Parsha discussion

Question:  Why are some עריות mentioned in relation to their husband? Approach: It would seem that the main driver between the prohibitions of many of the עריות is the blood relation of the adulterer. As such, where the main prohibition is based on the wife of the relative, the relative needs to be mentioned, so as to understand the logic as to why this non-relation woman is forbidden.

Question:  Why is specifically the person with צרעת on the bald spot called an איש צרוע as opposed to any other situation? Approach: Perhaps we can suggest that this situation is the only one where the צרעת cannot be hidden from view, as the bald spot is clearly visible, unlike other places which could be covered up more easily and often. Perhaps head coverings (for men at least) weren't common, so even a head covering would raise suspicions that something is awry.

Question:  What is the inherent distinction between creatures which are טמאים to those we cannot eat (there is not a full overlap)? Approach: It seems from a close reading of the פסוקים that the rules about the creatures that cannot be eaten fall into two distinct categories - those that are considered שקץ (which presumably most people wouldn't be interested in eating anyway), and those which are to ensure a level of קדושה - which implies that they're not inherently "disgusting". The question of טומאה appears to also stem from the קדושה element, but not everything that can "ruin" a level of קדושה by eating would mean a lessening of קדושה by the different types of contact with the creature.

Question:  We normally don’t learn two things from the same inference in a פסוק. So why do we do so with the verse of בעבור זה עשה ה׳ לי (see רשע and section of בכל דור ודור) Approach: It would seem that the inferences learned are effectively the same things, just applied from different vantage points. The idea stems from the word לי, in which we learn the requirement to view oneself as if they had themselves left מצרים. The רשע though fails to relive the experience, and hence the reaction to his rejection of his nation and its' history.