Leviticus · Chapter 14

And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying:

"And Hashem spoke" — here begins the law of the one being purified. R. Jonah the Spanish grammarian said that [the phrase] "the plague of tzara'at was healed from the one afflicted with tzara'at" is inverted, and the proper construction should have been "the one afflicted with tzara'at was healed of the plague of tzara'at." But why should we invert the words of the living God on account of our lack of understanding? For it is written elsewhere [in the same form]: "for the rash was healed, it is pure" (13:37), and likewise "for the plague was healed" (13:18).

This shall be the law of the one afflicted with tzara’at on the day of his purification: he shall be brought to the priest.

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

THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER IN THE DAY OF HIS CLEANSING: HE SHALL BE BROUGHT UNTO THE PRIEST. Scripture is stating that this shall be the law of the leper in the day that he wishes to be pronounced pure, that he should be brought to the priest, as he can never attain purity except by means of the priest’s word. Then [in the following verse] Scripture tells that the priest shall go forth to the place of his [the leper’s] habitation out of the camp, but he [the leper] is not to come to the priest even though his leprosy has been healed. The interpretation thereof in the Torath Kohanim is as follows: “And he shall be brought unto the priest, this means that he is not to wait.” If so, Scripture is stating that on the same day that he is cleansed, [meaning] that he is cured from his leprosy, he is to be brought even against his will to the priest. Similarly, the verses, And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; But if she be cleansed of her issue, mean when [the issues] will cease and the persons become cleansed of them, as I have explained [i.e., that the term “cleansing” in the verse before us means “the healing” of the leprosy, and the same meaning applies to “the cleansing,” of him or her that hath an issue]. This is the correct explanation.

The meaning of "and he shall be brought" — like its parallel cases, for after the plague of tzara'at departs, he will be unwilling to bring what is obligatory upon him [on his own].

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

זאת תהיה תורת המצורע, "This shall be the law of the "leper," etc. The entire verse seems superfluous. All the Torah had to tell us was that the afflicted person shall purify himself and be brought to the priest. Torat Kohanim explains the word זאת as excluding the purification ritual on an altar other than the one in the Temple. The word תהיה is explained as including people in our own times who suffer from the symptoms described in the Torah. Torat Kohanim on verse 4 relates that Rabbi Tarphon had a staff with which he used to purify "lepers" in his day [he was a survivor of the period during which the Temple was destroyed by the Romans. Ed.]. The word תורת is explained as teaching us that even though the different symptoms produce different kinds of צרעת, and different regulations regarding quarantine etc., they are all terminated by the offering of the same kind of offering as outlined in this chapter. The word ביום means that the process of purification described here must take place by day. One might think that the slaughtering of the birds for the offering and the afflicted person's shaving himself would be permissible at night; to prevent us from thinking this the Torah wrote זאת. Thus far Torat Kohanim. You note that the author of Torat Kohanim used the word זאת exegetically both to exclude temporary altars or altars outside the Temple, as well as to forbid the afflicted person shaving himself at night, etc. The basis for these multiple inferences from the same word is that the Torah wrote two restrictive clauses (זאת, ביום) before mentioning the word טהרה, "purification." If the Torah had wanted to make only a single exclusion, the main subject of the verse, i.e. the purification, should have appeared next to either one of these מעוטים, restrictive expressions. For example, the Torah could have written: תורת המצורע, זאת תהיה ביום, "the law of the leper; this shall occur by day." We would then have understood that only the word ביום was to serve as a restrictive clause. The purification rites would then have been permissible on whatever altar was in use by the Jewish people at that time. The Torah could also have written the following sequence: ביום טהרת המצורע זאת תהיה תורתו, "on the day the 'leper' is purified, this shall be the law of his purification rites." The restrictive clause would then have applied only to the offerings, not to the time of day when the offering had to be brought. This latter version would not have contained a single additional letter except that the words would have been rearranged. Vayikra Rabbah 16,2 derives the idea that the person afflicted had been guilty of slander from the unnecessary words זאת תהיה. We need to understand why the Torah chose to allude to this fact at this point just when the afflicted person undergoes the rites of purification. I believe that the fact that his first offerings have to be the birds which are characterised by their constant twittering is the key to this. These birds are a...

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

מפרי פי איש תשבע בטנו תבואת שפתיו ישבע, “A man’s belly is filled with the fruit of his mouth he will be filled by the produce of his lips.” (Proverbs 18,20) In this verse Solomon told us something about the power of the tongue (speech), be it for good or for evil. If man employs the power of speech to speak words of Torah, to admonish people to live according to Torah and to thereby help Jewish society to acquire spiritual merits for themselves, then his reward is with him, and his works are a beacon shining before him.” [He will be recognized for his true worth. Ed.] (Isaiah 40,10). On the other hand, if he uses the power of speech to engage in slander, character assassination, and the like, his punishment will be served up to him and he will have to consume it to his being more than sated with it. We must therefore understand the beginning of this verse as applying to the dissemination of evil gossip and the like; and the end, i.e. the words “his mouth will be filled by the produce of his lips,” as referring to the reward in store for those who use their power of speech judiciously, providing spiritual merits for the society in which they live. This is also the meaning of another saying of Solomon in Proverbs 18,21 “Death and life are in the power of the tongue; those who love it will eat its fruit.” What the author is saying is that seeing the tongue controls death and life, if someone loves the tongue, i.e. is anxious to keep talking at all times, he should endeavour to choose subjects which are liable to enhance his life, i.e. speak words of wisdom, moral and ethical exhortation, etc. If he does so he will get to eat (as a reward) the fruit of the power of speech. Only in that case will people who are fond of talking increase their own merit in proportion to their frequent use of the tongue. In the reverse case, i.e. someone who loves to talk but uses his tongue indiscriminately, so that he engages in gossiping and worse, as his punishment he will eat “the fruit of that punishment.” Considering all this it is important to be most circumspect in the use of one’s tongue. The Torah has shown us on several occasions that if someone abuses his power of speech and uses it negatively he will be afflicted with the disease of tzoraat. Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 16,2 have found that the very words introducing the subject of the מצורע could be paraphrased as זאת תורת המוציא שם רע, “this is the law about people who indulge in character assassination.” זאת תהיה תורת המצורע ביום טהרתו והובא אל הכהן, “this shall be the law of the person afflicted with tzoraat; on the day he regains purity he is to be brought to the priest.” The sages in Tanchuma Metzora 1 have explained that this affliction is a retribution for the evil tongue as we know from Kohelet 5,5: “let not your mouth bring guilt on your flesh.” Solomon means to not give permission to your mouth to express words which will harm the rest of your body. Do not subsequently say to the angel who is in charge of you (remainder of the verse in Kohelet) that it was an unintentional aberration. Every word a person utters is recorded in a book, be it something appropriate or inappropriate, be it intentional or unintentional. “Why should G’d have reason to be angry at what you have said? Why should He have to thwart the work of your hands?” The “work of your hands” which Solomon refers to in that verse are the hand and feet of your body which will become afflicted with skin disorders. Another explanation pertaining to the above verse in Kohelet: the words אל תתן את פיך, “do not let your mouth, etc.;” these words are an example of the Torah using inoffensive language for a serious admonition. In this instance it means “do not allow your mouth to become guilty, etc.;” if your wife told you that she started to menstruate do not bring sin upon her body by ignoring her state of impurity and cohabiting with her. The words following, i.e. ואל תאמר לפני המלאך “and do not say to the angel” (who is in charge of determining the appearance and physical health of the unborn fetus) that you committed that sin inadvertently, that you were unaware of your wife’s ritual impurity at the time she conceived the fetus; the words למה יקצוף אלו-הים וחבל מעשיך, “why should G’d become angry and frustrate your actions” (the semen which was meant to produce a health child?) mean that Solomon attributes physical blemishes in children as caused by the sins committed by the parent (or parents) when having marital relations. Yet another approach to the verse in Kohelet: Solomon means “why should you incriminate yourself and your flesh by ignoring the laws of G’d so that you will need an angel (priests are referred to as angels of the Lord by the prophet Maleachi 2,7) who would have to preside over your becoming healed ultimately?” You would only be deceiving yourself, why make G’d angry? The words מעשה ידיך, “the work of your hands,” refer to the fetus which you helped to produce and who will be struck with the tzoraat disease as a result of your sin. When the Torah in our verse continues with the words “on the day he wants to become purified,” this means that on that day he must be brought to the priest. This teaches that it is impossible for the purification to become halachically effective without the priest declaring the subject to have become ritually pure. Although the word והובא, “he is brought to the priest,” sounds as if the afflicted person has to come to the priest, this is not so. The priest goes to see the afflicted person outside the camp. This is clear from the words “the priest will go outside the camp and inspect the affliction” (verse 3). Tanchuma Metzora 2, quoting Proverbs 18,21 that “life and death are within the power of the tongue,” says that everything depends on the tongue. If it is used properly it confers life, if it is abused it results in death for its owner. The word חיים, “life" in that context refers to Torah which has been described as עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה, “it is a tree of life for the ones who hold on to it.” In fact, Torah is an effective medication against the damage one has inflicted upon oneself through indulging in evil gossip. The Midrash bases this on Proverbs 15,4: “a tree of life is a healing tongue.” If the person had been engaged in disseminating evil gossip he had thereby forfeited his life; the sin of spreading evil gossip is considered morally as worse than killing. The reason is that when one kills one only kills a single life, whereas when one spreads evil gossip about someone one causes death to at least three people, i.e. the one who tells it, the one who listens to it (approvingly), and the one concerning whom the gossip is related. Let us take an historical example from Samuel I 22,16: Doeg the Edomite who spread gossip about Achimelech son of Achitov was killed. Achimelech was killed by Saul who had accepted the slander without investigating it. King Saul was also killed as we know from Chronicles I 10,13: “Saul died on account of the trespass he committed against the Lord.” Saul himself is quoted as telling the Amalekite youth to give him the last stab as he was already in the throes of a death struggle” (Samuel II 1,9). He had become guilty for destroying Nov the city of priests based on evil gossip which he had not checked out. The word שבץ used by Saul and which we translated as “death throes,” are understood by the sages as a reference to the priestly garments as we know from Exodus 28,13 ועשית משבצות זהב, “make them golden settings.” Doeg the Edomite was uprooted not only from life on earth but also from the hereafter as we know from Psalms 52,7: a hymn composed on that occasion, “G’d will tear you down for good, will break you and pluck you from your tent, and root you out of the land of the living, Selah.” [For a brilliant analysis of this psalm read the Alshich’s commentary. Ed.] What is a greater sin? He who kills with the sword or he who kills by shooting an arrow? We would assume that killing by an arrow is the greater sin as the archer does not have to risk his own life in personal combat in order to achieve his goal. If this is true, it is clear that he who engages in evil gossip is guilty of the worst kind of assassination as he keeps out of danger himself. This is why character assassination is compared to shooting arrows at the victim such as in Jeremiah 9,7: “their tongue is sharpened like an arrow, they use their mouths to deceive; one speaks to his fellow in friendship, but lays an ambush for him in his heart.” Another verse describing something similar is found in Psalms 57,5: “people whose teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongue is a sharp sword.” Evil gossip is a greater sin than “mere” murder, idolatry or indulging one’s carnal instincts indiscriminately. Proof that it is worse than murder is deduced from Genesis 4,13 where Kayin describes his sin as too severe to endure its burden. It is more serious than indulging one’s carnal instincts with partners forbidden to one as we know from Joseph (Genesis 39,9) who explained the severity of that sin to the wife of Potiphar. It is more serious than idolatry seeing that when Moses described this sin committed by the Jewish people to G’d when they worshipped the golden calf he said: “indeed the people committed a very great sin.” When describing the sin of לשון הרע on the other hand, (Psalms 12,4) David invokes G’d pleading: “may the Lord cut off all flattering lips, every tongue that speaks גדולות, “arrogance.” The commentators understand the plural of the word גדולות in that psalm as describing the sin of abusing the power of the tongue as a “double” sin, i.e. more severe than a single sin such as worshipping idols, for instance. This is why Solomon said that life and death are at the disposal of one’s tongue. Look at what happened to Miriam who was struck with the disease of tzoraat (Numbers 12,1) because she spoke against Moses. What did she do that was so terrible? She spoke to her own brother (Aaron) privately, not within the hearing of Moses nor of anyone else. She was well-intentioned meaning to reunite Moses with his wife whom he had divorced. The Torah describes G’d’s reaction as fierce, and had Moses not interceded on her behalf she would not have been cured. To this day we recite the lines of Deut. 24,9 in which the Torah demands that we remember what Miriam was guilty of and how G’d punished her. You may apply a little logic to see how serious is the ordinary sin of spreading evil gossip when you reflect on what happened to well-intentioned Miriam who had spoken privately to her brother. How will G’d react to people who deliberately besmirch someone’s reputation by the tales they spread about him? Consider what the Torah wrote immediately prior to the reminder to remember what G’d did to Miriam (Deut. 24,8) The Torah writes: “beware of the tzoraat affliction, be very careful and act according to everything the priests and Levites teach you.” Even Aaron, who was the High Priest, (and had not said a word) was struck with that affliction seeing that the Torah said that G’d was angry “at them,”‘ i.e. not merely at Miriam. Aaron was healed immediately, seeing his was the lesser sin as he had not said anything, had only listened without admonishing Miriam. We know that Aaron must have been cured immediately as the Torah only writes of Miriam having been quarantined outside the camp for seven days delaying the Israelites’ journey during that period (Numbers 12,15). You will also find that the original serpent, the first creature ever to engage in slander against its Creator, was struck with tzoraat as the Torah reports G’d saying to the serpent “because you have done this, etc., you are cursed” (Genesis 3,14). The curse consisted of the serpent being afflicted with tzoraat. Our sages derive this from the expression צרעת ממארת היא in Leviticus 13,52. On these words Rav Hunna quoted a comment by Rabbi Joshua ben Levi who said that the scales on the skin of the snake are a form the tzoraat took when it afflicted the serpent (compare Bereshit Rabbah 20,4). This was not the full extent of the serpent’s punishment. We have a tradition that in the world to come (after the resurrection), people who suffered from diverse deformities while on earth the previous time will be resurrected as completely healthy and with unblemished bodies. The snake will be the only exception to this rule. Seeing that Isaiah wrote (Isaiah 35,6): ”then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb shall shout aloud,” the prophet prophesies resurrection of the beasts mentioning that domesticated beasts and lions will graze together; however the snake will still have to eat dust as it will never be cured from its affliction (compare Isaiah 11,6). The reason is that the serpent through its use of the tongue dragged man into the dust, (caused his mortality, Tanchuma Metzora 2).

