The conventional wisdom has usually been that these two parshiyos are
essentially about tzaraas.
The conventional wisdom has usually been that tzaraas and the
attendant isolation and series of rituals designed to bring the leper back into
the machaneh were mida kneged mida for lashon hara, if by degree: the negative
talk had served to drive people away from each other, hence the speaker
experiences this form of internal exile.
In other terms, the speaker made achdus difficult, if not impossible;
therefore a form of “yichud” with oneself was the prescribed corrective.
Or was it just for that?
Julius Preuss in his 1911 classic Biblical and Talmudic Medicine lists—based
on Arachin 16a, Yalkut 563, and Sanhedrin 107a—fourteen sins that lead to leprosy; but he reserves special mention
for “lewdness”, giving David haMelech as the example from Sanhedrin. [Preuss mentions Vashti’s leprosy as payback
for making Jewish girls undress, pace Megillah 12b.]
In David haMelech’s case, while the tzaraas was one of the punishments
Natan prophesied would be the result of his taking of Batsheva, there might
have been another indirect payback by several degrees: the maaseh of Amnon and
Tamar and the concomitant issuance of the gezerah of yichud with a penuyah that
resulted.
If one reads Sandra Rapaport’s Biblical Seductions [as I did over
Pesach] and gets the idea that Amnon icked up his predatory habits from his
father—as she at least intimates there might be a hava amian for—you might
wonder if, after David himself had unwittingly sent Tamar into Amnon’s lair to
meet her fate and he was grappling for a response to a whirlwind of family
tragedy [Rapaport does draw a parallel between David taking Batsheva and
sending Tamar off—both the result of royal privilege]. So one might think that the gezerah was
completely reactive, and punitive to the victims: “If such a great disgrace can occur even to the king's daughter, and all
the more so to regular women” [Sanh. 21b].
If one looks at that statement again in
light of what had happened, it might not be the case. First one must remember—no matter how it
seems like a whitewash—women in those days needed protection [and, after
reading Rapaport, the royal women needed it especially.] Second: if yichud is punitive, then it
“punishes” everyone—but it especially punishes [or protects?] the men who want
access, like Amnon, who would stop at nothing to get it.
So why the gezera on penuyot and not
siblings?
My mara d’asra, R. Allen Schwartz, had an
interesting theory about Yonadav.
Despite the gemara there saying he was a “chacham for evil”, R Schwartz
theorized that his entire plan to get Tamar into Amnon’s quarters and have her
minister to her might have been to help Amnon get over his obsession—to see her
as his sister, taking care of him as a sister would. But it backfired: a man with Amnon’s
character could turn the most benign action into something completely
inappropriate; a man who would obsess over his sister might eventually obsess
over his mother.
[And if the incident hadn’t rendered Amnon
impotent—as the gemara notes—he might not
have stopped with this incident. One
wonders if this could have been another punishment by degrees: as a kerus
shafcha, Amnon’s procreative options were now severely—nichras. Which could not have been very flattering to
the Crown Prince, who now had to live with a reminder of his criminal act for
the rest of his life—which he had to spend in a sort of “yichud”.]
So all the circumstances of
Amnon's crime were unlikely to repeat themselves in a situation where there
shouldn't have been any kind of sexual miasma. Other situations that lend
themselves to that--this might have been the tipoff, however different it was
from a "normal" course of events.
The gezera was to prevent a situation where there wouldn’t be a third
party to possibly stop the proceedings; the palace incident might have called
for a whole different set of safeguards.
Which is why—as counterintuitive as it was—the gezera made sense as a
response to this incident.
Obviously this didn’t really help Tamar [Rapaport does try to imagine
how she might have attempted to cope and rebuild her life]. And one probably won’t find satisfactory
answers.
But one can learn three things from the crossover—however
limited—between tzaraas and yichud.
The first: EVERYONE has an obligation to behave equally. The onus is on BOTH genders. No one has illicit access to the other.
The second: as much as one might consider Torah and mida kneged mida a
“behavior plan” of sorts, it’s never that simple [certainly, it’s not Pavlovian
or ABA]. The prescribed correctives may
not always seem to directly match the offense.
But somehow things seem to eventually add up. [Gehazi, one of the more famous lepers in
Tanach, was also one of the Talmud’s more noteworthy predators: several
sources intimate that he essentially sexually molests the Shunammite
woman. So his leprosy—though not a
direct result of this action—at least keeps him from trying that again]. The
reaction to the Amnon incident didn't look like a direct corrective. But
it might make sense that it was the impetus.
Finally: everyone needs alone time.
It should never be imposed. But
even if and when it is—even in a social media age—it’s not always as bad an
idea as it looks. It’s been said [I’ve
seen it but don’t remember the source] that the only people who actually
contracted tzaraas were on a high enough level to actually appreciate a Divine
message to decompress. Hopefully we can
do that by ourselves, however we do it.
[PS--following that line of thinking, the appreciation of the message
to decompress was a more difficult test than that: the correctives took place
in public, the metzora being exiled from the camp and in some cases having to
call out so as to not contaminate passerby.
One only hopes that the more prominent individuals who might be in need
of a public correction being able to take one if it comes.]
