זאת תהיה תורת המצורע...והובא אל הכהן, “This shall be the law concerning the Metzora, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah introduces our chapter with the words: “this is the manner in which a Metzora purifies himself, he will be brought to the priest.” This is to emphasise that anyone who has been afflicted with tzoraat cannot ever regain his standing in the community, i.e. become purified, without the assistance of the priest. Having established this premise, the Torah then describes the priest as leaving the boundaries of the camp, i.e. the habitat of normal Jews, in order to start the process of purifying the person who had been struck with this dread disease. The important part of the Torah’s message is that the victim of tzoraat who has now been cured does not have to come to the priest, but the priest comes toward him to welcome him back into the fold. Torat Kohanim states that the recently cured victim of tzoraat is brought to the outskirts of the camp to face the priest in order to facilitate the priest’s welcoming him back to the fold.

ויצא הכהן אל מחוץ למחנה. “The priest shall go forth to the outside of the camp.” Torat Kohanim comments that only a priest who was inside the camp could do this, not a priest, who, being himself a victim of tzoraat, and hence also outside the camp. Such a priest cannot participate in the purification rites of another metzora.

שתי צפרים, “two birds;” the expression צפור [as distinct from עוף, Ed.] may be related to both Proverbs 27,8, and Psalms 102,8 where the צפור is described as wandering, i.e. being a loner, isolated. The analogy with the quarantined victim of tzoraat is evident. Nachmanides writes that the scholars concerned primarily with the plain meaning of the text claim that every עוף is automatically also referred to as צפור. Their proof is Psalms 8,9 צפור שמים ודגי הים, “the birds of the sky and the fish in the sea.” The correct interpretation of the choice of the word צפור by the Torah here is that the term צפור includes also the very small birds, the ones who awaken us in the early morning with their chirping. The Aramaic word for the Hebrew word צפצוף describing such chirping is צפורא. The reason the psalmist adds the word שמים, sky, to the word צפור is that in the main the birds use their wings to fly towards the sky. The word כל does not always mean “all, or each,” but usually means “most.” When, at the covenant between the pieces in Genesis chapter 15, Avraham divided the various animals he offered as a symbol of that covenant, the Torah mentions ואת הצפור לא בתר, meaning that he did not cut up either the pigeon or the turtle dove. The expression כל צפור כל כנף refers to two separate species of birds, i.e. both the big ones and the small ones. When the Torah, in Deuteronomy 22,6 speaks of someone encountering a קן צפור, a bird’s nest, this refers to a nest housing small birds, the Torah warning that even such small creatures we must treat with consideration. It appears to me that our sages considered every pure bird, i.e. the ones we may eat (in the appropriate circumstances) as described as צפור. However, in connection with the sacrifice of the tzarua who has been healed and purified, he is to bring one of the birds that can be truly described as צפור דרור, ”a free flying bird,” not a chicken, or a duck, which are domesticated and cannot use their wings in a manner reflecting true freedom of movement. This requirement is not absolute, but when available these free flying birds, i.e. pigeon or turtle dove are preferable, though other birds not described in the Torah as of the 24 kinds of birds of prey might be admissible, seeing the Torah does not speak of עוף דרור. Seeing that the Mishnah in tractate Negaiim 14,1 mentions צפור דרור instead of תור או גוזל, the bird-offerings normally presented on the altar, it might have appeared that other birds are acceptable. Seeing that the text of the Torah leaves room for doubt, the Torat Kohanim had to add that the requirement is absolute, and no other bird can be substituted. The fact is however, that the word דרור in the Mishnah may simply exclude ritually unclean birds that also fit the description of עוף דרור. Moreover, it may also mean that even though these two birds are not alike in size and in appearance as is preferable, as indicated by the word שתי instead of שתים, as among the unclean birds there are also some that fit the description of their being small and free flying the Torah meant to exclude those. [Some commentators of the Mishnah do not understand the word דרור as free flying, unrestricted, but they apply it to birds that have learned to escape capture by man both inside the house and outside of it. Ed.] It is also possible that the expression שתי צפרים is intended to exclude birds that are ritually impure from being offered as a sacrifice.

