Verse structure: 5 words, 25 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֔ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. Verse gematria: 1188 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֔ה, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·to·Aaron" (וְאֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֖ן, 7 letters). 5 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "saying" (root אמר, 79x in Leviticus); "and·spoke" (root דבר, 76x in Leviticus). Full calculation: וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר [and·spoke] (222) + יְהֹוָ֔ה [Hashem] (26) + אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה [to·Moses] (376) + וְאֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֖ן [and·to·Aaron] (293) + לֵאמֹֽר [saying] (271) = 1188.
Onkelos
And Hashem spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying:
Ramban
AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON. Because it is according to the word of the priest that every strife and every plague shall be, therefore this communication came also to Aaron. Or it may mean that G-d spoke to Moses that he should tell it to Aaron, as our Rabbis have explained. It does not state here, “speak unto the children of Israel,” because it is the priests [who have the duty] when they see the impure [with leprosy] to force them to be quarantined and be cleansed. Now in the section dealing with cleansing of the leper it says, And the Eternal spoke unto Moses, saying: This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing, [and there it mentions neither “speak to the children of Israel,” nor to the priests], because there is no need to urge the Israelite to become cleansed [when his plague of leprosy is healed], nor to urge the priest to perform the rites of the offerings, as they do so willingly. In the section dealing with a person suffering from an issue it does say, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, because since the matter is of an intimate nature, unknown to others, He admonished them that they should each inform the priest of their sickness.
Ibn Ezra
"And Hashem spoke to Moses and to Aaron." The reason Aaron is mentioned is that through his word all plagues of a person will be determined — who is to be declared pure and who is to be declared impure.
Chizkuni
אל משה ואל אהרן, “to Moses and to Aaron.” The reason why Aaron has been mentioned here is that it is he, i.e. the priests, who decides if to declare the afflicted person as suffering from tzoraat or not. He decides who is ritually pure and who is not.
Tur HaArokh
אל משה ואל ואהרן, “to Moses and to Aaron;” Nachmanides writes that seeing the Torah had stated that Aaron would have a decisive voice in all matters pertaining to interpersonal strife or afflictions such as נגעים, be it on the skin, garments, or houses, G’d addressed him also in the following legislation. (Compare Deut. 21,5) The Torah does not continue here with the customary words: דבר אל בני ישראל, “say to the Children of Israel,” seeing that the priests after seeing the people afflicted will decide whether to declare them afflicted with the disease, whether to temporarily keep them under observation, etc. It is also up to the priest to decide when individuals will be considered as cured from the disease. There is no apparent reason to acquaint and warn the entire nation of the forthcoming legislation, seeing that if the services of the priest are required, and sacrifices are to be offered, the afflicted party will be only too happy to have reached that stage. The reason that in the paragraph dealing with the zav, the person who experiences a disease involving his sexual organs the Torah does address every Israelite, i.e. “speak to the Children of Israel and say to them, etc.,” (chapter 15) is that the nature of the disease is private, and the person suffering from it could conceal it, as opposed to people whose skin bears the marks of their disease. The general public had to be warned that if they suffered from the symptoms described that they had to turn to the priest to deal with the problem.
When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it become in the skin of his flesh the plague of tzara'at, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest, or to one of his sons the priests.
verse value 5162 — וְהָיָ֥ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 18 words, 85 letters. Notable word values: "and·it·shall·be" (וְהָיָ֥ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "in·skin·of·his·flesh" (בְעוֹר־בְּשָׂרוֹ֙, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 786: in·skin·of·his·flesh, in·skin·of·his·flesh. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "or·a·rash" (אֽוֹ־סַפַּ֙חַת֙), "to·affection·of" (לְנֶ֣גַע), "to·one" (אֶל־אַחַ֥ד). The root היה appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "when·it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "from·his·sons" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root בעור ("in·skin·of·his·flesh") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root שאת ("a·swelling") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'tzara'at', dividing the verse into phrases of 11 and 7 words.
Onkelos
If a person has on the skin of his flesh a swelling, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it becomes on the skin of his flesh like an affliction of tzara'at, he shall be brought to Aaron the priest, or to one of his sons the priests.
Rashi
'שאת או ספחת וגו — These are the names of leprous plagues — A RISING, A SCAB etc., — and they are the one whiter than the other (cf. Shevuot 5b; Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Section 1 4). בהרת means SPOTS, taie in O. F. — Similar is (Job 37:21) “It is a spot (בהיר) in the skies”. 'אל אהרון וגו [HE SHALL BE BROUGHT] TO AARON etc. — It is an enactment of Scripture that the uncleanness and purification of leprous plagues are pronounced only by the mouth of a priest (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Section 1 9).
Ramban
SE’EITH O SAPACHATH O BAHERETH’ (A RISING, OR A SCAB, OR A BRIGHT SPOT). “These are the names of the plagues, each one whiter than the other.” This is Rashi’s language. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that “se’eith is a term for ‘burning,’ the word being associated with the expressions: ‘v’hamaseith’ (and the beacon) began to arise up; ‘va’yisa’eim’ (and) David (burned them). It is possible that it is called se’eith [literally: ‘uprising,’ ‘swelling’], because it is in the nature of fire to rise upwards. Sapachath is of the root: ‘sphacheini’ (attach me), I pray; ‘v’nispechu’ (and they shall cleave) to the house of Jacob — signifying a sickness which attaches to one place. Bahereth is of the root, ‘bahir’ (bright) in the skies, becoming a sort of sign or mark.” [Thus far is Ibn Ezra’s interpretation.] If so, the term se’eith is the name of the plague caused by the bitter green burning fluid [in the body], and bahereth is caused by the white fluid, and sapachath is brought about by a combination of both of these fluids. Now our Rabbis have said: “The word se’eith is always an expression of ‘rising,’ and so it is stated in Scripture, And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills ‘hanisa’oth’ (that are lifted up), and sapachath always means ‘attachment,’ and so it is stated in Scripture, ‘sphacheini’ (attach me), I pray.”
Ibn Ezra
"A person [adam]." It does not say "a man, a man from the house of Israel" [ish ish mi-beit Yisrael], in order to include the proselytes — just as it says "When a person [adam] from among you brings an offering" (Lev. 1:2), for there is one law for the native-born and for the resident stranger regarding offerings as well, and the proselyte is included so that he not render others impure, for leprosy is among the contagious diseases that spread from the sick to the healthy. "And he shall be brought" — whether willingly or unwillingly, for whoever sees upon him any one of these signs will compel him to come. "Or to one of his sons the priests" — the meaning of Aaron is the anointed priest who is in his place; and the meaning of "one of his sons, the priests" refers to the ordinary priests who may be found outside the Sanctuary, like the priests of Anathoth. And the meaning of "the priests" is that they should not be from among the disqualified. The word "se'et" [שְאֵת, elevation] is like "burning" [serefah], as in "and the rising [ha-masa'at] of the cake" and "David lifted them [va-yisa'em]" — it may have been so named because fire by its nature rises upward. "Sapachat" [ספחת, scab] is from the root of "attach me, please" (1 Sam. 2:36) and "they will be attached to the house of Jacob" (Isa. 14:1) — a disease that clusters in one place. "Baheret" [בַהֶרת, bright spot] is from the root of "bright [bahir] in the skies" (Job 37:21), and it is known for making something like a sign and a mark.
Sforno
אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו, generally, such phenomena occur when one did not purify oneself from the effects of having had sexual relations or direct contact with the seed of a menstruating woman. שאת או ספחת או בהרת, different skin afflictions, the common denominator being that they are of different shades of white. We base ourselves on the oral tradition as spelled out in Nega-im 1,1. None of these phenomena correspond to the skin diseases we read about in medical text books. Such phenomena as are mentioned in these textbooks do not result in the afflicted person being considered ritually impure, nor are they subject to the priest deciding if indeed the symptoms require isolation of the afflicted person and when such symptoms can be declared as having disappeared. According to Berachot 5 the only skin afflictions which may be viewed as G’d’s reminder to improve our lifestyle are the four kinds mentioned in our chapter. While they are not classified as afflictions revealing G’d’s love for the person thus afflicted, they are however, described as מזבח כפרה, as “an altar serving as stepping stone to atonement for the character weakness that the afflicted person has to overcome.” G’d does not employ any other medically well known skin diseases as His instrument to call us to order for various sins committed. והובא, anyone who goes to a place to be attended to is not referred to as “coming,” בא, but as being brought, i.e. הובא. Compare Psalms 45,15. The passive mode of the transitive form והגישו אדוניו in Exodus 21,6 is ונגשו אל המשפט, “he his being brought to.”
Or HaChaim
אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שאת או ספחת, when a person shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising or a scab, etc. We have to explain this verse in a similar vein to the statement in Baba Metzia 114 on Numbers 19,14: "you are called אדם, whereas the title אדם is never applied to Gentiles, for the Gentiles are not susceptible to the impurity resulting from the various skin-diseases enumerated in our Parshah." This statement, attributed to the prophet Elijah, is proof that the clothing of Gentiles afflicted with these נגעים, stains mentioned in our chapter, does not confer impurity on Jews in contact with them as we have learned at the beginning of the eleventh chapter of the tractate נגעים. כי יהיה בעור בשרו, which he will have on the skin of his flesh, etc; the Torah informs us here that only the skin of Israelites afflicted with this disease is affected. The disease does not penetrate below the skin. This is a principal difference between Israelites and Gentiles; the latter are perceived as afflicted with this disease through and through. Their entire being is perceived as being part of the צרעת syndrome. If an Israelite has committed a sin which results in נגע צרעת, the skin afflictions mentioned in this chapter, it is visible only on his exterior not on his flesh and certainly not his soul, personality. Our sages in Erchin 3 explain the word אדם as meaning that even a baby can be afflicted with the disease related here as babies too qualified for the term אדם. Women too are included as the Torah refers to man and woman combined as אדם in Genesis 5,8. Torat Kohanim adds that the reason the Torah chose the expression בעור בשרו, the skin of his flesh, instead of merely בעורו, on his skin, is to include the skin on which hair does not grow. We are not to think that only skin with follicles, i.e. capable of producing hair, is included here. [the Torah features the colour of hair surrounding these skin blemishes, and it was therefore reasonable to assume that only those patches of hair are subject to this legislation. Ed.] As it is, if a white hair grew in an area normally devoid of hair, the legislation in this chapter applies. Nonetheless the white spot on the skin has to precede the appearance of the hair before this legislation can apply. If an old man or an albino who normally has white hair, first develops the symptoms on the skin described here and a white hair makes its appearance subsequently, it is doubtful if such a person is considered afflicted seeing the hair did not turn white as a result of the condition of the skin surrounding it. On the other hand, the progression of the symptoms conforms to what is written in the Torah. We are unable to determine with certainty that the hair grew white from the source as at the time the person appears before the priest we only see the ultimate result and do not know whether the hair grew black and immediately turned white. Tossaphot in Niddah 19 feel that the bright spot on the skin, בהרת, is presu...
Chizkuni
אדם, a person, i.e. man or woman, minor, male or female. בעור בשרו, “on the skin of his flesh;” as will be explained in greater deal forthwith, i.e. an eczema either on his head or his beard. (compare verse 20) at this point the Torah had to mention the skin of his flesh; שאת, an elevation of the skin; when looked at in the shade it appears to the onlooker as if higher that the skin exposed to the sun. ספחת, an adjective describing the nouns שאת or בהרת. There are subcategories to both שאת and בהרת. An example of nouns that have such adjectives of varying degrees is found in Samuel I 1,37: ספחני נא אל אחת הכהונות, “please attach me to one of the priestly duties.” [Descendants of the High Priest Eli, who had been condemned to become beggars. Ed.] לנגע צרעת, “to the plague (similar to) leprosy;” the are of this affliction is white looking flesh. Compare Exodus 4,6 מצרעת כשלג, “an eczema white as snow.” It is also written: ומראה הנגע עמוק לבן, “the appearance of the eczema is a deep white.” (Source not found) והובא אל אהרן הכהן, “he is to be brought to Aaron the Priest.” Even against his will, if necessary.או אל אחד מבניו, “or to one of his sons,” even if they are deformed to the degree that they cannot perform sacrificial service in the Temple. אחד, the letter א has the vowel patach. הכהנים, “the priests;” excluding the descendants from a marriage forbidden to priests and therefore have lost their status permanently. How do we know that all the Israelites are included? Answer: from the words “or one of,” which includes anyone who is a member of the Jewish people. If so, what is the point of the Torah having written: “from among his sons the priests?” It is to teach you that only the priests can give a ruling concerning ritual purity and ritual impurity. Not even the Supreme Court can do so. Are then all priests experts by birth? The system works as follows: When the problem of tzoraat arises, an expert who has studied the subject is consulted. The priest accepts the superior knowledge of this expert, and makes his ruling based on what he has been told by the expert who has examined the afflicted person. It is irrelevant whether the priest is truly familiar or not with the symptoms the Torah has taught us.
Rabbeinu Bahya
אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שאת או ספחת או בהרת, “if a person will have on the skin of his flesh a s’eis, a sapachat or baheret, etc.” We have learned in Negaim 1,1 that there are four different-looking separate categories of skin-afflictions called נגע צרעת, the respective colour being called שאת and its derivatives, בהרת and its derivatives; these derivatives are known as בהרת עזה כשלג, the strongest symptom, white like snow; a slightly lesser degree of בהרת than the snow-like colour characterizing the original בהרת, is like the colour of the whitewash used when one paints the outside of a house, a still less pronounced white comparable to white wool, known as בהרת כצמר, and a still paler kind of skin discoloration known as בהרת כקרום ביצה, “like the shell of an egg.” The word ספחת describes a skin disorder which is a cross between שאת and בהרת related to the expression ספחני נא אל אחת הכהנות, “please assign to me one (share) of the priestly duties, etc.,” or Samuel I 26,19 מהסתפח בנחלת ה’, “so that I cannot have a share in the Lord’s possession.” The word denotes a combination of at least two components. The various appearances of the skin disorders are not considered the dreaded צרעת; they are symptoms which often are the forerunners of צרעת. This is why the Torah decrees isolation for people displaying these symptoms at once so that in the event the צרעת does develop no one associated with them could have been contaminated by them. This is the reason why physicians have described בהרת as something inducing fear of צרעת in people (Nachmanides). When the Torah speaks here of נגע צרעת, the meaning is that these symptoms are the ones preceding צרעת but not necessarily. These symptoms by themselves do not yet constitute the affliction known as צרעת. If, after a period of isolation, additional symptoms develop, such as described in the Torah in the verses following, the result will be the disease called צרעת. This is why the Torah describes the result of such a development as צרעת היא (verses 8), as opposed to נגע צרעת הוא in verse 3. Whenever the latter expression is used the skin disorder described is not yet a true צרעת. The idea is that the symptoms are already those of an affliction, נגע, and the words וראהו הכהן וטמא אותו, “the priest is to inspect it and to declare such a person as ritually impure,” mean that this declaration takes effect immediately as it is presumed certain that such symptoms will develop into “the real thing,” i.e. צרעת. The words נגע הוא “it is an affliction,” mean that it is large enough to convince the priest that it will develop and spread to larger areas of the skin-surface. Thus far Nachmanides on the subject. The symptoms described by the Torah as פשיון “enlargement of the afflicted area,” שער לבן, “white hair growing inside the afflicted area,” מחיה, “an appearance like raw flesh, not covered by skin,” עומק העור an illusion that the skin is “deeper,” recessed in the afflicted areas, all these are symptoms which indicate the presence of ritual impurity and are the criteria according to which the inspecting priest has to make his decision. Generally, such symptoms mean that the person so afflicted is ritually impure and has to leave the camp. A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Tazria 9): Why has this paragraph not been introduced by the customary: “speak to the Children of Israel; if a person has such and such symptoms, etc.?” The absence of this introductory formula is to teach you that it is not the Lord who initiates afflictions as we know from Psalms 5,5 כי לא אל חפץ רשע אתה לא יגורך רע, ”for You are not a G’d who desires wickedness, evil cannot abide with You;” David does not belabour the obvious; he speaks about G’d having no desire to make any creature guilty of anything. We have proof of this also in Ezekiel 33,11: “as true as I am alive, says the Lord, G’d, I do not desire the death of the wicked.” On the contrary, what is it that G’d desires? He wants to find an excuse to justify His creatures’ actions as we know from Isaiah 42,21: ה’ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר, ”The Lord desires His creatures’ vindication, that He may magnify and glorify (His) Teaching.” If our paragraph had commenced in the normal way some people might have misunderstood and thought that G’d derives satisfaction from having to afflict people even though they were guilty of something. Another comment by the Midrash: the words “evil does not abide with You” which we quoted from Psalms 5,5 mean that the name of G’d is not associated with events of an evil nature but only with things positive. When G’d created light and darkness, He did associate His name with the light but not with the darkness. In Genesis 1,5 the Torah writes: “G’d called the light day, and the darkness He called night.” When G’d blessed the first pair of human beings, His name was associated with the blessing for both of them, as the Torah writes (Genesis 1,28: “G’d blessed them.” On the other hand, when G’d decreed a curse on man, (Genesis 3,16) The Torah writes: “to the woman He had said, etc.,” and we find similar language in connection with the penalty decreed on Adam. The Torah writes (Genesis 3,17): “and to Adam He had said, etc.” You may ask that when G’d cursed the serpent we also find this kind of language, i.e. (Genesis 3,14) “the Lord G’d had said to the serpent, ‘because you have done this, etc.’” Our sages answered this query in Tanchuma Tazria 9 by saying that there are indeed three occasions when G’d did associate His name with something evil, such as a curse. The first instance is the case of the מסית, someone who seduces others to worship idols; the first personification of such a seducer was the serpent who seduced Chavah in Gan Eden saying to her: “G’d knows that on the day you (pl) will eat from the tree your eyes will be opened and you will become just like G’d” (Genesis 3,5). The serpent implied that just as G’d had created worlds so she and Adam would be able to create worlds; the serpent implied that G’d had forbidden eating the fruit because He was jealous of potential competition. The serpent implied that just as a skilled craftsman is anxious not to reveal the secrets of his craft, so G’d wanted to keep the secret of how He had created the universe. Seeing that the serpent had used G’d’s name in its seduction of Chavah, G’d in turn associated His name with the punishment, the curse. The second instance of G’d’s name being associated with something evil concerns people who deliberately transgress the decrees of the sages whose authority has been given to them by G’d and has been confirmed at Mount Gerizim. The prophet Jeremiah referred to the fact that such people are guilty of death when he wrote in Jeremiah 11,3: “Thus said the Lord: cursed be the man who will not obey the terms of this covenant which I enjoined your fathers when I freed them from Egypt, etc.” The sin of these people is that they place their trust in man instead of in G’d as the prophet said in Jeremiah 17,5: “Thus said the Lord: ‘cursed is he who trusts in man, who makes a mere flesh his strength and turns his thoughts from the Lord.’” In other words, when does the curse mentioned earlier apply? When someone turns his heart away from the Lord. When Noach blessed his sons Shem and Yaphet, he used the name of G’d in his blessing, saying: ברוך ה’ אלו-הי שם, “blessed be the Lord, the G’d of Shem,” etc. When he cursed Canaan (Genesis 9,26) he simply said: ארור כנען, “cursed be Canaan;” he did not mention G’d in that context. When the prophet Elisha prayed to G’d asking for deliverance from the Arameans (enemy of the Israelites at that time, Kings II 6,17) he invoked the name of the Lord in his prayer saying: “Lord open his eyes let him see” (a reference to his attendant who was afraid). When he then turned to cursing the Arameans (verse 18 of the same chapter), Elisha only said: ”please strike these people with a blinding light.” The name of G’d was not invoked in the prayer to bring a curse upon them. Even when the Israelites were sinful, G’d referred to them with respect and honor. When G’d legislated the kind of animals which were to be offered by the Israelites, -when, where and under what circumstances,- the legislation is introduced with the words: “if one of you wishes to offer a sacrifice to the Lord, etc.” When introducing the צרעת legislation, however, the name of G’d does not appear. Clearly, even when the legislation presupposes sins by the afflicted, the Torah still does not wish to involve G’d directly, as the One who initiates the “curse.” This is why the verse starts merely with the words: “when someone develops a white spot on the skin of his flesh, etc.” What sins cause such afflictions? In retribution for illicit sex. (Tanchuma Tazria 11) This is also what happened in Jerusalem whose inhabitants were struck by this disease because their sexual mores had deteriorated so much (Isaiah 3,16) ”because the daughters of Zion are so vain and walk with their heads thrown back, with roving eyes, and with mincing gait, making a tingling with their feet...the Lord will uncover their heads.” The word used there is שפח which is the equivalent of צרעת as we know from Leviticus 14,5. The words אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שאת או ספחת, are equivalent to what we read n Chabakuk 1,7 איום ונורא ממננו ושפתו ושאתו יצא, “they are terrible and dreadful; they make their own laws and are overbearing.” The prophet speaks about Adam who was the direct creation of G’d, created in His likeness, who was composed of particles from all the corners of the globe and whose dominion before his sin therefore extended over all parts of the globe. At that time Adam was able to see with his eyes from one end of the earth to the other. Adam’s wife, Chavah was created from his very body, she who caused his mortality. Seeing that she gave Adam to eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge she made him mortal. Another Midrashic explanation: The words “terrible and dreadful” which we quoted from Chabakuk refer to Pharaoh who ruled over the whole earth as we know from Psalms 105,20. The words: “they make their own laws, etc.” refer to Moses who grew up in the very house of this wicked Pharaoh and eventually deprived him of his rule after bringing ten plagues upon him. Moses used to take a look at his holy staff to see which kind of plague was appropriate to smite Pharaoh with; he would then inflict this plague upon him; hence the prophet speaks about something “terrible and dreadful.” Yet another interpretation of that verse in Chabakuk relates the adjectives in that verse to the principal characteristics of the four host nations who had control of the Jewish people in exile at different times. [The Midrash broadens its perspective of allegorical meanings; the interested reader is referred to the original text seeing that our author does not contribute to the understanding of this Midrash except quoting its text. Ed.] The reason that this whole subject has been written in the Torah adjacent to the paragraph dealing with the purification rites prescribed for a woman who has given birth is to remind us that whoever is not mindful of the regulations pertaining to her ritual impurity connected with menstruation is apt to become a victim of these skin-disorders. We find an opinion in medical textbooks confirmed by our sages (Tanchuma Metzorah 1) that when someone cohabits with a woman who is in the first day of her menstruation, any baby born from that union will be afflicted with צרעת for the first ten years of its life. If the cohabitation occurred on the second day of her being menstruous this צרעת would last for twenty years, etc. If cohabitation occurs on the seventh day of the woman’s being menstruous the offspring from such a union will remain afflicted for seventy years. We learn from all this that the order in which the Torah writes certain paragraphs and subject matter is not haphazard but has deeper meaning which it is worthwhile to explore seeing that each paragraph conveys a meaning based solely on its position in the Torah over and above its other meanings. Profound study of the text of the Torah reveals what wonderful insights into the workings of nature the Torah displays.
Kli Yakar
When a person has on the skin of his flesh, etc. The section on skin afflictions [nega’im] is juxtaposed to the previous section that discusses circumcision, to teach you that circumcision pushes off skin afflictions, because in every place, the earlier commandment pushes off the later one, as explained above in Parashat Vayakhel regarding the statement of our Sages that the Sabbath precedes the Tabernacle, telling you that the Sabbath pushes off the work of the Tabernacle. And by way of allusion, it seems to me that this relates to our Sages’ statement (Nedarim 31b): “Great is circumcision, for it pushes off skin afflictions.” This is because circumcision is generally a catalyst for the removal of all four types of “foreskins,” including the “foreskin of the lips,” and when one is circumcised from the foreskin of the lips, they will not speak evil speech [lashon hara], and thus will not come to have skin afflictions, which come as a result of evil speech (Arachin 15b). Regarding this, Moses complained, saying: From when [az] I came to speak in Your name, etc. (Exodus 5:23) according to the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Exodus 174) that states that all of Moses’ transactions were with az [the Hebrew word for “when/then”], alluding to circumcision. This is also explicitly concluded in the Yalkut Parashat Beshalach (241:15) on the verse Then [Az] Moses sang: that the sea was split in the merit of circumcision, which is performed on the eighth day, corresponding to the numerical value of az [which is eight]. Similarly, all those instances of az mentioned in Midrash Devarim Rabbah on the verse Then [Az] Moses set apart (Deuteronomy 4:41) also allude to circumcision, which saves one from bloodshed, as explained above in Parashat Bo on the verse See that evil is before your faces (Exodus 10:10). Likewise, the salvation of his [Moses’] life was only through az, as it says: Then [Az] she said, “A bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision” (Exodus 4:26). And similarly, his complaint was only with az, as it says: From when I came to Pharaoh to speak in Your name (Exodus 6:23). Moses said: “I know that I am of uncircumcised lips, and I only came to speak in Your name from az, as I relied on circumcision, which is alluded to in az, that it would also be a catalyst for fixing the foreskin of the lips, but I see that it has not helped at all.” “A swelling or a rash or a bright spot, etc.” Regarding leprosy, there are differing opinions. Some say it is a natural illness hidden within the body that manifests outwardly, while others say it comes entirely as punishment to reveal the hidden evil within a person. Either way, I believe the term metzora [leper] can be explained as a compound word meaning motzi ra [brings out evil], as it reveals and brings out all the evil within — whether it’s internal decay or if one secretly strikes their neighbor with the whip of their tongue, and people don’t know to protect themselves from them. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, exposes the hypocrites and brings all their evil outward so that their wickedness is revealed publicly. This explains the repetition in the verse that says, When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling, etc. and then and it becomes a leprous mark on the skin of his body. Why mention the skin of his body twice? This teaches that these swellings and lesions, if they appeared on a person with pure thoughts, would not be harmful and could be easily healed. But because they are on the skin of this sinner, they become leprous marks. From this, the sages of our Torah found support, and most of them gathered evidence from the Torah, Prophets, and Writings about which specific sins cause these marks. In the tractate Arachin (16a), our Sages said that afflictions come for seven things, etc., and all have support from verses. In the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 17:3), it mentions ten things, etc. We are not concerned with the hidden aspects of this portion, only with what is revealed, and we find allusions in these portions about three matters:First is evil speech [lashon hara], as Rashi explained why the offering includes birds — because they chirp and chatter continuously. Second is haughtiness, as it says, he shall take for the person being cleansed cedar wood and hyssop. Rashi explained that if one raised oneself high like a cedar, one should humble oneself like hyssop. Third is stinginess, as it says The one to whom the house belongs shall come (Leviticus 14:35), and the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught that this refers to one who dedicates their house exclusively for themselves, etc. (Arachin 16a). This matter includes several things: the desire for money that we learn from Gehazi, and theft which our Sages mentioned there, with their proof from the verse, The priest shall command, and they shall clear the house. And it was taught: One who gathered money that wasn’t theirs, the priest will come and scatter their possessions. These three have a common source, as the desire for money [also] leads to theft and stinginess. And all the other things listed in the Talmud and Midrashim have no support from this Torah passage, therefore I have seen fit to establish all the particular actions done to the metzora [person afflicted with tzara’at] on the foundation of these three things: evil speech [lashon hara], arrogance, and desire for wealth. The verse encompasses them by saying, Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret, him I will cut off; he who has haughty eyes and a proud heart, him I will not endure (Psalms 101:5). A proud heart refers to one who covets wealth, as they said (Avot 5:23) about Balaam that he had “a wide soul” [meaning he was greedy]. And him I will cut off the Sages interpreted (Arachin 15b) as referring to a confirmed metzora. The verse makes two divisions, joining haughty eyes with proud heart because both come from the same source, for the root of the eye depends on the understanding of the heart (Avodah Zarah 28b). Every haughty person has a proud heart, for every arrogant person desires great wealth through which he can display the glory of his greatness. Conversely, all wealth causes a lifting of the heart, as it is written And your silver and gold increase… and your heart becomes proud (Deuteronomy 8:13-14). Evidence of this is from what Elisha said to Gehazi, May the leprosy of Naaman cling to you (2 Kings 5:27). Why did he need to mention Naaman’s leprosy? Because Gehazi was coveting wealth (see 2 Kings 5:20-24), and Naaman was haughty. The commentators learned this from what is written Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Aram, was a great man in the sight of his master (2 Kings 5:1). This means that even in the presence of his master, he conducted himself with greatness and pride. We have already said that arrogance and greed come from the same source, therefore he said, May Naaman’s leprosy cling to you. Similarly, David joined them together saying, he who has haughty eyes and a proud heart, etc. Therefore it is stated, “When a person will have on the skin of his flesh a se’et [raised blemish].” The term se’et implies elevation, and this type of tzara’at comes due to haughtiness of spirit, one who elevates himself above all others. Or sapachat [another form of skin affliction] — the term sapachat implies something that is secondary or attached, etc., and it comes upon one who covets monetary possessions, which are external attachments to a person and do not become an inherent part of the person at all, unlike other virtues. Similarly, Maimonides wrote in his Eight Chapters that all acquisitions such as wisdom, strength, and moral virtues all become an inherent part of a person and cleave to him, except for wealth, which is merely attached to a person externally and does not cleave to him at all. Or a “baheret” [bright spot] refers to whiteness; this type comes upon one who speaks lashon hara and whitens the face of his fellow [embarrasses him], causing white spots to appear, as “the red [appearance of the face] departs and the white comes” (Bava Metzia 58b), as it is written Jacob shall no longer be ashamed, neither shall his face turn pale (Isaiah 29:22). In this way, the appearance of one’s face testifies about him that his inner self is filled with love of money, or haughtiness, or speaking derogatorily about his fellow. This affliction brings his evil to the outside, exposing his wickedness in public, and for this reason the afflicted person is called “metzora” — brings out evil [motzi ra]. As it is said And Moses saw that the people were unruly (Exodus 32:25), and our Sages said that they were afflicted with tzara’at (Yalkut Shimoni, Metzora 14:563), as it is written [about a metzora] His head shall be unshorn (Leviticus 13:45), which is an expression of revealing, that his evil is revealed and seen by all eyes — and this is the concept of tzara’at. And he shall be brought to the priest. His purification can only be by a priest because all who are from the seed of Aaron possess three good traits opposite to these negative traits. For the sin of the tongue causes all quarrels and all afflictions, and separates between brothers. Therefore, Aaron, who embraced the trait of peace, comes to heal this person, as he was a lover of peace and a pursuer of peace. Similarly, the sin of haughtiness is appropriately corrected through him because he was extremely humble, as our Sages said (Chullin 89): Greater is what is written about Moses and Aaron than what is written about Abraham. For regarding Abraham it is written I am but dust and ashes (Genesis 18:27), while regarding Moses and Aaron it is written What are we? (Exodus 16:8). Likewise, the sin of coveting money was also not found in Aaron, as the priests had no portion or inheritance in the land, and they had nothing more than what they received from the high table. Therefore, they were perfect in the trait of contentment and were not among those who are covetous, whose entire focus is to accumulate and hoard. Thus, it is appropriate that all three types of tzara’at can only be purified through a priest.
