זאת תהיה תורת המצורע, "This shall be the law of the "leper," etc. The entire verse seems superfluous. All the Torah had to tell us was that the afflicted person shall purify himself and be brought to the priest. Torat Kohanim explains the word זאת as excluding the purification ritual on an altar other than the one in the Temple. The word תהיה is explained as including people in our own times who suffer from the symptoms described in the Torah. Torat Kohanim on verse 4 relates that Rabbi Tarphon had a staff with which he used to purify "lepers" in his day [he was a survivor of the period during which the Temple was destroyed by the Romans. Ed.]. The word תורת is explained as teaching us that even though the different symptoms produce different kinds of צרעת, and different regulations regarding quarantine etc., they are all terminated by the offering of the same kind of offering as outlined in this chapter. The word ביום means that the process of purification described here must take place by day. One might think that the slaughtering of the birds for the offering and the afflicted person's shaving himself would be permissible at night; to prevent us from thinking this the Torah wrote זאת. Thus far Torat Kohanim.

You note that the author of Torat Kohanim used the word זאת exegetically both to exclude temporary altars or altars outside the Temple, as well as to forbid the afflicted person shaving himself at night, etc. The basis for these multiple inferences from the same word is that the Torah wrote two restrictive clauses (זאת, ביום) before mentioning the word טהרה, "purification." If the Torah had wanted to make only a single exclusion, the main subject of the verse, i.e. the purification, should have appeared next to either one of these מעוטים, restrictive expressions. For example, the Torah could have written: תורת המצורע, זאת תהיה ביום, "the law of the leper; this shall occur by day." We would then have understood that only the word ביום was to serve as a restrictive clause. The purification rites would then have been permissible on whatever altar was in use by the Jewish people at that time. The Torah could also have written the following sequence: ביום טהרת המצורע זאת תהיה תורתו, "on the day the 'leper' is purified, this shall be the law of his purification rites." The restrictive clause would then have applied only to the offerings, not to the time of day when the offering had to be brought. This latter version would not have contained a single additional letter except that the words would have been rearranged.

Vayikra Rabbah 16,2 derives the idea that the person afflicted had been guilty of slander from the unnecessary words זאת תהיה. We need to understand why the Torah chose to allude to this fact at this point just when the afflicted person undergoes the rites of purification. I believe that the fact that his first offerings have to be the birds which are characterised by their constant twittering is the key to this. These birds are a reminder of the afflicted person's loose tongue, the sin of לשון הרע. The Torah first wrote these unnecessary words to allude to the reason why the first offerings in his rehabilitation process must be the birds.

We may also understand these verses as follows: the affliction of "leprosy" develops due to pollutants in the body and gradually these negative influences within the body gain in strength until their presence becomes noticeable on the skin. Such physical symptoms also are accompanied by psychological symptoms developing. The afflicted person becomes morose, miserly, and his mind becomes depressed. The natural antidote are activities which help to cheer up a person, cause him to laugh and to enjoy himself. Now that the person under discussion has become afflicted with צרעת, it was natural for him to think that his disease was a natural occurrence. If someone were to tell him that it was his loose tongue which had resulted in this affliction he would not believe such a person, nor would he admit that he had been guilty of a loose tongue. This is why G'd in His wisdom decided to decree isolation for such a person, for his garments, (13,45) etc. While quarantined, such a person is apt to take stock of himself and to regret his former conduct. He will then observe that he has not been able to use his tongue against other people and that during this period his symptoms recede or vanish although by natural law he would have expected the symptoms to increase; he will find that the very affliction opened his eyes and he will realise why he had been afflicted. He will repent, confess his sin, and purify his tongue and realise that he was not the victim of a chance disease. When the Torah writes זאת תורת המצורע, this is an allusion to the new insights the afflicted person has discovered and which will lead to his purification. His new insights will prove all this to him ביום טהרתו, on the day of his purification; i.e. that although his isolation deprived him of what would naturally have served to cheer him up, he was healed despite the fact that he should have been morose and depressed while in solitary confinement. This will convince him that it was the wrong use he had made of his tongue which had resulted in his affliction and he will henceforth guard his tongue carefully. When the Torah concludes verse 3 with the words והנה נרפא נגע הצרעת מן הצרוע, and behold, the "plague of leprosy has been healed 'from the leper,'" the extra words מן הצרוע tell us that the cure was due to the disease itself.

והובא אל הכהן, and he is brought to the priest. Seeing the Torah had previously spoken of ביום טהרתו, on the day of his purification, the formerly afflicted person could have thought that his purification was complete already seeing his symptoms had disappeared; the Torah therefore explains that until he has been declared "clean" by the priest this is not so. Our sages in Torat Kohanim also observe that the words "he will be brought to the priest" imply that there is to be no delay. The reason that the Torah uses a passive form "he will be brought," instead of the usual "he shall come to the priest," indicates that the court will obligate him to go to the priest, or that the priest will take hold of him forcing him to leave his present residence. The same may apply when the symptoms had first shown up; he is obligated to go to the priest and to have the priest examine him.

וצוה הכהן ולקח למטהר, and the priest will command to take for the person to be purified, etc. According to Torat Kohanim the priest issues the instruction but anybody is authorised to take the birds. In the following verse Torat Kohanim again understands that according to the view of Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Yossi the priest issues the instructions but that any non-priest is qualified to slaughter these birds. Rabbi disagrees, insisting that also the slaughtering of the birds must be performed by a priest. Why did Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi not disagree concerning what is written in verse 4?If we were to assume that in verse 4 the word וצוה applied only to another verb, i.e. ולקח instead of to an object, this is not an adequate reason as even in verse 5 the word וצוה refers to another verb, namely ושחט, and we do not know that it refers to any other object. In fact, in verse 4 we are entitled to assume that the word וצוה implies that the birds be brought to the priest and he would receive them personally from those who bring them to him so that he would perform two commandments, something that is not so in verse 5 if we read it to mean that the words וצוה ושחט apply to one and the same person, i.e. the priest.

I have seen a comment by Korban Aharon according to which the commandment is that the priest command that two birds be brought to him so that he could choose one of them as the offering and one to be released later (verse 7). The reason that Rabbi did not disagree with Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Yossi in verse 4 insisting that only the priest is to take the birds is, that he could not tie the word וצוה to the commandment, i.e. he could not prove that the priest had to make this selection. Thus far Korban Aharon. I do not agree with the author of Korban Aharon as there is no indication from the words that the commandment to select the birds had to be performed by the priest and that it could be derived from the word וצוה. On the contrary, we may infer that the word וצוה as positioned in this verse indicates that the selection of the bird may be performed either by the priest or by someone else, whereas the slaughtering of the bird selected had to be performed by the priest, and Rabbi could explain verse 4 along the same lines as he did verse 5 saying that the selection of the birds could be performed only by the priest. It would then have appeared that Rabbi disagrees with Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Yossi and thought that the slaughtering of the birds also could be performed only by priests.

The reason, however, would not be because of something specific in our verse, but because it corresponds to the nature in which the subject matter is described by the Torah. G'd had commanded that the slaughtering take place in a vessel made of earthenware over water running from a well. This is not an act which is only "slaughtering," seeing a second action must accompany it immediately afterwards. This latter act is the principal ingredient of the purification ritual. Seeing that this is so it is reasonable to assume that it can be performed only by the priest. This kind of reasoning cannot be applied in verse 4 in which no action is demanded that is part of the purification process. There was therefore no reason to assume that the Torah demanded it to be performed by the priest exclusively unless the Torah had so indicated by some extra word or letter. The Torah preferred to leave the matter to be decided by the scholars.

Furthermore, we may assume that the plain meaning of verse 4 in which the Torah mentions the taking of the birds is that the Torah addresses the priest. The reason for this is that there was no need to mention the word "the priest" in the verse in connection with each separate activity. The Torah had repeated the word "the priest" already several times in verses 2-3. In the absence of a further repetition of that word at the beginning of verse 4 we would have reasoned that the commandment is not restricted to the priest as the Torah did not again mention the word "the priest" until the end in verse 5. These considerations are invalid seeing the Torah did write the word "the priest" at the beginning of verse 4. This indicates that just as everything which had been mentioned in verses 2 and 3 had to be performed by the priest the same is true of what is said in verse 4. Seeing that the Torah bothered to write the words וצוה הכהן once more in verse 5, the meaning must be that at least something of what is described in verse 4 need not only be performed by the priest. The word ולקח therefore does not refer to the priest. If everything in verse 4 could only be performed by a priest, why did the Torah have to write the words "the priest" again in verse 5? All the Torah had to write in verse 5 was וצוה ושחט, and I would have known that it is the priest who is the subject of these instructions. Clearly then the instructions in the Torah have to be split up differently. When the Torah writes the word ולקח in verse 4 for the first time, this refers to anybody, not only to the priest. The same interpretation cannot be applied to the word ולקח in verse 5 as we have no indication from Rabbi that he holds that the הלכה is based on the plain meaning of the verse. This is especially so as both the word וצוה and the word ושחט are positioned next to the word הכהן on either side of it.

Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Yossi, however, feels that seeing we found in verse 4 that the word ולקח does not need to refer to the word הכהן although it is written adjoining to the word הכהן we may interpret what is written in verse 5 in a similar manner.

All this would be fine except for a statement in Torat Kohanim at the beginning of our portion. This is what is written there: The law about purifying the "leper" is entrusted to the priest. I would have thought that the priest's function is only to declare the "leper" either impure or healed, i.e "clean." How do I know that the priest also has to offer the birds and perform the sprinklings of the blood as well as shave the "leper?" This is why the Torah says: תורת המצורע בכהן. Seeing this is so, I would have thought that also the taking of the birds and the sending away of the live bird and the washing of the "leper" and his clothing are to be performed only by the priest? To teach me that this is not so the Torah wrote זאת. Thus far Torat Kohanim. From the plain text of the Baraitha it seems clear that only three parts of the purification process of the "leper" have to be performed by the priest. In view of this there was no need for the Torah to command the priest about taking the birds or slaughtering them. From the combined text of the two Baraithot it emerges clearly that both Rabbi and Rabbi Yehudah ben Yossi hold that the priest must issue directives concerning two procedures. There appears to be a clear contradiction then between these two Baraithot.

Perhaps the reason why the author of the Baraitha did not mention the two clear directives to the priest contained in verses 4 and 5 is that he considered only things which involve the body of the "leper" as part of his purification ritual; he had already excluded numerous things as a result of the restrictive word זאת. If the Torah had not specifically demanded in verses 4 and 5 that the priest perform the act of selecting the birds and slaughtering them, I would have concluded that the word זאת in verse 2 had already relieved the priest from these two duties. The author of the Baraitha therefore only mentioned matters included in the definition תורת המצורע. He was well aware that he would make separate comments on verses 4 and 5; hence he ignored these aspects in his earlier comments.

However, I have seen in chapter 11,5 of Hilchot Tum-at Tzora-at by Maimonides that only the slaughtering of the birds and the shaving of the body-hair of the "leper," as well as the sprinkling of the blood of the bird have to be performed by the priest. No mention is made of the priest having to select the birds. In fact, Maimonides mentions specifically that all the rituals he has not mentioned may be performed by ordinary Israelites as well as by priests. Although we have a Tossephta in chapter eight of tractate נגעים according to which only three things have to be performed by the priest, -just as Maimonides has written,- the matter of the directives the Torah issued to the priest in verses 4 and 5 is not mentioned at all. Ordinarily, we would not need to consider the fact that the Tossephta does not conform to the views expressed in Torat Kohanim as unduly disturbing. We could even argue that the author of the Tossephta presumably dealt with verses 4 and 5 in a different context, something that we cannot say about Maimonides who is under an obligation to deal with those verses in his treatise on the subject.

We cannot argue that what the Torah has written in verses 4 and 5 is not clear enough to require Maimonides to refer to it in his treatise on the afflictions suffered by a "leper." After all, the authors of the Baraithot did consider it necessary to derive these הלכות from a biblical source. Neither can we argue that Maimonides thought that the plain meaning of the Tossephta which said: "and the other matters may be performed by any person" include even the ones concerning which the Torah issued directives to the priest, and that he would therefore ignore the views of both Rabbi and Rabbi Yehudah ben Yossi. If we were to assume this there is an additional difficulty, namely that a Tossephta which ignores both the views of Rabbi and of Rabbi Yehudah ben Yossi need not be considered authentic at all. What has been recorded in the Sifra de bey Rav is a carefully edited text, much more reliable than the collection of Tossephtot at our disposal.

Perhaps we may resolve the contradictions resulting from Maimonides' text by assuming that Maimonides relied on the first Baraitha in Torat Kohanim in which the items the priest has to perform in connection with the purification of the "leper" under the heading תורת המצורע are discussed. Maimonides understood those rites to be so mandatory that any deviation would cancel the whole procedure. The directives given in verses 4 and 5, however, Maimonides understood as something that would be performed preferably by the priest. Anything which is commanded by the priest is imbued with additional importance. We know this principle from Genesis 41,40 where Pharaoh issued a directive to his subjects that all of Joseph's directives were to be considered as binding on the Egyptians. In our instance, the Torah issued a directive that the steps of the purification rites mentioned in verses 4 and 5 should be initiated by a command from the priest but that they may be carried out by non-priests. If, for some reason, these instructions were not carried out at his initiative but someone else issued the instructions this would not invalidate the procedures. There is also a קל וחומר which can be applied to reinforce this logic. If the Torah had made it plain that the releasing of the live bird is not mandatory, then the instructions of how and by whom they have to be selected and slaughtered is certainly not mandatory. If Rabbi holds that even the slaughtering of the bird must be performed by the priest, he did not base this on the words in verse 5 but on his understanding that it is part of the procedures called תורת המצורע seeing it is similar to the sprinkling of the blood and the need to have the hair of his body shaved off. This corresponds to the view held by the first Rabbi quoted in the Baraitha according to whom the slaughtering is included in the three procedures which have to take place by day.

והזה על המטהר מן הצרעת, and he shall sprinkle on him that is to be purified, etc. Why did the Torah have to write the words מן הצרעת? Is it not obvious that we speak about someone who had suffered from "leprosy?" Perhaps the fact that this sprinkling of the blood mixed with מים חיים of the slaughtered bird still did not complete the purification process and the former "leper" still has to remain outside his home for another seven days shows he is comparable to a woman who had suffered from vaginal secretions, זבה. During these seven days before the former "leper" brings his final offerings and undergoes the procedure outlined in verses 9-20 he is still a primary source of ritual impurity, אב הטומאה. The Torah therefore emphasised by the words המטהר מן הצרעת that the person is being cleansed only of the actual plague called צרעת; he is not yet "clean." If we learn in verse 9 that this person must wash his garments on the seventh day this proves that his body conferred impurity on his clothing during the preceding seven days. This proves in turn that he was a primary source of ritual impurity as secondary sources of impurity do not confer טומאה on clothing. The words מן הצרעת are amply justified then.

Torat Kohanim offers a different explanation, saying that the words מן הצרעת are intended to teach that if someone's ritual impurity is due to contact with a dead body he does not have to undergo seven sprinklings of מים חיים. Had the Torah not written the words מן הצרעת, I would have concluded through a קל וחומר that if a "leper" who does not require sprinklings of water from a well (mixed with the ash of the red heifer) on the third and seventh day of his purification process nonetheless requires seven sprinklings of blood, then a person whose impurity is due to contact with a dead body would certainly need these seven sprinklings of מים חיים spring water mixed with the blood.. Hence the Torah wrote the words מן הצרעת in order to teach me that such a קל וחומר is not admissible. At the end of that Baraitha it is stated that the word וטהרו in verse 7 is restrictive and teaches that the "leper" does not have to undergo sprinklings of well water mixed with the ash of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of his purification rites as does the person who purifies himself from ritual impurity due to contact with a dead body. Had the Torah not written the word וטהרו, I would have learned a קל וחומר that if such a טמא מת who does not require the seven sprinklings of מים חיים plus blood, nonetheless requires sprinkling of well water mixed with the ash of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of his purification rites, the "leper" who even requires the seven sprinklings of blood mixed with מים חיים certainly would also require the sprinkling with well water (containing ash from the red heifer) on the third and seventh day of his own waiting period. The word וטהרו therefore means that the ritual described previously is sufficient.

I do not understand this. Seeing we have already used the words מן הצרעת to teach us that a comparison between a טמא מת and a צרוע, leper, is inadmissible, why did I need the word וטהרו to teach me the same thing?

We may explain this as follows; In the case of the טמא מת the Torah legislated sprinklings of מי פרה on the third and seventh day respectively (Numbers 19, 18-19) without mentioning how many of these sprinklings there had to be. On the other hand, the Torah did mention the number of sprinklings to be administered to someone whose ritual impurity was due to the plague, but it did not mention on which days these sprinklings had to be administered. It would have been quite reasonable to argue that a purification procedure requiring seven sprinklings is a more comprehensive procedure than one which occurs only on the third and seventh day respectively because it takes place only twice. The Torah therefore had to write the word וטהרו to teach that such reasoning is invalid. On the other hand, one could have argued with equal force that if the Torah legislated sprinklings to occur on two days in the case of a טמא מת, whereas the צרוע requires sprinkling only on one day of the seven days he is waiting, this is proof that the purification procedure of the טמא מת is of greater force than the one involving the "leper." Different scholars each adopt one of these two arguments in their approach to our problem. Accordingly, one scholar would have learned the קל וחומר using as his point of departure the case of the טמא מת, whereas the other scholar would have used the קל וחומר using as his point of departure the case of the "leper." As a result the Torah had to write two restrictive expressions, i.e. מן הצרעת as well as וטהרו in order to invalidate either קל וחומר.

Seeing that the logic of at least one of the two scholars arguing in opposite directions must be faulty, you may ask why the Torah should have to bother to invalidate faulty reasoning by writing an extra word! The answer is that we find that the Talmud Berachot 47 on the words עליך אמר קרא, explains that there are numerous instances in Tannaitic exegesis when a verse is used to refute a statement whose logic was faulty in the first place.

I have seen a comment by the outstanding scholar Rabbi Yehudah Rosenish, author of Mishneh Lamelech (commentary on the יד החזקה by Maimonides) on Hilchot Chametz Umatzah 6,2, where he quotes a Baraitha similar to the one we have quoted before whose text is as follows ( Torat Kohanim chapter 11 on Leviticus 23,6): the words הזה חג המצות, mean that on this day matzot are mandatory; on Sukkot, however, matzot are not mandatory. We could have learned a קל וחומר reasoning that if a festival (Passover) which does not require that we move into a Sukkah still requires us to eat matzot, then surely a festival on which we have to move into a Sukkah requires us to eat matzot. The Torah therefore wrote הזה חג המצות to make it clear that matzot are mandatory only on Passover. In chapter 14 of the same Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 23,34 on the sequence of the words הזה חג הסוכות, the following Baraitha is quoted: These words mean that only the festival of Sukkot requires us to move out into huts whereas the festival of Passover does not include such a requirement. I could have learned a קל וחומר saying that if this festival which does not require us to eat matzot nonetheless requires us to move into huts, then a festival, i.e. Passover, which does require us to eat Matzot most certainly also requires us to move into huts. The Torah therefore writes הזה to teach us that only on the festival of Sukkot are we required to move into huts. The author of Lechem Mishneh there raises the same questions we have raised in connection with the Baraitha concerning the words מן הצרעת and וטהרו in our portion. It will be worth your while to see what Rabbi Rosenish answers there although I consider his words slightly forced. There are a number of authorities who do not consider it worth their while to examine Maimonides' rulings critically when what is at issue is a lenient ruling concerning a matter whose biblical origin is doubtful at best. [This is relevant because Maimonides' ruling concerns whether it is adequate to swallow the bitter herbs without tasting them. Ed.]

I believe that the solution to why both of these Baraithot are quoted by Torat Kohanim is quite self-explanatory as we explained earlier. The whole point of our moving into the Sukkah is to remind ourselves of the miracles G'd performed for us after the Exodus as we know from Leviticus 23,43. This move into the Sukkah is an additional dimension of our recalling the Exodus. It was quite natural therefore to suppose that we should also eat matzot on that festival to symbolise our remembrance of that miracle seeing the Torah commanded us to sit in the Sukkah, something we do not have to do on Passover. The Torah had to write the word הזה to teach us that there is no need to do this. On the other hand, the festival of Passover also reflects a dimension of that miracle which is not present in the festival of Sukkot in that we celebrate it on the anniversary of its occurrence, on the 15th of Nissan. One could have supposed therefore that it would be in order to observe it while sitting in Sukkot, seeing that we have to sit in the Sukkah even when we observe this remembrance without it being on the anniversary of the event it commemorates. It was reasonable then for the author of the Baraitha to assume that but for the extra words הזה on both occasions such a קל וחומר would have been in order. The author tries to demolish the explanation by Lechem Mishneh arguing that if the whole קל וחומר was only based on a possible הלכה as opposed to a definite one, it could not have been called קל וחומר at all. [I have left out some of the details of this reasoning. Ed.]

