Selling Short

The Haftorah for Metzorah comes from Sefer Melachim, and its connection to the Parsha is clear from the very first words: “V’Arba Anashim Hayu Metzora’im Pesach HaSha’ar”. The Navi tells the story of four men who were Metzoraim and therefore found themselves outside the city. At the time, the king of Aram had besieged Shomron, plunging the city into a deep and destructive famine. So scarce was food that the Passuk earlier tells us that even the waste product of birds fetched a handsome price in the market.

It was in this context that the four men pondered their next steps: on one hand, if they entered the city they would die of hunger, if they sat outside its walls, however, their fate would be much the same. Instead, they came up with an alternative: they would defect to the camp of Aram. The Passuk explains the logic of their thinking: “Im Yichayenu Nichyeh V’Im Yimisunu VaMasnu”. If the enemy would accept them as defectors, and allow them to live, than they would gain. If, however, the enemy saw them as a danger and killed them, they would be no worse off than their current situation. And so, facing almost-certain death no matter the outcome, the four men approached Machaneh Aram, only to find it deserted.

The Passuk tells us that during the night Hashem had caused the army of Aram to hear “Kol Rechev Kol Sus Kol Chayil Gadol”, the sounds of an incoming force. They assumed that the Melech Yisroel had hired mercenaries to attack them and, fearing their lives, they ran for the hills. The Metzoraim, upon reaching the camp, found it exactly as the army had left it and, after pilfering some items for themselves, they alerted the gatekeepers of the city that the siege had been lifted. The remainder of the Haftorah tells of the aftermath of the siege, and the way in which the words of the Navi Elisha, who had promised that the famine would end shortly, were fulfilled.

While the connection between the Parsha and its Haftorah seems apparent—the four protagonists were Metzoraim—this link seems rather incidental. The men were outside the city because of their Tzaraas, and they are referred to throughout as “HaMetzoraim”, but their status seems to have little bearing on the story. Although it would be easy to assume that the Haftorah was chosen based on this connection alone, perhaps hidden below the surface there is a lesson that Chazal meant us to take from this story.

The notion that there is more to these Pessukim than meets the eye is bolstered by the fact that they are the source for a Halacha Pesukah.

The Gemarah in Avoda Zara discusses the Halachos of seeking medical help from a non-Jew. The underlying concern surrounding the discussion is that rather than helping their patients, the gentile healers might cause their deaths. Addressing this concern, the Psak of the Gemara, which is brought by the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, is: “Safek Chai Safek Mes Ain Misrapin Mehen Vadai Mes Misrapin Mehen”. If the Jew’s prognosis is unclear—left untreated he may live, but he may not—he may not be treated by a non-Jew. If, however, the Jew will surely be Niftar if he does not receive treatment at the hands of an Akum, then he may do so.

The Gemarah then poses a question: what about “Chayei Sha’ah”? Although the patient will eventually pass away if he is not treated, he may live longer than if he goes to a non-Jewish “healer” who instead hastens his death. The Gemarah answers: “L’Chayei Sha’ah Lo Chayshinan”, we do not take this calculation of Chayei Sha’ah into account.

The Gemarah then cites the source for the fact that we don’t consider the potential Chayei Sha’ah: the Arba Mitzoraim. As we have seen, the four men made a Cheshbon: they were certain to die if they did not enter Machane Aram, but there was a possibility that the army would kill them as well. Now, there was a chance that they would live longer—until their inevitable expiration—if they stayed out of the camp than if they entered and were killed on the spot, nonetheless they chose to take their chances and defect. The question of Chayei Sha’ah obviously did not come into play for these men, and based on this the Gemara concludes: “L’Chayei Sha’ah Lo Chayshinan”.

Putting aside the real-world applications of this Gemarah, there is a very important question which must be asked.

Halachos regarding medical treatment clearly pertain to Dinei Nefashos, and as such are viewed in the most serious light. Why, then, do Chazal base their Psak on the actions of the Metzoraim? How do we know that these men were of sound Halachic mind, to the extent that we base such an important Halacha upon their rationale? Why does that fact that these men were not concerned about Chayei Sha’ah indicate that we should not be either? This question takes on increased urgency once we understand who the Metzoraim in fact were.

Rashi, based on a Gemrah in Sota, tells us that the four Metzoraim were Gechazi, the Talmid of Elisha, and his three sons.

Now, Gechazi is a figure about whom much is written, but the Mishna in Sanhedrin is very clear about his fate: he is one of only four Hedyotos that are in the category of “Ain Lahem Chelek L’Olam Haba’ah”. Why, then, do we learn this important Halacha from someone whose end was ignoble to the extent that he lost his Olam Haba’ah? Gechazi had already contracted Tzara’as at that point, and it seems that he was already on the path that led to his demise—why then is he trusted as a source for the Halacha?

If develop a better understanding of who Gechazi was, based on the Divrei Chazal that speak about him, we might be able to answer this question.

The Gemara in Sanhedrin makes a surprising statement: “Mipnei Mah Ne’enash Gechazi Mipnei She’kara L’Rabo B’Shmo”. Gechazi was punished, says the Gemarah, because he called his Rebbi, Elisha, by name. This incident occurred after the story of the Arba Metzoraim, when Gechazi introduced the Isha HaShunamis and her son to the king saying “Zeh HaIsha V’Zeh Benah Asher HeChiya Elisha”.

