According to tradition, the affliction of tzoraas characterized by specifically described lesions was a result and consequence of sin, generally loshon horo. Tzoraas was to be diagnosed not by a doctor but by Aharon or one of his descendents, a kohane. The priest was to declare the “patient” either pure or impure rather than healthy or sick. However, the Torah includes an interesting twist in the diagnosis. If the patient has tzoraas over a small part of his body or over most of his body, the priest will declare him impure. However, if the entire body is covered with tzoraas, the priest must declare him pure. What is the purpose of this seemingly illogical anomaly? What are we to learn from this exception to the rule?
Click here for Summary by Channie Koplowitz Stein.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
YU TORAH and NAALEH.COM PARSHAS TAZRIA-METZORAH 5775 Completely Covered By: Mrs. Shira Smiles
According to tradition, the affliction of tzoraas characterized by specifically described lesions was a result and consequence of sin, generally loshon horo. Tzoraas was to be diagnosed not by a doctor but by Aharon or one of his descendents, a kohane. The priest was to declare the “patient” either pure or impure rather than healthy or sick. However, the Torah includes an interesting twist in the diagnosis. If the patient has tzoraas over a small part of his body or over most of his body, the priest will declare him impure. However, if the entire body is covered with tzoraas, the priest must declare him pure. What is the purpose of this seemingly illogical anomaly? What are we to learn from this exception to the rule?
Click here for Summary by Channie Koplowitz Stein.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment