Comentario sobre Levítico 13:37

ושער שחור AND [THERE BE] BLACK HAIR — Whence do I know that this applies also to yellow or reddish hair which also, like black hair here mentioned, are not gold-coloured? Because it states ושער “and hair” (whatever its colour may be) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9 14). The expression צָהוֹב denotes anything like the appearance of gold, and צהוב is equivalent to זהוב, orpàle in old French (English = pale gold).

טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן, "he is 'clean;' and the priest shall declare him "clean" (ritually pure)." This apparent repetition is explained in the Torat Kohanim as follows: We would have thought that it suffices if the priest simply allows the afflicted person whose נתק has remained unchanged in appearance except that black hair grew on it, to go back to the camp; to teach me that this is not sufficient, the Torah tells us that the priest must first declare such a person as "clean." I would also have thought that if the priest erred and erroneously declared a ritually impure person "clean," that he would henceforth be considered "clean;" this is why the Torah had to write טהור, he is objectively "clean;" the priest merely confirms it. This is an exegesis which Hillel taught when he came from Babylonia as the scholars in Israel at the time had been unable to furnish proof for this halachah from the text of the Torah (compare Jerusalem Talmud Pessachim 6,1). We need to understand why the scholars who had disagreed with Hillel at that time did so.

Tzohov [is] like zohov. That which Rashi explains this here and not above [where it says] (v. 30): “and there is a golden hair in it,” is because above it could be explained that whatever is not black is called tzohov, but after he explains that red and green are included in the word “ושער (and hair)” and are included in “black,” if so, it poses a difficulty: What does tzohov mean? Thus, he explains, etc. (Devek Tov).

ואם בעיניו עמד הנתק, “but if the appearance of the scall has remained static, etc.;” we need to examine what new dimension of the subject has been added by this verse. We already know that if no change had occurred in the symptoms’ appearance that the afflicted person is ritually clean. Perhaps the Torah wished to spell out the law that when a black hair had begun to sprout on the surface under discussion this does not hurt his status. [According to Rashi, it teaches that if the priest had mistakenly declared this person to be ritually unclean he remains so until the priest reverses his decree. Ed.]

ושער שחור צמח בו, “and black hair had grown on it.” The letter ו at the beginning of the word: ושער is not conjunctive, but means “or.” Examples of similar uses of the letter ו are found in Exodus 21,15: מכה אביו ואמו, “if someone strikes father or mother;” and in Exodus 12,5: מן הכבשים ומן העזים תקחו, “you are to take from the goats or from the sheep; here too the words ושער mean: או שער, or black hair (grew).

טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן HE IS CLEAN AND THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM CLEAN — Consequently a person who is really unclean whom the priest pronounces clean is not clean. [It is true that the declaration is left to the priest — as pointed out by Rashi on v. 2 — but if he erred or willfully pronounced the unclean person clean it is of no effect for Scripture states: he is clean and the priest then — and then only — shall pronounce him clean] (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9 16).

Thus, an unclean [person]. Is not clean. You should not say since it is a Scriptural decree that the impurity and purity of skin-eruptions depends on the kohein’s declaration, [and] although a skin-eruption has all the signs of impurity he is not impure as long as the kohein does not say, “impure,” the same applies if he has signs of impurity and the kohein declares him pure he will be pure. Therefore, it lets us know: “He is clean, and the kohein shall declare him clean,” etc. Re’m writes: “The same applies if he was pure and the kohein declared him impure, he is not impure.” This lets us know that the impurity of skin-eruptions and their purity are only according to the word of the kohein, and the explanation is thus: Although a pure person developed certain signs of impurity, he only loses his previous presumption (chazokoh) [of being pure] by the word of the kohein who says to him, “You are impure.” The proof is from a bridegroom and festival (see Rashi 13:14). Similarly, a person that was certainly impure who was healed and developed the signs of purity only loses his chazokoh of being impure by the word of the kohein who tells him, “You are pure.” (Nachalas Yaakov). The same applies if he was pure and the kohein declared him impure and erred, he will be pure. You need not ask: Why did Scripture not write this, which would be a greater novelty — that we are lenient and do not pay attention to that which the kohein declared him impure? [The answer is:] It is obvious that immediately when the kohein’s error in declaring him impure is discovered it will be as if the kohein never said anything. Consequently, the person is pure. This is not so regarding someone who is truly impure and the kohein erred to declare him pure, [it is not enough to say that it is as if the kohein never said anything], for the kohein needs to explicitly declare him impure, since any truly impure person is only impure when the kohein declares him impure (Divrei Dovid).

It seems clear that the meaning of the line is as explained by Torat Kohanim. If the word טהור had not appeared, I would naturally have assumed that the priest, who is after all the expert in all these laws, would decide the status of the person in question. As a result, if the priest is aware that there is a בהק, a dull white spot, he will release the person from his quarantine so that he can go home to his family. The Torah therefore writes both טהור וטהרו to inform us that there is a formality to be observed. This exegesis could not be confirmed until Hillel returned to the land of Israel and quoted it in the name of his teachers Shmayahu and Avtalyon. Let us now return to the statement that this ruling of Hillel (resp. his teachers) is good only if the priest did not err and declare someone as "clean" whose skin had not undergone the necessary changes. Do not ask that perhaps what the Torah meant with the word טהור was that even if the afflicted person was himself aware that he was "clean" by then, the priest's declaration was still essential for him to resume his normal life. Such reasoning is very forced and if one had to choose between both possible approaches Hillel's exegesis is far superior. Seeing that the reasoning we apply is the basis of a religious ruling, it is preferable to accept the approach of Torat Kohanim rather than getting involved in forced explanations.

טהור הוא, “he is ritually pure;” the reason is that the plague has not changed for the worse, or that growth of black hair proves that the follicle it grew out of is healthy, and the flesh surrounding it has not become weaker.

I have seen a statement in Vayikra Rabbah 22,1 that there is nothing in the way of Torah exegesis which had not been taught to Moses while he was on Mount Sinai, including what renowned scholars thought they revealed for the first time in the distant future. At the same time we have a statement in Bamidbar Rabbah 19,6 that Rabbi Akiva expounded exegetically matters which even Moses did not know. The Midrash is based on a verse in Isaiah 42,16: "these things (such as making the blind see, etc.) I have done (G'd speaking)." It does not say there that G'd will do these things in the future, but that He has already done them. When did He do them? When He revealed to Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues Torah insights He had not even revealed to Moses." Thus far the Midrash. We appear to be faced with a contradiction between the two Midrashim we have quoted. Many statements in a similar vein abound in our Midrashic literature.

I think we have to understand these statements in the following manner: It is true that everything which is of a Biblical nature was revealed to Moses and no one since has become privy to something Moses did not already know at that time. The difference between Moses and subsequent generations of scholars is that Moses had been given both the written and the oral Torah from G'd directly. G'd, in His wisdom, had recorded all the parts of the oral Torah He had revealed to Moses in the written Torah also. He had not, however, revealed to Moses where all the parts of the oral Torah He had taught him were to be found in the written Torah. The labour of discovering all these allusions to the oral Torah in the written Torah was left for all the Torah scholars after Moses. It is their task to find proof in the written Torah for all the halachot G'd had taught Moses orally. The reason the scholars of the Mishnaic period compiled commentaries such as Torat Kohanim was to provide us with the key that enables us to find where the oral law is anchored in the written law. This labour is an ongoing process and it remains our task to establish this linkage between the oral and the written law. The labour is generally called ארץ החיים. Moses was not informed about all this and this is why the sages could state that Rabbi Akiva had become privy to insights not even revealed to Moses. The proof of how this works is found in Hillel's reconstructing from the written text a הלכה which had been revealed to Moses at the time but whose "anchor" in the written Torah had been unknown until that time.