Tur HaArokh
שאת או ספחת, “different degrees of whiteness of the skin.” Ibn Ezra understands the word שאת as a derivative of שרפה, as in והמשאות החלה לעלות עמוד עשן, “and when the column of smoke began to rise” (Judges 20,40) Similarly, we have in Samuel II 5,21 וישאם דוד, “and David burned them (the idols).” Nachmanides explains that it is possible that this skin disease is called such on account of what it has in common with fire, which rises into the atmosphere. The skin inflammation described breaks through the regular skin, outwards, i.e. upwards. The word ספחת is understood as related to ספחני נא, (Samuel I 2,36) where it means “gather me in,” in our context in the sense of the disease being concentrated in one narrowly defined part of the skin. The word בהרת is related to בהיר, very bright, blindingly white, (Job 37,21) where it describes the sun though bright, or because too bright) as invisible to man. The נגע, skin affliction, is assumed to originate in the greenish coloured gall. שאת is the name of the affliction, after it has already traversed the body and come to the surface of the skin. The Torah is perceived as desiring the purity of the Israelites in every respect, both in body and in spirit, and by externalizing sickness of the body’s interior it alerts the victim that something is wrong that needs to be repaired, needs to be attended to, seeing that any disease is not a natural state and a perfectly pure person is not afflicted with any disease. Even the symptoms described in our verse here are not yet a definitive disease, they are signs that a disease is on the way to develop more fully. To indicate this, the Torah at the outset speaks of נגע צרעת, meaning that this נגע is liable to develop into a fully blown צרעת unless addressed properly. Verse 11 describes the fully developed נגע simply as צרעת, the affliction having developed beyond the need for, or beyond the ability of a trial ostracism reversing the symptoms. Whenever a stage is reached which will ultimately result in צרעת, the priest has to declare the afflicted party as ritually impure with all that this implies as described in the verse following.
Rashbam
אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו, none of the verse in the chapters following may be interpreted in the way he sound when read superficially as the phenomena described do not correspond to any skin diseases we are familiar with, and are not subject to medical treatment. What applies to the human skin applies in the same degree to stains on clothing which are described her as well as to manifestations of “mildew” or something similar breaking forth from the walls of houses. The only criteria which we can apply to what is spelled out in these chapters 12-15 are those laid down by our sages of the Midrash, the Talmud, etc, all of which date back to the instructions received orally from Moses. כי יהיה בעור בשרו, according to tradition, a reference to a skin irregularity on the skin of (surrounding) the beard or the head. Compare verse 29. The Torah had to use the expression שאת to describe an elevation of the skin in the area afflicted. This is not an actual elevation but an optical impression, i.e. it is not as white as for instance בהרת. We know that בהרת represents the highest purest degree of the colour “white.” This is clear from Job 37,21 בהיר הוא בשחקים, ”although it is brilliantly bright in the sky.” This colour described as שאת is somewhat עמוקה, “deeper,” in the sense of “a lower degree of” בהרת the most brilliant kind of white. ספחת, a word which is subordinate to שאת,or subordinate to the word בהרת.[something subject to disagreement in Negai-im. Ed.] This is based on Samuel I 2,36 ספחני אל אחת הכהונות “please assign me to one of the priestly duties.” Clearly, the word is used in a subordinate mode לנגע צרעת, the area where the affliction surfaces is white skin as we know from Exodus 4,6 מצורעת כשלג, “encrusted with snowy white scales.” As we know snow is white.
And the priest shall look upon the plague in the skin of the flesh; and if the hair in the plague be turned white, and the appearance of the plague be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is the plague of leprosy; and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean.
verse value 5564
Insights
Verse structure: 20 words, 82 letters. Verse gematria: 5564 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "turned" (הָפַ֣ךְ, 3 letters) and the longest is "in·skin·of·the·flesh" (בְּעֽוֹר־הַ֠בָּשָׂ֠ר, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 80: the·priest, the·priest. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "in·skin·of·the·flesh" (בְּעֽוֹר־הַ֠בָּשָׂ֠ר), "in·the·affection" (בַּנֶּ֜גַע), "from·skin·of" (מֵע֣וֹר). The root נגע appears 4 times in this verse. 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·he·shall·pronounce·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root שער ("and·hair") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root הפך ("turned") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'it', dividing the verse into phrases of 16 and 4 words.
Onkelos
The priest shall examine the affliction on the skin of the flesh; if the hair in the affliction has turned white, and the appearance of the affliction is deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is an affliction of tzara'at. The priest shall examine it and declare him impure.
Rashi
הפך לבן [THE HAIR …] IS TURNED WHITE — This means that at first it was dark, and it turned white within the plague. The smallest number of hairs implied by the term שער is two (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 2 2). עמק מעור בשרו [THE PLAGUE] IS DEEPER THAN THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH — Every white colour is deep (in contrast to a dark colour surrounding it) just as the colour of anything illuminated by the sun is deeper than the shadow (Shevuot 6b). וטמא אתו HE SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM UNCLEAN — He (the priest) shall say to him. “Thou art unclean” — for it is an enactment of Scripture that hair that has become white is a symptom of uncleanness.
Ramban
AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE PLAGUE BE DEEPER THAN THE SKIN OF THE FLESH. “Every white color appears deep [in contrast to the darker color surrounding it], just as a color illuminated by the sun appears deeper than the shadow.” This is Rashi’s language. For this reason when the Rabbi [Rashi] reached the following verse, stating, And if the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, he wrote, “I do not know the meaning of this.” The sense of Rashi’s statement is as follows: It appeared to him difficult, for since the bright spot is white, it is impossible that the appearance thereof should not be deeper than the skin, even as the color of anything illuminated by the sun appears deeper than the shadow!Now we are in a position to remove this difficulty. For the verses do not speak of the appearance of a plague seeming deeper than the skin, unless two hairs in the plague become white [such being the case in Verse 3 before us]. But when it states [as it does in the following verse], and the hair thereof be not turned white, it says, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin. For such is the distinctive characteristic of anything illuminated by the sun: if there is something black scattered about in it, there will not be an appearance of depth to a person who looks at it. Now hair in its natural state is dark, and therefore destroys the appearance of depth of the plague. When the hairs in the plague have turned white or yellow, then only does the whiteness of the plague shine brightly, and appears to anyone who looks at it from a distance as if it were deeper [than the skin of the flesh].Yet despite all this, that which the Rabbi [Rashi] has said — “Every white color is deeper [in contrast to dark colors surrounding it]” — does not appear to me to be correct. For the Rabbis have said: “The word se’eith is always an expression of ‘rising,’” and the se’eith is white, as it is written, ‘se’eith l’vanah’ (a white rising), and the Rabbis have further said: “Se’eith is [as white] as white wool, and its second [subsidiary] shade is as white as the membrane of an egg.” Thus se’eith is very white, and [according to Rashi] it should appear very deep, so why then do the Rabbis call it “rising?” Scripture also does not state anywhere concerning the color of se’eith that it is deeper than the skin! And in the Torah Kohanim the Rabbis have said: “What is the meaning of the term se’eith? It is ‘rising,’ just as the color of the shadow is higher than that of anything illuminated by the sun.” And if every white color is deep [in contrast to a dark color surrounding it, as Rashi put it], then the fact is the opposite [of what the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim]! Perhaps we may say that the terms se’eith signifies “rising” in contrast to bahereth, so that if you place both of them together, the bahereth will appear as if illuminated by the sun, and the se’eith at its side will have the appea...
Sforno
נגע צרעת היא. The Torah repeats this same expression twice in successive verses, and also the expression צרעת היא is repeated both in verse 8 and verse 11. Sometimes, as here and as in verse 22, the word נגע is added. The reason may be that this affliction, in common with other afflictions, is something that develops in stages. Just as the affliction intensifies gradually in its early stages, so it gradually becomes weaker on the way to healing. When it is already a long-standing affliction it is referred to as צרעת יושנת, whereas when it is in its opening stages it is called simply נגע. When it is a fully fledged affliction it is called נגע צרעת. When it is in the process of waning it is already referred to as נרפא הצרעת, an affliction which has healed. When it has healed completely it is referred to as נרפא הנתק. Seeing that this type of affliction is perceived as a warning signal from G’d to the individual experiencing it, i.e. he is reminded to get rid of negative characteristics, the Talmud refers to it as מזבח כפרה “an altar serving as atonement.” The period of isolation serves to remind the afflicted person to review what he may have been guilty of. This concept has been spelled out in Job 36,10 as ויגל אותם למוסר ויאמר כי ישובון מאון, “He opens their understanding by discipline, and orders them back from mischief.”
Or HaChaim
ומראה הנגע, and the appearance of the affliction, etc. Here we come face to face with the mystical dimension of Psalms 39,7: "man walks about as a mere shadow;" the Psalmist refers to the appearance of raw flesh. When the forces of evil assert themselves in man this makes a visible impression on his flesh. The healthy appearance of his skin disappears. It appears that there is something physically missing, i.e. the skin appears as "deep," as having lost its normal surface. It is remarkable that according to הלכה, one is not ritually impure if this condition covers the entire body, i.e. if this "deepness" leaves no visible mark seeing we cannot detect a contrast with other skin or flesh (compare Shevuot 7). וראהו הכהן וטמא אותו, and when the priest takes a look at him he will declare him ritually impure. The Torah made the impurity conditional on the priest declaring him so. This reminds us of a statement in Shabbat 119 that two angels accompany a person on his way home from the synagogue on Friday nights and they examine if this person had made the preparations for the Sabbath prior to going to the synagogue. If he did, one angel commends him (the 'good' angel) exclaiming "may you continue to do so," whereas the second angel [who represents man's negative actions Ed.] says "Amen." The reverse happens when the person in question had not made preparations for the Sabbath before the onset of the Sabbath. At any rate, the Talmud suggests that once a positive or negative momentum has been built it feeds upon itself unless something contrary happens. Seeing that it is the priest's duty to obtain atonement for Israel from their impurities, diseases, etc., G'd has commanded him to concur with the judgment of impurity the afflicted person has been subjected to. This state of impurity will continue until the afflicted person turns into a penitent when G'd will remove the symptoms of impurity from him.
Chizkuni
ושער בנגע הפך לבן, “and the hair in the stricken area has turned from black to white.” This is a sign that the affliction has become stronger and the afflicted area attacks the healthy flesh surrounding it. Elderly people experience that their hair turns white as time progresses. However, if the hair had turned white already before the area had been declared as a נגע צרעת, white hair is not a sign of ritual impurity, seeing the change in colour had not been related to the skin’s discolouration. This is what our sages had in mind when they said: “when baheret precedes the manifestation of white hair this is a sign that the person is ritually contaminated; if not, he is ritually pure.” (Sifra)
Rabbeinu Bahya
וראה הכהן את הנגע, “The priest shall look at the skin disorder, etc.” We are taught in Negaim 1,4 that the priest must not inspect the symptoms for the first time on the first day of the week as it will be necessary to isolate the afflicted person for seven days. Seeing that the Torah writes in verse six that the priest is to inspect the symptoms again on the seventh day and it is not permitted to do son on the Sabbath, this means that the first inspection must not take place on Sunday. By the same token, the first inspection must not take place on a Monday as in the event a third inspection is necessary, the second time the seventh day would occur on the Sabbath. This is why the sages said that when the Torah speaks about 2 weeks (a second series of seven days) this means that the seventh day is counted as part of either week, i.e. the two weeks actually comprise only thirteen days. ושער בנגע הפך לבן ומראה הנגע עמוק מעור בשרו, “and the skin disorder appears to be deeper than the skin of the flesh,” Rashi explains that whenever the Torah speaks of “a deeper white appearance” this is to be understood as similar to the contrast between the appearance of sunny areas surrounded by shade which also appears to be “lower,” or “deeper” than the surrounding shaded area although in fact it is not. Nachmanides writes as follows concerning this verse: “there is a whitish looking substance which sparkles and affects one’s eyes as if one were being blinded by sunshine.” The human eye is unable to tolerate this brightness; this is why it appears to be “deeper,” recessed. The reason why the eye can tolerate the brilliance of sunshine is that it has a black area (pupil) which “absorbs” that brilliance. The pupil of the eye does not however, absorb the shine or sparkle emitted from this whitish material of which the Torah speaks here. Seeing it does not absorb it, it “rejects” it, i.e. it appears more distant than it is in actual fact. This is what the Torah means when it speaks about the appearance of this whitish mass appearing as “deeper” than the skin around it. The whitish mass associated with the affliction called בהרת which is as bright as snow will become dimmed when exposed to sunlight, provided it will not sprout a black hair in its midst. If it does produce a black hair this is a sign that the affliction will not heal but will spread, as the black hair strengthens the ability to see. שאת, on the other hand, while also a whitish looking mass, is not as blinding as the snow-like whiteness of the brightest בהרת. It does not weaken the ability of the afflicted person to see and as a result to expand. When one approaches to inspect it, it appears close by, “elevated instead of recessed,” similar to the impression one has when looking at the stars in the sky. The stars appear to protrude against the black sky “behind” them.”
Kli Yakar
And the hair in the affliction has turned white. All white hair is a sign of weakness in the body, and the whitening of a person’s hair in old age proves this. Similarly, all white horses are weak in strength, and likewise any white sheep is not as good as [one with] the color of other types of hair, because all white appearance originates from the white phlegm that causes laziness, for the action of every lazy person is neither with vigor nor with strength.
And if the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and the appearance of it be not deeper than the skin, and the hair of it be not turned white, then the priest shall shut up him that has the plague seven days.
verse value 4997
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 76 letters. The shortest word is "it" (הִ֜וא, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·if·discoloration" (וְאִם־בַּהֶ֩רֶת֩, 7 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·if·discoloration" (וְאִם־בַּהֶ֩רֶת֩), "and·deep" (וְעָמֹק֙), "its·appearance·is·not" (אֵין־מַרְאֶ֣הָ). The root לבן appears 2 times in this verse. 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "days" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus); "the·affection" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root סגר ("and·he·shall·isolate") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'white', dividing the verse into phrases of 11 and 5 words.
Onkelos
But if the bright spot is white on the skin of his flesh, and its appearance is not deeper than the skin, and the hair has not turned white, the priest shall isolate the affliction for seven days.
Rashi
ועמק אין מראה AND ITS APPEARANCE BE NOT DEEPER [THAN THE SKIN] — I do not know the meaning of this. והסגיר HE SHALL SHUT [HIM UP] — He shall shut him up in one house and shall not see him again until the end of the week. Then the symptom that show themselves shall decide regarding him whether he is unclean or not.
Ibn Ezra
"Turned white [hafakh lavan]" — its meaning is: has turned to white. "Deep [amok]" — there is more depth in its hollow than the depth of the skin, and it is not like something merely sunken. "And he shall declare him impure" — by pronouncing the word that he is impure. "And the priest shall quarantine the plague for seven days" — the person is to be confined, and he shall wait for seven days, since most diseases change on the seventh day.
Sforno
ועמוק אין מראה מן העור, even though the sages (Shevuot 6) have said that everything which looks white is described a looking deep, recessed, as the sun appears as if deeper than the shadow, so that the wording of our verse appears to be incompatible with the statement of the sages, seeing that the skin itself is a form of something whitish the Torah means that the relationship of the normal skin to the whiteness of the tzoraat is comparable to the appearance of the shadow to the sun. [a spot of shadow on a bright day, is after all not “black” as is the darkness of the night. In fact, compared to the darkness of the night, it might be viewed as a weak “white.” Ed.]
Chizkuni
ואם בהרת לבנה היא, “but if the bright spot is white on the skin;” but it is not so white that the appearance of the afflicted area is as if recessed under the skin; as is written: “and its hair has not turned white;” ועמוק אין מראה, “and its appearance is not deeper, etc.” Rashi writes concerning these words, that he does not understand their meaning. What he meant was: seeing that its appearance as white, how is it possible that it did not look deeper?Some commentators say that the words ועמוק אין מראה mean that its appearance is not like the appearance of skin which has been afflicted with שחין, the plague known from Egypt as the skin breaking out in boils. (Torat Kohanim on verse 21) This would mean that the affliction while neither lower nor higher, appears as level with the remainder of the skin. ושערה לא הפך לבן, and the hair which formerly had been black had not turned white; the letter ה in the first word ושערה (here, as opposed to verse 20) does not have the dot that we would have expected if it were to mean: “its appearance.” והסגיר הכן, “and the priest will lock him up;” at the end of another seven days the priest will understand if there has been a further expansion of the afflicted area. When someone observes a condition constantly, he would not recognise minor changes; but if he had not looked at that area for a period of seven days, it is much easier to judge if there had been a change.
Tur HaArokh
ועמוק אין מראה מן העור, “and its appearance is not deeper than the skin.” Rashi writes: “I do not know the meaning of these words. His problem was that he had already explained the words עמוק מן העור in the previous verse to mean that every white discolouration of the skin appears as if recessed, lower than the surrounding area, just as an area lit by the rays of the sun appears as lower than the surrounding area bathed in shade. Rabbi Meir from Rotenburg explains our verse in the following manner: “if what is described as בהרת לבן, an extremely bright whitish discolouration, appears deeper than the surrounding area of skin, as is typical of every sunlit area surrounded by shade, then the appearance of this symptom in relation to the surrounding skin is not the beginning of the entire process we are witnessing; in other words, it does not appear lower on account of its whitish colour.” [If I understand this commentary correctly, the author warns us not to treat the whole phenomenon as something natural, explicable in terms of scientific research. The Torah’s message to us and to the afflicted person is that if the symptoms we are witnessing were merely corresponding to known scientific data, the whole disease would lose its character of being a benign warning by the Creator to the afflicted party to examine his lifestyle which alone led to this affliction. Ed.] Our author feels that the tone signs in our verse support the approach of Rabbi Meir from Rotenburg. Nachmanides believes that there is a way of dealing with Rashi’s problem so that [at least technically, Ed,] there is no contradiction between verse 3 and verse 4. He limits the generally accepted principle described by Rashi on verse three that bright areas always appear as deeper, recessed, when compared to surrounding darker areas, as being a phenomenon which holds true only as long as the hair on that area also turned white. When the hair in that bright area has not turned white, then the entire hypothesis of it appearing darker than the surrounding darker area does not hold true. He supports this argument by comparing it to sunspots, i.e. scattered spots of dark areas, black spots on the surface of the sun which do not result in the surrounding bright areas of the sun appearing as being deeper, recessed. He compares the hair (black) on the skin to sun spots scattered over the surface of the sun as we behold it. He also distinguishes between how something appears to the beholder who is close to the object in question and to how it appears to a beholder who looks at it from a distance. (The foregoing was attributed to Maimonides) Nachmanides continues: in spite of all that we have been told, according to which anything white appears deeper than the surrounding dark area, this does not even agree with what we learned in the Talmud Shavuot, 6, which disagrees with that assumption, stating that the very expression שאת [which is derived from the root נשא to lift up, Ed.] means something high, i.e. higher than its surroundings A verse from scripture is quoted in support of this שאת is compared to wool which had been bleached white, so that according to its degree of whiteness it certainly ought to appear as deeper than the darker area surrounding it. The opinion in the Talmud is also corroborated by Torat Kohanim where it is compared to “shadow” which appears ‘higher than the surrounding area.” If every whitish appearance were to be considered as “deep,” we would be faced with a total contradiction to our ancient sources. Perhaps we should say that the expression שאת is used in the sense of being “high” only when it is compared to the skin irregularity described by the Torah as בהרת in verse 2. However, when contrasted to the surrounding normal skin, it is indeed עמוק מן העור, i.e. deeper than regular skin. In view of these various approaches and apparent contradictions, it appears to me that any kind of “white” we look at, leaves a degree of radiance and sparkle in our eyes, similar to that which we experience when we have looked at the sun. This is due to the eye absorbing part of the black colour that clings to it, whereas the white colour is immediately reflected outward. While doing so it also disperses some of the ability of the eye to see properly, an ability that is now somewhat removed from its source, so that it appears to see objects as deeper than they are in reality. בהרת on the other hand, is glaringly bright and powerfully white as snow, causing the human eyes’ sense of vision to undergo a weakening. Just as it undergoes a similar weakening when the eyes step out of the shade into an area illuminated by brilliant sunshine. The only thing that prevents this from happening is the presence of a black hair. If there is a black hair then the ability of the sense of seeing expands to any adjoining black area and from it to the entire surface of the skin affected by the נגע, the affliction like looking irregularity. It will not leave that area. שאת, on the other hand, while being white, is not as brilliantly white as בהרת, so that its whiteness does not harm the sense of sight, it can spread over the area of the afflicted skin and man’s eye can view it without hindrance from proximity without harm. It appears to him as elevated, much as the stars look as if standing out against the background of the sky. In connection with the affliction which we know as שחין, (verse 18), the Torah makes mention of two kinds of visual impressions, one is שאת לבנה, the other is a lesser degree of whiteness described as בהרת לבנה. (Apparently) the white is mixed with some degree of red, i.e. אדמדמת, making it darker) The Torah describes the appearance of that whiteness as מראה שפל מן העור, as opposed to the previous מראה עמוק מן העור. The effect of this reddishness is to make the area appear a little deeper than the surrounding skin, though not a lot deeper, as would be described as עמוק מן העור. According to the plain meaning of the text, the words והנה מראה שפל העור, are describing only the condition of בהרת and do not refer to the appearance of an irregularity called שאת לבנה at all. As far as the Torah writing later (verse 21) ואם יראנה הכהן והנה אין בה שער לבן ושפלה איננה מן העור והוא כהה “but if when the priest looks at it and behold there is no white hair in it and it is not lower than the surrounding skin,” this verse refers to both the incidence of שאת לבן as well as to that of בהרת לבן. When discussing skin irregularities resembling injuries from burning oneself, מכות-אש, the Torah mentions the colour לבנה אדמדמת או לבנה, “white streaked with red, or plain white.” When the Torah in the verse following (25) describes the appearance of what was mentioned in verse 24 asעמוק מן העור, “deeper than the surrounding skin,” this part of the verse refers only to the raw flesh which has been described in verse 24 as לבנה, white, and not to the area described as לבנה אדמדמת, white streaked with red. The Torah then mentions that the area described as בהרת is free from any white hair, and does not appear as even slightly deeper than the surrounding skin, for ושפלה איננה מן העור והוא כהה, seeing that the slightly deeper appearance as well as the deeper recessed appearance known as עמוק מן העור, both are reasons to declare the person displaying these symptoms as ritually impure. Such symptoms indicate purification only when not accompanied by any appearance deeper than the surrounding skin. This is the meaning of the word כהה.
Rashbam
ועמוק אין מראה, it is not the same kind of white as the other kinds of scales on the skin mentioned thus far.
Daat Zkenim
והסגיר הכהן, “the priest shall lock up (the afflicted person).” This will enable him subsequently to determine if the affliction has spread. If one looks at the same section of skin every day, it is difficult to notice any changes. But if one has not seen it for a period of time, any changes can be noticed immediately. It is assumed that these changes, if any, occur very gradually. When Noach was in the ark and he wished to check if the water level around him had dropped, he also allowed seven days to elapse between dispatching a raven or a dove to examine this state of affairs. (Genesis 8,10). Actually, this comparison is not valid, as in our situation the priest had already marked the outer limits on the skin of the symptoms of the afflicted person clearly. He took the additional precaution of locking that person up in order to prevent him from tampering with what he had marked. He suspected such a person of trying to mislead him at the next inspection of the nega, skin-eczema. ועמוק, “and if deeper;” we find that the Torat Kohanim explains that the reason why the Torah wrote the unusually long “and the nega had not assumed a deeper appearance than the skin in the interval between the inspection then the afflicted person is pronounced ritually contaminated,” is that if it had not done so, we would have thought that only a spreading of the symptoms would lead the priest to declare the afflicted person as ritually contaminated. The fact that the area afflicted had not diminished, is proof that the symptoms had been that which the afflicted person himself had suspected to begin with. The Torah uses similar language when discussing symptoms of boils in verse 20 of our chapter. The wording of the entire chapter has to be understood in this vein. However, according to the explanation of Rashi, the word עמוק has to be understood as relative, i.e. like shade compared to an area lit up by the sun. This does not sound like a good comparison for the word הסגר, “locking up.” Our author admits that when speaking of north Europeans who have a very light skin the comparison is more apt. With people like that the appearance of the nega described in the Torah is not usually so much different from his normal skin colour. This sounds far fetched as we are told that the skin eczema known as baheret, is as white as snow, and what can be whiter than snow?
