מפרי פי איש תשבע בטנו תבואת שפתיו ישבע, “A man’s belly is filled with the fruit of his mouth he will be filled by the produce of his lips.” (Proverbs 18,20)

In this verse Solomon told us something about the power of the tongue (speech), be it for good or for evil. If man employs the power of speech to speak words of Torah, to admonish people to live according to Torah and to thereby help Jewish society to acquire spiritual merits for themselves, then his reward is with him, and his works are a beacon shining before him.” [He will be recognized for his true worth. Ed.] (Isaiah 40,10). On the other hand, if he uses the power of speech to engage in slander, character assassination, and the like, his punishment will be served up to him and he will have to consume it to his being more than sated with it. We must therefore understand the beginning of this verse as applying to the dissemination of evil gossip and the like; and the end, i.e. the words “his mouth will be filled by the produce of his lips,” as referring to the reward in store for those who use their power of speech judiciously, providing spiritual merits for the society in which they live. This is also the meaning of another saying of Solomon in Proverbs 18,21 “Death and life are in the power of the tongue; those who love it will eat its fruit.” What the author is saying is that seeing the tongue controls death and life, if someone loves the tongue, i.e. is anxious to keep talking at all times, he should endeavour to choose subjects which are liable to enhance his life, i.e. speak words of wisdom, moral and ethical exhortation, etc. If he does so he will get to eat (as a reward) the fruit of the power of speech. Only in that case will people who are fond of talking increase their own merit in proportion to their frequent use of the tongue. In the reverse case, i.e. someone who loves to talk but uses his tongue indiscriminately, so that he engages in gossiping and worse, as his punishment he will eat “the fruit of that punishment.” Considering all this it is important to be most circumspect in the use of one’s tongue. The Torah has shown us on several occasions that if someone abuses his power of speech and uses it negatively he will be afflicted with the disease of tzoraat. Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 16,2 have found that the very words introducing the subject of the מצורע could be paraphrased as זאת תורת המוציא שם רע, “this is the law about people who indulge in character assassination.”

זאת תהיה תורת המצורע ביום טהרתו והובא אל הכהן, “this shall be the law of the person afflicted with tzoraat; on the day he regains purity he is to be brought to the priest.” The sages in Tanchuma Metzora 1 have explained that this affliction is a retribution for the evil tongue as we know from Kohelet 5,5: “let not your mouth bring guilt on your flesh.” Solomon means to not give permission to your mouth to express words which will harm the rest of your body. Do not subsequently say to the angel who is in charge of you (remainder of the verse in Kohelet) that it was an unintentional aberration. Every word a person utters is recorded in a book, be it something appropriate or inappropriate, be it intentional or unintentional. “Why should G’d have reason to be angry at what you have said? Why should He have to thwart the work of your hands?” The “work of your hands” which Solomon refers to in that verse are the hand and feet of your body which will become afflicted with skin disorders. Another explanation pertaining to the above verse in Kohelet: the words אל תתן את פיך, “do not let your mouth, etc.;” these words are an example of the Torah using inoffensive language for a serious admonition. In this instance it means “do not allow your mouth to become guilty, etc.;” if your wife told you that she started to menstruate do not bring sin upon her body by ignoring her state of impurity and cohabiting with her. The words following, i.e. ואל תאמר לפני המלאך “and do not say to the angel” (who is in charge of determining the appearance and physical health of the unborn fetus) that you committed that sin inadvertently, that you were unaware of your wife’s ritual impurity at the time she conceived the fetus; the words למה יקצוף אלו-הים וחבל מעשיך, “why should G’d become angry and frustrate your actions” (the semen which was meant to produce a health child?) mean that Solomon attributes physical blemishes in children as caused by the sins committed by the parent (or parents) when having marital relations. Yet another approach to the verse in Kohelet: Solomon means “why should you incriminate yourself and your flesh by ignoring the laws of G’d so that you will need an angel (priests are referred to as angels of the Lord by the prophet Maleachi 2,7) who would have to preside over your becoming healed ultimately?” You would only be deceiving yourself, why make G’d angry? The words מעשה ידיך, “the work of your hands,” refer to the fetus which you helped to produce and who will be struck with the tzoraat disease as a result of your sin.

When the Torah in our verse continues with the words “on the day he wants to become purified,” this means that on that day he must be brought to the priest. This teaches that it is impossible for the purification to become halachically effective without the priest declaring the subject to have become ritually pure. Although the word והובא, “he is brought to the priest,” sounds as if the afflicted person has to come to the priest, this is not so. The priest goes to see the afflicted person outside the camp. This is clear from the words “the priest will go outside the camp and inspect the affliction” (verse 3).

