אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שאת או ספחת או בהרת, “if a person will have on the skin of his flesh a s’eis, a sapachat or baheret, etc.” We have learned in Negaim 1,1 that there are four different-looking separate categories of skin-afflictions called נגע צרעת, the respective colour being called שאת and its derivatives, בהרת and its derivatives; these derivatives are known as בהרת עזה כשלג, the strongest symptom, white like snow; a slightly lesser degree of בהרת than the snow-like colour characterizing the original בהרת, is like the colour of the whitewash used when one paints the outside of a house, a still less pronounced white comparable to white wool, known as בהרת כצמר, and a still paler kind of skin discoloration known as בהרת כקרום ביצה, “like the shell of an egg.” The word ספחת describes a skin disorder which is a cross between שאת and בהרת related to the expression ספחני נא אל אחת הכהנות, “please assign to me one (share) of the priestly duties, etc.,” or Samuel I 26,19 מהסתפח בנחלת ה’, “so that I cannot have a share in the Lord’s possession.” The word denotes a combination of at least two components. The various appearances of the skin disorders are not considered the dreaded צרעת; they are symptoms which often are the forerunners of צרעת. This is why the Torah decrees isolation for people displaying these symptoms at once so that in the event the צרעת does develop no one associated with them could have been contaminated by them. This is the reason why physicians have described בהרת as something inducing fear of צרעת in people (Nachmanides). When the Torah speaks here of נגע צרעת, the meaning is that these symptoms are the ones preceding צרעת but not necessarily. These symptoms by themselves do not yet constitute the affliction known as צרעת. If, after a period of isolation, additional symptoms develop, such as described in the Torah in the verses following, the result will be the disease called צרעת. This is why the Torah describes the result of such a development as צרעת היא (verses 8), as opposed to נגע צרעת הוא in verse 3. Whenever the latter expression is used the skin disorder described is not yet a true צרעת. The idea is that the symptoms are already those of an affliction, נגע, and the words וראהו הכהן וטמא אותו, “the priest is to inspect it and to declare such a person as ritually impure,” mean that this declaration takes effect immediately as it is presumed certain that such symptoms will develop into “the real thing,” i.e. צרעת. The words נגע הוא “it is an affliction,” mean that it is large enough to convince the priest that it will develop and spread to larger areas of the skin-surface. Thus far Nachmanides on the subject. The symptoms described by the Torah as פשיון “enlargement of the afflicted area,” שער לבן, “white hair growing inside the afflicted area,” מחיה, “an appearance like raw flesh, not covered by skin,” עומק העור an illusion that the skin is “deeper,” recessed in the afflicted areas, all these are symptoms which indicate the presence of ritual impurity and are the criteria according to which the inspecting priest has to make his decision. Generally, such symptoms mean that the person so afflicted is ritually impure and has to leave the camp.

