אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שאת או ספחת, when a person shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising or a scab, etc. We have to explain this verse in a similar vein to the statement in Baba Metzia 114 on Numbers 19,14: "you are called אדם, whereas the title אדם is never applied to Gentiles, for the Gentiles are not susceptible to the impurity resulting from the various skin-diseases enumerated in our Parshah." This statement, attributed to the prophet Elijah, is proof that the clothing of Gentiles afflicted with these נגעים, stains mentioned in our chapter, does not confer impurity on Jews in contact with them as we have learned at the beginning of the eleventh chapter of the tractate נגעים.

כי יהיה בעור בשרו, which he will have on the skin of his flesh, etc; the Torah informs us here that only the skin of Israelites afflicted with this disease is affected. The disease does not penetrate below the skin. This is a principal difference between Israelites and Gentiles; the latter are perceived as afflicted with this disease through and through. Their entire being is perceived as being part of the צרעת syndrome. If an Israelite has committed a sin which results in נגע צרעת, the skin afflictions mentioned in this chapter, it is visible only on his exterior not on his flesh and certainly not his soul, personality.

Our sages in Erchin 3 explain the word אדם as meaning that even a baby can be afflicted with the disease related here as babies too qualified for the term אדם. Women too are included as the Torah refers to man and woman combined as אדם in Genesis 5,8.

Torat Kohanim adds that the reason the Torah chose the expression בעור בשרו, the skin of his flesh, instead of merely בעורו, on his skin, is to include the skin on which hair does not grow. We are not to think that only skin with follicles, i.e. capable of producing hair, is included here. [the Torah features the colour of hair surrounding these skin blemishes, and it was therefore reasonable to assume that only those patches of hair are subject to this legislation. Ed.] As it is, if a white hair grew in an area normally devoid of hair, the legislation in this chapter applies. Nonetheless the white spot on the skin has to precede the appearance of the hair before this legislation can apply. If an old man or an albino who normally has white hair, first develops the symptoms on the skin described here and a white hair makes its appearance subsequently, it is doubtful if such a person is considered afflicted seeing the hair did not turn white as a result of the condition of the skin surrounding it. On the other hand, the progression of the symptoms conforms to what is written in the Torah. We are unable to determine with certainty that the hair grew white from the source as at the time the person appears before the priest we only see the ultimate result and do not know whether the hair grew black and immediately turned white. Tossaphot in Niddah 19 feel that the bright spot on the skin, בהרת, is presumed to have caused the hair to turn white. At any rate, such a situation is one which is known in הלכה as ספק טומאה, a state of doubtful impurity.

שאת או ספחת, a rising or a scab; we are taught in Nega-im 1,1 that the meaning of the word ספחת is a kind of שאת, a whiteness which is a shade darker than that of בהרת, as the colour of שאת is similar to clean wool and similar in whiteness to the whitewash used in the Temple. Even though the expression ספחת occurs in the Torah only in our verse, the same rule is true for a lower degree of whiteness of בהרת which is the whitest of whites, similar to snow in colour. The verse ought to be understood as if the Torah had written: שאת או ספחת, או בהרת וספחתה.

We need to understand why the Torah mentioned שאת before it mentioned בהרת, seeing the latter is whiter than שאת, in fact unmatched by anything else in whiteness? Why did the Torah not give us a list of degrees of white in a descending order? We believe that if the Torah had commenced by describing the whitest possible kind of skin-affliction, i.e. בהרת first, and had mentioned the word ספחת later, I could not have derived that שאת also may occur in shades of a secondary degree of whiteness which is part of its category and is called ספחת דשאת. Even if the Torah had written: בהרת או ספחת או שאת, I would have concluded that there are only three categories of the colour white which form a נגע צרעת instead of there being four such categories (2 of them being sub-categories). Even if the Torah had written: בהרת או שאת או ספחת, I would not have known that there is an additional category called ספחת הבהרת, seeing the word appeared only at the end of the sequence. As it is, it is impossible to overlook the fact that the Torah wanted us to know that ספחת is both a sub-category of שאת as well as a sub-category of בהרת.

Erchin 15 explains that these afflictions are a penalty for people who have spoken ill of their fellow man. Maimonides explains this in greater detail in the seventh chapter of his Hilchot Deyot. This is what he writes: "A person is guilty of the sin of לשון הרע, a wicked tongue, when he tells something detrimental to the image of this fellow man even though he speaks the truth. If he tells lies about his fellow man he is guilty of the sin of מוציא שם רע, bad-mouthing another human being." We see therefore that one is called בעל לשון הרע, even if one tells the truth about someone, whereas one is called מוציא שם רע when the evil gossip one spreads has no basis in fact. The Torah therefore describes two different categories of skin afflictions, one to be applied to people guilty of לשון הרע, i.e. בהרת, the other to be applied to people guilty of מוציא שם רע, described by the Torah as שאת.The reason the Torah chose the term שאת as an allusion to people guilty of מוציא שם רע is because the Torah said in Exodus 23,1: "do not utter a falsehood." The word בהרת aptly describes someone who engages in לשון הרע, as the word describes something which is the brightest of bright, i.e. true. Although such a person speaks the truth, what he has done is despicable. The sub-categories of which the Torah speaks may be regarded as alluding to the verbiage which surrounds the basic detrimental information which the respective guilty party tries to convey conversationally.

והיה לנגע… צרעת, and it will turn into a skin-afliction. Inasmuch as the most important factor determining the impurity resulting from what is and what is not a נגע צרעת is revealed by the colour of certain hairs and not by the colour of the skin alone, the Torah uses the expression צרעת independent of mention of any hair. The word והיה, "it will be," alludes to the fact that what determines if we are dealing with a נגע צרעת has yet to occur.

ומראה הנגע, and the appearance of the affliction, etc. Here we come face to face with the mystical dimension of Psalms 39,7: "man walks about as a mere shadow;" the Psalmist refers to the appearance of raw flesh. When the forces of evil assert themselves in man this makes a visible impression on his flesh. The healthy appearance of his skin disappears. It appears that there is something physically missing, i.e. the skin appears as "deep," as having lost its normal surface. It is remarkable that according to הלכה, one is not ritually impure if this condition covers the entire body, i.e. if this "deepness" leaves no visible mark seeing we cannot detect a contrast with other skin or flesh (compare Shevuot 7).

וראהו הכהן וטמא אותו, and when the priest takes a look at him he will declare him ritually impure. The Torah made the impurity conditional on the priest declaring him so. This reminds us of a statement in Shabbat 119 that two angels accompany a person on his way home from the synagogue on Friday nights and they examine if this person had made the preparations for the Sabbath prior to going to the synagogue. If he did, one angel commends him (the 'good' angel) exclaiming "may you continue to do so," whereas the second angel [who represents man's negative actions Ed.] says "Amen." The reverse happens when the person in question had not made preparations for the Sabbath before the onset of the Sabbath. At any rate, the Talmud suggests that once a positive or negative momentum has been built it feeds upon itself unless something contrary happens. Seeing that it is the priest's duty to obtain atonement for Israel from their impurities, diseases, etc., G'd has commanded him to concur with the judgment of impurity the afflicted person has been subjected to. This state of impurity will continue until the afflicted person turns into a penitent when G'd will remove the symptoms of impurity from him.

והנה כהה הנגע, and the affliction has dimmed, etc. Rashi explains this to mean that if the appearance of the affliction remains either stationary or has spread, the person suffering from it is impure. Maimonides writes in chapter one of his treatise Hilchot Tum-at Tzora-at that the word כהה means that if the appearance is less white than any of the four degrees of whiteness the Torah had described, the person afflicted by it is now טהור, "clean." Similarly, if it neither spread nor dimmed nor sprouted a white hair in the area of the affliction, the person who suffered these symptoms is "clean" also. Thus far Maimonides.

According to Rashi the expression כהה in the Torah describes a comparison to a previous condition which definitely was one of the other three symptoms qualifying for the description נגע צרעת, whereas the present appearance is not one which does not qualify for any of the four degrees of whiteness which would constitute the presence of a נגע צרעת. Had the Torah wanted to exclude the presence at this stage of all the four possible symptoms which constitute the presence of a נגע צרעת, the Torah should have written that there was no appearance of anything which looked like נגע צרעת. We must conclude therefore that our verse discusses someone who had previously displayed at least one of the three other kinds of white areas which would signify נגע צרעת such as the בהרת described in verse 2 which had a subcategory ספחת. If, however, the appearance had already been at the lowest end of the scale of white, i.e. the skin covering an egg, it could not have dimmed any further [and still be of concern to us halachically at all. Ed.] Alternatively, we would have to assume that there is a lower degree of whiteness in any of the four categories נגע צרעת the Torah has discussed thus far, and it is this relatively dimmer appearance the Torah describes here as כהה הנגע. The נגע described as בהרת itself would consist of either of two degrees of whiteness, both being close in appearance to snow-white. One of these degrees existed prior to the stage described in the Torah as כהה, the other after that stage had been reached. We find the following statement in Nega-im 1,4: Rabbi Chanina says there are altogether 16 shades of a colour which could qualify as נגע צרעת. Rabbi Dotha claims that there are 36 such shades. Akavyah ben Mahallel says that there are no fewer than 72 such shades which have to be examined. We may assume that these Rabbis do not disagree as to which shades constitute an affliction resulting in the victm becoming declared ritually impure, etc; they disagree only as to the number of shades there are that a priest must be familiar with in order to render the proper ruling. [these shades include also other kinds of skin afflictions such as מכרה and שחין, נתקים, etc.. Ed.] Maimonides in his commentary on the Mishnah also writes that the disagreements do not concern basic categories which would qualify as נגע צרעת. Only a few of these shades actually qualify as נגע צרעת. There are two basic methods which may bring about a change in the legal status of the afflicted person, seeing that the "dimming" is what determines the process of the afflicted person becoming "clean." Either there has to be a dimming from one basic category to a lower basic category of whiteness, or there only needs to occur a dimming from the higher level of a category to a lower level of whiteness within the same basic category. One may make a case for either of these approaches except that the first method appears somewhat forced. Rashi is true to his method of interpretation of the Torah and adopts the approach that the word כהה הנגע is followed in the Torah by the word הנגע indicating that the affliction has not been totally uprooted though it has improved. It has only improved in appearance. Therefore he arrives at the conclusion that if the appearance even dimmed only relatively, within the major category it belonged to previously, this is sufficient to have this person declared "clean."

