Parasha: Tazria · Aliyah: Seventh (Malchut)

צרוע הוא טמא הוא, he is "leprous," he is ritually impure. It appears best to approach these words in the same way Hillel approached the words טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן in verse 37. Here the force of the exegesis is even more convincing as the word צרוע refers to the body of the afflicted person whereas we still require that the priest declare him to be ritually impure. This means that legally speaking, his symptoms notwithstanding, the afflicted person would not be considered subject to the laws of impurity until the priest had declared him to be impure.

The reason the Torah repeated טמא הוא is to make it clear that if the priest had erred and had declared a person as ritually impure although his symptoms did not justify this, the priest's declaration is invalid. The reason the Torah also repeated טמא יטמאנו is explained in Torat Kohanim as including all other categories of ritual impurity. A person never becomes legally impure due to symptoms on his skin unless the priest has declared him to be so.

צרוע הוא, he is "leprous." Why does the Torah not use the expression צרעת הוא in order to describe the affliction as it has done repeatedly? Perhaps the Torah wanted to indicate G'd's extreme displeasure with a person whom He has afflicted with this disease in such exposed areas of the skin of the head and beard. Most other afflictions listed in our portion occur in more private parts of the body. Generally speaking, G'd displays great concern for the sensitivities of a person even when He punishes him. The person described here as צרוע has forfeited the consideration G'd normally shows even to sinners; this is why he is described as a "leper" throughout. The words בראשו נגעו that his affliction is already in his head, is the justification for calling him a צרוע.

כל ימי אשר הנגע בו, all the days that the plague is within him, etc. This means that as long as his sin is still part of him he remains in the state of ritual impurity. The emphasis expressed by the words טמא הוא after the word יטמא is a reminder of Jeremiah 2,19 where the prophet exclaims: תיסרך רעתך, "your discipline has been the result of your wickedness." In other words it was not G'd who inflicted these misfortunes on the sinner but the sins he committed. Jeremiah expresses a similar thought in Lamentations 3,39: "Of what shall a living man complain?! Each one of his own sins." Yalkut Shimoni item 1040 on this verse is worth studying. You may want to read what I have written on Genesis 4,4 אם תיטיב שאת.

והבגד כי יהיה בו נגע צרעת, And the garment which is afflicted by the plague of "leprosy," etc. The conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of this paragraph is explained in Torat Kohanim by Rabbi Yossi Haglili by reading together the last three words of the previous verse with this verse, i.e. מחוץ למחנה מושבו והבגד, "his dwelling is outside the camp together with the garment." This teaches that the garments also need to be removed outside the three camps. Torat Kohanim added that the wording reflects that the rule applies not only to garments made out of wool or linen each but even to garments made of a mixture of those materials but not to garments made of cotton, silk, and other fabrics. This seems difficult as it is possible that what we have perceived to be a conjunctive letter ו is only intended to draw attention to the proximity of the legislation to remove garments made of linen or wool outside the three camps or to include garments made of a mixture of linen and wool. Perhaps Rabbi Yossi Haglili's inference is based on the letter ו whereas the inference regarding inclusion of garments made of a mixture of linen and wool is based on the letter ה in the word והבגד.

בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים in a garment made of wool or in a garment made of linen. We have to analyse why the Torah wrote the word או instead of simply writing בבגד צמר ובבגד פשתים. This is particularly difficult when we consider the words of the author of Korban Aharon who argues that the reason a mixture of wool and linen had to be included in this legislation was because the Torah used the word או which amounted to dividing the word "wool" from the word "linen." The problem becomes even more complex when we consider that Torat Kohanim writes that we might have assumed that these garments contract impurity regardless of whether the fabrics which these garments have been made of have been dyed or not. The words בבגד צמר are to teach us therefore that just as linen garments are usually made of undyed fabric so the legislation is applicable to woollen garments only when these fabrics have not been dyed. This comment is also problematical; on the contrary, it is directly opposed to the statement that the word או is divisive and one could therefore not derive any rule applying to linen garments as also applying to woollen garments.

We believe that the reason our verse had to write the word או was so that we should not think that unless the garment was made of a mixture of wool and linen it would not contract impurity. If so, the word או is needed in its own right and cannot be used exegetically anymore. Once this is so it does not represent a contradiction to what is implied by the words צמר and פשתים appearing next to each other. We have to understand our verse thus: בבגד צמר means that not only if the garment is made of wool, but the same legislation applies if it is made of linen; both materials are treated equally in הלכה. This is why Torat Kohanim wrote that just as linen garments are made of undyed fabric so the woollen garments the Torah has in mind here are the ones whose wool retains its original colour. The reason that the Torah had to include garments made of a mixture of linen and wool is not because we would make the mistake by misreading the meaning of the word או as Korban Aharon would have us believe, but that seeing the Torah mentioned only these two fabrics how would I have arrived at a valid assumption about a mixture of wool and linen? If, on the other hand, we were to accept the argument of Korban Aharon that the word או is divisive, thoroughly separating the words צמר and פשתים from each other, then how could one argue that just as linen garments are of undyed material so the woollen garments the Torah describes are also only those whose fabrics have not been dyed? We would therefore need the letter ו before the word הבגד to re-establish some linkage between these two kinds of garments.

ודאה הכהן…והסגיד and the priest will observe and quarantine it, etc. We need to understand why the Torah changed its legal approach when speaking of the afflicted garment as compared to the legal approach used in connection with afflictions of the skin. The reason may be that an affliction of the skin may exist without quarantine, i.e. the priest will declare the afflicted person impure without a waiting period upon his first inspection (13,3). In the case of a parallel affliction appearing on the clothing of the afflicted person, the priest will first decree quarantine of seven days even though the symptoms are quite clear that we are dealing with צרעת, a form of "leprosy." The Torah therefore wished to distinguish between a person himself and his clothing. On the other hand, once the garment has been declared as definitely "leprous" it has to be utterly destroyed; unlike a person who may be cured of his "leprosy" if certain symptoms disappear, this is not true of his garments. If the Torah had legislated that the garments have to be declared as irrevocably impure at the first inspection by the priest, the impression would have been created that the wearer of those clothes cannot rehabilitate himself by means of repentance. We know from other parts of our commentaries that G'd does not desire the loss or destruction of man's money. Torat Kohanim as well as Nega-im 15,5 explained Leviticus 14,36: "and the priest shall command that they empty the house before the priest will go in to see the plague" that the declaration that the afflicted house is to be demolished is delayed until as much as possible of the owner's possessions have been "saved" by having first been removed from it. G'd therefore is on record that He is mindful of the possessions of even the lowest of the sinners. This then is the reason that the garments of the afflicted person are not declared as irrevocably impure during the first inspection by the priest. Seeing that man is given the opportunity to repent even after he has been ostracised and declared impure, no harm is done if he is declared impure, suffering from "leprosy" even at the first inspection by the priest.