English translation — תזריע ב

Sicha b<pg>84</pg>

A.

On the verse<sup>1</sup>

"And if the leprosy breaks out on the skin and covers [the person] from his head to his feet, as far as the eyes of the priest can see,"

are brought in Toras Kohanim<sup>2</sup>

two expositions

(in explanation of "as far as the eyes of the priest can see")

:

a)

"For every appearance of the eyes of the kohen,

except for a hidden place

[that is not a place visible to the eyes of the kohen<sup>3</sup>],

from here they said<sup>4</sup>

the man is seen as one who hoes, etc. the woman as one who bakes, etc."

[for everything that will be seen from them in this state is not considered a "hidden place"<sup>5</sup>].

b)

"Another matter,

for every appearance of the eyes of the kohen,

except for a kohen whose light of his eyes has dimmed,

from here they said<sup>6</sup>

a kohen whose light of his eyes has dimmed and a blind person in one of his eyes or whose light of his eyes has become dim shall not see the plagues."

And from the simple language of the Torat Kohanim

("another matter")

it implies,

that they disagree in the interpretation of the verse<sup>7</sup>.

However, in the Mishnah Nega'im<sup>8</sup>

these two halakhot are brought as an anonymous mishnah: "A priest who is blind in one of his eyes, or whose eyesight is dimmed, shall not examine the plagues, as it is said, 'for all the sight of the priest's eyes',"

and in the following mishnah: "How is the examination of the plague? A man is seen as one who hoes, etc., a woman as one who bakes, etc."

And although in the second mishnah the exposition "for all the sight of the priest's eyes, excluding hidden places" is not explicitly brought,

nevertheless, all the commentators on the Mishnah

(Rambam,

Rash,

commentary of the Rosh,

Ra'av, etc.)

brought this exposition and explained that this is the intent of the Mishnah.

And likewise the Rambam in the book Yad<sup>9</sup>

brought the verse "for all the sight of the priest's eyes" as the reason for the two laws,

and this is his language: "A blind person..

And even a priest whose eyesight is dimmed shall not examine the plagues, as it is said, 'for all the sight of the priest's eyes',"

"The priest is not required to search under his armpits, etc., lest there be a plague there, as it is said, 'for all the sight of the priest's eyes'."

2.

In simple terms, one can say,

that the Tanna of the Mishnah holds that one can learn both laws from this verse,

because the law of "excluding hidden places" is learned from the general meaning of the verse,

"And the leprosy covers... from his head to his feet, as far as the eyes of the kohen can see",

which applies only to those places on the body that are "for the eyes of the kohen to see"; and the second law

(to exclude a kohen who is "blind etc. or whose eyesight is dim")

we derive from the superfluity of the verse,

as explained in the commentaries<sup>10</sup>

that "the word 'all' is expounded<sup>11</sup>,

for it should have said 'to the sight' and it said 'to all',

<pg>85</pg>

to say that it requires that all his sight which nature gave him be [intact] and not weakened".

[And based on this, one can explain Rashi's words in his commentary on the Torah,

that he explains "for all that appears to the eyes of the priest" — "excluding a priest whose light has darkened".

This is perplexing: why did Rashi adopt this exposition,

and not the exposition "excluding hidden places" which at first glance is more fitting to the plain meaning of the verse<sup>12</sup>,

that the words "for all that appears to the eyes of the priest" come to exclude certain parts of the body,

continuing from what was stated before this "and the leprosy covers all the skin of the affliction from his head to his feet

(for all that appears to the eyes of the priest)

"<sup>13</sup>?

And according to the above, it can be said

(with difficulty, at any rate),

that the exclusion of "the hidden place" is the simple meaning of the verse,

and Rashi did not need to explain it,

for this is their simple interpretation of the words "to every appearance of the eyes of the priest",

that they are the revealed parts of the body that are for the appearance of the eyes of the priest,

and Rashi's intention is only to explain the superfluous language of "to every appearance of the eyes of the priest"<sup>11</sup>,

and about this he wrote "excluding a priest whose light has dimmed".

But based on this, it is difficult,

why does the Torat Kohanim preface the language "another matter" which implies that they are contradictory expositions,

as above?

3.

And this will be understood with the introduction of the difference between the language of the Mishnah and the language of the Torat Kohanim:

In the second law, two details are stated in the Mishnah: "A priest who is blind in one of his eyes, or whose eyesight is dimmed,"

but in the Torat Kohanim it begins: "Excluding a priest whose eyesight has become dark"¹⁴,

and then continues: "From here they said, etc.

