Komentarz do Kapłańska 14:4

חיות LIVING [BIRDS] — This term excludes רפות‎ט, birds that suffer from some fatal organic disease (חיות does not only mean “living”, but also “capable of continuing to live”).

THEN SHALL THE PRIEST COMMAND TO TAKE FOR HIM THAT IS TO BE CLEANSED TWO LIVING, CLEAN ‘TZIPORIM’ (BIRDS). “Living, this excludes birds which are treifah.⁷Treifah according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word living excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. Clean, this excludes a bird unfit for food. Since the plagues of leprosy came as a punishment for slander, which is done by chattering, therefore Scripture required for the leper’s cleansing that he bring birds which always twitter with a chirping sound.” This is Rashi’s language.
Now in view of the fact that Rashi wrote, “Clean, this excludes a bird which is unfit for food,” we can deduce that the [unqualified] term tziporim does not denote a permissible species of birds, but is instead a generic term for all birds [those permissible as food and those forbidden]. If so, the question appears: what is this “chirping” that they found [among the tziporim]? For there are many birds among which there is none that openeth the mouth, or chirpeth!⁸Isaiah 10:14. Moreover, the interpretation [which Rashi quoted]: “Living, this excludes birds which are treifah,”⁷Treifah according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word living excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. is really subject to a controversy of opinion,⁹I.e., in Tractate Chullin 140a we find a difference of opinion among the Rabbis as to whether a treifah animal or bird can in fact survive for more than one year. and according to the Sage who says that a treifah⁷Treifah according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word living excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. can survive, this interpretation [of Rashi] is not correct. And in the Torath Kohanim we find this interpretation:¹⁰Torath Kohanim, Metzora 1:12. “Living, not slaughtered. Clean, not unfit for food. Clean, not treifoth.”¹¹In his commentary to the Torath Kohanim, Malbim explains this text as follows: “First [the Tanna of this Beraitha] explains the simple meaning of the verse, saying: ‘Living means not slaughtered; clean means not unfit for food.’ Then [the Tanna] says that according to the Midrash thereof, clean means not treifah, since that it may not be of a forbidden species, we know already from the word tzipor. This Sage further holds that a treifah can survive, and therefore birds which are treifah are not excluded by the word living,” but instead are excluded by the term clean. Now the scholars who follow the simple meaning of Scripture¹²Ibn Ezra on this verse, and R’dak in his Book of Roots, under the root tzipor. say that every kind of bird [whether permissible as food or forbidden] is called tzipor, as is evidenced by the verses which state: ‘tzipor’ (the fowl) of the air, and the fish of the sea;¹³Psalms 8:9. every ‘tzipor’ (bird) of every sort;¹⁴Genesis 7:14. And thou son of man … speak ‘l’tzipor’ (unto the birds) of every sort.¹⁵Ezekiel 39:17. Similarly, it says, and ‘hatzipor’ (the birds) he did not divide,¹⁶Genesis 15:10. with reference to the turtle-doves and young pigeons¹⁷Ibid., Verse 9. [which are permissible birds, thus proving that the term tzipor is used with reference to both permissible and forbidden birds].
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the term tzipor is a generic term for all small birds that rise early in the morning to chirp and to sing, the term being associated with the Aramaic word tzaphra (morning). Similarly, the expression let him return v’yitzpor’¹⁸Judges 7:3. means, and arise “early in the morning.” The expression ‘tzipor’ (the fowl of) the air¹³Psalms 8:9. is said with reference to these small birds, because it is mostly they that fly high in the air. Every ‘tzipor’ (bird) of every sort¹⁴Genesis 7:14. refers to two kinds, all the little ones and the big ones. If a ‘kan tzipor’ (bird’s nest) chance to be before thee¹⁹Deuteronomy 22:6. speaks about the little ones which are many [and therefore likely to chance to be there], to teach that even when they are young, the finder must exercise mercy towards them. Similarly, therein ‘tziporim’ (the birds) make nests²⁰Psalms 104:17. [means the little ones], for it is they that dwell on the boughs of the cedars of the Lebanon. Speak ‘l’tzipor’ (unto the birds) of every sort¹⁵Ezekiel 39:17. means that even the little ones should gather upon [the flesh of the mighty that have fallen in battle],²¹Ezekiel 39:18. for the big marauding birds will come by themselves. Similarly, Wilt thou play with him [the leviathan] ‘katzipor’ (as with a bird)? Or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?²²Job 40:29. [refers to the little birds], for it is the way of young boys to play with little birds. The language of the Sages also follows that usage: Any statue which bears in its hand a staff or ‘tzipor’ (a bird)²³Abodah Zarah 40 b. Now the emblem of the bird, as explained in the Gemara (41 a), is “a symbol that [the idol in question] causes itself to be caught like a bird on behalf of the entire world.” Hence the reference in the word tzipor must be to a small bird that can easily be caught. Rabbeinu Chananel explains the text of the Gemara in the following words: “he holds the whole world in his hand as one holds a bird.” Here too the reference is to a small bird that the holder can easily control in the palm of his hand. [one may not derive any benefit from, since these objects indicate that the statue is worshipped as an idol]; “If a man wove into a garment one sit’s length of a Nazirite’s hair [from which one is forbidden to derive any benefit], the garment is to be burnt,”²⁴Terumah 34 a. A sit is the distance between the tips of the outstretched thumb and forefinger. [and when the Sages of the Gemara raised the question, “why is this small piece not neutralized by the larger part of the garment?” it was answered that this is a case where he wove into the garment “the form of] a tziporta” [a small bird, which made the whole garment more valuable, and therefore it is not neutralized by the larger part thereof, and hence must be burnt].²⁵Rashi, ibid. From this too it is clear that the term tzipor denotes a small bird. The Sages also speak of “tziporoth (birds of) the vineyard [however small].”