The previous Sidra, Shemini, contained
the laws of ritual cleanliness and purity as applied to animals. This
week's Sidra applies the same concepts to men and women. In the Midrash,
Rav Simlai draws an analogy between the fact that animals were created
before man, and that they were legislated about before him. What is the
substance of this analogy? Was man created last because he was higher or
lower than the animals? In answering the question, the Rebbe traces the
connection between Rav Simlai's opinion and his character, and examines
an important distinction between innate and acquired virtue, or between
the excellence which is inherited and that which is earned. It is a
question that has perplexed many thinkers: Who is better, the man who is
born righteous or the man who has made himself righteous? The Rebbe
considers in depth the role of effort in the religious life.
1. The Name "Tazria"
The names of the Sidrot, as has been mentioned before,1
are not merely labels to differentiate one from the next. Every name in
Hebrew, the holy language, is an indication of the nature of that which
is named. The names of the Sidrot tell us of their essential content.
Thus we find that a number of Sidrot are not called by their opening
words, as is usually the case, but by some later word which more
perfectly expresses their theme.
An example of this occurs with this week's Sidra. After the general introduction ("And the L-rd spoke to Moses saying.")2
the first word is "woman" (ishah): "Ifa woman be delivered and bear a
male child." And yet we do not nowadays call the Sidra Ishah butTazria
("be delivered").
What, then, is the concept implicit in the word Tazria that sums up the content of the entire Sidra?
There is also a difficulty posed by Rashi's comment on the words "If a woman be delivered." Quoting the Midrash,3
he says, "Rav Simlai said: Just as the formation of man took place
after that of the cattle, beast and fowl, when the world was created, so
the law regarding him is set forth after the law regarding cattle,
beast and fowl (contained in the previous Sidra)." Thus the new theme
that our Sidra takes up, by contrast with the previous chapters, is law
relating to humans, as opposed to the laws relating to animals. Thus the
word ishah ("woman") is not only the first individuating word in the
Sidra: It also seems highly appropriate to its
subject-matter-legislation relating to humans. How is it that
"Tazria"embodies more completely this idea of "the law of man?"
2. Man's Place in Creation
Rav Simlai, in his comment quoted
above, uses the phrase "just as" rather than "because." In other words,
the law of man follows that of the animals, not because he was created
last, but for the same reason that he was created last.
What was this reason? Various answers are given in the Midrash and the Talmud.4
One is: So that if a man's mind becomes too proud he may be reminded
that even the gnats preceded him in the order of creation.
Alternatively, so that heretics should not be able to say that the Holy
One, blessed be He, had a partner (namely, Adam) in creation. Again, man
was created last so that he might immediately enter upon the
fulfillment of a precept. He was created on Friday so that he could
immediately sanctify the Shabbat. Lastly, it was so that he might go
"into the banquet" straight away; that is, all nature was ready for his
use.
But the commentators have noticed
that all these reasons, while they apply to man being last in creation,
do not explain his being last in legislation. What is the meaning of Rav
Simlai's analogy, "just as?"
The Alter Rebbe, in his book Tanya,5
explained that in one sense man is lower than all other creatures, even
beasts which are unclean; lower even than the gnat. For not only does
he sin, whereas they do not. But he can sin, whereas they cannot. In
potentiality as well as in actuality, sin is a reality for man but not
for animal.
3. The Order of Learning
The usual order to take in learning
Torah is to progress from the simple to the complex, from the light to
the weighty. This applies to what is learned: A child of five begins
with the Chumash, moves to the Mishnah at the age of ten,6
and so on. It applies also to the depth of learning: First comes
acquaintance with the text and only afterwards come the questions, the
dialectics, the in-depth study.7
And it applies to the manner of learning. We do not reach at once the
highest level of Torah study for its own sake, like David who8
"elevated the Source of the Torah on High, and united it with the
Essence of G-d." Instead, "when a man does it (studies), in the first
place he does so with himself in mind."9
On the other hand, when the Torah was
given, the order was reversed. Its devolution from the spirituality of
G-d to the physical situation of man was, as it were, a descent from
higher to lower. In the passage in Proverbs10
which describes the wisdom of the Torah, it first says: "Then I was by
Him, as one brought up with Him, and I was daily His delight." Only
subsequently were "my delights with the sons of men." The Torah reached
down from the heights of G-d to become the possession of man.11 And we in our learning retrace its path, ascending from our physical situation to spiritual closeness with G-d.