And the priest shall look on him the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague stay in its appearance, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall shut him up seven days more.
verse value 4033
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 72 letters. The shortest word is "has·remained" (עָמַ֣ד, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·he·shall·isolate·him" (וְהִסְגִּיר֧וֹ, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 128: the·affection, the·affection. The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "in·the·day" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus); "the·affection" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root פשה ("did·not·spread") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·the·skin', dividing the verse into phrases of 11 and 5 words.
Onkelos
The priest shall examine him on the seventh day, and behold, if the affliction has remained as it was — the affliction has not spread on the skin — the priest shall isolate him for another seven days.
Rashi
בעניו means in its original colour and size. שנית … והסגירו HE SHALL SHUT HIM UP … A SECOND TIME — Consequently if it has spread during the first week, he is decidedly unclean, and no further quarantine is required.
Ramban
AND THE PRIEST SHALL LOOK AT HIM ON THE SEVENTH DAY, AND BEHOLD, IF THE PLAGUE STAY ‘B’EINAV.’ “This means in its original color and size.” This is Rashi’s language. Similarly, ‘v’eino’ (and the appearance thereof) was as the appearance of bdellium; and so also, ‘k’ein’ (like the color of) the crystal ice. But in the Torath Kohanim we have been taught as follows: “[From the expression here] I know only that the plague so appeared [i.e., in its original size] in his own [i.e., the priest’s] eyes. Whence do I know that the same law applies if it so appeared in the eyes of his pupil? Scripture therefore says [in Verse 37]. But if the scall stay ‘b’einav.’” Now if so, the meaning of the verse here would be: “and if the plague is at a stay in the sight of the aforementioned priest,” namely that it has remained as it was, neither having changed its place nor having spread in the skin, wheresoever the priest looks [then he shall shut him up for another seven days]. The usage [of the term a’yin (eye)] is often found in the words of the Sages. Thus: “So it appears in my eyes.” So also you find [in Scripture]: O man of G-d, I pray thee, let my life be precious ‘b’einecha’ (in thy sight], meaning, in your opinion and thought. Thus the verse here alludes to the principle that the priest in examining whether the plague has extended in the skin need only judge it as he sees it, but it is not necessary that [he base his decision] upon measuring the plague.
Ibn Ezra
"Has remained in its appearance [amad be-einav]" — the meaning concerns its appearance, for appearance is [perceived] by the eye. All the commentators have said that its meaning is "in itself," that is, as it was. "Has spread [pashah]" — similar to the sense of spreading widely [nafosh].
Sforno
וראהו הכהן, it is a decree by the Torah that only a priest is qualified to determine what is ritually pure and what is ritually impure in all matters pertaining to these skin afflictions. The prophet Maleachi 2,7 echoes this concept when he says that כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דת, “that the lips (pronouncements) of the priest will preserve the Jewish religion.” The priest is also required to counsel the afflicted person to examine his lifestyle so that he himself will become the key to his rehabilitation. At the same time the Priest will add his own prayer when asking G’d to heal the afflicted. Apart from his prayer his expertise will tell him when the stage has been reached when the affliction has waned so that the count toward rehabilitation and the presentation of offerings can begin.
Chizkuni
וראהו הכהן ביום השביעי, “when the priest looks at it on the seventh day;” he does not wait a whole seven days before inspecting the affliction again. From this verse we learn the principle that in the Torah even part of a day is considered as if it were a whole day. עמד בעיניו, “has remained unchanged;” the area that had been strongly inflamed had not weakened, and the areas that had been relatively mildly inflamed had not become more inflamed. שבעת ימים שנית “a second period of seven days of waiting.” The first “seventh” day, counts as a whole day in both directions. (Sifra)
Rabbeinu Bahya
והנה הנגע עמד בעיניו, “and here the skin-disorder remained in its (previous) color and condition.” The word בעיניו means “in its appearance.” The word עין is used in a similar meaning when the Torah describes the appearance of the manna in Numbers 11,7 where the wording is ועינו כעין הבדולח, “and its appearance was like the appearance of crystal.” It was similar in appearance to what is described in Ezekiel 1,22 as the קרח הנורא, the “awesome ice.” On the other hand, Torat Kohanim based on Sifra Tazria 13,37 derives from the wording of the text that if the Torah had not written these words I would have thought that only the officiating priest at the first inspection but not that priest’s son or student would be entitled to undertake this inspection. Hence the Torah wrote בעיניו that if initially several priests had inspected the symptoms and most feel that there had been no change their opinion is accepted, (based on verse 37 in this chapter where the word בעיניו occurs again and cannot have the same meaning as in verse 5, hence it must mean “in his eyes.”) Accordingly, the correct translation of our verse here would be: “if in the eyes of the priest already mentioned there had not been any change in the skin disorder he had inspected previously, etc., then this priest shall quarantine the afflicted person for a second period of seven days.” The expression בעיני in that context is one frequently used in Mishnaic Hebrew such as in Baba Kama 41 כך אני בעיניך “so I appear in your eyes,” Or Kings II 1,13 תיקר נא נפשי בעיניך, “may my life be precious in your eyes” (the captain of fifty to the prophet Elijah pleading for his life). The principal message of the words is that the priest does not use measuring devices to determine if the skin disorder had spread but he relies on his eyes to estimate the state of affairs.
Tur HaArokh
והנה הנגע עמד בעיניו, “and behold- the affliction remained static.” Nachmanides quotes Rashi as writing that the word בעיניו means that the affliction’s appearance has undergone no change either in appearance or size. He assumed that the word עין is the same as in כעין הבדולח in Numbers 11,7 where the appearance of the manna is described, was Rashi’s source. He points out that Torat Kohanim takes a different approach, understanding the word עין literally as “eye,” ruling that determination of the afflicted person’s purity or impurity is governed by the subjective criterion of how it appears to the examining priest, and not to the objective criterion of measuring it. If the priest’s perception is different from the perception of his disciple, for instance, the priest’s perception is automatically considered as decisive. He need not measure the affliction to verify if his perception had been correct. However, my sainted father the R’osh, said that the priest was required already on his first examination to make a mark on the skin delineating the extent of the affliction, so as to enable him to compare the size of the affliction when he would examine it the second time. This is clearly stated in connection with afflictions that occur on a person’s head, where the Torah demands that the area around the affliction must be shaved off. (Compare 13,33) The priest leaves two hairs adjoining the afflicted are in place, in order to be certain what precisely the area of the affliction had been on the occasion when he first examined it. What holds true for the way afflictions of the head are examined, also hold true for the manner in which the results of examinations of other parts of the skin’s surface are conducted and recorded, i.e. also the terms for temporary seclusion of the person so afflicted. The explanation by Rashi of the words והסגירו הכהן שבעת ימים, that the priest imposed a house arrest on the afflicted party for seven days, was not accepted by the author’s father. He claims that nowhere in the entire tractate of Negaim is there a mention that the afflicted party is under house arrest. Verse 4, mentioning the word והסגיר for the first time, refers to the נגע, not to the person afflicted with it; the meaning is that the area of the נגע is to be clearly delineated, and for a period of seven days following this, no second examination to determine if it had spread or receded is to be undertaken.
Daat Zkenim
עמד בעיניו, “and the plague had retained the same appearance, looking the same in the eyes of the priest,” (who had examined it the last time). According to Rashi who considers the subject as being the nega, affliction, the Torah should have written עומד בעיניו, in the present tense.
And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague be dim, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is a scab; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean.
verse value 4205
Insights
Verse structure: 19 words, 80 letters. The shortest word is "it" (אֹת֜וֹ, 3 letters) and the longest is "the·seventh" (הַשְּׁבִיעִי֮, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 128: the·affection, the·affection. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·did·not·spread" (וְלֹא־פָשָׂ֥ה), "a·rash" (מִסְפַּ֣חַת). The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "in·the·day" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus); "the·affection" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root כהה ("has·faded") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·the·skin', dividing the verse into phrases of 12 and 7 words.
Onkelos
The priest shall examine him again on the seventh day, and behold, if the affliction has faded and the affliction has not spread on the skin, the priest shall declare him pure; it is a scab. He shall wash his garments and be pure.
Rashi
כֵּהֶה means it has become paler than its former color — consequently if it remains in its color or if it has spread he is unclean. מספחת — This is the name of a clean leprous disease. וכבס את בגדיו וטהר AND HE SHALL WASH HIS GARMENTS AND BE CLEAN — Since he required shutting up he was termed (was regarded as coming under the term) “unclean” (although it now transpires that he was clean), and he must undergo immersion in a ritual bath.
Ramban
AND THE PRIEST SHALL SEE HIM A SECOND TIME THE SEVENTH DAY, AND BEHOLD, IF THE PLAGUE BE ‘KEIHAH’ (DIM), AND THE PLAGUE BE NOT SPREAD IN THE SKIN, THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM CLEAN. Rashi commented: “Keihah means it has become paler than its [former] color. [This allows the inference] that if the plague remains in its former color and has not extended in the skin, he is impure.”This indeed is the sense of the verse. But the interpretation of our Rabbis is not so, for we have been taught in the Mishnah: “To cause to be put in quarantine [for a second week] such a plague which continues unchanged at the end of the first week; to pronounce pure such a plague which continues unchanged by the end of the second week.” And in the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have expressly said that in the case of garments, if the plague is at a stay at the end of the first week, they are to be put in quarantine [for a second week], and if it be at a stay at the end of the second week, they are to be burnt; but in the case of a person, if the plague be at a stay at the end of the first week the priest is to put him in quarantine for another week, but if at the end of the second week it is still at a stay he is to pronounce him pure. And in Tractate Megillah the Rabbis have further said: “This excludes a leper who has been put in quarantine for a week, whose state of leprosy is determined not by his bodily condition, but merely by days.” Now if it were necessary that the plague should become dim, then his purity would be dependent upon his bodily condition! Rashi himself explained it there in such language, saying that the leper’s purity is not dependent on the physical state of the plague, for if at the end of seven days a symptom of impurity — white hair or extension of the plague — is not found, the priest is to pronounce him pure although the plague has stayed in its appearance, that is at the end of the second week. Rather, this is what the Sages said: at the end of the second week, whether the plague has paled from the color of snow to [the shade of white of] the lime used in the Sanctuary, or like the white of an egg’s membrane, or even if it has become stronger, namely, that it was at first like the lime [used in the Sanctuary] and then [at the end of the second week] it had become bright-white like snow, and all the more so if it remained in its original color — as long as it did not spread in the skin, the priest pronounces it pure. If so, the interpretation of this verse is as follows: “if the plague be ‘keihah,’ meaning that it has turned into the color of another plague, such as from that of snow to that of lime, since it has not spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is but a scab.” For in order that one should not say, “since the plague has changed into the color of another plague it must be inspected from anew,” Scripture therefore expressly taught that he is deemed pure. The same law applies if the color became stronger, since Sc...
Ibn Ezra
"A second time [shenit]" — a second occasion. "The plague has faded [kahah ha-nega]" — many of the sages said it means "has darkened," citing as proof "and his eyes had grown dim [va-tihkehna einav] from seeing" (Gen. 27:1), and they said that "faded white [kehot levanot]" means a whiteness mixed with redness, containing both colors. In my view, the word "kahah" is the opposite of "pashah" [spread], derived from "and his eyes had grown dim" — and the usage closest to it is "and it did not dim in them [ve-lo kahah bam]" — meaning the plague has not spread to another place. Thus there are two signs: the affected area has faded, and it has not spread to the healthy skin. "And he shall declare him pure" — he shall pronounce that he is pure, for it was [only] a scab [sapachat]. But if it afterward spreads, he is then impure.
Or HaChaim
והנה כהה הנגע, and the affliction has dimmed, etc. Rashi explains this to mean that if the appearance of the affliction remains either stationary or has spread, the person suffering from it is impure. Maimonides writes in chapter one of his treatise Hilchot Tum-at Tzora-at that the word כהה means that if the appearance is less white than any of the four degrees of whiteness the Torah had described, the person afflicted by it is now טהור, "clean." Similarly, if it neither spread nor dimmed nor sprouted a white hair in the area of the affliction, the person who suffered these symptoms is "clean" also. Thus far Maimonides. According to Rashi the expression כהה in the Torah describes a comparison to a previous condition which definitely was one of the other three symptoms qualifying for the description נגע צרעת, whereas the present appearance is not one which does not qualify for any of the four degrees of whiteness which would constitute the presence of a נגע צרעת. Had the Torah wanted to exclude the presence at this stage of all the four possible symptoms which constitute the presence of a נגע צרעת, the Torah should have written that there was no appearance of anything which looked like נגע צרעת. We must conclude therefore that our verse discusses someone who had previously displayed at least one of the three other kinds of white areas which would signify נגע צרעת such as the בהרת described in verse 2 which had a subcategory ספחת. If, however, the appearance had already been at the lowest end of the scale of white, i.e. the skin covering an egg, it could not have dimmed any further [and still be of concern to us halachically at all. Ed.] Alternatively, we would have to assume that there is a lower degree of whiteness in any of the four categories נגע צרעת the Torah has discussed thus far, and it is this relatively dimmer appearance the Torah describes here as כהה הנגע. The נגע described as בהרת itself would consist of either of two degrees of whiteness, both being close in appearance to snow-white. One of these degrees existed prior to the stage described in the Torah as כהה, the other after that stage had been reached. We find the following statement in Nega-im 1,4: Rabbi Chanina says there are altogether 16 shades of a colour which could qualify as נגע צרעת. Rabbi Dotha claims that there are 36 such shades. Akavyah ben Mahallel says that there are no fewer than 72 such shades which have to be examined. We may assume that these Rabbis do not disagree as to which shades constitute an affliction resulting in the victm becoming declared ritually impure, etc; they disagree only as to the number of shades there are that a priest must be familiar with in order to render the proper ruling. [these shades include also other kinds of skin afflictions such as מכרה and שחין, נתקים, etc.. Ed.] Maimonides in his commentary on the Mishnah also writes that the disagreements do not concern basic categories which would qualify as נגע צרעת. Only a few of these sh...
Chizkuni
והנה כהה הנגע ולא פשה הנגע בעור וטהרו, “and behold, if the plague had dimmed and the plague had not spread;” the priest declares the afflicted person as ritually pure.”If you were to ask why the Torah appears to repeat itself, seeing that it is obvious that if the symptoms had not spread, and the afflicted person is declared ritually pure, then if the symptoms had diminished he must certainly be declared ritually pure? You have to understand the words: ולא פשה, “and it did not spread,” as applying to the result of the priest’s inspection after the first seven days. When at the second inspection it turned out that not only had the affliction not spread but it had even diminished, only then does the priest declare that person as ritually pure, i.e. as cured. It is not possible to understand the words: “the afflicted area did not increase” as applying to the second period of seven days because Rashi there had explained already that as long as the afflicted person had not been healed he remains not only potentially ritually impure, but he remains absolutely ritually impure. Concerning the healing process, i.e. the afflicted person’s progress toward ritual purity, the second inspection, Rashi says clearly that the appearance of the affliction, i.e. that it had not diminished, is proof that he remains impure (pending) and if it had spread he is definitively impure. Concerning his ritual purity, the Torah writes: (14,3) והנה נרפא נגע הצרעת מן הצרוע, “and behold if the plague of tzoraat that the afflicted person suffers from has been healed;” as soon as this has occurred the afflicted person can leave the place where he had been locked up, i.e. even though his symptoms have not disappeared. All that is required is that on the second inspection after the second period of seven days the symptoms have not spread. והנה כהה הנגע, “and behold the symptoms of the affliction have diminished;” even though one might have thought that any change [even for the better,] is proof of a new affliction, and that the person would be declared as ritually contaminates; in order to forestall such erroneous thinking, the Torah added the word: והנה, “and lo and behold!” וטהרו, “he [the examining priest Ed] declares him as ritually pure.” He does so by making this declaration by mouth. וכבס בגדיו, the now ritually pure person will immerse his clothing, [seeing that they had become contaminated by his having worn them in his state of the plague, Ed.] Naturally, if he had to immerse his clothing, it is understood that he also has to immerse his body in a ritual bath, (seeing there had been doubt if he had remained pure during the period when he had been locked up he might not have not been careful not to become ritually unclean in a way unrelated to his plague) following this, the process of purification is complete,.וטהר
Daat Zkenim
ביום השביעי שנית, “again on the seventh day;” we learn from here that the nega will not become ritually clean unless it had shrunk. This is also how Rashi explains it with the word כהה, i.e. its appearance had become dimmer. If it had become more pronounced or remained static the afflicted person is ritually unclean. The accepted ruling, halachah, however, is that if it did not spread out, the afflicted person is declared ritually clean. This has also been spelled out in the Mishnah in tractate Nega’im chapter 1, Mishnah 3. We quote: ארבעה מראות האלו מצטרפין זה עם זה לפטור ולהחליט ולהסגיר., “Any of these four shades (that have been mentioned before) may combine together to declare clean, or to certify as definite affliction by a nega, or to cause the suspected victim to be shut up.” The first example listed is that the suspected area has remained static at the end of the second week. The expression in the Mishnah להסגר, for shutting up, refers to the first examination after the priest’s visit. The expression לפטור, to declare ritually clean, refers to the visit of the priest after the second week. Similar rules apply if the symptoms had been white like snow after the first week, and by the end of the second week the affected area looked like the whitewashed area of Sanctuary. This is not considered as “having dimmed,” but as having remained static, until the area afflicted has shrunk. Some scholars state that the reason these details have been written in the Torah in this context is to tell us that if the appearance had not dimmed at all, then the afflicted person is declared ritually clean. We are to learn that a change from snow white to whitewashed, or vice versa from snow-white to whitewashed or vice versa, is not to be interpreted as a new type of nega having surfaced. Our author quotes one or two alternate interpretations of the words ביום השביעי שנית, but seeing that the legislation does not apply in our time and we need the prophet Elijah to rule on whose interpretation is correct, this editor sees no point in pursuing this subject at this time.
But if the scab spread abroad in the skin, after that he has shown himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall show himself to the priest again.
verse value 4813
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 56 letters. The shortest word is "it·shall·spread" (תִפְשֶׂ֤ה, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·if·spreading" (וְאִם־פָּשֹׂ֨ה, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 111: to·the·priest, to·the·priest. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "his·showing·himself" (הֵרָאֹת֛וֹ). The root פשה appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "his·showing·himself" (root ראה, 48x in Leviticus); "after" (root אחר, 27x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root טהרה ("to·his·purification") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·his·purification', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְאִם־פָּשֹׂ֨ה [and·if·spreading] (432) + תִפְשֶׂ֤ה [it·shall·spread] (785) + הַמִּסְפַּ֙חַת֙ [the·rash] (593) + בָּע֔וֹר [in·the·skin] (278) + אַחֲרֵ֧י [after] (219) + הֵרָאֹת֛וֹ [his·showing·himself] (612) + אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֖ן [to·the·priest] (111) + לְטׇהֳרָת֑וֹ [to·his·purification] (650) + וְנִרְאָ֥ה [and·he·shall·appear] (262) + שֵׁנִ֖ית [second] (760) + אֶל־הַכֹּהֵֽן [to·the·priest] (111) = 4813.
Onkelos
But if the scab spreads further on the skin after he has appeared before the priest for his purification, he shall appear before the priest a second time.
Chizkuni
ואם פשה תפשה אחרי הראותו, “but if the scab spread after he had shown it to the priest, even immediately;
Kli Yakar
And if it spreads, etc. This is a sign that the body’s natural forces lack the strength to expel all the waste matter, as it is too abundant. This is also proof that one has not been cleansed of his sin — his impurity remains within him. However, if the affliction has not spread, it means that the body’s nature has already expelled all the decay and waste, which is evidence that the person has already resolved in his heart to repent completely. And if the leprosy covers the entire skin of the afflicted area from head to foot, it means that nature has pushed all the illness outward, and then without doubt he will be healed; therefore he is pure. Similarly, from the perspective of punishment, without doubt if one sees that the leprosy has spread throughout his entire body, then he will be more likely to resolve in his heart to repent — except if there is raw flesh in it, for this is proof that despite everything, he will not be disciplined. Our Sages of blessed memory compared this to water: all wide waters are not deep, and deep waters are not wide. Similarly, if the affliction is not widespread, then it penetrates deeply into the body, and there is concern about the illness growing stronger. But if it is widespread and spreads throughout the entire skin, it is not deep in the body and will heal quickly. And our Sages of blessed memory (Sanhedrin 97a) derived from this homiletically, that the Messiah will not come until the entire kingdom turns to heresy, as it says it has all turned white, he is pure. An allusion to the matter, turned white [hafakh lavan] — when the word [lavan] is reversed [hafukhah], it becomes “foolish” [naval]. That is to say, when everyone will degrade the Rock of their salvation, then God will necessarily purify the entire earth from its idols. And their proof comes from this affliction which comes as a punishment, and when it has all turned white, surely the sinner will take it to heart to repent. So too with Israel, when they see that the entire kingdom has turned to heresy and they see that there is no one restrained or abandoned, they will certainly then take it to heart to return in complete repentance to God, and then he is pure. And regarding the matter of raw flesh in the raised lesion, that above [the surface] the flesh appears healthy and beneath it stands the white spot [baheret], perhaps as a form of punishment this plague comes upon the sect of hypocrites who present themselves as kosher on the outside while their insides are full of deceit and trickery — therefore this type [of plague] comes upon them, measure for measure.
Daat Zkenim
ונראה שנית, “and he is to be seen by the priest a second time.” The Torah should have written: “a third time,” as the priest had already seen that person twice.
And the priest shall look, and, behold, if the scab be spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is leprosy.
verse value 2928
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 42 letters. The shortest word is "it" (הִֽוא, 3 letters) and the longest is "the·rash" (הַמִּסְפַּ֖חַת, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 80: the·priest, the·priest. The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·he·shall·pronounce·him·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "it" (root היא, 60x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·the·skin', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְרָאָה֙ [and·he·shall·see] (212) + הַכֹּהֵ֔ן [the·priest] (80) + וְהִנֵּ֛ה [and·behold] (66) + פָּשְׂתָ֥ה [spread] (785) + הַמִּסְפַּ֖חַת [the·rash] (593) + בָּע֑וֹר [in·the·skin] (278) + וְטִמְּא֥וֹ [and·he·shall·pronounce·him·impure] (62) + הַכֹּהֵ֖ן [the·priest] (80) + צָרַ֥עַת [leprosy] (760) + הִֽוא [it] (12) = 2928.
Onkelos
The priest shall examine it, and behold, if the scab has spread on the skin, the priest shall declare him impure; it is tzara'at.
Rashi
וטמאו הכהן AND THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM UNCLEAN — and as soon as he has pronounced him unclean he is a decided leper and he is obliged when he recovers from his leprosy to bring two birds (as a means of his purification) and to shave his flesh and to bring the offering which is mentioned in the section beginning זאת תהיה — Leviticus ch. 14 (cf. Megillah 8b). צרעת הוא IT IS A LEPROSY — this מספחת is a leprosy (while the מספחת mentioned in v. 6 is a clean scab) The word צרעת is feminine; נגע is masculine.
Or HaChaim
צרעת הוא. it is a form of leprosy. The meaning of these words is that even if the priest had previously declared the person afflicted as "clean," this judgment is reversesd retroactively in light of the afflicted area having spread. The reason is that a scab which does not indicate ritual impurity is not in the habit of spreading. The Torah indicates that the spreading needs only to be minimal in order for the afflicted person to be declared as ritually impure. It is the scab which is the affliction, not its size.
Rashbam
צרעת היא, definitive, beyond doubt. The afflicted person has to remain in isolation until cured when he or she will offer bird-offerings.
Daat Zkenim
צרעת היא, “it is the dreaded skin disease known as tzoraat.” What had first been diagnosed as נגע and had therefore been described in the masculine mode, is now described in the feminine mode, i.e. צרעת. (Compare verse 3)
And the priest shall look, and, behold, if there be a white rising in the skin, and it have turned the hair white, and there be quick raw flesh in the rising,
verse value 3895 — חַ֖י = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 51 letters. Notable word values: "alive" (חַ֖י) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "alive" (חַ֖י, 2 letters) and the longest is "a·white·swelling" (שְׂאֵת־לְבָנָה֙, 7 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "a·white·swelling" (שְׂאֵת־לְבָנָה֙), "turned" (הָפְכָ֖ה), "and·living·flesh·of" (וּמִֽחְיַ֛ת). The root שאת appears 2 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "flesh" (root בשר, 56x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'white', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְרָאָ֣ה [and·he·shall·see] (212) + הַכֹּהֵ֗ן [the·priest] (80) + וְהִנֵּ֤ה [and·behold] (66) + שְׂאֵת־לְבָנָה֙ [a·white·swelling] (788) + בָּע֔וֹר [in·the·skin] (278) + וְהִ֕יא [and·it] (22) + הָפְכָ֖ה [turned] (110) + שֵׂעָ֣ר [hair] (570) + לָבָ֑ן [white] (82) + וּמִֽחְיַ֛ת [and·living·flesh·of] (464) + בָּשָׂ֥ר [flesh] (502) + חַ֖י [alive] (18) + בַּשְׂאֵֽת [in·the·swelling] (703) = 3895.
Onkelos
The priest shall examine it, and behold, if there is a white swelling on the skin and it has turned the hair white, and there is a mark of living flesh in the swelling,
Rashi
ומחית A QUICK [RAW FLESH] — sainement in old French English healing; — it means that the part of the white within the “higher-lying white spot” (השאת) has turned to a flesh-colour; this, too, is a symptom of uncleanness; — white hair without healthy flesh, and healthy flesh without white hair . Although healthy flesh is mentioned only in connection with a spot of higher-lying colour, in the case of all pure white colours (snow-white and wool-white) and their shades (lit., derivations) it is also a symptom of uncleanness(cf. Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Section 3 1; Mishnah Negaim 4:6).
Ramban
AND THE PRIEST SHALL SEE, AND, BEHOLD, IF THERE BE A WHITE RISING IN THE SKIN, AND IT HAVE TURNED THE HAIR WHITE, AND THERE BE QUICK RAW FLESH IN THE RISING. The meaning of this verse is not that it is necessary for both to be present, namely, the white hair and the quick flesh [before the afflicted person is declared impure], since in the first section Scripture declared him impure because of white hair alone; similarly, the appearance of the live flesh alone is a symptom of impurity. If so, the meaning of the verse is: “and it have turned the hair white, or there be quick raw flesh in the rising.” It mentions here white hair in the case of se’eith (rising) although it stated it already in the case of bahereth (bright spot), in order to teach us that in the case of both colors white hair is a symptom of impurity. Our Rabbis have explained that the reason [why white hair is mentioned here when it has already been said above that it is a symptom of impurity] is in order to establish the minimum size of the quick flesh [mentioned here], that it must be large enough to contain the white hair, [the smallest number implied] being two.
Ibn Ezra
"And it has turned" — the black hair has turned white. "Quick flesh [michyat]" — this means living flesh, for flesh that has no sensation is not so.
Or HaChaim
והיא הפכה שער לבן ומחית בשר חי, and it has turned the hair white, and there be healthy flesh, etc. The plain meaning of the verse is that two conditions must be present in order for the afflicted person to be ritually impure, 1) healthy flesh, 2) white hair; our sages in Torat Kohanim write as follows: "I might have thought that the person remains "clean" until he develops white hair plus an area of healthy flesh; to teach me that this is not so the Torah wrote: 'it is an old צרעת,' i.e. it is impure and no other symptom is needed. If so, why does our verse speak about white hair and healthy flesh? this teaches that impurity is not decreed unless the area of skin is large enough to accomodate both white hair and healthy flesh." Apparently the inference from the text that healthy flesh alone (when inside the white area) is sufficient cause to declare the person ritually impure was based on the word נושנת; this poses a problem, however; granted that the presence of healthy flesh inside the white area does not need an additional symptom in order for the afflicted person to be declared ritually unclean -as distinct from the presence of white hair alone,- whence do we know that the presence of such healthy flesh by itself results in ritual impurity? Perhaps the word היא in our verse refers back to either one of two symptoms appearing; 1) the hair turning white in which case there is no need for a further symptom; 2) healthy flesh appearing, and not as Korban Aharon explains it as referring only to the appearance of healthy flesh. It is also possible that the rule that an area of healthy flesh within the white area is sufficient by itself to declare the afflicted person ritually impure is derived from the additional words בשר חי at the end of the verse. The words טמא הוא in verse 11 make it plain that no other symptoms were needed. Ignoring the words of Torat Kohanim for the moment, I believe that the absence of the words או מחית בשר חי tells us that if both symptoms exist and the white area covers the entire surface of the skin this indicates that the person is ritually pure, something I could not have inferred if the Torah had written the word או. How would I then have known that the person could be declared "clean" while suffering simultaneously from two symptoms each of which is basically a symptom signifying ritual impurity?
Chizkuni
והיא הפכה, “and it had changed colour;” the word והיא here is spelled with the letter י and not with the letter ו; [as in verses 4,7 and 8. Ed.]
Rabbeinu Bahya
והיא הפכה שער לבן, “and it has changed hair to white,” according to Sifra Negaim 3,6 the Torah speaks of 2 hairs or more. The reason that white hair in that area is a sign of ritual impurity is simply that according to nature these hairs are normally black. If there is a deviation from what is natural this is an indication of something being diseased. ומחית בשר חי בשאת, ”or there is live flesh within the area covered by שאת;” the letter ו at the beginning of the word ומחית does not mean “and,” but “or.” There is no need for both white hair and raw flesh within that area in order for the priest to declare the afflicted person as definitively impure. Verse eight had already told us that white hair by itself suffices for the priest to make such a ruling. Similarly, the raw flesh within the afflicted area is enough of a symptom by itself for the priest to declare such a person as ritually impure, i.e. מצורע, definitely afflicted by the disease known as צרעת. Sifra Negaim 3,7 provides a measurement for the size of this raw flesh in order for the priest to rule it as making its victim impure. If the size is sufficient for two white hairs to be accommodated on that surface it is large enough. You should know that wherever we find a white hair which is partially black we rule according to the color of the hair where it emerges from the follicle. If the hair is black at that point it is deemed to be a black hair (Maimonides Hilchot Tumat Tzoraat 2,1).
Tur HaArokh
והיא הפכה שער לבן ומחית בשר חי בשאת, “and it has changed hair to white, or that there is healthy live flesh within the white area described previously as שאת;” the letter ו in front of the word ומחית does not mean ”and,” so that both conditions have to be met before the priest must decree absolute isolation of the afflicted person. The letter ו here means “or,” as it does in many instances.
Rashbam
ומחיית בשר חי, with a patch of undiscoloured flesh not like fully ripened skin but raw, like a piece of flesh in the middle of the afflicted scab.
it is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; he shall not shut him up; for he is unclean.
verse value 2958
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 45 letters. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "he·shall·isolate·him" (יַסְגִּרֶ֔נּוּ, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 12: it, it. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "chronic" (נוֹשֶׁ֤נֶת), "he·shall·isolate·him" (יַסְגִּרֶ֔נּוּ). The root טמא appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "and·he·shall·pronounce·him·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root ישן ("chronic") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·priest', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 5 words. Full calculation: צָרַ֨עַת [leprosy] (760) + נוֹשֶׁ֤נֶת [chronic] (806) + הִוא֙ [it] (12) + בְּע֣וֹר [in·skin·of] (278) + בְּשָׂר֔וֹ [his·flesh] (508) + וְטִמְּא֖וֹ [and·he·shall·pronounce·him·impure] (62) + הַכֹּהֵ֑ן [the·priest] (80) + לֹ֣א [not] (31) + יַסְגִּרֶ֔נּוּ [he·shall·isolate·him] (329) + כִּ֥י [for] (30) + טָמֵ֖א [impure] (50) + הֽוּא [it] (12) = 2958.
Onkelos
it is a chronic tzara'at on the skin of his flesh; the priest shall declare him impure. He shall not isolate him, for he is impure.
Rashi
צרעת נשנת הוא IT IS AN OLD LEPROSY — i. e. it is an old leprous malady beneath the sound flesh, and this wound appears healthy above, but underneath it is full of moisture (pus), therefore the priest shall pronounce it unclean. Scripture states this in order that you should not say: since healthy flesh has come over it I shall pronounce it clean.
Ibn Ezra
"Of long standing [noshanit]" — ancient, longstanding. The word "yasgirenu" [he shall quarantine him] — it is a verb that takes two objects, meaning he shall command that he be confined.
Chizkuni
צרעת נושנת היא, “it is an old plague,” it had only appeared to have healed by new skin covering it. Beneath that new skin the flesh had remained raw and moist. The Torah had to inform us of this so that we would not think that the surface of the skin is the only determining factor. That is not enough for the priest to declare the afflicted person as ritually pure. (Compare Rashi)
Daat Zkenim
צרעת נושנת, “an old tzoraat;” Rashi here is not precise enough in his commentary. In Torat Kohanim a white hair is considered as proof of ritual contamination of the skin from which it grows. Similarly what is described by the Torah as michyeh, i.e. מכות מחיה, in verse 24, is a sure sign of ritual impurity, regardless of any changes from one week to another. The fact that it too is treated by the Torah as feminine, is clear proof of this.
Targum Yonatan
it is an inveterate leprosy in the skin of his flesh; and the priest shall adjudge and pronounce him unclean, but not shut him up, for he is (known to be) unclean.
And if the leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him that has the plague from his head even to his feet, as far as appears to the priest;
verse value 5605
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 69 letters. The shortest word is "it·shall·break·out" (תִּפְרַ֤ח, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·to·his·feet" (וְעַד־רַגְלָ֑יו, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 765: the·leprosy, the·leprosy. 8 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·if·breaking·out" (וְאִם־פָּר֨וֹחַ), "it·shall·break·out" (תִּפְרַ֤ח), "and·it·covers" (וְכִסְּתָ֣ה). The root פרח appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "the·affection" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus); "from·his·head" (root ראש, 40x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root פרח ("and·if·breaking·out") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·to·his·feet', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְאִם־פָּר֨וֹחַ [and·if·breaking·out] (341) + תִּפְרַ֤ח [it·shall·break·out] (688) + הַצָּרַ֙עַת֙ [the·leprosy] (765) + בָּע֔וֹר [in·the·skin] (278) + וְכִסְּתָ֣ה [and·it·covers] (491) + הַצָּרַ֗עַת [the·leprosy] (765) + אֵ֚ת כׇּל־ע֣וֹר [all·skin·of] (727) + הַנֶּ֔גַע [the·affection] (128) + מֵרֹאשׁ֖וֹ [from·his·head] (547) + וְעַד־רַגְלָ֑יו [and·to·his·feet] (329) + לְכׇל־מַרְאֵ֖ה [to·all·appearance·of] (326) + עֵינֵ֥י [eyes·of] (140) + הַכֹּהֵֽן [the·priest] (80) = 5605.
Onkelos
And if the tzara'at breaks out extensively on the skin, and the tzara'at covers all the skin of the afflicted person from his head to his feet, wherever the priest's eyes can see —
Rashi
מראשו FROM THE HEAD of the man ועד רגליו AND UNTO HIS FEET, לכל מראה עיני הכהן WHERESOEVER THE PRIEST LOOKETH (lit., to the whole sight of the priest’s eyes) — This excludes a priest the sight of whose eyes is darkened (whose sight is imperfect) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 4 4).
Ramban
AND IF THE LEPROSY BREAK OUT ABROAD IN THE SKIN, AND THE LEPROSY COVER ALL THE SKIN OF THE PLAGUE FROM HIS HEAD EVEN TO HIS FOOT … [HE IS CLEAN]. Now the breaking out of the leprosy is not deemed a symptom of purity, until it spreads over the entire body, except for the places which the Sages enumerated in the Mishnah, which do not prevent a person who has turned completely white [from being pronounced pure]. If so, what is the meaning of the phrase all the skin of the plague [which would indicate that only the area of the plague need be turned white]? Rather, the meaning thereof is as follows: “and the leprosy cover all the skin of the plague and from his head even to his foot.” Scripture is thus stating that the place of the plague and the whole body have turned white, but if the whole body has become white, and the appearance of [the area of] the plague has turned to bohak or it became healed, the person is impure.
Chizkuni
ואם פרוח תפרח, “if these symptoms show up in different parts of his skin;” if different parts of his skin seem to break out in white spots as if flowering;” מראשו, “from his head down;” not on his head; ועד רגליו, “all the way down to his feet;” excluding the feet themselves; לכל מראה עיני הכהן, “as far as it appears to the priest’s eyes;” this excludes a priest whose eyesight is defective; (Rashi) Why did the Torah only exclude a priest who has defective eyesight?, Why did it not also prohibit such inspections on a very cloudy day when everyone’s vision is impaired? This did not have to be spelled out as it is logical. (Compare verse 5) where the word: בעיניו, “as it appears to his eyes,” has already implied that any impediment to the priest seeing clearly prevents such an inspection from being performed and to have legal validity. An alternate interpretation: the words above mean that the inspection must be performed in parts of the body which are clearly visible, not in the armpits, private parts, etc. In connection with this our Rabbis coined the saying: האיש נראה כעודר ומוסק זיתים, והאשה כעורכת ומיניקה את בנה, “a man looks as if busy picking olives, whereas the woman appears as if getting ready to nurse her son.” These are similes describing when normally hidden folds in one’s skin become exposed due to the nature of that person’s activity. [The Rabbis used elegant language to refer to respective private parts of men and women. Ed.]
Tur HaArokh
ואם פרוח תפרח הצרעת, וגו., “if the tzoraat will erupt on the skin, etc.” the Torah describes a continuous spread of the affliction until eventually the entire skin of the body is covered with that affliction. When the Torah used the expression את כל עור הנגע, “the entire skin of the affliction,” an expression that seems somewhat confusing, it means that the entire area of the body’s skin, including head and feet, is covered with the affliction. If the area where the affliction had started either did not turn properly white, or became healthy looking again the person is ritually unclean. According to the plain meaning of the text the reason for the apparent paradox that when covered with the affliction from head to toe, the affected person is considered ritually pure, is that the very spread over the entire body of this affliction is a sign that it does not penetrate further into the body, proof that the person is on the way to a complete recovery, seeing the problem is only skin-deep.
then the priest shall look; and, behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that has the plague; it is all turned white: he is clean.
verse value 3791
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 55 letters. The shortest word is "all·of·him" (כֻּלּ֛וֹ, 3 letters) and the longest is "all·his·body" (אֶת־כׇּל־בְּשָׂר֔וֹ, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 220: and·he·shall·pronounce·pure, pure. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "covered" (כִסְּתָ֤ה), "all·of·him" (כֻּלּ֛וֹ). 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "he" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "all·of·him" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·affection', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְרָאָ֣ה [and·he·shall·see] (212) + הַכֹּהֵ֗ן [the·priest] (80) + וְהִנֵּ֨ה [and·behold] (66) + כִסְּתָ֤ה [covered] (485) + הַצָּרַ֙עַת֙ [the·leprosy] (765) + אֶת־כׇּל־בְּשָׂר֔וֹ [all·his·body] (959) + וְטִהַ֖ר [and·he·shall·pronounce·pure] (220) + אֶת־הַנָּ֑גַע [the·affection] (529) + כֻּלּ֛וֹ [all·of·him] (56) + הָפַ֥ךְ [turned] (105) + לָבָ֖ן [white] (82) + טָה֥וֹר [pure] (220) + הֽוּא [he] (12) = 3791.
Onkelos
the priest shall examine it, and behold, if the tzara'at has covered all his flesh, he shall declare the affliction pure; it has all turned white — he is pure.
Ibn Ezra
"And he shall declare the plague pure" — because the plague has already come out entirely to the surface and has departed from him. And the meaning of "he shall declare the plague pure" is by pronouncement: that this plague shall not render others impure.
But whensoever raw flesh appears in him, he shall be unclean.
verse value 1264 — חַ֖י = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 21 letters. Notable word values: "alive" (חַ֖י) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "in·it" (בּ֛וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·in·day·of" (וּבְי֨וֹם, 5 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "appearing" (הֵרָא֥וֹת). 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "he·shall·be·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "and·in·day·of" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus); "flesh" (root בשר, 56x in Leviticus). Full calculation: וּבְי֨וֹם [and·in·day·of] (64) + הֵרָא֥וֹת [appearing] (612) + בּ֛וֹ [in·it] (8) + בָּשָׂ֥ר [flesh] (502) + חַ֖י [alive] (18) + יִטְמָֽא [he·shall·be·impure] (60) = 1264.
Onkelos
But on the day that living flesh appears on him, he shall be impure.
Rashi
בו בשר חי וביום הראות BUT ON THE DAY WHEN RAW FLESH APPEARETH IN HIM [HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — If this means that a healthy spot sprang up in it and that on this account it is unclean, surely, however, it has already been stated that the healthy spot is a symptom of uncleanness! Why repeat it here? But it is the following case: that the plague was on one of the “twenty-four tips of the limbs” that project from the body (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:26), — which cannot become unclean (i. e. be declared unclean) because it has healthy flesh since the leprous plague as a whole cannot be seen at one time, (as is required by Scripture stating: לכל מראה עיני הכהן cf. Kiddushin 25a),because they (the two sides of the affected limb) slope in different directions (Mishnah Negaim 6:7; Kiddushin 25a) — and the tip of the limb altered, so that its sloping side became visible through fat, as e. g., if it (the tip of the limb) became thick and broadened (so that the sloping sides flattened out to form one surface with the limb) and the healthy flesh thus becomes visible in it, Scripture informs us that it (such healthy flesh) makes it unclean on the day when it is seen in it (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 5 1). וביום — Why is this word used (it might have said ובהראות)? To inform us that there are days when you may see (examine) the plague and there are days when you may not examine. On this account they (the Rabbis) said: A bridegroom is given a respite of all the seven days of the marriage festivities — to him, and to his clothing and his house (i.e. whether he himself or his clothing, cf. v. 17, or his house, cf. Leviticus 14:33 ff., has been affected by a leprous disease), and similarly on a festival he (everyone) is given a respite all the days of that festival — and during these periods the priest may not come to examine him or his clothing or his house (Mishnah Negaim 3:2; Moed Katan 7b; Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 5 2; cf. Bekhorot 43b).
Daat Zkenim
וביום הראות בו בשר חי, “and from the day when raw flesh appears on that area;” this is clear proof that the afflicted person must be declared as ritually unclean. Rashi writes that although this verse has been understood by the Talmud in tractate Kidushin folio 25, differently. i.e. 24 limbs of the human body are not subject to this kind of ritual contamination as they require the visual inspection of a priest, the Torah here specifically spells out that if symptoms of eczema break out before the afflicted person has shaved himself, this rule does not apply to the symptoms described here, as מחיה. [Compare Maimonides hilchot tumat tzoraat chapter three halachah eight Ed.] Our author repeats that Rashi here was not accurate and disagrees with the version of Torat Kohanim. (5,1)
And the priest shall look on the raw flesh, and pronounce him unclean; the raw flesh is unclean: it is leprosy.
verse value 2649
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 42 letters. The shortest word is "the·alive" (הַחַ֖י, 3 letters) and the longest is "the·flesh" (אֶת־הַבָּשָׂ֥ר, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 23: the·alive, the·alive. The root בשר appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·he·shall·pronounce·him·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·he·shall·pronounce·him·impure', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 6 words. Full calculation: וְרָאָ֧ה [and·he·shall·see] (212) + הַכֹּהֵ֛ן [the·priest] (80) + אֶת־הַבָּשָׂ֥ר [the·flesh] (908) + הַחַ֖י [the·alive] (23) + וְטִמְּא֑וֹ [and·he·shall·pronounce·him·impure] (62) + הַבָּשָׂ֥ר [the·flesh] (507) + הַחַ֛י [the·alive] (23) + טָמֵ֥א [impure] (50) + ה֖וּא [it] (12) + צָרַ֥עַת [leprosy] (760) + הֽוּא [it] (12) = 2649.
Onkelos
The priest shall examine the living flesh and declare him impure; the living flesh is impure — it is tzara'at.
Rashi
צרעת הוא IT IS A LEPROSY — that flesh is a leprosy; בשר is masc., and therefore the pronoun הוּא is used as its copula.
Chizkuni
צרעת הוא, “it is the affliction we have been discussing.” The reason why the Torah here uses the masculine pronoun is that it refers to בשר חי in verse 10 which is masculine.
But if the raw flesh again be turned into white, then he shall come to the priest;
verse value 1278
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 33 letters. Verse gematria: 1278 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "to·the·priest" (אֶל־הַכֹּהֵֽן, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·shall·be·turned" (וְנֶהְפַּ֣ךְ). 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus); "if" (root כי, 81x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root ישוב ("turns·back") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·white', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 2 words. Full calculation: א֣וֹ [or] (7) + כִ֥י [if] (30) + יָשׁ֛וּב [turns·back] (318) + הַבָּשָׂ֥ר [the·flesh] (507) + הַחַ֖י [the·alive] (23) + וְנֶהְפַּ֣ךְ [and·shall·be·turned] (161) + לְלָבָ֑ן [to·white] (112) + וּבָ֖א [and·he·shall·come] (9) + אֶל־הַכֹּהֵֽן [to·the·priest] (111) = 1278.
Onkelos
Or if the living flesh turns back and changes to white, he shall come to the priest.
Ibn Ezra
"Or if it should return" — it is possible that it will return.
Chizkuni
או כי ישוב, “or the raw flesh reverses its appearance, etc.” this refers to what the Torah had described in verses 1015, especially in verse 13. או כי ישוב, “refers to the extremities of the limbs like the tips of fingers or toes which had alternately becoming visible as normal and as diseased. [The Torah had taught in verse 13 that if the entire surface of someone’s skin is afflicted, such a person is ritually pure. It follows therefore that when the healing process begins, some skin will no longer be afflicted, i.e. he will then have to become ritually unclean when the priest sees this and acknowledges it. I have added this, as not all my readers may have paid attention to the verses not dealt with by our author as he assumed that his audience was familiar with them. Ed.]
and the priest shall look on him; and, behold, if the plague be turned into white, then the priest shall pronounce him clean that has the plague: he is clean.
verse value 1820
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 46 letters. Verse gematria: 1820 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "he" (הֽוּא, 3 letters) and the longest is "the·affection" (אֶת־הַנֶּ֖גַע, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 220: and·he·shall·pronounce·pure, pure. The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "he" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "the·affection" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·white', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְרָאָ֙הוּ֙ [and·he·shall·see·him] (218) + הַכֹּהֵ֔ן [the·priest] (80) + וְהִנֵּ֛ה [and·behold] (66) + נֶהְפַּ֥ךְ [was·turned] (155) + הַנֶּ֖גַע [the·affection] (128) + לְלָבָ֑ן [to·white] (112) + וְטִהַ֧ר [and·he·shall·pronounce·pure] (220) + הַכֹּהֵ֛ן [the·priest] (80) + אֶת־הַנֶּ֖גַע [the·affection] (529) + טָה֥וֹר [pure] (220) + הֽוּא [he] (12) = 1820.
Onkelos
The priest shall examine him, and behold, if the affliction has turned white, the priest shall declare the affliction pure — he is pure.
And when the flesh has in the skin of it a boil, and it is healed,
verse value 1559
Insights
Verse structure: 5 words, 25 letters. The shortest word is "and·flesh" (וּבָשָׂ֕ר, 4 letters) and the longest is "when·it·shall·be" (כִּֽי־יִהְיֶ֥ה, 6 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "on·his·skin" (בֽוֹ־בְעֹר֖וֹ), "boil" (שְׁחִ֑ין), "and·shall·be·healed" (וְנִרְפָּֽא). 5 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "when·it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "and·flesh" (root בשר, 56x in Leviticus); "on·his·skin" (root עור, 29x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root שחין ("boil") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root רפא ("and·shall·be·healed") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'boil', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 1 words. Full calculation: וּבָשָׂ֕ר [and·flesh] (508) + כִּֽי־יִהְיֶ֥ה [when·it·shall·be] (60) + בֽוֹ־בְעֹר֖וֹ [on·his·skin] (286) + שְׁחִ֑ין [boil] (368) + וְנִרְפָּֽא [and·shall·be·healed] (337) = 1559.
Onkelos
And if a person has on the skin of his flesh a boil, and it heals,
Rashi
שחין A BOIL — The word expresses the idea of heat. It is so called because the flesh has become inflamed by an injury which came about as the result of a blow and not as the result of fire (the latter case being mentioned in v. 24 and being termed a מכוה) (Chullin 8a). ונרפא AND IT BECAME HEALED — the boil (not the flesh also mentioned in this verse) became healed and in its place it produced another plague (the שאת mentioned in the next verse).
Rashbam
שחין, our sages explained this as like the infected hot area of an injury on the flesh’s skin. There is another type of שחין, the result of a burning of the skin by fire.
Daat Zkenim
ונרפא, “and it is healed.” At first glance this word is enigmatic. How does this word get into this verse? However, we find that in the Torat Kohanim this word plus the fact that instead of the afflicted person being the subject in this verse, the subject is the state of his skin, teaches that in spite of the nega not being able to develop in the normal manner, the person so afflicted is already declared as ritually impure. The boil, שחין, must first heal completely, before a healing process for the nega can even begin.
and in the place of the boil there is a white rising, or a bright spot, reddish-white, then it shall be shown to the priest.
verse value 2938 — וְהָיָ֞ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 48 letters. Notable word values: "and·there·shall·be" (וְהָיָ֞ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. Verse gematria: 2938 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "or" (א֥וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "reddish" (אֲדַמְדָּ֑מֶת, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 87: white, white. The root לבן appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·there·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'reddish', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְהָיָ֞ה [and·there·shall·be] (26) + בִּמְק֤וֹם [in·place·of] (188) + הַשְּׁחִין֙ [the·boil] (373) + שְׂאֵ֣ת [a·swelling] (701) + לְבָנָ֔ה [white] (87) + א֥וֹ [or] (7) + בַהֶ֖רֶת [discoloration] (607) + לְבָנָ֣ה [white] (87) + אֲדַמְדָּ֑מֶת [reddish] (489) + וְנִרְאָ֖ה [and·he·shall·appear] (262) + אֶל־הַכֹּהֵֽן [to·the·priest] (111) = 2938.
Onkelos
and in the place of the boil there is a white swelling or a white-reddish bright spot, it shall be shown to the priest.
Rashi
או בהרת לבנה אדמדמת in OR A BRIGHT SPOT REDDISH-WHITE — It means that the plague is not evenly white but it is compounded and intermingled with two colours — white and red.
Ibn Ezra
"White mixed with red [levanah adamdemet]" — blended of the two appearances, or some of each. The word "tzara'at" denotes a disease, as in "and I will send the tzara'at [hornet/plague]" (Ex. 23:28) — and the word "ve-shilachti" [I will send] there is no difficulty, for we find: "He sends forth His word" (Ps. 147:15), "I am sending all My plagues" (Ex. 9:14), "He let loose upon them His burning anger" (Ps. 78:49).
Sforno
והיה במקום השחין שאת לבנה, this spot is not being judged by the same criteria as listed earlier which were inflammations of skin on the flesh; similarly, inflammations caused by fire burning the skin. When ordinary שחין destroys the tissue on top of the skin it never grows back to look as it did originally. What grows on the afflicted area is tissue which resembles the original skin, so that no skin graft is needed. Original skin is medically irreplaceable. [opinions in those days.] When someone suffers from a נגע צרעת the skin, when healed, looks indistinguishable from the original.
Or HaChaim
שאת לבנה או בהרת לבנה, "a white rising or a very bright spot, etc." According to Torat Kohanim the reason the Torah writes לבנה, white, is to exclude אדמדמת, a שאת of a reddish appearance; the words בהרת לבנה אדמדמת refer to a בהרת mixed with a reddish appearance. [I did not find this in my edition of Torat Kohanim on this verse. Ed.] How do I know that the rules stated in our verse apply to a שאת אדמדמת, and to בהרת לבנה that instead of the שחין there is now a completely white spot of the intensity called בהרת? This is why the Torah added the words נגע צרעת, "it is a form of leprosy," in verse 20. At first glance it seems that these extra words should have been necessary only in respect of שאת, the rising on the skin which was of a mixed colouring (white and reddish); seeing that the basic colour was not an intense white I might have presumed that it did not qualify anymore as a symptom conferring ritual impurity. We never would have assumed this of an area which contained the kind of bright whiteness known as בהרת. We never find that שאת is more susceptible to impurity than בהרת. The true explanation of the verse then is this: "a white rising on the skin of the kind called שאת לבנה or an intensely white spot called בהרת which contains also some reddish appearance is still a symptom of ritual impurity because the colour of בהרת contains some rising, שאת, and will not result in purification seeing a leprosy like appearance grew in it." The words נגע צרעת are not necessary except to tell us that the שאת underwent a dimming of its white colour. While it is true that the author of Torat Kohanim speaks of two divisions, the second one is mentioned as incidental not because we needed the words נגע צרעת to convey this information.
Daat Zkenim
או בהרת לבנה אדמדמת, “or a white rising or a bright spot, reddish white;” according to Torat Kohanim, the reddish looking spot is a phenomenon that occurs with all the four different types of the skin diseases described in this chapter. It is a clear sign that the afflicted person will be declared ritually impure.
And the priest shall look; and, behold, if the appearance of it be lower than the skin, and the hair of it be turned white, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy, it has broken out in the boil.
verse value 3853
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 64 letters. The shortest word is "low" (שָׁפָ֣ל, 3 letters) and the longest is "affection·of·leprosy" (נֶֽגַע־צָרַ֥עַת, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 80: the·priest, the·priest. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "its·appearance" (מַרְאֶ֙הָ֙), "in·the·boil" (בַּשְּׁחִ֥ין). The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·he·shall·pronounce·him·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "it" (root היא, 60x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root שפל ("low") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'white', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 6 words.
Onkelos
The priest shall examine it, and behold, if its appearance is lower than the skin and its hair has turned white, the priest shall declare him impure; it is an affliction of tzara'at that has broken out in the boil.
Rashi
מראה שפל IT BE IN SIGHT LOWER [THAN THE SKIN] — it itself is not deeper, but on account of its whiteness it appears lower and deeper (מראה שפל), just as the colour of anything illuminated by the sun is deeper than the shadow (see Rashi v. 3).
Ibn Ezra
"And behold, its appearance [u-mar'eh]" — it is not grammatically correct that "mar'eh" should have a qamatz gadol [long a] under the alef and a mappiq in the heh, like "her hand [yadah]," "her foot [raglah]," for this is not found in words whose final heh is quiescent and concealed — together with a dagesh in the nun.
Chizkuni
והנה מראה שפל, “and behold its appearance is as if lower than the skin’s surface;” How do we know that what is true for the appearance remaining level with the skin adjoining it is treated by halachah as the same as if it appears raised? To teach us this, the Torah wrote: ושפלה איננה מן העור, “but it does not appear lower than the rest of the skin.” (verse 21)
But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hairs in it, and it be not lower than the skin, but be dim, then the priest shall shut him up seven days.
verse value 3381
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 69 letters. The shortest word is "and·if" (וְאִ֣ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·he·shall·isolate·him" (וְהִסְגִּיר֥וֹ, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 80: the·priest, the·priest. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "there·is·none·in·it" (אֵֽין־בָּהּ֙). The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "days" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus); "and·it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'faded', dividing the verse into phrases of 12 and 4 words.
Onkelos
But if the priest examines it and behold, there is no white hair in it, and it is not lower than the skin, and it is faded, the priest shall isolate him for seven days.
Ibn Ezra
"Yir'ennah" [he shall see it] is like "yasgirennah" [he shall quarantine it]: the nun takes a dagesh to compensate for the missing additional heh — and so too with the words "mimmenah" [from it, fem.] and "mimmenu" [from it, masc.].
