English translation — תזריע א

Sicha 1<pg>77</pg>

A.

In the laws of negaim in our parshah,

the verse begins<sup>1</sup>

"If a person has in the skin of his flesh a rising or a scab or a bright spot, and it becomes in the skin of his flesh a leprous plague, he shall be brought to Aaron the kohen, etc." and continues<sup>2</sup>

with the sign of white hair that defiles,

and the laws of the first and second quarantine,

and the spreading of the plague.

And afterwards continues in a new section³

"A plague of tzaraat when it will be in a person and he is brought to the kohen,

And the kohen sees and behold a white rising in the skin and it has turned white hair and living flesh in the rising etc. And if it spreads etc. all of it has turned white he is pure",

And that is that in this section

(the second)

is added the law of the sign of impurity of living flesh in the plague,

and the law of "all of it has turned white he is pure".

And it requires explanation,

Why does the verse begin the explanation of these laws in the style of a new matter "A plague of tzaraat when it will be in a person etc." — and behold the introduction to the laws of tzaraat and many laws are already stated in our section before this

("A person when he will be etc."),

And here only additional details in the laws of tzaraat are added,

And also in this it should have said

(in contrast to the laws of the appearances before this —)

"And if the kohen sees and behold a rising etc." and the like?

In the other three laws of plagues that follow,

a boil⁴

and a burn⁵,

and also in the plagues of the head and beard

(a netek)⁶,

one can say that it is appropriate to begin each of them as a new matter,

since it speaks about different types of plagues; but in these two sections,

that in both of them it speaks about one type of plague

(a plague in the skin of the flesh),

what reason is there to interrupt between them and to begin anew^*6

"A plague of tzaraat when it will be in a person etc."?

In Toras Kohanim it is explained that this verse

("A plague of tzaraas etc.")

comes to teach us that a sign of a live spot defiles not only in the appearance of a se'eis

(as explicit in the verse "And behold a white se'eis etc. and a live spot in the se'eis"),

but also in the other appearances: "We learned about a se'eis that it defiles with a live spot; from where to include the other appearances..

(and concludes)

The verse says 'a plague of tzaraas'"<sup>7</sup>.

But this study only resolves the superfluous words in the verse

("a plague of tzaraas")

— but there is no reason in this for the style of the verse,

which implies as if a new section begins here regarding the laws of tzaraas

(as above).

And even more so is it puzzling according to the simple meaning of the verse: Even though Rashi in his commentary on the Torah<sup>8</sup>

brought this law<sup>9</sup>,

that the sign of a quickening is in all the appearances

("And although a quickening was not stated except regarding a boil, even so in all the appearances and their derivatives it is a sign of impurity")

— but he did not write

(as in the Toras Kohanim)

that this thing is learned from the verse "a plague of tzaraas, etc."

(And he only brings the essence of the law)<sup>10</sup>,

and it implies that Rashi holds that this law is proven from logic<sup>11</sup>.

<pg>78</pg>

2.

At first glance, one must explain the reason for this introduction and beginning

("A plague of tzaraas, etc.")

:

In this section it discusses the explanation

(only)

the appearance of "se'et",

and the rest of the appearances were not mentioned in it

(as above),

and based on this one can say that in this that the verse begins and emphasizes "a plague of tzara'at etc. and behold se'et etc."

(after he included them together at the beginning of the section of negaim: a man when there will be on the skin of his flesh se'et or sapachat or baheret),

it informs us,

that the appearance of se'et is a type by itself,

and the practical difference for the law,

that it does not combine with baheret regarding the measure of the plague.

And even though live flesh

(that was mentioned in this section)

is a sign of impurity not only in se'et but in all the appearances

(as above)

[for the verse equates here white hair and live flesh,

that just as white hair is a sign of impurity in all the appearances

(as is explicit in the verse above),

so too it is also regarding the sign of live flesh],

nevertheless there is place to say that the verse did not equate the appearance of se'et to the rest of the appearances except regarding the sign of impurity of live flesh,

but not regarding that they should combine with each other for the measure of impurity.

And it is understood,

that one should not raise a difficulty about this from what is explained in the Mishnah¹²

that "

(The)

four appearances of these combine with each other"¹³

for all matters — because,

as discussed many times,

Rashi in his commentary on the Torah explains the verses according to the plain meaning of Scripture even when it does not accord with the conclusion in the halachic part of the Torah.

And particularly in our case,

that in the Torat Kohanim this law is learned

(that the appearances of the plagues combine with each other)

from what is said¹

"And it will be

(in the skin of his flesh, etc.)

"

[for it should have said "And they will be",

and since it is written "And it will be" it implies that all of them combine together for the measure of one plague, that even one plague from both of them combine for the measure of impurity¹⁴],

and since Rashi in his commentary on the Torah did not bring this teaching,

it implies that according to Rashi the verse did not come to equate them regarding combination.

But it is a great difficulty to explain thus in Rashi's commentary on the plain meaning of the verse,

because even though according to reason there is room to say that a rising does not combine with a bright spot<sup>15</sup>

to be different appearances and names<pg>79</pg>

different of plagues<sup>16</sup>,

nevertheless it is a great difficulty to say that to this the verse intended in the preface "A plague of tzaraat when it will be in a person etc." — because

(a)

then it would have been fitting for Rashi to explain it

(and according to his commentary below in the portion regarding a burn and a boil<sup>17</sup>,

"And the signs of a burn and a boil are equal and why did the verse separate them to say that they do not combine with each other? A half-gris was born in a boil and a half-gris in a burn, they shall not be judged as a gris")<sup>18</sup>

;

(b)

for this it suffices that the verse separates them

(in the language of Rashi above),

and there is no need for the preface of an entire verse.

3.

And one can say,

that the reason for the emphasis of the verse "A leprous plague, when it will be in a person, and he shall be brought to the priest" according to the simple meaning of Scripture,

is not because of some particular law that is added in this section,

but because in this section a new and general thing was innovated in the definition of the matter of plagues,

that was not stated before this in the laws of plagues of the skin of the flesh.

And this will be understood with an introduction,

that behold, in addition to the law of a sign of a living flesh, there is another essential law that was stated in this section

(as above)¹⁹

— "And if the leprosy spreads greatly in the skin, and the leprosy covers all the skin of the plague from his head to his feet, as far as the eyes of the priest can see; and the priest sees, and behold, the leprosy covers all his flesh, and he shall pronounce the plague clean; it has all turned white; he is clean."

And this law, as it is stated in the verse, is when "all of it turned white" after it became impure.

However, before it became impure,

it is explained in the Torat Kohanim

(at the end of the portion²⁰)

: "Could it be that one who comes entirely white from the beginning shall be pure? The Torah states: 'he is pure,' but one who comes entirely white from the beginning is not pure, but impure."

And so we learn in the Torat Kohanim at the beginning of the portion²¹

from the word "in a person" — "to include one who comes entirely white, that the quick flesh renders him impure,

and is it not a logical argument etc.

(and concludes)

the Torah states 'in a person' to include one who comes entirely white, that the quick flesh renders him impure,"

and again they learned in the Torat Kohanim²²

"Could it be that one who spreads from a pure state shall be pure? The Torah states: 'he is pure,' but one who spreads from a pure state is not pure, but impure"

(and that is, we have several teachings regarding entirely white²³,

one who comes entirely white at its beginning regarding the days of quarantine,

one who comes entirely white at its beginning and has quick flesh regarding the determination,

one who spreads entirely white after being released from quarantine or from determination)²⁴.

But Rashi in his commentary on the Torah did not mention anything about the details of these laws,

and superficially it is puzzling; and especially these words "pure he is" are superfluous,

and explanation is needed on this in the plain sense of the verse,

that after it says "and the priest shall pronounce clean the plague, it has all turned white" — what does it add "pure he is"?

4.

And one can say the explanation of this:

In connection with the signs of impurity of negaim we note a change in Rashi: In "white hair" Rashi writes²⁵

"White hair is a sign of impurity, it is a decree of the Scripture"²⁶,

whereas in our parshah in the sign of a quick flesh on the verse²⁷

"It is an old leprosy in the skin<pg>80</pg>

of his flesh",

Rashi explains "It is an old wound under the quick flesh, and this sore appears healthy on top and underneath it is full of moisture, so that you should not say: Since a quick flesh has risen, I will declare it clean."

Thus Rashi holds that the sign of impurity of quick flesh is not a decree of the Scripture but rather in the category of reason "It is an old wound under the quick flesh".

And based on this, one must examine the law: if it entirely turned white, he is pure,

whether it is a decree of the verse that this is a sign of purity,

or it is logical,

that since it entirely turned white, this indicates that this is not a disease

(specific)

in a part of the body, but rather this is the nature of his body.