²⁶Shabbath 90 a. The Mishnah there in speaking with reference to taking out any object from one domain to another on the Sabbath, states: “for tziporoth (birds of) the vineyard, whether alive or dead, [he is liable], however small [the size be].” It is thus clear that the word tzipor is used by the Sages to mean a small bird, which even when alive is “however small.” They also said: “the meat of tziporim (birds) brings back a sickness to a sick man [who is recovering, and makes it worse”²⁷Berachoth 57 b. Having proven that the term tzipor refers to a small bird, Ramban now begins to elucidate further that it means both a permissible and forbidden species of bird. Here in the text of Berachoth it definitely means a permissible bird, but further it will be shown that it may mean also a forbidden bird. thus indicating that the term tzipor refers to a bird which one may eat]. Scripture further states, All ‘tzipor’ (birds) that are clean ye may eat,²⁸Deuteronomy 14:11. meaning all these many species of [permissible] birds, thus including [the living bird sent away by] the leper [into the open field²⁹Verse 7. as permissible food],³⁰Ramban here alludes to a question that was raised in the Gemara (Chullin 140 a), as to whether the living bird of the leper that is sent into the open field is permissible to be eaten if caught by someone. To this the answer was given that one is permitted to eat it; for since the Torah stated ‘All’ birds that are clean ye may eat (Deuteronomy 14:11), meaning any bird of a permissible species that is found may be eaten, now if the living bird of the leper were forbidden to be eaten, the Torah would not command the bird to be sent off, as this could involve a possible offense [since if the bird were not in fact permitted to be eaten, one might catch it without knowing that it had been used by the leper, and eat it]! Now, concludes Ramban, this permission is based in the Talmud on the word ‘all’ (‘All birds etc.) as explained above. This proves that the word tzipor, such as found here in the text before us, does not of itself only mean a permissible kind of bird. Rather, since it is a term for both the permissible and forbidden kind, it was therefore necessary for the Torath Kohanim here to establish that the leper’s bird must be of a permissible species, from the word clean qualifying tziporim. by means of the word kol (‘All’ birds that are clean ye may eat).²⁸Deuteronomy 14:11. And the verse which states, But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the great vulture, and the bearded vulture, and the osprey³¹Deuteronomy 14:12. Having established that the word tzipor means “a small” bird, whether of a permissible or forbidden kind, Ramban finds this verse difficult, since the expression of them [in translation of the verse: “of which”] apparently refers back to ‘kol tzipor’ (birds) mentioned in the previous verse [11], and yet it mentions here (in Verse 12) big birds like the great vulture, etc. In addition, the word tzipor in Verse 11 is explicitly qualified by the word ‘t’horah,’ thus excluding the great vulture. Ramban’s answer follows in the text, where he explains that the expression of them does not refer back to ‘kol tzipor’ (all birds) previously mentioned, but rather means “of their flesh,” i.e., the flesh of these big birds about to be mentioned — the great vulture, etc. is [to be understood] as if it said, “and these are they, from the flesh of which ye may not eat.” It is for this reason [i.e., since the term tzipor includes both permissible and forbidden birds], that the Sages found it necessary to interpret:¹⁰Torath Kohanim, Metzora 1:12. “Clean, not forbidden birds” [but they would not have been able to derive it if the word tziporim had not been qualified]. In any case it is clear that tziporim are the small chirping birds. Similarly, Yea, the ‘tzipor’ hath found a house, and the swallow a nest for herself³²Psalms 84:4. also indicates that the word tzipor is not a name for all birds [for otherwise why should the verse mention both tzipor and the swallow, if the term tzipor already includes all birds]. Likewise, Wherein tziporim (the birds) make their nests, the stork makes the fir-tree her house³³Ibid., 104:17. [indicates that tziporim does not include all birds, since the verse proceeds also to mention some specific birds].
It would appear from the words of our Sages that all birds permissible as food are called tzipor, but the leper was commanded to bring tziporei dror [“free birds,” a term which, as explained further on means birds which live in the house as well as in the field], for we have been taught in the Torath Kohanim:³⁴Torath Kohanim, Metzora 5:13. “And he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open field.³⁵Further, Verse 53. Rabbi Yosei the Galilean said: ‘This means a bird that lives outside all cities. And what kind of bird is it? It is the bird called dror’” [the free bird that lives in the house as well as in the field]. It is on the basis of this interpretation of the Rabbis that they further mentioned [in connection with the leper’s birds] that they “chatter” [since it is usually these free birds which twitter].
It is possible that the requirement that the birds be of “the free” kind is a commandment [which is to be observed if possible, but is not indispensable], so that if it has already been done, they are all valid [whether free or unfree]. Therefore the Sages in the Torath Kohanim¹⁰Torath Kohanim, Metzora 1:12. found it necessary to exclude forbidden bird’s [which do not possess this characteristic of living in the house and in the field]. And so we have been taught in a Mishnah of Tractate Negaim:³⁶Negaim 14:1. “And he [the leper] brought two birds that are of the free type of bird.” And it is furthermore taught there:³⁷Ibid., 5. “It is a commandment that the two birds of the leper should be alike in appearance, in size and in value, and that they should be brought at the same time. Yet even if they are not alike, they are valid. If one was slaughtered and it was found that it was not a ‘free bird,’ he should buy a partner for the second one.” The reason [why he must buy a partner for the second one] although [as we have said above] if it has already been done, all birds [whether free or unfree] are valid, is that if they were of two different kinds [as in this case, where the slaughtered one was a non-dror, and the living one a dror], they are invalid. And in the Chapter Eilu Treifoth³⁸“These are accounted treifah” among cattle. It is the third chapter of Tractate Chullin. The text quoted here is found there on 62 a. For the word treifah, see above, Note 7. the Sages of the Gemara have said: “A bird which scratches, is valid to be used for the purification of the leper. This is the white-bellied swallow concerning which Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages differed” [as explained further on]. From these texts [it is clear] that the birds for the purification of the leper are not limited to one species, and that the purification is not to be done with any permissible bird, but rather the commandment is that it be done only with those birds that are dror, that is to say, “which live in the house as well as in the field.”