This week's portion deals with procedures for the re-entry of a "metzorah" (impure person) into the community.
Rabbinic commentary concentrates on the idea of moral stigma: the result of gossip, slander, jealousy, malice etc. and its consequences, in order to draw lessons from the text about transgression and redemption.
Are such interpretations flirting with the idea of "blaming the victim?" I don't think the text really takes us there. Yet at one point, we read that such afflictions would be Divinely imposed.
To the "original" listeners or readers, could the presence of scaling skin eruptions, penile or vaginal discharges, the appearance of something on clothing or the walls of houses have meant to be just what was described, threatening to the individual or to the community?
Did they see God as the exclusive source of all good and evil in their lives?
The portion deals with the community's responsibility, expressed through the function of the priest to identify, deal with, and see to the re-incorporation of the afflicted into the fold. They trusted his performance of the rituals as described to "redeem" the individual and to insure safe re-incorporation.
Was there not a "public health" aspect to his duty?
The afflicted individual's role is passive here, except to provide the material for the ceremony. Think of how much has changed with regard to his/her role since then.
Who performs analogous functions now? Society has assumed the priestly role with respect to protecting society while seeking to provide for the afflicted.
I am hoping for vigorous debate as well as dissent on Saturday. See you then. Herb
No comments:
Post a Comment