According to Maimonides, when the Torah speaks of the נגע having dimmed, this means that it has become dimmer than any of the four basic categories of whiteness which cause the priest to pronounce the person so afflicted as impure. The present state of colour is dimmer than any of the four degrees of whiteness described in the Torah. In this respect Maimonides agrees with Rashi that if the whiteness had dimmed to a degree of whiteness less bright than the four categories listed, the person concerned is declared "clean." If, however, we were to understand that the words כהה הנגע, are a dimming which is darker than the original white but still within the four shades of white which constitute נגע צרעת, what news does the Torah reveal by saying that such a person remains impure? We have to explain the words of Maimonides as referring to the need for the afflicted person to wash his clothing [complete ritual immersion. Ed.] even if the present appearance of the formerly white spot is dimmer than any of the four categories of whiteness which result in the priest declaring such a person as afflicted with נגע צרעת.

If we accept Rashi's opinion, why did the Torah not make the dimming of the afflicted spot conditional on it reverting to its original colour just as the Torah made the declaration by the priest that the person is definitely afflicted dependent on the area of the whiteness spreading? According to Maimonides, when the Torah speaks of the afflicted area as not "having spread," the meaning is that it has not dimmed in colour either. According to Rashi we do not know what the legal status of the person under observation at the end of the second week would be in such a situation.

As mentioned previously, we can approach the problem in two ways. According to method one, both expressions i.e. כהה and לא פשה הנגע describe conditions which result in the formerly afflicted person being considered "clean." Seeing that we do not need both expressions in order to teach us the same הלכה in the same setting, one of these expressions is used exegetically as applicable to a situation other than the one described in our verse. [something which in the thirteen exegetical rules of Rabbi Yishmael is called לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא על הכלל כולו יצא; Ed.] In our case one example, i.e. that the whiteness has dimmed, teaches that if it resumes its former brightness the person previously under suspicion of being a צרוע will this time be considered as definitely afflicted. This will be so even though the white spot he suffers from now is no brighter than the whiteness of the spot he suffered from previously while he was only under observation. This is only true however, if previously the white spot had never dimmed enough to be less white than any of the basic four categories of whiteness which potentially make him impure, afflicted. Seeing he had previously not been declared impure, his again having a spot of that degree of whiteness on his skin would not make him worse off than before, i.e. under observation by the priest only. Do not ask concerning the example of פשיון, spreading, which the Torah describes as one following the afflicted person having come under the priest's scrutiny and isolation and having been declared ritually pure. The person in question is one who is again ritually pure. Nonetheless the Torah ordered that if such a spread occurred again, the person afflicted is considered impure and the Torah does not allow for a situation where the area concerned either contracted or remained stationary. Why does the Torah not allow for a situation there where the afflicted person reverts to the status prior to the white area having spread, i.e. his status would be one of suspended ritual purity pending further developments? This is not a valid question because in a situation of פשיון, a horizontal spreading of the affected area, the priest declares such a person as definitely צרוע already at the end of the first seven days of quarantine, unlike the situation described in verses 4-6 where the shade of white is the determining factor. Perhaps Rashi thought that the second approach to our problem is based on reasoning and does not require a specific verse to confirm it. This is an essential weakness in Rashi's approach.

Personally, I prefer to explain our verse in the following manner: והנה כהה הנגע; "and behold, the affliction has dimmed;" it has become dimmer than its original appearance but it still is white enough to qualify under one of the basic four categories as a נגע צרעת, (just as Rashi had said). However, the intention of our verse is that even if the appearance of the white spots had dimmed, the individual in question is to be declared "clean" only if there had not been a horizontal expansion of the afflicted area on the skin during the week in question. If the white area on the skin has expanded horizontally, the person retains the same status as he had at the previous inspection by the priest a week earlier. My only difficulty is to know on what basis our verse arrives at this conclusion.