³⁹Shabbath 106 b. Therefore the Rabbis said [in the above-quoted text] with reference to the white-bellied swallow, that since according to the Sages it is a bird which may be eaten, it is also valid for the purification of the leper, as it is included within [the category of those birds that are] dror [living in the house as well as in the field]. Yet nonetheless all permissible birds [even those that are not “free birds”] are valid, if the purification of the leper has already been done with them, since they are all included within the phrase, two living clean birds.
And we have been taught in the Sifre:⁴⁰Sifre, R’eih 103. See in Seder Vayikra Note 121, on Sifre. “Rabbi Yashiyah said: ‘Wherever it says in Scripture tzipor, it speaks of a permissible bird.’ Said Rabbi Yitzchak: ‘A permissible bird is called oph (fowl) and also tzipor (bird), but a forbidden one is only called oph.” Similarly the Rabbis mentioned also in the Gemara [of Tractate Chullin], in the Chapter Shilu’ach Hakan,⁴¹“The letting of [the dam] go from the nest.” It is the twelfth chapter of Tractate Chullin, discussing the law stated in Deuteronomy 22:6-7. The text quoted here is found there on p. 140 a. where they resolved that the term living [two ‘living’ clean birds] means “the ends of whose limbs ‘live’ (exist), thus excluding birds from whom a limb is missing.” Similarly [permissible] birds which are treifah⁷Treifah according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word living excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. are invalid [for the purification of the leper]. The Rabbis also interpreted there⁴¹“The letting of [the dam] go from the nest.” It is the twelfth chapter of Tractate Chullin, discussing the law stated in Deuteronomy 22:6-7. The text quoted here is found there on p. 140 a. the term clean [two living ‘clean’ birds] to exclude those birds which are of a permissible species but are forbidden to be eaten [for some special reason], such as birds belonging to a person of a city that went astray,⁴²See Deuteronomy 13:16-18, that all the belongings thereof are to be destroyed. or a fowl that killed a human being, or those that have been exchanged for an idol.⁴³Thus if one received birds of a permissible species as payment for an idol, they are nonetheless forbidden for any use, just as the original idol may not be made any use of. This interpretation was derived by the Sages from the very language itself, since the term tzipor denotes only a permissible bird. It is clear then from this text, that all permissible birds [whether they are of the dror-type or not] are included within the category of tzipor.
I have further seen in the Yerushalmi of Tractate Nazir⁴⁴Yerushalmi Nazir I, 1. — To understand the name “‘Yerushalmi of Nazir,” it is important to note that after the Mishnah was completed by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi — also known as Rabbeinu Hakadosh — in the Land of Israel [about the year 200 of Common Era] it formed, the basis of study in all academies of learning. But whereas hitherto all the great Yeshivoth were concentrated in the Land of Israel, after the completion of the Mishnah two groups of Yeshivoth came into prominence: those of the Land of Israel, and those of Babylon. Thus for a number of generations there existed side by side two groups of academies where the Mishnah was studied and interpreted. In the course of time, the continuous Roman persecutions forced the closing of the Palestinian schools of learning; but before they were finally closed, the Rabbis compiled their teachings in what is known as the Talmud Yerushalmi i.e., the Jerusalem Talmud. The academies in Babylon flourished for many centuries longer. Their teachings were later compiled [about the year 475 of Common Era] and are known as the Babylonian Talmud. To this day Talmudic study is almost exclusively devoted to the Babylonian Talmud, so that any tractate of the Talmud generally cited, is that of the Babylonian Talmud, unless specified as in the case before us: “the Yerushalmi of Tractate” so-and-so. A tradition has it that after the redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud, its Sages went down as a group to Babylon, and most of their teachings were incorporated into the text of the Babylonian Talmud. This explains why Talmudic study throughout the ages was concentrated almost entirely upon the Babylonian Talmud, while only the outstanding Rabbis of the generations devoted their studies also to the Jerusalem Talmud. that the Sages of the Gemara said: “But does an impure Nazirite really bring tziporim?⁴⁵The question refers back to a statement in the Mishnah which reads: “If a person said, ‘I pledge myself to offer tziporim (birds),’ Rabbi Meir says that he becomes a Nazirite etc.” The reason for this opinion of Rabbi Meir was explained there in the Gemara by Resh Lakish, that it is because a Nazirite whose consecration has been defiled, must bring tziporim as an atonement (Numbers 6:9-11). On this explanation of Resh Lakish, the Gemara asked: “But does a Nazirite really bring tziporim? It is turtle-doves or young pigeons that he brings!” In other words, tziporim means birds which are of a forbidden kind, while the Nazirite must bring birds which are permissible to be eaten! So how could the reason Resh Lakish advanced to explain Rabbi Meir’s opinion be correct, since tziporim (forbidden birds) are not used at all by a Nazirite! — Ramban is thus beginning at this point to refute his own explanation which he had set forth, namely, that tzipor refers only to a permissible bird, since it is evident from the Yerushalmi that tzipor means a forbidden bird! The final solution of the Yerushalmi follows. It is turtle-doves or young pigeons that he brings! [To this question the reply was made:] ‘There are some authorities who teach that all edible birds are called tziporim, and there are other authorities that teach that all birds, whether permissible or forbidden, are called tziporim.’”⁴⁶Hence he who said, “I pledge myself to offer tziporim, becomes a Nazirite even according to those authorities that hold that the term tziporim denotes all kinds of birds, permissible ones or forbidden ones, for since it also denotes permissible birds, his intention was those birds that may be brought upon the altar (P’nei Moshe). Thus we are now left with a divergence of opinion [as to what the term tzipor denotes]! Yet it is possible that the name applies only to the small birds. This appears so in the Gemara from what the Rabbis have said in Tractate Sotah:⁴⁷Sotah 16 b. [In the process of his purification the leper is commanded to] “bring a sufficient amount of water that the bird’s blood may remain discernible in it.⁴⁸Verse 5 here reads: And the priest shall command that one of the birds shall be slaughtered in an earthen vessel over running water. On this the Sages commented that the vessel must contain just enough water that the blood of the bird is discernible in it. And how much etc. (see text). And how much is this? The fourth of a log.” Upon this the Sages queried: “If the bird was a large one so that the blood thereof ‘pushed away’ the water [so that it was imperceptible], or the bird was a small one so that its blood was ‘pushed away’ by the water [so that the blood was indiscernible], what is the ruling on these cases?” On these questions [the Rabbis of the Talmud] explained: “All standard measures laid down by the Sages were fixed with precision. The Sages estimated with reference to a ‘free bird’ that you will not find one so big that the blood thereof will ‘push away’ the water, nor will you find one so small that the blood thereof will be ‘pushed away’ by the water.” Now if all kinds of permissible birds were valid for [the purification of the leper], there are some birds the blood of which would “push away” many logim of water! Perhaps the Sages established the above standard only with reference to a “free bird” which one is commanded to bring if this is possible, according to the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean,⁴⁹See text of Ramban above, quoting the Torath Kohanim at Note 34. [but if the purification has already been done with a large bird, it is also valid]. It has already been mentioned in the Gemara:⁵⁰Shebuoth 29 a. “Perhaps he saw a large tziporo (bird) and he called it gamal (camel).”⁵¹This text clearly shows that the term tzipor includes also large birds, and hence the above-mentioned explanation that it refers only to small birds is incorrect.
The correct [and final] conclusion which emerges from all this discussion is that we say on the basis of this interpretation⁴⁹See text of Ramban above, quoting the Torath Kohanim at Note 34. that any bird which is not a “free one” is invalid for the purification of the leper, even if the purification has already been done, since in the Mishnah thereof³⁷Ibid., 5. it was not taught: “It is a commandment [to be fulfilled if possible] that the birds should be ‘free birds,’ but even if they were not ‘free birds,’ they are valid,” as it taught concerning the requirement of equality [in appearance, size and value, that “even if they are not alike, they are valid”]; also, the correct conclusion is that all birds that are “free birds” are those that chatter. And that which the Rabbis said in the Torath Kohanim,¹⁰Torath Kohanim, Metzora 1:12. “Clean, not those forbidden as food,”⁵²Ramban’s meaning is as follows. On this exclusion of forbidden birds by the Torath Kohanim one might ask: “Since, as we have now established, the dror-characteristic of the bird is indispensable in the purification of the leper, meaning that if the birds did not have this quality of living in the house as well as in the field, the purification is invalid even if already done, why was it necessary for the Torath Kohanim to point to a special Scriptural source for the exclusion of forbidden birds; for such birds are not of the kind that live in the house as well as in the field, and we have said that if the birds lack this characteristic, the purification is invalid?” Ramban answers that we must perforce say that even among forbidden birds there are some species that do have this characteristic of being able to live in the house as well as in the field, and hence it was necessary for the Torath Kohanim to exclude them by means of a special expression in the verse. is because even among the forbidden birds there are some species that possess this quality of dror [living in the house as well as in the field], such as the white-bellied swallow according to Rabbi Eliezer.⁵³Mentioned above in the text, at Note 38. Or perhaps the meaning of the Torath Kohanim is that it excludes those birds [whose prohibition is not because they belong to the forbidden species, but because of special circumstances] which make them “forbidden to you,” such as those birds which are nonetheless forbidden [as food or benefit, because they belonged to a person of a city that had gone astray,⁴²See Deuteronomy 13:16-18, that all the belongings thereof are to be destroyed. or those that have been exchanged for an idol],⁴³Thus if one received birds of a permissible species as payment for an idol, they are nonetheless forbidden for any use, just as the original idol may not be made any use of. or those which are treifah,⁷Treifah according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word living excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. just as the Rabbis resolved in the Gemara in the Chapter Shilu’ach Hakan.⁴¹“The letting of [the dam] go from the nest.” It is the twelfth chapter of Tractate Chullin, discussing the law stated in Deuteronomy 22:6-7. The text quoted here is found there on p. 140 a. This is the correct interpretation in my eyes. In the Agadah of the [Midrash] Rabbah we find this statement:⁵⁴Vayikra Rabbah 16:7. “Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Simon said: These birds [brought by the leper for his purification] are noisy ones, symbolic of he who speaks slander [and as a punishment for which, the slanderer is stricken with leprosy]. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Let that which is accompanied by sound [namely, these noisy birds] come to bring atonement for the evil sound [of the slanderer].’ And Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Levi said: The birds [brought by the leper for his purification] are of the ‘free kind’ [that live in the house as well as in the field] and thus ate of the leper’s bread and drank of his water. Now the following statement follows logically with stronger reason etc.”⁵⁵“If these birds that ate of his bread and drank of his water, effect atonement for the leper, how much more so do the priests who enjoy twenty-four kinds of gifts, effect atonement for Israel!” (Ibid.).

