Comentário sobre Números 12:14

ואביה ירק ירק בפניה IF HER FATHER HAD BUT SPIT IN HER FACE — i.e. if he had shown her an angry face (if he was offended with her), הלא תכלם שבעת ימים SHOULD SHE NOT BE PUT TO SHAME FOR SEVEN DAYS? — It follows therefore à fortiori with respect to the Shechinah (i.e. in the case where God rebukes her in such a stern way) that she ought to be put to shame for fourteen days!) But since there is a rule דין לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון “It is sufficient for a law that is derived by a conclusion a fortiori (הבא מן הדין) to be only as strict as the law from which it is derived (נדון), and not go beyond it, therefore even as a consequence of My reprimand, תסגר שבעת ימים LET HER BE SHUT OUT [FROM THE CAMP] SEVEN DAYS only (Sifrei Bamidbar 106; Bava Kamma 25a).

הלא תכלם, she deserves to experience this shameful embarrassment.

ואביה ירוק ירק, "if HER father had spit in her face, etc." The Torah emphasises Miriam's experience as that of a daughter of G'd, i.e. a צדקת, rather than that of any father spitting at any daughter.

If her father. Rashi adds the word “if” as if the Torah had said “if her father” because we do not find that her father ever spat in her face or that he rebuked her at any time. Rather the Torah means to say that “if her father were to spit…” He adds “to display to her an angry face” to indicate that “spit” is not to be taken literally, only as reference to rebuke that would be a consequence of spitting.

V. 14. ואביה ירק וגו׳ (siehe Wajikra Kap. 13, Ende). בפניה, wie לא יתיצב איש בפניך (Dewarim 7, 24)

תכלם שבעת ימים, “should she not be locked up for seven days?” According to Rashi, we are dealing here with a lesson in logic. If for insulting a parent the penalty is seven days of being ostracised, is it not logical that for insulting G–d the penalty must be at least ostracism for fourteen days?” G–d shows Moses that He is very considerate of Miriam by decreeing only seven days of such ostracism. Rashi raises the question that the so-called logic here is halachically incorrect, as we have a rule that this type of logic may not be applied to something being in excess of the basis for the comparison. (Compare Talmud, tractate Niddah folio 31) The sages say that man was created by three partners, G–d, his father, and his mother. The father supplies the semen, which later on forms bones and tendons, nails, brain and the eyes. This makes five parts. The mother supplies the blood, and the material forming the flesh. G–d provides the spirit and the soul, as well as the appearance of the face, eyesight, sense of hearing, ability to formulate thoughts into words, the lips, and the ability of the legs to walk. In other words, G–d makes ten contributions, twice as many as the father. This is why the number 14 appears here. It is not appropriate therefore that the punishment for Miriam, only a human being, should symbolise something Divine, but seven days of ostracism suffice, as they represent the part of father and mother in the development of the human being. Rabbi B’chor Shor raises the question that if everything that is serious is derived from something that is less serious, the kal vachomer principle, and that therefore the number 14 would symbolise a type of infinity, [like G–d. Ed] something that has no end, this would mean that a person stricken with tzoraat, who is examined at weekly intervals by the priest to determine the progress of the disease, would be condemned to carry that disease till he dies if it had not healed after the priest’s second inspection. Rabbi Baruch ben Yitzchok disagrees, saying that the two inspections by the priest cover a period of only thirteen days, as the seventh day is considered as belonging both to the first week and the second week. The difficulty with this interpretation is that we have no source for knowing that a father’s curse is limited to seven days, as seems to be taken for granted in our verse. From where did the Torah consider this as axiomatic? Perhaps the number seven as the length for such negative phenomena is based on the length a woman experiences ostracism during her menses. The period of active mourning for close relative is also limited to seven days. Still, this seven day mourning period is only of Rabbinic origin, not decreed by the Torah. Besides, another question, whence do we know that a father will spit in his daughter’s face as an indication of his displeasure with her behaviour, as seems to be taken for granted in our verse? Miriam’s father was not even alive anymore at that time! Upon reflection, I think there is no problem at all. The Torah simply posits that if her father had still been alive, and she had caused him great displeasure this is how he would have reacted. At any rate, there are sages who answer this problem by referring to Miriam’s father’s displeasure at the time of Moses’ birth at which time her father had hit her lightly on the head, asking her what had become of her prophecy, now that she had a brother who had to be drowned in the Nile? (Compare Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 13) That incident resulted in her being ostracised for a period of seven days as we derive Exodus 2,4, from the words: ותתצב מרחוק. “she had to stand at a distance.” Just as a person stricken with tzoraat has to wait for seven days before the priest could declare him as healed, so the minimum period such ostracism lasts is seven days. As a result, even after having been declared healed, the formerly afflicted person has to wait for a period of seven days before he can rejoin the people as we read in Leviticus 14,8. This is also the verse that the Talmud based itself on above, as well as the Talmud in tractate Moed Katan folio 16.

