Komentarz do Kapłańska 13:2

'שאת או ספחת וגו‎ — These are the names of leprous plagues — A RISING, A SCAB etc., — and they are the one whiter than the other (cf. Shevuot 5b; Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Section 1 4).

SE’EITH O SAPACHATH O BAHERETH’ (A RISING, OR A SCAB, OR A BRIGHT SPOT). “These are the names of the plagues, each one whiter than the other.” This is Rashi’s language. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that “se’eith is a term for ‘burning,’ the word being associated with the expressions: ‘v’hamaseith’ (and the beacon) began to arise up;⁵²Judges 20:40. ‘va’yisa’eim’ (and) David (burned them).⁵³II Samuel 5:21. It is possible that it is called se’eith [literally: ‘uprising,’ ‘swelling’], because it is in the nature of fire to rise upwards. Sapachath is of the root: ‘sphacheini’ (attach me), I pray;⁵⁴I Samuel 2:36. ‘v’nispechu’ (and they shall cleave) to the house of Jacob⁵⁵Isaiah 14:1. — signifying a sickness which attaches to one place. Bahereth is of the root, ‘bahir’ (bright) in the skies,⁵⁶Job 37:21. becoming a sort of sign or mark.” [Thus far is Ibn Ezra’s interpretation.] If so, the term se’eith is the name of the plague caused by the bitter green burning fluid [in the body],⁵⁷See in Seder Vayikra Note 264. and bahereth is caused by the white fluid, and sapachath is brought about by a combination of both of these fluids. Now our Rabbis have said:⁵⁸Shebuoth 6 b. “The word se’eith is always an expression of ‘rising,’ and so it is stated in Scripture, And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills ‘hanisa’oth’ (that are lifted up),⁵⁹Isaiah 2:14. and sapachath always means ‘attachment,’⁶⁰This means as follows: The two principal colors of leprosy-sign are bahereth and se’eith. To each of these two colors Scripture has added a sapachath — a second shade of it. Thus the number of colors is four. See further, Notes 105 and 107, for the precise nature of these colors and their gradations. and so it is stated in Scripture, ‘sphacheini’ (attach me), I pray.”⁵⁴I Samuel 2:36.

אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו, generally, such phenomena occur when one did not purify oneself from the effects of having had sexual relations or direct contact with the seed of a menstruating woman.

אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שאת או ספחת, when a person shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising or a scab, etc. We have to explain this verse in a similar vein to the statement in Baba Metzia 114 on Numbers 19,14: "you are called אדם, whereas the title אדם is never applied to Gentiles, for the Gentiles are not susceptible to the impurity resulting from the various skin-diseases enumerated in our Parshah." This statement, attributed to the prophet Elijah, is proof that the clothing of Gentiles afflicted with these נגעים, stains mentioned in our chapter, does not confer impurity on Jews in contact with them as we have learned at the beginning of the eleventh chapter of the tractate נגעים.

אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו, none of the verse in the chapters following may be interpreted in the way he sound when read superficially as the phenomena described do not correspond to any skin diseases we are familiar with, and are not subject to medical treatment. What applies to the human skin applies in the same degree to stains on clothing which are described her as well as to manifestations of “mildew” or something similar breaking forth from the walls of houses. The only criteria which we can apply to what is spelled out in these chapters 12-15 are those laid down by our sages of the Midrash, the Talmud, etc, all of which date back to the instructions received orally from Moses.