And one can say that this is the difference between the understanding of the verse according to its simple meaning of Scripture and the understanding of the verse according to the law in the Torat Kohanim:

In the plain sense of Scripture,

the purification when all of it turned white is not from a decree of the verse but from logic²⁸,

and as above that this indicates that this is the nature of this person's body²⁹,

and therefore Rashi does not explain the addition "

(And he shall purify the plague, all of it turned white)

he is pure" that is in the verse,

because "he is pure" here refers to the person,

and it is like a giving of reason for the purification of the plague — that when "all of it turned white

(this indicates that this person)

he is pure".

But not so according to the Toras Kohanim

(and according to the law)

when "all of it turned white" is a sign of purification from a decree of the verse,

like all the laws of plagues,

and therefore they hold

(and so it is according to the law in the Rambam³⁰)

that this sign is only when it spreads from the impure,

but not so that which spreads from the pure, and likewise that which comes entirely white from the beginning,

is impure,

because essentially this is in the category of a plague of tzaraas³¹.

And based on this it is found that according to the simple understanding of the law of "entirely turned white" is not only in a spreading from the unclean,

when there was in it an unclean plague,

but in any manner,

also one who comes entirely white from the beginning,

or spreading from the clean,

because since this is not a decree of the verse that it is a sign of purity in a plague,

but rather a matter with reason,

that this is the nature of this person,

there is no difference in which manner it comes,

for in any manner it is considered as if there is no plague&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;.

5.

Based on all this one can say,

that the aforementioned law of "one who comes entirely white" from the beginning and spreading from the clean that "he is clean",

is not only because of the appearance of the plague,

but rather even if there is a quick-flesh

(a sign of uncleanness)

in "one who comes entirely white" — it does not defile.

And at first glance it is proven in the simple meaning of the verse,

And with an introduction:

In Torat Kohanim on the verse³³

"And on the day when there appears in it living flesh, it shall be unclean",

explains "to teach about the heads of<pg>81</pg>

Limbs that were revealed that they should be impure,

And the commentators explained³⁴

that were revealed after they had already been covered by the spreading,

And this comes in continuation of the preceding verse,

That even though the tips of limbs are not made impure by quick flesh,

this is only "before³⁵

the leprosy covered all his flesh,

as it was taught³⁶

And the priest saw him, and saw him all at once: that if it was on the tip of his nose or on the tip of his finger that slopes this way and that, he is not impure, etc. But after the leprosy covered all his flesh and also all the tips of his limbs, if it was revealed again on the tip of one of them quick flesh of living flesh, then he is impure.

And so it is in the commentators of the Mishnah³⁷,

and in the halachah in the Rambam³⁸.

But in Rashi's commentary on the above verse, he explains: "If quick flesh grew in it, behold it is already explained that quick flesh is a sign of impurity; rather, it is that the plague was on one of the twenty-four tips of limbs that are not made impure by quick flesh, because the entire plague is not seen as one, since it slopes this way and that, and the tip of the limb was revealed again, its slope, by fat, such as that it became healthy and became wide, and the quick flesh is seen in it; and the verse taught us that it makes impure."

And the commentators asked³⁹

Why does Rashi not explain according to the simple interpretation in the Torat Kohanim,

that it comes to teach about the limbs that were revealed etc.,

i.e., that they were revealed after they were covered when the leprosy blossomed over his entire [body]

(according to the interpretation of the commentators in the Torat Kohanim).

And furthermore,

that according to Rashi this verse has no place here,

for the preceding verse speaks about blossoming over his entire [body]^*39,

and according to Rashi a law in itself is stated here,

without connection to the law of blossoming over his entire [body],

that sometimes also the limbs become impure because of a quick-flesh sign.

And in general, what is the necessity to explain that it speaks here about the limbs,

why does Rashi not explain according to its simple meaning,

that after the blossoming over his entire [body],

behold "on the day there appears in it live flesh" in any place on the body it will be impure⁴⁰,

and it teaches us that even after the blossoming over his entire [body] that he is pure,

he becomes impure because of the sign of the quick flesh⁴¹.

And it should be clarified,

that according to Rashi — since the law of all of it having turned white is not a decree of the verse

(that when it spread completely in the skin, a contaminated lesion is a sign of purity),

but rather it is not in the category of a lesion of tzaraat at all,

there is no place to say that on the day when raw flesh appears in it, it shall be impure,

for there is here no sign of impurity&lt;sup&gt;*41&lt;/sup&gt;

of the disappearance of raw flesh in the lesion,

since there is no lesion here.

And based on this, the reason for the introduction in this section "A lesion of tzaraat when it will be in a person, and he shall be brought to the kohen" is simply understood in plain meaning,

for in this section a new and general law is stated regarding "a lesion of tzaraat",

that the name "lesion" applies only when the tzaraat is in a specific part of the body,

but when the appearance of the entire person is white,

this is not in the category of "a lesion of tzaraat" and consequently there is here the law of "and he shall be brought to the kohen"&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;.

