פרדס פתוח פרדס פתוח
←

פרשה: תזריע · עלייה: שישי (יסוד)

ויקרא: י"ג:כ"ט - י"ג:ל"ט
י"ג:כ"ט וְאִישׁ֙ א֣וֹ אִשָּׁ֔ה כִּֽי־יִהְיֶ֥ה ב֖וֹ נָ֑גַע בְּרֹ֖אשׁ א֥וֹ בְזָקָֽן׃
13:29 If a man or a woman has an affection on the head or in the beard,
13:29 And when a man or woman hath a plague upon the head or upon the beard,
י"ג:כ"ט וּגְבַר אוֹ אִתְּתָא אֲרֵי יְהֵי בֵיהּ מַכְתָּשָׁא בְּרֵישָׁא אוֹ בִדְקָן:
י"ג:כ"ט אור החיים
1וְאִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה וְגוֹ׳. הֻצְרַךְ לְפָרֵט כָּאן ״אוֹ אִשָּׁה״ וְלֹא אָמַר ״אָדָם״ וְאִשָּׁה בִּכְלָל, לְצַד שֶׁאֵין לְאִשָּׁה זָקָן, יֹאמַר הָאוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא דִבֵּר הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא בְּאִישׁ שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּזָקָן. וַהֲגַם שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״אָדָם״ וְלֹא יֹאמַר ״אִישׁ״, תֹּאמַר שֶׁבָּא לְרַבּוֹת הַקָּטָן אוֹ לְמַעֵט גּוֹיִם, וּלְעוֹלָם נִגְעֵי זָקָן בְּאִשָּׁה לֹא מְטַמְּאָה – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ אִשָּׁה״, לְאִם גָּדַל שֵׂעָר בִּזְקָנָם שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא בִּנְתָקִים.
ואיש או אשה, and a man or a woman, etc. The Torah had to spell out "or a woman," instead of using the collective term אדם for both man and woman because women do not usually grow beards. The reader who sees the word אדם would conclude that the legislation only applies to people who normally grow beards, i.e. men, and I would have assumed that either minors or Gentiles are included in this legislation whereas any plagues on the beard of a woman would not be subject to the legislation introduced here. The Torah therefore wrote איש או אשה, to tell us that if a woman grows hair in a part of her face where a man grows a beard, the legislation applies to her also.
י"ג:ל׳ וְרָאָ֨ה הַכֹּהֵ֜ן אֶת־הַנֶּ֗גַע וְהִנֵּ֤ה מַרְאֵ֙הוּ֙ עָמֹ֣ק מִן־הָע֔וֹר וּב֛וֹ שֵׂעָ֥ר צָהֹ֖ב דָּ֑ק וְטִמֵּ֨א אֹת֤וֹ הַכֹּהֵן֙ נֶ֣תֶק ה֔וּא צָרַ֧עַת הָרֹ֛אשׁ א֥וֹ הַזָּקָ֖ן הֽוּא׃
13:30 the priest shall examine the affection. If it appears to go deeper than the skin and there is thin yellow hair in it, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a scall, a scaly eruption in the hair or beard.
13:30 then the priest shall look on the plague; and, behold, if the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin, and there be in it yellow thin hair, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a scall, it is leprosy of the head or of the beard.
י"ג:ל׳ וְיֶחֱזֵי כַהֲנָא יָת מַכְתָּשָׁא וְהָא מֶחֱזוֹהִי עַמִּיק מִן מַשְׁכָּא וּבֵיהּ שֵׂעָר סֻמָּק דַּעְדָּק וִיסָאֵב יָתֵיהּ כַּהֲנָא נִתְקָא הוּא סְגִירוּת רֵישָׁא אוֹ דִקְנָא הוּא:
י"ג:ל׳ אור החיים
1שֵׂעָר צָהֹב. בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים: ״צָהֹב״, צָהֹב וְלֹא יָרוֹק וְכוּ׳, אוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל אֵלּוּ וְלֹא אוֹצִיא הַלָּבָן, וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה צָהֹב שֶׁאֵינוֹ סִימַן טֻמְאָה בִּנְגָעִים סִימַן טֻמְאָה בִּנְתָקִים, שֵׂעָר לָבָן שֶׁהוּא סִימַן טֻמְאָה וְכוּ׳, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״צָהֹב״, עַד כָּאן. וְקָשֶׁה, דִּלְמָא לְגוּפוֹ אֲתָא שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא בְּנֶתֶק הֲגַם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בִּשְׁאָר נְגָעִים, וּלְעוֹלָם הַלָּבָן מְטַמֵּא בַּקַּל וָחוֹמֶר הַנִּזְכָּר, וּמַה גַּם שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה הַתַּנָּא קַל וָחוֹמֶר וּמָה צָהֹב וְכוּ׳ עַד שֶׁלָּקַח בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁהַצָּהֹב מְטַמֵּא בְּנֶתֶק, מֵעַתָּה הֲגַם שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב צָהֹב בְּנֶתֶק עָשָׂה קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַלָּבָן, אִם כֵּן בַּמֶּה סְתָרוֹ בְּאָמְרוֹ ״תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר״?