While a lack of proper respect for one’s Rebbi is certainly unacceptable, it seems extreme to assume that Gechazi lost his Olam Habaah because of these words. Why would the Gemara then make this statement? In addition, the Gemara further on identifies a few behaviors and Aveiros that seem much more egregious—why is this instance of referring to Elisha by name listed as the reason Gechazi was punished?

More exploration is necessary to address the mounting questions.

The Passuk brought in the Gemarah here, which contains the words Asher HeChiya Elisha, references an earlier episode in which Gechazi played an interesting role.

Earlier in Sefer Melachim the Navi us that Elisha would be hosted on his travels by a woman referred to as the Isha Hashunamis. Elisha wished to repay his hostess for her kindness, and so when Gechazi informed him that the women had no sons he called the woman before him and promised her a son. This guarantee was fulfilled in short order, but the young boy was later Niftar. The Isha HaShunamis came to tell Elisha of this tragedy, and he sent Gechazi on a mission: “Kach Mishanti B’Yadcha V’Lech.” Gechazi was told to take Elisha’s staff and go straight back to the woman’s home, without speaking to anyone on the way. When he arrived, he was to place the staff upon the boys face, and he would awken.

The Pessukim tell us that Gechazi indeed went to the house, and placed the staff upon the boy, but to no avail. He returned to Elisha to report his lack of success, whereupon Elisha proceeded back to Shunam where he performed the Nes himself. This story is a bit difficult to understand: if Elisha sent Gechazi to revive the boy, instructing him how to do so, why was he unsuccessful?

The Yalkut Shimoni provides an answer to this question: Elisha told Gechazi that on his way to Shunam, he should not speak to anyone, and even if they offer a Bracha he should not respond. The Yalkut, however, tells us: “V’Gechazi Haya Hadavar K’schok B’Einav”. Gechazi saw the whole thing as a joke, and when he met people on the way he would tell them of his mission, remarking: “HaTamin SheHaMateh HaZeh Mechayeh Es HaMesim?” Gechazi was incredulous at the thought of the Mishan being the vessel for Techias Hamesim and so he was not able to perform the Nes.

R’ Chaim Shmulevitz, in Shichos Mussar, explains why Gechazi made this error.

The Medrash in Beraishis Rabba tells us that Noach did not have children until later in life, as compared to others who lived at his time, because HKBH did not want him to have to build additional Taivos to accommodate more offspring. Instead, Noach had his children later so that they would not yet be of child-bearing age at the time of the Mabul.

R’ Chaim asks: what would the big Tircha have been? Would not it have been Noach’s greatest pleasure to build additional Taivos to save his children who were Tazadikim? He had 120 years in which to construct the Taiva—why would it have been so difficult to build another Taiva to house additional offspring?

The answer is that a Taiva is not just a boat: in order for it to protect its inhabitants, it had to be infused with Kochos and Keduah at the hands of Noach. As Noach built the Taiva he elevated the wood from mere construction materials to something that was a “Goel U’Moshia”. This effort was considerable, explains R’ Chaim, and it therefore would in fact have been a Tircha for Noach to build additional Taivos to protect further generations.

This Koach, explains the Mashgiach, the ability for someone to take mere “Domem”, such as wood or stones, and elevate it to a level of Kedusha, is something that is seen throughout the Torah. One example he cites, is that of Elisha and his Mishan.

When Elisha gave Gechazi his staff, with instructions to use it for Techias HaMesim, he did so in a way that elevated the Mishan from a wooden stick into something much more: a Kli for Techias Hamesim. Gechazi did not understand that this was possible—that a person has such Kochos and potential that he can infuse a piece of Domem with Kedusha. This is why he said “HaTamin SheHaMateh HaZeh Mechayeh Es HaMesim”: he saw wood, Domem, and not the Kedusha with which his Rebbi imbued the Mishan.

When speaking about the Nes later on, then, it is no surprise that Gechazi referred to Elisha by name: he failed to recognize that it was the stature of Elisha which had made it possible for the Nes to occur. To Gechazai the Mishan was a mere piece of wood, and Elisha’s role was incidental, while in fact the ability to perform this Nes was itself symbolic of his Gadlus.

The words “Asher HeChiya Elisha” reveal the central failing of Gechazi: he did not understand just what a person could achieve, he did not apprecatite that we have the potential to reach a level of transforming Domem into Kedusha. This flaw was at the root of all his mistakes, and is therefore the central cause for his loss of Olam Habah.

Perhaps this can help us understand the Gemarah in Avodah Zarah as well.

If someone appreciates all that a person can accomplish, all that he can achieve, there is no Cheshbon of Chayei Sha’ah: we must do whatever we can to try and secure him a long life so that he can do more, so that he can grow more. The fact that he may be cured and live many more years therefore outweighs any temporal existence that may be achieved by avoiding treatment.

Gechazi was not one who fully appreciated this concept—he did not recognize all that one can accomplish, that we can reach a level of turning Domem into Kadosh. Yet even he understood the value of a longer life as opposed to Chayei Sha’ah. We, who truly understand the true Kochos of Yid, all the more so. The Gemarah is learning a Kal V’Chomer from Gechazi: if he, who had less value for the potential that we all have, was not concerned with Chayei Sha’ah, than we certainly need not be.

This is a vital lesson during the weeks focused on Tzaras. As we know, the main Aviera for which one is punished with Tzaras is Lashon Harah. Very often a sense of inadequacy lies beneath this Aveira: we diminish those who we really wish we could emulate and belittle those who threaten us. If we focus on the potential that we have, on the abilities that we have and what we are capable of, we can avoid the pitfalls of these Aveiros and their reprecussions.