Tanchuma Metzora 2, quoting Proverbs 18,21 that “life and death are within the power of the tongue,” says that everything depends on the tongue. If it is used properly it confers life, if it is abused it results in death for its owner. The word חיים, “life" in that context refers to Torah which has been described as עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה, “it is a tree of life for the ones who hold on to it.” In fact, Torah is an effective medication against the damage one has inflicted upon oneself through indulging in evil gossip. The Midrash bases this on Proverbs 15,4: “a tree of life is a healing tongue.” If the person had been engaged in disseminating evil gossip he had thereby forfeited his life; the sin of spreading evil gossip is considered morally as worse than killing. The reason is that when one kills one only kills a single life, whereas when one spreads evil gossip about someone one causes death to at least three people, i.e. the one who tells it, the one who listens to it (approvingly), and the one concerning whom the gossip is related. Let us take an historical example from Samuel I 22,16: Doeg the Edomite who spread gossip about Achimelech son of Achitov was killed. Achimelech was killed by Saul who had accepted the slander without investigating it. King Saul was also killed as we know from Chronicles I 10,13: “Saul died on account of the trespass he committed against the Lord.” Saul himself is quoted as telling the Amalekite youth to give him the last stab as he was already in the throes of a death struggle” (Samuel II 1,9). He had become guilty for destroying Nov the city of priests based on evil gossip which he had not checked out. The word שבץ used by Saul and which we translated as “death throes,” are understood by the sages as a reference to the priestly garments as we know from Exodus 28,13 ועשית משבצות זהב, “make them golden settings.” Doeg the Edomite was uprooted not only from life on earth but also from the hereafter as we know from Psalms 52,7: a hymn composed on that occasion, “G’d will tear you down for good, will break you and pluck you from your tent, and root you out of the land of the living, Selah.” [For a brilliant analysis of this psalm read the Alshich’s commentary. Ed.] What is a greater sin? He who kills with the sword or he who kills by shooting an arrow? We would assume that killing by an arrow is the greater sin as the archer does not have to risk his own life in personal combat in order to achieve his goal. If this is true, it is clear that he who engages in evil gossip is guilty of the worst kind of assassination as he keeps out of danger himself. This is why character assassination is compared to shooting arrows at the victim such as in Jeremiah 9,7: “their tongue is sharpened like an arrow, they use their mouths to deceive; one speaks to his fellow in friendship, but lays an ambush for him in his heart.” Another verse describing something similar is found in Psalms 57,5: “people whose teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongue is a sharp sword.”

Evil gossip is a greater sin than “mere” murder, idolatry or indulging one’s carnal instincts indiscriminately. Proof that it is worse than murder is deduced from Genesis 4,13 where Kayin describes his sin as too severe to endure its burden. It is more serious than indulging one’s carnal instincts with partners forbidden to one as we know from Joseph (Genesis 39,9) who explained the severity of that sin to the wife of Potiphar. It is more serious than idolatry seeing that when Moses described this sin committed by the Jewish people to G’d when they worshipped the golden calf he said: “indeed the people committed a very great sin.” When describing the sin of לשון הרע on the other hand, (Psalms 12,4) David invokes G’d pleading: “may the Lord cut off all flattering lips, every tongue that speaks גדולות, “arrogance.” The commentators understand the plural of the word גדולות in that psalm as describing the sin of abusing the power of the tongue as a “double” sin, i.e. more severe than a single sin such as worshipping idols, for instance. This is why Solomon said that life and death are at the disposal of one’s tongue. Look at what happened to Miriam who was struck with the disease of tzoraat (Numbers 12,1) because she spoke against Moses. What did she do that was so terrible? She spoke to her own brother (Aaron) privately, not within the hearing of Moses nor of anyone else. She was well-intentioned meaning to reunite Moses with his wife whom he had divorced. The Torah describes G’d’s reaction as fierce, and had Moses not interceded on her behalf she would not have been cured. To this day we recite the lines of Deut. 24,9 in which the Torah demands that we remember what Miriam was guilty of and how G’d punished her. You may apply a little logic to see how serious is the ordinary sin of spreading evil gossip when you reflect on what happened to well-intentioned Miriam who had spoken privately to her brother. How will G’d react to people who deliberately besmirch someone’s reputation by the tales they spread about him? Consider what the Torah wrote immediately prior to the reminder to remember what G’d did to Miriam (Deut. 24,8) The Torah writes: “beware of the tzoraat affliction, be very careful and act according to everything the priests and Levites teach you.” Even Aaron, who was the High Priest, (and had not said a word) was struck with that affliction seeing that the Torah said that G’d was angry “at them,”‘ i.e. not merely at Miriam. Aaron was healed immediately, seeing his was the lesser sin as he had not said anything, had only listened without admonishing Miriam. We know that Aaron must have been cured immediately as the Torah only writes of Miriam having been quarantined outside the camp for seven days delaying the Israelites’ journey during that period (Numbers 12,15). You will also find that the original serpent, the first creature ever to engage in slander against its Creator, was struck with tzoraat as the Torah reports G’d saying to the serpent “because you have done this, etc., you are cursed” (Genesis 3,14). The curse consisted of the serpent being afflicted with tzoraat. Our sages derive this from the expression צרעת ממארת היא in Leviticus 13,52. On these words Rav Hunna quoted a comment by Rabbi Joshua ben Levi who said that the scales on the skin of the snake are a form the tzoraat took when it afflicted the serpent (compare Bereshit Rabbah 20,4). This was not the full extent of the serpent’s punishment. We have a tradition that in the world to come (after the resurrection), people who suffered from diverse deformities while on earth the previous time will be resurrected as completely healthy and with unblemished bodies. The snake will be the only exception to this rule. Seeing that Isaiah wrote (Isaiah 35,6): ”then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb shall shout aloud,” the prophet prophesies resurrection of the beasts mentioning that domesticated beasts and lions will graze together; however the snake will still have to eat dust as it will never be cured from its affliction (compare Isaiah 11,6). The reason is that the serpent through its use of the tongue dragged man into the dust, (caused his mortality, Tanchuma Metzora 2).

