Komentarz do Kapłańska 14:59

'תהיה תורת וגו ‎זאת THIS SHALL BE THE LAW [OF THE LEPER IN THE DAY OF HIS BEING PRONOUNCED CLEAN] — The words “in the day” inform us that we may not pronounce him clean at night (Sifra, Metzora, Section 1 3; Megillah 21a).

THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER IN THE DAY OF HIS CLEANSING: HE SHALL BE BROUGHT UNTO THE PRIEST. Scripture is stating that this shall be the law of the leper in the day that he wishes to be pronounced pure, that he should be brought to the priest, as he can never attain purity except by means of the priest’s word. Then [in the following verse] Scripture tells that the priest shall go forth to the place of his [the leper’s] habitation out of the camp,¹Verse 3. but he [the leper] is not to come to the priest even though his leprosy has been healed.²Since the plague is a form of punishment, (see Ramban above, 13:47), the priest’s visit to his habitation on the day that the affliction of leprosy is healed is an indication that his repentance has been accepted. Hence the Torah commands the priest to go to the person who had suffered the affliction, and not the other way (Klei Yakar). The interpretation thereof in the Torath Kohanim is as follows:³Torath Kohanim, Metzora 1:3. “And he shall be brought unto the priest, this means that he is not to wait.” If so, Scripture is stating that on the same day that he is cleansed, [meaning] that he is cured from his leprosy,⁴There is thus a distinct difference between the first interpretation, and that of the Torath Kohanim. At first we explained b’yom tahoratho (on the day of his cleansing) as meaning: “on the day that he is to be pronounced clean, he is to be brought to the priest, for no one else can so pronounce him” (see Note 46 in Seder Tazria). But according to the Torath Kohanim the verse means: “on the day he is actually ‘cleansed’ of the sickness, i.e., on the day that he is physically healed of the affliction, there must be no delay and he is to be brought before the priest.” he is to be brought even against his will to the priest. Similarly, the verses, And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue;⁵Further, 15:13. But if she be cleansed of her issue,⁶Ibid., Verse 28. mean when [the issues] will cease and the persons become cleansed of them, as I have explained [i.e., that the term “cleansing” in the verse before us means “the healing” of the leprosy, and the same meaning applies to “the cleansing,” of him or her that hath an issue]. This is the correct explanation.

והובא אל הכהן, to a site near the boundary of the encampment where the priest can come to inspect the afflicted person easily without having to subject himself to special effort.

זאת תהיה תורת המצורע, "This shall be the law of the "leper," etc. The entire verse seems superfluous. All the Torah had to tell us was that the afflicted person shall purify himself and be brought to the priest. Torat Kohanim explains the word זאת as excluding the purification ritual on an altar other than the one in the Temple. The word תהיה is explained as including people in our own times who suffer from the symptoms described in the Torah. Torat Kohanim on verse 4 relates that Rabbi Tarphon had a staff with which he used to purify "lepers" in his day [he was a survivor of the period during which the Temple was destroyed by the Romans. Ed.]. The word תורת is explained as teaching us that even though the different symptoms produce different kinds of צרעת, and different regulations regarding quarantine etc., they are all terminated by the offering of the same kind of offering as outlined in this chapter. The word ביום means that the process of purification described here must take place by day. One might think that the slaughtering of the birds for the offering and the afflicted person's shaving himself would be permissible at night; to prevent us from thinking this the Torah wrote זאת. Thus far Torat Kohanim.

זאת תהיה תורת המצורע...והובא אל הכהן, “This shall be the law concerning the Metzora, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah introduces our chapter with the words: “this is the manner in which a Metzora purifies himself, he will be brought to the priest.” This is to emphasise that anyone who has been afflicted with tzoraat cannot ever regain his standing in the community, i.e. become purified, without the assistance of the priest. Having established this premise, the Torah then describes the priest as leaving the boundaries of the camp, i.e. the habitat of normal Jews, in order to start the process of purifying the person who had been struck with this dread disease. The important part of the Torah’s message is that the victim of tzoraat who has now been cured does not have to come to the priest, but the priest comes toward him to welcome him back into the fold. Torat Kohanim states that the recently cured victim of tzoraat is brought to the outskirts of the camp to face the priest in order to facilitate the priest’s welcoming him back to the fold.

That we do not proclaim him pure at night. You might ask: Why does Scripture need to write, “on the day of his purification”? It is written elsewhere (7:38): “On the day that he commanded” — in the day but not at night. The answer is: If it did not write, “on the day of his purification,” I might think that since his sacrifice is different than any other sacrifice, in that it requires waving while [the animal is] alive (v. 12), then its law is different as well. Therefore, it needed [to say,] “on the day of his purification” (so I found).

זאת תהיה תורת המצורע, “This shall be the law of the person afflicted with the skin diseases discussed in the previous chapters, etc.” the very word מצורע contains a hint that describes why, in most instances, such a person has been afflicted with this disease. It is because he bad-mouthed fellow Jews. The word is a combination of מוציא שם רע, “he called someone by a bad name.” Compare Talmud tractate Erchin folio 16. We also find that the Talmud attributes the demise of four people who had been guilty of this sin as losing their claim to an afterlife; they are: Bileam, Doag, Achitofel, and Geychazi, the disciple of the prophet Elisha. (Compare details in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 106. [That chapter deals with people who have or will forfeit their claim to an afterlife. Ed.]Solomon in Kohelet,5,5, also deals with this subject when he wrote: אל תתן את פיך לחטיא את בשרך, “let not your mouth bring guilt on your flesh;” which sin did he had in mind? The sin of badmouthing fellow Jews. Solomon referred to the same sin in Proverbs 18,21, when he said: מות וחיים ביד לשון, “death and life are within the power of the tongue.” Death is liable to follow abuse of the power of speech, whereas life is at the disposal of people who meticulously observe the Torah and study it. The Torah is the remedy with which the sin of evil gossip can be atoned for. It is known as the עץ חיים, “the tree of life.” We know this also from Solomon, who said in Proverbs 15,4: מרפא לשון עץ חיים, “the tree of life can heal (the harm caused) by abusing one’s power of speech.” Intensive Torah study prevents a person from becoming guilty of using his power of speech. The guilt of לשון הרע, evil gossip, is considered as greater that that of being guilty of shedding innocent blood. When one is guilty of the latter, one had only killed one life, whereas when one is guilty of evil gossip, one is guilty of killing at least three people, the one who engages in it, the one who listens to it, and the one about whom this evil gossip has been spread. We find an illustration of this in Samuel I 22, where King Sha-ul killed all the priests resident in the city of Nov because he had listened to the false accusations spread against them by Doag. Sha-ul was killed on account of that sin as we know from Samuel Il 1,9: עמוד נא ומותתני כי אחזני השבץ, “stand over me and finish me off, for | am in agony and barely alive;” whenever we encounter the expression שבץ, it refers to the priestly garments, as we know from Exodus 28,39: ושבצת הכתונת שש, “make the fringed tunic out of fine linen.” Concerning Doag, the slanderer, in this story we have it on the authority of Psalms 52,7 that he was killed in this world and deprived of the after life, i.e. גם אל יתצך לנצח יחתך וגו', “also G–d will tear you down for good, and root you out, etc.” The Talmud in tractate Erchin, folio 15, states that the sin of tale-bearing is greater than murder, incest or idolatry.

ביום טהרתו, “on the day of his purification;” this teaches that his state of defilement, purification, the slaughtering of the birds, and the sprinkling of their blood, as well as his being shaved, all take place on the same day.

You note that the author of Torat Kohanim used the word זאת exegetically both to exclude temporary altars or altars outside the Temple, as well as to forbid the afflicted person shaving himself at night, etc. The basis for these multiple inferences from the same word is that the Torah wrote two restrictive clauses (זאת, ביום) before mentioning the word טהרה, "purification." If the Torah had wanted to make only a single exclusion, the main subject of the verse, i.e. the purification, should have appeared next to either one of these מעוטים, restrictive expressions. For example, the Torah could have written: תורת המצורע, זאת תהיה ביום, "the law of the leper; this shall occur by day." We would then have understood that only the word ביום was to serve as a restrictive clause. The purification rites would then have been permissible on whatever altar was in use by the Jewish people at that time. The Torah could also have written the following sequence: ביום טהרת המצורע זאת תהיה תורתו, "on the day the 'leper' is purified, this shall be the law of his purification rites." The restrictive clause would then have applied only to the offerings, not to the time of day when the offering had to be brought. This latter version would not have contained a single additional letter except that the words would have been rearranged.

והובא אל הכהן, “and he will be brought to the priest.” We read this as if it had been written in the past tense, i.e. ובא אל הכהן, “he had come.” The reason is that there was no one who could have brought him, as everyone had been warned not to associate with him in any manner. Compare Leviticus 13,46: בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה מושבו, “he must dwell in isolation, his residence must be beyond the boundaries of the camp.”

ביום טהרתו, this also teaches that he is not to tarry in performing these rites. והובא אל הכהן, “after he had been purified he shall be brought to the priest;” while still outside the camp, but where the priest can inspect him without undue discomfort. We know that the afflicted person could not yet have entered the confines of the camp from what is written immediately following, i.e. that the priest had to leave the camp in order to perform his duties. An alternate explanation: the words: “and he was brought to the priest,” mean that he had to be brought to the priest because he was still resident outside the camp, so that he had to be brought to the boundary. The priest on his part came as near as he could in order to meet him.

Vayikra Rabbah 16,2 derives the idea that the person afflicted had been guilty of slander from the unnecessary words זאת תהיה. We need to understand why the Torah chose to allude to this fact at this point just when the afflicted person undergoes the rites of purification. I believe that the fact that his first offerings have to be the birds which are characterised by their constant twittering is the key to this. These birds are a reminder of the afflicted person's loose tongue, the sin of לשון הרע. The Torah first wrote these unnecessary words to allude to the reason why the first offerings in his rehabilitation process must be the birds.

We may also understand these verses as follows: the affliction of "leprosy" develops due to pollutants in the body and gradually these negative influences within the body gain in strength until their presence becomes noticeable on the skin. Such physical symptoms also are accompanied by psychological symptoms developing. The afflicted person becomes morose, miserly, and his mind becomes depressed. The natural antidote are activities which help to cheer up a person, cause him to laugh and to enjoy himself. Now that the person under discussion has become afflicted with צרעת, it was natural for him to think that his disease was a natural occurrence. If someone were to tell him that it was his loose tongue which had resulted in this affliction he would not believe such a person, nor would he admit that he had been guilty of a loose tongue. This is why G'd in His wisdom decided to decree isolation for such a person, for his garments, (13,45) etc. While quarantined, such a person is apt to take stock of himself and to regret his former conduct. He will then observe that he has not been able to use his tongue against other people and that during this period his symptoms recede or vanish although by natural law he would have expected the symptoms to increase; he will find that the very affliction opened his eyes and he will realise why he had been afflicted. He will repent, confess his sin, and purify his tongue and realise that he was not the victim of a chance disease. When the Torah writes זאת תורת המצורע, this is an allusion to the new insights the afflicted person has discovered and which will lead to his purification. His new insights will prove all this to him ביום טהרתו, on the day of his purification; i.e. that although his isolation deprived him of what would naturally have served to cheer him up, he was healed despite the fact that he should have been morose and depressed while in solitary confinement. This will convince him that it was the wrong use he had made of his tongue which had resulted in his affliction and he will henceforth guard his tongue carefully. When the Torah concludes verse 3 with the words והנה נרפא נגע הצרעת מן הצרוע, and behold, the "plague of leprosy has been healed 'from the leper,'" the extra words מן הצרוע tell us that the cure was due to the disease itself.

והובא אל הכהן, and he is brought to the priest. Seeing the Torah had previously spoken of ביום טהרתו, on the day of his purification, the formerly afflicted person could have thought that his purification was complete already seeing his symptoms had disappeared; the Torah therefore explains that until he has been declared "clean" by the priest this is not so. Our sages in Torat Kohanim also observe that the words "he will be brought to the priest" imply that there is to be no delay. The reason that the Torah uses a passive form "he will be brought," instead of the usual "he shall come to the priest," indicates that the court will obligate him to go to the priest, or that the priest will take hold of him forcing him to leave his present residence. The same may apply when the symptoms had first shown up; he is obligated to go to the priest and to have the priest examine him.

אל מחוץ למחנה OUT OF THE CAMP — outside the three camps to where he (the leper) had been sent during the days he was decidedly a leper (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 13:46).

ויצא הכהן אל מחוץ למחנה. “The priest shall go forth to the outside of the camp.” Torat Kohanim comments that only a priest who was inside the camp could do this, not a priest, who, being himself a victim of tzoraat, and hence also outside the camp. Such a priest cannot participate in the purification rites of another metzora.

Beyond the three camps. You might ask: Why does Rashi need to explain this? He already explained this above regarding (13:46): “Beyond the encampment.” The answer is that he explains a second time here for the following reason: So that you will not say that since it is written, “he shall be brought to the kohein,” it implies that the one who is afflicted with tzora’as should go to one of the camps, and there the kohein will examine him. Therefore, Rashi had to explain as he did, because it is written: “[The kohein] shall go out beyond the encampment.” And that which it is written, “he shall be brought...” does not refer to the one who is afflicted with tzora’as, but rather to the purification [process] of the one who is afflicted with tzora’as, i.e., [the means of] how the metzoro is purified from his tzora’as is by him being brought to the kohein.

ויצא הכהן אל מחוץ למחנה, “and a ritually pure priest left the camp as he could reenter the camp, and he performed the purification rites. The fact that the Torah wrote: “the priest left the camp,” proves that he must have been ritually pure else what enabled this priest to return to the camp otherwise? A ritually contaminated priest could not enter the camp, so how could he perform all the rites? (Sifra) והנה נרפא, “and behold the plague had been healed.” It had vanished.נ

נגע, “the white hair had disappeared;” הצרעת, the raw flesh had disappeared. מן הצרוע, “from the person who had been afflicted with tzoraat. Not a trace was left.

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.

אל מים חיים OVER RUNNING WATER — He first places it (the water) in the vessel but only, just enough that the bird’s blood may remain discernible in it. And how much is this? The fourth of a log (Sotah 16b).

אל כלי חרס, “into an earthen vessel.” Allegorically speaking, the person preparing to rejoin society is to humble himself, like broken earthenware.

First in a vessel. Because at first it is written, “in an earthenware vessel,” and afterwards it is written, “over running water.” How could that be? Rashi answers: Both are true: He [first] places [the water in a vessel]...

ושחט את הצפר האחת, “the priest is to slaughter one of these two birds;” why was one of the birds slaughtered and the other one was let go and sent off into his domain? This symbolised the lesson that if the person now getting his atonement would perform sincere penitence, he would again become a useful member of society, fit to be associated with.

וצוה הכהן ושחט, “and the priest issues the order to slaughter. The order had to be given by a priest, whereas it could be executed by any ordinary Israelite. (According to Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Yossi.) Some sages disagree that an ordinary Israelite could perform the act of slaughtering in this instance.

על מים חיים, “over spring water;” just as Naaman, the Assyrian general who had to bathe himself in the river Jordan.

A fourth. [Rashi knows this] from that which is written afterwards: “And immerse them and the live bird in the blood of the slaughtered bird...” This implies that the blood should be recognizable in the water.

ושחט את הצפור האחת, “the superior looking one of the two birds.” (Based on the prefix ה before the word (אחת

על מים חיים, “over running water,” (from a spring, not a tap.) The symbolism here is to show that the deadlike person who had been afflicted, was now on the way back and could take his place among them. על מים חיים, this spring water was to mix with the blood of the bird which had been slaughtered, so that the hyssop and the leaves from the cedar tree could be dipped in that mixture with the crimson wool and the living bird.

את הצפור החיה יקח אתה AS FOR THE LIVING BIRD HE SHALL‎ TAKE IT — The phrasing (since it does not state ‘‘the living bird and the cedar wood etc. he shall take”, but, “the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar stick etc.”) informs us that he does not bind it (the bird) together with them (the cedar wood etc.) but keeps it apart by itself. The cedar stick, however, and the hyssop are tied together by the crimson slip, just as it is stated: “and the cedar wood and the crimson slip and the hyssop” — one “taking” for the three (since these three are grouped together after the word יקח). One might think that just as it (the bird) does not come under the regulation as regards binding, so, too, it does not come under the regulation as regards “dipping”; it therefore states “and he shall dip them and the living bird” — thus it (Scripture) mentions the bird again in connection with them to bring it, too, under the regulation of dipping (cf. Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 1 6).

That he does not tie it with them. Rashi is answering the question: It should say “taking” once on all of them: “The [living] bird... [and the cedarwood, the crimson thread] and the hyssop he shall take them.”

ואת הצפור החיה בדם, “together with the living bird in the blood of;” this was so that the living bird before being released had been dyed the colour of the slaughtered bird’s blood; the other birds of the same subspecies will look at it and will know that it had changed colours (allegorically speaking had become impure) and gang up on it and kill it so that they themselves will not be found as afflicted with the disease of the now healed victim. They are afraid of being chosen as sacrifices for another person afflicted with the same disease. (This strange sounding paragraph is found inTossaphot. The idea of releasing a living bird in order that it be killed by its mates sounds somewhat puzzling.) Seeing that the Torah in verse 20 writes that this whole procedure as outlined in the verses following, is designed to achieve atonement עליו, i.e. only for the person of which we have been reading, if the bird that had been released would return, the affliction would also return and the person who had brought all these sacrifices would not have become ritually pure. If proof would be needed that this statement is indeed correct, i.e. that the mates of that bird that has changed colour by having been dunked in blood will kill it or devour it, our sages quote Jeremiah 12,9 as saying in the name of G-d: העיט צבוע נחלתי לי התיו לאכלה, “My heritage has become like a speckled bird, the birds around it are against her ready to devour her!” this simile appears completely inappropriate as the Torah had never spoken about an עיט, “a speckled bird.” It must therefore be a bird which because it had changed colour, cannot be recognised for what it had been like originally. The Talmud argues that surely the Torah would not have instructed this live bird to be released if the intention had been that it should be killed! (Talmud, tractate Kidushin folio 57) [Remember that we had learned that any bird referred to as צפור is automatically permitted to become an instrument to lead someone into sin, especially a bird that is permitted to be eaten, so how did Jeremiah quote G-d as saying that it has become a forbidden bird, עיט. Ed.]

Are wrapped together in the [crimson] strip. I.e., the cedarwood and hyssop, and also the crimson strip are wrapped together in a bundle, but the crimson strip is not wrapped around the [other] two. Rather, it was wrapped with them in a bundle with the remnants of the strip.

It is not included in the [requirement] of dipping. It appears to me that we should not explain that [Rashi means] it would not be included at all in [the requirement of] dipping, because Scripture writes: “and the live bird in the blood of the slaughtered bird.” Rather, it appears to me that this is what he means: Perhaps, just as it is not included in [the requirement of] tying together, but rather is taken by itself, so too it is not included in [the requirement of] dipping with the bundle. Instead, [it would have a] dipping by itself. [Therefore,] the verse says, “and he shall dip them and the live bird” — one dipping for all of them (Nachalas Yaakov).

וטהרו, similar as in 13,45 פרימה ופריעה, baring something, tearing it, removing the offending part.

והזה על המטהר מן הצרעת, and he shall sprinkle on him that is to be purified, etc. Why did the Torah have to write the words מן הצרעת? Is it not obvious that we speak about someone who had suffered from "leprosy?" Perhaps the fact that this sprinkling of the blood mixed with מים חיים of the slaughtered bird still did not complete the purification process and the former "leper" still has to remain outside his home for another seven days shows he is comparable to a woman who had suffered from vaginal secretions, זבה. During these seven days before the former "leper" brings his final offerings and undergoes the procedure outlined in verses 9-20 he is still a primary source of ritual impurity, אב הטומאה. The Torah therefore emphasised by the words המטהר מן הצרעת that the person is being cleansed only of the actual plague called צרעת; he is not yet "clean." If we learn in verse 9 that this person must wash his garments on the seventh day this proves that his body conferred impurity on his clothing during the preceding seven days. This proves in turn that he was a primary source of ritual impurity as secondary sources of impurity do not confer טומאה on clothing. The words מן הצרעת are amply justified then.

והזה שבע פעמים, the verse is somewhat truncated meaning that the priest is to sprinkle seven times on the person about to be ritually cleansed from his affliction of צרעת. 14,11. ואותם, the sheep under discussion.

על פני השדה,”upon the open field.” Uninhabited places where symptoms of that disease cannot be found so that the person that has been cured will not per chance be re-infected with the disease. (Ibn Ezra)

על פני השדה, “in the open country.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reason that the live bird is released into open country is connected to the fact that the disease it atones for, i.e. carries away with it in a symbolic fashion, was one that was infectious. It is appropriate therefore to release the bird to where it is unlikely to infect anyone (compare Ibn Ezra). This would also explain the spirit of impurity which had settled on the afflicted person as a result of his having submitted to these negative emanations originating with the original serpent. This is all due to his behavior which paralleled that of that serpent when it engaged in slander. This is also why throughout the Talmud and even in the Torah, (compare Aaron’s plea on behalf of Miriam in Numbers 12,12) a person afflicted with this dread disease is compared to a dead person, i.e. the root cause of all defilement and ritual impurity.
Another allusion contained in the words על פני השדה may be to the פורחות השדה, “tramp-like demons,” which infest those areas much as Satan is at home in the desert. Remember that the bird being released here had first been dipped in the blood of its mate which had been slaughtered. The whole procedure of what is happening to the two birds and their atoning for the sin of an individual is reminiscent of the two male goats on Yom Kippur which atone for the collective sins of the people, the live scapegoat being consigned to virgin territory as a “gift, or bribe to Satan.” In this instance the live bird “carried” with it the sins of the person on whose behalf it was offered.
This bird was not allowed to be released either to the desert or the sea as we know from Torat Kohanim Sifra Metzora 2,5 where the examples given are that one must not stand in Jaffa and release the bird in the direction of the sea, nor must one stand in some cultivated area of the country and release the bird into the desert.

שבע פעמים;” seven times.” This bird’s blood was to be sprinkled on the back of the hand of the afflicted person.

Torat Kohanim offers a different explanation, saying that the words מן הצרעת are intended to teach that if someone's ritual impurity is due to contact with a dead body he does not have to undergo seven sprinklings of מים חיים. Had the Torah not written the words מן הצרעת, I would have concluded through a קל וחומר that if a "leper" who does not require sprinklings of water from a well (mixed with the ash of the red heifer) on the third and seventh day of his purification process nonetheless requires seven sprinklings of blood, then a person whose impurity is due to contact with a dead body would certainly need these seven sprinklings of מים חיים spring water mixed with the blood.. Hence the Torah wrote the words מן הצרעת in order to teach me that such a קל וחומר is not admissible. At the end of that Baraitha it is stated that the word וטהרו in verse 7 is restrictive and teaches that the "leper" does not have to undergo sprinklings of well water mixed with the ash of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of his purification rites as does the person who purifies himself from ritual impurity due to contact with a dead body. Had the Torah not written the word וטהרו, I would have learned a קל וחומר that if such a טמא מת who does not require the seven sprinklings of מים חיים plus blood, nonetheless requires sprinkling of well water mixed with the ash of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of his purification rites, the "leper" who even requires the seven sprinklings of blood mixed with מים חיים certainly would also require the sprinkling with well water (containing ash from the red heifer) on the third and seventh day of his own waiting period. The word וטהרו therefore means that the ritual described previously is sufficient.

וטהרו, “and pronounce him ritually pure;”

I do not understand this. Seeing we have already used the words מן הצרעת to teach us that a comparison between a טמא מת and a צרוע, leper, is inadmissible, why did I need the word וטהרו to teach me the same thing?

ושלח את הצפור החיה, “whereupon he is to send off the living bird;” this is a symbol of the purity signifying that the tzoraat has “flown off” the owner of these birds who had suffered the affliction. The allegorical meaning is that whereas previously the owner of this bird had sat on the roof of a house (i.e. homeless and exposed to all kinds of danger, seeing that he had been forbidden any contact with human society, now he had miraculously been readmitted to civilization and all its advantages.)

We may explain this as follows; In the case of the טמא מת the Torah legislated sprinklings of מי פרה on the third and seventh day respectively (Numbers 19, 18-19) without mentioning how many of these sprinklings there had to be. On the other hand, the Torah did mention the number of sprinklings to be administered to someone whose ritual impurity was due to the plague, but it did not mention on which days these sprinklings had to be administered. It would have been quite reasonable to argue that a purification procedure requiring seven sprinklings is a more comprehensive procedure than one which occurs only on the third and seventh day respectively because it takes place only twice. The Torah therefore had to write the word וטהרו to teach that such reasoning is invalid. On the other hand, one could have argued with equal force that if the Torah legislated sprinklings to occur on two days in the case of a טמא מת, whereas the צרוע requires sprinkling only on one day of the seven days he is waiting, this is proof that the purification procedure of the טמא מת is of greater force than the one involving the "leper." Different scholars each adopt one of these two arguments in their approach to our problem. Accordingly, one scholar would have learned the קל וחומר using as his point of departure the case of the טמא מת, whereas the other scholar would have used the קל וחומר using as his point of departure the case of the "leper." As a result the Torah had to write two restrictive expressions, i.e. מן הצרעת as well as וטהרו in order to invalidate either קל וחומר.

Seeing that the logic of at least one of the two scholars arguing in opposite directions must be faulty, you may ask why the Torah should have to bother to invalidate faulty reasoning by writing an extra word! The answer is that we find that the Talmud Berachot 47 on the words עליך אמר קרא, explains that there are numerous instances in Tannaitic exegesis when a verse is used to refute a statement whose logic was faulty in the first place.

I have seen a comment by the outstanding scholar Rabbi Yehudah Rosenish, author of Mishneh Lamelech (commentary on the יד החזקה by Maimonides) on Hilchot Chametz Umatzah 6,2, where he quotes a Baraitha similar to the one we have quoted before whose text is as follows ( Torat Kohanim chapter 11 on Leviticus 23,6): the words הזה חג המצות, mean that on this day matzot are mandatory; on Sukkot, however, matzot are not mandatory. We could have learned a קל וחומר reasoning that if a festival (Passover) which does not require that we move into a Sukkah still requires us to eat matzot, then surely a festival on which we have to move into a Sukkah requires us to eat matzot. The Torah therefore wrote הזה חג המצות to make it clear that matzot are mandatory only on Passover. In chapter 14 of the same Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 23,34 on the sequence of the words הזה חג הסוכות, the following Baraitha is quoted: These words mean that only the festival of Sukkot requires us to move out into huts whereas the festival of Passover does not include such a requirement. I could have learned a קל וחומר saying that if this festival which does not require us to eat matzot nonetheless requires us to move into huts, then a festival, i.e. Passover, which does require us to eat Matzot most certainly also requires us to move into huts. The Torah therefore writes הזה to teach us that only on the festival of Sukkot are we required to move into huts. The author of Lechem Mishneh there raises the same questions we have raised in connection with the Baraitha concerning the words מן הצרעת and וטהרו in our portion. It will be worth your while to see what Rabbi Rosenish answers there although I consider his words slightly forced. There are a number of authorities who do not consider it worth their while to examine Maimonides' rulings critically when what is at issue is a lenient ruling concerning a matter whose biblical origin is doubtful at best. [This is relevant because Maimonides' ruling concerns whether it is adequate to swallow the bitter herbs without tasting them. Ed.]

I believe that the solution to why both of these Baraithot are quoted by Torat Kohanim is quite self-explanatory as we explained earlier. The whole point of our moving into the Sukkah is to remind ourselves of the miracles G'd performed for us after the Exodus as we know from Leviticus 23,43. This move into the Sukkah is an additional dimension of our recalling the Exodus. It was quite natural therefore to suppose that we should also eat matzot on that festival to symbolise our remembrance of that miracle seeing the Torah commanded us to sit in the Sukkah, something we do not have to do on Passover. The Torah had to write the word הזה to teach us that there is no need to do this. On the other hand, the festival of Passover also reflects a dimension of that miracle which is not present in the festival of Sukkot in that we celebrate it on the anniversary of its occurrence, on the 15th of Nissan. One could have supposed therefore that it would be in order to observe it while sitting in Sukkot, seeing that we have to sit in the Sukkah even when we observe this remembrance without it being on the anniversary of the event it commemorates. It was reasonable then for the author of the Baraitha to assume that but for the extra words הזה on both occasions such a קל וחומר would have been in order. The author tries to demolish the explanation by Lechem Mishneh arguing that if the whole קל וחומר was only based on a possible הלכה as opposed to a definite one, it could not have been called קל וחומר at all. [I have left out some of the details of this reasoning. Ed.]

וישב מחוץ לאהלו AND HE SHALL ABIDE OUTSIDE HIS TENT — This informs us that matrimonial intercourse is forbidden to him (מחוץ לאהלו implies outside his home — his family life; cf. Deuteronomy 5:27: שובו לכם לאהליכם) (Sifra, Metzora, Section 2 11).

ורחץ במים וטהר, part of the general theme “he will make his residence outside the camp” (as long as he is afflicted) (compare 13,46)

וכבס המטהר את בגדיו, and the person to be "cleansed" is to wash his garments, etc. Why does the Torah decree this washing of the garments seeing that during the ensuing seven days the מטהר keeps on conferring impurity on garments by contact with them? I have explained on verse 7 that the words מן הצרעת refer to the impurity his body had suffered from up until now and which he is rid of, and this requires that at some stage he washes his garments in order to purify them, why do it now when they will likely become defiled again immediately by a different level of ritual impurity? I have found the following answer to this in Torat Kohanim. "What does the word וכבס teach us? If it is to tell us that the "leper" conferred ritual impurity on these garments through touching them, I did not need a verse to tell us this as I could have arrived at this by a קל וחומר based on the status of the afflicted person while he awaits the priest's final decision. During those days he does not confer impurity on people by reason of his entering the camp (based on Leviticus 13,3) although his garments become impure on contact. During the purification days when he would confer impurity on entering the camp, surely his garments also absorb impurity from him during those days? The verse therefore informs us about the additional ways the מטהר confers impurity, i.e. through someone sitting on those garments or lying on them even without touching them. Thus far Torat Kohanim. According to this, the word וכבס would indicate that after this washing the garments of the person undergoing purification rites will no longer confer impurity by someone lying on them or sitting on them. The main thrust of the Torat Kohanim's comment on the word וכבס is based on our very question that the procedure seems useless seeing the clothing will become impure again immediately. There was no need to question the plain meaning of the word וכבס, seeing washing will result in purification of the garments. There would have been nothing unusual in the Torah requiring someone to remove impurity at the first possible opportunity; we would not have had to look for any explanation beyond this were it not for the question of what function such washing of the clothing would serve at that stage. The Torah did issue similar directives when it comes to the shaving of the hair of the מטהר which also is something that has to occur both on the first day of the purification rites as well as on the seventh day.

That he is forbidden marital relations. [Rashi knows this] because we derive “his tent” from “your tents” as it is written concerning Matan Torah (Devarim 5:27): “Go say to them, ‘Return to your tents’,” where marital relations were permitted to them. Meaning: We cannot say [it means] that he should not enter his home, because since he has entered the Israelite encampment why should he not enter his home? (Gur Aryeh).

I have seen that Rabbenu Hillel actually writes that the conclusion of Torat Kohanim that as of the time of this washing the clothing of the מטהר no longer confers impurity by sitting on them or lying on them should be stricken from the text. The reason he advances for this is a statement in Pessachim 67 that the ritual impurity of a person suffering an involuntary seminal emission, זב, is more severe than that of a person afflicted with צרעת seeing that a זב confers impurity on anything he sits or sleeps on and also is a cause of impurity by entering areas forbidden to him. If Rabbenu Hillel were correct we would have to emend the text of a number of Baraithot in which it is expressly stated that the "leper" causes impurity to things he sits on or lies on. The author of Korban Aharon has already refuted the arguments voiced by Rabbenu Hillel. It is argued there that the claim that a זב is indeed afflicted with a deeper degree of impurity is true during the days he counts towards his purification when he causes impurity to what he sits on and lies on whereas the מטהר does not. The מצורע on the other hand, does not cause this kind of impurity during the days he counts towards final purification. This is precisely what we learned from the words וכבס המטהר occurring both in verse 8 and in verse 9. Maimonides and all the other authorities are unanimous in this ruling. Rabbenu Hillel was not correct in this instance.

ורחץ במים וטהר, and he will bathe himself and be "clean." Torat Kohanim write that the additional word במים means that even immersion in a מקוה, a ritual bath, is acceptable. If not for that word, we could have learned the following קל וחומר. If a זב who does not require to be sprinkled with running water from a well, nonetheless has to immerse himself in running water from a well, i.e. מים חיים, the מצורע who does require to be sprinkled with such running water would most certainly also have to immerse himself in such running water from a well; the Torah therefore writes: ורחץ במים to teach us that the water of a ritual bath suffices for this washing. The author of Korban Aharon explains the extra word במים in the same vein. The difficulty with this exegetical comment is that according to the author of Torat Kohanim the Torah had already informed us in 15,13 on the words ורחץ בשרו במים חיים that only the זב requires immersion in running water from a well and not a מצורע. The reasoning presented there is identical to that presented here. The only difference is that in 15,13 the word בשרו is the one considered extraneous whereas in our verse it appears to be the word במים. The author of Korban Aharon also concurs. If all this is correct, why did the Torah write the word במים in our verse? Perhaps one may answer that the author of Torat Kohanim considers the word במים in our verse as crucial to his inference that the words "in water" are a suitable expression if the subject is a ritual bath, מקוה. The word בשרו, his flesh, is really needed primarily to exclude the need to wash his clothing in running water from a well but that it may be washed in any kind of water. Torat Kohanim on 15,13 explains this also. The author overcomes the accusation that he wanted to use the word בשרו for two exegetical comments by mentioning the word במים in our verse for this combined exegesis. Korban Aharon, on the other hand, bases himself on the Torah not writing ורחץ הזב, but merely ורחץ בשרו. If you adopt our approach you do not need all this.

Concerning another comment by Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 6,21 ומרק ושוטף במים, "it shall be scoured and rinsed in water," where the Torah speaks of the vessel wherein the sin-offering has been cooked, we find another definition of the Torah's use of the word במים when not defined further. Here is the text of Torat Kohanim there. "If the Torah had only written ושטף, I would have concluded that it is required to be immersed in at least 40 Sa-ah of water, i.e. a ritual bath. The additional word במים teaches that a minimal amount of water is sufficient. The word במים also excludes wine as the liquid in which such an earthenware vessel may be scoured." We cannot compare the superfluous word במים the Torah wrote in connection with the sin-offering with the superfluous word במים in our verse. If the Torah had not written the word במים in Leviticus 6,21 I would not have required more than 40 Sa-ah of the waters of a ritual bath. We would not have jumped to the conclusion that the vessels in question had to be scoured in מים חיים, running water from a well, and that the extra word במים precluded this requirement. I would simply have concluded that the word was necessary to tell us that what is required is 40 Sa-ah of "mikveh-water" rather than any quantity of any kind of water. This is not so in our context. If not for the restrictive word במים, I would have had cause to assume that what is required is running water from a well. The extra word במים therefore teaches us that no מים חיים, running water from a well, is required. If Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 6,21 added that the word במים means that the vessel must not be scoured in wine, this is not derived from the word במים being extraneous but from the plain meaning of the word, i.e. "water, yes, wine , no."

את כל שערו [HE SHALL CUT OFF] ALL HIS HAIR etc. — We have a generalisation (“all his hair”), a particularisation (“his head and his beard and his eyebrows”), and again a generalisation (“and all his hair”). According to the rule of interpretation (מדה ו' י״ג מדות) the purpose of this is to include in the generalisation only such things as are similar to those contained in the particularisation; here it intends to include every spot of the body where there is a collection of hair, it (the hair) being visible (these being the characteristics of the head, beard and eyebrows) (Sotah 16a).

AND IT SHALL BE ON THE SEVENTH DAY, THAT HE SHALL SHAVE ALL HIS HAIR, HIS HEAD AND HIS BEARD AND HIS EYEBROWS, EVEN ALL HIS HAIR HE SHALL SHAVE OFF. “This is a general principle [he shall shave all his head] followed by an enumeration of particulars [already comprehended in the general proposition, i.e., his head etc.] and [this again is followed by] a generalization [all his hair he shall shave off].⁶⁴Such a Scriptural statement is governed by the rule enunciated by Rabbi Yishmael [in his “Thirteen exegetical principles by which the Torah is expounded”], that the generalizations can include only such new particulars as are similar to those particulars specified. In the verse they therefore include etc. This is to include every spot of the body where there is a visible collection of hair” [just like the head, beard and eyebrows]. This is Rashi’s language.
But in the Torath Kohanim it is stated:⁶⁵Torath Kohanim, Metzora 2:2-3. Ramban’s meaning is to point out that Rashi here follows Rabbi Yishmael’s method of exposition, while the accepted rule is that of Rabbi Akiba, who had a different method of exegesis which allowed in such cases for a wider inclusion of particulars not specified, as indicated in the following text of the Torath Kohanim. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 80. “And he shall shave off all his hair. I might think this includes the hidden parts of the body; Scripture therefore states, his eyebrows. Just as the eyebrows are visible, so also [the expression] all his hair refers only to visible parts of the body, thus excluding hair which is in the hidden parts of the body. If so I might think, just as the eyebrows are in a place where there is a visible collection of hair, so we are to include [only] those places where there is a visible collection of hair. Whence do I know to include [in the commandment of shaving his hair] an invisible collection of hair [such as under the armpits, and between the legs], or a visible scattering of hair [such as on the stomach or ribs] or an invisible scattering of hair [such as the hair in the folds of the body]? Scripture therefore says, even all his hair he shall shave off.” However, the Rabbi [Rashi] followed the interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael,⁶⁴Such a Scriptural statement is governed by the rule enunciated by Rabbi Yishmael [in his “Thirteen exegetical principles by which the Torah is expounded”], that the generalizations can include only such new particulars as are similar to those particulars specified. In the verse they therefore include etc. who included only the hair between the legs, and excluded the hair under the armpits and on the whole body [since they are not “visible collections of hair].” But here the accepted law is that he shaves his body as smooth as a gourd, either because this is one [of the three instances] where the practice goes beyond the Biblical text,⁶⁶Sotah 16 a. or because the accepted law is like the opinion of Rabbi Akiba, who [as a consequence of his wider method of exegesis] included the hair of the whole body [in the requirement of being shaved], and excluded only the hair within the nose [or ears]. So also have we been taught in a Mishnah [like Rabbi Akiba]:⁶⁷Negaim 14:2. “He passed the razor over the whole of his body,” and it is further explained in the second chapter of Tractate Sotah.⁶⁶Sotah 16 a.

ורחץ את בשרו במים וטהר, in line with the previously mentioned instruction “he must pitch his tent outside the camp.” (verse 8)

ורחץ את בשרו במים וטהר and he will bathe his flesh in water and be "clean." Why did the Torah have to write the word בשרו, his flesh? We have stated that the word בשרו in 15,13 in connection with the זב meant that only the זב and not the מצורע requires immersion in מים חיים, and that the word excludes washing of the clothing in מים חיים from the requirement. It is not possible to justify both these exegetical comments from the use of a single word בשרו. Now that this word appears here also and is not needed in its own right, the comment of Korban Aharon on 15,13 is acceptable. We can also ask why the word במים had to be written in this verse again. The explanation we offered for that word being written in verse 8 does not apply here. In that verse we could have erred by thinking that but for that word the מטהר would have had to immerse himself in מים חיים, seeing he had already had to undergo sprinkling with מים חיים. There was no reason to make such a קל וחומר the second time. If you were to argue that the whole procedure of purifying the מצורע is a single procedure and that therefore any possible misunderstanding and the subsequent קל וחומר would apply equally to both washings, we have already eliminated the need for bathing in מים חיים, even in an instance when sprinkling with מים חיים had been necessary. There could not have been room for error then to make the word במים necessary a second time.

Every place in which there is a collection of hair [which] is visible. “He shall shave off all of his hair,” a general statement; “his head, his beard, and his eyebrows,” a statement of particulars; “he shall shave off all of his hair,” again a general statement. [This constitutes a] כלל ופרט וכלל — and you must judge only like the particulars [i.e., the general statement must conform to the particulars listed between the general statements in the verse]. Just as the particulars are clearly in a place where there is a collection of hair which is visible, so too every place in which there is a collection of hair which is visible, such as the mustache. This excludes the hair of the armpits or of the genitals that although it is a collection of hair, it is not visible. And it excludes the hair on the hands that although it is visible, it is not a collection of hair as [written in] the statement of particulars.

והיה ביום השביעי יגלח, and as soon as the seventh day has come, he will shave all his hair. The reference is to hair that has grown during the preceding seven days. There are two occasions when shaving has to occur. He has to perform two separate shavings;

We would have to answer that the scholar arguing that without the word במים a second time, the only thing which the first word במים eliminated was the need for מים חיים for his first bathing, something that anyway did not confer complete purity on him. On the other hand, we could have argued that the final bathing, which results in the absolute purity of the מטהר, would require מים חיים unless specifically excluded by the word במים again in our verse. We must not forget that the זב is purified completely by a single bathing (15,14). The two situations are therefore not comparable. Even though the second purification process of the מצורע is not accompanied by sprinkling of מים חיים, I could have argued that it should not involve a procedure inferior to that of the זב. If the Torah wrote the word במים also in our verse, this teaches that no מים חיים is required in the final bathing of the מצורע.

את כל שערו את ראשו, “all the hair on his head;” but when the Torah prescribes the Levites as having to shave off their hair, it requires only the eyelids and eyebrows and their body hair. (Numbers 8,7). The purpose there is for cosmetic purposes. Usually they only shave off excess hair and they leave most of it. If they had been asked to remove all their body hair they would present themselves as practically naked in the Presence of the glory of G-d;People who had been afflicted with tzoraat, on the other hand, would have been asked to remove the whole skin over their flesh if they would be able to survive such a procedure. The Torah, therefore, does not ask this of them, but is content with a symbolic procedure. It only wants to ensure that all the symptoms of their affliction have been removed.

The Torah was particular to write the word בשרו which is the very word which caused us to argue in the case of the זב that he needed to bathe himself in running water from a well. Had the word בשרו not been mentioned in our verse also, I would have concluded that the only thing which the word במים excluded was the need to wash the clothing, etc., of the מצורע in מים חיים, but that he would have to bathe at least his body in running water from a well based on the קל וחומר from the situation the Torah describes when telling us about the purification rites of the זב.

ואת כל שערו, “and all of his hair;” what is the meaning of these words? Why does the Torah repeats this instruction? It is to emphasise the critical importance of this procedure and its date. It must be performed on the seventh day, not on the eighth or ninth or tenth day.

You may be tempted to ask why the Torah did not merely write ורחץ בשרו במים in verse 9 and the word במים would have been totally unnecessary in verse 8. The reason this does not work is that I would then have argued that the need for מים חיים was eliminated only for the second bathing which did not have to be preceded by sprinkling the מצורע with מים חיים. This argument, however, is not true for the first bathing by the מטהר which was preceded by his being sprinkled with מים חיים. I would then still have learned the קל וחומר from the זב so that I would have needed the word במים to counter that קל וחומר. [The author continues examining other alternatives for another page or so. I have decided to omit those in the interest of brevity. Ed.]

A moral-ethical approach to this whole paragraph sees it as describing Israel's exile. According to the Zohar the Gentiles are viewed as a צרעת infesting Israel, and dominating them by means of this plague. The plague of צרעת is viewed a "surrounding or encircling" the Israelites bodies. You will also find statements by our sages that even in Egypt Israel's redemption was only possible because they did not indulge in לשון הרע, bad-mouthing each other. This compliment is based on Exodus 3,22 where the Israelites are told that they should ask their neighbours to lend them silver and golden trinkets something they did not do until 12 months later in Exodus 11,2. They were able to contain themselves during all this time without taunting their Egyptian neighbours during this entire period. No single sin results in as much alienation between man and his Maker as the sin of לשון הרע, careless and even defamatory use of one's tongue. This is why the Torah wrote: זאת תהיה תורת המצורע, referring to the Jewish people which had become victimised by this affliction. The words ביום טהרתו imply that Israel is to purify itself by refraining from the sin of לשון הרע and all that it involves. The word הכהן in the sentence והובא אל הכהן refers to G'd. Having previously been alienated from its G'd, the repentance of the Jewish people will once again bring it close to Him (compare Zohar based on the verse in Isaiah 57,19: שלום שלום לרחוק ולקרוב, "Peace, peace to the far and subsequently near.") Following this reconciliation, G'd is described in Zachariah 14,3 as "going out to fight the nations of the world." This is alluded to here by the words ויצא הכהן אל מחוץ למחנה, that G'd had left the camp of the שכינה, i.e. the land of Israel, to a place of impurity to which the Israelites were exiled due to their sins. וראה הכהן והנה נרפא הנגע and as soon as G'd sees that the sin which was the cause of the plague (the exile under the dominion of the Gentiles) has been healed,

וצוה הכהן, G'd will issue directives for two birds to be taken, etc. These two birds represent the two Messiahs, the Mashiach ben Yoseph and the Mashiach ben David. The reason the Messiah is called a bird is that this is a description for souls in the higher regions. The Zohar on פרשת בלק Numbers 24,17 quotes another example of the Messiah being called a "bird." We quote: "From this cave there emerges a very great bird which will rule over the world and the kingdom will be handed over to him." All these expressions are euphemisms for celestial forces as any student of the Kabbalah is aware of. We have found that the first Messiah will be from the tribe of Ephrayim who will nevertheless die while revealing himself; he will be followed by the Messiah descended from David. When the Torah speaks of G'd taking "two birds which are pure," these words are similes for the two kinds of Messiah.

The words ועץ ארז ושני חולעת ואזב, "and the cedar-wood and the scarlet and the hyssop," are allusions to the merits of the three patriarchs. Abraham is represented by the word עץ ארז; He was a man of gigantic spiritual stature. Jacob is represented by the words ושני תולעת, seeing he is called by that "nickname" in Isaiah 41,14 i.e. אל תירא תולעז יעקב, "do not be afraid O worm Jacob;" Isaac is represented by the word אזוב, seeing Isaac symbolises the attribute of גבורה, strength, heroism. The Messiah will have to combine all those attributes within himself.

The word ושחט in this context is an allusion to the death of the first Messiah as G'd said אל כלי חרש על מים חיים. He will die as atonement for the sins of the people. The Torah speaks of כלי חרש, "a vessel made of earthenware," because original man was made of "dust from the earth" (Genesis 2,7); the entire human race was perceived as a כלי חרש, subject to irrevocable fragmentation, because man had not yet been given the Torah. Torah is compared to running water from a well, i.e. מים חיים. When there is no Torah in Israel it is no better than a כלי חרש, subject to total annihilation. This is why one of the two "birds" had to be slaughtered, i.e. would die. The death of that bird at the hands of the Gentiles, i.e. the death of the Messiah from the tribe of Ephrayim would give G'd a legal excuse to don His garments of revenge and to reverse His customary practice of wearing His "suit of mercy" by donning His "suit of retribution." As a result, He would dispose of all the wicked nations. Having been told what would happen if Israel would not practice Torah you can extrapolate that if they would observe Torah none of the afflictions alluded to in our portion as a national disease would have to occur, and the righteous (the first Messiah) would not have to die. The Ari Zal wrote that whenever we pray our regular prayers we must include the request that the Mashiach ben Yoseph should not die. Every prayer adds to the merit of that Messiah so that the collective prayers of the Jewish people may be sufficient to cancel the decree that he would die at the hands of the Gentiles.

The Torah goes on to speak about the צפור החיה, the surviving bird, i.e. the Mashiach ben David whom G'd will take and to whom He will attach the merits of the Patriarchs plus the right to avenge the murder of the Mashiach ben Yoseph; this is why the Torah writes: "He will take it together with the cedar-wood, etc., and dip it in the blood of the bird which has been slaughtered." This means that the combined power of the attribute of Mercy will outweigh the power of the attribute of Justice so that all the impurities of the Jewish people will be atoned for. When the Torah speaks here about the seven sprinklings to be performed on the מטהר, this is an allusion to the seven levels of impurity. Israel will be cleansed of one level of impurity by each of the seven sprinklings. Once this has been accomplished the "bird" will emerge from the cave mentioned in the Zohar, etc. The words על פני השדה, refer to this present world, and the message is that the Messiah will then rule over the whole world. After that, וכבס את המטהר, He will bathe Israel and its clothes, i.e. the sins which have formed its dirty garments and have stained its soul. The removal of the "dirty clothing" may be compared to the vision of the prophet Zecharyah 3 where the angel is described as removing the sin-stained clothing from the High Priest Yoshua in a similar simile describing the redemption from the exile in Babylon. וגלח את כל שערו, "and he will shave the hairs off his entire body;" these words are hyperbole for the removal of unworthy mental outgrowths. The words ורחץ במים are hyperbole for Israel immersing itself in Torah. This latter procedure will purify Israel's thought processes also. ואחר יבא אל המחנה, "After that he can enter the camp;" this is a reference to the camp of the שכינה, i.e. Jersualem on earth which will descend to earth having been built in Heaven.

The Torah goes on to say: וישב מחוץ לאהלו, he will still have to sit outside his own residence seeing that he cannot unite with the שכינה until the seven days of purification have passed which are necessary in order that one receive an important guest with due honour. On the seventh day then the Israelites are ready to welcome the holy guest. You will find a similar concept alluded to in Ezekiel 43,26: "for seven days let them purify the altar, cleanse it, etc." You will note that Ezekiel speaks of two purifications. The first purification achieves the removal of negative influences, The second purification accomplishes the repentant sinner's approach to the sacred, to that which is holy.

וכבשה אחת AND ONE EWE-LAMB for a sin-offering.

AND ON THE EIGHTH DAY HE SHALL TAKE TWO HE-LAMBS WITHOUT BLEMISH, AND ONE EWE-LAMB. Scripture has not explained what is to be done with the two he-lambs and the one ewe-lamb. However, it mentioned concerning one of the he-lambs that the priest offer it as a guilt-offering,⁶⁸Verse 12. and further mentioned that he should offer up the sin-offering,⁶⁹Verse 19. and afterward he shall slaughter the burnt-offering.⁶⁹Verse 19. This is because He has already mentioned in the section of Vayikra that the sin-offering should be a female,⁷⁰Above 4:28; 32. and that every burnt-offering should be a male.⁷¹Ibid., 1:3; 10. Therefore there was no need here to speak at length, it being known that [since the first he-lamb was a guilt-offering], the second he-lamb would be the burnt-offering, and the ewe-lamb would be the sin-offering.

יקח שני כבשים תמימים וכבשה אחת, “he is to take two unblemished sheep and one ewe;” Nachmanides points out that the Torah did not state what is to be done with these three animals except to say that one of the male sheep mentioned is to serve as a guilt-offering, the priest having heaved it before Hashem. In verse 19 the Torah does state that the metzura is to offer his sin offering and his burnt offering, without referring to a specific animal. Seeing that we had learned in Parshat Vayikra that every sin offering, if consisting of the species sheep, consists of a feminine species, it is clear that the ewe is to serve as the sin-offering and the remaining male sheep as the burnt offering. (Ibn Ezra)

For a sin-offering. One lamb came for a guilt-offering, as it is written (v. 12): “The kohein shall take one lamb and bring it as a guilt-offering.” It did not specify anything, however, regarding the other lamb and the one ewe; it only states without specifying that one is for a burnt-offering and one is a sin-offering. However, the second lamb must be for the burnt-offering, because a female is not brought for a burnt offering, as it is written in Parshas Vayikra (1:3). Therefore, the ewe must be for the sin-offering (Re’m).

. שני כבשים, “two male sheep;” one is to be a burnt offering, i.e. the priests do not get to eat any of it, and neither does the owner,

ושלשה עשרנים AND THREE TENTH DEALS [OF FLOUR] — as the drink-offerings of these three he-lambs (Menachot 91a) — because the sin-offering and the guilt-offering of the leper require drink-offerings (although they are not required with other sin- and guilt-offerings).

Require drinkofferings. I.e., [you might ask:] the other sinofferings and guilt-offerings do not require drink-offerings, as we derive (Menachos 91b) from Scripture: “For an expressed vow or for a voluntary offering” (Bamidbar 15:3) — that which comes as a vow or voluntary offering requires drink-offerings, but that which does not come as a vow or voluntary offering does not require drink-offerings. If so, I might think that these three tenths here are referring to a meal-offering that comes by itself, and not the meal-offerings of drink-offerings. [This cannot be,] for if so, it would require only one tenth for the burnt-offering. Therefore, Rashi needs to explain that they come for these three sheep.

וכבשה אחת, “and one female sheep;” this is to be a sin offering, to be treated like any regular sin offering.

ולג אחד שמן AND ONE LOG OF OIL — to sprinkle on his behalf before the Lord seven times (cf. v. 17), and to put of it upon the tip of his ear and for putting it upon his thumbs (v. 25).

And for placing on his thumbs. Rashi wants to give a reason for this log: Why is it not mentioned in any one of the drink-offerings of animals? On this he explains: “To sprinkle...” (Re’m). It appears that we can explain that Rashi is coming to explain so that we should not err to say that [this log] is for the oil of the meal-offering of drink-offerings. Concerning the difficulty raised by Re’m: How could we err to say [that this log is the oil that was mixed with the fine flour when it already says beforehand, “a meal-offering mixed with oil”?], etc. The answer is: This is what the verse says: “A meal-offering mixed with oil” — and how much oil does one [need to] mix with the meal-offering? — One log of oil. Therefore, Rashi needs to explain [what he does with the leftover oil]: “To sprinkle...”

This sacrifice will be accompanied by a libation consisting of three tenths parts of an eyphah of fine flour for a meal offering mixed with oil and one log of oil;

'לפני ה BEFORE THE LORD — i. e. in the gate of Nicanor and not in the court itself (Sifra, Metzora, Section 3 6; Sotah 8a), since he was still short of atonement (as the sin-offering had not yet been brought, and under such circumstances he was not permitted to enter the court).

והעמיד הכהן המטהר, and the priest administering the purification rites will place, etc. this is best explained in light of a comment in Keylim 1,8 that someone whose atonement is not complete is not allowed to enter the courtyard of the Temple intended for the Israelite public. Here the Torah commands that the person undergoing the purification rites stand outside at the entrance to the Nikanor gate as stated in Sotah 7, based on the Torah writing the words לפני השם, "in the presence of the Lord." The Torah charges the administering priest with ensuring that the former "leper," the מטהר, not cross the threshold into the courtyard. He must not even stretch his hand inside and perform סמיכה on the sin-offering. According to Torat Kohanim the Torah permitted him only to place his head inside that area so that the priest could place the oil on his right earlobe and on his respective right thumbs. The principal reason the priest was charged with this task was to prevent the מטהר accidentally crossing the borderline with a substantial part of his body.

ואותם, the sheep under discussion.

At the Nicanor Gate. [This gate] was in the eastern section of the Courtyard and a person who stands there and faces the west sees the entrance to the Sanctuary, and that is “before Hashem.” The interior space of Nicanor Gate was not sanctified with the holiness of the Courtyard so that the metzoro, who was missing atonement could stand there in order to put his hand inside [the Courtyard], to sprinkle on him. This was because someone who is lacking atonement that enters the Courtyard is liable koreis. Therefore, the Sages did not sanctify it [the interior space of Nicanor Gate] with the holiness of the Courtyard. See Re’m.

ואותם, “together with them;” (the sheep under discussion) (Rash’bam)

הכהן המטהר, the priest who performs the purification rites; the reason both these words are necessary is this. If the Torah had only written הכהן, I would not have known that this particular part of the commandment could not be performed by any priest but had to be performed by the priest who administered all the rites. If, on the other hand, the Torah had written only the word המטהר, I would not have been sure that this chore had to be supervised by a priest at all; there are, after all, functions in the total purification procedure which may be performed by a non-priest. Hence the Torah had to write הכהן המטהר.

האיש המטהר ואותם, the man who must be purified and these things; the Torah had to write both the word האיש and the word המטהר, so that we would not conclude that the word האיש excludes a minor as not being included in this part of the legislation although he is liable to be afflicted by צרעת and such affliction makes him ritually impure. Hence the Torah had to add the word המטהר. On the other hand, this word would not have sufficed without the additional word האיש as I might have reasoned that the need for the priest to supervise where the former "leper" had to stand applied only to a minor who had been afflicted and who might not take care where he stood. I would have assumed that an adult could be trusted to watch where he stands at the entrance to the courtyard. The Torah indicates that we do not trust an adult without supervision either. This is why the additional word איש is in place.

Torat Kohanim explains the reason that the Torah added the word האיש as excluding the sin-offering and the burnt-offering from the need to undergo the תנופה, the waving, which the Torah demands for the guilt-offering in verse 12. The Torah then writes another exclusion by means of the word אותו in verse 12 excluding also the man himself, meaning that only the guilt-offering and the log of oil need to be waved. Should you ask that if the word אותו excludes the איש המטהר from the need to undergo the "waving," how could it serve to exclude others from a procedure which does not even apply to itself? This is no problem. We can always use the exclusion by falling back on the exegetical tool אם אינו ענין, that if a word is superfluous in one situation, it may be applied to another situation where it is felt to be appropriate. This is the reason the author of Torat Kohanim chose his words very carefully in this instance. We quote: "The Torah wrote האיש, לא חטאת ולא עולה. You note that the word תנופה is not even mentioned here." Torat Kohanim meant to say therefore that the word האיש excludes חטאת ועולה by using the same reason although the הלכה whose application is being excluded did not apply to the איש in the first place. Our sages were authorised to know where to apply this exclusion seeing the word is evidently unnecessary in its own context. This makes the language of Torat Kohinim on our verse easily intelligible. The alternative explanation given by Korban Aharon seems very forced to me.

והקריב אתו לאשם AND HE SHALL BRING IT FOR A GUILT-OFFERING - This means: he shall bring it inside the court as a guilt-offering to wave it, for it required waving whilst alive (for it states that he shall bring it “and the log of oil” and the latter was not brought as a sacrifice; besides, the act of slaughtering is mentioned in v. 13) (Menachot 62b),

והקריב אותו לאשם. It has already been explained in 7,1 as well as in my commentary on Leviticus 1,2 that the guilt offering, אשם in the main applies to inadvertent sins committed involving misuse of sacred matters, or misuse of the sacred domain of the Temple, such as unauthorised persons entering it, or ritually unclean persons entering it, etc. Just as in the case of the sin offering, חטאת, if that sin had been committed deliberately it would have resulted in the karet penalty, and if not atoned for through teshuvah would have resulted in the guilty person’s eternally being cut off from the collective soul of the Jewish people.
Our sages in Erchin 15 and 16 have already stated that the principal sins for which a person is afflicted with the נגע צרעת, are bad-mouthing people and haughtiness, both of which are perceived by the sages as direct trespass against G’d’s Holiness. Even though badmouthing is generally perpetrated in secret not affording the victim a chance to defend himself against the accusation and character assassination, the prophet Isaiah 29,15 views it as the perpetrators saying “who sees us, who takes note of us?” In other words, the prophet considers the “secrecy” as worse than the sin itself, as it suggests that G’d is unable to see it, and therefore represents a gross insult directed at G’d.
Concerning arrogant, haughty behaviour. We read in Psalms 101,5 “He who slanders his friend in secret I will destroy; I cannot endure the haughty and proud man.” G’d is portrayed as if the sinner is “trying to steal part of G’d’s “clothing.” G’d declares that such people cannot co-exist with Him in the same universe. (Sotah 5).
We have evidence in our scriptures (Chronicles II 26, 16-19) that King Uzziah’s arrogance was punished with tzoraat for his haughtiness, as this sin was considered a trespass against G’d Himself.

Into the [outer] court. [Rashi knows this] because it is written in the next verse: “He shall slaughter the lamb,” which implies that it is still alive. Thus, how could [it mean] they bring it as an offering? Rather, [it must mean] they bring it into the outer court. Rashi gives the reason for this [in the next comment:] In order to wave it when it is alive because “it requires waving [while it is still] alive,” unlike the fats of the peace offering [that require waving after slaughtering], etc.

והניף אתם AND HE SHALL WAVE THEM — the guilt-offering and the log of oil.

The guilt-offering and the log. I.e., but [it does] not [refer to] the two lambs, the ewe, and the three tenths of the beginning of the section. Or, [perhaps] we should say that the lamb is not included in the waving, since the “bringing” refers especially to the lamb and the “waving” to the log. And why does it say “[he shall wave] them” which is the plural form? — To include the log and the tenths, but not the lamb. [Therefore, Rashi needs to say that even though “he shall bring it” refers specifically to the lamb,] nevertheless, since it is written afterwards, “and with the log of oil,” it is as if it says, “and he shall bring it and also the log of oil,” for both of them are included in this bringing. And when it repeats and says, “and he shall wave them,” it refers to the lamb and the log. Similarly, it is written explicitly regarding [the section] “If he is poor” [in v. 24]: “The kohein shall take the [guilt-offering] sheep [and the log of oil and the kohein shall wave them]” (Re’m).

‎ ‎'במקום אשר ישחט וגו‎‎‎ IN THE PLACE WHERE HE SHALL SLAUGHTER etc. — i.e. on the side of the altar on the north. But why is this stated at all? Has it not already been stated in in the law about the guilt-offering in the section צו את אהרן that the guilt-offering requires slaughtering on the north side of the altar? But because this guilt-offering has gone forth from (was made an exception to) the general rule of the guilt- offerings in that it is subject to the law of being placed before the Lord (v. 11), one might think that its slaughtering should be in the spot where it was placed (in the gateway of Nicanor; i. e. it shall be made an exception also in respect to the place where it should be slaughtered); on that account it states, “and he shall slaughter [the lamb] in the place where he slaughters [the sin-offering] etc ” (Sifra, Metzora, Section 3 8).

To be subject to being placed. You might ask: Why does Scripture not reveal with regard to the sin-offering and the burnt-offering that they too must be slaughtered in the north? They too departed from the general rule of sin-offerings and burnt-offerings to be subject to being placed [at the Nicanor Gate], as it is written (v. 11): “The kohein shall place,” which refers to all the offerings needed by the one undergoing the purification. The answer is: Why would you think they do not need to be slaughtered in the north? With regard to the guilt-offering it is understandable that Scripture needs to reveal [that it must be slaughtered in the north], because a guilt-offering is different in that its blood has to be put on the thumb and the ear’s middle ridge of the man undergoing the purification. [Thus,] I might think that it is permitted to slaughter the guiltoffering in the place where the man undergoing the purification is standing, since the kohein brings the blood there to put on his thumbs and the middle ridge of his ear. But with regard to the sin-offering and burnt-offering — no blood is needed there at all!

‎י כחטאת‏‎כ FOR AS THE SIN-OFFERING [SO IS THE GUILT-OFFERING TO THE PRIEST] — This means, for as all sin-offerings so this guilt-offering הוא לכהן is to the priest, i. e. as regards all sacrificial rites which depend upon the priest this guilt-offering is made exactly similar to the sin-offering. In order that you should not say: Since its blood is made an exception to the general rule governing other guilt-offerings in that this is placed upon the tip of the ear and upon the thumbs, it must also form an exception in that it should not require the placing of the blood and the fat portions upon the altar, it therefore expressly states, “for as all sin-offerings so is this guilt-offering to the priest” (לכהן, in reference to the priest, so far as he is concerned). One might also think that its blood must be sprinkled on the upper part of the altar as is the case with the sin-offering! Therefore it says: (Leviticus 7:1, 2) “it is most holy … and its blood shall he sprinkle round about the altar”. So it is set forth in Torath Cohanim (cf. Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 3 1; Zevachim 49a).

Has been made similar. The meaning of, “regarding all the services which depend on the kohein” is that just as with regard to the sin-offering the animal comes from unconsecrated [livestock], [it is offered] in the day, [the service is done] with the right hand, and it requires a [sacred] vessel, so too this guiltoffering. [But] it is not like a sin-offering to be given to the kohein.

Above as a sin-offering. Meaning: It is known that the height of the altar is ten amos, and in the middle of its height there was a red line around the altar to divide between the blood [placed] above and that [placed] below. Regarding the sin-offering it is written (4:25): “[The kohein shall take some blood of the sin-offering with his finger and put it] atop the corners of the altar.” Perforce [the sin-offering is] of the [offerings whose blood is] put above. But, regarding the guilt-offering it is not is written “corners,” perforce its blood is [put] below.

The verse says, etc. The verse says, “This is the teaching of the guilt-offering.” The word תורת always comes to include, so that the guilt-offering of the metzoro should have its blood placed below the red line, even though it is connected to the sin-offering pertaining to other matters.

תנוך is the inner wall of the ear. The etymology of the word תנוך is unknown to me, and the compilers of glossaries call it (translate it by) tendron (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:22).

ולקח הכהו. ונתן הכהו, “the priest will take personally, and the priest will give personally;” (put it) just as the priest personally performs this rite so he personally performs the other rites connected with this sacrifice. I might have thought that placing the blood on the altar should be performed by some specially designated vessel such as a spoon or something like it. To prevent us from thinking this, the Torah repeats the word הכהן where it did not appear to have been necessary, and adds that the procedure for the sin offering is the same as that for the guilt offering. There were two priests needed for this whole procedure; the first would sprinkle the blood, and the second priest would have to hold the vessel into which the blood had first been poured.

בהן means THUMB.

14) (Vayikra 14:51) "and he shall sprinkle upon the house": on the lintel. Others say: on all of it.

'לפני ה‎ [AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE …] BEFORE THE LORD — in the direction of the Holy of Holies (cf. Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 3 9).

Toward the Holy of Holies. Because now he is not lacking atonement and it is permitted for him to go to the Courtyard and within. Furthermore, this sprinkling is not at the Nicanor Gate, and so perforce this expression “before Hashem” means opposite the Holy of Holies.

וטבל הכהן, “the priest would dip, etc.” from the oil,” the word מן השמן used here mans “into the oil.” We could have expected the Torah to have written בשמן instead.

וטבל ...והזה, every time the priest sprinkled from the oil he first dipped his finger in the oil again.

הימנית, “the right one;” not the finger of the person holding the bowl with the oil. What the right hand or finger does is always more visible than what the left hand does.

על דם האשם, “on the blood of the guilt offering. ”(verse 17) which had been placed there before, (verse 13)

AND THE REST OF THE OIL THAT IS IN THE PRIEST’S HAND HE SHALL PUT UPON THE HEAD OF HIM TO BE CLEANSED; AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIM BEFORE THE ETERNAL. This atonement is accomplished by means of the priest’s acts with the blood of the guilt-offering [as prescribed in Verse 14] and the oil [as set forth in Verses 15-18]. Similarly, the verse stating [in connection with a leper who is poor], to make atonement for him before the Eternal,⁷²Further, Verse 29. [carries the same meaning]. And in the Torath Kohanim we find it said:⁷³Torath Kohanim, Metzora 3:12. “And the rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put upon the head of him that is to be cleansed, and the priest shall make atonement. ‘If he put [the rest of the oil upon his head], he effected atonement for him, and if he did not put it thereon, he did not effect atonement.’ These are the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yochanan the son of Nuri said: ‘This is the residue of a commandment, [and therefore is not part of the commandment itself, and thus not indispensable]; whether he put it thereon or did not put it thereon, he has effected atonement.’” Now if so, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan the son of Nuri, the expression and the priest shall make atonement for him, refers [only] to the guilt-offering [which is indispensable in the final purification of the leper].
Now Scripture states [here] in the case of the guilt-offering, and the priest shall make atonement, and then states again in the case of the sin-offering, and he shall make atonement for him that is to be cleansed because of his uncleanness,⁷⁴Verse 19. and with reference to the burnt-offering and meal-offering it also states, and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean.⁷⁵Verse 20. But we do not know the purport of all these expressions of atonement. Perhaps the guilt-offering effects atonement for the trespass that he committed before he was affected by his plague, and the sin-offering effects atonement for his sin which he committed during the time of the plague. For perhaps in his anguish he ascribed aught unseemly to G-d,⁷⁶Job 1:22. this being the significance of the expression because of his uncleanness⁷⁴Verse 19. [used in connection with the sin-offering that he must bring]. The burnt-offering and meal-offering constitute a ransom for his soul, that he be worthy to be purified and return to his dwelling. Therefore He said, and the priest shall make atonement for him, ‘and he shall be clean.’⁷⁵Verse 20.
Now in the Torath Kohanim it is stated:⁷⁷Torath Kohanim, Metzora 3:13. “And the priest shall offer the sin-offering, and make atonement.⁷⁴Verse 19. Why is this said?⁷⁸I.e., why does it say here, and he shall make atonement, when at the end of the section (in Verse 20) it concludes, and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean? (Malbim in his commentary to the Torath Kohanim). Since it is said, And the priest shall offer the burnt-offering and the meal-offering upon the altar,⁷⁵Verse 20. I might think that they are all indispensible for the purification of the leper, therefore Scripture states, and the priest shall offer the sin-offering, and make atonement,⁷⁴Verse 19. thus teaching that the atonement is dependent [only] upon the sin-offering.” It is possible that the expression and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean⁷⁵Verse 20. alludes to everything that has been done for him [i.e., for the leper’s purification],for the birds [which he brought at the very beginning of his purification, followed by the three offerings brought on the eighth day, as discussed here] also came for the purpose of atonement and purification, for so He also said in connection with a plague in the house, and he shall make atonement for the house, and it shall be clean.⁷⁹Further, Verse 53. There the expression, and the priest shall make atonement … and it shall be clean clearly refers to the birds mentioned in that verse. Here too, then, (in Verse 20) the reference is similar.

יתן על ראש המטהר וכפר עליו הכהן לפני ה', “he shall place upon the head of the person being purified, and the priest shall provide him atonement before Hashem.” The vehicle effecting the atonement is the blood of the guilt offering as well as the oil that the priest sprinkles in the direction of the Holy of Holies. The peculiarity in the procedures being described here is the fact that the expression וכפר, “he shall provide atonement,” is repeated so many times; after the guilt offering which apparently provided this atonement, the same expression is used in connection with the sin offering, and then again in connection with the burnt offering, and even again in connection with the gift offering, the מנחה. As a result of this we are quite confused as to the nature of this “atonement.” Perhaps the guilt offering affords forgiveness, atonement, for the trespass the person in question had committed before he had become afflicted with the tzoraat. The sin offering may afford atonement for sins committed while the person was in a state of tzoraat. Possibly, due to his pain, he addressed his prayers then to the attribute of Elokim instead of to the attribute of Hashem, the only one to whom prayers may be addressed. This may be the reason that the Torah adds the word מטומאתו when speaking of this specific atonement. The burnt offering and the gift offering may be the “real” ransom of his soul, permitting him to rejoin society. This is why the Torah may have added the words: “and the priest will provide atonement for him, and he will emerge purified.” It is also possible that this last line of וכפר עליו הכהן וטהר, “and the priest will provide atonement for him and he will emerge purified,” refers to all the foregoing collectively, seeing that also the bird-offerings had as their purpose atonement as we know from their description in connection with plague-like symbols on the walls of someone’s house. (14,53)

והנותר בשמן, “and the rest of the oil;” we would have expected the Torah to have written: מן השמן instead of בשמן. [Whenever our author makes this kind of succinct comment, it is to remind the reader that we are not dealing with a scribe‘s error that need to be emended, but that the Torah had its own reasons for changing the syntax as well as spelling. Ed.]

את החטאת, “the sin offering.” This refers to the female sheep, ewe; the details of the guilt offering have already been dealt with.

את העולה, “one of the two male sheep.”

ואת המנחה AND THE MEAL-OFFERING — the meal-offering of the drink-offering that accompanies an animal sacrifice.

וכפר עליו הכן וטהר, he will have attained a sufficient level of ritual purity to be allowed to partake in sacrificial meats, and entering holy precincts (if he is otherwise qualified to do so). Compare our sages in Negai-im 14,3 that “as soon as he has brought his atonement offering he is free to again partake of sacred foods.” (the portions of the peace-offerings normally consumed by the owners of the animals.)

The meal offering [accompanying] the drink-offering. I.e., that is brought with an animal, which is the meal-offering of a drinkoffering and not a meal-offering that is brought on its own, because the meal-offering that is brought on its own has a fistful taken and the remnant is eaten by the kohanim. But this meal-offering is compared [through a היקש] to the burnt-offering which is entirely burnt, and so too, this meal-offering is entirely burnt.

ואת המנחה, “and the mealoffering;” the three partial fistfuls of fine flour separated from the original quantity of three tenths of an eypha of fine flour that we read about in verse 10 that were to be eaten by the priests.

ועשרון סלת אחד‎ AND ONE TENTH DEAL OF FLOUR — for this lamb which is a single one he shall bring one tenth part of flour to accompany its drink-offering.

ואם דל הוא ואין ידו משגת, And if he is poor and he cannot afford (3 sheep as the respective offerings). Why did the Torah have to repeat, i.e. tell us that the meaning of "he is poor" is that "he cannot afford," etc.? Perhaps the Mishnah in Kritut 27 may clarify this for us. We are told there that "if someone set aside a sheep or nanny-goat as the offering he had to bring, and said animal becomes disqualified for the altar by developing a blemish, and the owner also became poor during the interval, he may sell the animal in question and offer a bird -offering with the proceeds of the sale." The Talmud derives this ruling from the word מחטאתו written in the Torah in connection with the sin-offering reserved for the very poor people. There would be good reason to argue that seeing that in the case of a מצורע the Torah had not made provision for a meal-offering by the very poor people to take the place of either the sheep or the birds as the case may be, it is not in order to use words exegetically which were written in a situation that is quite different. [The sin-offering dealt with there is one brought by a person who committed the kind of sin which carries the כרת penalty or worse, if it had been committed knowingly, something that certainly is not the case with the מצורע who brings a guilt-offering. Ed.] It would have been reasonable to suppose that just as the Torah did not allow a very poor מצורע to offer a meal-offering as his guilt-offering, so it would also not allow him to make the kind of substitution discussed in connection with the sin-offering in the Talmud in Kritut. The Torah therefore writes the extra words ואין ידו משגת, to tell us that the substitution for two turtle doves would be in order also in the case of the מצורע.

One tenth as its drink-offering. [Rashi is answering the difficulty] that it did not need to say “one [tenth fine flour].” It is fine that it mentions “one lamb,” that is understandable, since a wealthy person brings three animals it emphasizes that the poor person [brings only] one. But regarding the tenth, we cannot say this, since the tenth is secondary to the animal it only needed to say “a tenth fine flour.” Therefore, we need to say that the explanation of the verse is: “One tenth (ephah) fine flour, for this lamb, which is a [single] one.” Accordingly, the word “one” is connected to “lamb” and refers to the word “one” written by the lamb (Gur Aryeh). Meaning: Rashi is answering the question: Why is it different from above where it requires three tenths but here one tenth? We cannot say because it decreased the [amount of] lambs, for this is fine [regarding] the lambs, because it requires in their place turtledoves or young pigeons, but nothing was required in place of the tenths at all. On this Rashi answers: Since the tenths are only brought only on account of the lambs and not for a meal-offering on their own, therefore, he brings only one tenth (Nachalas Yaakov).

ואם דל הוא ואין ידו משגת, “and if the afflicted person is poor and cannot afford (the price of the sheep);” we usually find the adjective דל in connection with the body, as in the case of the cows that Pharaoh saw in the dream he told Joseph about in Genesis 41,19. Compare also: “happy he who is happy when he gives his attention to the poor.” Psalms 41,2: משכיל אל דל,“ or Samuel II 13,4: מדוע אתה ככה דל בן המלך, “why are you so poorly, son of a king?!” In none of these examples does the word דל describe one’s financial status. This is why in our verse the Torah had to add the words: “for he cannot afford;”

שמן ‎‏ ולג AND A LOG OF OIL — to place of it upon the thumbs. The quantity of the oil required for the libations of the meal-offering Scripture did not find it necessary to specify here (since it is given in Numbers 15:4 where three logs are prescribed; consequently the one log mentioned hero cannot be intended for the libations but for placing on the thumbs).

The verse did not have to specify. You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this above (v. 10) concerning the three sin-offerings [i.e., the three animal sacrifices of the wealthy man], where it requires three tenths for three mealofferings? There, as well, it is not written how much oil is needed for the drink-offerings of the meal-offering! The answer is: From that which Rashi explains: “One tenth fine flour, for this lamb,” he wishes to prove what he explained above — that the metzoro’s sin-offering and guilt-offering require drink-offerings. This is in order that you will not ask: How does Rashi know? Perhaps the three tenths are for the drink-offerings of the burnt-offering alone, but the metzoro’s sin-offering and the guilt-offering are like the rest of the sin-offerings and guiltofferings that do not require drink-offerings. [Thus,] he explains: Regarding the poor man it says, “One tenth fine flour,” — “for this lamb, which is a [single] one,” he must bring only one tenth [as its drink-offering]. Consequently, it is impossible to say that regarding a wealthy man, three tenths [of flour] are for the burnt-offering alone, and there is nothing for the sin-offering and the guilt-offering. For if so, why does the poor man bring only one tenth? Since concerning the rich man everything depends on the animal, and he needs to bring three tenths for one animal, then concerning the poor man there should be three tenths as well. Rather, [it must be] as I explained: The metzoro’s sin-offering and guilt-offering require drink-offerings. If so, the remaining two [are distributed] one for the sin-offering and one for the guilt-offering. Rashi is answering the question: Because of his [i.e., the one being purified] poverty, should he not bring less oil as well. On this Rashi answers: [This amount of oil is necessary] to put on his thumbs, which includes sprinkling seven times, upon the [ear’s] middle ridge, and upon the head of the one being purified. Therefore, this log is needed in his poverty as well (Nachalas Yaakov).

Alternatively, we could explain the apparently unnecessary words ואין ידו משגת by referring to the reverse situation described on the same folio in Kritut. A very poor person had set aside the meal-offering required for his sin-offering; it became unfit for the altar. Before this person could arrange a substitute his economic situation improved but not sufficiently to enable him to offer a sheep. He therefore prepared birds. When the same story repeated itself with the birds becoming unfit as an offering, the owner became still better off so that he could afford to bring the sheep as a sin-offering that normally well-situated people have to bring to obtain their atonement. This person has to bring the expensive offering though at the time he became liable for the offering he had indeed been very poor. The extra words ואין ידו משגת may therefore be used to teach that the Torah describes a temporary state of affairs and that the words may work to the advantage or the disadvantage of the person described in Kritut.

Torat Kohanim writes as follows: "The words 'he is poor,' might be understood to mean that he used to have 100 dollars and now only has 50 dollars. The Torah tells you that it does not speak about such a subjective 'poverty' but about someone who does not have enough money left to afford to buy a sheep. Alternatively, you may read this backwards. He started out being unable to afford…etc. Or, he was able to afford but could not find a sheep to purchase; then the Torah considers him as 'poor' and he brings two birds." We have to understand what is meant by the words 'he could not find.' It may mean that there simply were no sheep to be had, such as happened during the siege of Jerusalem. It is obvious that in such a situation the Torah would not obligate such a person to wait indefinitely with bringing his guilt-offering, but would agree that he bring two birds as do people who cannot afford more. After all, at a time like this the money which normally defines a person as being rich has lost its value to the owner and he now is poor. We would not need Torat Kohanim to tell us that such a person fits the definition of 'poor.' It is more likely that the author of Torat Kohanim meant that sheep were not available at the regular price and could be bought only at exorbitant prices.

We may assume that the obligation to bring a sheep or goat as his guilt-offering is conditional on the owner not depriving himself of the necessities of life. Even if his poverty is only relative to his former wealth he may bring the guilt-offering designated for an objectively poor person and use the balance of his funds to defray his regular expenses. This explanation of our sages does not contradict what we have written. You should know that if the Torah had not wanted to tell us more than what our sages have already explained it would have sufficed for the Torah to write ואם לא תגיע ידו די שה וכבשה, והביא as the Torah wrote in Leviticus 5,7 in connection with another guilt-offering. Clearly then the Torah intended to convey the additional message we have pointed out by changing its syntax in this instance.

Torat Kohanim (verses 30-31) also comments on the three unnecessary expressions the Torah uses in connection with the terms describing a person's ability or lack of ability to afford certain expenses. They are: 1) אשר תשיג ידו, 2) מאשד תשיג ידו, 3) את אשר תשיג ידו. Here is their comment: The expression אשר תשיג ידו refers to someone who started out being wealthy but had become impoverished by the time he was required to bring the guilt-offering. The Torah therefore tells us that such a person brings the offering appropriate for a poor person. The words ומאשר תשיג ידו speak about a person who had been well off and set out to bring the guilt-offering appropriate to a wealthy person but whose offering became disqualified before it reached the altar. The owner of that offering had meanwhile become impoverished. He too is required to bring only the offering appropriate for a poor person. Finally, the words ואת אשר תשיג ידו refer to someone who was poor and had prepared to offer the guilt-offering appropriate to his economic status. He had become wealthy before completing this offering. The Torah tells us that such a person has to bring the offering appropriate for a wealthy person. If, however, he had already offered the sin-offering while in a state of poverty he does not have to bring the rich man's burnt-offering which he is still obligated to offer to complete the process of atonement. This conclusion is derived from the words אחד לחטאת ואחד לעולה, meaning that both the sin-offering and the burnt-offering must be of the same category, i.e. either both have to be rich man's offerings or both have to be poor man's offerings. All of these exegetical derivations do not include what we have mentioned earlier as based on the repeated expression דל הוא ואין ידו משגת. Even after we have all the commentaries of Torat Kohanim our sages have offered us, my own comments were still necessary to explain the extra verbiage in our verse.

ביום השמיני לטהרתו ON TIIE EIGHTH DAY OF HIS BEING PRONOUNCED CLEAN — i. e. the eighth day after the birds have been brought and he has been sprinkled with the cedar stick, the hyssop and the crimson wool (cf. v. 10).

The eighth day from when the birds [were brought] and the sprinkling. Rashi is answering the question: It implies that on this [day], the eighth day from when the birds were brought, he is pure, but this cannot be, for on the eighth day he brings the offerings and, perforce, he is not pure beforehand. Upon this Rashi explains: “The eighth day from [the day when] the birds [were brought]...” and that day is also called purification from causing impurity due to lying down or sitting. You need not ask: How does Rashi know it is the eighth day from the sprinkling? Perhaps it refers to the day of bringing the burnt-offering, sin-offering, and guilt-offering. The answer is: Because it says above (v. 9): “It shall be, that on the seventh day, he shall shave off,” thus, it must be that “the eighth day” refers to [the day after] “the seventh day.” And even though above it also says (v. 10): “On the eighth day, he shall take two lambs...” — and there Rashi does not explain anything — that is because earlier it is written (v. 8): “He must remain, outside of his tent, for seven days,” and [in the next verse] it is written: “It shall be, that on the seventh day,” and then immediately afterwards: “On the eighth day.” [Thus,] it must surely refer to what precedes it.

על מקום דם האשם UPON THE PLACE OF THE BLOOD OF THE GUILT-OFFERING — even though the blood has been wiped off; this teaches that it is not the presence of the blood that brings about the validity of this rite but it is the place (the fact that the oil has been placed on the proper spot) that brings it about (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 3 10; Menachot 10a).

Even if it had been cleaned. So much more so if the blood had not been cleaned, and you should not say if the blood is there it is an interfering factor between the oil and the thumb, [because] that it why it is written above (v. 17): “on [over] the blood of the guilt-offering.” And so the Gemora says in the first perek of Menachos (10a) (Nachalas Yaakov).

על המנחה, “in addition to the mealoffering.”

זאת תורת אשר בו נגע צרעת, This is the law concerning someone afflicted with "leprosy," etc. The entire verse seems superfluous. Our sages in Torat Kohanim explain that the extraneous words זאת תורת refer to the situation when a poor person insisted on bringing the guilt-offering appropriate for a rich person. His offering is acceptable. You may well ask why the Torah had to tell us this. Why should it not be simple logic seeing the Torah's verses dealing with the poor man were designed only to lighten his burden. If such a person is willing to extend himself beyond what he is obligated to do more power to him! He will surely be blessed! It appears that seeing that the Torah used the word זאת to exclude a wealthy man who brought the offering appropriate for a poor man, the Torah was afraid that the reader might feel that a poor man would also not be allowed to deviate from the rules laid down previously. The word תורת therefore teaches that the poor is free to do better than the Torah demanded of him.

This still leaves the words אשר לא תשיג ידו in our verse unaccounted for. Perhaps the Torah was afraid that some scholar would attempt to draw a comparison between what has been written about relative poverty of people who have to bring guilt-offerings because of failing to testify, or contracting impurity and entering the Temple in such a state, etc. in Leviticus 5,7. In those cases the Torah had provided for the minimal meal-offering to be brought by the lowest category of the poor. Such people are required to bring only two tenths Eypha of fine flour etc. instead of two birds. The scholar may have wanted to extrapolate that if the "leper" is too poor, he too may discharge his obligation by such a meal-offering. The Torah therefore had to write אשר לא תשיג ידו בטהרתו, that such a person cannot attain his purification unless he brings two turtle doves, etc.; the Torah therefore wrote זאת תורת אשר…לא תשיג ידו בטהרתו to tell us that although he cannot afford it at the time he is being purified and he is wallowing in misery he still must bring two birds, no less.

A moral-ethical approach to this verse may be based on the Zohar (Tikkunim 22) according to which the state of poverty is called צרעת which accounts for the fact that both people afflicted with poverty and those afflicted with "leprosy" are described as "dead" in Nedarim 64. This is what the Torah alludes to when it wrote אשר בו נגע צרעת, meaning the fact that the person who has to bring the offering is still poor is evidence that he is still afflicted with the plague of "leprosy." The Torah explains this by adding: "that he cannot afford it during his purification rites."

ונתתי נגע צרעת [WHEN YOU COME TO THE LAND …]I WILL PUT THE PLAGUE OF THE LEPROSY — This was an announcement to them that these plagues would come upon them (Sifra, Metzora, Section 5 4; Horayot 10a), because the Amorites concealed treasures of gold in the walls of their houses during the whole 40 years the Israelites were in the wilderness (in order that these might not possess them when they conquered Palestine,) and in consequence of the plague they would pull down the house and discover them (Leviticus Rabbah 17:6).

Scripture states with reference to plagues in houses, and ‘I’ shall put the plague of leprosy, in order to allude to the fact that it was G-d’s hand that did this, and not an act of nature at all, as I have explained.⁸⁰Above, 13:47. It states, When ye are come into the land of Canaan etc. in a house of the Land of your possession,⁸¹Verse 34 before us. because He is speaking to all Israel [since Moses and Aaron did not come into the Land]. Now it would have been proper that after the verse, And the Eternal spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,⁸²Verse 33. He should continue to state, “Speak ye unto the children of Israel.” But Scripture shortens the account since it is self-understood [that the command was to be given to the children of Israel who would enter the Land]. Or it may be that he spoke to them in the place of [i.e., as representing] all Israel, and hinted that the intention [of giving the commandment] now is merely to teach them all the laws of leprosy, and that they in turn should teach them to the priests, and Moses did not warn all Israel now [about these laws, as they did not apply until they came into the Land]. It was only those who came into the Land that he warned, Take heed in the plague of leprosy, that thou observe diligently etc.,⁸³Deuteronomy 24:8. See ibid., 1:3 where it says that the Book of Deuteronomy was said in the fortieth year, i.e., to those about to enter the Land. for it was to them that he commanded at first to take heed in these ordinances.

כי תבאו…ונתתי נגע צרעת, When you come to the land…and I will give a plague of "leprosy," etc. How can one describe the plague of "leprosy" breaking out on one's house as good news so that the Torah describes it as a gift from G'd? Why did the Torah not merely write: "when the walls of your houses develop certain stains, etc." in the same way as the Torah described such a skin disease in 13,9? Vayikra Rabbah 17,6 was conscious of this and explained that the Canaanites who heard that the Israelites were approaching hid their valuables inside the walls of their houses. When the walls would display signs of "leprosy," the Jewish owner would investigate and discover the hidden treasure. This is homiletics, of course. Rabbi Levy explains in that same Midrash that when G'd wishes to reprove us He does not immediately inflict pain on our bodies, but He first afflicts our houses, and in the event this does not help He afflicts our clothing. Only if we fail to respond to these two warnings does G'd inflict the plague on our bodies, i.e. our skin. When viewed in this light the affliction on the house is indeed a "gift" i.e. a demonstration of G'd's loving concern for us.

ונתתי נגע צרעת, “I will place a tzoraat affliction, etc.” Rashi, -seizing on the word נתן meaning “giving,”- explains this verse as good news, saying that these symptoms alert the owner of the house to hidden treasure in that house buried by the previous owner. Other commentators believe that these symptoms both in houses and garments, alert the new owner that these items unbeknown to them used to be artifacts of idolatry and therefore had to be destroyed. Now that the owners had been alerted, they could fulfill the commandment to destroy the items in question.

This is an announcement. Otherwise, it should say: “When there will be.” Why does it say, “And I shall put”? You might ask: This [reason] is fine regarding the eruptions in houses, but what is the reason for the eruptions on clothing? The answer is: Because they did not know which garments were used for idolatry and the eruptions came in those garments, and they had to burn them (so I found). Some raise the difficulty: This [reason] is fine regarding a returning eruption, whose law is to tear down the house, however, with a non-returning eruption — what can we say [i.e., what is the reason for such eruptions]? Furthermore, some ask: The Gemora says (Erichin, 16a) that eruptions of the house come because of miserliness! It seems that one [question] is answered by the other. Certainly, the eruption of a house comes because of a transgression, but Hashem’s kindness makes it possible that sometimes goodness will come out of the punishment, which [in this case] is the hidden [treasures]. This is included in the language of the Sages: A goodness [resulting] from miserliness, and this is the announcement (Divrei Dovid).

When you will come. Why does the Torah specify regarding the eruptions in houses, “when you will come into the land of Canaan” more than any of the rest of the eruptions?

ונתתי, “I will give;” the Lord said to the Jewish people: see how different you are from the nations of the globe; when the former sin, I first punish them, as we know from Genesis 12,17: וינגע ה' את פרעה ואת ביתו “the Lord afflicted Pharaoh with a plague and his house" when I have occasion to strike anyone of you with a plague, I warn them by first sending a plague to the sinner’s house, and garment before striking his flesh. (Compare our verse here.) Why would I do this, seeing that the stones and the timber have not committed any sins against Me? I do this in order to give you a warning that worse is to come if you do not heed My warning. Before I sent Sancheriv to exile the ten tribes, I first let him conquer all the countries surrounding yours, so that you would take notice and mend your ways. Compare what the prophet Tzefaniah wrote in Tzefaniah 3,6: הכרתי גוים נשמו פנותם, החרבתי חוצותם מבלי עובר נצדו עריהם מבלי איש מאין יושב. “I wiped out nations, their corner towers are desolate; I turned their thoroughfares into ruins, with none passing by; their towns lie waste without people, without inhabitants.” This is how G–d sends warnings to His people of what might befall them unless they mend their ways by afflicting their possessions before afflicting them. [The prophet spells all this out in subsequent verses. Ed.] In verse 55 of our chapter, the afflicted house and subsequently the afflicted garments of a person, are cited as warnings of physical afflictions to follow if the warnings were ignored. If the warnings were heeded by the owner of those houses or garments mending their ways their flesh will not become affected. We know this from what is written in chapter 15 verse 2: איש כי יהיה בו זב וגו', “when any man has a discharge emanating from his sexual organ he is ritually contaminated.” This is also what Solomon had in mind when he wrote in Proverbs 19,29:נכונו ללצים שפטים, ומהלמות לגו כסילים, ”punishments are prepared for the scoffers, beatings for the backs of the fools.” G–d is quoted by Solomon as having said that He prepared these methods of disciplining Man already before He even created Man himself.

כי תבאו אל ארץ כנען, “When you will come to the lad of Canaan;” the Torah did not write: כי תבואו in connection with the legislation governing the plague of Tzoraat. The reason is that the rules about tzoraat already applied when the Israelites were still wandering in the desert. When speaking about tzoraat afflicting houses it did write these words of introduction, as that plague only occurs in the land of Israel. [Besides they only had tents there no houses built of stone. Ed.] A different explanation: the reason why when a plague breaks out on a house it must be destroyed, is that the earth of the land of Israel is holy, and its earth does not gladly suffer ritual contamination.

ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחוזתכם, “I will place a tzoraat in the house of the land of your possession.” Nachmanides writes that the verse is addressed to the entire people of Israel, and it should therefore have been told to the entire nation, i.e. we would have expected the Torah to continue in verse 33 with the words אל כל עדת ישראל, “to the whole community of Israel.” The Torah, for reasons we do not know, decided to abbreviate. Alternately, the point is that the Torah spoke to Moses and Aaron in their capacity as the representatives of the whole people. The reason why the Torah, at this time, informed only Moses and Aaron of the legislation pertaining to such afflictions, is that all the details would have to be taught to the priests. Moses thought it pointless to teach all these details now, and preferred to wait until the Israelites would be on the point of entering and conquering the land. In Deut. 24,8 Moses does indeed warn the Israelites to observe all the pertinent laws and to follow the instructions of the priests concerning them.

Why then did the Torah list the respective plagues on man, his clothing, and his house, in the reverse order of what Rabbi Levy would have us believe? I have explained this previously. At the time the legislation was revealed the Israelites had not yet entered the Holy Land and therefore G'd could not warn the guilty individual by smiting his house first. The reason the Torah introduced this paragraph with the words: "when you come to the land, etc." is to tell us that as of that time the order of afflictions would be reversed and G'd would first strike the house of the guilty person whom He wanted to warn to mend his social behaviour. You may still ask why the Torah does not list the "leprosy" on one's clothing before the "leprosy" on one's skin, seeing that everyone wore clothing at the time this legislation was revealed? G'd could have demonstrated His loving concern for the guilty by first smiting his clothing and the Torah describing this as the first example of such a נגע צרעת? It appears that the reason the Torah chose to position the legislation of "leprosy" on one's clothing in between the legislation of skin disorders and "leprous-like stains" on the walls of one's house, is because there are some common denominators between the stains on the house and on the clothing on one side, and between the stains on the clothing and on the skin on the other side. The minimum size of a נגע צרעת on one's skin and the size of such a נגע צרעת on one's clothing is identical, whereas the minimum size of that plague on a house to be considered as טמא is twice that of people or clothing. On the other hand, the plague on both clothing and houses is characterised by a greenish colour, whereas the skin disorder which afflicts man is of some kind of whitish shade.

The answer that seems closest to the truth to me is because the main reason [for tzora’as in houses] is stinginess, as the Sages said (Erachin 16a) based on (v. 35), “Whoever’s house it is, shall come” — “This is one who made the house exclusively for himself.” The reason Hashem gave him a house filled with all good things as an inheritance was to test him — would he give from the possessions of his house to others or not? For, “The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine, says Hashem” (Chaggai 2:8). Anything that a man gives to others is not his own; in actuality, he is giving from the Divine Table. Therefore it says, “When you will come into the land of Canaan that I will give to you for a possession.” It is not by the power of their sword that they will inherit the Land, but rather: “The right hand of Hashem is exalted” — and that is what will give them the inheritance from the nations. There is no place for stinginess, to think that “My strength and the might of my hand that has accumulated this wealth for me” … Therefore, it is only logical that he should give of his possessions to the poor of his people, and if he does not, “I shall put the eruption of tzora’as in the house of the land of your possession.” This means to say, in the house that you consider to be your possession, as if you acquired it with the might of your hand.

ונתתי נגע צרעת, “and I put the plague of tzoraat on a house in the land of your inheritance. According to some commentators, reading the plain text, this line has to be understood in conjunction with Deuteronomy 12,2: אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות אשר עבדו שם הגוים, “you must destroy utterly every place where the gentiles have worshipped (idols).” How are we to know in which locations the Canaanites once worshipped idols? Answer: the plague that shows up on your house is an indication that this was a house which served such a purpose. It alerts us to the need to fulfill that commandment.

Furthermore, we need to understand why the Torah did not complete the laws pertaining to the plague on people before introducing the legislation about a plague afflicting one's clothing. The reason cannot be that the Torah wanted to group together all the laws of ritual impurity resulting from such stains before describing the procedures leading to their purification. If that had been the Torah's intention why did it not also describe the impurity arising from a plague on houses before commencing with the laws of purification? I think it is quite obvious that the unusual positioning of the law of the plague on one's clothing right in the middle of the legislation concerning "leprous" skin, is proof that the Torah wanted to teach that G'd first afflicts man's garments before afflicting man himself. The Torah made plain by the positioning of the נגע בגדים that it too was caused by man's sinful conduct. When the Torah describes the purification rites after having spelled out the law about the respective ritual impurity the garments conferred on the sinful man who wears them, it is clear that had man responded to the call to repentance of the plague on his garments, he would not now also need to purify himself from the effects of the נגע צרעת on his skin.

Another reason the Torah did not first mention the affliction on man's garments is that had it done so we would have assumed that a plague on one's garments indicates guilt of a minor nature, whereas a plague on one's skin is indicative of a sin of a more serious nature, rather than that both plagues are a punishment for the same sin, the skin-disease being a punishment for lack of sensitivity to the message G'd sent to the wearer by afflicting his clothing.

כנגע נראה לי בבית SOMETHING LIKE A PLAGUE HATH SHOWN ITSELF TO ME IN THE HOUSE — Even if he (the owner of the house) be a learned man and knows for sure that it is a plague he shall not decide the matter as a certainty saying, "a plague hath shown itself to me" but, “something like a plague hath shown itself to me" (Mishnah Negaim 12:5; Sifra, Metzora, Section 5 10).

והגיד לכהן לאמור, and he shall tell the priest, saying, etc. The word לאמור appears to be superfluous. Torat Kohanim explains that the word means that the priest is to tell the afflicted person words of admonition, explaining to him why he had been so afflicted. This is pure homiletics, seeing that the Torah speaks of the owner of the house doing the talking, not the priest. Our sages simply used the principle of אם אינו ענין לדברי בעל הבית תנהו ענין לדברי כהן, "if we could not find a reason for the owner to say something other than what the Torah recorded here, we may apply the words exegetically to what the priest says instead." The author of Korban Aharon explains the sequence as follows: והגיד לכהן, the reason the owner of the affected house is forced to tell the priest about his problem is לאמוד, so that the priest can sermonize to him and explain why he was made to suffer this plague. If this explanation were correct the Torah should have written the word לאמור after the words כנגע נראה לי בבית, "it seems to me that the house has developed a plague." No doubt the approach of Torat Kohanim is quite correct.

Something like an eruption. The Torah teaches good character traits. A person should use an expression of doubt, as Chazal said (Berachos 4a): Teach your tongue to say, “I do not know.” And with this, Rashi is answering the question: At first it said, “I shall put the eruption of tzora’as,” which implies that it is surely an eruption of tzora’as in the eyes of the beholder. Why then does it say afterwards that he says: “Something like an eruption,” an expression of doubt? Rather, Scripture is teaching us that even if he is a learned man and knows for certain that it is an eruption that causes impurity, nonetheless, it is a Divine decree that he should only say an expression of doubt. Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question that according to the plain meaning I might think that it is a Divine mitzvah for the house-owner to come and declare this. However, this cannot be. Do you think that if the kohein happens to be there, or if he did not say the expression — “something like an eruption” — it would not be fine? Therefore, Rashi lets us know that this is only a warning that one should not decide the matter with absolute clarity; but if he is completely silent [and says nothing pertaining to the eruption], that too is fine (Divrei Dovid).

אשר לו הבית, “to whom this house belongs, after the Israelites have conquered the land of Canaan. Everyone by then knows which house is his house. (Sifra)

And the one whose house it is shall come. Our Father, our King, our God teaches us the way of truth in order that we be enlightened to serve God. And this is that which we are obliged to place 'like a seal on our hearts' (ref. to Song of Songs 8:6): that there is nothing void of His watching, may He be blessed, and there is no teaching of pain which is not reproach for sin. And it is good to praise God for all pain which has not come, for if one's God were not in one's midst, these evils would have found one. And this is "And the one whose house it is shall come". The "telling" [that the homeowner gives to the priest] could have been "I have seen something like a plague in the house" -- but this is not what God has chosen, rather that they should say "something like a plague has appeared to me on my house". This is as if to say, for my sake it appeared on the house; for my sin God made me liable for a plague of tzara'at, it should have been on me and God placed it [instead] on my house. And this is why it says "appeared to me"; as if to say, it is suitable to say "like a plague appeared to me" for this has the substance of "to me". This is like what is said (Genesis 27:3-4) "prepare for me a dish"; "and trap for me"; "and bring it to me". And there are innumerable further examples.

... The reason is because of "he who speaks untruth shall not stand before my eyes" (Psalms 101:7). As so long as a priest has not availed himself to him, it is not [legally] a blemish; so could he say, "A blemish has appeared on my house?"

...On account of proper behavior, such that a man should not say even about something that is clear to him, "[It is] certain," but rather, "[There is] a doubt." And this is what the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Berakhot 4a), "Teach your tongue to say, "I don't know.'"

However, the question remains why the Torah did not simply write that "the priest spoke, etc.," and I would not have had to search for the meaning of the verse? Clearly, the Torah wanted to leave something for us to exploit exegetically. Our sages have articulated this very principle themselves in Torat Kohanim. This is what is written there: "why did the Torah not write that the owner said נגע, but describes him as saying כנגע, "something like the plague?" They answer that the letter כ teaches that even if the owner is very learned and he has no doubt that the symptoms he has found are those of a נגע, he must not take it upon himself to pronounce judgment but he must leave it to the priest. What forced the author of Torat Kohanim to explain the extra letter כ in this manner? Perhaps the Torah was afraid that if it wrote simply נגע the owner would feel that unless he was certain that the symptoms were really those of the נגע צרעת there was no need to call in the priest. The Torah therefore made it plain by the additional letter כ that the priest has to be called in regardless of whether it is doubtful if the symptoms were truly the ones resulting in the house having to be torn down. What the author of Torat Kohanim meant was that all the Torah had to write were the words והגיד לכהן. The words "I think that something like a נגע appears on my house," were quite unnecessary. It was clear from the context of the paragraph that the owner referred to this. Considering these extra words, Torat Kohanim concluded that the reason was to teach us that the priest has to be called in regardless of whether there is doubt or not. This explanation is based on the scholar who holds that on occasion the Torah wrote things in order to encourage us to engage in exegesis.

Torat Kohanim continues to exploit practically every word here in a similar fashion. The words נראה לי, are explained as "appeared to me and not to my light," i.e. I could see it with my own eyes unassisted by artificial light. This is the basis for the rule that one need not open the windows of a house in order to start searching for symptoms of a נגע. The word בבית, "in the house," is taken to mean that even if the stain occurred in the upper floor, the whole house is afflicted. Many other halachot are all derived from these basically superfluous words of our verse. Even though our sages often use the above mentioned method of exegesis, it is preferable to derive a rule from a direct sequence of words such as לאמור כנגע in this verse. It means that regardless of how definite the appearance of that stain, the owner has to report it as being only "like a נגע." We are not bound by the exegetical method used by our sages in deriving certain rulings from the presence of or absence of certain words or letters provided we follow accepted norms of exegesis. The major restriction we are bound by is that our exegesis must not result in הלכות directly opposed to those arrived at by the classical commentators.

'בטרם יבא הכהן וגו‎ [THEY SHALL CLEAR THE HOUSE] BEFORE THE PRIEST COME etc. — For so long as the priest has not yet engaged himself with it no law of uncleanness is applicable there.

ופנו את הבית בטרם יבא, they can clear out the house before the priest’s arrival. In fact, that priest is warned not to arrive until all valuables have been cleared out of the house. During the time that this takes place the owners will be able to do teshuvah and pray and synchronise their prayer with that of the priest when he arrives. Simultaneous to this the priest will announce the period of isolation. In Vayikra Rabbah 17,7 we are told that our paragraph is an allusion to the eventual destruction of the first Temple, its rebuilding, as well as the destruction of the second Temple. The word וטהרו in our verse alludes to the ultimate rebuilding of the third Temple, this one not to be destroyed again.

בטרם יבא הכהן, before the priest arrives. The reason the Torah had to write the word הכהן "the priest" again is, that otherwise I could have thought that the priest can issue directives before he arrives at the scene. According to that, the priest would not have had to delay himself until the people had cleared the house in question of all its contents. By writing the word הכהן, the Torah made it plain that the word בטרם is not linked to the mention of the priest as the one who issues the directive but is connected with the words ופנו "and they shall clear out."

וצוה הכהן ופנו את הבית, “and the priest will issue instructions and they will clear out the house, etc.” The Torah is protective about the Israelites’ possessions, even for such inexpensive vessels as the ones made of earthenware. The vessels mentioned in our verse are such as the Torah speaks about protecting against becoming impure. Vessels of other materials can be purified by means of immersion in a ritual bath, the earhenware vessels cannot. If there is food and drink left over, the person may consume them during the days when he is ritually impure, so that he would not suffer an irreparable loss. It is clear therefore that what the Torah is concerned with here are only earthenware vessels.

And sees. I.e., immediately when the kohein sees the eruption everything in the house becomes impure, even if he does not tarry in the house the time it takes to eat a half a loaf [of bread]. Otherwise, what is Rashi coming to let us know? It is something that is obvious even to schoolchildren!

ולא יטמא כל אשר בבית THAT ALL THAT IS IN THE HOUSE BE NOT MADE UNCLEAN, for if he does not clear it out and the priest comes and examines the plague, it requires shutting up and all that is inside immediately becomes unclean. To what is it that the Torah has regard in ordering these precautions to be taken? If it had in mind wooden or metal vessels that need only be rinsed in order to restore them to cleanness, he can immerse them and they will become clean (and there is no need to remove them from the house for fear that they will become unclean if he does not do so), and if it has in mind food and liquids, he can eat them during the time of his uncleanness (in which case also he suffers no loss since he may consume them at a time when he himself happens to be unclean). Consequently it follows that the Torah must have regard only to earthen vessels for which there is no means of purification by immersion in a ritual bath (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 11:35) and which therefore will remain unusable except in connection with ordinary food (חולין) (Sifra, Metzora, Section 5 12).

And with what was [the Torah] concerned. This raises a difficulty: How does Rashi know that the Torah was concerned with earthenware vessels? Perhaps it is for silk garments or other things that if he were to immerse them [in a mikveh] they would be ruined. The answer is: All the important [i.e., expensive] vessels are derived from what is written: “And they shall empty the house,” which is because of impurity. And if it comes to specify the reason explicitly it should [just] say: “so that which is in the house shall not become impure.” Why does it say, “everything”? Rather, this is to say he should empty the house even of objects that are not important [i.e., objects that are not expensive such as earthenware] (Kitzur Mizrachi in name of Paneach Raza).

כל אשר בבית, everything that is within the house. The meaning is that none of the items that have been removed prior to the arrival of the priest will be affected by the declaration that the house and all its contents have become ritually impure. The reason is that G'd is concerned with the belongings of even the person for whom He expressed some disdain. We must ask ourselves that seeing this is so why did all these items have to be removed prior to the priest's arrival when the impurity decreed on these items does not become effective until after the priest's departure (compare verse 38)? The Torah wrote ולא יטמא כל אשר בבית, "in order that all that is in the house not become defiled," to teach us that once the priest has observed the symptoms on the walls of the house as being those of a נגע, he may not delay pronouncing the house and its contents as ritually unclean any longer. If the people in the house had waited until the last possible moment with removing all mobile objects they would most likely have forgotten some in their haste. It is better therefore that they should do so as soon as they became aware that the priest was on his way.

