Until this point, we have focused on tzara’at’s manifestation as a skin disease; however, in the two portions of Tazria and Metzora, tzara’at actually manifests in three different ways: on the human body as a skin disease, on clothes, and on houses. The Talmud provides an interesting explanation for why there were three different types of manifestations: God would first have tzara’at appear in a person’s dwelling as a warning that something was amiss; if an individual ignored this warning, the tzara’at would then appear on his or her clothing; if this sign was also ignored, the tzara’at would finally strike his or her body (Yoma 11b). Curiously, while the Torah presents these types in an order moving from the internal to the external manifestations – from tzara’at of the body to tzara’at of the clothes to tzara’at of the house – the Talmudic explanation moves in exactly the opposite direction, from the external to the internal.
We find a similar contradiction between these two types of order in the Tabernacle’s construction. In Terumah, where the notion of building a Tabernacle is initially introduced, God first instructs the children of Israel to make the vessels that will be placed in the innermost part of the Sanctuary – the ark, the table, and the menorah – and only later mentions the walls and curtains that will contain them. Yet when the Tabernacle’s construction is recounted in Vayakhel, the children of Israel are commanded to make the curtains and the walls first and only later make the vessels that would be housed within.
According to the Talmud (Berachot 55a), Bezalel, the person chosen to orchestrate the actual building of the Tabernacle, raised this topic with Moses. Bezalel questioned the logic of building the vessels first, arguing that common sense dictates that the house be built before the furnishings, not the opposite! Moses replied that Bezalel was quite right and, in fact, God had always planned to build the Tabernacle in that order. He had merely mentioned the inner vessels first because they embodied the essence of the Tabernacle’s purpose. Moses lauded Bezalel for being so attuned to God’s plan, exclaiming that the name “Bezalel” literally means “in the shadow of God.”
These two parallel conceptual movements, from internal to external and vice versa, link tzara’at and the Tabernacle together and remind us of the following: just as the Tabernacle’s purpose was to serve as both a dwelling place for God in the lower worlds and a place where human beings and God could encounter one another, so too the body is meant to be a dwelling place for the soul, which is a “part of God above,” and a place where the Divine and the human meet. Just as the Tabernacle was the meeting place of finite and infinite, physical and spiritual, the mundane and the holy, so is the body. Even after death the body is treated with great respect as it once housed a holy soul. The human corpse is actually compared to a Torah scroll that has become invalid. Significantly, even though the Torah scroll can no longer be used, it must still be treated with enormous respect, and is even given a proper burial, just like a person.
The dynamic at play between internal and external mirrors the even profounder interplay between the fundamental principles of “light” (the source of bestowal) and “vessel” (the receiver). At times light precedes the vessel, while at other times, the vessel precedes the light. Kabbalistically speaking, either statement may be true depending on the circumstances, each might simply reflect different realities and contexts.
Throughout our discussion of Tazria and Metzora another fundamental set of seemingly contradictory concepts has appeared repeatedly: “Awakening from Above” and “Awakening from Below.” Indeed, Jewish teachings posit a “disagreement” between God and the Jewish people. God declares, “Return to Me … and I will return to you” (Zechariah 1:3), while the Jewish people claim “Return us to You and we will return” (Lamentations 5:21). On whom is the onus to act first? In light of the lesson we have just learned, we would argue that both of these demands are valid from within their own perspectives.
These contradictory and opposite pairs of concepts are ultimately all related one to another and are interwoven into the very fabric of the cosmos and the realities of life. Learning to integrate external and internal, body and soul, physical and spiritual, vessel and light, brings a person to a deep understanding of life and to the ultimate encounter of human beings and God.
