Four Children — Jerusalem Talmud, Pesachim 70b — #132

R. Chiyya taught: The Torah speaks of four children: one wise, one wicked, one stupid, and one who does not know how to ask. What does the wise child say? “What is the meaning of the decrees, laws, and rules that Adonai our God has enjoined upon you?” (Deuteronomy 20:6) Accordingly you will say, “With great might, Adonai took us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage (Exodus 13:14).” What does the wicked child say? “What do you mean by this rite? (Exodus 12:26) What is this toil that you make us toil each and every year?” Since such children exclude themselves from the community, accordingly you say, “It is because of what Adonai did for me when I went free from Egypt (Exodus 13:8).” “For me” did God do it and not for “that person.” If “that person” had been there, they would not have been worthy of being saved. What does the stupid child say? “What is this?” (Exodus 13:14). Accordingly,  teach them the laws of the pesach offering—that we may not eat the afikoman after the pesach offering, so that a person should not get up from one eating group and go to another. The child who does not know how to ask, you will speak first. R. Yosa said: The Mishnah said, “If the child has no understanding, the parent teaches them.”

INTRODUCTION

On four occasions and in four different ways, Torah speaks of parents who, in the future, will explain the celebration of Passover to their children. Three are inspired by questions the children ask; the fourth does not mention the child posing a question. From these differently worded passages, the Rabbis constructed the section of the Haggadah known as the “Four Children,” a seeming typology of children based on character and attitude. The four biblical passages are:

• “What is the meaning of the decrees, laws, and rules that Adonai our God has enjoined upon you?” (Deuteronomy 6:20)
• “What do you mean by this rite?” (Exodus 12:26)
• “What is this?” (Exodus 13:14)
• [A fourth child seems unable to shape a question, yet receives an explanation:] You shall explain to your child on that day, “it is because of what Adonai did for me when I went free from Egypt.” (Exodus 13:8 )

COMMENTARY

The Jerusalem Talmud (Yerushalmi) uses the four biblical verses cited above to create a typology of sorts of children, delineating four categories: wise, wicked, stupid, and unable to ask. If you are familiar with the text of the Haggadah, you will immediately recognize that the Haggadah speaks not of a “stupid” child (tipesh), but rather of a simple, or innocent, child (tam). Apparently, the Yerushalmi interprets the unadorned question, “What is this?,” as the query of a stupid child. Further, the verse taken by the Yerushalmi to allude to a fourth type of child is used in the Haggadah to construct the response to the wicked child.

If not from the Yerushalmi, whence the label “tam” (innocent, or simple), found in the Haggadah? The source is Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, a compilation of rabbinic midrashim. There are two striking differences between this version and the Yerushalmi. First, Mekhilta reads “What is this?” as the question of an innocent child, not of a stupid child.  Second, Mekhilta offers an emendation to Deuteronomy 6:20: couching the “wise” child’s question in the first person plural (“What is the meaning of the decrees, laws, and rules that Adonai our God has enjoined upon us?”) thereby heightening its contrast with the simpler question of the wicked child, which remains in the second person plural (“What do you mean by this rite?”).  Yet Torah couches both in the second person plural. This slight-of-hand allows the Mekhilta to continue with a far harsher parental retort to the wicked child than the Yerushalmi imagines. Borrowing and embellishing on the parental response to the fourth child and emphasizing “me” in the parent’s response, Mekhilta supplies this response to wicked children: “‘To you’ and not to them. Because they disassociate themselves from the community and deny the foundation [of the faith], you, likewise, blunt their teeth and tell them, Because of what Adonai did for me when I went out from Egypt (Exodus 13:8). For me and not for you, for had you been there, you would not have been redeemed.”

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. An aerial eye view of the two versions of the Four Children reveals:

Yerushalmi: wise, wicked, stupid, unable to askMekhilta: wise, wicked, simple, unable to ask

Tradition has voted with the Mekhilta, which identifies the third child as “simple” rather than stupid. This, along with its far harsher response to the wicked child, is included in standard texts of the Haggadah. Do you agree with this choice? Why or why not? Were you to add a fifth child, or even sixth child, how might they be described? What lesson would you wish to teach?

