Bar-Ilan University
Parashat Hashavua Study Center
Parashat Metzora 5771/ April 9, 2011
Lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan,
Israel. A project of the Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish
Studies Center, and the Office of the Campus Rabbi. Published on the Internet under
the sponsorship of Bar-Ilan University's International Center for Jewish Identity.
Prepared for Internet Publication by the Computer Center Staff at Bar-Ilan University.
Inquiries
and
comments
to:
Dr.
Isaac
Gottlieb,
Department
of
Bible,
gottlii@mail.biu.ac.il
Dr. Rafi Jospe
Department of Jewish Philosophy
Leprosy and the Sins of Speech
In the Middle Ages, Jewish Bible exegesis developed the notion of Pardes—four sorts of
interpretation: peshat, or the plain sense; remez, or typology; drash, the homiletic
interpretation; and sod, the mystical view. How was the biblical tzara`at (leprosy)
understood according to each mode of exegesis?
The plain sense of tzara`at
Leprosy as it is known today is an infectious disease caused by germs similar to those that
cause tuberculosis. It attacks the skin and the nerves and is considered incurable. Is the
biblical tzara`at the same as leprosy, or is it Hansen's disease? Biblical tzara`at does indeed
attack the skin, but it is considered curable. Further, this week's reading also refers to
tzara`at of garments and of the house, whereas leprosy affects only humans.
In the Bible and the Talmud, in contrast to Greek tradition, there is no sharp distinction
between body and soul. The concepts of "pure" and "impure," or "clean" and "unclean,"
(tahor, tameh) are spiritual, not physical, and their practical significance lies in whether one
may or may not have access to the Sanctuary, whether one may or may not come into
contact with other Jews, etc. It is important to note that these concepts apply only to Jews,
not gentiles. Only a Jew can be said to be pure or impure.
1
Cleanliness and uncleanliness are also mentioned with respect to animals (at the end of
Parashat Shemini), and there, too, the categories are spiritual, not physical: animals are
deemed either fit or unfit to be eaten by people who are holy (qadosh) or brought as
sacrifices to the temple, on the basis of their status as clean or unclean. Therefore, even
when interpreting according to the plain sense of Scripture, the disease of tzara`at should be
understood in the context of the laws of purity and impurity.
Homiletical (midrash) approach
The Sages reinforced the spiritual-physical unity by interpreting tzara`at as a punishment
primarily for the sin of lashon ha-ra, speaking evil or gossiping. The very term itself, metzora
(=leper) they interpreted midrashically as a notarikon for "motzi shem ra," or "one who
utters evil reports" (Leviticus Rabbah 16.2; Soncino ed., p. 203). The story of Moses' sister
Miriam provides the proof (Num. 12:1-13). A similar reading is given for the verse in Psalms:
"Who is the man who is eager for life? … Guard your tongue from evil, you lips from
deceitful speech" (Ps. 34:13-14), and in Proverbs: "He who guards his mouth and tongue
guards himself from trouble" (Prov. 21:23).
The midrash teaches us further that a person who speaks evil transgresses all the laws of the
Torah, since the word Torah is mentioned five times in the verses that warn us against the
affliction of tzara`at (Lev. Rabbah 16.6, Soncino ed., pp. 207-208):
Rabbi Joshua b. Levi said: Five times is the word "law" (torah) used with reference to
leprosy, viz. This is the law of the plague of leprosy (Lev. 13:59); This shall be the law of
the leper (Lev. 14:2); This is the law of him in whom is the plague of leprosy (Lev.
14:32); This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy (Lev. 14:54); This is the law of
leprosy (Lev. 14:57). [Since, as we have seen], THIS IS THE LAW OF THE LEPER means, "… of
him that utters evil reports," it [i.e. the five-fold repetition of Torah in this matter] is
intended to teach you that if one indulges in calumny, it is as if he transgresses the
Five Books of the Torah.
The idea that leprosy develops gradually, in accordance with our sins, is also reinforced by
the third approach to biblical exegesis.
Typological/Allegorical approach:
Sefer ha-Hinukh (an anonymous work from the 13th century, listing all the commandments
according to the order in which they appear in the Torah on the basis of Maimonides' list of
613 commandments)1 gives a philosophical-allegorical interpretation of leprosy. This work
interprets the commandment not only in terms of Halakhah, but also in terms of its roots, its
underlying moral and spiritual significance.
1
Chavel edition, Jerusalem 1972.
2
Sefer ha-Hinukh, following Maimonides,2 maintains that the commandments associated with
leprosy have a moral purpose. A person must not think his illness is incidental, rather he
must accept it as a warning from a provident G-d. When a person afflicted with leprosy
comes to understand his disease in this manner, he will fully repent. We quote from Sefer
ha-Hinukh (168, p. 243):
Therefore we have been admonished to pay attention to this bad disease and to think
that it is caused by sin. As the Sages have said, for the most part it comes from the sin
of uttering evil reports and does not come to us by chance. One must come to the
priest, who is in charge of expiation of sinners, and in the presence of the one who
makes expiation perhaps he will consider repenting, and when put under quarantine
for several days perhaps he will turn to examining his actions.
