Torah and Tea sicha review
Parshas Tazria
1. We learned in Tractate Negaim1: "אם בהרת קדמה לשער לבן טמא, ואם שער לבן קדם לבהרת טהור. ואם ספק טמא, ור׳ יהושע כהה" ("If the bright spot preceded the white hair, he is impure; and if the white hair preceded the bright spot, he is pure. And if it is in doubt, he is impure; and Rabbi Yehoshua says: kehah")2. The Gemara3 explains: "מאי כהה" ("What is kehah?") — "כהה וטהור" ("it is dim, and pure"). The reason of Rabbi Yehoshua is explained in the Gemara there: "אמר קרא לטהרו או לטמאו, הואיל ופתח בו הכתוב בטהרה תחלה" ("The verse4 says, 'to declare it pure or to declare it impure' — since the verse opened with purity first").
And in Tractate Bava Metzia5 it is stated: "קא מיפלגי במתיבתא דרקיעא, אם בהרת קודמת לשער לבן טמא, ואם שער לבן קודם לבהרת טהור. ספק, הקב"ה אומר טהור וכולהו מתיבתא דרקיעא אמרי טמא. ואמרי מאן נוכח? נוכח רבה בר נחמני, דאמר רבה בר נחמני אני יחיד בנגעים אני יחיד באהלות. שדרו שליחא בתרי׳ כו׳ אמר טהור טהור" ("They were disputing in the Heavenly Academy: If the bright spot precedes the white hair, he is impure; and if the white hair precedes the bright spot, he is pure. If it is in doubt — the Holy One, blessed be He, says 'pure,' and the entire Heavenly Academy says 'impure.' They said: Who will decide? Rabbah bar Nachmani will decide, for Rabbah bar Nachmani said, 'I am unique in Negaim, I am unique in Ohalos.' They sent a messenger after him etc. ... He said: 'Pure, pure'")6.
At first glance this is puzzling: How is it possible that the Heavenly Academy would disagree with the Holy One, blessed be He? And what is the explanation for Rabbah bar Nachmani deciding between them*?
2. Now, it is known7 concerning deciding between two opposing opinions, that this does not mean that the decider "agrees with one of the two opinions" (lines of reasoning); rather, it is a third opinion that "tolerates" and includes both opinions. This is the reason that "הלכה כדברי המכריע" ("the halachah follows the words of the decider")8 — since the opinion of the decider includes both opinions (including the opinion of the one who disagrees with him in the conclusion of the matter), consequently the dissenting reasoning is not the opposite of the decider's reasoning, and therefore the halachah follows him.
This is similar to what we find regarding the third attribute, the attribute of mercy (Tiferes), which includes and decides between the attribute of kindness and the attribute of judgment (Gevurah)9. Even though the attribute of mercy (like the attribute of kindness) also "says" that good must be bestowed upon all, nevertheless it also includes the attribute of Gevurah. The explanation of this: The attribute of kindness sees good in every person, and consequently all are worthy of receiving good and kindness — and the attribute of Gevurah opposes this, for its function is to scrutinize to the utmost, until "שמים לא זכו בעיניו" ("even the heavens are not pure in His eyes"). Whereas bestowal through the attribute of mercy comes (not because they are worthy of it — for in this it agrees with the attribute of Gevurah, that the bestowal of good does not reach them, yet nevertheless one must bestow upon them) because of the compassion felt for them; and against this the attribute of Gevurah has no opposition10.
3. From this we can understand our matter — Rabbah bar Nachmani's deciding between the opinion of the Holy One, blessed be He, and the opinion of the Heavenly Academy: Rabbah's opinion, "pure, pure," (does not stem from the same reasoning for which "the Holy One, blessed be He, says pure," but rather) is a third line of reasoning (which includes both lines of reasoning), which even the reasoning of the Heavenly Academy does not oppose.
The reason Rabbah bar Nachmani was able to decide between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Heavenly Academy is — as stated in the Gemara there: "Rabbah bar Nachmani will decide, for Rabbah bar Nachmani said, 'I am unique in Negaim, I am unique in Ohalos.'" That is, because Rabbah was "unique in Negaim" and "unique in Ohalos," he therefore had the ability to originate a line of reasoning that includes both lines of reasoning, and to decide between them.
4. This will be understood by first introducing what is explained in Likkutei Torah on our parsha11 regarding "the Holy One, blessed be He" and "the Heavenly Academy": "The Holy One, blessed be He" is the level of G‑dliness that is above the worlds — the level of "סובב כל עלמין" ("Encompassing all worlds"); and therefore it is called by the name "Kadosh Baruch Hu" ("the Holy One, blessed be He") — because He is holy and separate from the worlds12. Whereas the light that shines in the "Heavenly Academy" is from the level of G‑dliness that relates to the worlds — the level of "ממלא כל עלמין" ("Filling all worlds").
This is the meaning of "If it is in doubt, the Holy One, blessed be He, says pure, and the entire Heavenly Academy says impure":
Impurity comes from yeshus (sense of self) (and its purification is through tevilah, immersion — which has the same letters as bitul, self-nullification13). Therefore, when there is a doubt whether to declare a person pure or impure (that is, whether the person's yeshus is sufficient to render him impure or not), the Heavenly Academy says that he is impure — for the light that is invested in the worlds (the light grasped in the Heavenly Academy) gives room for existence and yeshus, and the bitul in the worlds that results from this light is only "bitul hayesh" (nullification of an existing entity)14. Therefore, when there is a doubt and a concern that the person became impure [and this itself — that there is a concern that he became impure — is proof that he is not as he should be15], he is impure (at least due to the doubt16). And the Holy One, blessed be He, said that he is pure — because the level of light that is above the worlds gives no room for yeshus, and the bitul that results from this light is the level of "bitul bimetzius" (nullification of existence itself)17; therefore, so long as it is not clearly known that the person became impure, he is pure.
5. Now, it is known that even the "light that encompasses all worlds" has a relation to the worlds, since it is "encompassing" the worlds18. For this reason the encompassing light is called "the Holy One, blessed be He," since the meaning of "Holy" is "separate," as mentioned above — for from the very fact that it is necessary "to make known"19 that He is separate from the worlds, it is proven that we are speaking of a level of G‑dliness that has some relation to them; for if it were above any relation to the worlds, it would also not be relevant to say of it that it is separate from them19.
From this it is understood that the bitul of the worlds that results from this level of light, even though it is "bitul bimetzius," as mentioned above, is not in a manner that entirely negates the existence of the worlds from its root; rather, there is some "existence" that is nullified to Him, may He be blessed (and the nullification is in the manner of "bitul bimetzius").
However20, above this level of bitul is the level of the nullification of the worlds that results from "עצמותו ומהותו ית'" ("His Essence and Being, may He be blessed"), "שאינו בגדר עלמין כלל" ("which is not within the category of worlds at all"). For this nullification is in a manner that negates from its very root any existence other than Him, may He be blessed (unlike the nullification that results from the level of the encompassing light, which is in a manner that gives room for the "existence" of the worlds, except that this existence is nullified to Him, may He be blessed, as mentioned above).
Therefore it is explained that regarding His Essence, may He be blessed, "לא שייך עליו מלת אחד" ("the word 'One' does not apply to Him") — for "One" does not denote the negation of the existence of the worlds altogether (since there is also "a counted one," which has a second). The oneness of "הוי' אחד" ("Havayeh is One") is that the existence of the worlds is united with Him, may He be blessed [that is, that there are seven heavens and the earth (alluded to in the letter ches of "Echad") and the four directions of the world (alluded to in the dalet of "Echad"), and they are united with the Holy One, blessed be He, the Master of the world (alluded to in the alef of "Echad")21] — and this (oneness in this manner) applies only to the level of light that is within the category of the worlds. Whereas the unity that results from His Essence, may He be blessed, is (not in the manner of "Echad," One, but rather) in the manner of "Yachid," Singular — that is, "שהוא לבדו הוא ואפס זולתו" ("that He alone exists, and there is nothing besides Him").
6. Based on the above, one can explain — in the manner of derush — the novelty in what Rabbah said, "pure, pure," which is not the same matter as "the Holy One, blessed be He, said pure," and why therefore specifically Rabbah's opinion decided the opinion of the Heavenly Academy:
Relative to the level of "the Holy One, blessed be He" — where the bitul and the unity of the worlds that result from this level are in the manner of "Echad," that is, that there are worlds (only they are nullified, as mentioned above) — relative to this level, the worlds do occupy a place (as does the world's comprehension and understanding).
Therefore "the entire Heavenly Academy" — whose function (like the study of Torah below) is specifically understanding and comprehension — "says impure," even though they knew that the Holy One, blessed be He, says pure. For the revelation of the level of "the Holy One, blessed be He" (that is, the bitul of "Echad" that results from the level of Sovev) that shone in them was in the manner of makif, encompassing22, but it was not grasped in their intellect, which remained in its own existence, as mentioned above23; and from the standpoint of their own level (the level of Memaleh Kol Almin), reason dictates that he is impure, as explained above in section 4.
Whereas Rabbah bar Nachmani, who was "unique (yachid) in Negaim" — that is, there shone in him from the level of "Yachid"24, which is not within the category of worlds at all, and relative to this level the worlds (and the intellect within them) occupy no place at all — therefore Rabbah's reasoning decided the opinion of the Heavenly Academy. For since he was from the level of "Yachid," he drew this level also into the worlds (and into the intellect within them). This is similar to the ruling of Rav25, who, when he was asked the reason, remained silent (and did not explain it in terms of comprehension), yet did not retract this ruling26.
[This is the meaning of Rabbah being "unique in Negaim" — that in Rabbah the level of "Yachid" shone (not only in the worlds in general, but) also in the matter of "Negaim."]
Accordingly, we can understand why the Holy One, blessed be He, said "pure" (once), whereas Rabbah said "pure, pure" (twice). For when the Holy One, blessed be He, said "pure," this is (only) the purity that results from the level of the light above the worlds — and therefore "pure" once; whereas Rabbah's decision is that even from the standpoint of the worlds he is "pure" — and therefore he said "pure, pure," twice: "pure" from the standpoint of the level of the light above the worlds, and "pure" from the standpoint of the worlds.
7. Now, this law that "in a case of doubt (whether the bright spot came first or the white hair came first) he is pure" is learned (as mentioned at the beginning of the Sicha) from the verse "to declare it pure or to declare it impure" at the end of our parsha.
According to the principle "נעוץ סופן בתחלתן ותחלתן בסופן" ("their end is wedged in their beginning, and their beginning in their end")27, we can connect the above (Rabbah bar Nachmani's decision28) with what is stated at the beginning of our parsha, "אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר" ("When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male"), from which our Sages29 learned: "אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר (איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקיבה)" ("If the woman emits seed first, she gives birth to a male (if the man emits seed first, she gives birth to a female)").
The explanation of this:
All physical matters descend from their counterpart (and root) in spirituality. Regarding this matter: the fact that with man and woman (in the literal sense) there is an advantage and superiority when "the woman emits seed first" (over "the man emits seed first"), in that specifically then "she gives birth to a male," is because so it is with the spiritual "man" and "woman," so to speak — the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Congregation of Israel. That is, there is an advantage and superiority in the avodah of the Congregation of Israel ("the woman emits seed first") over the drawing down of G‑dliness that comes through an arousal from above ("the man emits seed first"30). As our Sages say31: "גדולים מעשה צדיקים יותר ממעשה שמים וארץ" ("Greater are the deeds of the righteous [the avodah of the Congregation of Israel] than the creation of heaven and earth [the work of the Holy One, blessed be He]").
This is the connection between the beginning of the parsha (the superiority of "the woman emits seed") and its end (Rabbah bar Nachmani's decision28):
In keeping with the halachah that we pay no heed to a heavenly voice and that the Torah is not in heaven, one cannot rule that he is pure because the Holy One, blessed be He, says pure; and therefore the Rambam32 rules that he is impure. And this is why they said, "Rabbah will decide etc., for he is unique in Negaim etc." — but is he more unique than the Holy One, blessed be He?!
Rather, the Torah was given specifically below, and "the Holy One, blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have defeated Me"33; and therefore Rabbah, who is below34, decided and said35 that he is pure.
Similarly in the inner dimension of the matter: Rabbah's Torah and his saying "pure, pure" ("the deeds of the righteous" — "the woman emits seed") is greater, so to speak, than the Holy One, blessed be He, saying "pure" ("the man emits seed"); and it was Rabbah's saying (which drew from the level of "Yachid") that decided the opinion of the Heavenly Academy.
And just as the advantage in "the woman emits seed first" (in the literal sense) is that "she gives birth to a male" — for the superiority of the male is that he has a firm mind that does not change, whereas women's minds [OCR unclear]36 — similarly in our case: the fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, said "pure" did not exclude the possibility that the Heavenly Academy would dispute it. If so, it emerges that in the level of "purity" drawn from the Holy One, blessed be He — "the man emits seed (first)" — "changes" are possible, so to speak. Whereas Rabbah's saying "pure, pure," that is, the level of "purity" drawn down through the study of Rabbah's Torah and his halachic ruling — "the woman emits seed first" — this decided the opinion of the Heavenly Academy37 (and as mentioned above, Rabbah drew down the level of (unity and) purity also into the world) — "she gives birth to a male"38.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Tazria, 5725)
Notes
1) End of ch. 4.
2) So it is cited in the Gemara referenced in the next note (kehah with a kaf). In the Mishnah as printed in the Mishnayos (and see the commentaries of the Rambam and the Rav [Bartenura] there) it reads kehah with a kuf. Rashi, s.v. "kehah" (Kesubos 95b; Niddah 19a), cites both versions. See also the commentators on the Mishnah, Negaim there.
3) Nazir 65b.
4) End of our parsha.
5) 86a.
6) Likkutei Torah on our parsha, the maamar beginning "BeGemara DeBava Metzia etc. Ka Miflegi BeMesivta DeRakia" (and see the glosses of the Tzemach Tzedek on this maamar — Or HaTorah on our parsha (vol. 2), p. 531 ff. See also the maamar beginning "Se'ar Lavan" (in the book "Maamarei Admur HaZaken — Hanachos HaRap"); Sefer HaMitzvos of the Tzemach Tzedek, the mitzvah of the impurity of the metzora, sec. 3).
*) This may be explained and made clearer: granted, in the earthly academy — people were created in such a way that their opinions are not alike (Berachos 58a; Sanhedrin 38a), and "the Torah is not in heaven," and we pay no heed to a heavenly voice (Bava Metzia 59b); but this is not so in the Heavenly Academy.
7) The maamar "Vayedaber Elokim" 5627 (sec. 6); "BaYom HaSheini" (the second) there (sec. 2); "Im Bechukosai" 5667 (in the Hemshech 5666).
8) Shabbos 39b, end [the OCR reads "למ"; presumably 39].
9) Shelah, section Torah Shebiksav, Parshas Vayeitzei (291b) (cited in the maamar "Kol HaMerachem" referenced in the next note); Iggeres HaKodesh, sec. 12; and elsewhere. See also Likkutei Torah on our parsha, 23c.
10) See the sources cited in note 7. At length — the maamar "Kol HaMerachem" 5709.
11) 22c; 24b. See also note 6.
12) In Likkutei Torah there (22c): "'Holy' is the level of Sovev Kol Almin, and 'Blessed be He' is the level of Memaleh Kol Almin." But from what is stated in Likkutei Torah there (24b) it is implied that relative to the light revealed in the Heavenly Academy, the entire level of "the Holy One, blessed be He" is the level of "Sovev."
13) Siddur, end of the kavanah of the mikveh (159d, end). And there: except that the vav is exchanged for a hei. Compare the Rambam, end of Hilchos Mikvaos: "Just as one who intends in his heart to become pure, once he has immersed he is pure etc., so too etc. once he has resolved in his heart to separate himself etc. and has brought his soul into the waters of pure knowledge."
14) See the maamar "VeShavsah" 5666, and elsewhere.
15) See Moed Katan 18b: "A person is not suspected of something unless etc."
16) See Rambam, Hilchos Tumas Tzaraas, end of ch. 2, and the Kesef Mishneh there. See also Piskei Dinim of the Tzemach Tzedek, Yoreh De'ah, sec. 3 (133b). This is unlike what is written in Tosafos Anshei Shem (Negaim, end of ch. 4). But see Tosafos Yom Tov, Negaim there; Mishneh LaMelech on the Rambam there — based on Tosafos s.v. "VeRash..." [OCR unclear] Sanhedrin 47a. — Compare several poskim who hold that testimony regarding divorce and marriage does not require cross-examination, even though [OCR unclear] falls within the category of capital cases — see Responsa Tzemach Tzedek, Even HaEzer, sec. 123; Sefer HaChakirah of the Tzemach Tzedek, s.v. "Eidus," sec. 2. This is not the place to elaborate.
