Sources from essay by Rabbi Samuel J. Rose in The Mussar Torah Commentary
According to the Torah, God created human beings without bushah, a "sense of embarrassment." At Creation, the Torah explains, "Now the two of them were naked, the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed (lo yitboshashu)" (Genesis 2:25). Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh explains in his commentary on the Book of Genesis that the word bosh literally means "to feel disappointment." Up until the moment when they eat the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve have no concept of morality, of good or evil; they had no reason to feel shame. However, once Adam and Eve eat the fruit, them were opened" (Genesis 3:7) to the knowledge of good and evil and to the concept of disappointment, embarrassment, and shame.
-Rabbi Samuel J. Rose
(25) The two of them were naked, and his wife, yet they felt no shame.
(ב) הַבּוּשָׁה. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: הַשֵּׂכֶל הוּא הַבּוּשָׁה, וְהַבּוּשָׁה הוּא הַשֵּׂכֶל. כִּי עַל אָדָם וְחַוָּה נֶאֱמַר (בראשית ב כה): ״וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ״ – וְלֹא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִים הַצְּנִיעוּת וּלְהַבְחִין בֵּין טוֹב וּבֵין רָע. וּלְאַחַר שֶׁאָכְלוּ מֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת נֶאֱמַר (שם ג ז): ״וַתִּפָּקַחְנָה עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם״.
(2) The Sages have said: "Intelligence is a sense of shame and a sense of shame is intelligence." For regarding Adam and Eve, it is said: "The two of them were naked and yet they felt no shame" (Gen. 2:25). And they did not understand what modesty is and they could not distinguish between good and evil. But, after they had eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, it is said: "Then the eyes of both of them were opened" (Gen. 3:7).
When God calls out to Adam, "Ayekah— Where are you?" (Genesis 3:9), the question is not a matter of physical location. Rather, it is an investigation of Adam's new sense of morality. Adam is embarrassed.
The character trait, middah, of shame, according to Rabbi Hirsch, is "God's gift of grace [to humanity). [God] instilled in (each person's) heart a sense of shame. God knew that a person would not always measure up to what [he/she/they were] meant to be. Therefore, God implanted within [each person] a sense of shame, which would always inform (that person) of (their) inadequacy: Thus (everyone) became (their own monitor and guardian. However, just bocause human beings were granted this gift of shame, it should not be taken for granted.
-Rabbi Samuel J. Rose
(1) יהוה spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: (2) When a person has on the skin of the body a swelling, a rash, or a discoloration, and it develops into a scaly affection on the skin of the body, it shall be reported to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests. (3) The priest shall examine the affection on the skin of the body: if hair in the affected patch has turned white and the affection appears to be deeper than the skin of the body, it is a leprous affection; when the priest sees it, he shall pronounce the person impure. (4) But if it is a white discoloration on the skin of the body which does not appear to be deeper than the skin and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest shall isolate the affected person for seven days. (5) On the seventh day the priest shall conduct an examination, and if the affection has remained unchanged in color and the disease has not spread on the skin, the priest shall isolate that person for another seven days. (6) On the seventh day the priest shall again conduct an examination: if the affection has faded and has not spread on the skin, the priest shall pronounce the person pure. It is a rash; after washing those clothes, that person shall be pure.
The description of the various ailments affecting the skin have led some to translate nega tzaraat as leprosy, but Rabbi Hirsch insists that if we look deeper into the meaning of the words nega and tzaraat, we see that calling this particular collection of symptoms a disease in any sense is a misreading of the text. His definition also helps to explain why the person afflicted is exiled from the camp.
Rabbi Hirsch explains, "In the majority of cases where the word nega occurs, it clearly refers to a disease that comes as a result of a special Divine decree. A person afflicted with a nega is naga-a, literally touched' by the finger of God." Tzara'at, he says, "denotes an inner rot that breaks out externally
-Rabbi Samuel J. Rose
(1) יהוה spoke to Moses, saying: (2) This shall be the ritual for a leper at the time of being purified. When it has been reported to the priest, (3) the priest shall go outside the camp. If the priest sees that the leper has been healed of the scaly affection, (4) the priest shall order two live pure birds, cedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop to be brought for the one to be purified. (5) The priest shall order one of the birds slaughtered over fresh water in an earthen vessel; (6) and he shall take the live bird, along with the cedar wood, the crimson stuff, and the hyssop, and dip them together with the live bird in the blood of the bird that was slaughtered over the fresh water. (7) He shall then sprinkle it seven times on the one to be purified of the eruption and effect the purification; and he shall set the live bird free in the open country. (8) The one to be purified shall wash those clothes, shave off all hair, and bathe in water—and then shall be pure. After that, the camp may be entered but one must remain outside one’s tent seven days. (9) On the seventh day all hair shall be shaved off—of head, beard [if any], and eyebrows. Having shaved off all hair, the person shall wash those clothes and bathe the body in water—and then shall be pure. (10) On the eighth day that person shall take two male lambs without blemish, one ewe lamb in its first year without blemish, three-tenths of a measure of choice flour with oil mixed in for a meal offering, and one log of oil.
In the case of the ritual of the birds, Rabbi Hirsch, citing Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 106b, explains that the Torah is referring to a specific variety of bird that cannot be tamed or domesticated. For the purpose of this ritual, these two birds represent the most basic animal instinct. Through this ritual, the m'tzora is forced to reckon with their abandonment of shame, for allowing their basic animal instinct to be untamed. By killing one bird and sending one toward a field, the m'tzora commits to engage the middah of shame to "sub-ordinate unbridled animality"' and reengage in the world of human morality.
The ritual of shaving off all the m'tzora's hair occurs twice: on the first day and on the seventh day. Human hair "serves to protect the body and shield it from the outside world. Hair is a natural insulator and represents the barriers that a person might construct in order to live a self-centered, antisocial life. Rabbi Hirsch posits that "stripping a body of all hair exposes it to the effects of the outside. For this reason, shaving is well suited to awaken the heart to turn away from isolating selfishness," to remind them of their sense of shame. After the first shave, the community allows the m'tzora to return, but they must remain outside of their tent for seven days, and they are still forbidden to engage in the religious life of the community Ox the seventh day, the second round of shaving teaches the m'tzora "to appreciate the moral ideal ... Iearned in the Sanctuary of the Torah [which leads to] a practice of self-development.
-Rabbi Samuel J. Rose
Let not the wise glory in his wisdom, let not the mighty man glory in his might; but let him who glories glory in this; that he has a sense of ultimate embarrassment.
-Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel
...shame must not be an end to itself. With respect to our individual actions, bushah should turn us to t'shuvah, not to the slaughtering of sheep or birds, but to repairing our behavior and our relationships. With respect to world at large, our shame should fuel our drive to confronting our society's ills, to pursue justice, safety, sustainability, and peace. Then, our bushah may be called a blessing.
-Rabbi Samuel J. Rose
Questions to Ask
-
Have there been times in your life when you justified your wrongdoing by looking at the behavior of someone else?
-
Or excused your own immoral behavior because someone else was doing it? How should we respond to those who respond to criticism of immorality not by confronting the wrongdoing, but by pointing to another person's misconduct, a deflection we have come to know as "whataboutism"?
-
In many of our sanctuaries we find the words Da lifnei mi atah omeid, "Know before whom you stand." How has your audience influenced your moral behavior?