A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Tazria 9): Why has this paragraph not been introduced by the customary: “speak to the Children of Israel; if a person has such and such symptoms, etc.?” The absence of this introductory formula is to teach you that it is not the Lord who initiates afflictions as we know from Psalms 5,5 כי לא אל חפץ רשע אתה לא יגורך רע, ”for You are not a G’d who desires wickedness, evil cannot abide with You;” David does not belabour the obvious; he speaks about G’d having no desire to make any creature guilty of anything. We have proof of this also in Ezekiel 33,11: “as true as I am alive, says the Lord, G’d, I do not desire the death of the wicked.” On the contrary, what is it that G’d desires? He wants to find an excuse to justify His creatures’ actions as we know from Isaiah 42,21: ה’ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר, ”The Lord desires His creatures’ vindication, that He may magnify and glorify (His) Teaching.” If our paragraph had commenced in the normal way some people might have misunderstood and thought that G’d derives satisfaction from having to afflict people even though they were guilty of something. Another comment by the Midrash: the words “evil does not abide with You” which we quoted from Psalms 5,5 mean that the name of G’d is not associated with events of an evil nature but only with things positive. When G’d created light and darkness, He did associate His name with the light but not with the darkness. In Genesis 1,5 the Torah writes: “G’d called the light day, and the darkness He called night.” When G’d blessed the first pair of human beings, His name was associated with the blessing for both of them, as the Torah writes (Genesis 1,28: “G’d blessed them.” On the other hand, when G’d decreed a curse on man, (Genesis 3,16) The Torah writes: “to the woman He had said, etc.,” and we find similar language in connection with the penalty decreed on Adam. The Torah writes (Genesis 3,17): “and to Adam He had said, etc.” You may ask that when G’d cursed the serpent we also find this kind of language, i.e. (Genesis 3,14) “the Lord G’d had said to the serpent, ‘because you have done this, etc.’” Our sages answered this query in Tanchuma Tazria 9 by saying that there are indeed three occasions when G’d did associate His name with something evil, such as a curse. The first instance is the case of the מסית, someone who seduces others to worship idols; the first personification of such a seducer was the serpent who seduced Chavah in Gan Eden saying to her: “G’d knows that on the day you (pl) will eat from the tree your eyes will be opened and you will become just like G’d” (Genesis 3,5). The serpent implied that just as G’d had created worlds so she and Adam would be able to create worlds; the serpent implied that G’d had forbidden eating the fruit because He was jealous of potential competition. The serpent implied that just as a skilled craftsman is anxious not to reveal the secrets of his craft, so G’d wanted to keep the secret of how He had created the universe. Seeing that the serpent had used G’d’s name in its seduction of Chavah, G’d in turn associated His name with the punishment, the curse. The second instance of G’d’s name being associated with something evil concerns people who deliberately transgress the decrees of the sages whose authority has been given to them by G’d and has been confirmed at Mount Gerizim. The prophet Jeremiah referred to the fact that such people are guilty of death when he wrote in Jeremiah 11,3: “Thus said the Lord: cursed be the man who will not obey the terms of this covenant which I enjoined your fathers when I freed them from Egypt, etc.” The sin of these people is that they place their trust in man instead of in G’d as the prophet said in Jeremiah 17,5: “Thus said the Lord: ‘cursed is he who trusts in man, who makes a mere flesh his strength and turns his thoughts from the Lord.’” In other words, when does the curse mentioned earlier apply? When someone turns his heart away from the Lord. When Noach blessed his sons Shem and Yaphet, he used the name of G’d in his blessing, saying: ברוך ה’ אלו-הי שם, “blessed be the Lord, the G’d of Shem,” etc. When he cursed Canaan (Genesis 9,26) he simply said: ארור כנען, “cursed be Canaan;” he did not mention G’d in that context. When the prophet Elisha prayed to G’d asking for deliverance from the Arameans (enemy of the Israelites at that time, Kings II 6,17) he invoked the name of the Lord in his prayer saying: “Lord open his eyes let him see” (a reference to his attendant who was afraid). When he then turned to cursing the Arameans (verse 18 of the same chapter), Elisha only said: ”please strike these people with a blinding light.” The name of G’d was not invoked in the prayer to bring a curse upon them. Even when the Israelites were sinful, G’d referred to them with respect and honor. When G’d legislated the kind of animals which were to be offered by the Israelites, -when, where and under what circumstances,- the legislation is introduced with the words: “if one of you wishes to offer a sacrifice to the Lord, etc.” When introducing the צרעת legislation, however, the name of G’d does not appear. Clearly, even when the legislation presupposes sins by the afflicted, the Torah still does not wish to involve G’d directly, as the One who initiates the “curse.” This is why the verse starts merely with the words: “when someone develops a white spot on the skin of his flesh, etc.” What sins cause such afflictions? In retribution for illicit sex. (Tanchuma Tazria 11) This is also what happened in Jerusalem whose inhabitants were struck by this disease because their sexual mores had deteriorated so much (Isaiah 3,16) ”because the daughters of Zion are so vain and walk with their heads thrown back, with roving eyes, and with mincing gait, making a tingling with their feet...the Lord will uncover their heads.” The word used there is שפח which is the equivalent of צרעת as we know from Leviticus 14,5. The words אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שאת או ספחת, are equivalent to what we read n Chabakuk 1,7 איום ונורא ממננו ושפתו ושאתו יצא, “they are terrible and dreadful; they make their own laws and are overbearing.” The prophet speaks about Adam who was the direct creation of G’d, created in His likeness, who was composed of particles from all the corners of the globe and whose dominion before his sin therefore extended over all parts of the globe. At that time Adam was able to see with his eyes from one end of the earth to the other. Adam’s wife, Chavah was created from his very body, she who caused his mortality. Seeing that she gave Adam to eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge she made him mortal. Another Midrashic explanation: The words “terrible and dreadful” which we quoted from Chabakuk refer to Pharaoh who ruled over the whole earth as we know from Psalms 105,20. The words: “they make their own laws, etc.” refer to Moses who grew up in the very house of this wicked Pharaoh and eventually deprived him of his rule after bringing ten plagues upon him. Moses used to take a look at his holy staff to see which kind of plague was appropriate to smite Pharaoh with; he would then inflict this plague upon him; hence the prophet speaks about something “terrible and dreadful.” Yet another interpretation of that verse in Chabakuk relates the adjectives in that verse to the principal characteristics of the four host nations who had control of the Jewish people in exile at different times. [The Midrash broadens its perspective of allegorical meanings; the interested reader is referred to the original text seeing that our author does not contribute to the understanding of this Midrash except quoting its text. Ed.]

The reason that this whole subject has been written in the Torah adjacent to the paragraph dealing with the purification rites prescribed for a woman who has given birth is to remind us that whoever is not mindful of the regulations pertaining to her ritual impurity connected with menstruation is apt to become a victim of these skin-disorders. We find an opinion in medical textbooks confirmed by our sages (Tanchuma Metzorah 1) that when someone cohabits with a woman who is in the first day of her menstruation, any baby born from that union will be afflicted with צרעת for the first ten years of its life. If the cohabitation occurred on the second day of her being menstruous this צרעת would last for twenty years, etc. If cohabitation occurs on the seventh day of the woman’s being menstruous the offspring from such a union will remain afflicted for seventy years. We learn from all this that the order in which the Torah writes certain paragraphs and subject matter is not haphazard but has deeper meaning which it is worthwhile to explore seeing that each paragraph conveys a meaning based solely on its position in the Torah over and above its other meanings. Profound study of the text of the Torah reveals what wonderful insights into the workings of nature the Torah displays.

וראה הכהן את הנגע, “The priest shall look at the skin disorder, etc.” We are taught in Negaim 1,4 that the priest must not inspect the symptoms for the first time on the first day of the week as it will be necessary to isolate the afflicted person for seven days. Seeing that the Torah writes in verse six that the priest is to inspect the symptoms again on the seventh day and it is not permitted to do son on the Sabbath, this means that the first inspection must not take place on Sunday. By the same token, the first inspection must not take place on a Monday as in the event a third inspection is necessary, the second time the seventh day would occur on the Sabbath. This is why the sages said that when the Torah speaks about 2 weeks (a second series of seven days) this means that the seventh day is counted as part of either week, i.e. the two weeks actually comprise only thirteen days.

ושער בנגע הפך לבן ומראה הנגע עמוק מעור בשרו, “and the skin disorder appears to be deeper than the skin of the flesh,” Rashi explains that whenever the Torah speaks of “a deeper white appearance” this is to be understood as similar to the contrast between the appearance of sunny areas surrounded by shade which also appears to be “lower,” or “deeper” than the surrounding shaded area although in fact it is not.

Nachmanides writes as follows concerning this verse: “there is a whitish looking substance which sparkles and affects one’s eyes as if one were being blinded by sunshine.” The human eye is unable to tolerate this brightness; this is why it appears to be “deeper,” recessed. The reason why the eye can tolerate the brilliance of sunshine is that it has a black area (pupil) which “absorbs” that brilliance. The pupil of the eye does not however, absorb the shine or sparkle emitted from this whitish material of which the Torah speaks here. Seeing it does not absorb it, it “rejects” it, i.e. it appears more distant than it is in actual fact. This is what the Torah means when it speaks about the appearance of this whitish mass appearing as “deeper” than the skin around it. The whitish mass associated with the affliction called בהרת which is as bright as snow will become dimmed when exposed to sunlight, provided it will not sprout a black hair in its midst. If it does produce a black hair this is a sign that the affliction will not heal but will spread, as the black hair strengthens the ability to see. שאת, on the other hand, while also a whitish looking mass, is not as blinding as the snow-like whiteness of the brightest בהרת. It does not weaken the ability of the afflicted person to see and as a result to expand. When one approaches to inspect it, it appears close by, “elevated instead of recessed,” similar to the impression one has when looking at the stars in the sky. The stars appear to protrude against the black sky “behind” them.”

והנה הנגע עמד בעיניו, “and here the skin-disorder remained in its (previous) color and condition.” The word בעיניו means “in its appearance.” The word עין is used in a similar meaning when the Torah describes the appearance of the manna in Numbers 11,7 where the wording is ועינו כעין הבדולח, “and its appearance was like the appearance of crystal.” It was similar in appearance to what is described in Ezekiel 1,22 as the קרח הנורא, the “awesome ice.” On the other hand, Torat Kohanim based on Sifra Tazria 13,37 derives from the wording of the text that if the Torah had not written these words I would have thought that only the officiating priest at the first inspection but not that priest’s son or student would be entitled to undertake this inspection. Hence the Torah wrote בעיניו that if initially several priests had inspected the symptoms and most feel that there had been no change their opinion is accepted, (based on verse 37 in this chapter where the word בעיניו occurs again and cannot have the same meaning as in verse 5, hence it must mean “in his eyes.”) Accordingly, the correct translation of our verse here would be: “if in the eyes of the priest already mentioned there had not been any change in the skin disorder he had inspected previously, etc., then this priest shall quarantine the afflicted person for a second period of seven days.” The expression בעיני in that context is one frequently used in Mishnaic Hebrew such as in Baba Kama 41 כך אני בעיניך “so I appear in your eyes,” Or Kings II 1,13 תיקר נא נפשי בעיניך, “may my life be precious in your eyes” (the captain of fifty to the prophet Elijah pleading for his life). The principal message of the words is that the priest does not use measuring devices to determine if the skin disorder had spread but he relies on his eyes to estimate the state of affairs.

והיא הפכה שער לבן, “and it has changed hair to white,” according to Sifra Negaim 3,6 the Torah speaks of 2 hairs or more. The reason that white hair in that area is a sign of ritual impurity is simply that according to nature these hairs are normally black. If there is a deviation from what is natural this is an indication of something being diseased.

ומחית בשר חי בשאת, ”or there is live flesh within the area covered by שאת;” the letter ו at the beginning of the word ומחית does not mean “and,” but “or.” There is no need for both white hair and raw flesh within that area in order for the priest to declare the afflicted person as definitively impure. Verse eight had already told us that white hair by itself suffices for the priest to make such a ruling. Similarly, the raw flesh within the afflicted area is enough of a symptom by itself for the priest to declare such a person as ritually impure, i.e. מצורע, definitely afflicted by the disease known as צרעת. Sifra Negaim 3,7 provides a measurement for the size of this raw flesh in order for the priest to rule it as making its victim impure. If the size is sufficient for two white hairs to be accommodated on that surface it is large enough.

You should know that wherever we find a white hair which is partially black we rule according to the color of the hair where it emerges from the follicle. If the hair is black at that point it is deemed to be a black hair (Maimonides Hilchot Tumat Tzoraat 2,1).

נתק הוא, “it is a scall.” This kind of tzoraat is so named as the hair has been removed from that spot. The word is used in halachah for certain commandments which are considered as separated, literally “torn away” from where they belong (Chulin 141) [When a negative commandment appears in the guise of a positive commandment it is considered as לאו הניתק לעשה, “a negative commandment couched in terms of a positive commandment”. As a result, generally speaking, the penalty normally applicable when violating a negative commandment does not apply in such a case. Ed.] The expression נתק also occurs in Joshua 4,18 in connection with the priests who carried the Holy Ark into and across the Jordan. The text says נתקו כפות רגלי הכהנים, “the soles of the feet of the priests were separated, pulled, etc.” After the original hair had been pulled out, if subsequently the new hair is blond, thin, this is a sign of ritual impurity (contamination caused by the disease). The bald spot contaminates either by blond (yellow) hair or expansion of the afflicted area. (Negaim 10,1). If, however the hair which grows back from that follicle is black, this is a sign that the affliction has healed and the priest can declare such a person as ritually pure (after he has undergone the necessary procedures).