שאת או ספחת, “different degrees of whiteness of the skin.” Ibn Ezra understands the word שאת as a derivative of שרפה, as in והמשאות החלה לעלות עמוד עשן, “and when the column of smoke began to rise” (Judges 20,40) Similarly, we have in Samuel II 5,21 וישאם דוד, “and David burned them (the idols).” Nachmanides explains that it is possible that this skin disease is called such on account of what it has in common with fire, which rises into the atmosphere. The skin inflammation described breaks through the regular skin, outwards, i.e. upwards. The word ספחת is understood as related to ספחני נא, (Samuel I 2,36) where it means “gather me in,” in our context in the sense of the disease being concentrated in one narrowly defined part of the skin. The word בהרת is related to בהיר, very bright, blindingly white, (Job 37,21) where it describes the sun though bright, or because too bright) as invisible to man. The נגע, skin affliction, is assumed to originate in the greenish coloured gall. שאת is the name of the affliction, after it has already traversed the body and come to the surface of the skin. The Torah is perceived as desiring the purity of the Israelites in every respect, both in body and in spirit, and by externalizing sickness of the body’s interior it alerts the victim that something is wrong that needs to be repaired, needs to be attended to, seeing that any disease is not a natural state and a perfectly pure person is not afflicted with any disease. Even the symptoms described in our verse here are not yet a definitive disease, they are signs that a disease is on the way to develop more fully. To indicate this, the Torah at the outset speaks of נגע צרעת, meaning that this נגע is liable to develop into a fully blown צרעת unless addressed properly. Verse 11 describes the fully developed נגע simply as צרעת, the affliction having developed beyond the need for, or beyond the ability of a trial ostracism reversing the symptoms. Whenever a stage is reached which will ultimately result in צרעת, the priest has to declare the afflicted party as ritually impure with all that this implies as described in the verse following.

A Scriptural decree. Rashi’s view is so because it is written nearby: “He shall be brought to Aharon, the kohein, or to one of his sons, the kohanim.” Why does it need to say, “one”? Also, Scripture does not need to write, “of his sons, the kohanim,” but rather only: “Or to his sons.” Thus, “one” comes to include even a non-kohein, [in the case] that the kohein was ignorant of Torah law he may show [the signs] to a man who knows [the laws of] signs of impurity, although he is a non-kohein. And that which it is written afterwards, “of his sons the kohanim” is to teach that although the kohein does not know the signs of impurity, and needs to show [them] to a Torah scholar who may not be a kohein, nevertheless, the Torah scholar is not allowed to say: This is a sign of impurity or this is a sign of purity. Rather, he must teach the kohein the laws of impurity and purity so that the kohein will tell the person who has the skin-eruption: You are pure or impure. Upon this Rashi explains: “It is a Scriptural decree...”

אדם, a person, i.e. man or woman, minor, male or female.

בהרת means SPOTS, taie in O. F. — Similar is (Job 37:21) “It is a spot (בהיר) in the skies”.

שאת או ספחת או בהרת, different skin afflictions, the common denominator being that they are of different shades of white. We base ourselves on the oral tradition as spelled out in Nega-im 1,1. None of these phenomena correspond to the skin diseases we read about in medical text books. Such phenomena as are mentioned in these textbooks do not result in the afflicted person being considered ritually impure, nor are they subject to the priest deciding if indeed the symptoms require isolation of the afflicted person and when such symptoms can be declared as having disappeared. According to Berachot 5 the only skin afflictions which may be viewed as G’d’s reminder to improve our lifestyle are the four kinds mentioned in our chapter. While they are not classified as afflictions revealing G’d’s love for the person thus afflicted, they are however, described as מזבח כפרה, as “an altar serving as stepping stone to atonement for the character weakness that the afflicted person has to overcome.” G’d does not employ any other medically well known skin diseases as His instrument to call us to order for various sins committed. והובא, anyone who goes to a place to be attended to is not referred to as “coming,” בא, but as being brought, i.e. הובא. Compare Psalms 45,15. The passive mode of the transitive form והגישו אדוניו in Exodus 21,6 is ונגשו אל המשפט, “he his being brought to.”

כי יהיה בעור בשרו, according to tradition, a reference to a skin irregularity on the skin of (surrounding) the beard or the head. Compare verse 29. The Torah had to use the expression

כי יהיה בעור בשרו, which he will have on the skin of his flesh, etc; the Torah informs us here that only the skin of Israelites afflicted with this disease is affected. The disease does not penetrate below the skin. This is a principal difference between Israelites and Gentiles; the latter are perceived as afflicted with this disease through and through. Their entire being is perceived as being part of the צרעת syndrome. If an Israelite has committed a sin which results in נגע צרעת, the skin afflictions mentioned in this chapter, it is visible only on his exterior not on his flesh and certainly not his soul, personality.

בעור בשרו, “on the skin of his flesh;” as will be explained in greater deal forthwith, i.e. an eczema either on his head or his beard. (compare verse 20) at this point the Torah had to mention the skin of his flesh;

'אל אהרון וגו‎ [HE SHALL BE BROUGHT] TO AARON etc. — It is an enactment of Scripture that the uncleanness and purification of leprous plagues are pronounced only by the mouth of a priest (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Section 1 9).

שאת to describe an elevation of the skin in the area afflicted. This is not an actual elevation but an optical impression, i.e. it is not as white as for instance בהרת. We know that בהרת represents the highest purest degree of the colour “white.” This is clear from Job 37,21 בהיר הוא בשחקים, ”although it is brilliantly bright in the sky.” This colour described as שאת is somewhat עמוקה, “deeper,” in the sense of “a lower degree of” בהרת the most brilliant kind of white.

Our sages in Erchin 3 explain the word אדם as meaning that even a baby can be afflicted with the disease related here as babies too qualified for the term אדם. Women too are included as the Torah refers to man and woman combined as אדם in Genesis 5,8.

שאת, an elevation of the skin; when looked at in the shade it appears to the onlooker as if higher that the skin exposed to the sun.

ספחת, a word which is subordinate to שאת,or subordinate to the word בהרת.[something subject to disagreement in Negai-im. Ed.] This is based on Samuel I 2,36 ספחני אל אחת הכהונות “please assign me to one of the priestly duties.” Clearly, the word is used in a subordinate mode

Torat Kohanim adds that the reason the Torah chose the expression בעור בשרו, the skin of his flesh, instead of merely בעורו, on his skin, is to include the skin on which hair does not grow. We are not to think that only skin with follicles, i.e. capable of producing hair, is included here. [the Torah features the colour of hair surrounding these skin blemishes, and it was therefore reasonable to assume that only those patches of hair are subject to this legislation. Ed.] As it is, if a white hair grew in an area normally devoid of hair, the legislation in this chapter applies. Nonetheless the white spot on the skin has to precede the appearance of the hair before this legislation can apply. If an old man or an albino who normally has white hair, first develops the symptoms on the skin described here and a white hair makes its appearance subsequently, it is doubtful if such a person is considered afflicted seeing the hair did not turn white as a result of the condition of the skin surrounding it. On the other hand, the progression of the symptoms conforms to what is written in the Torah. We are unable to determine with certainty that the hair grew white from the source as at the time the person appears before the priest we only see the ultimate result and do not know whether the hair grew black and immediately turned white. Tossaphot in Niddah 19 feel that the bright spot on the skin, בהרת, is presumed to have caused the hair to turn white. At any rate, such a situation is one which is known in הלכה as ספק טומאה, a state of doubtful impurity.

ספחת, an adjective describing the nouns שאת or בהרת. There are subcategories to both שאת and בהרת. An example of nouns that have such adjectives of varying degrees is found in Samuel I 1,37: ספחני נא אל אחת הכהונות, “please attach me to one of the priestly duties.” [Descendants of the High Priest Eli, who had been condemned to become beggars. Ed.]

לנגע צרעת, the area where the affliction surfaces is white skin as we know from Exodus 4,6 מצורעת כשלג, “encrusted with snowy white scales.” As we know snow is white.

שאת או ספחת, a rising or a scab; we are taught in Nega-im 1,1 that the meaning of the word ספחת is a kind of שאת, a whiteness which is a shade darker than that of בהרת, as the colour of שאת is similar to clean wool and similar in whiteness to the whitewash used in the Temple. Even though the expression ספחת occurs in the Torah only in our verse, the same rule is true for a lower degree of whiteness of בהרת which is the whitest of whites, similar to snow in colour. The verse ought to be understood as if the Torah had written: שאת או ספחת, או בהרת וספחתה.

He shall be brought to Aharon, the kohein. His purification is only by means of a kohein because Aharon’s descendents have three good character traits that are the opposite of these: 1) The sin of lashon hara causes arguments and a separation between fellow men. Therefore he is healed by Aharon, who exemplifies the trait of peace, for Aharon was “a lover of peace who pursued peace.” 2) Similarly, the sin of haughtiness of spirit is rectified by Aharon who was extremely humble, as Chazal said: What is written concerning Moshe and Aharon is even greater than that which is written concerning Avraham, because by Avraham it says, “I am dust and ashes” whereas by Moshe and Aharon it says, “What are we?” 3) Also, Aharon did not have the negative character trait of lust for money, since the kohanim did not have an inheritance in the Land and only had what they were given from “Hashem’s Table” [the Divine Service in the Beis HaMikdash]. Therefore, they perfected the trait of being satisfied with little and were not at all close to the trait of miserliness, in which one’s entire goal is to amass huge sums of money.