Meanwhile I have seen the following statement of our sages in Torat Kohanim. "You might have thought that the words והנה כהה הנגע mean that the appearance of the white spot is dimmer than any of the four basic categories of white which would qualify as נגע צרעת; therefore the Torah adds the word הנגע, to tell you that the Torah speaks of one of these four categories. If the Torah had only written the word הנגע you would have thought that it could have remained looking the same as on the last inspection. Therefore the Torah had to write והנה כהה, it had definitively dimmed when measured against its previous appearance but not sufficiently to be dimmer than any of the four categories of white which qualify as a נגע צרעת. The words והנה כהה also mean that if its whiteness intensified during that week and dimmed subsequently it is as if it had not intensified; the word הנגע means that if it had first dimmed during that week only to intensify again, it is as if it had never dimmed at all." Thus far Torat Kohanim. Clearly, the author of Torat Kohanim feels that the dimming was not sufficient to result in such a dim appearance that it no longer would have qualified as a נגע צרעת at all, unlike the comment of Rashi. However, from the statement that if the afflicted area had intensified in whiteness at some time during that week or dimmed and intensified again, we disregard all dimming or intensification respectively as if they had not occurred, it is clear that this conforms to our own interpretation. It is the intention of our verse that if a certain degree of whiteness was not visible originally, then even if it had become much whiter in the interval as long as it had dimmed by the time the priest inspected it again it would be declared healed, provided it had not spread horizontally. Having established this, the author of this Baraitha clearly disagrees with both Rashi ad Maimonides. Nonetheless, as mentioned we still have no source for the opinion offered by the author of Torat Kohanim. Perhaps it is simply a condition that there has to be a dimming of some kind before the quarantined person may qualify for the description "clean."

I have found another comment in Torat Kohanim on our portion which is as follows: "the meaning of the word מספחת in our verse is that though it did not change its appearance." This means that even if it did not become weaker in appearance the person under observation is declared "clean" on the second inspection by the priest. If so, we can once more revert to explain that the reason is that the word כהה means that the priest does not initially examine if the whiteness has dimmed; neither does he immediately consider if it had intensified. Both the words of Rashi and Maimonides need further examination and seem very difficult to reconcile with Torat Kohanim.

מספחת הוא, it is a scab. This means that it is not a צרעת, similar to the word בהק הוא in Leviticus 13,39: "it is a brightness." Nonetheless the Torah commands people afflicted with such symptoms to wash their clothing, i.e. an indication that they have contracted a minor form of impurity. If we look for a homiletical meaning for this law it may be that it indicates that the victim was guilty of something called אבק לשון הרע, a peripheral form of loose talk about a third party. We find an example for this in Erchin 15 where a person who described a fire in a neighbour's house is described as guilty of אבק לשון הרע.

Another meaning of the expression מספחת היא is simply that this is a form of affliction which requires the person so afflicted to "wash the clothing he wore when this affliction was diagnosed by the priest." [actually it means ritual immersion. Ed.] We derive this from the sequence of the words מספחת היא וכבס בגדיו. From the words וטהרו הכהן just prior to this sequence it seems clear that the priest first has to say to the afflicted person "you are clean" before he is back to normal. This appears to be difficult to understand. It makes sense that the person quarantined because of certain symptoms would not be considered טמא, impure, unless so declared by the examining priest; but why should a person who has not so far been declared as impure require to be declared pure by the priest before returning to society? Granted that Rashi says somewhere that this is because the person had already been quarantined, this is not a sufficient reason. When you accept our approach to the whole verse there is an adequate reason for the priest having to declare such a person as "clean." We had characterised this symptom as a form of skin-affliction. If so, it is reasonable that the victim cannot be purified from it without the formal declaration by the priest that he is "clean" henceforth.

צרעת הוא. it is a form of leprosy. The meaning of these words is that even if the priest had previously declared the person afflicted as "clean," this judgment is reversesd retroactively in light of the afflicted area having spread. The reason is that a scab which does not indicate ritual impurity is not in the habit of spreading. The Torah indicates that the spreading needs only to be minimal in order for the afflicted person to be declared as ritually impure. It is the scab which is the affliction, not its size.