With earthenware vessels. You might ask: Let us say that he should use them when he is impure, as we say regarding impure food, of which he eats when he is impure. The answer is: Food is different because it is eaten over a minimal period of time and we are not concerned about a stumbling block [i.e., he will eat when it is prohibited for him to do so]. However, regarding a vessel, which lasts a long time, we are concerned perhaps it will come to be a stumbling block — that he will use it on the days he is pure or it will come in contact with terumoh or sacrifices (Devek Tov).

We are taught in Keylim 12,5 that G'd's concern is only for earthenware vessels seeing all the other vessels are subject to purification rites except earthenware jars, etc. According to our explanation G'd is concerned even about very small and inexpensive earthenware vessels.

שקערורת denotes lying deep because of their colors (they appear to lie deep in the stones) (Sifra, Metzora, Section 6 5).

וראה…בקירות הבית, and he sees…on the walls of the house, etc.This paragraph alludes to the actions of G'd and how He deals with the wicked who chose to be defiled by associating themselves with the evil urge which is known by our sages as נגעי בני אדם, the plague which afflicts human beings. According to the Zohar volume 1 page 187 G'd equips the body with a soul. If the partnership is successful, all well and good. If not, G'd yanks the soul from that body and places it in a different body. This is hinted at here in the Torah's description of what happens to the afflicted house. The house symbolises man's body. The priest represents G'd as we have pointed out previously in our analysis on page 1106. The Torah describes that G'd examines the walls of the house to determine how far the evil urge has penetrated the body of the person concerned. The word שקערורת may be understood as a composite of the two words שקע רורות with the letter (vowel) patach being swallowed up as part of the pronunciation. The missing letter is perceived as being an א. The meaning of the two words would be "the cursed one (ארור) has penetrated deeply (שקע). Inasmuch as wickedness is multi-faceted, the Torah uses the plural ending when describing the evil urge. The Torah goes on to speak of ירקרקת, an allusion to sin we are familiar with from Shabbat 33, where הדרוקן, dropsy, is described as a symbol of the wickedness of the person afflicted by it. The word אדמדמות, refers to the sin of bloodshed. When the Torah speaks of the priest ordering the house to be shut up, this means that the person represented by the house will cease to receive outpourings of G'd's generosity. This is the mystical dimension of the banishing of certain wicked people from society. They are banished in order to prevent them from receiving the outpourings of heavenly bounty. If the person so afflicted becomes aware of what is happening to him and why, well and good; if not, the priest i.e. G'd, will subject this person to sufferings. If that does not help either, He will eventually order the destruction of the house, i.e. the body which the soul in question inhabits. This is the meaning of ונתץ הבית את אבניו, "he shall break down the house, its stones, etc."

שקערורות, one of the phenomena defined by means of the ones accompanying it.

Sunken. Re’m writes: This is very difficult in my eyes: If so, why does Scripture write afterwards: “And they appear to be lower than the [surface of] the wall”? Perhaps the answer is: Scripture itself is explaining itself what is the meaning of שקערורות.

וראה את הנגע והנה הנגע בקירות הבית, “and he sees that the plague has struck the walls of the house. The repetition of the word נגע in this verse led our Rabbis to understand that the minimum size of such a plague on a house is two גריסין, [surface of a large bean. Ed.]

ירקרקות אדמדמות we find such colours or patterns described in Zecharyah 6,3.אמוצים ברודים.

שקערורות, “depressed;” Our sages in Sifra Metzora 6,5 claim that the appearance of these afflictions in the walls was as if that area was depressed, recessed. The reason that the Torah in this paragraph switches to the plural although the word נגע is in the singular, is that the owner of the house as well as his neighbour must share in the cost of removing the infected stones. This is what the Sifra Metzora 4,2 had in mind when they said אוי לרשע ואוי לשכנו, “woe to the wicked and his neighbour.” As soon as talk of the demolition has been concluded, the Torah reverts to the singular such as with the words קציע, וטח, etc. This is meant to tell us that only the person whose house had displayed definitive symptoms of the nega has to bear the cost of the restoration. In other words, the labor has to be shared but the cost has to be borne by the owner of the house alone.

וחלצו את האבנים — Understand וחלצו as the Targum does: וישלפון, i.e. they shall remove them from there. It is similar to, (Deuteronomy 25:9) וחלצה נעלו— which is an expression for removing ("she shall remove his shoe”).

As: “and she shall remove.” I.e., the explanation of [the Targum] וישלפון is “he shall carry them away.” Afterwards, Rashi shows how Targum knows this explanation, and he says: “As [in the expression], ‘and she shall remove his shoe.’” However, Rashi is not able to explain that the verse means: “he shall carry them away,” because how would he know that? However, I do not understand his words: Is it not explicitly stated in the verse: “And cast them away”? Also, there is another difficulty: Every place where Rashi explains, “according to its Targum,” [he means to say] the explanation is not like the Hebrew, but here the Hebrew too is the same, as in “וחלצה (and she shall remove)”! Thus, it appears that Rashi is answering the question: It should say וחָלצו with a קמ"ץ under the ח, as in וחלצה, and not with a חירי"ק, which is הפעיל (a causative verb form). This is because it is written, “The kohein shall command,” so it should use ויפעלו (direct verb form) and not ויפעילו (causative). Therefore, Rashi brings the Targum וישלפון, and this completes the explanation. Furthermore, חילצו with a חירי"ק means ‘urging,’ but an expression of urging is not relevant here, therefore he brings the Targum (Rav Yaakov Trivash).

וחלצו את האבנים, “they shall remove the stones concerned;” from the plural mode of the verb וחלצו, we learn that at least two people are required to remove these stones. This is the source of the proverb: “woe to the wicked as well as to his neighbour.” (Sifra)

אל מקום טמא UNTO AN UNCLEAN PLACE — i. e. a place where clean things are not likely to be handled. Scripture teaches you that these stones make the place where they are deposited unclean for the time they are there.

While they are still there. However, if they are not there they do not cause impurity to the place, because the earth cannot acquire impurity. This is similar to the house afflicted with eruptions — anyone who enters it is impure because of the eruptions that are in the house. Similarly, as long as the stones with the eruptions are in their place they cause impurity to the place because of the eruptions that are in the stones (Gur Aryeh).

יקצע — rogner in old French, SCRAPE OFF, and in Mishnaic Hebrew it occurs many times.

יקציע, peels. Either as in Isaiah 44,13 “with a scraping tool,” or as suggested by the Talmud that the walls will be peeled off to the depth of a handbreadth. (Keylim 27,4).

From within. מבית does not mean “from the house,” because it is missing the ה (מהבית). Also, it would not be understandable to say that he should scrape the house from the house.

יקציע ....הקצו, “they will scrape off;” this root appears again in verse 43 and it means the same there.

‎מבית INSIDE.

אשר הקצו. The construction of this word in verse 43 where it appears as הקצות, corresponds to the verbs in which the letter combinations ה“י appear in abbreviated forms. The root קצה therefore appears as הקצו. It is also possible to understand the word as meaning קיצוע, seeing that subsequent to the expression הקצות we find the words את הבית, suggesting that it refers to the previously mentioned ואת הבית יקציע, he is to scrape or peel off part of the house.

Around the eruption. Because we cannot say all around the house, from the four walls, for if so, why does it say, “all around”? It is already written, “He shall scrape the house from the inside”!

סביב ROUND ABOUT — i. e. the place round about the plague-spot; and in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 4 5) it is also thus explained: that he shall peel off the plaster which is round about the area where the plague-stricken stones had been.

Wherein they scraped. Because the word הקצו is of the form (Tehillim 106:33): “המרו את רוחו (They rebelled against His spirit),” and [since] the intention here is the scraping and not the border [i.e., edge], therefore, Rashi says it refers to that which they scraped within the border of the eruption all around. If it said, “אשר קצעו (which they scraped),” we would not know where that scraping is.

הקצו is connected in meaning with the word קצה, end, — it means: which they had scraped off at the edges of the plague-spot round about it. (The words mean: the dust which they have removed from the edges. It has nothing to do with “scraping off”).

יקח וטח, from the use of the singular mode of this verb here we learn that the friend of the owner of the house does not help in this procedure of replacing the stones with mortar. (Sifra)

הִקְצוֹת — The grammatical form expresses the idea of something “having been done” (passive) and so, also, is the word הִטּוֹחַ (both are Niphal construct infinitive), but in חִלֵּץ את האבנים the expression refers to the man who removes them (i. e. it is active, the subject having to be supplied. The translation is: “after he has removed the stones”, whilst the following words denote: after the house has been scraped at its edges and after it has been plastered), it (the word חִלֵּץ) being of the heavy conjugation (Piel), just as כִּפֵּר and דִּבֵּר‎.

AND IF THE PLAGUE RETURN AND BREAK OUT IN THE HOUSE. Now this plague which came in the other stones and in the other mortar [which replaced the original ones], is not identical with the first plague which was there, [but is a different outbreak]. It is thus unlike the “breaking out” of the leprosy mentioned in the case of a person⁸⁴Above, 13:12; 20. and the spreading thereof, which mean that the plague returned to its former natural place, since the pus many times hides under the skin and retreats into the interior of the body, and afterwards it returns and spreads to the skin on its outside. Rather, the matter [of leprosy in a house] is as I have written in Seder Ishah Ki Thazria,⁸⁰Above, 13:47. that it is a plague and Divine intervention implying that the evil spirit from G-d⁸⁵I Samuel 16:16. is in that place. And in the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have said:⁸⁶Torath Kohanim, Metzora 7:1. “And if the plague come again, and break out in the house.⁸⁷Further, Verse 43. This is like saying, ‘That person has returned to his place.’” The meaning of the Sages is to state that the expression ‘u’parach’ (and it break out) mentioned here [in connection with leprosy in a house], does not mean “spreading out” as it does in the verse [dealing with leprosy of a man], And if the leprosy ‘paro’ach tiphrach’ (break out abroad) in the skin,⁸⁸Above, 13:12. but here it denotes a [fresh] outbreak in that place just like the expression, the rod of Aaron ‘parach’ (was budded).⁸⁹Numbers 17:23. The comparison that the Rabbis drew [i.e., that this is like saying, “That person has returned to his place”], is to allude to the matter we have stated, namely, that this is not a plague which comes into existence and spreads out [as in the case of leprosy of man], but is one outbreak after another, just like a man who left his place and then came back to sit in his former place, on a different chair which was prepared for him there. I have already explained⁸⁰Above, 13:47. the meaning of this “breaking out” [of leprosy in a house], as well as of the “breaking out” of leprosy in garments.⁹⁰Above, 13:57.
Now Scripture does not state here, “and if the plague comes back, and breaks out ‘in those stones’” [but instead it says, and breaks out ‘in the house’],⁸⁷Further, Verse 43. for even if it broke out in another place of the house, and even if it was of another color, unlike that of the first plague, it is considered a recurring plague [i.e., one that recurs after removal of the stones, scraping and replastering, which necessitates the demolition of the house], and is not considered a plague appearing for the first time in the house. This is the sense of the expression in the house [and if the plague come again, and break out ‘in the house’],⁸⁷Further, Verse 43. meaning that wherever it recurs in the house, it is governed by that law [which requires the demolition of the house]. The reason for this is that the evil spirit will not depart from that house, but will always be in one of the places in that house, to frighten its owners. So also the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim:⁹¹Torath Kohanim, Metzora 7:1; 3. I know only that [the house is to be demolished] if the plague returns to its former place. Whence do I know to include a return to any place in the house? Scripture therefore says, in the house.⁸⁷Further, Verse 43. I know only that this rule applies if the plague recurs in its original color. Whence do I know that even if it recurs in a different color [it is governed by the same rule]? Scripture therefore says, and it break out⁸⁷Further, Verse 43. [meaning, in its original color or a different one].
Now the meaning of these verses according to the interpretation [of the Torath Kohanim] is as follows. And if the plague come again on the seventh day and returns in the house, after that the stones have been taken out, and after the house hath been scraped, and after it is plastered,⁸⁷Further, Verse 43. or⁹²The expression u’va hakohein of Verse 44, which is generally translated “‘and’ the priest shall come,” Ramban interprets to mean “‘or’ the priest shall come.” See further, Note 95, on the significance of this interpretation. the priest shall come a second time and see, and, behold, that now the plague has recurred⁹³The Hebrew word is pasah, which is generally translated as “spread.” But Ramban has already explained above that in this section dealing with leprosy of a house, the term means “recur” and not “spread.” See Note 95. in the house as it was at first, it is malignant leprosy … and he shall break down the house,⁹⁴Verse 45. the two verses thus explaining that whether the plague recurred at the end of the first week or at the end of the second week, they are governed by one law [which requires the demolition of the house].⁹⁵Ramban thus avoids a great exegetical difficulty which Rashi found in these verses. Principally it is as follows: Verse 44 states: And the priest shall come and see, and, behold, the plague be ‘pasah’ in the house, it is a malignant leprosy; it is unclean. This is followed by Verse 45 which states: And he shall break down the house etc. Now Rashi, who interpreted the word pasah here in Verse 44 in the same way as in leprosy of man, meaning that “it spread out,” found this difficulty: since the Rabbis have said that every plague that recurs in a house after the removal of stones, scraping and replastering, is a sign of impurity, and requires the whole house to be demolished, why then does the verse state here pasah, since the same law applies even if the plague did not spread out? Accordingly Rashi transposed the order of the verses, placing Verse 45 [And he shall break down the house …] after Verse 43 [And if the plague come again …], and Verse 44 [And the priest shall come …] after Verses 46 and 47 [and he that eateth in the house …]. Ramban later remarks that this transposition of the verses is like “cutting the verses with a knife.” Ramban on the other hand explained the verses on these two premises: (a) the term pasah in this section on leprosy of a house, means “recur,” and not “spread.” (b) ‘u’va hakohein’ in Verse 44 does not mean “then the priest shall come,” or “and the priest shall come,” but rather “or the priest shall come.” Thus Verse 43 speaks of the recurrence of the plague at the end of the first week [after the removal of the stones etc.], and Verse 44 speaks of the case when it recurred at the end of the second week. In each of these cases the law is as stated in Verse 45: And he shall break down the house … Thus according to Ramban all the verses are in order. The text of Ramban which follows sets forth this exposition in more detail. Scripture did not need to say [in Verse 44] “and the priest shall come and see, if the plague be ‘pasah’ (have recurred) in the house — he shall then command that they take out the stones” etc., [as Rashi would have it],⁹⁶Since Rashi explained the word pasah as “spreading,” he was also forced — besides transposing Verse 44 [And the priest shall come and see …] to follow after Verse 47 as mentioned above — to explain that if at the end of the second week after the house was shut up, the priest found that the plague has spread then Verse 40 (!) reapplies: then the priest shall command that they take out the stones … and he gives it another week. If it returns, he demolishes the house, and if it does not return, it is pure. [[illegible]] It is this re-introduction of Verse 40 here in the order of the verses that Ramban finds unnecessary, as explained in the text. for this verse [and the priest shall come …] is connected with the verse [43] immediately preceding it, stating, if the plague come again … after that the stones have been taken out at the end of the first week or the second week, when the priest comes, and he sees its recurrence, it is a malignant leprosy. Then Scripture further states, And if the priest shall come in,⁹⁷Verse 48. that is, at the end of the second week mentioned above [in Verse 44], and see it, and, behold, the plague hath not recurred⁹⁸Here too (in Verse 48) the word is pasah, which Rashi would explain as “spread” or “extended” [and it is so rendered in most translations], but Ramban explains it as meaning “recur.” in the house, after that the house was plastered; then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, since it is healed of the plague, that is to say, it did not recur. Thus we now derive the principle that if a plague remained as it was during the first week and the second week, he removes the stones, scrapes away and replasters, and gives it another week, and if the plague returns, he demolishes the house. This is the correct interpretation of the verses in accordance with the [Rabbinical] interpretation thereof, for it is impossible to cut them, so to say, with a knife⁹⁹Reference is to Rashi’s exposition of the verses. See above, Note 95. placing later verses first and earlier verses later, in a manner which is not all their meaning.
It is further possible that we say as a correct interpretation of the verses on this subject, that the term pasah in this section [which deals with leprosy in a house], is like parach, both of them being an expression of “sprouting.” Where a plague exists already, the term pasah denotes its growth and extension, and where there is no plague, it means its [original] sprouting and [subsequent] recurrence, since it is all a matter of growth. Onkelos also has rendered all [expressions of pasah] as oseiph (adding), and the term tosepheth (addition) is used of a growing thing which is added to another, such as in the expressions: ‘v’nosaph gam hu’ (they be added also) to our enemies;¹⁰⁰Exodus 1:10. ‘v’nosphah nachalathan’ (then will their inheritance be added),¹⁰¹Numbers 36:4. and it may also be used of a matter which “returns,” such as: the Eternal ‘yosiph’ (will set again) His hand;¹⁰²Isaiah 11:11. and they prophesied ‘v’lo yasaphu’ (but they did so no more),¹⁰³Numbers 11:25. meaning that [Eldad and Meidad] did not prophesy any more. Thus the meaning of the term pasah is that the plague “returned.” Now after the removing of the stones, [scraping and replastering], when Scripture speaks of pisayon [as it does in Verse 44 and 48], the meaning thereof is “sprouting,” as I have mentioned in connection with the term prichah.¹⁰⁴In the beginning of this verse, in the text before Note 88. If so, Scripture is stating: and if the plague came again and ‘sprouted’ in the house, after that the stones have been taken out … and the priest shall come and see, and, behold the plague has ‘sprouted’ in the house … then he shall break down the house,¹⁰⁵Verses 43-45. for every plague that returns is a sign of confirmed impurity. And if the priest shall come in, and see that the plague has not ‘sprouted’ at all in the house, after the house was plastered, he shall pronounce it pure, because the plague has been healed by the removal of the stones, [scraping] and replastering.
Thus the law of a house wherein the plague recurs at the end of the first week has been explained here, that he removes the stones, scrapes and replasters, and gives it another week. If the plague returns the house is impure [and is to be demolished], and if it does not return it is pure. But where it remained at the end of the first week as it was [when he first saw it], and it recurred at the end of the second week, the law thereof was not explained in the Torah, but we derive it by means of a gzeirah shavah¹⁰⁶Literally: “a similarity of phrases.” It is one of the Thirteen principles of exegesis established by Rabbi Yishmael, by which the Torah is expounded (see above, Note 64). Thus where a similarity of phrases occurs in two different texts, the strictures mentioned in one text may equally apply to the second text, even though they are not mentioned there. It is important to note in this connection that an analogy from such congruent expressions cannot be established of one’s own accord; it must be an authorized tradition that this similarity of phrases is to be applied, in order to establish such an analogy. as follows: [the expression, and behold if the plague recur is found both in Verse 44: and the priest shall come, and in Verse 39: and the priest shall return, thus establishing that] “coming [in Verse 44] and returning [in Verse 39] are identical in regard to their law,” meaning that the law of “coming” which is stated at the end of the second week, is like the law of “returning” stated at the end of the first week, i.e., that in both cases if the plague recurred, he removes the stones, scrapes and replasters and gives it another week.¹⁰⁷This is clearly stated in Verse 40 with regard to the end of the first week. The above analogy establishes that the same law applies to the end of the second week, although it is not clearly specified. Similarly, if the plague remained as it was [at the end of] the first and second weeks, and recurred [at the end of] the third week, the law thereof is not mentioned in the Torah, but it is derived by means of another gzeirah shavah:¹⁰⁶Literally: “a similarity of phrases.” It is one of the Thirteen principles of exegesis established by Rabbi Yishmael, by which the Torah is expounded (see above, Note 64). Thus where a similarity of phrases occurs in two different texts, the strictures mentioned in one text may equally apply to the second text, even though they are not mentioned there. It is important to note in this connection that an analogy from such congruent expressions cannot be established of one’s own accord; it must be an authorized tradition that this similarity of phrases is to be applied, in order to establish such an analogy. ‘v’im bo yavo hakohein’ (and if the priest shall come in),¹⁰⁸Verse 48. thus establishing that the priest’s third coming is identical in law to his coming the second time.¹⁰⁹The root bo (coming) together with the verb yavo (he will come) suggest two “comings” — thus making the priest’s coming into the house to examine the status of the plague at the end of the third week, comparable in its law to that of his second visit, as explained in the text. Thus the verses are explained in line with their simple meaning, while the [Rabbinical] interpretations were derived by a gzeirah shavah¹⁰⁶Literally: “a similarity of phrases.” It is one of the Thirteen principles of exegesis established by Rabbi Yishmael, by which the Torah is expounded (see above, Note 64). Thus where a similarity of phrases occurs in two different texts, the strictures mentioned in one text may equally apply to the second text, even though they are not mentioned there. It is important to note in this connection that an analogy from such congruent expressions cannot be established of one’s own accord; it must be an authorized tradition that this similarity of phrases is to be applied, in order to establish such an analogy. taught to Moses on Sinai. And that which the Rabbis said in the Torath Kohanim:¹¹⁰Torath Kohanim, Metzora 7:7. “What does Scripture refer to? etc.” [from which you might think that these interpretations were originally established by the Rabbis, and not based on the gzeirah shavah taught to Moses on Sinai], is merely a Rabbinical support, since they wanted to find a basis in the Scriptural text for that principle which they had received by tradition established by the gzeirah shavah.¹⁰⁶Literally: “a similarity of phrases.” It is one of the Thirteen principles of exegesis established by Rabbi Yishmael, by which the Torah is expounded (see above, Note 64). Thus where a similarity of phrases occurs in two different texts, the strictures mentioned in one text may equally apply to the second text, even though they are not mentioned there. It is important to note in this connection that an analogy from such congruent expressions cannot be established of one’s own accord; it must be an authorized tradition that this similarity of phrases is to be applied, in order to establish such an analogy. Similarly, what the Rabbis said there:¹¹¹Ibid., 6. “If we are eventually to include a plague which recurred, even though it did not extend [in the law requiring the removal of the stones etc.], why then does Scripture say, And the priest shall come and see, and behold, if the plague be ‘pasah’ (extended)?¹¹²Verse 44. See also above, Note 98. Leave it.”¹¹³I.e., “This is not the proper place of the verse, since that verse speaks of the case of a plague that remained as it was during the first week, to which the priest has therefore given a second week to be shut up, and at the end of the second week he comes and sees that it has spread.” See above, Note 96, that Rashi transposed Verse 44 and read it after Verse 47. This is all predicated upon the interpretation of the term pasah as meaning “spreading” or “extending.” The phrase in the Torath Kohanim hanach lo (“Leave it”) is therefore interpreted as explained above [on the basis of the Rabad’s commentary there, which follows Rashi’s interpretation]. Ramban who has explained the term differently, as explained above in the text, is therefore bound to give a different interpretation of the expression in the Torath Kohanim, which now follows in the text: “That is to say, that we are to leave etc.” That is to say, we are to leave here the plain meaning of the verse and follow the interpretation, but not that we are to uproot the verse from its place and explain it as referring to another place. This is what appears to me to be correct in the meaning of this Scriptural section, so that the words of the Sages be upheld, and it is a fitting and appealing interpretation.