This order of learning is mirrored in
the structure of the Torah itself. This is why the laws concerning
animals are placed first. To sanctify the animal world, by
distinguishing the impure from the pure, is relatively simple. The
problem of sin does not arise in their case. But for man to sanctify
himself, given his capacity for wrongdoing, is far harder. Thus the laws
of human conduct come last. Not because of man's innate superiority to
the animals, but because of his deficiencies. This, too, is Rav Simlai's
opinion as to why he was created last: "So that if he becomes too
proud, he may be reminded that the gnats preceded him in the order of
creation."
4. Rav Simlai-The Man and his Opinions
We can now see the connection between
Rav Simlai's comment, that just as man was created last so his
legislation comes last in the Torah, and the character of Rav Simlai
himself.
A virtue can be possessed in two
ways. It can be won by effort, or it can be innate or fortuitous. Each
has its advantages. An innate or unworked-for virtue has no natural
limits. It is like the difference between talent and expertise. An
inborn talent may be unlimited; expertise, painfully acquired, can never
quite match it. But in its inwardness, the virtue reached by effort
surpasses the virtue which is innate. One is always more closely
involved with what one has earned than with what one has been given.
This distinction underlies the two
contrasting explanations of man's place as the last of the works of
creation: The first that he is the highest, the second that he is the
lowest, of creatures.
In innate capacities, he is the
highest. From birth, before he has begun to serve G-d, he is nonetheless
possessed of a soul which is literally a part of G-d.12 This he retains, together with an underlying faith, even if he turns away from the Divine will.13
But in those virtues which he acquires through the effort of service,
at the outset he is no better than the rest of creation. In fact, what
is most readily apparent is his physical nature, his lack of restraint,
his capacity for sin. The powers of the soul are as yet undisclosed.
They need to be brought to the surface by effort in the service of G-d.
Hence the second opinion, that man was created last to be reminded that
even the gnat is in this one respect prior to him.
The connection between this view and
its author is this: Rav Simlai did not have an illustrious ancestry. The
story is told in the Talmud14
that he came to Rabbi Jochanan and asked him to teach him the Book of
Genealogies. But Rabbi Jochanan refused, because (according to Rashi)
his lineage was undistinguished. Therefore Rav Simlai, unable to lay
claim to inherited virtue, appreciated the value and importance of
effort and acquired virtue. This explains his reading of the order of
creation. When man is created, he has no acquired distinctions except
the disposition to sin. He was made last because at that stage he is the
lowest of beings.
This also explains why human law
should be called Tazria ("be delivered"). For the process from
conception to birth is a symbol of effort, of bringing to fruition, in
other words of "labor" in both its senses. There is an additional
symbolism in the phrase "if a woman be delivered." The male and female
elements in procreation represent respectively the "spiritual awakening
from above" (i.e., the Divine initiative) and "from below" (the human
initiative).15 And service, effort, struggle are the forms which the human initiative takes.
5. The Two Faces of Man
There is a principle expressed in the
Lecha Dodi prayer that "last in action, first in thought." Thus man,
who was created last, was the original intention behind the whole
enterprise of creation.
Both opinions agree with this, that
man is the apex of created life. But one side of the argument sees his
stature in terms of his innate essence:His Divine soul. The other sees
it in terms of his potential achievement through the effort of serving
G-d, while viewing man in himself as the lowest of beings. This view,
which is Rav Simlai's, sees the two faces of man ("Adam" in Hebrew). On
the one hand he is formed from the dust of the earth ("Adamah"); on the
other, he is capable of becoming Divine ("Adameh la-Elyon"-"I will
resemble G-d"). This is his essential capacity-to transform himself
completely, from a natural to a spiritual being.
6. Service and Creativity
The name "Tazria"therefore symbolizes
"avodah," man's service of G-d. It also suggests the importance of that
service. For when a woman conceives a child and it grows in the womb,
an entirely new being is brought into existence. The birth of the child
merely reveals this creation, which was wrought at the moment of
conception. And when man enters on the life of service, he too creates a
new being: Natural man becomes spiritual man, Adamah (the dust of "the
earth") becomes Adameh la-Elyon (a semblance of G-d). And his Divine
soul, which was innate, becomes also inward, because it has changed from
being a gift to being something earned.
(Source: Likkutei Sichot, Vol. VII pp. 74-79)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario