English translation — מצורע

1.

From the verse

(At the beginning of our section)

"This shall be the law of the leper on the day of his purification etc." Rashi copies the words "This shall be the law of the leper etc." and explains: It teaches that they do not purify him at night.

And the commentators explained¹

that Rashi's intention²

is: "On the day

(of his purification)

" that is in the verse - which Rashi hints at with "etc." - is superfluous,

and therefore he explains that this word comes "to teach that they do not purify him at night."

But it is difficult to explain thus: a)

Rashi cites from the verse "This shall be the law of the leper" which are not <b>at all</b> relevant to this explanation².

b)

Specifically the word "on the day" that

(only)

it explains,

hints with "etc."³

And it must be said that in Rashi's opinion,

the main teaching is from the words "This shall be the law of the leper",

but these words <b>alone</b> are not sufficient to compel his interpretation,

therefore he adds "etc." to hint also at the end of the verse "on the day of his cleansing",

namely that the words he cites together with

(what is stated in the continuation of the verse hinted at by)

the "etc." teach "that they do not purify him at night".

And tz.l.h.b.:

a)

Why did Rashi not explain simply — that the teaching that we do not purify him at night is from "on the day of his purification",

And especially since it is in the Torat Kohanim⁴

(And so is the implication of the Gemara⁵)?

b)

On the other hand: How do we learn this from the words "This shall be the law of the leper"⁶?

c)

Why did Rashi precisely add "<b>it teaches </b>

(that they do not purify with it)

2.

And the explanation of this:

What is difficult for Rashi in the verse is: to explain the words "This shall be the law of the leper" are superfluous⁷,

for it is understood by itself that the discussion will be about the leper,

because this section comes as a continuation of the previous section in which the laws of the impurity of the leper were stated,

and upon this it refers—in our portion—"on the day of his purification"?

And to resolve this difficulty, Rashi quotes the words "This shall be the law of the metzora, etc." and explains: <b>It teaches</b> that they do not purify him at night.

And this is,

<b>That these words</b> came to teach this law

(as will be explained later, ibid.).

3.

And why does he not prove from "<b>on the day</b> of his purification" that his purification is not at night?

<b>In its simple meaning</b> of the verse "day"

(when it is not written <b>together</b> - <b>in contrast</b> to "night")

its meaning does not exclude <b>night</b>,

but rather it means <b>the entire</b> 24-hour period,

the day and the night⁸,

explicitly⁹

"And there was evening and there was morning, <b>one day</b> ...

the sixth": and thus it is said¹⁰

"Six <b>days</b> etc. <b>and on the seventh day</b> you shall rest",

which means,

<b>that the entire</b> 24-hour period of the Sabbath is forbidden for work.

And furthermore: we find "day" regarding an event that occurred at night,

in what is written¹¹

"<b>On the day</b> that I smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt" - and the smiting of the firstborns was "at midnight"¹²,

Proof from this that the word "day"

And in the verse "&lt;b&gt;on the day &lt;/b&gt;of My striking etc.",

which should have said "&lt;b&gt;when I struck &lt;/b&gt;etc. in the pit etc."]

does not exclude night,

but its meaning is the entire twenty-four-hour period.

4.

However

(superfluity)

The words "this shall be the law of the leper" &lt;b&gt;teaches us &lt;/b&gt;that "&lt;b&gt;on the day &lt;/b&gt;of his purification" stated afterwards means specifically by day and not by night:

These words &lt;b&gt;all &lt;/b&gt;are precise expressions,

emphasizing

(particular)

the matter of which they speak,

and negate the opposite:

"This"

(or "this")

- indicates a clear and precise thing,

&lt;b&gt;And as Rashi explains &lt;/b&gt;on the verse&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

"This is the sign of the covenant": He showed him the rainbow: on the verse&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

"This month" Rashi explained: He showed him the moon.

And similarly in Bava Metzia&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;.

"Tehei" - its meaning

(in Bava Metzia¹⁶)

"In its being <b>shall be</b>".

"Torat" means teaching of laws -<b>"Torat" </b>of the matter and its principles,

the manner in which specifically it must be fulfilled¹⁷,

From this it is understood that what is said afterwards — is precisely and specifically,

And consequently also "on the day of his purification" is precise — specifically the day — "that they do not purify him at night".

5.

Based on this, the precision of Rashi is understood

(a)

to quote the words "This shall be the law of the leper",

(b)

to hint the word "on the day" only with "etc.",

(c)

the precision of his language "it teaches that they do not purify etc.":

Rashi emphasizes that the [phrase] "that we do not purify him at night" teaches us

(not what is stated in the verse "on the day of his purification" - because according to the simple meaning, the word "on the day" does not exclude night,

as explained above at length - but rather)

what is stated¹⁸

"This shall be the law of the leper

(from which we learn that the)

etc.",

"on the day",

is precise - and consequently "teaches that we do not purify him at night".

6.

Based on this, the question of the commentators¹⁹ will be simply resolved

on our Rashi: why is a special teaching needed "that we do not purify him at night",

behold it is impossible that the purification of the leper be at night, since one of the matters of his purification is the bringing of a sacrifice,

and night is not fit for the offering of a sacrifice,

as the exposition in the Torat Kohanim²⁰

on the verse²¹

"on the day He commanded" - we learn regarding all sacrifices that they are not fit except by day?

But according to the above,

that in the simple meaning of Scripture the word "day" does not exclude night,

their question from the outset is not: according to Rashi on the Torah — study in the way of the simple meaning — one cannot prove from what is written "on the day He commanded" that they do not bring offerings except by day*&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

(In addition to the main point — that in the simple meaning of Scripture the explanation is on the day that he was commanded to bring the offerings,

and not their actual bringing — and therefore Rashi did not bring in his commentary the exposition of the Toras Kohanim mentioned above)

And a special teaching is needed "that they do not purify him at night".

7.

And based on this will be explained what is in the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

(when they learned that the purification of the metzora is valid all day, as it is written "This shall be the law of the metzora on the day of his purification")

Rashi explained: "for the purification of the metzora — with birds and cedar wood and hyssop and scarlet wool" — for at first glance it is not understood: a)

What does he inform us,

behold it is explicit in the verse what is "the purification of the metzora",

b)

Why does he omit the offerings that he is obligated to bring for his purification,

c)

It would have been proper for Rashi to explain it immediately on the Mishnah there: All day is valid..

And for the purification of the metzora?

But that [it] comes to resolve the aforementioned difficulty: Apparently, why is a special study needed "on the day of his purification" specifically on the day,

behold

(in the manner of the halachah)

one does not offer a sacrifice at night as it is written "on the day He commanded"*²²

- and therefore [he] explains and precisely interprets that the study from our verse that the purification of the metzora is by day,

it is

(not regarding the sacrifices that he brings for his purification,

but rather)

only regarding the "birds and cedar wood and hyssop and scarlet wool" which cannot be learned from "on the day He commanded."

8.

From the wondrous matters in the manner of the halachah in this Rashi:

The study of the purification of the metzora must be specifically by day,

is derived in the Gemara and Toras Kohanim on the positive side: "The entire day is valid ...

and for the purification of the metzora",

"It teaches ...

and his purification is by day"; whereas Rashi in our parshah changes and specifies to write on the negative side: It teaches that we do not purify him at night.

And the practical difference for halachah,

when his purification was prolonged

(the detail that delays it)

at a time that is neither day nor night — twilight²³

From the plain language of the Gemara and the Toras Kohanim it implies that the precision is that the purification must be specifically by day,

and therefore if his purification extended into a time that is not day,

his purification was not effective for him since it was not by day; according to Rashi who writes "that we do not purify him at night" if his purification extended into the time of twilight it is valid because it was not at night.

And the reason can be said: As explained above, according to the halachic approach,

"day" everywhere — at least its majority

(including our case)

means specifically day

(and not night),

and therefore from what is written "on the day of his purification" it is understood that the purification must be specifically by day.

However, according to the plain approach,

the word "on the day" itself means the entire twenty-four-hour period

(including night),

except that the superfluity of the words in the verse "teaches that we do not purify him at night",

therefore it suffices to exclude only night

(and not to exclude also the time of twilight).

9.

In the inwardness of the matters,

the explanation of the preface of the words "This shall be the law of the leper" for the portion of the purification of the leper:

It is explained in Likkutei Torah²⁴

that a leper, his matter is one who brings out an evil name,

that he brings out and draws down names

(- letters and vessels)

of the husk.

And therefore his rectification is through engagement in Torah,

which is the aspect of names of holiness, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said²⁵

"The entire Torah, all of it, is the names of the Holy One, blessed be He."

And this is the reason for what is stated at the beginning of the section on the purification of the metzora: "This shall be the law of the metzora,"

for the main correction of the metzora is

(not through "and he shall be brought to the kohen, etc.,"

but rather)

through

(the engagement of)

Torah

("the law of the metzora"),

which is what transforms the aspect of "bad name" into the aspect of "good name" — names and letters of holiness.

However, in order that "the law of the metzora" be as it should be,

that his Torah study be with self-nullification — for specifically Torah study in this manner effects correction for the metzora — it must be "and he shall be brought to the kohen,"

for he draws down "the light of Abba" — the matter of self-nullification.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Metzora,

5725)