ואם ישוב הנגע ופרח בבית, “and if the affliction returns and erupts in the house, etc.” According to Nachmanides the affliction the Torah speaks of here does not again show up on the same stones as previously, but the same kind of affliction now appears on other stones and other earthen parts of the same house. This is different from when skin afflictions either shrunk or expanded on an afflicted person. On those occasions the Torah described changes occurring in the original symptom of the affliction. In matters of skin irregularities it is not unusual for symptoms to temporarily subside, only to resurface even more pronouncedly at a later stage of the disease. The disease not only had not disappeared, but, by penetrating more deeply into the body below the skin it had taken a firmer hold on the afflicted person. This is why the Torah here does not write: ואם ישוב הנגע ופרח באבנים ההם, “and if the affliction resurfaces and spreads out on these stones, etc,” but it writes in such a way that we understand that even if now the affliction surfaces in a part of the house that had not been afflicted at first, etc. The word בבית means that the entire house is viewed as having been potentially at risk as soon as any part of it had shown symptoms of being afflicted with this tzoraat. The reason for all this, the need to totally tear down the house, is that the רוח הרעה, the harmful atmosphere that had been responsible for the affliction first erupting, will not disappear until all the stones, etc., have been completely removed. Otherwise, there will always remain the risk that the reconstructed house would suddenly erupt with the same symptoms as had led to the partial destruction of the original house. The Midrash explains how one can understand all the verses without having recourse to the principle that the Torah is not bound to write everything sequentially, in chronological order.

An expression of something having been done. Meaning: This is the passive conjugation (נפעל), and so too הטוח, because the ה has a חיריק it is an expression התפעל (reflexive), i.e., the house was scraped within the border of the eruption, “but [the phrase] חלץ את האבנים כו'...”

The verse refers to the reappearance of the plague after seven days have elapsed since the symptoms and the afflicted stones have been removed. Our author states that he copied Rashi’s entire commentary on this verse, in order to enable the reader to fully understand it.“after having been scraped off;” this is inferred from the similarity of the verb: “if the plague recurs,” אם ישוב הנגע ופרח. I might have thought that if the plague recurs immediately after having been scraped off, the house would be declared as ritually contaminated with all the consequences thereof. The Torah wrote: “the priest returns, etc.;” in order to make plain that this occurs only after an interval of seven days, just as in the case of a priest reexamining the symptoms of a plague on the skin of a person so afflicted. (13,32). Moreover, unless in the interval the area afflicted with these symptoms had expanded, the house will not be declared as ritually contaminated. (verse 44) We find the expression צרעת ממארת, “a malignant tzoraat,” In connection with houses as well as in connection with tzoraat on clothing; (13,52) here too the reappearance of the symptoms of the plague that had been removed is sufficient for the house to be declared as having been ritually contaminated, even if the area of the contamination had not become larger. Actually, this is not the place where we would have expected to read this verse. What are we to learn from the words (verse 44) “the area covered by the symptoms of the plague has expanded,” seeing that the verdict of the priest will be no different? That verse should have been written before verse 43, and then the next verse would have taught us that even if the area had not increased the priest would still order the tearing down of the house. We must therefore assume that verse 44 speaks of the priest having come for another inspection at the end of the second week. The proper place for our verse actually is after verse 47, where we are taught that people who had used that house to dwell in and go about their normal activities have to retroactively treat what they wear, their food supplies, their furniture, etc. as having been contaminated since the departure of the priest the previous time.[I am taking the liberty to abbreviate here and draw the reader’s attention to the fact that the Torah had warned the inhabitants of that house to empty it out before his return (verse 36). The inhabitants have now incurred additional financial loss because they had ignored the priest’s warning. If until the next visit of the priest the symptoms of the plague had not come back after they had been scraped of and new plaster had been applied to that area, the priest will declare it as ritually pure, and will take two birds, etc., on behalf of the owner and slaughter one of them, etc. and release the second one into the air, as described in verse 4953. Ed.] Rashi’s principal contribution here is that the expressions used by the Torah for the priest’s visit to the house, once described as ביאה, “coming,” and once as שבה, “returning,” are not chosen randomly, but are to draw our attention to the results of each visit by the priest, depending on the choice of words used by the Torah to describe them, being basically similar.

‎ ישוב מגע ‎ואם‎ AND IF THE PLAGUE RETURN [AND BREAK OUT IN THE HOUSE] — One might think that this means: if it returns on the self-same day it shall be unclean as it stated in v. 44. It, however, says, (v. 39) ושב הכהן “when the priest returns [on the seventh day]”, and here, also, it says, ואם ישוב, “and if it (the plague) return”. What is the case of “return” mentioned there? It is at the end of a week! Similarly, too, “return” mentioned here means at the end of a week (Sifra, Metzora, Section 7 6).

Intense conjugation. I.e., it is one of the stressed letters, therefore it is vowelized with a חירי"ק, as in dibbeir (he spoke), kippeir (he atoned).

ובא הכהן וראה והנה פשה THEN THE PRIEST SHALL COME AND LOOK, AND, BEHOLD, IF THE PLAGUE HATH SPREAD … [IT IS UNCLEAN] — From this one might think that a recurring plague is unclean (i. e. renders the whole house unclean) only if it spreads. But the phrase צרעת ממארת. “a fretting leprosy”, is mentioned in connection with houses and the phrase. צרעת ממארת is mentioned in connection with garments (Leviticus 13:51), thus making that plague analogous to this: What is the case there? Scripture declares the recurring plague unclean although it has not spread (Leviticus 13:55)! Similarly, here, it declares the recurring plague unclean even though it has not spread. But if this be so, why does it state here “and, behold. [the plague] hath spread"? As a matter of fact this is not the proper place of the verse), and the statement “he shall pull down the house” (v. 45) it ought to have written immediately after (v. 43), “and if the plague return”). The words in v. 44, “he shall look, and, behold, if the plague hath spread”, consequently only intend to tell us something about a plague which has remained in the same condition during the first week, and to which he (the priest) comes at the end of the second week and finds that it has spread, for Scripture has not explained anything at all about the case where the plague remains in the same condition during the first week. (It speaks in v. 39 only of when the plague has spread during the first week.) It tells us here (in the section which speaks about what happens a week after the house has been scraped etc., i. e. after the end of the second week) the law regarding it by mention of this spreading (i. e. by the words וראה והנה פשה) which can only speak of the case that it remained in the same condition during the first week, and has spread during the second week. Now what shall he do with it? One might think that he must demolish it, even as it states immediately after it, (v. 45) “He shall break down the house”. It, however, states, (v. 39) “if the priest returneth” at the end of the week and finds that it has spread, and (v. 44) “and if the priest cometh” at the end of the second week and now finds that for the first time it has spread — thus we may learn what is to be done after this “coming" from what happens after that “returning”! What is the law in the case of that “returning”? He must remove the stones, scrape and re-plaster (vv. 40—42), and give it another week! Similarly, here, in the case of this “coming” after a second week, he must remove the stones, scrape and re-plaster and give it a further week! If it recurs he must demolish the house: if it does not recur, the house is clean. And whence may we infer that if it remained in the same condition both during this week (the first) and that (the second), he must remove the stones, scrape and re-plaster, and give it another week (just as he did when it spread in the second week, as we have just stated)? Because it states, (v. 44) ובא ”and if [the priest] cometh”, and (v. 48) ואם בא יבא “and if [the priest] cometh”, the expression “coming” being used in each case to indicate an analogy between them, the reasoning being as follows: About what can this verse 48 which refers to the plague not having spread be speaking? If you say it speaks of a plague which has spread during the first week but did not spread during the second week, behold, this has already been mentioned (vv. 39—43, and second half of v. 44)! If you say that it speaks of a plague which has spread during the second week but has not spread during the first week, behold, this has already been mentioned (v. 44 according to Rashi's explanation above). Consequently it can only be saying the words ואם בא יבא, “if having come once (בא), he cometh again (יבא)”, about one who comes at the end of the first week and comes again at the end of the second week, “and, behold, [the plague] had not spread” in either instance. In the case of such a plague which remains as it was during two successive weeks, what shall he do to it? One might think he departs and gets himself off without doing anything more because the house is clean, since it states here (immediately afterwards), “he shall pronounce the house clean”. It, however, states, “if the plague is healed”, — which implies that Scripture says as it were: I do declare clean only the plague which is healed (i. e. when something has been done by which it is removed). What, then, shall he do to it? The reply is: above (v. 44) it has spoken of “coming”, and further on (v. 48) it also speaks of “coming”. What is the law in the previous case? He removes the stones, scrapes and re-plasters and gives it another week — for, as we have stated above, we have it as tradition that “return” (v. 39: ושב הכהן) and “coming” (v. 44: ובא הכהן) are identical in regard to their law; similarly, too, must be done in the later case (v. 48 which as we have proved, must be speaking of עמד בראשון ובשני etc.), as it is stated in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Metzora, Section 7 10). The conclusion of the matter is: Demolishing a house takes place only in the case of a plague that recurs after removal of the stones, scraping and re-plastering, and such a recurring plague does not require that it should also have spread in order to make it necessary to demolish the house. The sequence of the verses is as follows: “If it returns” (v. 48), “he shall break down” (v. 45), “But if one cometh” (v. 46) “[And he that lieth in the house] … and he that eateth in the house” (v. 47), and only then v. 44: “And if the priest come and look, and, behold, the plague hath spread”; — and the last verse speaks, as shown above, of the case of a plague that remained as it was during the first week to which one has therefore given a second week for being shut up, and at the end of the second week he comes and sees it that it has spread. And what shall he do to it? He removes the stones, scrapes and re-plasters and gives it another week. If it returns he demolishes the house, if it does not return, it is clean and requires two birds for purification, but this third week is the utmost time for investigation, for not more than three weeks are to be spent in the investigation of plagues.

“And if the eruption returns.” Meaning: The phrase “prickly tzora’as” does not refer to “the kohein shall come,” but rather to (v. 43): “If the eruption returns.” It is as if it says: “If the eruption returns” until “and after it was plastered” [skipping “the kohein shall come and see and behold, the eruption has spread in the house”] “prickly tzora’as is in the house, it is impure. He shall dismantle the house.” Then, [it returns to explain the laws of the confined house] (v. 46): “Whoever will come into the house...” until (v. 47): “Whoever will eat inside the house shall wash his garments,” and afterwards [we go back to] (v. 44): “The kohein shall come and see and behold! The eruption has spread,” he shall remove the stones, scrape, and plaster, “and the kohein shall return” as above (v. 39) [as Rashi explains further on].

And finds that it spread. Meaning: The phrase, “[The kohein shall come] and see; and behold! [The eruption] has spread” does not refer to [the case where it] returns and sprouts, because we derive ממארת through a gezeiroh shovoh above (3:51) that even though it does not spread it is impure. If so, in [regard to] what is the verse speaking? If regarding [a case] where [the eruption] spread during the first [week], it was already mentioned (v. 39): “The kohein shall return on the seventh day and shall see; and behold! The eruption has spread.” [It must be then that it speaks] only regarding the kohein who comes at the end of the first week and found it unchanged in his sight and it spreads in the second [week]. [In this case] we derive “coming” from “returning” through a gezeiroh shovoh, just as later [he removes the affected stones and] scrapes and plasters and gives it another week, so too here. And the verse (45), “and he shall dismantle the house” refers to (v. 43) “If the eruption returns and sprouts,” of which Scripture did not speak at all, and it explains here that it must be dismantled. However, if it remains unchanged in the first week and spreads in the second week, he removes the stones, scrapes, plasters, and gives it a week.

And gives it a week. Meaning: I only know that he [removes the stones,] scrapes, plasters, and gives it a week; and if it returns and sprouts, he dismantles [the house] when it spreads at the end of the first week, because it had a spreading, and even if it remains unchanged in his eyes in the second week. Or, it was unchanged in the first week and spread in the second [week] he removes the stones, scrapes, and plasters. This is because we derive “coming” from “returning,” according to the aforementioned. However, where it is unchanged in his eyes during the first and second week — how do we know that even in this case he removes the stones, scrapes, plasters; and gives it a week, as in the case where there is a spreading? The verse says, “(ובא) he shall come,” and (v. 48): “(ואם בא יבא) and if he shall come he will come.” Meaning: It (v. 48) should say: ובא, why does it say: ואם בא יבא, twice? Perforce, it is to compare the two “comings” one to another: Just as regarding the first “coming” he removes the stones, etc.

If regarding [a case] where [the eruption] spread. I.e., we have not yet determined from this verse that it refers to [a case] when it is unchanged in this and that [week]. Because of this Rashi says: “In [regard to] what is the verse speaking? If regarding [a case] where [the eruption] spread during the first [week],” and he did not remove the stones, and in the end, when he comes on the second week to remove the stones it spread, behold, [it was already mentioned] he must remove the stones, scrape, and plaster, even though it did not spread in the second [week]. This is because it says (v. 39): “The kohein shall return on the seventh day...” implying that since it spread [at the beginning], he must remove the stones even though it remained unchanged afterwards. If it spread in the second [week], and he did not remove the stones and it was unchanged in the third week, and then, at the end of the third week, he found that it remained in the area to which it spread the first time, i.e., the spreading of the second week, [this too, has been mentioned] that since it spread he must remove the stones, etc. This is because it says (v. 44): “The kohein shall come and see; and behold! the eruption has spread,” which we established as referring to when it spread in the second [week], which implies he should remove the stones, etc. even though it is unchanged in the third [week].

Thus, “he shall come,” “and if he shall come,” must deal... We should not have in our text here, “he shall come,” “and if he shall come...” Rather, the correct text is: Thus, “and if he shall come,” must deal with [a case] in which [the kohein] came at the end of the first week, even though it did not spread it is not pure. He confines the house and comes at the end of the second [week] and it did not spread. Even though it did not spread he removes the stones, etc. as Rashi explains in [the case where it is] unchanged. Re’m dwelt at length here but I shortened it.

כל ימי הסגיר אתו [AND HE THAT COMES INTO THE HOUSE] ALL THE DAYS THAT IT IS SHUT UP [SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVENING] — "the days that it is shut up", but not during the days in which he had scraped the plague-spot (for through the scraping the uncleanness has, at least for the time being, departed, and the house is only closed again for investigation). I might think that I may also exclude from this law the house that is decidedly unclean through a recurring plague and which must be demolished from which one has scraped the plague-spot (but which has not yet been demolished, for we might assume that for the time being the uncleanness is departed)! It, however, states, "all the days" (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 5 4).

והבא אל הבית, “anyone who comes to the house, etc.,” a house which has been sealed provisionally does not confer impurity on everyone who enters it. This is why the Torah uses the expression הבא אליו“who enters,” i.e. if the person enters through the regular doorway. If such a person remains inside long enough to eat half a loaf of bread he and his clothing and any other items he carries or wears are defiled through his stay. If his stay is of shorter duration only his person becomes impure as a result of his entering.

[But] not the days in which he scraped. Meaning: All the days of confinement perforce the impurity is there, and therefore a person who enters is impure. However, the days [after] he removes the stones, scrapes, and plasters do not cause impurity to a person who enters since the impurity is gone, until he begins to count the weeks of confinement. This raises a difficulty: Why would you think that a [house that has been] declared [unclean] would be lenient, and a person who enters it would not become impure? [A house that has been] declared [unclean] is more severe than a confined [house], as it says in Toras Kohanim and the Mishnah (Negaim, 13:4): “A confined house causes impurity from the inside and a declared [unclean house causes impurity] from the inside and from the outside”! It appears to me the answer is: Only when the stones upon which the eruption returned are in the wall does it cause impurity, even from the outside. However, if he scraped the stones even though the house stands to be dismantled [I might think] it will not cause impurity to a person who enters during the intermediate days. Therefore, it lets us know: “Any of the days...” (Nachalas Yaakov).

כל ימי הסגיר אותו, during all the days that he had sealed it; according to Rashi, we have to understand the word: ימי, as excluding the days when the owner had scraped off the symptoms. Those days actually overlapped after the priest had sealed the house. [There is disagreement among the commentators as to what happens to people who enter the sealed house between the inspections. Some commentators feel that third parties who did not own nor live in that house would not be penalised by becoming ritually impure, i.e. that all the yardsticks applied are subjective; others feel that entering such a house, seeing it was sealed make such persons ritually impure even if eventually the house was declared as ritually pure by the priest.[According to at least one opinion in the Talmud, (Sanhedrin 71) it never got to the point when such a house had to be torn down. In light of this, this editor has decided not to pursue the subject further, seeing that our author does not offer an opinion of his own but only quotes commentators. Ed.]

יטמא עד הערב [AND HE THAT COMES INTO THE HOUSE] SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVENING — This tells us that merely going into the house does not render his garments unclean (since it does not state, as in the next verse, that he shall wash his garments) (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 5 5). I might think that his garments do not become unclean even if, after coming into the house, he remained there long enough to eat a half-loaf (an ordinary meal, equal in mass to 4 eggs)! It, however, states, (v. 47) "And he that eateth in the house shall wash his garments", for we may reason as follows: I have here only the law regarding one who actually eats. Whence may I derive that this applies also to one who sleeps in the house? Because Scripture states "and he who sleeps [shall wash his garments]". Now I have only the law regarding one who eats and regarding one who sleeps in the house; whence may I derive that the same law applies to one who neither eats nor sleeps (but merely stays in the house)? Because it states ‎יכבס יכבס (twice) in v. 47 where it could have written: והשכב והאכל בבית יכבס את בגדיו, and such wording would imply that only those who actually sleep and eat in the house must wash their garments. By the insertion of the first יכבס we have two coordinated sentences of similar import and this suggests that sleeping and eating are merely examples of cases where garments would require washing. Thus the use of the first יכבס serves to include besides one who sleeps and one who eats in the house anyone who stays there. If this be so (i. e. if it means that the garments of anyone who stays in the house become unclean) why does it expressly mention one who eats and one who sleeps? Let it merely state: one who stays in the house shall wash his garments, when these also would be included! But this is done in order to designate for him who sleeps in the house (i. e. who does anything in the house beyond entering and immediately leaving it, as is mentioned in v. 46) a minimum period of time the stay during which renders his garments unclean, viz., a time long enough to eat a half-loaf (cf. Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 5 7-8).

Declared [unclean] which had been scraped. This is a house in which the eruption sprouted after he removed the stones, scraped, and plastered. The eruption returned and sprouted, and its eruption was scraped and the stones with the eruption were taken out. [I might think] that someone who enters will not become impure, [therefore,] the verse says, “any of the days.” Scripture should have written: “In the days of its confinement,” why does it say, “any”? This is to include [a house that has been] declared [unclean], even though it has had its eruption scraped, it causes impurity. Since it is standing to be dismantled, the entire house is impure and it causes impurity to a person upon entering.

What is clear from verses 46-48 is that merely entering that house during the period it is sealed, results in a very brief state of ritual impurity not even requiring immersion in a ritual bath, but requiring only sunset, whereas sleeping in that house requires a more elaborate ritual before such a person becomes ritually pure again, i.e. immersion in a ritual bath of both his body and the clothes he wore.

That it does not cause impurity to clothes. Otherwise, Scripture should have written, “and he shall wash his garments and he shall be impure until the evening.”

