Parashat Metzora 5784 — 04/20/2024
Beginning with Bereishit 5781 (17 October 2020) we embarked on a new format. We will be considering Rambam’s (Maimonides’) great philosophical work Moreh Nevukim (Guide for the Perplexed) in the light of the knowledge of Vedic Science as expounded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The individual essays will therefore not necessarily have anything to do with the weekly Torah portion, although certainly there will be plenty of references to the Torah, the rest of the Bible, and to the Rabbinic literature. For Bereishit we described the project. The next four parshiyyot, Noach through Chayei Sarah, laid out a foundational understanding of Vedic Science, to the degree I am capable of doing so. Beginning with Toledot we started examining Moreh Nevukim.
Vayikra 14:1-15:33
Tazria and Metzora are often read together. Since this year is a leap year, they are read separately, Tazria last week and Metzora this week.
Rambam continues his discussion of negative attributes:
It has accordingly become manifest to you that in every case in which the demonstration that a certain thing should be negated with reference to Him becomes clear to you, you become more perfect, and that in every case in which you affirm of Him an additional thing, you become one who likens Him to other things and you get further away from the knowledge of His true reality. It is from this point of view that one ought to come nearer to an apprehension of Him by means of investigation and research: namely, in order that one should know the impossibility of everything that is impossible with reference to Him – not in order that one should make an affirmation ascribing to Him a thing as being a notion superadded to His essence or because the notion in question is held to be a perfection with reference to Him, since one finds it a perfection with reference to us. For all perfections are habitus, and not every habitus can exist in every being possessing habitus. Know that when you make an affirmation ascribing another thing to Him, you become more remote from Him in two respects: one of them is that everything you affirm is a perfection only with reference to us, and the other is that He does not possess a thing other than His essence, which, as we have made clear, is identical with His perfections.
I had to look up habitus too: 1) a person’s general constitution, especially physical build; 2) the way a person of a particular background perceives and reacts to the world. This is actually a recent word in English, dating only from about 1800. I don’t know what Arabic or Hebrew term Rambam actually used, but here he seems to use it to refer to the configuration of whatever object or system we are ascribing positive attributes to. This idea, that positive attributes attach to habitus of whatever we’re attributing them to, implies that positive attributes can only apply to composite systems – systems that can have a configuration. Gd is a simple Unity, and consequently there are not different configurations to which attributes can apply, if I am understanding Rambam’s meaning of habitus correctly. Note that this brings us to the recurring problem, if Gd never changes, how is it that sometimes He appears as merciful and sometimes as an exacting judge, sometimes granting undeserved benefits and sometimes withholding what appears to be deserved rewards. One can give answers to these specific questions (some better than others), but it does not approach an answer to the fact that Gd does, in fact, appear to us to change. I only bring this up here to point out that this very basic question of how a transcendent Gd can act in an ever-changing world, will pop up everywhere we turn, for the relationship between the transcendent and the manifest creation is the most fundamental question of life.
Incidentally, as I was writing this I received the following quote from Adi Shankaracharya, the pre-eminent teacher of the philosophy and practice of Vedanta (Brahman is transcendental wholeness):
There is no class of substance to which the Brahman belongs, no common genus. It cannot therefore be denoted by words which, like ‘being’ in the ordinary sense, signify a category of things. Nor can it be denoted by quality, for it is without quality; nor yet by activity, because it is without activity – it is ‘at rest, without parts or activity’ according to the scriptures. Neither can it be denoted by relationship, for it is ‘without a second’ and it is not the object of anything but its own self. Therefore, it cannot be defined by word or idea; as the scripture says, it is the one ‘before whom words recoil.’
I think, in different words and several millennia before Rambam, Shankara is expressing the same idea, that positive attributes are wholly unsuitable to describe the transcendent. This is because the transcendent is no-thing. Anything that would describe the transcendent limits it into some-thing. Or, as Lao-Tzu put it, The Tao that can be told is not the perfect Tao . I think Shankara also makes explicit what is only implicit in Rambam, and that is the self-referral nature of the transcendent – since the transcendent is consciousness, it is aware, and, having only itself to be aware of, there is a kind of virtual feedback loop established within the transcendent, as we have discussed. When Rambam equates Gd’s knowledge, power and will with His essence, I think it makes essentially the same point. The difference between the two is the emphasis in Shankara on the identity of the transcendent with the Self, while in Rambam Gd is thought of as someone outside our self. Of course, Rambam is dealing with a situation of a self that is not fully expanded, while Shankara is dealing with the unbounded Self, Pure Consciousness.
Rambam discusses this self-referral aspect of Gd in the continuation of the passage:
As everyone is aware that it is not possible, except through negation, to achieve an apprehension of that which is in our power to apprehend and that, on the other hand, negation does not give knowledge in any respect of the true reality of the thing with regard to which the particular matter in question has been negated – all men, those of the past and those of the future, affirm clearly that Gd, may He be exalted, cannot be apprehended by the intellects, and that none but He Himself can apprehend what He is, and that apprehension of Him consists in the inability to attain the ultimate term in apprehending Him.
