Commentaire sur Le Lévitique 13:3

הפך לבן [THE HAIR …] IS TURNED WHITE — This means that at first it was dark, and it turned white within the plague. The smallest number of hairs implied by the term שער is two (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 2 2).

AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE PLAGUE BE DEEPER THAN THE SKIN OF THE FLESH. “Every white color appears deep [in contrast to the darker color surrounding it], just as a color illuminated by the sun appears deeper than the shadow.” This is Rashi’s language. For this reason when the Rabbi [Rashi] reached the following verse, stating, And if the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin,⁶¹Verse 4. At this point it is necessary to explain some of the basic principles on which the following discussions of Ramban in this whole section of Tazria are based: (a) Any of the four colors of white (see Note 105) which appears in the skin of the flesh, does not of itself render the person impure, unless in addition it has one of the three symptoms of impurity, which are: if the plague has turned a minimum of two black hairs in the white patch in the flesh to white, or some “quick flesh” has appeared in the middle of the plague, or, if not having had one of these symptoms to begin with, the person was shut up for seven days, and then it was seen that the white patch of the plague had spread in the skin. (b) If any of these four colors appear in a place where there was an inflammation or a burning inflammation, the person is rendered impure only by means of one of these two symptoms: hair changing color from black to white, or the spreading of the white patch of the plague in the skin. The appearance of “quick flesh” in this case is not a sign of impurity. (c) If a plague appears in the hair, the symptoms of impurity are one of two: if the plague has caused a minimum of two hairs to turn gold-colored, or if it has spread in the skin. (d) A special lengthy discussion appears in Ramban (further in Verse 29) as to the precise nature of the plague which the Torah calls nethek (Verse 30), and which laws regulate it. Other laws pertinent to these discussions are clearly set forth in the text. Finally, it should be noted that a person shut up or quarantined for a week by the priest is rendered unclean in every respect as a leper that is certified unclean, except that he need not go with unkempt hair and rent garments; also, if declared “clean” by the priest at the end of the week he need not do the cutting off of the hair and the bringing of the bird-offerings etc., as they are required of the leper that had been certified unclean when healed of his leprosy (see further Chapter 14) (Megillah 8 b). he wrote, “I do not know the meaning of this.” The sense of Rashi’s statement is as follows: It appeared to him difficult, for since the bright spot is white, it is impossible that the appearance thereof should not be deeper than the skin, even as the color of anything illuminated by the sun appears deeper than the shadow!
Now we are in a position to remove this difficulty. For the verses do not speak of the appearance of a plague seeming deeper than the skin, unless two hairs in the plague become white [such being the case in Verse 3 before us]. But when it states [as it does in the following verse], and the hair thereof be not turned white, it says, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin.⁶¹Verse 4. At this point it is necessary to explain some of the basic principles on which the following discussions of Ramban in this whole section of Tazria are based: (a) Any of the four colors of white (see Note 105) which appears in the skin of the flesh, does not of itself render the person impure, unless in addition it has one of the three symptoms of impurity, which are: if the plague has turned a minimum of two black hairs in the white patch in the flesh to white, or some “quick flesh” has appeared in the middle of the plague, or, if not having had one of these symptoms to begin with, the person was shut up for seven days, and then it was seen that the white patch of the plague had spread in the skin. (b) If any of these four colors appear in a place where there was an inflammation or a burning inflammation, the person is rendered impure only by means of one of these two symptoms: hair changing color from black to white, or the spreading of the white patch of the plague in the skin. The appearance of “quick flesh” in this case is not a sign of impurity. (c) If a plague appears in the hair, the symptoms of impurity are one of two: if the plague has caused a minimum of two hairs to turn gold-colored, or if it has spread in the skin. (d) A special lengthy discussion appears in Ramban (further in Verse 29) as to the precise nature of the plague which the Torah calls nethek (Verse 30), and which laws regulate it. Other laws pertinent to these discussions are clearly set forth in the text. Finally, it should be noted that a person shut up or quarantined for a week by the priest is rendered unclean in every respect as a leper that is certified unclean, except that he need not go with unkempt hair and rent garments; also, if declared “clean” by the priest at the end of the week he need not do the cutting off of the hair and the bringing of the bird-offerings etc., as they are required of the leper that had been certified unclean when healed of his leprosy (see further Chapter 14) (Megillah 8 b). For such is the distinctive characteristic of anything illuminated by the sun: if there is something black scattered about in it, there will not be an appearance of depth to a person who looks at it. Now hair in its natural state is dark, and therefore destroys the appearance of depth of the plague. When the hairs in the plague have turned white or yellow,⁶²Further, Verse 30. then only does the whiteness of the plague shine brightly, and appears to anyone who looks at it from a distance as if it were deeper [than the skin of the flesh].
Yet despite all this, that which the Rabbi [Rashi] has said — “Every white color is deeper [in contrast to dark colors surrounding it]” — does not appear to me to be correct. For the Rabbis have said:⁵⁸Shebuoth 6 b. “The word se’eith is always an expression of ‘rising,’” and the se’eith is white, as it is written, ‘se’eith l’vanah’ (a white rising),⁶³Ibid., Verse 10. and the Rabbis have further said:⁶⁴Shebuoth 5 b. “Se’eith is [as white] as white wool, and its second [subsidiary] shade is as white as the membrane of an egg.” Thus se’eith is very white, and [according to Rashi] it should appear very deep, so why then do the Rabbis call it “rising?” Scripture also does not state anywhere concerning the color of se’eith that it is deeper than the skin!⁶⁵Further in Verses 19-20 Scripture states: And in the place of the boil there is ‘se’eith l’vanah’ (a white rising) or ‘bahereth’ (a bright spot) … and the priest shall look; and behold, if the appearance thereof be ‘shaphal’ (lower) than the skin. Now the word shaphal (lower) refers obviously to both se’eith and bahereth mentioned before. But according to Rashi, Ramban asks, why does it not state concerning the color of se’eith that it is ‘amok min ha’or’ (“deeper” than the skin) instead of “lower” than the skin, when, as Rashi put it, “Every white color is ‘deeper’ [in contrast to the black surrounding it]?” And here too (in Verse 3 before us) it merely says that the appearance of ‘the plague’ be deeper, but it does not say so about the se’eith! And in the Torah Kohanim the Rabbis have said:⁶⁶Torath Kohanim Tazria, Negaim 1:4. “What is the meaning of the term se’eith? It is ‘rising,’ just as the color of the shadow is higher than that of anything illuminated by the sun.” And if every white color is deep [in contrast to a dark color surrounding it, as Rashi put it], then the fact is the opposite [of what the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim]! Perhaps we may say that the terms se’eith signifies “rising” in contrast to bahereth, so that if you place both of them together, the bahereth will appear as if illuminated by the sun, and the se’eith at its side will have the appearance of the shadow, while both of them in relation to the skin [which is darker] will appear as deeper.⁶⁷Thus we have explained the saying of the Rabbis that se’eith signifies “rising,” for it is only in contrast to bahereth which is bright-white like snow, that the duller color of se’eith appears “higher.” Thus there is no contradiction between this statement of the Rabbis and that which Rashi said, that “Every white color is deep etc.,” since the above interpretation of the Rabbis concerning se’eith was with reference to a contrast of a still brighter color. It still remains to explain why Scripture does not speak of se’eith as appearing “deeper” than the skin, but instead speaks of it as being “lower” than the skin (see Note 65 above). This point Ramban will now proceed to explain. Yet Scripture [nonetheless] does not speak of the color of se’eith as being deeper than the skin!
The explanation of this matter appears to me to be as follows. There is a kind of white which shines into and dazzles the eyes just as the appearance of the sun does, with the result that the eyes are incapable of receiving the intense color of that whiteness, and therefore it seems to him [a person looking] as if it were deep, just as the color illuminated by the sun appears deeper than the shadow, because the eye can receive the darker color and it is fixed thereon, whereas the white color scatters the visionary power and appears further removed from it, and therefore seems to be deep. Thus the whiteness of bahereth which is a bright white like snow,⁶⁸Negaim 1:1. causes the visionary power to be weakened, just as it becomes weak in a place illuminated by the sun, provided that there is no black hair in the bahereth, in which case the visionary power concentrates on the black and from there it spreads out to the whole appearance of the plague and does not “flee” from it [on account of its intense whiteness, and therefore it does not appear to be deeper than the skin].⁶⁹This explains Verse 4 which states: And if the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin — on which Rashi had commented, “I do not know the meaning of this,” for the reason explained above. Ramban explains it on the basis of physical laws of nature, that since the verse continues to state, and the hair thereof be not turned white, therefore the visionary power of the eye concentrates on the black hair, and from there it spreads forth to the white plague, and consequently the whiteness does not appear deeper than the skin. Now the plague known as se’eith is also white, but its whiteness is not intense [as that of bahereth]⁷⁰The color of se’eith, as mentioned above, is as white as white wool. and it does not weaken the visionary power; therefore the eye spreads out [over the whole plague] and sees it closely with the result that the se’eith appears near to it and elevated, just as when one looks at the stars which appear to be high in the heavens.
Now in the case of an inflammation [in the skin, in which symptoms of leprosy occurred], Scripture mentions two colors, a white ‘se’eith’ (rising) or a white ‘bahereth’ (bright spot)⁷¹Further, Verse 19. intermingled with red, and states concerning it, behold, it be in sight ‘lower’ than the skin⁷²Ibid., Verse 20. At this point Ramban interprets the phrase quoted as referring back to both se’eith and bahereth. Further on he will explain it as referring only to bahereth. See further, Note 73. but does not say “deeper” [than the skin], because although that bahereth is an intense white, the redness in it lessens the “depth” thereof and makes it appear only slightly “lower” [than the skin].
But by way of the plain meaning of Scripture the phrase behold, it be in sight ‘lower’ than the skin only refers back to the bahereth, but of the white se’eith’ (rising⁷¹Further, Verse 19. it does not say so.⁷³For since Ramban has explained above that it is not in the nature of every form of white to appear deeper than the skin [unlike Rashi who stated categorically, “Every white color is deep etc.,” as a result of which Rashi found it difficult to explain the phrase in Verse 4: and the appearance thereof be ‘not’ deeper than the skin, as mentioned above] and since se’eith is only as white as white wool, unlike the bahereth which is bright-white like snow, therefore Scripture does not speak of it as appearing “lower” than the skin. Instead, the phrase, behold, it be in sight ‘lower’ than the skin (Verse 20) refers back only to the white bahereth. It is only according to Rashi who wrote that “Every white color appears deeper etc.” that the phrase in Verse 20, behold, it be in sight ‘lower’ etc. refers back to both se’eith and bahereth mentioned in Verse 19. And concerning both of them [se’eith and bahereth] Scripture says [in the case of an inflammation in the skin], But behold, if there be no white hairs therein, and it be not lower than the skin, but be dim,⁷⁴Verse 21. for on account of the redness [which is intermingled in the white], and the blackness of the hair, the plague has lost even its appearance of being “lower” [than the skin] and is only “dim.”
In the case of a burning by fire Scripture mentions, and the quick flesh of the burnt part have a white ‘bahereth’ (bright spot), reddish-white or white,⁷⁵Verse 24. and then it continues [in the following verse] to state, and it be in sight ‘deeper’ than the skin;⁷⁶Verse 25. [that refers back only] to “the white” [in the preceding verse, but not to the reddish-white, which, as explained above, does not appear to be “deeper” than the skin]. Then it states further on, But if the priest look on it, and behold, there be no white hair in the ‘bahereth’ (bright spot), and it be no lower than the skin.⁷⁷Verse 26. In this case He mentioned the matter of being “lower” or not with reference [also] to “the reddish-white” [in Verse 24], thus teaching that the appearance of the plague either as “deep” or “low” is an indication of impurity, and that they are only pure if there is no appearance at all [of the bright spot] being “lower” than the skin, but instead it is only “dim.”⁷⁸And if the ‘bahereth’ (bright spot) stay in its place … but it be dim … the priest shall pronounce him clean (Verse 28).
Now the Torah desired the purity of Israel and the cleanliness of their bodies, and it therefore took measures to keep this sickness [of leprosy] far from them at its very inception, for these colors [of the plagues] are not yet the real leprosy, but they lead to it. Doctors state in their books: “We should fear beharoth [bright spots in the skin of the flesh] more than the leprosy itself.” That is the reason why Scripture calls them when they are just beginning, the affliction of leprosy,⁷⁹Verses 2, 3, 9, etc. meaning an affliction of a leprous nature, but not yet the actual leprosy. It is when the symptoms of impurity are clearly identified, after the leper has been put in quarantine [for a trial period], that Scripture says, it is leprosy⁸⁰Verse 8. meaning that it is possible that it is a genuine form of leprosy. At times Scripture will say of impurity, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an affliction of leprosy,⁸¹Verse 25. the meaning thereof being to state that the priest shall declare him impure at once, for it is an affliction of a leprous nature that will surely result in actual leprosy, and therefore it is advisable that he be separated from the people from that moment on. Similarly, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an affliction,⁸²Verse 22. means that it is a great affliction which will not be healed [easily], but instead will grow the whole day and spread [into the skin] as it has done till now.
As to that which Rashi stated [in Verse 3 before us] that: “It is a Scriptural ordinance [the reason of which is not known] that hair that has become white is a symptom of impurity” — this is the interpretation of the thing;⁸³Daniel 5:26. it is the decree of the Most High, which is come upon⁸⁴Ibid., 4:21. that person, for a plague which does not turn the hair white, is only an ugly spot in the skin, but not a secretion which will cause any sickness.

