CHAMISHOH MI YODEI'A - FIVE QUESTIONS ON THE WEEKLY SEDRAH - PARSHAS ACHAREI MOSE-K'DOSHIM 5766 - BS"D

2) Ch. 17, v. 13: "Asher yei'o'cheil" - Rashi quotes the Toras Kohanim 17:112 which says that this excludes the slaughtering of a non-kosher species of animal from the requirement to have its blood covered by sand, called "kisuy hadam," since it may not be eaten. Why not exclude a kosher species that became treifoh when ritually slaughtered?

3) Ch. 18, v. 28: "V'lo soki ho'oretz es'chem b'tamaachem osoh kaa'sher ko'oh es hagoy" - The verse seems to contradict itself by saying that you will NOT be expelled when you DO contaminate the land.

K'DOSHIM

4) Ch. 19, v. 11: "Lo tignovU" - This verse refers to the prohibition of stealing property while the verses in Shmos 20:13 and Dvorim 5:17 refer to the prohibition of kidnapping as explained in the gemara B.M. 61a. Why does our verse express itself in the plural form "Lo tignovU," while the verses referring to kidnapping in the singular form, "Lo signove?"

5) Ch. 19, v. 18: "Lo sikome v'lo sitore" - This is the prohibition against either taking revenge or harbouring hatred towards one's fellow man in his heart. The gemara Yoma 23a says that any Torah scholar who does not take revenge and does not harbour hatred towards one who has wronged him, "as a snake does," is not a true Torah scholar. Is a Torah scholar exempt from these two prohibitions?

Answer to questions on parshios Tazria-Metzora:

TAZRIA

1) Ch. 12, v. 8: "Echod l'oloh v'echod l'chatos" - Why by the chatos of a poor person who was shogeg of krisus in parshas Vayikra (5:7), is the replacement for the sheep TWO birds, while here it is only ONE bird for the oloh replacement?

Actually, we would only need one bird by the chatos as well. We have a second one to not deprive the altar of its portion. If only a bird chatos were to be brought, the altar would receive no burned portion at all. One bird for an oloh serves that purpose. Here there is an oloh in any case; just it is reduced to a bird for the poor person. (Based on Ibn Ezra in parshas Vayikra)

2) Ch. 13, v. 2: "B'or b'soro" - Why doesn't the verse simply say "b'oro" since the tzoraas affliction is on the surface of the skin?

The Oznayim laTorah gives us three answers:

1) To teach us that although the affliction is only skin-deep it is not to be taken lightly, but should be considered a deep malady, as if it infected the flesh as well.

2) To indicate that there is a difference in the laws of tzoraas, depending on whether it appears on an open flesh area or a hairy area.

3) To indicate that the sin of the flesh (immorality) is a cause of the tzoraas.

3) Ch. 13, v. 2: "L'nega tzoraas" - Which sins bring "tzoraas upon a person, his garments, or his home?

The gemara Arochin 16a says: R' Yochonon says that there are seven causes for tzoraas:

1) Loshon hora. (Note the similarity of the words "motzi shem ra" and metzoroh.)

2) Murder.

3) Swearing in vain.

4) Sexual immorality.

5) Haughtiness.

6) Theft.

7) Stinginess. (Note the similarity of the words "tzaar ayin" and tzoraas.)

The gemara Yoma 11b says that this last cause is indicated in the verse (14:35) which says, "asher lo habayis." The house is his, but not for the use of anyone else.

METZORA

4) Ch. 14, v. 4: "Shtei TZIPORIM" - There are two words in the Torah for a bird, OFE, as in Breishis 1:21, and TZIPORE, in our verse. What is the difference between these two?

1) The Sifri says that the term OFE can be used for either a kosher or non-kosher species of bird, while the term TZIPORE is used only for a kosher species. (There seems to be a bit of difficulty with this from the verse "Kol tzipor T'HOROH tocheilu" (Dvorim 14:11). Perhaps this might be the source for the Sifri.)

2) The Ibn Ezra says they are one and the same and can be used interchangeably.

3) The Ramban says that OFE is a general name for birds, while TZIPORE is used specifically for birds that have the nature of chirping early in the morning. TZAFRO is Aramaic for morning.

5) Ch.14, v. 4: "V'eitz erez u'shni solaas v'eizove" - These same ingredients are used in the processing of the red heifer, the "poroh adumoh." However, in Bmidbar 19:6 we find them listed in a different order, "Eitz erez v'eizove u'shni solo'as." Why?

Rabbi Chaim Kanievski shlit"a in Taamo Dikro explains this with the words of the Rambam in hilchos dei'os 2:2 and Shmonoh Prokim 1:5. He says that when a bad character trait has found refuge in the heart of a person and he would like to uproot it he should behave in the other extreme until he feels that it has left him. Only then may he take a normal middle of the road approach to that trait.

The gemara Arochin 16a lists seven reasons for Hashem afflicting one with "tzoraas." One reason is for being haughty. The Torah teaches us that if one feels haughty and as elevated as a cedar tree, "eitz erez," let him lower himself like a worm, "shni solaas." This is the advice of the Rambam to go to the other extreme.

Therefore the Torah in our parsha places the "shni solaas" directly after the"eitz erez." This is not the theme of "poroh adumoh" and there the list is in the logical order, descending by size of each item.

A GUTTEN SHABBOS KODESH. FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE BY COPY OR ELECTRONICALLY.

FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED. TO SUBSCRIBE, KINDLY SEND REQUEST TO: SHOLOM613@AOL.COM

See also Sedrah Selections, Oroh V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights