אל משה ואל ואהרן, “to Moses and to Aaron;” Nachmanides writes that seeing the Torah had stated that Aaron would have a decisive voice in all matters pertaining to interpersonal strife or afflictions such as נגעים, be it on the skin, garments, or houses, G’d addressed him also in the following legislation. (Compare Deut. 21,5) The Torah does not continue here with the customary words: דבר אל בני ישראל, “say to the Children of Israel,” seeing that the priests after seeing the people afflicted will decide whether to declare them afflicted with the disease, whether to temporarily keep them under observation, etc. It is also up to the priest to decide when individuals will be considered as cured from the disease. There is no apparent reason to acquaint and warn the entire nation of the forthcoming legislation, seeing that if the services of the priest are required, and sacrifices are to be offered, the afflicted party will be only too happy to have reached that stage. The reason that in the paragraph dealing with the zav, the person who experiences a disease involving his sexual organs the Torah does address every Israelite, i.e. “speak to the Children of Israel and say to them, etc.,” (chapter 15) is that the nature of the disease is private, and the person suffering from it could conceal it, as opposed to people whose skin bears the marks of their disease. The general public had to be warned that if they suffered from the symptoms described that they had to turn to the priest to deal with the problem.

שאת או ספחת, “different degrees of whiteness of the skin.” Ibn Ezra understands the word שאת as a derivative of שרפה, as in והמשאות החלה לעלות עמוד עשן, “and when the column of smoke began to rise” (Judges 20,40) Similarly, we have in Samuel II 5,21 וישאם דוד, “and David burned them (the idols).” Nachmanides explains that it is possible that this skin disease is called such on account of what it has in common with fire, which rises into the atmosphere. The skin inflammation described breaks through the regular skin, outwards, i.e. upwards. The word ספחת is understood as related to ספחני נא, (Samuel I 2,36) where it means “gather me in,” in our context in the sense of the disease being concentrated in one narrowly defined part of the skin. The word בהרת is related to בהיר, very bright, blindingly white, (Job 37,21) where it describes the sun though bright, or because too bright) as invisible to man. The נגע, skin affliction, is assumed to originate in the greenish coloured gall. שאת is the name of the affliction, after it has already traversed the body and come to the surface of the skin. The Torah is perceived as desiring the purity of the Israelites in every respect, both in body and in spirit, and by externalizing sickness of the body’s interior it alerts the victim that something is wrong that needs to be repaired, needs to be attended to, seeing that any disease is not a natural state and a perfectly pure person is not afflicted with any disease. Even the symptoms described in our verse here are not yet a definitive disease, they are signs that a disease is on the way to develop more fully. To indicate this, the Torah at the outset speaks of נגע צרעת, meaning that this נגע is liable to develop into a fully blown צרעת unless addressed properly. Verse 11 describes the fully developed נגע simply as צרעת, the affliction having developed beyond the need for, or beyond the ability of a trial ostracism reversing the symptoms. Whenever a stage is reached which will ultimately result in צרעת, the priest has to declare the afflicted party as ritually impure with all that this implies as described in the verse following.

ועמוק אין מראה מן העור, “and its appearance is not deeper than the skin.” Rashi writes: “I do not know the meaning of these words. His problem was that he had already explained the words עמוק מן העור in the previous verse to mean that every white discolouration of the skin appears as if recessed, lower than the surrounding area, just as an area lit by the rays of the sun appears as lower than the surrounding area bathed in shade. Rabbi Meir from Rotenburg explains our verse in the following manner: “if what is described as בהרת לבן, an extremely bright whitish discolouration, appears deeper than the surrounding area of skin, as is typical of every sunlit area surrounded by shade, then the appearance of this symptom in relation to the surrounding skin is not the beginning of the entire process we are witnessing; in other words, it does not appear lower on account of its whitish colour.” [If I understand this commentary correctly, the author warns us not to treat the whole phenomenon as something natural, explicable in terms of scientific research. The Torah’s message to us and to the afflicted person is that if the symptoms we are witnessing were merely corresponding to known scientific data, the whole disease would lose its character of being a benign warning by the Creator to the afflicted party to examine his lifestyle which alone led to this affliction. Ed.] Our author feels that the tone signs in our verse support the approach of Rabbi Meir from Rotenburg. Nachmanides believes that there is a way of dealing with Rashi’s problem so that [at least technically, Ed,] there is no contradiction between verse 3 and verse 4. He limits the generally accepted principle described by Rashi on verse three that bright areas always appear as deeper, recessed, when compared to surrounding darker areas, as being a phenomenon which holds true only as long as the hair on that area also turned white. When the hair in that bright area has not turned white, then the entire hypothesis of it appearing darker than the surrounding darker area does not hold true. He supports this argument by comparing it to sunspots, i.e. scattered spots of dark areas, black spots on the surface of the sun which do not result in the surrounding bright areas of the sun appearing as being deeper, recessed. He compares the hair (black) on the skin to sun spots scattered over the surface of the sun as we behold it. He also distinguishes between how something appears to the beholder who is close to the object in question and to how it appears to a beholder who looks at it from a distance. (The foregoing was attributed to Maimonides) Nachmanides continues: in spite of all that we have been told, according to which anything white appears deeper than the surrounding dark area, this does not even agree with what we learned in the Talmud Shavuot, 6, which disagrees with that assumption, stating that the very expression שאת [which is derived from the root נשא to lift up, Ed.] means something high, i.e. higher than its surroundings A verse from scripture is quoted in support of this שאת is compared to wool which had been bleached white, so that according to its degree of whiteness it certainly ought to appear as deeper than the darker area surrounding it. The opinion in the Talmud is also corroborated by Torat Kohanim where it is compared to “shadow” which appears ‘higher than the surrounding area.” If every whitish appearance were to be considered as “deep,” we would be faced with a total contradiction to our ancient sources. Perhaps we should say that the expression שאת is used in the sense of being “high” only when it is compared to the skin irregularity described by the Torah as בהרת in verse 2. However, when contrasted to the surrounding normal skin, it is indeed עמוק מן העור, i.e. deeper than regular skin. In view of these various approaches and apparent contradictions, it appears to me that any kind of “white” we look at, leaves a degree of radiance and sparkle in our eyes, similar to that which we experience when we have looked at the sun. This is due to the eye absorbing part of the black colour that clings to it, whereas the white colour is immediately reflected outward. While doing so it also disperses some of the ability of the eye to see properly, an ability that is now somewhat removed from its source, so that it appears to see objects as deeper than they are in reality. בהרת on the other hand, is glaringly bright and powerfully white as snow, causing the human eyes’ sense of vision to undergo a weakening. Just as it undergoes a similar weakening when the eyes step out of the shade into an area illuminated by brilliant sunshine. The only thing that prevents this from happening is the presence of a black hair. If there is a black hair then the ability of the sense of seeing expands to any adjoining black area and from it to the entire surface of the skin affected by the נגע, the affliction like looking irregularity. It will not leave that area. שאת, on the other hand, while being white, is not as brilliantly white as בהרת, so that its whiteness does not harm the sense of sight, it can spread over the area of the afflicted skin and man’s eye can view it without hindrance from proximity without harm. It appears to him as elevated, much as the stars look as if standing out against the background of the sky. In connection with the affliction which we know as שחין, (verse 18), the Torah makes mention of two kinds of visual impressions, one is שאת לבנה, the other is a lesser degree of whiteness described as בהרת לבנה. (Apparently) the white is mixed with some degree of red, i.e. אדמדמת, making it darker) The Torah describes the appearance of that whiteness as מראה שפל מן העור, as opposed to the previous מראה עמוק מן העור. The effect of this reddishness is to make the area appear a little deeper than the surrounding skin, though not a lot deeper, as would be described as עמוק מן העור. According to the plain meaning of the text, the words והנה מראה שפל העור, are describing only the condition of בהרת and do not refer to the appearance of an irregularity called שאת לבנה at all. As far as the Torah writing later (verse 21) ואם יראנה הכהן והנה אין בה שער לבן ושפלה איננה מן העור והוא כהה “but if when the priest looks at it and behold there is no white hair in it and it is not lower than the surrounding skin,” this verse refers to both the incidence of שאת לבן as well as to that of בהרת לבן. When discussing skin irregularities resembling injuries from burning oneself, מכות-אש, the Torah mentions the colour לבנה אדמדמת או לבנה, “white streaked with red, or plain white.” When the Torah in the verse following (25) describes the appearance of what was mentioned in verse 24 asעמוק מן העור, “deeper than the surrounding skin,” this part of the verse refers only to the raw flesh which has been described in verse 24 as לבנה, white, and not to the area described as לבנה אדמדמת, white streaked with red. The Torah then mentions that the area described as בהרת is free from any white hair, and does not appear as even slightly deeper than the surrounding skin, for ושפלה איננה מן העור והוא כהה, seeing that the slightly deeper appearance as well as the deeper recessed appearance known as עמוק מן העור, both are reasons to declare the person displaying these symptoms as ritually impure. Such symptoms indicate purification only when not accompanied by any appearance deeper than the surrounding skin. This is the meaning of the word כהה.