נגע צרעת היא. The Torah repeats this same expression twice in successive verses, and also the expression צרעת היא is repeated both in verse 8 and verse 11. Sometimes, as here and as in verse 22, the word נגע is added. The reason may be that this affliction, in common with other afflictions, is something that develops in stages. Just as the affliction intensifies gradually in its early stages, so it gradually becomes weaker on the way to healing. When it is already a long-standing affliction it is referred to as צרעת יושנת, whereas when it is in its opening stages it is called simply נגע. When it is a fully fledged affliction it is called נגע צרעת. When it is in the process of waning it is already referred to as נרפא הצרעת, an affliction which has healed. When it has healed completely it is referred to as נרפא הנתק. Seeing that this type of affliction is perceived as a warning signal from G’d to the individual experiencing it, i.e. he is reminded to get rid of negative characteristics, the Talmud refers to it as מזבח כפרה “an altar serving as atonement.” The period of isolation serves to remind the afflicted person to review what he may have been guilty of. This concept has been spelled out in Job 36,10 as ויגל אותם למוסר ויאמר כי ישובון מאון, “He opens their understanding by discipline, and orders them back from mischief.”

ומראה הנגע, and the appearance of the affliction, etc. Here we come face to face with the mystical dimension of Psalms 39,7: "man walks about as a mere shadow;" the Psalmist refers to the appearance of raw flesh. When the forces of evil assert themselves in man this makes a visible impression on his flesh. The healthy appearance of his skin disappears. It appears that there is something physically missing, i.e. the skin appears as "deep," as having lost its normal surface. It is remarkable that according to הלכה, one is not ritually impure if this condition covers the entire body, i.e. if this "deepness" leaves no visible mark seeing we cannot detect a contrast with other skin or flesh (compare Shevuot 7).

ומראה הנגע עמוק, white.

וראה הכהן את הנגע, “The priest shall look at the skin disorder, etc.” We are taught in Negaim 1,4 that the priest must not inspect the symptoms for the first time on the first day of the week as it will be necessary to isolate the afflicted person for seven days. Seeing that the Torah writes in verse six that the priest is to inspect the symptoms again on the seventh day and it is not permitted to do son on the Sabbath, this means that the first inspection must not take place on Sunday. By the same token, the first inspection must not take place on a Monday as in the event a third inspection is necessary, the second time the seventh day would occur on the Sabbath. This is why the sages said that when the Torah speaks about 2 weeks (a second series of seven days) this means that the seventh day is counted as part of either week, i.e. the two weeks actually comprise only thirteen days.