טמא הוא, טמא יטמאנו הכהן, “he is ritually impure, the priest has to declare him as impure.” In verse 37 in a parallel situation the Torah used similar syntax writing טהור הוא, וטהרו הכהן, “he is ritually pure, and the priest shall declare him as ritually pure.” From both of these verses we learn that even though the priest has observed unmistakable signs of either purity or impurity it is essential for him to confirm this by saying so. We have been taught at the end of the first chapter of the Tossephta of Nega-im that this was one of the reasons that prompted Hillel to return to the land of Israel from Babylon. He wanted to make certain that these procedures are understood and followed to the letter. He moved to Israel in order to explain the reasons for these rules to the local Rabbinical authorities.

והצרוע אשר בו הנגע בגדיו יהיו פרומים וראשו יהיה פרוע ועל שפם יעטה, “and the person afflicted with the tzoraat,- his garments shall be torn, the hair of his head shall remain unshorn, and he shall cloak himself up to his lips.” According to Midrash Eycha Rabbati (introduction) the word הצרוע may be understood as a reference to the Temple (after its destruction); the words אשר בו הנגע may be understood as idolatry which contaminates in a manner similar to the skin affliction. The words בגדיו יהיו פרומים are a reference to the priestly garments (their condition after the Temple had been destroyed); the words וראשו יהיה פרוע are a reference to the Shechinah which has departed from the Temple Mount; the words ועל שפם יעטה refer to the neglect of Torah study and observance which was also a by- product of the loss of the Temple and political independence. The use of the words טמא twice in the verse mean that it speaks of the destruction of both the first and the second Temple.

בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים, On a woolen or linen garment.” Our sages (Nega-im 11,2) explained that only the wool of animals which are pure can confer the impurity of a person afflicted with tzoraat on others. The wool of an unclean animal such as the camel cannot confer such impurity. If the garment in question is made up of a number of fabrics including wool from a pure animal as well as wool from a ritually impure animal, if the dominant portion of the garment was made from wool of a pure animal it does transfer such impurity; if not, it does not.

או בכל כלי עור, “or in a leather utensil;” our sages explain that this excludes coloured vessels. utensils or garments. The main practical significance of this statement is that wool or linen confer the wearer’s impurity only when they are in the original white colour. The rules applying to dyed wool garments also apply to dyed leather utensils.

“The fabric under discussion or the garment made from this fabric which has been contaminated has to be burned.” According to Nachmanides the repeated use of the words בגד, שתי, ערב, עור are all reminders of the miraculous connection between the afflicted person’s sins and the state of health of his garments or basic utensils. G’d, as it were, reminds him gently to mend his ways so that He would not have to take stronger action. [Needless to add that the premise is that as a rule Israeli society observed all of G’d’s commandments and only a very few individuals experienced such afflictions to their clothing. In a corrupt society these afflictions would become so commonplace as to lose their educational value. Ed.]