והנה הנגע עמד בעיניו, “and behold- the affliction remained static.” Nachmanides quotes Rashi as writing that the word בעיניו means that the affliction’s appearance has undergone no change either in appearance or size. He assumed that the word עין is the same as in כעין הבדולח in Numbers 11,7 where the appearance of the manna is described, was Rashi’s source. He points out that Torat Kohanim takes a different approach, understanding the word עין literally as “eye,” ruling that determination of the afflicted person’s purity or impurity is governed by the subjective criterion of how it appears to the examining priest, and not to the objective criterion of measuring it. If the priest’s perception is different from the perception of his disciple, for instance, the priest’s perception is automatically considered as decisive. He need not measure the affliction to verify if his perception had been correct. However, my sainted father the R’osh, said that the priest was required already on his first examination to make a mark on the skin delineating the extent of the affliction, so as to enable him to compare the size of the affliction when he would examine it the second time. This is clearly stated in connection with afflictions that occur on a person’s head, where the Torah demands that the area around the affliction must be shaved off. (Compare 13,33) The priest leaves two hairs adjoining the afflicted are in place, in order to be certain what precisely the area of the affliction had been on the occasion when he first examined it. What holds true for the way afflictions of the head are examined, also hold true for the manner in which the results of examinations of other parts of the skin’s surface are conducted and recorded, i.e. also the terms for temporary seclusion of the person so afflicted. The explanation by Rashi of the words והסגירו הכהן שבעת ימים, that the priest imposed a house arrest on the afflicted party for seven days, was not accepted by the author’s father. He claims that nowhere in the entire tractate of Negaim is there a mention that the afflicted party is under house arrest. Verse 4, mentioning the word והסגיר for the first time, refers to the נגע, not to the person afflicted with it; the meaning is that the area of the נגע is to be clearly delineated, and for a period of seven days following this, no second examination to determine if it had spread or receded is to be undertaken.

והיא הפכה שער לבן ומחית בשר חי בשאת, “and it has changed hair to white, or that there is healthy live flesh within the white area described previously as שאת;” the letter ו in front of the word ומחית does not mean ”and,” so that both conditions have to be met before the priest must decree absolute isolation of the afflicted person. The letter ו here means “or,” as it does in many instances.

ואם פרוח תפרח הצרעת, וגו., “if the tzoraat will erupt on the skin, etc.” the Torah describes a continuous spread of the affliction until eventually the entire skin of the body is covered with that affliction. When the Torah used the expression את כל עור הנגע, “the entire skin of the affliction,” an expression that seems somewhat confusing, it means that the entire area of the body’s skin, including head and feet, is covered with the affliction. If the area where the affliction had started either did not turn properly white, or became healthy looking again the person is ritually unclean. According to the plain meaning of the text the reason for the apparent paradox that when covered with the affliction from head to toe, the affected person is considered ritually pure, is that the very spread over the entire body of this affliction is a sign that it does not penetrate further into the body, proof that the person is on the way to a complete recovery, seeing the problem is only skin-deep.

