레위기 14:2의 주석

'תהיה תורת וגו ‎זאת THIS SHALL BE THE LAW [OF THE LEPER IN THE DAY OF HIS BEING PRONOUNCED CLEAN] — The words “in the day” inform us that we may not pronounce him clean at night (Sifra, Metzora, Section 1 3; Megillah 21a).

THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER IN THE DAY OF HIS CLEANSING: HE SHALL BE BROUGHT UNTO THE PRIEST. Scripture is stating that this shall be the law of the leper in the day that he wishes to be pronounced pure, that he should be brought to the priest, as he can never attain purity except by means of the priest’s word. Then [in the following verse] Scripture tells that the priest shall go forth to the place of his [the leper’s] habitation out of the camp,¹Verse 3. but he [the leper] is not to come to the priest even though his leprosy has been healed.²Since the plague is a form of punishment, (see Ramban above, 13:47), the priest’s visit to his habitation on the day that the affliction of leprosy is healed is an indication that his repentance has been accepted. Hence the Torah commands the priest to go to the person who had suffered the affliction, and not the other way (Klei Yakar). The interpretation thereof in the Torath Kohanim is as follows:³Torath Kohanim, Metzora 1:3. “And he shall be brought unto the priest, this means that he is not to wait.” If so, Scripture is stating that on the same day that he is cleansed, [meaning] that he is cured from his leprosy,⁴There is thus a distinct difference between the first interpretation, and that of the Torath Kohanim. At first we explained b’yom tahoratho (on the day of his cleansing) as meaning: “on the day that he is to be pronounced clean, he is to be brought to the priest, for no one else can so pronounce him” (see Note 46 in Seder Tazria). But according to the Torath Kohanim the verse means: “on the day he is actually ‘cleansed’ of the sickness, i.e., on the day that he is physically healed of the affliction, there must be no delay and he is to be brought before the priest.” he is to be brought even against his will to the priest. Similarly, the verses, And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue;⁵Further, 15:13. But if she be cleansed of her issue,⁶Ibid., Verse 28. mean when [the issues] will cease and the persons become cleansed of them, as I have explained [i.e., that the term “cleansing” in the verse before us means “the healing” of the leprosy, and the same meaning applies to “the cleansing,” of him or her that hath an issue]. This is the correct explanation.

והובא אל הכהן, to a site near the boundary of the encampment where the priest can come to inspect the afflicted person easily without having to subject himself to special effort.

זאת תהיה תורת המצורע, "This shall be the law of the "leper," etc. The entire verse seems superfluous. All the Torah had to tell us was that the afflicted person shall purify himself and be brought to the priest. Torat Kohanim explains the word זאת as excluding the purification ritual on an altar other than the one in the Temple. The word תהיה is explained as including people in our own times who suffer from the symptoms described in the Torah. Torat Kohanim on verse 4 relates that Rabbi Tarphon had a staff with which he used to purify "lepers" in his day [he was a survivor of the period during which the Temple was destroyed by the Romans. Ed.]. The word תורת is explained as teaching us that even though the different symptoms produce different kinds of צרעת, and different regulations regarding quarantine etc., they are all terminated by the offering of the same kind of offering as outlined in this chapter. The word ביום means that the process of purification described here must take place by day. One might think that the slaughtering of the birds for the offering and the afflicted person's shaving himself would be permissible at night; to prevent us from thinking this the Torah wrote זאת. Thus far Torat Kohanim.

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.

That we do not proclaim him pure at night. You might ask: Why does Scripture need to write, “on the day of his purification”? It is written elsewhere (7:38): “On the day that he commanded” — in the day but not at night. The answer is: If it did not write, “on the day of his purification,” I might think that since his sacrifice is different than any other sacrifice, in that it requires waving while [the animal is] alive (v. 12), then its law is different as well. Therefore, it needed [to say,] “on the day of his purification” (so I found).