Chizkuni
ושפלה איננה מן העור והיא כהה, “and it does not appear to be lower than the skin surrounding it;” why did the Torah have to write the words: והיא כהה, “and it has diminished in intensity?” The reason is because we have had that same expression used when the priest made his second examination. (verse 6) Some commentators understand this expression as referring to the word: איננה; we find a similar construction in Psalms 9,19: תקות ענוים תאבד לעד, “the hope of the afflicted will not forever be lost.” [This line must not be understood as a positive statement, instead as a plaintive question or reassurance that “of course this hope will not be lost forever. “ Ed.] The verse should therefore be understood as follows: “even though the symptom of the affected skin does not appear lower than that surrounding it, but the intensity of the discoloration has not diminished, this is sufficient reason for the priest to place the person in isolation, even if the hair in that area has not turned white; in other words, if the intensity of the discoloration did diminish, it is clear that the person afflicted will be declared ritually pure. והיא כהה, here too the word: והיא, is spelled with the letter י before the letter א, just as in verse 10.
And if it spread abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a plague.
verse value 2173
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 31 letters. The shortest word is "it" (אֹת֖וֹ, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·if·it·spreads" (וְאִם־פָּשֹׂ֥ה, 6 letters). The root פשה appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·he·shall·pronounce·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "affection" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·the·skin', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְאִם־פָּשֹׂ֥ה [and·if·it·spreads] (432) + תִפְשֶׂ֖ה [it·shall·spread] (785) + בָּע֑וֹר [in·the·skin] (278) + וְטִמֵּ֧א [and·he·shall·pronounce·impure] (56) + הַכֹּהֵ֛ן [the·priest] (80) + אֹת֖וֹ [it] (407) + נֶ֥גַע [affection] (123) + הִֽוא [it] (12) = 2173.
Onkelos
And if it spreads further on the skin, the priest shall declare him impure; it is an affliction.
Rashi
נגע הִוא IT IS A PLAGUE — this rising or bright spot is a plague (שאת and בהרת are fem., hence the fem. adj. הִיא).
Chizkuni
נגע הוא, “it is a plague.” The word הנא is read as having the vowel chirik. It is in the feminine mode as it describes either the word: בהרת or שאת, both of which are feminine nouns.
Targum Yonatan
And the priest shall look on the seventh day; and if it hath gone on widening in the skin, the priest shall make him to be unclean; for it is the plague of leprosy.
But if the bright spot stay in its place, and be not spread, it is the scar of the boil; and the priest shall pronounce him clean.
verse value 4195
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 44 letters. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·if·in·its·place" (וְאִם־תַּחְתֶּ֜יהָ, 8 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "scar·of" (צָרֶ֥בֶת). 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "it" (root היא, 60x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'it', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְאִם־תַּחְתֶּ֜יהָ [and·if·in·its·place] (870) + תַּעֲמֹ֤ד [it·remains] (514) + הַבַּהֶ֙רֶת֙ [the·discoloration] (612) + לֹ֣א [not] (31) + פָשָׂ֔תָה [spread] (785) + צָרֶ֥בֶת [scar·of] (692) + הַשְּׁחִ֖ין [the·boil] (373) + הִ֑וא [it] (12) + וְטִהֲר֖וֹ [and·he·shall·pronounce·him·pure] (226) + הַכֹּהֵֽן [the·priest] (80) = 4195.
Onkelos
But if the bright spot remains in its place and has not spread, it is the scar of the boil; the priest shall declare him pure.
Rashi
.תחתיה means IN ITS PLACE (and not “beneath it”). צרבת שחין [IT IS] A BURNING BOIL — Understand this as the Targum does: רשם שחנא — i. e. it is only a mark (a scar) of the inflammation, discernible in the flesh. Wherever צרבת occurs it denotes the contraction of skin which has become shrivelled through inflammation. Similar is, (Ezekiel 21:3) “and every face shall become shrivelled (ונצרבו)” through the heat mentioned in the verse, retrecir in old French, to contract. צרבת is retrecissement in old French, (English = contraction).
Ibn Ezra
"But if it remains in its place [ve-im tachtehah]" — if it has stayed in its place, for there is a plague that moves from one spot to another. "Tzarebet" [scar] — is like "and every face was scorched [ve-nitzrevah] by it" (Ezek. 20:47), in the sense of burning, heat, and flame.
Chizkuni
ואם תחתיה תעמוד הבהרת, “but if the bright spot stays unchanged in its place;” even though it did not diminish, the afflicted person is declared as ritually pure, seeing the cause of the affliction had been the rising on the skin of the boil, or the burns that that person had suffered; as long as the area of the plague had not increased in size it is not a fully fledged plague.
Targum Yonatan
But if the spot abideth in its place, and hath not gone on widening in the skin, but hath become fainter, it is an inflamed blotch; and the priest shall make him to be clean; it is a burning scar.
Or when the flesh has in the skin of it a burning by fire, and the quick flesh of the burning become a bright spot, reddish-white, or white;
verse value 3851
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 55 letters. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "when·it·shall·be" (כִּֽי־יִהְיֶ֥ה, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 87: white, white. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "in·his·skin" (בְעֹר֖וֹ), "a·burn·by·fire" (מִכְוַת־אֵ֑שׁ), "living·flesh·of" (מִֽחְיַ֣ת). The root או appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "when·it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus); "flesh" (root בשר, 56x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root מכוה ("a·burn·by·fire") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'a·burn·by·fire', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 8 words. Full calculation: א֣וֹ [or] (7) + בָשָׂ֔ר [flesh] (502) + כִּֽי־יִהְיֶ֥ה [when·it·shall·be] (60) + בְעֹר֖וֹ [in·his·skin] (278) + מִכְוַת־אֵ֑שׁ [a·burn·by·fire] (767) + וְֽהָיְתָ֞ה [and·it·shall·be] (426) + מִֽחְיַ֣ת [living·flesh·of] (458) + הַמִּכְוָ֗ה [the·burn] (76) + בַּהֶ֛רֶת [discoloration] (607) + לְבָנָ֥ה [white] (87) + אֲדַמְדֶּ֖מֶת [reddish] (489) + א֥וֹ [or] (7) + לְבָנָֽה [white] (87) = 3851.
Onkelos
Or if a person has on the skin of his flesh a burn scar from fire, and the raw area of the burn becomes a bright spot — white-reddish or white —
Rashi
מחית המכוה IIEALED FLESH OF THE BURNT PART — sainement in old French The text means that when the burnt part was healed it turned into a bright spot variegated or evenly white (i.e. 'וכו והיתה denotes “and the healed flesh became a white bright spot etc.”). The symptoms of cleanness or uncleanness of a burn and the symptoms of a boil are exactly similar. Why, then, has Scripture mentioned them separately (in two paragraphs, instead of saying ואדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שחין ומכוה )? To tell us that they cannot be combined one with the other to make up the minimum size of a spot which is a symptom of leprosy — if, e. g., there develops a leprous spot the size of a half of a גריס (a גריס is a half-bean; חצי גריס is a half of this), in a boil (שחין), and one of the size of a half גריס in a burn (מכוה), they do not come under the law of a full גריס(the minimum size for an unclean spot) (Chullin 8a).
Ibn Ezra
"Or white [o levana]" — only white, alone.
Chizkuni
או בשר, “or when flesh, etc.;” there is no difference between how halachah treats either a burn on the skin or a boil caused through internal swelling. The reason, why in spite of this, the Torah appears to treat it as two different phenomena, is because it wishes to teach that if either of these phenomena are present in smaller sizes than the minimum size to qualify as a plague, these two phenomena combined are not to be considered as big enough combined to result in our viewing them as evidence of a plague. This has been stated in the Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 8. The minimum size is half the size of a certain kind of bean known as פול.
then the priest shall look upon it; and, behold, if the hair in the bright spot be turned white, and the appearance of it be deeper than the skin, it is leprosy, it has broken out in the burning; and the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy.
verse value 5589
Insights
Verse structure: 21 words, 81 letters. The shortest word is "it" (אֹתָ֣הּ, 3 letters) and the longest is "from·the·skin" (מִן־הָע֔וֹר, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 760: leprosy, leprosy. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "in·the·discoloration" (בַּבַּהֶ֗רֶת), "in·the·burn" (בַּמִּכְוָ֖ה). The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 18 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·he·shall·pronounce·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "affection·of" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'broke·out', dividing the verse into phrases of 15 and 6 words.
Onkelos
the priest shall examine it, and behold, if the hair has turned white in the bright spot and its appearance is deeper than the skin, it is tzara'at that has broken out in the burn. The priest shall declare him impure; it is an affliction of tzara'at.
Chizkuni
ומראה עמוק מן העור, “and its appearance is as if deeper than the skin;” how do we know that when it appears as level with the surrounding skin or higher that the same rule applies? This is why the Torah had added in verse 21: ושפלה איננה, “but not lower than the surrounding skin;”
But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hair in the bright spot, and it be no lower than the skin, but be dim; then the priest shall shut him up seven days.
verse value 3979 — וְהִ֣וא = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 72 letters. Notable word values: "and·it" (וְהִ֣וא) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "and·if" (וְאִ֣ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "there·is·none·in·the·discoloration" (אֵֽין־בַּבַּהֶ֙רֶת֙, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 80: the·priest, the·priest. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "there·is·none·in·the·discoloration" (אֵֽין־בַּבַּהֶ֙רֶת֙). The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "days" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus); "and·it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'faded', dividing the verse into phrases of 12 and 4 words.
Onkelos
But if the priest examines it and behold, there is no white hair in the bright spot, and it is not lower than the skin, and it is faded, the priest shall isolate him for seven days.
And the priest shall look upon him the seventh day; if it spread abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy.
verse value 3680
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 53 letters. The shortest word is "it" (אֹת֔וֹ, 3 letters) and the longest is "the·seventh" (הַשְּׁבִיעִ֑י, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 80: the·priest, the·priest. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "if·spreading" (אִם־פָּשֹׂ֤ה). The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·he·shall·pronounce·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "in·the·day" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·seventh', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 9 words. Full calculation: וְרָאָ֥הוּ [and·he·shall·see·it] (218) + הַכֹּהֵ֖ן [the·priest] (80) + בַּיּ֣וֹם [in·the·day] (58) + הַשְּׁבִיעִ֑י [the·seventh] (397) + אִם־פָּשֹׂ֤ה [if·spreading] (426) + תִפְשֶׂה֙ [it·shall·spread] (785) + בָּע֔וֹר [in·the·skin] (278) + וְטִמֵּ֤א [and·he·shall·pronounce·impure] (56) + הַכֹּהֵן֙ [the·priest] (80) + אֹת֔וֹ [it] (407) + נֶ֥גַע [affection·of] (123) + צָרַ֖עַת [leprosy] (760) + הִֽוא [it] (12) = 3680.
Onkelos
The priest shall examine him on the seventh day; if it has spread further on the skin, the priest shall declare him impure — it is an affliction of tzara'at.
And if the bright spot stay in its place, and be not spread in the skin, but be dim, it is the rising of the burning, and the priest shall pronounce him clean; for it is the scar of the burning.
verse value 5043 — וְהִ֣וא = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 68 letters. Notable word values: "and·it" (וְהִ֣וא) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "faded" (כֵהָ֔ה, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·if·in·its·place" (וְאִם־תַּחְתֶּ֩יהָ֩, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 76: the·burn, the·burn. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "did·not·spread" (לֹא־פָשְׂתָ֤ה), "for·scar·of" (כִּֽי־צָרֶ֥בֶת). The root מכוה appears 2 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "it" (root היא, 60x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'it', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 5 words.
Onkelos
But if the bright spot remains in its place and has not spread on the skin, and it is faded, it is the deep mark of the burn; the priest shall declare him pure, for it is the scar of the burn.
Ibn Ezra
"But if the bright spot remains in its place and has faded" — as I have explained. The reason it does not say so in the verse "but if the bright spot remains in its place" the first time (v. 23) is because there the bright spot remained exactly as it was.
Chizkuni
לא פשתה בעור והיא כהה, “it had not spread on the skin, and had become dimmer in appearance;” the word כהה is used as complementing the words לא פשתה, i.e. “it had not spread and not become dimmer.” (Compare our commentary on verse 21 in connection with שחין)
Daat Zkenim
לא פשתה בעור והיא כהה, “it has not spread on the surface of the skin and has dimmed;” this means that if it has spread although its appearance did not change, it will be declared as making its victim ritually impure.
And when a man or woman has a plague upon the head or upon the beard,
verse value 1490
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 30 letters. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "when·it·shall·be" (כִּֽי־יִהְיֶ֥ה, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 7: or, or. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "in·head" (בְּרֹ֖אשׁ), "in·beard" (בְזָקָֽן). The root או appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "when·it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus); "and·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'affection', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְאִישׁ֙ [and·man] (317) + א֣וֹ [or] (7) + אִשָּׁ֔ה [woman] (306) + כִּֽי־יִהְיֶ֥ה [when·it·shall·be] (60) + ב֖וֹ [in·him] (8) + נָ֑גַע [affection] (123) + בְּרֹ֖אשׁ [in·head] (503) + א֥וֹ [or] (7) + בְזָקָֽן [in·beard] (159) = 1490.
Onkelos
And if a man or a woman has an affliction on the head or on the beard,
Rashi
בראש או בזקן UPON THE HEAD OR UPON THE BEARD — Scripture intends to make a difference between a plague which is on a place where hair grows and a plague which is on a place where flesh is (already mentioned v. 38) — that as regards this (that on the flesh) its symptom of uncleanness consists in white hair, and as regards the other its symptom consists in gold-coloured hair (Sifra, Braita d'Rabbi Yishmael 14).
Ramban
IF A MAN OR WOMAN HATH AN AFFLICTION UPON THE HEAD OR THE BEARD. “Scripture intends to differentiate between a plague which is on a place where hair grows, and a plague on the flesh, for as regarding a plague on the flesh the symptom of impurity is white hair, while the symptom of a plague on a place where the hair grows is gold-colored hair — that the black hair has turned into gold-colored. 30. ‘NETHEK HU’ (IT IS A SCALL). This is the name of the plague on a place where hair grows.” This is Rashi’s language. It would appear from this language that the difference between a plague upon the head or beard and a plague in the skin of the flesh, is that which Rashi mentioned, namely, the white hair and the gold-colored; thus if a plague occurs in any of its four colors in a place where hair grows upon the head or beard, and if the hair became gold-colored, then the person is impure, just as he is impure if the hair turned white in a plague on the skin of the flesh. But how is it possible to say so! Rashi himself has written [further on]: “As the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh. [It is like the color of the leprosy which is mentioned in the section dealing with plagues of the skin of the flesh, namely] that it makes one impure by means of any of the four white colors, and it is not to be treated like the color of the nethakim (scalls) on the place where hair grows, which do not render a person impure by reason of the four colors: the se’eith and its secondary shade, and bahereth and its secondary shade!” Now if [a nethek] does not render the person impure by means of one of these four colors, then by what color and under what condition does it render one impure? Scripture has mentioned only the signs necessary for declaring him absolutely impure, namely, if gold-colored hair appeared in the nethek or spreading thereof took place [but, according to Rashi, Scripture has left unspecified what color the nethek must be originally, in order that it be subject to inspection]! Indeed, it seems that the Rabbi [Rashi] thought Scripture informed us of the name of the plague upon the head or beard by stating ‘nethek hu’ (it is a scall) meaning that this is its particular name, the designation by which it is recognized. Thus Scripture mentioned in the case of the plagues [in the skin of the flesh] their names and their colors, namely, ‘bahereth l’vanah’ (a bright spot which is white), ‘se’eith l’vanah’ (a white rising), and in the case of the head it also mentioned its name [namely, nethek], for by that designation it is known, and that name indeed Scripture declared to be impure, and then it went back and explained the symptoms [of the nethek] for the person to be declared absolutely impure at the end [i.e., after he had been put in quarantine for a week]. This is the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s] opinion on the nethek (scall). This interpretation of Rashi’s opinion is further borne out by his words when he said that the sense of the following section, And the ...
Ibn Ezra
The reason for specifying "a man or a woman" is on account of the beard, and furthermore because it was necessary to say "a man" regarding baldness at the crown [korach] and at the forehead [gibbeach] — not "adam" [person], so as to exclude women. Thus the explanation is: since it took the term "ish" [man], which does not encompass a woman as does the word "adam," it needed to say "woman" on account of the head — not on account of the beard, for the beard applies to a man and not to a woman. And in the cases of korach and gibbeach it says, as it says: "And a man [ish] whose hair has fallen from his head" — and it does not mention a woman there, because baldness at the crown and at the forehead are not found in women on account of the abundance of moisture within her, as is explained below. And the reason it does not say "adam" — meaning, it did not say "adam," which is inclusive of both man and woman — is because the plague here applies "when there is a plague on the head or in the beard" of a man.
Or HaChaim
ואיש או אשה, and a man or a woman, etc. The Torah had to spell out "or a woman," instead of using the collective term אדם for both man and woman because women do not usually grow beards. The reader who sees the word אדם would conclude that the legislation only applies to people who normally grow beards, i.e. men, and I would have assumed that either minors or Gentiles are included in this legislation whereas any plagues on the beard of a woman would not be subject to the legislation introduced here. The Torah therefore wrote איש או אשה, to tell us that if a woman grows hair in a part of her face where a man grows a beard, the legislation applies to her also.
Chizkuni
ואיש או אשה כי יהיה בו נגע בראש, “and a man or awoman who display signs of a plague on the head; (in the case of the woman)) או בזקן, or in the beard, (in the case of a man;)
then the priest shall look on the plague; and, behold, if the appearance of it be deeper than the skin, and there be in it yellow thin hair, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a scall, it is tzara'at of the head or of the beard.
verse value 5057
Insights
Verse structure: 21 words, 77 letters. Verse gematria: 5057 is divisible by 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). The shortest word is "thin" (דָּ֑ק, 2 letters) and the longest is "the·affection" (אֶת־הַנֶּ֗גַע, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 80: the·priest, the·priest. 6 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "its·appearance" (מַרְאֵ֙הוּ֙), "and·in·it" (וּב֛וֹ), "thin" (דָּ֑ק). The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 19 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·he·shall·pronounce·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root צהב ("yellow") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root נתק ("a·scall") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'thin', dividing the verse into phrases of 11 and 10 words.
Onkelos
the priest shall examine the affliction, and behold, if its appearance is deeper than the skin and there is thin reddish hair in it, the priest shall declare him impure; it is a scall — tzara'at of the head or of the beard.
Rashi
ובו שער צהוב AND THERE BE IN IT A GOLD-COLOURED HAIR — This means that the black hair that was in it has turned into gold-coloured (cf. Rashi on v. 3). נתק הוא — this (נתק) is the name of a plague which is on the spot where hair grows.
Ibn Ezra
"Yellow [tzahov]" — in the Arabic language, it is close to the appearance of white. "Netekh [scall], it is" — from the root of "when the tow [string] is snapped [yinatek]" (Jud. 16:9); the term refers to the hair.
Sforno
נתק, a skin affliction in a part of the skin normally covered with hair is called a נתק. The word implies that the affliction uproots the hair follicles with the hair. This hair was not pulled out by human hands or by some kind of chemical or medication. The fact that some black hair remains in the skin proves that notwithstanding the other symptoms suggesting that the person suffering the affliction is ritually impure, the black hair’s presence saves him from such a determination by the priest.
Or HaChaim
שער צהב דק, thin blond or yellowish hair; according to Torat Kohanim the word "yellowish" is intended to exclude hair which is of a greenish, reddish or black colour. The use of the word "yellowish," serves to exclude all colour except white. The colour white did not need exclusion. We might have arrived at this through simple logic. Just as the colour yellow is not a colour mentioned in connection with other afflictions of the skin considered as leading to ritual impurity, so the colour white, which is the prime colour for skin-afflictions resulting in ritual impurity would most certainly also qualify for such impurity if it occurred in the area of the beard. The Torah therefore mentions "yellowish" to tell us that white would not qualify as a colour resulting in ritual impurity in this legislation dealing with hair discolouring in the area where the beard grows. I find it difficult to follow this קל וחומר, inference from minor to major. Maybe the word צהב, yellowish, is needed to teach us the basic law that this colour if present in a נתק, scall, confers ritual impurity on the person concerned even though the colour has no negative implications in other skin-discolourations. If so, white would cause ritual impurity in the case of a scall just as it does in other skin afflictions which the Torah has legislated previously. This reasoning is reinforced by the mere fact that the author of Torat Kohanim did not spell out a קל וחומר saying: "if yellowish, which does not normally confer ritual impurity etc.," until after he had established that yellowish does confer ritual impurity in a scall. From the sequence of the reasoning in Torat Kohanim you may infer that the Torah did not exclude your right to make the קל וחומר we have just mentioned. If so, how does the word צהב, yellowish, demolish the validity of the קל וחומר? I must assume therefore that the exegetical approach of Torat Kohanim goes along these lines: "The Torah writes about the afflicted person who has already been mentioned וטמא אותו הכהן, instead of the shorter וטמאו, which the Torah used already on several occasions (verses 8,11,15,20). The extra word אותו is used to exclude a white scall from causing the afflicted person to become ritually impure. We would translate the verse as follows: וטמא אותו, i.e. "the yellowish colour confers impurity;" it is as if the author of Torat Kohanim had said: "the word 'yellowish' teaches that only it and no other colour including white results in ritual purity in this instance." If you will examine what the author of Torat Kohanim has written every other time the Torah wrote וטמא אותו instead of וטמאו, you will find an approach consistent with what he wrote in this instance. Why did he not bother to tell us that he used the word אותו to arrive at his conclusion? The reason may be that he still wanted to use the word דק which preceded the word אותו for an additional exegetical message. A careful scholar does not jump from the right to the left and...
Chizkuni
ובו שער צהוב, “and there is yellow hair on it;” the skin on which hair growth is usually rougher than the skin on which no hair grows. Therefore, when yellow hair appears it is a sure sign that the flesh beneath it is dead and weak. דק, “thin;” as a result, any hair that grows on that skin is also weaker and the growth is less dense. נתק, “it is a scall;” the area on which hair grows is called נתק, the word being a derivative of the verb לנתק, “to tear out,” or “tear apart.”
Rabbeinu Bahya
נתק הוא, “it is a scall.” This kind of tzoraat is so named as the hair has been removed from that spot. The word is used in halachah for certain commandments which are considered as separated, literally “torn away” from where they belong (Chulin 141) [When a negative commandment appears in the guise of a positive commandment it is considered as לאו הניתק לעשה, “a negative commandment couched in terms of a positive commandment”. As a result, generally speaking, the penalty normally applicable when violating a negative commandment does not apply in such a case. Ed.] The expression נתק also occurs in Joshua 4,18 in connection with the priests who carried the Holy Ark into and across the Jordan. The text says נתקו כפות רגלי הכהנים, “the soles of the feet of the priests were separated, pulled, etc.” After the original hair had been pulled out, if subsequently the new hair is blond, thin, this is a sign of ritual impurity (contamination caused by the disease). The bald spot contaminates either by blond (yellow) hair or expansion of the afflicted area. (Negaim 10,1). If, however the hair which grows back from that follicle is black, this is a sign that the affliction has healed and the priest can declare such a person as ritually pure (after he has undergone the necessary procedures).
Rashbam
נתק, the name applied to these kinds of scabs in the area where the hair grows.
And if the priest look on the plague of the scall, and, behold, the appearance of it be not deeper than the skin, and there be no black hair in it, then the priest shall shut up him that has the plague of the scall seven days.
verse value 5839
Insights
Verse structure: 18 words, 80 letters. The shortest word is "in·it" (בּ֑וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "its·appearance·is·not" (אֵין־מַרְאֵ֙הוּ֙, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 555: the·scall, the·scall. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·when·he·shall·see" (וְכִֽי־יִרְאֶ֨ה), "its·appearance·is·not" (אֵין־מַרְאֵ֙הוּ֙). The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "days" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus); "affection·of" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·it', dividing the verse into phrases of 12 and 6 words.
Onkelos
And if the priest examines the affliction of the scall, and behold, its appearance is not deeper than the skin and there is no black hair in it, the priest shall isolate the person with the scall affliction for seven days.
Rashi
ושער שחור אין בו AND THERE IS NO BLACK HAIR IN IT [THE PRIEST SHALL SHUT HIM UP] — Consequently, if there is black hair in it, he is clean, and does not require to be shut up — for black hair is a characteristic of cleanness in cases of נתקים, as it is stated, (v. 37) “if there is black hair grown up in it … [he is clean]” (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 8 9).
Chizkuni
וכי יראה, same as אם יראה, “if or when he sees.”
Rashbam
ושער שחור אין בו והסגיר, if there had been black hair the person would be ritually completely pure and does not need to be isolated even for further examination purposes. This is spelled out clearly in verse 37.
Daat Zkenim
ושער שחור אין בו, “and there is no black hair on that area of the skin;” this is an additional sign of ritual purity. One may well ask what the situation is if only one of these symptoms is present? The author of b’chor shor states that this depends on the disagreement in the Mishnah between Rabbi Yonatan and Rabbi Yoshiah in the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 66. According to one opinion the absence of two symptoms is needed in order for the afflicted person to be declared ritually clean; according to the other opinion the absence either of the two symptoms discussed suffices.
And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the plague; and, behold, if the scall be not spread, and there be in it no yellow hair, and the appearance of the scall be not deeper than the skin,
verse value 4494
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 72 letters. The shortest word is "in·it" (ב֖וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "the·affection" (אֶת־הַנֶּ֘גַע֮, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 555: the·scall, the·scall. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·there·was·not" (וְלֹא־הָ֥יָה). The root נתק appears 2 times in this verse. 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·there·was·not" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "in·the·day" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'yellow', dividing the verse into phrases of 12 and 5 words.
Onkelos
The priest shall examine the affliction on the seventh day, and behold, if the scall has not spread, and there is no reddish hair in it, and the appearance of the scall is not deeper than the skin,
Rashi
'והנה לא פשה וגו AND BEHOLD IF [THE SCAB] SPREAD NOT etc. — Consequently, if it spreads or there is in it gold-coloured hair it is unclean.
then he shall be shaven, but the scall shall he not shave; and the priest shall shut up him that has the scall seven days more.
verse value 4448
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 47 letters. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·the·scall" (וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖תֶק, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·he·shall·shave" (וְהִ֨תְגַּלָּ֔ח), "and·the·scall" (וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖תֶק). The root גלח appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "days" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root גלח ("and·he·shall·shave") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'he·shall·shave', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 6 words. Full calculation: וְהִ֨תְגַּלָּ֔ח [and·he·shall·shave] (452) + וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖תֶק [and·the·scall] (962) + לֹ֣א [not] (31) + יְגַלֵּ֑חַ [he·shall·shave] (51) + וְהִסְגִּ֨יר [and·he·shall·isolate] (284) + הַכֹּהֵ֧ן [the·priest] (80) + אֶת־הַנֶּ֛תֶק [the·scall] (956) + שִׁבְעַ֥ת [seven] (772) + יָמִ֖ים [days] (100) + שֵׁנִֽית [second] (760) = 4448.
Onkelos
he shall shave the area around the scall, but the scall itself he shall not shave; the priest shall isolate the scall for another seven days.
Rashi
והתגלח AND HE SHALL CUT HIS HAIR around the scall, ואת הנתק לא יגלח BUT THE SCALL ITSELF HE SHALL NOT CUT THE HAIR OF — this means that he leaves a row of two hairs quite close to it around it in order that it may become discernible if it (the scall) spreads, for if it spreads it passes the hair and will extend to the spot where the hair has been cut off (Mishnah Negaim 10:5; Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9 7).