והבגד או השתי או הערב או כל כלי העור אשר תכבס וסר מהם הנגע, “but if the garment, or the warp or the woof or any leather utensil which has been washed and then the affliction left them, etc.” The Torah mentioned already in verses 56-57 that a garment on which a nega tzoraat had been identified and that stain had dimmed after washing the area afflicted, has to be ripped out. If however, the stain appears to grow, the whole garment has to be burned. If the stain has been removed through washing it, the garment must then be immersed in a ritual bath in order to regain its state of purity. This is the meaning of the additional words וכבס שני וטהר, “it must be washed a second time to become purified.” This “second” washing refers to immersion in a ritual bath. Everything connected with the legislation of afflictions to garments or skin (or houses) is of a miraculous nature (Tanchuma Metzora 4). Let us illustrate the subject by means of a parable. An unsatisfactory slave had been sold by his master. When the new master buys him he is perfectly aware that the previous master had been dissatisfied with that slave and that this is why he wanted to divest himself of him. Seeing that this is so, the new master equipped himself with handcuffs in order to restrain the slave in case of need. Similarly, G’d. When G’d created man He was perfectly aware that man (the servant) would in due course commit sins, etc. G’d therefore arranged for means of afflictions to serve to straighten out man’s behaviour pattern. When G’d felt He needed to employ means of restraining man, He would first afflict man’s house. This is the meaning of Leviticus 14,34: “I shall afflict a house in the land of your inheritance with an affliction of tzoraat.” If, as a result of seeing the stones of his house afflicted, the person concerned becomes a penitent, all well and good; if not, G’d will smite his clothing as a second warning. This is the meaning of the words והבגד אשר יהיה בו נגע צרעת, “and the garment which will be afflicted with a nega tzoraat” (13,47). If the afflicted person now does teshuvah, all well and good; only if both of these warnings were ignored will G’d actually afflict the skin of the sinner. Even then He will only afflict a small area of skin initially. If after being quarantined and ostracised temporarily, such a person still does not learn his lesson then the affliction is allowed to spread, eventually resulting in his becoming for all intents and purposes an outcast. Apparently, the initial stages of personal afflictions are the loss of hair on a man’s head (13,40). This is still not a conclusive symptom and his isolation is only of a provisional nature. If that person persists in his asocial conduct, etc., he will be smitten with a skin affliction such as שאת או ספחת as mentioned in 13,2. In their commentary on Ruth in Ruth Rabbah 2,10 the sages stated that the merciful Lord does not punish the sinner on his body in the first instance but first exacts retribution from his possessions. Only when such “hints” fail to have a sobering effect on the people concerned does He proceed to inflict harm on the body of the person. We observe such a phenomenon in the case of Job. G’d had told Satan initially to test Job’s piety only by depriving him of his material goods (Job 1,12). Subsequently, after he had stood that test saying: “the Lord gave the Lord took may the name of the Lord be praised,” did He give permission for Job to experience the loss of his children and, eventually, he was subjected to personal suffering on his body. The same happened when G’d struck the Egyptians with the 10 plagues. In the first instance, when the river turned into blood, this was merely a financial blow to the people as they had to buy water from the Israelites or had to dig for it (Exodus 7,21-25). G’d afflicted their livestock next, and eventually He killed their firstborn. The afflictions mentioned both in this portion and in the next follow a similar pattern although they are not recorded in the order in which they occur. First G’d afflicts a man’s house. If he becomes a penitent, taking the hint, the afflicted stones on his house have to be removed and replaced (14,40). If he fails to respond to the implied warning to become a penitent, the entire house will have to be razed to the ground (14,45). If this also fails to produce the desired result, G’d will afflict that sinner’s clothing (13,56). If this does not produce the desired result G’d will afflict the person of the sinner. Thus far the Midrash.

We see from the example of the negaim that G’d’s supervision of man’s fate (Israel’s) is comprehensive. No aspect of these phenomena is due to natural causes. Every phenomenon as well as its sequence is supernatural. Moreover, no such phenomena ever occurred outside the boundaries of the Holy Land. According to Nachmanides we must not misunderstand this to mean that it was the nature of the soil in the Holy Land to respond in such a fashion to non-observance of certain laws of the Torah. The phenomena merely reflect that the Lord watches with special intensity everything which goes on amongst the Jewish people while they live in Eretz Yisrael. These phenomena testify to the presence of guilt amongst the Israelites. (compare Psalms 89,33) “I will punish their iniquity with plagues.” All of this in order to encourage the guilty to leave that path and to return to G’d faithfully so as to rid themselves of their guilt. We find an allusion to all this even in the words of our portion (13,13) כלו הפך לבן טהור הוא, “if all of him has turned white he will be ritually clean.” The line has a double meaning, i.e. that not only has the entire skin of the afflicted person turned white, but it is considered a symptom that he has become free from sin. In order to understand G’d’s loving approach even to the ones who sinned against him, the legislation about houses displaying these kinds of stains is introduced (14,34) with the words “I will give a plague of tzoraat on your house.” Is this then “a gift” that G’d describes it as such? Indeed it is, as instead of punishing the sinner on his body G’d gives him this kind of a warning. The wording “I will give” is applied simultaneously to the giving of the land as possession to the Jewish people and as the experience of such plagues. This teaches that the whole legislation applies only in Eretz Yisrael, not even in Jerusalem as that city has not been allocated as part of any tribe’s ancestral territory but belongs to the entire nation (Yuma 12). Only the parts of the land known as ארץ אחוזה, “inalienable inherited property,” are subject to the נגעים legislation. May we all live to see that land rebuilt in the near future!