וצוה הכהן ולקח למטהר, and the priest will command to take for the person to be purified, etc. According to Torat Kohanim the priest issues the instruction but anybody is authorised to take the birds. In the following verse Torat Kohanim again understands that according to the view of Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Yossi the priest issues the instructions but that any non-priest is qualified to slaughter these birds. Rabbi disagrees, insisting that also the slaughtering of the birds must be performed by a priest. Why did Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi not disagree concerning what is written in verse 4?If we were to assume that in verse 4 the word וצוה applied only to another verb, i.e. ולקח instead of to an object, this is not an adequate reason as even in verse 5 the word וצוה refers to another verb, namely ושחט, and we do not know that it refers to any other object. In fact, in verse 4 we are entitled to assume that the word וצוה implies that the birds be brought to the priest and he would receive them personally from those who bring them to him so that he would perform two commandments, something that is not so in verse 5 if we read it to mean that the words וצוה ושחט apply to one and the same person, i.e. the priest.

שתי צפרים, “two birds;” the expression צפור [as distinct from עוף, Ed.] may be related to both Proverbs 27,8, and Psalms 102,8 where the צפור is described as wandering, i.e. being a loner, isolated. The analogy with the quarantined victim of tzoraat is evident. Nachmanides writes that the scholars concerned primarily with the plain meaning of the text claim that every עוף is automatically also referred to as צפור. Their proof is Psalms 8,9 צפור שמים ודגי הים, “the birds of the sky and the fish in the sea.” The correct interpretation of the choice of the word צפור by the Torah here is that the term צפור includes also the very small birds, the ones who awaken us in the early morning with their chirping. The Aramaic word for the Hebrew word צפצוף describing such chirping is צפורא. The reason the psalmist adds the word שמים, sky, to the word צפור is that in the main the birds use their wings to fly towards the sky. The word כל does not always mean “all, or each,” but usually means “most.” When, at the covenant between the pieces in Genesis chapter 15, Avraham divided the various animals he offered as a symbol of that covenant, the Torah mentions ואת הצפור לא בתר, meaning that he did not cut up either the pigeon or the turtle dove. The expression כל צפור כל כנף refers to two separate species of birds, i.e. both the big ones and the small ones. When the Torah, in Deuteronomy 22,6 speaks of someone encountering a קן צפור, a bird’s nest, this refers to a nest housing small birds, the Torah warning that even such small creatures we must treat with consideration. It appears to me that our sages considered every pure bird, i.e. the ones we may eat (in the appropriate circumstances) as described as צפור. However, in connection with the sacrifice of the tzarua who has been healed and purified, he is to bring one of the birds that can be truly described as צפור דרור, ”a free flying bird,” not a chicken, or a duck, which are domesticated and cannot use their wings in a manner reflecting true freedom of movement. This requirement is not absolute, but when available these free flying birds, i.e. pigeon or turtle dove are preferable, though other birds not described in the Torah as of the 24 kinds of birds of prey might be admissible, seeing the Torah does not speak of עוף דרור. Seeing that the Mishnah in tractate Negaiim 14,1 mentions צפור דרור instead of תור או גוזל, the bird-offerings normally presented on the altar, it might have appeared that other birds are acceptable. Seeing that the text of the Torah leaves room for doubt, the Torat Kohanim had to add that the requirement is absolute, and no other bird can be substituted. The fact is however, that the word דרור in the Mishnah may simply exclude ritually unclean birds that also fit the description of עוף דרור. Moreover, it may also mean that even though these two birds are not alike in size and in appearance as is preferable, as indicated by the word שתי instead of שתים, as among the unclean birds there are also some that fit the description of their being small and free flying the Torah meant to exclude those. [Some commentators of the Mishnah do not understand the word דרור as free flying, unrestricted, but they apply it to birds that have learned to escape capture by man both inside the house and outside of it. Ed.] It is also possible that the expression שתי צפרים is intended to exclude birds that are ritually impure from being offered as a sacrifice.