Ramban
THEN SHALL HE BE SHAVEN, BUT ‘V’ETH HANETHEK’ (THE SCALL) SHALL HE NOT SHAVE. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture the verse warns that he should not use a razor on the place of the nethek, for even though there is no hair on it, yet if he passes the razor over it the skin will be scratched causing hair to grow in it; for such is the nature of people who have scabs on their heads, and all those who make their hair to fall off, to scratch the place on the head and also to make certain cuts in it with a knife. But in the Torath Kohanim the Sages interpreted the verse as follows: “But the ‘nethek’ shall he not shave. But what is there to shave there?” That is to say, has not the hair fallen off from it? [So what need is there for Scripture to warn him not to shave it?] “Rather, the verse means, around the nethek he is not to shave. How can we explain this? He shaves the space outside it, but leaves [a circle] of two hairs [width] next to the nethek, so that it should be possible to discern if it spreads.” It is this which Onkelos translated: “and he shall shave around the scall, and that which is within the scall he shall not shave,” for he is to leave on all its sides a row of two hairs in order to recognize [at the end of seven days] if the nethek has spread [in which case the priest will pronounce him impure]. And the meaning of the word v’eth [v’eth hanethek] is then like the expression, and David came near ‘eth’ the people, and he saluted them, which means that he came near them but he did not enter into their midst. [Here too it would mean, “and ‘in’ the nethek itself he shall not shave.”] Or it may be that the meaning of v’eth is like im (with), with the word asher (which) missing, the verse thus stating: “and that [i.e., the hair] which is ‘with’ the nethek he shall not shave.” There are many such cases in Scripture.
Ibn Ezra
"And he shall shave" — the head or the beard; but the place of the scall he shall not shave.
Chizkuni
והתגלח, “he shall shave;” seeing that we find “shaving” also in connection with the priest when it is being performed by himself, (Leviticus 21,5), I might have thought that the person that had been afflicted with tzoraat, would also have to do this himself, the Torah employs the reflexive mode to show that anyone can perform this procedure. [He may use any means, not only a razor to perform this removal of hair. Ed.] והתגלח, “he is to be shaved;” even if he is a Nazirite, and his term of being such has not yet expired. [Nazirites are forbidden to shave their hair. Ed.] ואת הנתק לא יגלח, “but he must not shave off the scall;” Rashi understands this to mean that he must leave at last two hairs in place so that it can be determined if the area of the scall has expanded. The only way the status of the scall can be judged is by hairs
Tur HaArokh
והתגלח ואת הנתק לו יגלח, “he is to shave himself, but he shall not shave off the netek.” Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning the Torah forbids the afflicted party to allow the razor to touch the afflicted area even though it is not covered with any hair. However, if the razor is allowed to touch that area it will cause injury to the skin that will result in hair growing from such a spot. However, in Torat Kohanim we find that the wordsואת הנתק are understood to mean “and around the netek,” in line with Rashi’s interpretation that he must leave two hairs unshaven so as to know the extent of the netek. Nachmanides (on verse 29) wrote at length about whether such an irregularity of the skin, not especially defined, results in ritual impurity of the afflicted person.
And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the scall; and, behold, if the scall be not spread in the skin, and the appearance of it be not deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean.
verse value 5014
Insights
Verse structure: 19 words, 85 letters. The shortest word is "deep" (עָמֹ֖ק, 3 letters) and the longest is "the·scall" (אֶת־הַנֶּ֜תֶק, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 220: and·he·shall·pronounce·pure, and·he·shall·be·pure. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·its·appearance" (וּמַרְאֵ֕הוּ). The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "in·the·day" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus); "his·clothes" (root בגד, 52x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'from·the·skin', dividing the verse into phrases of 13 and 6 words.
Onkelos
The priest shall examine the scall on the seventh day, and behold, if the scall has not spread on the skin and its appearance is not deeper than the skin, the priest shall declare him pure; he shall wash his garments and be pure.
Ibn Ezra
"And he shall launder his garments" — and there is no need to say that he shall wash in water.
Chizkuni
וכבס בגדיו וטהר, “and after having immersed his garments in a ritual bath he shall be ritually pure.” He will not confer ritual impurity through touch lying or sitting on something or having marital relations. וטהר, he will also become ritually pure (if he is a Nazirite) although as such he should have let his hair grow wild, etc.
But if the scall spread abroad in the skin after his cleansing,
verse value 2499
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 27 letters. The shortest word is "it·shall·spread" (יִפְשֶׂ֛ה, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·if·it·spreads" (וְאִם־פָּשֹׂ֥ה, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "it·shall·spread" (יִפְשֶׂ֛ה). The root פשה appears 2 times in this verse. 5 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "after" (root אחר, 27x in Leviticus); "in·the·skin" (root בעור, 23x in Leviticus); "and·if·it·spreads" (root פשה, 22x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·the·skin', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְאִם־פָּשֹׂ֥ה [and·if·it·spreads] (432) + יִפְשֶׂ֛ה [it·shall·spread] (395) + הַנֶּ֖תֶק [the·scall] (555) + בָּע֑וֹר [in·the·skin] (278) + אַחֲרֵ֖י [after] (219) + טׇהֳרָתֽוֹ [his·purification] (620) = 2499.
Onkelos
But if the scall spreads further on the skin after his purification,
Rashi
אחרי טהרתו [AND IF THE SCALL SPREADS AT ALL …] AFTER HIS BEING PRONOUNCED CLEAN — I have here only the statement that he is unclean if it spreads after he has been freed from the quarantine; whence do I know that the same applies if it has spread by the end of the first week and or by the end of the second week? Because it states here: “if it spreads at all” (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9 9).
then the priest shall look on him; and, behold, if the scall be spread in the skin, the priest shall not seek for the yellow hair: he is unclean.
verse value 2769
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 48 letters. Verse gematria: 2769 is divisible by 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). The shortest word is "spread" (פָּשָׂ֥ה, 3 letters) and the longest is "he·need·not·look·for" (לֹֽא־יְבַקֵּ֧ר, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 80: the·priest, the·priest. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "he·need·not·look·for" (לֹֽא־יְבַקֵּ֧ר), "to·the·hair" (לַשֵּׂעָ֥ר), "the·yellow" (הַצָּהֹ֖ב). The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "he" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·the·skin', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 6 words. Full calculation: וְרָאָ֙הוּ֙ [and·he·shall·examine·him] (218) + הַכֹּהֵ֔ן [the·priest] (80) + וְהִנֵּ֛ה [and·behold] (66) + פָּשָׂ֥ה [spread] (385) + הַנֶּ֖תֶק [the·scall] (555) + בָּע֑וֹר [in·the·skin] (278) + לֹֽא־יְבַקֵּ֧ר [he·need·not·look·for] (343) + הַכֹּהֵ֛ן [the·priest] (80) + לַשֵּׂעָ֥ר [to·the·hair] (600) + הַצָּהֹ֖ב [the·yellow] (102) + טָמֵ֥א [impure] (50) + הֽוּא [he] (12) = 2769.
Onkelos
the priest shall examine him, and behold, if the scall has spread on the skin, the priest need not look for reddish hair — he is impure.
Ibn Ezra
"The priest shall not look [lo yevaker]" — the meaning of "yevaker" is to search, as in "and I will seek them out [u-vikkartem]" (Ezek. 34:11), and it is close in sense to the language of distinction/separation. So too: "he shall not examine [lo yevaker] between good and bad" (Lev. 27:33).
Daat Zkenim
'והנה פשה הנתק בעור וגו, “and behold if the scall be spread in the skin, etc. טמא הוא, “he is ritually contaminated.” This entire verse appears superfluous; we had already read that “if the scall did not spread out on the afflicted person the priest will declare him ritually clean, (verse 35)” is ritually contaminated clean (remains that way). If you were to argue that if not for this verse, I would give a different interpretation to our verse here namely” “if the scab spread and there is no single black hair he remains ritually contaminated, but if there is only one such symptom, namely the spreading out of the scall, this would not result in the person under discussion becoming declared ritually contaminated, or as the case maybe, to become ritually contaminated.
But if the scall stay in its appearance, and black hair be grown up in it; the scall is healed, he is clean; and the priest shall pronounce him clean.
verse value 3518
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 52 letters. The shortest word is "has·remained" (עָמַ֨ד, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·if·in·its·color" (וְאִם־בְּעֵינָיו֩, 9 letters). Words sharing gematria 555: the·scall, the·scall. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·if·in·its·color" (וְאִם־בְּעֵינָיו֩), "sprouted·in·it" (צָֽמַח־בּ֛וֹ). The root נתק appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "and·he·shall·pronounce·him·pure" (root טהר, 44x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'it', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְאִם־בְּעֵינָיו֩ [and·if·in·its·color] (195) + עָמַ֨ד [has·remained] (114) + הַנֶּ֜תֶק [the·scall] (555) + וְשֵׂעָ֨ר [and·hair] (576) + שָׁחֹ֧ר [black] (508) + צָֽמַח־בּ֛וֹ [sprouted·in·it] (146) + נִרְפָּ֥א [was·healed] (331) + הַנֶּ֖תֶק [the·scall] (555) + טָה֣וֹר [pure] (220) + ה֑וּא [it] (12) + וְטִהֲר֖וֹ [and·he·shall·pronounce·him·pure] (226) + הַכֹּהֵֽן [the·priest] (80) = 3518.
Onkelos
But if the scall has remained unchanged and black hair has grown in it, the scall has healed — he is pure; the priest shall declare him pure.
Rashi
ושער שחור AND [THERE BE] BLACK HAIR — Whence do I know that this applies also to yellow or reddish hair which also, like black hair here mentioned, are not gold-coloured? Because it states ושער “and hair” (whatever its colour may be) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9 14). The expression צָהוֹב denotes anything like the appearance of gold, and צהוב is equivalent to זהוב, orpàle in old French (English = pale gold). טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן HE IS CLEAN AND THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM CLEAN — Consequently a person who is really unclean whom the priest pronounces clean is not clean. [It is true that the declaration is left to the priest — as pointed out by Rashi on v. 2 — but if he erred or willfully pronounced the unclean person clean it is of no effect for Scripture states: he is clean and the priest then — and then only — shall pronounce him clean] (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9 16).
Or HaChaim
טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן, "he is 'clean;' and the priest shall declare him "clean" (ritually pure)." This apparent repetition is explained in the Torat Kohanim as follows: We would have thought that it suffices if the priest simply allows the afflicted person whose נתק has remained unchanged in appearance except that black hair grew on it, to go back to the camp; to teach me that this is not sufficient, the Torah tells us that the priest must first declare such a person as "clean." I would also have thought that if the priest erred and erroneously declared a ritually impure person "clean," that he would henceforth be considered "clean;" this is why the Torah had to write טהור, he is objectively "clean;" the priest merely confirms it. This is an exegesis which Hillel taught when he came from Babylonia as the scholars in Israel at the time had been unable to furnish proof for this halachah from the text of the Torah (compare Jerusalem Talmud Pessachim 6,1). We need to understand why the scholars who had disagreed with Hillel at that time did so. It seems clear that the meaning of the line is as explained by Torat Kohanim. If the word טהור had not appeared, I would naturally have assumed that the priest, who is after all the expert in all these laws, would decide the status of the person in question. As a result, if the priest is aware that there is a בהק, a dull white spot, he will release the person from his quarantine so that he can go home to his family. The Torah therefore writes both טהור וטהרו to inform us that there is a formality to be observed. This exegesis could not be confirmed until Hillel returned to the land of Israel and quoted it in the name of his teachers Shmayahu and Avtalyon. Let us now return to the statement that this ruling of Hillel (resp. his teachers) is good only if the priest did not err and declare someone as "clean" whose skin had not undergone the necessary changes. Do not ask that perhaps what the Torah meant with the word טהור was that even if the afflicted person was himself aware that he was "clean" by then, the priest's declaration was still essential for him to resume his normal life. Such reasoning is very forced and if one had to choose between both possible approaches Hillel's exegesis is far superior. Seeing that the reasoning we apply is the basis of a religious ruling, it is preferable to accept the approach of Torat Kohanim rather than getting involved in forced explanations. I have seen a statement in Vayikra Rabbah 22,1 that there is nothing in the way of Torah exegesis which had not been taught to Moses while he was on Mount Sinai, including what renowned scholars thought they revealed for the first time in the distant future. At the same time we have a statement in Bamidbar Rabbah 19,6 that Rabbi Akiva expounded exegetically matters which even Moses did not know. The Midrash is based on a verse in Isaiah 42,16: "these things (such as making the blind see, etc.) I have done (G'd speaking)." It does not ...
Chizkuni
ושער שחור צמח בו, “and black hair had grown on it.” The letter ו at the beginning of the word: ושער is not conjunctive, but means “or.” Examples of similar uses of the letter ו are found in Exodus 21,15: מכה אביו ואמו, “if someone strikes father or mother;” and in Exodus 12,5: מן הכבשים ומן העזים תקחו, “you are to take from the goats or from the sheep; here too the words ושער mean: או שער, or black hair (grew). טהור הוא, “he is ritually pure;” the reason is that the plague has not changed for the worse, or that growth of black hair proves that the follicle it grew out of is healthy, and the flesh surrounding it has not become weaker.
Daat Zkenim
ואם בעיניו עמד הנתק, “but if the appearance of the scall has remained static, etc.;” we need to examine what new dimension of the subject has been added by this verse. We already know that if no change had occurred in the symptoms’ appearance that the afflicted person is ritually clean. Perhaps the Torah wished to spell out the law that when a black hair had begun to sprout on the surface under discussion this does not hurt his status. [According to Rashi, it teaches that if the priest had mistakenly declared this person to be ritually unclean he remains so until the priest reverses his decree. Ed.]
then the priest shall look; and, behold, if the bright spots in the skin of their flesh be of a dull white, it is a harmless blemish (bohak), it has broken out in the skin: he is clean.
verse value 3615
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 52 letters. The shortest word is "a·harmless·discoloration" (בֹּ֥הַק, 3 letters) and the longest is "in·skin·of·their·flesh" (בְעוֹר־בְּשָׂרָ֛ם, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 12: it, it. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "faded" (כֵּה֣וֹת), "a·harmless·discoloration" (בֹּ֥הַק), "broke·out" (פָּרַ֥ח). The root בעור appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "and·he·shall·see" (root ראה, 48x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'white', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 6 words. Full calculation: וְרָאָ֣ה [and·he·shall·see] (212) + הַכֹּהֵ֗ן [the·priest] (80) + וְהִנֵּ֧ה [and·behold] (66) + בְעוֹר־בְּשָׂרָ֛ם [in·skin·of·their·flesh] (820) + בֶּהָרֹ֖ת [discolorations] (607) + כֵּה֣וֹת [faded] (431) + לְבָנֹ֑ת [white] (482) + בֹּ֥הַק [a·harmless·discoloration] (107) + ה֛וּא [it] (12) + פָּרַ֥ח [broke·out] (288) + בָּע֖וֹר [in·the·skin] (278) + טָה֥וֹר [pure] (220) + הֽוּא [it] (12) = 3615.
Onkelos
the priest shall examine it, and behold, if the bright spots on the skin of their flesh are faded white, it is a harmless blemish that has spread on the skin — he is pure.
Rashi
כהות לבנות DULL WHITE — It means that their whiteness is not intense but a dull white. בהק A BRIGHTNESS — just like the white which shows itself in the flesh of a ruddy man, who is termed rouge in old French, between his red spots: this is called בהק “brightness” — like a man who is covered with lentil-like spots, when between one lentil-like spot and another the flesh shows bright with a pure brightness.
Ibn Ezra
"It is bohak [tetter]" — this word is well known in the language of the Sages, and has no parallel elsewhere in Scripture.
Sforno
כהות לבנות, below that which appears like the skin of an egg concerning which the sages taught us (Maimonides Tum’at Tzoraat 1,11
And if a man's hair be fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean.
verse value 1665
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 27 letters. The shortest word is "if" (כִּ֥י, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·man" (וְאִ֕ישׁ, 4 letters). Words sharing gematria 12: he, he. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "bald" (קֵרֵ֥חַ). The root הוא appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "he" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "and·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus); "if" (root כי, 81x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'his·head', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְאִ֕ישׁ [and·man] (317) + כִּ֥י [if] (30) + יִמָּרֵ֖ט [shall·be·stripped·bare] (259) + רֹאשׁ֑וֹ [his·head] (507) + קֵרֵ֥חַ [bald] (308) + ה֖וּא [he] (12) + טָה֥וֹר [pure] (220) + הֽוּא [he] (12) = 1665.
Onkelos
And if a man's head hair has fallen out, he is bald — he is pure.
Rashi
קרח הוא טהור הוא HE IS BALD, HE IS CLEAN — clean from the uncleanness of נתק (a scall in a hairy spot) (Sifra, Braita d'Rabbi Yishmael 15), for he is not subject to the law about the symptoms of the head or the beard, which are places where hair grows, but to that about the symptoms of a plague on the skin of the flesh — [white hair], healthy flesh or the spreading of the plague.
Ibn Ezra
"Has fallen off [yimrat]" — like "my cheeks to those who pulled out [le-moritim]" (Isa. 50:6), on account of the hair that surrounds the cheeks. "Korach [bald]" — from the root of "you shall not make a bald spot [korchah]" (Deut. 14:1), and the meaning of "his head" is the whole of it.
Chizkuni
ואיש כי ימרט ראשו, “or if a man loses the hair on his head;” baldness of women is not mentioned here seeing that her head does not become bald. (Talmud, tractate Nedarim folio 30)
And if his hair be fallen off from the front part of his head, he is forehead-bald; yet is he clean.
verse value 1737 — גִּבֵּ֥חַ = 13 (echad/ahavah)
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 32 letters. Notable word values: "bald" (גִּבֵּ֥חַ) = 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). The shortest word is "and·if" (וְאִם֙, 3 letters) and the longest is "from·the·front·of" (מִפְּאַ֣ת, 4 letters). Words sharing gematria 12: he, he. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "from·the·front·of" (מִפְּאַ֣ת), "bald" (גִּבֵּ֥חַ). The root הוא appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "his·face" (root פנים, 102x in Leviticus); "he" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "and·if" (root אם, 41x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root פאה ("from·the·front·of") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'his·head', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְאִם֙ [and·if] (47) + מִפְּאַ֣ת [from·the·front·of] (521) + פָּנָ֔יו [his·face] (146) + יִמָּרֵ֖ט [shall·lose·its·hair] (259) + רֹאשׁ֑וֹ [his·head] (507) + גִּבֵּ֥חַ [bald] (13) + ה֖וּא [he] (12) + טָה֥וֹר [pure] (220) + הֽוּא [he] (12) = 1737.
Onkelos
And if the hair has fallen out from the front of his face, he is forehead-bald — he is pure.
Rashi
ואם מפאת בניו AND IF FROM THE CORNER OF HIS FACE [THERE FALLS OFF THE HAIR OF HIS HEAD] — The area from the slope of one’s skull in the direction of the face is called גבחת (and that explains why the man suffering from such a malady is here called גבח) — and the temples on both sides are also included; and the area from the slope of one’s skull in the direction of the back of his head is termed קרחת (hence the term קרח in v. 40) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 10 7).
Ibn Ezra
"Gibbeach [bald-fronted]" — has no cognate outside this passage; it is an adjective. In my view, "korach" refers to the top of the head, and a woman is not mentioned because of the great moisture within her — her head will not go bald, for hair is like grass in this regard.
But if there be in the bald head, or the bald forehead, a reddish-white plague, it is leprosy breaking out in his bald head, or his bald forehead.
verse value 4096
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 55 letters. Verse gematria: 4096 = 64². The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·if·it·shall·be" (וְכִֽי־יִהְיֶ֤ה, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 7: or, or. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·if·it·shall·be" (וְכִֽי־יִהְיֶ֤ה), "on·the·bald·crown" (בַקָּרַ֙חַת֙), "on·the·bald·forehead" (בַגַּבַּ֔חַת). The root קרחת appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·if·it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus); "affection" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root קרחת ("on·the·bald·crown") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root גבחת ("on·the·bald·forehead") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'reddish', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 6 words. Full calculation: וְכִֽי־יִהְיֶ֤ה [and·if·it·shall·be] (66) + בַקָּרַ֙חַת֙ [on·the·bald·crown] (710) + א֣וֹ [or] (7) + בַגַּבַּ֔חַת [on·the·bald·forehead] (415) + נֶ֖גַע [affection] (123) + לָבָ֣ן [white] (82) + אֲדַמְדָּ֑ם [reddish] (89) + צָרַ֤עַת [leprosy] (760) + פֹּרַ֙חַת֙ [breaking·out] (688) + הִ֔וא [it] (12) + בְּקָרַחְתּ֖וֹ [on·his·bald·crown] (716) + א֥וֹ [or] (7) + בְגַבַּחְתּֽוֹ [on·his·bald·forehead] (421) = 4096.
Onkelos
But if there is on his baldness or his forehead-baldness a white-reddish affliction, it is tzara'at breaking out on his baldness or his forehead-baldness.
Rashi
נגע לבן אדמדם A RISING OF THE SORE REDDISH-WHITE — variegated (the term לבנה אדמדמת does not signify white and red each separately, but mingled: reddish-white). Whence may we learn that the plague is unclean too if it has the other colours (not variegated, but plain white shades of white which are the distinguishing characteristics of the plagues)? Because it states here: נגע, a plague (it describes it as a ‘‘plague” and therefore all colors applicable to a “plague” apply to it also).
Daat Zkenim
בקרחתו או בגבחתו, “on his bald head or bald forehead.” It is irrelevant if the area concerned normally produces a growth of hair or if it does not.
Then the priest shall look upon him; and, behold, if the rising of the plague be reddish-white in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh,
verse value 5118
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 61 letters. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "the·swollen·affection" (שְׂאֵת־הַנֶּ֙גַע֙, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "the·swollen·affection" (שְׂאֵת־הַנֶּ֙גַע֙), "like·the·appearance·of" (כְּמַרְאֵ֥ה). 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus); "flesh" (root בשר, 56x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'on·his·bald·forehead', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְרָאָ֨ה [and·he·shall·see] (212) + אֹת֜וֹ [him] (407) + הַכֹּהֵ֗ן [the·priest] (80) + וְהִנֵּ֤ה [and·behold] (66) + שְׂאֵת־הַנֶּ֙גַע֙ [the·swollen·affection] (829) + לְבָנָ֣ה [white] (87) + אֲדַמְדֶּ֔מֶת [reddish] (489) + בְּקָרַחְתּ֖וֹ [on·his·bald·crown] (716) + א֣וֹ [or] (7) + בְגַבַּחְתּ֑וֹ [on·his·bald·forehead] (421) + כְּמַרְאֵ֥ה [like·the·appearance·of] (266) + צָרַ֖עַת [leprosy·of] (760) + ע֥וֹר [skin·of] (276) + בָּשָֽׂר [flesh] (502) = 5118.
Onkelos
The priest shall examine him, and behold, if the affliction on his baldness or his forehead-baldness is deep and white-reddish, with the appearance of tzara'at on the skin of the flesh,
Rashi
כמראה צרעת עור בשר AS THE COLOUR OF LEPROSY IN THE SKIN OF THE FLESH — it is like the colour of the leprosy which is mentioned in the section dealing with the plague on the skin of the flesh (v. 2): “When a man hath in the skin of his flesh …”.What is stated about that? That it makes one unclean by reason of four shades of white, and that it is subject to the law of quarantine during two weeks. And it is not to be treated like the colour of the leprosy mentioned in the case of the boil (v 18) or burn (v. 24) which though also unclean by reason of four shades of white are, however, subject to the law of quarantine for one week only, (i. e if at the end of the week there is neither white hair, nor has it spread the priest at once declares him clean); nor must it be treated as the colour of נתקין on a spot where hair grows — which do not make a person unclean by cause of four colours: a שאת and its subspecies, and that of a בהרת and its subspecies.
Ibn Ezra
"Like the appearance of tzara'at of the skin of the flesh" — meaning the rest of the body.
he is a tzara'at-afflicted man, he is unclean; the priest shall surely pronounce him unclean: his plague is in his head.
verse value 1635
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 38 letters. The shortest word is "he" (ה֖וּא, 3 letters) and the longest is "a·tzara'at-afflicted·man" (אִישׁ־צָר֥וּעַ, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 50: impure, surely. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "a·tzara'at-afflicted·man" (אִישׁ־צָר֥וּעַ), "he·shall·pronounce·him·impure" (יְטַמְּאֶ֛נּוּ), "his·affection" (נִגְעֽוֹ). The root טמא appears 3 times in this verse. 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "he" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'he', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 5 words. Full calculation: אִישׁ־צָר֥וּעַ [a·tzara'at-afflicted·man] (677) + ה֖וּא [he] (12) + טָמֵ֣א [impure] (50) + ה֑וּא [he] (12) + טַמֵּ֧א [surely] (50) + יְטַמְּאֶ֛נּוּ [he·shall·pronounce·him·impure] (116) + הַכֹּהֵ֖ן [the·priest] (80) + בְּרֹאשׁ֥וֹ [in·his·head] (509) + נִגְעֽוֹ [his·affection] (129) = 1635.
Onkelos
he is a tzara'at-stricken man — he is impure; the priest shall surely declare him impure; his affliction is on his head.
Rashi
בראשו נגעו HIS PLAGUE IS ON HIS HEAD — I have only a statement that the following laws apply to the case of נתקין, plagues on hairy places! Whence may we learn that there are included the sufferers from all other kinds of leprous plagues? Because it states מא יטמאנוט, “he shall in any case proclaim him unclean” (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 12 2)— thus including all of these: regarding all of these it says: “his garments shall be rent etc.”.
Or HaChaim
צרוע הוא טמא הוא, he is "leprous," he is ritually impure. It appears best to approach these words in the same way Hillel approached the words טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן in verse 37. Here the force of the exegesis is even more convincing as the word צרוע refers to the body of the afflicted person whereas we still require that the priest declare him to be ritually impure. This means that legally speaking, his symptoms notwithstanding, the afflicted person would not be considered subject to the laws of impurity until the priest had declared him to be impure. The reason the Torah repeated טמא הוא is to make it clear that if the priest had erred and had declared a person as ritually impure although his symptoms did not justify this, the priest's declaration is invalid. The reason the Torah also repeated טמא יטמאנו is explained in Torat Kohanim as including all other categories of ritual impurity. A person never becomes legally impure due to symptoms on his skin unless the priest has declared him to be so. צרוע הוא, he is "leprous." Why does the Torah not use the expression צרעת הוא in order to describe the affliction as it has done repeatedly? Perhaps the Torah wanted to indicate G'd's extreme displeasure with a person whom He has afflicted with this disease in such exposed areas of the skin of the head and beard. Most other afflictions listed in our portion occur in more private parts of the body. Generally speaking, G'd displays great concern for the sensitivities of a person even when He punishes him. The person described here as צרוע has forfeited the consideration G'd normally shows even to sinners; this is why he is described as a "leper" throughout. The words בראשו נגעו that his affliction is already in his head, is the justification for calling him a צרוע.
Chizkuni
איש, from the fact that the Torah speaks only of איש, “a man,” how do we know that the same law applies to both women and minors? We know this from the superfluous word צרוע in verse 44. We know that this term applies to every category of human being. איש צרוע, “he is a man afflicted with tzoraat;” all the rules discussed in this chapter affecting such people apply to what follows.
Rabbeinu Bahya
טמא הוא, טמא יטמאנו הכהן, “he is ritually impure, the priest has to declare him as impure.” In verse 37 in a parallel situation the Torah used similar syntax writing טהור הוא, וטהרו הכהן, “he is ritually pure, and the priest shall declare him as ritually pure.” From both of these verses we learn that even though the priest has observed unmistakable signs of either purity or impurity it is essential for him to confirm this by saying so. We have been taught at the end of the first chapter of the Tossephta of Nega-im that this was one of the reasons that prompted Hillel to return to the land of Israel from Babylon. He wanted to make certain that these procedures are understood and followed to the letter. He moved to Israel in order to explain the reasons for these rules to the local Rabbinical authorities.