“This shall be the law of the metzora, etc.” The scripture calls him metzora [leper], implying that he is still a metzora, so how can it say on the day of his purification? For if he is a metzora, there is no day of his purification. Furthermore, how can it call it the day of his purification before saying and behold, it is healed, because before the healing there is no day of purification? And what is meant by saying and he shall be brought to the priest, as and he shall be brought implies against his will? Moreover, afterwards it contradicts this and says and the priest shall go outside the camp, implying that he [the leper] shall not be brought to the priest, but rather the priest goes to him. Additionally, what is meant by saying and behold, the plague of tzara’at is healed from the metzora? It begins with two [entities] and concludes with one, and it should have said “from the one afflicted with tzara’at.” And the explanation of the matter is: As I have explained above in Parshat Tazria, that leprosy comes because of certain sins, and the name of the affliction is tzara’at and the name of the afflicted person is metzora, because the term metzora means “brings out evil” [motzi ra], as they bring all their hidden evil from within to the outside, exposing their wickedness in public. And the name tzara’at is related to the expression tzarah ra’ah [evil distress], meaning an evil that is like a distress, as our Sages said (Chagigah 5), And many evils and distresses shall befall them — distresses that are like distresses to each other, like a hornet and a scorpion. For just as this wound [of both together] has no remedy through natural means, so this leprosy has no remedy through natural means, to inform them that it is the hand of God that has done this. And Naaman’s leprosy proves this, as the wise physicians were unable to find a remedy for him. Therefore, the sinner must necessarily turn their heart away from their evil path, and nega [affliction] refers to the sin that touches [noge’a] the honor of Heaven, as it were, or the honor of people. And the leprosy forces them, against their will and not for their pleasure, to be brought to the priest to seek healing from him and to learn moral instruction. For if they had initially gone willingly to seek Torah from the priest’s lips and to be among the disciples of Aaron, who loved peace and pursued peace, and not to send strife between brothers with the whip of their tongue, then they would not have come to this leprosy. And since they did not do this willingly when they were healthy and strong (Psalms 73:4), now they shall be brought to the priest against their will to seek from them the path of repentance. And this is what is meant by “This shall be the law of the leper on the day of his purification.” For on the day that he renews a pure heart within himself and accepts upon himself to return in repentance, on that very day he will be brought, against his will, to the priest to learn from him the way of God. And the language he shall be brought does not speak of physical relocation from place to place, but rather speaks of the relocation of his heart from the evil path he was on to the good path. This means that he accepts upon himself to draw near to the priest and to seek Torah from his mouth. And regarding this it says, This shall be the law [of the leper]. And afterwards, once he has accepted upon himself to be pure of thoughts and pure of eyes from seeing evil, then the priest shall go outside the camp, and behold, the plague — that sin which caused the leprosy — has been healed from the leper [meaning,] from outside of him. And it could not say “from the afflicted one,” since his sin and his deeds caused it, so it needed to say from the leper to teach that spiritual healing came to him by virtue of being a leper, because the leprosy compelled him to repentance. And even so, the Holy One, blessed be He, accepts his repentance, even though it was done under compulsion. And the deficiency inherent in such repentance can be found explained later in Parashat Vayelech, God willing, on the verse And many evils and troubles shall befall them, see there.

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

זאת תהיה תורת המצורע, “This shall be the law of the person afflicted with the skin diseases discussed in the previous chapters, etc.” the very word מצורע contains a hint that describes why, in most instances, such a person has been afflicted with this disease. It is because he bad-mouthed fellow Jews. The word is a combination of מוציא שם רע, “he called someone by a bad name.” Compare Talmud tractate Erchin folio 16. We also find that the Talmud attributes the demise of four people who had been guilty of this sin as losing their claim to an afterlife; they are: Bileam, Doag, Achitofel, and Geychazi, the disciple of the prophet Elisha. (Compare details in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 106. [That chapter deals with people who have or will forfeit their claim to an afterlife. Ed.]Solomon in Kohelet,5,5, also deals with this subject when he wrote: אל תתן את פיך לחטיא את בשרך, “let not your mouth bring guilt on your flesh;” which sin did he had in mind? The sin of badmouthing fellow Jews. Solomon referred to the same sin in Proverbs 18,21, when he said: מות וחיים ביד לשון, “death and life are within the power of the tongue.” Death is liable to follow abuse of the power of speech, whereas life is at the disposal of people who meticulously observe the Torah and study it. The Torah is the remedy with which the sin of evil gossip can be atoned for. It is known as the עץ חיים, “the tree of life.” We know this also from Solomon, who said in Proverbs 15,4: מרפא לשון עץ חיים, “the tree of life can heal (the harm caused) by abusing one’s power of speech.” Intensive Torah study prevents a person from becoming guilty of using his power of speech. The guilt of לשון הרע, evil gossip, is considered as greater that that of being guilty of shedding innocent blood. When one is guilty of the latter, one had only killed one life, whereas when one is guilty of evil gossip, one is guilty of killing at least three people, the one who engages in it, the one who listens to it, and the one about whom this evil gossip has been spread. We find an illustration of this in Samuel I 22, where King Sha-ul killed all the priests resident in the city of Nov because he had listened to the false accusations spread against them by Doag. Sha-ul was killed on account of that sin as we know from Samuel Il 1,9: עמוד נא ומותתני כי אחזני השבץ, “stand over me and finish me off, for | am in agony and barely alive;” whenever we encounter the expression שבץ, it refers to the priestly garments, as we know from Exodus 28,39: ושבצת הכתונת שש, “make the fringed tunic out of fine linen.” Concerning Doag, the slanderer, in this story we have it on the authority of Psalms 52,7 that he was killed in this world and deprived of the after life, i.e. גם אל יתצך לנצח יחתך וגו', “also G–d will tear you down for good, and root you out, etc.” The Talmud in tractate Erchin, folio 15, states that the sin of tale-bearing is greater than murder, incest or idolatry. והובא אל הכהן, “and he will be brought to the priest.” We read this as if it had been written in the past tense, i.e. ובא אל הכהן, “he had come.” The reason is that there was no one who could have brought him, as everyone had been warned not to associate with him in any manner. Compare Leviticus 13,46: בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה מושבו, “he must dwell in isolation, his residence must be beyond the boundaries of the camp.”

The priest shall go out to the outside of the camp, and the priest shall look, and behold, the affliction of tzara'at has been healed in the one afflicted with tzara'at.

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

"And the priest shall go out to outside the camp" — even though the priest has declared him clean, he may not enter the camp or the city until he has completed his purification and fulfilled all that was commanded. "And the priest shall go out" — this is not the High Priest; thus the meaning of "or one of his sons, the priests" is now clarified.

ויצא הכהן אל מחוץ למחנה, “and a ritually pure priest left the camp as he could reenter the camp, and he performed the purification rites. The fact that the Torah wrote: “the priest left the camp,” proves that he must have been ritually pure else what enabled this priest to return to the camp otherwise? A ritually contaminated priest could not enter the camp, so how could he perform all the rites? (Sifra) והנה נרפא, “and behold the plague had been healed.” It had vanished.נ נגע, “the white hair had disappeared;” הצרעת, the raw flesh had disappeared. מן הצרוע, “from the person who had been afflicted with tzoraat. Not a trace was left.

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

The priest shall command, and there shall be taken for the one being purified two living clean birds, cedar wood, crimson thread, and hyssop.

חיות LIVING [BIRDS] — This term excludes רפותט, birds that suffer from some fatal organic disease (חיות does not only mean “living”, but also “capable of continuing to live”). הרותט CLEAN — This term excludes an unclean bird (of a species that may not be eaten) (cf. Chullin 140a). Because the plagues of leprosy come as a punishment for slander, which is done by chattering, therefore birds are compulsory for his (the leper’s) purification, because these chatter, as it were, continuously with a twittering sound (Arakhin 16b). ועץ ארז AND CEDAR WOOD — This lofty tree was used because plagues come also as a punishment for haughtiness (cf. Arakhin 16a). ושני תולעת ואזוב AND CRIMSON AND HYSSOP — What is the remedy he should use, that he may be healed? Let him, abandoning pride, regard himself lowly as a worm (תולעת) and as hyssop (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Metzora 3). עץ ארז means a stick of cedar wood (not a cedar tree). שני תולעת — a strip of wool dyed crimson.

THEN SHALL THE PRIEST COMMAND TO TAKE FOR HIM THAT IS TO BE CLEANSED TWO LIVING, CLEAN ‘TZIPORIM’ (BIRDS). “Living, this excludes birds which are treifah. Clean, this excludes a bird unfit for food. Since the plagues of leprosy came as a punishment for slander, which is done by chattering, therefore Scripture required for the leper’s cleansing that he bring birds which always twitter with a chirping sound.” This is Rashi’s language. Now in view of the fact that Rashi wrote, “Clean, this excludes a bird which is unfit for food,” we can deduce that the [unqualified] term tziporim does not denote a permissible species of birds, but is instead a generic term for all birds [those permissible as food and those forbidden]. If so, the question appears: what is this “chirping” that they found [among the tziporim]? For there are many birds among which there is none that openeth the mouth, or chirpeth! Moreover, the interpretation [which Rashi quoted]: “Living, this excludes birds which are treifah,” is really subject to a controversy of opinion, and according to the Sage who says that a treifah can survive, this interpretation [of Rashi] is not correct. And in the Torath Kohanim we find this interpretation: “Living, not slaughtered. Clean, not unfit for food. Clean, not treifoth.” Now the scholars who follow the simple meaning of Scripture say that every kind of bird [whether permissible as food or forbidden] is called tzipor, as is evidenced by the verses which state: ‘tzipor’ (the fowl) of the air, and the fish of the sea; every ‘tzipor’ (bird) of every sort; And thou son of man … speak ‘l’tzipor’ (unto the birds) of every sort. Similarly, it says, and ‘hatzipor’ (the birds) he did not divide, with reference to the turtle-doves and young pigeons [which are permissible birds, thus proving that the term tzipor is used with reference to both permissible and forbidden birds].The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the term tzipor is a generic term for all small birds that rise early in the morning to chirp and to sing, the term being associated with the Aramaic word tzaphra (morning). Similarly, the expression let him return v’yitzpor’ means, and arise “early in the morning.” The expression ‘tzipor’ (the fowl of) the air is said with reference to these small birds, because it is mostly they that fly high in the air. Every ‘tzipor’ (bird) of every sort refers to two kinds, all the little ones and the big ones. If a ‘kan tzipor’ (bird’s nest) chance to be before thee speaks about the little ones which are many [and therefore likely to chance to be there], to teach that even when they are young, the finder must exercise mercy towards them. Similarly, therein ‘tziporim’ (the birds) make nests [means the little ones], for it is they that dwell on the boughs of the cedars of the Lebanon. Speak ‘l’tzipor’ (unto the birds) of every sort means that even the little ones should gather upon [the flesh of the mighty that have fallen in battle], for the big...

"And he shall take for the one being purified" — some say the priest takes [the items] at his own expense; others say the one afflicted with tzara'at provides them. The tav of the hitpa'el form [of "the one being purified"] is absorbed into the dagesh of the tet, and the word follows the pattern of "a boastful man" [איש מתהלל]. "Two birds" — every fowl is called tzippor, so he may take any bird he finds. "Living" — and not dead. "Pure" — that he should not take from the unclean species. "Cedar wood and hyssop" — these represent the greatest and smallest among the plant species, as attested by the words of Solomon's wisdom. There is no need to search after the hyssop, for it is known by tradition. Now, the one afflicted with tzara'at, the plague-stricken house, and the impurity of a corpse are related to one another — indeed, these [rites] resemble the Passover offering of Egypt.

