Komentarz do Kapłańska 13:47

AND WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. This is not in the natural order of things, nor does it ever happen in the world [outside Israel], and similarly leprosy of houses¹⁴⁰Further, 14:33-53. [is not a natural phenomenon]. But when Israel is wholly devoted to G-d, then His spirit is upon them always, to maintain their bodies, clothes and houses in a good appearance. Thus as soon as one of them commits a sin or transgression, a deformity appears in his flesh, or on his garment, or in his house, revealing that G-d has turned aside from him. It is for this reason that Scripture states, And I shall put the plague of leprosy in a house of the Land of your possession,¹⁴¹Ibid., 14:34. meaning that it is G-d’s punishment upon that house. Thus [the law of leprosy of houses] applies only in the Land which is the inheritance of the Eternal¹⁴²II Samuel 20:19. See Vol. I, pp. 250-251, and Ramban further, Leviticus 18:25. even as He said, When ye are come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession.¹⁴¹Ibid., 14:34. Now the reason [why this law does not apply outside the Land of Israel] is not because it is a duty which attaches to the ground¹⁴³The general rule is: “Any religious duty that does not depend on the Land [but affects personal conduct], must be observed whether in the Land [of Israel] or outside it, and any religious duty that depends on the land, is to be observed in the Land [of Israel] alone, etc.” (Kiddushin 36b-37a). Ramban is now pointing out that the reason why the law of leprosy in houses does not apply outside the Land of Israel is not because it attaches to the land, but for the reason etc., but the reason is because this matter [of Divine indication of sins] occurs only in the Chosen Land, wherein the Glorious Name dwells. And in the Torath Kohanim the Sages further interpreted¹⁴⁴Torath Kohanim, Metzora 5:3. that a house does not contract impurity until after the conquest and division [of the Land by Israel], and until after each and every individual clearly knows his portion. The reason for this law is that only then do they have the ease of mind to know the Eternal, and the Divine Glory dwells among them. I think similarly with reference to the law of leprosy in garments, that it applies only in the Land [of Israel], it being unnecessary to exclude [the application of this law] in places outside the Land, since they never occur there. For this reason also the law of leprosy in garments applies only to white garments, not to colored ones, because the color might perhaps have extracted this unclean phenomenon [i.e., the leprosy] in that place [in the garment] in a natural way, and it will then not be regarded as a finger of G-d.¹⁴⁵Exodus 8:15. Therefore garments colored by Heaven can contract impurity, according to the words of Rabbi Shimon.¹⁴⁶Negaim 11:3. And by way of the simple meaning of Scripture, the reason why it repeats in every verse the expression “the garment, or the skin, or the wrap and the woof,”¹⁴⁷See Verses 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59. is because the matter is miraculous. Our Rabbis have interpretations for them [i.e., these repetitions], and all of them are found in the Torath Kohanim.¹⁴⁸Torath Kohanim, Negaim, Chapters 13-16.

והבגד כי יהיה בו נגע צרעת, when it is quite clear that this is not the kind of stain familiar to science and responsive to removing by chemical detergents. Discolouration of a garment in colours other than the ones that are work related due to the vocation of the wearer, are usually caused deliberately by the owner. What occurred here is due to some sin the owner was guilty of.
At any rate, our tradition has taught that the only discolouration of garments or cloths that are considered from a halachic point of view are garments which themselves are white and not coloured. Any coloured garment is not subject to this legislation at all, is not within the parameter of what is called נגע צרעת. The phenomenon of white garments or exterior walls of houses which are normally whitewashed breaking out in different colours is by itself a warning to the owner to examine his lifestyle and what he might have done wrong to rate such a warning.
Our sages in Kidushin 20 tell about how seriously a violation of a rule which is only peripheral to the Sh’mittah legislation is viewed. [the basic rules of sh’mittah relate to working the soil during that year. What I described here as “peripheral,” i.e. in Talmudic parlance as אבקה של שמטה, is the dealing in produce grown in violation of the sh’mittah laws. Ed.] The Talmud explains that violating the “peripheral” aspects of that legislation my result in the guilty party becoming impoverished. The process is gradual so that the guilty party had ample opportunity to ask himself why G’d had singled him out for this kind of punishment.
The same is true of the נגע צרעת legislation. Proof of the fact that this affliction is due to a well meaning Creator, One Who is concerned with the welfare of His Jewish subjects, is the fact that if the symptoms we know as נגע צרעת surface on the garments of gentile or houses of gentiles, these are not declared as ritually impure. Seeing that the gentiles as a rule do not have life in the hereafter to look forward to, G’d is not at such pains to warn them not to risk losing something they doe not to look forward to in any event. When a Jew is in danger of losing his claim to eternal life this is a far more serious matter, and G’d goes out of His way to afford the person potentially endangering his claim to eternal life an opportunity to repent and change his lifestyle before it is too late. In referring to this concept, Solomon in Proverbs 10,25 describes the צדיק, the Just, as the foundation of the universe. The whole idea of man having been created in G’d’s image, and G’d’s desire for man to become as much like Him as it is possible for a creature to become, lies at the source of this concern by G’d not to let man waste his opportunity to live up to his destiny.
Once man becomes aware of G’d’s concern for him he will have little difficulty in making his own will correspond to the revealed will of His Maker. He will begin to realise that by “listening” to the urgings of his body-dominated desires he risks losing his eternal life and the death of his body would also signal the death of his life force נפש, just as that of all the animals. >br> Even though we see many people defy G’d in their lifestyles, we can be sure in the words of G’d in Exodus 23,7 כי לא אצדיק רשע, “that I will not allow the wicked to appear as if he were a just person for ever.” [the author, in continuing this sermon, describes all the gentiles and most of the Jews of his time, as so oblivious to all this that they may be compared as existing in a permanent state of spiritual coma. Ed.] Nonetheless, if G’d chose the Jewish people as His special people it is because He entertains the fond hope that out of this nation there will emerge a nucleus of people who are aware of their destiny. When the Jewish people are predominantly in the state of spiritual coma the author just described, the symptoms described in our portion will not appear as it would be a waste of time to hope that the people thus afflicted would see in these symptoms a message from their G’d.