And the tzara'at-afflicted person in whom the affliction is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall be left unshorn and disheveled, and he shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry: "Unclean, unclean."
verse value 3376
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 63 letters. The shortest word is "impure" (טָמֵ֖א, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·the·tzara'at-afflicted·one" (וְהַצָּר֜וּעַ, 6 letters). 7 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·the·tzara'at-afflicted·one" (וְהַצָּר֜וּעַ), "rent" (פְרֻמִים֙), "and·his·head" (וְרֹאשׁוֹ֙). The root היה appears 2 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which·in·him" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "they·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "and·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root צרע ("and·the·tzara'at-afflicted·one") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'he·shall·cover', dividing the verse into phrases of 11 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְהַצָּר֜וּעַ [and·the·tzara'at-afflicted·one] (377) + אֲשֶׁר־בּ֣וֹ [which·in·him] (509) + הַנֶּ֗גַע [the·affection] (128) + בְּגָדָ֞יו [his·clothes] (25) + יִהְי֤וּ [they·shall·be] (31) + פְרֻמִים֙ [rent] (370) + וְרֹאשׁוֹ֙ [and·his·head] (513) + יִהְיֶ֣ה [it·shall·be] (30) + פָר֔וּעַ [left·disheveled] (356) + וְעַל־שָׂפָ֖ם [and·upon·upper·lip] (526) + יַעְטֶ֑ה [he·shall·cover] (94) + וְטָמֵ֥א [and·impure] (56) + טָמֵ֖א [impure] (50) + יִקְרָֽא [he·shall·call] (311) = 3376.
Onkelos
And the person who has the affliction — his garments shall be torn, his head shall be left unshorn, and he shall cover his upper lip like a mourner; and he shall call out: Do not defile yourselves! Do not defile yourselves!
Rashi
פרומים signifies TORN. פרוע means his head shall be over-grown with hair (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 13 6). ועל שפם יעטה AND HE SHALL COVER HIS LIPS as one who mourns for the dead (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 13 7; cf. Onkelos). שפם denotes the hair on the lips; grenon in old French, (English = moustache). וטמא טמא יקרא AND HE SHALL CALL OUT, UNCLEAN, UNCLEAN — he must proclaim aloud that he is unclean, so that people may keep away from him (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 13 7; Moed Katan 5a).
Ibn Ezra
"His garments shall be torn [perumim]" — like "rent [keru'im]," so that he be recognized and walk in a manner that is unusual. Or the meaning pertains to mourning, and therefore "his garments shall be torn and his head uncovered" — meaning he shall mourn on account of his evil deeds, for it is because of his deeds that this plague has come upon him. "Above his lip [al sefam]" — above the mustache; the mem belongs to the root, as proven by "and he did not trim his mustache [sefamo]" (2 Sam. 19:25). "He shall cover [ya'ateh]" — with his garments, from the root of "wrapping Himself in light [oteh or]" (Ps. 104:2) — the purpose being that he not harm others with the breath of his mouth. "And he is impure" — sometimes it [this declaration] applies perpetually as he passes along a road where there is settled population, so that people guard themselves and do not touch him.
Chizkuni
והצרוע, “and the so afflicted person;” even if he happens to be the High Priest of whom it has been written in the Torah (Leviticus 21,10) that he must not let his hair grow loose nor rend his garments [as signs of mourning, Ed.] when faced with the problem discussed here he must ignore what is written in chapter 21. (Sifra) בגדיו יהיו פרומים, “his clothes shall be rent;” this will serve as a symbol that he mourns over his errors which led to him becoming afflicted. (Ibn Ezra) ועל שפם יעטה, “and he shall cover his upper lip.” This is to stop bad smell coming forth from his mouth which might affect people negatively. (Ibn Ezra)
Rabbeinu Bahya
והצרוע אשר בו הנגע בגדיו יהיו פרומים וראשו יהיה פרוע ועל שפם יעטה, “and the person afflicted with the tzoraat,- his garments shall be torn, the hair of his head shall remain unshorn, and he shall cloak himself up to his lips.” According to Midrash Eycha Rabbati (introduction) the word הצרוע may be understood as a reference to the Temple (after its destruction); the words אשר בו הנגע may be understood as idolatry which contaminates in a manner similar to the skin affliction. The words בגדיו יהיו פרומים are a reference to the priestly garments (their condition after the Temple had been destroyed); the words וראשו יהיה פרוע are a reference to the Shechinah which has departed from the Temple Mount; the words ועל שפם יעטה refer to the neglect of Torah study and observance which was also a by- product of the loss of the Temple and political independence. The use of the words טמא twice in the verse mean that it speaks of the destruction of both the first and the second Temple.
Kli Yakar
And the leper in whom the plague is, etc. Why does it say in whom the plague is? It is obvious that if the plague is not in him, he is not a leper. From here there is evidence that leprosy is the name of the ailment, as explained above, and it will also be explained shortly in the section of the leper. And plague [nega] is a reference to sin, because the sinner affects [nogea] the honor of Heaven or the honor of people. This is the view of the Midrash that says Like a plague appears to me in this house refers to idol worship, etc. (Yalkut Shimoni, Metzora 14:563). Therefore, it says here about the leper who was stricken with leprosy for speaking slander to defame others, and the tradition of our Sages is that whoever disqualifies others with his own defect, disqualifies (Kiddushin 70a). Therefore it says in whom the plague is, because in him is found primarily and essentially all the plague and disgrace with which he wanted to defame his fellow. His head shall be unshorn, to atone for his haughtiness in wanting to be the head above all men. And his clothes shall be torn, to atone for his stinginess, because whoever is stingy presumably has torn and patched clothes. And he shall cover his upper lip, to atone for the sin of the tongue that is in his lips. And he shall cry, “Unclean, unclean,” because one who defiles others with the words of his lips, he too shall be called unclean, as he certainly disqualifies with his own defect. All the days wherein the plague is in him, meaning the sin, then he shall be unclean because he is unclean due to his actions.
Tur HaArokh
והצרוע, “and the person afflicted with tzoraat,” Torat Kohanim includes a High Priest in the procedures detailed here, although the Torah had stated elsewhere that the High Priest must not rend his garments (when a relative of his has died, compare Leviticus 21,10). [I see nothing remarkable or contradictory here as a) the rule that he does not rend his garments has nothing to do with its becoming afflicted with a skin problem; b) others could do it on his behalf. Ed.] ועל שפם יעטה, “and he shall cloak himself up to his lips.” This means that he is to keep his mouth covered so that his breath does not offend anyone around him as it contains bacteria harmful to others.
All the days in which the plague is in him he shall be unclean; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his dwelling be.
verse value 1822
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 44 letters. The shortest word is "in·him" (בּ֛וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "all·days·of" (כׇּל־יְמֵ֞י, 5 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "alone" (בָּדָ֣ד), "he·shall·dwell" (יֵשֵׁ֔ב), "his·dwelling" (מוֹשָׁבֽוֹ). The root טמא appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "he·shall·be·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "all·days·of" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'he', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 5 words. Full calculation: כׇּל־יְמֵ֞י [all·days·of] (110) + אֲשֶׁ֨ר [which] (501) + הַנֶּ֥גַע [the·affection] (128) + בּ֛וֹ [in·him] (8) + יִטְמָ֖א [he·shall·be·impure] (60) + טָמֵ֣א [impure] (50) + ה֑וּא [he] (12) + בָּדָ֣ד [alone] (10) + יֵשֵׁ֔ב [he·shall·dwell] (312) + מִח֥וּץ [from·outside] (144) + לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֖ה [to·the·camp] (133) + מוֹשָׁבֽוֹ [his·dwelling] (354) = 1822.
Onkelos
All the days that the affliction is on him he shall be impure; he is impure. He shall dwell alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp.
Rashi
בדד ישב HE SHALL ABIDE SOLITARY — This means that people who are unclean from other causes than that of leprosy shall not abide with him (Pesachim 67a; cf. Sifra). Our Rabbis said: Why is he (the leper) treated differently from other unclean persons that he should abide solitary? They replied: Because he, by slanderous statements, (cf. Numbers 12:10) parted man and wife, or a man from his friend, he must be parted from everybody (Arakhin 16b). מחוץ למחנה WITHOUT THE CAMP — outside the three camps (see Rashi on Leviticus 4:12; cf. Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 13 14 and Pesachim 67a).
Ibn Ezra
"All the days that the plague is upon him he shall be impure" — for he is truly impure. The word "badad" [alone] is explained in the scroll of Lamentations.
Or HaChaim
כל ימי אשר הנגע בו, all the days that the plague is within him, etc. This means that as long as his sin is still part of him he remains in the state of ritual impurity. The emphasis expressed by the words טמא הוא after the word יטמא is a reminder of Jeremiah 2,19 where the prophet exclaims: תיסרך רעתך, "your discipline has been the result of your wickedness." In other words it was not G'd who inflicted these misfortunes on the sinner but the sins he committed. Jeremiah expresses a similar thought in Lamentations 3,39: "Of what shall a living man complain?! Each one of his own sins." Yalkut Shimoni item 1040 on this verse is worth studying. You may want to read what I have written on Genesis 4,4 אם תיטיב שאת.
Chizkuni
בדד ישב, “he must dwell in isolation;” he must not have marital relations, as doing this would cause rot. (Talmud, Moed Katan, folio 7) מחוץ למחנה מושבו, “his residence must be beyond the boundaries of the camp.” His residence itself is ritually impure;” the disease from which he suffers is contagious to people who conduct social intercourse with him. This is the source for the statement in the Sifra here that if a ritually unclean person sits under a tree and a ritually clean person stands in front of him (under the branches), the previously ritually clean person has become ritually contaminated. If the situation is reversed, the ritually pure person remains ritually pure.
Tur HaArokh
בדד ישב, “he shall remain in isolation.” The reason for this isolation is that this disease is very contagious and even indirect contact with the afflicted person will harm those associating with him. Nachmanides writes that neither the symptoms described by the Torah as afflicting garments, nor those afflicting houses, are natural phenomena, found in any civilisation. As long as the Jewish people conduct themselves according to the laws of the Torah they will remain protected by the spirit of Hashem, so that none of the diseases described in our portion would ever befall them. In the event that an individual would experience any of the symptoms we have discussed here, this would be a warning by the Shechinah that he had been guilty of a misdemeanour, designed to make him do penance before he would become subject to a severe penalty for his transgression. Seeing that the Torah introduced the subject as if it were a divine gift, i.e. ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחוזתכם, “I will give a nega tzoraat on one of the houses that constitute a hereditary possession in the land you have acquired as a permanent possession,” (Leviticus 14,34) it is clear that the whole subject reflects G’d’s concern not to allow us to become sin-ridden. By striking our house instead of our body, G’d issued a warning signal to us to mend our ways. The entire legislation is applicable only in a land that has become ours as an inheritance given to us by G’d. The same applies to the legislation concerning such symptoms appearing on our clothing. If these symptoms were to appear on our clothing in any country other than the Holy Land, this is meaningless in terms of Jewish law, and any means at any time may be employed to remove such symptoms. No one has ever been heard of being afflicted with these symptoms either in Babylon, or any other country Jews were exiled to. [Besides, miraculous involvement by G’d in this manner is predicated on only a few individuals not observing Torah. Just as the Sotah rites were discontinued when marital infidelity became common place, even though there was a Temple and High Priest, and just as the yibbum legislation (levirate marriage) was observed in the negative aspect of it, chalitza, once it could not be presumed that the brother-in-law would perform the rite in order to secure his deceased brother’s continuity on this earth, so the laws described here were intended for a near perfect Jewish society only. Ed.] While in effect, the laws concerning the symptoms on garments applied only on white garments, seeing that the stains on coloured garments looking like the symptoms described here might be attributed to having been caused during dying the garment or the threads the garments were made of.
Daat Zkenim
בדד ישב, “he is to dwell in solitude.” The reason is that this is a disease which is catching, and by remaining where he used to live he would infect his neighbours. He is also not permitted to carry on marital relations with his wife. He would find it difficult to perform his duty.
And when the plague of leprosy is in a garment, whether it be a woolen garment, or a linen garment;
verse value 2160
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 38 letters. Verse gematria: 2160 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "in·it" (ב֖וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "when·it·shall·be" (כִּֽי־יִהְיֶ֥ה, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 11: in·cloth·of, in·cloth·of. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "wool" (צֶ֔מֶר), "flaxes" (פִּשְׁתִּֽים). The root בגד appears 3 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "when·it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus); "affection·of" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root צמר ("wool") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root פשתה ("flaxes") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'leprosy', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְהַבֶּ֕גֶד [and·the·cloth] (20) + כִּֽי־יִהְיֶ֥ה [when·it·shall·be] (60) + ב֖וֹ [in·it] (8) + נֶ֣גַע [affection·of] (123) + צָרָ֑עַת [leprosy] (760) + בְּבֶ֣גֶד [in·cloth·of] (11) + צֶ֔מֶר [wool] (330) + א֖וֹ [or] (7) + בְּבֶ֥גֶד [in·cloth·of] (11) + פִּשְׁתִּֽים [flaxes] (830) = 2160.
Onkelos
And if a garment has an affliction of tzara'at — whether a woolen garment or a linen garment —
Ramban
AND WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. This is not in the natural order of things, nor does it ever happen in the world [outside Israel], and similarly leprosy of houses [is not a natural phenomenon]. But when Israel is wholly devoted to G-d, then His spirit is upon them always, to maintain their bodies, clothes and houses in a good appearance. Thus as soon as one of them commits a sin or transgression, a deformity appears in his flesh, or on his garment, or in his house, revealing that G-d has turned aside from him. It is for this reason that Scripture states, And I shall put the plague of leprosy in a house of the Land of your possession, meaning that it is G-d’s punishment upon that house. Thus [the law of leprosy of houses] applies only in the Land which is the inheritance of the Eternal even as He said, When ye are come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession. Now the reason [why this law does not apply outside the Land of Israel] is not because it is a duty which attaches to the ground, but the reason is because this matter [of Divine indication of sins] occurs only in the Chosen Land, wherein the Glorious Name dwells. And in the Torath Kohanim the Sages further interpreted that a house does not contract impurity until after the conquest and division [of the Land by Israel], and until after each and every individual clearly knows his portion. The reason for this law is that only then do they have the ease of mind to know the Eternal, and the Divine Glory dwells among them. I think similarly with reference to the law of leprosy in garments, that it applies only in the Land [of Israel], it being unnecessary to exclude [the application of this law] in places outside the Land, since they never occur there. For this reason also the law of leprosy in garments applies only to white garments, not to colored ones, because the color might perhaps have extracted this unclean phenomenon [i.e., the leprosy] in that place [in the garment] in a natural way, and it will then not be regarded as a finger of G-d. Therefore garments colored by Heaven can contract impurity, according to the words of Rabbi Shimon. And by way of the simple meaning of Scripture, the reason why it repeats in every verse the expression “the garment, or the skin, or the wrap and the woof,” is because the matter is miraculous. Our Rabbis have interpretations for them [i.e., these repetitions], and all of them are found in the Torath Kohanim.
Sforno
והבגד כי יהיה בו נגע צרעת, when it is quite clear that this is not the kind of stain familiar to science and responsive to removing by chemical detergents. Discolouration of a garment in colours other than the ones that are work related due to the vocation of the wearer, are usually caused deliberately by the owner. What occurred here is due to some sin the owner was guilty of. At any rate, our tradition has taught that the only discolouration of garments or cloths that are considered from a halachic point of view are garments which themselves are white and not coloured. Any coloured garment is not subject to this legislation at all, is not within the parameter of what is called נגע צרעת. The phenomenon of white garments or exterior walls of houses which are normally whitewashed breaking out in different colours is by itself a warning to the owner to examine his lifestyle and what he might have done wrong to rate such a warning. Our sages in Kidushin 20 tell about how seriously a violation of a rule which is only peripheral to the Sh’mittah legislation is viewed. [the basic rules of sh’mittah relate to working the soil during that year. What I described here as “peripheral,” i.e. in Talmudic parlance as אבקה של שמטה, is the dealing in produce grown in violation of the sh’mittah laws. Ed.] The Talmud explains that violating the “peripheral” aspects of that legislation my result in the guilty party becoming impoverished. The process is gradual so that the guilty party had ample opportunity to ask himself why G’d had singled him out for this kind of punishment. The same is true of the נגע צרעת legislation. Proof of the fact that this affliction is due to a well meaning Creator, One Who is concerned with the welfare of His Jewish subjects, is the fact that if the symptoms we know as נגע צרעת surface on the garments of gentile or houses of gentiles, these are not declared as ritually impure. Seeing that the gentiles as a rule do not have life in the hereafter to look forward to, G’d is not at such pains to warn them not to risk losing something they doe not to look forward to in any event. When a Jew is in danger of losing his claim to eternal life this is a far more serious matter, and G’d goes out of His way to afford the person potentially endangering his claim to eternal life an opportunity to repent and change his lifestyle before it is too late. In referring to this concept, Solomon in Proverbs 10,25 describes the צדיק, the Just, as the foundation of the universe. The whole idea of man having been created in G’d’s image, and G’d’s desire for man to become as much like Him as it is possible for a creature to become, lies at the source of this concern by G’d not to let man waste his opportunity to live up to his destiny. Once man becomes aware of G’d’s concern for him he will have little difficulty in making his own will correspond to the revealed will of His Maker. He will begin to realise that by “listening” to the urgings of his body-dom...
Or HaChaim
והבגד כי יהיה בו נגע צרעת, And the garment which is afflicted by the plague of "leprosy," etc. The conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of this paragraph is explained in Torat Kohanim by Rabbi Yossi Haglili by reading together the last three words of the previous verse with this verse, i.e. מחוץ למחנה מושבו והבגד, "his dwelling is outside the camp together with the garment." This teaches that the garments also need to be removed outside the three camps. Torat Kohanim added that the wording reflects that the rule applies not only to garments made out of wool or linen each but even to garments made of a mixture of those materials but not to garments made of cotton, silk, and other fabrics. This seems difficult as it is possible that what we have perceived to be a conjunctive letter ו is only intended to draw attention to the proximity of the legislation to remove garments made of linen or wool outside the three camps or to include garments made of a mixture of linen and wool. Perhaps Rabbi Yossi Haglili's inference is based on the letter ו whereas the inference regarding inclusion of garments made of a mixture of linen and wool is based on the letter ה in the word והבגד. בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים in a garment made of wool or in a garment made of linen. We have to analyse why the Torah wrote the word או instead of simply writing בבגד צמר ובבגד פשתים. This is particularly difficult when we consider the words of the author of Korban Aharon who argues that the reason a mixture of wool and linen had to be included in this legislation was because the Torah used the word או which amounted to dividing the word "wool" from the word "linen." The problem becomes even more complex when we consider that Torat Kohanim writes that we might have assumed that these garments contract impurity regardless of whether the fabrics which these garments have been made of have been dyed or not. The words בבגד צמר are to teach us therefore that just as linen garments are usually made of undyed fabric so the legislation is applicable to woollen garments only when these fabrics have not been dyed. This comment is also problematical; on the contrary, it is directly opposed to the statement that the word או is divisive and one could therefore not derive any rule applying to linen garments as also applying to woollen garments. We believe that the reason our verse had to write the word או was so that we should not think that unless the garment was made of a mixture of wool and linen it would not contract impurity. If so, the word או is needed in its own right and cannot be used exegetically anymore. Once this is so it does not represent a contradiction to what is implied by the words צמר and פשתים appearing next to each other. We have to understand our verse thus: בבגד צמר means that not only if the garment is made of wool, but the same legislation applies if it is made of linen; both materials are treated equally in הלכה. This is why Torat Kohanim wrote that just as linen garmen...
Chizkuni
מחוץ למחנה מושבו, והבגד, “his residence must be outside the camp. “And the garment;” [in spite of verse 46 being the conclusion of a paragraph Ed.], Rabbi Yossi from the Galil, claims that we learn from these two verses that the afflicted person’s clothes also require to be quarantined with him. [Possibly he disregarded the end of the paragraph, as the new paragraph commences with the conjunctive letter ו alerting us to the fact that this verse belongs together with the one preceding it. Ed.] בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים, “whether it be a woolen or a linen garment;” when the Torah speaks of garments, we always hear of woolen garments before linen garments are mentioned. The reason is that once a woolen garment has been completed, it is worth more than a linen garment. When the Torah speaks of a warp or a woof (in weaving) it always mentions linen before wool. The reason is that a woven linen garment is more valuable than a woven garment made of wool.
Rabbeinu Bahya
בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים, On a woolen or linen garment.” Our sages (Nega-im 11,2) explained that only the wool of animals which are pure can confer the impurity of a person afflicted with tzoraat on others. The wool of an unclean animal such as the camel cannot confer such impurity. If the garment in question is made up of a number of fabrics including wool from a pure animal as well as wool from a ritually impure animal, if the dominant portion of the garment was made from wool of a pure animal it does transfer such impurity; if not, it does not.
Kli Yakar
“And the garment that has in it a plague of leprosy.” The plagues of garments and houses undoubtedly do not come naturally, as they have no blood or fluids that cause decay or any sickness or affliction. Therefore, you must say that they come miraculously as a punishment. This serves as a prototype even for bodily plagues, which are supernatural and come as punishment. Regarding house plagues, our Sages said (Arakhin 16a) that they come because of stinginess, etc. However, regarding garment plagues, they said nothing. It seems reasonable to me to say that they come because of haughtiness, as it is common for people to honor themselves excessively with fine clothing, as Rabbi Yochanan called his garments “my honorers” (Shabbat 113a). And as our Sages said (ibid. 119a): Honor the holy day of the Lord means honor it with clean clothing. This is why the afflicted garment must be burned, for anyone who is arrogant is judged by fire, as explained above in Parashat Tzav on the verse It is the burnt offering on its firewood, since it is the nature of fire to rise upward, like one who elevates himself. The law of burning chametz proves this point. And the purification of the garment is through washing with water, which symbolizes humility, as water descends from a high place to a low place. Therefore, the verse only mentions wool and linen garments and leather articles, and does not mention silk garments made from crimson worms, because the worm symbolizes humility, as proven by the purification of the metzora with hyssop and crimson worm. Therefore, the plague is not found in garments of crimson worm. Thus it says here, And behold, the plague has not changed its appearance [eino, which can also mean its eye] and the plague has not spread, it is unclean. In all [other] types of plagues, impurity only comes with spreading. This [difference is] alluding to the complete removal of arrogance, not even standing in the middle path, “not it nor any part of it” (Sotah 5a), but one must completely change one’s “eyes” — one’s haughty eyes — entirely. Know and understand that the three types of tzara’at come upon three things, which are coverings for a person, one inside the other. The first covering is his skin for his flesh. Above his skin are his clothes, which are a covering for his skin. Above these is his house, which is a covering for him to protect him from rain and storm. And one who has all coverings removed from him is called “exposed” and “uncovered.” Therefore it says, And Moses saw that the people were exposed (Exodus 32:25), and our Sages interpreted (Yalkut Shimoni, Metzora 14:563) that they were afflicted with tzara’at, about which it says, and his head shall be uncovered (Leviticus 13:45). Therefore, [the Torah] first mentions afflictions of the skin, then afflictions of clothing, and then afflictions of houses — to remove his coverings one by one until he is completely exposed and uncovered. And this is the view of the Midrash cited by the Yalkut Shimoni on the verse his head shall be uncovered, similar to And he uncovered the covering of Judah (Isaiah 22:8), referring to the destruction of the Holy Temple, for in the destruction of the Temple they became completely exposed. However, according to our Sages (Vayikra Rabbah 17:4), the order is reversed, for they said, “The Master of Mercy does not strike at souls first, etc.” Therefore, He first brings the affliction on one’s house; if he does not repent, He also brings it on his clothes; if he does not repent, He also brings it on his body, etc. And the reason [the Torah] mentions bodily afflictions first is because the Holy One, blessed be He, warns about the final, greatest blow first, as He said to Pharaoh, Behold, I will kill your firstborn son (Exodus 4:23), as Rashi explains there. Similarly, here He mentions bodily afflictions first to intimidate the person with what he fears most, but in reality, the Master of Mercy never strikes at souls first, for He is a merciful and gracious God.
or in the warp, or in the woof, whether they be of linen, or of wool; or in a skin, or in any thing made of skin.
verse value 3337
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 42 letters. The shortest word is "or" (א֤וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "in·anything·made·of" (בְּכׇל־מְלֶ֥אכֶת, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 7: or, or, or, or. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "to·the·flaxes" (לַפִּשְׁתִּ֖ים), "and·to·the·wool" (וְלַצָּ֑מֶר), "in·anything·made·of" (בְּכׇל־מְלֶ֥אכֶת). The root או appears 4 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus); "in·anything·made·of" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus); "in·woof" (root ערב, 44x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root שתי ("in·warp") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·to·the·wool', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 5 words. Full calculation: א֤וֹ [or] (7) + בִֽשְׁתִי֙ [in·warp] (712) + א֣וֹ [or] (7) + בְעֵ֔רֶב [in·woof] (274) + לַפִּשְׁתִּ֖ים [to·the·flaxes] (860) + וְלַצָּ֑מֶר [and·to·the·wool] (366) + א֣וֹ [or] (7) + בְע֔וֹר [in·skin] (278) + א֖וֹ [or] (7) + בְּכׇל־מְלֶ֥אכֶת [in·anything·made·of] (543) + עֽוֹר [skin] (276) = 3337.
Onkelos
or in the warp or the woof of linen or of wool, or in leather, or in anything made of leather —
Rashi
לפשתים ולצמר means OF FLAX OR OF WOOL. או בעור WHETHER IN A SKIN — this is a skin which has not been manufactured (of which no article has been made). או במלאכת עור OR IN ANYTHING MADE OF SKIN — this is a skin which has been manufactured.
Ibn Ezra
"Or in the warp or in the weft [sheti o erev]" — these are well known. It is possible that "sheti" is derived from the root of "the bare bottom [chashufei shet]" (Isa. 20:4), meaning the foundation, and the proof is "for the foundations [hashitot] shall be destroyed" (Ps. 11:3). And the meaning of "erev" [weft] is that it is interwoven with the warp. "Or in leather" — as it is [raw hide]. "In any article of leather" — such as a coverlet or a waterskin.
Chizkuni
.או בשתי, “or in the warp;” the word שתי is not a genitive, construct mode, but a word in its own right, meaning “foundation”. Compare Psalms 11,3: השתות, “the foundations;” the reason is that the warp is the basis of all manner of weaving. או בערב, “or in the woof;” the word is so called as it mixes the threads that have to be woven together.
If the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, it is the plague of leprosy, and shall be shown to the priest.
verse value 4144 — וְהָיָ֨ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 74 letters. Notable word values: "and·it·shall·be" (וְהָיָ֨ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "in·all·article·of·skin" (בְכׇל־כְּלִי־ע֔וֹר, 9 letters). Words sharing gematria 7: or, or, or. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "pale-green" (יְרַקְרַ֣ק), "and·shall·be·shown" (וְהׇרְאָ֖ה), "to·the·priest" (אֶת־הַכֹּהֵֽן). The root או appears 3 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'it', dividing the verse into phrases of 15 and 2 words.
Onkelos
and if the affliction in the garment, or in the leather, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any leather article is greenish or reddish, it is an affliction of tzara'at and shall be shown to the priest.
Rashi
ירקרק denotes green amongst the greens (the deepest green). אדמדם — the deepest red (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 14 2).
Ibn Ezra
"Yerakrak [greenish]" — from the root of "yarok" [green], for the eye [color] is like it; this is a doubled form indicating diminution. Likewise "shecharchar" [blackish] (Song 1:6). And some say the opposite.
Rabbeinu Bahya
או בכל כלי עור, “or in a leather utensil;” our sages explain that this excludes coloured vessels. utensils or garments. The main practical significance of this statement is that wool or linen confer the wearer’s impurity only when they are in the original white colour. The rules applying to dyed wool garments also apply to dyed leather utensils.
