Vayikra 13:47-59 – Tsara’at by clothing

Vayikra 13:49,50 records that if a person has a nega, spot, on their clothes, which is thought to be a sign of tsara’at, then the priest inspects the spot and the clothing is put aside for a week. At the end of the week, the priest inspects the clothing. If the spot spread, then the priest declares the clothing as tamei since it is tsara’at and the clothing is burnt, 13:50-52. If the spot did not spread, then it is washed, and after the week, the priest examines it again, 13:53-55. If the spot did not diminish, the clothing is burnt, 13:55. If the spot diminished, then the spot is removed from the clothing, and a person can use the other material from the clothing, 13:56. If a spot returns to the clothing after having removed the initial spot, then the clothing is burnt, 13:57. Finally, if the spot is completely gone from the clothing after the clothing was washed, then the clothing is considered tahor, 13:58. What is the meaning of this section? Why does the Torah record laws concerning tsar’at by clothing?

Hertz (1960, p. 465) writes that maybe the tsara`at was some mildew or some parasitic infection. Similarly, Levine (1989, p. 83), writes that perhaps “they were fungoid or sporoid infections.” This follows the idea that tsara`at is a health problem. The tsara`at by the clothing might be the most likely case where tsara`at is a health problem, but would not people on their own throw out clothing that is infected? Maybe today yes with our higher standard of living, but in olden days if they had no clothing it might have been difficult for people to throw out clothing. Yet, does this idea explain the shocking aspect of burning the clothing?

The traditional understanding is that the spots on the clothing are a warning that the person has sinned usually by talking loshen hara, slander, see Rambam, Laws of Tumat Tsara`at, 16:10 and Seforno on 13:47. Yet, why then does the priest not warn the person to repent when he inspects the clothing?

My guess is that the crucial issue is that the clothing is destroyed either by being burnt or being cut up. Possibly the message is that clothing is unimportant. The idea being that at times people get very caught up with material items, clothing being very prominent material items, and they forget about G-d. Maybe, here the message is that material possessions such as clothing are not important to one's relationship with G-d. With this idea, the tumah of the spots on the clothing, has a similar message to the spots on the person. In our discussion on chapters 13,14 "Tsara`at by a person,” we suggested that the spots of tsara'at on a person signify that a person's looks are not important to one's relationship with G-d, and then similarly, maybe the message by tsara’at on clothing is that a person’s clothing, whether fancy or simple, is not important to a person’s relationship with G-d.

Bibliography:

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

Levine, Baruch A., 1989, Leviticus: The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

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

Vayikra (Leviticus) 12:1-5 – Tumah of a new mother and circumcision on the eighth day

Vayikra (Leviticus) 12:1,2 records that if a woman gives birth to a boy she becomes tamei for seven days. Afterwards, for the following 33 days the new mother is in a quasi-state of tumah, she cannot go to the mikdash but she is considered tahor with regard to her husband, 12:4. On the other hand, if a woman gives birth to a girl, she is tamei for 14 days, and her quasi-state of tumah is for 66 days, 12:5. The ratio of the new mother being tamei and in a quasi-state of tumah is equal for the birth of a boy and a birth of a girl, but why are the absolute numbers different? Why is there a difference in the number of days of tumah for the mother if the child born was a boy as opposed to a girl?

Within the laws of the tumah of the mother, 12:3 records that a newborn boy is circumcised on the eighth day of his life. This verse is a little surprising since from Bereshit 17:10-14 (and Bereshit 21:4) we already know that a male must be circumcised after eight days. It is true that the law of circumcision in Bereshit occurred before the covenant at Mount Sinai, and thus one might argue that the law had to be repeated, see statement by R. Yehuda in Mishnah Hullin 7:6, and comments of the Rambam on the Mishnah. Yet, there are other laws in Bereshit (1:28, 32:33) that are applicable even though they were not repeated after the establishment of the covenant at Mount Sinai. More likely, the reference to circumcision within the laws of tumah of the new mother is because these two concepts are related. What is the relationship?

One possibility is that the tumah and taharah are the independent variables, and the circumcision (the dependent variable) is due to the ending of the tumah. The Talmud (Niddah 31b) quotes R. Shimon Bar Yochai who explains that the circumcision is on the eighth day since everybody is happy at the circumcision, and the Torah desired that the husband and wife should also be happy. If the wife is tamei, then the husband and wife cannot be together, so then they would be sad if the circumcision was before the eighth day. Thus, according to this explanation, the circumcision is on the eighth day since by then the wife is tahor. This is an interesting idea that the Torah was so concerned with the companionship between husband and wife that it delayed the circumcision to the eighth day, but it leaves the question of why the mother is tamei for seven days after the birth of a boy and fourteen days after the birth of a girl unanswered. For other suggestions that also follow the idea that the dating of the circumcision is due to the tumah, see Luzzatto on 12:3.

Hoffmann (on Vayikra 12:1-5, 1953, p. 252) suggests that the causality is reversed. With this understanding, the mother's tumah (the dependent variable) after the birth of a boy is limited to seven days because of the circumcision (the independent variable). Yet, why is the circumcision on the eighth day?

Korman (1998, vol. 2, pp. 290,291) quotes various reasons. One, from Vayikra Rabbah 27:10 that the circumcision is on the eighth day to ensure that the child experiences one Shabbat before the circumcision. It is not clear to me why the child needs to experience a Shabbat not circumcised. Two, from R. Judan ben Pazzi (Devarim Rabbah, 6:1) that the circumcision is on the eighth day to give the child enough strength to undergo the circumcision. This reason is also mentioned by the Rambam (Moreh 3:49, Maimonides, 1963, p. 611) and Korman quotes a study that the child has the most amount of vitamin K which helps the blood coagulate on the eighth day. This answer is certainly possible, but if the issue is the health of the child, would it not be better to wait a month?

I think the timing of the circumcision on the eighth day is related to the question why is the mother tamei after giving birth.  Tumah signifies a separation or potential separation from G-d. In the case of the new mother, the tumah (and the hatta't sacrifice, 12:6) does not relate to any sin but there are two possible reasons why the birth process might have separated the new mother in some ways from G-d. One, it could be that mother's attachment to the new child diminishes her connection to G-d or, more likely, during the time of the labor, which is the most intensive physical action a person goes through, the mother is separated from G-d since she is completely focused on her body. The new mother is then given time when she is tamei to acknowledge that this separation had occurred. The tumah by the birth of a girl is fourteen days, and this is the ideal time that is given to the new mother.

With this idea, the circumcision should be on the 15th day after the birth since then the mother's tumah, which marked her separation from G-d, has ended. However, delaying the circumcision to the 15th day is problematic. Circumcision demonstrates the parents' dedication to G-d that they are willing to have their newborn son circumcised. Based on this rationale, the circumcision should really be on the first day that the child is born. But, the new mother is not in a position to make this dedication on the first day after the birth due to her being in a state of tumah, which signifies her separation from G-d.

Accordingly, performing the circumcision on the eighth day is a compromise between two conflicting values. On the one hand, the circumcision should be on the 1st day after the birth, but the new mother is still tamei and separated from G-d. On the other hand, the circumcision could be on the 15th day after the birth when the new mother's tumah has ended, but then the parents have delayed demonstrating their dedication to G-d. The compromise is to do the circumcision on the 8th day, and then the mother's tumah, and separation from G-d, is shortened to seven days because by circumcising her son on the 8th day, the new mother is demonstrating her closeness and return to G-d.

Bibliography:

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Korman, Abraham, 1998, The parsha for her generations, Hebrew, Tel Aviv.