והיא הפכה שער לבן ומחית בשר חי, and it has turned the hair white, and there be healthy flesh, etc. The plain meaning of the verse is that two conditions must be present in order for the afflicted person to be ritually impure, 1) healthy flesh, 2) white hair; our sages in Torat Kohanim write as follows: "I might have thought that the person remains "clean" until he develops white hair plus an area of healthy flesh; to teach me that this is not so the Torah wrote: 'it is an old צרעת,' i.e. it is impure and no other symptom is needed. If so, why does our verse speak about white hair and healthy flesh? this teaches that impurity is not decreed unless the area of skin is large enough to accomodate both white hair and healthy flesh." Apparently the inference from the text that healthy flesh alone (when inside the white area) is sufficient cause to declare the person ritually impure was based on the word נושנת; this poses a problem, however; granted that the presence of healthy flesh inside the white area does not need an additional symptom in order for the afflicted person to be declared ritually unclean -as distinct from the presence of white hair alone,- whence do we know that the presence of such healthy flesh by itself results in ritual impurity? Perhaps the word היא in our verse refers back to either one of two symptoms appearing; 1) the hair turning white in which case there is no need for a further symptom; 2) healthy flesh appearing, and not as Korban Aharon explains it as referring only to the appearance of healthy flesh. It is also possible that the rule that an area of healthy flesh within the white area is sufficient by itself to declare the afflicted person ritually impure is derived from the additional words בשר חי at the end of the verse. The words טמא הוא in verse 11 make it plain that no other symptoms were needed. Ignoring the words of Torat Kohanim for the moment, I believe that the absence of the words או מחית בשר חי tells us that if both symptoms exist and the white area covers the entire surface of the skin this indicates that the person is ritually pure, something I could not have inferred if the Torah had written the word או. How would I then have known that the person could be declared "clean" while suffering simultaneously from two symptoms each of which is basically a symptom signifying ritual impurity?

שאת לבנה או בהרת לבנה, "a white rising or a very bright spot, etc." According to Torat Kohanim the reason the Torah writes לבנה, white, is to exclude אדמדמת, a שאת of a reddish appearance; the words בהרת לבנה אדמדמת refer to a בהרת mixed with a reddish appearance. [I did not find this in my edition of Torat Kohanim on this verse. Ed.] How do I know that the rules stated in our verse apply to a שאת אדמדמת, and to בהרת לבנה that instead of the שחין there is now a completely white spot of the intensity called בהרת? This is why the Torah added the words נגע צרעת, "it is a form of leprosy," in verse 20. At first glance it seems that these extra words should have been necessary only in respect of שאת, the rising on the skin which was of a mixed colouring (white and reddish); seeing that the basic colour was not an intense white I might have presumed that it did not qualify anymore as a symptom conferring ritual impurity. We never would have assumed this of an area which contained the kind of bright whiteness known as בהרת. We never find that שאת is more susceptible to impurity than בהרת.

The true explanation of the verse then is this: "a white rising on the skin of the kind called שאת לבנה or an intensely white spot called בהרת which contains also some reddish appearance is still a symptom of ritual impurity because the colour of בהרת contains some rising, שאת, and will not result in purification seeing a leprosy like appearance grew in it." The words נגע צרעת are not necessary except to tell us that the שאת underwent a dimming of its white colour. While it is true that the author of Torat Kohanim speaks of two divisions, the second one is mentioned as incidental not because we needed the words נגע צרעת to convey this information.

ואיש או אשה, and a man or a woman, etc. The Torah had to spell out "or a woman," instead of using the collective term אדם for both man and woman because women do not usually grow beards. The reader who sees the word אדם would conclude that the legislation only applies to people who normally grow beards, i.e. men, and I would have assumed that either minors or Gentiles are included in this legislation whereas any plagues on the beard of a woman would not be subject to the legislation introduced here. The Torah therefore wrote איש או אשה, to tell us that if a woman grows hair in a part of her face where a man grows a beard, the legislation applies to her also.

שער צהב דק, thin blond or yellowish hair; according to Torat Kohanim the word "yellowish" is intended to exclude hair which is of a greenish, reddish or black colour. The use of the word "yellowish," serves to exclude all colour except white. The colour white did not need exclusion. We might have arrived at this through simple logic. Just as the colour yellow is not a colour mentioned in connection with other afflictions of the skin considered as leading to ritual impurity, so the colour white, which is the prime colour for skin-afflictions resulting in ritual impurity would most certainly also qualify for such impurity if it occurred in the area of the beard. The Torah therefore mentions "yellowish" to tell us that white would not qualify as a colour resulting in ritual impurity in this legislation dealing with hair discolouring in the area where the beard grows. I find it difficult to follow this קל וחומר, inference from minor to major. Maybe the word צהב, yellowish, is needed to teach us the basic law that this colour if present in a נתק, scall, confers ritual impurity on the person concerned even though the colour has no negative implications in other skin-discolourations. If so, white would cause ritual impurity in the case of a scall just as it does in other skin afflictions which the Torah has legislated previously. This reasoning is reinforced by the mere fact that the author of Torat Kohanim did not spell out a קל וחומר saying: "if yellowish, which does not normally confer ritual impurity etc.," until after he had established that yellowish does confer ritual impurity in a scall. From the sequence of the reasoning in Torat Kohanim you may infer that the Torah did not exclude your right to make the קל וחומר we have just mentioned. If so, how does the word צהב, yellowish, demolish the validity of the קל וחומר?