שתי צפרים חיות טהורות, “two live birds, of the pure species.” All “pure” birds are known as צפור. We know this from Deut. 14,11: כל צפור טהורה תאכלו, “you may eat all the birds belonging to the species known as צפור טהורה.” This excludes birds known as עופות טמאות. This means that although the bird itself has all the symptoms of purity, the fact that it has been associated with forbidden practices such as birds belonging to people of an עיר הנדחת, “a city condemned to destruction because the majority of its inhabitants worshipped idols,” makes such a bird “unclean.” Or, for instance, if such a bird of the “pure species” killed a human being, it also forfeits its status of being a צפור טהורה, and may not be eaten or used as an offering.

A Midrashic approach (compare Tanchuma Metzora 3) to the wording in our verse: G’d said that the sacrifice to be brought by people who have overcome their affliction should consist of birds which twitter a lot so as to remind the person offering this sacrifice that the indiscriminate use of their tongue had been the cause of their suffering the affliction in the first place. In other words: “let the sound of the bird atone for the sound made by its owner.”

ועץ ארז ושני תולעת ואזוב, “and cedarwood, crimson thread and hyssop.” The verse mentioned both the most precious and the lowliest of plants. Solomon did the same thing in Kings I, 5,13 when he was described as lecturing about the cedars of the Lebanon and the hyssop. Our sages comment that the inclusion of both types of plants in the same breath teach that if one had arrogated to oneself the mien of something superior to oneself, i.e. given oneself a title that one had not earned, the only way to atone for this and to regain one’s true station in life is to demean oneself to the level of the lowest in the social order, the hyssop (compare Rashi).

על פני השדה, “in the open country.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reason that the live bird is released into open country is connected to the fact that the disease it atones for, i.e. carries away with it in a symbolic fashion, was one that was infectious. It is appropriate therefore to release the bird to where it is unlikely to infect anyone (compare Ibn Ezra). This would also explain the spirit of impurity which had settled on the afflicted person as a result of his having submitted to these negative emanations originating with the original serpent. This is all due to his behavior which paralleled that of that serpent when it engaged in slander. This is also why throughout the Talmud and even in the Torah, (compare Aaron’s plea on behalf of Miriam in Numbers 12,12) a person afflicted with this dread disease is compared to a dead person, i.e. the root cause of all defilement and ritual impurity. Another allusion contained in the words על פני השדה may be to the פורחות השדה, “tramp-like demons,” which infest those areas much as Satan is at home in the desert. Remember that the bird being released here had first been dipped in the blood of its mate which had been slaughtered. The whole procedure of what is happening to the two birds and their atoning for the sin of an individual is reminiscent of the two male goats on Yom Kippur which atone for the collective sins of the people, the live scapegoat being consigned to virgin territory as a “gift, or bribe to Satan.” In this instance the live bird “carried” with it the sins of the person on whose behalf it was offered. This bird was not allowed to be released either to the desert or the sea as we know from Torat Kohanim Sifra Metzora 2,5 where the examples given are that one must not stand in Jaffa and release the bird in the direction of the sea, nor must one stand in some cultivated area of the country and release the bird into the desert.