שער צהב דק, thin blond or yellowish hair; according to Torat Kohanim the word "yellowish" is intended to exclude hair which is of a greenish, reddish or black colour. The use of the word "yellowish," serves to exclude all colour except white. The colour white did not need exclusion. We might have arrived at this through simple logic. Just as the colour yellow is not a colour mentioned in connection with other afflictions of the skin considered as leading to ritual impurity, so the colour white, which is the prime colour for skin-afflictions resulting in ritual impurity would most certainly also qualify for such impurity if it occurred in the area of the beard. The Torah therefore mentions "yellowish" to tell us that white would not qualify as a colour resulting in ritual impurity in this legislation dealing with hair discolouring in the area where the beard grows. I find it difficult to follow this קל וחומר, inference from minor to major. Maybe the word צהב, yellowish, is needed to teach us the basic law that this colour if present in a נתק, scall, confers ritual impurity on the person concerned even though the colour has no negative implications in other skin-discolourations. If so, white would cause ritual impurity in the case of a scall just as it does in other skin afflictions which the Torah has legislated previously. This reasoning is reinforced by the mere fact that the author of Torat Kohanim did not spell out a קל וחומר saying: "if yellowish, which does not normally confer ritual impurity etc.," until after he had established that yellowish does confer ritual impurity in a scall. From the sequence of the reasoning in Torat Kohanim you may infer that the Torah did not exclude your right to make the קל וחומר we have just mentioned. If so, how does the word צהב, yellowish, demolish the validity of the קל וחומר?
2וְנִרְאֶה שֶׁדְּרָשַׁת הַתַּנָּא הִיא מִמַּה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב ״צָהֹב וְטִמֵּא אֹתוֹ״, וְלֹא אָמַר ״וְטִמְּאוֹ״ כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר בִּשְׁנַיִם וּבִשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת, וְאָמַר ״אוֹתוֹ״ לְמַעֵט הַלָּבָן עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ – ״אוֹתוֹ״ פֵּרוּשׁ הַצָּהֹב הוּא מְטַמֵּא, וּכְאִלּוּ אָמַר הַתַּנָּא תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״צָהֹב וְטִמֵּא אוֹתוֹ״. וּכְמוֹ כֵן תִּמְצָא שֶׁדָּרַשׁ תַּנָּא בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים כָּל ״אוֹתוֹ״ הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשִׁיּוֹת הַקּוֹדְמוֹת מִמַּה שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר ״וְטִמְּאוֹ״. וְטַעַם שֶׁלֹּא בָּא תֵּבַת ״אוֹתוֹ״ בְּדִבְרֵי הַתַּנָּא, לְצַד שֶׁעֲדַיִן הָיָה רוֹצֶה לִדְרֹשׁ תֵּבַת ״דָּק״ שֶׁקָּדְמָה לָהּ, וְלֹא חָשׁ לְטָעוּת, כִּי אֵין דֶּרֶךְ לִפְנוֹת יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל וְסָמַךְ עַל הַמְעַיֵּן. וְתִמְצָא שֶׁאַחַר כָּךְ דָּרַשׁ הַתַּנָּא מִעוּט ״וְטִמֵּא אוֹתוֹ נֶתֶק הוּא״, וְלֹא דָּרַשׁ בּוֹ אֶלָּא מִעוּט ״הוּא״ וְלֹא מִעוּט ״אוֹתוֹ״, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר דְּרָשָׁהּ כְּדַרְכֵּנוּ.