I must assume therefore that the exegetical approach of Torat Kohanim goes along these lines: "The Torah writes about the afflicted person who has already been mentioned וטמא אותו הכהן, instead of the shorter וטמאו, which the Torah used already on several occasions (verses 8,11,15,20). The extra word אותו is used to exclude a white scall from causing the afflicted person to become ritually impure. We would translate the verse as follows: וטמא אותו, i.e. "the yellowish colour confers impurity;" it is as if the author of Torat Kohanim had said: "the word 'yellowish' teaches that only it and no other colour including white results in ritual purity in this instance." If you will examine what the author of Torat Kohanim has written every other time the Torah wrote וטמא אותו instead of וטמאו, you will find an approach consistent with what he wrote in this instance. Why did he not bother to tell us that he used the word אותו to arrive at his conclusion? The reason may be that he still wanted to use the word דק which preceded the word אותו for an additional exegetical message. A careful scholar does not jump from the right to the left and rely on his reader to read his mind so as not to arrive at a faulty conclusion about his true intentions. You will find that after explaining the exclusion contained in the word אותו, our author of Torat Kohanim explains the exclusion contained in the sequence of the words וטמא אותו הכהן נתק הוא using only the word הוא in that sequence as an exclusion. The reason he did so is because he had already used the word אותו in the sense we explained.

You may reason that if all this is correct, why do we not use a קל וחומר type of reasoning to prove that just as the colour yellow results in the afflicted person becoming ritually impure when he contracted a נתק, the same should hold true for yellowish hair in other situations where hair is a factor in the afflicted person contracting ritual impurity in connection with skin turned white? The logic is simple. If a white hair which which does not confer ritual impurity when present in a נתק, nevertheless confers ritual impurity when present with other skin afflictions, then a yellow hair which even confers ritual impurity when present only in a נתק, certainly confers ritual impurity when it appears in conjunction with other skin afflictions. Perhaps the very fact that the Torah needed to exclude white as a colour resulting in ritual impurity in the case of a scall was equivalent to telling us that we should not engage in learning the קל וחומר in reverse as applying to situations such as בהרת או שאת. You may wish to read what we have written on Leviticus 14,7 in connection with the Baraitha which explains why the person afflicted with צרעת has to experience seven sprinklings of מים חיים in his purification process as opposed to the person who contacted ritual impurity through contact with a dead body, and who has to undergo only two such sprinklings one each on the third and on the seventh day of his purification rites. This is so in spite of the fact that I could have arrived at the opposite conclusion by using the קל וחומר type of reasoning.

In that instance, the author falls back on the explanation of the word צהב he has given on our verse here. Why is the colour צהב the only one which confers impurity in the case of a scall? Torat Kohanim explains that this colour symbolises gold. Maimonides explains in his commentary on tractate Nega-im 6,1 that צהב is a colour which is a mixture of red and green. I have seen that Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explains it as follows: "The word means something close to egg-white in Arabic." It appears therefore that Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra understood the word צהב as ivory coloured. We, who live under Mohammedan rule, know that the Arabic word tzahov means some kind of dim white. This would all contradict the opinion expressed by the Tannaim in the Mishnah. I do not see what purpose would be served to explain words in the Torah in terms of the Arabic language; this would lead to making our Torah into a book of lies, G'd forbid. What is so objectionable in our traditional sources explaining the word צהב as yellowish-gold? I am afraid that Rabbi Ibn Ezra lent his hand to those who make a mockery of our holy Torah. Anyone who toys with commentaries of this nature would do better to suppress them and not to publish them.

טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן, "he is 'clean;' and the priest shall declare him "clean" (ritually pure)." This apparent repetition is explained in the Torat Kohanim as follows: We would have thought that it suffices if the priest simply allows the afflicted person whose נתק has remained unchanged in appearance except that black hair grew on it, to go back to the camp; to teach me that this is not sufficient, the Torah tells us that the priest must first declare such a person as "clean." I would also have thought that if the priest erred and erroneously declared a ritually impure person "clean," that he would henceforth be considered "clean;" this is why the Torah had to write טהור, he is objectively "clean;" the priest merely confirms it. This is an exegesis which Hillel taught when he came from Babylonia as the scholars in Israel at the time had been unable to furnish proof for this halachah from the text of the Torah (compare Jerusalem Talmud Pessachim 6,1). We need to understand why the scholars who had disagreed with Hillel at that time did so.