ובא אשר לו הבית, “and the one to whom the house belongs shall come, etc.” Our sages in Yuma 11 read out of these words that the house in question is under the exclusive control of one person who does not wish to lend furniture or utensils or invite guests to his house. If the house was struck with tzoraat this was in response to the tight-fisted nature of its owner. This is what is meant by “the one whose house it is must come to the priest and tell him that an affliction similar to tzoraat has infested the stones of his house.”

A Midrashic approach based on Vayikra Rabbah 17,7: The owner of the house described here is G’d; the words “he shall tell the priest” refer to the prophet Jeremiah; the words “something like the symptoms of a plague has inflicted my house,” refer to the idol placed in the Holy Temple by King Menashe of Yehudah.

וצוה הכהן ופנו את הבית, “and the priest will issue instructions and they will clear out the house, etc.” The Torah is protective about the Israelites’ possessions, even for such inexpensive vessels as the ones made of earthenware. The vessels mentioned in our verse are such as the Torah speaks about protecting against becoming impure. Vessels of other materials can be purified by means of immersion in a ritual bath, the earhenware vessels cannot. If there is food and drink left over, the person may consume them during the days when he is ritually impure, so that he would not suffer an irreparable loss. It is clear therefore that what the Torah is concerned with here are only earthenware vessels.

והנה הנגע בקירות הבית, “and here the affliction is on the walls of the house.” Up until this point the Torah had listed 10 different kinds of negaim, afflictions; six of them occur on the body of a person; they are שאת, ספחת, בהרת, שחין, נתק, מריטת הראש. Four additional afflictions infect things other than his body such as woolen garments, linen garments, leather garments or utensils, and the walls of a house.

You will find that the ten are arranged in the order in which we just mentioned them. There is a correlation here to the Ten Commandments. The message is that as long as the Israelites observe the Ten Commandments, i.e. the Torah which the Ten Commandments represent, they will not experience any of these ten afflictions. If they fail to honour the Torah and its precepts they will become victims of what the Torah has listed in the way of nega-im.

שקערורות, “depressed;” Our sages in Sifra Metzora 6,5 claim that the appearance of these afflictions in the walls was as if that area was depressed, recessed. The reason that the Torah in this paragraph switches to the plural although the word נגע is in the singular, is that the owner of the house as well as his neighbour must share in the cost of removing the infected stones. This is what the Sifra Metzora 4,2 had in mind when they said אוי לרשע ואוי לשכנו, “woe to the wicked and his neighbour.” As soon as talk of the demolition has been concluded, the Torah reverts to the singular such as with the words קציע, וטח, etc. This is meant to tell us that only the person whose house had displayed definitive symptoms of the nega has to bear the cost of the restoration. In other words, the labor has to be shared but the cost has to be borne by the owner of the house alone.

והבא אל הבית, “anyone who comes to the house, etc.,” a house which has been sealed provisionally does not confer impurity on everyone who enters it. This is why the Torah uses the expression הבא אליו“who enters,” i.e. if the person enters through the regular doorway. If such a person remains inside long enough to eat half a loaf of bread he and his clothing and any other items he carries or wears are defiled through his stay. If his stay is of shorter duration only his person becomes impure as a result of his entering.

וכפר על הבית וטהר, “he shall provide atonement for the house and it will become purified.” Nachmanides writes that seeing the affliction on a person’s house is not viewed as seriously as an affliction on his garments or his body, the Torah did not demand that the purification rites include bringing also a guilt-offering and a sin-offering. All such a person has to do is bring the bird-offerings presented by a poor person who was afflicted with tzoraat on his skin, plus the cedarwood and the hyssop.

זאת התורה לכל נגע הצרעת ולנתק, ולצרעת הבגד ולבית, ולשאת ולספחת ולבהרת, “This is the legislation for every tzoraat affliction and the netek; and afflictions on the garments and the house; and of the se-eth, the sapachat, and the baheret.” Even though the tradition handed down to us concerning all these laws is the reliable one, i.e. that the sequence in which G’d afflicts potential victims is that first He afflicts their houses to give them a chance to repent, followed by afflictions on the garments hoping that the sinners will mend their ways, and that only as a last resort does G’d afflict the bodies of the sinners concerned, the fact remains that in the written Torah the order is reversed, the Torah commencing the legislation with skin disorders, followed by similar disorders on the garments followed by the houses which display signs that the walls are afflicted. The reason the Torah chose to write the sequence which we find before us rather than the sequence our sages have told us, is that the Torah’s ways are ways of pleasantness (Proverbs 3,17). Had the Torah followed the reverse pattern of reporting these kinds of afflictions we would have read of matters going from bad to worse; this would not have made for edifying reading. As it is, the Torah first lists the most severe afflictions, proceeding to describe afflictions which are progressively easier on the victim, i.e. that only his garments or the walls of his house undergoes an affliction.