וכבס המטהר את בגדיו, and the person to be "cleansed" is to wash his garments, etc. Why does the Torah decree this washing of the garments seeing that during the ensuing seven days the מטהר keeps on conferring impurity on garments by contact with them? I have explained on verse 7 that the words מן הצרעת refer to the impurity his body had suffered from up until now and which he is rid of, and this requires that at some stage he washes his garments in order to purify them, why do it now when they will likely become defiled again immediately by a different level of ritual impurity? I have found the following answer to this in Torat Kohanim. "What does the word וכבס teach us? If it is to tell us that the "leper" conferred ritual impurity on these garments through touching them, I did not need a verse to tell us this as I could have arrived at this by a קל וחומר based on the status of the afflicted person while he awaits the priest's final decision. During those days he does not confer impurity on people by reason of his entering the camp (based on Leviticus 13,3) although his garments become impure on contact. During the purification days when he would confer impurity on entering the camp, surely his garments also absorb impurity from him during those days? The verse therefore informs us about the additional ways the מטהר confers impurity, i.e. through someone sitting on those garments or lying on them even without touching them. Thus far Torat Kohanim. According to this, the word וכבס would indicate that after this washing the garments of the person undergoing purification rites will no longer confer impurity by someone lying on them or sitting on them. The main thrust of the Torat Kohanim's comment on the word וכבס is based on our very question that the procedure seems useless seeing the clothing will become impure again immediately. There was no need to question the plain meaning of the word וכבס, seeing washing will result in purification of the garments. There would have been nothing unusual in the Torah requiring someone to remove impurity at the first possible opportunity; we would not have had to look for any explanation beyond this were it not for the question of what function such washing of the clothing would serve at that stage. The Torah did issue similar directives when it comes to the shaving of the hair of the מטהר which also is something that has to occur both on the first day of the purification rites as well as on the seventh day.

I have seen that Rabbenu Hillel actually writes that the conclusion of Torat Kohanim that as of the time of this washing the clothing of the מטהר no longer confers impurity by sitting on them or lying on them should be stricken from the text. The reason he advances for this is a statement in Pessachim 67 that the ritual impurity of a person suffering an involuntary seminal emission, זב, is more severe than that of a person afflicted with צרעת seeing that a זב confers impurity on anything he sits or sleeps on and also is a cause of impurity by entering areas forbidden to him. If Rabbenu Hillel were correct we would have to emend the text of a number of Baraithot in which it is expressly stated that the "leper" causes impurity to things he sits on or lies on. The author of Korban Aharon has already refuted the arguments voiced by Rabbenu Hillel. It is argued there that the claim that a זב is indeed afflicted with a deeper degree of impurity is true during the days he counts towards his purification when he causes impurity to what he sits on and lies on whereas the מטהר does not. The מצורע on the other hand, does not cause this kind of impurity during the days he counts towards final purification. This is precisely what we learned from the words וכבס המטהר occurring both in verse 8 and in verse 9. Maimonides and all the other authorities are unanimous in this ruling. Rabbenu Hillel was not correct in this instance.

ורחץ במים וטהר, and he will bathe himself and be "clean." Torat Kohanim write that the additional word במים means that even immersion in a מקוה, a ritual bath, is acceptable. If not for that word, we could have learned the following קל וחומר. If a זב who does not require to be sprinkled with running water from a well, nonetheless has to immerse himself in running water from a well, i.e. מים חיים, the מצורע who does require to be sprinkled with such running water would most certainly also have to immerse himself in such running water from a well; the Torah therefore writes: ורחץ במים to teach us that the water of a ritual bath suffices for this washing. The author of Korban Aharon explains the extra word במים in the same vein. The difficulty with this exegetical comment is that according to the author of Torat Kohanim the Torah had already informed us in 15,13 on the words ורחץ בשרו במים חיים that only the זב requires immersion in running water from a well and not a מצורע. The reasoning presented there is identical to that presented here. The only difference is that in 15,13 the word בשרו is the one considered extraneous whereas in our verse it appears to be the word במים. The author of Korban Aharon also concurs. If all this is correct, why did the Torah write the word במים in our verse? Perhaps one may answer that the author of Torat Kohanim considers the word במים in our verse as crucial to his inference that the words "in water" are a suitable expression if the subject is a ritual bath, מקוה. The word בשרו, his flesh, is really needed primarily to exclude the need to wash his clothing in running water from a well but that it may be washed in any kind of water. Torat Kohanim on 15,13 explains this also. The author overcomes the accusation that he wanted to use the word בשרו for two exegetical comments by mentioning the word במים in our verse for this combined exegesis. Korban Aharon, on the other hand, bases himself on the Torah not writing ורחץ הזב, but merely ורחץ בשרו. If you adopt our approach you do not need all this.

Concerning another comment by Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 6,21 ומרק ושוטף במים, "it shall be scoured and rinsed in water," where the Torah speaks of the vessel wherein the sin-offering has been cooked, we find another definition of the Torah's use of the word במים when not defined further. Here is the text of Torat Kohanim there. "If the Torah had only written ושטף, I would have concluded that it is required to be immersed in at least 40 Sa-ah of water, i.e. a ritual bath. The additional word במים teaches that a minimal amount of water is sufficient. The word במים also excludes wine as the liquid in which such an earthenware vessel may be scoured." We cannot compare the superfluous word במים the Torah wrote in connection with the sin-offering with the superfluous word במים in our verse. If the Torah had not written the word במים in Leviticus 6,21 I would not have required more than 40 Sa-ah of the waters of a ritual bath. We would not have jumped to the conclusion that the vessels in question had to be scoured in מים חיים, running water from a well, and that the extra word במים precluded this requirement. I would simply have concluded that the word was necessary to tell us that what is required is 40 Sa-ah of "mikveh-water" rather than any quantity of any kind of water. This is not so in our context. If not for the restrictive word במים, I would have had cause to assume that what is required is running water from a well. The extra word במים therefore teaches us that no מים חיים, running water from a well, is required. If Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 6,21 added that the word במים means that the vessel must not be scoured in wine, this is not derived from the word במים being extraneous but from the plain meaning of the word, i.e. "water, yes, wine , no."

ורחץ את בשרו במים וטהר and he will bathe his flesh in water and be "clean." Why did the Torah have to write the word בשרו, his flesh? We have stated that the word בשרו in 15,13 in connection with the זב meant that only the זב and not the מצורע requires immersion in מים חיים, and that the word excludes washing of the clothing in מים חיים from the requirement. It is not possible to justify both these exegetical comments from the use of a single word בשרו. Now that this word appears here also and is not needed in its own right, the comment of Korban Aharon on 15,13 is acceptable. We can also ask why the word במים had to be written in this verse again. The explanation we offered for that word being written in verse 8 does not apply here. In that verse we could have erred by thinking that but for that word the מטהר would have had to immerse himself in מים חיים, seeing he had already had to undergo sprinkling with מים חיים. There was no reason to make such a קל וחומר the second time. If you were to argue that the whole procedure of purifying the מצורע is a single procedure and that therefore any possible misunderstanding and the subsequent קל וחומר would apply equally to both washings, we have already eliminated the need for bathing in מים חיים, even in an instance when sprinkling with מים חיים had been necessary. There could not have been room for error then to make the word במים necessary a second time.

We would have to answer that the scholar arguing that without the word במים a second time, the only thing which the first word במים eliminated was the need for מים חיים for his first bathing, something that anyway did not confer complete purity on him. On the other hand, we could have argued that the final bathing, which results in the absolute purity of the מטהר, would require מים חיים unless specifically excluded by the word במים again in our verse. We must not forget that the זב is purified completely by a single bathing (15,14). The two situations are therefore not comparable. Even though the second purification process of the מצורע is not accompanied by sprinkling of מים חיים, I could have argued that it should not involve a procedure inferior to that of the זב. If the Torah wrote the word במים also in our verse, this teaches that no מים חיים is required in the final bathing of the מצורע.