וצוה הכהן ולקח למטהר, and the priest will command to take for the person to be purified, etc. According to Torat Kohanim the priest issues the instruction but anybody is authorised to take the birds. In the following verse Torat Kohanim again understands that according to the view of Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Yossi the priest issues the instructions but that any non-priest is qualified to slaughter these birds. Rabbi disagrees, insisting that also the slaughtering of the birds must be performed by a priest. Why did Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi not disagree concerning what is written in verse 4?If we were to assume that in verse 4 the word וצוה applied only to another verb, i.e. ולקח instead of to an object, this is not an adequate reason as even in verse 5 the word וצוה refers to another verb, namely ושחט, and we do not know that it refers to any other object. In fact, in verse 4 we are entitled to assume that the word וצוה implies that the birds be brought to the priest and he would receive them personally from those who bring them to him so that he would perform two commandments, something that is not so in verse 5 if we read it to mean that the words וצוה ושחט apply to one and the same person, i.e. the priest. I have seen a comment by Korban Aharon according to which the commandment is that the priest command that two birds be brought to him so that he could choose one of them as the offering and one to be released later (verse 7). The reason that Rabbi did not disagree with Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Yossi in verse 4 insisting that only the priest is to take the birds is, that he could not tie the word וצוה to the commandment, i.e. he could not prove that the priest had to make this selection. Thus far Korban Aharon. I do not agree with the author of Korban Aharon as there is no indication from the words that the commandment to select the birds had to be performed by the priest and that it could be derived from the word וצוה. On the contrary, we may infer that the word וצוה as positioned in this verse indicates that the selection of the bird may be performed either by the priest or by someone else, whereas the slaughtering of the bird selected had to be performed by the priest, and Rabbi could explain verse 4 along the same lines as he did verse 5 saying that the selection of the birds could be performed only by the priest. It would then have appeared that Rabbi disagrees with Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Yossi and thought that the slaughtering of the birds also could be performed only by priests. The reason, however, would not be because of something specific in our verse, but because it corresponds to the nature in which the subject matter is described by the Torah. G'd had commanded that the slaughtering take place in a vessel made of earthenware over water running from a well. This is not an act which is only "slaughtering," seeing a second action must accompany it immediately afterwards. This latter act is the principal ingredi...

ולקח למטהר, “he will take for the one who was to be purified;” the word מטהר includes man, woman or minor as the case maybe. This wording prompted the sages to coin the phrase: לקח לאיש, כשרות לאשתו, “when weddings are performed publicly it is a public demonstration of the chastity of both partners, as if they had wished they could have married one another in the privacy of their homes legally. [I have abbreviated the saying. Ed.] שתי צפרים, “two birds;” whenever there is a reference to a bird as צפור, it is a ritually pure bird. Rabbi Yitzchok says that a ritually pure bird may be referred to as either עוף or צפור, whereas a ritually impure bird is always referred to as עוף. (Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 139) טהורות, “ritually pure;” both genetically, and free from physical defects. (Compare Malbim) ועץ ארז, “and some cedar wood;” according to Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel, the leaves from the cedar tree were torn from the top of the tree. [In order that the tallest of plants and the lowliest, i.e. hyssop, both be part of this offering. Ed.]

שתי צפרים חיות טהורות, “two live birds, of the pure species.” All “pure” birds are known as צפור. We know this from Deut. 14,11: כל צפור טהורה תאכלו, “you may eat all the birds belonging to the species known as צפור טהורה.” This excludes birds known as עופות טמאות. This means that although the bird itself has all the symptoms of purity, the fact that it has been associated with forbidden practices such as birds belonging to people of an עיר הנדחת, “a city condemned to destruction because the majority of its inhabitants worshipped idols,” makes such a bird “unclean.” Or, for instance, if such a bird of the “pure species” killed a human being, it also forfeits its status of being a צפור טהורה, and may not be eaten or used as an offering. A Midrashic approach (compare Tanchuma Metzora 3) to the wording in our verse: G’d said that the sacrifice to be brought by people who have overcome their affliction should consist of birds which twitter a lot so as to remind the person offering this sacrifice that the indiscriminate use of their tongue had been the cause of their suffering the affliction in the first place. In other words: “let the sound of the bird atone for the sound made by its owner.” ועץ ארז ושני תולעת ואזוב, “and cedarwood, crimson thread and hyssop.” The verse mentioned both the most precious and the lowliest of plants. Solomon did the same thing in Kings I, 5,13 when he was described as lecturing about the cedars of the Lebanon and the hyssop. Our sages comment that the inclusion of both types of plants in the same breath teach that if one had arrogated to oneself the mien of something superior to oneself, i.e. given oneself a title that one had not earned, the only way to atone for this and to regain one’s true station in life is to demean oneself to the level of the lowest in the social order, the hyssop (compare Rashi).

And he shall take for the one being purified two birds. Above in Parashat Tazria, I wrote that the main cause of leprosy comes from three sins alluded to in the parashah: they are evil speech [lashon hara], arrogance [gasut haruach], and desire for wealth [chemdat hamammon]. Based on this, we can say that the birds atone for these three: for evil speech because they chatter [make petite sounds] etc., (Arakhin 16b); for arrogance which rises upward like flying birds (Isaiah 31:5); and for the desire for wealth, about which it is said (Proverbs 23:4–5), Do not toil to become rich, etc., for it will surely make wings for itself like an eagle and fly to the sky. And since most commentators have extensively discussed the sin of evil speech in this parashah, I will also add a good lesson to explain what my intellectual understanding captures regarding the three proclamations that our Sages of blessed memory speak about concerning the sin of the tongue. The first announcement is, what is concluded in the Midrash Rabbati (Metzora 16:2): There was a story about one peddler who was going around towns near Tzippori and would announce and say, “Who wants to buy an elixir of life?” A crowd gathered around him. The author of Matnot Kehunah explains that they looked after him, similar to And they looked after Moses (Exodus 33:8). Rabbi Yannai was sitting and teaching in his reception hall. He said to the peddler, “Come up here and sell to me.” The peddler replied, “You don’t need it, nor do people like you.” Rabbi Yannai pressed him, so he went up to him. The peddler took out a wrapped book of Psalms and showed him this verse: Who is the man who desires life… Guard your tongue from evil (Psalms 34:13–14). Rabbi Yannai said, “Even Solomon announces: He who guards his mouth and his tongue, guards his soul from troubles (Proverbs 21:23) — guards his soul from leprosy.” Rabbi Yannai said, “All my days I had been reading this verse but did not know how its simple meaning was understood until this peddler came and informed me.” Therefore, Moses warns Israel: This shall be the law of the metzora [leper] — the one who brings forth evil [playing on the word metzora as motzi ra — one who speaks evil]. End of quote. The second proclamation we find in tractate Avodah Zarah (19b): Rabbi Alexandri proclaimed, “Who wants life? Who wants life?” Everyone gathered around him and came to him. They said to him, “Give us life!” He said to them, Who is the man who desires life? Guard your tongue from evil (Psalms 34:13-14). Lest a person say, “Since I have guarded my tongue from evil, I will go and indulge in sleep,” the verse teaches, Turn away from evil and do good (Psalms 34:15). And good refers to nothing other than Torah, as it is said, For I give you good doctrine (Proverbs 4:2). And behold, regarding the announcement of the peddler, one must be precise: Why should we care if it was a peddler or shopkeeper that necessitated informing us that the announcer was a peddler? Also, the language “going around” [mechazar] needs explanation, as this term refers to one who returns [chozer], and it should have said “circulating” [mesovev]. And why should we care that the towns were near Tzippori? Also, there are many differences between the peddler’s announcement and Rabbi Alexandri’s announcement, because the peddler announced “Who wants to buy the elixir of life?” mentioning “to buy,” while Rabbi Alexandri announced “Who wants life?” without mentioning “to buy.” Also, he didn’t mention any elixir. Regarding the peddler, it says “the crowd looked behind him,” implying they didn’t seek to purchase anything from him but merely looked behind him, while for Rabbi Alexandri “everyone gathered” and said “Give us life.” And what relevance is there in telling us that Rabbi Yannai was sitting in his reception hall? And what relevance is there in telling us that he showed him a book of Psalms that was bound — why does it matter if it was bound or unbound? And what was Rabbi Yannai’s intention in adding proof from Solomon who said He who guards his mouth and his tongue, etc.? And why did he say that all his days he didn’t know how how the simple meaning of the verse was understood, etc., when even young schoolchildren know how to interpret it? And if according to the Ba’al HaAkeida who explained in this section that he found difficult the switch between third person and second person, since it began in third person Who is the man who desires life and then spoke to them in second person Guard your tongue from evil, certainly the meaning of the verse is that the matter should be in the form of an announcement where the announcer proclaims generally in third person, and when buyers come to purchase, then he speaks to them in second person. Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand how he derived all this from Rabbi Alexandri’s announcement. And what seems closest to me to resolve all these questions. We find in Tractate Arakhin (15b) that Rabbi Chama bar Chanina said: What is the remedy for one who speaks lashon hara? If he is a Torah scholar, he should engage in Torah study, as it is said A healing tongue is a tree of life (Proverbs 15:4). And tongue refers to lashon hara, as it is said Their tongue is a sharpened arrow (Jeremiah 9:7). And tree of life refers to nothing other than Torah, as it is said It is a tree of life, etc. (Proverbs 3:18). And if he is an ignorant person, he should humble himself, as it is said And perverseness therein is a broken spirit (Proverbs 15:4). Rabbi Abba bar Chanina said: For one who has already spoken [lashon hara], there is no remedy, for David has already cut him off with Divine inspiration, as it is said May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that speaks big things (Psalms 12:4). Rather, what is his remedy to prevent him from coming to speak lashon hara? If he is a Torah scholar, he should engage in Torah study, etc. It appears that Rabbi Abba’s reasoning is that logic dictates there should be no remedy for the slanderer, because once someone has already spread slander, blemished the holy, spread evil rumors, and this sound of affliction has spread throughout the world, it is obvious that there is no remedy for the one who was slandered. And even if the slanderer were to sacrifice all the rams of Nevayot, he cannot take back his evil thoughts and words. Can he go from one end of the heavens to the other proclaiming, “I spoke falsely”? This is like the custom in our generation, where if one of the slanderous people defames some honorable person, his words quickly run from the rising of the sun to its setting, and he himself cannot fix what he has distorted. Therefore, it is logical that just as there is no remedy for the one who was slandered, so too there is no remedy for the slanderer. That is why David, through divine inspiration, decreed and said, May the Lord cut off all flattering lips (Psalms 12:4), and he gave a reason for this: Because of the plundering of the poor and the groaning of the needy (Psalms 12:6). These are the ones who are stricken and cry out the groaning of the wounded — the poor and the needy against whom the wrath went forth from the arrow shot of their tongues. Since there is no remedy for them, there is also no remedy for the flattering lips. And regarding this it says, Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret, him I will destroy (Psalms 101:5), which is translated as [destroyed] “completely,” meaning he will remain permanently without remedy. However, Rabbi Chama believed that since the verse speaks of “healing,” there is no healing except where there is illness. Therefore, he wanted to interpret the verse as referring to someone who has already engaged in slander. As a hint to this dispute, we find (in Ketubot 77b) that Rabbi Yochanan would announce, “Beware of the flies of those afflicted with ra’atan,” which is a kind of leprosy. The Talmud concludes that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would associate with them and engage in Torah study, etc. It is difficult to understand why Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would rely on a miracle unnecessarily. It seems to me, by way of allusion, that they disagree along the same lines as the dispute between Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Chama. For the flies are a metaphor for slanderers who act like flies, whose habit is to ignore all the clean parts of the body, but when they find some dirty spot or fresh wound, there they settle on the boil. Similarly, slanderers, if they see a person full of wisdom and honor, will never speak of their virtues, but rather look for the faults of people, for there is no righteous person on earth who does good and does not sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20) in some small foolishness. And about them Solomon said: Dead flies cause the ointment to stink etc. (Ecclesiastes 10:1). This means those with evil tongues who are compared to flies, and with the breath of His lips He kills, for evil speech kills three people (Devarim Rabbah 5:10). Therefore he called them dead flies and said cause to stink, because their entire intention is to make the reputation of good people stink. He sends forth a stinking savor of the ointment of the apothecary — sends forth is an expression of speech, meaning that even about a perfect person whose reputation is as fragrant as perfumed oil, nevertheless, he strives to make his reputation stink. A little folly is weightier than wisdom and honor — because in his eyes, that small folly that he sees in others is more precious and honorable to him than all the wisdom and honor he sees in them, until this small folly outweighs all the wisdom and honor. And he gives a reason for this: A wise man’s heart is at his right hand (Ecclesiastes 10:2), meaning to judge people favorably, as our Sages said (Tanchuma, Shemot 18), “These are those who go to the right to find merit, etc.” But a fool’s heart is at his left — to judge people unfavorably. Therefore, he never speaks of others’ virtues, only their disgrace. The reason for this is that even on the road where the fool walks, his heart is lacking, and he says to all that he is a fool (Ecclesiastes 10:3). This means that “whoever disqualifies others, with his own defect he disqualifies them” (Kiddushin 70b). This fool who suspects the innocent knows within himself that the same deficiency and flaw he attributes to others exists in himself, and his own heart is also lacking in that matter. Therefore, he says to all that they are fools, attributing to others the same foolishness that he knows exists primarily in himself, thinking that since he acts this way, everyone does the same. These are the flies that constantly investigate people’s flaws and deficiencies, as it is said they looked after Moses (Exodus 33:8). Therefore, they were afflicted with leprosy, which is called “ra’atan” [a type of skin disease]. Just as they are possessors of “ra’atan” [from the root “to see”] who look at and observe the defects of people, so they were afflicted with leprosy called “ra’atan.” And they [the Sages] said to beware of them and not to deal with them to return them from their evil ways or to show them the way of repentance, because he thought that a slanderer has no remedy. Therefore, do not deal with them in vain. This was also the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Asi, who distanced themselves from their territory [of those who spoke evil speech] in all kinds of ways, as it concludes there. And it could be that the reason for this excessive distancing was, that they should not receive harm from the arrow of the sharp tongue of [those who spoke evil speech], as it is written One who practices deceit shall not dwell within my house (Psalms 101:7), specifically in His actual house he shall not dwell, but he who speaks falsehood shall not be established across My eyes, even from a distance like a bow-shot, their tongue is a sharpened arrow as indicated by the term across, meaning that the tongue causes harm even from a distance. But Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi believed that there is a remedy even if one has already engaged in slander, if he is a Torah scholar he should engage in Torah study, etc. And this is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi concludes, “he attached himself to them and engaged in Torah study,” etc., for he believed that through Torah study there is a remedy even for one who has already spoken slander to the point that He has already been afflicted with leprosy. Indeed, Rabbi Alexandri also believed that for one who has already engaged in slander, there is no remedy. Therefore, he only approached those groups who had not yet slandered, and he would warn them and teach them ways to maintain their spiritual health so they would not come to speak lashon hara [evil speech]. He would announce, “Who wants life? Who wants life?” He did not mention the word “medicine” nor did he use the term “to buy,” because maintaining health does not require medicine — rather, the doctor teaches the patient how to benefit by guarding against harmful things so as not to become ill. Therefore, it is not proper for the teacher to request payment for his words, for just as speech was given to him as a free gift, so too should he teach ways of healing to others for free. However, one who has already fallen ill needs medicines, and for these the doctor claims his fee, because they didn’t come to him for free — he either paid for them or worked to obtain them. Since Rabbi Alexandri approached the good groups who had not yet spoken lashon hara in order to teach them how to maintain their health so they would not succumb to the sin of evil speech, he simply announced, “Who wants life? Who wants life?” He repeated the phrase to indicate that there is a remedy both for those who might speak lashon hara and for those who might be spoken about with lashon hara. Everyone gathered around him and said to him, “Give us life,” for they also desired this thing that they were already practicing, and they sought to know the path that leads to health maintenance. He said to them the verse, Who is the man who desires life… guard your tongue from evil… And since maintaining health doesn’t require any medicine, he concludes: “Lest you say, ‘I will shut my mouth in sleep to guard my tongue by completely refraining from speaking,’ the verse teaches, and do good, and good refers only to Torah…” This means that although one doesn’t need medicines or great repentance, nonetheless one needs to guard their tongue through Torah study if they are wise. But regarding the common person, he later said, The Lord is close to the brokenhearted, as it is written, perverseness in it breaks the spirit (Proverbs 15:4). However, this merchant believed that there was a remedy even for someone who had already spoken lashon hara, and he knew this from his own experience because he himself had been a peddler who went about gossiping and habitually used his tongue to sow discord between brothers. Afterward, he took it to heart to repent and sought the remedial paths that our Sages mentioned: for Torah scholars through Torah study, and for the common people through a broken spirit. He saw that these remedies helped him, so he became determined to benefit the masses and bring to repentance all those towns where he knew there were people prone to evil speech, before the days of affliction with tzara’at would come upon them and they would need to seek flying birds like the purification process of the metzora with birds that act meekly. This is what is meant by “he would go around the towns near Tzippori” — he was bringing to repentance those towns that were close to the “bird-like” behavior [a play on the name Tzippori which relates to “tzippor, bird”], those who act in petty ways. He would announce, “Who wants to buy the medicine of life?” — for they were like sick people needing medicines as a remedy, requiring purchase, which is why he mentioned “buying medicine.”For this reason, he did not conclude his announcement with “Perhaps you will say, ‘I will go and engage in sleep, etc.’” — for why would you think that someone who is already sick would be healed by doing nothing? But Rabbi Alexandri’s announcement makes sense as stated, for there the innovation was that one needs Torah study, while here the innovation is that Torah study helps even one who has already gossiped. The peddler did not repeat his proclamation to say twice “Who wants to buy the medicine of life?” as Rabbi Alexandri repeated his words, because even he admitted that for the one who was spoken about [the victim of lashon hara], there is no remedy at all, and he only sought a remedy for the one who had already spoken. This differs from Rabbi Alexandri, who sought a remedy for both. The crowd looked behind him because they had already chosen this corrupt path and were accustomed to speaking lashon hara, so they did not want to buy anything from him. On the contrary, they looked behind him and looked at him critically, for they were like people with a skin disease who look for flaws in others’ souls and their deficiencies. This is the way of those who reject rebuke — they look at their rebuker to see if they can find any hint of disqualification in him in order to respond, “Remove the beam from your own eye, etc.” Therefore, they said to him, “Yesterday you were a peddler going about gossiping, and today you want to correct our ways? Improve yourself first.” Rabbi Yannai was sitting and expounding in his reception hall, like Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Ashi who distanced themselves from the territory of slanderers so as not to be in their company. He said to him, “Come up here.” He replied, “You don’t need [it],” etc. For he believed that the verse A healing tongue is a tree of life speaks specifically of one who has already engaged in gossip, but “you and those like you don’t need protection.” Nevertheless, he troubled himself to know the remedy. He showed him a bound book of Psalms, indicating that because this book is bound and placed in a corner, with no one seeking it, requesting it, or reading it properly, therefore “they do not know the way of morality” as mentioned in the verse Who is the man who desires life? Rabbi Yannai said, “Even Solomon proclaimed,” etc. Behold, the Book of Proverbs is not bound and set aside, for it is the way of the world to teach this book to youngsters, as it says, To give the youth knowledge and discretion (Proverbs 1:4), and yet they do not practice what they read in it: He who guards his mouth and tongue, etc. Rather, they certainly know their Master and intentionally rebel against Him. It could be that the teaching supports him because he found it difficult to understand what Solomon added to his father’s words. It makes sense if the verse Who is the man who desires life is speaking about someone who has already gossiped, for whom the remedy is effective. One might think that someone who has not gossiped does not need to guard his tongue, meaning through Torah study, as Rabbi Alexandri concludes: “Perhaps you will say, ‘I will indulge in sleep,’” etc. Therefore, the verse teaches He who guards his mouth and tongue — that even one who has not gossiped needs protection through Torah study. But if one who has already gossiped has no remedy, then you must say that the verse Who is the man who desires life speaks of one who has not yet gossiped. If so, what did Solomon add in the verse He who guards his mouth and tongue beyond what his father said? Rather, it must be as you say, that this verse speaks even of one who has already gossiped. And on this Rabbi Yannai said: “All my days I did not know how the simple meaning of this verse was understood, etc.” This refers to the verse He who guards his mouth and his tongue, for he had thought that one who has already spoken evil speech has no remedy. And if so, it was difficult for him to understand what Solomon added to his father’s words, until this peddler came and informed him that the verse Who is the man who desires life speaks of one who has already spoken [evil speech], and thus, He who guards his mouth and his tongue speaks of one who has not yet spoken. And if you prefer to say that Rabbi Yannai was referring to the peddler’s verse, it seems to me that he found it difficult that the verse lacks the response of the buyers. For the seller announces, “Who is the man who desires life?” and afterward the buyers should come and say, “Give us life” or “Sell us the elixir of life,” and then he responds, “Guard and keep your tongue from evil.” Why does the verse omit the words of the buyers?Rather, certainly the truth is as the peddler said, that this verse speaks of groups who have already spoken evil speech and find it difficult to abandon the habit, and sometimes they do not seek to buy the remedy. This happened to the peddler, as they did not ask to buy anything from him. Nevertheless, the announcer is obligated to inform them of this moral path even if they do not request it from him. Therefore, the verse omits the words of the buyers to tell you that even if there is a perverse generation that does not seek to buy anything from the healer and does not inquire of him, nevertheless, he should seek after them to show them the path of peace, as it is written Seek peace and pursue it (Psalms 34:15). And our Sages said (Leviticus Rabbah 9:9): “For all commandments, if they come to your hand you are obligated to do them, but peace is not so; rather, you are obligated to seek after it, as it is said Seek peace and pursue it.” And this is through Turn from evil and do good, and good refers only to Torah, etc., for it is therefore said that all her paths are peace (Proverbs 3:17), because it saves from evil speech which causes all matters of strife. And this is what is meant by Who is the man who desires life, who loves days to see good, for those gossipmongers love the days in which they can see the evil they find in others so that they have a place to lodge against them and speak about them. But one who desires life closes his eyes from seeing evil and loves the days in which he will see the good in others, saying, “If only all God’s people were prophets.” And this happens when he guards his tongue from evil through Torah study, which is hinted at in do good, and “there is no good but Torah,” etc. And for the unlearned person [it comes] through a broken spirit, as it is written The Lord is close to the brokenhearted (Psalms 34:19). I have gone beyond my usual bounds to elaborate a bit on a matter that is not directly related to the simple interpretation of the portion, because I have seen that this generation is extremely breached in the sin of speech, and it is an old-established leprosy. For even in the Egyptian exile they were [in trouble] because they had informers among them (Tanchuma, Exodus 10), and they were redeemed by virtue of four things, one of which was that they did not speak evil of one another, etc. (Yalkut Shimoni, Emor 657). In the Second Temple period, they returned to their wayward behavior, and still today in this current exile, the sin of speech continues to grow until the wrath of God rises to the point where there is no healing. Therefore, I saw fit to speak somewhat [longer, to bring about] awakening about this, saying perhaps the blind ones in the camp of the Hebrews will hear and take to heart to repair this breach. And this I expounded in the holy community of Lublin on Parashat Zachor 5362 (1602) when the leaders of the people and the sages of all the communities gathered together, and to that I have added words here and there. And cedar wood, crimson yarn, and hyssop. He should have placed cedar wood next to the hyssop since both are from the plant kingdom. Why did He insert the crimson [derived from a worm] yarn between them? And in Parashat Chukat (19:6), it is written cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson yarn. Why did it change here? It appears that this passage deals with the remedy for evil speech [lashon hara], for even if the one who speaks it is as lowly as this worm, nevertheless one strikes at a great person who is compared to a cedar, as concluded in Yalkut (Isaiah 450) on the verse Fear not, O worm Jacob (Isaiah 41:14). Therefore, one’s atonement requires cedar wood, crimson yarn, and hyssop, to atone for what one did — the act of the worm against the cedar. And one’s remedy is that one should humble oneself like the hyssop, and then one will not desire to cast blemish upon the holy ones. The reason for the two birds is that a person has two types of speech: one forbidden and one that is a commandment. The forbidden speech — namely, evil speech [lashon hara] and the like — is represented by the bird that makes chirping sounds, which is slaughtered over an earthenware vessel with living water. For if one is an unlearned person [am ha’aretz], he should have a broken spirit, as it is said: and perverseness therein is a breaking of the spirit (Proverbs 15:4). For he has the status of an earthenware vessel, which can only be purified through breaking. Corresponding to this, it says to slaughter the bird that makes chirping sounds over an earthenware vessel. And if he is a Torah scholar, he should engage in Torah study, which is compared to living waters; therefore it says over living water. For this reason, the phrase “this is the law of” is mentioned five times regarding the leper, to tell you that one who engages in the five books of the Torah is saved from leprosy that comes due to evil speech. And the living bird represents the chattering of words in Torah and prayer, though one needs to combine this speech with cedar wood, crimson thread, and hyssop, which indicates submission and humility, so that even in words of Torah, one should have a broken and contrite heart. And our Sages said (Sotah 5a): “Regarding a person [with pride], it does not say ‘and healed,’ but regarding flesh it says And when the flesh has in its skin a boil, and it is healed (Leviticus 13:18).” For one who has a heart of flesh that is soft has healing. And thus our Sages said (Sotah 5a): “Flesh [basar, is formed from the first letters of these three words,] shame, decay, worms,” for remembering all these things brings one to a broken heart and humility. Therefore it says: And he shall dip them in the blood of the slaughtered bird to sprinkle upon him from both birds, in order to connect two things at once — repentance for the past and correction for the future.

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

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

The priest shall command, and one of the birds shall be slaughtered into an earthen vessel over spring water.

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

"And the priest shall command, and he shall slaughter" — another priest, or an Israelite; some say the one afflicted with tzara'at [slaughters it], but this is unlikely. "Into an earthen vessel" — [the preposition] el here means "al" (upon/over), as in "for this child I prayed" [אל הנער הזה התפללתי] (I Samuel 1:27), where el likewise means "upon/concerning." "Living water" — drawn from a flowing source.

וצוה הכהן ושחט, “and the priest issues the order to slaughter. The order had to be given by a priest, whereas it could be executed by any ordinary Israelite. (According to Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Yossi.) [Some sages disagree that an ordinary Israelite could perform the act of slaughtering in this instance. Ed.] ושחט את הצפור האחת, “the superior looking one of the two birds.” (Based on the prefix ה before the word (אחת על מים חיים, “over running water,” (from a spring, not a tap.) The symbolism here is to show that the deadlike person who had been afflicted, was now on the way back and could take his place among them. על מים חיים, this spring water was to mix with the blood of the bird which had been slaughtered, so that the hyssop and the leaves from the cedar tree could be dipped in that mixture with the crimson wool and the living bird.

אל כלי חרס, “into an earthen vessel.” Allegorically speaking, the person preparing to rejoin society is to humble himself, like broken earthenware. על מים חיים, “over spring water;” just as Naaman, the Assyrian general who had to bathe himself in the river Jordan.

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

The living bird he shall take — it, and the cedar wood, and the crimson thread, and the hyssop — and he shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was slaughtered over the spring water.

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

"And he shall dip them" — [namely] the cedar, the crimson thread, and the hyssop. "Over the water" — for the blood is mixed into it.

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

And he shall sprinkle seven times upon the one being purified from tzara'at, and he shall declare him pure, and he shall release the living bird over the face of the field.

"And he shall sprinkle" — from the blood mixed [in the water], after dipping also the living bird and the other items mentioned. "Upon the face of the field" — a place where there is no settlement, so that the tzara'at should not spread. And the sprinkling is done with all three [items together], or with the hyssop alone, as with the impurity of a corpse.

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

והזה על המטהר מן הצרעת, and he shall sprinkle on him that is to be purified, etc. Why did the Torah have to write the words מן הצרעת? Is it not obvious that we speak about someone who had suffered from "leprosy?" Perhaps the fact that this sprinkling of the blood mixed with מים חיים of the slaughtered bird still did not complete the purification process and the former "leper" still has to remain outside his home for another seven days shows he is comparable to a woman who had suffered from vaginal secretions, זבה. During these seven days before the former "leper" brings his final offerings and undergoes the procedure outlined in verses 9-20 he is still a primary source of ritual impurity, אב הטומאה. The Torah therefore emphasised by the words המטהר מן הצרעת that the person is being cleansed only of the actual plague called צרעת; he is not yet "clean." If we learn in verse 9 that this person must wash his garments on the seventh day this proves that his body conferred impurity on his clothing during the preceding seven days. This proves in turn that he was a primary source of ritual impurity as secondary sources of impurity do not confer טומאה on clothing. The words מן הצרעת are amply justified then. Torat Kohanim offers a different explanation, saying that the words מן הצרעת are intended to teach that if someone's ritual impurity is due to contact with a dead body he does not have to undergo seven sprinklings of מים חיים. Had the Torah not written the words מן הצרעת, I would have concluded through a קל וחומר that if a "leper" who does not require sprinklings of water from a well (mixed with the ash of the red heifer) on the third and seventh day of his purification process nonetheless requires seven sprinklings of blood, then a person whose impurity is due to contact with a dead body would certainly need these seven sprinklings of מים חיים spring water mixed with the blood.. Hence the Torah wrote the words מן הצרעת in order to teach me that such a קל וחומר is not admissible. At the end of that Baraitha it is stated that the word וטהרו in verse 7 is restrictive and teaches that the "leper" does not have to undergo sprinklings of well water mixed with the ash of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of his purification rites as does the person who purifies himself from ritual impurity due to contact with a dead body. Had the Torah not written the word וטהרו, I would have learned a קל וחומר that if such a טמא מת who does not require the seven sprinklings of מים חיים plus blood, nonetheless requires sprinkling of well water mixed with the ash of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of his purification rites, the "leper" who even requires the seven sprinklings of blood mixed with מים חיים certainly would also require the sprinkling with well water (containing ash from the red heifer) on the third and seventh day of his own waiting period. The word וטהרו therefore means that the ritual described previously is sufficient. I do not unders...

שבע פעמים;” seven times.” This bird’s blood was to be sprinkled on the back of the hand of the afflicted person. וטהרו, “and pronounce him ritually pure;” ושלח את הצפור החיה, “whereupon he is to send off the living bird;” this is a symbol of the purity signifying that the tzoraat has “flown off” the owner of these birds who had suffered the affliction. The allegorical meaning is that whereas previously the owner of this bird had sat on the roof of a house (i.e. homeless and exposed to all kinds of danger, seeing that he had been forbidden any contact with human society, now he had miraculously been readmitted to civilization and all its advantages.)

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

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

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

The one being purified shall wash his garments and shave all his hair and bathe in water, and he shall be pure. Afterward he may enter the camp, but he shall dwell outside his tent for seven days.

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

"And he shall wash" [and then] "and shave all his hair" — this is the general statement; "and bathe in water and be pure" — in the evening, as prescribed. After this, Scripture returns to explain that [the shaving] takes place after seven days — just as was the rule for Miriam's seven [days of isolation] — and specifies: "he shall shave all his hair on the seventh day," and clarifies "all his hair: his head, and his beard, and his eyebrows." This word ["eyebrows," גבות] is close in derivation to the root gab [meaning ridge or brow].

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

וכבס המטהר את בגדיו, and the person to be "cleansed" is to wash his garments, etc. Why does the Torah decree this washing of the garments seeing that during the ensuing seven days the מטהר keeps on conferring impurity on garments by contact with them? I have explained on verse 7 that the words מן הצרעת refer to the impurity his body had suffered from up until now and which he is rid of, and this requires that at some stage he washes his garments in order to purify them, why do it now when they will likely become defiled again immediately by a different level of ritual impurity? I have found the following answer to this in Torat Kohanim. "What does the word וכבס teach us? If it is to tell us that the "leper" conferred ritual impurity on these garments through touching them, I did not need a verse to tell us this as I could have arrived at this by a קל וחומר based on the status of the afflicted person while he awaits the priest's final decision. During those days he does not confer impurity on people by reason of his entering the camp (based on Leviticus 13,3) although his garments become impure on contact. During the purification days when he would confer impurity on entering the camp, surely his garments also absorb impurity from him during those days? The verse therefore informs us about the additional ways the מטהר confers impurity, i.e. through someone sitting on those garments or lying on them even without touching them. Thus far Torat Kohanim. According to this, the word וכבס would indicate that after this washing the garments of the person undergoing purification rites will no longer confer impurity by someone lying on them or sitting on them. The main thrust of the Torat Kohanim's comment on the word וכבס is based on our very question that the procedure seems useless seeing the clothing will become impure again immediately. There was no need to question the plain meaning of the word וכבס, seeing washing will result in purification of the garments. There would have been nothing unusual in the Torah requiring someone to remove impurity at the first possible opportunity; we would not have had to look for any explanation beyond this were it not for the question of what function such washing of the clothing would serve at that stage. The Torah did issue similar directives when it comes to the shaving of the hair of the מטהר which also is something that has to occur both on the first day of the purification rites as well as on the seventh day. I have seen that Rabbenu Hillel actually writes that the conclusion of Torat Kohanim that as of the time of this washing the clothing of the מטהר no longer confers impurity by sitting on them or lying on them should be stricken from the text. The reason he advances for this is a statement in Pessachim 67 that the ritual impurity of a person suffering an involuntary seminal emission, זב, is more severe than that of a person afflicted with צרעת seeing that a זב confers impurity on anything he sits or slee...

On the seventh day he shall shave all his hair — his head, his beard, and his eyebrows — yes, all his hair he shall shave. He shall wash his garments and bathe his flesh in water, and he shall be pure.

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

AND IT SHALL BE ON THE SEVENTH DAY, THAT HE SHALL SHAVE ALL HIS HAIR, HIS HEAD AND HIS BEARD AND HIS EYEBROWS, EVEN ALL HIS HAIR HE SHALL SHAVE OFF. “This is a general principle [he shall shave all his head] followed by an enumeration of particulars [already comprehended in the general proposition, i.e., his head etc.] and [this again is followed by] a generalization [all his hair he shall shave off]. This is to include every spot of the body where there is a visible collection of hair” [just like the head, beard and eyebrows]. This is Rashi’s language. But in the Torath Kohanim it is stated: “And he shall shave off all his hair. I might think this includes the hidden parts of the body; Scripture therefore states, his eyebrows. Just as the eyebrows are visible, so also [the expression] all his hair refers only to visible parts of the body, thus excluding hair which is in the hidden parts of the body. If so I might think, just as the eyebrows are in a place where there is a visible collection of hair, so we are to include [only] those places where there is a visible collection of hair. Whence do I know to include [in the commandment of shaving his hair] an invisible collection of hair [such as under the armpits, and between the legs], or a visible scattering of hair [such as on the stomach or ribs] or an invisible scattering of hair [such as the hair in the folds of the body]? Scripture therefore says, even all his hair he shall shave off.” However, the Rabbi [Rashi] followed the interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael, who included only the hair between the legs, and excluded the hair under the armpits and on the whole body [since they are not “visible collections of hair].” But here the accepted law is that he shaves his body as smooth as a gourd, either because this is one [of the three instances] where the practice goes beyond the Biblical text, or because the accepted law is like the opinion of Rabbi Akiba, who [as a consequence of his wider method of exegesis] included the hair of the whole body [in the requirement of being shaved], and excluded only the hair within the nose [or ears]. So also have we been taught in a Mishnah [like Rabbi Akiba]: “He passed the razor over the whole of his body,” and it is further explained in the second chapter of Tractate Sotah.

"And all his hair" — the hair of the legs; some say also [the hair of] the arms, the shins, and the chest.

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

ורחץ את בשרו במים וטהר and he will bathe his flesh in water and be "clean." Why did the Torah have to write the word בשרו, his flesh? We have stated that the word בשרו in 15,13 in connection with the זב meant that only the זב and not the מצורע requires immersion in מים חיים, and that the word excludes washing of the clothing in מים חיים from the requirement. It is not possible to justify both these exegetical comments from the use of a single word בשרו. Now that this word appears here also and is not needed in its own right, the comment of Korban Aharon on 15,13 is acceptable. We can also ask why the word במים had to be written in this verse again. The explanation we offered for that word being written in verse 8 does not apply here. In that verse we could have erred by thinking that but for that word the מטהר would have had to immerse himself in מים חיים, seeing he had already had to undergo sprinkling with מים חיים. There was no reason to make such a קל וחומר the second time. If you were to argue that the whole procedure of purifying the מצורע is a single procedure and that therefore any possible misunderstanding and the subsequent קל וחומר would apply equally to both washings, we have already eliminated the need for bathing in מים חיים, even in an instance when sprinkling with מים חיים had been necessary. There could not have been room for error then to make the word במים necessary a second time. We would have to answer that the scholar arguing that without the word במים a second time, the only thing which the first word במים eliminated was the need for מים חיים for his first bathing, something that anyway did not confer complete purity on him. On the other hand, we could have argued that the final bathing, which results in the absolute purity of the מטהר, would require מים חיים unless specifically excluded by the word במים again in our verse. We must not forget that the זב is purified completely by a single bathing (15,14). The two situations are therefore not comparable. Even though the second purification process of the מצורע is not accompanied by sprinkling of מים חיים, I could have argued that it should not involve a procedure inferior to that of the זב. If the Torah wrote the word במים also in our verse, this teaches that no מים חיים is required in the final bathing of the מצורע. The Torah was particular to write the word בשרו which is the very word which caused us to argue in the case of the זב that he needed to bathe himself in running water from a well. Had the word בשרו not been mentioned in our verse also, I would have concluded that the only thing which the word במים excluded was the need to wash the clothing, etc., of the מצורע in מים חיים, but that he would have to bathe at least his body in running water from a well based on the קל וחומר from the situation the Torah describes when telling us about the purification rites of the זב. You may be tempted to ask why the Torah did not merely write ורחץ בשרו במים in verse 9 and the ...

והיה ביום השביעי יגלח, and as soon as the seventh day has come, he will shave all his hair. The reference is to hair that has grown during the preceding seven days. There are two occasions when shaving has to occur. He has to perform two separate shavings; את כל שערו את ראשו, “all the hair on his head;” but when the Torah prescribes the Levites as having to shave off their hair, it requires only the eyelids and eyebrows and their body hair. (Numbers 8,7). The purpose there is for cosmetic purposes. Usually they only shave off excess hair and they leave most of it. If they had been asked to remove all their body hair they would present themselves as practically naked in the Presence of the glory of G-d;People who had been afflicted with tzoraat, on the other hand, would have been asked to remove the whole skin over their flesh if they would be able to survive such a procedure. The Torah, therefore, does not ask this of them, but is content with a symbolic procedure. It only wants to ensure that all the symptoms of their affliction have been removed. ואת כל שערו, “and all of his hair;” what is the meaning of these words? Why does the Torah repeats this instruction? It is to emphasise the critical importance of this procedure and its date. It must be performed on the seventh day, but if not, it may be performed on the eighth or ninth or tenth day.

“And it shall be on the seventh day, he shall shave all his hair.” And afterward it specified his head and his beard and his eyebrows even though our Sages (Sotah 16a) interpreted this as a general statement followed by specifics. Nevertheless, according to our approach, we can say that the reason it specified these three principal parts is because they are proximate to the three principal sins for which the afflictions come. His head to atone for haughtiness that desires to be the head of everything, as it is written Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, etc., the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion (Isaiah 3:16-17). And his beard, which are the hairs around the mouth, to atone for the mouth that speaks lashon hara. And his eyebrows, to atone for stinginess [literally narrow-eyedness].

On the eighth day he shall take two unblemished male lambs and one unblemished ewe lamb in its first year, and three tenths of an ephah of fine flour as a meal offering mixed with oil, and one log of oil.

וכבשה אחת AND ONE EWE-LAMB for a sin-offering. ושלשה עשרנים AND THREE TENTH DEALS [OF FLOUR] — as the drink-offerings of these three he-lambs (Menachot 91a) — because the sin-offering and the guilt-offering of the leper require drink-offerings (although they are not required with other sin- and guilt-offerings). ולג אחד שמן AND ONE LOG OF OIL — to sprinkle on his behalf before the Lord seven times (cf. v. 17), and to put of it upon the tip of his ear and for putting it upon his thumbs (v. 25).

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

"Two male lambs and one ewe-lamb" — because the plague of tzara'at is a chastisement for the sin of speech, he therefore brings one lamb as a burnt offering, as is the rule for all burnt offerings that ascend for [sins of] the spirit; and one as a guilt offering, as is the rule for every guilt offering; and a female for the sin offering, as is the rule for every sin offering; and three tenths [of an ephah], as is the rule of a tenth per lamb. "And one log" — a measure that has no parallel. The meaning is that those lambs and the ewe-lamb — also this guilt offering and this sin offering — belong to the priest, apart from what was stated [earlier].

שני כבשים, “two male sheep;” one is to be a burnt offering, i.e. the priests do not get to eat any of it, and neither does the owner, and the second sheep is to be a guilt offering. וכבשה אחת, “and one female sheep;” this is to be a sin offering, to be treated like any regular sin offering. This sacrifice will be accompanied by a libation consisting of three tenths parts of an eyphah of fine flour (one tenth for each of the three animals) for a meal offering mixed with oil and one log of oil;

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

The priest who performs the purification shall present the man being purified, along with them, before Hashem at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

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

והעמיד הכהן המטהר, and the priest administering the purification rites will place, etc. this is best explained in light of a comment in Keylim 1,8 that someone whose atonement is not complete is not allowed to enter the courtyard of the Temple intended for the Israelite public. Here the Torah commands that the person undergoing the purification rites stand outside at the entrance to the Nikanor gate as stated in Sotah 7, based on the Torah writing the words לפני השם, "in the presence of the Lord." The Torah charges the administering priest with ensuring that the former "leper," the מטהר, not cross the threshold into the courtyard. He must not even stretch his hand inside and perform סמיכה on the sin-offering. According to Torat Kohanim the Torah permitted him only to place his head inside that area so that the priest could place the oil on his right earlobe and on his respective right thumbs. The principal reason the priest was charged with this task was to prevent the מטהר accidentally crossing the borderline with a substantial part of his body. הכהן המטהר, the priest who performs the purification rites; the reason both these words are necessary is this. If the Torah had only written הכהן, I would not have known that this particular part of the commandment could not be performed by any priest but had to be performed by the priest who administered all the rites. If, on the other hand, the Torah had written only the word המטהר, I would not have been sure that this chore had to be supervised by a priest at all; there are, after all, functions in the total purification procedure which may be performed by a non-priest. Hence the Torah had to write הכהן המטהר. האיש המטהר ואותם, the man who must be purified and these things; the Torah had to write both the word האיש and the word המטהר, so that we would not conclude that the word האיש excludes a minor as not being included in this part of the legislation although he is liable to be afflicted by צרעת and such affliction makes him ritually impure. Hence the Torah had to add the word המטהר. On the other hand, this word would not have sufficed without the additional word האיש as I might have reasoned that the need for the priest to supervise where the former "leper" had to stand applied only to a minor who had been afflicted and who might not take care where he stood. I would have assumed that an adult could be trusted to watch where he stands at the entrance to the courtyard. The Torah indicates that we do not trust an adult without supervision either. This is why the additional word איש is in place. Torat Kohanim explains the reason that the Torah added the word האיש as excluding the sin-offering and the burnt-offering from the need to undergo the תנופה, the waving, which the Torah demands for the guilt-offering in verse 12. The Torah then writes another exclusion by means of the word אותו in verse 12 excluding also the man himself, meaning that only the guilt-offering and the log of oil need to be wav...

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

ואותם, the sheep under discussion.

The priest shall take one male lamb and offer it as a guilt offering, along with the log of oil, and he shall wave them as a wave offering before Hashem.

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

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

He shall slaughter the male lamb in the place where the sin offering and the burnt offering are slaughtered, in the sacred area; for as the sin offering is, so is the guilt offering — it belongs to the priest; it is most holy.

'במקום אשר ישחט וגו IN THE PLACE WHERE HE SHALL SLAUGHTER etc. — i.e. on the side of the altar on the north. But why is this stated at all? Has it not already been stated in in the law about the guilt-offering in the section צו את אהרן that the guilt-offering requires slaughtering on the north side of the altar? But because this guilt-offering has gone forth from (was made an exception to) the general rule of the guilt- offerings in that it is subject to the law of being placed before the Lord (v. 11), one might think that its slaughtering should be in the spot where it was placed (in the gateway of Nicanor; i. e. it shall be made an exception also in respect to the place where it should be slaughtered); on that account it states, “and he shall slaughter [the lamb] in the place where he slaughters [the sin-offering] etc ” (Sifra, Metzora, Section 3 8). י כחטאתכ FOR AS THE SIN-OFFERING [SO IS THE GUILT-OFFERING TO THE PRIEST] — This means, for as all sin-offerings so this guilt-offering הוא לכהן is to the priest, i. e. as regards all sacrificial rites which depend upon the priest this guilt-offering is made exactly similar to the sin-offering. In order that you should not say: Since its blood is made an exception to the general rule governing other guilt-offerings in that this is placed upon the tip of the ear and upon the thumbs, it must also form an exception in that it should not require the placing of the blood and the fat portions upon the altar, it therefore expressly states, “for as all sin-offerings so is this guilt-offering to the priest” (לכהן, in reference to the priest, so far as he is concerned). One might also think that its blood must be sprinkled on the upper part of the altar as is the case with the sin-offering! Therefore it says: (Leviticus 7:1, 2) “it is most holy … and its blood shall he sprinkle round about the altar”. So it is set forth in Torath Cohanim (cf. Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 3 1; Zevachim 49a).

The priest shall take some of the blood of the guilt offering, and the priest shall place it on the tip of the right ear of the one being purified, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot.

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

"Upon the lobe" — its meaning is known from context. Behold, the one being purified from tzara'at, which [afflicts] the body, is like the priest who consecrates himself [at his inauguration], for sin is to the soul as tzara'at is to the body. The thumb is the place of joining and is the chief of all actions; the right side signifies power. And the lobe [of the ear] is a reminder of what was heard and commanded.

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

The priest shall take some of the log of oil and pour it into the palm of the priest's left hand.

"Upon the palm of the priest's left hand" — this is the palm of the purifying priest; this is simply the elegant manner of expression in the Holy Tongue, as is proven by the verse that follows.

The priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left palm and shall sprinkle from the oil with his finger seven times before Hashem.

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

"Before Hashem" — at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

וטבל הכהן, “the priest would dip, etc.” from the oil,” the word מן השמן used here mans “into the oil.” We could have expected the Torah to have written בשמן instead. וטבל ...והזה, every time the priest sprinkled from the oil he first dipped his finger in the oil again. הימנית, “the right one;” not the finger of the person holding the bowl with the oil. What the right hand or finger does is always more visible than what the left hand does.

Of the remaining oil that is in his palm, the priest shall place some on the tip of the right ear of the one being purified, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot — over the blood of the guilt offering.

"Upon the blood of the guilt offering" — which [is applied] to the lobe, the thumb, and the big toe.

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

And of what remaineth of the oil that is in his hand the priest shall put some upon the cartilage of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, and upon the middle finger of his right hand, and on the middle toe of his right foot upon the spot whereon he had first put the blood of the trespass offering.

What is left of the oil that is in the priest's palm he shall place on the head of the one being purified, and the priest shall make atonement for him before Hashem.

AND THE REST OF THE OIL THAT IS IN THE PRIEST’S HAND HE SHALL PUT UPON THE HEAD OF HIM TO BE CLEANSED; AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIM BEFORE THE ETERNAL. This atonement is accomplished by means of the priest’s acts with the blood of the guilt-offering [as prescribed in Verse 14] and the oil [as set forth in Verses 15-18]. Similarly, the verse stating [in connection with a leper who is poor], to make atonement for him before the Eternal, [carries the same meaning]. And in the Torath Kohanim we find it said: “And the rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put upon the head of him that is to be cleansed, and the priest shall make atonement. ‘If he put [the rest of the oil upon his head], he effected atonement for him, and if he did not put it thereon, he did not effect atonement.’ These are the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yochanan the son of Nuri said: ‘This is the residue of a commandment, [and therefore is not part of the commandment itself, and thus not indispensable]; whether he put it thereon or did not put it thereon, he has effected atonement.’” Now if so, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan the son of Nuri, the expression and the priest shall make atonement for him, refers [only] to the guilt-offering [which is indispensable in the final purification of the leper].Now Scripture states [here] in the case of the guilt-offering, and the priest shall make atonement, and then states again in the case of the sin-offering, and he shall make atonement for him that is to be cleansed because of his uncleanness, and with reference to the burnt-offering and meal-offering it also states, and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean. But we do not know the purport of all these expressions of atonement. Perhaps the guilt-offering effects atonement for the trespass that he committed before he was affected by his plague, and the sin-offering effects atonement for his sin which he committed during the time of the plague. For perhaps in his anguish he ascribed aught unseemly to G-d, this being the significance of the expression because of his uncleanness [used in connection with the sin-offering that he must bring]. The burnt-offering and meal-offering constitute a ransom for his soul, that he be worthy to be purified and return to his dwelling. Therefore He said, and the priest shall make atonement for him, ‘and he shall be clean.’Now in the Torath Kohanim it is stated: “And the priest shall offer the sin-offering, and make atonement. Why is this said? Since it is said, And the priest shall offer the burnt-offering and the meal-offering upon the altar, I might think that they are all indispensible for the purification of the leper, therefore Scripture states, and the priest shall offer the sin-offering, and make atonement, thus teaching that the atonement is dependent [only] upon the sin-offering.” It is possible that the expression and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean a...

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

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

The priest shall perform the sin offering and make atonement for the one being purified from his impurity, and afterward he shall slaughter the burnt offering.

"And the priest shall perform the sin offering" — that is the ewe-lamb, according to the law of every sin offering.

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

The priest shall offer up the burnt offering and the meal offering on the altar, and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be pure.

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

"And he shall offer up" [the burnt offering] — that is the male lamb along with its meal offering, which is one tenth [of an ephah]. Some say that the entire meal offering is offered as a burnt offering, and that first [comes] the guilt offering, which is the weightier one. "And he shall be pure" — then he shall be pure like all who are pure.

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

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

But if he is poor and his means do not suffice, he shall take one male lamb as a guilt offering to be waved, to make atonement for him, and one tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as a meal offering, and a log of oil.

ועשרון סלת אחד AND ONE TENTH DEAL OF FLOUR — for this lamb which is a single one he shall bring one tenth part of flour to accompany its drink-offering. שמן ולג AND A LOG OF OIL — to place of it upon the thumbs. The quantity of the oil required for the libations of the meal-offering Scripture did not find it necessary to specify here (since it is given in Numbers 15:4 where three logs are prescribed; consequently the one log mentioned hero cannot be intended for the libations but for placing on the thumbs).

"Dal" [poor] — there is poverty of body, as in "lean and wretched" (Genesis 41:19), and "happy is he who considers the dal" (Psalms 41:2) — likewise "the dal son of the king" (II Samuel 13:4); and there is dal who has no money [i.e., financial poverty].