The roots of the commandment lie in the Blessed Lord wishing, in His great
beneficence, to discipline us just as a father disciplines his son, for this matter
[leprosy] is not something natural; rather it is a sign to the holy nation, intended to
make them take heed and learn their lesson, when the garments especially used by
them, namely clothing of wool and flax – for these are what mankind uses most –
become changed. Then they will repent of their evil ways before the affliction
appears on their very bodies as well (positive commandment 170, p. 246).
According to this view, leprosy teaches us a moral lesson: a person is responsible for his
actions, and his actions have consequences. Divine providence warns us gradually, before
the damage becomes irreversible, first by afflicting one's clothing, and only later, if the
warning is ignored, by a worse affliction against the body.
The view that leprosy warns us gradually, progressing according to our sins, is reinforced by
the mystic approach of the Zohar (Book of Splendor).
Mystical approach:
The Zohar (Vol. 3, Parashat Tazria, 45.2-43.1) tells us (in free translation):
When [R. Hiyya and R. Jose] were walking, they came upon a person standing under a
tree, his face full of sores. Looking at him, they noted that his face was red from these
sores. Rabbi Hiyya asked, "Who are you?" He answered, "I am a Jew." Rabbi Jose
said, "He is a sinner, for were it not so, his face would not be covered with these evil
things; and this is not what we call the 'disciplining of love.'" Rabbi Hiyya said, "You
are right, for the disciplining of love is hidden from man's eye… Wounds that are
visible to are caused by impurity and are not the disciplining of love … for it is written,
'Open reproof is better than concealed love' (Prov. 27:5). [R. Hiyya seems to be
learning that reproof is good when it comes from (me-ahavah) concealed love] What
2
Maimonides held that a person's behavior is not predetermined, nor is it altogether
incidental. People are responsible for their actions, and their actions have results in
accordance with Divine Providence. See Shmonah Perakim, ch. 8; Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot
Teshuvah, ch. 5; Guide for the Perplexed, 3.17.
3
is meant by a loving reproof that is hidden from man? He who reproves his fellow
with love must hide it [the reproof] from [other] people, so as not to embarrass the
person being reproved. If [he reproves him] openly in front of others, it is not loving
reproof. Thus it is with the Holy One, blessed be He – when He reproves people He
does so lovingly. Initially, he strikes at them inwardly. If the person repents, well and
good; if not, He strikes him under his clothes. Such [reproof] is called disciplining out
of love. If he repents, well and good; if not, He strikes him openly on the face, in front
of everyone, so that people look at him and know that he is a sinner and his Master
does not love him.
The gradual nature of the onset of leprosy, which Sefer Ha-Hinukh saw as a sign of Divine
Providence, is interpreted in the Zohar as a sign of Divine love. Leprosy is supposed to teach
us moral sensitivity: not only must reproof to another be gradual, it must also be done in
private, at least initially. For, if the purpose of reproof is moral correction, how could it be
done in such a way as to ignore moral sensitivity towards a person's honor, even when
dealing with someone who has sinned?
The Book of Splendor teaches another moral lesson: obviously lashon ha-ra, abuse of the
faculty of speech, refers to speech which offends and hurts one's fellow. However one can
also be guilty of lashon ha-ra by being silent when one should have spoken out to help
another person. As the Zohar points out (loc. sit. 46.2-47-1):
Regarding such behavior it is written: "He who guards his mouth and tongue guards
himself from trouble" (Prov. 21:23). Surely the soul that ought to have spoken out
was silenced because of lashon ha-ra… Just as a person is punished for an evil word,
so too is he punished for a good word which he could have spoken but did not speak…
All the more so when people follow crooked ways, and one could have said something
to them and reproved them, and instead one held one's peace and did not speak.
Thus it is written: "I was dumb, silent; I was very still while my pain was intense" (Ps.
39:3). [That is to say], suffering intense pain from sores of impurity.
In conclusion, on the level of the plain sense or peshat we have seen that leprosy as a
physical disease is associated with the spiritual categories of purity and impurity. On the
homiletical level, we learned about the connection between leprosy and the most common
sin of all – abuse of speech. (Note that in the confession recited on the Day of Atonement,
sins having to do with speech predominate.) On the allegorical level we have seen that
abusive speech harms not only the victim, the person to whom the evil words are addressed,
but also the person speaking evil, who ignores the warning signs that are sent him. Lastly,
on the mystic level we learned that gossip refers not only to saying things with the intention
of hurting one's fellow, but also saying things with the avowed intention of helping others
mend their ways. Public reproach can come under the rubric of abuse of speech, and even
remaining silent when speaking out could have helped can be considered abuse of speech.
Like biblical tzara`at, abusing the faculty of speech desecrates and pollutes our homes, the
substance of our lives, and ultimately ourselves. Therefore, when we stumble and fall prey
to it, we ought to pause and say to ourselves, like the leper of ancient times: "He shall cover
his upper lip; and he shall call out, 'Unclean! Unclean!'" (Lev. 13:45).
4
5