The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

The first half of Parashat Metzora continues the topic of tzara'at that had occupied the vast majority of the previous parasha, Parashat Tazria. As we discussed last week, Chazal generally view the phenomenon of tzara'at as a result of, and punishment for, the grave transgression of lashon ha-ra – improper, negative speech about others.

A celebrated passage in the Midrash's comments to this parasha (Vayikra Rabba, 16:2) tells a story relevant to the issue of lashon ha-ra that has generated a vast homiletic literature that spans numerous centuries. The Midrash tells that once, in the town where Rabbai Yanai lived, a peddler came along and announced, "Who wants to purchase life-giving potion?" Everyone in the vicinity gathered round to hear about the new, exciting product, but Rabbi Yanai opened the window and asked the merchant to come to his residence to show him his merchandise. The peddler told Rabbi Yanai, "Neither you nor people like you need it." But Rabbi Yanai persisted, and so the peddler came into his home and showed him a series of verses in Sefer Tehillim (34:13-15), "Who is the man who is eager for life, who desires years of good fortune? Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from deceitful speech, shun evil and do good." Rabbi Yanai suddenly realized that King Shlomo made a similar comment in Sefer Mishlei (21:23), "He who guards his mouth and tongue guards himself from trouble." Rabbi Yanai exclaimed, "All my life I would read this verse, but I did not know how simple it was, until this peddler came along and informed me." Many commentators throughout the ages have struggled to identify the profound, novel concept that the peddler introduced in this episode. What about lashon ha-ra did Rabbi Yanai suddenly discover, that he hadn't understood previously?

Rav Yitzchak Arama, in his famous work, Akeidat Yitzchak, devotes a lengthy section in his commentary to this parasha to explaining this passage. In his view, the peddler's brief presentation to Rabbi Yanai underscores not the particular gravity of lashon ha-ra, but rather the centrality of this value – of proper speech – within the system of Judaism. For one thing, Rabbi Yanai was impressed by the merchant's proactive efforts to disseminate and preach this value. As opposed to Rabbi Yanai himself, who, as the Midrash tells, did not want to even leave his house, the peddler went through the trouble of traveling throughout Jewish communities to impress upon them the critical importance of "guarding one's tongue." These efforts emphasized for Rabbi Yanai the centrality of this value, and put it into a perspective that he has previously not appreciated. Secondly, the peddler emphasized that proper speech is what grants one "life." One who "is eager for life" can acquire it only by "guarding his tongue from evil." The Akeidat Yitzchak explains that since speech is the quality that distinguishes the human being from other creatures, its misuse divests the human being of his superiority over the beasts. He draws a comparison to one who dons royal clothing and wears them while collecting garbage; pretty soon, the clothing lose their royal appearance. A person who uses his "royal garb" – the sublime power of speech – for unworthy causes soils that "garment," to the point where he is no greater than the animals. This critical message, too, was part of the peddler's message that left such an impression upon Rabbi Yanai. People generally assess the value of life based on their subjective yardsticks, in accordance with their personal preferences, likes and dislikes. The peddler revealed that the extent to which a person "lives" depends on how he uses the intellectual capacities that distinguish the human being from animals and beasts.

Thus, Rabbi Yanai was inspired by the perspective on human speech as the source of "life" from the Torah's standpoint. A human being is considered to "live" only to the extent to which he capitalizes on his unique talents and channels them in the proper direction.

A different approach was suggested by a contemporary writer, Rav Yehoshua Weitzman, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Maalot (www.kipa.co.il/jew/show.asp?id=2611). He explains that essentially, there exist two general perspectives on the world: one which sees the world as advancing and gradually heading towards improvement and, ultimately, perfection; and the negative outlook, which constantly points to the world's irreversible downward trend towards moral degeneration and self-destruction. Judaism, of course, firmly and emphatically embraces the former viewpoint, a belief that emerges as a prominent theme in the writings of Rav Kook zt"l. The peddler revealed to Rabbi Yanai how this fundamental perspective must affect a person's daily conduct, particularly his speech. Someone "eager for life," who "desires years of good fortune," those who look upon the world positively and see life as a blessing and privilege, must refrain from negative speech. In a world of progress and advancement, when a person truly believes that despite the many challenges and hardships facing mankind, the world is full of hope and optimism, there is no room for cynicism and negativism. A Jew's speech must reflect the Jewish belief that the world and mankind are on a path heading towards perfection, however distant that ultimate goal currently appears. Rather than focusing excessively on the many distressing conditions that exist, we must instead endeavor to find the beauty in life and appreciate the remarkable achievements mankind has already made, anticipating the even greater achievements that will, with God's help, be made in the future.