As that in which one might eat half a loaf. Meaning: The volume of four eggs. [You would assume that it does not] cause impurity to clothes because Scripture writes without specifying: “Whoever will come inside the house... shall be impure until the evening,” which implies even if he stays there the entire day it does not cause impurity to clothes. Rashi continues explaining: “The verse says: ‘Whoever will eat... ’” I.e., just as whoever will eat stays there and his clothes become impure, the same applies to what Scripture writes: “Whoever will come inside the house” as well — if he stays [the period of time] in which one might eat half a loaf, it will cause impurity to clothes although he does not eat. This is because we cannot say only eating [causes impurity to clothes], but one who lies down, in which only staying is applicable, does not [cause impurity to clothes], since the verse says: “Whoever will lie down.” This teaches that the reason that “whoever will eat” [causes impurity to clothes] is not because of eating. Rather, it is because he stays, and the same applies to coming inside as well — if he stays [the period of time] in which one might eat [half a loaf] it causes impurity. We cannot say that the verse means only eating or lying down [causes impurity to clothes], but if he did not lie down or eat, for instance, he only came inside, even though he stays [the period of time in which one might eat half a loaf] it does not cause impurity to clothes. [Because] if so, why does the verse say: “he must wash...he must wash” two times. Scripture should have written: “Whoever will lie down inside the house or whoever will eat inside the house shall wash his garments.” Rather, perforce, it includes a person who comes inside and stays although he does not eat or lie down, but [only] stays, causes impurity to clothes. Then, Rashi continues and asks: If so, that the matter depends on staying, why does it say, “whoever will lie down”? It is fine [that it says] “Whoever will eat”, [because] it is needed to give the minimal amount of staying — as the minimal amount of eating. [But why is “whoever will lie down” needed?] If it is because of the extra phrase “he must wash,” which includes even someone who only stays without eating or lying down, then Scripture should write “whoever will come inside” in place of “whoever will lie down,” since coming inside is included in lying down. Why does the verse say, “whoever will eat” and “whoever will lie down”? Rather, it is to teach that a minimal amount of time is necessary for one who lies down. Rashi explains this verse (46) after (v. 48): “If the kohein shall come,” which is out of order, in order to juxtapose “If the kohein shall come” with (v. 44): “The kohein shall come and see,” because both are of one matter. Re’m dwelt at length but I made it short. Many raise the difficulty: Why is this different than a prohibition of eating, where the Torah prohibits an olive’s bulk? Why here is it the volume of four eggs? It appears to me that there is no difficulty at all: In all the other places Scripture does not intend to give the minimum amount, rather, it mentions the prohibition alone. However, we have established from a halachah of Moshe from Sinai [that the minimum amount is] an olive’s bulk. This is not the case here, where it intends to let us know the minimum amount. If it means to say as all the minimum measurements of all prohibitions — there is a prohibition in eating any amount at all, for example: something that is a living creature. Rather, it is referring to something that is the amount of a meal, which is the volume of four eggs (Divrei Dovid).

ואם בא יבא AND IF [THE PRIEST] SHALL COME IN at the end of the second week,

וטהר הכהן את הבית, “the priest purifies the house.” He does so by means of a verbal declaration.

וראה והנה לא פשה AND LOOK UPON IT, AND, BEHOLD, THE PLAGUE HATH NOT SPREAD … [THEN THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE THE HOUSE CLEAN].— This verse, as shown above, is intended to teach the law regarding the case that it (the plague) has stayed as it was during both the first week and the second week. What shall he do to it? One might think that he shall pronounce it clean just as the verse literally implies: וטהר הכהן את הבית "and the priest shall pronounce the house clean"! It, however, states, "[The priest shall declare the house clean] כי נרפא הנגע if the plague is healed" — Scripture says, as it were, I pronounce clean only that plague which is healed, and only that house is healed which has been scraped and re-plastered and in which the plague has not recurred, but this, in which during two weeks the plague has remained in the same condition, is not yet healed and thus not yet clean, and requires removal of the stones, scraping and re-plastering and yet a third week. And the verse is accordingly to be explained as follows: ואם בא יבא, And if having come once he comes again at the end of the second week and he looks upon it, and, behold, it has not spread, he shall re-plaster it and of course also remove the stones and scrape it — for re-plastering never takes place without removal of the stones and scraping (and Scripture merely states אחרי הטוח for the sake of brevity) — אחרי הטוח את הבית and after the house has been re-plastered, וטהר הכהן את הבית, shall the priest pronounce clean, if the plague has not returned at the end of the third week, כי נרפא הנגע FOR THEN THE PLAGUE IS HEALED. If, however, it has returned at the end of that week it is unnecessary to state the law here since it has already explained regarding a recurring plague that it requires the demolition of the house (cf. Rashi on v. 44).

AND HE SHALL LET GO THE LIVING BIRD OUT OF THE CITY INTO THE OPEN FIELD, AND MAKE ATONEMENT FOR THE HOUSE, AND IT SHALL BE CLEAN. Now this atonement was effected by the bird which is to be sent away, the bird carrying away all his sins out of the city into the open field, like the atonement effected by the goat that is to be sent away.¹¹⁴Further, 16:21-22. Now since the punishment of the plague which appears in a person’s house is unlike [i.e., less in severity than] that of a plague which afflicts his body, Scripture did not make it necessary for him [the owner of the house] to bring a guilt-offering and sin-offering [as it required for the purification of a leper], because the first [stage of] atonement that the leper brings for his purification — namely, the birds, the cedar-wood and the hyssop¹¹⁵Above, Verse 4. And here too, in the purification of a house from leprosy, these are the requirements as stated in Verse 52. — is sufficient for him [i.e., the owner of the house].

וכפר על הבית וטהר, “he shall provide atonement for the house and it will become purified.” According to Nachmanides this atonement is effected through the bird that is released into the air outside the city into the field. This bird is perceived as carrying away all the sins of the person who has purchased it and gone through the ritual with the help of the priest. The procedure is analogous to the שעיר המשתלח, the “scapegoat” that we are familiar with from the Day of Atonement rituals, although that scapegoat is thrown to its death. The reason why this procedure differs from that of a person who experiences tzoraat on his skin, is that the penalty for the sins of a person whose house is afflicted with tzoraat is much less than that of the person whose skin has become afflicted. The sin of the persons whose house was afflicted was far less serious than that of the person afflicted with tzoraat on his skin. The latter had to bring also a sin offering and a guilt offering. The initial atonement procedure is sufficient to cleanse the owner of the afflicted house of his sin. Some commentators believe that every “atonement” mentioned in connection with any of three types of tzoraat afflicting house, garments, or skin as well as the “atonement” mentioned by the Torah in connection with the offering the Torah demands of a mother who has given birth recently, as well as the people afflicted with the disease known as zav, mentioned in the following chapter, is not a term for “forgiving a sin,” but is a term denoting the purification of the party concerned having been successfully completed. We find the term used in that sense in Gittin 56, where the words לכפורי ידיה בהאי גברא mean that “G’d wants to ‘clean’ His hands,” i.e. punish him for having been the instrument through whom Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed. Clearly, the meaning of the word there is not “atonement” in the normal sense of the word.

וכפר על הבית וטהר, “he shall provide atonement for the house and it will become purified.” Nachmanides writes that seeing the affliction on a person’s house is not viewed as seriously as an affliction on his garments or his body, the Torah did not demand that the purification rites include bringing also a guilt-offering and a sin-offering. All such a person has to do is bring the bird-offerings presented by a poor person who was afflicted with tzoraat on his skin, plus the cedarwood and the hyssop.

את הצפור החיה אל מחוץ לעיר, “the living bird outside the boundaries of the city;” according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili, this bird had had its “residence” outside the city; in other words, it is not a bird that was domesticated and for which the owners had provided a שובך, dovecot.” It was by definition a “free roaming bird.”

וכפר על הבית וטהר, “by doing so he makes atonement for the house and it is (again) ritually pure.” The ritual is analogous to that of the scapegoat on the day of Atonement that carries the sins of the Jewish people into the wilderness. (Nachmanides) If atonement is required for the afflicted house why only for the house that had such an affliction? Why not for the person whose skin had been afflicted? The answer is that one cannot take a house to a ritual bath, and the house cannot bring a sacrifice. Houses could not have been guilty by committing an act that displeases the Lord, as they are inert by definition. Besides, these houses had already required scraping, removing stones, and plastering, none of which are procedures that were required from afflicted clothing or afflicted skin.

THIS IS THE LAW FOR ALL MANNER OF PLAGUE OF LEPROSY. This refers to leprosy of inflammation and the burnt part in the skin. Scripture mentioned them here first [although in the section on leprosy above they are not mentioned first]¹¹⁶Ibid., 13:18-28. because of their frequency. Then it mentioned and for a scall, which is also frequent. Then Scripture mentioned here, and for the leprosy of a garment, and for a house,¹¹⁷Verse 55. followed by, and for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot,¹¹⁸Verse 56. which are the first plagues with which Scripture opened this discussion: When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising etc.¹¹⁹Above, 13:2. Scripture always mentions the bahereth (bright spot) last, because it is the strongest and worst form of all the plagues.

זאת התורה, if someone wants to qualify to issue religious rulings concerning the subject of negai-im he must first of all be able to distinguish between two different types of such afflictions although they both belong to basically the same category. This is the meaning of Deuteronomy 17,8 בין נגע לנגע, “between one kind of nega and another kind of nega.”

זאת התורה לכל נגע הצרעת ולנתק, ולצרעת הבגד ולבית, ולשאת ולספחת ולבהרת, “This is the legislation for every tzoraat affliction and the netek; and afflictions on the garments and the house; and of the se-eth, the sapachat, and the baheret.” Even though the tradition handed down to us concerning all these laws is the reliable one, i.e. that the sequence in which G’d afflicts potential victims is that first He afflicts their houses to give them a chance to repent, followed by afflictions on the garments hoping that the sinners will mend their ways, and that only as a last resort does G’d afflict the bodies of the sinners concerned, the fact remains that in the written Torah the order is reversed, the Torah commencing the legislation with skin disorders, followed by similar disorders on the garments followed by the houses which display signs that the walls are afflicted.
The reason the Torah chose to write the sequence which we find before us rather than the sequence our sages have told us, is that the Torah’s ways are ways of pleasantness (Proverbs 3,17). Had the Torah followed the reverse pattern of reporting these kinds of afflictions we would have read of matters going from bad to worse; this would not have made for edifying reading. As it is, the Torah first lists the most severe afflictions, proceeding to describe afflictions which are progressively easier on the victim, i.e. that only his garments or the walls of his house undergoes an affliction.

זאת התורה לכל נגע הצרעת, “this is the law for allmanner of the plague known as tzoraat;” this verse once more summing up the subject as a Torah, is a reminder to the priest not to undertake pronouncing decisions about tzoraat until he has thoroughly familiarised himself with the subject as well as with the terminology used by the Torah.

לכל נגע הצרעת ולנתק. Even though both these afflictions are known as a skin affliction on the skin of a human being they are distinctly different from one another. The נתק is not judged by appearances but by the behaviour of the hair surrounding it, whereas the ordinary nega tzoraat is judged by changes in its colouration, etc.

ולצרעת הבגד והבית, even though both these phenomena maybe very similar in its greenish or reddish appearance, and both are unnatural phenomena they are still different from one another in the following manner: If the coloured scab on the garment expanded after the first week of isolation the entire garment must be burned. If something parallel happens with the scab on the walls of the house at the end of the first week of isolation it is removed, whitewashed over and the priest waits for another week before arriving at a final disposition, i.e. if the symptoms are not on the wane the house will have to be destroyed.

ולשאת ולספחת ולבהרת, even though the common denominator of these three skin eczemas is that all of them are a shade of white, and that the rules applying to them are basically similar, so much so that they can be treated as cumulative, as we know from tradition (negai-im 1,3) anyone who undertakes to rule on these matters has to be an expert in all the different shadings of white, and where these are most likely to surface. The areas in which shechin or michveh, (burnt like appearance) are judged by a combination of appearances., whereas tzarevet and the areas where hair grows are not judged by appearances at all.

the combinations of the letters ה"י, א"ח, ה"ע cause the word to change vowels so that baheret becomes beharet when the word appears with the tone sign etnachta, at the conclusion of a verse or a section of the verse. We find similar examples in 15,21 where the vowel pattern hachay changes to hechoy in verse 20 there due to the tone sign etnachta. Similar changes occur in the word hacherev or hechorev respectively depending on the accompanying tone signs. (compare Samuel II 11,25 and Numbers 8,6 respectively.

להורת ביום הטמא — This may be translated: TO GIVE INSTRUCTION "CONCERNING" THE DAY OF ITS BEING UNCLEAN, i. e. which day renders it clean and which day renders it unclean (to point out that particular day on which, according to circumstances, a house or a garment or a person is to be declared clean or unclean).

זאת תורת הצרעת, one is not to add and impose more stringent rules also declaring similar looking skin eczemas as conferring ritual impurity. [the author interprets the word זאת, this, as restrictive, i.e. “this and none other.” Ed.] Granted that there are numerous other skin diseases which in some respects resemble the ones mentioned in the Torah, it is not in order to apply what the sages normally do to protect a person from inadvertently running afoul one of G’d’s commandments. In the domain of negai-im the rule postulated by Solomon in Proverbs 30,6 אל תוסף על דבריו, “do not add anything to G’d’s words” is strictly adhered to. One factor which indicates how wrong it would be to do this is that the Torah herself declares the “worst” phenomenon of skin eczema, i.e. the whole skin being affected totally, as one that leaves the afflicted party ritually pure. [Naturally, such a person, in the process of being cured will experience part of his skin being afflicted, at which point the priest will have to declare him as impure. Ed.] The apparent lack of logic in this part of the legislation was the cue for the sages not to impose “protective fences” around this legislation.

What day he is to declare [the house] pure. The ב of ביום טהרתו is like the ב of “ובחרושת אבן למלאות ובחרושת עץ (to cut stones for setting, to carve wood)” (Shemos 31:5), which means with regard to cutting stone. The same applies here as well, Scripture instructs with regard to the day of becoming impure and the day of becoming pure. [However, in Toras Kohanim the Rabbis taught: This teaches that in the day he declares impure and in the day he declares pure], that is, during the day but not at night, because we do not declare impure nor do we declare pure at night. [Rashi did not use this explanation because he already explained (v. 2): “on the day of his purification” — “This teaches that we do not proclaim him pure at night.” Also, from the verse above (13:14): “On the day that healthy flesh appears on him” the Rabbis derived (Moed Katan 8a): “This teaches that we do not proclaim him impure at night.”]

That is that He commanded us with the process of the sin-offering sacrifice, according to the description that is mentioned - whatever sin-offering it may be. And that is His saying, "This is the law of the sin-offering" (Leviticus 6:18). And in Leviticus, it is also explained how it is offered, what is burnt from it and what is to be eaten. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 6.)

That is that He commanded us that any man who is healed from a discharge offer a sacrifice. And this is the sacrifice of the zav; and he is lacking [full] atonement until he offers it. And that is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, "When one with a discharge becomes clean of his discharge [...]. On the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves" (Leviticus 15:13-14). (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement 1-3.)

That is that He commanded us that someone with tsaraat offer a sacrifice when he is healed from it. And that is three animals - a burnt-offering, a sin-offering and a guilt-offering - and a log of oil. But if he was poor, he should offer a lamb for a guilt-offering and two turtledoves or two young pigeons. And this is the fourth of those lacking [full] atonement - and that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "On the eighth day he shall take two flawless male lambs, one one-year old ewe lamb, etc." (Leviticus 14:10). And one will perhaps say, "Why don't you count the sacrifice of those lacking [full] atonement as one commandment, since they all have one thing that brings them all together - and that is their lack of atonement, such that this would be a certain type of purification. And it would have been appropriate for you to say, 'It is x commandment that He commanded us that the purity of some impure ones not be complete until they offer a sacrifice - and that is the zav; the zavah; the woman after childbirth; and one with tsaraat.' Just like you count purification in a mikveh as one commandment - whatever the specific impurity might be - and you don't concern yourself with the type of impurity with which they became impure; so too, would it have been appropriate for you to count the sacrifice of those lacking atonement as one commandment, and we would not be concerned about their [specific] impurities!" God knows that this would no doubt have been appropriate if the sacrifice of each one of these four that lack atonement were the same and did not differ; just like purification in the mikveh is a specific type of purification for every impure one. However as a result of the variation of their sacrifices - as you can see - it is perforce required to count each sacrifice individually. For the thing with which one [of them] completes purification is different from the thing with which the other one completes it. This is like waters of purification (mixed with ashes of a red heifer), the waters of a mikveh and the four species for the one with tsaraat are three commandments, even while they are all to purify the impure - as I will explain. And the regulations of these four that lack atonement and the regulations of their sacrifices have already been explained - in general and in detail - in the eighth chapter of Nazir, at the end of Negaim, in Tractate Kinnim and in scattered places in the Talmud. But most of them and their principles are in the places we named. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement 4.)

That is that He commanded us that a house that has tsaraat be impure. And this commandment includes [the various] impurities of a house - which ones need quarantine or the destruction of some of its walls or the destruction of all of it, with what they become impure and how they become impure. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 14.)

That is that He commanded us that we immerse in the mikveh waters, and that we then become pure from one of the various types of impurities with which we have become impure. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "and he shall bathe in water" (Leviticus 15:16). And it comes in the tradition that it is water that all of one's body can enter, and that is the measurement of a mikveh - unless the waters are running waters, which have no measurement; as is explained in the analysis of this commandment. And it is among the stipulations specifically for the zav, that the waters that purify him be running - as in the Torah, it says, "living waters" (Leviticus 15:13). And the intention of the statement that immersion is a positive commandment is not that anyone impure is obligated to perforce be purified, in the same way that anyone covered by a cloak must make tzitzit, or anyone with a home must make a parapet. Rather what is intended is the law of immersion - and that is that the Torah told us that anyone who wants to be purified from his impurity will only complete it with immersion in water; and he will then be purified. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 5:3) is, "'And he shall bathe [...] in water' (Leviticus 16:26) - I might think that it is a decree of the King (that he must immerse). [Hence] we learn to say, 'and then he may come to the camp' - from his impurity." This hints to the principle that we have explained - that the law is only that anyone who wants to become pure do this. That is the law, and that is the commandment - and not that he be obligated perforce to immerse. Rather, anyone who wants to remain impure and not enter the camp of the Divine Presence for a certain time is allowed [to do so]. And it has already appeared in the books of truth that one who becomes impure and immerses is purified, but he does not complete his purification until the sun goes down for him. And it also appears in the accepted tradition that when he immerses, his naked flesh must be in contact with the water itself and that there not be anything separating between him and the water. Behold this commandment has been explained to you - and that is the commandment of immersion; and it includes the regulations of the mikveh, the regulations of bathing and the regulations of one who has immersed that day (before sunset). And this law is explained in Tractate Mikvaot and in Tractate Tevul Yom. (See Parashat Metzora Mishneh Torah, Immersion Pools 1-11)

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.)

That is that He commanded the metsora (a person with tsaarat) to shave, and that is its second purification - as it is explained at the end of Negaim. And that is His saying, "And [...] on the seventh day, he shall shave" (Leviticus 14:9). And the essence of their words has already preceded [this] (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 93), "Three shave, and their shaving is a commandment: The nazarite; the metsora; and the Levites." And the laws of this commandment have already been explained at the end of Negaim. And here I will explain the reason for our counting the shaving of the metsora and the bringing of his sacrifice as [two] separate commandments. And that is because there is no connection for the metsora between the shaving and the bringing of his sacrifices. And the purpose of the shaving is distinct from the purpose that is accomplished by bringing his sacrifices. And that is because the purification of the metsora is dependent upon his shaving. And in the sixth chapter of Nazir (Nazir 44b), they said, "What is the difference between a nazarite and a metsora? It is only that the purification of this one is dependent upon days and the purification of that one is dependent upon his shaving" - meaning to say the metsora. And when the metsora shaves and completes his second shaving, he is pure from [continuing to] give off impurity like a creeping animal, as is explained at the end of Negaim (Negaim 14). However, he is still lacking [complete] atonement until he brings his sacrifices - like the other ones that lack [complete] atonement, as is explained there. So the purpose of his shaving was to be pure from [continuing to] give off impurity like a creeping animal - whether or not he brought his sacrifices. Whereas the purpose of bringing his sacrifices is the completion of his atonement - like the other ones that lack [complete] atonement, meaning the zav, the zavah and the woman after childbirth. And we have already been preceded by their saying (Keritot 8b), "Four are lacking [complete] atonement." And there it is made clear that the nazarite is not one lacking atonement. Rather that action (his sacrifice) is included in it - meaning to say that the [shaving] and the bringing of the sacrifice permit him to drink wine; however one of them will not suffice without the other. Instead, the shaving is connected to the sacrifice and the sacrifice is connected to the shaving, and they [only] achieve their purpose when they are combined - and that is that they permit those things that were forbidden to him in the days of his being a nazarite. And in the sixth [chapter] of Nazir (Nazir 46b), they said, "One who shaves over his sacrifice, and it is found to be disqualified - his shaving is disqualified and his sacrifices do not count for him." Behold it has been made clear to you that the shaving is from the stipulations of the sacrifice and the sacrifice is from the stipulations of the shaving. And it is also explained in the Tosefta (Nazir 15a) that a nazarite that has completed his days is [still] forbidden to shave, to drink wine and to become impure with corpses until he does that whole process - and that is the shaving of purification, as it is explained in the sixth [chapter] of Nazir (Nazir 45b). And that is that he shaves at the opening of the Tent of Meeting, throws his hair under the urn and offers his sacrifices - as Scripture explains. And you will find that in most places, they called the bringing of [these] sacrifices, "shaving." And in some places in the Mishnah, they said in explanation (Nazir 11b), "[One who says,] 'Behold I am nazarite and it is upon me to shave, etc.'" - by which, he means that he will bring the sacrifices of the nazarite and offer them on his behalf. Behold it has already been made clear to you that "shaving" is used [to mean] the bringing of the sacrifices. And the reason for this is that it is a part of them - as we have explained - and it is with their combination that the status of nazarite is removed, and the nazarite may drink wine. However the shaving of impurity (of a metsora) is a law of the commandment, as we have explained earlier (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 93). (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 11.)