Excluding טריפות. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say חיות? A bird is not a חיה (beast)! We cannot say that חיות means that they have to be alive and not dead, because it is written afterwards, “and he slaughters the one bird,” and it is written, “and send the live bird into the open field.” Rashi answers: “Excluding טריפות,” meaning: We require that they should be fit to be alive and not a טריפה because a טריפה cannot live. We need the exclusion for טריפות so that we will not say since it is not an offering, but rather it is slaughtered outside the encampment, טריפות would be acceptable for the metzoro’s purification. Thus, it lets us know [otherwise].

ולקח למטהר שני צפרים, “and he will take for the person to be ritually cleansed two birds;” according to the Talmud in Erchin folio 16, the offering matches the sin for which it is to atone, i.e. just as birds engage in constant useless chatter, so the tale-bearer to be cleansed now had done something which had demeaned his power of speech to something no better than that of a bird.

ולקח למטהר, “he will take for the one who was to be purified;” the word מטהר includes man, woman or minor as the case maybe. This wording prompted the sages to coin the phrase: לקח לאיש, כשרות לאשתו, “when weddings are performed publicly it is a public demonstration of the chastity of both partners, as if they had wished they could have married one another in the privacy of their homes legally. [I have abbreviated the saying. Ed.]

הרות‎ט CLEAN — This term excludes an unclean bird (of a species that may not be eaten) (cf. Chullin 140a). Because the plagues of leprosy come as a punishment for slander, which is done by chattering, therefore birds are compulsory for his (the leper’s) purification, because these chatter, as it were, continuously with a twittering sound (Arakhin 16b).

AND CEDAR-WOOD, AND SCARLET, AND HYSSOP. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that “[the cedar-wood and the hyssop] represent the tallest and the lowest in species of vegetation, as is evidenced by the words of wisdom of Solomon.⁵⁶And he [Solomon] spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall (I Kings 5:13). The inference is clearly that Solomon’s wisdom encompassed all vegetation, from highest to lowest. Thus the law of the leper and the law of the house stricken with leprosy and the [law of] impurity [conveyed by] a corpse are closely related,⁵⁷In each of these cases the cedar-wood and the hyssop are requirements in the process of purification. See further, 14:52 for the purification of a house that had been affected by leprosy, and Numbers 19:6 and 18, for the purification from the impurity conveyed by a corpse. and they resemble the Passover in Egypt.⁵⁸Exodus 12:22. There the hyssop was required in the sprinkling of the blood upon the lintel and the two side-posts, so that the destroyer would not come into the Israelite houses. — Ibn Ezra is thus intimating that in the cases of leprosy and impurity of a corpse, the purification was a sign that the destroyer would no longer approach that person or house, just as was its function in Egypt (Ezra L’havin). And the meaning of the expression into the open field⁵⁹Verse 7. is to an uninhabitated place, so that no infection might be caused.” [Thus far are the words of Ibn Ezra.].
And in the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have said:⁶⁰Torath Kohanim, Metzora 2:5. “Into the open field,⁵⁹Verse 7. this means that he is not to stand in Joppa [which is on the sea] and let it go into the sea, nor is he to stand in Gabbath [a city which is on the edge of the desert] and let it go into the desert.” Now if so, [that he may not let it go into the sea or into the desert], then the reason why it is sent into the open field is like the secret of the goat sent to Azazel,⁶¹Further, 16:10. except that there it is sent for Azazel into the wilderness,⁶¹Further, 16:10. and here it is sent to the flying [destructive spirits] of the field.⁶²See my Hebrew commentary, p. 80. I will yet explain this with the help of G-d.⁶³Further, 16:8.

ועץ ארז ושני תולעת ואזוב, “cedar-wood, crimson thread, and hyssop.” Ibn Ezra writes that the items the Torah requires as part of the purification rites of the metzura indicate the conceptual linkage between someone whose house is afflicted with a parallel affliction, with the ritual impurity conferred by dead bodies of near relatives and even with the Passover sacrifice offered in Egypt prior to the Exodus. [Emerging from the state of being afflicted with tzoraat is as cataclysmic as the redemption (on a national scale) of the Jewish people from Egypt. Ed.]

Because. Re’m writes: This implies that Rashi holds the view that the expression ציפרים does not refer to a pure bird, but rather it refers to [both] impure and pure [ones]. This raises a difficulty, because in (Chulin 139b) [the Rabbis] taught: “An impure bird is exempt from [the mitzvah of] sending [away the mother bird]. What is the source of this? Rabbi Yitzchak said: As it is written (Devarim 22:6): ‘If a bird’s nest (קן ציפור) chances before you on the road.’ — The expression עוף implies both impure and pure, [but] ציפור — we find that a pure bird is called [ציפור]; an impure [bird] is not called [ציפור], etc.” Thus, [the expression] ציפרים in Scripture refers to pure and not to impure. It appears to me that Rashi was aware of this difficulty and answered it with that which he wrote: “Because [these] eruptions come...” [This poses] a difficulty: Why did he not explain this regarding “two birds,” but rather waited until here? It must be Rashi is coming to answer [the question:] Why does it say, “pure”? [The expression] ציפרים in Scripture refers to pure [ones]! Rashi answers: “Because, etc.” If so, hear from this that because of the chattering sounds he brings birds and not animals. If so, I might think that so much more so he should bring impure birds [which twitter and emit sounds more than pure birds, and that which it says in the verse ציפרים is not meant to exclude impure birds], but rather to include even pure birds, and so much more so impure [birds]. For this reason Scripture specified “pure.” Alternatively, the reason it is written, “ציפרים” is to indicate the twittering, because they twitter from the morning (צפרא), and ציפור (bird) is from the expression צפרא (morning), as Ramban writes. Nachalas Yaakov explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture exclude impure? They are not offerings; but rather he slaughters it outside the encampment in an earthenware vessel! On this he answers that the pure species include birds that chatter incessantly with twittering sounds, which is not so regarding the impure species.

I have seen a comment by Korban Aharon according to which the commandment is that the priest command that two birds be brought to him so that he could choose one of them as the offering and one to be released later (verse 7). The reason that Rabbi did not disagree with Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Yossi in verse 4 insisting that only the priest is to take the birds is, that he could not tie the word וצוה to the commandment, i.e. he could not prove that the priest had to make this selection. Thus far Korban Aharon. I do not agree with the author of Korban Aharon as there is no indication from the words that the commandment to select the birds had to be performed by the priest and that it could be derived from the word וצוה. On the contrary, we may infer that the word וצוה as positioned in this verse indicates that the selection of the bird may be performed either by the priest or by someone else, whereas the slaughtering of the bird selected had to be performed by the priest, and Rabbi could explain verse 4 along the same lines as he did verse 5 saying that the selection of the birds could be performed only by the priest. It would then have appeared that Rabbi disagrees with Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Yossi and thought that the slaughtering of the birds also could be performed only by priests.

