Commentary for Leviticus 13:4

ועמק אין מראה AND ITS APPEARANCE BE NOT DEEPER [THAN THE SKIN] — I do not know the meaning of this.

ועמוק אין מראה מן העור, even though the sages (Shevuot 6) have said that everything which looks white is described a looking deep, recessed, as the sun appears as if deeper than the shadow, so that the wording of our verse appears to be incompatible with the statement of the sages, seeing that the skin itself is a form of something whitish the Torah means that the relationship of the normal skin to the whiteness of the tzoraat is comparable to the appearance of the shadow to the sun. [a spot of shadow on a bright day, is after all not “black” as is the darkness of the night. In fact, compared to the darkness of the night, it might be viewed as a weak “white.” Ed.]

ועמוק אין מראה, it is not the same kind of white as the other kinds of scales on the skin mentioned thus far.

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.

I do not know its [proper] interpretation. It appears that Rashi is bothered by the difficulty: It should say: “ואין מראה עמוק מן העור,” [instead of ועמוק אין מראה]! So Rashi answers: If Scripture had written so, it would imply that the appearance is not deep at all. If so, it would pose a difficulty: Why does it require confinement, since it does not have a white appearance and the hair has not turned white? Now, however, that it says: “ועמוק אין מראה,” it implies that there is a small amount of depth [appearance], but it is not deeper than the skin. Thus, it does not have the minimal amount, and it has not reached [the level of] the four appearances [as described in Mishnah Negaim (1:1)]. Nevertheless, it is deep and therefore requires confinement. With regard to this Rashi says: “I do not know its interpretation,” i.e., the explanation of its minimal amount: which depth requires confinement and which depth does not require confinement. Divrei Dovid explains in this way as well, and he follows his view (see there). Rashi [said he does not know] because it posed a difficulty to him: Since a snow-white spot (בהרת) is white, why is it not deeper [in appearance] than the skin? Every white appearance is deeper than the dark [background], as I explained! Due to this difficulty, Rashi did not know the verse’s explanation. Ramban explains similarly. The explanation lying behind his explanation is that according to the view of Rambam and Rashi all the four appearances [of the signs of skineruptions] are deeper [than the skin]. They explain that a spot of intense whiteness (שאת) is slightly higher [in appearance] than בהרת, as Rashi explains in Shavuos (5b), and so the Kesef Mishneh explains in Hilchos Tzora’as (1:6). However, it was momentarily hidden from the Beis Yosef that Rashi explains the same way as he explained Rambam. This is not so according to the view of Targum Yonoson and Ra’avad, [who explain] that שאת is higher [than the skin itself], according to the plain meaning of the Baraisa, and only the strong בהרת is deeper [than the skin]. And if we explain, “ועמוק אין מראה” according to the view of Rabbi Akiva, [it means] as compared to the skin of a white man. However, the Sages said: These and these are [judged] like an average person, i.e., for a German (who is very white) or a Kushi (Ethiopian, very dark skinned), we place medium-darkness paint around the skin-eruption [to judge it]. Still, it remains difficult: Which medium paint? There are a number of levels of “medium”! [Thus,] Rashi did not know how to interpret this (Rav Yaakov Trivash). Ramban answered this question according to the view he had in Rashi’s opinion. [Rashi was bothered by the difficulty mentioned above that a white mark will always appear “deeper” than a dark background. Ramban explains that since the hair has not turned white, the skin-eruption’s whiteness is dimmed by the black hair within it, and so it does not seem so deep].

והסגיר הכהן, “the priest shall lock up (the afflicted person).” This will enable him subsequently to determine if the affliction has spread. If one looks at the same section of skin every day, it is difficult to notice any changes. But if one has not seen it for a period of time, any changes can be noticed immediately. It is assumed that these changes, if any, occur very gradually. When Noach was in the ark and he wished to check if the water level around him had dropped, he also allowed seven days to elapse between dispatching a raven or a dove to examine this state of affairs. (Genesis 8,10). Actually, this comparison is not valid, as in our situation the priest had already marked the outer limits on the skin of the symptoms of the afflicted person clearly. He took the additional precaution of locking that person up in order to prevent him from tampering with what he had marked. He suspected such a person of trying to mislead him at the next inspection of the nega, skin-eczema.

ואם בהרת לבנה היא, “but if the bright spot is white on the skin;” but it is not so white that the appearance of the afflicted area is as if recessed under the skin; as is written: “and its hair has not turned white;” ועמוק אין מראה, “and its appearance is not deeper, etc.” Rashi writes concerning these words, that he does not understand their meaning. What he meant was: seeing that its appearance as white, how is it possible that it did not look deeper?Some commentators say that the words ועמוק אין מראה mean that its appearance is not like the appearance of skin which has been afflicted with שחין, the plague known from Egypt as the skin breaking out in boils. (Torat Kohanim on verse 21) This would mean that the affliction while neither lower nor higher, appears as level with the remainder of the skin.

והסגיר HE SHALL SHUT [HIM UP] — He shall shut him up in one house and shall not see him again until the end of the week. Then the symptom that show themselves shall decide regarding him whether he is unclean or not.

One house. Meaning: The kohein confines the man afflicted; as a result, the plague is confined as well. [It does] not [mean] he should cover the skin-eruption for seven days (Re’m). [Rashi explains this] so that you should not say that during the seven days he might be confined once in this place and another time in that place in a way that each day is a [different] confinement. Therefore, Rashi explains that the confinement should be one time in one house, and he will not be seen seven days. This excludes that if he would be seen during the seven days, even if the skin-eruption spreads, he is not impure, because possibly it could change at the end (Divrei Dovid).

ועמוק, “and if deeper;” we find that the Torat Kohanim explains that the reason why the Torah wrote the unusually long “and the nega had not assumed a deeper appearance than the skin in the interval between the inspection then the afflicted person is pronounced ritually contaminated,” is that if it had not done so, we would have thought that only a spreading of the symptoms would lead the priest to declare the afflicted person as ritually contaminated. The fact that the area afflicted had not diminished, is proof that the symptoms had been that which the afflicted person himself had suspected to begin with. The Torah uses similar language when discussing symptoms of boils in verse 20 of our chapter. The wording of the entire chapter has to be understood in this vein. However, according to the explanation of Rashi, the word עמוק has to be understood as relative, i.e. like shade compared to an area lit up by the sun. This does not sound like a good comparison for the word הסגר, “locking up.” Our author admits that when speaking of north Europeans who have a very light skin the comparison is more apt. With people like that the appearance of the nega described in the Torah is not usually so much different from his normal skin colour. This sounds far fetched as we are told that the skin eczema known as baheret, is as white as snow, and what can be whiter than snow?

ושערה לא הפך לבן, and the hair which formerly had been black had not turned white; the letter ה in the first word ושערה (here, as opposed to verse 20) does not have the dot that we would have expected if it were to mean: “its appearance.”

והסגיר הכן, “and the priest will lock him up;” at the end of another seven days the priest will understand if there has been a further expansion of the afflicted area. When someone observes a condition constantly, he would not recognise minor changes; but if he had not looked at that area for a period of seven days, it is much easier to judge if there had been a change.