Parshat HaShavua
Yeshivat Har Etzion

This parasha series is dedicated
in memory of Michael Jotkowitz, z"l.

PARASHAT TAZRIA

The Person, the Garment, and the House

By Rav Amnon Bazak

a. Introduction

The structure of the section in the Torah devoted to leprous sores, which begins in our parasha and concludes in Parashat Metzora, gives rise to an obvious question concerning the order of the topics addressed. The following is a summary of the structure of the discussion as a whole:

i. 13:1-46 – sores on human flesh (this section is further divided according to the different types of sores; we shall not discuss this breakdown)

ii. 13:47-59 – leprosy on clothing

iii. 14:1-32 – the procedure for ritual purification of a leper from his sores

iv. 14:33-53 – leprosy on a house

v. 14:54-57 – summary

The obvious question concerns the placement of the subject of leprosy on clothing, which creates a break in the middle of the discussion of bodily leprosy. Why does this section not appear after the end of that discussion, as does the matter of leprosy on a house? Abarbanel, commenting on the beginning of our parasha, formulates the question (the eleventh in his list) as follows:

The question is further reinforced in light of a review of the progression of the verses. At the end of the section dealing with human leprosy, the Torah describes the behavior required of a person who has been pronounced ritually impure:

The direct continuation of these verses is to be found at the beginning of chapter 14, where we read:

Only in the concluding verses of the section regarding bodily leprosy do we find the expressions "tzarua" ("leprous") and "machaneh" ("camp"); this serves to highlight the linguistic connection between these verses and the introductory verses to chapter 14, dealing with leper's purification.

Moreover, the section addressing leprosy on clothing concludes with the words, "This is the teaching concerning the plague of leprosy in a garment of wool or of linen; either in the warp or in the woof, or in any [garment] made of skins, to declare it pure or to declare it impure" (13:59). This, in fact, concludes the subject altogether. But when it comes to leprosy on human flesh, a parallel verse appears only at the end of the entire discussion of the human disease, in chapter 14, verse 32: "This is the teaching concerning one in whom the disease of leprosy exists…."

In light of these linguistic aspects of the text, our question becomes even more insistent: why are the verses that deal with leprosy on clothing – seemingly an independent unit – inserted in the middle of this discussion?

b. The Leper and his Garments

In Abarbanel's view, it appears that this juxtaposition emphasizes the connection between a person and his clothing. The laws of leprosy emphasize two aspects that relate not only to the person who contracts ritual impurity, but also to his clothing:

i. Firstly, the verses tell us twice that if, by the end of the second week, the plague has not spread, the person is regarded ritually pure, but he must wash his clothing:

ii. When the leper is declared impure, this has implications for his clothes, as well:

Hence, a clear connection exists between the state of a person's ritual purity, and the state of his clothing. Partial impurity of a person requires washing his clothes, while complete impurity requires that they be torn. Needless to say, no such connection exists between a person and his house. We may therefore now answer our question: the laws of leprosy in clothing are discussed in the middle of the laws of bodily leprosy to express this connection between a person and his clothing.

It should be noted that the connection between a person and his clothing finds expression not only in the procedures associated with ritual purity and impurity, but also in procedures associated with consecration. There are clear parallels between the purification of a leper from his impurity and the consecration of Aharon and his sons as kohanim, as described in Parashat Tetzaveh and Parashat Tzav. Inter alia, we may point to the following parallel:

In the procedure for the kohanim's consecration, the sanctification of their clothing assumes a prominent role:

The priestly garments, too, require special sanctification – but this sanctification is performed alongside, and as part of, the sanctification of the kohanim. When the kohanim are sanctified, their clothes become sanctified along with them – just as when a person becomes impure, his clothes require washing.

c. The Leper and His House

Thus far we have adopted one approach to answering our question, following Abarbanel, based on a perspective viewing clothing as an extension of the individual. However, beyond this approach, there is another factor which would appear to emphasize the comparison between leprosy of the HOUSE and leprosy of the person.

In chapter 13 of our parasha, the Torah describes the laws of 'tzara'at,' and in this respect the chapter includes bodily leprosy and leprosy of clothing. However, chapter 14 – in Parashat Metzora – does not discuss the laws of impurity, but rather addresses the process of purification. This process exists only where a leper is purified from his bodily leprosy, or when a house is purified from its plague; it does not exist in the context of leprosy of clothing.

The purification processes for a person and for a house bear considerable resemblance to one another:

Purification of person:

Purification of the house:

Without embarking on a discussion of the significance of this process of purification, it is clear that the two procedures parallel one another. However, one important difference stands out: while the house is purified and ATONED FOR by means of the birds, the cedar, the hyssop and the scarlet, for the leper himself these means are only part of the PURIFICATION; they are not part of the ATONEMENT. The process of atonement is concluded only by means of the sacrifices and the placing of the blood and the oil upon the leper:

This difference seemingly stems from the fact that the atonement for the leper is performed after he has been proclaimed impure, as explained in chapter 13, thus demanding a more complex process. As regards the house, by contrast, the process is necessary only in the case where, after the second week, the "plague is healed," and has not spread. In any event, what is common to the person and the house is that both require atonement – a process that does not exist at all, in any form, with regard to clothing. Thus, the division of the textual sections (and the chapters) evolves naturally from the difference between the laws of impurity and the process of atonement; for this reason, the leprosy of clothing belongs only to the Parasha of Tazria, not to Parashat Metzora.