I must assume therefore that the exegetical approach of Torat Kohanim goes along these lines: "The Torah writes about the afflicted person who has already been mentioned וטמא אותו הכהן, instead of the shorter וטמאו, which the Torah used already on several occasions (verses 8,11,15,20). The extra word אותו is used to exclude a white scall from causing the afflicted person to become ritually impure. We would translate the verse as follows: וטמא אותו, i.e. "the yellowish colour confers impurity;" it is as if the author of Torat Kohanim had said: "the word 'yellowish' teaches that only it and no other colour including white results in ritual purity in this instance." If you will examine what the author of Torat Kohanim has written every other time the Torah wrote וטמא אותו instead of וטמאו, you will find an approach consistent with what he wrote in this instance. Why did he not bother to tell us that he used the word אותו to arrive at his conclusion? The reason may be that he still wanted to use the word דק which preceded the word אותו for an additional exegetical message. A careful scholar does not jump from the right to the left and rely on his reader to read his mind so as not to arrive at a faulty conclusion about his true intentions. You will find that after explaining the exclusion contained in the word אותו, our author of Torat Kohanim explains the exclusion contained in the sequence of the words וטמא אותו הכהן נתק הוא using only the word הוא in that sequence as an exclusion. The reason he did so is because he had already used the word אותו in the sense we explained.
3וְאִם תֹּאמַר אִם כֵּן נָדוּן קַל וָחֹמֶר לְטַמֵּא צָהֹב בִּשְׁאָר נְגָעִים עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ, וּמָה לָבָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּנֶתֶק מְטַמֵּא בִּשְׁאָר נְגָעִים, צָהֹב שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא בְּנֶתֶק מִכָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא בִּשְׁאָר נְגָעִים. וְאוּלַי כִּי מִמַּה שֶׁהֻצְרַךְ לְמַעֵט לָבָן בְּנֶתֶק יַגִּיד שֶׁחָשׁ שֶׁלֹּא לָדוּן בְּקַל וָחֹמֶר, וּמִן הַנִּמְנָע שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה קַל וָחֹמֶר עַד שֶׁנַּצְדִּיק לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין הַצָּהֹב מְטַמֵּא בִּשְׁאָר נְגָעִים. וּמֵעַתָּה אֵין מָקוֹם לָדוּן בְּהֵפֶךְ, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַכָּתוּב הֵעִיד שֶׁאֵין צָהֹב מְטַמֵּא בִּשְׁאָר נְגָעִים מִמַּה שֶׁהֻצְרַךְ לְמַעֵט לָבָן בְּנֶתֶק כַּנִּזְכָּר, וְהָבֵן. וְעַיֵּן בְּפָרָשַׁת מְצֹרָע (ויקרא י״ד:ז) מַה שֶׁפִּלְפַּלְנוּ מִזֶּה בַּבָּרַיְתָא דְּשֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים הָאָמוּר בַּמְּצֹרָע.
You may reason that if all this is correct, why do we not use a קל וחומר type of reasoning to prove that just as the colour yellow results in the afflicted person becoming ritually impure when he contracted a נתק, the same should hold true for yellowish hair in other situations where hair is a factor in the afflicted person contracting ritual impurity in connection with skin turned white? The logic is simple. If a white hair which which does not confer ritual impurity when present in a נתק, nevertheless confers ritual impurity when present with other skin afflictions, then a yellow hair which even confers ritual impurity when present only in a נתק, certainly confers ritual impurity when it appears in conjunction with other skin afflictions. Perhaps the very fact that the Torah needed to exclude white as a colour resulting in ritual impurity in the case of a scall was equivalent to telling us that we should not engage in learning the קל וחומר in reverse as applying to situations such as בהרת או שאת. You may wish to read what we have written on Leviticus 14,7 in connection with the Baraitha which explains why the person afflicted with צרעת has to experience seven sprinklings of מים חיים in his purification process as opposed to the person who contacted ritual impurity through contact with a dead body, and who has to undergo only two such sprinklings one each on the third and on the seventh day of his purification rites. This is so in spite of the fact that I could have arrived at the opposite conclusion by using the קל וחומר type of reasoning.
4וּפֵרוּשׁ ״צָהֹב״ אָמְרוּ בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנָם: ״צָהֹב״ וְגוֹ׳ וּלְמָה הוּא דוֹמֶה, לְתַבְנִית הַזָּהָב, וּפֵרֵשׁ רַמְבַּ״ם (נגעים פ״ו מ״א) שֶׁהוּא מַרְאֶה הַמְּעֹרָב מֵאַדְמִימוּת וְיַרְקוּת, עַד כָּאן. וְרָאִיתִי לְרַאבַ״ע זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ: בִּלְשׁוֹן יִשְׁמָעֵאל קָרוֹב מֵעֵין הַלֹּבֶן, עַד כָּאן. נִרְאֶה שֶׁיַּחְשֹׁב כִּי לָזֶה נִתְכַּוֵּן הַכָּתוּב, וְאָנוּ מִבְּנֵי גָּלוּת יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְאוֹתוֹ גָּוֶן שֶׁקּוֹרִין אוֹתוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן יִשְׁמָעֵאל כֵּן הוּא לָבָן דָּהוּי קְצָת, וּכְפִי זֶה הוּא בְּהֵפֶךְ מִפֵּרוּשׁ הַתַּנָּאִים. וּבִמְחִילָה מִכְּבוֹדוֹ, אִם בָּאנוּ לַחְלֹק עַל רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה וּלְפָרֵשׁ מִלּוֹת הַתּוֹרָה בִּלְשׁוֹן יִשְׁמָעֵאל הָיִינוּ עוֹשִׂים תּוֹרַת שֶׁקֶר, וְכִי כְּעוּרָה זוֹ שֶׁפֵּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה בִּלְשׁוֹן הַזָּהָב, וּבְפֵרוּשִׁים כָּאֵלּוּ נָתַן הָרַב יָד לְחַכְמֵי הַדּוֹרוֹת לְזַלְזֵל בִּכְבוֹדוֹ, וְכָל כְּמִין פֵּרוּשׁ זֶה יִשְׁתַּקְּעוּ הַדְּבָרִים וְלֹא יֵאָמְרוּ.
In that instance, the author falls back on the explanation of the word צהב he has given on our verse here. Why is the colour צהב the only one which confers impurity in the case of a scall? Torat Kohanim explains that this colour symbolises gold. Maimonides explains in his commentary on tractate Nega-im 6,1 that צהב is a colour which is a mixture of red and green. I have seen that Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explains it as follows: "The word means something close to egg-white in Arabic." It appears therefore that Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra understood the word צהב as ivory coloured. We, who live under Mohammedan rule, know that the Arabic word tzahov means some kind of dim white. This would all contradict the opinion expressed by the Tannaim in the Mishnah. I do not see what purpose would be served to explain words in the Torah in terms of the Arabic language; this would lead to making our Torah into a book of lies, G'd forbid. What is so objectionable in our traditional sources explaining the word צהב as yellowish-gold? I am afraid that Rabbi Ibn Ezra lent his hand to those who make a mockery of our holy Torah. Anyone who toys with commentaries of this nature would do better to suppress them and not to publish them.
י"ג:ל"א וְכִֽי־יִרְאֶ֨ה הַכֹּהֵ֜ן אֶת־נֶ֣גַע הַנֶּ֗תֶק וְהִנֵּ֤ה אֵין־מַרְאֵ֙הוּ֙ עָמֹ֣ק מִן־הָע֔וֹר וְשֵׂעָ֥ר שָׁחֹ֖ר אֵ֣ין בּ֑וֹ וְהִסְגִּ֧יר הַכֹּהֵ֛ן אֶת־נֶ֥גַע הַנֶּ֖תֶק שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִֽים׃
13:31 But if the priest finds that the scall affection does not appear to go deeper than the skin, yet there is no black hair in it, the priest shall isolate the person with the scall affection for seven days.
13:31 And if the priest look on the plague of the scall, and, behold, the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and there be no black hair in it, then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague of the scall seven days.
י"ג:ל"א וַאֲרֵי יֶחֱזֵי כַהֲנָא יָת מַכְתַּשׁ נִתְקָא וְהָא לֵית מֶחֱזוֹהִי עַמִּיק מִן מַשְׁכָּא וְשֵׂעָר אֻכָּם לֵית בֵּיהּ וְיַסְגַּר כַּהֲנָא יָת מַכְתַּשׁ נִתְקָא שִׁבְעַת יוֹמִין:
י"ג:ל"ב וְרָאָ֨ה הַכֹּהֵ֣ן אֶת־הַנֶּגַע֮ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי֒ וְהִנֵּה֙ לֹא־פָשָׂ֣ה הַנֶּ֔תֶק וְלֹא־הָ֥יָה ב֖וֹ שֵׂעָ֣ר צָהֹ֑ב וּמַרְאֵ֣ה הַנֶּ֔תֶק אֵ֥ין עָמֹ֖ק מִן־הָעֽוֹר׃
13:32 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the affection. If the scall has not spread and no yellow hair has appeared in it, and the scall does not appear to go deeper than the skin,
13:32 And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the plague; and, behold, if the scall be not spread, and there be in it no yellow hair, and the appearance of the scall be not deeper than the skin,
י"ג:ל"ב וְיֶחֱזֵי כַהֲנָא יָת מַכְתָּשָׁא בְּיוֹמָא שְׁבִיעָאָה וְהָא לָא אוֹסֵף נִתְקָא וְלָא הֲוָה בֵיהּ שֵׂעָר סֻמָּק וּמֶחֱזֵי נִתְקָא לֵית עַמִּיק מִן מַשְׁכָּא:
י"ג:ל"ג וְהִ֨תְגַּלָּ֔ח וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖תֶק לֹ֣א יְגַלֵּ֑חַ וְהִסְגִּ֨יר הַכֹּהֵ֧ן אֶת־הַנֶּ֛תֶק שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִ֖ים שֵׁנִֽית׃
13:33 the person with the scall shall shave himself, but without shaving the scall; the priest shall isolate him for another seven days.
13:33 then he shall be shaven, but the scall shall he not shave; and the priest shall shut up him that hath the scall seven days more.
י"ג:ל"ג וִיגַלַּח סָחֳרָנֵי נִתְקָא וּדְעִם נִתְקָא לָא יְגַלַּח וְיַסְגַּר כַּהֲנָא יָת נִתְקָא שִׁבְעָא יוֹמִין תִּנְיָנוּת:
י"ג:ל"ד וְרָאָה֩ הַכֹּהֵ֨ן אֶת־הַנֶּ֜תֶק בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֗י וְ֠הִנֵּה לֹא־פָשָׂ֤ה הַנֶּ֙תֶק֙ בָּע֔וֹר וּמַרְאֵ֕הוּ אֵינֶ֥נּוּ עָמֹ֖ק מִן־הָע֑וֹר וְטִהַ֤ר אֹתוֹ֙ הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְכִבֶּ֥ס בְּגָדָ֖יו וְטָהֵֽר׃
13:34 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the scall. If the scall has not spread on the skin, and does not appear to go deeper than the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; he shall wash his clothes, and he shall be clean.
13:34 And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the scall; and, behold, if the scall be not spread in the skin, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean.
י"ג:ל"ד וְיֶחֱזֵי כַהֲנָא יָת נִתְקָא בְּיוֹמָא שְׁבִיעָאָה וְהָא לָא אוֹסֵף נִתְקָא בְּמַשְׁכָּא וּמֶחֱזוֹהִי לֵיתוֹהִי עַמִּיק מִן מַשְׁכָּא וִידַכֵּי יָתֵיהּ כַּהֲנָא וִיצַבַּע לְבוּשׁוֹהִי וְיִדְכֵּי:
י"ג:ל"ה וְאִם־פָּשֹׂ֥ה יִפְשֶׂ֛ה הַנֶּ֖תֶק בָּע֑וֹר אַחֲרֵ֖י טָהֳרָתֽוֹ׃
13:35 If, however, the scall should spread on the skin after he has been pronounced clean,
13:35 But if the scall spread abroad in the skin after his cleansing,
י"ג:ל"ה וְאִם אוֹסָפָא יוֹסֵף נִתְקָא בְּמַשְׁכָּא בָּתַר דָּכוּתֵיהּ:
י"ג:ל"ו וְרָאָ֙הוּ֙ הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְהִנֵּ֛ה פָּשָׂ֥ה הַנֶּ֖תֶק בָּע֑וֹר לֹֽא־יְבַקֵּ֧ר הַכֹּהֵ֛ן לַשֵּׂעָ֥ר הַצָּהֹ֖ב טָמֵ֥א הֽוּא׃
13:36 the priest shall examine him. If the scall has spread on the skin, the priest need not look for yellow hair: he is unclean.
13:36 then the priest shall look on him; and, behold, if the scall be spread in the skin, the priest shall not seek for the yellow hair: he is unclean.
י"ג:ל"ו וְיֶחֱזִנֵּיהּ כַּהֲנָא וְהָא אוֹסֵף נִתְקָא בְּמַשְׁכָּא לָא יְבַקֵּר כַּהֲנָא לְשֵׂעָר סֻמָּק מְסָאָב הוּא:
י"ג:ל"ז וְאִם־בְּעֵינָיו֩ עָמַ֨ד הַנֶּ֜תֶק וְשֵׂעָ֨ר שָׁחֹ֧ר צָֽמַח־בּ֛וֹ נִרְפָּ֥א הַנֶּ֖תֶק טָה֣וֹר ה֑וּא וְטִהֲר֖וֹ הַכֹּהֵֽן׃ (ס)
13:37 But if the scall has remained unchanged in color, and black hair has grown in it, the scall is healed; he is clean. The priest shall pronounce him clean.
13:37 But if the scall stay in its appearance, and black hair be grown up therein; the scall is healed, he is clean; and the priest shall pronounce him clean.
י"ג:ל"ז וְאִם כַּד הֲוָה קָם נִתְקָא וְשֵׂעָר אֻכָּם צְמַח בֵּיהּ אִתַּסִּי נִתְקָא דְּכֵי הוּא וִידַכִּנֵּיהּ כַּהֲנָא:
י"ג:ל"ז אור החיים
1טָהוֹר הוּא וְטִהֲרוֹ הַכֹּהֵן. בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים אָמְרוּ: ״טָהוֹר״, יָכוֹל יִפְטוֹר וְיֵלֵךְ לוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְטִהֲרוֹ״. יָכוֹל אִם אָמַר כֹּהֵן עַל טָמֵא טָהוֹר יִהְיֶה טָהוֹר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״טָהוֹר וְטִהֲרוֹ״. וְעַל דָּבָר זֶה עָלָה הִלֵּל עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם (ירושלמי פסחים ו:א) מִבָּבֶל. מַשְׁמַע שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה יָכוֹל לְהַכְרִיחָם מֵהַפָּסוּק עַד שֶׁעָלָה לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְקִבֵּל שֶׁכֵּן הוּא הַהֲלָכָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁדָּרַשׁ הוּא. וְצָרִיךְ לָדַעַת בַּמֶּה הָיוּ הַחוֹלְקִים עָלָיו מְיַשְּׁבִים הַכְּתוּבִים.
טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן, "he is 'clean;' and the priest shall declare him "clean" (ritually pure)." This apparent repetition is explained in the Torat Kohanim as follows: We would have thought that it suffices if the priest simply allows the afflicted person whose נתק has remained unchanged in appearance except that black hair grew on it, to go back to the camp; to teach me that this is not sufficient, the Torah tells us that the priest must first declare such a person as "clean." I would also have thought that if the priest erred and erroneously declared a ritually impure person "clean," that he would henceforth be considered "clean;" this is why the Torah had to write טהור, he is objectively "clean;" the priest merely confirms it. This is an exegesis which Hillel taught when he came from Babylonia as the scholars in Israel at the time had been unable to furnish proof for this halachah from the text of the Torah (compare Jerusalem Talmud Pessachim 6,1). We need to understand why the scholars who had disagreed with Hillel at that time did so.
2וְנִרְאֶה כִּי ״טָהוֹר״ וְ״טִהֲרוֹ״ צְרִיכִין לָדוּן שֶׁלֹּא יִפְטֹר וְיֵלֵךְ לוֹ, אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ הַכֹּהֵן ״טָהוֹר אַתָּה״, שֶׁזּוּלַת ״טָהוֹר״ הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר כִּי לְצַד שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ יָבֹא כֹּהֵן וְיוֹדִיעֶנּוּ, כִּי הַכֹּהֵן הוּא הַבָּקִי בַּהֲלָכוֹת אֵלּוּ וְתוֹרָה יְבַקְשׁוּ מִפִּיהוּ, וּלְעוֹלָם אִם יֵדַע הוּא שֶׁהוּא בֹּהַק יִפְטֹר וְיֵלֵךְ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״טָהוֹר הוּא וְטִהֲרוֹ״; וְאֵין הֶכְרֵחַ לִדְרָשַׁת הִלֵּל עַד שֶׁעָלָה לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָדַע שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה הַהֲלָכָה. מֵעַתָּה נַחְזֹר לִקְבֹּעַ הַהֲלָכָה בַּכָּתוּב עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ: ״טָהוֹר הוּא״ דַּוְקָא אִם הוּא כְּפִי הָאֱמֶת טָהוֹר, בָּזֶה הוּא שֶׁיּוֹעִילוּ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּהֵן, אֲבָל אִם אָמַר עַל טָמֵא טָהוֹר לֹא יוֹעִיל. וְלֹא תִקְשֶׁה דִּלְמָא נִתְכַּוֵּן הַכָּתוּב בְּאָמְרוֹ ״טָהוֹר״, אֲפִלּוּ יָדַע הוּא שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר, כִּי אֵין זוֹ אֶלָּא דְּחִיָּה וְתִצְדַּק קֹדֶם בֵּרוּר הָאֱמֶת שֶׁכָּךְ בָּאָה הֲלָכָה, אֲבָל אַחַר שֶׁהַדִּין שֶׁאָנוּ קוֹבְעִים בְּיִתּוּר הוּא הֲלָכָה, יוֹתֵר נִבְחַר לוֹמַר לָזֶה נִתְכַּוֵּן מִלִּדְחוֹת דְּחִיּוֹת. וְזֶה כְּלָל נָכוֹן בְּפֵרוּשׁ הַתּוֹרָה.