שתי צפרים, “two birds;” whenever there is a reference to a bird as צפור, it is a ritually pure bird. Rabbi Yitzchok says that a ritually pure bird may be referred to as either עוף or צפור, whereas a ritually impure bird is always referred to as עוף. (Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 139)

ועץ ארז AND CEDAR WOOD — This lofty tree was used because plagues come also as a punishment for haughtiness (cf. Arakhin 16a).

ועץ ארז ושני תולעת ואזוב, “and cedarwood, crimson thread and hyssop.” The verse mentioned both the most precious and the lowliest of plants. Solomon did the same thing in Kings I, 5,13 when he was described as lecturing about the cedars of the Lebanon and the hyssop. Our sages comment that the inclusion of both types of plants in the same breath teach that if one had arrogated to oneself the mien of something superior to oneself, i.e. given oneself a title that one had not earned, the only way to atone for this and to regain one’s true station in life is to demean oneself to the level of the lowest in the social order, the hyssop (compare Rashi).

For haughtiness. This is why he needs to take cedarwood which is tall and the most beautiful of all the trees. You might ask: Scripture requires that he take cedarwood regarding tzora’as of houses as well, but what haughtiness of spirit does a house have? The answer is: The tzora’as that Hashem placed in houses was because the Emorites hid treasures in the walls of their houses, and therefore Hashem placed tzora’as in the houses so that the Jews would need to break down the houses and thus they would find the [hidden] treasures, as Rashi explains later (14:34). And someone who has a lot of money becomes haughty of spirit, as it says in Parshas Eikev (Devarim 8:13): “And your herds and your flocks multiply...” after which it is written: “And your heart grows haughty, and you forget, etc.” Therefore, Scripture requires him to take cedarwood, as if to say: Do not be haughty of spirit due to the large amount of money that [was hidden] in the house’s wall, which I gave you (Mahara’i). Above, Rashi explains: [Because eruptions come] for [the sin of] lashon hara! Both of them are one reason: One speaks lashon hara about others because of his haughtiness of the spirit, since they are not considered important at all in his eyes. You might ask: This explanation is valid for skin-eruptions on a person, but what will you say regarding eruptions in houses? There is no difficulty! The eruptions of houses come for the transgressions of people as well, as the Midrash says: The Merciful One does not afflict people first. Thus, all the eruptions are for the sake of a person’s atonement, because they come on account of him (Divrei Dovid).

The reason, however, would not be because of something specific in our verse, but because it corresponds to the nature in which the subject matter is described by the Torah. G'd had commanded that the slaughtering take place in a vessel made of earthenware over water running from a well. This is not an act which is only "slaughtering," seeing a second action must accompany it immediately afterwards. This latter act is the principal ingredient of the purification ritual. Seeing that this is so it is reasonable to assume that it can be performed only by the priest. This kind of reasoning cannot be applied in verse 4 in which no action is demanded that is part of the purification process. There was therefore no reason to assume that the Torah demanded it to be performed by the priest exclusively unless the Torah had so indicated by some extra word or letter. The Torah preferred to leave the matter to be decided by the scholars.

טהורות, “ritually pure;” both genetically, and free from physical defects. (Compare Malbim)

ושני תולעת ואזוב AND CRIMSON AND HYSSOP — What is the remedy he should use, that he may be healed? Let him, abandoning pride, regard himself lowly as a worm (תולעת) and as hyssop (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Metzora 3).

A stick. This does not mean a cedar tree as the word עץ usually connotes, for how could he take the entire tree?

Furthermore, we may assume that the plain meaning of verse 4 in which the Torah mentions the taking of the birds is that the Torah addresses the priest. The reason for this is that there was no need to mention the word "the priest" in the verse in connection with each separate activity. The Torah had repeated the word "the priest" already several times in verses 2-3. In the absence of a further repetition of that word at the beginning of verse 4 we would have reasoned that the commandment is not restricted to the priest as the Torah did not again mention the word "the priest" until the end in verse 5. These considerations are invalid seeing the Torah did write the word "the priest" at the beginning of verse 4. This indicates that just as everything which had been mentioned in verses 2 and 3 had to be performed by the priest the same is true of what is said in verse 4. Seeing that the Torah bothered to write the words וצוה הכהן once more in verse 5, the meaning must be that at least something of what is described in verse 4 need not only be performed by the priest. The word ולקח therefore does not refer to the priest. If everything in verse 4 could only be performed by a priest, why did the Torah have to write the words "the priest" again in verse 5? All the Torah had to write in verse 5 was וצוה ושחט, and I would have known that it is the priest who is the subject of these instructions. Clearly then the instructions in the Torah have to be split up differently. When the Torah writes the word ולקח in verse 4 for the first time, this refers to anybody, not only to the priest. The same interpretation cannot be applied to the word ולקח in verse 5 as we have no indication from Rabbi that he holds that the הלכה is based on the plain meaning of the verse. This is especially so as both the word וצוה and the word ושחט are positioned next to the word הכהן on either side of it.

ועץ ארז, “and some cedar wood;” according to Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel, the leaves from the cedar tree were torn from the top of the tree. [In order that the tallest of plants and the lowliest, i.e. hyssop, both be part of this offering. Ed.]

עץ ארז means a stick of cedar wood (not a cedar tree).

A strip (לשון). I.e., the wool was long like a tongue (לשון) and dyed crimson.

Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Yossi, however, feels that seeing we found in verse 4 that the word ולקח does not need to refer to the word הכהן although it is written adjoining to the word הכהן we may interpret what is written in verse 5 in a similar manner.

שני תולעת — a strip of wool dyed crimson.