The Torah was particular to write the word בשרו which is the very word which caused us to argue in the case of the זב that he needed to bathe himself in running water from a well. Had the word בשרו not been mentioned in our verse also, I would have concluded that the only thing which the word במים excluded was the need to wash the clothing, etc., of the מצורע in מים חיים, but that he would have to bathe at least his body in running water from a well based on the קל וחומר from the situation the Torah describes when telling us about the purification rites of the זב.

You may be tempted to ask why the Torah did not merely write ורחץ בשרו במים in verse 9 and the word במים would have been totally unnecessary in verse 8. The reason this does not work is that I would then have argued that the need for מים חיים was eliminated only for the second bathing which did not have to be preceded by sprinkling the מצורע with מים חיים. This argument, however, is not true for the first bathing by the מטהר which was preceded by his being sprinkled with מים חיים. I would then still have learned the קל וחומר from the זב so that I would have needed the word במים to counter that קל וחומר. [The author continues examining other alternatives for another page or so. I have decided to omit those in the interest of brevity. Ed.]

A moral-ethical approach to this whole paragraph sees it as describing Israel's exile. According to the Zohar the Gentiles are viewed as a צרעת infesting Israel, and dominating them by means of this plague. The plague of צרעת is viewed a "surrounding or encircling" the Israelites bodies. You will also find statements by our sages that even in Egypt Israel's redemption was only possible because they did not indulge in לשון הרע, bad-mouthing each other. This compliment is based on Exodus 3,22 where the Israelites are told that they should ask their neighbours to lend them silver and golden trinkets something they did not do until 12 months later in Exodus 11,2. They were able to contain themselves during all this time without taunting their Egyptian neighbours during this entire period. No single sin results in as much alienation between man and his Maker as the sin of לשון הרע, careless and even defamatory use of one's tongue. This is why the Torah wrote: זאת תהיה תורת המצורע, referring to the Jewish people which had become victimised by this affliction. The words ביום טהרתו imply that Israel is to purify itself by refraining from the sin of לשון הרע and all that it involves. The word הכהן in the sentence והובא אל הכהן refers to G'd. Having previously been alienated from its G'd, the repentance of the Jewish people will once again bring it close to Him (compare Zohar based on the verse in Isaiah 57,19: שלום שלום לרחוק ולקרוב, "Peace, peace to the far and subsequently near.") Following this reconciliation, G'd is described in Zachariah 14,3 as "going out to fight the nations of the world." This is alluded to here by the words ויצא הכהן אל מחוץ למחנה, that G'd had left the camp of the שכינה, i.e. the land of Israel, to a place of impurity to which the Israelites were exiled due to their sins. וראה הכהן והנה נרפא הנגע and as soon as G'd sees that the sin which was the cause of the plague (the exile under the dominion of the Gentiles) has been healed,

וצוה הכהן, G'd will issue directives for two birds to be taken, etc. These two birds represent the two Messiahs, the Mashiach ben Yoseph and the Mashiach ben David. The reason the Messiah is called a bird is that this is a description for souls in the higher regions. The Zohar on פרשת בלק Numbers 24,17 quotes another example of the Messiah being called a "bird." We quote: "From this cave there emerges a very great bird which will rule over the world and the kingdom will be handed over to him." All these expressions are euphemisms for celestial forces as any student of the Kabbalah is aware of. We have found that the first Messiah will be from the tribe of Ephrayim who will nevertheless die while revealing himself; he will be followed by the Messiah descended from David. When the Torah speaks of G'd taking "two birds which are pure," these words are similes for the two kinds of Messiah.

The words ועץ ארז ושני חולעת ואזב, "and the cedar-wood and the scarlet and the hyssop," are allusions to the merits of the three patriarchs. Abraham is represented by the word עץ ארז; He was a man of gigantic spiritual stature. Jacob is represented by the words ושני תולעת, seeing he is called by that "nickname" in Isaiah 41,14 i.e. אל תירא תולעז יעקב, "do not be afraid O worm Jacob;" Isaac is represented by the word אזוב, seeing Isaac symbolises the attribute of גבורה, strength, heroism. The Messiah will have to combine all those attributes within himself.

The word ושחט in this context is an allusion to the death of the first Messiah as G'd said אל כלי חרש על מים חיים. He will die as atonement for the sins of the people. The Torah speaks of כלי חרש, "a vessel made of earthenware," because original man was made of "dust from the earth" (Genesis 2,7); the entire human race was perceived as a כלי חרש, subject to irrevocable fragmentation, because man had not yet been given the Torah. Torah is compared to running water from a well, i.e. מים חיים. When there is no Torah in Israel it is no better than a כלי חרש, subject to total annihilation. This is why one of the two "birds" had to be slaughtered, i.e. would die. The death of that bird at the hands of the Gentiles, i.e. the death of the Messiah from the tribe of Ephrayim would give G'd a legal excuse to don His garments of revenge and to reverse His customary practice of wearing His "suit of mercy" by donning His "suit of retribution." As a result, He would dispose of all the wicked nations. Having been told what would happen if Israel would not practice Torah you can extrapolate that if they would observe Torah none of the afflictions alluded to in our portion as a national disease would have to occur, and the righteous (the first Messiah) would not have to die. The Ari Zal wrote that whenever we pray our regular prayers we must include the request that the Mashiach ben Yoseph should not die. Every prayer adds to the merit of that Messiah so that the collective prayers of the Jewish people may be sufficient to cancel the decree that he would die at the hands of the Gentiles.

The Torah goes on to speak about the צפור החיה, the surviving bird, i.e. the Mashiach ben David whom G'd will take and to whom He will attach the merits of the Patriarchs plus the right to avenge the murder of the Mashiach ben Yoseph; this is why the Torah writes: "He will take it together with the cedar-wood, etc., and dip it in the blood of the bird which has been slaughtered." This means that the combined power of the attribute of Mercy will outweigh the power of the attribute of Justice so that all the impurities of the Jewish people will be atoned for. When the Torah speaks here about the seven sprinklings to be performed on the מטהר, this is an allusion to the seven levels of impurity. Israel will be cleansed of one level of impurity by each of the seven sprinklings. Once this has been accomplished the "bird" will emerge from the cave mentioned in the Zohar, etc. The words על פני השדה, refer to this present world, and the message is that the Messiah will then rule over the whole world. After that, וכבס את המטהר, He will bathe Israel and its clothes, i.e. the sins which have formed its dirty garments and have stained its soul. The removal of the "dirty clothing" may be compared to the vision of the prophet Zecharyah 3 where the angel is described as removing the sin-stained clothing from the High Priest Yoshua in a similar simile describing the redemption from the exile in Babylon. וגלח את כל שערו, "and he will shave the hairs off his entire body;" these words are hyperbole for the removal of unworthy mental outgrowths. The words ורחץ במים are hyperbole for Israel immersing itself in Torah. This latter procedure will purify Israel's thought processes also. ואחר יבא אל המחנה, "After that he can enter the camp;" this is a reference to the camp of the שכינה, i.e. Jersualem on earth which will descend to earth having been built in Heaven.

