Parasha: Tazria · Aliyah: Third (Tiferet)

והנה כהה הנגע, and the affliction has dimmed, etc. Rashi explains this to mean that if the appearance of the affliction remains either stationary or has spread, the person suffering from it is impure. Maimonides writes in chapter one of his treatise Hilchot Tum-at Tzora-at that the word כהה means that if the appearance is less white than any of the four degrees of whiteness the Torah had described, the person afflicted by it is now טהור, "clean." Similarly, if it neither spread nor dimmed nor sprouted a white hair in the area of the affliction, the person who suffered these symptoms is "clean" also. Thus far Maimonides.

According to Rashi the expression כהה in the Torah describes a comparison to a previous condition which definitely was one of the other three symptoms qualifying for the description נגע צרעת, whereas the present appearance is not one which does not qualify for any of the four degrees of whiteness which would constitute the presence of a נגע צרעת. Had the Torah wanted to exclude the presence at this stage of all the four possible symptoms which constitute the presence of a נגע צרעת, the Torah should have written that there was no appearance of anything which looked like נגע צרעת. We must conclude therefore that our verse discusses someone who had previously displayed at least one of the three other kinds of white areas which would signify נגע צרעת such as the בהרת described in verse 2 which had a subcategory ספחת. If, however, the appearance had already been at the lowest end of the scale of white, i.e. the skin covering an egg, it could not have dimmed any further [and still be of concern to us halachically at all. Ed.] Alternatively, we would have to assume that there is a lower degree of whiteness in any of the four categories נגע צרעת the Torah has discussed thus far, and it is this relatively dimmer appearance the Torah describes here as כהה הנגע. The נגע described as בהרת itself would consist of either of two degrees of whiteness, both being close in appearance to snow-white. One of these degrees existed prior to the stage described in the Torah as כהה, the other after that stage had been reached. We find the following statement in Nega-im 1,4: Rabbi Chanina says there are altogether 16 shades of a colour which could qualify as נגע צרעת. Rabbi Dotha claims that there are 36 such shades. Akavyah ben Mahallel says that there are no fewer than 72 such shades which have to be examined. We may assume that these Rabbis do not disagree as to which shades constitute an affliction resulting in the victm becoming declared ritually impure, etc; they disagree only as to the number of shades there are that a priest must be familiar with in order to render the proper ruling. [these shades include also other kinds of skin afflictions such as מכרה and שחין, נתקים, etc.. Ed.] Maimonides in his commentary on the Mishnah also writes that the disagreements do not concern basic categories which would qualify as נגע צרעת. Only a few of these shades actually qualify as נגע צרעת. There are two basic methods which may bring about a change in the legal status of the afflicted person, seeing that the "dimming" is what determines the process of the afflicted person becoming "clean." Either there has to be a dimming from one basic category to a lower basic category of whiteness, or there only needs to occur a dimming from the higher level of a category to a lower level of whiteness within the same basic category. One may make a case for either of these approaches except that the first method appears somewhat forced. Rashi is true to his method of interpretation of the Torah and adopts the approach that the word כהה הנגע is followed in the Torah by the word הנגע indicating that the affliction has not been totally uprooted though it has improved. It has only improved in appearance. Therefore he arrives at the conclusion that if the appearance even dimmed only relatively, within the major category it belonged to previously, this is sufficient to have this person declared "clean."

According to Maimonides, when the Torah speaks of the נגע having dimmed, this means that it has become dimmer than any of the four basic categories of whiteness which cause the priest to pronounce the person so afflicted as impure. The present state of colour is dimmer than any of the four degrees of whiteness described in the Torah. In this respect Maimonides agrees with Rashi that if the whiteness had dimmed to a degree of whiteness less bright than the four categories listed, the person concerned is declared "clean." If, however, we were to understand that the words כהה הנגע, are a dimming which is darker than the original white but still within the four shades of white which constitute נגע צרעת, what news does the Torah reveal by saying that such a person remains impure? We have to explain the words of Maimonides as referring to the need for the afflicted person to wash his clothing [complete ritual immersion. Ed.] even if the present appearance of the formerly white spot is dimmer than any of the four categories of whiteness which result in the priest declaring such a person as afflicted with נגע צרעת.

