Vayikra Chapters 13,14 - Tsara`at by a person

Vayikra chapter 13 records the details of the tumah of the person (and clothing) with tsara`at. Regardless of the exact definition of the term tsara`at, why or how is this phenomena related to tumah? And, why does the Torah record a process of a person becoming tamei and then tahor by this ailment more than other sicknesses that people have?

One understanding of tsara`at is that it was a disease, which required quarantine to stop the spread of the disease. Similarly, tsara`at of clothing required the clothing to be either washed or burnt (13:47-58) since this disinfects the clothes from the disease (see Hertz, 1960, p. 459). With this approach, the tumah is due to the person or the clothing having this disease. Following this approach, Dunin and Sutcliff write (1992, p. 15) that “Hebrew medicine excelled in the area of public health,” see also Rambam (Moreh 3:47) and Ralbag's interpretation of chapters 13 and 14.

Many commentators were bothered by this approach because it makes the Torah into a health manual. S. R. Hirsch (1989, comments at the end of chapter 13) has a lengthy discourse against this public health approach. Amongst the questions he raises is that 13:12,13 record that if the entire body has tsara`at then the person is tahor. Yet, if the reason for the tumah is because tsara`at is a disease so if the person has tsara`at on all the body he should certainly be tamei. Also by tsara`at in the house, 14:36 record that one is to empty the house before the priest declares it tamei. Yet if tsara`at is due to disease, why allow the house to be emptied if the items might contain the disease?

Accordingly, it has been suggested that tsara`at is punishment for some sin. The Talmud (Arakhin 16a) quotes Rav Shmuel ben Nachmani in the name of Rav Yochanon that there are seven sins that are due to tsara`at: loshen hara (slander) murder, perjury, sexual immorality, pride, robbery and unkind selfishness. Preuss (1993, pp. 337,338) notes that even more sins have been proposed in the Talmud and the Midrash. Of all the sins, traditionally the most prominent was that tsara`at occurred because a person spoke loshen hara, slander (see Sifra 5:7 and Talmud Arakhin, 15b, 16a). The Talmud (Arakhin 16b) explains that just as slander causes people to separate, the slanderer must also be separated from people.

Why is slander usually singled out as the cause of tsara`at? Avot de-Rav Natan (9:2,3) has an extensive discussion of the negative consequences of loshen hara. First, it notes that the people had many sins in the desert, but they were only punished for the sin of the spies, which was because the spies slandered the land of Israel. Afterwards, it discusses Miryam's and Aharon's slander of Moshe, and Miryam was punished with tsara`at, Bemidbar 12:1-10 and Devarim 24:9. Afterwards, it quotes Rav Shimon Ben Elazar who notes the connection between tsara`at and slander from the story of Gehazi (Kings II, 5:27). One other case, not in Avot de-Rav Natan, is that Rashi (on Shemot 4:6) writes that Moshe had temporary tsara`at as a punishment because he spoke ill of the Jewish people, Shemot 4:1,6.

Meir Gruzman (1998) notes that there are other cases in Tanakh (Shmuel I 22, Kings 1,19 and Isaiah 6) where he believes there is also slander but no mention of tsara`at. He suggests that tsara`at occurs because of slander, but not all the time is slander punished with tsara`at. He argues that slander is only punished with tsara`at when a person speaks a complete falsehood. Thus, he argues Moshe said the people would not listen, when in reality this was false since the people would listen to Moshe.

Notwithstanding the popularity of this explanation for tsara'at, I have never liked it for several reasons. One, I assume that people today are pretty much like people of yesteryear, and if in modern times, loshen hara, slander is rampant, so then in olden times there would have been a large number of people with tsara`at. More people could have been outside the camp, than inside the camp! Maybe people would have realized the consequences of loshen hara and then not spoken it, but from Jeremiah 9:3,4 and Psalms 12:3-5 it seems that slander was as common in olden times as it is today. Two, even though slander is a terrible sin, I cannot accept that it is worse than murdering a person. Why would G-d choose to intervene in the world for the sin of slander but not for murder? If tsara'at would be for murderers, then the murderer's skin would change, and then murderers could easily be identified and apprehended. Three, why does the priest not warn the person to repent from his ways instead of just telling him to wait another seven days to see if the tsara'at spreads (13:4,5)? Four, the case of the person who is completely covered with tsara'at but is considered as being pure, 13:12,13, remains inexplicable, as according to this approach that tsara'at is due to sin, this person should certainly be tamei.

In a fascinating article, Rav Soloveitchik (1981) argued that Miryam was punished with tsara`at because Miryam was denying the uniqueness of Moshe as a prophet, when she claimed equal status with Moshe. One of the fundamental ideas in our faith is that Moshe received the Torah from G-d and was able to transmit the Torah to the Jewish people since he was the greatest prophet, see Shemot 14:31 and 19:9. Miryam was then punished for contributing to a lack of faith in G-d and the Torah and not due to slander.

This understanding of Miryam's sin suggests that maybe tsara`at is a religious punishment when someone says something that might reduce other people’s faith in G-d or the Torah. With regard to Moshe getting tsara’at, it is not clear that Moshe was being punished since the tsara`at was only a demonstration and very temporary. Yet, if one believes that Moshe was punished by the tsara`at, then maybe it was because by refusing to take the people out of Egypt, Moshe was contributing to a lack of faith in G-d. (This idea could also explain why Gehazi was punished with tsara`at since his actions could have reduced Naaman’s faith in G-d.)  

According to this idea, maybe a person with tsara`at has to leave the camp in order to isolate the person so that he/ she could not influence other people’s faith in G-d and the Torah or to give the person time to contemplate and return to G-d. Also, this idea accords with the idea that tumah represents a potential estrangement from G-d, which in this case would be due to the person's issues of faith.

A different approach to tsara'at is to recognize that while some people are punished with tsara'at, this does not mean that everybody who has tsara'at has sinned. Thus, the tsara'at is not a sign that a person has sinned, but that a person has a physical ailment that his/ her skin is marked somehow. These marks are probably not contagious or a sign of any sickness. What then can be the reason for this tumah? Maybe the purification process of the metsora suggests a way to understand the metsora's tumah.

The purification process of the metsora involves two stages. The first stage is that two birds are taken, and the blood of one bird is sprinkled on the metsora, while the second bird is sent free, 14:4-7. After this ritual the person is tahor, 14:8, but he/ she undergoes another ritual the following week. In the second ritual, blood is sprinkled on the person just like what was done with Aharon and his sons when they were invested as priests, 14:14 and 8:23,24. Afterwards, oil is poured on the same spots on the former metsora as was the blood, and then more oil is poured on the former metsora's head, 14:17,18. This appears to be more oil than was done with Aharon whose his head was poured with oil when he was invested as the high priest, 8:12, and more than when Aharon and his sons with their priestly clothing were sprinkled with oil, 8:30. Furthermore, before the oil was poured on the former metsora's head, the oil was sprinkled before G-d, 14:17. This pouring of oil on the former metsora's head is surely very significant, and generally oil is sprinkled as a way to consecrate the item or person. This sprinkling of oil suggests that the end of the process, the former metsora has a superior status, equal or even greater than the high priest!

With this understanding, we can view the metsora process in a positive perspective. A person has various skin ailments, which are not harmful physically, but psychologically the person could feel alienated from society and/ or from G-d. For example, Luzzatto (on 12:2) writes that in ancient times, a bodily disfigurement was considered a sign that G-d was angry at the person.

The person with these spots then goes before the priest, the religious representative, who either tells the person that he/ she is tahor or tamei. If the person is tahor, then that should improve his/ her self-confidence, even if he/ she still has tsara’at as when the tsara’at just stopped from spreading, 13:6. On the other hand if the person is tamei, then he/ she goes through a difficult process of moving outside the camp and shaving the body, but he/ she returns as a new person with a status equal or higher than the priests. This should certainly boost the person’s self-confidence and should move the person to be closer to G-d.

This positive approach might explain the case where a person is completely covered with tsara’at but is considered tahor, 13:12,13. In this case, there is no way to make this person tahor later on if he/ she is declared tamei because how can one say the tsara’at has not spread? Instead, if the idea is that tsara`at is meant to be helpful to the person, then this person is told that he/ she is tahor.

This lesson by the metsora would apply to all people that a person's look are not important with regard to their relationship with G-d. All people, even people who think of themselves as being unattractive can be closer to G-d than the high priest.

Bibliography:

Dunin, Nancy and Dr. Jenny Sutcliff, 1992, A History of Medicine, New York: Barnes and Nobles Books.

