רבי ישמעאל אומר, בני ישראל, אני כפרתן, הרי הן כאשכרוע, לא שחורים ולא לבנים, אלא בינוניים.

From the Medrash, though, it is clear that the Jew's hues are much closer to that of the Germanim than that of the Kushim.  Apparently the Yishmeailim that were selling Yosef were of a swarthier hue than Yosef, even before we were supplanted by the Khazars.

The Gaon in Eliahu Rabba (and Reb Elyah Bachur in his Tishbi) says that the word Garmani refers to the descendents of Gomer, who lived up North, while the Kushim lived in the South.

בגרמוני – זה איש מבני גומר כדאמרינן ביומא גומר זה גרממיא, וגרסינן גרמניא וכ"ה בילקוט. והוא שבני נח דרים בג' רוחות העולם, שם במזרח, יפת בצפון, חם בדרום, ומפני שהחמה בדרום נמוך הוא מאוד בני אדם הדרים שם שחורים וכוש הוא מבני חם ודר בסוף דרום, הלכך הם שחורים ביותר מחמת השמש, ובני יפת הם דרים בצפון ורחוקים הם מהשמש, הלכך הם לבנים. וגומר דר בסוף צפון הלכך הם לבנים ביותר וכו'.

The Tiferes Yisrael brings the Gaon but he says that their color has nothing to do with their environment. They just are like that naturally. Germani and Kushi are just place names.

ולם לפע"ד הרי לפי"ז לא תלי כלל באיזה אקלימא הוא דר, שיש שנולד כך משונה בעורו, ונקרא בל"א אלבינוס, והוא מום באדם ונקרא בלשון המשנה לבקן [בכורות פ"ז מ"ו], ולמה לא קראו תנא גם הכא כן, ותו מסתבר דכמו כושי שהזכיר תנא, נקרא על שם ארצו, כך גרמני על שם ארצו נקרא].

The Tosfos Anshei Sheim there adds the sefer Beis Dovid who says that the Germans are not the whitest. They are not nearly as white as Hollanders.

מכאן תשובה למ"ש הרמ"ז, וז"ל, בגרמוני אנשי גרמניא הם לבנים ביותר, וכ"מ במוסף ערוך (ערך גרמן ב), ע"כ, וליתא דגרמוני אין פירושו איש מגרמניא דתנא בא"י קאי, ואילו היה המוסף הערוך בגרמניא היה רואה בעיניו שאינם לבנים כ"כ כמו אנשי הולנדיא שהיא ארץ מולדתו.

His complaint is not really valid, though, because in Megilla 6b it says 

גרממיא של אדום שאלמלי הן יוצאין מחריבין כל העולם כולו.

which says that Germamia is from Edom, the son of Shem, while in Yoma 10a it says they are from Yefes - 4

בני יפת גומר ומגוג ומדי, גומר זה גרמניא

and the Gaon says that the correct girsa in both places is Germanya, not Germamya. So are they from Sheim or Yefes? Evidently, they are both white, but there was some movement of populations such that the original Germamians ended up in Holland, while the current residents, who are slightly less white, are really of Italian origin.

Ayy, you're going to say that Sancherev mixed up all the nations?

בשנת תרנ"ח כשביקר וילהלם קיסר גרמניה בירושלים וכל בני העיר בראשות גדולי התורה יצאו לבקר את פניו, השתמט רבינו באומרו כי מה שאמרו חז"ל (ברכות ט ב) א"ר יוחנן לעולם ישתדל אדם לרוץ לקראת מלכי ישראל ולא לקראת מלכי ישראל בלבד אלא אפי' לקראת מלכי עובדי כוכבים שאם יזכה יבחין בין מלכי ישראל למלכי עובדי כוכבים, לא נאמר לגבי מלך מזרעו של עמלק.

עי' בס' אורחות רבינו מהגרי"י קנייבסקי זצ"ל שקיבל את דברי רבינו, ולא היה תמוה בעיניו על שהורה שלא לברך אף שהיה בידו סמכות של מלך, אלא דהקשה שהרי במסכת ידים (פ"ד מ"ד) מובא שכבר עלה סנחריב מלך אשור ובלבל את כל האומות א"כ מנין לנו שהגרמנים המה מזרע עמלק. ואמר הגריי"ק זצ"ל דאפשר שדעת הגרי"ח מקורה במגילה, דאמר יעקב לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבש"ע אל תתן לעשיו הרשע תאות לבו, זממו אל תפק זו גרממיא של אדום, שאלמלי הן יוצאין מחריבין כל העולם כולו. וכתב הגאון ר' יעקב עמדין בהגהותיו על מסכת מגילה שכוונת הגמ' על ארץ גרמניה, וכ"ה גירסת הגר"א, ולפי"ז מבוארת דעת הגמ' כאן דאומה זו לא בלבל סנחריב, וחולקת על המשנה דמס' ידים.

So the Germanic people, or at least the Nordic people, are not included in the bilbul of Sancherev.

As for Kush/כוש, that name appears in Breishis 2:13, וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשֵּׁנִי גִּיחוֹן הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב אֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ כּוּשׁ. Later, Cham named his son Kush. Perhaps the names used in Breishis are al shem ha'asid. I think it is self evident that the Kush in Megillas Esther has nothing to do with the African Kush associated with the usual Kushim and the son of Cham. That Kush refers to the mountain range that runs from Afghanistan through Pakistan, north of today's India.

UPDATE APRIL 2025: I'm wrong. The first use of the term Kush regarding the Hindu Kush dates from around the year 1000. When it says Kush in Megillas Esther, it has to be the original African Kush.

(Much of the above is derived from here.)