The Torah goes on to say: וישב מחוץ לאהלו, he will still have to sit outside his own residence seeing that he cannot unite with the שכינה until the seven days of purification have passed which are necessary in order that one receive an important guest with due honour. On the seventh day then the Israelites are ready to welcome the holy guest. You will find a similar concept alluded to in Ezekiel 43,26: "for seven days let them purify the altar, cleanse it, etc." You will note that Ezekiel speaks of two purifications. The first purification achieves the removal of negative influences, The second purification accomplishes the repentant sinner's approach to the sacred, to that which is holy.

והעמיד הכהן המטהר, and the priest administering the purification rites will place, etc. this is best explained in light of a comment in Keylim 1,8 that someone whose atonement is not complete is not allowed to enter the courtyard of the Temple intended for the Israelite public. Here the Torah commands that the person undergoing the purification rites stand outside at the entrance to the Nikanor gate as stated in Sotah 7, based on the Torah writing the words לפני השם, "in the presence of the Lord." The Torah charges the administering priest with ensuring that the former "leper," the מטהר, not cross the threshold into the courtyard. He must not even stretch his hand inside and perform סמיכה on the sin-offering. According to Torat Kohanim the Torah permitted him only to place his head inside that area so that the priest could place the oil on his right earlobe and on his respective right thumbs. The principal reason the priest was charged with this task was to prevent the מטהר accidentally crossing the borderline with a substantial part of his body.

הכהן המטהר, the priest who performs the purification rites; the reason both these words are necessary is this. If the Torah had only written הכהן, I would not have known that this particular part of the commandment could not be performed by any priest but had to be performed by the priest who administered all the rites. If, on the other hand, the Torah had written only the word המטהר, I would not have been sure that this chore had to be supervised by a priest at all; there are, after all, functions in the total purification procedure which may be performed by a non-priest. Hence the Torah had to write הכהן המטהר.

האיש המטהר ואותם, the man who must be purified and these things; the Torah had to write both the word האיש and the word המטהר, so that we would not conclude that the word האיש excludes a minor as not being included in this part of the legislation although he is liable to be afflicted by צרעת and such affliction makes him ritually impure. Hence the Torah had to add the word המטהר. On the other hand, this word would not have sufficed without the additional word האיש as I might have reasoned that the need for the priest to supervise where the former "leper" had to stand applied only to a minor who had been afflicted and who might not take care where he stood. I would have assumed that an adult could be trusted to watch where he stands at the entrance to the courtyard. The Torah indicates that we do not trust an adult without supervision either. This is why the additional word איש is in place.

Torat Kohanim explains the reason that the Torah added the word האיש as excluding the sin-offering and the burnt-offering from the need to undergo the תנופה, the waving, which the Torah demands for the guilt-offering in verse 12. The Torah then writes another exclusion by means of the word אותו in verse 12 excluding also the man himself, meaning that only the guilt-offering and the log of oil need to be waved. Should you ask that if the word אותו excludes the איש המטהר from the need to undergo the "waving," how could it serve to exclude others from a procedure which does not even apply to itself? This is no problem. We can always use the exclusion by falling back on the exegetical tool אם אינו ענין, that if a word is superfluous in one situation, it may be applied to another situation where it is felt to be appropriate. This is the reason the author of Torat Kohanim chose his words very carefully in this instance. We quote: "The Torah wrote האיש, לא חטאת ולא עולה. You note that the word תנופה is not even mentioned here." Torat Kohanim meant to say therefore that the word האיש excludes חטאת ועולה by using the same reason although the הלכה whose application is being excluded did not apply to the איש in the first place. Our sages were authorised to know where to apply this exclusion seeing the word is evidently unnecessary in its own context. This makes the language of Torat Kohinim on our verse easily intelligible. The alternative explanation given by Korban Aharon seems very forced to me.

ואם דל הוא ואין ידו משגת, And if he is poor and he cannot afford (3 sheep as the respective offerings). Why did the Torah have to repeat, i.e. tell us that the meaning of "he is poor" is that "he cannot afford," etc.? Perhaps the Mishnah in Kritut 27 may clarify this for us. We are told there that "if someone set aside a sheep or nanny-goat as the offering he had to bring, and said animal becomes disqualified for the altar by developing a blemish, and the owner also became poor during the interval, he may sell the animal in question and offer a bird -offering with the proceeds of the sale." The Talmud derives this ruling from the word מחטאתו written in the Torah in connection with the sin-offering reserved for the very poor people. There would be good reason to argue that seeing that in the case of a מצורע the Torah had not made provision for a meal-offering by the very poor people to take the place of either the sheep or the birds as the case may be, it is not in order to use words exegetically which were written in a situation that is quite different. [The sin-offering dealt with there is one brought by a person who committed the kind of sin which carries the כרת penalty or worse, if it had been committed knowingly, something that certainly is not the case with the מצורע who brings a guilt-offering. Ed.] It would have been reasonable to suppose that just as the Torah did not allow a very poor מצורע to offer a meal-offering as his guilt-offering, so it would also not allow him to make the kind of substitution discussed in connection with the sin-offering in the Talmud in Kritut. The Torah therefore writes the extra words ואין ידו משגת, to tell us that the substitution for two turtle doves would be in order also in the case of the מצורע.

Alternatively, we could explain the apparently unnecessary words ואין ידו משגת by referring to the reverse situation described on the same folio in Kritut. A very poor person had set aside the meal-offering required for his sin-offering; it became unfit for the altar. Before this person could arrange a substitute his economic situation improved but not sufficiently to enable him to offer a sheep. He therefore prepared birds. When the same story repeated itself with the birds becoming unfit as an offering, the owner became still better off so that he could afford to bring the sheep as a sin-offering that normally well-situated people have to bring to obtain their atonement. This person has to bring the expensive offering though at the time he became liable for the offering he had indeed been very poor. The extra words ואין ידו משגת may therefore be used to teach that the Torah describes a temporary state of affairs and that the words may work to the advantage or the disadvantage of the person described in Kritut.

Torat Kohanim writes as follows: "The words 'he is poor,' might be understood to mean that he used to have 100 dollars and now only has 50 dollars. The Torah tells you that it does not speak about such a subjective 'poverty' but about someone who does not have enough money left to afford to buy a sheep. Alternatively, you may read this backwards. He started out being unable to afford…etc. Or, he was able to afford but could not find a sheep to purchase; then the Torah considers him as 'poor' and he brings two birds." We have to understand what is meant by the words 'he could not find.' It may mean that there simply were no sheep to be had, such as happened during the siege of Jerusalem. It is obvious that in such a situation the Torah would not obligate such a person to wait indefinitely with bringing his guilt-offering, but would agree that he bring two birds as do people who cannot afford more. After all, at a time like this the money which normally defines a person as being rich has lost its value to the owner and he now is poor. We would not need Torat Kohanim to tell us that such a person fits the definition of 'poor.' It is more likely that the author of Torat Kohanim meant that sheep were not available at the regular price and could be bought only at exorbitant prices.