זאת תהיה תורת המצורע, “This shall be the law of the person afflicted with the skin diseases discussed in the previous chapters, etc.” the very word מצורע contains a hint that describes why, in most instances, such a person has been afflicted with this disease. It is because he bad-mouthed fellow Jews. The word is a combination of מוציא שם רע, “he called someone by a bad name.” Compare Talmud tractate Erchin folio 16. We also find that the Talmud attributes the demise of four people who had been guilty of this sin as losing their claim to an afterlife; they are: Bileam, Doag, Achitofel, and Geychazi, the disciple of the prophet Elisha. (Compare details in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 106. [That chapter deals with people who have or will forfeit their claim to an afterlife. Ed.]Solomon in Kohelet,5,5, also deals with this subject when he wrote: אל תתן את פיך לחטיא את בשרך, “let not your mouth bring guilt on your flesh;” which sin did he had in mind? The sin of badmouthing fellow Jews. Solomon referred to the same sin in Proverbs 18,21, when he said: מות וחיים ביד לשון, “death and life are within the power of the tongue.” Death is liable to follow abuse of the power of speech, whereas life is at the disposal of people who meticulously observe the Torah and study it. The Torah is the remedy with which the sin of evil gossip can be atoned for. It is known as the עץ חיים, “the tree of life.” We know this also from Solomon, who said in Proverbs 15,4: מרפא לשון עץ חיים, “the tree of life can heal (the harm caused) by abusing one’s power of speech.” Intensive Torah study prevents a person from becoming guilty of using his power of speech. The guilt of לשון הרע, evil gossip, is considered as greater that that of being guilty of shedding innocent blood. When one is guilty of the latter, one had only killed one life, whereas when one is guilty of evil gossip, one is guilty of killing at least three people, the one who engages in it, the one who listens to it, and the one about whom this evil gossip has been spread. We find an illustration of this in Samuel I 22, where King Sha-ul killed all the priests resident in the city of Nov because he had listened to the false accusations spread against them by Doag. Sha-ul was killed on account of that sin as we know from Samuel Il 1,9: עמוד נא ומותתני כי אחזני השבץ, “stand over me and finish me off, for | am in agony and barely alive;” whenever we encounter the expression שבץ, it refers to the priestly garments, as we know from Exodus 28,39: ושבצת הכתונת שש, “make the fringed tunic out of fine linen.” Concerning Doag, the slanderer, in this story we have it on the authority of Psalms 52,7 that he was killed in this world and deprived of the after life, i.e. גם אל יתצך לנצח יחתך וגו', “also G–d will tear you down for good, and root you out, etc.” The Talmud in tractate Erchin, folio 15, states that the sin of tale-bearing is greater than murder, incest or idolatry.

ביום טהרתו, “on the day of his purification;” this teaches that his state of defilement, purification, the slaughtering of the birds, and the sprinkling of their blood, as well as his being shaved, all take place on the same day.

You note that the author of Torat Kohanim used the word זאת exegetically both to exclude temporary altars or altars outside the Temple, as well as to forbid the afflicted person shaving himself at night, etc. The basis for these multiple inferences from the same word is that the Torah wrote two restrictive clauses (זאת, ביום) before mentioning the word טהרה, "purification." If the Torah had wanted to make only a single exclusion, the main subject of the verse, i.e. the purification, should have appeared next to either one of these מעוטים, restrictive expressions. For example, the Torah could have written: תורת המצורע, זאת תהיה ביום, "the law of the leper; this shall occur by day." We would then have understood that only the word ביום was to serve as a restrictive clause. The purification rites would then have been permissible on whatever altar was in use by the Jewish people at that time. The Torah could also have written the following sequence: ביום טהרת המצורע זאת תהיה תורתו, "on the day the 'leper' is purified, this shall be the law of his purification rites." The restrictive clause would then have applied only to the offerings, not to the time of day when the offering had to be brought. This latter version would not have contained a single additional letter except that the words would have been rearranged.

