Komentarz do Kapłańska 13:44

בראשו נגעו HIS PLAGUE IS ON HIS HEAD — I have only a statement that the following laws apply to the case of נתקין, plagues on hairy places! Whence may we learn that there are included the sufferers from all other kinds of leprous plagues? Because it states מא יטמאנו‎ט, “he shall in any case proclaim him unclean” (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 12 2)— thus including all of these: regarding all of these it says: “his garments shall be rent etc.”.

צרוע הוא טמא הוא, he is "leprous," he is ritually impure. It appears best to approach these words in the same way Hillel approached the words טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן in verse 37. Here the force of the exegesis is even more convincing as the word צרוע refers to the body of the afflicted person whereas we still require that the priest declare him to be ritually impure. This means that legally speaking, his symptoms notwithstanding, the afflicted person would not be considered subject to the laws of impurity until the priest had declared him to be impure.

טמא הוא, טמא יטמאנו הכהן, “he is ritually impure, the priest has to declare him as impure.” In verse 37 in a parallel situation the Torah used similar syntax writing טהור הוא, וטהרו הכהן, “he is ritually pure, and the priest shall declare him as ritually pure.” From both of these verses we learn that even though the priest has observed unmistakable signs of either purity or impurity it is essential for him to confirm this by saying so. We have been taught at the end of the first chapter of the Tossephta of Nega-im that this was one of the reasons that prompted Hillel to return to the land of Israel from Babylon. He wanted to make certain that these procedures are understood and followed to the letter. He moved to Israel in order to explain the reasons for these rules to the local Rabbinical authorities.

Other afflicted persons. Meaning: I [know] only of nesokin that require that “his garments shall have a tear in them and his hair...” You might ask: Rashi should explain this on [the verse that follows:] “His garments shall have a tear in them.” The answer is: This is Rashi’s view: Do not think you should say [the phrase] “his skin-eruption is on his head” is extra, as [I might think since] the entire section speaks about the head. Perforce, it comes to include other types of afflicted persons. You cannot say this, because we only learn from “his skin-eruption is on his head” other afflicted persons that are [of the sort] of skin-eruptions of nesokim, which resemble the baldness in back of the head or in front of the head, both of which are in the head — that his garments shall have a tear in them and all the rest of the laws of the impurity of baldness in back of the head or in front of the head, and that the kohein shall declare them impure. From where [do I know] to include even the other afflicted persons with tzora’as of the skin or flesh — that the ones afflicted with them shall tear their garments, their hair shall grow long, and the rest of the [matters] mentioned, and that the kohein shall declare them impure? The Torah states: “טמא יטמאנו (shall surely declare him unclean),” a twice repeated verb, to include all of them. This is what Rashi concludes at the end: “Regarding all of them it says: ‘His clothes shall have a tear in them’” (Re’m).

איש צרוע, “he is a man afflicted with tzoraat;” all the rules discussed in this chapter affecting such people apply to what follows.

The reason the Torah repeated טמא הוא is to make it clear that if the priest had erred and had declared a person as ritually impure although his symptoms did not justify this, the priest's declaration is invalid. The reason the Torah also repeated טמא יטמאנו is explained in Torat Kohanim as including all other categories of ritual impurity. A person never becomes legally impure due to symptoms on his skin unless the priest has declared him to be so.

צרוע הוא, he is "leprous." Why does the Torah not use the expression צרעת הוא in order to describe the affliction as it has done repeatedly? Perhaps the Torah wanted to indicate G'd's extreme displeasure with a person whom He has afflicted with this disease in such exposed areas of the skin of the head and beard. Most other afflictions listed in our portion occur in more private parts of the body. Generally speaking, G'd displays great concern for the sensitivities of a person even when He punishes him. The person described here as צרוע has forfeited the consideration G'd normally shows even to sinners; this is why he is described as a "leper" throughout. The words בראשו נגעו that his affliction is already in his head, is the justification for calling him a צרוע.