We may assume that the obligation to bring a sheep or goat as his guilt-offering is conditional on the owner not depriving himself of the necessities of life. Even if his poverty is only relative to his former wealth he may bring the guilt-offering designated for an objectively poor person and use the balance of his funds to defray his regular expenses. This explanation of our sages does not contradict what we have written. You should know that if the Torah had not wanted to tell us more than what our sages have already explained it would have sufficed for the Torah to write ואם לא תגיע ידו די שה וכבשה, והביא as the Torah wrote in Leviticus 5,7 in connection with another guilt-offering. Clearly then the Torah intended to convey the additional message we have pointed out by changing its syntax in this instance.

Torat Kohanim (verses 30-31) also comments on the three unnecessary expressions the Torah uses in connection with the terms describing a person's ability or lack of ability to afford certain expenses. They are: 1) אשר תשיג ידו, 2) מאשד תשיג ידו, 3) את אשר תשיג ידו. Here is their comment: The expression אשר תשיג ידו refers to someone who started out being wealthy but had become impoverished by the time he was required to bring the guilt-offering. The Torah therefore tells us that such a person brings the offering appropriate for a poor person. The words ומאשר תשיג ידו speak about a person who had been well off and set out to bring the guilt-offering appropriate to a wealthy person but whose offering became disqualified before it reached the altar. The owner of that offering had meanwhile become impoverished. He too is required to bring only the offering appropriate for a poor person. Finally, the words ואת אשר תשיג ידו refer to someone who was poor and had prepared to offer the guilt-offering appropriate to his economic status. He had become wealthy before completing this offering. The Torah tells us that such a person has to bring the offering appropriate for a wealthy person. If, however, he had already offered the sin-offering while in a state of poverty he does not have to bring the rich man's burnt-offering which he is still obligated to offer to complete the process of atonement. This conclusion is derived from the words אחד לחטאת ואחד לעולה, meaning that both the sin-offering and the burnt-offering must be of the same category, i.e. either both have to be rich man's offerings or both have to be poor man's offerings. All of these exegetical derivations do not include what we have mentioned earlier as based on the repeated expression דל הוא ואין ידו משגת. Even after we have all the commentaries of Torat Kohanim our sages have offered us, my own comments were still necessary to explain the extra verbiage in our verse.

זאת תורת אשר בו נגע צרעת, This is the law concerning someone afflicted with "leprosy," etc. The entire verse seems superfluous. Our sages in Torat Kohanim explain that the extraneous words זאת תורת refer to the situation when a poor person insisted on bringing the guilt-offering appropriate for a rich person. His offering is acceptable. You may well ask why the Torah had to tell us this. Why should it not be simple logic seeing the Torah's verses dealing with the poor man were designed only to lighten his burden. If such a person is willing to extend himself beyond what he is obligated to do more power to him! He will surely be blessed! It appears that seeing that the Torah used the word זאת to exclude a wealthy man who brought the offering appropriate for a poor man, the Torah was afraid that the reader might feel that a poor man would also not be allowed to deviate from the rules laid down previously. The word תורת therefore teaches that the poor is free to do better than the Torah demanded of him.

This still leaves the words אשר לא תשיג ידו in our verse unaccounted for. Perhaps the Torah was afraid that some scholar would attempt to draw a comparison between what has been written about relative poverty of people who have to bring guilt-offerings because of failing to testify, or contracting impurity and entering the Temple in such a state, etc. in Leviticus 5,7. In those cases the Torah had provided for the minimal meal-offering to be brought by the lowest category of the poor. Such people are required to bring only two tenths Eypha of fine flour etc. instead of two birds. The scholar may have wanted to extrapolate that if the "leper" is too poor, he too may discharge his obligation by such a meal-offering. The Torah therefore had to write אשר לא תשיג ידו בטהרתו, that such a person cannot attain his purification unless he brings two turtle doves, etc.; the Torah therefore wrote זאת תורת אשר…לא תשיג ידו בטהרתו to tell us that although he cannot afford it at the time he is being purified and he is wallowing in misery he still must bring two birds, no less.

A moral-ethical approach to this verse may be based on the Zohar (Tikkunim 22) according to which the state of poverty is called צרעת which accounts for the fact that both people afflicted with poverty and those afflicted with "leprosy" are described as "dead" in Nedarim 64. This is what the Torah alludes to when it wrote אשר בו נגע צרעת, meaning the fact that the person who has to bring the offering is still poor is evidence that he is still afflicted with the plague of "leprosy." The Torah explains this by adding: "that he cannot afford it during his purification rites."

כי תבאו…ונתתי נגע צרעת, When you come to the land…and I will give a plague of "leprosy," etc. How can one describe the plague of "leprosy" breaking out on one's house as good news so that the Torah describes it as a gift from G'd? Why did the Torah not merely write: "when the walls of your houses develop certain stains, etc." in the same way as the Torah described such a skin disease in 13,9? Vayikra Rabbah 17,6 was conscious of this and explained that the Canaanites who heard that the Israelites were approaching hid their valuables inside the walls of their houses. When the walls would display signs of "leprosy," the Jewish owner would investigate and discover the hidden treasure. This is homiletics, of course. Rabbi Levy explains in that same Midrash that when G'd wishes to reprove us He does not immediately inflict pain on our bodies, but He first afflicts our houses, and in the event this does not help He afflicts our clothing. Only if we fail to respond to these two warnings does G'd inflict the plague on our bodies, i.e. our skin. When viewed in this light the affliction on the house is indeed a "gift" i.e. a demonstration of G'd's loving concern for us.

Why then did the Torah list the respective plagues on man, his clothing, and his house, in the reverse order of what Rabbi Levy would have us believe? I have explained this previously. At the time the legislation was revealed the Israelites had not yet entered the Holy Land and therefore G'd could not warn the guilty individual by smiting his house first. The reason the Torah introduced this paragraph with the words: "when you come to the land, etc." is to tell us that as of that time the order of afflictions would be reversed and G'd would first strike the house of the guilty person whom He wanted to warn to mend his social behaviour. You may still ask why the Torah does not list the "leprosy" on one's clothing before the "leprosy" on one's skin, seeing that everyone wore clothing at the time this legislation was revealed? G'd could have demonstrated His loving concern for the guilty by first smiting his clothing and the Torah describing this as the first example of such a נגע צרעת? It appears that the reason the Torah chose to position the legislation of "leprosy" on one's clothing in between the legislation of skin disorders and "leprous-like stains" on the walls of one's house, is because there are some common denominators between the stains on the house and on the clothing on one side, and between the stains on the clothing and on the skin on the other side. The minimum size of a נגע צרעת on one's skin and the size of such a נגע צרעת on one's clothing is identical, whereas the minimum size of that plague on a house to be considered as טמא is twice that of people or clothing. On the other hand, the plague on both clothing and houses is characterised by a greenish colour, whereas the skin disorder which afflicts man is of some kind of whitish shade.

Furthermore, we need to understand why the Torah did not complete the laws pertaining to the plague on people before introducing the legislation about a plague afflicting one's clothing. The reason cannot be that the Torah wanted to group together all the laws of ritual impurity resulting from such stains before describing the procedures leading to their purification. If that had been the Torah's intention why did it not also describe the impurity arising from a plague on houses before commencing with the laws of purification? I think it is quite obvious that the unusual positioning of the law of the plague on one's clothing right in the middle of the legislation concerning "leprous" skin, is proof that the Torah wanted to teach that G'd first afflicts man's garments before afflicting man himself. The Torah made plain by the positioning of the נגע בגדים that it too was caused by man's sinful conduct. When the Torah describes the purification rites after having spelled out the law about the respective ritual impurity the garments conferred on the sinful man who wears them, it is clear that had man responded to the call to repentance of the plague on his garments, he would not now also need to purify himself from the effects of the נגע צרעת on his skin.