If we accept Rashi's opinion, why did the Torah not make the dimming of the afflicted spot conditional on it reverting to its original colour just as the Torah made the declaration by the priest that the person is definitely afflicted dependent on the area of the whiteness spreading? According to Maimonides, when the Torah speaks of the afflicted area as not "having spread," the meaning is that it has not dimmed in colour either. According to Rashi we do not know what the legal status of the person under observation at the end of the second week would be in such a situation.

As mentioned previously, we can approach the problem in two ways. According to method one, both expressions i.e. כהה and לא פשה הנגע describe conditions which result in the formerly afflicted person being considered "clean." Seeing that we do not need both expressions in order to teach us the same הלכה in the same setting, one of these expressions is used exegetically as applicable to a situation other than the one described in our verse. [something which in the thirteen exegetical rules of Rabbi Yishmael is called לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא על הכלל כולו יצא; Ed.] In our case one example, i.e. that the whiteness has dimmed, teaches that if it resumes its former brightness the person previously under suspicion of being a צרוע will this time be considered as definitely afflicted. This will be so even though the white spot he suffers from now is no brighter than the whiteness of the spot he suffered from previously while he was only under observation. This is only true however, if previously the white spot had never dimmed enough to be less white than any of the basic four categories of whiteness which potentially make him impure, afflicted. Seeing he had previously not been declared impure, his again having a spot of that degree of whiteness on his skin would not make him worse off than before, i.e. under observation by the priest only. Do not ask concerning the example of פשיון, spreading, which the Torah describes as one following the afflicted person having come under the priest's scrutiny and isolation and having been declared ritually pure. The person in question is one who is again ritually pure. Nonetheless the Torah ordered that if such a spread occurred again, the person afflicted is considered impure and the Torah does not allow for a situation where the area concerned either contracted or remained stationary. Why does the Torah not allow for a situation there where the afflicted person reverts to the status prior to the white area having spread, i.e. his status would be one of suspended ritual purity pending further developments? This is not a valid question because in a situation of פשיון, a horizontal spreading of the affected area, the priest declares such a person as definitely צרוע already at the end of the first seven days of quarantine, unlike the situation described in verses 4-6 where the shade of white is the determining factor. Perhaps Rashi thought that the second approach to our problem is based on reasoning and does not require a specific verse to confirm it. This is an essential weakness in Rashi's approach.

Personally, I prefer to explain our verse in the following manner: והנה כהה הנגע; "and behold, the affliction has dimmed;" it has become dimmer than its original appearance but it still is white enough to qualify under one of the basic four categories as a נגע צרעת, (just as Rashi had said). However, the intention of our verse is that even if the appearance of the white spots had dimmed, the individual in question is to be declared "clean" only if there had not been a horizontal expansion of the afflicted area on the skin during the week in question. If the white area on the skin has expanded horizontally, the person retains the same status as he had at the previous inspection by the priest a week earlier. My only difficulty is to know on what basis our verse arrives at this conclusion.

Meanwhile I have seen the following statement of our sages in Torat Kohanim. "You might have thought that the words והנה כהה הנגע mean that the appearance of the white spot is dimmer than any of the four basic categories of white which would qualify as נגע צרעת; therefore the Torah adds the word הנגע, to tell you that the Torah speaks of one of these four categories. If the Torah had only written the word הנגע you would have thought that it could have remained looking the same as on the last inspection. Therefore the Torah had to write והנה כהה, it had definitively dimmed when measured against its previous appearance but not sufficiently to be dimmer than any of the four categories of white which qualify as a נגע צרעת. The words והנה כהה also mean that if its whiteness intensified during that week and dimmed subsequently it is as if it had not intensified; the word הנגע means that if it had first dimmed during that week only to intensify again, it is as if it had never dimmed at all." Thus far Torat Kohanim. Clearly, the author of Torat Kohanim feels that the dimming was not sufficient to result in such a dim appearance that it no longer would have qualified as a נגע צרעת at all, unlike the comment of Rashi. However, from the statement that if the afflicted area had intensified in whiteness at some time during that week or dimmed and intensified again, we disregard all dimming or intensification respectively as if they had not occurred, it is clear that this conforms to our own interpretation. It is the intention of our verse that if a certain degree of whiteness was not visible originally, then even if it had become much whiter in the interval as long as it had dimmed by the time the priest inspected it again it would be declared healed, provided it had not spread horizontally. Having established this, the author of this Baraitha clearly disagrees with both Rashi ad Maimonides. Nonetheless, as mentioned we still have no source for the opinion offered by the author of Torat Kohanim. Perhaps it is simply a condition that there has to be a dimming of some kind before the quarantined person may qualify for the description "clean."