Within the skin-eruption. That which Rashi explains: “Within the skin-eruption” is to tell you that you should not think “has turned white” [means] if there is a white hair near the skin-eruption it is a sign of impurity. Therefore, he explains that only when it is within the skin-eruption. Also, you should not say that if it turned white before he has a skin-eruption it would be a sign of impurity, therefore, he explains: “Within the skin-eruption.” Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: Since it is written in Scripture: “In the skin-eruption” — to say that only if the skin-eruption preceded the white hair, but if the white hair preceded the skin-eruption it is pure, hear from this that sometimes a hair can turn white even without a skin-eruption. If so, when the hair turns white within the skin-eruption it will not be impure, for perhaps it did not turn white due to the plague, maybe it was a some coincidence that it turned [white]. Thus, with regard to this Rashi explains: “The minimum [amount of] hair is two.” Since two hairs turned white, it is surely because of the plague and not a coincidence, for any matter [that occurs] in multiplicity is not a coincidence.

ושער בנגע הפך לבן, “and the hair in the stricken area has turned from black to white.” This is a sign that the affliction has become stronger and the afflicted area attacks the healthy flesh surrounding it. Elderly people experience that their hair turns white as time progresses. However, if the hair had turned white already before the area had been declared as a נגע צרעת, white hair is not a sign of ritual impurity, seeing the change in colour had not been related to the skin’s discolouration. This is what our sages had in mind when they said: “when baheret precedes the manifestation of white hair this is a sign that the person is ritually contaminated; if not, he is ritually pure.” (Sifra)

עמק מעור בשרו [THE PLAGUE] IS DEEPER THAN THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH — Every white colour is deep (in contrast to a dark colour surrounding it) just as the colour of anything illuminated by the sun is deeper than the shadow (Shevuot 6b).

The minimum [amount of] hair is two. I do not know how the Rabbis knew that שער indicates a multiplicity of hairs, etc. (Re’m). See Tosafos Yom Tov, Negaim (4:1).

וראהו הכהן וטמא אותו, and when the priest takes a look at him he will declare him ritually impure. The Torah made the impurity conditional on the priest declaring him so. This reminds us of a statement in Shabbat 119 that two angels accompany a person on his way home from the synagogue on Friday nights and they examine if this person had made the preparations for the Sabbath prior to going to the synagogue. If he did, one angel commends him (the 'good' angel) exclaiming "may you continue to do so," whereas the second angel [who represents man's negative actions Ed.] says "Amen." The reverse happens when the person in question had not made preparations for the Sabbath before the onset of the Sabbath. At any rate, the Talmud suggests that once a positive or negative momentum has been built it feeds upon itself unless something contrary happens. Seeing that it is the priest's duty to obtain atonement for Israel from their impurities, diseases, etc., G'd has commanded him to concur with the judgment of impurity the afflicted person has been subjected to. This state of impurity will continue until the afflicted person turns into a penitent when G'd will remove the symptoms of impurity from him.

וטמא אתו HE SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM UNCLEAN — He (the priest) shall say to him. “Thou art unclean” — for it is an enactment of Scripture that hair that has become white is a symptom of uncleanness.

As the appearance of the sun. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “and the appearance of the plague [is deeper]...” which implies that the appearance is deeper than his flesh and not that the plague is actually deeper than his flesh. Why does the white appearance seem deeper? The answer is: Because a person’s main vision is through the black in his eye, and when he looks at something that has black and white, for instance: the sun which is white and shade which is black, it seems to him the black is closer to him that the white, because the black in the eye receives more of the vision of something that is black than something white.

He must say to him. I.e., not that he should manually make him impure with something that is one of the Fathers of impurity. And this is what Rashi writes, “for white hair is a sign of uncleanness...”