Another reason the Torah did not first mention the affliction on man's garments is that had it done so we would have assumed that a plague on one's garments indicates guilt of a minor nature, whereas a plague on one's skin is indicative of a sin of a more serious nature, rather than that both plagues are a punishment for the same sin, the skin-disease being a punishment for lack of sensitivity to the message G'd sent to the wearer by afflicting his clothing.

והגיד לכהן לאמור, and he shall tell the priest, saying, etc. The word לאמור appears to be superfluous. Torat Kohanim explains that the word means that the priest is to tell the afflicted person words of admonition, explaining to him why he had been so afflicted. This is pure homiletics, seeing that the Torah speaks of the owner of the house doing the talking, not the priest. Our sages simply used the principle of אם אינו ענין לדברי בעל הבית תנהו ענין לדברי כהן, "if we could not find a reason for the owner to say something other than what the Torah recorded here, we may apply the words exegetically to what the priest says instead." The author of Korban Aharon explains the sequence as follows: והגיד לכהן, the reason the owner of the affected house is forced to tell the priest about his problem is לאמוד, so that the priest can sermonize to him and explain why he was made to suffer this plague. If this explanation were correct the Torah should have written the word לאמור after the words כנגע נראה לי בבית, "it seems to me that the house has developed a plague." No doubt the approach of Torat Kohanim is quite correct.

However, the question remains why the Torah did not simply write that "the priest spoke, etc.," and I would not have had to search for the meaning of the verse? Clearly, the Torah wanted to leave something for us to exploit exegetically. Our sages have articulated this very principle themselves in Torat Kohanim. This is what is written there: "why did the Torah not write that the owner said נגע, but describes him as saying כנגע, "something like the plague?" They answer that the letter כ teaches that even if the owner is very learned and he has no doubt that the symptoms he has found are those of a נגע, he must not take it upon himself to pronounce judgment but he must leave it to the priest. What forced the author of Torat Kohanim to explain the extra letter כ in this manner? Perhaps the Torah was afraid that if it wrote simply נגע the owner would feel that unless he was certain that the symptoms were really those of the נגע צרעת there was no need to call in the priest. The Torah therefore made it plain by the additional letter כ that the priest has to be called in regardless of whether it is doubtful if the symptoms were truly the ones resulting in the house having to be torn down. What the author of Torat Kohanim meant was that all the Torah had to write were the words והגיד לכהן. The words "I think that something like a נגע appears on my house," were quite unnecessary. It was clear from the context of the paragraph that the owner referred to this. Considering these extra words, Torat Kohanim concluded that the reason was to teach us that the priest has to be called in regardless of whether there is doubt or not. This explanation is based on the scholar who holds that on occasion the Torah wrote things in order to encourage us to engage in exegesis.

Torat Kohanim continues to exploit practically every word here in a similar fashion. The words נראה לי, are explained as "appeared to me and not to my light," i.e. I could see it with my own eyes unassisted by artificial light. This is the basis for the rule that one need not open the windows of a house in order to start searching for symptoms of a נגע. The word בבית, "in the house," is taken to mean that even if the stain occurred in the upper floor, the whole house is afflicted. Many other halachot are all derived from these basically superfluous words of our verse. Even though our sages often use the above mentioned method of exegesis, it is preferable to derive a rule from a direct sequence of words such as לאמור כנגע in this verse. It means that regardless of how definite the appearance of that stain, the owner has to report it as being only "like a נגע." We are not bound by the exegetical method used by our sages in deriving certain rulings from the presence of or absence of certain words or letters provided we follow accepted norms of exegesis. The major restriction we are bound by is that our exegesis must not result in הלכות directly opposed to those arrived at by the classical commentators.

בטרם יבא הכהן, before the priest arrives. The reason the Torah had to write the word הכהן "the priest" again is, that otherwise I could have thought that the priest can issue directives before he arrives at the scene. According to that, the priest would not have had to delay himself until the people had cleared the house in question of all its contents. By writing the word הכהן, the Torah made it plain that the word בטרם is not linked to the mention of the priest as the one who issues the directive but is connected with the words ופנו "and they shall clear out."

כל אשר בבית, everything that is within the house. The meaning is that none of the items that have been removed prior to the arrival of the priest will be affected by the declaration that the house and all its contents have become ritually impure. The reason is that G'd is concerned with the belongings of even the person for whom He expressed some disdain. We must ask ourselves that seeing this is so why did all these items have to be removed prior to the priest's arrival when the impurity decreed on these items does not become effective until after the priest's departure (compare verse 38)? The Torah wrote ולא יטמא כל אשר בבית, "in order that all that is in the house not become defiled," to teach us that once the priest has observed the symptoms on the walls of the house as being those of a נגע, he may not delay pronouncing the house and its contents as ritually unclean any longer. If the people in the house had waited until the last possible moment with removing all mobile objects they would most likely have forgotten some in their haste. It is better therefore that they should do so as soon as they became aware that the priest was on his way.

We are taught in Keylim 12,5 that G'd's concern is only for earthenware vessels seeing all the other vessels are subject to purification rites except earthenware jars, etc. According to our explanation G'd is concerned even about very small and inexpensive earthenware vessels.

**וראה…בקירות הבית, and he sees…on the walls of the house, etc.**This paragraph alludes to the actions of G'd and how He deals with the wicked who chose to be defiled by associating themselves with the evil urge which is known by our sages as נגעי בני אדם, the plague which afflicts human beings. According to the Zohar volume 1 page 187 G'd equips the body with a soul. If the partnership is successful, all well and good. If not, G'd yanks the soul from that body and places it in a different body. This is hinted at here in the Torah's description of what happens to the afflicted house. The house symbolises man's body. The priest represents G'd as we have pointed out previously in our analysis on page 1106. The Torah describes that G'd examines the walls of the house to determine how far the evil urge has penetrated the body of the person concerned. The word שקערורת may be understood as a composite of the two words שקע רורות with the letter (vowel) patach being swallowed up as part of the pronunciation. The missing letter is perceived as being an א. The meaning of the two words would be "the cursed one (ארור) has penetrated deeply (שקע). Inasmuch as wickedness is multi-faceted, the Torah uses the plural ending when describing the evil urge. The Torah goes on to speak of ירקרקת, an allusion to sin we are familiar with from Shabbat 33, where הדרוקן, dropsy, is described as a symbol of the wickedness of the person afflicted by it. The word אדמדמות, refers to the sin of bloodshed. When the Torah speaks of the priest ordering the house to be shut up, this means that the person represented by the house will cease to receive outpourings of G'd's generosity. This is the mystical dimension of the banishing of certain wicked people from society. They are banished in order to prevent them from receiving the outpourings of heavenly bounty. If the person so afflicted becomes aware of what is happening to him and why, well and good; if not, the priest i.e. G'd, will subject this person to sufferings. If that does not help either, He will eventually order the destruction of the house, i.e. the body which the soul in question inhabits. This is the meaning of ונתץ הבית את אבניו, "he shall break down the house, its stones, etc."