לנגע צרעת, “to the plague (similar to) leprosy;” the are of this affliction is white looking flesh. Compare Exodus 4,6 מצרעת כשלג, “an eczema white as snow.” It is also written: ומראה הנגע עמוק לבן, “the appearance of the eczema is a deep white.” (Source not found)

We need to understand why the Torah mentioned שאת before it mentioned בהרת, seeing the latter is whiter than שאת, in fact unmatched by anything else in whiteness? Why did the Torah not give us a list of degrees of white in a descending order? We believe that if the Torah had commenced by describing the whitest possible kind of skin-affliction, i.e. בהרת first, and had mentioned the word ספחת later, I could not have derived that שאת also may occur in shades of a secondary degree of whiteness which is part of its category and is called ספחת דשאת. Even if the Torah had written: בהרת או ספחת או שאת, I would have concluded that there are only three categories of the colour white which form a נגע צרעת instead of there being four such categories (2 of them being sub-categories). Even if the Torah had written: בהרת או שאת או ספחת, I would not have known that there is an additional category called ספחת הבהרת, seeing the word appeared only at the end of the sequence. As it is, it is impossible to overlook the fact that the Torah wanted us to know that ספחת is both a sub-category of שאת as well as a sub-category of בהרת.

והובא אל אהרן הכהן, “he is to be brought to Aaron the Priest.” Even against his will, if necessary.או אל אחד מבניו, “or to one of his sons,” even if they are deformed to the degree that they cannot perform sacrificial service in the Temple.

Erchin 15 explains that these afflictions are a penalty for people who have spoken ill of their fellow man. Maimonides explains this in greater detail in the seventh chapter of his Hilchot Deyot. This is what he writes: "A person is guilty of the sin of לשון הרע, a wicked tongue, when he tells something detrimental to the image of this fellow man even though he speaks the truth. If he tells lies about his fellow man he is guilty of the sin of מוציא שם רע, bad-mouthing another human being." We see therefore that one is called בעל לשון הרע, even if one tells the truth about someone, whereas one is called מוציא שם רע when the evil gossip one spreads has no basis in fact. The Torah therefore describes two different categories of skin afflictions, one to be applied to people guilty of לשון הרע, i.e. בהרת, the other to be applied to people guilty of מוציא שם רע, described by the Torah as שאת.The reason the Torah chose the term שאת as an allusion to people guilty of מוציא שם רע is because the Torah said in Exodus 23,1: "do not utter a falsehood." The word בהרת aptly describes someone who engages in לשון הרע, as the word describes something which is the brightest of bright, i.e. true. Although such a person speaks the truth, what he has done is despicable. The sub-categories of which the Torah speaks may be regarded as alluding to the verbiage which surrounds the basic detrimental information which the respective guilty party tries to convey conversationally.

אחד, the letter א has the vowel patach.

והיה לנגע… צרעת, and it will turn into a skin-afliction. Inasmuch as the most important factor determining the impurity resulting from what is and what is not a נגע צרעת is revealed by the colour of certain hairs and not by the colour of the skin alone, the Torah uses the expression צרעת independent of mention of any hair. The word והיה, "it will be," alludes to the fact that what determines if we are dealing with a נגע צרעת has yet to occur.

הכהנים, “the priests;” excluding priests who have defiled themselves by committing certain sins deliberately, so that they have lost their status permanently. How do we know that all the Israelites are included? Answer: from the words “or one of,” which includes anyone who is a member of the Jewish people. If so, what is the point of the Torah having written: “from among his sons the priests?” It is to teach you that only the priests can give a ruling concerning ritual purity and ritual impurity. Not even the Supreme Court can do so. Are then all priests experts by birth? The system works as follows: When the problem of tzoraat arises, someone who has studied the subject is consulted. The priest accepts the superior knowledge of this expert, and makes his ruling based on what he has been told by the expert who has examined the afflicted person. It is irrelevant whether the priest is truly familiar or not with the symptoms the Torah has taught us.

That is that He commanded us that a metsora be impure. And this commandment includes all of the laws of tsaraat of a person: That which is pure from it, that which requires quarantine, and that which needs shaving - that is shaving of the scab - along with quarantine, and that which does not need it; and its other laws and the nature of its impurity. (See Parashat Tazria; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 1-7.)