|
|
|
|
 |
|
“When you enter the land of Canaan that I give you as a possession, and I inflict an eruptive plague (tzara’at) upon a house in the land you possess” (Lev. 14:34). Tell us our teacher what things bring tzara’at. So our teachers learned, that the affliction comes for eleven things: for idolatry, for blasphemy, for incestuous relations, for theft, for slander, for perjury, for a judge who miscarries justice, for false oaths, for trespass, for thinking false thoughts, for creating strife between brothers, and some say also for the evil eye (Tanhuma (Buber), Metzora 10).
As we see from this midrash, the sages did not view tzara’at as a physical disease, but rather as a spiritual phenomenon. Moreover, from the verse “When you enter the land of Canaan that I give you as a possession and I inflict an eruptive plague (tzara’at) upon a house in the land you possess” they attributed certain unique characteristics to the affliction:
All can contract impurity from tzara’at except for idolaters and resident aliens. All are qualified to inspect the affliction, but only a kohen may pronounce them impure or pure (Mishna Nega’im 3:1).
All garments may contract impurity from tzara’at except those of idolators. If a man bought garments from idolaters, they must be inspected anew [since the tzara’at must have arisen after the purchase]. The hides of creatures of the sea cannot contract impurity, but if a man joined to them something that grows on land, even if it is but a threat or cord, yet something that is susceptible to impurity, they, too, become susceptible (Mishna Nega’im 11:1).
All houses can contract impurity from tzara’at except those of idolaters (Mishna Nega’im 12:1).
Tzara’at appears to be exclusive to the land of Israel and to the people of Israel. Maimonides explains: “The Holy One said: ‘I inflict an eruptive plague (tzara’at) upon a house in the land you possess’, and we learn from tradition that the property you possess becomes impure, but the property of gentiles does not contract the impurity of the affliction. And just as their property is not afflicted, so their garments and bodies are not afflicted” (Commentary to the Mishna, Nega’im 12:1).
It would thus appear that the sages viewed tzara’at as a miraculous, supernatural phenomenon. It does not make a person ill but rather renders him impure, and the impurity it imparts is not remedied by medical treatment but by ritual and sacrifice.
1. A kohen is forbidden from becoming impure, yet in regard to tzara’at we read: “When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling, a rash, or a discoloration, and it develops into a scaly affection on the skin of his body, it shall be reported to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests” (Lev. 13:2). The sages deduced from this that tzara’a’t could not be diagnosed by a scholar or physician but only by a kohen. Why?
2. What special symbolism is there in the idea that tzara’at can be contracted only by the people of Israel in the land of Israel, and what lessons might we learn from this? Nahmanides wrote: “This is not a natural, earthly phenomenon, and so it is with the affliction of houses, rather when Israel is one with God, God’s spirit is always upon them to keep their bodies and garments and houses appearing good, but when one of them sins or transgresses there is an ugliness in his body or his garment or his house to show that God has left him. Therefore the Bible tells us (14:34) ‘When you enter the land of Canaan that I give you as a possession’. And it is not because it derives from the earth but because this phenomenon is present only in the chosen land in which the Holy One resides”. Is removing the impure person from society intended to heal him or to protect society? What might we learn from the relationship between tzara’at and the land of Israel and the spiritual state of the people of Israel?
3. The purification ritual is described as follows: “The priest shall order two live clean birds, cedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop to be brought for him who is to be cleansed” (Lev. 14:4). The Mishna explains: “How did they purify the person with tzara’at? He brought…two birds free birds (tzipporim dror)” (Mishna Nega’im 14:1). In another context,the Talmud discusses the term “free bird” (tzippor dror), explaining that the term refers to “a wild bird which does not submit to taming”, and adds: “Why is it called a free bird? Because it dwells in the house as in the fields” (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Beitza 24a). Is there some special symbolic significance to this choice of “free birds” that remain free even “in the house”? Might we deduce a symbolic connection between this choice and the idea that tzara’at afflicts only the people of Israel in the land of Israel?
Editor: Avinoam Sharon
Iyunei Shabbat is published weekly by the Schechter Rabbinical Seminary, The Masorti Movement and The Rabbinical Assembly of Israel in conjunction with the Masorti Movement in Israel and Masorti Olami-World Council of Conservative Synagogues.
Chief Editor: Rabbi Avinoam Sharon
| |
 |
|
|
|
