Komentarz do Kapłańska 13:12

מראשו FROM THE HEAD of the man ועד רגליו AND UNTO HIS FEET,

AND IF THE LEPROSY BREAK OUT ABROAD IN THE SKIN, AND THE LEPROSY COVER ALL THE SKIN OF THE PLAGUE¹⁰²It is clear from Ramban’s words further on, that he interpreted the Hebrew eth kol or hanega literally: “all the skin of the plague.” It is generally translated though: “all the skin of him that hath the plague.” As explained further, Ramban also understands the verse to apply only where the leprosy covered the whole body, while the expression all the skin of the plague serves to teach us some new matter, as stated in the text. FROM HIS HEAD EVEN TO HIS FOOT … [HE IS CLEAN]. Now the breaking out of the leprosy is not deemed a symptom of purity, until it spreads over the entire body, except for the places which the Sages enumerated in the Mishnah,¹⁰³Negaim 8:5. which do not prevent a person who has turned completely white [from being pronounced pure]. If so, what is the meaning of the phrase all the skin of the plague [which would indicate that only the area of the plague need be turned white]? Rather, the meaning thereof is as follows: “and the leprosy cover all the skin of the plague and from his head even to his foot.” Scripture is thus stating that the place of the plague and the whole body have turned white, but if the whole body has become white, and the appearance of [the area of] the plague has turned to bohak¹⁰⁴Further, Verse 39. “Lentil-like spots, and between the spots the flesh shows bright with a pure brightness” (Rashi, ibid.). Now the verse there concludes that bohak is pure. But Ramban here points out that if the leprosy broke out and covered all the person’s body, except that the original place of the plague turned into bohak, he is impure, since before the rule of the present verse applies, the leprosy must spread also to cover the skin of the plague. The same rule applies even if the skin of the plague became completely healed, as mentioned next in the text. or it became healed, the person is impure.

ואם פרוח תפרח הצרעת, וגו., “if the tzoraat will erupt on the skin, etc.” the Torah describes a continuous spread of the affliction until eventually the entire skin of the body is covered with that affliction. When the Torah used the expression את כל עור הנגע, “the entire skin of the affliction,” an expression that seems somewhat confusing, it means that the entire area of the body’s skin, including head and feet, is covered with the affliction. If the area where the affliction had started either did not turn properly white, or became healthy looking again the person is ritually unclean. According to the plain meaning of the text the reason for the apparent paradox that when covered with the affliction from head to toe, the affected person is considered ritually pure, is that the very spread over the entire body of this affliction is a sign that it does not penetrate further into the body, proof that the person is on the way to a complete recovery, seeing the problem is only skin-deep.

Of a man. And not from the head of the skin-eruption until its feet, for head and foot are not applicable with regard to it. Meaning: We should not say: from the head of the skin-eruption, for afterwards Scripture said: “The kohein shall see and behold! The tzora’as has covered all of his body” — of a man (Kitzur Mizrachi).

ואם פרוח תפרח, “if these symptoms show up in different parts of his skin;” if different parts of his skin seem to break out in white spots as if flowering;”

לכל מראה עיני הכהן WHERESOEVER THE PRIEST LOOKETH (lit., to the whole sight of the priest’s eyes) — This excludes a priest the sight of whose eyes is darkened (whose sight is imperfect) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 4 4).

מראשו, “from his head down;” not on his head; ועד רגליו, “all the way down to his feet;” excluding the feet themselves;

לכל מראה עיני הכהן, “as far as it appears to the priest’s eyes;” this excludes a priest whose eyesight is defective; (Rashi) Why did the Torah only exclude a priest who has defective eyesight?, Why did it not also prohibit such inspections on a very cloudy day when everyone’s vision is impaired? This did not have to be spelled out as it is logical. (Compare verse 5) where the word: בעיניו, “as it appears to his eyes,” has already implied that any impediment to the priest seeing clearly prevents such an inspection from being performed and to have legal validity. An alternate interpretation: the words above mean that the inspection must be performed in parts of the body which are clearly visible, not in the armpits, private parts, etc. In connection with this our Rabbis coined the saying: האיש נראה כעודר ומוסק זיתים, והאשה כעורכת ומיניקה את בנה, “a man looks as if busy picking olives, whereas the woman appears as if getting ready to nurse her son.” These are similes describing when normally hidden folds in one’s skin become exposed due to the nature of that person’s activity. [The Rabbis used elegant language to refer to respective private parts of men and women. Ed.]