&lt;pg&gt;82&lt;/pg&gt;

6.

And behold it is stated in the Gemara Sanhedrin⁴³

The son of David will not come until the entire kingdom is turned to heresy. Rava said: What is the verse? "It has all turned white, he is pure"

(When the plague has spread over the entire skin, so too when the entire kingdom is turned to heresy, redemption will come.

Rashi).

And this statement is also brought at the end of tractate Sotah⁴⁴,

and there it is brought among the signs that will be in the "footsteps of Mashiach",

and it concludes "and upon what do we have to rely? Upon our Father in heaven".

And according to what we have learned, that there are two ways regarding the reason of "it has all turned white, he is pure" — whether it is a decree of the verse or based on reason and logic,

it is understood that this is not a plague — one can say similarly regarding the above matter

(that the turning of the kingdom to heresy is a sign for the coming of Mashiach our righteousness)

:

a)

that this is a negative sign — because since it is such a low and bad state,

that there is no lower than it,

so there is no choice, so to speak, and necessarily the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring the redemption immediately,

b)

on the contrary⁴⁵,

the turning of the kingdom to heresy indicates that the world is becoming clarified,

and to such an extent that it comes to revelation that every kingdom in the world that has no connection to the kingdom of heaven is in the category of "heresy",

and only the children of Israel believe and know that God is one,

that this thing is part of the refining and purifying of the world,

that "many will be clarified, whitened, and refined"⁴⁶,

and then the son of David comes,

and the children of Israel will clarify and rectify the entire world to serve God together, as it is said⁴⁷

then I will turn to the peoples a clear language, to call all of them in the name of God, to serve Him with one accord.

[And regarding the statement of the Gemara

(the two possibilities)

similar to this regarding the children of Israel⁴⁸

: The son of David does not come except in a generation that is entirely meritorious or entirely guilty. In a generation that is entirely meritorious, as it is written⁴⁹

And your people, all of them righteous, will inherit the land forever. In a generation that is entirely guilty, as it is written⁵⁰

And He saw that there was no man, and He was astonished that there was no intercessor, and it is written⁵¹

For My sake, for My sake, I will do].

And these two manners are in the manner of the two manners mentioned above: if the matter of "if all of it turned white, it is pure" is a decree of the verse,

meaning that the redemption is not related to the state of the world in its own essence

(that they are not worthy of redemption,

and on the contrary)

only comes through a decree and compulsion from above

[and in the manner mentioned above regarding Israel "in a generation that is entirely guilty, it is written 'And He saw that there is no man, and He was desolate that there is no intercessor, and it is written 'For My sake, for My sake I will do'",

and it is explained in the glosses of the Arizal there that the Holy One, blessed be He, will appoint for them a king etc., through which they will do repentance,

compulsory repentance]

; or it is a matter of reason and logic,

that all of it turned white indicates that there is no plague here,

and this is as mentioned above,

that the transformation of the kingdom to heresy is an indication of the clarification and refinement of the world,

that the world, from its state, is worthy of redemption, and consequently the son of David comes

(and in the manner mentioned above regarding a generation that is entirely righteous,

that the children of Israel will do voluntary repentance&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;).

And just as it is regarding the children of Israel,

that the Rambam ruled&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;

as halacha that "the Torah promised that in the end Israel will do repentance at the end of their exile",

it can be said that the intention in this

(as explained elsewhere&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;)

is complete repentance,

voluntary repentance,

"and immediately they are redeemed" —&lt;pg&gt;83&lt;/pg&gt;

This is also the case regarding the nations of the world,

that through the dissemination of the Seven Noahide Laws among all the nations,

this matter will be fulfilled in a superior manner,

including also that all the nations will recognize the virtue of the Children of Israel who spread the faith in G-d and His commandments,

and they will be grateful to them for the dissemination of justice and uprightness in the world,

and even that already in

(end)

the time of exile it will be "And kings shall be your foster fathers and their queens your nursing mothers"⁵⁵

in all and with greater vigor and greater strength that they will provide the Children of Israel with all their needs abundantly,

And this matter will further hasten the coming of our righteous Mashiach,

who "will perfect the entire world to serve G-d together, as it is said: For then I will turn to the peoples a pure language, that they all call upon the name of G-d and serve Him with one accord"⁵⁶,

speedily in our days and literally in our very own time.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Tazria-Metzora 5742)