17) Torah Or 98b, and elsewhere.
18) Similar to the saying of our Sages: "If there is no understanding, from where is there distinction (havdalah)?" (Yerushalmi Berachos ch. 5, halachah 2).
19) Similar to what is known (the maamar "Lech Lecha" 5666; "Tachlis Chochmah" 5689, sec. 2), that regarding the Essence of the Infinite Light, which has no relation to the worlds at all, even comprehension by way of negation does not apply. Compare Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 9.
20) On what follows (until the end of the section), see Torah Or 55b, end, ff.; Sefer HaMitzvos of the Tzemach Tzedek, the root of the mitzvah of prayer, ch. 18.
21) Tamak [as abbreviated in the source], cited in the Beis Yosef, Orach Chaim, end of sec. 61.
22) Likkutei Torah there (24b); the notes of the Rap there (p. 156); Sefer HaMitzvos there (p. 104).
23) Compare Eruvin (13b, cited in Likkutei Torah there), that they did not establish the halachah according to Rabbi Meir because his colleagues could not fathom the depth of his opinion.
24) Sefer HaMitzvos there. See also Likkutei Torah there.
25) Beitzah 6a, according to the views (cited in the note to the maamar "Ki Menaseh" 5708, end of sec. 6) that he did not retract. This is explained in the maamar "Ki Menaseh" there, and elsewhere.
26) See Likkutei Torah there (24b) and the notes of the Rap there (p. 156), that the Heavenly Academy too knew (after the Holy One, blessed be He, had said it) that the law is that he is pure; only they did not know the reason for the law. And the meaning of "Who will decide?" is — that it should become verified for them . . through comprehension (Sefer HaMitzvos there, 104a).
27) Sefer Yetzirah, ch. 1.
28) See Likkutei Torah (there, 24b, end, ff.) and Sefer HaMitzvos there, that Rabbah's reason for declaring him pure is derived from this verse.
29) Niddah 31a, and sources cited there.
30) See Likkutei Torah on our parsha, 20a ff. See also Likkutei Torah, Vayikra 2c, and elsewhere.
31) Kesubos 5a — cited in Or HaTorah on our parsha (p. 70) regarding the superiority of "the woman emits seed first."
32) Hilchos Tumas Tzaraas, end of ch. 2, and the Kesef Mishneh there.
33) Bava Metzia 59b.
34) And even according to the Kesef Mishneh, that at the time of the departure of the soul etc. — when it was said that Rabbah would decide, it was not known that this would be at the time of the departure of his soul.
35) See the Rash, end of ch. 4 of Negaim. Now, in Likkutei Torah (there) he writes that he is pure because the Holy One, blessed be He, says pure etc. But there it is said regarding the decision in a dispute of the Tannaim, where there was not yet a ruling on the matter (and therefore the question from "My children have defeated Me" does not arise). It can also be said that in Likkutei Torah the main purpose is to explain according to sod, the wisdom of truth; and he wrote before this: "Rabbah, who was unique etc., from the level of the makif of Chayah-Yechidah." Accordingly, what he prefaced is also clarified: "Nevertheless, in truth it can be said etc." This is not the place to elaborate.
36) Kiddushin 80b, and sources cited there.
37) Compare what is explained in Likkutei Torah on our parsha (20c, end), that the level of "male" (in the service of G‑d) is the level of ahavah rabbah (great love), in which there are no changes — and the reason that changes do not apply to ahavah rabbah is because it is from the level of Yechidah (Likkutei Torah, Teitzei 37c) — similar to Rabbah's decision, since there shone in him from the level of "Yachid" (as mentioned above, section 6).
38) See similarly Likkutei Sichos vol. 4, p. 1335, regarding the superiority of "וידעת" ("And you shall know") (avodah from below upward) over "אתה הראת" ("You have been shown") (revelation from above downward): specifically in the verse "And you shall know" the word "today" is stated, which denotes the negation of change. See there.
Key Lesson
Rabbah bar Nachmani's ruling "pure, pure" shows that the Torah study and decisions of a Jew below can reach higher than a revelation from Above, because they draw the level of "Yachid" into the world itself and leave no room for dispute. In the same way, a person's own avodah ("the woman emits seed first") brings a firm and lasting result that does not change, like "she gives birth to a male."