והתגלח ואת הנתק לו יגלח, “he is to shave himself, but he shall not shave off the netek.” Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning the Torah forbids the afflicted party to allow the razor to touch the afflicted area even though it is not covered with any hair. However, if the razor is allowed to touch that area it will cause injury to the skin that will result in hair growing from such a spot. However, in Torat Kohanim we find that the wordsואת הנתק are understood to mean “and around the netek,” in line with Rashi’s interpretation that he must leave two hairs unshaven so as to know the extent of the netek. Nachmanides (on verse 29) wrote at length about whether such an irregularity of the skin, not especially defined, results in ritual impurity of the afflicted person.

והצרוע, “and the person afflicted with tzoraat,” Torat Kohanim includes a High Priest in the procedures detailed here, although the Torah had stated elsewhere that the High Priest must not rend his garments (when a relative of his has died, compare Leviticus 21,10). [I see nothing remarkable or contradictory here as a) the rule that he does not rend his garments has nothing to do with its becoming afflicted with a skin problem; b) others could do it on his behalf. Ed.]

ועל שפם יעטה, “and he shall cloak himself up to his lips.” This means that he is to keep his mouth covered so that his breath does not offend anyone around him as it contains bacteria harmful to others.

בדד ישב, “he shall remain in isolation.” The reason for this isolation is that this disease is very contagious and even indirect contact with the afflicted person will harm those associating with him. Nachmanides writes that neither the symptoms described by the Torah as afflicting garments, nor those afflicting houses, are natural phenomena, found in any civilisation. As long as the Jewish people conduct themselves according to the laws of the Torah they will remain protected by the spirit of Hashem, so that none of the diseases described in our portion would ever befall them. In the event that an individual would experience any of the symptoms we have discussed here, this would be a warning by the Shechinah that he had been guilty of a misdemeanour, designed to make him do penance before he would become subject to a severe penalty for his transgression. Seeing that the Torah introduced the subject as if it were a divine gift, i.e. ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחוזתכם, “I will give a nega tzoraat on one of the houses that constitute a hereditary possession in the land you have acquired as a permanent possession,” (Leviticus 14,34) it is clear that the whole subject reflects G’d’s concern not to allow us to become sin-ridden. By striking our house instead of our body, G’d issued a warning signal to us to mend our ways. The entire legislation is applicable only in a land that has become ours as an inheritance given to us by G’d. The same applies to the legislation concerning such symptoms appearing on our clothing. If these symptoms were to appear on our clothing in any country other than the Holy Land, this is meaningless in terms of Jewish law, and any means at any time may be employed to remove such symptoms. No one has ever been heard of being afflicted with these symptoms either in Babylon, or any other country Jews were exiled to. [Besides, miraculous involvement by G’d in this manner is predicated on only a few individuals not observing Torah. Just as the Sotah rites were discontinued when marital infidelity became common place, even though there was a Temple and High Priest, and just as the yibbum legislation (levirate marriage) was observed in the negative aspect of it, chalitza, once it could not be presumed that the brother-in-law would perform the rite in order to secure his deceased brother’s continuity on this earth, so the laws described here were intended for a near perfect Jewish society only. Ed.] While in effect, the laws concerning the symptoms on garments applied only on white garments, seeing that the stains on coloured garments looking like the symptoms described here might be attributed to having been caused during dying the garment or the threads the garments were made of.

צרעת ממארת היא, ”it is a malignant tzorat.” The symptom is of a malignant nature that will eventually envelop the entire garment. This is why the whole garment has to be burned forthwith.

פחתת הוא, “it is an ingrained affliction.” The word is derived from פוחת, something which gradually diminishes, becomes progressively worth less, until eventually it has ceased to have value; in this case the meaning it that the damage will spread until it encompasses the entire fabric.

בקרחתו או בגבחתו, “in his new or worn garment.” Some commentators understand this to mean that it makes no difference whether the garment is worn on hairy or smooth skin. [so that the word בקרחתו refers to קרחת baldness. Ed.]