2. Considering four Torah verses that speak of parents teaching children, how would you characterize the children, and why? Do the labels depend upon the words alone, the tone in which they are asked, the listener’s sensitivities, or something else? 

3. The Yerushalmi presents wise and stupid as opposites. The wise and wicked children ask virtually the same question; the difference is located in their attitudes. The stupid child and the one unable to ask are likewise similar—both are assumed unable to learn as one would wish. This typology seems to suggest that knowledge and intellectual acumen are the most important determinate of how we see, evaluate, and respond to children. Do you agree? What is the danger of this perspective? Do you think this is why the Haggadah did not use this version?

The Messiah with Metzora — BT Sanhedrin 98a — #131

R. Yehoshua b. Levi found [the prophet] Elijah standing by the entrance to R. Shimon b. Yochai's tomb. [R. Yehoshua] asked [Elijah]: “Have I a portion in the world-to-come?” [Elijah] said to him, “If this Master [God] desires it.” R. Yehoshua b. Levi said, “I saw two, but heard the voice of a third.” [R. Yehoshua] said to him, “When will the messiah come?” [Elijah] said to him, “Go and ask him.” “Where is he sitting?” “At the gates [of Rome].” “By what sign may I recognize him?” “He sits among the poor suffering illness, all of whom untie and retie [their bandages] all at once, but he unties and reties [each bandage] separately, thinking: Perhaps I will be wanted. I must not be delayed.” So [Rabbi Yehoshua b. Levi] went to [the messiah]. He said to him, “Peace upon you, my master and teacher.” [The messiah] said to [R. Yehoshua], “Peace upon you, Son of Levi.” He said to him, “When will the master come?” He said to him, “Today.” [Upon returning to Elijah,] Elijah said to [R. Yehoshua], “What did he say to you?” He said, “Peace upon you, Son of Levi.” [Elijah] said to [R. Yehoshua], “[By this,] he guaranteed you and your father a portion in the world-to-come.” [R. Yehoshua] said to [Elijah], “He lied to me, stating that he would come today, but he has not come.” [Elijah] said to him, “This is what he said to you: Today, if you will but heed his voice (Psalm 95:7).”

INTRODUCTION

Speculation about  the messiah was rife among the Rabbis. The loss of the Second Temple, living under Roman oppression, and longing for the restoration of sovereignty over the Land of Israel inspired the Rabbis to examine God’s promises, particular Isaiah 53,  which speaks of the suffering of the messiah and also portrays him as a valiant conquerer. This led, in time, to a bifurcation into two messiahs: the “Son of David,” the conquerer, and the “Son of Joseph” (or “Son of Ephraim,” the sufferer. The speculation went so far as to suggest that there might be two messianic comings, the Son of Joseph dying and the Son of David succeeding, also understood to   represent two aspects of the messiah’s mission. 

Isaiah 53:4 speaks of the messiah as bearing/suffering our sickness, and this comes to be associated with tzara’at, often erroneously translated “leprosy” (see TMT #130), giving rise to stories about the messiah afflicted with tzara’at. The story on Sanhedrin 98a, located amidst a long speculative conversation concerning when the messiah will come, does not specifically mention tzara’at but we know that lepers, in particular, were barred from entering Rome and sat outside the gates begging. We also know that they covered their sores with bandages, which needed to be changed periodically.

COMMENTARY

The story takes place in three distinct scenes: (1) a conversation between R. Yehoshuah b. Levi and Elijah at the tomb of R. Shimon b. Yochai; (2) a conversation between R. Yehoshua b. Levi and the messiah at the gates of Rome; (3) a second conversation between R. Yehoshua b. Levi and Elijah.