Gruzman, Meir, 1998, The opinions of our sages on leprosy as a punishment, in A divinely given Torah in our day and age: Studies on the weekly Torah readings from Bar Ilan University, anonymous editors, Jerusalem: Laser Pages Publishing, pp. 269-274.

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.

Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.

Preuss, Julius (1861-1913), 1993, Biblical and Talmudic Medicine, translated and edited by Fred Rosner, Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc.

Soloveitchik, Rav Yosef, 1981, Reflections of the Rav, vol. 1, edited by Abraham R. Besdin, Ktav Publishing House

Chapter 15 of the book of Vayikra: Equality of male and female tumot?

Chapter 15 of the book of Vayikra records the tumah of the zav, shikhvat zera, the niddah and the zavah. These tumot all refer to emissions from the body, with two in reference to men (zav and shikhvat zera) and two in reference to women (zavah and niddah). Also, for both men and women, there is a normal emission, shikhvat zera and niddah, and an abnormal emission, zav and zavah. Yet, there are significant differences between the male and female types of tumah.

The zav and the zavah even share the same name, but it appears that the tumah of the zav is more severe than the tumah of the zavah. With regard to the zav, anything he sits on becomes tamei, and a person who touches such an item also becomes tamei for one day, 15:4-6. This law also applies to the zavah, 15:26,27. Also it appears that just like touching a zav makes one tamei so too touching a zavah makes one tamei, 15:7,19. However, the zav has additional secondary effects from his tumah that do not apply to a zavah as for example only the spit of a zav causes tumah, 15:8. Also by a zav, anything below where he sits, such as a saddle, becomes tamei, not just the items that come in direct contact with him, 15:9,10. Also, if a zav touches something with his hands but he did not wash them, then the touched item also becomes tamei, 15:11,12. (15:11 has generated much discussion, but I do not see why it cannot be understood as referring to a case where the zav touches an inanimate object with his hands, as before the Torah only refers to where the zav sits and if he was touched by a person.)

Accordingly, the zav has many more secondary effects from his tumah than the zavah has from her tumah. In addition, it appears that the purification of the zav also differs from the zavah, as the zav requires mayim chayyim, running water, 15:13, while this requirement is not mentioned by the zavah. The fact that the zav has more secondary effects from his tumah and undergoes a more burdensome purification process suggests that the tumah of the zav is considered more severe than the tumah of the zavah.

The tumot of the niddah and the shikhvat zera, the cases of the normal emissions, have the opposite pattern than that of the zav and zavah, since the tumah of the female, the niddah, is more severe than the tumah of the male, shikhvat zera. The tumah of the niddah has the same secondary effects as the zavah, and a woman who is a niddah is tamei for seven days, 15:19,25. However by the man, the only secondary effect of the tumah of the shikhvat zera is when the semen touches an item, and the man is only tamei for one day, 15:16,17.

Consequently, by the tumah due to normal emissions, the tumah of a man is less severe than the tumah of a female, while by the tumah of the abnormal emissions, the tumah of the man is more severe than the tumah of the woman. While it is possible that there are some underlying rationales that differentiate the reasons for the different tumot, the Torah does not posit any such differences. Possibly, the idea is that the net tumah of the male and females are roughly equal, as the combined tumah of the shikhvat zera and the zav would equal the combined tumah of the niddah and the zavah.

In addition, maybe the frequency of the occurrence of each tumah is also relevant to the levels of tumah. If one assumes that the zavah condition was more frequent than the zav, and that the tumah of shikhvat zera was more frequent than the tumah of a niddah, then maybe the reason for the different levels of severity of tumah is due to the differing frequencies of the tumah. (See Milgrom, 1991, p. 953, who writes “in ancient times, and indeed until the present age, women did not menstruate frequently during their childbearing years.”)

The tumah of the shikhvat zera is the most frequent tumah and hence it has the lowest level of tumah. Afterwards, the next most frequent tumah is the niddah, and her level of tumah is less than the zavah, as the niddah does not have to bring a sacrifice when she becomes tahor. The zavah has the third level of tumah, more than the niddah but less than the zav, and her tumah is more frequent than the niddah but less frequent than the zav. The zav then has the most severe level of tumah, but the most infrequent occurrence. If this is idea is correct, then the expected value of tumah (frequency * level of tumah) could be approximately equal in all four cases or maybe the total expected value of male and female tumot might be roughly equal.