It seems clear that the meaning of the line is as explained by Torat Kohanim. If the word טהור had not appeared, I would naturally have assumed that the priest, who is after all the expert in all these laws, would decide the status of the person in question. As a result, if the priest is aware that there is a בהק, a dull white spot, he will release the person from his quarantine so that he can go home to his family. The Torah therefore writes both טהור וטהרו to inform us that there is a formality to be observed. This exegesis could not be confirmed until Hillel returned to the land of Israel and quoted it in the name of his teachers Shmayahu and Avtalyon. Let us now return to the statement that this ruling of Hillel (resp. his teachers) is good only if the priest did not err and declare someone as "clean" whose skin had not undergone the necessary changes. Do not ask that perhaps what the Torah meant with the word טהור was that even if the afflicted person was himself aware that he was "clean" by then, the priest's declaration was still essential for him to resume his normal life. Such reasoning is very forced and if one had to choose between both possible approaches Hillel's exegesis is far superior. Seeing that the reasoning we apply is the basis of a religious ruling, it is preferable to accept the approach of Torat Kohanim rather than getting involved in forced explanations.
3וְרָאִיתִי לְיַשֵּׁב מַאַמְרֵי רַזַ״ל שֶׁאָמְרוּ (ויקרא רבה כב:א) שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִמְסַר לְמֹשֶׁה בְּסִינַי, וַאֲפִלּוּ מַה שֶׁתַּלְמִיד וָתִיק עָתִיד לְחַדֵּשׁ. וְאָמְרוּ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר (במדבר רבה יט:ו) כִּי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ מַה שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע מֹשֶׁה, כְּאָמְרוֹ ״הַדְּבָרִים עֲשִׂיתִים״ – ״אֶעֱשֶׂה״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר וְכוּ׳, יְעֻיַּן שָׁם דִּבְרֵיהֶם, וְכֵן כַּמָּה מַאֲמָרִים שֶׁדּוֹמִים לָזֶה.
I have seen a statement in Vayikra Rabbah 22,1 that there is nothing in the way of Torah exegesis which had not been taught to Moses while he was on Mount Sinai, including what renowned scholars thought they revealed for the first time in the distant future. At the same time we have a statement in Bamidbar Rabbah 19,6 that Rabbi Akiva expounded exegetically matters which even Moses did not know. The Midrash is based on a verse in Isaiah 42,16: "these things (such as making the blind see, etc.) I have done (G'd speaking)." It does not say there that G'd will do these things in the future, but that He has already done them. When did He do them? When He revealed to Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues Torah insights He had not even revealed to Moses." Thus far the Midrash. We appear to be faced with a contradiction between the two Midrashim we have quoted. Many statements in a similar vein abound in our Midrashic literature.
4וְנִרְאֶה כִּי יִשּׁוּב הַמַּאֲמָרִים הוּא, כִּי הֵן אֱמֶת שֶׁכָּל דְּבַר תּוֹרָה נֶאֱמַר לְמֹשֶׁה, וְאֵין חָכָם יָכוֹל לָדַעַת יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶׁיָּדַע מֹשֶׁה, וַהֲגַם שֶׁתְּצָרֵף כָּל דּוֹרוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיּוֹם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה עַד שֶׁתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ דֵּעָה – אֵין חִדּוּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא יְדָעוֹ מֹשֶׁה, אֲבָל הַהֶפְרֵשׁ הוּא כִּי מֹשֶׁה נָתַן לוֹ ה׳ תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וְתוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה, וְהִנֵּה הָאָדוֹן בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּחָכְמָתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ רָשַׁם בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב כָּל תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה שֶׁאָמַר לְמֹשֶׁה, אֲבָל לֹא הוֹדִיעַ לְמֹשֶׁה כָּל מַה שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ בְּעַל פֶּה הֵיכָן הוּא רָמוּז בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב, וְזוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲמֵלֵי תוֹרָה לִלְבֹּשׁ הַהֲלָכוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ לְמֹשֶׁה בְּסִינַי וְהַסּוֹדוֹת וְהַדְּרָשׁוֹת כֻּלָּן יִתְּנוּ לָהֶם