(and it details the two aforementioned cases¹⁵)

"the blind in one of his eyes or whose eyesight is dimmed."

And it must be said that according to the method of the Torat Kohanim, the foundation of the law is "a priest whose eyesight has become dark,"

except that in this there are two cases,

"the blind in one of his eyes or whose eyesight is dimmed."

And one can say regarding this,

as per what the Tosafos Yom Tov wrote⁶

that the law of "dimming of his eyesight" means "both his eyes that dimmed is said,

but if one eye dimmed, no,

for 'a blind person in one of his eyes we learned'"

(i.e., that only if he became actually blind in one of his eyes is he invalid,

but not when only one eye dimmed).

And in the commentaries¹⁶

they questioned upon him,

that "since the dimming of the light of one eye, there is no 'all the appearance of the eyes of the priest' here"

(for the meaning of the verse is

(as above)

that the power of sight of the priest must be in completeness),

and they wrote that what the Tanna stated "the blind in one of his eyes"

(even though also if one eye dimmed he is invalid),

it is not a difficulty,

for the Mishnah teaches "not only this but also this"¹⁷.

<pg>86</pg>

And it seems that according to the Tiferet Yisrael, the two disqualifications of "blind

(even)

in one of his eyes or dimmed is the light

(of both)

his eyes" are two different laws,

derived from two parts of the verse¹⁸,

for that a blind person in one eye is disqualified we learn from the phrase "the appearance of the eyes of the priest",

plural language,

to exclude one blind in one eye who sees only with one eye.

But the law of "dimmed is the light of his eyes" we learn from the superfluity of the word "all"

(as above),

that "the appearance of the eyes of the priest" must be in completeness and not when there is dimness in

(both^*18)

his eyes.

And based on this, one can say,

that this is the reason for the change in the language of the Torat Kohanim from the language of the Mishnah — for the Mishnah

(according to the Tiferet Yisrael)

has two laws

(and disqualifications),

"blind in one of his eyes or dimmed is the light of his eyes",

but according to the Torat Kohanim there is here only one law,

"that darkened is the light of his eyes",

that "there is here no appearance of the eyes of the priest"¹⁹,

that this is the foundation of the disqualification,

and therefore it precedes "to every appearance of the eyes of the priest, excluding a priest whose light of his eyes darkened",

and only afterwards it details the two cases²⁰

of "blind in one of his eyes or dimmed is the light of his eyes"^*20.

[And superficially, one must be precise in the language of Rashi in his commentary on the Torah,

that he wrote

(as above)

"except for a priest whose light has dimmed",

and it is doubled in two [ways]: a)

he omitted the word "his eyes",

even though they are in the Toras Kohanim&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

and they are in the Mishnah the language "the light of his eyes"&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;.

b)

he omitted the clause of "blind in one of his eyes"&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;.

And it implies superficially,

that also according to Rashi, even if only one of his eyes has dimmed, he is already invalid for seeing negaim, if only "his light has dimmed"

(in the manner of the above in Toras Kohanim).

And therefore

(a)

he omitted the word "his eyes",

from which it could be understood

(according to the opinion of the Tosfos Yom Tov)

that the dimming must be in both his eyes.

(b)

he omitted that which [says] "blind in one of his eyes",

because this is included in "his light has dimmed"&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;].

4.

And one could say,

that the foundation of the distinction between&lt;pg&gt;87&lt;/pg&gt;

The Tanna of the Mishnah and the Toras Kohanim is essentially the definition of the law of "except for a priest whose eyesight has dimmed",

which is to be explained in two ways:

a)

This is a disqualification in the person,

that one of the conditions required in a priest for him to be fit to see the lesion is that his power of sight be complete,

like a blemished priest who is disqualified for service.

And thus incline the words of the Rambam in Sefer HaYad,

who wrote²⁵

"A profaned priest is disqualified for seeing lesions, as it is said²⁶

one of his sons the priests in their priesthood, but blemished priests are fit for seeing lesions, provided that he not be blind, even in one of his eyes, and even a priest whose eyesight has dimmed shall not see the lesions, as it is said: according to every appearance of the eyes of the priest."