*****

Today we will continue yesterday's discussion of the famous story told in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba, 16:2) about a peddler who, after advertising "life-giving potion," simply reads to his "customers" a series of verses in Sefer Tehillim (34:13-15) about the importance of avoiding lashon ha-ra (negative speech about others). Rabbi Yanai, upon hearing the peddler, exclaims that he now appreciates the meaning of these verses more than ever before. Many later writers have attempted to explain what particular aspect of lashon ha-ra Rabbi Yanai came to appreciate in light of the merchant's comments.

Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin, in his Le-Torah U-le-Mo'adim, suggests that what inspired Rabbi Yanai was the relevance of the third verse the peddler cited. The peddler read three verses from Sefer Tehillim: 1) "Who is the man who is eager for life, who desires years of good fortune?"; 2) "Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from deceitful speech"; 3) "shun evil and do good." The first verse poses the question, "Who is the man eager for life," and the second responds, "Guard your tongue from evil." At first glance, this pair of verses constitutes a self-contained unit; it informs us that one who "desires life" need only avoid speaking evil. The peddler, however, included in this discourse the third verse: "shun evil and do good." Avoiding improper speech does not suffice; one who wishes to excel and achieve "life" in the spiritual sense must make a determined, lifelong effort to "shun evil and do good." Rav Zevin compares this message to the process of illness and recovery: even after recovering, one must still ensure to lead a healthy lifestyle to maintain his physical well-being. Likewise, the peddler emphasizes, one who seeks life must make a point of avoiding negative speech, but then continue his pursuit of spiritual growth and perfection.

A particularly powerful approach to this story is suggested by Rav Dov Weinberger, in his Shemen Ha-tov (cited by Rav Yissachar Frand – www.torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5762/tazria.html). As the story tells, when the peddler entered the neighborhood and announced his "sale" of "life-giving potion," everyone gathered round, except for Rabbi Yanai, who remained home and insisted that the peddler come to him. Rabbi Yanai assuredly appreciated the importance of refraining from gossip and improper speech, but he felt that this could be achieved only by avoiding the social sphere entirely, by remaining in one's home. If one becomes socially involved and spends time in public and communal affairs, Rabbi Yanai had presumed, he cannot possibly maintain the required standards of speech and refrain from inappropriate gossip and negative talk. But then Rabbi Yanai met a rokhel – a peddler. It seems more than coincidental that this word very closely relates to the term rakhil, with which the Torah introduces the prohibition against gossip ("lo teilekh rakhil be-amekha" – Vayikra 19:16; see Rashi). Merchants, who travel from town to town and spend their time speaking with people of all circles, earned a reputation for being talebearers and the source for "inside information" about people's affairs. Rabbi Yanai was struck by this merchant's keen understanding of, and fervent devotion to, the value of "guarding one's tongue." He learned from this peddler that one need not resort to seclusion to avoid lashon ha-ra. It is indeed possible to engage socially and involve oneself in the community without violating the strict standards of speech demanded by the Torah.

*****

Today we will conclude our discussion of the famous Midrashic passage (Vayikra Rabba, 16:2) which tells of a peddler who marched through the streets of a certain town, announcing that he sells "life-giving potion." When Rabbi Yanai summoned the man to his home and asked to see the merchandise, the peddler showed him the verses in Sefer Tehillim (34:13-15), which advise one who is "eager for life" to "guard his tongue from evil." This episode had quite an impact on Rabbi Yanai, who exclaimed, "All my life I would read this verse, but I did not know how simple it was, until this peddler came along and informed me."

Rav Moshe Alshikh (cited in the Etz Yosef commentary to the Midrash Rabba) suggests that what struck Rabbi Yanai was not the peddler's remarks, but rather the entire scene that he witnessed. Until now, he did not understand the progression of the aforementioned verses. These verses begin by asking, "Who is the man who is eager for life, who desires years of good fortune?" From there it proceeds to the response: "Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from deceitful speech." Rabbi Yanai couldn't understand why the Psalmist would himself pose a question and then answer it. He found his answer when he saw the peddler marching through the streets and effectively asking the Psalmist's question: Who is the man eager for life? Who wishes to purchase "life-giving potion"? Rabbi Yanai now realized that the Psalmist wrote these verses with a similar scene in mind; he sought to draw people's interest and attention by offering the secret to life, thereby attracting as large an audience as possible, to whom to publicize the important message of "guard your tongue from evil."

Rabbi Yitzchak Stollman, in his Minchat Yitzchak, likewise suggests that the entire episode, rather than specifically the peddler's recitation from Tehillim, underlies the message the Midrash here seeks to convey. Rabbi Yanai saw that the peddler, who would travel about throughout many different communities, knew the pulse of the Jews of his time. His vast exposure to so many different types of Jews taught him about what the Jewish people were looking for, the questions they were asking. Quite simply, they were looking for "life-giving potion." They searched high and low for the magical formula that would cure them of their ills and bring them hope and survival. He understood the secret behind the success of the misleading leaders who proposed new ideas to revolutionize Judaism, claiming that this would grant the nation "life" and endurance. The people looked for a potion, and would longingly and instinctively rush to hear the promotions of any "peddler" coming through the neighborhood selling the quick-fix solution to their hardships.

This peddler, however, was different from all the others. He carried the message of "guard your tongue from evil." The road to peace and freedom is not the slandering of our ancient traditions and rabbinic teachings. The revocation of our past, predicated on theories that ridicule the rabbinic leadership of past and present and portray them as malicious, conniving autocrats seeking to promote only their own authority and power, is not the "life-giving potion" on which to hang our hopes. To the contrary, one earns life by "guarding his tongue from evil," by respecting and obeying tradition and refusing to succumb to the temptation of arrogant derision and rejection.

Rabbi Yanai now understood the reality of the condition faced by the Jews of his time, and discovered the roots of the erroneous conclusions they reached in response. The peddler's message is to "shun evil and do good," rather than promoting evil as the "potion" that will somehow solve the nation's problems and guarantee its survival.

*****

Parashat Metzora begins by outlining the procedure for the purification of a metzora – a person stricken with bodily tzara'at (a form of skin disorder). Tzara'at features the most stringent properties of all categories of tum'a (ritual impurity); besides forbidding the individual to enter the Mikdash and partake of sacrificial foods, this form of tum'a requires the person's banishment from all walled cities in Eretz Yisrael. The beginning of Parashat Metzora describes the eight-day procedure by which one divests himself of this status, allowing him to resume normal social and ritual life.

Rav Asher Zelig Weiss shlit"a, in his very recently published volume, Minchat Asher on Sefer Vayikra, raises the question as to whether or not this procedure should be taken as an obligation, or as rather the means of purification should the metzora desire it. In other words, does the Torah here demand that the metzora undergo this process, or does it simply outline the procedures required should the metzora decide to reenter his city and/or frequent the Beit Ha-mikdash? We present here some of the sources relevant to this issue; as we will see, this point is subject to a debate among the Rishonim.

The Ramban, commenting on the opening verse of Parashat Metzora, cites a passage in the Torat Kohanim regarding the expression in that verse, "he is brought to the kohen." The Torat Kohanim comments, "she-lo yish'he" – "he should not delay." Apparently, the Torat Kohanim deduced from the passive form employed in this verse – "he is brought," rather than "he comes" – that he may not delay his arrival to the kohen for purification, and if he does, he must be brought against his will. Thus, the Ramban establishes that the Torah requires the metzora to immediately seek purification the moment his tzara'at symptoms disappear.

However, the work of responsa Binyan Tziyon Ha-chadashot (147) dismisses this proof, arguing that the Torat Kohanim extracts from this verse not a requirement of immediate action, but rather the permissibility of immediate purification. Indeed, the Torat Kohanim proceeds to record an argument made by one of the sages to require a seven-day waiting period before beginning the purification process. To dispel this potential misunderstanding, the Torah writes, "This shall be the law of the metzora on the day of his purification – he is brought to the kohen." This formulation implies that he may consult the kohen to begin the process "on the day of his purification" – immediately. Thus, this passage in Torat Kohanim provides no proof whatsoever for the Ramban's position, that a metzora is required to undergo the process of purification. Indeed, the Chafetz Chayim, in his classic commentary to the Torat Kohanim, adopts this reading of the clause, "she-lo yish'he."

In response, we might note that another Midrashic passage, cited in Torah Sheleima from the Midrash Ha-chefetz, writes explicitly, "that he should not delay and should not be lax, before the disorder resurfaces." This source, which clearly parallels the comment of the Torat Kohanim, explicitly understands the verse as requiring the metzora to undergo purification immediately, indicating that we deal here with an obligation.

Furthermore, one might draw evidence for the Ramban's position from a different source. The metzora's purification process entails removing all hair from his body (14:8-9), including hair that is normally forbidden to remove (e.g. sideburns, hair of a nazir). The Gemara, in Masekhet Yevamot (5a), applies to this hair removal the halakhic concept of asei docheh lo ta'aseh – a mitzvat asei ("positive commandment") overrides a mitzvat lo ta'aseh (prohibition, or "negative commandment"). In other words, the mitzva of purification, which necessitates the removal of hair, overrides the prohibition against removing certain hair. Apparently, the Gemara viewed the metzora's purification as a mitzva, which clearly denotes an obligatory nature. On this basis, the Chazon Ish (Nega'im, 13:17) concluded that the metzora's purification indeed constitutes an obligation.

By contrast, the Binyan Tziyon cites proof in the opposite direction from the first Mishna in Masekhet Shekalim, which tells that starting from the 15^th of Adar, the government must actively involve itself in a host of public projects. The Gemara (Shekalim 3a) enumerates several public projects to which the government must attend at this time, including the purification of metzora'im. If, indeed, there is a time of year when the authorities make a point of seeing to it that metzora'im undergo purification, there appears to be no obligation for the metzora to divest himself of this status. Of course, one might respond that perhaps the metzora is bound by such an obligation, and in Shekalim the Gemara simply mandates that the authorities make a point of ensuring that all metzora'im are indeed complying with this obligation.

The Rambam, in formulating the mitzva of a metzora's purification (Sefer Ha-mitzvot, asei 110), writes, "we are commanded that the purification from tzara'at follow the procedure that is written [in the Torah]… " This formulation appears to indicate that the Rambam does not accept the Ramban's position. In the Rambam's view, the Torah's instructions are guidelines to be followed should the metzora seek purification, rather than an obligation cast upon the metzora.

*****

The opening section of Parashat Metzora details the procedure by which a metzora, someone stricken with bodily tzara'at, attains purification and may then resume regular life. From the Torah's description of this process, it is clear that the kohen oversees and plays a critical role in this process, just as he does in the initial process, of determining the presence of tum'at tzara'at (the ritual impurity resulting from tzara'at). Later in the parasha, we find the kohen charged also with the responsibility of examining tzara'at infections on houses, and conducting the ritual by which a house is purified of this status. As such, we encounter in the tzara'at laws another function assigned to the priestly tribe: to oversee the process of tzara'at. This responsibility was not mentioned earlier, in Parashat Tetzaveh, where the Torah discusses the consecration of the kohanim. In that context, we read only of their duties in the Mishkan, involving the sacrificial rituals; here, for the first time, we learn of a responsibility cast upon the kohanim that involves the people – to examine tzara'at infections, and to conduct the ritual whereby a metzora attains ritual purity.

An interesting technical question arises regarding the kohen's role in the tzara'at process, namely, whether or not he must don his priestly garments – the "bigdei kehuna" – when performing this function. In Parashat Tetzaveh, the Torah describes these garments and mandates that they be worn while the kohen officiates in the Mishkan. Would this requirement apply to the tzara'at purification process, as well?

The Tiferet Yisrael (classic commentary on the Mishna), in his introduction to Masekhet Nega'im entitled Mar'eh Kohen, asserts that a kohen does not wear his special priestly garments while conducting the various tzara'at rituals. He notes that Halakha permits even a ba'al mum – a kohen with a physical defect – to conduct the tzara'at procedures (the exception being a blind kohen – see Nega'im 2:3), despite the fact that a kohen with a physical defect is barred from performing the service in the Mishkan. Presumably, the Tiferet Yisrael claims, if a ba'al mum may conduct the tzara'at rituals, then these rituals are considered outside the realm of the formal priestly service, and hence they do not require donning the bigdei kehuna.