All this would be fine except for a statement in Torat Kohanim at the beginning of our portion. This is what is written there: The law about purifying the "leper" is entrusted to the priest. I would have thought that the priest's function is only to declare the "leper" either impure or healed, i.e "clean." How do I know that the priest also has to offer the birds and perform the sprinklings of the blood as well as shave the "leper?" This is why the Torah says: תורת המצורע בכהן. Seeing this is so, I would have thought that also the taking of the birds and the sending away of the live bird and the washing of the "leper" and his clothing are to be performed only by the priest? To teach me that this is not so the Torah wrote זאת. Thus far Torat Kohanim. From the plain text of the Baraitha it seems clear that only three parts of the purification process of the "leper" have to be performed by the priest. In view of this there was no need for the Torah to command the priest about taking the birds or slaughtering them. From the combined text of the two Baraithot it emerges clearly that both Rabbi and Rabbi Yehudah ben Yossi hold that the priest must issue directives concerning two procedures. There appears to be a clear contradiction then between these two Baraithot.

Perhaps the reason why the author of the Baraitha did not mention the two clear directives to the priest contained in verses 4 and 5 is that he considered only things which involve the body of the "leper" as part of his purification ritual; he had already excluded numerous things as a result of the restrictive word זאת. If the Torah had not specifically demanded in verses 4 and 5 that the priest perform the act of selecting the birds and slaughtering them, I would have concluded that the word זאת in verse 2 had already relieved the priest from these two duties. The author of the Baraitha therefore only mentioned matters included in the definition תורת המצורע. He was well aware that he would make separate comments on verses 4 and 5; hence he ignored these aspects in his earlier comments.

However, I have seen in chapter 11,5 of Hilchot Tum-at Tzora-at by Maimonides that only the slaughtering of the birds and the shaving of the body-hair of the "leper," as well as the sprinkling of the blood of the bird have to be performed by the priest. No mention is made of the priest having to select the birds. In fact, Maimonides mentions specifically that all the rituals he has not mentioned may be performed by ordinary Israelites as well as by priests. Although we have a Tossephta in chapter eight of tractate נגעים according to which only three things have to be performed by the priest, -just as Maimonides has written,- the matter of the directives the Torah issued to the priest in verses 4 and 5 is not mentioned at all. Ordinarily, we would not need to consider the fact that the Tossephta does not conform to the views expressed in Torat Kohanim as unduly disturbing. We could even argue that the author of the Tossephta presumably dealt with verses 4 and 5 in a different context, something that we cannot say about Maimonides who is under an obligation to deal with those verses in his treatise on the subject.

We cannot argue that what the Torah has written in verses 4 and 5 is not clear enough to require Maimonides to refer to it in his treatise on the afflictions suffered by a "leper." After all, the authors of the Baraithot did consider it necessary to derive these הלכות from a biblical source. Neither can we argue that Maimonides thought that the plain meaning of the Tossephta which said: "and the other matters may be performed by any person" include even the ones concerning which the Torah issued directives to the priest, and that he would therefore ignore the views of both Rabbi and Rabbi Yehudah ben Yossi. If we were to assume this there is an additional difficulty, namely that a Tossephta which ignores both the views of Rabbi and of Rabbi Yehudah ben Yossi need not be considered authentic at all. What has been recorded in the Sifra de bey Rav is a carefully edited text, much more reliable than the collection of Tossephtot at our disposal.

Perhaps we may resolve the contradictions resulting from Maimonides' text by assuming that Maimonides relied on the first Baraitha in Torat Kohanim in which the items the priest has to perform in connection with the purification of the "leper" under the heading תורת המצורע are discussed. Maimonides understood those rites to be so mandatory that any deviation would cancel the whole procedure. The directives given in verses 4 and 5, however, Maimonides understood as something that would be performed preferably by the priest. Anything which is commanded by the priest is imbued with additional importance. We know this principle from Genesis 41,40 where Pharaoh issued a directive to his subjects that all of Joseph's directives were to be considered as binding on the Egyptians. In our instance, the Torah issued a directive that the steps of the purification rites mentioned in verses 4 and 5 should be initiated by a command from the priest but that they may be carried out by non-priests. If, for some reason, these instructions were not carried out at his initiative but someone else issued the instructions this would not invalidate the procedures. There is also a קל וחומר which can be applied to reinforce this logic. If the Torah had made it plain that the releasing of the live bird is not mandatory, then the instructions of how and by whom they have to be selected and slaughtered is certainly not mandatory. If Rabbi holds that even the slaughtering of the bird must be performed by the priest, he did not base this on the words in verse 5 but on his understanding that it is part of the procedures called תורת המצורע seeing it is similar to the sprinkling of the blood and the need to have the hair of his body shaved off. This corresponds to the view held by the first Rabbi quoted in the Baraitha according to whom the slaughtering is included in the three procedures which have to take place by day.

That is that He commanded us that the purification from tsaraat be according to the process written in Scripture (Leviticus 14). And that is [with] cedar wood, hyssop, crimson dyed cloth, two living birds and living waters and that he do everything stated, with those things. And through this exact process, the person becomes pure - as Scripture explains. Behold it has already been made clear to you that there are three types of things that purify from impurity - one of them is general and two of them are specific to two types of impurity. Indeed, the general one is purification in water; the second type is the [sprinkling of] purification water, and that is something specific for the impurity of a corpse; and the third type is cedar wood, hyssop, scarlet dyed cloth, two living birds and living waters - and that is something specific for tsaraat. And the regulations of this commandment - meaning the purification of someone with tsaraat - have all already been explained in the first [chapter] of Tractate Negaim. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 11.)