SCENE 1: In the first conversation, R. Yehoshua seeks assurance that he will have a portion (i.e., reward) in olam ha-ba, the world-to-come. R. Yehoshua hears a voice—not Elijah’s—that says this is up to God. From this he senses God’s immediately presence, so he probes further, asking when the messiah will come, that is, reveal himself. Shockingly, Elijah responds that the messiah is already here, sitting among the poor lepers outside the gates to Rome. If the messiah looks like every other leper, R. Yehoshua asks, how will I recognize him? Elijah describes a subtle difference: normally, lepers untie all the bandages covering all their sores, and then re-bandage them; in contrast, the messiah tends to each sore separately so that if he is summoned, he can respond by revealing himself at a moment’s notice.

SCENE 2: Armed with this insight, R. Yehoshua b. Levi has no difficulty identifying the messiah. He greets the messiah and asks when he will reveal himself. The messiah’s response is shocking: “Today.” It appears that R. Yehoshua is so startled he doesn’t ask anything further, even whether he will have a portion in olam ha-ba, which was his original mission.

SCENE 3: R. Yehoshua returns to Elijah and recounts his conversation with the messiah. Elijah assures him that the greeting, Shalom to you, means that both he and his father will have a share in olam ha-ba. R. Yehoshua, is appears, is far more focused on “Today,” which seems a patent lie. No, says Elijah, you have to know how to interpret the messiah’s “Today.” Since the messiah is the Son of David, we are to interpret it through David’s words in Psalm 95:7: The messiah is always present, always prepared to reveal himself, but Israel has an important initiatory role to play by  being worthy, as expressed by “if you will but heed his voice.”

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. Some people understand the messiah to be an actually human (or super-human) redeemer, others as an ideal age we strive for. What is your understanding?

2. The echo of the leper-messiah is heard clearly in the story of the Baal Shem Tov recounted by Raphael Patai (below).. Can you imagine a 21st century version?

A story about the Baal Shem Tov (Besh”t): One erev shabbat, a student was driving the Besh”t through a small village when the horse stopped of its own accord at a hovel. The Besh”t entered the home where he found a family living in destitute poverty. The old man covered head to toe in sores, wounds, and boils—all the signs of tzara’at. The man’s joy at seeing the Besh”t was such as he had never known in his life. They talked for some time and parted having developed the fierce love of David and Jonathan. The Besh”t explained this enigmatic scene to his young driver: In every generation, the Messiah, clothed in a  body, prepares to reveal himself if the generation is worthy. Since that generation was not worthy, the Messiah would depart at the close of shabbat. (Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts, p. 31)

3.  “If you will but heed his voice” seems to suggests that the messiah will come when all Jews obey God. Is there another way to understand the use of this line from the Psalm 95?

What’s a Metzora to Do? — BT Arakhin 16b — #130

R. Shmuel b. Nadav asked R. Chanina, others say R. Shmuel b. Nadav, the son-in-law of R. Chanina asked R. Chanina, and yet others say [he asked] R. Yehoshua b. Levi. “Why is the metzora distinctive, such that Torah says, He shall dwell apart; his dwelling shall be outside the camp (Leviticus 13:46)?”—[for example,] he separated a man from his wife, a person from their neighbor. Therefore Torah said, He shall live alone. R. Yehoshua b. Levi said, “What is distinctive about the metzora that Torah says he must bring, two living ritually clean birds (Leviticus 14:4) to become ritually pure again?” The Holy Blessed One said: He behaved like a babbler [speaking evil of others]; therefore Torah tells him to bring a babbler as a sacrifice.

INTRODUCTION

The term tzara’at covers a large number of skin diseases, which Torah describes as affecting the skin or hair, or found on clothing or even on the stones of houses. Leviticus 13-14 catalogues a great many of the symptoms, which include discoloration, scaly patches, lesions, boils, and burn-like sores. Tzara’at has long been erroneously translated “leprosy,” which is a well understood neurological condition called Hansen’s Disease. But tzara’at is not synonymous with leprosy. The person afflicted with tzara’at is called a metzora. Tzara’at renders one ritually impurity until a priest’s examination deems them cured and eligible for purification. Until then, Torah imposes several unusual conditions: the metzora must wear torn clothes, leave their hair unkempt, cover the lower part of their face, and cry out, “Ritually impure, ritually impure!” presumably to warn others in the vicinity. In addition, the metzora must “dwell apart” from the community, living outside the encampment (Leviticus 13:46). After a priest examines the metzora and declares them cured, the metzora may reenter the camp and complete their purification in the Tabernacle with “two living ritually clean birds” (Leviticus 14:4).