הלא תכלם שבעת ימים, “would she not be banned for at least seven days?” G-d refers to such a daughter not being allowed to look at her father’s face as a sign of her shame. We find an example of this in the life of Avshalom, son of David, (Samuel II 13, 37-39) Here we are dealing with two sins Miriam had committed, one against G-d and one against Moses; G-d had spelled it out when He said: בעבדי במשה, “against My servant, against Moses.” Accordingly, if G-d were to apply a strict yardstick, Miriam would have to be ostracised at least for two weeks.

ואחר תאסף AND AFTER THAT LET HE BE GATHERED IN AGAIN — I say that all the different forms of the root אסף which are employed in reference to lepers (cf. e. g. 2 Kings 5:6, 11) are used because he (the leper) is sent forth from the camp and when he becomes healed he is taken again into the camp; — on this account it uses of him the term אסיפה, which has the meaning of “taking in” something that was outside.

Certainly, then, in the case of the Divine Presence — for fourteen days. You might ask: Surely the kal vachomer can be applied for any number of days, so why did Rashi specifically mention fourteen days? (Niddah 31a) The answer is that the Rabbis say that there are three partners in [the formation of] a person — Hashem, his father and his mother — for the father and mother each give five things to the fetus and Hashem alone gives ten things. Thus we see that Hashem ‘creates’ half of the fetus. Another answer is that when a leper is closed off for seven days, if the affliction does not spread rather it remains stable, we close him off for another seven days. Then if it spreads he is definitely impure. Therefore Rashi mentioned fourteen days, which refers to definite impurity, meaning that it is fitting for her to be a metzora permanently.

The repetition of ירוק ירק indicates that had Moses prayed sooner on her behalf, her Father (G'd) would not have spat at her at all, i.e. she would not have been punished at all. The words ואביה ירוק describe a situation which already existed, meaning that Moses had allowed her father to punish her before intervening. All Moses could do now was to prevent further punishment or extension of the punishment, i.e. "spitting" a second time.

תסגר שבעת ימים, she must remain quarantined for seven days. It appears that as a result of Moses' prayer the Tzoraat disappeared at once. G'd decreed that she had to remain as an outcast. Had this not been so the Torah would have had to add "until she has been cured from her Tzoraat." It is obvious, therefore, that she had already been cured. This is also the reason the Torah did not mention the fact that she had been healed at the time it reports that she rejoined the camp of the Israelites. Acording to Zevachim 102 the reason that Aaron did not inspect Miriam's affliction either at the beginning or at the end [as is the duty of the priest who has to certify such healing having taken place Ed.] is because as her brother he was disqualified from doing so. According to our interpretation we need not even raise the question of who declared Miriam afflicted or healed seeing she had been healed before Aaron or any other priest had a chance to examine her. As a result, the only restriction Miriam would have had to undergo was quarantine, pending an inspection. Alternatively, G'd Himself performed the function of the priest and declared her as liable to quarantine. Her purification also occurred at G'd's inspection and that is the meaning of the words ואחר תאסף, "afterwards she may be brought in."