ואם דל הוא ואין ידו משגת, And if he is poor and he cannot afford (3 sheep as the respective offerings). Why did the Torah have to repeat, i.e. tell us that the meaning of "he is poor" is that "he cannot afford," etc.? Perhaps the Mishnah in Kritut 27 may clarify this for us. We are told there that "if someone set aside a sheep or nanny-goat as the offering he had to bring, and said animal becomes disqualified for the altar by developing a blemish, and the owner also became poor during the interval, he may sell the animal in question and offer a bird -offering with the proceeds of the sale." The Talmud derives this ruling from the word מחטאתו written in the Torah in connection with the sin-offering reserved for the very poor people. There would be good reason to argue that seeing that in the case of a מצורע the Torah had not made provision for a meal-offering by the very poor people to take the place of either the sheep or the birds as the case may be, it is not in order to use words exegetically which were written in a situation that is quite different. [The sin-offering dealt with there is one brought by a person who committed the kind of sin which carries the כרת penalty or worse, if it had been committed knowingly, something that certainly is not the case with the מצורע who brings a guilt-offering. Ed.] It would have been reasonable to suppose that just as the Torah did not allow a very poor מצורע to offer a meal-offering as his guilt-offering, so it would also not allow him to make the kind of substitution discussed in connection with the sin-offering in the Talmud in Kritut. The Torah therefore writes the extra words ואין ידו משגת, to tell us that the substitution for two turtle doves would be in order also in the case of the מצורע. Alternatively, we could explain the apparently unnecessary words ואין ידו משגת by referring to the reverse situation described on the same folio in Kritut. A very poor person had set aside the meal-offering required for his sin-offering; it became unfit for the altar. Before this person could arrange a substitute his economic situation improved but not sufficiently to enable him to offer a sheep. He therefore prepared birds. When the same story repeated itself with the birds becoming unfit as an offering, the owner became still better off so that he could afford to bring the sheep as a sin-offering that normally well-situated people have to bring to obtain their atonement. This person has to bring the expensive offering though at the time he became liable for the offering he had indeed been very poor. The extra words ואין ידו משגת may therefore be used to teach that the Torah describes a temporary state of affairs and that the words may work to the advantage or the disadvantage of the person described in Kritut. Torat Kohanim writes as follows: "The words 'he is poor,' might be understood to mean that he used to have 100 dollars and now only has 50 dollars. The Torah tells you that it does not speak about such...

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

And two turtledoves or two young pigeons, whichever his means allow; one shall be a sin offering and one a burnt offering.

He shall bring them on the eighth day of his purification to the priest, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, before Hashem.

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

The priest shall take the lamb of the guilt offering and the log of oil, and the priest shall wave them as a wave offering before Hashem.

He shall slaughter the lamb of the guilt offering, and the priest shall take some of the blood of the guilt offering and place it on the tip of the right ear of the one being purified, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot.

The priest shall pour some of the oil into the palm of the priest's left hand.

The priest shall sprinkle with his right finger some of the oil that is in his left palm, seven times before Hashem.

The priest shall place some of the oil that is in his palm on the tip of the right ear of the one being purified, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, over the place of the blood of the guilt offering.

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

What remains of the oil that is in the priest's palm he shall place on the head of the one being purified, to make atonement for him before Hashem.

He shall offer one of the turtledoves or of the young pigeons, whichever his means allow.

And the priest shall perform (the offering of) one of the large turtle doves, or of the pigeons of which his hand had sufficiency.

Of that which his means allow — the one as a sin offering and the one as a burnt offering — along with the meal offering; and the priest shall make atonement for the one being purified before Hashem.

על המנחה, “in addition to the mealoffering.”

This is the law for one in whom there is an affliction of tzara'at, whose means do not suffice at the time of his purification.

זאת תורת אשר בו נגע צרעת, This is the law concerning someone afflicted with "leprosy," etc. The entire verse seems superfluous. Our sages in Torat Kohanim explain that the extraneous words זאת תורת refer to the situation when a poor person insisted on bringing the guilt-offering appropriate for a rich person. His offering is acceptable. You may well ask why the Torah had to tell us this. Why should it not be simple logic seeing the Torah's verses dealing with the poor man were designed only to lighten his burden. If such a person is willing to extend himself beyond what he is obligated to do more power to him! He will surely be blessed! It appears that seeing that the Torah used the word זאת to exclude a wealthy man who brought the offering appropriate for a poor man, the Torah was afraid that the reader might feel that a poor man would also not be allowed to deviate from the rules laid down previously. The word תורת therefore teaches that the poor is free to do better than the Torah demanded of him. This still leaves the words אשר לא תשיג ידו in our verse unaccounted for. Perhaps the Torah was afraid that some scholar would attempt to draw a comparison between what has been written about relative poverty of people who have to bring guilt-offerings because of failing to testify, or contracting impurity and entering the Temple in such a state, etc. in Leviticus 5,7. In those cases the Torah had provided for the minimal meal-offering to be brought by the lowest category of the poor. Such people are required to bring only two tenths Eypha of fine flour etc. instead of two birds. The scholar may have wanted to extrapolate that if the "leper" is too poor, he too may discharge his obligation by such a meal-offering. The Torah therefore had to write אשר לא תשיג ידו בטהרתו, that such a person cannot attain his purification unless he brings two turtle doves, etc.; the Torah therefore wrote זאת תורת אשר…לא תשיג ידו בטהרתו to tell us that although he cannot afford it at the time he is being purified and he is wallowing in misery he still must bring two birds, no less. A moral-ethical approach to this verse may be based on the Zohar (Tikkunim 22) according to which the state of poverty is called צרעת which accounts for the fact that both people afflicted with poverty and those afflicted with "leprosy" are described as "dead" in Nedarim 64. This is what the Torah alludes to when it wrote אשר בו נגע צרעת, meaning the fact that the person who has to bring the offering is still poor is evidence that he is still afflicted with the plague of "leprosy." The Torah explains this by adding: "that he cannot afford it during his purification rites."

And Hashem spoke with Moses and with Aaron, saying:

"And Hashem spoke to Moses and to Aaron" — He begins to explain the tzara'at of the house.

When you come into the land of Canaan, which I am giving to you as an inheritance, and I place an affliction of tzara'at in a house in the land of your inheritance —

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

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

The meaning of "when you come to the land of Canaan" — for this [law] applies in the Land alone, on account of the great sanctity of the Land, for the Sanctuary is within it and the Glory is within the Sanctuary. "And I shall give" — the matter is contingent upon Hashem's giving [of it].

כי תבאו…ונתתי נגע צרעת, When you come to the land…and I will give a plague of "leprosy," etc. How can one describe the plague of "leprosy" breaking out on one's house as good news so that the Torah describes it as a gift from G'd? Why did the Torah not merely write: "when the walls of your houses develop certain stains, etc." in the same way as the Torah described such a skin disease in 13,9? Vayikra Rabbah 17,6 was conscious of this and explained that the Canaanites who heard that the Israelites were approaching hid their valuables inside the walls of their houses. When the walls would display signs of "leprosy," the Jewish owner would investigate and discover the hidden treasure. This is homiletics, of course. Rabbi Levy explains in that same Midrash that when G'd wishes to reprove us He does not immediately inflict pain on our bodies, but He first afflicts our houses, and in the event this does not help He afflicts our clothing. Only if we fail to respond to these two warnings does G'd inflict the plague on our bodies, i.e. our skin. When viewed in this light the affliction on the house is indeed a "gift" i.e. a demonstration of G'd's loving concern for us. Why then did the Torah list the respective plagues on man, his clothing, and his house, in the reverse order of what Rabbi Levy would have us believe? I have explained this previously. At the time the legislation was revealed the Israelites had not yet entered the Holy Land and therefore G'd could not warn the guilty individual by smiting his house first. The reason the Torah introduced this paragraph with the words: "when you come to the land, etc." is to tell us that as of that time the order of afflictions would be reversed and G'd would first strike the house of the guilty person whom He wanted to warn to mend his social behaviour. You may still ask why the Torah does not list the "leprosy" on one's clothing before the "leprosy" on one's skin, seeing that everyone wore clothing at the time this legislation was revealed? G'd could have demonstrated His loving concern for the guilty by first smiting his clothing and the Torah describing this as the first example of such a נגע צרעת? It appears that the reason the Torah chose to position the legislation of "leprosy" on one's clothing in between the legislation of skin disorders and "leprous-like stains" on the walls of one's house, is because there are some common denominators between the stains on the house and on the clothing on one side, and between the stains on the clothing and on the skin on the other side. The minimum size of a נגע צרעת on one's skin and the size of such a נגע צרעת on one's clothing is identical, whereas the minimum size of that plague on a house to be considered as טמא is twice that of people or clothing. On the other hand, the plague on both clothing and houses is characterised by a greenish colour, whereas the skin disorder which afflicts man is of some kind of whitish shade. Furthermore, we need to understand ...

כי תבאו אל ארץ כנען, “When you will come to the land of Canaan;” the Torah did not write: כי תבואו in connection with the legislation governing the plague of Tzoraat. The reason is that the rules about tzoraat already applied when the Israelites were still wandering in the desert. When speaking about tzoraat afflicting houses it did write these words of introduction, as that plague only occurs in the land of Israel. [Besides they only had tents there no houses built of stone. Ed.] A different explanation: the reason why when a plague breaks out on a house it must be destroyed, is that the earth of the land of Israel is holy, and its earth does not gladly suffer ritual contamination. ונתתי נגע צרעת, “and I put the plague of tzoraat on a house in the land of your inheritance.” According to some commentators, reading the plain text, this line has to be understood in conjunction with Deuteronomy 12,2: אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות אשר עבדו שם הגוים, “you must destroy utterly every place where the gentiles have worshipped (idols).” How are we to know in which locations the Canaanites once worshipped idols? Answer: the plague that shows up on your house is an indication that this was a house which served such a purpose. It alerts us to the need to fulfill that commandment.

When you come to the land of Canaan which I am giving you as a possession. One must examine why the Torah specifically mentions when you come to the land of Canaan regarding house plagues more than with other types of plagues. Also, the phrase which I am giving you as a possession seems entirely superfluous because this is already known. Additionally, when it says and I will place a plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession, it should have simply said “in your houses.” Although according to Rashi’s explanation that the Amorites hid treasures, etc., this is not a difficulty because it specifies your possession to exclude houses that the Israelites would build there, which would not relate to this reason. Nevertheless, the language is somewhat contradictory because in saying which I am giving you as a possession, it attributes the possession to the Holy One, blessed be He, while in saying your possession, it attributes the possession to Israel as if they are the ones taking hold of the inheritance by their own strength. Also, Rashi’s explanation requires further clarification. The closest to me to say in this matter is that the main reason is because of stinginess, as our Sages said (Arakhin 16) on the verse and he who owns the house shall come — this refers to one who dedicated his house for himself alone and did not allow others to benefit from it. For this reason, God gave him a house full of all good things to test whether he would do good from his house also to others. As it is said, The silver is Mine and the gold is Mine, says the Lord (Haggai 2:8), and whatever a person gives to others, he is not giving from his own but rather from [what] he received from the Divine table. Therefore it is said, When you come to the land of Canaan, which I give to you as a possession, for they did not inherit the land by their sword, nor did their arm save them (Psalms 44:4), but rather the right hand of the Lord is exalted, to give them the inheritance of nations. And there is no place for the stingy to say, My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth. For behold, it is the Lord who gives you power and possession, and therefore it is right that you should give from His possessions to the poor of His people. And if you do not listen to His voice and you become among the stingy who attribute their possessions to themselves, then I will put a plague of tzaraat in a house of the land of your possession. That is to say: In the place where you attribute the possession to yourselves as if you seized it by the power of your hands. Therefore it immediately says, and he who owns the house shall come — one who dedicated his house to himself alone, saying that by his power and the might of his hand he built his house. Or it may say your possession [since] this refers to one who dedicated his house to himself and does not allow others to benefit from it. And he who owns the house shall come is one who dedicated his house to himself in its most literal sense. For both of them speak of this matter, either of one who attributes possession to himself and from this stinginess follows, or both of them speak of stinginess that follows from attributing possession to oneself. And some say that the reason for afflictions of houses [in Leviticus], is because the Amorites built their houses for the sake of idolatry. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, brings afflictions upon the houses in order to demolish them. And with this, it seems to me to explain the Midrash that says Like an affliction appears to me in the house refers to idolatry (Yalkut Shimoni, Metzora 563), and it interprets this entire section regarding the Temple that was destroyed because of the idolatry that they placed there, etc. Would it enter one’s mind to say that the author of this Midrash intended to remove the entire section from its simple meaning and interpret it [solely] regarding the destruction of the Temple? Rather, certainly his intention was also to give a reason for the afflictions of houses: because the Amorites built them for the sake of idolatry, and therefore it comes to demolition. And from here he learned to say that also the Temple, in which Manasseh placed an idol, came to demolition because of this sin. And all the details that are mentioned here were also found in the destruction of the Temple. As it says here, and he who owns the house shall come — so too, in the destruction of the Temple, “He who owns the house came” — this is the Holy One, blessed be He. And as it says here, and he shall tell the priest — so too, the Holy One, blessed be He, told Jeremiah, one of the priests who was in Anathoth. And as it says here, like an affliction appears to me — so too, the Holy One, blessed be He, would say [this]. And in this way, all of the Midrash and all of the verses are explained according to their simple meaning. One should not raise a question on this reason, if so, why wouldn’t the plagues come upon the houses immediately upon their entry to the land? Admittedly, according to the reason of hidden treasures, perhaps not every homeowner merits that treasure. The answer to this is that even in the removal of idolatry, merit is bestowed through the righteous. Specifically, if a worthy person, due to his deeds, dwells in a house, it is not proper for him to dwell in a house that has any trace of idolatry. And we can say that this verse is good news for Israel, as it is written The Lord has spent His fury, He has poured out His fierce anger, and has kindled a fire in Zion (Lamentations 4:11). This good news is that He exhausts His wrath on wood and stones and does not touch the bodies. Similarly, this announcement regarding house plagues is what is meant by something like a plague appears to me in the house — using a simile — like the plague that should have come upon me appears instead in my house. Also, for the reason of stinginess [or grudging eye], it says like a plague that should have come upon those with a grudging eye, which is the scattering of their possessions, so it appears to me in the house, for ultimately the priest will scatter his possessions. And regarding the command to take birds for the purification of the house, we have already said it is to indicate that the one who acquires [wealth] causes it to make wings like flying birds. But according to Rashi, who only mentioned the chattering [of birds], it is difficult to understand what this has to do with house plagues. Therefore, we said above that the birds also contain an allusion to the desire for wealth, which causes pride of heart, and for this reason, one needs to also take cedar wood [for purification].