ועץ ארז ושני תולעת ואזוב, “cedar-wood, crimson thread, and hyssop.” Ibn Ezra writes that the items the Torah requires as part of the purification rites of the metzura indicate the conceptual linkage between someone whose house is afflicted with a parallel affliction, with the ritual impurity conferred by dead bodies of near relatives and even with the Passover sacrifice offered in Egypt prior to the Exodus. [Emerging from the state of being afflicted with tzoraat is as cataclysmic as the redemption (on a national scale) of the Jewish people from Egypt. Ed.]

אל כלי חרס, “into an earthen vessel.” Allegorically speaking, the person preparing to rejoin society is to humble himself, like broken earthenware.

על מים חיים, “over spring water;” just as Naaman, the Assyrian general who had to bathe himself in the river Jordan.

על פני השדה,”upon the open field.” Uninhabited places where symptoms of that disease cannot be found so that the person that has been cured will not per chance be re-infected with the disease. (Ibn Ezra)

יקח שני כבשים תמימים וכבשה אחת, “he is to take two unblemished sheep and one ewe;” Nachmanides points out that the Torah did not state what is to be done with these three animals except to say that one of the male sheep mentioned is to serve as a guilt-offering, the priest having heaved it before Hashem. In verse 19 the Torah does state that the metzura is to offer his sin offering and his burnt offering, without referring to a specific animal. Seeing that we had learned in Parshat Vayikra that every sin offering, if consisting of the species sheep, consists of a feminine species, it is clear that the ewe is to serve as the sin-offering and the remaining male sheep as the burnt offering. (Ibn Ezra)

יתן על ראש המטהר וכפר עליו הכהן לפני ה', “he shall place upon the head of the person being purified, and the priest shall provide him atonement before Hashem.” The vehicle effecting the atonement is the blood of the guilt offering as well as the oil that the priest sprinkles in the direction of the Holy of Holies. The peculiarity in the procedures being described here is the fact that the expression וכפר, “he shall provide atonement,” is repeated so many times; after the guilt offering which apparently provided this atonement, the same expression is used in connection with the sin offering, and then again in connection with the burnt offering, and even again in connection with the gift offering, the מנחה. As a result of this we are quite confused as to the nature of this “atonement.” Perhaps the guilt offering affords forgiveness, atonement, for the trespass the person in question had committed before he had become afflicted with the tzoraat. The sin offering may afford atonement for sins committed while the person was in a state of tzoraat. Possibly, due to his pain, he addressed his prayers then to the attribute of Elokim instead of to the attribute of Hashem, the only one to whom prayers may be addressed. This may be the reason that the Torah adds the word מטומאתו when speaking of this specific atonement. The burnt offering and the gift offering may be the “real” ransom of his soul, permitting him to rejoin society. This is why the Torah may have added the words: “and the priest will provide atonement for him, and he will emerge purified.” It is also possible that this last line of וכפר עליו הכהן וטהר, “and the priest will provide atonement for him and he will emerge purified,” refers to all the foregoing collectively, seeing that also the bird-offerings had as their purpose atonement as we know from their description in connection with plague-like symbols on the walls of someone’s house. (14,53)

ונתתי נגע צרעת, “I will place a tzoraat affliction, etc.” *Rashi, -*seizing on the word נתן meaning “giving,”- explains this verse as good news, saying that these symptoms alert the owner of the house to hidden treasure in that house buried by the previous owner. Other commentators believe that these symptoms both in houses and garments, alert the new owner that these items unbeknown to them used to be artifacts of idolatry and therefore had to be destroyed. Now that the owners had been alerted, they could fulfill the commandment to destroy the items in question.

ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחוזתכם, “I will place a tzoraat in the house of the land of your possession.” Nachmanides writes that the verse is addressed to the entire people of Israel, and it should therefore have been told to the entire nation, i.e. we would have expected the Torah to continue in verse 33 with the words אל כל עדת ישראל, “to the whole community of Israel.” The Torah, for reasons we do not know, decided to abbreviate. Alternately, the point is that the Torah spoke to Moses and Aaron in their capacity as the representatives of the whole people. The reason why the Torah, at this time, informed only Moses and Aaron of the legislation pertaining to such afflictions, is that all the details would have to be taught to the priests. Moses thought it pointless to teach all these details now, and preferred to wait until the Israelites would be on the point of entering and conquering the land. In Deut. 24,8 Moses does indeed warn the Israelites to observe all the pertinent laws and to follow the instructions of the priests concerning them.

ואם ישוב הנגע ופרח בבית, “and if the affliction returns and erupts in the house, etc.” According to Nachmanides the affliction the Torah speaks of here does not again show up on the same stones as previously, but the same kind of affliction now appears on other stones and other earthen parts of the same house. This is different from when skin afflictions either shrunk or expanded on an afflicted person. On those occasions the Torah described changes occurring in the original symptom of the affliction. In matters of skin irregularities it is not unusual for symptoms to temporarily subside, only to resurface even more pronouncedly at a later stage of the disease. The disease not only had not disappeared, but, by penetrating more deeply into the body below the skin it had taken a firmer hold on the afflicted person. This is why the Torah here does not write: ואם ישוב הנגע ופרח באבנים ההם, “and if the affliction resurfaces and spreads out on these stones, etc,” but it writes in such a way that we understand that even if now the affliction surfaces in a part of the house that had not been afflicted at first, etc. The word בבית means that the entire house is viewed as having been potentially at risk as soon as any part of it had shown symptoms of being afflicted with this tzoraat. The reason for all this, the need to totally tear down the house, is that the רוח הרעה, the harmful atmosphere that had been responsible for the affliction first erupting, will not disappear until all the stones, etc., have been completely removed. Otherwise, there will always remain the risk that the reconstructed house would suddenly erupt with the same symptoms as had led to the partial destruction of the original house. The Midrash explains how one can understand all the verses without having recourse to the principle that the Torah is not bound to write everything sequentially, in chronological order.

וכפר על הבית וטהר, “he shall provide atonement for the house and it will become purified.” According to Nachmanides this atonement is effected through the bird that is released into the air outside the city into the field. This bird is perceived as carrying away all the sins of the person who has purchased it and gone through the ritual with the help of the priest. The procedure is analogous to the שעיר המשתלח, the “scapegoat” that we are familiar with from the Day of Atonement rituals, although that scapegoat is thrown to its death. The reason why this procedure differs from that of a person who experiences tzoraat on his skin, is that the penalty for the sins of a person whose house is afflicted with tzoraat is much less than that of the person whose skin has become afflicted. The sin of the persons whose house was afflicted was far less serious than that of the person afflicted with tzoraat on his skin. The latter had to bring also a sin offering and a guilt offering. The initial atonement procedure is sufficient to cleanse the owner of the afflicted house of his sin. Some commentators believe that every “atonement” mentioned in connection with any of three types of tzoraat afflicting house, garments, or skin as well as the “atonement” mentioned by the Torah in connection with the offering the Torah demands of a mother who has given birth recently, as well as the people afflicted with the disease known as zav, mentioned in the following chapter, is not a term for “forgiving a sin,” but is a term denoting the purification of the party concerned having been successfully completed. We find the term used in that sense in Gittin 56, where the words לכפורי ידיה בהאי גברא mean that “G’d wants to ‘clean’ His hands,” i.e. punish him for having been the instrument through whom Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed. Clearly, the meaning of the word there is not “atonement” in the normal sense of the word.