מָקוֹם בְּתוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב. וְלָזֶה תִּמְצָא בָּאוּ הַתַּנָּאִים וְחִבְּרוּ תּוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים וְסִפְרֵי וְכוּ׳ וְכָל דְּרָשׁוֹתָם בַּכְּתוּבִים אֵינָם אֶלָּא עַל פִּי הַהֲלָכוֹת וְהִלְבִּישׁוּם בְּתוֹרַת ה׳ תְּמִימָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב, וְאַחֲרֵיהֶם וְעַד הַיּוֹם זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ בְּנֵי תוֹרָה לְדַיֵּק הַמִּקְרָאוֹת וּלְיַשְּׁבָם עַל פִּי הַמַּאֲמָרִים שֶׁהֵם תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה, וְזוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדַת הַתּוֹרָה הַנִּקְרֵאת אֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים. וְעִנְיָן זֶה לֹא נִמְסַר לְמֹשֶׁה כֻּלּוֹ לָדַעַת כָּל תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה הֵיכָן הִיא כֻּלָּהּ רְמוּזָה בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב. וְלָזֶה אָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה שֶׁדָּרַשׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּרָשׁוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יְדָעָם מֹשֶׁה, אֵין הַכַּוָּנָה שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע מֹשֶׁה עִקָּרָן שֶׁל דְּבָרִים, הֲלֹא מִמֶּנּוּ הַכֹּל אֲפִלּוּ מַה שֶׁתַּלְמִיד וָתִיק עָתִיד לְחַדֵּשׁ, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע סְמִיכָתָם וְדִיּוּקָם הֵיכָן רְמוּזִים בַּתּוֹרָה. וְזֶה לְךָ הָאוֹת מַה שֶׁלְּפָנֵינוּ, שֶׁדָּרַשׁ הִלֵּל מֵהַכָּתוּב הַהֲלָכָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לְמֹשֶׁה בְּעַל פֶּה וְלֹא גִלָּה ה׳ לְמֹשֶׁה עִקָּרָהּ בַּכָּתוּב וּבָא הִלֵּל וּדְרָשָׁהּ. וּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ נְכוֹנִים הֵם.
I think we have to understand these statements in the following manner: It is true that everything which is of a Biblical nature was revealed to Moses and no one since has become privy to something Moses did not already know at that time. The difference between Moses and subsequent generations of scholars is that Moses had been given both the written and the oral Torah from G'd directly. G'd, in His wisdom, had recorded all the parts of the oral Torah He had revealed to Moses in the written Torah also. He had not, however, revealed to Moses where all the parts of the oral Torah He had taught him were to be found in the written Torah. The labour of discovering all these allusions to the oral Torah in the written Torah was left for all the Torah scholars after Moses. It is their task to find proof in the written Torah for all the halachot G'd had taught Moses orally. The reason the scholars of the Mishnaic period compiled commentaries such as Torat Kohanim was to provide us with the key that enables us to find where the oral law is anchored in the written law. This labour is an ongoing process and it remains our task to establish this linkage between the oral and the written law. The labour is generally called ארץ החיים. Moses was not informed about all this and this is why the sages could state that Rabbi Akiva had become privy to insights not even revealed to Moses. The proof of how this works is found in Hillel's reconstructing from the written text a הלכה which had been revealed to Moses at the time but whose "anchor" in the written Torah had been unknown until that time.
י"ג:ל"ח וְאִישׁ֙ אֽוֹ־אִשָּׁ֔ה כִּֽי־יִהְיֶ֥ה בְעוֹר־בְּשָׂרָ֖ם בֶּהָרֹ֑ת בֶּהָרֹ֖ת לְבָנֹֽת׃
13:38 If a man or a woman has the skin of the body streaked with white discolorations,
13:38 And if a man or a woman have in the skin of their flesh bright spots, even white bright spots;
י"ג:ל"ח וּגְבַר אוֹ אִתְּתָא אֲרֵי יְהֵי בִמְשַׁךְ בִּסְרְהוֹן בַּהֲרָן בַּהֲרָן חַוְּרָן:
י"ג:ל"ט וְרָאָ֣ה הַכֹּהֵ֗ן וְהִנֵּ֧ה בְעוֹר־בְּשָׂרָ֛ם בֶּהָרֹ֖ת כֵּה֣וֹת לְבָנֹ֑ת בֹּ֥הַק ה֛וּא פָּרַ֥ח בָּע֖וֹר טָה֥וֹר הֽוּא׃ (ס)
13:39 and the priest sees that the discolorations on the skin of the body are of a dull white, it is a tetter broken out on the skin; he is clean.
13:39 then the priest shall look; and, behold, if the bright spots in the skin of their flesh be of a dull white, it is a tetter, it hath broken out in the skin: he is clean.
י"ג:ל"ט וְיֶחֱזֵי כַהֲנָא וְהָא בִמְשַׁךְ בִּסְרְהוֹן בַּהֲרָן עָמְיָן חַוְּרָן בָּהֲקָא הוּא סָגֵי בְמַשְׁכָּא דְּכֵי הוּא:

התחבר כדי לעקוב אחר הקריאה