Gd is the only one who can know Gd, and of course that knowledge is self-referential. Nothing and nobody else can apprehend Gd, because Gd encompasses everyone and everything. We literally can’t “get our heads around” Gd, because our “heads” are finite and require specific, positive traits to hold onto in order to understand it with our finite minds. Gd of course, has no such limitations. Humans can, however, come close by transcending with the mind. The mind can settle down to its state of least excitation, the state of Pure Consciousness. This state is devoid of all specific content, unbounded and eternal, and it is our direct experience. And since it is a state of consciousness, it can be aware; since it is devoid of all content, it can only be aware of itself. Thus, while we cannot confidently describe Pure Consciousness, even to ourselves, the experience is quite vivid. Perhaps in this way we can get a glimpse of the way Gd knows Himself.
Chag Kosher v’Same’ach!
**************************************************************************************
Commentary by Steve Sufian
Parashat Metzora
Parshah Metzora teaches us the importance of living in Universal Love so that we do not set ourselves apart from our neighbors, near and far; we do not speak ill of others and we do not feel that we are better than others. Whatever skills we have we realize are gifts from Gd.
It’s only through “loving Gd with all our heart, all our soul, all our might” and “loving our neighbor (and our enemy) as our self (our Self)” that we can return to Full Awareness of the Source, Gd, our own Full Nature.
This parshah teaches us we need to look at our lives as something we are personally responsible for, something certainly vital for us to do. It is also vital that we ask what is the source of our thoughts, our decisions, our right actions, our wrong ones? What is the source of our health and our afflictions?
In Parashat Metzorah, the angle is that the individual who has an affliction, a skin disease, is personally responsible. True!
But Torah and the parshah do not discuss that the thoughts and actions that lead to health or afflictions come to the individual from the Source the individual does not know. We need to rise to the level of awareness where we are aware of the Source, are One with the Source, are the Source playing the role of our individual selves; then our actions as individuals will always be healthy for us and everyone, never harmful, never!
Through unselfish love we rise to Love, to Happiness, Joy, Return to Full Awareness of One.
“Metzora” is short for three Hebrew words (“motzi shem ra”) meaning “saying bad things about people.” [Bob Rabinoff points out this is a Rabbinic drash. When a person develops skin lesions – often called leprosy but, as Bob Rabinoff points out, it is not Hansen’s disease: “Hansen’s disease (also known as leprosy) is an infection caused by slow-growing bacteria called Mycobacterium leprae. It can affect the nerves, skin, eyes, and lining of the nose (nasal mucosa). With early diagnosis and treatment, the disease can be cured.] The symptoms of tzara’at do not correspond to the symptoms of Hansen’s disease. If tzara’at were an infectious disease (and drugs were not available), someone who had it covering the entire body would not be declared pure and allowed back into society — he’d be the most infectious!
• Although tzara’at has a physical manifestation, one does not become tam’ei with it until a kohen pronounces him tan’ei – and there are cases, like at a holiday or a wedding where the priest would refuse to look at the lesions so as not to spoil the festivities. Just at a time when everyone was going to be together! The CDC would not condone that!”
• When a person develops this kind of skin lesion, the community takes it as a sign that he has consistently spoken bad things about people, is spiritually impure. Chabad.org beautifully comments that through failure to love he has isolated himself from the community. Part of the healing process is that he should be physically isolated from the community. Gd commands that he stay outside the camp (interpreters comment this has the value of allowing him time to reflect on his immoral behavior, to commit himself to moral behavior and to be healed; some also comment that this protects the members of the community from being further harmed, perhaps infected, by him). It is also a physical reminder of how damaging he has been to himself by isolating himself from his neighbors through his unloving thoughts, speech, actions; and through his conception of himself as greater than others.
When a kohen (priest) goes outside the camp and sees that the metzora is healed of his skin affliction, the process of purifying the metzora’s whole personality, his soul, begins.
Chabad.org again comments beautifully that by leaving the camp where Gd’s Presence is so manifest in order to see if the metzora has been healed, the kohen is showing great love, he is a great role model for the metzora.
The purification process continues with two birds, spring water in an earthen vessel, a piece of cedar, a scarlet thread and hyssop.
One bird will be slaughtered, its blood put in the spring water in the earthen vessel. The other bird, the cedar stick, the scarlet thread and the hyssop will then be dipped in the water.
Rashi, the most-quoted commentator on Torah, observes that birds constantly chatter and it is the chatter of the metzorah that needs to be purified, restored to loving; the cedar tree is tall and so it symbolizes the haughtiness with which the metzora considered himself higher than others (and through the naturally tall cedar he can naturally be restored to his full height as a human being, an expression of Gd, High without Limit).
One bird is slaughtered: this is the old speech, unloving. The other bird lives: this is the healthy speech to which the metzora now becomes attached.
Spring water is a common symbol of purity and so it symbolizes the purity which the metzora will return to. Earth is a common symbol of Love, of stability, and so it symbolizes the stable love the metzorah will return to.
The scarlet thread symbolizes the red tongue, to be purified by dipping it in the water.
Hyssop is a symbol of purity (it was used to paint the blood on doors to protect our ancestors from the plague of the death of the first born) and also a symbol of humility—it was used by our ancestors for so many purposes it serves as a symbol of willingness to serve Gd in whatever way Gd chooses.
Our religion, whatever spiritual practices we do, helps us to act purely, to become increasingly aware of our Source, to become increasingly healthy, whole and to prevent ourselves from falling ill.
We have a very loving, joyful congregation, a blessing, a Blessing!
Baruch HaShem