It seems clear that the meaning of the line is as explained by Torat Kohanim. If the word טהור had not appeared, I would naturally have assumed that the priest, who is after all the expert in all these laws, would decide the status of the person in question. As a result, if the priest is aware that there is a בהק, a dull white spot, he will release the person from his quarantine so that he can go home to his family. The Torah therefore writes both טהור וטהרו to inform us that there is a formality to be observed. This exegesis could not be confirmed until Hillel returned to the land of Israel and quoted it in the name of his teachers Shmayahu and Avtalyon. Let us now return to the statement that this ruling of Hillel (resp. his teachers) is good only if the priest did not err and declare someone as "clean" whose skin had not undergone the necessary changes. Do not ask that perhaps what the Torah meant with the word טהור was that even if the afflicted person was himself aware that he was "clean" by then, the priest's declaration was still essential for him to resume his normal life. Such reasoning is very forced and if one had to choose between both possible approaches Hillel's exegesis is far superior. Seeing that the reasoning we apply is the basis of a religious ruling, it is preferable to accept the approach of Torat Kohanim rather than getting involved in forced explanations.

I have seen a statement in Vayikra Rabbah 22,1 that there is nothing in the way of Torah exegesis which had not been taught to Moses while he was on Mount Sinai, including what renowned scholars thought they revealed for the first time in the distant future. At the same time we have a statement in Bamidbar Rabbah 19,6 that Rabbi Akiva expounded exegetically matters which even Moses did not know. The Midrash is based on a verse in Isaiah 42,16: "these things (such as making the blind see, etc.) I have done (G'd speaking)." It does not say there that G'd will do these things in the future, but that He has already done them. When did He do them? When He revealed to Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues Torah insights He had not even revealed to Moses." Thus far the Midrash. We appear to be faced with a contradiction between the two Midrashim we have quoted. Many statements in a similar vein abound in our Midrashic literature.

I think we have to understand these statements in the following manner: It is true that everything which is of a Biblical nature was revealed to Moses and no one since has become privy to something Moses did not already know at that time. The difference between Moses and subsequent generations of scholars is that Moses had been given both the written and the oral Torah from G'd directly. G'd, in His wisdom, had recorded all the parts of the oral Torah He had revealed to Moses in the written Torah also. He had not, however, revealed to Moses where all the parts of the oral Torah He had taught him were to be found in the written Torah. The labour of discovering all these allusions to the oral Torah in the written Torah was left for all the Torah scholars after Moses. It is their task to find proof in the written Torah for all the halachot G'd had taught Moses orally. The reason the scholars of the Mishnaic period compiled commentaries such as Torat Kohanim was to provide us with the key that enables us to find where the oral law is anchored in the written law. This labour is an ongoing process and it remains our task to establish this linkage between the oral and the written law. The labour is generally called ארץ החיים. Moses was not informed about all this and this is why the sages could state that Rabbi Akiva had become privy to insights not even revealed to Moses. The proof of how this works is found in Hillel's reconstructing from the written text a הלכה which had been revealed to Moses at the time but whose "anchor" in the written Torah had been unknown until that time.

צרוע הוא טמא הוא, he is "leprous," he is ritually impure. It appears best to approach these words in the same way Hillel approached the words טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן in verse 37. Here the force of the exegesis is even more convincing as the word צרוע refers to the body of the afflicted person whereas we still require that the priest declare him to be ritually impure. This means that legally speaking, his symptoms notwithstanding, the afflicted person would not be considered subject to the laws of impurity until the priest had declared him to be impure.

The reason the Torah repeated טמא הוא is to make it clear that if the priest had erred and had declared a person as ritually impure although his symptoms did not justify this, the priest's declaration is invalid. The reason the Torah also repeated טמא יטמאנו is explained in Torat Kohanim as including all other categories of ritual impurity. A person never becomes legally impure due to symptoms on his skin unless the priest has declared him to be so.

צרוע הוא, he is "leprous." Why does the Torah not use the expression צרעת הוא in order to describe the affliction as it has done repeatedly? Perhaps the Torah wanted to indicate G'd's extreme displeasure with a person whom He has afflicted with this disease in such exposed areas of the skin of the head and beard. Most other afflictions listed in our portion occur in more private parts of the body. Generally speaking, G'd displays great concern for the sensitivities of a person even when He punishes him. The person described here as צרוע has forfeited the consideration G'd normally shows even to sinners; this is why he is described as a "leper" throughout. The words בראשו נגעו that his affliction is already in his head, is the justification for calling him a צרוע.

כל ימי אשר הנגע בו, all the days that the plague is within him, etc. This means that as long as his sin is still part of him he remains in the state of ritual impurity. The emphasis expressed by the words טמא הוא after the word יטמא is a reminder of Jeremiah 2,19 where the prophet exclaims: תיסרך רעתך, "your discipline has been the result of your wickedness." In other words it was not G'd who inflicted these misfortunes on the sinner but the sins he committed. Jeremiah expresses a similar thought in Lamentations 3,39: "Of what shall a living man complain?! Each one of his own sins." Yalkut Shimoni item 1040 on this verse is worth studying. You may want to read what I have written on Genesis 4,4 אם תיטיב שאת.