I have found another comment in Torat Kohanim on our portion which is as follows: "the meaning of the word מספחת in our verse is that though it did not change its appearance." This means that even if it did not become weaker in appearance the person under observation is declared "clean" on the second inspection by the priest. If so, we can once more revert to explain that the reason is that the word כהה means that the priest does not initially examine if the whiteness has dimmed; neither does he immediately consider if it had intensified. Both the words of Rashi and Maimonides need further examination and seem very difficult to reconcile with Torat Kohanim.

מספחת הוא, it is a scab. This means that it is not a צרעת, similar to the word בהק הוא in Leviticus 13,39: "it is a brightness." Nonetheless the Torah commands people afflicted with such symptoms to wash their clothing, i.e. an indication that they have contracted a minor form of impurity. If we look for a homiletical meaning for this law it may be that it indicates that the victim was guilty of something called אבק לשון הרע, a peripheral form of loose talk about a third party. We find an example for this in Erchin 15 where a person who described a fire in a neighbour's house is described as guilty of אבק לשון הרע.

Another meaning of the expression מספחת היא is simply that this is a form of affliction which requires the person so afflicted to "wash the clothing he wore when this affliction was diagnosed by the priest." [actually it means ritual immersion. Ed.] We derive this from the sequence of the words מספחת היא וכבס בגדיו. From the words וטהרו הכהן just prior to this sequence it seems clear that the priest first has to say to the afflicted person "you are clean" before he is back to normal. This appears to be difficult to understand. It makes sense that the person quarantined because of certain symptoms would not be considered טמא, impure, unless so declared by the examining priest; but why should a person who has not so far been declared as impure require to be declared pure by the priest before returning to society? Granted that Rashi says somewhere that this is because the person had already been quarantined, this is not a sufficient reason. When you accept our approach to the whole verse there is an adequate reason for the priest having to declare such a person as "clean." We had characterised this symptom as a form of skin-affliction. If so, it is reasonable that the victim cannot be purified from it without the formal declaration by the priest that he is "clean" henceforth.

צרעת הוא. it is a form of leprosy. The meaning of these words is that even if the priest had previously declared the person afflicted as "clean," this judgment is reversesd retroactively in light of the afflicted area having spread. The reason is that a scab which does not indicate ritual impurity is not in the habit of spreading. The Torah indicates that the spreading needs only to be minimal in order for the afflicted person to be declared as ritually impure. It is the scab which is the affliction, not its size.

והיא הפכה שער לבן ומחית בשר חי, and it has turned the hair white, and there be healthy flesh, etc. The plain meaning of the verse is that two conditions must be present in order for the afflicted person to be ritually impure, 1) healthy flesh, 2) white hair; our sages in Torat Kohanim write as follows: "I might have thought that the person remains "clean" until he develops white hair plus an area of healthy flesh; to teach me that this is not so the Torah wrote: 'it is an old צרעת,' i.e. it is impure and no other symptom is needed. If so, why does our verse speak about white hair and healthy flesh? this teaches that impurity is not decreed unless the area of skin is large enough to accomodate both white hair and healthy flesh." Apparently the inference from the text that healthy flesh alone (when inside the white area) is sufficient cause to declare the person ritually impure was based on the word נושנת; this poses a problem, however; granted that the presence of healthy flesh inside the white area does not need an additional symptom in order for the afflicted person to be declared ritually unclean -as distinct from the presence of white hair alone,- whence do we know that the presence of such healthy flesh by itself results in ritual impurity? Perhaps the word היא in our verse refers back to either one of two symptoms appearing; 1) the hair turning white in which case there is no need for a further symptom; 2) healthy flesh appearing, and not as Korban Aharon explains it as referring only to the appearance of healthy flesh. It is also possible that the rule that an area of healthy flesh within the white area is sufficient by itself to declare the afflicted person ritually impure is derived from the additional words בשר חי at the end of the verse. The words טמא הוא in verse 11 make it plain that no other symptoms were needed. Ignoring the words of Torat Kohanim for the moment, I believe that the absence of the words או מחית בשר חי tells us that if both symptoms exist and the white area covers the entire surface of the skin this indicates that the person is ritually pure, something I could not have inferred if the Torah had written the word או. How would I then have known that the person could be declared "clean" while suffering simultaneously from two symptoms each of which is basically a symptom signifying ritual impurity?