HaMaayan/The Torah Spring
                      Edited by Shlomo Katz

                     Parashat Tazria-Metzora
                    Volume V, Number 26 (212)
                   6 Iyar 5751/April 20, 1991

                        Parasha Overview

   Rashi introduces this Parasha with the statement that just as
man was created after all of the animals, so the laws pertaining to
man are discussed (in this and future Parshot) after the laws of
the animals (which were discussed in last week's Parasha and those
preceding it.)

   R' Shlomo Yosef Zevin notes that there are two possible reasons
why the last element in a list might hold that place.  The last
thing may be the "end" and everything preceding it the means to
that end.  Alternatively, a thing may be the last on a list because
it is incomplete without what came before.

   Chazal gave two reasons why man was created last in the order of
creation.  If he is meritorious we say to him, "The entire world
was created before you so that everything would be ready for you
when you arrived on the scene."  In this case, man is the "end" and
all other creation are the means which serve man's goal.

   On the other hand, if a person is not worthy, we say to him,
"Even the puny gnat was created before you."  In such a case we may
say that man is incomplete; only if he takes a lesson from the gnat
that came before him does he redeem and "complete" himself. 
(L'Torah U'L'Moadim)

              ************************************

   "When you will come to the land of Canaan which I am giving you
as a possession ('Achuzah'), [if] I shall place the affliction of
Tzara'at in a home in the land which you possess...."  (Vayikra
14:35)

   The Gemara (Yoma 12a) learns from this verse:  A home in your
"possession" can become defiled by Tzara'at, but a home in
Yerushalayim cannot become so defiled.  Why?  Because Yerushalayim
was not given to any tribe when the land was divided, and is
therefore not "the land which you possess."  The commentaries raise
several questions in regard to this statement.  Tosfot asks:  How
can we say that Yerushalayim was not divided among the tribes, in
light of the Talmud's statement (Zevachim 53b) that the reason that
the southeastern corner of the Temple altar had no "Yesod" - base -
 was that three of the corners were in the territory of the tribe
of Binyamin, while the southeastern corner was in the territory of
Yehuda.  Clearly then, the Temple site (which was in Yerushalayim)
had been assigned to the tribes just like the rest of the land!  

   The "Chazon Ish" and others ask another question on the Gemara
in Yoma quoted above:  Do we not read explicitly both in the Book
of Yehoshua and in the Book of Shoftim (Judges) that Yerushalayim
was divided between the tribes of Yehuda and Binyamin, just as the
rest of Eretz Canaan was divided among the tribes?!

   R' Shmuel Deutsch, Shlita, explains that there are two kinds of
rights that were given to the Jews in Eretz Canaan.  One is called
"Nachalah" (inheritance) an the other is called "Achuzah"
(possession).  The former implies his right to pass on ownership of
the property to one's heirs; the latter implies the right to use
the property.  We find this distinction drawn in many chapters of
Tanach.  For example, in Parashat Pinchas we read that the
daughters of Tzelofchad asked Moshe to give them an "Achuzah", but
G-d responded that they would receive a "Nachalah" and an
"Achuzah".  In other words, the daughters of Tzelofchad requested
only that they be given a plot of land to use during their
lifetimes, but Hashem said, "No! Not only will I give you land that
you can call your own, it will pass to your children as an
inheritance."  This explains why the elders of Tzelofchad's tribe
did not voice any objections immediately when Tzelofchad's
daughters made their request, but only after G-d spoke.  The
request of Tzelofchad's daughters would not have caused their tribe
to lose any land, for they sought only to hold a parcel of land for
their lifetimes.  If, however, they received a "Nachalah" as well,
and then married men from other tribes, their father's tribe would
be the loser.

   Based on this distinction between "Achuzah" and "Nachalah" we
may answer the questions of Tosfot and the Chazon Ish.  When the
Gemara says that Yerushalayim was not given to any tribe, it means
that no tribe exercised possession ("Achuzah") of, or dominion over
it.  In that sense, it remained the property of all of Israel. 
However, geographically speaking, Yerushalayim stood on land that
was part of the inheritance ("Nachalah") of the tribes of Yehuda
and Binyamin.  Although they could not put their inheritance to any
practical use, it was nevertheless theirs. 

                                  (Birkat Kohen, Metzora, ch. 46)

              ************************************

   The southeastern corner of the altar had no base.  Why?  Said R'
Eliezer, "Because unlike the rest of the altar it was not in the
portion of Binyamin."  (paraphrased from Zevachim 53b)

   What is the connection between the base of the altar and the
tribe in whose territory a particular part of the altar stood?  R'
S.R. Hirsch explains as follows:

   The altar and the offerings brought upon it represent our
striving upwards to achieve closeness to G-d (hence the word
"Korban" from "Karov" meaning "close").  The base which surrounds
the altar represents the idea that our relationship to G-d is
firmly rooted in our deeds and experiences here on earth.  R'
Hirsch explains that the tribes of Binyamin and Yehuda represent
two different approaches to the service of Hashem, and the fact
that the base of the altar is present in Binyamin's territory but
not in Yehuda's suggests that if we adopt Binyamin's approach we
have hope of completing our mission (just as Binyamin's portion of
the altar is complete) but if we adopt Yehuda's approach we will
remain lacking (as Yehuda's section of the altar is lacking).

   Binyamin was the youngest and weakest of all the tribes, and his
life was one that was full of suffering and disappointment.  [His
mother died at his birth, his brother, Yosef, disappeared for 22
years and was presumed dead, and Binyamin himself was wrongfully
accused of theft and imprisoned in Egypt.  Despite all of this,
Binyamin served Hashem faithfully.  In fact, Chazal say that
Binyamin was one of only four people in history who never sinned.] 
Binyamin's success in serving Hashem through numerous trying
circumstances is the perfect model for our own service of Hashem,
as our own history has been one of oppression much like Binyamin's.

   Yehuda, on the other hand, was the king of the tribes, and his
service of Hashem was carried out from a position of power,
strength, and independence.  History has shown, however, that
attempts to serve Hashem in this way have usually failed, much as
the kingdom of David's family, descendants of Yehuda, also
collapsed.  These failures occur because we have not year learned
how to apply Yehuda's traits to our service of G-d.  May Hashem
speedily send the Mashiach, the descendant of Yehuda and David, who
will establish a kingdom in which we will at last understand how to
apply the traits of Yehuda to our service of Hashem, a kingdom that
will therefore endure forever.

                             (Collected Writings, Vol. III p.254;
                  see also R' Hirsch's commentary to Vayikra 1:5)



                     ********************

Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@grebyn.com (uunet!grebyn!ajb), who 
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.

Shlomo Katz can not receive EMAIL, however I will pass on any
comment forwarded to me, or alternately, send your comments care of
yehuda@gwuvm.bitnet