והבגד כי יהיה בו נגע צרעת, And the garment which is afflicted by the plague of "leprosy," etc. The conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of this paragraph is explained in Torat Kohanim by Rabbi Yossi Haglili by reading together the last three words of the previous verse with this verse, i.e. מחוץ למחנה מושבו והבגד, "his dwelling is outside the camp together with the garment." This teaches that the garments also need to be removed outside the three camps. Torat Kohanim added that the wording reflects that the rule applies not only to garments made out of wool or linen each but even to garments made of a mixture of those materials but not to garments made of cotton, silk, and other fabrics. This seems difficult as it is possible that what we have perceived to be a conjunctive letter ו is only intended to draw attention to the proximity of the legislation to remove garments made of linen or wool outside the three camps or to include garments made of a mixture of linen and wool. Perhaps Rabbi Yossi Haglili's inference is based on the letter ו whereas the inference regarding inclusion of garments made of a mixture of linen and wool is based on the letter ה in the word והבגד.

בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים in a garment made of wool or in a garment made of linen. We have to analyse why the Torah wrote the word או instead of simply writing בבגד צמר ובבגד פשתים. This is particularly difficult when we consider the words of the author of Korban Aharon who argues that the reason a mixture of wool and linen had to be included in this legislation was because the Torah used the word או which amounted to dividing the word "wool" from the word "linen." The problem becomes even more complex when we consider that Torat Kohanim writes that we might have assumed that these garments contract impurity regardless of whether the fabrics which these garments have been made of have been dyed or not. The words בבגד צמר are to teach us therefore that just as linen garments are usually made of undyed fabric so the legislation is applicable to woollen garments only when these fabrics have not been dyed. This comment is also problematical; on the contrary, it is directly opposed to the statement that the word או is divisive and one could therefore not derive any rule applying to linen garments as also applying to woollen garments.

We believe that the reason our verse had to write the word או was so that we should not think that unless the garment was made of a mixture of wool and linen it would not contract impurity. If so, the word או is needed in its own right and cannot be used exegetically anymore. Once this is so it does not represent a contradiction to what is implied by the words צמר and פשתים appearing next to each other. We have to understand our verse thus: בבגד צמר means that not only if the garment is made of wool, but the same legislation applies if it is made of linen; both materials are treated equally in הלכה. This is why Torat Kohanim wrote that just as linen garments are made of undyed fabric so the woollen garments the Torah has in mind here are the ones whose wool retains its original colour. The reason that the Torah had to include garments made of a mixture of linen and wool is not because we would make the mistake by misreading the meaning of the word או as Korban Aharon would have us believe, but that seeing the Torah mentioned only these two fabrics how would I have arrived at a valid assumption about a mixture of wool and linen? If, on the other hand, we were to accept the argument of Korban Aharon that the word או is divisive, thoroughly separating the words צמר and פשתים from each other, then how could one argue that just as linen garments are of undyed material so the woollen garments the Torah describes are also only those whose fabrics have not been dyed? We would therefore need the letter ו before the word הבגד to re-establish some linkage between these two kinds of garments.

ודאה הכהן…והסגיד and the priest will observe and quarantine it, etc. We need to understand why the Torah changed its legal approach when speaking of the afflicted garment as compared to the legal approach used in connection with afflictions of the skin. The reason may be that an affliction of the skin may exist without quarantine, i.e. the priest will declare the afflicted person impure without a waiting period upon his first inspection (13,3). In the case of a parallel affliction appearing on the clothing of the afflicted person, the priest will first decree quarantine of seven days even though the symptoms are quite clear that we are dealing with צרעת, a form of "leprosy." The Torah therefore wished to distinguish between a person himself and his clothing. On the other hand, once the garment has been declared as definitely "leprous" it has to be utterly destroyed; unlike a person who may be cured of his "leprosy" if certain symptoms disappear, this is not true of his garments. If the Torah had legislated that the garments have to be declared as irrevocably impure at the first inspection by the priest, the impression would have been created that the wearer of those clothes cannot rehabilitate himself by means of repentance. We know from other parts of our commentaries that G'd does not desire the loss or destruction of man's money. Torat Kohanim as well as Nega-im 15,5 explained Leviticus 14,36: "and the priest shall command that they empty the house before the priest will go in to see the plague" that the declaration that the afflicted house is to be demolished is delayed until as much as possible of the owner's possessions have been "saved" by having first been removed from it. G'd therefore is on record that He is mindful of the possessions of even the lowest of the sinners. This then is the reason that the garments of the afflicted person are not declared as irrevocably impure during the first inspection by the priest. Seeing that man is given the opportunity to repent even after he has been ostracised and declared impure, no harm is done if he is declared impure, suffering from "leprosy" even at the first inspection by the priest.