Komentarz do Kapłańska 14:8

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."

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.)