והבגד כי יהיה בו נגע צרעת, And the garment which is afflicted by the plague of "leprosy," etc. The conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of this paragraph is explained in Torat Kohanim by Rabbi Yossi Haglili by reading together the last three words of the previous verse with this verse, i.e. מחוץ למחנה מושבו והבגד, "his dwelling is outside the camp together with the garment." This teaches that the garments also need to be removed outside the three camps. Torat Kohanim added that the wording reflects that the rule applies not only to garments made out of wool or linen each but even to garments made of a mixture of those materials but not to garments made of cotton, silk, and other fabrics. This seems difficult as it is possible that what we have perceived to be a conjunctive letter ו is only intended to draw attention to the proximity of the legislation to remove garments made of linen or wool outside the three camps or to include garments made of a mixture of linen and wool. Perhaps Rabbi Yossi Haglili's inference is based on the letter ו whereas the inference regarding inclusion of garments made of a mixture of linen and wool is based on the letter ה in the word והבגד.

בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים, On a woolen or linen garment.” Our sages (Nega-im 11,2) explained that only the wool of animals which are pure can confer the impurity of a person afflicted with tzoraat on others. The wool of an unclean animal such as the camel cannot confer such impurity. If the garment in question is made up of a number of fabrics including wool from a pure animal as well as wool from a ritually impure animal, if the dominant portion of the garment was made from wool of a pure animal it does transfer such impurity; if not, it does not.

מחוץ למחנה מושבו, והבגד, “his residence must be outside the camp. “And the garment;” [in spite of verse 46 being the conclusion of a paragraph Ed.], Rabbi Yossi from the Galil, claims that we learn from these two verses that the afflicted person’s clothes also require to be quarantined with him. [Possibly he disregarded the end of the paragraph, as the new paragraph commences with the conjunctive letter ו alerting us to the fact that this verse belongs together with the one preceding it. Ed.]

בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים in a garment made of wool or in a garment made of linen. We have to analyse why the Torah wrote the word או instead of simply writing בבגד צמר ובבגד פשתים. This is particularly difficult when we consider the words of the author of Korban Aharon who argues that the reason a mixture of wool and linen had to be included in this legislation was because the Torah used the word או which amounted to dividing the word "wool" from the word "linen." The problem becomes even more complex when we consider that Torat Kohanim writes that we might have assumed that these garments contract impurity regardless of whether the fabrics which these garments have been made of have been dyed or not. The words בבגד צמר are to teach us therefore that just as linen garments are usually made of undyed fabric so the legislation is applicable to woollen garments only when these fabrics have not been dyed. This comment is also problematical; on the contrary, it is directly opposed to the statement that the word או is divisive and one could therefore not derive any rule applying to linen garments as also applying to woollen garments.

בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים, “whether it be a woolen or a linen garment;” when the Torah speaks of garments, we always hear of woolen garments before linen garments are mentioned. The reason is that once a woolen garment has been completed, it is worth more than a linen garment. When the Torah speaks of a warp or a woof (in weaving) it always mentions linen before wool. The reason is that a woven linen garment is more valuable than a woven garment made of wool.

We believe that the reason our verse had to write the word או was so that we should not think that unless the garment was made of a mixture of wool and linen it would not contract impurity. If so, the word או is needed in its own right and cannot be used exegetically anymore. Once this is so it does not represent a contradiction to what is implied by the words צמר and פשתים appearing next to each other. We have to understand our verse thus: בבגד צמר means that not only if the garment is made of wool, but the same legislation applies if it is made of linen; both materials are treated equally in הלכה. This is why Torat Kohanim wrote that just as linen garments are made of undyed fabric so the woollen garments the Torah has in mind here are the ones whose wool retains its original colour. The reason that the Torah had to include garments made of a mixture of linen and wool is not because we would make the mistake by misreading the meaning of the word או as Korban Aharon would have us believe, but that seeing the Torah mentioned only these two fabrics how would I have arrived at a valid assumption about a mixture of wool and linen? If, on the other hand, we were to accept the argument of Korban Aharon that the word או is divisive, thoroughly separating the words צמר and פשתים from each other, then how could one argue that just as linen garments are of undyed material so the woollen garments the Torah describes are also only those whose fabrics have not been dyed? We would therefore need the letter ו before the word הבגד to re-establish some linkage between these two kinds of garments.