Commento su Levitico 14:7

וטהרו, similar as in 13,45 פרימה ופריעה, baring something, tearing it, removing the offending part.

והזה על המטהר מן הצרעת, and he shall sprinkle on him that is to be purified, etc. Why did the Torah have to write the words מן הצרעת? Is it not obvious that we speak about someone who had suffered from "leprosy?" Perhaps the fact that this sprinkling of the blood mixed with מים חיים of the slaughtered bird still did not complete the purification process and the former "leper" still has to remain outside his home for another seven days shows he is comparable to a woman who had suffered from vaginal secretions, זבה. During these seven days before the former "leper" brings his final offerings and undergoes the procedure outlined in verses 9-20 he is still a primary source of ritual impurity, אב הטומאה. The Torah therefore emphasised by the words המטהר מן הצרעת that the person is being cleansed only of the actual plague called צרעת; he is not yet "clean." If we learn in verse 9 that this person must wash his garments on the seventh day this proves that his body conferred impurity on his clothing during the preceding seven days. This proves in turn that he was a primary source of ritual impurity as secondary sources of impurity do not confer טומאה on clothing. The words מן הצרעת are amply justified then.

והזה שבע פעמים, the verse is somewhat truncated meaning that the priest is to sprinkle seven times on the person about to be ritually cleansed from his affliction of צרעת. 14,11. ואותם, the sheep under discussion.

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)

על פני השדה, “in the open country.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reason that the live bird is released into open country is connected to the fact that the disease it atones for, i.e. carries away with it in a symbolic fashion, was one that was infectious. It is appropriate therefore to release the bird to where it is unlikely to infect anyone (compare Ibn Ezra). This would also explain the spirit of impurity which had settled on the afflicted person as a result of his having submitted to these negative emanations originating with the original serpent. This is all due to his behavior which paralleled that of that serpent when it engaged in slander. This is also why throughout the Talmud and even in the Torah, (compare Aaron’s plea on behalf of Miriam in Numbers 12,12) a person afflicted with this dread disease is compared to a dead person, i.e. the root cause of all defilement and ritual impurity.
Another allusion contained in the words על פני השדה may be to the פורחות השדה, “tramp-like demons,” which infest those areas much as Satan is at home in the desert. Remember that the bird being released here had first been dipped in the blood of its mate which had been slaughtered. The whole procedure of what is happening to the two birds and their atoning for the sin of an individual is reminiscent of the two male goats on Yom Kippur which atone for the collective sins of the people, the live scapegoat being consigned to virgin territory as a “gift, or bribe to Satan.” In this instance the live bird “carried” with it the sins of the person on whose behalf it was offered.
This bird was not allowed to be released either to the desert or the sea as we know from Torat Kohanim Sifra Metzora 2,5 where the examples given are that one must not stand in Jaffa and release the bird in the direction of the sea, nor must one stand in some cultivated area of the country and release the bird into the desert.

שבע פעמים;” seven times.” This bird’s blood was to be sprinkled on the back of the hand of the afflicted person.

Torat Kohanim offers a different explanation, saying that the words מן הצרעת are intended to teach that if someone's ritual impurity is due to contact with a dead body he does not have to undergo seven sprinklings of מים חיים. Had the Torah not written the words מן הצרעת, I would have concluded through a קל וחומר that if a "leper" who does not require sprinklings of water from a well (mixed with the ash of the red heifer) on the third and seventh day of his purification process nonetheless requires seven sprinklings of blood, then a person whose impurity is due to contact with a dead body would certainly need these seven sprinklings of מים חיים spring water mixed with the blood.. Hence the Torah wrote the words מן הצרעת in order to teach me that such a קל וחומר is not admissible. At the end of that Baraitha it is stated that the word וטהרו in verse 7 is restrictive and teaches that the "leper" does not have to undergo sprinklings of well water mixed with the ash of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of his purification rites as does the person who purifies himself from ritual impurity due to contact with a dead body. Had the Torah not written the word וטהרו, I would have learned a קל וחומר that if such a טמא מת who does not require the seven sprinklings of מים חיים plus blood, nonetheless requires sprinkling of well water mixed with the ash of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of his purification rites, the "leper" who even requires the seven sprinklings of blood mixed with מים חיים certainly would also require the sprinkling with well water (containing ash from the red heifer) on the third and seventh day of his own waiting period. The word וטהרו therefore means that the ritual described previously is sufficient.

וטהרו, “and pronounce him ritually pure;”

I do not understand this. Seeing we have already used the words מן הצרעת to teach us that a comparison between a טמא מת and a צרוע, leper, is inadmissible, why did I need the word וטהרו to teach me the same thing?

ושלח את הצפור החיה, “whereupon he is to send off the living bird;” this is a symbol of the purity signifying that the tzoraat has “flown off” the owner of these birds who had suffered the affliction. The allegorical meaning is that whereas previously the owner of this bird had sat on the roof of a house (i.e. homeless and exposed to all kinds of danger, seeing that he had been forbidden any contact with human society, now he had miraculously been readmitted to civilization and all its advantages.)