Behold, this is a disqualification in the person²⁷,

like a profaned priest and a blemished priest.

b)

The disqualification is because of the deficiency in the act of seeing,

that when there is a deficiency in the power of sight of the kohen,

there is a deficiency in the seeing of the lesion

("And the kohen shall see"),

that from "according to the entire sight of the eyes of the kohen" we learn,

that the lesion must be seen

(before the eyes of the kohen)

in its completeness²⁸,

and when there is a deficiency in the power of sight of the kohen, the lesion is not seen in its completeness.

And so it is somewhat implied from the language of the Rambam in his commentary on the Mishnah²⁹,

that he explains the law of "or that the light of his eyes dimmed" — "that his vision weakened until he does not see true sight",

and it implies that the deficiency is that the lesion will not be seen with "true sight".

And there is to say a practical difference for halacha between the two manners:

In the seeing of plagues there are two laws:

(a)

The seeing of the plague,

and regarding this — "all are fit to see the plagues"³⁰

(even an Israelite),

if he is only wise and expert etc.

(b)

To pronounce impure or pure,

that "the impurity and purity depend on the priest

(specifically)

"³⁰,

and even that "a priest who does not know how to see,

the sage

(even if he is an Israelite)

sees it and says to him say impure and the priest says impure etc. and even if the priest was a minor or a fool the sage says to him and he decides etc."³¹.

And based on this one may investigate regarding the disqualification of a blind person in one of his eyes and a priest whose eyesight has dimmed,

whether it is only regarding the seeing of the plague,

or also for making impure and pure.

And in the Meiri³²

two opinions are brought regarding this,

that some say he is disqualified only to see the plague,

but he can pronounce impure or pure etc.,

like<pg>88</pg>

A foolish priest who defiles etc. according to the sage&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;,

but there are those who say that [the ability] to defile and to purify etc. is also revoked.

And it can be said that it depends on the two manners above: according to the first manner, that he is invalid in the person

(in the manner of a blemished [priest] for the service)

it is logical to say that he is entirely revoked from the entirety of the law of seeing plagues,

that he cannot defile or purify

[And ostensibly this is implied from the words of the Rambam,

who brought

(as above)

the invalidity of a blind person and one whose eyesight is dimmed in continuation of the invalidity of a "chalal",

and behold a "chalal" is not fit to defile and to purify&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;]

; however, if we say that he is invalid in the act of seeing the plague

(because the plague needs to be seen in its entirety),

then it is logical that the blind person is revoked only from seeing the plague but not from defiling and purifying.

5.

And this is the difference between the Tanna of the Mishnah and the Toras Kohanim:

For the Tanna of the Mishnah, the disqualification of "dimming of his eyesight" is because there is a lack in the act of seeing the plague

(in the manner of the second).

According to this, it is understood and sweetened the reason that the Tanna of the Mishnah appended at the end of this Mishnah the law of "a dark house, they do not open windows in it to see its plague,"

for seemingly, what does this law have to do with plagues of houses

(and derived from what is said&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

"like a plague appears to me in the house" — "to me and not to my light"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;),

to the law that "a priest who is blind in one of his eyes or whose eyesight is dimmed shall not see the plagues"&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;?

And according to the above, it can be said,

that with this the Tanna wanted to emphasize and clarify the definition of the disqualification of a priest whose eyesight is dimmed,

that he is not disqualified in the person,

that he is a blemished one

(regarding the matter of seeing plagues),

but rather the disqualification is because of the deficiency in the act of seeing the plague,

similar to that of "a dark house, they do not open windows in it to see its plague,"

for the seeing of the plague must be a complete seeing through the eyes of the priest

(without the light from outside).

And it can be said,

that this is the foundation of the Tosafot Yom Tov to explain that "dimmed eyesight" specifically means when both of his eyes are dimmed,

and not when only one eye is dimmed — even though it is said "according to all the sight of the priest's eyes" which implies that "the sight of the priest's eyes" must be complete as above — because when only one eye is dimmed and the vision of his second eye is complete,

then there is no deficiency in the seeing of the plague and there is no reason to disqualify him,

and therefore he holds that it must be a deficiency in both of his eyes

(for then there is a deficiency in the seeing of the plague).

[And that even a blind person in one eye will not see the negaim — behold

(a)

there is to distinguish between dim-sighted in one eye

(which does not cause weakness in the second eye)

and blind in one eye,

(b)

and the main point: the law of blind in one of his eyes is not because he lacks in sight

("all appearance")

but because of the decree of the verse that it must be for the kohen "eyes" in plural,

as above].