For the Rabbis, tzara’at is not merely a physical disease, but rather the symptom of a spiritual malady that is divine punishment for moral sins. A midrash in Vayikra Rabbah tells us that tzara’at is a symptom of seven traits and acts God abhors: haughtiness, lying, shedding innocent blood, scheming to do evil, running eagerly to do evil, giving false witness, and sowing discord among people. BT Arakhin 16a provides an alternative list of seven: murder, engaging in a vain oath, illicit sexual intercourse, pride, theft, and miserliness, but here as elsewhere in the rabbinic tradition, the hands-down most popular explanation is lashon ha-ra—evil speech or gossip. The connection comes primarily from a rabbinic interpretation of the story in Numbers in which Miriam attacks her brother Moses on the pretext of his wife’s ethnicity, criticizing Tzipporah as a Cushite (dark-skinned). As punishment, God afflicts Miriam with tzara’at that turns her skin a flaky white. From this, the Rabbis deduced that tzara’at is punishment for lashon ha-ra.

COMMENTARY

R. Shmuel b. Nadav poses a question. The Gemara is unclear to whom he poses the question, and goes out of its way to record various received versions, but is clear that R. Yehoshua b. Levi responds. R. Shmuel has noticed two unusual features of how a metzora is treated. No other seemingly medical disease garners this treatment. First, the metzora cannot remain in the Israelites’ encampment, living with others, but must relocate and live alone outside the camp. Second, upon recovery, the ritual of purification for the former metzora requires two birds, one of which is sacrificed and the other of which is set free. R. Shmuel b. Nadav asks why these unusual features pertain only to the metzora. R. Yehoshua b. Levi explains two features of the treatment of a metzora to be allegorical punishment and remedy for the underlying crime of lashon ha-ra. In essence, he is saying: the metzora is punished with separation from the community because their gossiping caused the rupture of relationships and separation of people from one another, as for example between a married couple or between neighbors. The two birds required to complete the ritual purification process mirror the crime of lashon ha-ra: the birds babble, just as a gossiper babbled.

Talmud does not attempt to explain the specifics of the procedures for dealing with tzara’at in the context of the larger system of ritual purity or the traditions of the sacrificial cult. Rather, both punishment and atonement reflect the crime: The one who commits lashon ha-ra, alienating people from one another, is excluded from the community for a time, isolated by being forced to live outside the camp where garbage and sacrificial leftovers are dumped—a fitting location for one who cannot control their speech. The emotional danger the metzora inflicted on others  results in physical danger to the metzora.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. Midrash Tanchuma teaches that three are (figuratively) killed by lashon ha-ra: the speaker, the listener, and the object of the speech. Who is the most guilty and why?
2. Reflect on Rachel Adler’s interpretation of Torah’s requirement that the metzora “cover his upper lip” (Leviticus 13:45) below. Whose faces do you turn away from? Whose faces do we turn away from, as a society?

“He shall cover his upper lip. Fearing contagion from the metzora’s breath, the biblical text commands that he veil his upper lip and proclaim his impurity to warn others away, but under his veil, his eyes can still call out wordlessly for compassion, for connection. The contemporary philosopher Emmanuel Levinas teaches that the face of the Other upturned to our own face is the primary locus of ethics. Faces are infinitely varied, the most individualized of our body parts. The face is bare, vulnerable. It expresses pain, need, and loneliness. The face is also the primary locus of Otherness. The Other’s face is different from mine. . . . Levinas would argue that our ethical obligation is to do what is counter-intuitive, what is the very opposite of pollution thinking: to stay rather than to flee, to comfort rather than reject. (Rachel Adler, “Those Who Turn Away Their Faces,” in Healing and the Jewish Imagination, p. 153)

3. Talmud’s reinterpretation of the physical disease of tzara’at to a moral-spiritual malady offers a new way to approach difficult texts. What other challenging texts might be interpreted metaphorically?