However, as Rav Natan Gestetner notes in his Le-horot Natan, this deduction seems flawed. Tosefot in Masekhet Yoma (23b) observe that according to one view in the Gemara, a kohen with a physical blemish is permitted to perform the ritual of hotza'at ha-deshen – removing the ashes from the altar to a designated location outside the Temple grounds. According to this position, the hotza'a ritual does not have the formal status of an avoda – part of the Temple service – and thus may be performed by a ba'al mum (individual with a physical blemish). And yet, Halakha indeed requires that the kohen performing this ritual don his special bigdei kehuna, as indicated by the Torah towards the beginning of Parashat Tzav ("ve-lavash begadim acheirim" – Vayikra 6:4). It emerges, then, that it is indeed possible for a ba'al mum to conduct a priestly ritual that requires the bigdei kehuna. Thus, the fact that the tzara'at procedures may be performed by a ba'al mum gives us no indication as to whether they require wearing the priestly garments.

Nevertheless, as we will iy"H see tomorrow, Rav Gestetner agrees that the tzara'at rituals do not require bigdei kehuna, based on other evidence.

*****

Yesterday, we raised the issue as to whether a kohen must wear the bigdei kehuna – priestly garments – while conducting the various rituals associated with tzara'at. These special garments are required whenever a kohen performs any part of the Temple service. Seemingly, then, the tzara'at procedures, many of which do not involve sacrificial rituals in the Mikdash, do not require bigdei kehuna. On the other hand, the fact that only a kohen may perform these duties might indicate that they are of a formal, priestly status, perhaps warranting the special bigdei kehuna.

Rav Natan Gestetner, in his Le-horot Natan, proves that the tzara'at rituals do not require these garments from the simple fact that a kohen is forbidden to wear the bigdei kehuna outside the Beit Ha-mikdash. The Gemara discusses this prohibition in Masekhet Yoma (69a), and questions this law based on the famous account of the high priest Shimon Ha-tzadik ("Simon the Just"), who donned his bigdei kehuna and left Jerusalem to greet Alexander the Great when he arrived in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara answers that either Shimon Ha-tzadik did not wear the actual bigdei kehuna, but rather other garments resembling the priestly garb, or, the extenuating circumstances that arose mandated violating this prohibition. In any event, Rav Gestetner notes, the Gemara did not question this prohibition in light of the laws regarding tzara'at, which explicitly require the kohen to go "outside the camp" (Vayikra 14:3). What more, the Rambam (Hilkhot Tum'at Tzara'at 11:6), based on the Tosefta (Nega'im 8:1), rules that the tzara'at laws (with the exception of house tzara'at) apply even outside Eretz Yisrael. Had the kohen been required to wear bigdei kehuna while performing this ritual, the Gemara should have questioned on this basis the halakha forbidding a kohen from donning these garments outside the Temple grounds. Clearly, then, the tzara'at procedures do not require the kohen to wear his special priestly garb.

Rav Gestetner then challenges this conclusion in light of a famous comment in the Gemara (Zevachim 17b), "When their garments are upon them – their priesthood is upon them; when their garments are not upon them – their priesthood is not upon them." In other words, a kohen does not have the formal halakhic status associated with the kehuna when he does not don his priestly garments. If so, then the tzara'at rituals, which demand the involvement of a kohen, should, seemingly, require the officiating kohen to wear the bigdei kehuna.

The answer, Rav Gestetner explains, is that this principle established in Masekhet Zevachim is restricted to the realm of the Temple rituals. Only with regard to this function of the kohen does Halakha hinge a kohen's personal, halakhic status on his wearing the bigdei kehuna. When it comes to all other duties assigned to the kohanim, their status is inherent, and does not depend upon the priestly garments.

Rav Gestetner proves this point based on a discussion of the Chatam Sofer regarding an incident recorded in the Hagahot Ha-Mordekhai to Masekhet Gittin (461), of a kohen who washed Rabbenu Tam's hands for him. Rabbenu Tam was questioned as to how he allowed a kohen to serve him in this manner, seemingly in violation of the law forbidding the use a kohen for personal service, due to their position of honor and distinction. Rabbenu Tam, astonishingly enough, replied that kohanim in the post-Temple era do not enjoy the formal status of priesthood, due to the aforementioned principle hinging this status on the bigdei kehuna. The questioner then raised the obvious question that if this is the case, kohanim nowadays should have no special status whatsoever, and thus all the halakhot regarding the priesthood should be inapplicable, which is clearly not the case. Rabbenu Tam did not respond to this challenge, and rather remained silent. The Hagahot Ha-Mordekhai cite Rabbenu Pater who explains that kohanim have the right to forego on the honor and distinction due to them, and for this reason Rabbenu Tam was not in violation of Halakha by having a kohen wash his hands. The Chatam Sofer, in his chiddushim to Masekhet Gittin, claims that this is what Rabbenu Tam had in mind, as well. He meant that in the absence of the bigdei kehuna, the kohanim have only their objective, personal status as kohanim, but not the additional dimension of God's ministering servants in the Temple. When they serve in the Temple, they are not entitled to forego on the honor owed to them, since it is God's honor that is at stake, rather than their own. However, when they are not working in the Temple, they have only the intrinsic, personal status of kehuna, and may therefore forego on their honor.

