והובא אל הכהן, to a site near the boundary of the encampment where the priest can come to inspect the afflicted person easily without having to subject himself to special effort.

וטהרו, similar as in 13,45 פרימה ופריעה, baring something, tearing it, removing the offending part.

ורחץ במים וטהר, part of the general theme “he will make his residence outside the camp” (as long as he is afflicted) (compare 13,46)

ורחץ את בשרו במים וטהר, in line with the previously mentioned instruction “he must pitch his tent outside the camp.” (verse 8)

והקריב אותו לאשם. It has already been explained in 7,1 as well as in my commentary on Leviticus 1,2 that the guilt offering, אשם in the main applies to inadvertent sins committed involving misuse of sacred matters, or misuse of the sacred domain of the Temple, such as unauthorised persons entering it, or ritually unclean persons entering it, etc. Just as in the case of the sin offering, חטאת, if that sin had been committed deliberately it would have resulted in the karet penalty, and if not atoned for through teshuvah would have resulted in the guilty person’s eternally being cut off from the collective soul of the Jewish people. Our sages in Erchin 15 and 16 have already stated that the principal sins for which a person is afflicted with the נגע צרעת, are bad-mouthing people and haughtiness, both of which are perceived by the sages as direct trespass against G’d’s Holiness. Even though badmouthing is generally perpetrated in secret not affording the victim a chance to defend himself against the accusation and character assassination, the prophet Isaiah 29,15 views it as the perpetrators saying “who sees us, who takes note of us?” In other words, the prophet considers the “secrecy” as worse than the sin itself, as it suggests that G’d is unable to see it, and therefore represents a gross insult directed at G’d. Concerning arrogant, haughty behaviour. We read in Psalms 101,5 “He who slanders his friend in secret I will destroy; I cannot endure the haughty and proud man.” G’d is portrayed as if the sinner is “trying to steal part of G’d’s “clothing.” G’d declares that such people cannot co-exist with Him in the same universe. (Sotah 5). We have evidence in our scriptures (Chronicles II 26, 16-19) that King Uzziah’s arrogance was punished with tzoraat for his haughtiness, as this sin was considered a trespass against G’d Himself.

וכפר עליו הכן וטהר, he will have attained a sufficient level of ritual purity to be allowed to partake in sacrificial meats, and entering holy precincts (if he is otherwise qualified to do so). Compare our sages in Negai-im 14,3 that “as soon as he has brought his atonement offering he is free to again partake of sacred foods.” (the portions of the peace-offerings normally consumed by the owners of the animals.)

ופנו את הבית בטרם יבא, they can clear out the house before the priest’s arrival. In fact, that priest is warned not to arrive until all valuables have been cleared out of the house. During the time that this takes place the owners will be able to do teshuvah and pray and synchronise their prayer with that of the priest when he arrives. Simultaneous to this the priest will announce the period of isolation. In Vayikra Rabbah 17,7 we are told that our paragraph is an allusion to the eventual destruction of the first Temple, its rebuilding, as well as the destruction of the second Temple. The word וטהרו in our verse alludes to the ultimate rebuilding of the third Temple, this one not to be destroyed again.

זאת התורה, if someone wants to qualify to issue religious rulings concerning the subject of negai-im he must first of all be able to distinguish between two different types of such afflictions although they both belong to basically the same category. This is the meaning of Deuteronomy 17,8 בין נגע לנגע, “between one kind of nega and another kind of nega.”

לכל נגע הצרעת ולנתק. Even though both these afflictions are known as a skin affliction on the skin of a human being they are distinctly different from one another. The נתק is not judged by appearances but by the behaviour of the hair surrounding it, whereas the ordinary nega tzoraat is judged by changes in its colouration, etc.

ולצרעת הבגד והבית, even though both these phenomena maybe very similar in its greenish or reddish appearance, and both are unnatural phenomena they are still different from one another in the following manner: If the coloured scab on the garment expanded after the first week of isolation the entire garment must be burned. If something parallel happens with the scab on the walls of the house at the end of the first week of isolation it is removed, whitewashed over and the priest waits for another week before arriving at a final disposition, i.e. if the symptoms are not on the wane the house will have to be destroyed.

ולשאת ולספחת ולבהרת, even though the common denominator of these three skin eczemas is that all of them are a shade of white, and that the rules applying to them are basically similar, so much so that they can be treated as cumulative, as we know from tradition (negai-im 1,3) anyone who undertakes to rule on these matters has to be an expert in all the different shadings of white, and where these are most likely to surface. The areas in which shechin or michveh, (burnt like appearance) are judged by a combination of appearances., whereas tzarevet and the areas where hair grows are not judged by appearances at all.

זאת תורת הצרעת, one is not to add and impose more stringent rules also declaring similar looking skin eczemas as conferring ritual impurity. [the author interprets the word זאת, this, as restrictive, i.e. “this and none other.” Ed.] Granted that there are numerous other skin diseases which in some respects resemble the ones mentioned in the Torah, it is not in order to apply what the sages normally do to protect a person from inadvertently running afoul one of G’d’s commandments. In the domain of negai-im the rule postulated by Solomon in Proverbs 30,6 אל תוסף על דבריו, “do not add anything to G’d’s words” is strictly adhered to. One factor which indicates how wrong it would be to do this is that the Torah herself declares the “worst” phenomenon of skin eczema, i.e. the whole skin being affected totally, as one that leaves the afflicted party ritually pure. [Naturally, such a person, in the process of being cured will experience part of his skin being afflicted, at which point the priest will have to declare him as impure. Ed.] The apparent lack of logic in this part of the legislation was the cue for the sages not to impose “protective fences” around this legislation.