והובא אל הכהן, “and he will be brought to the priest.” We read this as if it had been written in the past tense, i.e. ובא אל הכהן, “he had come.” The reason is that there was no one who could have brought him, as everyone had been warned not to associate with him in any manner. Compare Leviticus 13,46: בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה מושבו, “he must dwell in isolation, his residence must be beyond the boundaries of the camp.”

ביום טהרתו, this also teaches that he is not to tarry in performing these rites. והובא אל הכהן, “after he had been purified he shall be brought to the priest;” while still outside the camp, but where the priest can inspect him without undue discomfort. We know that the afflicted person could not yet have entered the confines of the camp from what is written immediately following, i.e. that the priest had to leave the camp in order to perform his duties. An alternate explanation: the words: “and he was brought to the priest,” mean that he had to be brought to the priest because he was still resident outside the camp, so that he had to be brought to the boundary. The priest on his part came as near as he could in order to meet him.

Vayikra Rabbah 16,2 derives the idea that the person afflicted had been guilty of slander from the unnecessary words זאת תהיה. We need to understand why the Torah chose to allude to this fact at this point just when the afflicted person undergoes the rites of purification. I believe that the fact that his first offerings have to be the birds which are characterised by their constant twittering is the key to this. These birds are a reminder of the afflicted person's loose tongue, the sin of לשון הרע. The Torah first wrote these unnecessary words to allude to the reason why the first offerings in his rehabilitation process must be the birds.

We may also understand these verses as follows: the affliction of "leprosy" develops due to pollutants in the body and gradually these negative influences within the body gain in strength until their presence becomes noticeable on the skin. Such physical symptoms also are accompanied by psychological symptoms developing. The afflicted person becomes morose, miserly, and his mind becomes depressed. The natural antidote are activities which help to cheer up a person, cause him to laugh and to enjoy himself. Now that the person under discussion has become afflicted with צרעת, it was natural for him to think that his disease was a natural occurrence. If someone were to tell him that it was his loose tongue which had resulted in this affliction he would not believe such a person, nor would he admit that he had been guilty of a loose tongue. This is why G'd in His wisdom decided to decree isolation for such a person, for his garments, (13,45) etc. While quarantined, such a person is apt to take stock of himself and to regret his former conduct. He will then observe that he has not been able to use his tongue against other people and that during this period his symptoms recede or vanish although by natural law he would have expected the symptoms to increase; he will find that the very affliction opened his eyes and he will realise why he had been afflicted. He will repent, confess his sin, and purify his tongue and realise that he was not the victim of a chance disease. When the Torah writes זאת תורת המצורע, this is an allusion to the new insights the afflicted person has discovered and which will lead to his purification. His new insights will prove all this to him ביום טהרתו, on the day of his purification; i.e. that although his isolation deprived him of what would naturally have served to cheer him up, he was healed despite the fact that he should have been morose and depressed while in solitary confinement. This will convince him that it was the wrong use he had made of his tongue which had resulted in his affliction and he will henceforth guard his tongue carefully. When the Torah concludes verse 3 with the words והנה נרפא נגע הצרעת מן הצרוע, and behold, the "plague of leprosy has been healed 'from the leper,'" the extra words מן הצרוע tell us that the cure was due to the disease itself.

והובא אל הכהן, and he is brought to the priest. Seeing the Torah had previously spoken of ביום טהרתו, on the day of his purification, the formerly afflicted person could have thought that his purification was complete already seeing his symptoms had disappeared; the Torah therefore explains that until he has been declared "clean" by the priest this is not so. Our sages in Torat Kohanim also observe that the words "he will be brought to the priest" imply that there is to be no delay. The reason that the Torah uses a passive form "he will be brought," instead of the usual "he shall come to the priest," indicates that the court will obligate him to go to the priest, or that the priest will take hold of him forcing him to leave his present residence. The same may apply when the symptoms had first shown up; he is obligated to go to the priest and to have the priest examine him.