This division appears to accord a unique status to the house, in that it, too, like a person, requires atonement when it becomes defiled. Wherein lies the significance of this requirement?

d. "And he shall atone for himself and for his household"

This is not the only instance where we encounter the concept of "atonement" in connection with a house ("bayit" – house, or household). Two chapters later, in the Torah's description of the Kohen Gadol's service on Yom Kippur, this phenomenon appears once again:

As we know, the Sages interpret the repeated mention of the atonement for the household in two senses: the first refers to the family of the Kohen Gadol; the second refers to the tribe of Levi:

But the very fact that the Torah refers to the kohen's relatives as his "house" ("bayit") proves the connection between the concept of "house" and those who live within it.

It emerges, then, that when a person's house is struck with plague, this is an expression of impurity towards that which represents its inhabitants as a collective whole. This is not the impurity of a specific individual, and therefore no individual is required to bring a sacrifice for it. However, there is impurity attached to a person's home, to the place where his family resides; this requires a process of purification and atonement. [1]

e. And I Shall Bring the Plague of Leprosy

We may now move onto an additional difference between leprosy of clothing and leprosy of the house. The parasha concerning leprosy of clothing opens with the words,

The parasha concerning the leprosy of a house, on the other hand, opens in an entirely different style:

From the difference between these two formulations it appears that leprosy of clothing is a natural process, while leprosy of a house is a deliberate Divine act, apparently a form of punishment:

When it comes to leprosy of human flesh, the Torah does not hint at a determined Divine act, but rather speaks in natural terms ("If a person should have, in the skin of his flesh, a swelling, a scab, or a bright spot…"; "If a person shall have the plague of leprosy…"; etc.). Nevertheless, human leprosy also appears to be a punishment, for two principal reasons: firstly, the process is a particularly harsh one, involving the leper's isolation from human company. In the world of biblical concepts of reward and punishment, such a process cannot occur without reason. Secondly, in most cases where we encounter in Tanakh a person stricken with leprosy, the disease followed a sin [2]. This idea also seems to underlie God's message to David via Natan's vision: "I shall be a Father to him, and he shall be a son to Me – that when he sins I shall reproach him with a human staff and with mortal plagues" (Shmuel II 7:14). The Sages offer various opinions as to which sorts of sins bring plagues upon a person [3].

It would seem, therefore, that leprosy on clothing – concerning which there is no mention of any process of atonement – is indeed fundamentally different from leprous sores on human flesh or on houses. Leprosy in a person expresses a problem in that person; leprosy on a house indicates a general problem concerning the nature of the house and its inhabitants. Therefore, both these types of leprosy require a process of atonement. Leprosy on clothing, on the other hand, is part of nature. These sores have their own laws – like other types of impurity – but they have no element of atonement, since they do not come about as a punishment.

Notes:

[1] The spiritual connection between a person and his house finds expression also in other sections in the Torah, such as the exemption from military duty granted to certain groups of soldiers: "The officers shall speak to the people, saying: Which man has built a new house and has not yet inaugurated it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in battle and another man inaugurate it" (Devarim 20:8). Especially striking is the law pertaining to a daughter who has prostituted herself while still living in her father's house; she is taken to be stoned specifically at the entrance to that house: "If this matter was true, and the girl was found not to be a virgin, then the girl shall be taken out to the entrance of her father's house, and the people of her city shall stone her with stones that she may die, for she has performed an abomination in Israel - to prostitute her father's house – and the evil shall be removed from amongst you" (ibid. 22:20-21). Here there is an obvious connection between the geographical place – the first mention of the expression "her father's house" – and the family to which it refers, in the second mention ("to prostitute her father's house" = to prostitute herself while she was single and living in her father's house).

[2] There can be no doubt that leprosy is a punishment in the case of Miriam ("The cloud moved from above the Tent, and behold – Miriam was LEPROUS as snow. Aharon turned to Miriam, and behold – she was leprous. So Aharon said to Moshe, "Please, my master, do not lay upon us THE SIN WHICH WE HAVE COMMITTED IN ACTING FOOLISHLY, AND IN SINNING" – Bamidbar 12:10-11), in the case of Gechazi ("'The leprosy of Na'aman will adhere to you and to your seed forever.' And he went out from before him, leprous as snow" – Melakhim II 5:27), and in the case of Uziyahu ("Uziyahu was angry, and he had in his hand a censer for burning incense. While he was angry at the kohanim, leprosy broke out on his forehead in front of the kohanim, in God's house, above the incense altar. Azaryahu, the chief kohen, and all the kohanim, turned towards him – and behold, he was leprous upon his forehead; so they hurried him away from there, and he himself also hastened to leave, for God had smitten him" - Divrei ha-Yamim II 26:19-20). What is common to all three instances is that they present a person who aspired to a higher spiritual level than the one he/she had attained: Miriam was jealous of Moshe, Gechazi presented himself as Elisha's equal, and Uziyahu wanted to serve as a kohen. Each was punished, measure for measure, by ending up on a lower level than the one where he/she began.

[3] See, for example, Vayikra Rabba 17:3: "For TEN things plagues come [upon a person]: for idolatry, for forbidden sexual relationships, for bloodshed, for the desecration of God's Name and for cursing God, for stealing from the public and stealing that which is not his, and for vulgarity of spirit, for speaking badly of others, and for an evil eye." For further on this subject, see Nechama Leibowitz, "Studies in Sefer Vayikra," on our parasha.

Translated by Kaeren Fish