ונתתי נגע צרעת, “I will place a tzoraat affliction, etc.” Rashi, -seizing on the word נתן meaning “giving,”- explains this verse as good news, saying that these symptoms alert the owner of the house to hidden treasure in that house buried by the previous owner. Other commentators believe that these symptoms both in houses and garments, alert the new owner that these items unbeknown to them used to be artifacts of idolatry and therefore had to be destroyed. Now that the owners had been alerted, they could fulfill the commandment to destroy the items in question. ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחוזתכם, “I will place a tzoraat in the house of the land of your possession.” Nachmanides writes that the verse is addressed to the entire people of Israel, and it should therefore have been told to the entire nation, i.e. we would have expected the Torah to continue in verse 33 with the words אל כל עדת ישראל, “to the whole community of Israel.” The Torah, for reasons we do not know, decided to abbreviate. Alternately, the point is that the Torah spoke to Moses and Aaron in their capacity as the representatives of the whole people. The reason why the Torah, at this time, informed only Moses and Aaron of the legislation pertaining to such afflictions, is that all the details would have to be taught to the priests. Moses thought it pointless to teach all these details now, and preferred to wait until the Israelites would be on the point of entering and conquering the land. In Deut. 24,8 Moses does indeed warn the Israelites to observe all the pertinent laws and to follow the instructions of the priests concerning them.

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

the owner of the house shall come and tell the priest, saying: Something like an affliction has appeared to me in the house.

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

"And the owner of the house shall come" — it is a commandment that he come to the priest.

והגיד לכהן לאמור, and he shall tell the priest, saying, etc. The word לאמור appears to be superfluous. Torat Kohanim explains that the word means that the priest is to tell the afflicted person words of admonition, explaining to him why he had been so afflicted. This is pure homiletics, seeing that the Torah speaks of the owner of the house doing the talking, not the priest. Our sages simply used the principle of אם אינו ענין לדברי בעל הבית תנהו ענין לדברי כהן, "if we could not find a reason for the owner to say something other than what the Torah recorded here, we may apply the words exegetically to what the priest says instead." The author of Korban Aharon explains the sequence as follows: והגיד לכהן, the reason the owner of the affected house is forced to tell the priest about his problem is לאמוד, so that the priest can sermonize to him and explain why he was made to suffer this plague. If this explanation were correct the Torah should have written the word לאמור after the words כנגע נראה לי בבית, "it seems to me that the house has developed a plague." No doubt the approach of Torat Kohanim is quite correct. However, the question remains why the Torah did not simply write that "the priest spoke, etc.," and I would not have had to search for the meaning of the verse? Clearly, the Torah wanted to leave something for us to exploit exegetically. Our sages have articulated this very principle themselves in Torat Kohanim. This is what is written there: "why did the Torah not write that the owner said נגע, but describes him as saying כנגע, "something like the plague?" They answer that the letter כ teaches that even if the owner is very learned and he has no doubt that the symptoms he has found are those of a נגע, he must not take it upon himself to pronounce judgment but he must leave it to the priest. What forced the author of Torat Kohanim to explain the extra letter כ in this manner? Perhaps the Torah was afraid that if it wrote simply נגע the owner would feel that unless he was certain that the symptoms were really those of the נגע צרעת there was no need to call in the priest. The Torah therefore made it plain by the additional letter כ that the priest has to be called in regardless of whether it is doubtful if the symptoms were truly the ones resulting in the house having to be torn down. What the author of Torat Kohanim meant was that all the Torah had to write were the words והגיד לכהן. The words "I think that something like a נגע appears on my house," were quite unnecessary. It was clear from the context of the paragraph that the owner referred to this. Considering these extra words, Torat Kohanim concluded that the reason was to teach us that the priest has to be called in regardless of whether there is doubt or not. This explanation is based on the scholar who holds that on occasion the Torah wrote things in order to encourage us to engage in exegesis. Torat Kohanim continues to exploit practically every word here in a similar fashion....

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

ובא אשר לו הבית, “and the one to whom the house belongs shall come, etc.” Our sages in Yuma 11 read out of these words that the house in question is under the exclusive control of one person who does not wish to lend furniture or utensils or invite guests to his house. If the house was struck with tzoraat this was in response to the tight-fisted nature of its owner. This is what is meant by “the one whose house it is must come to the priest and tell him that an affliction similar to tzoraat has infested the stones of his house.” A Midrashic approach based on Vayikra Rabbah 17,7: The owner of the house described here is G’d; the words “he shall tell the priest” refer to the prophet Jeremiah; the words “something like the symptoms of a plague has inflicted my house,” refer to the idol placed in the Holy Temple by King Menashe of Yehudah.

The priest shall command that they clear the house before the priest enters to examine the affliction, so that everything in the house not become impure; and afterward the priest shall enter to examine the house.

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

"And they shall empty the house" — the owner of the house and all the members of his household; the reason for the plural form is to empty it quickly. "Before the priest comes" — for he will yet quarantine the house on account of the doubt, and before he comes it is still in doubt.

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

בטרם יבא הכהן, before the priest arrives. The reason the Torah had to write the word הכהן "the priest" again is, that otherwise I could have thought that the priest can issue directives before he arrives at the scene. According to that, the priest would not have had to delay himself until the people had cleared the house in question of all its contents. By writing the word הכהן, the Torah made it plain that the word בטרם is not linked to the mention of the priest as the one who issues the directive but is connected with the words ופנו "and they shall clear out." כל אשר בבית, everything that is within the house. The meaning is that none of the items that have been removed prior to the arrival of the priest will be affected by the declaration that the house and all its contents have become ritually impure. The reason is that G'd is concerned with the belongings of even the person for whom He expressed some disdain. We must ask ourselves that seeing this is so why did all these items have to be removed prior to the priest's arrival when the impurity decreed on these items does not become effective until after the priest's departure (compare verse 38)? The Torah wrote ולא יטמא כל אשר בבית, "in order that all that is in the house not become defiled," to teach us that once the priest has observed the symptoms on the walls of the house as being those of a נגע, he may not delay pronouncing the house and its contents as ritually unclean any longer. If the people in the house had waited until the last possible moment with removing all mobile objects they would most likely have forgotten some in their haste. It is better therefore that they should do so as soon as they became aware that the priest was on his way. We are taught in Keylim 12,5 that G'd's concern is only for earthenware vessels seeing all the other vessels are subject to purification rites except earthenware jars, etc. According to our explanation G'd is concerned even about very small and inexpensive earthenware vessels.

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

He shall examine the affliction, and behold, if the affliction is in the walls of the house — with sunken greenish or reddish spots, whose appearance is deeper than the wall —

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

"Sheka'aruroth" — this word has no parallel, and we do not know whether it is a four-letter root with the final letter doubled, or a five-letter word. As to its meaning in context: some say [it refers to] something like marks or streaks; others say it is a compound word, from the sense of "and the fire was quenched" (Numbers 11:2), and "roroth" from the root רר meaning to flow or discharge — but this is strained. "And their appearance" — and the appearance of each of them is sunken [below the wall surface].

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

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

והנה הנגע בקירות הבית, “and here the affliction is on the walls of the house.” Up until this point the Torah had listed 10 different kinds of negaim, afflictions; six of them occur on the body of a person; they are שאת, ספחת, בהרת, שחין, נתק, מריטת הראש. Four additional afflictions infect things other than his body such as woolen garments, linen garments, leather garments or utensils, and the walls of a house. You will find that the ten are arranged in the order in which we just mentioned them. There is a correlation here to the Ten Commandments. The message is that as long as the Israelites observe the Ten Commandments, i.e. the Torah which the Ten Commandments represent, they will not experience any of these ten afflictions. If they fail to honour the Torah and its precepts they will become victims of what the Torah has listed in the way of nega-im. שקערורות, “depressed;” Our sages in Sifra Metzora 6,5 claim that the appearance of these afflictions in the walls was as if that area was depressed, recessed. The reason that the Torah in this paragraph switches to the plural although the word נגע is in the singular, is that the owner of the house as well as his neighbour must share in the cost of removing the infected stones. This is what the Sifra Metzora 4,2 had in mind when they said אוי לרשע ואוי לשכנו, “woe to the wicked and his neighbour.” As soon as talk of the demolition has been concluded, the Torah reverts to the singular such as with the words קציע, וטח, etc. This is meant to tell us that only the person whose house had displayed definitive symptoms of the nega has to bear the cost of the restoration. In other words, the labor has to be shared but the cost has to be borne by the owner of the house alone.

שקערורות, one of the phenomena defined by means of the ones accompanying it. ירקרקות אדמדמות we find such colours or patterns described in Zecharyah 6,3.אמוצים ברודים.

the priest shall go out of the house to the entrance of the house and shall quarantine the house for seven days.

The priest shall return on the seventh day and look, and behold, if the affliction has spread on the walls of the house —

And the priest, returning on the seventh day, shall look, and, behold, if the breadth of the plague hath increased in the wall of the house,.

the priest shall command that they remove the stones in which the affliction is and cast them outside the city to an impure place.

וחלצו את האבנים — Understand וחלצו as the Targum does: וישלפון, i.e. they shall remove them from there. It is similar to, (Deuteronomy 25:9) וחלצה נעלו— which is an expression for removing ("she shall remove his shoe”). אל מקום טמא UNTO AN UNCLEAN PLACE — i. e. a place where clean things are not likely to be handled. Scripture teaches you that these stones make the place where they are deposited unclean for the time they are there.

"And they shall remove the stones" — they shall take them out, as in "Hashem delivered me [חלצני] from the evil man" (Psalms 140:2), where chalatz means to extract/remove. "To an impure place" — so that no person will take them from there, and they will be recognizable as impure.

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

The house shall be scraped inside all around, and they shall cast out the plaster that they scraped off outside the city to an impure place.

יקצע — rogner in old French, SCRAPE OFF, and in Mishnaic Hebrew it occurs many times. מבית INSIDE. סביב ROUND ABOUT — i. e. the place round about the plague-spot; and in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 4 5) it is also thus explained: that he shall peel off the plaster which is round about the area where the plague-stricken stones had been. הקצו is connected in meaning with the word קצה, end, — it means: which they had scraped off at the edges of the plague-spot round about it. (The words mean: the dust which they have removed from the edges. It has nothing to do with “scraping off”).

"And he shall scrape [yaktzia] the house" — from the root of miktzo'ot [corners/edges], and likewise "myrrh, aloes, and cassia" [ketzi'oth] (Psalms 45:9); its meaning is to peel or scrape away. Some say it means to split off the edge, but this is not correct, for since the plague has spread throughout the house, he must scrape the entire house. The meaning of "from within" — from the inside. "They removed it" [haktzo] — from the root katzeh [edge/extremity], for the heh at the end [of the root] — they removed only the edge [i.e., the surface layer].

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

יקציע, peels. Either as in Isaiah 44,13 “with a scraping tool,” or as suggested by the Talmud that the walls will be peeled off to the depth of a handbreadth. (Keylim 27,4). אשר הקצו. The construction of this word in verse 43 where it appears as הקצות, corresponds to the verbs in which the letter combinations ה“י appear in abbreviated forms. The root קצה therefore appears as הקצו. It is also possible to understand the word as meaning קיצוע, seeing that subsequent to the expression הקצות we find the words את הבית, suggesting that it refers to the previously mentioned ואת הבית יקציע, he is to scrape or peel off part of the house.