This discussion of the Chatam Sofer clearly demonstrates that kohanim indeed retain their unique status even without their priestly garments, in which case they lack only the additional dimension of meshartei Hashem – God's attendants. Thus, the principle hinging their priestly status on their wearing the bigdei kehuna will not affect the question of whether the garments are required as part of the tzara'at procedures.

******

The purification process required of a metzora, outlined in the opening section of Parashat Metzora, involves two birds, one of which is slaughtered, while the other is sent away (14:5-7). A similar procedure is mandated for the purification process of a house stricken with tzara'at (see 14:49-53). Wherein lies the significance of birds in the process of tzara'at?

Rashi (14:4), based on the Gemara (Arakhin 16b), comments, "Since afflictions surface as a result of lashon ha-ra [improper, negative speech about others], which is an act of babbling words, therefore, his purification requires birds, which constantly babble with audible chirping." According to this interpretation, the birds symbolize constant chattering, the kind of behavior that tzara'at serves to punish. Appropriately, then, the metzora's process of purification includes rituals involving birds.

Rav Shlomo Gantzfried, in his work Apiryon, adds that in light of the Gemara's comments, we might perhaps explain why the Torah specifically required bringing two birds. Had the Torah instructed bringing only one bird in this process, one may be left with the impression that the Torah discourages speech altogether, and urges us to limit our use of the verbal faculties as much as possible. In truth, this is not the case at all. We are strongly encouraged to utilize the magnificent and powerful tool of verbalization, but only for constructive and noble purposes. These two birds of the metzora reflect the dichotomy of the power of speech. On the one hand, like the bird slaughtered as a type of offering to God, speech can be utilized for sacred pursuits, most obviously, for prayer and Torah study and instruction. The second bird, which is sent away, represents the other, destructive dimension of the power of speech, its potential to seed hatred and social instability. This effect must be driven far away from our communities and society, as symbolized by the metzora's second bird, which the kohen sends away from the city.

Rav Yechezkel Levenstein, as cited in Yad Yechezkel, notes the Gemara's usage of the uncommon word pitput ("babbling") in this context. Generally, this term has a connotation of mindless, casual talk, something a person speaks at whim and without much thought. Rav Levenstein suggests that Chazal perhaps sought to emphasize the ease with which the metzora has brought upon himself this entire personal tragedy of tzara'at. All it took was some mindless pitput – chatter – for him to be condemned to isolation outside his city. This should remind us, Rav Levenstein stressed, of the profound impact yielded by even the simplest and most casual actions. One must therefore exercise caution even in the seemingly trivial and inconsequential areas of life, for in truth, nothing we do or say is ever trivial or inconsequential.

Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, in his commentary to this section, suggests an entirely different symbolic explanation to the role of the birds in the metzora's purification process. He cites Torat Kohanim as commenting that these birds had to belong to the species known as deror, some kind of wild bird which rarely settles in areas inhabited by humans. (Rav Hirsch notes that the deror is generally identified as the swallow.) The Gemara, in Masekhet Shabbat (106b), speaks more about the deror (albeit in a separate context, not in connection with the metzora process), and describes it as a bird that does not accept authority. It cannot be controlled or tamed, and insists on living a free, independent life. (Indeed, the word deror is generally translated as "liberty" – see Vayikra 25:10.) Hence, Rav Hirsch claims, this bird is seen as "the character of the most completely unsociable being," and therefore represents "the opposite contrast to what is demanded for reentrance into the social life of the community. It is the contrast of the animals of the 'field' to the humans of the 'city'." Before rejoining his former social framework, the metzora is shown the deror-bird, which he has resembled throughout his period of seclusion, during which he lived far away from the city, where he was not required to accommodate himself to social norms. In preparation for his reentry to society, he must learn to "slaughter" and "send away" the deror-like qualities for which he was stricken with tzara'at in the first place, and accept upon himself the proper standards of social conduct that render him worthy of inclusion within the community.