[Avodah] FW: Medicine for a Metzora

Tue Apr 8 14:20:58 PDT 2008

On Sun, 6 Apr '08 2:47pm, R David Kishenevsky <dkish at jglinvestments.com.au>
wrote RSBA:
:> It seems clear that in those days, a person speaking Loshon Hara, Motzi Shem
:> Ra etc would end up becoming a Metzora.
:> So which normal bar-daas wouldn't refrain from LH, knowing that he'll get
:> on-the-spot punishment?

: Re your second question, in his sefer, Danny Ginsberg provides an answer
: from the Be'er Mayim Chayim. His answer is that not everyone who spoke LH
: would become a metzora. Rather, one had to be worthy enough to merit the
: punishment. 

So, then the only people who would speak LH is someone who not only
thinks little of others, but also underestimates his own worthiness?
Since tzora'as is also a punishment for ga'avah, that really leaves
someone between a rock and a hard place.

I would give a variant on RDG's theme, that tzara'as is not guaranteed
for the zokheh either. Rather, it has to be that HQBH decided that this
particular person in this particular instance would be best served by
the call to teshuvah. Tzora'as is a form of siyata diShmaya.

Which explains why a nega in a house could be a way of finding hidden
wealth. Even if caused by a cheit, it is more (since chata'im like LH
and ga'avah are commonplace) caused by having the merit to have HQBH
help one do teshuvah.

On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:20:20PM -0400, Michael Makovi wrote:
: I've seen some things that said that tzaarat is definitely not
: leprosy, but the various forms of tzaarat do appear similar to eczema,
: ringworm, and other skin conditions.

What about psoriasis, raised red and white skin where the discoloration
visibly goes deep into the skin? (Not to mention the phonetic similarity.
Proisasis comes from the Greek word psora, meaning "itch", but the
dictionary doesn't trace the origin of the Greek.)

Psoriasis can have a psychosomatic trigger, which allows me to quote
myself from last year's discussion of the parashah (v23n87):

> Today we have psychosomatic illness -- they aren't imaginary, but the
> origin of the physical issue is an emotional one. High blood pressure
> is often an example. Psychosomatic skin disorders are more common among
> Holocaust survivors shlit"a.

> I think of tzora'as as a spiritusomatic illness. But in order for such
> a thing to happen someone would have to be sufficiently unified in guf
> and neshamah for one to be able to impact another.

> If speaking LH doesn't stress mind or soul, how would either (assuming
> mind and soul were distinct) influence the body.

RZL in reply mentioned that he thought it's what the Kuzari says.

On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:59:57PM -0600, Daniel Israel wrote:
: Leaving aside the question of whether there is support in Chazal
: for the idea that tzaras manifests itself as a physical illness in
: some sense, I would say that the real question is not whether it is
: mutar to heal it, so much as whether it would be effective.

Doesn't the pasuq describe the appearance of the skin at length? If we
say that the cause is spiritual, wouldn't that mean it is perforce both?

I would have asked in the reverse -- what physical disease isn't
spiritual? Wouldn't the claim of a spiritual disease imply that HP must
be limited in a way that excludes other diseases?

All I see to differentiate them (assuming we don't roll back the clock
on the universal HP issue) is that tzara'as has a cure that invites
exploring a specific subset of chata'im. Much like RDI's nexct point:

: The difference between tzaras and the other examples you cite is
: that tzaras is specifically described in the Torah and a specific
: refuah given.  It would seem to me that, regardless of the physical
: characteristics, one could successfully heal tzaras by any medical
: means.

This too fits the "spiritusomatic illness" idea. At most, you would cure
the symtpom, allowing the cause of the disease to fester. Even if mutar,
would it be advisable?

Does it make sense to cure someone's high blood pressure and not address
his stress?

As for permissability, one would have to show not only that
1- it's not a violation of hishameir lekha 
but also that
2- verapo yerapei includes hishtadlus for illnesses for which HQBH
specifically gave a bitachon-related treatment.

Going back to RSBA's reply from RDK citing RDG's seifer:
> This is because the term "adam" is used regarding negaim, and not other
> phrases used for man, such as "nefesh", "ish" etc.  "Adam" is the most
> exalted of the terms used for man, since it relates to the idea of "adameh
> l'elyon", which is the height of man's achivement in this world. This is
> to teach us that only "adam hashalem vehameuleh" whose ways are straight
> will be punished with negaim. But a person on the level of "ish" (not
> on the highest level of "adam") will not receive a nega for his sin.

"'Adam ki yamus ba'ohel' - atem qeruyim 'adam', ve'ein umos ha'olam qeruim
'adam'." This would seem to imply that "adam" is a madreiga.

And if you limit HP on Rambam's terms, that not all homo sapiens are
equally members of the class of people (MN II:18) but all people get HP
(to the extent that they belong in the class), then it really is tempting
to identify "adam", the name of yetzir Kapav, with the HP meriting person.

However, while the parashah opens (13:2) with "Adam ki yihyeh ve'ior
besaro..." in pasuq 29 it's "Ve'ish o ishah ki yihyeh bo nega berosh o
vezaqan." Similarly v. 38. And in 40, it's just "ve'ish".

And interesting, in pereq 14, once the person is cured, he is a "metzorah"
(v. 2), or "ve'im dal hu" (21), a d not called a person by any term!

So, I don't see RDG's poing. It's only tzara'as, not the other nega'im,
which occurs to an "adam". Which is in and of itself a question.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
micha at aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507