But the Toras Kohanim holds that this is a disqualification in the &lt;pg&gt;89&lt;/pg&gt;

A man^*37

(like the first manner above),

and therefore he holds that the two disqualifications of "blind in one of his eyes" and "dimmed from his eyesight" have one foundation,

that the Torah decreed that a priest who has some weakness in the vision of his eyes is considered blemished regarding the seeing of plagues,

and this is the law of "according to all the sight of the eyes of the priest",

that the power of sight must be in completeness with him.

And if so, also one who is blind in one of his eyes, the disqualification is not because it is lacking in "eyes" in the plural,

but because "the light of his eyes is darkened",

that there is lacking with him "all the sight of the eyes of the priest".

6.

According to all the above, the distinction is also understood between the Tanna of the Mishnah and the Torat Kohanim whether they can learn from "according to all the sight of the eyes of the priest" the two laws of "excluding a hidden place" and "excluding a priest whose eyesight is darkened" or not.

Behold, the exclusion of "excluding a hidden place" is a law in the seeing of the plague,

that only the places on the body that are visible to the eyes of the kohen become impure with a plague.

And this is the reasoning of the Toras Kohanim that holds that the two exclusions — "excluding a hidden place" and "excluding a kohen whose eyesight has dimmed" — are two expositions

("another matter"),

because for each one of the expositions there is a different intention in the verse: for the exclusion "excluding a hidden place" the verse comes to define the act of seeing the plague,

that it must be "to all the sight of the eyes of the kohen",

that the plague must be seen in its entirety by the kohen,

and therefore "a hidden place" is excluded, which is not a place visible to the kohen; in contrast, the exclusion of "a kohen whose eyesight has dimmed" is not related to the seeing of the plague,

but rather it is a disqualification in the subject,

that the verse teaches us that when the kohen lacks in the "sight of his eyes" he is a blemished person regarding the seeing of plagues.

And therefore the Toras Kohanim holds that one who changed this did not change that&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;.

In contrast, according to the Tanna of our Mishnah,

who holds that also the disqualification of "dimmed eyesight" is due to the deficiency in the act of seeing the plague,

behold, the two expositions have one point,

that the plague must be seen in its entirety before the eyes of the kohen,

and therefore are excluded

(a)

a hidden place,

the places on the body that are not for "the sight of the eyes of the kohen",

(b)

a kohen whose eyesight has dimmed,

and consequently the plague is not seen before his eyes in its entirety.

7.

The explanation of this in the inwardness of the matters:

It is stated in many places³⁹

regarding the impurity of negaim,

that the reason for this is that regarding the impurity of negaim,

which is among the most severe impurities⁴⁰,

the term "Adam" is specifically stated,

that the name "Adam" is the name of the virtue of Israel⁴¹

— it is because the matter of the negaim that come on the "skin of the flesh",

indicates that the evil did not enter into the inwardness of the person

(this is clear)

and the evil and waste is only on his externality,

on the outermost of his garments,

and from this comes the nega "on the skin of his flesh"

(and as explained at length in Likkutei Torah⁴²).

And based on this, one can explain the reason that a priest whose "light has darkened" does not see the plagues,

and further&lt;pg&gt;90&lt;/pg&gt;

from this,

that according to the Torat Kohanim he cannot rule on impurity and purity — because the matter of a person whose "light of his eyes has darkened" is,

that the light of his vision is in great intensity and he cannot contract himself in physical vision

[therefore the blind person is called "Sagi Nahor"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;,

which means abundance of light,

even though superficially it is the opposite of the matter of the blind person who does not see,

but because in "Sagi Nahor" the essence of the power of vision shines without covering and concealment,

and therefore the spreading of the light of vision is not found in him].

And its matter in spirituality,

that he sees only the inwardness that is in the person.

And therefore a priest who is blind in one of his eyes or whose light of his eyes is darkened does not see the lesions,

since for him the matter of the lesions does not exist,

that is, the waste that exists only in the externality of the skin,

because he sees only the inwardness of the person,

which is entirely good and clear.

And just as he does not see the plagues to declare them impure, so too he does not see to declare them pure,

because even the purification of the evil that is in externality must come from the power of the priest, the man of kindness⁴⁴,

to draw down and influence that the good comes in its external garments.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Tazria-Metzora 5748)