We may explain this as follows; In the case of the טמא מת the Torah legislated sprinklings of מי פרה on the third and seventh day respectively (Numbers 19, 18-19) without mentioning how many of these sprinklings there had to be. On the other hand, the Torah did mention the number of sprinklings to be administered to someone whose ritual impurity was due to the plague, but it did not mention on which days these sprinklings had to be administered. It would have been quite reasonable to argue that a purification procedure requiring seven sprinklings is a more comprehensive procedure than one which occurs only on the third and seventh day respectively because it takes place only twice. The Torah therefore had to write the word וטהרו to teach that such reasoning is invalid. On the other hand, one could have argued with equal force that if the Torah legislated sprinklings to occur on two days in the case of a טמא מת, whereas the צרוע requires sprinkling only on one day of the seven days he is waiting, this is proof that the purification procedure of the טמא מת is of greater force than the one involving the "leper." Different scholars each adopt one of these two arguments in their approach to our problem. Accordingly, one scholar would have learned the קל וחומר using as his point of departure the case of the טמא מת, whereas the other scholar would have used the קל וחומר using as his point of departure the case of the "leper." As a result the Torah had to write two restrictive expressions, i.e. מן הצרעת as well as וטהרו in order to invalidate either קל וחומר.

Seeing that the logic of at least one of the two scholars arguing in opposite directions must be faulty, you may ask why the Torah should have to bother to invalidate faulty reasoning by writing an extra word! The answer is that we find that the Talmud Berachot 47 on the words עליך אמר קרא, explains that there are numerous instances in Tannaitic exegesis when a verse is used to refute a statement whose logic was faulty in the first place.

I have seen a comment by the outstanding scholar Rabbi Yehudah Rosenish, author of Mishneh Lamelech (commentary on the יד החזקה by Maimonides) on Hilchot Chametz Umatzah 6,2, where he quotes a Baraitha similar to the one we have quoted before whose text is as follows ( Torat Kohanim chapter 11 on Leviticus 23,6): the words הזה חג המצות, mean that on this day matzot are mandatory; on Sukkot, however, matzot are not mandatory. We could have learned a קל וחומר reasoning that if a festival (Passover) which does not require that we move into a Sukkah still requires us to eat matzot, then surely a festival on which we have to move into a Sukkah requires us to eat matzot. The Torah therefore wrote הזה חג המצות to make it clear that matzot are mandatory only on Passover. In chapter 14 of the same Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 23,34 on the sequence of the words הזה חג הסוכות, the following Baraitha is quoted: These words mean that only the festival of Sukkot requires us to move out into huts whereas the festival of Passover does not include such a requirement. I could have learned a קל וחומר saying that if this festival which does not require us to eat matzot nonetheless requires us to move into huts, then a festival, i.e. Passover, which does require us to eat Matzot most certainly also requires us to move into huts. The Torah therefore writes הזה to teach us that only on the festival of Sukkot are we required to move into huts. The author of Lechem Mishneh there raises the same questions we have raised in connection with the Baraitha concerning the words מן הצרעת and וטהרו in our portion. It will be worth your while to see what Rabbi Rosenish answers there although I consider his words slightly forced. There are a number of authorities who do not consider it worth their while to examine Maimonides' rulings critically when what is at issue is a lenient ruling concerning a matter whose biblical origin is doubtful at best. [This is relevant because Maimonides' ruling concerns whether it is adequate to swallow the bitter herbs without tasting them. Ed.]

I believe that the solution to why both of these Baraithot are quoted by Torat Kohanim is quite self-explanatory as we explained earlier. The whole point of our moving into the Sukkah is to remind ourselves of the miracles G'd performed for us after the Exodus as we know from Leviticus 23,43. This move into the Sukkah is an additional dimension of our recalling the Exodus. It was quite natural therefore to suppose that we should also eat matzot on that festival to symbolise our remembrance of that miracle seeing the Torah commanded us to sit in the Sukkah, something we do not have to do on Passover. The Torah had to write the word הזה to teach us that there is no need to do this. On the other hand, the festival of Passover also reflects a dimension of that miracle which is not present in the festival of Sukkot in that we celebrate it on the anniversary of its occurrence, on the 15th of Nissan. One could have supposed therefore that it would be in order to observe it while sitting in Sukkot, seeing that we have to sit in the Sukkah even when we observe this remembrance without it being on the anniversary of the event it commemorates. It was reasonable then for the author of the Baraitha to assume that but for the extra words הזה on both occasions such a קל וחומר would have been in order. The author tries to demolish the explanation by Lechem Mishneh arguing that if the whole קל וחומר was only based on a possible הלכה as opposed to a definite one, it could not have been called קל וחומר at all. [I have left out some of the details of this reasoning. Ed.]