[Avodah] Closed In vs Separated

[Akiva Miller]

.
R' Micha Berger asked:

> Don't know what to make of this, but I think it means
> something...
> Unqelus translates "tzaraas" as "segirus" or "segirusa".
> "Tzarua" is "segir", etc...
> Later in the parashah, he renders "nidah" as "richuqeih".
> "Closed in" vs "distanced". Both causes of tum'ah.
> As I said, it's bound to be significant somehow, but I
> don't know if anyone discusses what.

ArtScroll's "Onkelos" says this on Vayikra 13:2 -

<<< Onkelos consistently refers to tzaraas as s'giru - literally,
confinement or closure - alluding to the obligation to confine the
afflicted one in certain cases, as stated below (Tirgem Avraham; Me'at
Tzori; Parshegen to v. 4). The term s'giru contains additional allusions as
well: According to the Zohar (Vol. III, p. 47a), it alludes to the fact
that tzaraas is caused by an obstruction to the Heavenly light. Others say
that it comes to teach us that tzaraas comes upon a person for not closing
his mouth against speaking lashon hara (Derashos R' Yehoshua Ibn Shuib), or
that one who speaks lashon hara (the main cause of tzaraas) causes the
gates of Heaven to be closed to to his prayers, as stated in the Zohar,
Vol. III, p. 53a (Iyun Yaakov to Sotah 32b). >>>

and on Vayikra 15:19 -

<<< The Hebrew term niddah, as well as the Aramaic term richuk, mean
"separation" or "distancing." The period when a woman is a niddah is thus
called because during the time she is distanced from touching other people
(Rashi). [I.e., her husband; and in the time of the Beis Hamikdash, others
as well, lest she render them tamai.] >>>

Okay, that's what each means individually. If you want a comparison of the
two concepts to each other, I have to say that I'm reminded of something I
saw last week regarding the tum'ah of different animal species.  (It's
easier to cite "ISBN 9780826601964" [Google it with the quotes] than to
give the title and editors of this Chumash that I've fallen in love with.)
On Vayikra 11:8, these editors explain why they did not translate "tamei"
as "defiled" in this chapter, but rather they sometimes used the phrase
"spiritually defiled" and sometimes "ritually defiled". Here's their
explanation:

<<< In contrast to eating these animals, which renders a Jew *spiritually*
defiled, touching or carrying the carcasses of these animals renders a Jew
*ritually* defiled, as will be seen presently (below in vv. 24 ff.).
Contracting ritual defilement requires the person to ritually purify
himself before entering the Tabernacle precincts or eating consecrated
food. Although we are not allowed to spiritually defile ourselves by eating
these animals, we are allowed to ritually defile ourselves by touching or
carrying their carcasses (as long as we understand the ramifications of
doing so (below, v. 35)). The only exception to this is the pilgrim
festivals, during which we must not render ourselves ritually defiled by
touching their carcasses (Rashi). >>>

According to this, the nonkosher animals can impart two different kinds of
tum'ah: Merely touching it is usually muttar, though it puts one into a
halachic category which has various ritual restrictions. But ingesting it
is always assur; it affects one's neshama in bad ways.

Perhaps nidah and tzaraas parallel the above. Perhaps niddah is merely a
ritual tum'ah, requiring only a certain physical distancing, whereas
tzaraas is a spiritual tum'ah that has severe negative effects.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210415/055cc899/attachment-0003.htm>