And the priest shall look upon the plague, and shut up that which has the plague seven days.
verse value 2506
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 34 letters. The shortest word is "and·he·shall·see" (וְרָאָ֥ה, 4 letters) and the longest is "the·affection" (אֶת־הַנָּ֑גַע, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 529: the·affection, the·affection. The root נגע appears 2 times in this verse. 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "days" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus); "the·affection" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·affection', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְרָאָ֥ה [and·he·shall·see] (212) + הַכֹּהֵ֖ן [the·priest] (80) + אֶת־הַנָּ֑גַע [the·affection] (529) + וְהִסְגִּ֥יר [and·he·shall·isolate] (284) + אֶת־הַנֶּ֖גַע [the·affection] (529) + שִׁבְעַ֥ת [seven] (772) + יָמִֽים [days] (100) = 2506.
Onkelos
The priest shall examine the affliction and shall isolate the afflicted article for seven days.
Or HaChaim
ודאה הכהן…והסגיד and the priest will observe and quarantine it, etc. We need to understand why the Torah changed its legal approach when speaking of the afflicted garment as compared to the legal approach used in connection with afflictions of the skin. The reason may be that an affliction of the skin may exist without quarantine, i.e. the priest will declare the afflicted person impure without a waiting period upon his first inspection (13,3). In the case of a parallel affliction appearing on the clothing of the afflicted person, the priest will first decree quarantine of seven days even though the symptoms are quite clear that we are dealing with צרעת, a form of "leprosy." The Torah therefore wished to distinguish between a person himself and his clothing. On the other hand, once the garment has been declared as definitely "leprous" it has to be utterly destroyed; unlike a person who may be cured of his "leprosy" if certain symptoms disappear, this is not true of his garments. If the Torah had legislated that the garments have to be declared as irrevocably impure at the first inspection by the priest, the impression would have been created that the wearer of those clothes cannot rehabilitate himself by means of repentance. We know from other parts of our commentaries that G'd does not desire the loss or destruction of man's money. Torat Kohanim as well as Nega-im 15,5 explained Leviticus 14,36: "and the priest shall command that they empty the house before the priest will go in to see the plague" that the declaration that the afflicted house is to be demolished is delayed until as much as possible of the owner's possessions have been "saved" by having first been removed from it. G'd therefore is on record that He is mindful of the possessions of even the lowest of the sinners. This then is the reason that the garments of the afflicted person are not declared as irrevocably impure during the first inspection by the priest. Seeing that man is given the opportunity to repent even after he has been ostracised and declared impure, no harm is done if he is declared impure, suffering from "leprosy" even at the first inspection by the priest.
And he shall look on the plague on the seventh day: if the plague be spread in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in the skin, whatever service skin is used for, the plague is a malignant leprosy: it is unclean.
verse value 6039
Insights
Verse structure: 20 words, 90 letters. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "which·shall·be·made" (אֲשֶׁר־יֵעָשֶׂ֥ה, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 281: or·in·the·woof, the·skin. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "if·it·has·spread" (כִּֽי־פָשָׂ֤ה), "to·work" (לִמְלָאכָ֑ה). The root נגע appears 3 times in this verse. 16 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "in·the·day" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root מאר ("malignant") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·work', dividing the verse into phrases of 15 and 5 words.
Onkelos
He shall examine the affliction on the seventh day; if the affliction has spread in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in the leather — in whatever is made of leather for use — the affliction is a consuming tzara'at; it is impure.
Rashi
צרעת ממארת A FRETTING LEPROSY — The word ממארת has the same meaning as. (Ezekiel 28:24) “a pricking (ממאיר) brier”; point (poignant) in old French The Midrashic explanation is: Attach a curse (מארה) to it, — that you will make no use of it (and therefore it must be burnt) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 14 11).
Ibn Ezra
"Mam'eret [malignant]" — like "a painful thorn [sillon mam'ir]" (Ezek. 28:24); and since "sillon" means a thorn, "mam'ir" means causing pain, and the second mem of "mam'aret" belongs to the root — it is not derived from "me'erah" [curse]. As for why the text does not mention silk or cotton — it is possible that Scripture spoke of what is common and prevalent, as in the sense of "when you see your enemy's donkey" (Ex. 23:5), and likewise the law of the horse and the mule (Ps. 32:9). Or it is possible that the plague does not occur except in wool and linen.
And he shall burn the garment, or the warp, or the woof, whether it be of wool or of linen, or any thing of skin, in which the plague is; for it is a malignant leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire.
verse value 8212
Insights
Verse structure: 20 words, 85 letters. The shortest word is "or" (א֥וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "all·article·of" (אֶת־כׇּל־כְּלִ֣י, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 7: or, or, or, or. 7 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "the·cloth" (אֶת־הַבֶּ֜גֶד), "the·warp" (אֶֽת־הַשְּׁתִ֣י), "the·woof" (אֶת־הָעֵ֗רֶב). The root או appears 4 times in this verse. 16 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which·it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus); "the·affection" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·affection', dividing the verse into phrases of 15 and 5 words.
Onkelos
He shall burn the garment, or the warp, or the woof — whether of wool or of linen — or any leather article in which the affliction is found; for it is a consuming tzara'at; it shall be burned in fire.
Rashi
בצמר ובפשתים means OF WOOL OR OF FLAX. This is the plain meaning. And the Midrashic explanation is: One might think that he must bring fleeces of wool or stalks of flax and burn them together with it, (the garment, in order to make a flame in which to burn it; then the verse will mean: he shall burn the garment with wool etc.) Scripture, however, states, in this verse, היא באש תשרף “it (the garment) shall be burnt in fire” — no other thing being required with it. If this be so why does it state בצמר או בפשתים? To exclude from being burnt the אומריות, the hems, that are on it if these are made of a different material than wool or flax respectively. The word אומריות means a hem; it is the same as the better-known word אימרא. (The translation is therefore: he shall burn [apply fire to] the garment etc., on the woolen parts only) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 1).
Ramban
FOR IT IS A LEPROSY THAT IS ‘MAM’ERETH’ (FRETTING). “Mam’ereth is an expression of ‘silon mam’ir’ (a pricking brier). The Midrashic interpretation is: attach a me’eirah (curse) to it — so that you will have no benefit from it.” This is Rashi’s language. And Onkelos translated: “a leprosy that is mechasra (pricking).” This interpretation he also derived from ‘silon mam’ir’ (a pricking brier), for in Aramaic any shrub which causes a pricking pain is called chisra. Thus: “k’chizra (as a thorn) in a ball of wool;” “take thy good-natured advice and throw it over achizri (the hedge).” And the truth of the matter is that mam’ereth is indeed an expression of curse, that it is to say, it is G-d’s curse upon the garment and house, as I have mentioned. But the Midrash which states that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it [a leprous garment] is based [not on the word mam’ereth as Rashi had it, but] on the redundancy of expression. The same law applies to a leprous house, and it is derived from the verse, And he shall break down the house. Thus also I have found in the Talmud Yerushalmi of Tractate Orlah: “If stones were removed from a house affected with leprosy and made into plaster, some Rabbis taught that they become free of their impurity, and some taught that they do not become free of their impurity. Those who said that they become free, are also of the opinion that they may now be used [for some benefit], and those who say that they do not become free are also of the opinion that they are still forbidden [to be made use of], for it is written: it is a leprosy that is ‘mam’ereth’, meaning, attach a curse to it and derive no benefit from it. Rabbi Abohu said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: All things which must be burnt, one may derive benefit from their ashes, except for the ashes of an idol. Rabbi Chiya the son of Yosei asked Rabbi Yochanan: ‘There is the case of the ashes of a house [affected with leprosy], which is not related to idolatry, and yet you say that the ashes thereof are forbidden for any use [like the stones which have been turned into lime or plaster]! Said Rabbi Yochanan to him: ‘This is different,’ since [concerning a house affected with leprosy] it is written that it be ‘broken down.’”Metzora
Rabbeinu Bahya
“The fabric under discussion or the garment made from this fabric which has been contaminated has to be burned.” According to Nachmanides the repeated use of the words בגד, שתי, ערב, עור are all reminders of the miraculous connection between the afflicted person’s sins and the state of health of his garments or basic utensils. G’d, as it were, reminds him gently to mend his ways so that He would not have to take stronger action. [Needless to add that the premise is that as a rule Israeli society observed all of G’d’s commandments and only a very few individuals experienced such afflictions to their clothing. In a corrupt society these afflictions would become so commonplace as to lose their educational value. Ed.]
Tur HaArokh
צרעת ממארת היא, ”it is a malignant tzorat.” The symptom is of a malignant nature that will eventually envelop the entire garment. This is why the whole garment has to be burned forthwith.
Rashbam
צרעת ממארת, similar to Ezekiel 28,24 סילון ממאיר וקרץ מכאיב, “prickling briers and lacerating painful thorns.” We also have a similar phenomenon described in Deuteronomy 28,20 המארה והמהומה, “curse and confusion.”
Daat Zkenim
צרעת ממארת היא, “it is a malignant skin disease;” the afflicted person, when he feels burning of the skin will feel tempted to peel off the affected part of the skin, and as a result it would come back on an even bigger area of his skin.
then the priest shall command that they wash the thing in which the plague is, and he shall shut it up seven days more.
verse value 3241
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 43 letters. The shortest word is "and·he·shall·order" (וְצִוָּה֙, 4 letters) and the longest is "seven·days" (שִׁבְעַת־יָמִ֖ים, 8 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·they·shall·wash" (וְכִ֨בְּס֔וּ), "seven·days" (שִׁבְעַת־יָמִ֖ים). 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that·which·has" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "the·affection" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·affection', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְצִוָּה֙ [and·he·shall·order] (107) + הַכֹּהֵ֔ן [the·priest] (80) + וְכִ֨בְּס֔וּ [and·they·shall·wash] (94) + אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־בּ֖וֹ [that·which·has] (910) + הַנָּ֑גַע [the·affection] (128) + וְהִסְגִּיר֥וֹ [and·he·shall·isolate·it] (290) + שִׁבְעַת־יָמִ֖ים [seven·days] (872) + שֵׁנִֽית [second] (760) = 3241.
Onkelos
the priest shall command that they wash the article in which the affliction is found, and he shall isolate it for another seven days.
Rashi
את אשר בו הנגע THAT WHEREIN THE PLAGUE IS — One might think that he has to wash only that spot in which is the plague and not the garment itself! It. however, states: Not, “he shall wash the plague, but “that where in the plague is”. If this be so, then one might think that the entire garment requires washing! It, however, states, (v. 55) הנגע “the plague” (after the plague has been washed), and not the garment. How shall it be done? He washes some of the garment with it (the plague) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 5).
And the priest shall look, after that the plague is washed; and, behold, if the plague have not changed its color, and the plague be not spread, it is unclean; you shall burn it in the fire; it is a fret, whether on its worn side or on its reverse side.
verse value 5989
Insights
Verse structure: 20 words, 87 letters. The shortest word is "or" (א֥וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "the·affection" (אֶת־הַנֶּ֗גַע, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 12: it, it. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "its·color" (אֶת־עֵינוֹ֙), "a·fret" (פְּחֶ֣תֶת). The root נגע appears 3 times in this verse. 18 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'you·shall·burn·it', dividing the verse into phrases of 15 and 5 words.
Onkelos
The priest shall examine it after the affliction has been washed, and behold, if the affliction has not changed its appearance — even though the affliction has not spread — it is impure; you shall burn it in fire; it is a mark, whether on its worn side or on its new side.
Rashi
הֻכַּבֵּס אחרי AFTER IT IS WASHED — The verbal form is an expression of something done (a passive infinitive). לא הפך הנגע את עינו THE PLAGUE HATH NOT CHANGED ITS COLOR — i. e. it has not become paler than its former colour. והנגע לא פשה AND THE PLAGUE HATH NOT SPREAD — We understand from this that if it has not changed its color and has not spread it is unclean, (although the fact that it has not spread might lead us to suppose that it is clean;here, however, the color has not changed, and so it is unclean). It is, of course, not necessary to state that it is unclean if the colour has not changed but the plague has spread (for the spreading is an additional reason for declaring it unclean). If, however, it has changed its colour, but it has not spread, I would not know what one should do with it. Therefore it states, (v. 50) “And he shall shut up the plague” for a period and examine it again — shut it up whatever the circumstances of doubt may be. This is the opinion of Rabbi Jehuda. But other Sages say that in this case it is undoubtedly unclean as is stated in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 7): and I make mention of this here (instead of doing so on v. 50), in order to explain that verse in its connection with this text. פחתת היא — This is an expression denoting a pit (anything cut out) as in, (II Samuel 17:9) “in one of the pits (פחתים)”. It is as much as to say, it is low-lying — a plague the colour of which is sunk deep (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 8). בגבחתו או בקרחתו — Understand this as the Targum does: in its old state (lit., rubbed condition) or in its new state. קרחתו is therefore שחקים (clothes rubbed by wear), old (and consequently ,שחיקותיה is a proper contrast to חדתותיה in the Targum). These words, קרחת and גבחת, although not properly applicable to garments are used here to afford an opportunity for an Halachic derivation, for which there is required an argument deduced from the similarity of phrases: Whence do we know in regard to a plague spreading over the entire surface in the case of garments that it is c1ean? Because the, terms קרחת and גבחת are used in the case of a human being and the terms קרחת and גבחת are used in the case of garments. How is it in the former case? If it has spread over all his body, he is clean (v.13)! So here, also, if it has spread over all the garment it is clean (Niddah 19a). For this reason Scripture here purposely avails itself of the expressions קרחת and גבחת, to make the גז"ש possible. And in regard to its interpretation and its translation in the Targum the following is what it implies: קרחת is an expression denoting “old”, and גבחת is an expression denoting “new” (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 9); and the meaning is just the same as though it were written באחריתו או בקדמותו. at its end or at its beginning, — for קרחת has the meaning of the back- parts (i. e. the end), since גבחת has the meaning of face (front-side, i. e. ...
Ibn Ezra
"After the plague has been laundered [ha-kabbes et ha-nega]" — the infinitive of the verb in the passive intensive form [binyan kaved ha-nosaf], with the agent unnamed. "Pachetet" [a hollow area] — has no parallel in Scripture but is well known in the language of the Sages, and its meaning is a deficiency that occurred in the bald spot on the back of the garment or in its bald spot on the front. The Gaon [Saadia] explained: "in the bald spot of the other side" — for "gibbahat" [front bald spot] refers to the face-side of the garment, so "korach" [back bald spot] would be at the back of the garment, and this is a fine explanation.
Chizkuni
בקרחתו או בגבחו, “whether the bareness be within or without.” These words refer to either the garment or the hide. It is similar to when people who come from a hairy region “baldy,” whereas they do the reverse with people coming from a region of smooth skinned people, “hairy.”
Tur HaArokh
פחתת הוא, “it is an ingrained affliction.” The word is derived from פוחת, something which gradually diminishes, becomes progressively worth less, until eventually it has ceased to have value; in this case the meaning it that the damage will spread until it encompasses the entire fabric. בקרחתו או בגבחתו, “in his new or worn garment.” Some commentators understand this to mean that it makes no difference whether the garment is worn on hairy or smooth skin. [so that the word בקרחתו refers to קרחת baldness. Ed.]
Rashbam
פחתת, the word describes a kind of inflammation which eats away at the affected area.
Daat Zkenim
פחתת היא, “it has penetrated the fabric of his garment thoroughly.” As a result it will keep on spreading. Merely tearing up the garment is not sufficient.
And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague be dim after the washing of it, then he shall rend it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof.
verse value 3721
Insights
Verse structure: 18 words, 69 letters. Verse gematria: 3721 = 61². The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "from·the·cloth" (מִן־הַבֶּ֙גֶד֙, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 407: it, it. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·he·shall·tear" (וְקָרַ֣ע), "from·the·cloth" (מִן־הַבֶּ֙גֶד֙), "from·the·warp" (מִן־הַשְּׁתִ֖י). The root או appears 3 times in this verse. 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus); "the·affection" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'it', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 9 words.
Onkelos
And if the priest sees that the affliction has faded after it has been washed, he shall tear it out from the garment, or from the leather, or from the warp, or from the woof.
Rashi
וקרע אתו THEN SHALL HE REND IT OUT — i. e. he shall tear out the plague-spot from the garment and burn it (just as he is commanded in the case mentioned in the next verse) (cf. Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 16 2).
And if it appear still in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, it is breaking out, you shall burn that in which the plague is with fire.
verse value 5216
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 64 letters. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "in·all·article·of·skin" (בְכׇל־כְּלִי־ע֔וֹר, 9 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·if·shall·be·seen" (וְאִם־תֵּרָאֶ֨ה). 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that·which·has" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus); "the·affection" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root עוד ("again") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'it', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְאִם־תֵּרָאֶ֨ה [and·if·shall·be·seen] (653) + ע֜וֹד [again] (80) + בַּ֠בֶּ֠גֶד [in·the·cloth] (11) + אֽוֹ־בַשְּׁתִ֤י [or·in·the·warp] (719) + אֽוֹ־בָעֵ֙רֶב֙ [or·in·the·woof] (281) + א֣וֹ [or] (7) + בְכׇל־כְּלִי־ע֔וֹר [in·all·article·of·skin] (388) + פֹּרַ֖חַת [breaking·out] (688) + הִ֑וא [it] (12) + בָּאֵ֣שׁ [in·the·fire] (303) + תִּשְׂרְפֶ֔נּוּ [you·shall·burn·it] (1036) + אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־בּ֖וֹ [that·which·has] (910) + הַנָּֽגַע [the·affection] (128) = 5216.
Onkelos
And if it appears again in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any leather article, it is breaking out; you shall burn in fire that in which the affliction is found.
Rashi
פרחת היא IT IS A SPREADING PLAGUE — it is a thing which breaks out again and again. באש תשרפנו THOU SHALT BURN IT IN FIRE — “it” — the entire garment (in contradistinction to v. 56).
Ibn Ezra
"And if it appears again" — meaning the pachetet [hollow]. And since it says "it is spreading [porachat]" he further explains that only the place of the plague alone is to be burned.
And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or whatever thing of skin it be, which you shall wash, if the plague be departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and shall be clean.
verse value 3954
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 57 letters. The shortest word is "that" (אֲשֶׁ֣ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "or·all·article·of" (אֽוֹ־כׇל־כְּלִ֤י, 7 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "or·the·warp" (אֽוֹ־הַשְּׁתִ֨י), "or·the·woof" (אוֹ־הָעֵ֜רֶב), "or·all·article·of" (אֽוֹ־כׇל־כְּלִ֤י). The root כבס appears 2 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "the·affection" (root נגע, 85x in Leviticus); "and·the·cloth" (root בגד, 52x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·affection', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְהַבֶּ֡גֶד [and·the·cloth] (20) + אֽוֹ־הַשְּׁתִ֨י [or·the·warp] (722) + אוֹ־הָעֵ֜רֶב [or·the·woof] (284) + אֽוֹ־כׇל־כְּלִ֤י [or·all·article·of] (117) + הָעוֹר֙ [the·skin] (281) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [that] (501) + תְּכַבֵּ֔ס [you·shall·wash] (482) + וְסָ֥ר [and·it·shall·depart] (266) + מֵהֶ֖ם [from·them] (85) + הַנָּ֑גַע [the·affection] (128) + וְכֻבַּ֥ס [and·shall·be·washed] (88) + שֵׁנִ֖ית [second] (760) + וְטָהֵֽר [and·it·shall·be·pure] (220) = 3954.
Onkelos
And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or any leather article that is washed and from which the affliction departs — it shall be washed a second time, and it will be pure.
Rashi
וסר מהם הנגע IF THE PLAGUE BE DEPARTED FROM THEM — if when they washed it at first by the order of the priest (Leviticus 13:54), the plague departed from it entirely (cf. Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 16 10), וכבס שנית IT SHALL BE WASHED A SECOND TIME — here this expression denotes immersion in a ritual bath (not washing of the garment). The words used in the translation of the Targum for the expressions derived from the root כבס occurring in this section denote making white (cleaning, — e. g. ויתחור), “and it shall be made white” — except for this (וְכֻבַּס) which is not intended to mean making white but to mean immersion. For this reason it is translated in the Targum by ויצטבע — “it shall be dipped”. Similarly wherever it speaks of כבוס בגדים which intend “immersion” the Targum translation is ויצטבע, (this is the Targum of וְכֻבַּס here and in Leviticus 15:17; the active וְכִבֶּס, is, of course, translated by ויצבע).
Ibn Ezra
"And he shall launder a second time" — it is a commandment to launder it twice. "And the plague has departed from them" — meaning the plague has already departed from them; and I have already shown you many instances like this. The word "ve-kubas" [and it shall be laundered] is a passive verb with the agent unnamed.
Chizkuni
וכבס שנית, “it shall be immersed in a ritual bath a second time.” The second time in order to purify it, whereas the first time was in order to remove the residue of the plague.
Rabbeinu Bahya
והבגד או השתי או הערב או כל כלי העור אשר תכבס וסר מהם הנגע, “but if the garment, or the warp or the woof or any leather utensil which has been washed and then the affliction left them, etc.” The Torah mentioned already in verses 56-57 that a garment on which a nega tzoraat had been identified and that stain had dimmed after washing the area afflicted, has to be ripped out. If however, the stain appears to grow, the whole garment has to be burned. If the stain has been removed through washing it, the garment must then be immersed in a ritual bath in order to regain its state of purity. This is the meaning of the additional words וכבס שני וטהר, “it must be washed a second time to become purified.” This “second” washing refers to immersion in a ritual bath. Everything connected with the legislation of afflictions to garments or skin (or houses) is of a miraculous nature (Tanchuma Metzora 4). Let us illustrate the subject by means of a parable. An unsatisfactory slave had been sold by his master. When the new master buys him he is perfectly aware that the previous master had been dissatisfied with that slave and that this is why he wanted to divest himself of him. Seeing that this is so, the new master equipped himself with handcuffs in order to restrain the slave in case of need. Similarly, G’d. When G’d created man He was perfectly aware that man (the servant) would in due course commit sins, etc. G’d therefore arranged for means of afflictions to serve to straighten out man’s behaviour pattern. When G’d felt He needed to employ means of restraining man, He would first afflict man’s house. This is the meaning of Leviticus 14,34: “I shall afflict a house in the land of your inheritance with an affliction of tzoraat.” If, as a result of seeing the stones of his house afflicted, the person concerned becomes a penitent, all well and good; if not, G’d will smite his clothing as a second warning. This is the meaning of the words והבגד אשר יהיה בו נגע צרעת, “and the garment which will be afflicted with a nega tzoraat” (13,47). If the afflicted person now does teshuvah, all well and good; only if both of these warnings were ignored will G’d actually afflict the skin of the sinner. Even then He will only afflict a small area of skin initially. If after being quarantined and ostracised temporarily, such a person still does not learn his lesson then the affliction is allowed to spread, eventually resulting in his becoming for all intents and purposes an outcast. Apparently, the initial stages of personal afflictions are the loss of hair on a man’s head (13,40). This is still not a conclusive symptom and his isolation is only of a provisional nature. If that person persists in his asocial conduct, etc., he will be smitten with a skin affliction such as שאת או ספחת as mentioned in 13,2. In their commentary on Ruth in Ruth Rabbah 2,10 the sages stated that the merciful Lord does not punish the sinner on his body in the first instance but first exacts retribution from his possessions. Only when such “hints” fail to have a sobering effect on the people concerned does He proceed to inflict harm on the body of the person. We observe such a phenomenon in the case of Job. G’d had told Satan initially to test Job’s piety only by depriving him of his material goods (Job 1,12). Subsequently, after he had stood that test saying: “the Lord gave the Lord took may the name of the Lord be praised,” did He give permission for Job to experience the loss of his children and, eventually, he was subjected to personal suffering on his body. The same happened when G’d struck the Egyptians with the 10 plagues. In the first instance, when the river turned into blood, this was merely a financial blow to the people as they had to buy water from the Israelites or had to dig for it (Exodus 7,21-25). G’d afflicted their livestock next, and eventually He killed their firstborn. The afflictions mentioned both in this portion and in the next follow a similar pattern although they are not recorded in the order in which they occur. First G’d afflicts a man’s house. If he becomes a penitent, taking the hint, the afflicted stones on his house have to be removed and replaced (14,40). If he fails to respond to the implied warning to become a penitent, the entire house will have to be razed to the ground (14,45). If this also fails to produce the desired result, G’d will afflict that sinner’s clothing (13,56). If this does not produce the desired result G’d will afflict the person of the sinner. Thus far the Midrash. We see from the example of the negaim that G’d’s supervision of man’s fate (Israel’s) is comprehensive. No aspect of these phenomena is due to natural causes. Every phenomenon as well as its sequence is supernatural. Moreover, no such phenomena ever occurred outside the boundaries of the Holy Land. According to Nachmanides we must not misunderstand this to mean that it was the nature of the soil in the Holy Land to respond in such a fashion to non-observance of certain laws of the Torah. The phenomena merely reflect that the Lord watches with special intensity everything which goes on amongst the Jewish people while they live in Eretz Yisrael. These phenomena testify to the presence of guilt amongst the Israelites. (compare Psalms 89,33) “I will punish their iniquity with plagues.” All of this in order to encourage the guilty to leave that path and to return to G’d faithfully so as to rid themselves of their guilt. We find an allusion to all this even in the words of our portion (13,13) כלו הפך לבן טהור הוא, “if all of him has turned white he will be ritually clean.” The line has a double meaning, i.e. that not only has the entire skin of the afflicted person turned white, but it is considered a symptom that he has become free from sin. In order to understand G’d’s loving approach even to the ones who sinned against him, the legislation about houses displaying these kinds of stains is introduced (14,34) with the words “I will give a plague of tzoraat on your house.” Is this then “a gift” that G’d describes it as such? Indeed it is, as instead of punishing the sinner on his body G’d gives him this kind of a warning. The wording “I will give” is applied simultaneously to the giving of the land as possession to the Jewish people and as the experience of such plagues. This teaches that the whole legislation applies only in Eretz Yisrael, not even in Jerusalem as that city has not been allocated as part of any tribe’s ancestral territory but belongs to the entire nation (Yuma 12). Only the parts of the land known as ארץ אחוזה, “inalienable inherited property,” are subject to the נגעים legislation. May we all live to see that land rebuilt in the near future!
This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of wool or linen, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean.
verse value 5225 — לְטַמְּאֽוֹ = 86 (Elohim)
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 63 letters. Notable word values: "to·defile·it" (לְטַמְּאֽוֹ) = 86, equal to Elohim. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "all·article·of·skin" (כׇּל־כְּלִי־ע֑וֹר, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 7: or, or, or, or, or. 7 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "the·wool" (הַצֶּ֣מֶר), "the·flaxes" (הַפִּשְׁתִּ֗ים), "the·warp" (הַשְּׁתִי֙). The root או appears 5 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·defile·it" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus); "the·woof" (root ערב, 44x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'all·article·of·skin', dividing the verse into phrases of 13 and 3 words.
Onkelos
This is the law of the affliction of tzara'at in a woolen or linen garment, or in a warp, or a woof, or any leather article — to declare it pure or to declare it impure.
Ibn Ezra
"This is the law of the plague of tzara'at of a woolen garment" [torat nega tzara'at beged ha-tzemer] — four words in the construct chain. There are in Scripture five such [construct chains]: "mighty men of valor" [giborei chayil], "the work of the service of the house of Hashem" [melekhet avodat beit Hashem] — and all are in construct relation to the name that is the support for all those depending on it.
Chizkuni
לטהרו או לטמאו, “to declare him purified or contaminated.” If the priest who investigated the outbreak of the plague in a garment dies, another priest can declare him purified or contaminated.
Onkelos
Ramban
Ibn Ezra
Chizkuni
Tur HaArokh